



Produced by Curtis Weyant, Josephine Paolucci and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net.









BENTON'S ABRIDGMENT OF THE DEBATES OF CONGRESS.




ABRIDGMENT OF THE DEBATES OF CONGRESS,

FROM 1789 TO 1856.

FROM GALES AND SEATON'S ANNALS OF CONGRESS; FROM THEIR REGISTER OF
DEBATES; AND FROM THE OFFICIAL REPORTED DEBATES, BY JOHN C. RIVES.

BY

THE AUTHOR OF THE THIRTY YEARS' VIEW.

VOL. I.

NEW YORK:
D. APPLETON & COMPANY, 346 & 348 BROADWAY.

CHICAGO:
S. C. GRIGGS & CO., 111 LAKE ST.

1857.


ENTERED according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, by

D. APPLETON AND COMPANY,

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New
York.




PREFACE.


The title-page discloses the sources from which this abridgment is made,
and shows them all to be authentic, and reliable,--well known to the
public, and sanctioned by resolves of Congress. Of the latter of these
authorities--"Gales and Seaton's Register of Debates," "The
Congressional Globe and Appendix, by Blair and Rives," and the same
afterwards by "John C. Rives"--it is not necessary to speak, further
than to remind the reader, that they are original reports, made either
by the publishers or their special reporters, and revised by the
speakers, and accepted as authority by Congress; and therefore needing
no historical elucidation to show their correctness. But of the
first--"The Annals of Congress by Gales and Seaton"--being a
compilation, a special, but brief notice is necessary to show the credit
to which they are entitled. And first, of the qualifications of the
compilers for their work. To education and talent, and a particular turn
for political disquisition and history, they added, at the time, more
than forty years' personal connection with the Debates of Congress, as
reporters and publishers of the speeches and proceedings in that body.
Both of these gentlemen reported, on extraordinary occasions; and both
with great aptitude and capacity for the business, and Mr. Gales
especially, (under whose particular care the compilation of the Annals
was made,)--of whom Mr. Randolph, a most competent judge, was accustomed
to say, that he was the most perfect reporter he had ever known--a
perfection which resulted not merely from manual facility in noting
down what was said, but from quickness and clearness of apprehension,
and a full knowledge of the subject spoken upon.[1] To this capacity for
the work, these gentlemen added peculiar advantages for knowing and
reaching the sources of information. The father of one of them, and the
father-in-law of the other,--(Mr. Joseph Gales, Senior,)--had been an
early reporter of the Debates of Congress;--in the time of Washington
and the first Mr. Adams,--and, of course, a collector and preserver of
all contemporary reports. These came into their hands, with ample
knowledge of all the sources from which further collections could be
made. To these capabilities and advantages, were added the pride of
character which exults in producing a perfect work;--and they spared
neither pains nor cost to produce such a work--and succeeded. The
following extracts from a letter of the late Mr. Justice Story, of the
Supreme Court of the United States, dated January 14th, 1837--and from
one from Mr. Justice McLean, still of that high court, dated 24th of
February, 1843--sufficiently attest the value of the Compilation, and
the excellence of its execution. Mr. Justice Story says:

"I have examined these volumes with great attention, and I am entirely
satisfied with the plan and execution of them. I have, for many years,
deemed the publication of the Debates in Congress, interwoven as they
should be, and as they are in your plan, with the proceedings
explanatory of them, one of the most important and valuable enterprises
for public patronage. In an historical view, it will reflect the
strongest and best lights upon the nature and operations of the
Government itself, its powers, its duties, and its policy. As a means of
expounding and interpreting the Constitution itself, it can scarcely be
over-estimated. When I was employed in the task of preparing my
Commentaries on the Constitution I constantly had recourse to this
source of information in all cases within my reach. I had occasion then
deeply to regret, however, that many of my researches terminated in
disappointment from there not being any complete collection of the
debates in print, or at least none in any one repository, or without
large chasms, which it was difficult if not impossible to supply. If
any such collection had existed, I am satisfied that it would have
enabled me to make my own work far more accurate, full, and satisfactory
than it now is. The Parliamentary Debates of England have been long
since published, and constitute, in a political and historical view,
some of the most authentic and useful documents for statesmen and
jurists which have ever issued from the press. They are an indispensable
part of the library of every real British statesman. A similar
publication of all the Debates in Congress would be, if possible, of
more permanent and extensive value to us, since questions of
constitutional law and general public policy are more frequent topics of
public debate here than in England. Indeed, I do not well see how
American statesmen, seeking a profound knowledge of the nature and
operations of our Government, can well do without them. At all events,
if published, they would and ought to be found in the library of every
American statesman, lawyer, and judge, who should aspire to an exact or
thorough knowledge of our Constitution, laws, or national policy."

Mr. Justice McLean says:

"I have read with much interest your proposal to publish the Debates in
Congress from the adoption of the Constitution. This is an undertaking
of great magnitude, and will require large expenditures: but the work
will embody a mass of information in regard to the history and policy of
the Government, which can be found nowhere else. There is no subject
within the action of the Government, which will not be found discussed
in these volumes. They will contain materials rich in facts and talent
for the writer of history, and will reward the researches of all who may
wish to acquire a thorough knowledge of our system of government. This
work when completed will become, I think, more interesting and valuable
to this country, than are the Parliamentary Debates in England. The
questions considered, (from the nature of our Government, and especially
in regard to our domestic relations,) are more diversified than the
Debates in Parliament; and I have no doubt, that the general ability
displayed in the American Congress, will not suffer in comparison with
that of the British Parliament. Our statesmen and jurists will find in
these Debates much to guide them in the performance of their public
duties; for it is from the history of that time that knowledge is
acquired for an enlightened public action. If our Government is to be
handed down to those who come after us, these volumes will increase in
value with the progress of time, and will be one of the richest
memorials of our early enterprise and patriotism, and the best evidence
of our national advancement."

And to these opinions of these two eminent jurists of the value of these
Annals, and the qualifications of the publishers for their task, and the
merits of their work, is to be added the encouraging opinion of Mr.
Madison, given at the commencement of the enterprise, in the year
1818,--near forty years ago,--when, in a letter to _Messrs._ Gales and
Seaton, he said:

"The work to which you have turned your thoughts, is one which justly
claims for it _my_ favorable wishes. A legislative history of our
country is of too much interest not to be at some day undertaken; and
the longer it is postponed, the more difficult and deficient the
execution becomes. In the event of your engaging in it, I shall
cheerfully contribute any suggestions in my power as to the sources from
which materials may be drawn; but I am not aware, at present, of any not
likely to occur to yourselves."

Such is the value which these eminent men place upon these annals of our
earlier Congresses, and these annals embrace the whole period during
which our Government was presided over by those who helped to make
it--the whole period from Washington to Monroe inclusive--a period of
thirty-five years, and covering more than half the time that our
Government has existed. The two Justices of the Supreme Court who gave
their opinion of the work, and who were then (as one of them still is)
in the actual discharge of great public duties, have declared the
personal benefit which they derived from the compilation--one of them
(Mr. Justice Story) going so far as to say that his own work--the
Commentaries upon the Constitution--(deemed faultless by others)--would
have been "more accurate, full and satisfactory," if the Annals had been
published before them. With such opinions in favor of the Annals, no
more need be said to show their value to the rising generations; and in
abridging them, the author feels that he is only making accessible to
the community what is now inaccessible to it, on account of quantity and
price; and useless (nearly), if accessible, on account of the obsolete
or irrelevant matter which overlays and buries the useful. As late as
the year 1840, the publishers of the Annals say, in a Memorial to
Congress, that they had sold to individuals but twenty sets of their
work; and the present enterprising and faithful publisher of the
Congress Debates, (Mr. John C. Rives,) says he sells but some three or
four sets a year of his valuable and voluminous work;--and these, not to
individuals, but to institutions. It is the Congress subscription alone,
that has enabled the publishers of all these works to bring them out;
and no public money was ever more worthily applied: but still Congress
cannot supply the community.

Mr. Madison, in his letter of characteristic modesty to _Messrs._ Gales
and Seaton, speaks of their (then) intended work, as one which justly
claimed _his_ favorable wishes. And well it might! for nowhere, in all
the just and impressive eulogiums which have been pronounced upon him,
does he appear to such advantage as in his own modest, temperate,
luminous, and patriotic speeches during his service in Congress--putting
that new Government into operation, of which he was one of the founders,
and giving to all its machinery, a smooth, clean, and harmonious
working. And so of innumerable others--illustrious men, and his
compatriots--national reputations in their day, but contracting into
local names under the progress of time, for want of a record of their
patriotic labors, of national circulation, and popular accessibility. Of
that character, it is the desire of the author to make this Abridgment.
It is to him a labor of love and of pride--resuscitating the patriotic
dead, putting them in scene again, passing them in long procession over
an extended domain--no one skipped, and each in his place, with the best
of his works in his hand. It is a work of justice to them, and may be of
advantage to the present age, and to posterity, by reproducing for study
and imitation, the words and conduct of the wise, just, modest,
patriotic, intelligent, and disinterested men, who carried their country
through a momentous revolution--moulded that country into one brotherly
Union--and then put the Government they had formed into operation, in
the same fraternal spirit of "_amity, mutual deference and concession_,"
in which they had made it.




INTRODUCTION.


The debates of Congress have been accruing for near seventy years, and
fill more than an hundred volumes, and cannot be purchased for less than
$500, nor advantageously used, on account of the quantity of superfluous
matter which they contain. They are printed in full by Congress, and
ought to be so, and a small distribution is made among the members; but
this distribution cannot reach the community, and would be nearly
useless if it did, from the quantity of obsolete, local and transient
matter which overloads them. In the mean time, these debates contain the
history of the working of our Government from its foundation--preserve
and hand down to posterity the wisdom of ages--show what has been done,
and how it was done--and shed light upon the study of all impending
questions; for there is not a question of the day, and will not be while
the Government continues, which will not be illustrated by something
previously said in these debates.

All works consisting of periodical accumulations require periodical
abridgment, in which, being relieved of what is superfluous, the
residuum becomes more valuable from the disencumbrance--of easier use to
the reader--and more accessible to the community, from the diminution of
price and quantity. Even the reports of the Supreme Court of the United
States, though comparatively free from redundant or obsolete matter,
have undergone abridgment--three volumes reduced to one--and become more
valuable from the reduction. The same may be done with these debates,
and with a far greater license of reduction, from the very nature of
popular debating. Some fifteen or sixteen octavo volumes, double
columns, are expected to contain all that retains a surviving interest
in the (more than) one hundred volumes, now surcharged with the full
debates.

The abridgment will not be restricted to the speeches of the celebrated
orators, but extend to those of the business men, and to the plainest
speakers--who are often the members who give the most useful
information. Full speeches are not expected to be given, there being
none, after a short time, which do not contain much matter that has lost
its interest. Many entire heads of reported proceedings and discussions
would be omitted: as--The morning presentation of petitions, often the
same for ten or twenty years, and presented in both Houses at the same
time: discussion on private bills, which have no general interest: mere
personalities: the endless repetition of yeas and nays, sometimes
recorded an hundred times in contests about the same bill, when three or
four sets would be sufficient to show the opinion of every member upon
every material point: repetitions of speeches, for it is impossible that
a member speaking for ten or twenty sessions on the same subject,
(tariff, internal improvement, national bank, &c.) should not repeat the
same thing over and over again.

The work is intended to be national, such as would commend itself to the
study, and come within the reach, of all who aspire to a share in the
public affairs, either State or Federal; or who wish to understand the
history and working of their own Government. It is the only way in which
the wisdom of the earlier generation of our statesmen who put the
Government into operation--the Madisons, Gallatins, John Marshalls,
William B. Giles, the Fisher Ames, Roger Shermans, &c.--can be made
known to the present or future ages; and it is the best way in which the
speeches of those who have lived in our own day, even the most eminent,
can be diffused. For the speeches of no one, published in mass and
alone, can have more than a local circulation; while judicious
selections from a whole debate, enlivened by the vivacity of contention,
going into a general work of this kind, must have a general circulation,
and carry the name of the speaker, and the best of his speaking, into
every part of the Union.

Some notes, or commentaries, will be added by the author, discriminated
from the text, to mark great starting, or turning points, in our
legislative history, with a view to assist the reader in making the
practical applications which give utility to knowledge. For example: At
the beginning of the first tariff debate in the first session of the
first Congress, he will show that Mr. Madison compressed into twenty-two
short lines, of eight or nine words each, all the principles of impost
and tonnage duties which have governed all wise legislation upon the two
subjects from that time to the present--namely: Specific duties the
rule--_ad valorems_ the exception: revenue the object--incidental
encouragement to home industry the incident: specifics on all the
leading and staple articles--_ad valorems_ on the inferior remainder:
discrimination between articles of luxury and necessity, so as to put
the burthen on the former--and between articles made, or not made, at
home, so as to give encouragement to the home article: and all these
duties moderate, so as not to shackle trade or agriculture. These were
his principles on impost duties. Those on tonnage consisted of
discriminations in favor of our own ships, and in favor of nations
having treaties of commerce with us, so as to encourage our own
ship-building and navigation, and also to stimulate all nations to make
commercial treaties with us. And thus, every object of impost
legislation was provided for:--revenue for the Government, encouragement
to home industry, exemption from burthen to trade and agriculture.

Then, at the end of that debate, (which began in April, and ended in
May,) it will be shown that a rate of duties was established,
corresponding with these principles--all moderate, and adapted each to
its object: five per centum on the lowest class of _ad valorems_, seven
and a half on the next, and fifteen for the highest, and it of luxuries.
The specific duties, applicable to the mass of the importations, at the
same low rate; and this low rate, on the small importation of that time,
and with the economy of that time, producing seven times the amount of
revenue necessary for the "_support_" of the Government! leaving six
sevenths to go to the public debt and Indian wars. The same rates of
duty, with the same economy, ought to be equally sufficient now upon a
sevenfold importation of dutiable goods.

The Emperor Justinian, in compiling his Institutes, commended their
study to the liberal-minded youth of the empire who aspired to
employment in the government; for that emperor, although a great and
victorious general, yet placed the arts of peace and government above
the exploits of war, and wished to see law and order, more than arms,
studied and cultivated in his dominion. The great Emperor Napoleon had
the same appreciation of legal and civil studies; and hence the Four
Codes, at the digest of which he personally assisted, and the
conception and execution of which do so much honor to his memory. In our
own government the career of public employment is open to all, and
should be prepared for by all who aspire to enter it. Of elementary
political works we have many, and excellent; but most of them only teach
principles, and that abstractly, without practice. Practical works are
wanted to complete the study, and of these the most ample and least
ungrateful may be a well-considered and impartial abridgment of the
Debates of Congress.

And here the Author discharges an obligation of gratitude and justice to
the earlier generation of our statesmen. He owes what he is to them. His
political principles were learnt in their school--his knowledge obtained
from their works--his patriotism confirmed by their example--his love of
the Union exalted by their teaching.

                                  THE AUTHOR.

                                  WASHINGTON CITY, May, 1856.




FIRST CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION.

HELD AT THE CITY OF NEW YORK, MARCH 4 TO SEPTEMBER 29, 1789.

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,--GEORGE WASHINGTON.

PROCEEDINGS[2] IN THE SENATE.


WEDNESDAY, March 4, 1789.

This being the day for the meeting of the new Congress, the following
members of the Senate appeared and took their seats:[3]

From New Hampshire, JOHN LANGDON and PAINE WINGATE.

From Massachusetts, CALEB STRONG.

From Connecticut, WILLIAM S. JOHNSON and OLIVER ELLSWORTH.

From Pennsylvania, WILLIAM MACLAY and ROBERT MORRIS.

From Georgia, WILLIAM FEW.

The members present not being a quorum, they adjourned from day to day,
until


WEDNESDAY, March 11.

When the same members being present as on the 4th instant, it was agreed
that a circular should be written to the absent members, requesting
their immediate attendance.


THURSDAY, March 12.

No additional members appearing, the members present adjourned from day
to day, until


WEDNESDAY, March 18.

When no additional members appearing, it was agreed that another
circular should be written to eight of the nearest absent members,
particularly desiring their attendance, in order to form a quorum.


THURSDAY, March 19.

WILLIAM PATERSON, from New Jersey, appeared and took his seat.


FRIDAY, March 20.

No additional member appeared.


SATURDAY, March 21.

RICHARD BASSETT, from Delaware, appeared and took his seat.

A sufficient number of members to form a quorum not appearing, the
members present adjourned from day to day, until


SATURDAY, March 28.

JONATHAN ELMER, from New Jersey, appeared and took his seat.

No other member appearing, an adjournment took place from day to day,
until


MONDAY, April 6.

RICHARD HENRY LEE, from Virginia, then appearing, took his seat and
formed a quorum of the whole Senators of the United States.

The credentials of the members present being read and ordered to be
filed, the Senate proceeded, by ballot, to the choice of a President for
the sole purpose of opening and counting the votes for President of the
United States.

JOHN LANGDON was elected.

_Ordered_, That Mr. ELLSWORTH inform the House of Representatives that a
quorum of the Senate is formed; that a President is elected for the sole
purpose of opening the certificates, and counting the votes of the
electors of the several States, in the choice of a President and Vice
President of the United States; and that the Senate is now ready, in the
Senate Chamber, to proceed in the presence of the House, to discharge
that duty; and that the Senate have appointed one of their members to
sit at the clerk's table, to make a list of the votes as they shall be
declared; submitting it to the wisdom of the House to appoint one or
more of their members for the like purpose.

Mr. ELLSWORTH reported that he had delivered the message; and Mr.
BOUDINOT, from the House of Representatives, informed the Senate that
the House is ready forthwith to meet them, to attend the opening and
counting of the votes of the electors of the President and Vice
President of the United States.

The Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives attended in
the Senate Chamber; and the President elected for the purpose of
counting the votes, declared that the Senate and House of
Representatives had met, and that he, in their presence, had opened and
counted the votes of the electors for President and Vice President of
the United States, which were as follows:

[Transcriber's Note: Legend Created to make table fit.]

A = George Washington, Esq.
B = John Adams, Esq.
C = Samuel Huntingdon, Esq.
D = John Jay, Esq.
E = John Hancock, Esq.
F = Robert H. Harrison, Esq.
G = George Clinton, Esq.
H = John Rutledge, Esq.
I = John Milton, Esq.
J = James Armstrong, Esq.
K = Edward Telfair, Esq.
L = Benjamin Lincoln, Esq.

STATES.

                     A    B    C    D    E    F    G    H    I    J    K    L
New Hampshire,       5    5
Massachusetts,      10   10
Connecticut,         7    5    2
New Jersey,          6    1   ..    5
Pennsylvania,       10    8   ..   ..    2
Delaware,            3   ..   ..    3
Maryland,            6   ..   ..   ..   ..    6
Virginia,           10    5   ..    1    1   ..    3
South Carolina,      7   ..   ..   ..    1   ..   ..    6
Georgia,             5   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..    2    1    1    1

    Total,          69   34    2    9    4    6    3    6    2    1    1    1

Whereby it appeared that GEORGE WASHINGTON, Esq. was elected President,
and JOHN ADAMS, Esq. Vice President of the United States of America.

Mr. MADISON, from the House of Representatives, thus addressed the
Senate:

      MR. PRESIDENT: I am directed by the House of
      Representatives to inform the Senate, that the House have
      agreed that the notifications of the election of the
      President and of the Vice President of the United States,
      should be made by such persons, and in such manner, as the
      Senate shall be pleased to direct.

And he withdrew.

Whereupon, the Senate appointed CHARLES THOMSON, Esq. to notify GEORGE
WASHINGTON, Esq. of his election to the office of President of the
United States of America, and Mr. SYLVANUS BOURN, to notify JOHN ADAMS,
Esq. of his election to the office of Vice President of the said United
States.

A letter was received from James Duane, Esq. enclosing resolutions of
the mayor, aldermen, and commonalty, of the city of New York, tendering
to Congress the use of the City Hall.

James Mathews was elected doorkeeper.


TUESDAY, April 7.

Messrs. ELLSWORTH, PATERSON, MACLAY, STRONG, LEE, BASSETT, FEW, and
WINGATE, were appointed a committee to bring in a bill for organizing
the Judiciary of the United States.

Messrs. ELLSWORTH, LEE, STRONG, MACLAY, and BASSETT, were appointed a
committee to prepare rules for the government of the two Houses in cases
of conference, and to take under consideration the manner of electing
chaplains, and to confer thereupon with a committee of the House of
Representatives.

The same committee were also to prepare rules for conducting the
business of the Senate.


WEDNESDAY, April 8.

The Senate proceeded to ballot for a Secretary, and SAMUEL ALYNE OTIS,
Esq. was elected.

Cornelius Maxwell was appointed messenger.


THURSDAY, April 9.

Messrs. LANGDON, JOHNSON, and FEW, were appointed a committee to make
arrangements for receiving the President, and were empowered to confer
with any committee of the House of Representatives that may be appointed
for that purpose.


MONDAY, April 13.

RALPH IZARD, from South Carolina, CHARLES CARROLL, from Maryland, and
GEORGE REED, from Delaware, appeared and took their seats.

The report of the committee to prepare rules for conducting the business
of the Senate was read, and ordered to lie for consideration.

Messrs. JOHNSON, IZARD, and MACLAY, were appointed a committee to confer
with any committee appointed on the part of the House of
Representatives, upon the future disposition of the papers in the office
of the late Secretary of Congress, and report thereon.

The committee appointed to make arrangements for receiving the
President, were directed to settle the manner of receiving the Vice
President also.

Mr. CARROLL and Mr. IZARD were added to the Judiciary Committee.


TUESDAY, April 14.

TRISTRAM DALTON, from Massachusetts, appeared and took his seat.

A letter was written to the mayor of the city of New York, by the
President of the Senate, acknowledging the respect shown to the
Government, and accepting of the offer made by him of the City Hall for
the use of Congress.


MONDAY, April 20.

JOHN HENRY, from Maryland, and JAMES GUNN, from Georgia, appeared and
took their seats.

Messrs. STRONG and IZARD were appointed a committee to wait on the Vice
President, and conduct him to the Senate Chamber.


TUESDAY, April 21.

The committee appointed to conduct the Vice President to the Senate
Chamber, executed their commission, and Mr. LANGDON, the Vice President
_pro tempore_, meeting the Vice President on the floor of the Senate
Chamber, addressed him as follows.

      SIR: I have it in charge from the Senate, to introduce you
      to the chair of this House; and, also, to congratulate you
      on your appointment to the office of Vice President of the
      United States of America.

[After which Mr. Langdon conducted the Vice President to the chair, when
the Vice President addressed the Senate in a speech of congratulation on
the successful formation of the Federal Union, the adoption of the
Federal Constitution, and the auspicious circumstances under which the
new government came into operation, under the presidency of him who had
led the American armies to victory, and conducted by those who had
contributed to achieve Independence.]


FRIDAY, April 24.

On motion, to reconsider the commission of the committee appointed the
23d instant, to report what titles shall be annexed to the offices of
President and Vice President. Passed in the affirmative.

On motion, that the following words, "What titles it will be proper to
annex to the offices of President and of Vice President of the United
States; if any other than those given in the Constitution," be struck
out. Passed in the negative.

On motion, that the words "style or" before the word "title," be added.
Passed in the affirmative.


SATURDAY, April 25.

The Right Reverend SAMUEL PROVOST was elected Chaplain.

A letter from CHARLES THOMSON, Esq., dated the 24th of April, 1789,
directed to the President of the Senate, purporting his having delivered
to General WASHINGTON the certificate of his being elected President of
the United States, was read, and ordered to be filed.

The committee appointed to consider of the time, place, and manner, in
which, and of the person by whom, the oath prescribed by the
Constitution shall be administered to the President of the United
States, and to confer with a committee of the House appointed for that
purpose, report:

      That the President hath been pleased to signify to them,
      that at any time or place which both Houses may think
      proper to appoint, and any manner which shall appear most
      eligible to them, will be convenient and acceptable to
      him; that requisite preparations cannot probably be made
      before Thursday next; that the President be on that day
      formally received by both Houses in the Senate Chamber;
      that the Representatives' Chamber being capable of
      receiving the greater number of persons, that, therefore,
      the President do take the oath in that place, and in the
      presence of both Houses.

      That, after the formal reception of the President in the
      Senate Chamber, he be attended by both Houses to the
      Representatives' Chamber, and that the oath be administered
      by the Chancellor of the State of New York.

      The committee farther report it as their opinion, that it
      will be proper that a committee of both Houses be appointed
      to take order for conducting the business. Read and
      accepted.

Whereupon, Mr. LEE, Mr. IZARD, and Mr. DALTON, on the part of the
Senate, together with a committee that may be appointed on the part of
the House of Representatives, were empowered to take order for
conducting the business.

An order of the House of Representatives, concurring in the appointment
of a committee on their part to confer with a committee appointed on the
24th instant, on the part of the Senate, to consider and report, "what
style, &c., it will be proper to annex to the offices of President and
Vice President," was read, by which it appeared, that Mr. BENSON, Mr.
AMES, Mr. MADISON, Mr. CARROLL, and Mr. SHERMAN, were appointed on the
part of the House.


MONDAY, April 27.

The committee appointed to take order for conducting the ceremonial of
the formal reception, &c., of the President, reported:

      That it appears to them more eligible that the oath should
      be administered to the President in the outer gallery
      adjoining the Senate Chamber, than in the Representatives'
      Chamber, and therefore, submit to the respective Houses the
      propriety of authorizing their committee to take order as
      to the place where the oath shall be administered to the
      President, the resolution of Saturday assigning the
      Representatives' Chamber as the place, notwithstanding.
      Read and accepted.

      _Resolved_, That after the oath shall have been
      administered to the President, he, attended by the Vice
      President, and members of the Senate, and House of
      Representatives, proceed to St. Paul's Chapel, to hear
      divine service, to be performed by the Chaplain of Congress
      already appointed. Sent to the House of Representatives for
      concurrence.


TUESDAY, April 28.

Received from the House of Representatives, the report of a joint
committee on the ceremonial to be observed in administering the oath,
&c., to the President; and a bill to regulate the time and manner of
administering certain oaths. The report was read and ordered to lie on
the table; and the bill received its first reading.


THURSDAY, April 30.

Mr. LEE, in behalf of the committee appointed to take order for
conducting the ceremonial of the formal reception, &c., of the President
of the United States, having informed the Senate that the same was
adjusted, the House of Representatives were notified that the Senate
were ready to receive them in the Senate Chamber, to attend the
President of the United States, while taking the oath required by the
Constitution. Whereupon, the House of Representatives, preceded by their
Speaker, came into the Senate Chamber, and took the seats assigned them,
and the joint committee, preceded by their chairman, agreeably to order,
introduced the President of the United States to the Senate Chamber,
where he was received by the Vice President, who conducted him to the
chair, when the Vice President informed him, that "the Senate, and House
of Representatives of the United States, were ready to attend him to
take the oath required by the Constitution, and that it would be
administered by the Chancellor of the State of New York." To which the
President replied, he was ready to proceed; and being attended to the
gallery in front of the Senate Chamber, by the Vice President and
Senators, the Speaker and Representatives, and the other public
characters present, the oath was administered. After which, the
Chancellor proclaimed, "_Long live George Washington, President of the
United States_."

The PRESIDENT, having returned to his seat, after a short pause arose,
and addressed the Senate and House of Representatives as follows:[4]

      _Fellow-Citizens of the Senate, and of the House of
      Representatives:_

      Among the vicissitudes incident to life, no event could
      have filled me with greater anxieties than that of which
      the notification was transmitted by your order, and
      received on the 14th day of the present month. On the one
      hand, I was summoned by my country, whose voice I can never
      hear but with veneration and love, from a retreat which I
      had chosen with the fondest predilection, and, in my
      flattering hopes, with an immutable decision, as the asylum
      of my declining years: a retreat which was rendered every
      day more necessary, as well as more dear to me, by the
      addition of habit to inclination, and of frequent
      interruptions in my health, to the gradual waste committed
      on it by time. On the other hand, the magnitude and
      difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my country
      called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and
      most experienced of her citizens a distrustful scrutiny
      into his qualifications, could not but overwhelm with
      despondence one, who, inheriting inferior endowments from
      nature, and unpractised in the duties of civil
      administration, ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own
      deficiencies. In this conflict of emotions, all I dare aver
      is, that it has been my faithful study to collect my duty
      from a just appreciation of every circumstance by which it
      might be effected. All I dare hope is that if, in executing
      this task, I have been too much swayed by a grateful
      remembrance of former instances, or by an affectionate
      sensibility to this transcendent proof of the confidence of
      my fellow-citizens, and have thence too little consulted my
      incapacity as well as disinclination for the weighty and
      untried cares before me, my error will be palliated by the
      motives which misled me, and its consequences be judged by
      my country, with some share of the partiality in which they
      originated.

             *       *       *       *       *

      To the preceding observations I have one to add, which will
      be most properly addressed to the House of Representatives.
      It concerns myself, and will, therefore, be as brief as
      possible. When I was first honored with a call into the
      service of my country, then on the eve of an arduous
      struggle for its liberties, the light in which I
      contemplated my duty required that I should renounce every
      pecuniary compensation. From this resolution I have in no
      instance departed. And being still under the impressions
      which, produced it, I must decline, as inapplicable to
      myself, any share in the personal emoluments which may be
      indispensably included in a permanent provision for the
      executive department; and must accordingly pray that the
      pecuniary estimates for the station in which I am placed
      may, during my continuance in it, be limited to such actual
      expenditures as the public good may be thought to require.

      Having thus imparted to you my sentiments, as they have
      been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I
      shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once
      more to the benign Parent of the human race, in humble
      supplication, that since He has been pleased to favor the
      American people with opportunities for deliberating in
      perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with
      unparalleled unanimity on a form of Government for the
      security of their union, and the advancement of their
      happiness, so his divine blessing may be equally
      conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate
      consultations, and the wise measures, on which the success
      of this Government must depend.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.

      _April 30, 1789._

The President, the Vice President, the Senate, and House of
Representatives, &c., then proceeded to St. Paul's Chapel, where divine
service was performed by the chaplain of Congress, after which the
President was reconducted to his house by the committee appointed for
that purpose.

The Vice President and Senate returned to the Senate Chamber; and,

Upon motion, unanimously agreed, That a committee of three should be
appointed to prepare an answer to the President's speech. Mr. JOHNSON,
Mr. PATERSON, and Mr. CARROLL, were elected.


THURSDAY, May 7.

The committee appointed to confer with such committee as might be
appointed on the part of the House of Representatives, to report what
style or titles it will be proper to annex to the offices of President
and of Vice President of the United States, if any other than those
given in the Constitution, reported.

Which report was ordered to lie for consideration.

The committee appointed to prepare an answer to the President's speech,
delivered to the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States, reported as follows:

      SIR: We, the Senate of the United States, return you our
      sincere thanks for your excellent speech delivered to both
      Houses of Congress; congratulate you on the complete
      organization of the Federal Government; and felicitate
      ourselves and our fellow-citizens on your elevation to the
      office of President; an office highly important by the
      powers constitutionally annexed to it, and extremely
      honorable from the manner in which the appointment is made.
      The unanimous suffrage of the elective body in your favor,
      is peculiarly expressive of the gratitude, confidence, and
      affection of the citizens of America, and is the highest
      testimonial at once of your merit and their esteem. We are
      sensible, sir, that nothing but the voice of your
      fellow-citizens could have called you from a retreat,
      chosen with the fondest predilection, endeared by habit,
      and consecrated to the repose of declining years. We
      rejoice, and with us all America, that, in obedience to the
      call of our common country, you have returned once more to
      public life. In you all parties confide; in you all
      interests unite; and we have no doubt that your past
      services, great as they have been, will be equalled by your
      future exertions; and that your prudence and sagacity as a
      statesman will tend to avert the dangers to which we are
      exposed, to give stability to the present Government, and
      dignity and splendor to that country, which your skill and
      valor, as a soldier, so eminently contributed to raise to
      independence and empire.

      When we contemplate the coincidence of circumstances, and
      wonderful combination of causes, which gradually prepared
      the people of this country for independence; when we
      contemplate the rise, progress, and termination of the late
      war, which gave them a name among the nations of the earth;
      we are, with you, unavoidably led to acknowledge and adore
      the great Arbiter of the universe, by whom empires rise and
      fall. A review of the many signal instances of divine
      interposition in favor of this country claims our most
      pious gratitude; and permit us, sir, to observe, that,
      among the great events which have led to the formation and
      establishment of a Federal Government, we esteem your
      acceptance of the office of President as one of the most
      propitious and important.

      In the execution of the trust reposed in us, we shall
      endeavor to pursue that enlarged and liberal policy to
      which your speech so happily directs. We are conscious that
      the prosperity of each State is inseparably connected with
      the welfare of all, and that, in promoting the latter, we
      shall effectually advance the former. In full persuasion of
      this truth, it shall be our invariable aim to divest
      ourselves of local prejudices and attachments, and to view
      the great assemblage of communities and interests committed
      to our charge with an equal eye. We feel, sir, the force,
      and acknowledge the justness of the observation, that the
      foundation of our national policy should be laid in private
      morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral
      principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue; it is,
      therefore, the duty of legislators to enforce, both by
      precept and example, the utility, as well as the necessity,
      of a strict adherence to the rules of distributive justice.
      We beg you to be assured that the Senate will, at all
      times, cheerfully co-operate in every measure which may
      strengthen the Union, conduce to the happiness, or secure
      and perpetuate the liberties of this great confederated
      republic.

      We commend you, sir, to the protection of Almighty God,
      earnestly beseeching him long to preserve a life so
      valuable and dear to the people of the United States; and
      that your administration may be prosperous to the nation,
      and glorious to yourself.

      Read and accepted; and

      _Ordered_, That the Vice President should affix his
      signature to the address, in behalf of the Senate.


FRIDAY, May 8.

The report of the committee appointed to determine "What style or title
it will be proper to annex to the offices of President and Vice
President of the United States, if any other than those given in the
Constitution;" and to confer with a committee of the House of
Representatives appointed for the same purpose, was considered, and
disagreed to.

The question was taken, "Whether the President of the United States
shall be addressed by the title of _His Excellency_?" and it passed in
the negative.

On motion that a committee of three be appointed to consider and report
under what title it will be proper for the Senate to address the
President of the United States, Mr. LEE, Mr. ELLSWORTH, and Mr. JOHNSON,
were elected.


SATURDAY, May 9.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that
they had accepted the report of the committee appointed to consider what
style or title it will be proper to annex to the offices of President
and Vice President of the United States, if any other than those given
in the Constitution.

      _Ordered_, That Mr. FEW, Mr. MACLAY, and Mr. STRONG, be a
      committee to view the apartments in the City Hall, and to
      confer with any committee that may be appointed by the
      House of Representatives for that purpose, and report how
      the same shall be appropriated.

The committee appointed to consider under what title it will be proper
for the Senate to address the President of the United States, reported;
the consideration of which was postponed until Monday next.

The Secretary was charged with a message to the House of
Representatives, with the order of Senate passed the 7th instant, on the
mode adopted by the Senate in receiving communications from that House.

      _Ordered_, That Mr. LEE, Mr. ELLSWORTH, and Mr. JOHNSON, be
      a committee to confer with any committee to be appointed by
      the House of Representatives, on the difference of opinion
      now subsisting between the two Houses, respecting the title
      of the President of the United States; and, on motion for
      reconsideration, the instruction to the committee was
      agreed to, as follows:

      "That they consider and report under what title it will be
      proper for the President of the United States in future to
      be addressed, and confer thereon with such committee as the
      House of Representatives may appoint for that purpose."


The Secretary carried to the House of Representatives the appointment of
a committee, on the part of the Senate, to view the rooms in the City
Hall, and to confer upon their appropriation;

The rejection of the report of the committee appointed to consider what
style, &c., it will be proper to annex to the offices of President and
of Vice President;

And the appointment of a committee on the part of the Senate to confer
on a title under which it will be proper to address the President of the
United States.


MONDAY, May 11.

      _Ordered_, That the consideration of the report of the
      committee upon "the title by which it will be proper for
      the Senate to address the President," be postponed until
      Tuesday next.


TUESDAY, May 12.

      _Ordered_, That the committee appointed the 9th of May, to
      consider "by what title it will be proper for the Senate to
      address the President of the United States", be instructed
      to confer with the committee of the House of
      Representatives, agreeably to the proposition in their
      message of this day.

      A motion for the committee, appointed to address the
      President, to proceed, was postponed to Thursday next.


THURSDAY, May 14.

The committee, appointed the 9th instant, to determine "under what title
it will be proper for the Senate to address the President," and to
confer with a committee of the House of Representatives "upon the
disagreeing votes of the Senate and House," informed the Senate that
they had conferred with a committee of the House of Representatives, but
could not agree upon a report.

The committee appointed the 9th instant, "to consider and report under
what title it will be proper for the Senate to address the President of
the United States of America," reported:

      That, in the opinion of the committee, it will be proper
      thus to address the President: "_His Highness, the
      President of the United States of America, and Protector of
      their Liberties_."

Which report was postponed; and the following resolve was agreed to, to
wit:

      From a decent respect for the opinion and practice of
      civilized nations, whether under monarchical or republican
      forms of Government, whose custom is to annex titles of
      respectability to the office of their Chief Magistrate; and
      that, on intercourse with foreign nations, a due respect
      for the majesty of the people of the United States may not
      be hazarded by an appearance of singularity, the Senate
      have been induced to be of opinion, that it would be proper
      to annex a respectable title to the office of President of
      the United States; but, the Senate, desirous of preserving
      harmony with the House of Representatives, where the
      practice lately observed in presenting an address to the
      President was without the addition of titles, think it
      proper, for the present, to act in conformity with the
      practice of that House: therefore,

      _Resolved_, That the present address be "_To the President
      of the United States_," without addition of title.

A motion was made to strike out the preamble as far as the words "but
the Senate;" which passed in the negative:

And on motion for the main question, it passed in the affirmative.

The committee appointed to consider and report a mode of carrying into
effect the provision in the second clause of the third section of the
first article of the Constitution, reported;

Whereupon,

      _Resolved_, That the Senators be divided into three
      classes;

      The first to consist of Mr. Langdon, Mr. Johnson, Mr.
      Morris, Mr. Henry, Mr. Izard, and Mr. Gunn;

      The second of Mr. Wingate, Mr. Strong, Mr. Paterson, Mr.
      Bassett, Mr. Lee, Mr. Butler, and Mr. Few;

      And the third of Mr. Dalton, Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Elmer, Mr.
      Maclay, Mr. Read, Mr. Carroll, and Mr. Grayson.

      That three papers of an equal size, numbered 1, 2, and 3,
      be, by the Secretary, rolled up and put into a box, and
      drawn by Mr. Langdon, Mr. Wingate, and Mr. Dalton, in
      behalf of the respective classes, in which each of them are
      placed; and that the classes shall vacate their seats in
      the Senate, according to the order of numbers drawn for
      them, beginning with No. 1.

      And that, when Senators shall take their seats from States
      that have not yet appointed Senators, they shall be placed
      by lot in the foregoing classes, but in such manner as
      shall keep the classes as nearly equal as may be in
      numbers.

The committee appointed to confer with a committee of the House of
Representatives, in preparing proper rules to be established for the
enrolment, &c. of the acts of Congress, reported; which report was
ordered to lie for consideration.

      _Ordered_, That the committee appointed to draft an answer
      to the President's speech, wait on him, and request him to
      appoint the time when it will be agreeable to receive the
      address of the Senate, at his own house.


FRIDAY, May 15.

The committee appointed to draft an answer to the President's speech
further reported; whereupon it was

      _Agreed_, That the Senate should wait on the President at
      his own house on Monday next, at a quarter after 11
      o'clock, and that the Vice President then present the
      address of the Senate, as agreed to on the 7th instant.

The Senate proceeded to determine the classes, agreeably to the resolve
of yesterday, on the mode of carrying into effect the provision of the
second clause of the third section of the first article of the
Constitution; and the numbers being drawn, the classes were determined
as follows:

Lot No. 1, drawn by Mr. Dalton, contained Mr. Dalton, Mr. Ellsworth, Mr.
Elmer, Mr. Maclay, Mr. Read, Mr. Carroll, and Mr. Grayson; whose seats
shall, accordingly, be vacated in the Senate at the expiration of the
second year.

Lot No. 2. drawn by Mr. Wingate, contained Mr. Wingate, Mr. Strong, Mr.
Paterson, Mr. Bassett, Mr. Lee, Mr. Butler, and Mr. Few; whose seats
shall, accordingly, be vacated in the Senate at the expiration of the
fourth year.

Lot No. 3, drawn by Mr. Langdon, contained Mr. Langdon, Mr. Johnson, Mr.
Morris, Mr. Henry, Mr. Izard, and Mr. Gunn; whose seats shall,
accordingly, be vacated in the Senate at the expiration of the sixth
year.


MONDAY, May 18.

Agreeably to the order of the 15th instant, the Senate waited on the
President of the United States at his own house, when the Vice
President, in their name, delivered to the President the address agreed
to on the 7th instant. To which the President of the United States was
pleased to make the following reply:

      GENTLEMEN: I thank you for your address, in which the most
      affectionate sentiments are expressed in the most obliging
      terms. The coincidence of circumstances which led to this
      auspicious crisis, the confidence reposed in me by my
      fellow-citizens, and the assistance I may expect from
      counsels which will be dictated by an enlarged and liberal
      policy, seem to presage a more prosperous issue to my
      administration than a diffidence of my abilities had taught
      me to anticipate. I now feel myself inexpressibly happy in
      a belief that Heaven, which has done so much for our infant
      nation, will not withdraw its providential influence before
      our political felicity shall have been completed, and in a
      conviction that the Senate will at all times co-operate in
      every measure which may tend to promote the welfare of this
      confederated republic. Thus supported by a firm trust in
      the great Arbiter of the universe, aided by the collective
      wisdom of the Union, and imploring the divine benediction
      on our joint exertions in the service of our country, I
      readily engage with you in the arduous but pleasing task of
      attempting to make a nation happy.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.


THURSDAY, May 21.

WILLIAM GRAYSON, from Virginia, appeared and took his seat.

      _Resolved_, That all bills on a second reading shall be
      considered by the Senate in the same manner as if the
      Senate were in a committee of the whole, before they shall
      be taken up and proceeded on by the Senate, agreeably to
      the standing rules, unless otherwise ordered.


MONDAY, May 25.

The Senate to-day, for the first time, entered upon executive business,
having received from the President of the United States a communication
covering a report from the Secretary of War, on the negotiations of the
Governor of the Western Territory with certain northern and
north-western Indians, and the treaties made in consequence thereof at
Fort Harmar, on the 9th of January, 1789, which was read, and ordered to
lie on the table.


THURSDAY, May 28.

The Senate proceeded in the consideration of the bill for laying a duty
on goods, wares and merchandises imported into the United States; and,
after debate, adjourned.


WEDNESDAY, June 3.

_Ordered_, That Mr. LANGDON administer the oath to the Vice President;
which was done accordingly.

And the Vice President administered the oath according to law, to the
following members: to Messrs. LANGDON, WINGATE, STRONG, DALTON, JOHNSON,
ELLSWORTH, PATERSON, MACLAY, MORRIS, READ, BASSETT, CARROLL, HENRY, LEE,
GRAYSON, IZARD, FEW, GUNN.

The same oath was, by the Vice President, administered to the Secretary,
together with the oath of office.


MONDAY, June 8.

PIERCE BUTLER, from South Carolina, appeared and took his seat.

The Vice President administered the oath to Mr. Butler.


TUESDAY, June 16.

The Senate entered on executive business. A communication from the
President informed them that Mr. JEFFERSON wished to return home, and he
proposed WILLIAM SHORT, Esq. to take his place as minister to France.
Laid on the table.


WEDNESDAY, June 17.

The Senate went into executive business. They examined into the fitness
of Mr. SHORT to supply the place of Mr. JEFFERSON, but came to no
conclusion.


THURSDAY, June 18.

The Senate went into executive business, and confirmed the appointment
of Mr. SHORT to take charge of our affairs at the court of France,
during the absence of the minister.


THURSDAY, June 25.

The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the bill for establishing
an Executive Department, to be denominated the Department of Foreign
Affairs; which was read the first time, and ordered to lie for
consideration.


FRIDAY, July 17.

On motion, that, on the final question upon a bill or resolve, any
member shall have a right to enter his protest or dissent on the
journal, with reasons in support of such dissent, provided the same be
offered within two days after the determination on such final question:

Passed in the negative.


TUESDAY, July 21.

The Senate entered on executive business, and

_Ordered_, That the Secretary of Foreign Affairs attend the Senate
to-morrow, and bring with him such papers as are requisite to give full
information relative to the consular convention between France and the
United States.


WEDNESDAY, July 22.

The Senate were to-day mostly engaged in executive business. The
Secretary of Foreign Affairs attended, agreeably to order, and made the
necessary explanations; and the following resolution was entered
into.[5]


SATURDAY, July 25.

RUFUS KING, from New York, appeared, and took his seat.


MONDAY, July 27.

PHILIP SCHUYLER, from New York, appeared, and took his seat.


TUESDAY, July 28.

On motion, the Senators from the State of New York proceeded to draw
lots for their classes, in conformity to the resolve of the 14th of May;
and two lots, No. 3, and a blank, being, by the Secretary, rolled up and
put into the box, Mr. SCHUYLER drew blank; and Mr. KING having drawn No.
3, his seat shall accordingly be vacated in the Senate at the expiration
of the sixth year.

The Secretary proceeded to put two other lots into the box, marked Nos.
1 and 2; and Mr. SCHUYLER having drawn lot No. 1, his seat shall
accordingly be vacated in the Senate at the expiration of the second
year.


MONDAY, August 3.

The Senate entered on executive business. The President communicated to
them a list of about one hundred appointments as collectors, naval
officers, and surveyors. The Senate advised and consented to about
one-half the list; the rest lay till to-morrow.


TUESDAY, August 4.

A message from the House of Representatives brought up a bill for making
compensation to the President and Vice President of the United States,
and desired the concurrence of the Senate therein;

Together with the appointment of Messrs. WADSWORTH, CARROLL, and
HARTLEY, a committee, to join with a committee of the Senate to be
appointed for the purpose, "to consider of and report when it will be
convenient and proper that an adjournment of the present session of
Congress should take place; and to consider and report such business,
now before Congress, necessary to be finished before the adjournment,
and such as may be conveniently postponed to the next session; and,
also, to consider and report such matters, not now before Congress, but
which it will be necessary should be considered and determined by
Congress before an adjournment."

The Senate again entered on executive business, and advised and
confirmed all the remainder of the list of appointments presented
yesterday, one excepted.


FRIDAY, August 7.

The Senate, in the absence of the Vice President, proceeded to elect a
President _pro tempore_; and the votes being collected and counted, the
Honorable JOHN LANGDON was unanimously appointed.

A message from the President of the United States, by General Knox:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate:_

      The business which has hitherto been under the
      consideration of Congress has been of so much importance,
      that I was unwilling to draw their attention from it to any
      other subject. But the disputes which exist between some of
      the United States and several powerful tribes of Indians,
      within the limits of the Union, and the hostilities which
      have, in several instances, been committed on the
      frontiers, seem to require the immediate interposition of
      the General Government.

      I have, therefore, directed the several statements and
      papers which have been submitted to me on this subject, by
      General Knox, to be laid before you for your information.

      While the measures of Government ought to be calculated to
      protect its citizens from all injury and violence, a due
      regard should be extended to those Indian tribes whose
      happiness, in the course of events, so materially depends
      on the national justice and humanity of the United States.

      If it should be the judgment of Congress that it would be
      most expedient to terminate all differences in the southern
      district, and to lay the foundation for future confidence,
      by an amicable treaty with the Indian tribes in that
      quarter, I think proper to suggest the consideration of the
      expediency of instituting a temporary commission for that
      purpose, to consist of three persons, whose authority
      should expire with the occasion. How far such a measure,
      unassisted by posts, would be competent to the
      establishment and preservation of peace and tranquillity on
      the frontiers, is also a matter which merits your serious
      consideration.

                                  GEO. WASHINGTON.

      NEW YORK, _August 7, 1789_.

The above message was ordered to lie for consideration.[6]

Mr. MORRIS, in behalf of the committee on the bill for allowing a
compensation to the President and Vice President of the United States,
reported an amendment, to wit:

      To expunge, in the provision for the Vice President, "five
      thousand dollars," and insert "six thousand dollars."

On motion to reduce the provision for the President of the United
States, from "twenty-five thousand" to "twenty thousand dollars:"

Passed in the negative.

On motion to make the provision for the Vice President eight thousand
dollars, instead of five thousand dollars:

Passed in the negative.

The Senate entered on executive business.

The following message from the President was laid before them:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate:_

      My nomination of Benjamin Fishbourn for the place of naval
      officer of the port of Savannah not having met with your
      concurrence, I now nominate Lachlan McIntosh for that
      office.[7]

      Whatever may have been the reasons which induced your
      dissent, I am persuaded they were such as you deemed
      sufficient. Permit me to submit to your consideration
      whether, on occasions where the propriety of nominations
      appears questionable to you, it would not be expedient to
      communicate that circumstance to me, and thereby avail
      yourselves of the information which led me to make them,
      and which I would with pleasure lay before you. Probably my
      reasons for nominating Mr. Fishbourn may tend to show that
      such a mode of proceeding, in such cases, might be useful.
      I will, therefore, detail them.

      First. While Colonel Fishbourn was an officer, in actual
      service, and chiefly under my own eye, his conduct appeared
      to me irreproachable; nor did I ever hear any thing
      injurious to his reputation as an officer or a gentleman.
      At the storming of Stony Point, his behavior was
      represented to have been active and brave, and he was
      charged by his General to bring the account of that
      success to the head quarters of the army.

      Secondly. Since his residence in Georgia, he has been
      repeatedly elected to the Assembly as a representative of
      the county of Chatham, in which the port of Savannah is
      situated, and sometimes of the counties of Glynn and
      Camden; he has been chosen a member of the executive
      council of the State, and has lately been president of the
      same; he has been elected by the officers of the militia,
      in the county of Chatham, lieutenant-colonel of the militia
      in that district; and, on a very recent occasion, to wit,
      in the month of May last, he has been appointed by the
      council (on the suspension of the late collector) to an
      office in the port of Savannah, nearly similar to that for
      which I nominated him; which office he actually holds at
      this time. To these reasons for nominating Mr. Fishbourn, I
      might add that I received private letters of
      recommendation, and oral testimonials in his favor, from
      some of the most respectable characters in that State; but
      as they were secondary considerations with me, I do not
      think it necessary to communicate them to you.

      It appeared, therefore, to me, that Mr. Fishbourn must have
      enjoyed the _confidence_ of the militia officers, in order
      to have been elected to a military rank; the _confidence_
      of the freemen, to have been elected to the Assembly; the
      _confidence_ of the Assembly, to have been selected for the
      council; and the _confidence_ of the council, to have been
      appointed collector of the port of Savannah.

                                  GEO. WASHINGTON.

      NEW YORK, _August 6, 1789_.


FRIDAY, August 21.

The Senate entered on executive business. They proceeded to consider the
report made by Mr. IZARD, yesterday, as follows:

The committee appointed to wait on the President of the United States,
and confer with him on the mode of communication proper to be pursued
between him and the Senate, in the formation of treaties, and making
appointments to offices, reported:

Which report was agreed to. Whereupon,

      _Resolved_, That when nominations shall be made in writing
      by the President of the United States to the Senate, a
      future day shall be assigned, unless the Senate unanimously
      direct otherwise, for taking them into consideration; that
      when the President of the United States shall meet the
      Senate in the Senate Chamber, the President of the Senate
      shall have a chair on the floor, be considered as at the
      head of the Senate, and his chair shall be assigned to the
      President of the United States; that when the Senate shall
      be convened by the President of the United States to any
      other place, the President of the Senate and Senators shall
      attend at the place appointed. The Secretary of the Senate
      shall also attend to take the minutes of the Senate.

      That all questions shall be put by the President of the
      Senate, either in the presence or absence of the President
      of the United States; and the Senators shall signify their
      assent or dissent by answering _viva voce_, aye or no.[8]


Another message was received from the President, viz:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate:_

      The President of the United States will meet the Senate, in
      the Senate Chamber, at half-past eleven o'clock to-morrow,
      to advise with them on the terms of the treaty to be
      negotiated with the Southern Indians.

                                  GEO. WASHINGTON.

      NEW YORK, _August 21, 1789_.


SATURDAY, August 22.

The Senate again entered on executive business.

The President of the United States came into the Senate Chamber,
attended by General Knox, and laid before the Senate the following
statement of facts, with the questions thereto annexed, for their advice
and consent:

      [Here follows the statement of facts, and the questions
      thereto annexed, and the answer of the Senate to each
      question.]


MONDAY, August 24.

The Senate was to-day wholly engaged in executive business.

The President of the United States being present in the Senate Chamber,
attended by General Knox,

The Senate resumed the consideration of the state of facts and questions
thereto annexed, laid before them by the President of the United States,
on Saturday last. And the first question, viz: "In the present state of
affairs between North Carolina and the United States, will it be proper
to take any other measures for redressing the injuries of the Cherokees
than the one herein suggested?" being put, was answered in the
negative.[9]

The third question, viz: "If the commissioners shall adjudge that the
Creek nation was fully represented at the three treaties with Georgia,
and that the cessions of land were obtained with the full understanding
and free consent of the acknowledged proprietors, and that the said
treaties ought to be considered as just and equitable: in this case,
shall the commissioners be instructed to insist on a formal renewal and
confirmation thereof? and, in case of a refusal, shall they be
instructed to inform the Creeks that the arms of the Union shall be
employed to compel them to acknowledge the justice of the said
cessions?" was wholly answered in the affirmative.

The fourth question, and its four subdivisions, viz: "But if the
commissioners shall adjudge that the said treaties were formed with an
inadequate or unauthorized representation of the Creek nation, or that
the treaties were held under circumstances of constraint or unfairness
of any sort, so that the United States could not, with justice and
dignity, request or urge a confirmation thereof: in this case, shall the
commissioners, considering the importance of the Oconee lands to
Georgia, be instructed to use their highest exertions to obtain a
cession of said lands? If so, shall the commissioners be instructed, if
they cannot obtain the said cessions on better terms, to offer for the
same, and for the further great object of attaching the Creeks to the
Government of the United States, the following conditions:

"1st. A compensation in money or goods, to the amount of ---- dollars;
the said amount to be stipulated to be paid by Georgia at the period
which shall be fixed, or in failure thereof, by the United States.

"2d. A secure port on the Altamaha or on St. Mary's river, or at any
other place between the same, as may be mutually agreed to by the
commissioners and the Creeks.

"3d. Certain pecuniary considerations to some, and honorary military
distinctions to other influential chiefs, on their taking oaths of
allegiance to the United States.

"4th. A solemn guarantee by the United States to the Creeks of their
remaining territory, and to maintain the same, if necessary, by a line
of military posts," was wholly answered in the affirmative. The blank to
be filled at the discretion of the President of the United States.

The fifth question, viz: "But if all offers should fail to induce the
Creeks to make the desired cessions to Georgia, shall the commissioners
make it an ultimatum?" was answered in the negative.

The sixth question being divided, the first part, containing as follows,
viz: "If the said cessions shall not be made an ultimatum, shall the
commissioners proceed and make a treaty, and include the disputed lands
within the limits which shall be assigned to the Creeks?" was answered
in the negative.

The remainder, viz: "If not, shall a temporary boundary be marked,
making the Oconee the line, and the other parts of the treaty be
concluded?"

"In this case, shall a secure port be stipulated, and the pecuniary and
honorary considerations granted?"

"In other general objects shall the treaties formed at Hopewell, with
the Cherokees, Chickasaws, and Choctaws, be the basis of a treaty with
the Creeks?" were all answered in the affirmative.

On the seventh question, viz: "Shall the sum of twenty thousand dollars,
appropriated to Indian expenses and treaties, be wholly applied, if
necessary, to a treaty with the Creeks? if not, what proportion?" It was
agreed to advise and consent to appropriate the whole sum, if necessary,
at the discretion of the President of the United States.

The President of the United States withdrew from the Senate Chamber, and
the Vice President put the question of adjournment; to which the Senate
agreed.


WEDNESDAY, September 16.

The following message from the President of the United States was
received by the Secretary of War.

      _Gentlemen of the Senate:_

      The Governor of the Western Territory has made a statement
      to me of the reciprocal hostilities of the Wabash Indians,
      and the people inhabiting the frontiers bordering on the
      river Ohio, which I herewith lay before Congress.

      The United States, in Congress assembled, by their acts of
      the 21st day of July, 1787, and of the 12th August, 1788,
      made a provisional arrangement for calling forth the
      militia of Virginia and Pennsylvania in the proportions
      therein specified.

      As the circumstances which occasioned the said arrangement
      continue nearly the same, I think proper to suggest to your
      consideration the expediency of making some temporary
      provision for calling forth the militia of the United
      States for the purposes stated in the constitution, which
      would embrace the cases apprehended by the Governor of the
      Western Territory.

                                  GEO. WASHINGTON.

      _September_ 16, 1789.


THURSDAY, September 17.

The Senate entered on executive business.

The following message was received from the President of the United
States:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate:_

      It doubtless is important that all treaties and compacts
      formed by the United States with other nations, whether
      civilized or not, should be made with caution and executed
      with fidelity.

      It is said to be the general understanding and practice of
      nations, as a check on the mistakes and indiscretions of
      ministers or commissioners, not to consider any treaty
      negotiated and signed by such officers as final and
      conclusive, until ratified by the sovereign or government
      from whom they derive their powers. This practice has been
      adopted by the United States respecting their treaties with
      European nations, and I am inclined to think it would be
      advisable to observe it in the conduct of our treaties with
      the Indians; for though such treaties being, on their part,
      made by their chiefs or rulers, need not be ratified by
      them, yet, being formed on our part by the agency of
      subordinate officers, it seems to be both prudent and
      reasonable that their acts should not be binding on the
      nation until approved and ratified by the Government. It
      strikes me that this point should be well considered and
      settled, so that our national proceedings, in this respect,
      may become uniform, and be directed by fixed and stable
      principles.

      The treaties with certain Indian nations, which were laid
      before you with my message of the 25th May last, suggested
      two questions to my mind, viz: 1st, Whether those treaties
      were to be considered as perfected, and, consequently, as
      obligatory, without being ratified? If not, then, 2dly,
      Whether both, or either, and which of them, ought to be
      ratified? On these questions I request your opinion and
      advice.

      You have, indeed, advised me "_to execute and enjoin an
      observance of_" the treaty with the Wyandots, &c. You,
      gentlemen, doubtless intended to be clear and explicit; and
      yet, without further explanation, I fear I may
      misunderstand your meaning: for if by my _executing_ that
      treaty you mean that I should make it (in a more particular
      and immediate manner than it now is) the act of Government,
      then it follows that I am to ratify it. If you mean by my
      _executing it_ that I am to see that it be carried into
      effect and operation, then I am led to conclude, either
      that you consider it as being perfect and obligatory in its
      present state, and therefore to be executed and observed;
      or that you consider it to derive its completion and
      obligation from the silent approbation and ratification
      which my proclamation may be construed to imply. Although I
      am inclined to think that the latter is your intention, yet
      it certainly is best that all doubts respecting it be
      removed.

      Permit me to observe, that it will be proper for me to be
      informed of your sentiments relative to the treaty with the
      Six Nations, previous to the departure of the Governor of
      the Western Territory; and therefore I recommend it to
      your early consideration.

                                  GEO. WASHINGTON.

      _September_ 17, 1789.

      _Ordered_, That the President's message be committed to
      Messrs. CARROLL, KING, and READ.


FRIDAY, September 18.

The Senate entered on executive business.

Mr. CARROLL, on behalf of the committee appointed yesterday, reported as
follows:

The committee, to whom was referred a message from the President of the
United States of the 17th September, 1789, report:

      That the signature of treaties with the Indian nations has
      ever been considered as a full completion thereof, and that
      such treaties have never been solemnly ratified by either
      of the contracting parties, as hath been commonly practised
      among the civilized nations of Europe: wherefore the
      committee are of opinion that the formal ratification of
      the treaty concluded at Fort Harmar on the 9th day of
      January, 1789, between Arthur St. Clair, Governor of the
      Western Territory, on the part of the United States, and
      the sachems and warriors of the Wyandot, Delaware, Ottawa,
      Chippewa, Pattiwattima, and Sac Nations, is not expedient
      or necessary; and that the resolve of the Senate of the 8th
      September, 1789, respecting the said treaty, authorizes the
      President of the United States to enjoin a due observance
      thereof.


TUESDAY, September 29.

The following communications from the President were received by Mr.
Jay:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate:_

      His Most Christian Majesty, by a letter dated the 7th of
      June last, addressed to the President and members of the
      General Congress of the United States of North America,
      announces the much lamented death of his son, the Dauphin.
      The generous conduct of the French monarch and nation
      towards this country renders every event that may affect
      his or their prosperity interesting to us; and I shall take
      care to assure him of the sensibility with which the United
      States participate in the affliction which a loss so much
      to be regretted must have occasioned, both to him and to
      them.

                                  GEO. WASHINGTON.

      _September_ 29.

      _Gentlemen of the Senate:_

      Having been yesterday informed by a joint committee of both
      Houses of Congress, that they had agreed to a recess, to
      commence this day, and to continue until the first Monday
      of January next, I take the earliest opportunity of
      acquainting you that, considering how long and laborious
      this session has been, and the reasons which, I presume,
      have produced this resolution, it does not appear to me
      expedient to recommend any measures to their consideration
      at present, or now to call your attention, gentlemen, to
      any of those matters in my department which require your
      advice and consent, and yet remain to be despatched.

                                  GEO. WASHINGTON.

      _September_ 29, 1789.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the
House of Representatives had finished the business of the session, and
were ready to adjourn, agreeably to the order of the two Houses of
Congress.

The business of the session being brought to a close, the Vice
President, agreeably to the resolve of the two Houses on the 26th
instant, adjourned the Senate to the first Monday in January next, then
to meet at the City Hall in New York.


FIRST CONGRESS


LIST OF SENATORS.

_New Hampshire._--John Langdon, Paine Wingate.

_Massachusetts._--Caleb Strong, Tristram Dalton.

_Connecticut._--William S. Johnson, Oliver Ellsworth.

_New York._--Rufus King, Philip Schuyler.

_New Jersey._--William Paterson, Jonathan Elmer.

_Pennsylvania._--William Maclay, Robert Morris.

_Delaware._--Richard Bassett, George Reed.

_Maryland._--Charles Carroll, John Henry.

_Virginia._--Richard Henry Lee, William Grayson.

_South Carolina._--Ralph Izard, Pierce Butler.

_Georgia._--William Few, James Gunn.

_North Carolina._[10]--Benjamin Hawkins, Samuel Johnston.

_Rhode Island._[11]--Joseph Stanton, jr., Theodore Foster.


LIST OF REPRESENTATIVES.

_New Hampshire._--Nicholas Gilman, Samuel Livermore, Abiel Foster.

_Massachusetts._--George Thatcher, Fisher Ames, George Leonard, Elbridge
Gerry, Jonathan Grout, Benjamin Goodhue, Theodore Sedgwick, George
Partridge.

_Connecticut._--Benjamin Huntington, Jonathan Trumbull, Jeremiah
Wadsworth, Roger Sherman, Jonathan Sturges.

_New York._--John Lawrence, Egbert Benson, William Floyd, Peter
Sylvester, John Hathorn, Jeremiah Van Rensselaer.

_New Jersey._--Elias Boudinot, James Schureman, Lambert Cadwalader,
Thomas Sinnickson.

_Pennsylvania._--Henry Wynkoop, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Daniel
Heister, Thomas Scott, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimons, Thomas Hartley,
Peter Muhlenberg.

_Delaware._--John Vining.

_Maryland._--William Smith, George Gale, Daniel Carroll, Joshua Seney,
Michael Jenifer Stone, Benjamin Contee.

_Virginia._--Alexander White, James Madison, jr., John Page, Richard
Bland Lee, Samuel Griffin, Andrew Moore, Josiah Parker, Theodorick
Bland,[12] Isaac Coles, John Brown.

_South Carolina._--Thomas Tudor Tucker, Edanus Burke, Daniel Huger,
William Smith, Thomas Sumter.

_Georgia._--Abraham Baldwin, James Jackson, George Mathews.

_North Carolina._[13]--John Steele, Timothy Bloodworth, Hugh Williamson,
John Baptist Ashe, John Sevier.

_Rhode Island._[14]--Benjamin Bourn.




FIRST CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION.

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES

IN

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.


WEDNESDAY, March 4, 1789.

This being the day fixed for the meeting of the new Congress, the
following members of the House of Representatives appeared and took
their seats, viz:[15]

_From Massachusetts_, GEORGE THATCHER, FISHER AMES, GEORGE LEONARD, and
ELBRIDGE GERRY.

_From Connecticut_, BENJAMIN HUNTINGTON, JONATHAN TRUMBULL, and JEREMIAH
WADSWORTH.

_From Pennsylvania_, FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG, THOMAS HARTLEY,
PETER MUHLENBERG, and DANIEL HEISTER.

_From Virginia_, ALEXANDER WHITE.

_From South Carolina_, THOMAS TUDOR TUCKER.

A quorum of the members not being present, the House adjourned until
to-morrow at eleven o'clock.


THURSDAY, March 5.

Several other members attended, viz: from New Hampshire, NICHOLAS
GILMAN; from Massachusetts, BENJAMIN GOODHUE; from Connecticut, ROGER
SHERMAN and JONATHAN STURGES; and from Pennsylvania, HENRY WYNKOOP; and
no other members arriving, a quorum not being present, the House
adjourned, from day to day, until the 14th instant.


SATURDAY, March 14.

The following members took their seats, to wit: JAMES MADISON, junior,
JOHN PAGE, and RICHARD BLAND LEE, from Virginia.

A quorum not being yet present, the House adjourned, from day to day,
until the 17th instant.


TUESDAY, March 17.

SAMUEL GRIFFIN, from Virginia, took his seat.


WEDNESDAY, March 18.

ANDREW MOORE, from Virginia, took his seat.

No other member appearing, the House adjourned, from day to day, until
the 23d instant.


MONDAY, March 23.

The following members appeared, to wit:--

From New Jersey, ELIAS BOUDINOT; and from Maryland, WILLIAM SMITH.

No additional member appeared on the 24th.


WEDNESDAY, March 25.

JONATHAN PARKER, from Virginia, appeared and took his seat.

No additional member arrived until the 30th instant.


MONDAY, March 30.

GEORGE GALE, from Maryland, and THEODORICK BLAND, from Virginia,
appeared and took their seats.

No additional member on the 31st instant.


WEDNESDAY, April 1.

Two other members appeared, to wit: JAMES SCHUREMAN, from New Jersey,
and THOMAS SCOTT, from Pennsylvania, who, forming a quorum of the whole
body, it was, on motion,

      _Resolved_, That this House will proceed to the choice of a
      Speaker by ballot.

The House accordingly proceeded to ballot for a Speaker, when it was
found that a majority of the votes were in favor of FREDERICK AUGUSTUS
MUHLENBERG, one of the Representatives from Pennsylvania. Whereupon Mr.
MUHLENBERG was conducted to the chair, from whence he made his
acknowledgments to the House for so distinguished an honor.

The House then proceeded in the same manner to the appointment of a
Clerk, when it was found that Mr. JOHN BECKLEY was elected.

On motion,

_Ordered_, That the members do severally deliver in their credentials at
the Clerk's table.


THURSDAY, April 2.

LAMBERT CADWALADER, from New Jersey, appeared and took his seat.


FRIDAY, April 3.

GEORGE CLYMER, from Pennsylvania, appeared and took his seat.


SATURDAY, April 4.

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

The House proceeded to the election of a doorkeeper, and assistant
doorkeeper; when Gifford Dudley was chosen to the former, and Thomas
Claxton to the latter office.


MONDAY, April 6.

DANIEL CARROLL, from Maryland, appeared and took his seat.

_Ordered_, That leave be given to bring in a bill to regulate the taking
the oath or affirmation prescribed by the sixth article of the
Constitution; and that Messrs. WHITE, MADISON, TRUMBULL, GILMAN, and
CADWALADER, do prepare and bring in the same.

On motion,

      _Resolved_, That the form of the oath to be taken by the
      members of this House, as required by the third clause of
      the sixth article of the Constitution of Government of the
      United States, be as followeth, to wit: "I, A B, a
      Representative of the United States in the Congress
      thereof, do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be)
      in the presence of Almighty GOD, that I will support the
      Constitution of the United States. So help me God."

A message from the Senate, by Mr. ELLSWORTH.

      Mr. SPEAKER: I am charged by the Senate to inform this
      House, that a quorum of the Senate is now formed; that a
      President is elected for the sole purpose of opening the
      certificates and counting the votes of the electors of the
      several States, in the choice of a President and Vice
      President of the United States; and that the Senate is now
      ready in the Senate Chamber, to proceed, in presence of
      this House, to discharge that duty. I have it also in
      further charge to inform this House that the Senate has
      appointed one of its members to sit at the Clerk's table to
      make a list of the votes as they shall be declared,
      submitting it to the wisdom of this House to appoint one or
      more of its members for the like purpose.

On motion,

      _Resolved_, That Mr. Speaker, attended by the House, do now
      withdraw to the Senate Chamber, for the purpose expressed
      in the message from the Senate; and that Mr. PARKER and Mr.
      HEISTER be appointed on the part of this House, to sit at
      the Clerk's table with the member of the Senate, and make a
      list; of the votes, as the same shall be declared.

Mr. Speaker accordingly left the chair, and attended by the House,
withdrew to the Senate Chamber, and after some time returned to the
House.

Mr. Speaker resumed the chair.

Mr. PARKER and Mr. HEISTER then delivered in at the Clerk's table a list
of the votes of the electors of the several States in the choice of a
President and Vice President of the United States, as the same were
declared by the President of the Senate, in the presence of the Senate
and of this House, which was ordered to be entered on the Journal.[16]


WEDNESDAY, April 8.

Two other members, to wit: JNO. LAWRENCE, from New York, and THOMAS
FITZSIMONS, from Pennsylvania, appeared and took their seats.


_Duties on Imports._

On motion, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on
the state of the Union, Mr. PAGE in the chair.

Mr. MADISON.--I take the liberty, Mr. Chairman, at this early stage of
the business, to introduce to the committee a subject, which appears to
me to be of the greatest magnitude; a subject, sir, that requires our
first attention, and our united exertions.

No gentleman here can be unacquainted with the numerous claims upon our
justice; nor with the impotency which prevented the late Congress of the
United States from carrying into effect the dictates of gratitude and
policy.

The union, by the establishment of a more effective government, having
recovered from the state of imbecility that heretofore prevented a
performance of its duty, ought, in its first act, to revive those
principles of honor and honesty that have too long lain dormant.

The deficiency in our Treasury has been too notorious to make it
necessary for me to animadvert upon that subject. Let us content
ourselves with endeavoring to remedy the evil. To do this a national
revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while
it secures the object of revenue, it shall not be oppressive to our
constituents. Happy it is for us that such a system is within our power;
for I apprehend that both these objects may be obtained from an impost
on articles imported into the United States.

In pursuing this measure, I know that two points occur for our
consideration. The first respects the general regulation of commerce;
which, in my opinion, ought to be as free as the policy of nations will
admit. The second relates to revenue alone; and this is the point I mean
more particularly to bring into the view of the committee.

Not being at present possessed of sufficient materials for fully
elucidating these points, and our situation admitting of no delay, I
shall propose such articles of regulations only as are likely to
occasion the least difficulty.

The propositions made on this subject by Congress in 1783, having
received, generally, the approbation of the several States of the Union,
in some form or other, seem well calculated to become the basis of the
temporary system, which I wish the committee to adopt.[17] I am well
aware that the changes which have taken place in many of the States, and
in our public circumstances, since that period, will require, in some
degree, a deviation from the scale of duties then affixed: nevertheless,
for the sake of that expedition which is necessary, in order to embrace
the spring importations, I should recommend a _general_ adherence to the
plan.

This, sir, with the addition of a clause or two on the subject of
tonnage, I will now read, and, with leave, submit it to the committee,
hoping it may meet their approbation, as an expedient rendered eligible
by the urgent occasion there is for the speedy supplies of the federal
treasury, and a speedy rescue of our trade from its present anarchy.

      _Resolved_, As the opinion of this committee, that the
      following duties ought to be levied on goods, wares, and
      merchandise, imported into the United States, viz:

On rum, per gallon, ---- of a dollar; on all other spirituous liquors
----; on molasses ----; on Madeira wine ----; on all other wines ----;
on common bohea teas per lb. ----; on all other teas ----; on pepper
----; on brown sugar ----; on loaf sugar ----; on all other sugars ----;
on cocoa and coffee ----; on all other articles ---- per cent. on their
value at the time and place of importation.

That there ought, moreover, to be levied on all vessels in which goods,
wares, or merchandises shall be imported, the duties following, viz: On
all vessels built within the United States, and belonging wholly to
citizens thereof, at the rate of ---- per ton.

On all vessels belonging wholly to the subjects of Powers with whom the
United States have formed treaties, or partly to the subjects of such
Powers, and partly to citizens of the said States, at the rate of ----.

On all vessels belonging wholly or in part to the subjects of other
Powers, at the rate of ----.[18]

Mr. BOUDINOT.--The necessity of adopting some measure, like the one
proposed by the honorable gentleman from Virginia, is too apparent to
need any argument in its support. The plan which he has submitted to the
committee appears to be simple and sufficiently complete for the present
purpose; I shall, therefore, for my own part, be content with it, and
shall move you, sir, that the blanks be filled up in the manner they
were recommended to be charged by Congress in 1783. My reason for this
is, that those sums have been approved by the Legislatures of every
State represented on this floor, and of consequence must have been
agreeable to the sense of our constituents at that time; and, I believe,
nothing since has intervened to give us reason to believe they have made
an alteration in their sentiments.

Mr. WHITE.--I wish filling up the blanks may be deferred until the
business is more matured; nor will this be attended with a loss of time,
because the forms necessary to complete a bill will require so much as
to give gentlemen leisure to consider the proper quantum of impost to be
laid, as well on the enumerated articles as on the common mass of
merchandise rated _ad valorem_; for, as was hinted by my colleague,
something may have occurred to render an alteration in the sums
recommended in 1783 in some degree necessary; and if so, time will be
given to consider the subject with more attention in the progress of the
bill, and no unnecessary delay can arise; wherefore, I move you, sir,
that the committee now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit
again.

Mr. MADISON.--I do not consider it at this moment necessary to fill up
the blanks, nor had I it in contemplation at the time I offered the
propositions. I supposed that most of the gentlemen would wish time to
think upon the principles generally, and upon the articles particularly;
while others, who, from their situation and advantages in life, are more
conversant on this subject, may be induced to turn their particular
attention to a subject they are well able to do justice to, and to
assist the committee with their knowledge and information; unless such
gentlemen are now prepared and disposed to proceed in filling up the
blanks, I shall second the motion for the committee's rising.


THURSDAY, April 9.

EGBERT BENSON, from New York, and ISAAC COLES, from Virginia, appeared
and took their seats.


_Duties on Imports._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union, Mr. PAGE in the chair.

Mr. LAWRENCE.--The subject of the proposition laid before the committee
by the honorable gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. MADISON,) will now, I
presume, Mr. Chairman, recur for our deliberation. I imagine it to be of
considerable importance, not only to the United States, but to every
individual of the Union. The object of the revenue alone would place it
in this situation, and in this light I mean now to consider it. If I am
not mistaken, the honorable mover of the plan viewed it as a temporary
system, particularly calculated to embrace the spring importations;
therefore, in order to discover whether the mode laid before you is well
calculated to answer this end, it will be proper to consider its
operation. The plan consists of certain distinct propositions; one part
is intended to lay a specific sum on enumerated articles, the other a
certain per cent. _ad valorem_: perhaps simplifying the system may be
productive of happy consequences, and it strikes me that confusion and
perplexity will be best avoided by such a measure; hence, it may be
proper to lay a duty at a certain rate per cent. on the value of all
articles, without attempting an enumeration of any; because, if we
attempt to specify every article, it will expose us to a question which
must require more time than can be spared, to obtain the object that
appears to be in the view of the committee. A question, I say, sir, will
arise, whether the enumeration embraces every article that will bear a
duty, and whether the duty to be affixed is the proper sum the article
is able to bear. On this head, sir, I believe that the committee have
not materials sufficient to form even the basis of the system, beside
being wholly incompetent to determine the rate most advantageous to the
article of revenue, and most agreeable to the interest and convenience
of our constituents. Knowledge on these points can only be obtained by
experience; but hitherto we have had none, at least of a general nature.
The partial regulations made by the States, throw but little light on
the subject, and its magnitude ought to induce us to use the greatest
degree of caution.

A system of the nature which I hinted at, will, in my opinion, be not
only less complex and difficult in its formation, but likewise easier
and more certain in its operation; because the more simple a plan of
revenue is, the easier it becomes understood and executed: and it is,
sir, an earnest wish of mine, that all our acts should partake of this
nature. Moreover, by adopting the plan I have mentioned, you will
embrace the spring importation and give time for digesting and maturing
one upon more perfect principles; and, as the proposed system is
intended to be but a temporary one, _that_ I esteem to be best which
requires the least time to form it.

With great deference I have submitted these sentiments to the committee,
as what occurred to me to be the better plan of the two; though, I must
own, it is a subject on which I am not so fully informed as I wish to
be, and therefore hope the indulgence of the committee in considering
it.

Mr. FITZSIMONS.--I observe, Mr. Chairman, by what the gentlemen have
said, who have spoken on the subject before you, that the proposed plan
of revenue is viewed by them as a temporary system, to be continued only
until proper materials are brought forward and arranged in more perfect
form. I confess, sir, that I carry my views on this subject much
further; that I earnestly wish such a one which, in its operation, will
be some way adequate to our present situation, as it respects our
agriculture, our manufactures, and our commerce.

An honorable gentleman (Mr. LAWRENCE) has expressed an opinion that an
enumeration of articles will operate to confuse the business. So far am
I from seeing it in this point of view, that, on the contrary, I
conceive it will tend to facilitate it. Does not every gentleman
discover that, when a particular article is offered to the consideration
of the committee, he will be better able to give his opinion upon it
than on an aggregate question? because the partial and convenient impost
laid on such article by individual States is more or less known to every
member in the committee. It is also well known that the amount of such
revenue is more accurately calculated and better to be relied on,
because of the certainty of collection, less being left to the officers
employed in bringing it forward to the public treasury. It being my
opinion that an enumeration of articles will tend to clear away
difficulties, I wish as many to be selected as possible; for this reason
I have prepared myself with an additional number, which I wish subjoined
to those already mentioned in the motion on your table; among these are
some calculated to encourage the productions of our country, and protect
our infant manufactures; besides others tending to operate as sumptuary
restrictions upon articles which are often termed those of luxury. The
amendment I mean to offer is in these words: I shall read it in my
place, and, if I am seconded, hand it to you for the consideration of
the committee.

      _Resolved_, As the opinion of this committee, that the
      following duties ought to be laid on goods, wares, and
      merchandise imported into the United States, to wit:

[The articles enumerated for duty were beer, ale, and porter; beef,
pork, butter, candles, cheese, soap, cider, boots, steel, cables,
cordage, twine or pack thread, malt, nails, spikes, tacks, or brads;
salt, tobacco, snuff, blank books, writing, printing, and wrapping
paper; pasteboard, cabinet ware; buttons, saddles, gloves, hats,
millinery, castings of iron, slit, or rolled iron; leather, shoes,
slippers, and golo shoes; coach, chariot, and other four wheel
carriages; chaise, solo, or other two wheel carriages; nutmegs,
cinnamon, cloves, raisins, figs, currants, almonds.]

This motion was seconded by Mr. SCHUREMAN.

Mr. WHITE.--I shall not pretend to say that there ought not to be
specific duties laid upon every one of the articles enumerated in the
amendment just offered; but I am inclined to think, that entering so
minutely into the detail, will consume too much of our time, and thereby
lose us a greater sum than the additional impost on the last-mentioned
articles will bring in; because there may be doubts whether many of them
are capable of bearing an increased duty; but this, sir, is not the case
with those mentioned in the motion of my colleague: for I believe it
will be readily admitted on all sides, that such articles as rum, wines,
and sugar, have the capacity of bearing an additional duty besides a per
cent. _ad valorem_. His system appears to be simple, and its principles
I conceive, are such as gentlemen are agreed upon, consequently a bill
founded thereupon would pass this House in a few days; the operation of
the law would commence early, and the treasury be furnished with money
to answer the demands upon it. This law would continue until mature
deliberation, ample discussion, and full information, enabled us to
complete a perfect system of revenue: for, in order to charge specified
articles of manufacture, so as to encourage our domestic ones, it will
be necessary to examine the present state of each throughout the Union.
This will certainly be a work of labor and time, and will perhaps
require more of each than the committee have now in their power. Let us,
therefore, act upon the principles which are admitted, and take in the
most material and productive articles, leaving to a period of more
leisure and information a plan to embrace the whole.

Mr. TUCKER.--In common with the other gentlemen on this floor, I
consider the subject which engages our present deliberations as of very
great importance as it relates to our agriculture, manufactures, and
commerce; I also consider it of consequence that we should give full
satisfaction to our constituents by our decision, be that whatever it
may; and I think this most likely to be effected by establishing a
permanent regulation, although in the interim, a temporary system may be
expedient.

I have no objection, sir, to go so far into the matter as to pass a law
to collect an impost _ad valorem_, whilst it is understood to be but a
temporary system; and likewise to lay a duty on such enumerated articles
of importation as have been heretofore considered as proper ones by the
Congress of 1783. So far, sir, the matter may be plain to us, and we run
no hazard of doing any thing which may give dissatisfaction to any State
in the Union. The duties proposed by the Congress of 1783 were, I
believe, five per cent. on the value of all goods imported, and an
additional duty on a few enumerated articles.[19] This recommendation of
Congress has been so universally received by the several States, that I
think we run no risk of giving umbrage to any by adopting the plan; but
the other articles which have just been offered, are, I apprehend, to
many of us so novel, and, at the same time, so important, as to make it
hard to determine the propriety of taxing them in a few hours, or even
in a few days.

In order to preserve the peace and tranquillity of the Union, it will
become necessary that mutual deference and accommodation should take
place on subjects so important as the one I have first touched upon.
And, in order that this may take place, it is proper that gentlemen
deliver their sentiments with freedom and candor. I have done this in a
manner which I conceived it my duty to do, and shall just repeat that I
wish to confine the question to that part of the motion made by the
honorable gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. MADISON,) which respects laying
a general impost on the value of all goods imported, and the small
enumeration which precedes it: if it is in contemplation to do
otherwise, I shall be under the necessity of moving for a division of
the question. If I should lose this, and a high tonnage duty be insisted
on, I shall be obliged to vote against the measure altogether; when, if
the business is conducted on principles of moderation, I shall give my
vote for it to a certain degree.

Mr. HARTLEY.--If we consult the history of the ancient world, we shall
see that they have thought proper, for a long time past, to give great
encouragement to the establishment of manufactures, by laying such
partial duties on the importation of foreign goods, as to give the home
manufactures a considerable advantage in the price when brought to
market. It is also well known to this committee, that there are many
articles that will bear a higher duty than others, which are to remain
in the common mass, and be taxed with a certain impost _ad valorem_.
From this view of the subject I think it both politic and just that the
fostering hand of the General Government should extend to all those
manufactures which will tend to national utility. I am therefore sorry
that gentlemen seem to fix their mind to so early a period as 1783; for
we very well know our circumstances are much changed since that time: we
had then but few manufactures among us, and the vast quantities of goods
that flowed in upon us from Europe, at the conclusion of the war,
rendered those few almost useless; since then we have been forced by
necessity, and various other causes, to increase our domestic
manufactures to such a degree as to be able to furnish some in
sufficient quantity to answer the consumption of the whole Union, while
others are daily growing into importance. Our stock of materials is, in
many instances, equal to the greatest demand, and our artisans
sufficient to work them up even for exportation. In these cases, I take
it to be the policy of every enlightened nation to give their
manufactures that degree of encouragement necessary to perfect them,
without oppressing the other parts of the community; and under this
encouragement, the industry of the manufacturer will be employed to add
to the wealth of the nation.

Mr. MADISON.--From what has been suggested by the gentlemen that have
spoken on the subject before us, I am led to apprehend we shall be under
the necessity of travelling further into an investigation of principles
than what I supposed would be necessary, or had in contemplation when I
offered the propositions before you.

I am sensible that there is great weight in the observation that fell
from the honorable gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. TUCKER,) that it
will be necessary, on the one hand, to weigh and regard the sentiments
of the gentlemen from the different parts of the United States; but, on
the other hand, we must limit our consideration on this head, and,
notwithstanding all the deference and respect we pay to those
sentiments, we must consider the general interest of the Union; for this
is as much every gentleman's duty to consider as is the local or State
interest--and any system of impost that this committee may adopt must be
founded on the principles of mutual concession.

Gentlemen will be pleased to recollect, that those parts of the Union
which contribute more under one system than the other, are also those
parts more thinly planted, and consequently stand most in need of
national protection; therefore they will have less reason to complain of
unequal burthens.

There is another consideration; the States that are most advanced in
population, and ripe for manufactures, ought to have their particular
interests attended to in some degree. While these States retained the
power of making regulations of trade, they had the power to protect and
cherish such institutions; by adopting the present constitution, they
have thrown the exercise of this power into other hands: they must have
done this with an expectation that those interests would not be
neglected here.

In my opinion, it would be proper also for gentlemen to consider the
means of encouraging the great staple of America, I mean agriculture;
which I think may justly be styled the staple of the United States, from
the spontaneous productions which nature furnishes, and the manifest
advantage it has over every other object of emolument in this country.
If we compare the cheapness of our land with that of other nations, we
see so decided an advantage in that cheapness, as to have full
confidence of being unrivalled. With respect to the object of
manufactures, other countries may and do rival us; but we may be said to
have a monopoly in agriculture; the possession of the soil, and the
lowness of its price, give us as much a monopoly in this case, as any
nation or other parts of the world have in the monopoly of any article
whatever; but, with this advantage to us, that it cannot be shared nor
injured by rivalship.

If my general principle is a good one, that commerce ought to be free,
and labor and industry left at large to find its proper object, the only
thing which remains will be to discover the exceptions that do not come
within the rule I have laid down. I agree with the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, that there are exceptions, important in themselves, and
which claim the particular attention of the committee. Although the
freedom of commerce would be advantageous to the world, yet, in some
particulars, one nation might suffer to benefit others, and this ought
to be for the general good of society.

The next exception that occurs, is one on which great stress is laid by
some well informed men, and this with great plausibility. That each
nation should have within itself the means of defence, independent of
foreign supplies: that in whatever relates to the operations of war, no
State ought to depend upon a precarious supply from any part of the
world. There may be some truth in this remark, and therefore it is
proper for legislative attention. I am, though, well persuaded that the
reasoning on this subject has been carried too far. The difficulties we
experienced a few years ago, of obtaining military supplies, ought not
to furnish too much in favor of an establishment which would be
difficult and expensive; because our national character is now
established and recognized throughout the world, and the laws of war
favor national exertion more than intestine commotion, so that there is
good reason to believe that when it becomes necessary, we may obtain
supplies from abroad as readily as any other nation whatsoever. I have
mentioned this, because I think I see something among the enumerated
articles that seems to favor such a policy.

Mr. BOUDINOT.--I believe that it will not be disputed, that the best and
easiest way of supplying the public wants, is by raising a revenue on
the importation of goods by way of impost, though the manner in which it
should be done, I confess, is a subject on which I stand greatly in need
of information. I should, therefore, most cordially comply with the
request of the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. TUCKER,) in order to
obtain time for consideration, and to wait the arrival of the absent
gentlemen, in order that we may have that assistance which is to be
derived from them. Did I consider the question on the present motion
final, I should be at a loss how to act; but this, I take it, is not the
case. I presume it is intended by the mover only to lay his motion on
the table, with the original propositions open for debate and
consideration, till the committee are possessed of sufficient
information to proceed. I also confess, that, in general, I am in favor
of specific duties on enumerated articles. I shall therefore vote for
the amendment; but, in doing this, I shall not consider myself as bound
to support the whole, nor, indeed, any particular article which, upon
due consideration, I may deem either impolitic or unjust; for I cannot
conceive, that, by adopting the amendment, we tie up our hands, or
prevent future discussion. No, sir, that is not the case; and as I trust
we all have the same object in view, namely, the public good of the
United States, so I hope that a willing ear will be lent to every
proposition likely to promote this end; nor do I doubt but gentlemen are
mutually inclined to sacrifice local advantages for the accomplishment
of this great purpose.

On motion of Mr. LEE, the committee rose and reported progress, and the
House adjourned.


SATURDAY, April 11.

Mr. CLYMER submitted it to the consideration of the committee, how far
it was best to bring propositions forward in this way. Not that he
objected to this mode of encouraging manufactures and obtaining revenue,
by combining the two objects in one bill. He was satisfied that a
political necessity existed for both the one and the other, and it would
not be amiss to do it in this way, but perhaps the business would be
more speedily accomplished by entering upon it systematically.

Mr. BOUDINOT.--It appears to me that this business of raising revenue
points out two questions, of great importance, demanding much
information. The first is, what articles are proper objects of taxation,
and the probable amount of revenue from each. The second is, the proper
mode of collecting the money arising from this fund, when the object and
its amount are ascertained. There are three sources from which we may
gain information on the first question, namely, from the revenue laws of
the different States, for I believe a partial revenue has been raised
almost in every State by an impost. The second source of information,
and a very natural one, is the great body of merchants spread throughout
the United States; this is a very respectable and well-informed body of
our fellow-citizens, and great deference ought to be paid to their
communications--they are in a peculiar situation under the present
constitution, to which they are generally esteemed sincere friends--they
are also more immediately interested in the event of the proposed
measure, than any other class of men. To this Government they look for
protection and support, and for such regulations as are beneficial to
commerce; for these reasons, I think they deserve our confidence, and we
ought to obtain from them such information as will enable the Congress
to proceed to a general permanent system on more solid principles.

There are gentlemen on this floor well calculated to represent the
mercantile interests of this country, and in whose integrity and
abilities I have the highest confidence; but it is the duty of the
members of this body to see that the principles upon which we act, are
those calculated to promote the general good, and not confined to the
local interests of a few individuals, or even individual States, so that
they will decline trusting alone to this species of information, when
another is attainable.

Mr. FITZSIMONS thought it best to make the system as perfect as possible
before the committee determined its duration.

Mr. MADISON, that the subject which was under consideration divided
itself, as had been observed by the honorable gentlemen from Jersey,
into two parts; and hence he concluded that they might very properly be
provided for by two separate bills; and while the Committee of the Whole
are selecting articles and taxing them, another committee can be
employed in devising the mode of collection. This method he thought more
likely to reconcile the opinions of the committee than any he had heard
suggested.

Mr. SHERMAN gave it as his opinion, that in fixing the duties on
particular articles, if they could not ascertain the exact quantum, it
would be better to run the risk of erring in setting low duties than
high ones, because it was less injurious to commerce to raise them than
to lower them; but nevertheless, he was for laying on duties which some
gentlemen might think high, as he thought it better to derive revenue
from impost than from direct taxation, or any other method in their
power. He moved that the article of rum should be charged with fifteen
cents per gallon--he used the term cents because it was a denomination
of national coin, fixed by the late Congress, ten of which make a _dime_
and ten _dimes_ one dollar.

Mr. SMITH was apprehensive fifteen cents would be too high, and
therefore moved ten cents, which he thought would raise more revenue
than the other.

Mr. MADISON advised and moved for the rising of the committee, in order
to give gentlemen time to make up their minds respecting the quantum of
impost to be laid on each article.


MONDAY, April 13.

WILLIAM FLOYD, from New York; THOMAS SINNICKSON, from New Jersey; JOSHUA
SENEY, from Maryland; EDANUS BURKE, DANIEL HUGER, and WILLIAM SMITH,
from South Carolina, appeared and took their seats.

On motion,

_Ordered_, That Mr. BENSON, Mr. PETER MUHLENBERG, and Mr. GRIFFIN, be a
committee to consider of and report to the House respecting the
ceremonial of receiving the President, and that they be authorized to
confer with a committee of the Senate for the purpose.


TUESDAY, April 14.

_Duties on Imports._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union; Mr. PAGE in the chair.

Mr. BLAND, from Virginia, thought the committee not prepared to enter on
the business of impost in the accurate manner which the form of the
propositions seemed to imply. No gentleman on the floor could be more
desirous than he was to go into the measure of a permanent system; but
he could not agree to proceed at this time, for want of information.
When he looked at the list of articles, he saw some calculated to give
encouragement to home manufactures. This might be in some degree proper;
but it was a well-known fact, that the manufacturing arts in America
were only in their infancy, and far from being able to answer the
demands of the country; then certainly you lay a tax upon the whole
community, in order to put the money in the pockets of a few, whenever
you burthen the importation with a heavy impost.

Mr. SCOTT.--The subject before us naturally divides itself into two
heads. First, what article shall be the subject of a particular tax, and
what shall remain in the common mass liable to an impost _ad valorem_?
The second, what the sum is that is proper for the article we select?
For both these points will be necessary, because it can hardly be
supposed that all articles can be enumerated, while some certainly
ought. This being the case, it leads us to inquire what rule or
principle shall be laid down in order to make a proper discrimination;
for surely some reason should be assigned for this distinction. I
presume the particular article which is to be subjected to an
extraordinary duty must either come at so cheap a rate, according to its
intrinsic value, as to bear a greater impost without being unreasonably
expensive, or it must be one which we do not stand in need of at all,
and only used for the purposes of luxury. If an article does not come
within one of these descriptions, I see no reason why it should be taxed
in an extraordinary manner.

On motion of Mr. GALE, the word _rum_ was changed into distilled spirits
of Jamaica proof.

Mr. LAWRENCE proposed to lay twelve cents on this article, saying, I
believe, Mr. Chairman, it will be necessary to consider, when we are
about to lay a duty on any article, how far it is likely to be
collected, especially if our main object is to obtain revenue by our
impost. I trust it does not require much illustration to prove to the
satisfaction of the committee, that if you lay your duties too high, it
will be a temptation to smuggling; for, in the proportion which that sum
bears to the value of the article, will be the risk run in every attempt
to introduce it in a clandestine manner, and, if this temptation is made
too strong, the article will furnish no revenue. I believe, if the
committee shall impose a duty of fifteen cents, as proposed by the
gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. SHERMAN,) it will be so strong a
temptation for smuggling, that we shall lose our revenue altogether, or
be compelled to use a mode of collection probably different from what we
have been accustomed to--a mode so expensive as to absorb the whole
produce of the tax.

I wish to lay as large a sum on this article as good policy may deem
expedient; it is an article of great consumption, and though it cannot
be reckoned a necessary of life, yet it is in such general use, that it
may be expected to pay a very considerable sum into your treasury, when
others may not with so much certainty be relied upon. But, when we
consider the relative proportion of the first cost of it, and the
fifteen cents duty, we shall find it about one third. This, I cannot
help thinking, is too high, as the risk of a total loss may be ventured
in order to save so great a sum; it is surely a great temptation, and I
dread its consequences on more accounts than one.

Mr. MADISON.--I would tax this article with as high a duty as can be
collected, and I am sure, if we judge from what we have heard and seen
in the several parts of the Union, that it is the sense of the people of
America that this article should have a duty imposed upon it weighty
indeed. The duty proposed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LAWRENCE)
very little exceeds what is laid in this State, and very little what is
laid in some other States, while some have thought it expedient to
impose an excise superior. The question then is, whether the highest sum
can be collected? I am of opinion that higher duties may generally be
collected under the government of the Union than could be under that of
the particular States, because it has been the policy of some, not only
to decline going hand in hand together, but actually to oppose
regulations made in a neighboring State. Being persuaded, likewise, that
the highest sum will not exceed the power of the law to enforce the
collection of, I shall vote for it.

Mr. BOUDINOT.--I am in favor of taxing this article as high as there is
a probability of collecting the duty. I think our doing so will answer
two or three good purposes. The present object of the committee is to
raise a revenue, and no article on the list before you is more likely to
be productive than this one; but a high duty may also discourage the use
of ardent spirits; if not, it may discourage the West Indies from
turning their molasses into rum. This being the case, they have no other
market for molasses than this country, and our own distilleries, with
the advantages arising therefrom, will be able to rival them in the
manufacture of that article; so far it may tend to the benefit of the
country. I conceive it might be proper, on these accounts, to lay a much
higher duty than has been proposed, were it not for the considerations
mentioned by the gentleman from New York, that we run a risk of losing
all by grasping at too much.

Mr. LAWRENCE.--The sum proposed is higher than the duty collected in
this State, which is about eight cents; I fear, therefore, that it
cannot be collected. If we are to reason and act as moralists on this
point, I am certain it is the wish of every member to prevent the use of
ardent spirits altogether, for their influence on the morals of the
people is of the most pernicious kind. Nor does the mischief terminate
here, as I apprehend it is equally destructive to the health; but we are
not to deliberate and determine on this subject as moralists, but as
politicians, and endeavor to draw (if I may use the expression) from the
vices of mankind, that revenue which our citizens must, in one form or
other, contribute. The question is, what shall be the duty on any
particular article? To accomplish this purpose, we must determine by the
circumstances of that article. Now, if we lay a high duty on Jamaica
rum, it is supposed it will prevent the consumption; but then the
purpose we have in view is frustrated, either because we cannot collect
the tax, or the object of it is no longer imported. The consequence in
this latter case would be, that the morals of our citizens are not
impaired; yet it does not appear to me that this consequence would
certainly flow from a system of high duties. I rather fear it would lead
no further than to set men on schemes to evade the duty; and none of us
are ignorant of the ingenuity and invention which can be exercised, when
interest prompts mankind to an evasion of the law. We know the situation
of the different States; the coast disposed by its prodigious extent to
favor every means of illicit trade. A cargo of rum could be landed in
Jersey, and the whole, reshipped in small vessels, might soon be brought
into this city. If this should be the effect of our law, we have no
other way to correct the operation, but by adopting a mode of collection
odious to all, on account of the numerous train of officers it would
require in its execution. But there would also be a danger of vessels
running into creeks and small inlets, for the purpose of landing their
cargoes, as well as on the sea-shore. Hence a necessity would arise of
employing a number of vessels to check and correct such abuses, and the
probable event would be, that all the impost collected would go to
defray the expense of getting it into the treasury.

The committee now agreed to tax ardent spirits, of Jamaica proof,
fifteen cents; and all other spirituous liquors twelve cents.

On filling up the blank on molasses:

Mr. MADISON.--It is agreed, I presume, that spirits of every kind are
proper objects of taxation, but whether we shall tax spirits in the case
before us, or whether we shall tax the article from which it comes, is a
question worthy of the consideration of the committee for several
reasons. I believe it will be best to lay our hands on the duty, by
charging this article on its importation, to avoid a more disagreeable
measure. I would, therefore, lay such a duty on molasses, as is
proportioned to what we have affixed upon rum, making an allowance in
favor of our own manufacture. I think eight cents per gallon will allow
a sufficient advantage to them, but of this I am not positive, and,
therefore, shall not pertinaciously adhere to that sum, if it be
thought too high; but I presume I am right in the principle upon which I
contend, that we ought to collect the duty on the importation of
molasses, in preference to any other way.

Mr. FITZSIMONS.--I think the duty on this article depends, in a great
measure, upon what has been already agreed to. If the tax of West India
and country rum is not well proportioned, it may be destructive of the
end we have in contemplation. If, agreeably to the idea of the gentleman
from New York, we affix a low duty, a great deal more rum will, in all
probability, be distilled and used, than heretofore; of course, it will
effectually rival the Jamaica rum, and the Union will lose the revenue
which we calculate upon. Eight cents, I apprehend, is as well
proportioned to the other taxes as can be devised.

Mr. GOODHUE considered molasses as a raw material, essentially requisite
for the well-being of a very extensive and valuable manufacture. It
ought likewise to be considered (as was truly stated) a necessary of
life. In the Eastern States it entered into the diet of the poorer
classes of people, who were, from the decay of trade and other
adventitious circumstances, totally unable to sustain such a weight as a
tax of eight cents would be upon them. Moreover, the tax was upon
particular States as well as individuals, for it was a fact of public
notoriety, that Massachusetts imported more molasses than all the other
States together. She imports from 30,000 to 40,000 hogsheads annually.
He would make one observation more. It had been the policy of Great
Britain, as he well remembered, to encumber and depress the distillation
of molasses. To do this, at one time they laid a duty of three pence
sterling per gallon. It was conceived to be an oppressive measure, but
it had little other effect than to cause heart-burnings and enmity. It
produced no revenue, and the Parliament were forced to reduce the duty
to a penny. From experience, therefore, as well as from the arguments
before urged, he was inclined to believe that the committee would be
satisfied with fixing a lower sum. He could not consent to allow more
than two cents.

Mr. THATCHER.--It appears to me, that for the want of a certain and
fixed principle to act upon, there is a great danger of making some
improper establishments. It is for this reason that I wish not to hurry
on the business with so much precipitation. Did gentlemen consider, when
they agreed to a high duty on ardent spirits, that it would be a pretext
for increasing the duties on a necessary of life. I presume a principal
reason why a high tax on spirits was admitted, was in order to
discourage the use of it among ourselves. If this was the intention of
the committee, I have no objection to the burthen; but, even here, I
fear difficulties will arise. Did we judiciously examine whether the
spirit of the law accords with the habits and manners of the people? and
did we assure ourselves of the full execution of the law? If we did
not, the act becomes impolitic, because a law which cannot be executed
tends to make the Government less respectable.

Mr. AMES.--I have not had the advantage of hearing all the arguments in
support of the eight cents proposed; but those I have heard I am not
satisfied with. The principles on which this tax is founded, I
understand to be this: that it is an article of luxury, and of pretty
general consumption, so that the duty is expected to fall equally upon
all; but that it will not operate in this manner, I think is easily
demonstrable. Can a duty of fifty per cent. _ad valorem_, paid, as it
were, in an exclusive manner, by the State of Massachusetts, be equal?
No, sir. But taking it as a part of the general system, can it be equal
unless a proportionable duty, equal to fifty per cent., is laid upon
articles consumed in other parts of the Union? No, sir; and is it in the
contemplation of gentlemen to lay duties so high as to produce this
equality? I trust it is not; because such duties could never be
collected. Is not, therefore, eight cents disproportioned to the rates
fixed, or intended to be imposed on other articles? I think it is; and,
if to these considerations we add what has been said before, relative to
its being a raw material important to a considerable manufacture, we
cannot hesitate to reject it.

However gentlemen may think the use of this article dangerous to the
health and morals of our fellow-citizens--I would also beg them to
consider, that it is no more so than every other kind of spirituous
liquors; that it will grow into an article for exportation; and although
I admit we could export it even encumbered with the duty proposed, yet
by it we run the risk of having the manufacture totally ruined, for it
can hardly now stand a competition at home with the West India rum, much
less can it do so abroad. If the manufacturers of country rum are to be
devoted to certain ruin, to mend the morals of others, let them be
admonished that they prepare themselves for the event: but in the way we
are about to take, destruction comes on so sudden, they have not time to
seek refuge in any other employment whatsoever. If their situation will
not operate to restrain the hand of iron policy, consider how
immediately they are connected with the most essential interests of the
Union, and then let me ask if it is wise, if it is reconcilable to
national prudence, to take measures subversive of your very existence?
For I do contend, that the very existence of the Eastern States depends
upon the encouragement of their navigation and fishery, which receive a
deadly wound by an excessive impost on the article before us.

I would concur in any measure calculated to exterminate the poison
covered under the form of ardent spirits, from our country; but it
should be without violence. I approve as much as any gentleman the
introduction of malt liquors, believing them not so pernicious as the
one in common use; but before we restrain ourselves to the use of them,
we ought to be certain that we have malt and hops, as well as
brew-houses for the manufacture. Now, I deny that we have these in
sufficient abundance to the eastward; but if we had, they are not taxed.
Then why should the poor of Massachusetts be taxed for the beverage they
use of spruce, molasses and water? It surely is unreasonable. I hope
gentlemen will not adopt the motion for eight cents until they are
furnished with some better evidence of its propriety and policy than any
that has yet been given, or as I suspect that can be given.

Mr. FITZSIMONS was pleased that gentlemen went so fully into a
discussion of a subject which they conceived of great importance, but he
begged them not to lose sight of an observation that had already been
made, that whenever a particular duty was supposed to bear hard on any
one member of the Union, it ought to be regarded as a part only of a
system bearing equally upon all. He was a friend to commerce, it was his
particular profession, and what he had principally devoted his attention
to; and therefore it might justly be imagined he was unwilling to fetter
it with restraints; but as a member of this body, he considered it
proper to forego a pertinacious adhesion to that system, when its
interest came in competition with the general welfare.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Ames) has represented the proposed
regulation as tending eventually to the ruin of the commerce, fisheries,
and manufactures of that State. I do not believe (added he) such a
consequence would result from a duty of eight cents on a gallon of
molasses; if I did, I would be one of the last to advocate the measure;
but to understand this circumstance more fully, let us proceed to an
inquiry of the ground on which we stand. The State of Massachusetts
imports a greater proportion of this article than any other in the
Union; she will have therefore (say the opponents of the measure) to pay
exclusively all the impost upon it. Let us examine this. Some part of
the molasses is consumed in the substance, but all the remainder is
distilled: this must either be consumed in the State, or exported from
it; in the latter case, I would propose that all the rum shipped to
foreign nations should draw back the duties it had paid as molasses.
This would obviate all that was said relative to the competition between
this State and other nations at a foreign market. As to what is
exported, but consumed in some other parts of the United States, it is
but proper that a duty should be paid, and although it may be advanced
in the first instance by the people of Massachusetts, yet it will be
ultimately paid by the consumers in other parts.

What is consumed within the State itself, gentlemen surely do not mean
to have excluded from a duty. If they consume more country rum than West
India, they pay a less duty than those States which consume a greater
proportion of the latter. As to what is used in its raw, unmanufactured
state, it will be sufficient to observe, that as it is generally a
substitute for sugar, the consumers will therefore avoid the tax on that
article, and pay it on the other. In Pennsylvania they mostly use sugar;
now, if the people there pay a tax on that article, it is but
distributive justice that the people of Massachusetts pay one on the
article they use for the same purpose.

Mr. GOODHUE.--Fifteen cents, the sum laid on Jamaica spirits, is about
one-third part of its value; now eight cents on molasses is considerably
more: the former is an article of luxury, as was observed when it was
under consideration, therefore that duty might not be improper; but the
latter cannot be said to partake of that quality in the substance, and
when manufactured into rum, it is no more a luxury than Jamaica spirits.
I cannot see, therefore, why molasses ought to be taxed forty or fifty
per cent. when the other pays but thirty-three. Surely the substance
ought not to pay at this rate--then what good reason can be offered for
the measure?

Mr. BOUDINOT had attended to the arguments of the gentlemen on both
sides of the question, and was led to believe the proportion was not
properly observed. By the resolution of Congress in 1783, the molasses
was fixed upon due consideration at one penny, and West India rum at
fourpence. The proposed proportion was two-thirds of what is charged on
West India rum. He thought this too high, as it would be an encumbrance
on a considerable manufacture; six cents were therefore a more equitable
rate than eight cents were; he believed also, that it was as much as the
article would bear, especially if it was considered that the whole of
the article was not manufactured into rum, but a large proportion
consumed in substance. This might also be near what is intended to be
charged on sugar; by fixing it at this rate, the necessity of lowering
the duty at some future day would be avoided, which he thought an object
worthy of the committee's consideration.

Mr. BOUDINOT wished the gentleman to consider the difference in the
price; if he did that, he would allow it to be reduced to six cents; if
this principle could now be fixed, it would carry them through the
whole.

Mr. PARTRIDGE allowed, if all the molasses was distilled into rum, that
a small duty might be proper; but when it was considered as an article
of sustenance to the poor, and as a requisite to the support of the
fisheries and navigation, he hoped the committee would allow but a very
small one indeed. He wished it was possible to discriminate between what
was manufactured into rum, and what was consumed in the raw state,
because a higher duty might be collected in the former case than in the
latter.

Mr. FITZSIMONS stated, that there were 327,000 gallons of rum imported
into Pennsylvania in 1785, which would tend to show how great a part
was consumed by the citizens of the Union; a demand in one State so
great as this, proved how likely it was for New England rum to rival the
West India. He thought the prices of the two articles gave the country
rum a very considerable advantage, and therefore a duty of seven cents
could not be very injurious to the manufacture.

The question was put on seven cents and lost.

And it was agreed to fill the blank with six cents.

On filling up the blank on Madeira wine,

Mr. SHERMAN moved fifteen cents.

Mr. GILMAN moved twenty cents, and

Mr. HARTLEY moved thirty cents, in order (as he observed) to make it
correspond with the rate per cent. on the value; as the principle of
proportion seemed to be admitted by the committee.

Mr. SHERMAN said, it appeared to him to be pretty well proportioned;
because those who accustomed themselves to drink wine, consumed two or
three times as much as those who used spirits, and consequently paid a
due proportion.

Mr. FITZSIMONS.--I shall move you, sir, that the blank be filled with
fifty cents. I observed some gentlemen, in their arguments on the last
article, laid great stress upon the impropriety of taxing the
necessaries of life that were principally consumed by the poorer class
of citizens. I do not think any of the members of this committee
consider the article of Madeira wine a necessary of life, at least to
those whose incomes are only sufficient for a temperate subsistence;
therefore no objection of this kind can be made on the present occasion.
The propriety of a high tax on wines, I apprehend, is self-evident,
whether we consider the price of the article, or the ability of the
people to pay who consume it. The value of a pipe of Madeira wine, I
believe, is about two hundred dollars, a hogshead of rum is worth about
forty dollars. The ability of those who consume the one and the other
are, I suppose, in nearly the same ratio. I do not pretend to know what
are the intentions of gentlemen on this subject, but my wish is, to
raise so considerable a revenue from imposts as to render it unnecessary
to apply to any other mode. If this be the wish of the committee also,
they will be inclined to raise a great part of it from the consumption
of those people who are best able to pay, among whom we may, with great
propriety, reckon the consumers of Madeira wine.

Mr. P. MUHLENBERG thought his colleague's observations were very
judicious, and said they met exactly his ideas; he therefore seconded
the motion for fifty cents.

Mr. BLAND.--I am not against laying any sum on this article which there
is a probability of collecting; but I am afraid we are running wild in
the business, and although we appear to be in search of revenue, we are
pursuing a track that will lead us wide of our mark. I am really
suspicious, if we lay a duty of fifty cents upon Madeira wine, we shall
not have a single gallon entered in any port of the United States, and
we shall fully verify to the world the truth of an old maxim, that two
and two, in finance, do not make four. I would therefore suggest to the
committee, the propriety of considering well, whether they can, or
cannot, collect the high duty proposed. If they are well convinced that
it can be done, and will satisfy me only that there is a probability of
its being the case, I shall cheerfully concur in the motion; but at
present, I am of opinion we shall not be able to obtain any revenue
whatsoever if the tax is laid so high.

Mr. BOUDINOT.--I agree entirely with the principle of laying duties
according to their relative value, and hope the committee will keep up
the line of proportion as near as possible. It is only in the
application of this principle on the present occasion, that I differ
with the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, for whose opinions I
have the highest respect. I confess, too, that he is much better able to
ascertain the price of foreign articles than I am; but I believe, with
regard to this one of Madeira wine, I have it in my power to ascertain
it pretty well. I take it, that a pipe of wine usually costs at Madeira
from twenty-five to thirty pounds sterling; but then I would wish the
committee to take into consideration that this wine is paid for there in
our own produce at a very advantageous rate, which reduces the nominal
sterling sum down in value to a like sum of our currency. I therefore
look upon it, that we may calculate the cost of a gallon of Madeira wine
at one dollar; for I cannot conceive that any gentleman entertains an
idea of taxing the risk the merchant runs in importing the wine, or the
increased value it obtains during the time it takes to ripen for sale.
In laying our duties we ought to apportion it to the value of the
article at the time and place of importation, without taking advantage
of such adventitious circumstances. Beside, there is a considerable loss
attends keeping Madeira. The storage is no inconsiderable expense, and
the evaporation is an actual loss in quantity, which the merchant is
obliged to replace by filling up the cask. Under these considerations, I
think it may be admitted, that twenty or twenty-five cents per gallon is
a sufficient tax. Moreover, it may be easily demonstrated, that such a
duty would be more productive than fifty cents; because it would be with
greater certainty collected. There is another reason that induces me to
think twenty cents more proper; fifty cents for a gallon of wine is a
large sum for a merchant to lay down in duties; it must abridge his
mercantile operations, and consequently tend to discourage the Madeira
trade, which, in my humble opinion, is one of the most advantageous
America has left to her, from the selfish policy that actuates some
foreign Powers; therefore we ought not to burthen it to so great a
degree as the proposed duty seems to have in contemplation.

Mr. FITZSIMONS withdrew his motion for fifty cents, and moved
thirty-three and one-third cents.

The question was put upon thirty-three and one-third cents as the
highest sum, and agreed to, being twenty-one votes for it, and nineteen
against it.

The next article "on all other wines," presented itself in order for the
consideration of the committee.

Mr. HEISTER observed, there were a great variety of wines included in
that general expression, the prices of which were very different; some
worth even more than Madeira, and others less; he submitted, therefore,
to the committee the propriety of discriminating and taxing them
according to their value.

Mr. BOUDINOT acquiesced in the remark.

Mr. FITZSIMONS did not think it worth while, at this time, to engage the
committee in making such a discrimination. The rich wines were imported
in no very considerable quantities, and if the duty was laid pretty
high, it would tend to exclude the most inferior and low wines from
being introduced.

It was thereupon agreed to lay twenty cents on all other wines.

The next article on the list was "bohea tea," on which

Mr. FITZSIMONS observed, that he meant this article not only as a
revenue, but as a regulation of a commerce highly advantageous to the
United States. The merchants of this country have, from a variety of
circumstances, and finding their trade restrained and embarrassed, been
under the necessity of exploring channels to which they were heretofore
unaccustomed. At length they have succeeded in discovering one that bids
fair to increase our national importance and prosperity, while at the
same time it is lucrative to the persons engaged in its prosecution. I
mean, sir, the trade to China and the East Indies. I have no doubt but
what it will receive the encouragement of the Federal Government for
some time to come. There is scarcely any direct intercourse of this
nature, but what requires some assistance in the beginning; it is
peculiarly necessary in our case, from the jealousy subsisting in Europe
of this infant branch of commerce. It has been thought proper, under
some of the State governments, to foster and protect a direct
communication with India. I hope the Government of the United States has
an equal disposition to give this trade their encouragement.

I wish, therefore, the committee would pass over the article for the
present, and permit it to come in at another place in the list, where I
mean to move a discrimination in the duty on teas, according as they are
imported, directly from China in our own ships, or in any ships from
Europe.

The articles of teas and pepper were passed over for the present.

Mr. BOUDINOT proposed one cent per pound on sugar.

Two cents were afterwards proposed, when

Mr. FITZSIMONS remarked, that one gallon of molasses weighed eight
pounds; that at six cents it did not pay a cent per pound; could it,
therefore, be called anywise equal to such a tax on sugar? Moreover,
sugar is an article of as general consumption as molasses, and when it
is of this inferior quality, it enters as much or more into the
consumption of the poor as the other, while, at the same time, molasses
will sweeten more, according to its weight, than even the best sugar;
from which considerations, I think gentlemen will be satisfied by
putting it on an equality with molasses; therefore I do not oppose the
one cent.

On the question, the committee agreed to tax it but one cent per pound,
and loaf sugar three cents per pound. All other sugars one and a half
cent per pound. On coffee two and a half cents per pound.

On motion of Mr. BLAND, the committee rose and reported progress.
Adjourned.


WEDNESDAY, April 15.

A petition of David Ramsay, of the State of South Carolina, was
presented to the House and read, setting forth that Mr. William Smith, a
member returned to serve in this House as one of the representatives for
the State of South Carolina, was, at the time of his election,
ineligible thereto, and came within the disqualification of the third
paragraph of the constitution, which declares, "that no person shall be
a representative who shall not have been seven years a citizen of the
United States," and praying that these allegations may be inquired by
the House.

Referred to the Committee on Elections.

Mr. BENSON, from the committee to whom it was referred to consider of
and report to the House respecting the ceremonial of receiving the
President, and to whom was also referred a letter from the Chairman of a
Committee of the Senate to the SPEAKER, communicating an instruction
from that House to a committee thereof, to report if any, and what,
arrangements are necessary for the reception of the President, made the
following report:

      "That Mr. Osgood, the proprietor of the house lately
      occupied by the President of Congress, be requested to put
      the same, and the furniture therein, in proper condition
      for the residence and use of the President of the United
      States, to provide for his temporary accommodation.

      "That it will be most eligible, in the first instance, that
      a committee of three members from the Senate, and five from
      the House of Representatives, to be appointed by the Houses
      respectively, to attend to receive the President at such
      place as he shall embark from New Jersey for this city, and
      conduct him without form to the house lately occupied by
      the President of Congress, and that at such time
      thereafter, as the President shall signify it will be
      convenient for him, he be formally received by both Houses.

      "That a committee of two members from the Senate, and three
      members from the House of Representatives, to be appointed
      by the Houses respectively, wait on the Vice President of
      the United States, as soon as he shall come to this city,
      and, in the name of the Congress of the United States,
      congratulate him on his arrival."

And a committee of five was balloted for and chosen accordingly, for the
purpose of waiting on the President.

Another committee of three was appointed to wait on the Vice President.

_Duties on Imports._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union, Mr. PAGE in the chair; the question being on
inserting, in the list of dutiable articles, beer, ale, and porter--

Mr. FITZSIMONS meant to make an alteration in this article, by
distinguishing beer, ale, and porter, imported in casks, from what was
imported in bottles. He thought this manufacture one highly deserving of
encouragement. If the morals of the people were to be improved by what
entered into their diet, it would be prudent in the national Legislature
to encourage the manufacture of malt liquors. The small protecting
duties laid in Pennsylvania had a great effect towards the establishment
of breweries; they no longer imported this article, but, on the
contrary, exported considerable quantities, and, in two or three years,
with the fostering aid of Government, would be able to furnish enough
for the whole consumption of the United States. He moved nine cents per
gallon.

Mr. LAWRENCE seconded the motion. He would have this duty so high as to
give a decided preference to American beer; it would tend also to
encourage agriculture, because the malt and hops consumed in the
manufacture were the produce of our own grounds.

Mr. SMITH (of Maryland) was opposed to such high duties as seemed to be
in the contemplation of some members of the committee. He thought enough
might be raised if the tax was lowered. He formed this opinion from some
calculations he had made with respect to the imports at Baltimore. He
stated them to amount for the last year, at the rate now proposed, to
L258,163; to this, if he added five other districts in Maryland, the
probable amount of which, on the same principle, would be L185,537;
then, these two sums multiplied by twelve, the supposed proportion that
Maryland ought to bear of the national debt, would produce L5,324,400, a
sum exceeding very considerably what the wants of the Union required.

Mr. GALE thought a duty of nine cents would operate as a prohibition
upon the importation of beer and porter. He remarked the advantages
which America possessed in growing malt and hops for the manufacture of
these articles. In addition to this, the risk and expense of bringing it
from Europe was to be considered. Upon the whole, he concluded so high a
duty as nine cents would give the brewers here a monopoly, defeat the
purpose of obtaining revenue, enhance the price to the consumer, and
thereby establish the use of spirituous liquors. For these
considerations he was against that sum.

Mr. SINNICKSON declared himself a friend to this manufacture, and
thought if the duty was laid high enough to effect a prohibition, the
manufacture would increase, and, of consequence, the price be lessened.
He considered it of importance, inasmuch as the materials were produced
in the country, and tended to advance the agricultural interest.

Mr. MADISON moved to lay an impost of eight cents on all beer imported.
He did not think this sum would give a monopoly, but hoped it would be
such an encouragement as to induce the manufacture to take deep root in
every State in the Union; in this case, it would produce the collateral
good hinted at by the gentleman from New Jersey, which, in his opinion,
was an object well worthy of being attended to. He observed, that, in
the State of New York, the article paid a duty equal to six cents on
importation, and if brought in foreign vessels, it amounted to eight
cents; and yet quantities of it were still imported, which proved that
eight cents would not amount to a prohibition.

The committee agreed hereupon to charge it at eight cents.

On all beer, ale, or porter, imported in bottles, per dozen, twenty-five
cents. Agreed to without debate.

On every barrel of beef it was moved to lay a duty of a dollar per
barrel.

Mr. BLAND thought that very little revenue was likely to be collected on
this article, let the duty be more or less; and as it was to be had in
sufficient quantities within the United States, perhaps a tax amounting
to a prohibition would be proper.

Mr. THATCHER admitted that there was beef enough to be got in every part
of the country, but it was fresh beef. Some States, from local
circumstances, were unable to salt and preserve it, therefore a tax on
this article would operate as a partial tax upon those States. If there
is a sufficient quantity in the other States to answer their own
consumption, they will feel no part of the burthen; but it appeared
unnecessary to him to lay this restriction, because he found some States
capable of exporting beef on terms as reasonably low as any other
country could, and it could not, therefore, be contended for as a
requisite encouragement to this branch of the agricultural interest.

Mr. GOODHUE did not contend that it was necessary to lay a particular
duty on beef, although it was among the enumerated articles admitted by
the committee. He was satisfied of the fact, that meat could be put up
here cheaper than in Europe, and afforded at a less price, so there was
little to apprehend from rivalship.

Mr. MADISON thought that almost every State in the Union had more of
this article than was necessary for its own consumption, and
consequently there was no danger of its being imported, unless the
quality of the foreign beef was superior. He would not object to
gentlemen gratifying themselves with this meat, especially as the
consumption was neither so great nor general as to affect the revenue,
and therefore he judged it might be struck out.

Mr. TUCKER thought with the gentleman from Virginia, that the regulation
was unnecessary, and that it would be better to throw it into the common
mass, taxable at a certain rate per cent. He therefore moved to have it
struck out.

Upon these considerations the articles of beef, pork, and butter, were
all struck out.

Mr. FITZSIMONS moved to lay a duty of two cents on all candles of tallow
per pound.

Mr. TUCKER observed, that some States were under the necessity of
importing considerable quantities of this article also, while others had
enough, and more than enough, for their own consumption, therefore the
burthen would be partially borne by such States. As the committee had
just rejected some articles upon this principle, he would move that this
be struck out likewise.

Mr. FITZSIMONS.--I am not for striking out, sir. Every article imported
into the State that gentleman represents, from which revenue is to be
raised, he moves to have struck out; but I wish the committee to
consider a moment before they join in sentiments with him. The
manufacture of candles is an important manufacture, and far advanced
towards perfection. I have no doubt but, in a few years, we shall be
able to furnish sufficient to supply the consumption of every part of
the continent. In Pennsylvania we have a duty of two pence per pound,
and under the operation of this small encouragement the manufacture has
gained considerable strength. We no longer import candles from Ireland
or England, of whom a few years ago we took considerable quantities; the
necessity of continuing those encouragements which the State
Legislatures have deemed proper, exists in a considerable degree;
therefore it will be politic in the Government of the United States to
continue such duties till their object is accomplished.

Mr. TUCKER would be glad to know what article it was that South Carolina
would not contribute her full proportion of tax upon--he saw none; on
the contrary, so far as the enumeration went, the impost would bear
unequally upon her, and he feared many others in the list would increase
the imposition. He thought it the duty of the committee to guard against
an unequal distribution of the public burthen in every case, and
therefore wished the duty on this article to be a moderate one; not
because it affected the State he represented, for it did not do this to
any degree, as wax candies were there principally consumed, the material
for which was the production of the Southern States, but because other
States, not having this advantage, might be oppressed.

Mr. BOUDINOT apprehended most States imported considerable quantities of
this article from Russia and Ireland; he expected they would be made
cheaper than they could be imported, if a small encouragement was held
out by the Government, as the materials were to be had in abundance in
our country.

Mr. LAWRENCE thought that if candles were an object of considerable
importation, they ought to be taxed for the sake of obtaining revenue,
and if they were not imported in considerable quantities, the burthen
upon the consumer would be small, while it tended to cherish a valuable
manufacture. He seconded Mr. FITZSIMON's motion for two cents: which was
carried in the affirmative upon the question being put.

      On all candles of wax or spermaceti, per lb. six cents;
      cheese, four cents; soap, two cents; boots, per pair, fifty
      cents; on all shoes, slippers, or goloshes made of leather,
      ten cents; on all shoes or slippers, made of silk or stuff,
      ten cents; on all steel unwrought, per 112 lbs.,----

Mr. LEE moved to strike out this last article, observing that the
consumption of steel was very great, and essentially necessary to
agricultural improvements. He did not believe any gentleman would
contend, that enough of this article to answer consumption could be
fabricated in any part of the Union: hence it would operate as an
oppressive, though indirect tax upon agriculture, and any tax, whether
direct or indirect, upon this interest, at this juncture, would be
unwise and impolitic.

Mr. TUCKER joined the gentleman in his opinion, observing that it was
impossible for some States to get it but by importation from foreign
countries. He conceived it more deserving a bounty to increase the
quantity, than an impost which would lessen the consumption and make it
dearer also.

Mr. CLYMER replied, that the manufacture of steel in America was rather
in its infancy; but as all the materials necessary to make it were the
produce of almost every State in the Union, and as the manufacture was
already established, and attended with considerable success, he deemed
it prudent to emancipate our country from the manacles in which she was
held by foreign manufactures. A furnace in Philadelphia, with a very
small aid from the Legislature of Pennsylvania, made three hundred tons
in two years, and now makes at the rate of two hundred and thirty tons
annually, and with a little further encouragement would supply enough
for the consumption of the Union. He hoped, therefore, gentlemen would
be disposed, under these considerations, to extend a degree of patronage
to a manufacture, which a moment's reflection would convince them was
highly deserving protection.

Mr. MADISON thought the object of selecting this article to be solely
the encouragement of the manufacture, and not revenue, for on any other
consideration it would be more proper, as observed by the gentleman from
Carolina, (Mr. TUCKER) to give a bounty on the importation. It was so
materially connected with the improvement of agriculture and other
manufactures, that he questioned its propriety even on that score. A
duty would tend to depress many mechanic arts in the proportion that it
protected this; he thought it best to reserve this article to the
non-enumerated ones, where it would be subject to a five per cent. _ad.
valorem_.

Mr. TUCKER considered the smallest tax on this article to be a burthen
on agriculture, which ought to be considered an interest most deserving
protection and encouragement; on this is our principal reliance, on it
also our safety and happiness depend. When he considered the state of it
in that part of the country which he represented on this floor, and in
some other parts of the Union, he was really at a loss to imagine with
what propriety any gentleman could propose a measure big with
oppression, and tending to burthen particular States. The situation of
South Carolina was melancholy; while the inhabitants were deeply in
debt, the produce of the State was daily falling in price. Rice and
indigo were become so low, as to be considered by many not objects
worthy of cultivation; and gentlemen will consider, that it is not an
easy thing for a planter to change his whole system of husbandry in a
moment; but accumulated burthens will drive to this, and add to their
embarrassments. He thought an impost of five per cent. as great an
encouragement as ought to be granted, and would not oppose that being
laid. He called upon gentlemen to exercise liberality and moderation in
what they proposed, if they wished to give satisfaction and do justice
to their constituents.

Mr. FITZSIMONS thought, if gentlemen did not get rid of local
considerations, the committee would make little progress. Every State
will feel itself oppressed by a duty on particular articles, but when
the whole system is perfected, the burthen will be equal on all. He did
not desire, for his part, to obtain exclusive advantages for
Pennsylvania; he would contend, and undertake to prove, that by the
duties already agreed to, that State sacrificed as much as any other.
Indeed, if he had said more, he believed himself capable of proving the
position. Being of this opinion he hoped the committee would agree to
grant her an advantage which would revert back upon the other parts of
the Union, without operating even for the present, to the material
disadvantage of any. Some States were, from local circumstances, better
situated to carry on the manufacture than others, and would derive some
little advantage on this account in the commencement of the business.
The Eastern States were so situated, perhaps some of the Middle ones
also; but will it therefore be insisted upon, that the Southern States
pay more of the impost on foreign goods than these? For his part, he
never could conceive, that the consumption of those articles by the
<DW64>s of South Carolina would contribute to the revenue as much as
that of the white inhabitants of the Eastern States. But laying aside
local distinctions, what operates to the benefit of one part in
establishing useful institutions, will eventually operate to the
advantage of the whole. With these considerations, he cheerfully
submitted the article to the discretion of the committee, moving to fill
the blank with sixty-six cents.

Mr. BLAND considered a tax of sixty-six cents a very heavy duty on
agriculture and the mechanic arts, and was averse to granting it.

Mr. BOUDINOT moved fifty-six cents, which motion was agreed to.

      On nails and spikes, it was agreed to lay one cent per
      pound; on tarred cordage, fifty cents per 112 pounds; on
      untarred cordage, sixty cents per 112 pounds; on twine or
      pack-thread, one hundred cents per 112 pounds.

Mr. MADISON said, that he was not clear as to the policy of taxing
cordage. He thought ship-building an object worthy of legislative
attention, and questioned the propriety of raising the price of any
article that entered so materially into the structure of vessels. But if
it was politic to lay an impost on cordage, would it not be the same
with regard to hemp? He thought it would, and therefore moved it.

Mr. BOUDINOT.--Hemp is a raw material, necessary for an important
manufacture, and therefore ought not to be subject to a heavy duty. If
it was the product of the country in general, a duty might be proper,
but this he believed was not the case.

Mr. MADISON.--I said before, I very much doubted the propriety of laying
a duty on such articles as entered into ship-building; but if it is
necessary to lay a duty on cordage for the purpose of encouraging the
manufacture, and making us independent of the world as to that article,
it is also politic to endeavor to make us alike independent for the raw
material; a great proportion of the land in the Western country is
peculiarly adapted to the growth of hemp, and it might be there
cultivated to advantage, if the labors of the husbandman were protected
by the Government.

Mr. BOUDINOT thought the soil of this country ill adapted to the
cultivation of hemp; even the strong low lands which are fit for it,
soon became exhausted; it impoverished the lands wherever it grew, and
destroyed the agricultural stamina. If he was not mistaken in this
opinion, he thought the committee would, with him, disagree to the
motion.

Mr. PARTRIDGE thought a duty on hemp would tend to discourage the
American navigation, her trade, and fisheries, without any good
resulting to warrant such an injury. It was not ascertained whether hemp
could be furnished in any tolerable quantities to answer the demand, and
if upon experience, it should be found that the quantity was
insufficient, what a stab this would prove to all concerned in
ship-building.

Mr. AMES expressed a doubt of the policy of taxing either cordage or
hemp, because while it tended to encourage the agriculture or
manufacture, it discouraged the maritime interest, and therefore the
discouragement, in the event, would reflect back upon those interests it
was intended to cherish.

Mr. MOORE declared the Southern States well calculated for the
cultivation of hemp, and, from certain circumstances, well inclined
thereto. He conceived it the duty of the committee to pay as much
respect to the encouragement and protection of husbandry (the most
important of all interests in the United States) as they did to
manufactures.

Mr. FITZSIMONS thought there was a clear distinction between taxing
manufactures and raw materials, well known to every enlightened country.
He had no doubt but hemp enough could be raised for the home
consumption, nay for exportation also, and why it was not done he could
not say. He recollected that before the revolution, very little was
imported; now, considerable quantities are brought from England. When
such a bulky article is capable of paying double freight, first from
Russia and then from England, besides its first cost, he conceived that
what was produced in America had a very considerable advantage. It could
not be urged that the people are unacquainted with the cultivation,
because it had been carried to very great perfection in former years. If
eight dollars a hundred is not a sufficient inducement to farmers to
raise hemp, it is a proof that they direct their labors to more
profitable productions, and why should legislative authority be
exercised to divide their attention? Or for this purpose, why should
navigation and ship-building be necessarily burthened. He concluded with
declaring, that no duty which the Congress would agree to lay, could
give encouragement to the cultivation of hemp, if the present price of
that article was insufficient.

Mr. SCOTT stated a fact or two, being perhaps as well acquainted with
the Western country as any member of the committee. The lands along the
frontiers, he could assure the committee, were well calculated for the
cultivation of this plant; it is a production that will bear carriage by
land better than any other, tobacco not excepted. He believed an
encouragement of the kind now moved for would bring, in a year or two,
vast quantities from that country, at little expense, to Philadelphia,
even from the waters of the Ohio; the inhabitants expect some
encourgement, and will be grateful for it. Although a gentleman has
called it a bulky article, yet as much can be packed upon a horse as a
horse can carry, or in a wagon as four horses can draw; so that its bulk
will not prevent our countrymen from seeking a market on the waters of
the Atlantic.

The committee rose and reported, and

The House adjourned.


THURSDAY, April 16.

The House proceeded, by ballot, to the appointment of a committee of
five, to attend, with a committee from the Senate, to receive the
President of the United States at such place as he shall embark at from
New Jersey for this city.

The members elected were Messrs. BOUDINOT, BLAND, TUCKER, BENSON, and
LAWRENCE.

On motion,

_Ordered_, That Messrs. GILMAN, AMES, and GALE, be a committee, in
conjunction with a committee from the Senate, to wait upon the Vice
President of the United States upon his arrival in this city, and to
congratulate him thereupon in the name of the Congress of the United
States.


_Duties on Imports._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
State of the Union, Mr. PAGE in the chair.

Mr. MOORE thought it good policy to encourage the manufacture of
cordage, but was not convinced that it was bad policy to encourage
likewise the growth of the raw material in America, so that we might
become as independent of all the world for this article, as we are
already for every other used in the structure of vessels. He believed it
would be difficult to persuade the farmer that his interest ought to be
neglected to encourage particular artisans: he therefore begged the
committee to do as much for them as was in their power, believing that
the event of such policy would mutually benefit the manufacturer and
agriculturist.

Mr. HEISTER remarked, that a heavy duty on hemp would not encourage the
raising of it this year, because the time was elapsed for commencing the
cultivation; but a duty to take place at some future time, would no
doubt be beneficial. He assured the committee of the ability of the land
in America to grow hemp equal to any part of the world; and, therefore,
joined heartily in giving it legislative encouragement, in order to
induce the people to turn their attention more particularly to the
subject, but would recommend the duty to be laid so as to commence its
operation at a distant day.

Mr. WHITE remarked, what was good policy in England might be the
contrary in America. England was a maritime nation, and therefore she
gave a bounty on such articles as were requisite to support her maritime
importance--America was an agricultural country, and therefore ought to
attend to the encouragement of that interest. If the Legislature take no
notice of this article, the people will be led to believe it is not an
object worthy of encouragement, and the spirit of cultivation will be
damped; whereas, if a small duty only was laid, it might point out to
them that it was desirable, and would induce an increase of the
quantity. Our lands are capable of bearing this plant many years without
being exhausted. He could not say exactly what sum would be proper to
fill the blank with, but mentioned seventy-five cents for the
consideration of the committee.

Mr. PARTRIDGE admitted the propriety of encouraging agriculture, but it
ought not to be done at the expense of the ship-builders, especially as
the good would not balance the evil. He told the committee that hemp had
risen, within three or four years, forty per cent. in Russia, owing,
perhaps, to the increased demand which the present northern war
occasioned. This naturally operated to encourage the cultivation in
America, and perhaps was sufficient, without the aid now intended to be
given. If gentlemen were desirous of having it stand among the selected
articles, he should not object, but hoped the duty would not exceed five
per cent. Forty cents were about equal to that rate, and he moved to
fill the blank with that sum.

Mr. WHITE thought with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that the United
States would furnish this article in sufficient abundance, not only for
home consumption, but for exportation. The maritime powers of Europe do
not raise the article, but obtain it principally from Russia--these
powers are as well disposed to take it from us as from Russia. Our back
lands are extremely well adapted to its cultivation; a road to bring it
to market is opening; the Potomac extends her now navigable waters into
the interior country, and a communication will be established with the
river Ohio and the western waters. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
HARTLEY) had hinted at the propriety of settling the western territory;
it was his opinion that every encouragement ought to be given them to
engage their affection; that the administration of the Government ought
to be such as to give satisfaction to all parts of the Union, but it is
peculiarly our interest to render that country advantageous; her fertile
lands, and streams easy of descent, would pour into the Atlantic States,
through the channels he had mentioned, a profusion of wealth, and hemp
in abundance. The Shenandoah river disembogues into the Potomac, the
South Branch communicates with it also, and a number of other rivers
whose lands will produce immense quantities. He considered that this, in
a short time, would do more towards encouraging ship-building than a
bounty, as had been mentioned by some gentlemen.

Mr. BURKE thought it proper to suggest to the committee what might be
the probable effect of the proposed measure in the State he represented,
(South Carolina,) and the adjoining one (Georgia.) The staple products
of that part of the Union were hardly worth cultivation, on account of
their fall in price; the planters are, therefore, disposed to pursue
some other. The lands are certainly well adapted to the growth of hemp,
and he had no doubt but its culture would be practised with attention.
Cotton is likewise in contemplation among them, and if good seed could
be procured, he hoped it might succeed. But the low, strong, rice lands,
would produce hemp in abundance--many thousand tons even this year, if
it was not so late in the season. He liked the idea of laying a low
duty now, and encouraging it against the time when a supply might be had
from our own cultivation.

Mr. MADISON feared seventy-five cents was too high; he was doubtful
whether it would not have been as well to have left out cordage; for if
a duty on hemp was impolitic because it burthened navigation, so also
was that on cordage. He by no means approved of measures injurious to
ship-building, which he considered in a threefold view: first, as it
related to vessels employed in the coasting trade; second, as it
respected those employed in those channels of trade, the stream of which
depends upon the policy of foreign nations; and third, as it was
connected with vessels built for sale. With respect to the first, no
doubt but we can prevent any discouragement from the operation of the
duty, because we can make such discrimination as will prevent a
rivalship; but, in relation to the two other points, and particularly
the last, he was sensible that every penny laid upon cordage would enter
into the price of the vessel, and, by raising the price, drive the
purchasers to seek a better bargain at other hands. Fearful therefore of
injuring this interest, he should vote for a small duty at present, in
hopes of being able to see, in a little time, sufficient quantities of
hemp brought to market, as predicted, at even a less price than is given
now for the imported.

Mr. SMITH agreed to forty cents, provided the committee would make it
one dollar at the end of two years.

Mr. MADISON could not judge of the alteration in the circumstances of
this country two years hence, and therefore did not like the kind of
provision mentioned. He preferred making it a positive sum, and moved
fifty cents; which was agreed to.

On malt.

Mr. SHERMAN thought this might be struck out, on the same principle that
beef and pork had been, there was none imported.

Mr. FITZSIMONS replied, that there had been considerable and recent
importations of this article into the United States--30,000 bushels in
one year; certainly this interferes with the products of the country. He
moved ten cents per bushel, and it was agreed to.

On motion of Mr. AMES, barley was taxed six cents, and lime one hundred
cents. He just stated that these articles were imported in considerable
quantities from a neighboring State that had not yet adopted the
constitution; and, perhaps, said he, our political situation is such as
to make some regulation on this head necessary.

On nails, spikes, tacks, and brads.

Mr. LEE did not think we were ripe for such extensive manufactures as
some gentlemen seemed desirous of encouraging; but this was particularly
objectionable, because it was a tax upon the improvement of estates,
unless the articles could be furnished as cheap and abundantly at home
as they were by foreign nations. He moved to strike it out.

Mr. MADISON conceived this, like a tax on hemp, would increase the price
on ship-building; spikes and nails were necessary for the construction
of vessels.

Mr. BLAND thought a duty on nails an unequal tax, burthening the
Southern States, but not felt by the Northern, who made only enough for
their own consumption; he opposed it also on account of its being an
article of indispensable necessity.

Mr. GOODHUE informed the gentlemen who were opposed to a duty on nails,
that great quantities of them were manufactured for exportation in
Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, and he believed some other States; and,
in a little time, enough might be made to supply all North America.

Mr. TUCKER judged, from what was said of the little expense and great
facility of manufacturing nails, that it stood in no need of legislative
assistance. Why lay a duty on foreign nails, when they cannot rival you
if you make them as good and as cheap? Will not the five per cent. duty,
with freight and shipping charges, be sufficient encouragement? He
thought it would, and therefore was averse to any other duty. He
observed also, that it would burthen ship-building, and was,
consequently against those employed in that business.

Mr. FITZSIMONS was not very solicitous about the duty. He thought the
manufacturer would have but little to apprehend if the Legislature
should decide against them; for, the fact was, that nails were at this
moment made cheaper and, in the opinion of some judges, better than
those coming from England. Before the revolution, the people in America
were not permitted to erect slitting mills. They now have several, and
are independent of all the world for the materials necessary for
carrying on the business in the most extensive manner. So far as the
duty respected the manufacture in Pennsylvania, it was his opinion that
refusing it would do no material injury, and he believed it would draw
but little money into the treasury; yet, nevertheless, he was willing to
allow a small one, because it conformed to the policy of the States, who
thought it proper, in this manner, to protect their manufactures. He
believed neither spikes nor nails for ship-building were imported; they
were generally large and heavy, and were made in the country, according
to the builder's orders.

On the motion, nails and spikes were taxed one cent per pound, but tacks
and brads were struck out.

On salt, per bushel.

Mr. BURKE.--I need not observe to the committee that this article is a
necessary of life, nor that black cattle, sheep, and horses do not
thrive without it; on these considerations alone I should oppose it; but
I know likewise that it is a tax particularly odious to the inhabitants
of South Carolina and Georgia, to whom the price is already
oppressively great. The back parts of that State are obliged to haul all
they consume, two, three, or four hundred miles in wagons, for which
they pay about seven shillings sterling. Add this to the first cost,
which is about one shilling, though sometimes more, and you will find
the burthen sustained by those who live remote from the sea-shore
sufficiently unequal. I hope, therefore, the committee will not agree to
it.

Mr. LAWRENCE hoped a duty would be laid on the article; it was in
general use, and the consumption so regular, that it was much to be
depended upon as a source of revenue; but the duty ought not to be so
high as to make it oppressive. He moved to impose a duty of six cents
per bushel.

Mr. TUCKER felt an aversion to laying a duty on salt for several
motives. It would bear harder upon the poor than upon the rich. The true
principle of taxation is, that every man contribute to the public
burthens in proportion to the value of his property. But a poor man
consumes as much salt as a rich man. In this point of view, it operates
as a poll-tax, the most odious of all taxes; it does not operate simply
as a poll-tax, but is heavier on the poor than on the rich, because the
poor consume greater quantities of salted provisions than the rich. Nor
does it bear equally upon every part of the country; for it is consumed
in a greater proportion by cattle at a distance, than by those near the
sea shores. Moreover, the duty collected on the importation will enter
into the price of the article, and the countryman will pay the retailer
a profit on the tax, perhaps of four times its amount. For which
reasons, he was more averse to this article being taxed than any other
whatsoever.

Mr. SCOTT declared himself decisively against the duty, although he
admitted a most certain revenue could be drawn from it, on account of
its universal demand and utility. But he did not think these
considerations alone amounted to a sufficient reason why this necessary
article should be taxed; if they did, the argument would prove too much,
it would extend to the use of water and common air. He presumed the old
arguments often urged by gentlemen in favor of manufactures did not
apply, because no encouragement would be sufficient to establish it.

From the nearest part of the Atlantic coast, where salt can be obtained,
to the next nearest in the Western territory, is a distance of eight
hundred or one thousand miles; all the intermediate space must be
supplied from one or the other; over the mountains it must be carried on
pack-horses. This of itself is a sufficient tax upon the consumer; how
oppressive then must it be to increase the burthen.

Mr. MOORE observed upon the inequality, as it respected the consumption
of the article by cattle: some States raised more than others,
consequently they consumed more; some parts of the same State were in a
like situation. The people on the sea-coast pursued merchandise; those
in the back parts raised cattle, which he was bold to say consumed five
times as much salt as the lower country, and would pay the tax in the
same proportion. It has been said, that if they pay more on salt, they
pay less on other articles--agreed to. But there are a number more which
may perhaps unequally affect them; yet it is an argument of small weight
to say, because we in large commercial cities are regulated in a
sumptuary manner for indulging in luxuries, you who are obliged to
retrench them shall pay a tax upon the necessaries of life. In short,
the tax appeared to him not only unpopular, but unjust likewise, and he
would not agree to it.

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina.)--If any further arguments were necessary
to convince the committee of the impropriety of the present measure,
more might be urged, though what has been said is certainly sufficient
to demonstrate that it will be attended with a great deal of
dissatisfaction, and in proportion to that dissatisfaction will be the
danger of having your laws contemned, opposed, or neglected in the
execution. It is well known, that however small the duty, it will
furnish a pretext to the seller to extort a much greater sum from the
consumer. Another observation. It is believed that the inhabitants of
the interior part of South Carolina are opposed to the new Government;
it will be a melancholy circumstance to entangle ourselves, at this
time, among the shoals of discontent; yet no stronger impulse could be
given for opposition than the proposed tax; conceiving it in this light,
he was against the measure.

Mr. SCOTT added, that the price of salt where he lived was four dollars
a bushel, the country was settled three or four hundred miles beyond
him, and he supposed the price there to be greater.

Mr. LAWRENCE thought it would be better for the committee to take time
to examine what had been urged against the tax, and as it was the usual
time for adjourning, the committee might rise and defer their decision
till to-morrow.

Whereupon the committee rose, and the House adjourned.


FRIDAY, April 17.

BENJAMIN CONTEE, from Maryland, appeared and took his seat.

_Duties on Imports._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union, Mr. PAGE in the chair; the question of laying a duty
on salt recurred.

Mr. LAWRENCE.--I had the honor yesterday of delivering my sentiments in
favor of this duty; but observations were made by gentlemen from
different parts of the House against the measure. The principal
objection was, that the tax was an odious one. It was admitted by a
worthy gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SCOTT) that all taxes are
odious; this is certainly true, for the people are not pleased with
paying them; nothing but necessity will induce a Government to have
recourse to them. It is also true, that some are more odious than
others. From what has been said, it may be seen that a tax on salt is
not so in general, but only in particular parts of the Union; the remote
inhabitants, it is said, will be dissatisfied, because it increases the
price of the commodity, and they use more of it than others. It is
mentioned as partaking of the nature of a capitation tax, but this kind
of tax is odious, more from its manner of operation than its nature. We
find in some States where it is in use, the people live easy under it;
for example, it is not complained of in some of the Eastern States. We
have not much to apprehend from a tax on salt in this State; the people
are satisfied with it; at least the complaints are neither so loud nor
so general, as to make us apprehensive for the existence of the
Government we live under. Its operations, though the contrary was
predicted, go on with as much ease since an impost has been laid, as
they did before. I believe, likewise, we have only to try the
experiment, to be convinced it would have a similar effect throughout
the continent; for I cannot persuade myself that it is generally looked
upon in so odious a light as some gentlemen imagine. It was also said,
that the tax would be unequal, and the objects of inequality were two.
The poor man would pay as much as the rich; but this is not the case;
the rich are generally more profuse in their consumption than the poor;
they have more servants and dependents also to consume it; consequently
the whole amount of their consumption must be in a proportionable ratio.
The other inequality was its different operation in different States,
and even different parts of the same State. On examination, this
objection also may be obviated. Gentlemen tell you the high price of
this article at three or four hundred miles distance; is it not hence
presumable that there they consume as little as possible, while along
the sea-coasts they use it with a liberal hand? But whether it be
consumed on the sea-coast, or on the western waters, the tax is the
same, or but inconsiderably augmented; for I take it the great addition
which is made is in consequence of the charge of carriage. I cannot,
therefore, see by what magic gentlemen will prove to you that it is
increased four or five fold. We must also take into contemplation the
number of persons who consume it; here it will appear, that the weight
of population is much greater on the sea-coast than in the western parts
of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Carolina, consequently the consumption
must be greater. It was said, the argument I urged was not a good one,
because it proved too much, that an article of general consumption was
not the best article for taxation; now, I believe the maxim is just, and
when examined it will be found so. Taxes, to be just, should affect all,
and equally affect them, and not be left to fall partially upon a few.
This is more the case with salt than any other article which has yet
been taxed, and I believe is the only tax which will get at the pockets
of those to whom it is said to be obnoxious. But how comes it, if the
other articles are equally consumed in the back countries, that
gentlemen did not urge the argument of expense on transportation, and
the pretext that a tax would furnish the seller to extort from the
consumer.

Mr. MADISON.--From the nature of the arguments made use of on this
occasion, it is necessary to proceed with some circumspection, though
not to depart from that policy which can be justified by reason and
experience. I am willing to trust a great deal to the good sense,
justice, and penetration of our fellow-citizens for support; and though
I think it might be just to lay a considerable duty generally on
imported articles, yet it would not be prudent or politic, at this time,
to do so. Let us now proceed to consider the subject before us, on the
principles of justice and principles of policy. In the first point of
view, we may consider the effect it will have on the different
descriptions of people throughout the United States, I mean different
descriptions, as they relate to property. I readily agree that, in
itself, a tax would be unjust and oppressive that did not fall on the
citizens according to their degree of property and ability to pay it;
were it, therefore, this single article which we are about to tax, I
should think it indispensable that it should operate equally, agreeably
to the principle I have just mentioned. But in order to determine
whether a tax on salt is just or unjust, we must consider it as part of
a system, and judge of the operation of this system as if it was but a
single article; if this is found to be unequal, it is also unjust. Now,
examine the preceding articles, and consider how they affect the rich,
and it will be found that they bear more than a just proportion
according to their ability to pay; by adding this article, we shall
rather equalize the disproportion than increase it, if it is true, as
has been often mentioned, that the poor will contribute more of this tax
than the rich. When we consider the tax as it operates on the different
parts of the United States, dividing the whole into the northern,
middle, and southern districts, it will be found that they contribute
also in proportion to their numbers and ability to pay. If there be any
distinction in this respect, it will be perceived to be in favor of the
southern division, because the species of property there consists of
mouths that consume salt in the same proportion as the whites; but they
have not this property in the middle and northern districts to pay taxes
for. The most important objection is, that the western part of our
country uses more salt than any other; this makes it unequal; but,
considered as a part of a system, the equilibrium is restored, when you
find this almost the only tax they will have to pay. Will they
contribute any thing by consuming imported spirits? Very little. Yet,
this is a principal source of revenue; they will subsist upon what they
procure at home; and will they submit to a direct tax, if they murmur at
so light a one on salt? Will they submit to an excise? If they would, I
trust it is not in the contemplation of gentlemen to propose it.

Mr. WHITE, after some doubts, had made up his mind against the article
being taxed. We ought to pass no law that is unjust or oppressive in its
nature, or which the people may consider as unjust or oppressive; a duty
on salt would be considered in that light by a great number. Our
constituents expect some ease and relief, particularly the poorer sort
of people. It seems to be granted, from all that has been said, that it
will affect them in a manner which no other tax can, though, it is said,
they will not be affected beyond their proportion, as they pay nothing
for the consumption of wine, spirits, &c. because they use none. One
reason which influenced the committee to tax those articles, was to
abolish the use of them altogether, or prevent the excesses they
occasioned. Now will you urge in argument for taxing the poor, that they
already practise that temperance which you desire to bring universally
about? All taxes, it is admitted, are odious, and some merely from
opinion; but if they are odious from opinion, they ought to be carefully
guarded against, especially if the Government depends upon opinion for
support.

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, said, they collected eight cents in his State,
and it caused no complaint that he knew of.

The question on imposing six cents on salt was put and carried, as was a
motion for a drawback on salted provisions and fish.

On manufactured tobacco.

Mr. SHERMAN moved six cents, as he thought the duty ought to amount to a
prohibition. This was agreed to.

On snuff, ten cents per pound.

Mr. CARROLL moved to insert window and other glass. A manufacture of
this article was begun in Maryland, and attended with considerable
success; if the Legislature were to grant a small encouragement, it
would be permanently established; the materials were to be found in the
country in sufficient quantities to answer the most extensive demand.

A desultory conversation arose in the committee respecting the propriety
of receiving the motion at this time, when it was agreed to add on all
window and other glass, except black quart bottles, ten per cent. _ad
valorem_.

Mr. CLYMER informed the House of the state of the paper mills in
Pennsylvania; they were so numerous as to be able to supply a very
extensive demand in that and the neighboring States; they annually
produce about 70,000 reams of various kinds, which is sold as cheap as
it can be imported. This manufacture certainly is an important one; and
having grown up under legislative encouragement, it will be wise to
continue it. Thereupon it was agreed to lay an impost of seven and a
half per cent. _ad valorem_ on blank books, writing, printing, and
wrapping paper, and pasteboard; the same, without debate, was laid upon
canes, walking-sticks, whips, clothing ready made, on gold, silver, and
plated ware, and on jewelry and paste work; upon cabinet ware, buttons
of metal, saddles, gloves of leather, all hats of beaver, fur, wool, or
mixture of either, all millinery, castings of iron, or slit or rolled
iron, all leather tanned or tawed, or manufactures thereof, except such
as are otherwise rated.

On every coach, chariot, or other four wheel carriage, and on every
chaise, solo, or other two wheel carriage, or parts thereof, fifteen per
cent. _ad valorem_.


SATURDAY, April 18.

Mr. WHITE, from the Committee of Elections, reported that the committee
had examined the certificates and other credentials of the members
returned to serve in this House, and found them entitled to take their
seats; which report was concurred with.

_Duties on Imports._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union, Mr. PAGE in the chair.

On motion of Mr. GOODHUE, anchors at seven and a half per cent. _ad
valorem_, was added.

On motion of Mr. SHERMAN, nutmegs, cinnamon, raisins, figs, currants,
and almonds, were struck out.

Mr. AMES introduced wool cards, with observing that they were
manufactured to the eastward as good and as cheap as the imported ones.

Mr. CLYMER mentioned, that in the State of Pennsylvania, the manufacture
was carried to great perfection, and enough could be furnished to supply
the demand. A duty of fifty cents per dozen was imposed on wool cards.

On wrought tin ware, seven and a half per centum _ad valorem_; on every
quintal of fish, fifty cents; and on every barrel of pickled fish,
seventy-five cents.

Mr. FITZSIMONS moved the following: On all teas imported from China or
India, in ships built in the United States, and belonging wholly to a
citizen or citizens thereof, as follows: on bohea tea, per pound, six
cents; on all souchong and other black teas, ten cents; on superior
green teas, twenty cents; on all other teas, ten cents.

On all teas imported from any other country, or from China or India, in
ships which are not the property of the United States, as follows: on
bohea tea, per pound, ten cents; souchong, and other black teas, fifteen
cents; on superior green teas, thirty cents; on all other green teas,
eighteen cents per pound.

Mr. FITZSIMONS supported the motion, by observing that one effect of the
late glorious revolution was, to deprive the merchants of America of
most of the channels of commerce which they had before pursued. This
circumstance obliged them to search for other sources to employ their
vessels in. It had been discovered that a pretty lucrative trade could
be carried on with the countries in the east; the merchants have gone
largely into it, and it at present gives employment to some thousand
tons of American shipping and seamen; our success has been so great, as
to excite the jealousy of Europe, and nothing is left undone to cramp or
prevent our commercial operations in that quarter. The Legislature of
Pennsylvania, impressed with the importance of the subject, had granted
it aid by discriminating in the manner he proposed to the committee; and
with the like aid from the Government of the United States, the
merchants may no longer fear the machinations of the opulent companies
in Europe, who are unwilling to let us partake of a trade they so long
have had a monopoly of. Already the trade to India has had a very happy
effect in favor of our inhabitants, by reducing commodities brought from
thence to one half of their former price, and yet a sufficient profit is
left to enable those concerned to carry it on with advantage.

Mr. MADISON felt a reluctance in being obliged to state his reasons why
he doubted the policy of the proposed measure. What, said he, is its
object? It is not to add to the revenue, for it will in fact tend to
diminish it, in that proportion which the importation from China lessens
that from other parts; it is not to increase our commerce, for long
voyages are unfriendly to it; it is not to increase the importation of
necessary articles, for India goods are mostly articles of luxury; it is
not to carry off our superfluities, for these articles are paid for
principally, if not altogether, in solid coin. If the trade is
beneficial at all to the United States, it must be in this single point
of view, that the articles can be imported cheaper through that channel
than any other; and, if so, that it is the interest of the people to be
supplied as cheap as possible. There are no collateral good purposes to
claim our attention in this case. It is not in the nature of things that
we should derive any other advantage than the one I have mentioned,
without it is that of raising our India commerce from its weak and
infant state to strength and vigor; to enable it to continue supplies at
a cheaper rate than they could otherwise be obtained.

Mr. GOODHUE replied to Mr. MADISON's observations, respecting the mode
of paying for India goods, by informing the committee that very
considerable quantities of ginseng, naval stores, lumber, and
provisions, were shipped; other articles were sent also, and disposed of
at ports on this side of China, in order to procure the most suitable
cargo; so that we do not pay principally for their commodities in solid
coin, but send off superfluities to a considerable amount, much more
than if we were to procure our teas and nankeens from any part of
Europe.

Mr. MADISON had not made the objection merely because the specie was
exported, but to show that it did not bring in an equivalent, as the
goods were mostly of that kind which are termed luxuries.

Mr. BOUDINOT declared himself a friend to the Indian commerce. He
thought it encouraged the employment of shipping, and increased our
seamen; he knew its advantages to agriculture. The gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. MADISON) supposed but little of our productions were sent
in exchange for India goods; but our beef, pork, flour, and wheat, were
shipped for this purpose, not to China, yet to ports where proper
cargoes were taken in to answer the trade. Encouragement and protection
were necessary to prevent the large companies in Europe from
underselling our merchants, which they would readily do, at considerable
loss, if they could, in consequence, put a stop to our trade. He hoped,
therefore, the committee would not hesitate in adopting the motion.

The motion was adopted accordingly.

On coal per bushel ---- cents.

Mr. BLAND informed the committee, that there were mines opened in
Virginia capable of supplying the whole of the United States, and, if
some restraint was laid on the importation of foreign coal, those mines
might be worked to advantage. He thought it needless to insist upon the
advantages resulting from a colliery, as a supply for culinary and
mechanical purposes, and as a nursery to train up seamen for a navy. He
moved three cents a bushel.

Mr. HARTLEY was willing to admit a moderate duty, but thought three
cents would be a great discouragement to those manufactures which
necessarily consume large quantities of fuel. He moved one cent.

Mr. PARKER said, that a less sum than three cents would not answer the
purpose intended. Coal came from England as ballast, and was sold so
low, as almost to prevent the working of their mines in Virginia. He
hoped, if the committee were disposed to encourage them, they would
proportion the means to the end; a duty of one cent would be void;
nothing under what was moved by his colleague (Mr. BLAND) could answer
the purpose. He hoped, therefore, the committee would agree to three
cents.

On the question, there appeared a majority in favor of three cents.
After which the committee rose, and the House adjourned.


MONDAY, April 20.

ABRAHAM BALDWIN and JAMES JACKSON, from Georgia, appeared and took their
seats.

_Duties on Imports._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union, Mr. PAGE in the chair.

The following clause of the bill was agreed to, viz: "On all other
articles, five per cent. on their value at the time and place of
importation, except tin in pigs, tin plates, lead, old pewter, brass,
iron or brass wire, copper in plates, wool, dying woods and dying drugs,
(other than indigo,) raw hides, beaver, and all other furs, and deer
skins."

Mr. FITZSIMONS proposed a drawback of six cents per gallon on all rum
distilled in the United States, exported without the limits of the same.

Mr. MADISON asked if the quantity of rum so exported was very
considerable? He believed it was not; and he would not, for the sake of
encouraging that branch of trade, open a door by which frauds on the
revenue could be committed equal to the whole duty collected.

Mr. FITZSIMONS could not say what quantity of rum was exported in that
way; but he feared, unless a drawback was allowed, it would be a great
injury to the manufacture. At the time the duty of six cents on molasses
was laid, he thought it was understood, the committee would allow a
drawback on the rum exported. There seems to be an apprehension that the
system of drawbacks will operate to the disadvantage of the revenue; but
he believed a mode could be devised to prevent frauds, in this case,
fully as effectually as on the importation. If this was not done, it
would be time enough for gentlemen to oppose it; they would have this
opportunity, because a bill, regulating the manner of collection, he
presumed, would pass at the same time with the one for levying the
duties. If drawbacks were not allowed, it would be a very considerable
restraint on commerce, particularly on the India trade, which he
believed was likely to be considerably extended. He was sorry the
gentlemen from Massachusetts were not there in their places,[20] to give
information to the committee respecting the quantity exported from that
State; from Pennsylvania the quantity was but small.

Mr. FITZSIMONS contended for drawbacks generally, but on this article it
was particular injustice to omit it. The manufacture of rum was of
considerable importance in the Eastern States, but it would not be able
to stand a successful competition with West India rum in foreign
countries, while loaded with a duty of six cents per gallon. The tax on
molasses was that sum, and he looked upon it to be the same thing as if
it had been paid on the rum at distillation; one gallon of the former
yielding but one of the latter.

Mr. MADISON thought there were very few cases in which drawbacks ought
to be allowed, perhaps none but what related to the East India trade.
The small proportion of distilled rum exported did not justify so great
a risk; but of the small proportion which went abroad, the greatest part
went to the coast of Africa. He feared this trade was inconsistent with
the good of mankind, and ought to be reprobated instead of encouraged.

Mr. BLAND said the committee had spent several days in encouraging
manufactures, by selecting articles for revenue, and were now extending
their views to the encouragement of commerce. He thought there was some
impropriety in combining the clause proposed in this part of the bill,
and even doubted if it was in order; therefore would vote against it.

The question was put on the motion for a drawback on country rum, and
lost.

Mr. FITZSIMONS had another clause upon the same subject, only on more
general principles; he hoped gentlemen would consider well before they
doomed it to share the fate of the former. It was to this purpose: that
all the duties paid, or secured to be paid, upon goods imported, shall
be returned or discharged upon such of the said goods, as shall within
---- months be exported to any country without the limits of the United
States, except so much as shall be necessary to defray the expense that
may have accrued by the entry and the safe keeping thereof. The subjects
of duties and drawbacks are so connected by their nature, that he did
not see how they were to be separated. Gentlemen did not imagine that
what had been done tended to favor commerce; it certainly did not. Every
impost which is paid is a disadvantage to the person concerned in trade,
and nothing but necessity could induce a submission to it. The interest
of the landholder is undoubtedly blended with the commercial interest;
if the latter receive an injury, the former will have to sustain his
proportion of it; if drawbacks are not allowed, the operations of trade
will be considerably shackled; merchants will be obliged, in the first
instance, to send their cargoes to the place of consumption, and lose
the advantage of a circuitous freight, which alone is a profit of no
small magnitude.

Mr. HARTLEY expressed his sorrow for the last decision of the committee;
he wished the question had not been put in the absence of the gentlemen
from Massachusetts, who were on a business in some degree of a public
nature. The present motion was only just brought in; he submitted,
therefore, to the committee, if it were not best to pass it over for the
present, in order to give time for consideration.


TUESDAY, April 21.

Mr. HARTLEY asked and obtained leave of absence.


WEDNESDAY, April 22.

PETER SYLVESTER, from New York, appeared and took his seat.


THURSDAY, April 23.

JOHN HATHORN, from New York, appeared and took his seat.


FRIDAY, April 24.

Mr. BOUDINOT reported, from the committee appointed to attend with a
committee from the Senate, to receive the President of the United
States, at the place of his embarkation from New Jersey, that the
committee did, according to order, together with a committee from the
Senate, attend at Elizabethtown, in New Jersey, on the 23d instant, at
which place the two committees met the President, and thence embarked
for this city, where they arrived about three o'clock in the afternoon
of the same day, and conducted him to the house appointed for his
residence.

The Speaker laid before the House a letter from the Vice President of
the United States, enclosing a resolution of the Senate, appointing a
committee to consider and report what style or titles it will be proper
to annex to the office of President and Vice President of the United
States, if any other than those given in the constitution; also to
consider of the time, place, and manner in which, and the person by
whom, the oath prescribed by the constitution, shall be administered to
the President, and to confer thereon with such committee as this House
should appoint for that purpose; whereupon,

_Ordered_, That a committee, to consist of five members, be appointed
for the purpose expressed in the resolution of the Senate.

The members elected were Messrs. BENSON, AMES, MADISON, CARROLL, and
SHERMAN.

_Duties on Imports._

The House then proceeded to consider the resolutions reported by the
Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. BOUDINOT complained that the articles were generally taxed too high,
not too high for the article to bear, but too high for the due
collection of the revenue. Every thing we tax should be considered as it
relates to the interest of the importer, as well as other circumstances;
now, if it is discovered that the duties are so great as to make it a
beneficial trade to the merchant to run his goods, he will do so, and
injure the revenue.

Mr. MADISON was sensible that high duties had a tendency to promote
smuggling, and in case those kinds of frauds were successfully practised
the revenue must be diminished; yet he believed the sum proposed on
spirits was not so high as to produce those effects to any considerable
degree. If any article is capable of paying a heavy duty, it is this; if
the duty on any article is capable of being collected with certainty, it
is this; if a duty on any article is consonant with the sentiment of the
people of America, it is this; why then should not the article be made
as tributary as possible to the wants of Government? But, besides these
favorable circumstances, I think the combination of the merchants will
come in aid of the law; the people will also lend their aid. These
circumstances would do much toward insuring the due collection of the
revenue.

Mr. JACKSON seconded Mr. BOUDINOT's motion for reducing the duties,
because he was well convinced they were too high even to be well
collected, unless we establish custom-houses every ten or twelve miles,
like watch-towers, along the sea-coast. When trade is so unproductive,
the Legislature ought to be careful how they make it more worth a man's
while to live by committing frauds upon the revenue than by practising
honest commerce.

There is another consideration which particularly regarded the Georgia
trade. That country, abounding with lumber of the most luxurious growth,
could only exchange it for rum; and a very considerable commerce grew
out of this intercourse favorable to Georgia. This would be affected by
the imposition of heavy duties; but commercial considerations, we shall
be told, form only a secondary object in this business. There is another
proposition in which he acquiesced; it would be more convenient, and
more to the honor of the House, to make their first essay with low
duties; because, if they persisted in laying them high, they would be
compelled to an inglorious retreat, and the Government would be
insulted. In the State he represented, it was next to impossible to
collect the revenue, the country was so intersected with navigable
creeks and rivers, if the people were disposed to evade the payment of
it; and there was no more certain way to produce this disposition than
by making it their interest to defraud you.

Mr. BOUDINOT was not ashamed to confess that he wanted the advantages of
commercial knowledge on a question where the principles of trade were
interwoven; but he opposed high duties on a conviction in his own mind
that they could not be collected. He repeated some few of his former
arguments to show why he held this opinion; but it was not the
particular article of rum that he was opposed to, it was the high scale
on which the duties were laid generally, and that only from an idea that
greater revenue might be obtained from less duties.

Mr. TUCKER wished the duties to be lowered, and proposed to the
committee to strike off seven cents from the fifteen; by varying his
motion in this manner, he expected the sense of the House could be taken
on his proposition first, notwithstanding the rule that "the question
shall be put on the highest sum first." He joined in the opinion that
high duties were productive of smuggling; that notwithstanding the
powers and vigilance of custom-house officers, and the whole Executive,
contraband trade is carried on in every nation where the duties are so
high; the facility with which it could be done in America ought to show
a prudent Legislature the degree of probability; unless this can be
guarded against, what will the law avail? It can avail nothing. Besides,
the higher the duty is laid, the more you expose the officer to the
temptation of being corrupted; when that is done, the revenue will be
very unproductive.

Mr. BLAND would second the gentleman last up, but thought it was not in
order to have the question taken first on the lowest sum.

Mr. FITZSIMONS observed to the House, that the decision of the present
question, in his mind, involved some very important alterations in the
present measure; the consequences resulting from which ought to be well
considered. In order, therefore, to gain time for this purpose, he would
move an adjournment; whereupon the House adjourned.


SATURDAY, April 25.

Mr. BENSON, from the committee appointed to consider of the time, place,
and manner in which, and of the person by whom the oath prescribed by
the constitution shall be administered to the President of the United
States, and to confer with a committee of the Senate for the purpose,
reported as followeth:

      That the President hath been pleased to signify to them
      that any time or place which both Houses may think proper
      to appoint, and any manner which shall appear most eligible
      to them, will be acceptable to him: that requisite
      preparations cannot probably be made before Thursday next:
      that the President be on that day formally received by both
      Houses in the Senate Chamber: that the Representatives'
      Chamber being capable of receiving the greater number of
      persons, that therefore the President do take the oath in
      that place, and in the presence of both Houses: that after
      the formal reception of the President in the Senate
      Chamber, he be attended by both Houses to the
      Representatives' Chamber, and that the oath be administered
      by the Chancellor of this State.

      The committee further report it as their opinion, that it
      will be proper that a committee of both Houses be appointed
      to take order for further conducting the ceremonial.

The said report was twice read; and, on the question put thereupon,
agreed to by the House.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. BENSON, AMES, and CARROLL be a committee on the
part of this House, pursuant to the said report.


MONDAY, April 27.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Vice President of
the United States, enclosing certain proceedings of the Senate, touching
the ceremonial of the formal reception of the President of the United
States, by both Houses, which were read, and ordered to lie on the
table.

Mr. BENSON, from the committee of both Houses, appointed to take order
for conducting the ceremonial of the formal reception of the President
of the United States, reported as followeth:

      "That it appears to the committee more eligible that the
      oath should be administered to the President in the outer
      gallery adjoining the Senate Chamber, than in the
      Representatives' Chamber, and therefore submit to the
      respective Houses the propriety of authorizing their
      committees to take order as to the place where the oath
      shall be administered to the President, the resolutions of
      Saturday, assigning the Representatives' Chamber as the
      place, notwithstanding."

The said report being twice read,

      _Resolved_, That this House doth concur in the said report,
      and authorize the committee to take order for the change of
      place thereby proposed.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Vice President of
the United States, enclosing two orders of the Senate, one of the 13th
instant, appointing a committee to confer with any committee to be
appointed on the part of this House, respecting the future disposition
of the papers, &c. in the office of the late Secretary of the United
States: the other of the 27th instant, for the attendance of both
Houses, with the President of the United States, after the oath shall be
administered to him, to hear divine service at St. Paul's Chapel: which
was read, and ordered to lie on the table.


TUESDAY, April 28.

Mr. RICHARD BLAND LEE, from the committee to whom was recommitted the
report respecting the mode of communicating papers, bills, and messages,
between the two Houses, reported as followth:

      "When a message shall be sent from the Senate to the House
      of Representatives, it shall be announced at the door of
      the House by the doorkeeper, and shall be respectfully
      communicated to the Chair, by the person by whom it may be
      sent.

      "The same ceremony shall be observed when a message shall
      be sent from the House of Representatives to the Senate.

      "Messages shall be sent by such persons as a sense of
      propriety in each House may determine to be proper."

The said report was twice read, and, on the question put thereupon,
agreed to by the House.

A letter from Matthias Ogden, of New Jersey, referring to sundry
petitions from citizens of that State, complaining of illegality in the
late election of Representatives for that State to this House was read
and ordered to lie on the table.

The order of the Senate of the 13th instant was read, appointing a
committee to confer with any committee to be appointed on the part of
this House, respecting the future disposition of the papers in the
office of the late Secretary of the United States; whereupon

_Ordered_, That Messrs. TRUMBULL, CADWALADER, and JACKSON, be a
committee for that purpose.


WEDNESDAY, April 29.

The House proceeded to consider the report from the Committee of
Elections (which lay on the table) on the petition of David Ramsay, of
the State of South Carolina, suggesting that William Smith, returned a
member of this House, as elected within that State, was, at the time of
his election, ineligible; and the said report being amended to read as
followeth:

      That in this case it will be sufficient in the first
      instance, that a committee take such proofs as can be
      obtained in this city respecting the facts stated in the
      petition, and report the same to the House--That Mr. Smith
      be permitted to be present from time to time when such
      proofs are taken, to examine the witnesses, and to offer
      counter-proofs, which shall also be received by the
      committee, and reported to the House--That if the proofs so
      to be reported shall be declared by the House insufficient
      to verify the material facts stated in the petition, or
      such other facts as the House shall deem proper to be
      inquired into, it will then be necessary for the House to
      direct a further inquiry, and especially the procuring
      whatever additional testimony may be supposed to be in
      South Carolina, as the case may require--That all questions
      arising on the proofs be decided by the House, without any
      previous opinion thereon reported by a committee.

      _Resolved_, That this House doth agree to the said report,
      and that it be an instruction to the Committee of Elections
      to proceed accordingly.

On motion,

_Ordered_, That a committee be appointed to prepare and report an
estimate of the supplies requisite for the present year, and of the net
produce of the impost as agreed to by the House, and that Messrs. GERRY,
SMITH, (of Maryland,) and PARKER, be of the said committee.

The House proceeded to consider the following resolution of the Senate,
to wit:

      "In Senate, April 27.

      "_Resolved_, That after the oath shall have been
      administered to the President, he, attended by the Vice
      President, and the members of the Senate and House of
      Representatives, proceed to St. Paul's Chapel to hear
      divine service, to be performed by the Chaplains to
      Congress already appointed:" Whereupon,

      _Resolved_, That this House doth concur with the Senate in
      the said resolution: amended to read as followeth, to wit:

      "That after the oath shall have been administered to the
      President, the Vice President and members of the Senate,
      the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives,
      will accompany him to St. Paul's Chapel, to hear divine
      service performed by the Chaplains of Congress."

_Ordered_, That the Clerk of this House do carry the said resolution to
the Senate, and desire their concurrence.--Adjourned.


THURSDAY, April 30.

JONATHAN GROUT, from Massachusetts, appeared and took his seat.

This being the day on which the President of the United States was
inaugurated, no other business, of course, was attended to. The
President's address to both Houses appears in the proceedings of the
Senate.[21]


FRIDAY, May 1.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a copy of the speech of the President
of the United States, to both Houses of Congress, delivered yesterday in
the Senate Chamber, immediately after his inauguration, which being
read,

On motion,

      _Resolved_, That the said speech be committed to a
      Committee of the whole House.

The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
PAGE in the chair. And after adopting the following resolution, the
committee rose, and reported it to the House, which agreed to it.

      _Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this committee, that
      an address to the President ought to be prepared,
      expressing the congratulations of the House of
      Representatives, on the distinguished proof given him of
      the affection and confidence of his fellow-citizens, by the
      unanimous suffrage which has appointed him to the high
      station which he fills; the approbation felt by the House
      of the patriotic sentiments and enlightened policy
      recommended by his speech; and assuring him of their
      disposition to concur in giving effect to every measure
      which may tend to secure the liberties, promote the
      harmony, and advance the happiness and prosperity of their
      country.

_Ordered_, That a committee to consist of five members be appointed to
prepare an address pursuant to the said resolution. The members elected
Messrs. MADISON, CLYMER, SHERMAN, GALE, and BENSON.

A motion was made that the House do come to the following resolution:

      _Resolved_, That ---- per annum be the compensation to be
      allowed to the President of the United States, during the
      term for which he is to be elected.

The said resolution being read, was committed to a Committee of the
whole House.

The House then proceeded by ballot to the appointment of a Chaplain to
Congress on the part of this House. Upon examining the ballots, it
appeared that the Rev. WILLIAM LINN was elected.

SAMUEL LIVERMORE, from New Hampshire, appeared and took his seat.


TUESDAY, May 5.

Mr. BENSON, from the committee appointed to consider of, and report what
style or titles it will be proper to annex to the office of President
and Vice President of the United States, if any other than those given
in the Constitution, and to confer with a committee of the Senate
appointed for the same purpose, reported as followeth:

"That it is not proper to annex any style or title to the respective
styles or titles of office expressed in the Constitution."

And the said report being twice read at the Clerk's table, was, on the
question put thereupon, agreed to by the House.

_Ordered_, that the Clerk of this House do acquaint the Senate
therewith.

Mr. MADISON, from the committee appointed to prepare an address on the
part of this House to the President of the United States, in answer to
his speech to both Houses of Congress, reported as followeth:

      _The Address of the House of Representatives to George
      Washington, President of the United States._

      SIR: The Representatives of the People of the United States
      present their congratulations on the event by which your
      fellow-citizens have attested the pre-eminence of your
      merit. You have long held the first place in their esteem.
      You have often received tokens of their affection. You now
      possess the only proof that remained of their gratitude for
      your services, of their reverence for your wisdom, and of
      their confidence in your virtues. You enjoy the highest,
      because the truest honor, of being the First Magistrate, by
      the unanimous choice of the freest people on the face of
      the earth.

      We well know the anxieties with which you must have obeyed
      a summons from the repose reserved for your declining
      years, into public scenes, of which you had taken your
      leave for ever. But the obedience was due to the occasion.
      It is already applauded by the universal joy which welcomes
      you to your station. And we cannot doubt that it will be
      rewarded with all the satisfaction with which an ardent
      love for your fellow-citizens must review successful
      efforts to promote their happiness.

      This anticipation is not justified merely by the past
      experience of your signal services. It is particularly
      suggested by the pious impressions under which you mean to
      commence your administration, and the enlightened maxims by
      which you mean to conduct it. We feel with you the
      strongest obligations to adore the invisible hand which has
      led the American people through so many difficulties, to
      cherish a conscious responsibility for the destiny of
      republican liberty; and to seek the only sure means of
      preserving and recommending the precious deposit in a
      system of legislation founded on the principles of an
      honest policy, and directed by the spirit of a diffusive
      patriotism.

      The question arising out of the fifth article of the
      Constitution will receive all the attention demanded by its
      importance; and will, we trust, be decided, under the
      influence of all the considerations to which you allude.

      In forming the pecuniary provisions for the Executive
      Department, we shall not lose sight of a wish resulting
      from motives which give it a peculiar claim to our regard.
      Your resolution, in a moment critical to the liberties of
      your country, to renounce all personal emolument, was among
      the many presages of your patriotic services, which have
      been amply fulfilled; and your scrupulous adherence now to
      the law then imposed on yourself, cannot fail to
      demonstrate the purity, whilst it increases the lustre of a
      character which has so many titles to admiration.

      Such are the sentiments which we have thought fit to
      address to you. They flow from our own hearts, and we
      verily believe that, among the millions we represent,
      there is not a virtuous citizen whose heart will disown
      them.

      All that remains is, that we join in your fervent
      supplications for the blessings of heaven on our country;
      and that we add our own for the choicest of these blessings
      on the most beloved of our citizens.

Said address was committed to a Committee of the Whole; and the House
immediately resolved itself into a committee, Mr. PAGE in the chair. The
committee proposing no amendment thereto, rose and reported the address,
and the House agreed to it, and resolved that the Speaker, attended by
the members of this House, do present the said address to the President.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. SINNICKSON, COLES, and SMITH (of South
Carolina), be a committee to wait on the President to know when it will
be convenient for him to receive the same.

Mr. CLYMER, from the committee appointed for the purpose, reported a
bill for laying a duty on goods, wares, and merchandise, imported into
the United States, which passed its first reading.

_Amendment of the Constitution._

      [Mr. BLAND presented the application of the Legislature of
      Virginia, to have a convention called of deputies from all
      the States, to consider the defects of the Constitution and
      report amendments; and moved to refer the application to
      the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.]

Mr. BOUDINOT.--According to the terms of the Constitution, the business
cannot be taken up until a certain number of States have concurred in
similar applications; certainly the House is disposed to pay a proper
attention to the application of so respectable a State as Virginia, but
if it is a business which we cannot interfere with in a constitutional
manner, we had better let it remain on the files of the House until the
proper number of applications come forward.

Mr. BLAND thought there could be no impropriety in referring any subject
to a committee; but surely this deserved the serious and solemn
consideration of Congress. He hoped no gentleman would oppose the
compliment of referring it to a Committee of the Whole; beside, it would
be a guide to the deliberations of the committee on the subject of
amendments, which would shortly come before the House.

Mr. MADISON said, he had no doubt but the House was inclined to treat
the present application with respect, but he doubted the propriety of
committing it, because it would seem to imply that the House had a right
to deliberate upon the subject. This, he believed, was not the case
until two-thirds of the State Legislatures concurred in such
application, and then it is out of the power of Congress to decline
complying, the words of the Constitution being express and positive
relative to the agency Congress may have in case of applications of this
nature. "The Congress, wherever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution; or, on the
application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States,
shall call a convention for proposing amendments." From hence it must
appear that Congress have no deliberative power on this occasion. The
most respectful and constitutional mode of performing our duty will be,
to let it be entered on the minutes, and remain upon the files of the
House until similar applications come to hand from two-thirds of the
States.

Mr. BOUDINOT hoped the gentleman who desired the commitment of the
application would not suppose him wanting in respect to the State of
Virginia. He entertained the most profound respect for her--but it was
on a principle of respect to order and propriety that he opposed the
commitment; enough had been said to convince gentlemen that it was
improper to commit--for what purpose can it be done? what can the
committee report? The application is to call a new convention. Now, in
this case, there is nothing left for us to do, but to call one when
two-thirds of the State Legislatures apply for that purpose. He hoped
the gentleman would withdraw his motion for commitment.

Mr. BLAND.--The application now before the committee contains a number
of reasons why it is necessary to call a convention. By the fifth
article of the Constitution, Congress are obliged to order this
convention when two-thirds of the Legislatures apply for it; but how can
these reasons be properly weighed, unless it be done in committee?
Therefore, I hope the House will agree to refer it.

Mr. HUNTINGTON thought it proper to let the application remain on the
table, it can be called up with others when enough are presented to make
two-thirds of the whole States. There would be an evident impropriety in
committing, because it would argue a right in the House to deliberate,
and, consequently, a power to procrastinate the measure applied for.

Mr. TUCKER thought it not right to disregard the application of any
State, and inferred, that the House had a right to consider every
application that was made; if two-thirds had not applied, the subject
might be taken into consideration, but if two-thirds had applied, it
precluded deliberation on the part of the House. He hoped the present
application would be properly noticed.

Mr. GERRY.--The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) told us yesterday,
that he meant to move the consideration of amendments on the fourth
Monday of this month; he did not make such motion then, and may be
prevented by accident, or some other cause, from carrying his intention
into execution when the time he mentioned shall arrive. I think the
subject however is introduced to the House, and, perhaps, it may consist
with order to let the present application lie on the table until the
business is taken up generally.

Mr. PAGE thought it the best way to enter the application at large upon
the Journals, and do the same by all that came in, until sufficient were
made to obtain their object, and let the original be deposited in the
archives of Congress. He deemed this the proper mode of disposing of it,
and what is in itself proper can never be construed into disrespect.

Mr. BLAND acquiesced in this disposal of the application. Whereupon it
was ordered to be entered at length on the Journals, and the original to
be placed on the files of Congress.


_Duties on Tonnage._

The House then resumed the consideration of the Report of the Committee
of the Whole on the state of the Union, in relation to the duty on
tonnage.

Mr. JACKSON (from Georgia) moved to lower the tonnage duty from thirty
cents, as it stood in the report of the Committee on ships of nations in
alliance, and to insert twenty cents, with a view of reducing the
tonnage on the vessels of Powers not in alliance. In laying a higher
duty on foreign tonnage than on our own, I presume, said he, the
Legislature have three things in contemplation: 1st, The encouragement
of American shipping; 2ndly, Raising a revenue; and 3rdly, The support
of light-houses and beacons for the purposes of navigation. Now, for the
first object, namely, the encouragement of American shipping, I judge
twenty cents will be sufficient, the duty on our own being only six
cents; but if twenty cents are laid in this case, I conclude that a
higher rate will be imposed upon the vessels of nations not in alliance.
As these form the principal part of the foreign navigation, the duty
will be adequate to the end proposed. I take it, the idea of revenue
from this source is not much relied upon by the House; and surely twenty
cents is enough to answer all the purposes of erecting and supporting
the necessary light-houses. On a calculation of what will be paid in
Georgia, I find a sufficiency for these purposes; and I make no doubt
but enough will be collected in every State from this duty. The tonnage
employed in Georgia is about twenty thousand tons, fourteen thousand
tons are foreign; the duty on this quantity will amount to L466 13s. 4d.
Georgia currency. I do not take in the six cents upon American vessels,
yet this sum appears to be as much as can possibly be wanted for the
purpose of improving our navigation.

I shall just mention to the House one observation more, to show that the
produce of the Southern States cannot bear a high tonnage duty. The
value of rice, tobacco, and indigo has fallen so much in foreign
markets, that they are no longer worth the exportation. The merchants
complain that they lose by those remittances; and they have now got into
the practice of sending off specie; forty thousand dollars have been
sent in one vessel. This is a daily practice, and we shall shortly have
no specie left to pay our debts. The difficulty will be increased, as
no money will remain to pay for the duties imposed on the articles
imported. I hope the government will not insist upon our walking before
we are able to creep, or compel us to make bricks without straw. These
are my sentiments on the present question; if they have weight, the
House will agree with me in reducing the duty; but if the House persist
in continuing the high rates agreed to in committee, I shall content
myself with having done my duty by warning them of the danger.

Mr. AMES.--I hope the reduction moved for by the gentleman who has just
sat down will not be agreed to; for I trust the House is not satisfied
with the reasons offered in its support. A great deal has been now said
respecting the jealousy entertained of the advantages given by this
preference to some States; a great deal was also said before the
committee adopted the measure. I do not think this doctrine of jealousy
is natural to us. I know it has been cultivated by the British, and
disseminated through the United States; they had their particular views
in exciting such ideas; but I do not believe, that because we have
various we have opposite interests. Upon examination there will be found
but few of our interests that clash with each other so much as to admit
a well grounded jealousy. Nature has so arranged our circumstances, that
the people of the several States pursue various employments which
support each other. If one end of the continent is employed in
manufactures and commerce, the other is attentive to agriculture; so far
are they, therefore, from being rivals, that, both in a natural and
political sense, they mutually are necessary and beneficial to each
other's interests. I wish gentlemen, before they insist upon this
jealousy, would point out the causes of its existence. So far from this
being the case, I believe the individual interest of each part is
compatible with the general interest; and that the public opinion is the
same, is clearly demonstrated by the attachment professed by every part
to remain in union--it is acknowledged, that on this principle our
existence as a nation depends.

This being the case, I do not listen with any great degree of concern to
arguments founded on that cause. So far from surveying the affluence or
ease of my Southern brethren with the jaundiced eye of jealousy, I
contemplate their prosperity with ineffable satisfaction. I look with an
equal eye upon the success of every State through the whole extent of
United America. I wish their interests to be equally consulted; and if I
may judge of the feelings of the people, by those of their
representatives on this floor, I may venture to say there was never less
reason to apprehend discord or envy than at this time. I believe the
fact is so, because I feel it. I appeal with confidence to the gentlemen
round me, whether they have not found the disposition of those who were
suspected most to favor navigation, ready to concede what was asked for
the encouragement of every other interest? Whether a like conciliatory
conduct has not been observed by the advocates of manufactures? I ask
gentlemen, whether the language they have heard from the several parts
of this House has not been much more congenial to their sentiments than
they expected, and the measures pursued more coincident to their
feelings than what they looked for? I believe, at the moment I am making
this observation, the breasts of gentlemen beat in concert with it; I am
sure my feelings accord most cordially in the sentiment.

I believe the encouragement of our navigation is looked upon to be
indispensably necessary; its importance has never been denied. Now, I
ask if gentlemen are inclined to support and extend our navigation,
whether they are not willing to proportion the mean to the end, and
adopt measures tending to increase the quantity of American shipping? It
has been often justly remarked, that the Constitution, under which we
deliberate, originated in commercial necessity. The mercantile part of
our fellow-citizens, who are the firm friends to an equal and energetic
government, hope the improvement of our navigation may obtain the
attention of Congress; it is but justice that it be early attended to,
and it will give general satisfaction to find it considered as an
important object by the General Government. The most liberal of the
friends of American commerce only wish for such regulations as may put
our navigation on a footing with foreigners. If other nations have
restricted our navigation by regulations or charges, we must restrict
them by a tonnage, or some other duty, so as to restore an equality; but
this will not be found to be the case in the present instance. The
moderate and inconsiderable duty of thirty cents on foreigners in
treaty, and fifty cents on others not in treaty, will not enable our
vessels to go abroad with as much advantage as foreigners can come here;
so that the proposed encouragement may perhaps fall short of procuring
us a maritime strength equal to our national security.

The observations of gentlemen tending to show that one end of the
continent will suffer more by the regulation contemplated by the House
than the other, are, I conceive, not well founded. The price of freight
will equalize itself. If the people of Carolina or Georgia pay a high
freight in consequence of the tonnage duty, the State of Massachusetts
must pay the same, or her vessels will go to the southward in search of
freight, so that the Eastern States have no peculiar interest in the
measure. It has been suggested, that because Massachusetts has foreign
vessels in her employ, she cannot transport produce for
others--Massachusetts, by reason of that influence which Britain has, is
obliged to receive some of her supplies in foreign bottoms, but this is
only a proof that the evil requires a remedy. I might here easily draw a
picture of the distress to which the Eastern country is subjected for
want of a protecting hand: her shipwrights are glad to work for two
shillings and sixpence a day, or less, and less will not maintain them
and their families. Their lumber is of no value, it lies rotting in the
forests, for want of encouragement to frame it into ships; the other
artisans are clamorous for employment, and without a speedy relief they
will have to desert the country. I believe if this relief is extended to
them, it will give a spring to their industry, and a little time will
render them serviceable to their fellow-citizens in the South. They will
find markets for their tobacco, which is now rotting, and their valuable
productions will be transported to all parts of the globe. From these
circumstances, I am led to beg gentlemen to consider, that the
improvement and extension of our navigation is one of the most important
objects that can come before the Legislature; that there are abundant
proofs that a regulation in favor of American shipping is absolutely
necessary to restore them to an equality with foreigners; and if they
are convinced with me of its importance and necessity, they will not
think the sums agreed to in committee too high for the purpose of
protecting the navigation of the United States.

Mr. BURKE.--Something has been said relative to a jealousy subsisting in
the Southern States respecting the navigation interest; I shall,
therefore, make an observation or two on that subject. So far as my own
knowledge of that country goes, I believe the citizens look with
indignation at the power which foreigners have over their commerce. So
far from being jealous of the Eastern States, they look forward to some
future day when their navigation will be secured to that part of the
Union. They know that it possesses superior maritime advantages, and
expect they will hereafter afford security to them. They know, that from
the spirit and industry of the people of New England, they may derive
commercial and agricultural benefits. This is also my own judgment on
the point. I know they cannot now supply us with vessels to transport
our produce, but I hope the time will shortly come when they will have
the ability; in the mean time, when I consider how much the Southern
staples are fallen in price, and the great debts due in that country, I
must say, that I fear a heavy tonnage will be attended with very
dangerous consequences. There are very few foreigners but British come
among us, and a high duty laid upon their ships will fall severely upon
the planters. The Southern people are willing to render any assistance
to increase the maritime importance of the Eastern States, as soon as
they are able; if, therefore, a distant period is fixed for the
commencement of the high duties, I shall be in favor of them; but if
they are to take place immediately, I fear they will do a great deal of
injury in the present deranged and calamitous situation of our country.

Mr. GOODHUE was glad to hear from the several parts of the House, that
there was a disposition to give a preference to American shipping. This
principle being fixed, it only remained for the House to ascertain the
proper degree of encouragement to be given; the rate agreed to in the
committee was not more than good policy required. The gentleman from
Georgia fears that the people of his State will suffer for want of
vessels, or pay a higher freight than their neighbors; but a high duty
is not contended for in the first instance, it is only such a degree of
encouragement as will enable us to enter into a competition with
foreigners in our own carrying trade. The same gentleman has said,
Massachusetts has not vessels enough for her own commerce, and,
therefore, cannot furnish any for others; although Massachusetts employs
7 or 8,000 tons of foreign shipping; yet it is supposed she supplies the
other States with 30,000 tons. The circumstance of 5,000 hogsheads of
tobacco lying to rot for want of vessels, when some thousand tons of
ours are idle for want of employment, does not prove the want of
shipping, so much as that the price of the article is too high for a
foreign market. If the produce is held so high as not to bear the
expense of transportation, the merchants who import will be obliged to
send off money in payment. In order to remedy these inconveniences in
future, it will be necessary to hold out sufficient encouragement for
the construction of vessels. Perhaps it may be good policy to allow a
moderate tonnage duty at this time, to be increased hereafter.

Mr. MADISON.--I believe every gentleman who hears the observations from
the different quarters of this House, discovers great reason for every
friend of the United States to congratulate himself upon the evident
disposition which has been displayed to conduct our business with
harmony and concert.

We have evinced a disposition different from what was expected to arise
from the different interests of the several parts of the Union. I am
persuaded, that less contrariety of sentiment has taken place than was
supposed by gentlemen, who did not choose to magnify the causes of
variance; every thing we have hitherto done, tends to make this evident.
The importance of the Union is justly estimated by all its parts; this
being founded upon a perfect accordance of interest, it may become
perpetual. I know that the point before us has often been selected as a
proof that there was an incompatibility of interest in the United
States. On this opinion I beg leave to remark, that the difference in
point of capacity in the several States to build ships, and furnish
seamen, is much less than has generally been supposed. From the
extremity of the Northern States until we reach South Carolina,
materials of all sorts for ship-building can be obtained in abundance
from the bounty of nature; even Georgia abounds with materials of
superior quality; although their population disqualifies them for
ship-building at present, yet their advantages are such as to enable
them in a short time to rival the most prosperous State. In the next
place, I may remark, that so far as the encouragement of our own
shipping will be given at the expense of the people of the United
States, it will diffuse and equalize its operations in every part. The
ships belonging to one place will, like the people, seek employment in
another where better wages are obtained, and this, in its operations,
will level any inequalities supposed to arise from legislative
interference.


WEDNESDAY, May 6.

JOHN VINING, from Delaware, appeared and took his seat.

The bill for laying a duty on goods, wares, and merchandises imported
into the United States, was read a second time, and ordered to be
committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

On motion of Mr. SHERMAN, the House entered upon the consideration of
the amendments of the Senate to the bill for regulating the time and
manner of administering certain oaths.

The following amendments being before them, to wit:

      "That the members of the several State Legislatures, and
      all executive and judicial officers of the several States,
      who have been heretofore chosen or appointed, or who shall
      be chosen or appointed before the first day of August next,
      and who shall then be in office, shall, within one month
      thereafter, take the same oath or affirmation, except where
      they shall have taken it before; which may be administered
      by any person authorized by the law of the State in which
      such office shall be holden to administer oaths. And the
      members of the several State Legislatures, and all
      executive and judicial officers of the several States, who
      shall be chosen or appointed after the said first day of
      August, shall, before they proceed to execute the duties of
      their respective offices, take the foregoing oath or
      affirmation, which shall be administered by the person or
      persons who by the law of the State shall be authorized to
      administer the oath of office; and the person or persons so
      administering the oath hereby required to be taken shall
      cause a record or certificate thereof to be made, in the
      same manner as, by the law of the State, he or they shall
      be directed to record or certify the oath of office."

Mr. GERRY said, he did not discover what part of the constitution gave
to Congress the power of making this provision, except so much of it as
respects the form of the oath; it is not expressly given by any clause
of the constitution; and if it does exist, must arise from the sweeping
clause, as it is frequently termed, in the eighth section of the first
article of the constitution, which authorizes Congress "to make all laws
which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the
foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in
the Government of the United States, or in any department or office
thereof." To this clause there seems to be no limitation, so far as it
applies to the extension of the powers vested by the constitution; but
even this clause gives no legislative authority to Congress to carry
into effect any power not expressly vested by the constitution. In the
constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, provision is made,
that the members of the Legislatures of the several States, and all
executive and judicial officers thereof, shall be bound by oath to
support the constitution. But there is no provision for empowering the
Government of the United States, or any officer or department thereof,
to pass a law obligatory on the members of the Legislatures of the
several States, and other officers thereof, to take this oath. This is
made their duty already by the constitution, and no such law of Congress
can add force to the obligation; but, on the other hand, if it is
admitted that such a law is necessary, it tends to weaken the
constitution which requires such aid; neither is any law, other than to
prescribe the form of the oath, necessary or proper to carry this part
of the constitution into effect; for the oath required by the
constitution being a necessary qualification for the State officers
mentioned, cannot be dispensed with by any authority whatever other than
the people, and the judicial power of the United States, extending to
all cases arising in law or equity under this constitution. The Judges
of the United States, who are bound to support the constitution, may, in
all cases within their jurisdiction, annul the official acts of State
officers, and even the acts of the members of the State Legislatures, if
such members and officers were disqualified to do or pass such acts, by
neglecting or refusing to take this oath. He concluded his observations,
by submitting to the House the propriety of appointing a Committee of
Conference, to state to the Senate the doubts of the House upon this
subject.

Mr. BLAND had no doubt respecting the powers of Congress on this
subject. The evident meaning of the words of the constitution implied,
that Congress should have the power to pass a law, directing the time
and manner of taking the oath prescribed for supporting the
constitution. There can be no hesitation respecting the power to direct
their own officers, and the constituent parts of Congress; besides, if
the State Legislatures were to be left to arrange and direct this
business, they would pass different laws, and the officers might be
bound in different degrees to support the constitution. He not only
thought Congress had the power to do what was proposed by the Senate,
but he judged it expedient also, and therefore should agree to the
amendment.

Mr. JACKSON.--I believe this House, and the other branch of the
Legislature, have the power, by the constitution, to pass a law,
obliging the officers of the State Governments to take the oath required
by the constitution that their States have adopted, and which has become
the supreme law of the land. I believe the general opinion of the House
inclines to favor this sentiment. It then only remains to examine the
measure on the principle of policy. Here I must give my opinion. I
believe, sir, that it is not time to bring it forward, that it is not
expedient at present, because some jealousies exist respecting the
jurisdiction of the Federal and State Governments. The States had better
be left to regulate this matter among themselves, for an oath that is
not voluntary is seldom held sacred. Compelling people to swear to
support the constitution, will be like the attempts of Britain, during
the late revolution, to secure the fidelity of those who fell within the
influence of her arms, and, like those attempts, they will be
frustrated; the moment the party could get from under her wings, the
oath of allegiance was disregarded. If the State officers will not
willingly pay this testimony of their attachment to the constitution,
what is extorted from them against their inclination is not much to be
relied on. Besides, it argues a jealousy in the National Government,
which can have no foundation. Can any thing show more friendly to the
Union than adopting the constitution, and sending us here to administer
it? If we judge from these circumstances, there is good reason to
believe that the State Governments will pay a proper attention to the
duty enjoined upon them by the constitution. I shall readily agree, if
they do not pay this attention, that the National Legislature ought to
exercise its powers to compel them; but they know the necessity there is
for conforming to what the constitution orders; if they neglect it, it
becomes in some degree a relinquishment of their power in government. No
State Legislature can pass an act that will have the efficacy of a law.
Suppose a judge on the bench were to condemn a criminal to die for an
offence; the sentence could not be carried into execution, if the judge
had omitted to qualify himself for the discharge of the duties of his
office. In short, there would be a total stagnation of the Government,
its vital powers would be suspended, until they were revived by the
action of the constitution. Besides, the constitution partakes of the
nature of a compact; it guaranties to the State Governments the
principles of a republican government, conditionally, that the States
conform themselves to what is declared in the constitution; they must
therefore take the oath directed by the constitution, or infringe the
compact; in which case I apprehend, the guaranty is virtually withdrawn;
this is another inducement for the States to perform their duty.

Mr. LAWRENCE.--I believe, Mr. Speaker, if there is any thing improper in
making provision that the officers shall take an oath to support the
Government, the fault cannot properly be charged upon us, because the
provision is already made, and adopted by our constituents; and we are
to suppose that some beneficial effects were intended by it; while we
are reprobating the measure, let us take care we do not fall under the
censure, which the observation of the gentleman last up brought to our
view, of taking an oath, and neglecting to fulfil the duties enjoined by
it. I believe, sir, that the persons who are to take this oath in
conformity to the constitution, will conceive themselves, after having
taken such oath, under an obligation to support the constitution. It has
been said by one gentleman, that Congress have not the power to carry
this regulation into effect. Only a few words will be necessary to
convince gentlemen that Congress have this power. It is declared by the
constitution, that its ordinances shall be the supreme law of the land.
If the constitution is the supreme law of the land, every part of it
must partake of this supremacy; consequently, every general declaration
it contains is the supreme law. But then these general declarations
cannot be carried into effect, without particular regulations adapted to
the circumstances. These particular regulations are to be made by
Congress, who, by the constitution, have power to make all laws
necessary or proper to carry the declarations of the constitution into
effect. The constitution likewise declares, that the members of the
State Legislatures, and all officers, executive and judicial, shall take
an oath to support the constitution. This declaration is general, and it
lies with the supreme Legislature to detail and regulate it. The law is
to supply the necessary means of executing the principle laid down; for
how can it be carried into effect in any other manner? This explanation,
I trust, convinces gentlemen that the power of enacting such a law
exists in Congress. But whether it is good policy or not to do it,
depends upon a variety of circumstances; for my own part, I think it
prudent to make the necessary regulations for carrying into effect this
part of the constitution.

Mr. SYLVESTER.--I am an advocate for supporting the dignity of the
House, and to me it appears somewhat inconsistent that we should change
our sentiments in order to conform to the amendment of the Senate,
without knowing the reason upon which they have founded the proposed
measure. No doubt but sufficient reasons have occurred to them, but none
have appeared to this House. If we are to follow the Senate in all the
alterations they propose, without hearing reasons to induce a change,
our time in deliberation is taken up unnecessarily. With respect to any
member of this House who has not taken the oath, I concur that they are
to pay obedience to what the authority of the Legislature may order on
this head. Nay, I am equally clear that the power to regulate the
members of the State Governments in taking the oath, is either lodged
with the Congress of the United States, or nowhere. But, it appears to
me, that the State Legislatures have a concurrent power with Congress in
this regulation, for the officers of the General Government and State
Governments are called upon in the same manner: "The Senators and
Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State
Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the
United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath, or
affirmation, to support the constitution." These are the words of that
instrument. The question, then, is reduced to its expediency, whether
it is good policy to exercise the power or not? I am afraid, Mr.
Speaker, if we exercise this power, it may be considered an interference
with the State Governments. I would rather leave them to their
discretion, trusting they would come forward and take the oath; it is
unnecessary for us to intermeddle, if they will conform to what is
directed by the constitution. It appears to me most prudent, that, till
we see a disposition in the State Governments to neglect this duty, we
do not, by law, oblige them to perform it. I wish the Government to go
on gradually in administering the constitution, and not give umbrage
even to its enemies, by a compulsory act, when there appears no
necessity for it.

I could not concur in the amendment proposed by the Senate, even if I
considered it not inconsistent in the House to adopt a measure they had
previously rejected, unless some good reasons were offered to show its
propriety; not but if I have been mistaken, I am always ready to retract
my error, upon better information.

Mr. SHERMAN was not afraid of being charged with inconsistency. He had
voted against a similar clause when the bill was before the House, but
he was convinced now of its propriety; he thought it more eligible to
have a general provision for taking the oath, than particular ones. It
also appeared necessary to point out the oath itself, as well as the
time and manner of taking it. No other Legislature is competent to all
these purposes; but, if they were, there is a propriety in the supreme
Legislature's doing it. At the same time, if the State Legislatures take
it up, it cannot operate disagreeably upon them, to find all their
neighboring States obliged to join them in supporting a measure they
approve. What a State Legislature may do, will be good as far as it
goes; on the same principle, the constitution will apply to each
individual of the State officers--they may go, without the direction of
the State Legislature, to a justice, and take the oath voluntarily.
This, I suppose, would be binding upon them. But this is not
satisfactory; the Government ought to know that the oath has been
properly taken, and this can only be done by a general regulation. If it
is in the discretion of the State Legislatures to make laws to carry the
declaration of the constitution into execution, they have the power of
refusing, and may avoid the positive injunctions of the constitution. As
our power in this particular extends over the whole Union, it is most
proper for us to take the subject up, and make the proper provision for
carrying it into execution, according to the intention of the
constitution.

Mr. BOUDINOT wished to remove the gentleman's objections arising from
inconsistency. The clause that was rejected by the Committee of the
Whole on this bill, contained a penalty for the neglect of taking the
oath as prescribed; but the amendment of the Senate was not
objectionable on that account, because it contained no such provision.

As to the policy or expediency of the messure, he entertained not the
least doubt respecting it. The constitution said only that the officers
of Government should be bound by oath, leaving to Congress to say what
oath. In short it was the duty of the House, as had been well said by
the gentleman from New York, (Mr. LAWRENCE,) to detail the general
principles laid down in the constitution, and reduce them to practice.

He would enforce the expediency of the measure with one further remark.
Several of the State Legislatures were sitting at this time, and had
expressed a wish or expectation that such a regulation would be made by
the General Government; if from principles of false policy the measure
did not take place, the State Legislatures might neglect it also, and it
was well known that their officers cannot act without it; hence the
legality of their acts may be called in question, and give cause to a
great deal of uneasiness and confusion.

The question on concurring with the Senate in their amendments to the
bill was carried, with an amendment, that the members of the State
Legislatures be directed to take the oath at their next session
respectively.

The bill was, by order of the House, returned to the Senate as amended.


THURSDAY, May 7.

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, from the committee appointed to wait on
the President of the United States, to know when it will be convenient
for him to receive the address of this House, reported:

That the committee had, according to order, waited on the President, and
that he signified to them that it would be convenient to him to receive
the said address at 12 o'clock on Friday, at such place as the House
shall be pleased to appoint: Whereupon,

      _Resolved_, That as the Chamber designed for the
      President's receiving the respective Houses is not yet
      prepared, this House will wait on the President to present
      their address, in the room adjacent to the Representatives'
      Chamber.

_Duties on Tonnage._

The House resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of
the Whole on the duty on tonnage. The proposition was to lay a duty of
fifty cents per ton, on all vessels belonging wholly or in part to the
subjects of all other Powers.

Mr. MADISON moved to reduce it to forty cents, and at the end of the
year 1790, to increase it to seventy-five cents. He was satisfied to go
as far as seventy-five, because he expected, under such encouragement, a
sufficient number of vessels for the whole commerce of America might be
constructed. If he was not too sanguine in this expectation, the measure
would be both safe and expedient.

Mr. SMITH, (of Maryland.)--Both in Virginia and Maryland, British ships
pay a higher duty than what is proposed; yet they continue to carry on
an extensive trade in those States, which, in my opinion, proves those
sums to be too low. American shipping derives considerable advantages
from the regulations made in this respect by those two States. If that
protection is withdrawn from them by the General Government, it will
subject our commerce to very great inconveniences and absolute distress.
I shall therefore be opposed to the reduction.

Mr. AMES.--The gentlemen from the southward, who suppose their States
most likely to be affected by a discrimination in the tonnage duty, have
concluded their arguments with a candor, which I conceive does honor to
their patriotism. They declare themselves willing to encourage American
shipping and commerce, though they do not join with us in the sum we
think necessary to be laid on foreign tonnage to accomplish so important
an object. If sufficient encouragement is given, and by our regulation
American vessels are put on a footing with foreigners, I think we may
flatter ourselves with the prospect of seeing our navigation immediately
flourish. We have reason to expect a very considerable addition to our
shipping in the course of one year. Experience has convinced us, that
25,000 tons can be built within double that period, by the town of
Boston alone. The other ports in Massachusetts can furnish 37,000 tons,
New Hampshire a considerable quantity, and if the other States furnish
their proportion, we shall soon find ourselves independent of European
nations for the transportation of our products. If forty cents at
present, and the seventy-five cents in expectation, are thought a
sufficient encouragement for the purpose, I shall not object to the
motion.

Mr. FITZSIMONS.--If it is intended to increase the duty at the
expiration of two years, it is certainly proper to reduce it in the
interim; but I very much question such policy. The business of
ship-building, I conceive, stands at this moment in want of the greatest
encouragement in our power to give. If sufficient encouragement is
given, at this time, to produce a quantity of shipping adequate to the
demand, when we once are in possession of them, the business will stand
in need of no further encouragement. If the citizens of the United
States were now in possession of a sufficient quantity of shipping, and
had the ability to employ them, I conceive they would not stand in need
of any encouragement whatever. But this is not the case, and therefore
an encouragement is requisite. At the conclusion of the last war we were
left without shipping, and from our inability to carry on commerce, by
reason of the oppression we were subjected to by foreign powers, the
building of vessels has made but slow progress in the several States.
Hence it becomes necessary to give encouragement sufficient to induce
merchants to vest a greater proportion of their capital in this way. The
proposed encouragement is not very high, and even under it, I should not
expect a quantity of shipping would be furnished equal to the demand, in
less than four or five years. It would be brought forward by slow and
gradual degrees; they will continue, year by year, to increase them,
until the number is competent to the demand. The business of
ship-building being so relaxed, persons of that occupation have turned
to other avocations, and some sensible advantage must appear, to induce
them to return to their original profession. A proof of this is
evidenced by the situation of Philadelphia. Before the Revolution, 5,000
tons of shipping were annually built in that city; last year, the whole
tonnage was but 1,300, so much has it declined there. If it revives from
its present languishing condition, it must be by great fostering care
and protection, and by slow and gradual degrees. It does not appear to
me, that fifty cents are more than necessary for its immediate
encouragement. Gentlemen will be pleased to recollect that it is always
in the power of Congress to increase it.

Gentlemen will recollect, on the article of hemp, immediate
encouragement was contended for. It was not opposed by the commercial
gentlemen in this House. But without encouragement is given to building
and fitting out ships, the demand for hemp will be small; for very
little advantage will arise from exporting it: the great market must be
furnished by ourselves. Upon the whole, I conclude against the motion,
believing our ship-building to need encouragement more at this time than
it will at any subsequent period.

Mr. JACKSON.--The gentlemen from Massachusetts have, I must own, behaved
with liberality. One is willing to reduce the duty to forty cents,
another gentleman is more liberal still--he is willing to go lower; but
not so the gentlemen from Pennsylvania and Maryland; they are actuated
by other principles. They call to my mind a passage of scripture, where
a king, by the advice of inexperienced counsellors, declared to his
people, "my father did lade you with a heavy yoke, but I will add to
your burthens." A steady pursuit of this counsel brought about the
separation of his kingdom. These gentlemen want us even to go further.
They bring forward calculations upon the moment, and pass them for
information,--the mere calculations of yesterday,--and demonstrate
thereby the propriety of their measures. They may consider some States
of less importance than others, because they do not contribute the same
quantity of revenue; but let them remember, the widow's mite is as good
as the rich man's coffers; so the mite of Georgia is equal to the
revenue of Pennsylvania.

Mr. BURKE.--It has been observed, in the former part of the debate, that
the people of the Southern States might buy ships, if they did not
build them. There are none owned in Carolina: we are destitute both of
ships and seamen, and unable to procure them; it would be folly in us,
therefore, to burthen them with duties. Though it is true, that there
are men there who live in affluence, are rich in lands and servants, yet
I believe they are universally in debt. This may be fairly inferred from
the laws they have made to favor debtors. It would take twelve years to
enable people there to pay their State and private debts; they are
therefore very unable to sustain any new burthens, especially when their
produce is so fallen in price as not to pay the expense of cultivation.
I do not say this is to be attributed to the want of vessels to carry it
off, though there may probably be a great want in this respect; and if
there is, gentlemen tell you they are unable to make up the deficiency.
If this be the case, they ought to be contented with a moderate duty for
the present; and as my mind is strongly impressed with the importance of
encouraging the American navigation, I shall join them in doing
something that may be productive of that effect.

Mr. MADISON.--As there is a great diversity of sentiment respecting the
policy of the duty, I am very happy to find it is not prescribed by the
geographical situation of our country. This evinces that it is merely
difference of opinion, and not difference of interest. Gentlemen of the
same State differ as much as gentlemen from the extremes of the
continent. As no objection is made to giving some encouragement, we
ought to endeavor to harmonize upon the quantum. I doubt very much if
any proposition that can now be brought forward will coincide with the
sentiments of this body more than the one that is before us. I am not
anxious to reduce the encouragement too low, nor to throw to a very
distant day the advanced rate intended by my modification of the
measure; so gentlemen need not apprehend any evil to arise from its
adoption.

Gentlemen who are opposed to giving sufficient encouragement to
ship-building, ought to recollect an argument that was considered of
weight in the case of encouraging manufactures. It is certain that
manufactures have been reared up by the fostering care of the State
Legislatures, displayed in the shape of protecting duties; but the
people, by the adoption of this constitution, have put it out of their
power to continue them. The provision for the support of navigation,
made by the several States, ought to induce us to suppose even a higher
tonnage duty pleasing to them, at least in those States where a higher
tonnage duty has been laid. Those States not being able to continue
their encouragement, expect that we will attend to their policy, and
protect their citizens in the property they were led to acquire under
the State regulations. If we disappoint them, they will suffer more than
is consistent with good policy. I am not apprehensive that forty cents
will be so low as to occasion any discontent.

Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina.)--Gentlemen have endeavored to persuade
us, that a high tonnage duty will be beneficial to the Union; but I
would as soon be persuaded to throw myself out of a two-story window, as
to believe a high tonnage duty was favorable to South Carolina.
Gentlemen tell us we are in great want of shipping and a navy--that
sufficient encouragement for ship-building must be given before we can
expect it; but I think, let the encouragement be what it may, many years
will elapse before we have sufficient for the export of our commodities.
I know Massachusetts cannot furnish us, because there are adventitious
causes to prevent it. The course of the stream in which our navigation
has so long flowed, cannot be altered in a day. The debts due from the
merchants of that country to the British, will be an insuperable bar.
Suppose they should send ships to transport our produce to a foreign
market, they have no connections abroad to transact their business, no
house in a commercial line to employ in the sales. What are they to
bring back in return? They must come in ballast: and will the mere
transportation of our crop be a sufficient inducement to engage them to
come here? If they had more shipping than they wanted, we should still
labor under the same difficulty, and employ foreigners; because the
business is unchangeably in their hands, and the very moment the tonnage
duty is increased, it will be an inducement to them to raise the price
of freight.

Mr. LAWRENCE.--There have been circumstances mentioned in the course of
this debate, which I think may be useful in ascertaining whether the
proposed duty of fifty cents on tonnage be too high or not. It appears
that there is a duty in Georgia equal to 1s. 8d. sterling; in South
Carolina, 1s. 3d. besides something on goods imported in foreign
bottoms; in Virginia and Maryland it is much greater. How, then, can
gentlemen from those States contend that the proposed duty is so much
too high as to occasion the fatal consequences they foretell? When we
consider the valuable produce of the Southern States, we are led to
believe that the difference of ten cents per ton can make no material
difference in the price. Will it materially affect the price of rice or
tobacco? Neither of these articles would pay more than five cents per
cask, if the duty should be reduced.

The duty, therefore, cannot be fairly said to be too high for the
Southern States; it is not contended to be too high for the middle ones;
it is not too high for us.

If we consider the subject as it relates to revenue, it will form a
material object for our attention; if the duty be considered as a bounty
to the maritime States, it will be admitted that it is our interest to
increase our navigation.

The regulation proposed by the gentleman from Virginia, to increase the
duty to seventy-five cents at the end of two years, may never take
effect; before that period arrives, a treaty may be formed with the
nation that is our great commercial rival. I am, therefore, in favor of
a permanent regulation, rather than one holding out an encouragement
that will never take place.

Mr. JACKSON.--The gentleman last up thinks the reduction of ten cents
will not materially affect the Southern States, yet he supposes it will
injure ship-building: how it can hurt one interest by being reduced, and
not wound the other by its increase, I do not clearly understand; for my
part, I do not see the weight of such arguments.

Mr. LAWRENCE.--I consider the difference of ten cents to be too small
for contention; the arguments of the gentlemen in opposition go as much
against a duty of forty cents as against fifty.

Mr. PAGE.--I have heard all the arguments now brought against this
measure, urged over and over again, when a tonnage duty was contended
against in the same manner in Virginia. It was then merely a trial, but
now we have the arguments resulting from experience in our favor. We
find the British shipping still crowding our ports, although the tonnage
duty is twice as great as is now proposed; and although the price of
produce has fallen within that time, yet I am persuaded it must be
attributed to other causes than this. Let the experiment be made with
firmness, and I venture to say, it will turn out the same in other
States as in ours. I acknowledge the gentlemen's arguments have weight,
but they go against any tax whatsoever being laid on tonnage. But
experience has demonstrated to us, that such a duty is attended with
advantages; it will encourage ship-building, and render us independent
for the transportation of our produce. Let, therefore, no suggestions of
the kind that have been offered deter us from pursuing, with firmness
and decision, the plan adopted by the committee.

Mr. WADSWORTH.--If the gentleman who has brought forward this
proposition had proposed thirty cents instead of forty, I should have
agreed to the motion, because it would have destroyed the discrimination
between the vessels of nations in treaty, and those not in treaty with
us; but in every other point of view, I should be against a reduction.
Foreign vessels will be better circumstanced under a duty of fifty
cents, than American free of duty. The charges on foreign bottoms in our
ports are very small; there is not, I believe, a vessel of ours that
goes to Europe, that does not pay, in light money and other charges,
more than fifty cents per ton.

Mr. MADISON.--The subject of discrimination is not now within our view;
it has been decided by a great majority; I think there were not more
than nine members against it. I do not mean, by the arguments that I
have urged, to prove that the increase of tonnage has a tendency to
raise the price of freight: all my object has been to quiet the
apprehensions of gentlemen who hold that opinion. I do not think it will
keep away foreign vessels from visiting us, nor increase the burthen on
our Southern commerce, so much as has been calculated; and even if it
did, the extension of our navigation would be an adequate compensation.
The price of freight before the late revolution was higher than it is at
present; perhaps it may be lower when ships are furnished in larger
quantities.

Mr. TUCKER.--I fear the gentlemen who look for a sufficient quantity of
shipping to answer the demands of our commerce in so short a space as
two years, will find themselves deceived. I think, therefore, it would
be improper to lay a high tonnage duty, commencing at that period; if it
appears expedient, a future Legislature may give such encouragement, but
they are not bound to perform our engagement. After they have seen the
effect of the present regulation, they will be better able to judge of
what is right in this particular than we can do. I am doubtful whether
the measure would place the United States in a better or worse situation
than a duty of fifty cents; a commutation of this kind, in order to save
ten cents for two years, and admit an addition of twenty-five cents for
ever afterwards, appears a doubtful policy. At any rate, the Congress
might feel themselves, in some degree, bound to raise the duty to
seventy-five cents, when their judgments might tell them it was
inexpedient--they will then have cause to complain of our anticipation.
I should, I think, rather be in favor of fixing a certain tonnage duty
at present, and leave it to the consideration of a future Legislature,
whether to increase it or not, according to the circumstances of the
case. I think thirty cents as much as can be given, with propriety, at
this time; considering the interest of the State I have the honor to
represent, I believe it will bear harder on some States than on others,
acting partially and not generally. When I speak of the State I
represent, I would not be thought actuated by improper motives; I think
every gentleman is bound to support, in a proper manner, the interest he
is well acquainted with, and believes to be conducive to the general
welfare. A great deal has been said respecting the duties that have been
laid on tonnage in the Southern States. I begged the attention of the
House, on a former occasion, to a striking difference there is in duties
imposed by the State, for its own particular advantage, and what are
about to be laid for the benefit of the United States. Every duty
imposed, I consider as a tax on the inhabitants of South Carolina. If
that tax is to bear harder on them than on other States, I pronounce it
unequal and unjust. I consider the tax on tonnage in this light; but as
I am willing to give encouragement to our navigation, so I shall not
oppose a moderate duty on foreign vessels; as I also conceive a
discrimination proper between those nations in alliance with us and
those with whom we have no treaties subsisting, I am disposed to admit a
larger sum than thirty cents: I would propose thirty-five, upon the
express condition of reducing the duty already agreed to, to twenty or
twenty-five, when a bill shall come forward founded upon the principles
now agreed to.

The question was here put on Mr. MADISON's motion and lost.

The House then decided upon the original proposition, which being agreed
to, it was

      _Resolved_, That there ought to be levied on all vessels
      entered or cleared in the United States, the duties
      following, to wit:

      On all vessels built within the United States, and
      belonging wholly to citizens thereof, at the rate of nine
      cents per ton.

      On all vessels not built within the United States, but now
      belonging wholly to citizens thereof, at the rate of six
      cents per ton.

      On all vessels belonging wholly to the subjects of Powers
      with whom the United States have formed treaties, or partly
      to the subjects of such Powers, and partly to citizens of
      the said States, at the rate of thirty cents per ton.

      On all vessels belonging wholly or in part to subjects of
      other Powers, at the rate of fifty cents per ton.

      _Provided_, That no vessel built within the United States,
      and belonging to a citizen or citizens thereof, whilst
      employed in the coasting trade, or in the fisheries, shall
      pay tonnage more than once in any one year; nor shall any
      ship or vessel built within the United States pay tonnage
      on her first voyage.

      _Provided also_, That no vessel be employed in the
      transportation of the produce or manufactures of the United
      States or any of them, coastwise, except such vessels shall
      be built within the United States, and the property of a
      citizen or citizens thereof.

The same was, on a question put thereupon, agreed to by the House.

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the said
resolution, and that Mr. WADSWORTH, Mr. HEISTER, and Mr. SENEY, do
prepare and bring in the same.[22]


FRIDAY, May 8.

The Speaker, attended by the members of the House, withdrew to the room
adjoining the Representatives' Chamber, and there presented to the
President of the United States the address agreed to on Tuesday last, to
which he returned the following answer:

      GENTLEMEN:

      Your very affectionate address produces emotions which I
      know not how to express. I feel that my past endeavors in
      the service of my country are far overpaid by its goodness;
      and I fear much that my future ones may not fulfil your
      kind anticipation. All that I can promise is, that they
      will be invariably directed by an honest and an ardent
      zeal; of this resource my heart assures me. For all
      beyond, I rely on the wisdom and patriotism of those with
      whom I am to co-operate, and a continuance of the blessings
      of Heaven on our beloved country.

The Speaker and members being returned into the House:

Mr. GERRY, from the committee appointed, presented, according to order,
a bill for collecting duties on goods, wares, and merchandises imported
into the United States; and the same was received and read the first
time.

_Ordered_, That the Clerk of this House do procure one hundred copies of
the said bill to be printed for the use of the members of this House.

On motion,

_Ordered_, That the committee appointed on the 29th ultimo, to report an
estimate of the supplies requisite for the present year, and of the net
produce of the impost, as agreed to by the House, be authorized and
instructed to collect early and authentic statements of the particular
articles of foreign produce and manufactures annually imported into, and
of all the articles exported from, the several States, and the value of
such imports and exports; also, the number of vessels, both foreign and
domestic, entered and cleared during that time, specifying their
tonnage, and the nations to which they respectively belong; specifying,
also, the exact numbers of each particular description of vessels of
each nation, and the amount of tonnage of each particular vessel.

_Duties on Imports._

The House, according to the order of the day, resolved itself into a
Committee of the whole House on the bill for laying a duty on goods,
wares, and merchandises imported into the United States.

Mr. PAGE in the chair.

Mr. TUCKER.--As I am desirous of beginning with moderate duties, I deem
it proper, at this stage of the business, to offer my reasons in support
of this opinion, that if it be the opinion of the committee, we may go
uniformly through the list, and make the necessary reduction. I am
opposed to high duties, particularly for two reasons: First, because
they will tend to introduce and establish a system of smuggling; and,
Secondly, because they tend to the oppression of certain citizens and
States, in order to promote the benefit of other States and other
classes of citizens. I cannot say I have a peculiar aversion to a high
duty on distilled spirits; I may, therefore, be suspected of
inconsistency in moving to reduce it; but I do it on the principle of a
general reduction. If I do not succeed on the first article, I shall
despair of succeeding on the others.

It appears to me that if we lay high duties on the importation of goods,
a system of smuggling will be adopted before we can possibly make the
necessary provision to prevent it. I take it, sir, that proper
regulations respecting the collection is all our security against
illicit trade. From a variety of circumstances, it appears to me, we
shall not only be a long time in completing such a system, but, for want
of experience, many of the regulations will be of a dubious propriety.
Gentlemen will recollect we have an extensive sea-coast, accessible at a
thousand points, and upon all this coast there are but few custom-houses
where officers can be stationed to guard the collection of the duties;
therefore, we labor under considerably greater disadvantages than a
thicker settled country is liable to. I apprehend, if we consider the
present state of our population, we shall conclude it impracticable to
establish a sufficient number of custom-houses on those parts of the
coast most assailable, to render us perfectly secure in the collection
of our duties. If it were practicable, the expense would be a formidable
objection; it would require more revenue to support such a system than
all we shall derive from the impost. But we know in Great Britain where
the duties are high, no expense is spared in the collection, yet
smuggling is carried on to a very considerable amount; the risk run by
this class of people is very great, the penalties are very severe, and
the vigilance of the officers renders detection not very improbable. As
this is the case, under the administration of a very powerful
Government, I apprehend ours, which is only in its infancy, will be
unable to prevent it taking place, otherwise than by a system of
moderate duties. If we begin with laying them high, there will be an
immediate temptation to engage in a system of smuggling, a system of
which may soon be formed, so as to render our future efforts
ineffectual; it is better to avoid the temptation, than to punish the
evil. A man that is disposed to trade fairly, will be brought under the
necessity of falling into the same practice, or giving up his business;
for the higher the duty, the greater the advantage the smuggler has over
the fair trader, being compelled by necessity to engage in a contraband
trade, or to forego the means of a livelihood. Smuggling will be no
longer dishonorable, no longer difficult, and none will be found
opposing the practice; repeated efforts to corrupt will be successful
among even the officers of your customs; they at first may resist the
temptation, but when they find the practice general, their vigilance
will wink at a contraband trade, and smuggling will be considered as a
matter of course. They will consider the reward given them for being out
of the way as a benefit to which they are entitled. For these reasons, I
shall be against a system of high duties, and because I fear there is
danger of a system of smuggling being introduced before proper
arrangements are made to prevent it; or if we had time to make such
arrangements, they must inevitably be ineffectual.

I would observe further, that a high duty not only tends to the
encouragement of smuggling, but it likewise raises, in my mind, a
scruple respecting the allowance of a drawback, as I conceive every
drawback becomes an additional encouragement to smuggling. In many
instances, I fear it may be found, that the drawback will amount to more
than all the duties paid in the States which are entitled to it.
Considering the situation of the States of North Carolina and Rhode
Island, which are not in the Union, their contiguity to the other States
will increase the facility with which smuggling can be carried on; it
will be easy to import articles from Europe and the West Indies into
their ports, and send them by land, or even water to the adjacent
States. When these are smuggled into the United States, they may be
re-exported and entitled to receive a drawback, although the revenue was
not collected upon the importation. If we agree to moderate duties it
will be much easier to regulate our system on this head; if our revenue
is found not to be quite so productive as gentlemen calculate upon a
system of higher duties, which, by the by, appears to me to be very
unlikely, we shall be better able to judge what we can do after a trial,
than we can possibly at present; at any rate, it will be but a small
loss; whereas, by a large scale, we may throw the whole Union into
confusion, and there will be no remedy by which we can recover what we
have now in our power; for a reduction of duties, when they are once
laid, is productive of the most serious consequences. Having, therefore,
a strong impression upon my mind, that we hazard a great deal in
imposing high duties in the first instance, I should not have been
satisfied with having done my duty, if I had not stated my doubts and
difficulties to the committee; but having done this, I shall content
myself with their decision, be it what it may.

On motion, the further reading of the bill was postponed--adjourned.


SATURDAY, May 9.

JEREMIAH VAN RENSSELAER, from New York, appeared and took his seat.

The following communications were received from the Senate by Mr. Otis,
their Secretary:

Mr. SPEAKER: The Senate have disagreed to the report of a committee
appointed to determine what style or titles it will be proper to annex
to the office of President and Vice President of the United States, if
any other than those given in the constitution; and have appointed a
committee to consider and report under what title it will be proper for
the President of the United States in future to be addressed, and confer
thereon with such committee as this House may appoint for that purpose.
The Senate have also appointed a committee to view and report how the
rooms in the City Hall shall be appropriated, and to confer with any
committee this House may appoint for that purpose.


_Duties on Imports._

The House, according to the order of the day, resolved itself into a
Committee of the whole House on the bill for laying a duty on goods,
wares, and merchandises imported into the United States. Mr. PAGE in the
chair.

Mr. TUCKER.--The observations I made yesterday were intended to apply
generally against a system of high duties. As to the particular article
of spirits, I have no objection to a high duty being laid upon it,
provided it can be strictly collected; for I do not wish to give
encouragement to the consumption of that article, though, I fear, no
duty we can lay will tend much to discourage it. I thought that if it
was the general opinion of the House to lessen the duties, it would be a
saving of time to discuss it on a motion to reduce the first article. I
repeat the observation, that high duties are improper, because they are
impolitic, and likely to defeat the object of revenue: less will be
collected on them than on moderate ones. If it be considered as an
encouragement to manufactures to lay heavy duties on enumerated
articles, it is a tax on one part for the emolument of another. Five per
cent. upon all articles imported would raise a considerable revenue, and
be a sufficient encouragement to manufactures, especially if we add to
this five per cent. the expense of freight and other charges of
importation on foreign goods. The five per cent. in the bill is to be
collected on the value of the goods at the time and place of
importation; the value of goods within the United States is twenty-five
per cent. more than they cost in Europe; adding this therefore to the
other advantages, and it will be a considerable encouragement; but,
besides all this, there are many articles made here as cheap, and
cheaper than they can be imported. Gentlemen, who have given us this
information, know the fact to be so in their respective States; in them,
therefore, the operation of the measure would be just and politic, but
it does not apply with the same force as it respects South Carolina and
some other States. Although in Boston and Philadelphia they can
manufacture certain wares cheaper than they can import them, yet they
are not brought at the same price to Charleston: hence the operation is
unequal and a partial tax upon us. Another thing to be considered is,
even if these articles could be furnished us at home as cheap as we get
them from abroad, whether we should have equal advantages? If a cargo of
nails were to be sent to Carolina, I would be glad to know how we are to
purchase it? Would the makers of shoes be content to go there and retail
them? If they would, they might be brought there; but I apprehend, if
they have not established connections in that country, they could never
be disposed of. Can they expect the planters to come in a body, and take
off their goods upon their arrival? It is not even expected that they
could; it must be left to them to judge, whether they do not purchase
them in a better way, by taking them upon credit, and paying for them in
their crop. Gentlemen will not pretend to say that we do not know our
own interest, and therefore they will teach us. These reasons will not
go down with the people; they will take to themselves the right of
judging what is most conducive to their interests. Gentlemen cannot
argue from the fact, that we do not consume the articles made within
their States, as readily and willingly, as those imported from abroad,
merely because we do not wish to encourage them. Facts prove the direct
contrary: we have shown a disposition to encourage articles from their
States which can be made in our State in great abundance. I will mention
a few of them, although it may appear disgraceful for South Carolina to
take from any country what she can furnish herself. We have imported to
the city of Charleston vegetables for table use, which we can raise as
well as any part of the world; yet no complaint was made by the
agricultural interest of that State, that we imported foreign
productions to their prejudice; no duty was imposed to discourage the
use of them; all we considered was, whether they came cheaper when
brought from abroad than when raised at home, concluding the cheapest to
be the best.

On the same principles that are now urged, our citizens might have
contended that we should impose a duty on all articles which could be
produced at home. No imposition on the importation was laid in order to
encourage the productions of our country; the same principle ought to
have induced us to lay a duty on the importation of flour. We make but
little of that; our constituents consume rice in place of it. It might
have been said that a heavy duty should have been laid in order to
prevent the interference with our staple commodity. The planters should
have said, we will compel you to eat rice, and after being some time in
the habit you will find you will like it as well as we; indeed, this
argument might be extended to a measure calculated to oblige the other
States to use rice in their daily food. It might be said, that it was
necessary in order to give encouragement to the productions of the
Southern States, but I believe such arguments would have had no weight
if they had been used; yet they are similar to what have been brought
forward by gentlemen for the encouragement of domestic manufactures.

Mr. Speaker, if gentlemen are content with moderate duties, we are
willing to agree to them and give every reasonable encouragement in our
power, but we cannot consent to very great oppression. I once more wish
that gentlemen will consider great duties as imposing a heavier burthen
upon the Southern States, as they import more, the other less; and the
sum we pay towards the revenue must be in proportion to our importation.
I therefore move, in order to begin with the first article, that
distilled spirits be reduced six cents per gallon.

Mr. JACKSON seconded this motion, and would assign his reasons for it,
but they had been so fully stated by the honorable mover.

Mr. AMES.--I wish the committee may consider, with the attention the
subject demands, whether the duties are too high or not? It is hardly
possible, I own, to contemplate this subject as a practical question.
We shall find it necessary to consider attentively, before we proceed
any further, what the objects of our Government are; and, having
discovered them, we are to consider whether the proposed measure will
answer the purposes intended. I believe in every point of view that we
can possibly consider it, the subject of revenue will be thought to be
one of the primary objects to which the power of Government extends. It
has long been apprehended, that an ill administration of the new
constitution was more to be feared, as inimical to the liberties of the
people, than any hostility from the principles of the constitution. Of
all the operations of Government, those which concern taxation are the
most delicate as well as the most important. This observation applies to
all governments. Revenue is the soul of Government, and if such a soul
had not been breathed into our body politic it would have been a
lifeless carcass, fit only to be buried. I would wish this soul might be
actuated by rational principles, that, in establishing a revenue system,
we might go on a superior principle to that which has heretofore been
the governing principle in the United States; that we might consider
what was most adequate to the object. The nature of the revenue system
in this Government is to the last degree important; for want of the
soul, the late Government was found utterly incapable of invigorating
and protecting industry, or securing the Union; therefore these seem to
be the great objects which we are to accomplish. I consider the present
question as a direct application to the principles of the constitution;
it will either support or destroy them. If the revenue system should
fall with oppressive weight on the people, if it shall injure some in
their dearest interests, it will shake the foundation of the Government.
However the newspapers may stand your friends, and trumpet forth
panegyrics on the new constitution, if your administration does not give
satisfaction, you will find all ineffectual that they can do, whilst the
people are against you. This being admitted, the Government will not
push their regulations too far; they will consider the weaknesses and
prejudices of the individual members of the Union. When they lay a tax,
they will consider how far it is agreeable to them, and how far the
measure is wise in itself. If it is said the article to be taxed is a
luxury, and the Government is zealous to correct the vice, they will be
careful they do not do it in too severe a manner; the principle would be
capable of great expansion: all the enjoyments of social life are
luxuries, and, as objects of revenue, we ought to set a price on the
enjoyment, without suppressing their use altogether. Neither ought we to
consider what the article in this point of view is able to pay, so much
as what we may reasonably expect to collect from it.

Mr. MADISON.--The right understanding of this subject is of great
importance. The discussion has been drawn out to a very considerable
length on former occasions. The chain of ideas on which the subject is
suspended, is not very long, nor consists of many links. The present
constitution was framed to supply the defects of the one that has
preceded it. The great and material defects of it are well known to have
arisen from its inability to provide for the demands of justice and
security of the Union. To supply those defects, we are bound to fulfil
the public engagements; expectation is anxiously waiting the result of
our deliberations; it cannot be satisfied without a sufficient revenue
to accomplish its purposes. We cannot obtain the money any other way but
by taxation. Among the various objects of this nature, an impost on
merchandise imported is preferable to all others, and among the long
list of articles included in the bill, there is not one more proper for
the purpose than the article under consideration. The public sentiment
has strongly pointed it out as an object of revenue. I conceive,
therefore, that it will be our duty to draw from this source all the
money that it is capable of yielding. I am sure that it will not exceed
our wants, nor extend to the injury of our commerce. How far the powers
of Government are capable of going on this occasion, is matter of
opinion; we have had no direct experiment of what can be done under the
energy and popularity of the new system; we must recur to other sources
for information, and then, unless the circumstances are alike, the
comparison may not be true. We have been referred to the experience of
other nations; if that is to guide us on this subject, I am sure we
shall find precedents for going much farther than is now proposed. If I
do not mistake the calculations that I have seen of duties on
importation, they amount to more on an average than fifteen per cent.;
the duty on ardent spirits in all nations exceeds what is in
contemplation to be laid in the United States. I am sensible that the
means which are used by those nations to insure the collection, would be
odious and improper in this country; but I believe the means which this
country is capable of using, without exciting complaint or incurring too
much expense, would be as adequate to secure a duty of fifteen per cent.
as the powers of any other nation could be to obtain ninety or one
hundred per cent. I pay great respect to the opinions of mercantile
gentlemen, and am willing to concede much to them, so far as their
opinions are regulated by experience; but if I am to be guided by this
information, it will not lead me to agree to the reduction of the duties
in the manner contended for. It is said, that if we reduce at all, we
must go through the whole. Now I doubt whether the duty on the article
of rum exceeds that proportion which pervades the long list before us.
It does not amount to more than thirty per cent., while some other
articles stand at forty; some articles again that are not enumerated,
but which fall within the general mass at five per cent., are more
likely to be introduced clandestinely than this article, if it stood at
fifty per cent. I am sure, if we reduce the whole system in the manner
now proposed, all the duty we shall be able to collect will be very
incompetent to what the public necessities demand. We must turn our
eyes, then, to some other source that will fill up the deficiency. There
are but two objects to which in this dilemma we can have
recourse--direct taxation and excises. Direct taxation is not
contemplated by any gentleman on this floor, nor are our constituents
prepared for such a system of revenue; they expect it will not be
applied to, until it is found that sufficient funds cannot be obtained
in any other way. Excises would give particular disgust in some States,
therefore gentlemen will not make up the deficiency from that quarter. I
think, upon the whole, it is better to try what will be produced by a
plan which is favored by the public sentiment. This will give a support
to our laws equal to the greatest energy of a strong execution. The
citizens of America know that their individual interest is connected
with the public. We shall then have the strong motive of interest acting
in favor of the Government in a peculiar manner. But I am not inclined
to trust too much to this security. I would take in the aid of the best
regulations in our power to provide; these acting in concert, would give
a moral certainty to the faithful collection of the revenue. But if
gentlemen, notwithstanding, will persist in contending against such a
system, and cannot offer us a substitute, we must fail of the primary
object for which the Government was created. If upon experience we find
that the duties cannot be safely collected, it may be proper to reduce
them; but if we set them too low in the first instance, and they do not
yield a sufficiency to answer the just demands of the public creditors
and the expenses of Government, the public reputation must suffer.

Mr. BLAND.--I join with the gentlemen who are disposed to lower the
duties. Although I feel the necessity we are under of raising revenue as
much as any other gentleman possibly can, yet I think we ought to
deliberate fully upon the means before we adopt them. It is
demonstrable, nay it is self-evident, that laying high duties, in the
first instance, will beget smuggling, and I fear our regulations,
respecting the collection, will prove the impracticability of defeating
the practice. But when we come to consider the subject in another point
of view, I trust such a system will be found unnecessary. The enumerated
articles in this bill are very numerous; they are taxed from fifty per
cent. downwards; the general mass pays five per cent. The calculations
made by the late Congress, who no doubt maturely considered the subject,
found a list of eight articles only, and those at one-fourth or
one-fifth of the rate now proposed, would produce a revenue of nine
hundred and fifteen thousand six hundred and fifty-six dollars annually.

When we add to this calculation a circumstance of notoriety, the
increase of our importation, we shall find that we levy, or mean to
levy, greater sums than the public necessities require. There will not
be found specie enough within the United States to pay the duties: four
times the rate of what the former Congress recommended, will produce
three millions six hundred thousand dollars. The enumeration is four
times as great also; hence we may infer, that the amount will reach
thirteen or fourteen millions. At least we shall be convinced that we
are upon too high a scale. But where is the necessity of raising the
impost to this degree? There are other means of revenue, and such as
will not give disgust. We have already proposed a duty on tonnage; there
is the post-office, and some other things which the ingenuity of
Government can devise and is entitled to, for the purpose of revenue; if
it is therefore unnecessary to levy such oppressive taxes, what other
pretext can be set up for adopting the system? Independent of every
other consideration, this ought to induce us to lower them. But there
are other and weighty considerations; but as they have been well urged
by the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. AMES,) I shall not touch upon
them. It is said, that it is merely matter of opinion whether they are
too high or not; if so, let us be careful not to venture too far on such
ground. It will be much better to reduce it in the manner proposed by
the gentleman from South Carolina, and increase it hereafter, than
strain the measure too high at present.

Mr. SHERMAN.--After this subject had been debated in a Committee of the
Whole, and then in the House upon the report, and every argument that
could be thought of had been urged, both on the general and particular
amount of the duties proposed, and the probable effects of a deduction,
I did not expect to have heard the same debate take place again.
Gentlemen have a large field to display their abilities in, but I do not
think it contains any new matter that will induce a single gentleman to
alter his opinion on the subject. The great object is to raise a sum of
money adequate to supply our wants; and let us dispute as we will about
the mode, the fact is it must be raised. The people have sent their
representatives here for this purpose; it is for their benefit that we
raise the money, and not for any peculiar advantage to ourselves; the
objects are to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare of
the community. The first of these objects I take to be, that we pay our
debts. There are very many meritorious characters who furnished us with
essentials in the hour of imminent danger, who, from the imbecility of
our former Government, have not been able to get even the interest of
what they loaned us. I believe it is the first wish of the people
throughout the United States to do justice to the public creditors, and
to do it in such a manner, that each may contribute an equal part
according to his abilities. We have very considerable arrearages due on
this account, upon not only the domestic but foreign debt; there are
several instalments not yet discharged, and considerable of the interest
not yet paid. No statement can be made of the expenses of Government, so
as to ascertain what quantity of revenue will be demanded on that head,
but saying that they will be much the same under this Government as the
former, and we shall have occasion for a very considerable sum to defray
the expenses. I believe we are not able to make a very accurate
calculation of what the system, proposed in the bill, will yield. The
late Congress contemplated a million of dollars from this source, which,
in aid of the requisition, they supposed sufficient for the purpose of
paying the instalments of the national debt and interest; but that sum
alone will now be found very short of what is wanted without the aid of
direct taxes. It is very material that we lay the burthen as equal as
possible, in whatever mode we pursue to obtain revenue: a great deal of
care has been taken in distributing the proportion with equity; I
apprehend, therefore, that we shall not be able to make it much more
equitable by any alteration than it is at present. I think, also, that
the people will pay more freely a duty of this nature than they will in
direct taxes. If gentlemen prevail in getting the duties lowered to what
the late Congress proposed, they will find themselves obliged to have
recourse to direct taxation for a million and a half, or two millions of
dollars. It then only remains for us to consider, whether it will be
more agreeable to the people to reduce the impost in this manner, and
raise the deficiency by direct taxes. If these duties are to be
considered as a tax on the trading part of the community alone, they are
improper; but this I believe is not the case; the consumer pays them
eventually, and they pay no more than they choose, because they have it
in their power to determine the quantity of taxable articles they will
use. A tax left to be paid at discretion must be more agreeable than any
other. The merchant considers that part of his capital applied to the
payment of the duties the same as if employed in trade, and gets the
same profit upon it as on the original cost of the commodity.

Mr. WHITE.--When this system first came before the committee, I was
opposed to enter into an enumeration, because I supposed much time would
be taken up in the discussion, which would be an absolute loss of
revenue, perhaps to a greater amount than the difference between the
duties of such a system and the one proposed by the late Congress; but
as it was thought proper by the committee to proceed in the way that we
have done, it would be presumption in me to say, that the duty on every
article has been perfectly digested and properly laid, but I believe
every article stands as well as can be upon the information we are in
possession of. I believe very few, if any, of the articles can be
disapproved of.

Mr. AMES.--The gentleman from Pennsylvania set out with informing us
that nothing new had or could be offered on the subject, yet you found,
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman had a good deal to say, which I thought new
and much to the purpose. As to applying the observation to myself, in
common with the advocates for low duties, I shall decline it, only
noting that the long discussion which the subject has had, would
restrain me from rising on this occasion, more than any remarks of the
nature made by the gentlemen from Pennsylvania and Connecticut; but I am
actuated by higher motives than a regard to my own feelings, otherwise I
should come reluctantly forward to press arguments which the committee
may be fatigued with listening to. But I feel such strong impressions on
my mind, with regard to the effects our impost law is likely to produce,
that I cannot pass it over with a silent vote. I must admonish
gentlemen, that the events which may result from our present measures
are of the most alarming nature. When I was up before, I endeavored to
show the degree of power the Government could exercise without being
charged with an ill administration. I shall now proceed briefly to
consider the arguments used in reply to what has been advanced by the
advocates for moderate duties. I believe it is a good rule to judge of
the strength of a cause by the arguments used to defend it; and here I
must take the liberty of saying, that the gentlemen on the other side of
the question have adduced not one to support their opinion that has
carried conviction to my mind. I consider that, by a decision of this
question, the good which the new Government is expected to produce may
be rendered problematical. Though I am fully impressed with the
necessity there is for revenue to supply the public expenses, yet I
cannot believe we are likely to obtain more by heavy duties than by
temperate ones, and it is to this point that my arguments tend. I do not
believe that in either case we shall procure fully sufficient to supply
the public demands. If we have to procure 8,000,000 dollars, I venture
to say, not near the half could be raised by an impost system; but
admitting that it could by a high scale of duties for the first year, it
could not be done in the subsequent ones. Now I regard this as a
permanent system of revenue, rather than a productive one; if it is laid
high, you will find your collection annually diminish. Now, will any
Government take such measures in gathering in its harvest, as to ruin
the soil? Will they rack-rent their tenants in such a manner as to
deprive them of the means of improving the estate? Such can never be the
policy of this enlightened country. We know, from the fundamental
principles of republics, that public opinion gives the tone to every
action of the Government--the laws ought to correspond with the habits
and manners, nay, I may almost add, wishes of the people. Well, Mr.
Chairman, we are told a tax upon rum is popular; I will agree with the
gentlemen; but still a high duty will induce people to run it, and
though the consumer may pay the tax without complaining, yet it will go
into the pockets of individuals who defraud your revenue. Gentlemen have
complained that we do not offer a substitute for what we find fault
with. I will endeavor to explain a system I would place in the room of
this. I would reduce the duties generally so low as to hold out no
encouragement to smuggling; in this case, it is more than probable, the
amount of the impost, at the end of one year, would exceed the
collection under the present rate. By giving this proof of moderation
and wisdom, we should obtain the public favor and confidence; the
Government would be acquiring strength, its movements would be more
certain, and we could in every subsequent year extend the system, and
make the whole productive; then it would be in the power of Government,
by aids, to improve our agriculture, manufactures, and commerce. Our
imports are now very great; by the increase of our commerce, we shall
probably find our revenue produce twice as much seven years hence as it
can be expected to do at present.

Mr. MADISON.--Let us compare the probable amount of the revenue proposed
to be raised by this system, with what is raised in Great Britain, and
we shall be apt to infer that they are not so oppressive as gentlemen
seem to insinuate. Taking the highest estimate that I have heard
mentioned, and it will not produce three millions of dollars. The
population of the United States exceeds three millions of souls, hence
the tax does not amount to one dollar per head. Great Britain, on the
highest estimation, does not contain eight millions of inhabitants, and
has an annual revenue to provide of thirteen millions sterling. It is
true, she has recourse to other means besides an impost for the purpose
of obtaining such a revenue; but those other means are certainly more
objectionable in that country, and would be much more so here. Each
individual of that kingdom pays eight times as much as is required by
the United States; now, where is the propriety of making a comparison
between them?

Mr. BALDWIN asked if the Government of the United States of America was
four or five times worse to be administered than the Governments in
Europe? Whether the public opinion was four or five times more
unfavorable to such an administration? If these questions are answered
in the affirmative, then the inferences which gentlemen have drawn, of
the impracticability of collecting the duties laid in the bill, are
just. But this is not allowing the General Government the common chance
of executing its laws. If it were the worst Government on earth, it
might be allowed a chance of doing one quarter of what others perform.
If we find by experience, that we are too weak to execute a system which
is so much easier than other nations have adopted, it may be proper to
alter it. We shall be better able to judge how far we are likely to
succeed, when the bill for the collection of the revenue is brought
forward. Such a bill is now in the hands of a committee, and it is to
be hoped, when they report it, it will be found sufficient to insure the
collection; till then, it will be best to continue the rate as it
stands.

Mr. BOUDINOT.--When we consider the arguments of gentlemen on both sides
of this question, we shall find they do not differ so much as, on a
superficial view, gentlemen may be led to imagine. It is agreed, that a
revenue must be obtained adequate to our wants; but some gentlemen think
we shall not receive a greater sum, because we lay a high duty; in this
opinion I am with them. I think the present is a favorable time to lay
an impost duty, and expect very considerable aid from the public spirit;
but I am in favor of a low duty, because I would do nothing to check
that spirit. If we lay high duties, and a man finds smuggling the most
profitable business he can follow, we shall have to contend with private
interest. If we lay a light duty of thirty or forty per cent., the
temptation will be too strong for resistance, and the sum collected may
not amount to ten per cent. on the whole importation; whereas, if we lay
twenty or fifteen per cent. the whole may probably be collected, and the
treasury be better filled, because it does not hold out so strong an
inducement to evade the payment of the duties.

Another objection has been stated, which is of great weight: a system of
high duties will necessarily engage us in a system of drawbacks. If we
are forced into this measure, it will be a great injury to the revenue.

We ought also to consider the inconvenience to which high duties will
subject our merchants. It is a common case in America, that our
mercantile capitals are limited. Gentlemen engaged in commerce can ill
spare so large a proportion in the payment of duties.

It has been mentioned by gentlemen, that Great Britain collects four
shillings sterling per gallon on rum; yet she is exposed to great
difficulties in obtaining it. But I ask gentlemen, whether Great Britain
ever laid such a high duty in the first instance, as we are about to
impose? I believe they did not: they began, I apprehend, with moderate
duties, and increased them as circumstances authorized, when the people
became habituated to the imposition. This is the very principle I wish
to adopt, and show the world that our conduct is founded in wisdom,
propriety, and experience. If we shall discover our mistake in laying
high duties, and are driven by necessity to reduce them, such measures
will operate to the injury of the fair trader; whereas, if we increase
them by degrees, it will be rather favorable to their interest than
otherwise; at all events, it will injure none.

If a sense of the committee could be obtained on a general reduction of
ten or fifteen per cent. on the rate the articles now stand at, I should
be glad to vote in favor of such a motion; but I could not approve of
reducing the article of rum alone, because I do not think it charged out
of proportion with the others.

Mr. JACKSON differed from his colleague, (Mr. BALDWIN.) He thought,
although the British laid four shillings on rum, they did not collect
it; and that their custom-house establishments were so expensive, as to
leave a mere trifle for the net produce of the impost duty. If America
employed such a host of revenue officers as to secure the payment of
high duties, there would be very little left, after compensating their
services, to supply the federal treasury.

Mr. WADSWORTH desired gentlemen to consider, that the citizens of the
United States owned vessels as well calculated for smuggling, as any
that were employed between the Netherlands and England; therefore, they
had little more security against smuggling than Great Britain.

Mr. JACKSON.--It was well observed by the honorable gentleman from
Connecticut, (Mr. WADSWORTH,) that America has vessels well adapted for
smuggling: I can declare it, from my own knowledge, to be the fact. It
is not, Mr. Chairman, the large vessels coming off long voyages that we
are to apprehend danger from; it is our coasters, small vessels
constantly coming in and going out; these can run goods from foreign
ports adjacent to the United States; they are best acquainted with the
unfrequented parts, where they can deposit their cargoes with safety,
and will make use of these advantages to defraud your revenue.

With regard to the equity of the impost system, I conceive direct
taxation will be more equitable. We, in the Southern States, shall then
pay in proportion to our numbers; but under this law we shall contribute
much more.

Gentlemen talk of improving the morals of the people by taxation. For my
part, I conceive revenue has nothing to do with the morals of the
people; therefore, such considerations have no weight on my mind. All
that I contemplate is, drawing as much money as we can with equity; and
here I believe more can be obtained by a less impost than by a greater;
therefore, I am in favor of reducing the duties. It will likewise be
more honorable to the Government to begin gradually and win the
affections of the people, rather than disgust them by oppressive
measures; for if we lose their confidence, we lose our power and
authority.

Mr. GERRY.--It appears to me, that gentlemen place their arguments on
the name of high duties, rather than on principle; for if they were
certain that the energy of Government would effect all they aspire at,
then it would follow, that we have nothing more to do than to name the
sum we want. But if these ideas are not well supported, the
superstructure they have raised upon them must fall to the ground. The
energy of your Government depends upon the approbation of the people. No
doubt the citizens of the United States will support the Government
they have adopted, so long as they approve the measures it pursues, but
no longer. Gentlemen trust much, on this occasion, to the co-operation
which they expect from their constituents; but I would wish them to
examine this argument. These duties are to be collected from the several
States into which certain goods are imported. If the people of
Massachusetts shall conceive any particular duty peculiarly oppressive
on them, they will seek to evade it. This opens a door for smuggling all
the other articles.

I conceive gentlemen to be mistaken with respect to the effects which
high duties will produce on the mercantile interest. I think there
cannot be a doubt but they will be obliged to smuggle; if they mean to
continue their business, their capital will be insufficient for the
purposes of commerce and the payment of high duties. Gentlemen will not
draw knowledge from the experience of Great Britain; therefore, it is
unnecessary to adduce her example. But let us see what we are taught by
the practice of our own States. Massachusetts drew a very considerable
revenue from an impost; she lately tried to increase it by doubling the
duties; but, instead of doing so, they found the revenue lessened, and
they were obliged to alter what they had so injudiciously attempted. I
am willing to suppose with gentlemen, that the Government is invested by
the constitution with sufficient energy to carry any regulation of this
kind into effect; but is this the time to try the energy of your
Government, when your commerce is struggling with every kind of
difficulty and embarrassment? Formerly our merchants were able to extend
their operations by the means of an established credit in Britain; but
unfortunately this is no longer the case. How, then, is it possible they
can continue their trade, when you lop off another part of their
capital? Besides, as was said by the worthy gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
BLAND), there is not money enough in the United States to pay the
duties. I believe it is well known, that our commerce is greatly
distressed by the universal want of specie; there has not been less in
circulation for many years than there is at this time. Gentlemen who
have property cannot convert it into money; then how will the merchant
be able to raise cash for the payment of duties equal to thirty or forty
per cent. on his capital? These are serious and alarming circumstances,
and such as prove to my mind that the commerce was never less able to
bear a high impost than at present, nor ever stood in greater need of
the fostering hand of Government for its support. If gentlemen are
convinced of the truth of these observations, and they are so notorious
that they cannot have escaped the knowledge of any one, they will see
the necessity of turning their attention to the encouragement of
navigation and trade, rather than think of drawing an oppressive revenue
from them.

Mr. MADISON submitted, whether the burthen would not operate more on the
Southern States than the Northern. The duties could be collected in the
Middle States--this was proved by the experience of some years; for they
had collected in those States, in many instances, duties nearly equal to
what were proposed. In the Eastern States, it was the interest of the
manufacturers to see the duties were well collected; they had been
imposed to favor their interests. The distillers would exert themselves
in aiding the Government to collect the duty on foreign rum, because it
particularly interfered with country rum; from hence he concluded that
the impost could be collected with tolerable certainty even in that
country most convenient for carrying on a clandestine trade.

Mr. AMES contended that it would be the particular interest of one set
of men to evade the payment of the duties. As mankind was governed by
interest, it required all the attention of the Government to prevent a
breach of the law; because, when the banks and bulwarks of defence were
once broken down, the full tide of clandestine commerce would overflow
the country. Gentlemen recollected the circumstances which attended the
depreciation of the late continental money. Some persons, from motives
of interest or necessity, first made a distinction between it and
specie, and although every exertion was made by the patriotic among our
citizens to prevent the alarming evil, yet every thing was insufficient;
they were at length obliged to acquiesce in measures they could not
prevent. This was the case on that occasion, and will be the case
whenever our laws or regulations run counter to private interest.

Mr. SHERMAN.--The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. AMES) has said, that
because we cannot raise the whole sum necessary to supply our wants, we
should be content to stop half way. I know we shall not be able to
obtain money enough by the impost to pay off our whole debt, but then I
wish to raise as much as possible in this way. I believe the people are
able to pay as much as the necessities of the Government require; if
they are not, we shall never restore the public credit, which is one of
the chief ends of our appointment. I believe they are not only able but
willing to contribute sufficient for this purpose. The resources of this
country are very great, if they are properly called into action; and
although they may not be so great as those of Britain, yet it should be
remembered, that nation has occasion for twelve times as much revenue as
the United States.

Gentlemen have had recourse to popular opinion in support of their
arguments. Popular opinion is founded in justice, and the only way to
know if the popular opinion is in favor of a measure, is to examine
whether the measure is just and right in itself. I think whatever is
proper and right, the people will judge of and comply with. The people
wish that the Government may derive respect from the justice of its
measures; they have given it their support on this account. I believe
the popular opinion is in favor of raising a revenue to pay our debts,
and if we do right, they will not neglect their duty; therefore, the
arguments that are urged in favor of a low duty will prove that the
people are contented with what the bill proposes. The people at this
time pay a higher duty on imported rum than what is proposed in this
system, even in Massachusetts; it is true, it is partly laid by way of
excise, but I can see no reason against doing it in this way as well as
the other.

Mr. LAWRENCE.--It has been intimated by gentlemen in favor of high
duties, that it will limit the consumption of foreign articles; if this
be the case, the quantity imported will be lessened; if it is our object
to raise revenue, it is certainly unwise to destroy the object from
which the revenue is to be collected. It is supposed the amount of the
duties will be insufficient to answer the public wants; and yet the
public creditors have great expectations from this resource. Let us
therefore be careful how we destroy it; if revenue is our primary
object, and the other considerations but secondary, we should do nothing
to operate against that principle.

Mr. MADISON.--It does not follow, because it will in some degree limit
the consumption, that we ought not to lay a high duty on rum; if it has
that effect, it will be an ample compensation for the loss of revenue;
but probably, as we extinguish our debt, we shall have the less occasion
for the revenue itself.

Mr. GOODHUE.--The object of the committee is to raise revenue, I take
it. This would, perhaps, be best done by reducing the duty, but I am not
inclined to reduce it so low as some gentlemen seem to desire; it may be
reduced a few cents, and therefore I move to insert ten instead of
twelve.

The question was taken for striking out the twelve cents, as it stood in
the bill, on all spirits of Jamaica proof, imported from the dominions
of nations in alliance with the United States, in order to leave it
blank, to be filled up hereafter.

The House divided on the question; 19 in favor of the motion, and 26
against it.

So it passed in the negative.

Adjourned.


MONDAY, May 11.

_On Titles._

The House took into consideration the message from the Senate,
communicated on Saturday last, respecting the disagreement of the Senate
to the report of a joint committee, on the subject of annexing titles to
the offices of President and Vice President.

Mr. PARKER moved a resolution to the following effect:

      _Resolved_, That this House having, on Tuesday last,
      adopted the report of their committee appointed to confer
      with a committee of the Senate, stating, "That it is not
      proper to annex any style or title to the respective
      styles or titles of office expressed in the constitution;"
      and having, in their address to the President of the United
      States on Friday last, proceeded to act pursuant thereto,
      deem it improper to accede to the proposition made by the
      Senate, as communicated by their order of the 9th instant,
      for appointing a committee to confer with a committee of
      this House, in considering and reporting under what title
      it will be proper for the President of the United States in
      future to be addressed.

Mr. PAGE seconded the motion, observing, that in his opinion, the House
had no right to interfere in the business: the constitution expressly
prescribed the power of Congress as to bestowing titles. He did not
conceive the real honor or dignity of either of those situations to
consist in high sounding titles. The House had, on a former occasion,
expressed their disapprobation of any title being annexed to their own
members, and very justly too. After having so fully and explicitly
declared their sentiments against such measures, he thought it behooved
them to be explicit with the Senate. Indeed, he felt himself a good deal
hurt, that gentlemen on this floor, after having refused their
permission to the Clerk to enter any more than their plain names on the
journal, should be standing up and addressing one another by the title
of "the honorable gentlemen." He wished the practice could be got over,
because it added neither to the honor nor dignity of the House.

Mr. LEE approved of the appointment of a committee to confer with a
committee of the Senate, as to the mode due to the occasion; but he was
against adding any title.

Mr. TUCKER.--When this business was first brought before the House, I
objected to the appointment of a committee to confer with a committee of
the Senate, because I thought it a subject which this House had no right
to take into consideration. I then stood single and unsupported in my
opinion, but have had the pleasure to find since, that some gentlemen on
this floor agree that I was right. If I was then right, I shall, from
stronger reasoning, be right now in opposing the appointment of another
committee on the same subject. The joint committee reported that no
titles ought to be given; we agreed to the report, and I was in hopes we
should have heard no more of the matter. The Senate rejected the report,
and have now sent us a resolution, expressive of a determination to give
a title, to which they desire our concurrence. I am still of the opinion
that we were wrong in appointing the first committee, and think that we
shall be guilty of greater impropriety if we now appoint another. What,
sir, is the intention of this business? Will it not alarm our
fellow-citizens? Will it not give them just cause of alarm? Will they
not say, that they have been deceived by the convention that framed the
constitution? That it has been contrived with a view to lead them on by
degrees to that kind of government which they have thrown off with
abhorrence? Shall we not justify the fears of those who were opposed to
the constitution, because they considered it as insidious and hostile to
the liberties of the people? One of its warmest advocates, one of the
framers of it, (Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania,) has recommended it by
calling it a pure democracy. Does this look like a democracy, when one
of the first acts of the two branches of the Legislature is to confer
titles? Surely not. To give dignity to our government, we must give a
lofty title to our chief magistrate. Does the dignity of a nation
consist in the distance between the first magistrate and his citizens?
Does it consist in the exaltation of one man, and the humiliation of the
rest? If so, the most despotic government is the most dignified; and to
make our dignity complete, we must give a high title, an embroidered
robe, a princely equipage, and, finally, a crown and hereditary
succession. Let us, sir, establish tranquillity and good order at home,
and wealth, strength, and national dignity will be the infallible
result. The aggregate of dignity will be the same whether it be divided
among all, or centred in one. And whom, sir, do we mean to gratify? Is
it our present President? Certainly, if we expect to please him, we
shall be greatly disappointed. He has a real dignity of character, and
is above such little vanities. We shall give him infinite pain; we shall
do him an essential injury. We shall place him in a most delicate and
disagreeable situation; we shall reduce him to the necessity of evincing
to the world his disapprobation of our measures, or of risking some
diminution of that high reputation for disinterested patriotism which he
has so justly acquired. It is not for his gratification; for whose,
then, are we to do this? Where is the man among us who has the
presumption and vanity to expect it? Who is it that shall say--for my
aggrandizement three millions of people have entered into a calamitous
war; they have persevered in it for eight long years; they have
sacrificed their property, they have spilt their blood, they have
rendered thousands of families wretched by the loss of their only
protectors and means of support? This spirit of imitation, sir, this
spirit of mimicry and apery will be the ruin of our country. Instead of
giving us dignity in the eye of foreigners, it will expose us to be
laughed at as apes. They gave us credit for our exertions in effecting
the revolution, but they will say that we want independence of spirit to
render it a blessing to us.

Mr. TRUMBULL moved for the appointment of a Committee of Conference, to
consider on the difference which appeared in the votes of the two Houses
upon the report of the joint committee.

Mr. BURKE hoped the House would express their decided disapprobation of
bestowing titles in any shape whatever; it would be an indignity in the
House to countenance any measures of this nature. Perhaps some gentlemen
might think the subject was a matter of indifference; but it did not
appear to him in that light. The introduction of two words which he
could mention into the titles of these officers, would alter the
constitution itself; but he would forbear to say any thing further, as
he had a well-grounded expectation that the House would take no further
notice of the business.

Mr. GOODHUE thought the conference unnecessary, because the House had
not only adopted the report of their committee, but proceeded to act in
pursuance thereof.

Mr. SENEY joined the last gentleman in sentiment, and thought it an
unnecessary waste of time to give the subject any longer discussion.

Mr. MADISON.--I may be well disposed to concur in opinion with gentlemen
that we ought not to recede from our former vote on this subject, yet at
the same time I may wish to proceed with due respect to the Senate, and
give dignity and weight to our own opinion, so far as it contradicts
theirs, by the deliberate and decent manner in which we decide. For my
part, Mr. Speaker, I do not conceive titles to be so pregnant with
danger as some gentlemen apprehend. I believe a President of the United
States, clothed with all the powers given in the constitution, would not
be a dangerous person to the liberties of America, if you were to load
him with all the titles of Europe or Asia. We have seen superb and
august titles given, without conferring power and influence, or without
even obtaining respect. One of the most impotent sovereigns in Europe
has assumed a title as high as human invention can devise; for example,
what words can imply a greater magnitude of power and strength than that
of High Mightiness? This title seems to border almost upon impiety; it
is assuming the pre-eminence and omnipotence of the Deity; yet this
title, and many others cast in the same mould, have obtained a long time
in Europe, but have they conferred power? Does experience sanction such
an opinion? Look at the republic I have alluded to, and say if their
present state warrants the idea.

I am not afraid of titles, because I fear the danger of any power they
could confer, but I am against them because they are not very
reconcilable with the nature of our Government or the genius of the
people. Even if they were proper in themselves, they are not so at this
juncture of time. But my strongest objection is founded in principle;
instead of increasing, they diminish the true dignity and importance of
a republic, and would in particular, on this occasion, diminish the true
dignity of the first magistrate himself. If we give titles, we must
either borrow or invent them. If we have recourse to the fertile fields
of luxuriant fancy, and deck out an airy being of our own creation, it
is a great chance but its fantastic properties would render the empty
phantom ridiculous and absurd. If we borrow, the servile imitation will
be odious, not to say ridiculous also; we must copy from the pompous
sovereigns of the East, or follow the inferior potentates of Europe; in
either case, the splendid tinsel or gorgeous robe would disgrace the
manly shoulders of our chief. The more truly honorable shall we be, by
showing a total neglect and disregard to things of this nature; the more
simple, the more republican we are in our manners, the more rational
dignity we shall acquire; therefore, I am better pleased with the report
adopted by the House, than I should have been with any other whatsoever.

The Senate, no doubt, entertain different sentiments on this subject. I
would wish, therefore, to treat their opinion with respect and
attention. I would desire to justify the reasonable and republican
decision of this House to the other branch of Congress in order to
prevent a misunderstanding. But that the motion of my worthy colleague
(Mr. PARKER) has possession of the House, I would move a more temperate
proposition, and I think it deserves some pains to bring about that good
will and urbanity, which for the despatch of public business ought to be
kept up between the two Houses. I do not think it would be a sacrifice
of dignity to appoint a Committee of Conference, but imagine it would
tend to cement that harmony which has hitherto been preserved between
the Senate and this House; therefore, while I concur with the gentlemen
who express, in such decided terms, their disapprobation of bestowing
titles, I concur also with those who are for the appointment of a
Committee of Conference, not apprehending they will depart from the
principles adopted and acted upon by the House.

Mr. WHITE did not approve of a Committee of Conference, because the
House had already determined the question by unanimously adopting the
report of the joint committee. He did not think that it was worth while
having the subject longer contested; he was satisfied both the spirit of
the constitution and the spirit of the people disapproved of titles.

Mr. BLAND would be careful of giving umbrage to the Senate, because he
wished that the unanimity and moderation which subsisted between the two
Houses might continue. He considered the present as a very proper
opportunity for the appointment of a Committee of Conference. The two
Houses had disagreed on the report of their committees; it was proper,
therefore, that they should mutually assign their reasons, in order to
bring about an agreement to the same resolution. He hoped, therefore,
that such a committee would be appointed, though he had no expectation
that the House would give up an opinion they so justly and decidedly
entertained respecting titles.

Mr. PARKER wanted to know what was the object of gentlemen in the
appointment of a Committee of Conference? The committee could only say
that the House had refused their consent to annexing any titles whatever
to the President and Vice President; for certainly the committee would
not descend into the merits of a question already established by the
House. For his part, he could not see what purpose was to be answered
by the appointment of such a committee. He wished to have done with the
subject, because while it remained a question in the House, the people's
minds would be much agitated; it was impossible that a true republican
spirit could remain unconcerned when a principle was under
consideration, so repugnant to the principles of equal liberty.

Mr. SHERMAN thought it was pretty plain that the House could not comply
with the proposition of the Senate. The appointment of a committee, on
the part of the House, to consider and determine what style or title
will be proper to annex to the President and Vice President, would imply
that the House meant that some style or title should be given. Now this
they never could intend, because they have decided that no style or
title ought to be given; it will be sufficient to adduce this reason for
not complying with the request of the Senate.

Mr. JACKSON wondered what title the Senate had in contemplation to add
dignity or lustre to the person that filled the presidential chair. For
his part, he could conceive none. Would it add to his fame to be called
after the petty and insignificant princes of Europe? Would styling him
His Serene Highness, His Grace, or Mightiness, add one tittle to the
solid properties he possessed? He thought it would not; and therefore
conceived the proposition to be trifling with the dignity of the
Government. As a difference had taken place between the two Houses, he
had no objection to a conference taking place. He hoped it might be
productive of good consequences, and that the Senate might be induced to
follow the laudable example of the House.

Mr. MADISON was of opinion, that the House might appoint a Committee of
Conference without being supposed to countenance the measure. The
standing rule of the House declared, that, in case of disagreeing votes,
a Committee of Conference should be appointed. Now, as the case provided
for in the rule had actually happened, he inferred that it was proper to
proceed in the manner directed by the rules of the House. The subject
was still open to discussion, but there was little probability that the
House would rescind their adoption of the report. I presume gentlemen do
not intend to compel the Senate into their measures; they should
recollect that the Senate stand upon independent ground, and will do
nothing but what they are convinced of the propriety of; it would be
better, therefore, to treat them with delicacy, and offer some reasons
to induce them to come into our measure. He expected this would be the
result of a conference, and therefore was in favor of such a motion.

Mr. SENEY intended nothing disrespectful to the Senate, but he
conceived, after having adopted the report of the committee, it would
derogate from their own dignity to rescind a unanimous resolution; and
for what other purpose could a conference be appointed by the House?
They must certainly suppose that there might be ground for changing
their opinion. Nothing of this kind appeared to him, and therefore he
was of opinion, it would be a useless consumption to waste any more time
about it.

Mr. CLYMER thought that there was little occasion to add any title to
either the President or Vice President. He was very well convinced, by
experience, that titles did not confer power; on the contrary, they
frequently made their possessors ridiculous. The most impotent
potentates, the most insignificant powers, generally assumed the highest
and most lofty titles. That they do not indicate power and prerogative,
is very observable in the English history; for when the chief magistrate
of that nation bore the simple style of His Grace or Highness, his
prerogatives were much more extensive than since he has become His Most
Sacred Majesty.

Titular distinctions are said to be unpopular in the United States; yet
a person would be led to think otherwise, from the vast number of
honorable gentlemen we have in America. As soon as a man is selected for
the public service, his fellow-citizens, with liberal hand, shower down
titles on him--either excellency or honorable. He would venture to
affirm, there were more honorable esquires in the United States than in
all the world besides. He wished to check a propensity so notoriously
evidenced in favor of distinctions, and hoped the example of the House
might prevail to extinguish that predilection which appeared in favor of
titles.

Mr. PAGE.--If I thought the motion made by my colleague in the least
degree disrespectful, I should not have seconded it. I would be the last
man on this floor to treat that worthy body with disrespect; but I
believe it cannot be construed to have such a meaning. If we were to let
the resolution lie on the table, it would not be disrespectful. But what
is the object of the motion? Simply to inform the Senate that we cannot
rescind a resolution adopted in consequence of the report of a joint
committee. If the conduct of either House is in the least degree
disrespectful, (though I do not conceive it is,) the body who declined
adopting the report, after knowing the sense of the other to be in its
favor, is the most so.

But on what are a committee to confer? Not upon what title shall be
bestowed, because we have no right to enter on the subject; and here I
must tell gentlemen I differ from them, when they think titles can do no
harm. Titles, sir, I say, may do harm, and have done harm. If we contend
now for a right to confer titles, I apprehend the time will come when we
shall form a reservoir for honor, and make our President the fountain of
it. In such case, may not titles do an injury to the Union? They have
been the occasion of an eternal faction in the kingdom we were formerly
connected with, and may beget like inquietude in America; for I contend,
if you give the title, you must follow it with the robe and the diadem,
and then the principles of your government are subverted.

Mr. LEE moved the previous question, as the best mode of getting rid of
the motion before the House: he was supported by a sufficient number.
And on the question, Shall the main question be now put? it passed in
the negative; and so the motion was lost.

On motion, it was

      _Resolved_, That a committee be appointed, to join with
      such committee as the Senate may appoint, to confer on the
      disagreeing votes of the two Houses, upon the report of
      their joint committee, appointed to consider what titles
      shall be given to the President and Vice President of the
      United States, if any other than those given in the
      constitution.

Messrs. MADISON, PAGE, BENSON, TRUMBULL, and SHERMAN were the committee
elected.


_Impost Bill._

The House then went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for laying
a duty on goods, wares, and merchandises imported into the United
States. Mr. PAGE in the chair.

The question on laying a duty on molasses being under consideration:

Mr. TUCKER.--Notwithstanding I am anxious for a reduction of the duties
on all the articles in the bill, yet my vote on molasses will be
regulated by what the committee shall determine in other cases, as I do
not conceive it to be out of proportion. If a general reduction takes
place on the other articles, I shall be disposed to make a reduction on
this article; but as mine is but a single vote, gentlemen may not be
inclined to favor my proposition for a general reduction in order to
gain my assent to a reduction on this particular article.

Mr. GOODHUE was of opinion that the duties were too high for collection;
but he did not agree with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. TUCKER)
that the duty on molasses was rated in proportion to the other articles,
and therefore the question, whether molasses shall be reduced or not,
did not depend on a general reduction, but on its own bottom; if it was
rated too high for collection and proportion, the committee would agree
to reduce it.

Mr. FITZSIMONS expected the gentleman from South Carolina would vote in
the manner he had pledged himself; he had promised to vote for reducing
the duty on molasses if the committee reduced the duty on other
articles; now, as they had decided against a reduction, he hoped the
gentleman would be in favor of the duty on molasses, as it stood in the
bill, and not vote in the manner he had promised.

Mr. TUCKER.--The gentleman last up has certainly misunderstood me. I
made no promise. I said my vote would depend upon the reduction of the
other articles, but I was indifferent as to rum; I did not consider the
State I represented as being either particularly benefited or injured by
a duty on rum; and therefore did not urge any arguments in favor of
reducing that article, more than I thought it might be proper to
preserve the ratio, as fixed by the House, between the several articles.
If gentlemen think rum can bear a high duty, and be safely collected, I
have no objection to letting it remain. But there are some articles that
bear heavily and unequally upon South Carolina; now, I think it my duty
to vote in such a manner as to prevent her from bearing an undue
proportion of the tax to be collected; I am, consequently, obliged to
vote for a high tax on articles used in other States, (if my State is
highly taxed,) however unequally it may fall. I shall therefore vote so
as to endeavor to oblige other States to bear their true proportion of
the aggregate sum. I wish to defer any determination on the article of
molasses until we have gone through the other articles, that I may know
how to vote on this. If gentlemen think my single vote of no
consequence, they may proceed; but I may think the duty too high on
molasses, and may be disposed to make it five cents, or less, if a
reduction is made in the other articles; but I would not be understood
to pledge myself for any particular sum.

Mr. AMES thought the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. FITZSIMONS) had
misunderstood the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. TUCKER) respecting
his pledging himself to vote in favor of molasses. He believed the
gentleman from South Carolina incapable of making any improper
accommodation either on this or any other occasion; the subject had
never been mentioned to him, nor he believed to any body else, much less
could the gentleman's intention be the result of bargain or compromise.
For his own part, he would never consent to such a degradation of his
rights as a member of the House, as to stipulate for the exercise of his
opinion.

Mr. TUCKER.--If the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. FITZSIMONS)
supposes that I have bargained to vote for or against any measure, he
does me wrong; and if he charges me with such actions, I desire he may
state his reasons and explain himself. I did not hear perfectly what he
said when he was up before, and therefore did not refute any improper
construction he might have put on my arguments.

Mr. FITZSIMONS had no difficulty in declaring his meaning. He understood
when the article of rum was under consideration, that the gentleman held
out a promise to vote for the reduction of the duty on molasses, if the
committee would agree with him in reducing generally. This promise was
not made in a private manner; it was made by the gentleman in his place.
He could not recite the particular expression of the gentleman, but he
understood from it that the gentleman pledged himself to reduce the duty
on molasses, if the gentlemen from the Eastern States would join him in
a general reduction.

Mr. TUCKER.--I expressed a wish for a general reduction to take place
throughout the whole system; but I never made a promise with regard to a
reduction of any particular article.

Mr. SENEY observed, that the discussion of molasses had been deferred
when the subject was last before the House, in order to give time for a
full investigation; but he conceived that no such reason now existed, in
favor of its lying over, and therefore hoped the House would proceed to
decide upon it.

Mr. AMES was willing to proceed to the consideration of that subject; he
did not wish it deferred to the end of the list, that it might be held
over them _in terrorem_. There were several articles in the list, which
he did not conceive to be taxed too high for collection, or out of
proportion with others, therefore it was likely they would not be
reduced. If this was the case, the reduction would not be general, and
the gentleman from South Carolina might not think it his duty to favor
the reduction of molasses. He wished every article to stand upon its own
bottom. If molasses was too high, the committee would lower it; if not,
they will continue it at the rate it is, and the business would be done
with. If the committee were disposed to proceed, he was ready to take up
the subject.

Mr. CARROLL saw no reason for postponing the business at this time. When
the subject was suspended on a former occasion, several gentlemen from
Massachusetts were absent on business, but it was surely unnecessary now
to have any delay. After the repeated discussions it had undergone, he
was satisfied gentlemen were prepared for a decision, and he hoped the
question might be taken, and the committee proceed to get through the
business. Gentlemen should consider the daily loss which the revenue
sustained by the delay of this bill; he cautioned them against
considering overmuch, and letting slip the opportunity they now had to
supply the public wants.

Mr. WADSWORTH would not go over the old ground, and enumerate all the
reasons why a reduction of the duty on this article should take place.
He satisfied himself with saying it was out of proportion, and too high
ever to be collected with certainty; he wished the committee to lower it
to three or four cents, and apply to an excise for the deficiency, not
conceiving an excise on distilled spirits to be inconvenient or
unpopular.

Mr. AMES was sensible that any further discussion of the present subject
was unpleasant, nay, it was painful to the committee; but he had such
impressions on his mind with regard to its importance, that he must
trespass on them again. On all subjects demonstration is desirable, but
there is only one science capable of complete demonstration. Many other
sciences admit of different degrees of demonstration; but of all the
sciences on earth, the science of politics is the least capable of
affording satisfactory conclusions, while it is the one that, from its
importance, requires the greatest degree of certainty; because when we
are to consider those things which relate to the welfare of nations, it
is of consequence, and nothing can be more desirable than that we adopt
just principles in order to come at proper conclusions. In this science
it is dangerous to adopt the visionary projects of speculators instead
of principle. We ought to be cautious, therefore, in selecting the
information upon which we form our system.

He trusted to make it appear in the course of his arguments, that the
propriety of the particular measure under discussion depended upon local
knowledge, and yet it would be found of national concern. He believed it
could be clearly proved to be as much the interest of one part as of
another to have the duty reduced.

It was laid down as a principle that all duties ought to be equal. He
believed, if gentlemen gave themselves time for consideration, they
would not contend this duty was equal. He said he had made some
calculations, which demonstrated the inequality to a very surprising
degree. The tax operated in two ways: first, as a tax on a raw material,
which increased the price of stock and narrowed the sale; and second, as
a tax on an article of consumption. It required the distillation and the
consumption to be equal in every part of the Union to render the duty
equal in its operation; but no gentleman contended that the consumption
or distillation was equal. The gentleman from Virginia said, on a former
occasion, that Massachusetts would not contribute her proportion of the
national revenue, because her exports were not equal to the Southern
States, and of consequence her imports are less; but if this fact is
examined, it will be found that she does export in full proportion with
the Southern States. Examine her custom-house books, and you will find
it; but Massachusetts is greatly concerned in navigation, and the wages
of her seamen ought to be added to the amount of the profits of her
industry. Then if we consider her consumption, we shall find it in
proportion also. Admitting the people of New England to live more
moderate than the opulent citizens of Virginia or Carolina, yet they
have not such a number of blacks among them, whose living is wretched;
consequently, the average consumption per head will be nearly the same.
The fact is, that all taxes of this nature will fall generally in
proportion to the ability to pay.

Laying a heavy duty on molasses incurs the necessity of allowing a
drawback on country rum. By this system, we may lose more revenue than
we gain; anyhow, it will render it very uncertain. It is a question of
some importance, whether it would not be beneficial to the United States
to establish a manufacture which would be very lucrative. But waiving
that consideration, he would ask gentlemen, if there was any propriety
in taxing molasses in its raw state, with a duty intended to be laid on
rum? Certainly this had better be by way of excise. In this mode the
revenue would escape fraud by smuggling, which would otherwise be
unavoidable. The tax was such a temptation, being thirty per cent. upon
its value, that no checks could prevent a clandestine trade being
carried on.

Without the molasses trade is continued, the fishery cannot be carried
on. They are so intimately connected, that the weapon which wounds the
one will stab the other. If by such measures as these we ruin one of the
most valuable interests of the United States, will not the people have a
right to complain that, instead of protecting, you injure and destroy
their pursuits? He did not mean to say that the people would form
unwarrantable combinations; but their exertions to support the
Government will be damped; they will look with chagrin on the
disappointment of their hopes; and it will add to their vexation that
they have been deceived under the most flattering appearances; for who
could conceive that a Government, constructed and adopted in the manner
this has been, could ever be administered to the destruction of that
welfare which it was formed to support?

He recommended experience as the best guide, and said, that it was
decidedly against high duties, particularly on molasses; and concluded
with appealing to the justice and wisdom of the committee for a
determination on this subject.

Mr. CARROLL would not take up the time of the committee with saying a
word on the main subject, but begged them to consider of how much
importance it was to the Union to get this bill into operation. If every
article was to be again debated in the manner it had already been, he
could see no end to the business. Unless gentlemen could advance some
new and weighty arguments, he thought the time misspent in
recapitulating those that had been unsuccessfully urged twice or three
times before.

Mr. MADISON thought the arguments against the duty were inconsistent. He
believed the gentlemen in opposition had not replied to an observation
he had made, and which was of great force on his mind. The gentlemen all
say that a heavy duty will ruin the distilleries and fisheries, and the
people concerned in them; yet they profess themselves willing to lay the
same duty, but in two forms instead of one. Now he would be glad to know
if the distilleries and fisheries would not be precisely in the same
situation, let which would take place?

On motion, the committee rose, and the House adjourned.


TUESDAY, May 12.

_Duties on Imports._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. PAGE
in the chair, on the Impost Bill.

The article of molasses being still under consideration:

Mr. AMES wished to reply to the observation made yesterday by the
gentleman from Virginia. Does that gentleman, said he, recollect, if we
lay an excise, we prevent the burthen from being imposed upon the poor
for their subsistence, as molasses, in the raw state, will be lightly
taxed? In the next place, it is more favorable to the importers of that
article than the impost; it does not require so large a proportion of
their capital to be advanced in payment of duties, nor do they run the
risk of bad debts, because it may be so regulated that the retailer
shall secure the duty. Another reason is, it will save the expense of a
numerous host of custom-house officers, tide-waiters, &c. These
considerations proved, that if the excise was no better than an impost,
it was no worse; and as the duty would be better collected, and give
less reason for smuggling, which, above all things, was dangerous to the
revenue, it was sufficient to warrant the committee in giving the excise
duty a preference.

Mr. GOODHUE would not trouble the House long on the subject; but begged
leave to repeat the manner in which the molasses trade was connected
with the fisheries, and the fisheries with the navigation; that, if the
first is injured, the other two are wounded through its side. About
three-fifths of all the fish that are put up for that market, are of an
inferior quality, and would not sell elsewhere. The French would not
permit us to carry them there, but because we take their molasses in
exchange; they will not let their colonies send the molasses to France,
lest it interfere with their brandy. Now, any impediment to the
exportation of molasses, will prevent the exportation of fish; if we
cannot export the fish, for what purpose shall we continue our
fisheries? And if they are given up, how are we to form seamen to man
our future navy?

Mr. MADISON said his mind was incapable of discovering any plan that
would answer the purpose the committee have in view, and not produce
greater evils than the one under consideration. He thought an excise
very objectionable, but as no actual proposition for entering into such
a system was before the committee, he forbore to say any thing further
about it. He admitted an excise would obviate in part some of the
difficulties; but he did not think the answer given to his argument
altogether satisfactory; yet there was another argument he urged on a
former occasion remaining unanswered--it was, that, at this moment, the
fisheries, distilleries, and all their connections, were laboring under
heavier duties than what is now proposed; true, the duty is collected in
a different mode, but it affects the consumer in the same manner. The
gentlemen have said, to be sure, that the duty is evaded; but if half is
collected, it amounts to more than six cents per gallon.

It is said that a tax on molasses will be unpopular, but not more so
than a tax on salt. Can gentlemen state more serious apprehensions in
the former than the latter case? yet the committee did not forego a
productive fund, because the article was a necessary of life, and in
general consumption. If there is the disposition that is represented for
people to complain of the oppression of Government, have not the
citizens of the Southern States more just ground for complaint than
others? The system can only be acceptable to them, because it is
essentially necessary to be adopted for the public good.

Gentlemen argue, that a tax on molasses is unpopular, and prove it by
experience under the British Government. If this is to be adduced as a
proof of the popularity of a measure, what are we to say with respect to
a tax on tea? Gentlemen remembered, no doubt, how odious this kind of
tax was thought to be throughout America; yet the House had, without
hesitation, laid a considerable duty upon it. He did not imagine that a
duty on either of those articles was in itself objectionable; it was the
principle upon which the tax was laid that made them unpopular under the
British Government.

It is said that this tax is unjust; now, he had not a single idea of
justice, that did not contradict the position. If it be considered as it
relates to rum, he was certain the consumers of foreign rum paid a
larger proportion of revenue into the Treasury than the consumers of
country rum; they paid more than equal distributive justice required; if
it was considered as it respected molasses, there would appear no
injustice. Molasses was consumed in other States; but if it was not,
sugar was used in its stead, and subjected to a duty full as high as
that on molasses. But dismissing both these considerations, and even
admitting the whole weight to fall upon the Northern States, it would
not be disproportioned, because, in the long list of enumerated articles
subject to a high duty, they imported few or none; indeed, the articles
were pretty generally taxed for the benefit of the manufacturing part of
the northern community; see loaf sugar, candles, cheese, soap, &c. He
hoped gentlemen would not infer from this observation, that he thought
the encouragement held out by the bill to manufactures improper; far
from it; he was glad to see their growing consequences, and was disposed
to give them every aid in his power. From this view of the subject, he
was inclined to adhere to the bill, and not make any reduction.

Mr. GERRY hoped the committee would not consider the subject as finally
decided; he thought it deserving of further investigation, and expected
the committee would be satisfied of the propriety of making some
reduction. He felt a concern at being obliged to extend the discussion,
but his duty impelled him to oppose a measure he conceived injurious to
his country.

Gentlemen had contended, that a duty of six cents per gallon on molasses
was just and equal; for his part, he could not discover, with all the
exertions his mind was capable of making, how gentlemen prove this to be
the case; it appeared to him partial and oppressive.

The principle laid down in the constitution for an equal distribution of
taxes was, that they shall be apportioned among the several States,
according to their respective number of inhabitants. This principle is
made positive as it respects direct taxes; but he thought the equality
ought to extend itself to every possible case. The power possessed by
the House, with regard to revenue and the power of making all necessary
laws, enabled the General Government to exist independent of subordinate
associations; but if they were inclined to annihilate the State
Governments, yet it would be their interest to attend to the advantages
of the community, and administer their power so as not to make it
burthensome and oppressive. Now, he wished to know, what principle of
justice authorized the committee to lay a duty of six cents on molasses?
Unfortunately for Massachusetts, she imports a greater quantity than the
whole Union besides. This makes her interest stand alone, and her
representatives are left to labor the point, knowing the ill effect it
will have upon their constituents. Under these circumstances, it is
necessary to pay particular attention to the justice of the measure;
gentlemen should consider that, in such cases, there is danger of
interest prevailing over equity and policy. Certainly, if the measure is
pursued, we shall discover this effect in the end.

Gentlemen have considered the arguments brought against this duty as
standing upon local ground, advocating the local interest of
Massachusetts. He would examine this position. It is the interest of a
majority of the people of that State, that as much revenue should be
drawn from molasses as possible. I say it is the interest of the State,
for their interest is divided between the landed and commercial; the
landed interest predominates, and it was always supposed that the
commercial bore a greater share of the public burthen than it ought. The
conduct of the State of Massachusetts ought to be esteemed by us as the
best guide to discover how far our commercial regulations, as they
respect that State, are consistent with policy, if she furnishes the
best example. Can we find that she ever imposed a duty of six cents per
gallon on molasses? Not a single instance can be produced where she
raised revenue from this article. If they then never laid a duty upon
it, and they were disposed to get every thing in their power from
commerce, we must conclude that if it could have been laid they would
have done it. It is not the landed citizens, if he might use the term,
who consume molasses; it is the inhabitants of the sea-coast; the former
had the power, and they were interested to lay such a tax, it might
therefore be expected they would have done it, if they had not been
convinced it would have destroyed the fisheries and navigation of the
State.

The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) cannot see how an impost on
molasses can affect the distilleries and fisheries. After having been
repeated over and over again, it would be unnecessary that he should
dwell on this point. But every one could see the connection; if we do
not import molasses, we cannot carry on our distilleries nor vend our
fish; and it will be impossible to import molasses under such heavy
duties; at least the future importation will be limited to two-thirds of
the present, because the demand will be in proportion to the increase of
price, and the merchant will not have capital to import more than
two-thirds of his usual quantity.

He would not reiterate the arguments respecting the fisheries; it was
well known to be the best nursery for seamen, the United States had no
other, and it never could be the intention of gentlemen to leave the
navigation of the Union to the mercy of foreign powers. It is of
necessity, then, that we lay the foundation of our maritime importance
as soon as may be, and this can be done only by encouraging our
fisheries. It is also well known that we have a number of rivals in this
business desirous of excluding us from the fishing banks altogether.
This consideration of itself is sufficient to induce a wise legislature
to extend every encouragement to so important a concern. In any
regulation they make, by which it can be effected, they ought to be sure
of the ground on which they go.

It appeared to him that six cents would have the most ruinous
consequences to the general interest; he therefore hoped gentlemen would
agree to reduce it, if not so as to place it among the _ad valorem_
articles, at least down to two cents. However, as the committee are not
prepared to say the particular sum proper to be laid, he hoped they
would agree to leave it a blank, to be filled up at some future stage of
the business.

The question was now taken on striking out six cents, and passed in the
affirmative: ayes 24, noes 22.

Propositions were severally made for filling up the blank with two,
three, four, and five cents; five being the highest was first put and
agreed to--ayes 25, noes 23.

The committee proceeded to consider the subsequent articles; but not
having time to go through the whole, they rose, and reported progress,
and the House adjourned.


WEDNESDAY, May 13.

The petition of John Fitch, of Pennsylvania, was presented, stating that
he is the original discoverer of the principle of applying steam-power
to the purposes of navigation, and has obtained an exclusive right
therein for a term of years, in the States of Virginia, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, and praying that his rights may
be secured to him by law, so as to preclude subsequent improvers upon
his principle from participation therein, until the expiration of his
granted right. Referred to a committee, consisting of Messrs.
HUNTINGTON, CADWALADER, and CONTEE, to report thereon.


_Duties on Imports._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
Impost Bill, Mr. PAGE in the chair.


AFRICAN SLAVES.

Mr. PARKER moved to insert a clause in the bill, imposing a duty on the
importation of slaves, of ten dollars each person. He was sorry that the
constitution prevented Congress from prohibiting the importation
altogether; he thought it a defect in that instrument that it allowed of
such a practice; it was contrary to the Revolution principles, and ought
not to be permitted; but as he could not do all the good he desired, he
was willing to do what lay in his power. He hoped such a duty as he
moved for would prevent, in some degree, this irrational and inhuman
traffic; if so, he should feel happy from the success of his motion.

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, hoped that such an important and serious
proposition as this would not be hastily adopted. It was a very late
moment for the introduction of new subjects. He expected the committee
had got through the business, and would rise without discussing any
thing further. At least, if gentlemen were determined on considering the
present motion, he hoped they would delay it for a few days, in order to
give time for an examination of the subject. It was certainly a matter
big with the most serious consequences to the State he represented; he
did not think any one thing that had been discussed was so important to
them, and the welfare of the Union, as the question now brought forward;
but he was not prepared to enter on any argument, and therefore
requested the motion might either be withdrawn or laid on the table.

Mr. SHERMAN approved of the object of the motion, but he did not think
this bill was proper to embrace the subject. He could not reconcile
himself to the insertion of human beings as an article of duty, among
goods, wares, and merchandise. He hoped it would be withdrawn for the
present, and taken up hereafter as an independent subject.

Mr. JACKSON, observing the quarter from which this motion came, said it
did not surprise him, though it might have that effect upon others. He
recollected that Virginia was an old settled State, and had her
complement of slaves; so she was careless of recruiting her numbers by
this means; the natural increase of her imported blacks was sufficient
for their purpose; but he thought gentlemen ought to let their neighbors
get supplied, before they imposed such a burthen upon the importation.
He knew this business was viewed in an odious light to the eastward,
because the people were capable of doing their own work, and had no
occasion for slaves; but gentlemen will have some feeling for others;
they will not try to throw all the weight upon those who have assisted
in lightening their burthens; they do not wish to charge us for every
comfort and enjoyment of life, and at the same time take away the means
of procuring them; they do not wish to break us down at once.

He was convinced, from the inaptitude of the motion, and the want of
time to consider it, that the candor of the gentleman would induce him
to withdraw it for the present; and if ever it came forward again, he
hoped it would comprehend the white slaves as well as black, who were
imported from all the jails of Europe; wretches, convicted of the most
flagrant crimes, were brought in and sold without any duty whatever. He
thought that they ought to be taxed equally with the Africans, and had
no doubt but the constitutionality and propriety of such a measure was
equally apparent with the one proposed.

Mr. TUCKER thought it unfair to bring in such an important subject at a
time when debate was almost precluded. The committee had gone through
the impost bill, and the whole Union was impatiently expecting the
result of their deliberations; the public must be disappointed, and much
revenue lost, or this question cannot undergo that full discussion which
it deserves.

We have no right, said he, to consider whether the importation of slaves
is proper or not; the constitution gives us no power on that point; it
is left to the States to judge of that matter as they see fit. But if it
is a business the gentleman is determined to discourage, he ought to
have brought his motion forward sooner, and even then not have
introduced it without previous notice. He hoped the committee would
reject the motion, if it was not withdrawn. He was not speaking so much
for the State he represented as for Georgia; because the State of South
Carolina had a prohibitory law, which could be renewed when its
limitation expired.

Mr. PARKER had ventured to introduce the subject after full
deliberation, and did not like to withdraw it. Although the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. SHERMAN) had said, that they ought not to be
enumerated with goods, wares, and merchandise, he believed they were
looked upon by the African traders in this light. He knew it was
degrading the human species to annex that character to them; but he
would rather do this than continue the actual evil of importing slaves a
moment longer. He hoped Congress would do all that lay in their power to
restore to human nature its inherent privileges, and, if possible, wipe
off the stigma under which America labored. The inconsistency in our
principles, with which we are justly charged, should be done away, that
we may show, by our actions, the pure beneficence of the doctrine we
hold out to the world in our Declaration of Independence.

Mr. SHERMAN thought the principles of the motion, and the principles of
the bill, were inconsistent; the principle of the bill was to raise
revenue, the principle of the motion to correct a moral evil. Now,
considering it as an object of revenue, it would be unjust, because two
or three States would bear the whole burthen, while he believed they
bore their full proportion of all the rest. He was against receiving the
motion into this bill, though he had no objection to taking it up by
itself, on the principles of humanity and policy; and therefore would
vote against it if it was not withdrawn.

Mr. AMES joined the gentleman last up; no one could suppose him
favorable to slavery; he detested it from his soul; but he had some
doubts whether imposing a duty on the importation would not have the
appearance of countenancing the practice; it was certainly a subject of
some delicacy, and no one appeared to be prepared for the discussion. He
therefore hoped the motion would be withdrawn.

Mr. LIVERMORE was not against the principle of the motion; but in the
present case he conceived it improper. If <DW64>s were goods, wares, or
merchandise, they came within the title of the bill; if they were not,
the bill would be inconsistent. But if they are goods, wares, or
merchandise, the five per cent. _ad valorem_ will embrace the
importation, and the duty of five per cent. is nearly equal to ten
dollars per head; so there is no occasion to add it even on the score of
revenue.

Mr. JACKSON said, it was the fashion of the day to favor the liberty of
slaves. He would not go into a discussion of the subject; but he
believed it was capable of demonstration that they were better off in
their present situation than they would be if they were manumitted. What
are they to do if they are discharged? Work for a living? Experience has
shown us they will not. Examine what has become of those in Maryland;
many of them have been set free in that State. Did they turn themselves
to industry and useful pursuits? No, they turn out common pickpockets,
petty larceny villains. And is this mercy, forsooth, to turn them into a
way in which they must lose their lives; for when they are thrown upon
the world, void of property and connections, they cannot get their
living but by pilfering. What is to be done for compensation? Will
Virginia set all her <DW64>s free? Will they give up the money they cost
them, and to whom? When this practice comes to be tried there, the sound
of liberty will lose those charms which make it grateful to the ravished
ear. But our slaves are not in a worse situation than they were on the
coast of Africa. It is not uncommon there for the parents to sell their
children in peace; and in war, the whole are taken and made slaves
together. In these cases, it is only a change of one slavery for
another; and are they not better here, where they have a master, bound
by the ties of interest and law, to provide for their support and
comfort in old age or infirmity, in which, if they were free, they would
sink under the pressure of woe for want of assistance?

He would say nothing of the partiality of such a tax; it was admitted by
the avowed friends of the measure; Georgia, in particular, would be
oppressed. On this account, it would be the most odious tax Congress
could impose.

Mr. SCHUREMAN hoped the gentleman would withdraw his motion, because the
present was not the time or place for introducing the business. He
thought it had better be brought forward in the House as a distinct
proposition. If the gentleman persisted in having the question
determined, he would move the previous question, if he was supported.

Mr. MADISON.--I cannot concur with gentlemen who think the present an
improper time or place to enter into a discussion of the proposed
motion. If it is taken up in a separate view, we shall do the same thing
at a greater expense of time. But gentlemen say that it is improper to
connect the two objects, because they do not come within the title of
the bill; but this objection may be obviated by accommodating the title
to the contents. There may be some inconsistency in combining the ideas
which gentlemen have expressed, that is, considering the human race as a
species of property; but the evil does not arise from adopting the
clause now proposed; it is from the importation to which it relates. Our
object in enumerating persons on paper with merchandise, is to prevent
the practice of actually treating them as such, by having them in future
forming part of the cargoes of goods, wares, and merchandise to be
imported into the United States. The motion is calculated to avoid the
very evil intimated by the gentleman.

It has been said that this tax will be partial and oppressive; but if a
fair view is taken of this subject, I think we may form a different
conclusion. But if it be partial or oppressive, are there not many
instances in which we have laid taxes of this nature? Yet are they not
thought to be justified by national policy? If any article is warranted
on this account, how much more are we authorized to proceed on this
occasion? The dictates of humanity, the principles of the people, the
national safety and happiness, and prudent policy require it of us. The
constitution has particularly called our attention to it; and of all the
articles contained in the bill before us, this is one of the last I
should be willing to make a concession upon, so far as I am at liberty
to go, according to the terms of the constitution or principles of
justice. I would not have it understood that my zeal would carry me to
disobey the inviolable commands of either.

I understood it had been intimated, that the motion was inconsistent or
unconstitutional. I believe, sir, my worthy colleague has formed the
words with a particular reference to the constitution; any how, so far
as the duty is expressed, it perfectly accords with that instrument. If
there are any inconsistencies in it, they may be rectified. I believe
the intention is well understood, but I am far from supposing the
diction improper. If the description of the persons does not accord with
the ideas of the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. JACKSON,) and his idea is
a proper one for the committee to adopt, I see no difficulty in changing
the phraseology.

I conceive the constitution, in this particular, was formed in order
that the Government, whilst it was restrained from laying a total
prohibition, might be able to give some testimony of the sense of
America with respect to the African trade. We have liberty to impose a
tax or duty upon the importation of such persons, as any of the States
now existing shall think proper to admit; and this liberty was granted,
I presume, upon two considerations. The first was, that until the time
arrived when they might abolish the importation of slaves, they might
have an opportunity of evidencing their sentiments on the policy and
humanity of such a trade. The other was, that they might be taxed in due
proportion with other articles imported; for if the possessor will
consider them as property, of course they are of value, and ought to be
paid for. If gentlemen are apprehensive of oppression from the weight of
the tax, let them make an estimate of its proportion, and they will find
that it very little exceeds five per cent. _ad valorem_; so that they
will gain very little by having them thrown into that mass of articles;
whilst, by selecting them in the manner proposed, we shall fulfil the
prevailing expectations of our fellow-citizens, and perform our duty in
executing the purposes of the constitution. It is to be hoped, that by
expressing a national disapprobation of this trade, we may destroy it,
and save ourselves from reproaches, and our posterity the imbecility
ever attendant on a country filled with slaves.

I do not wish to say any thing harsh to the hearing of gentlemen who
entertain different sentiments from me, or different sentiments from
those I represent; but if there is any one point in which it is clearly
the policy of this nation, so far as we constitutionally can, to vary
the practice obtaining under some of the State Governments, it is this.
But it is certain a majority of the States are opposed to this practice;
therefore, upon principle, we ought to discountenance it as far as is in
our power.

If I were not afraid of being told that the Representatives of the
several States are the best able to judge of what is proper and
conducive to their particular prosperity, I should venture to say that
it is as much the interest of Georgia and South Carolina as of any in
the Union. Every addition they receive to their number of slaves, tends
to weaken and render them less capable of self-defence. In case of
hostilities with foreign nations, they will be the means of inviting
attack, instead of repelling invasion. It is a necessary duty of the
General Government to protect every part of the empire against danger,
as well internal as external. Every thing, therefore, which tends to
increase this danger, though it may be a local affair, yet, if it
involves national expense or safety, becomes of concern to every part of
the Union, and is a proper subject for the consideration of those
charged with the general administration of the Government. I hope, in
making these observations, I shall not be understood to mean that a
proper attention ought not to be paid to the local opinions and
circumstances of any part of the United States, or that the particular
representatives are not best able to judge of the sense of their
immediate constituents.

If we examine the proposed measure by the agreement there is between it
and the existing State laws, it will show us that it is patronized by a
very respectable part of the Union. I am informed that South Carolina
has prohibited the importation of slaves for several years yet to come.
We have the satisfaction, then, of reflecting that we do nothing more
than their own laws do at this moment. This is not the case with one
State. I am sorry that her situation is such as to seem to require a
population of this nature; but it is impossible, in the nature of
things, to consult the national good, without doing what we do not wish
to do to some particular part.

Perhaps gentlemen contend against the introduction of the clause on too
slight grounds. If it does not comport with the title of the bill, alter
the latter. If it does not conform to the precise terms of the
constitution, amend it. But if it will tend to delay the whole bill,
that, perhaps, will be the best reason for making it the object of a
separate one. If this be the sense of the committee, I shall submit.

Mr. GERRY thought all duties ought to be laid as equal as possible. He
had endeavored to enforce this principle yesterday, but without the
success he wished for; he was bound by the principle of justice,
therefore, to vote for the proposition. But if the committee were
desirous of considering the subject fully by itself, he had no
objection; but he thought when gentlemen laid down a principle, they
ought to support it generally.

Mr. BURKE said, gentlemen were contending for nothing; that the value of
a slave averaged about eighty pounds, and the duty on that sum at five
per cent. would be ten dollars. As Congress could go no further than
that sum, he conceived it made no difference whether they were
enumerated or left in the common mass.

Mr. MADISON.--If we contend for nothing, the gentlemen who are opposed
to us do not contend for a great deal. But the question is, whether the
five per cent. _ad valorem_, on all articles imported, will have any
operation at all upon the introduction of slaves, unless we make a
particular enumeration on this account. The collector may mistake; for
he would not presume to apply the term goods, wares, and merchandise to
any person whatsoever. But if that general definition of goods, wares,
and merchandise, is supposed to include African slaves, why may we not
particularly enumerate them, and lay the duty pointed out by the
constitution, which, as gentlemen tell us, is no more than five per
cent. upon their value. This will not increase the burthen upon any; but
it will be that manifestation of our sense expected by our constituents,
and demanded by justice and humanity.

Mr. BLAND had no doubt of the propriety or good policy of this measure.
He had made up his mind upon it; he wished slaves had never been
introduced into America. But if it was impossible at this time to cure
the evil, he was very willing to join in any measures that would prevent
its extending further. He had some doubts whether the prohibitory laws
of the States were not in part repealed. Those who had endeavored to
discountenance this trade by laying a duty on the importation, were
prevented by the constitution from continuing such regulation, which
declares that no State shall lay any impost or duties on imports. If
this were the case, and he suspected pretty strongly that it was, the
necessity of adopting the proposition of his colleague was more
apparent.

Mr. SHERMAN said the constitution does not consider these persons as
species of property; it speaks of them as persons, and says, that a tax
or duty may be imposed on the importation of them into any State which
shall permit the same, but they have no power to prohibit such
importation for twenty years. But Congress have power to declare upon
what terms persons coming into the United States shall be entitled to
citizenship; the rule of naturalization must, however, be uniform. He
was convinced there were others who ought to be regulated in this
particular, the importation of whom was of an evil tendency; he meant
convicts particularly. He thought that some regulation respecting them
was also proper; but it being a different subject, it ought to be taken
up in a different manner.

Mr. MADISON was led to believe, from the observation that had fallen
from the gentlemen, that it would be best to make this the subject of a
distinct bill: he, therefore, wished his colleague would withdraw his
motion, and move in the House for leave to bring in a bill on the same
principles.

Mr. PARKER consented to withdraw his motion, under a conviction that the
House was fully satisfied of its propriety. He knew very well that these
persons were neither goods nor wares, but they were treated as articles
of merchandise. Although he wished to get rid of this part of his
property, yet he should not consent to deprive other people of theirs by
any act of his, without their consent.

The committee rose, reported progress, and the House adjourned.


FRIDAY, May 15.

Mr. WHITE, one of the Representatives from Virginia, presented to the
House a resolve of the Legislature of that State, of the 27th of
December, 1788, offering to the acceptance of the Federal Government,
ten miles square of territory, or any lesser quantity, in any part of
that State, which Congress may choose, to be occupied and possessed by
the United States, as the seat of the Federal Government; which was
read, and ordered to lie on the table.

An engrossed bill for laying a duty on goods, wares, and merchandises,
imported into the United States, was read a third time, and, on a motion
made, ordered to be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House
immediately.

The House, accordingly, resolved itself into the said committee; and,
after some time, the committee rose, and reported the bill with
amendments, which were agreed to by the House.

Mr. MADISON made a motion further to amend the said bill, by adding to
the end thereof a clause for limiting the time of its continuance.

Mr. AMES expressed a doubt of the propriety of the motion. He thought
the bill ought to be commensurate with the wants of Government.

Mr. FITZSIMONS.--For want of a proper knowledge of the true situation of
our affairs, we are unable to determine how far the present provision is
equal to the necessities of the Union, and this circumstance will tend
to add considerably to our embarrassment in limiting the duration. If we
make the time too short to supply the public wants, we shall not hold
out to the public creditors a sufficient security for the punctual
payment of their debts. If we should want to raise money by a loan, we
could only expect it according to the duration of the fund: this makes
the present motion a subject of serious consideration. Not that I object
to what the gentleman has in contemplation, but I wish such language to
be used, that shall designate the continuation of the law to be till the
wants are supplied and thereafter cease. I am not of opinion that it
should be for half a century, because I hope our national debt will be
extinguished in much less time; but really I must confess, at this
moment, I feel considerable embarrassment in determining in my mind the
period for which it should exist, whether an enumerated term of years,
or a general declaration during the continuance of the public wants.

Mr. LEE thought the operation of the law could not be well understood;
that it was a system of experiment, and ought to be temporary, in order
that a future Congress might make such amendments as time should
discover to be necessary. How perfect soever the theory might appear,
practice might prove it otherwise; he therefore wished its operation
limited for three or five years. He thought it would be wise in the
House to adopt the motion, in order to prevent any injustice which a
permanent and imperfect regulation might have on posterity. He expected
this would beget confidence in the Government, which was to him a very
desirable object.

Mr. WHITE.--The constitution having authorized the House of
Representatives alone to originate money bills, places an important
trust in our hands, which, as their protectors, we ought not to part
with. I do not mean to imply that the Senate are less to be trusted than
this House; but the constitution, no doubt for wise purposes, has given
the immediate Representatives of the People a control over the whole
Government in this particular, which for their interest they ought not
to let out of their hands. Besides, the constitution says further, that
no appropriation shall be for a longer term than two years, which of
consequence limits the duration of the revenue law to that period; when,
if it is found conducive to the public welfare, it may be continued by
the legislators appointed by the people, and who alone are authorized to
declare upon this question in the first instance.

Mr. LIVERMORE hoped but little time would be taken up in the discussion
of this subject; the people were anxiously waiting the result of their
deliberations; beside the impost was daily slipping away. He had no
doubt of the propriety of the motion, because from the acknowledged
imperfections of the bill, it would never do for a permanent system. If
the people, who consider themselves subjected to very high and very
unequal duties, find no termination of the grievance, they will
immediately adopt measures in their defence, to thwart the views of
Government; but if they understand the law as temporary, and only passed
in order to gain experience for forming a better system, they will be
induced to give it fair play, and bear the burthen without complaint,
trusting to the wisdom and justice of Congress for such alterations as
practice may show to be necessary.

Besides, the objects for which the revenue is now wanting, will decrease
annually; this will be an additional reason for limiting its duration.
He was not for a very short term; he thought five, seven, or ten years,
would be more eligible than two or three, but he was decidedly against
making it perpetual.

Mr. SINNICKSON had understood, that one of the objects of the bill was
the re-establishment of public credit; but it never could be imagined
that a law, limited to three or four years, could do this in any great
degree; nor could any advantage arise from loans negotiated and
terminated within such a short period. Under these impressions, he
conceived the motion struck at the credit of the new Government, which
the people had just established.

Mr. MADISON.--When he offered this amendment to the bill, he thought its
propriety was so obvious and striking, that it would meet no opposition.
To pass a bill, not limited in duration, which was to draw revenue from
the pockets of the people, appeared to be dangerous in the
administration of any Government; he hoped, therefore, the House would
not be less cautious in this particular than other nations are, who
profess to act upon sound principles. He imagined it might be considered
by their constituents as incompatible with the spirit of the
constitution, and dangerous to republican principles, to pass such a law
unlimited in its duration.

Besides the restoration of public credit, he thought the act had in view
the encouragement of a particular description of people, which might
lead them into enterprises of a peculiar nature, for the protection of
which the public faith seemed to be pledged. But would gentlemen infer
from hence, that no alteration ought to take place if the manufactures
were well established? The subject appeared to him in a twofold point of
view; first, to provide for the exigencies of Government, and second,
for the establishment of public credit; but he thought both these
objects could be obtained without making the bill perpetual. If the
Government showed a proper attention to the punctual performance of its
engagements, it would obtain the latter; the other would be secured by
making provision as the occasion demanded. If the bill was to be made
perpetual, it would be continued after the purpose for which it was
adopted had ceased; the error would in this case be irremediable;
whereas, if its limitation was determined, it would always be in the
power of the Government to make it commensurate with what the public
debts and contingencies required.

The constitution, as had already been observed, places the power in the
House of originating money bills. The principal reason why the
constitution had made this distinction was, because they were chosen by
the people, and supposed to be best acquainted with their interests and
ability. In order to make them more particularly acquainted with these
objects, the democratic branch of the Legislature consisted of a greater
number, and were chosen for a shorter period, so that they might revert
more frequently to the mass of the people. Now, if a revenue law was
made perpetual, however unequal its operation might be, it would be out
of the power of this House to effect an alteration; for if the President
chose to object to the measure, it would require two-thirds of both
Houses to carry it. Even if the House of Representatives were unanimous
in their opinion that the law ought to be repealed, they would not be
able to carry it, unless a great majority appeared in the Senate also.

Mr. BOUDINOT said, the time mentioned by the former Congress, and to
which they requested the concurrence of the several States, was, that
the impost duties might be continued for twenty-five years. This request
was made on full consideration, and they did not think it was more than
sufficient to discharge the principal and interest of the national debt.
He concluded, therefore, that it was better to let the law remain
without limitation; because when they found the purposes for which it
was intended were accomplished, it would be in the power of Congress to
repeal the law.

Mr. LAWRENCE thought the present was a subject of great importance, and
he lamented it was not brought forward at an earlier period, because he
feared the time would not allow that full discussion or deliberation
which ought to take place. He wished also that the House was acquainted
with the necessities of the United States, that so they might make
provision accordingly; but these two points were mere matter of
speculation as to their precise amount; yet he believed it was agreed on
all hands, that the ways and means provided in this bill for the support
of Government, the payment of interest and instalments of the foreign
and domestic debt, were, so far as agreed to, inadequate to the object.
If this be the case, the public debt must accumulate; and as we do not
know when the time may come for its extinguishment, the provision cannot
be limited; for every gentleman will agree, that if the demand for
revenue be increased, the fund ought to be commensurate to the object.
Is there any time when the civil list will cease its demand? If there is
not, there will be a perpetual call for revenue. He thought it
absolutely impossible to provide for the payment of the debts, if the
bill was limited to two, three, or four years; such a precarious
provision would never tend to the re-establishment of public credit. If
the bill was not limited, it would always be in the power of the
Legislature to lower the duties, or make such other alteration as might,
upon experience, be thought beneficial to the community; whereas if the
bill were limited, it would be thought improper to make any amendments
during the term for which it is enacted, although those amendments
appeared indispensably necessary. But why is this degree of caution
necessary? Will not the administration of public affairs be conducted in
future by representatives as good as ourselves? Will they have less
wisdom or virtue, to discover and pursue the good of their
fellow-citizens than we have?

Mr. BLAND.--Our public credit consists of two branches: first, as it
respects the evidences of our debt, in the hands of those from whom we
have had money or services; and secondly, as it respects our ability to
borrow in future. Now, the first branch of public credit depends upon
the punctuality with which the interest is paid; but this in foreign
nations, does not depend upon the limitation of the act. Do gentlemen
suppose our laws, like those of the Medes and Persians, unchangeable?
Can any person, who has read our constitution, believe that it is in our
power to pass a law without limitation? No, it is impossible. Every
person knows that a future Congress may repeal this and every other law
we pass, whenever they think proper. The constitution had particularly
intrusted the House of Representatives with the power of raising money;
great care was necessary to preserve this privilege inviolate; it was
one of the greatest securities the people had for their liberties under
this Government. Moreover, the importance of the House itself depended
upon holding the purse-strings; if they once part with this power, they
would become insignificant, and the other branch of the Legislature
might become altogether independent of them. For these reasons, he was
in favor of the motion of his honorable colleague, and hoped it would
obtain.

Mr. GERRY.--There seems to be a great variety of opinions entertained
by gentlemen on this question. But he thought they would all agree on
these two points: first, that there were very great demands upon the
federal treasury; and, secondly, that they had no kind of documents to
show what they were, or what the revenue bill would produce. Under these
circumstances, gentlemen must agree, that there is danger of passing a
law that would operate oppressively, and without reason. There was also
danger of erring in the mode of collecting, for want of experience to
guide them. From these considerations, there was no doubt but the act
would require the reconsideration of the Legislature in a short time;
there may be applications from the people of all quarters to repeal a
part of it. But what are their immediate representatives to do, in case
the bill be made perpetual? They may be convinced that a repeal would be
just and necessary; but it may not be in their power to remedy the
grievances of their constituents, however desirous they may be of doing
so; for, although this House may originate and carry a bill unanimously
through for the repeal, yet it will be in the power of the President,
and the minority of the other branch of Congress, to prevent a repeal.

Mr. HUNTINGDON thought it easy to see the danger of making this bill
perpetual: besides parting with the power which the constitution gave to
the House of Representatives, in authorizing them solely to originate
money bills, there would be another inconvenience, which was, extending
the revenue beyond what the nature of the public debt required. The
foreign debt was payable by instalments; it was saying nothing to allege
that the debt would accumulate, because the United States must make
provision for the annual extinguishment of a part. If the revenue,
arising from the impost, be insufficient for this purpose, recourse must
be had to some other fund, which will enable us to perform the
engagements of the late Congress. It is true the debt is large, and will
take time to pay it off, but he had no doubt but it would be done
according to contract, and with honor to the Union. How, then, can
gentlemen suppose the revenue ought to be perpetual, in order to be
commensurate with the object? If they contemplated the contraction of
more debts in future, the supposition might be true; but he saw no
reason why gentlemen should extend their views so far. He thought if a
future war, or some other untoward circumstance, should increase the
national debt, it ought to be provided for by the Government who were
acquainted with the necessity. He thought the House ought to consider
seriously before they parted with their powers; it was easy for them to
pass a bill to give power, but it was difficult to recall it. He had
seen many instances of this kind; one in particular in the State from
which he came, where the Legislature had given the appointment of
sheriffs, and some other little matters, out of their hands, and had
been a long time endeavoring to get it back; but they had not been able
to obtain it. He had no suspicions of any character in the Senate, but
the constitution had made that body in some degree perpetual, to obtain
a permanency in the laws; if, therefore, this revenue bill had once
their approbation, they might be inclined to continue it, even against
the sentiments of the people and of the House. Though he was not against
trusting the gentlemen who now composed the Senate, he was against
trusting their successors.

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, was also in favor of the clause; he
conceived the only reason of weight urged against it, related to the
restoration of public credit; but he thought every person possessed of
the stock or debt of the United States would have the same feelings and
reasoning as the House; they would know that their demands depended upon
a higher source than Congress, and might be sure that we would do our
duty in making particular provision. If Congress neglected this, one
part of the creditors would compel them. If it was found that the United
States were not disposed to pay their debts, foreigners would find the
means to make them. Taking it therefore for granted, that Congress would
always provide for these objects, he would proceed to consider what
effect might arise from a permanent or temporary provision. If the
latter were made, the creditors would honor us for our exertions, and
confide in our continuing to provide for them in the manner we should
find upon experience most convenient to the community. If the system was
declared to be a perpetual provision for the payment of their interest,
it would give no hope, in the first place, for the redemption of the
capital; and in the second, if Congress were to alter it, and which, in
all probability they shortly must, the security would be impaired, and
an essential injury done to the public credit, which we are so desirous
to revive.

Mr. AMES considered this as a very important question; and in order that
his own mind might be fully enlightened, he had listened with the most
unwearied attention to the arguments urged on both sides; but he was far
from being satisfied that the motion was necessary or proper for the
House to adopt.

Gentlemen tell us they are willing to make the revenue commensurate with
the debt. If they do this, all the inconveniences resulting from the
imperfection of the system will be entailed upon us for a number of
years. Other gentlemen mention a year or two for its limitation. Can the
House listen seriously to such a proposition? If we were to tell our
creditors that we are making provision for them for one year, would it
tend to inspire them with confidence in our wisdom or justice? Would our
foreign creditors believe we were scrupulously fulfilling our
engagements with them? No: nothing less than a fixed, permanent system,
can beget confidence or give security. An illusory system of one or two
years' duration would engender distrust; its very visage would make the
public suspect deception. If we do not mean to deceive, why not make the
provision commensurate to the occasion? His idea of a temporary act was
_pro hac vice_, by way of experiment: but he thought the House could not
make the experiment with this bill, because the public credit would not
admit of it. If this act be made for one year, will it not be a
considerable expense to the public by going over all the ground again,
which had taken the House such a length of time to discuss?

What has been the conduct of Great Britain, in relation to her funds?
What has carried the credit of that kingdom to a superior eminence, but
the attention she has paid to public credit? He considered these
advantages as having made that nation rich and powerful. He believed a
like conduct on our part would produce the same consequences, because
our Government is of such a nature as to give the public creditors the
greatest security they could wish. If the revenue is appropriated, and
the law for collecting it is without any limitation, the funds cannot be
taken away without a positive act of injustice, to which both Houses of
the Legislature must assent by a majority of two-thirds, or three
independent parties must unite. It was therefore three to one in favor
of the public creditor, that the funds appropriated to his use would not
be annihilated. Under these circumstances, Government might more safely
be trusted. This, he observed, was not the case under despotic princes;
their will alone could tear away the security of the subject. Under a
pure democracy, the case was almost as bad; no confidence could be
placed, because the caprice and whim of one body could dictate a change.

Mr. PAGE expressed his surprise to find gentlemen opposed to the
limitation of the bill, who had complained so much of its imperfections.
He thought a measure of the kind now proposed absolutely necessary to
reconcile these gentlemen to particular parts of the bill. For his own
part, he had objections to some articles, and for that reason, if there
was no other, he would be in favor of the limitation. It had been
frequently asserted that half the revenue would be lost by smuggling.
Can this, then, he would ask, be a bill proper to perpetuate, or fit for
the restoration of the credit of the United States? He asked gentlemen
whether they would lend a hand to rivet round the necks of their
fellow-citizens a regulation which experience had convinced them was
unjust, unequal, and oppressive? Yet the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. AMES) had declared that experience had convinced him that at least
one particular article was subjected to a duty of this kind.

Mr. GERRY asked his colleague if he advocated carrying the taxes to such
an extent as to accumulate sums in the treasury for which the United
States had no particular use? Yet if this revenue law were made
perpetual, it would collect money into the public coffers after the
national debt was paid. This would be such a temptation to the Executive
to possess itself by force of the treasures of the nation, as he hoped
would never be put in its way. If our commerce and population increased,
this revenue would increase in the same proportion. He could not,
therefore, bear the idea of all this money being collected into one
spot, unless there was an absolute demand for it. He thought it
incompatible with the liberty and security of the people, and therefore
hoped the House would agree to a short limitation.

Mr. MADISON, for the sake of accommodation, would make another
proposition. He was extremely sorry to differ with gentlemen about
modes, when their object appeared to be the same. He thought the spirit
of the constitution and the structure of the Government rendered it
improper to pass a perpetual revenue law. The arguments had been clear
on this point; but as there was an evident propriety in making the means
commensurate to the occasion, he was inclined to give the bill such a
perpetuity as would answer the purpose of providing for the public debt
and restoring the national credit. He thought this might be done by
modifying his motion so as to refer to the collection bill; for he
hoped, before that passed, the House would be able to ascertain the
appropriation, and could limit it accordingly. The words he would
propose were, that this act should not continue and be in force longer
than the ---- day of ----, unless otherwise limited by the act providing
for the appropriation. As he had heard it intimated that the yeas and
nays would be called on this question, he was desirous of rendering the
clause as satisfactory as possible.

Mr. AMES could not bear to lie under the imputation of inconsistency,
with which he was charged, inasmuch as he contended against the
limitation of a bill he had opposed as oppressive in some of its parts.
He believed the amendment now offered was new to almost every gentleman.
For his part, he had always supposed it was intended as a permanent
system. He remembered many gentlemen made use of this expression,
through the various debates which had taken place in the several stages
of the bill. He had understood it in this light, and had therefore
combated, with some degree of energy, such parts as appeared to him
impolitic or unjust. He imagined the gentlemen on both sides had labored
to make the bill as perfect as possible, with a view of making an
equitable provision for the public exigencies, which should affect all
parts of the Union with the greatest degree of impartiality.

Mr. SHERMAN observed, that when Congress applied to the several States
for the five per cent. impost, they judged it would enable them to
extinguish the national debt in twenty-five years; but, in addition to
this fund, they expected to make annual requisitions on the States, for
one and a half million of dollars at least; so that gentlemen could not
expect the whole to be paid by this single fund in a short time. He
wished a limitation to the law in general terms, such as until the debt,
foreign and domestic, is discharged. He thought a short term would made
an unfavorable impression upon the minds of the public creditors, and
tend in a great measure to cloud the happy prospects that began to
brighten the political hemisphere of this country.

Mr. GERRY expressed an intention of calling the yeas and nays if he was
supported, because he thought it a question in which the essential
interests of the people were deeply involved.

Mr. LAWRENCE said, he held his present opinion upon the purest
principles of patriotism, and an ardent love for his country's
happiness. He had no objection to the yeas and nays being taken, as he
was not inclined to disguise his sentiments.

Mr. PAGE was glad the yeas and nays were called, as it would give
gentlemen an opportunity of showing to their constituents their
approbation of a measure calculated to secure the blessings of liberty
to themselves and posterity.

Several members rose to speak on this question, when Mr. AMES moved the
adjournment, fearing gentlemen would grow warm upon the question.

Whereupon, the House adjourned.


SATURDAY, May 16.

Mr. SENEY, from Maryland, presented to the House an act of the
Legislature of that State, offering to the acceptance of Congress ten
miles square of territory, in any part of the said State, for the seat
of the Federal Government, which was read and ordered to lie on the
table.


_Duties on Imports._

The House resumed the consideration of the amendment proposed yesterday
to the bill for laying a duty on goods, wares, and merchandises imported
into the United States, and the said amendment read as follows: "And be
it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that this act shall be in
force until the ---- day of ----, and from thence until the end of the
next session of Congress which shall happen thereafter."

The question was called for, and Mr. LAWRENCE required the ayes and
noes.

Mr. JACKSON wished to say a few words on the bill. The ayes and noes
being called for, he conceived it his duty to state his reasons for his
vote. He declared himself to be in favor of the limitation, for the
reasons offered by honorable gentlemen yesterday. He said he had as
ardent a desire to re-establish public credit, and place it on a good
footing, as any member on that floor, yet he did not think making this
law perpetual would have that tendency. He had no doubt but every
subsequent Legislature would be equally desirous of doing justice to
the creditors of the Union, and he therefore felt no uneasiness in
leaving such provision to be made by them. If the next Legislature were
disposed to violate the public honor, would the law now under
consideration stand in their way? For his part, he could not conceive it
an insuperable bar. He believed there was not a member who liked every
part of the bill. Under these circumstances, what was to be expected but
complaints from the people, and a consequent repeal of the bill? He did
not wish to insinuate that the Senate would be so depraved as to oppose
the public voice, but they might misunderstand it; they were a permanent
body, and might be more inclined to support what they considered the
honor of the Government than the convenience of the people.

The House of Representatives appeared to him to be the body best
calculated to know and feel the interests of their immediate
constituents; they ought, therefore, to preserve the power of redressing
grievances, and not give too much into the hands of the Senate. He
acknowledged the claims which those that fought and bled for their
country had upon the justice of Congress; but he did not believe that
class of citizens would complain or murmur at this House for keeping the
purse strings in their hands, when it was considered necessary to the
security and happiness of the people.

Mr. WHITE did not see the necessity of calling the yeas and nays: he
thought the measure was intended to have one of these two objects,
either to show one part of the House had mistaken the interest of their
country, and ought to be held up to posterity, in order that their
memories may be charged with their want of knowledge; or that there is a
part of this House who think themselves more wise and patriotic than the
majority. He never called the yeas and nays in his life, nor believed he
ever should; but he was willing to have his vote appear, in all cases,
when gentlemen thought proper to perpetuate the decision of the House in
that way. On this occasion he would vote in favor of the amendment, and
would endeavor to answer the objections, which, if well founded, would
be a subject of great uneasiness in his mind, considering how he
intended to give his vote.

He would now proceed to examine, whether rendering this law perpetual
would be a wise and prudent measure. It had been well observed by the
gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. JACKSON,) that every part of the law would
bear harder on some States than on others; perhaps there was no State in
the Union which would not be in some degree dissatisfied. He could
perceive, by the sentiments of gentlemen in this House, that the
burthens would be peculiarly felt; under these impressions, gentlemen
have expressed themselves more warmly than perhaps they ought. There had
been predictions of the most dangerous consequences of high duties,
which he would not repeat; if these dangers were not imaginary, would it
be prudent in the House, to risk these consequences, and make these
dangers unavoidable by rendering the law perpetual.

Much pains had been taken to impose the burthens as equally as possible.
If the duty on molasses bears hard upon one State, the tonnage duty
would bear equally so upon others. But still it is probable, that there
are unequal pressures laid by the bill, which experience alone could
enable the Legislature to alter to the satisfaction of all parties. The
system was great, complex, and comprehensive; it embraces commerce,
manufactures, agriculture, finance, and, in short, every thing in which
a nation can be concerned. Will it be prudent, then, under our present
disadvantages, and without information, to enact a law affecting the
highest interests of the people, which can never be repealed but by the
consent of three independent bodies? Gentlemen have told us, that no
valuable purpose can be answered by making the law temporary; now, he
thought a valuable purpose could be answered by it. The two Houses of
Congress, with the qualified negative of the President, formed the
legislative power of the United States; they are distinct powers to be
exercised by both branches of the Legislature. The House had been told,
on a former occasion, that the Senate possessed greater powers than the
Representatives. He admitted that, in some instances, they had greater
powers; but with respect to revenue matters, they certainly had less,
and very properly so. Shall we then give up to a body, who has already a
superiority over us, those superior powers which we possess relative to
revenue? A perpetual system would give the Senate greater advantages
than constitutionally they ought to enjoy. He thought it of little
consequence for the House to possess the right of originating money
bills, if those money bills were made perpetual. The exercise of this
right would be lost, and he thought it necessary that every part of
Government should feel itself dependent upon the people. We have been
told, with truth, that the Senate are a virtuous body; they are so, and
he hoped would remain so, for ages yet to come, nay for ever; and, in
his legislative capacity, he would act upon no other supposition. But
still it ought to be remembered, that they would always be men, and
liable to all the errors, frailties, and infirmities, with the rest of
their fellow-mortals; besides, they were constituted in some measure for
purposes to which the other branch was incompetent; while this House was
constituted for purposes for which the Senate is unequal. It is a
well-grounded republican maxim, that taxation and representation should
depend each on the other. The people should be taxed only by
representatives chosen for that purpose. This principle was written in
the hearts of our British ancestors; it had been maintained by the best
blood of our citizens, and he hoped it would descend with the fullest
energy to our posterity. What, said he, are we about to do? A great
branch of revenue, indeed the only branch, to which an application is
now proper, or expected by the people, is about to be put out of our
hands for ever; for it would not be in the power of this House, or any
future House, to annihilate those funds without the consent of the
Senate and the concurrence of the President. Now, the Senate are not an
equal representation of the people; in that body the States have equal
numbers, while, in this House, the representation is proportioned to
their population. Delaware sends one, Georgia three, and Virginia ten.
Is it possible, in the nature of things, that two Senators can be as
well acquainted with the feelings and interest of the people of
Virginia, as ten men selected from among them, and taken from the
several parts of the State? Will the people be satisfied to have that
body able to continue a revenue system which their immediate
representatives think oppressive, or perhaps unnecessary? Certainly they
would not; whatever the wisdom and virtue of the Senate may be, he was
convinced they were not competent to those peculiar objects for which a
just representation was absolutely necessary. The Senate, it is true, is
not a House of Lords; they do not possess any properties materially
distinguishing them from the members of the House of Representatives;
but, though the distinction is not so striking in the one case as in the
other, yet it was nevertheless real. The House of Lords is created by
the King, and is a permanent body; the Senate is chosen by the State
Legislatures, and though the individuals have not a permanency in
office, yet the body never ceases to exist. These circumstances, in the
constitution of the Senate, afforded a powerful objection to the new
system of Government, and the people would never have adopted it, had
they supposed that the powers of this body were unlimited in continuing
a system of taxation, which had at any time met the approbation of their
particular representatives.[23]

Mr. TUCKER did not think it necessary to give his opinion otherwise than
by his vote, because gentlemen, who had yesterday delivered their
sentiments in favor of the clause, had anticipated what he had to say.
But as he found himself influenced by the call for the ayes and noes on
this question, he should be induced to state some of his reasons in
favor of the amendment. He said, he was glad the ayes and noes had been
called, and if it had not been done by any other gentleman, he should
have conceived himself bound to have done it; because he did not think
himself at liberty, but on very particular occasions, to make a law
perpetual. He wished to see a doctrine established, never to pass a law
without limitation, unless justified by some extraordinary
circumstances. Nothing, he thought, could ever justify such an act but
the immutability of the object, and the absolute necessity and
simplicity of every thing relating to it. If the House passed a
perpetual revenue law, which had not an immutable object, they would
abridge their own power, and destroy one of the great privileges of the
people. Every bill of this nature, more or less, narrows the powers of
this House, and throws it into the hands of the Executive and a minority
of the Senate; for it is to be considered, that whenever we pass a bill
on any subject, every matter in that bill contained is given up to the
Executive and one-third of the Senators, so much so that it is out of
the power of this House, even with a unanimous vote, to recover any part
of it.

Mr. SYLVESTER was in favor of the limitation clause. A good deal had
been said in the House respecting the jarring interests of the several
States. It had been confessed on all hands, that this was an
experimental law: he viewed it as such, and expected, in the course of a
few years, the Legislature would be able to discover the errors of this
day. But what advantage can result from their knowledge, if they have
not power to make the necessary alterations, or to build up a new system
more perfect than the old? He had examined the annals of history, but
was unable to discover that any nation had ever established a perpetual
revenue law. He imagined gentlemen would admit these reasons to be
sufficient to warrant the vote they were about to give.

Mr. SINNICKSON did not expect this was to be a perpetual law, incapable
of alteration; but he wished to see it a permanent system. The idea of a
temporary system was long ago said to be out of the contemplation of the
House. He should only observe, in addition to this, that our credit
depended essentially upon what should be done at this time. He thought
if the revenue existed merely upon the breath of the Legislature, for
one or two years at a time, we should never attain that object. He
thought that the public good required something substantial to be done
in favor of those who had lent the public money in the hour of distress.

Mr. BOUDINOT thought himself obliged to say a few words more, in order
to justify the part he should take in the division of the House on this
question. He conceived the manner in which the motion was brought before
the House, after the bill was supposed to be gone through, did not give
such opportunity for the members to consider the subject as its
importance seemed to require, and which might have been had if it had
been brought forward at an earlier period.

If, said he, we are to have the measures of the Parliament of Great
Britain hung about our necks in all our public proceedings, and
observations from their practice perpetually sounding in our ears, that
practice ought to be defined and established. He believed that in the
whole volumes of the statute law, there was not one single revenue act
to be found with a limitation. He believed that the revenue laws, passed
fifty, sixty, eighty, and near a hundred years ago, in that kingdom,
existed at the present moment. We have long seen and been convinced of
the infirmities of the former confederation, and shall we now rivet
those infirmities upon the present constitution? Are we never to stand
upon a certain and solid foundation? Is not our public credit totally
gone? Has not experience convinced us that the loss of it would have
been our total destruction, if the generous exertions we have lately
made had not revived some degree of confidence in our future measures?
Are we not so deeply in debt as to give us reason to believe that it
will require many years to emancipate ourselves? If this is the case,
will a revenue law for one or two years bring that relief which is
expected? Will this prevent an increase of the public debt? Will it
restore value to the evidences of that debt held by our creditors? He
would ask any man, whether, if the United States were in the situation
in which they were last war, he would be induced to lend money upon a
temporary and inadequate fund provided for two years? He believed the
answer would be in the negative.

Mr. MADISON withdrew his motion in order to introduce another, which he
hoped would reconcile both sides of the House. He joined those gentlemen
who opposed the clause in thinking that one or two years would be a
period insufficient to answer the purposes in contemplation. If the
House agree to the clause he would substitute for the one just
withdrawn, he would move to fill the blank with a more distant day. His
motion was, that this act shall not continue in force after the ---- day
of ---- unless otherwise provided in the act for the appropriation of
the revenue.

Mr. FITZSIMONS seconded the motion.

Mr. SHERMAN liked this motion better than the other. Although he was in
favor of leaving the law at large, he would vote for this clause, if the
blanks were filled up with a sufficient time to accomplish those objects
which the Government had in view in providing revenue.

Mr. AMES thought the question would recur when the appropriation or
collecting bill came before them; he would rather, for his own part,
decide the question at this moment, than consume the time of the House
with another debate. Besides the House was not in possession of an act
for appropriating the revenue; such a measure might never be agreed to;
therefore he hoped the decision would take place at this time rather
than be evaded.

Mr. FITZSIMONS was of opinion, that this revenue ought to be
appropriated to the payment of the public debts; what were the views of
other gentlemen he could not say. He was nevertheless in favor of
limiting the law, and that upon constitutional principles, though he
wished it commensurate to its object. Gentlemen had said a great deal
respecting the imperfection of the system, that it was the effect of
compromise; but nevertheless, he thought it as free from defects as it
was possible a revenue system could be formed with such materials as the
House possessed; but if it was imperfect, he did not see the
difficulties some gentlemen mentioned, in altering and amending it when
experience shall have pointed out its defects.

Mr. BOUDINOT acquiesced in the motion now brought forward for the sake
of accommodation, although he thought the bill would stand better
without any limitation clause whatever.

Mr. PAGE was against the latter part of this clause. It had been justly
said, that the bill would be oppressive; but, from the necessity of the
times, the people will submit to it. Shall we not let them see the end
of their burthen in the law itself? Are they to look into another bill
for that purpose? Perhaps after the Senate have agreed to this act, they
may oppose the limitation in the subsequent one; they may insist upon
having this in perpetuity, and then the object which the House have in
view will be defeated.

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, moved a division of the question.

Mr. LEE wished to strike out that part of the motion which related to
the exception.

Mr. LIVERMORE seconded Mr. LEE.

The question was put, and that part of the clause lost.

The question now stood as originally introduced to the House.

The previous question was then demanded by five members: Shall the main
question be now put? And on the question, shall the main question be now
put? it was resolved in the affirmative.

And then the main question being put, that the House do agree to the
amendment proposed to the said bill, it was resolved in the
affirmative--ayes 41, noes 8.

The ayes and noes being called for by one-fifth of the members present:

Those who voted in the affirmative, are,

      Messrs. Abraham Baldwin, Egbert Benson, Theodorick Bland,
      AEdanus Burke, Daniel Carroll, Isaac Coles, Benjamin Contee,
      Thomas Fitzsimons, William Floyd, George Gale, Elbridge
      Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, Samuel Griffin,
      Jonathan Grout, John Hathorn, Daniel Heister, Benjamin
      Huntington, James Jackson, Richard Bland Lee, George
      Leonard, Samuel Livermore, James Madison, junior, Andrew
      Moore, Peter Muhlenberg, John Page, Josiah Parker, George
      Partridge, Jeremiah Van Rensselaer, Joshua Seney, Thomas
      Scott, William Smith, William Smith, of South Carolina,
      Jonathan Sturgis, Peter Sylvester, Jonathan Trumbull, Thos.
      Tudor Tucker, John Vining, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Alexander
      White, and Henry Wynkoop.

Those who voted in the negative, are,

      Messrs. Fisher Ames, Elias Boudinot, Lambert Cadwalader,
      George Clymer, John Lawrence, Roger Sherman, Thomas
      Sinnickson, and George Thatcher.

The clause being added, it was agreed to fill the blank so as to read
the first day of June, 1796.

_Ordered_, That the said bill, with the amendments, be engrossed, and
read the third time to-day.[24]


MONDAY, May 18.

      _Resolved_, That leave be given to bring in a bill
      concerning the importation of certain persons into the
      United States, prior to the year 1808, and that Mr. PARKER,
      Mr. SINNICKSON, and Mr. MUHLENBERG, do prepare and bring in
      the same.


TUESDAY, May 19.

_Executive Departments._

On motion of Mr. BOUDINOT, the House resolved itself into a Committee of
the whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. TRUMBULL in the chair.

Mr. BOUDINOT.--I rise, Mr. Chairman, with diffidence, to introduce a
subject to the consideration of the committee, which I had hopes would
have been brought forward by an abler hand; the pressing necessity of it
must alone be my excuse. The great executive departments which were in
existence under the late confederation, are now at an end, at least so
far as not to be able to conduct the business of the United States. If
we take up the present constitution, we shall find it contemplates
departments of an executive nature in aid of the President: it then
remains for us to carry this intention into effect, which I take it will
be best done by settling principles for organizing them in this place,
and afterwards appoint a select committee to bring in a bill for the
same.

I need say little to convince gentlemen of the necessity which presses
us into a pursuit of this measure. They know that our national debt is
considerable; the interest on our foreign loans, and the instalments
due, amount to two millions of dollars. This arrearage, together with
the domestic debt, is of great magnitude, and it will be attended with
the most dreadful consequences to let these affairs run into confusion
and ruin, for want of proper regulations to keep them in order.

I shall move the committee therefore to come to some such resolution as
this: That an officer be established for the management of the finances
of the United States, at the head of which shall be an officer to be
denominated the Secretary of Finance. I am not tenacious of the style,
perhaps some other may be proper, but the object I have in view is to
establish the department; after which we may go on to narrate the duties
of the officer, and accommodate the name to the acts he is to perform.
The departments under the late constitution are not to be models for us
to form ours upon by reason of the essential change which has taken
place in the Government, and the new distribution of legislative,
executive, and judicial powers.

If gentlemen then agree with me so far, I shall proceed to restrain the
Secretary of Finance, and all persons under him, from being concerned in
trade or commerce, and make it his duty to superintend the treasury and
the finances of the United States, examine the public debts and
engagements, inspect the collection and expenditure of the revenue, and
to form and digest plans for its improvement. There may be other duties
which gentlemen may add, as I do not pretend to have perfectly
enumerated them all. After this point is settled, we may then go to the
consideration of the War Department, and the Department of Foreign
Affairs; but, for the present, I would wish to confine ourselves to the
Department of Finance.

Mr. BENSON wished the committee to consider what he judged to be a
previous question, namely, how many departments there should be
established? He approved of the division mentioned by the gentleman; but
would, with his leave, move that there be established in aid of the
Chief Magistrate, three executive departments, to be severally
denominated the Department of Foreign Affairs, Treasury, and War. After
determining this question, if it was a proper division, the committee
might proceed to enumerate the duties which should be attached to each.

Mr. BOUDINOT said, he could apologize for not bringing the business on
in another way. It seemed to be a settled point in the House that a
Committee of the Whole was the proper place for determining principles
before they were sent elsewhere; he had therefore adopted that mode on
the present occasion, though his own judgment would incline him to
pursue that last mentioned by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. BLAND.)
He conceived the necessity of having such an office was indisputable;
the Government could not be carried on without it; but there may be a
question with respect to the mode in which the business of the office
shall be conducted; there may also be a question respecting the
constitution of it, but none with respect to the establishment of either
of the three departments he had mentioned.

Mr. BENSON said, his motion was founded upon the constitutional division
of these powers; the constitution contemplated them, because it gave the
President the right of requiring the opinion of the principal officer in
each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the
duties of their respective offices. If gentlemen were inclined to waive
the determination for the present, he had no objection; it was certainly
a subject of great importance, and required time for consideration.

Mr. VINING thought the gentleman should have added another department,
viz: the Home Department. The territorial possessions of the United
States, and the domestic affairs, would be objects of the greatest
magnitude, and he suspected would render it essentially requisite to
establish such a one.

Mr. BOUDINOT wished to confine the question to the Department of
Finance.

A motion was made by Mr. BLAND for the committee's rising.

Mr. MADISON hoped they would not rise until the principles were settled.
He thought it much better to determine the outlines of all business in a
Committee of the Whole. He was satisfied it would be found, on
experience, to shorten their deliberations. If the gentlemen who had
offered motions to the committee would withdraw them, he would offer one
which he judged likely to embrace the intentions of both gentlemen.

Mr. BENSON withdrew his motion, and Mr. MADISON moved, that it is the
opinion of this committee, that there shall be established an Executive
Department, to be denominated the Department of Foreign Affairs, at the
head of which there shall be an officer, to be called the Secretary to
the Department of Foreign Affairs, who shall be appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; and to be
removable by the President.

That there shall be a Treasury Department, &c.

That there shall be a War Department, &c.

Mr. VINING seconded the motion, and offered to amend it, by adding the
Domestic Department, _mutatis mutandis_. He said this department, in his
opinion, was of absolute necessity, more requisite than either of the
other three, except the Department of Finance; the present and
increasing duties of such a department will oblige them to make the
establishment.

Mr. LIVERMORE was not prepared to decide on the question even as now
brought forward, nor did he see a reason why the Department of Foreign
Affairs was placed at the head of the list. He thought the Treasury
Department of more importance, and consequently deserved the precedence.

As to the Domestic Department just mentioned by the gentleman from
Delaware, he thought its duties might be blended with the others, and
thereby save the United States the expense of one grand department. If
the gentleman, therefore, would wait to see what were the duties
assigned to them severally, he would be able to judge respecting his
motion with greater propriety.

Mr. VINING withdrew his motion for the present.

And the committee agreed to the establishment of the Department of
Foreign Affairs, and placing at the head thereof an officer to be called
the Secretary of Foreign Affairs; but when they came to the mode of
appointing the officer,

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) moved to strike out the words "who shall
be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate." He conceived the words to be unnecessary; besides, it looked as
if they were conferring power, which was not the case, for the
constitution had expressly given the power of appointment in the words
there used. He also objected to the subsequent part of this paragraph,
because it declared the President alone to have the power of removal.

Mr. PAGE saw no impropriety in passing an act to carry into execution
the views of the constitution, and therefore had no objection to repeat
those words in the resolution. He thought if the committee stopped
there, they would be under no difficulty respecting the propriety of
their measure, but if they went further they might meet with
considerable embarrassment.

Mr. MADISON remarked, that as there was a discretionary power in the
Legislature to give the privilege to the President alone of appointing
inferior officers, there could be no injury in declaring in the
resolution the constitutional mode of appointing the heads of
departments; however, if gentlemen were uneasy, he would not object to
strike it out.

Mr. LEE thought this officer was an inferior officer; the President was
the great and responsible officer of the Government; this was only to
aid him in performing his executive duties; hence he conceived the power
of appointing to be in the gift of the Legislature, and therefore the
words were proper.

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina.)--This officer is at the head of a
department, and one of those who are to advise the President; the
inferior officers mentioned in the constitution are clerks and other
subordinate persons. The words are only a repetition of the words in the
constitution, and are consequently superfluous.

The question was taken on striking out those words, and carried in the
affirmative.

The committee proceeded to the discussion of the power of the President
to remove this officer.

Mr. SMITH said, he had doubts whether the officer could be removed by
the President. He apprehended he could only be removed by an impeachment
before the Senate, and that, being once in office, he must remain there
until convicted upon impeachment. He wished gentlemen would consider
this point well before they decided it.

Mr. MADISON did not concur with the gentleman in his interpretation of
the constitution. What, said he, would be the consequence of such
construction? It would in effect establish every officer of the
Government on the firm tenure of good behavior; not the heads of
departments only, but all the inferior officers of those departments,
would hold their offices during good behavior, and that to be judged of
by one branch of the Legislature only on the impeachment of the other.
If the constitution means this by its declarations to be the case, we
must submit; but I should lament it as a fatal error interwoven in the
system, and one that would ultimately prove its destruction. I think the
inference would not arise from a fair construction of the words of that
instrument.

It is very possible that an officer who may not incur the displeasure of
the President, may be guilty of actions that ought to forfeit his place.
The power of this House may reach him by the means of an impeachment,
and he may be removed even against the will of the President; so that
the declaration in the constitution was intended as a supplemental
security for the good behavior of the public officers. It is possible
the case I have stated may happen. Indeed, it may, perhaps, on some
occasion, be found necessary to impeach the President himself; surely,
therefore, it may happen to a subordinate officer, whose bad actions may
be connived at or overlooked by the President. Hence the people have an
additional security in this constitutional provision.

I think it absolutely necessary that the President should have the
power of removing from office; it will make him, in a peculiar manner,
responsible for their conduct, and subject him to impeachment himself,
if he suffers them to perpetrate with impunity high crimes or
misdemeanors against the United States, or neglects to superintend their
conduct, so as to check their excesses. On the constitutionality of the
declaration I have no manner of doubt.

Mr. BENSON.--If we refer to the constitution for light on this subject,
it will appear evident that the objection is not well founded. The
objection is this, that an officer ought not to be removed but by
impeachment; then every officer is appointed during good behavior. Now,
the constitution expressly declares, that the Judges, both of the
Supreme and Inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good
behavior. If it is declared, that they are to hold their offices by this
particular tenure, it follows that the other officers of the Government
should hold them only at pleasure. He thought this an important
question, and one in which they were obliged to take the constitution by
construction. For although it detailed the mode of appointing to office,
it was not explicit as to the supersedure; this clause, therefore, would
be a mere declaration of the legislative construction on this point. He
thought the importance and necessity of making the declaration, that the
Chief Magistrate might supersede any civil officer was evident, and he
should therefore vote in favor of the clause as it stood.

Mr. VINING said, there were no negative words in the constitution to
preclude the President from the exercise of this power; but there was a
strong presumption that he was invested with it: because it was
declared, that all executive power should be vested in him, except in
cases where it is otherwise qualified; as, for example, he could not
fully exercise his executive power in making treaties, unless with the
advice and consent of the Senate--the same in appointing to office.

He viewed the power of removal, by impeachment, as a supplementary
security to the people against the continuance of improper persons in
office; but it did not consist with the nature of things, that this
should be the only mode of removal; it was attended with circumstances
that would render it insufficient to secure the public safety, which was
a primary object in every Government. Witness a transatlantic instance
of its incompetency--he meant the famous case of Mr. Hastings. With what
difficulty was that prosecution carried on! What a length of time did it
take to determine! What is to be done while the impeachment is
depending? For, according to the ideas of the gentleman from South
Carolina, (Mr. SMITH,) he cannot be removed but on conviction. If he
cannot be removed, I should suppose he cannot be suspended; and what
security have the people against the machinations of a bad man in
office? He had no doubt but the constitution gave this power to the
President; but if doubts were entertained, he thought it prudent to
make a legislative declaration of the sentiments of Congress on this
point. He was therefore in favor of the clause.

Mr. BLAND thought the power given by the constitution to the Senate,
respecting the appointment to office, would be rendered almost nugatory
if the President had the power of removal. If the first nomination of
the President should be disapproved by the Senate, and the second agreed
to, he had nothing to do but wait the adjournment of Congress, and then
fill the vacancy with his favorite; who, by thus getting into the
possession of the office, would have a considerable chance of permanency
in it. He thought it consistent with the nature of things, that the
power which appointed should remove; and would not object to a
declaration in the resolution, if the words were added, that the
President shall remove from office, by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate. He agreed that the removal by impeachment was a
supplementary aid favorable to the people; but he was clearly of
opinion, that the same power that appointed had, or ought to have, the
power of removal.

Mr. JACKSON wished the motion had been referred to a sub-committee to
digest: it seemed to him they were building the house before the plan
was drawn. He wished to see the system reduced to writing, that he might
leisurely judge of the necessity and propriety of each office and its
particular duties.

With respect to the question before the House he was of opinion that if
the House had the power of removal by the constitution, they could not
give it out of their hands; because every power recognized by the
constitution must remain where it was placed by that instrument. But the
words in the constitution declare, in positive terms, that all civil
officers shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction
of, high crimes and misdemeanors; and however long it may take to
decide, in this way it must be done. He did not think the case of Mr.
Hastings ought to be brought forward as a precedent for conducting such
business in the United States. He believed, whenever an impeachment was
brought before the Senate, they would proceed with all imaginable speed
to its termination. He should, in case of impeachment, be willing to go
so far as to give the power of suspension to the President, and he
thought this all the security which the public safety required; it would
prevent the party from doing further mischief. He agreed with the
gentleman in the general principle, that the body who appointed ought to
have the power of removal, as the body which enacts laws can repeal
them; but if the power is deposited in any particular department by the
constitution, it is out of the power of the House to alter it.

Mr. MADISON did not conceive it was a proper construction of the
constitution to say, that there was no other mode of removing from
office than that by impeachment; he believed this, as applied to the
Judges, might be the case, but he could never imagine it extended in the
manner which gentlemen contended for. He believed they would not assert,
that any part of the constitution declared, that the only way to remove
should be by impeachment; the contrary might be inferred, because
Congress may establish offices by law; therefore, most certainly, it is
in the discretion of the Legislature to say upon what terms the office
shall be held, either during good behavior or during pleasure. Under
this construction, the principles of the constitution would be
reconcilable in every part; but under that of the gentleman from South
Carolina, it would be incongruous and faulty. He wondered how the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. JACKSON) would reconcile his principles so
far as to permit the President to suspend the officer. He begged his
colleague (Mr. BLAND) to consider the inconvenience his doctrine would
occasion, by keeping the Senate constantly sitting, in order to give
their assent to the removal of an officer; they might see there would be
a constant probability of the Senate being called upon to exercise this
power, consequently they could not be a moment absent. Now, he did not
believe the constitution imposed any such duty upon them; why, then,
said he, shall we enjoin it, especially at such an expense of the public
treasure?

Mr. BOUDINOT would by no means infringe the constitution by any act of
his, for if he thought this motion would lead the committee beyond the
powers assigned to the Legislature, he would give it a decided negative;
but, on an impartial examination of that instrument, he could not see
the least foundation for such an objection; however, he was glad the
question had come forward, because he wished to give a legislative
construction to this part of the constitution.

The gentlemen who denied the power of the President to remove from
office, founded their opinion upon the fourth section of the second
article of the constitution, where it is declared, that all officers
shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of,
treason or bribery. If their construction is admissible, and no officer
whatever is to be removed in any other way than by impeachment, we shall
be in a deplorable situation indeed. Consider the extent of the United
States, and the difficulty of conducting a prosecution against an
officer, who, with the witnesses, resides a thousand miles from the seat
of Government. But suppose the officer should, by sickness, or some
other accident, be rendered incapable of performing the functions of the
office, must he be continued? And yet it is to be apprehended, that such
a disability would not furnish any good ground for impeachment; it could
not be laid as treason or bribery, nor perhaps as a high crime or
misdemeanor. Would gentlemen narrow the operation of the constitution in
this manner, and render it impossible to be executed?

Mr. WHITE thought no office under the Government was to be held during
pleasure, except those which are to be constituted by law; but all the
heads of departments are to be appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate. He conceived that, in all cases,
the party who appointed ought to judge of the removal, except in those
cases which by the constitution are excepted; and in those cases
impeachment and conviction are the only mode by which they can be
removed.

Mr. THATCHER asked, why the Judges were particularly mentioned in the
constitution as holding their offices during good behavior, if it was
not supposed that, without this express declaration in their favor,
they, in common with all other officers not immediately chosen by the
State Legislatures and the people, would hold them during pleasure? The
clause respecting impeachments was particularly calculated for removing
unworthy officers of the other description. Holding this construction of
the constitution to be right, he was in favor of the clause as it stood.

Mr. SYLVESTER thought the constitution ought to have a liberal
construction, and therefore was of opinion that the clause relative to
the removal by impeachment was intended as a check upon the President,
as already mentioned by some gentlemen, and to secure to the people, by
means of their representatives, a constitutional mode of obtaining
justice against peculators and defaulters in office, who might be
protected by the persons appointing them. He apprehended the doctrine
held out by the gentleman from South Carolina would involve the
Government in great difficulties, if not in ruin, and he did not see it
was a necessary construction of the constitution. Why, then, should the
House search for a meaning, to make the constitution inconsistent with
itself, when a more rational one is at hand? He, however, inclined at
present to the sentiments of the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. BLAND,)
who thought the Senate ought to be joined with the President in the
removal, as they were joined by the constitution in the appointment to
office.

Mr. GOODHUE was decidedly against combining the Senate in this business.
He wished to make the President as responsible as possible for the
conduct of the officers who were to execute the duties of his own branch
of the Government. If the removal and appointment were placed in the
hands of a numerous body, the responsibility would be lessened. He
admitted there was a propriety in allowing the Senate to advise the
President in the choice of officers; this the constitution had ordained
for wise purposes; but there could be no real advantage arising from the
concurrence of the Senate to the removal, but great disadvantages. It
might beget faction and party, which would prevent the Senate from
paying proper attention to the public business. Upon the whole, he
concluded the community would be served by the best men when the Senate
concurred with the President in the appointment; but if any oversight
was committed, it could best be corrected by the superintending agent.
It was the peculiar duty of the President to watch over the executive
officers; but of what avail would be his inspection, unless he had a
power to correct the abuses he might discover.

Mr. GERRY.--The constitution provides for the appointment of the public
officers in this manner: The President shall nominate, and by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other
officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein
otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law. Now, if
there be no other clause respecting the appointment, I shall be glad to
see how the heads of departments are to be removed by the President
alone. What clause is it that gives this power in express terms? I
believe there is none such. If there is a power of removal, besides that
by impeachment, it must vest somewhere. It must vest in the President,
or in the President and Senate, or in the President, Senate, and House
of Representatives. Now, there is no clause which expressly vests it in
the President. I believe no gentleman contends it is in this House,
because that would be that mingling of the executive and legislative
powers gentlemen deprecate. I presume, then, gentlemen will grant, that
if there is such a power, it vests with the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, who are the body that appoints. I
think we ought to be cautious how we step in between the President and
the Senate, to abridge the power of the one, or increase the other. If
the power of removal vests where I suppose, we, by this declaration,
undertake to transfer it to the President alone.

It has been mentioned, that it is proper to give this power to the
President, in order to make him more fully responsible for this officer.
I am for supporting the President to the utmost of my power, and making
him as responsible as possible. I would therefore vest every gift of
office, in the power of the Legislature, in the President alone; but I
cannot think we ought to attempt to give him authority to remove from
office, in cases where the constitution has placed it in other hands.

Mr. LIVERMORE considered this as a constitutional question, and was of
opinion, that the same power which appointed an officer, had the right
of removal also, unless it was restrained by an express declaration to
the contrary. As the President, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, is empowered to appoint ambassadors, certainly they have a
right to remove them and appoint others. In the case of the judges, they
must be appointed for life, or during good behavior. He had no idea,
that it could ever enter into the heart of any man living, that all
officers appointed under the constitution were to have a perpetuity in
office. The judges themselves would not have had this right, if it had
not been expressly given by the constitution, but would be removable in
like manner with ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls. He
took it, therefore, in the present case, that the President and the
Senate would have the power of removing the Secretary of Foreign
Affairs. The only question, therefore, which appears to be before the
committee is, whether we shall give this power to the President alone?
And with that he thought they had nothing to do. He supposed, if the
clause was left out, the President and the Senate would proceed, as
directed by the constitution, to appoint the officer; and hereafter, if
they judged it necessary, would remove him; but if they neglected to do
so, when it was necessary, by reason of his misdemeanors, this House
would impeach him, and so get rid of him on conviction.

Mr. BLAND.--It seems to be agreed on all hands, that there does exist a
power of removal; the contrary doctrine would be a solecism in
Government. If an officer embezzles the public money, or neglects or
refuses to do the duties of his appointment, can it be supposed there is
no way of getting rid of such a person? He was certain it was
essentially necessary such a power should be lodged somewhere, or it
would be impossible to carry the Government into execution. Their
inquiries were therefore reduced to this point: Does it reside,
agreeably to the constitution, in the President, or in the President and
the Senate? The constitution declares, that the President and the Senate
shall appoint, and it naturally follows, that the power which appoints
shall remove also. What would be the consequence of the removal by the
President alone, he had already mentioned, and need not repeat. A new
President might, by turning out the great officers, bring about a change
of the ministry, and throw the affairs of the Union into disorder: would
not this, in fact, make the President a monarch, and give him absolute
power over all the great departments of Government? It signifies nothing
that the Senate have a check over the appointment, because he can
remove, and tire out the good disposition of the Senate.

Mr. CLYMER said, the power of removal was an executive power, and as
such belonged to the President alone, by the express words of the
constitution: "the executive power shall be vested in a President of the
United States of America." The Senate were not an executive body; they
were a legislative one. It was true, in some instances, they held a
qualified check over the executive power, but that was in consequence of
an express declaration in the constitution; without such declaration,
they would not have been called upon for advice and consent in the case
of appointment. Why, then, shall we extend their power to control the
removal which is naturally in the Executive, unless it is likewise
expressly declared in the constitution?

The question on adding the words "by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate," as moved by Mr. BLAND, was put and lost.

The question was now taken, and carried by a considerable majority, in
favor of declaring the power of removal to be in the President.


WEDNESDAY, May 20.

_Treasury Department._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union, Mr. TRUMBULL in the chair. The resolution for
establishing the Treasury Department being under consideration:

Mr. GERRY.--We are now called upon, Mr. Speaker, to deliberate, whether
we shall place this all-important department in the hands of a single
individual, or in a Board of Commissioners. I presume the gentleman, who
has brought forward this string of propositions, means, that this
officer shall have power to examine into the state of the public debt
and expenses, to receive and disburse the revenue, to devise plans for
its improvement and expansion, and, in short, to superintend and direct
the receipts and expenditure, and govern the finances of the United
States; having under him officers to do the subordinate business of
registering and recording his transactions, and a Comptroller to control
his operations with respect to the accounts and vouchers.

Before this committee proceed one step farther in this business, they
ought seriously to consider the situation of this country, and what will
be the consequence of appointing such an officer; consider how it will
affect the public in general, the revenue, and even the Government
itself. He is declared, in the list of duties assigned him in the paper
read yesterday by the gentleman from New York, (Mr. BENSON,) to have the
power to form and digest the accounts, and to control all the officers
of the department. It is evident, that we put his integrity to the
trial, by such an arrangement. If he is disposed to embezzle the public
money, it will be out of the power of the Executive itself to check or
control him in his nefarious practices. The extension of his business to
the collectors of at least fifty seaports, (over whom the naval officer
can have no control, with respect to the money received,) will furnish
abundant opportunities for peculation. In addition to the moneys arising
from the impost, he may have to do with large sums derived from other
quarters, from the sale of the vacant lands, the money of defaulters now
due to the United States, and the revenue arising from taxes and
excises. Admit these innumerable opportunities for defrauding the
revenue, without check or control, and it is next to impossible he
should remain unsullied in his reputation, or innoxious with respect to
misapplying his trust.

Other great opportunities may arise in case of an anticipation of the
public revenue; or, if it is necessary to prevent the injury which a
rapid depreciation of the securities would occasion to public credit, he
may be employed in purchasing them, in order to advance the credit of
the Union. But what is to prevent the greatest imposition in this
business? Charging them to the public at their nominal value, it is not
in the power of the Government to check this species of speculation;
what then is the situation of your officer? He must subject himself to
suspicion: indeed, it is as much as his reputation is worth to come into
a place of this kind; he can hardly preserve his integrity. His honor,
credit, and character, must inevitably be injured. He cannot prove
himself innocent of the suspicion, because it is the negative side of
the question. He can offer nothing more in his defence than a mere
denial of the crime.

There is another point which ought to be well considered: This officer
is to digest and form the accounts. He can consequently give the
business such complexity, as to render it impossible to detect his
impositions; and as the inferior officers, who might discover the fraud,
are to be appointed by the principal, will they not consequently be men
after his own heart?

Taking these circumstances together, it must be very disagreeable to the
person appointed, provided he is an honest, upright man; it will be
disagreeable also to the people of the Union, who will always have
reason to suspect, that a partiality is shown to the collectors, and
other officers of the State to which he belonged. This has absolutely
been the case, and was productive of very great dissatisfaction. I would
be glad to know of the gentlemen, who are for vesting these powers in a
single person, where they will find the man who is capable of performing
the duties of a financier? For it is not the mere calling him a
financier, and giving him a large salary, that will enable him to
perform his functions in such a manner as to give satisfaction. We had
once a gentleman who filled such a department, and I believe the only
one in the United States who had knowledge and abilities by any means
competent to the business; but that gentleman is now employed in another
branch of the Government, and cannot be called to this trust. During the
late war, Congress thinking it necessary to employ a financier, were led
to inquire for a proper character to fill such an office; but not being
able to discover such a one in this country, in whose abilities they had
sufficient confidence, they wrote to Doctor Price a letter, to induce
him to come to America, and accept of an appointment under them, for the
superintendence of their finances. He wrote, in answer, that he felt
with gratitude the honor which they had done him by their application,
and signified, that he was desirous of rendering every service in his
power to aid the glorious cause in which America was embarked; but, from
his advanced situation in life, and infirmities of body, he was under
the necessity of declining. This circumstance serves to show how
difficult it is to get a proper person for so arduous an undertaking.
But it appears to me, that if we could fix upon a person equal to the
office, involving him in forming accounts, and such trifling business,
would divert his attention from the more important duties he is called
upon to perform. The proper business of finance, I take it, ought to be
to consider of the means to improve the revenue, and introducing economy
into the expenditures; to recommend general systems of finance, without
having any thing to do with the actual administration of them, because,
if he engages in the executive business, we shall be deprived of his
talents in more important concerns. If it should be granted that there
is a person of abilities to be found, adequate to the duties of the
office, I want to know where the advantage arises of appointing him
alone in preference to a Board? If you have commissioners, you have an
opportunity of taking one from each grand division of the United States,
namely, the Eastern, the Middle, and Southern Districts. If this person
is a member of the Board, is it not evident you will have every
advantage from his abilities in such a situation, as you would if he
were placed in office without control? If he was possessed of such
genius, he could employ it more usefully as a Commissioner of the Board
of Treasury, than when left to perform all the drudgery of the executive
part; because while his fine imagination was busied in reducing a chaos
to a beautiful system, his colleagues might perform those parts which
required less elevation of thought; by dividing the burthen, the
business would be done with more regularity and facility. Surely no
advantage to the public would arise from giving him the sole management
of the business, but much inconvenience might; besides, it must
unavoidably, as I said before, subject him to suspicions unfavorable to
his reputation. This has absolutely been realized; it is not a mere
chimera, a matter of speculation. We have had a Board of Treasury, and
we have had a Financier. Have not express charges, as well as vague
rumors, been brought against him at the bar of the public? They may be
unfounded, it is true; but it shows that a man cannot serve in such a
station without exciting popular clamor. It is very well known, I dare
say, to many gentlemen in this House, that the noise and commotion were
such as obliged Congress once more to alter their Treasury Department,
and place it under the management of a Board of Commissioners. We have
seen speculations excited from this quarter against the Government
itself, and painful insinuations of design by his appointment to the
Senate. I mention these circumstances to exhibit to your view the
inconveniencies to which an officer is subjected by constituting an
office of this nature. If the gentleman I have alluded to had been a
member of the Board of Treasury, he would not have been subjected to the
charges which were brought against him. In such a situation, he could
have rendered the services his great abilities enabled him to do,
without exposing his character to be torn to pieces by malevolence or
detraction.

I am desirous of supporting the President; but the Senate requires to be
supported also in their constitutional rights. To this body belongs the
confidence of the States; while the President rests his support upon
them he will be secure. They, with this House, can give him proper
information of what is for the public interest, and, by pursuing their
advice, he will continue to himself that good opinion which is justly
entertained of him. If we are to establish a number of such grand
officers as these, the consequences appear to me pretty plain. These
officers, bearing the titles of minister at war, minister of state,
minister for the finances, minister of foreign affairs, and how many
more ministers I cannot say, will be made necessary to the President. If
by this establishment we make them more respectable than the other
branches of the Government, the President will be induced to place more
confidence in them than in the Senate; the people will also be led to
consider them as more consequential persons. But all high officers of
this kind must have confidence placed in them; they will in fact be the
chancellors, the ministers of the nation. It will lead to the
establishment of a system of favoritism, and the principal magistrate
will be governed by these men. An oligarchy will be confirmed upon the
ruin of the democracy; a Government most hateful will descend to our
posterity, and all our exertions in the glorious cause of freedom will
be frustrated: we shall go on till we reduce the powers of the President
and Senate to nothing but a name. This surely, sir, does not comport
with the conduct of the House. We have been very tenacious of giving a
title to the President, lest it should be implied we desired to increase
his power. We would call him by no other appellation than merely
President of the United States. I confess I was not such a stickler
about titles as all this, because I did not consider that the liberties
of the people could be hurt by such means; but I am not clear that the
constitution authorizes us to bestow titles; it is not among the
enumerated powers of Congress. But if the constitution did authorize
it--[A call to order was made by some of the members, and Mr. GERRY was
desired to confine himself to the point; the subject of titles was not
before the House.][25] Mr. GERRY proceeded, and said the Senate were
constitutionally the highest officers of Government, except the
President and Vice President; that the House was about to supersede
them, and place over their heads a set of ministers who were to hold the
reins of Government, and all this to answer no good purpose whatever;
because the same services could be obtained from subordinate officers.

In short, a Board of Treasury would conduct the business of finance with
greater security and satisfaction than a single officer. He had a very
good opinion of the gentleman who formerly administered the finances of
the United States, and doubted if another of equal qualities could be
found; but it was impossible for any person to give satisfaction in such
a station. Jealousy would unavoidably be entertained; besides, no
inconvenience resulted from the present arrangement of that department;
therefore, there could be no good reason to induce a change. If the
House was truly republican and consistent, they would not admit
officers, with or without titles, to possess such amazing powers as
would eventually end in the ruin of the Government. Under these
impressions, he moved to amend the resolution so as to read, "there
shall be established a Treasury Department, at the head of which there
shall be three commissioners, to be denominated the Board of Treasury."

Mr. WADSWORTH.--My official duty has led me often to attend at the
treasury of the United States, and, from my experience, I venture to
pronounce that a Board of Treasury is the worst of all institutions.
They have doubled our national debt. (I do not mean by this observation
to censure any man who has been in that office: I presume they were
honest men, and did as well as could be done under such a system.) But I
do not remember a single instance, in any one board, that I found them
to have a system that would give even tolerable satisfaction; there
appeared a want of confidence in the members of them all: they seemed to
have no fixed principles to guide them, nor responsibility for their
conduct.

I have had also transactions at the treasury whilst it was managed by a
Superintendent of Finance. As to what fell from the gentleman last up,
(though without intention, I dare say, to affect or prejudice the
character of that officer, it may possibly have such an effect,) I think
it necessary to state my sentiments, which are formed from my own
experience as well as from report. I had great transactions with him,
and must say that there did appear to be system in his management, and
responsibility in his negotiations. I dare risk my fortune and character
with him, because there was unity in the officer, and somebody in whom I
could confide. The nature of the office is better calculated to give
satisfaction than the other. I will not pretend to enumerate the savings
he made, by introducing economy throughout the whole departments under
Congress, because I do not know them all; but they were very
considerable. The administration of the finances was clear to the
meanest capacity. Receipts and expenditures were stated simply; they
were published to the world. The heads of the Treasury Department, the
Board of Commissioners, I do not believe have closed their accounts to
this very day. I do not say it is for want of ability, will, or honesty,
that this event has not taken place. I conceive it to be owing to their
want of system in conducting their business. I wish the committee had
before them the transactions of the board for one single month; they
would find what I have remarked to be too well founded. Instead of
system and responsibility, they would find nothing but confusion and
disorder, without a possibility of checking their accounts. I know I am
heard by one gentleman who is acquainted with these truths by
experience.[26]

I beg leave to repeat once more, that under boards of treasury, there
never was a possibility of the public knowing their situation; there is
no possibility of getting on with the public accounts and closing them;
there have not been the transactions of more than one of the great
departments completely settled, owing to a radical defect in their
constitution; they cannot proceed with that unity and decision necessary
to insure justice. As to what the gentleman said, with respect to the
difficulty of getting a proper officer to fill the department, I will
just observe, that I do not believe it impossible, and am therefore
prepared to attempt it.

Mr. BENSON stated, that in the year 1781, from the very great
derangement of public affairs, Congress were induced to place the
Treasury Department under the superintendence of an individual. It is
true, after the conclusion of the war, in the latter end of 1783, or
beginning of 1784, Congress again changed their system, and placed the
department in the hands of three commissioners, to be taken, as the
gentleman has said, one from the Eastern, one from the Middle, and one
from the Southern district; which regulation I think induced above
twenty applications. Some gentlemen on this floor will doubtless
recollect an observation that was made at that time, that if this trust
had been to be reposed in one responsible individual, not perhaps more
than three of the candidates would have had confidence to come forward
as applicants for the office.

For his part, he conceived, that it required the same abilities in every
individual of the commissioners, as was necessary if a single person was
placed at the head of the department. If men competent to the
undertaking are so difficult to be found, you will increase the
embarrassment of the President threefold by making the arrangement the
gentleman contends for. The principle upon which the gentleman advocates
the appointment of a Board of Treasury, would apply in favor of a change
in the constitution, and we ought to have three Presidents of the United
States instead of one, because their business might be done with more
regularity and facility; but he did not think the argument to be well
founded.

Mr. BALDWIN thought that there were very few gentlemen who had much to
do with public business, but had turned their attention to this
question. He had employed his reflection upon the subject for some time,
and his sentiments were against the establishment of a Board of
Treasury. He was persuaded there was not so much responsibility in
boards as there was in individuals, nor is there such good ground for
the exercise of the talents of a financier in that way. Boards were
generally more destitute of energy than was an individual placed at the
head of a department. The observations of the gentleman from
Massachusetts were of great weight, so far as they inferred the
necessity of proper checks in the department having care of the public
money; if they had system, energy, and responsibility, he should be in
favor of them; but his experience had convinced him of the contrary. He
was not an advocate for an unlimited authority in this officer. He hoped
to see proper checks provided; a Comptroller, Auditors, Register, and
Treasurer. He would not suffer the Secretary to touch a farthing of the
public money beyond his salary. The settling of the accounts should be
in the Auditors and Comptroller; the registering them to be in another
officer, and the cash in the hands of one unconnected with either. He
was satisfied that in this way the treasury might be safe, and great
improvements made in the business of revenue.

Mr. MADISON had intended to have given his sentiments on this subject;
but he was anticipated in some things by the gentleman last up. He
wished, in all cases of an executive nature, that the committee should
consider the powers that were to be exercised, and where that power was
too great to be trusted to an individual, proper care should be taken so
to regulate and check the exercise, as would give indubitable security
for the perfect preservation of the public interest, and to prevent that
suspicion which men of integrity were ever desirous of avoiding. This
was his intention in the present case. If the committee agreed to his
proposition, he intended to introduce principles of caution, which he
supposed would give satisfaction on that point. As far as was
practicable, he would have the various business of this important branch
of the Government divided and modified, so as to lull at least the
jealousy expressed by the gentleman from Massachusetts; indeed, he
supposed, with the assistance of the committee, it might be formed so as
to give satisfaction. He had no doubt but that the offices might be so
constituted as to restrain and check each other; and unless an unbounded
combination took place, which he could by no means suppose was likely to
be the case, that the public would be safe and secure under the
administration. He would favor the arrangement mentioned by the worthy
gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. BALDWIN,) and after that was
separated from the Secretary's duties, he believed the officer would
find sufficient business to employ his time and talents in rendering
essential services to his country. This arrangement he considered would
answer most of the objections which had been urged.

If a board is established, the independent officers of Comptroller and
Auditor are unknown; you then give the aggregate of these powers to the
board, the members of which are equal; therefore you give more power to
each individual than is proposed to be trusted in the Secretary; and if
apprehensions are to be entertained of a combination, they apply as
forcibly in the case of two or three commissioners combining, as they do
in the case of the Secretary, Comptroller, and other officers. If
gentlemen permit these sentiments to have their full weight, and
consider the advantages arising from energy, system, and responsibility,
which were all in favor of his motion, he had no doubt of their
according with him on this question.

Mr. BOUDINOT considered the question to be, whether the department
should be under the direction of one or more officers. He was against
boards, because he was convinced by experience that they are liable to
all the objections which gentlemen had stated. He wished the committee
had it in their power to turn to the transactions of this department
since the revolution, to examine the expenditures under former boards of
treasury, and under the Superintendent of Finance; it would so confound
them, that he was sure no gentleman would offer another argument in
favor of boards. He was not acquainted with the management under the
present board. He had not been in the habit of doing business with them.
But between the administration of the former and the Superintendent of
Finance, there was an intolerable comparison. He was far from being
astonished at the jealousy and suspicion entertained of that valuable
officer; he rather wondered that the clamor was not more loud and
tremendous. He could not repeat all the causes there were for accusation
against him, but surely they were not inconsiderable. He remembered one
hundred and forty-six supernumerary officers were brushed off in one
day, who had long been sucking the vital blood and spirit of the nation.
Was it to be wondered at, if this swarm should raise a buzz about him?
The reform which daily took place made him no inconsiderable number of
enemies. The expenditures under the Board of Treasury had been enormous.
They were curtailed in the quartermasters, commissaries of provision and
military stores, in the hospital, and every great department established
by Congress; so that, besides those who were offended by a removal,
every one who was affected by this economy, or parsimony, if they will
call it so, were incensed against him. It was impossible to gain friends
among those people by a practice of this kind. He would state a
circumstance which might give the committee some small idea of what the
savings under the Superintendent were. The expenditure of hay at a
certain post was one hundred and forty tons; such was the estimate laid
before him; yet twelve tons carried the post through the year, and the
supply was abundant, and the post was as fully and usefully occupied as
it had ever been before.

The question on the amendment proposed by Mr. GERRY was taken and lost;
after which the resolutions respecting the Treasury and War Department,
as proposed by Mr. MADISON, were both agreed to.

Mr. VINING then proposed the establishment of the Domestic Department
upon the same principles; but, on motion of Mr. BOUDINOT, the committee
rose and reported the resolutions agreed to.--Adjourned.


THURSDAY, May 21.

_Executive Departments._

The House proceeded to consider the resolution reported yesterday from
the Committee of the whole House on the state of the Union, and the same
being amended to read as follows:

      _Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this committee that
      there ought to be established the following executive
      departments, viz: A Department of Foreign Affairs, at the
      head of which shall be an officer to be called Secretary to
      the United States for the Department of Foreign Affairs,
      removable by the President. A Treasury Department, at the
      head of which shall be an officer to be called Secretary to
      the United States for the Treasury Department, removable by
      the President. A Department of War, at the head of which
      shall be an officer to be called Secretary to the United
      States for the Department of War, removable by the
      President.

      _Resolved_, That this House doth concur with the committee
      in the said resolution; and that a committee, to consist of
      eleven members, be appointed to prepare and bring in a bill
      or bills pursuant thereto.

The members elected were, Mr. BALDWIN, Mr. VINING, Mr. LIVERMORE, Mr.
MADISON, Mr. BENSON, Mr. BURKE, Mr. FITZSIMONS, Mr. BOUDINOT, Mr.
WADSWORTH, Mr. GERRY, and Mr. CADWALADER.


FRIDAY, May 22.

_Contested Election._[27]

The House resumed the consideration of the report on Mr. SMITH'S case.

After some desultory conversation on the recommitment and mode of
proceeding, it was agreed to examine the evidence in favor of Mr.
SMITH, the facts alleged by Doctor Ramsay, in proof that Mr. SMITH was
not seven years a citizen of the United States, being admitted.
Whereupon, it being moved and seconded, that the House do agree to the
following resolution:

      _Resolved_, That it appears to this House, upon full and
      mature consideration, that the said WILLIAM SMITH had been
      seven years a citizen of the United States, at the time of
      his election.

Mr. SMITH.--As the House are inclined to hear the observations I have to
make, I shall begin with admitting the facts stated in the memorial of
Doctor Ramsay, hoping the House will excuse the egotism into which I am
unavoidably drawn. I was born in Charleston, South Carolina, of a family
whose ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony, and was
sent to England for my education when I was but twelve years of age. In
1774, I was sent to Geneva, to pursue my studies, where I resided until
1778. In November, that year, I went to Paris, where I resided upwards
of two months in the character of an American gentleman. Immediately on
my arrival there, I waited on Doctor Franklin, Mr. Adams, and Mr. A.
Lee, the Commissioners from Congress to the court of France, as a
citizen of America, and was received as such by them. In January, 1779,
I left Paris for London, whither I went to procure the means of
embarking for America, from the gentleman who had been appointed my
guardian by my father when I was first sent to Europe in 1770, and from
whom alone I had any hope of obtaining such means. But in this endeavor,
I was disappointed, and remained some time in England, with the hope of
receiving remittances from Charleston. Here again my expectation was
defeated. The rapid depreciation of the continental money rendered the
negotiation of money transactions extremely difficult, and thus I
remained till the fall of Charleston. I took this opportunity of
studying the law, but could not be called to the bar, because I had not
taken the oath of allegiance to Great Britain, which is a necessary
qualification. After the surrender of Charleston, the whole State of
South Carolina fell into the hands of the enemy, and it was impossible
at that time to return. No sooner, however, did I acquire the means, and
an opportunity offered, than I prepared myself to go back to America. I
quitted London for that purpose, in October or November, 1782, not in a
vessel bound to Charleston, then a British garrison, and which I
certainly should have done, had I considered myself a British subject,
and which would have been most convenient, as there were vessels
constantly going from London to Charleston; but I travelled to Ostend,
and there embarked in a neutral vessel bound to St. Kitt's, from whence
it was my intention to proceed to a Danish island, and thence to some
American port in North Carolina or Georgia, from whence I could reach
the American camp. In the beginning of January, 1783, I sailed from
Ostend, but was detained a considerable time by contrary winds, and in
the middle of the month of February, was shipwrecked on the coast of
England, and was obliged to return to London in order to procure another
passage. These circumstances unavoidably prevented my return to
Charleston, until some time in November, 1783.

On my arrival at Charleston, I was received by my countrymen as a
citizen of the State of South Carolina, and elected by their free
suffrage a member of the Legislature in November, 1784. In the August
following I was chosen, by the Governor and Council, a member of the
Privy Council, and this election was confirmed by the Legislature the
October following. In September, the same year, I was elected one of the
Wardens of the City of Charleston. In November, 1786, I was again
elected into the Legislature; again in November, 1788; I was elected at
the same time that I was elected to the House of Representatives of the
United States, the September preceding having been chosen again a Warden
of the city.

After having stated these facts, he went on adverting to the laws
referred to in the report of the committee, which, he said, he conceived
to be applicable to the present case.

In September, 1779, a question was discussed in the Legislature of South
Carolina, respecting the young men who were sent abroad for their
education, and it was determined that it was most for the interest of
the State, that they should be allowed to continue in Europe till they
were twenty-two years of age; after which the law provided they should
be doubly taxed if they did not return. This law might fairly be
supposed to recognize the citizenship of all the young men in a similar
predicament with himself. It allowed them all to be absent until they
were twenty-two years of age; but even after that period it did not
deprive them of the right of citizenship; it only subjected them to the
penalty of a double tax. This he contended was a sort of compact with
him, that if he chose to be absent after that time, he should suffer a
certain penalty, which, in its own nature, implied that his citizenship
remained; but before he attained that age, South Carolina was in such a
situation that her best friends were compelled to be absent, and take
refuge in distant countries. It was not till some time after that the
friends of the American cause began to assemble in that State; the
absentee law, therefore, never operated on him, and he never was doubly
taxed.

In February, 1782, the Legislature met at Jacksonburg, and discriminated
between friend and foe, between American and British subjects, by
disposing of the estates of the latter, and banishing them; from an
inspection of the law passed at that time, it would be evident in what
light they viewed him. He had landed property in the State, but was
himself in England; yet they did not attempt to confiscate his
property, or subject him to an amercement. The absentee law was his
safeguard, he had the permission of the State to be abroad.

If the Legislature in 1782 recognized as citizens some of those persons
whose estates were confiscated for adhering to Great Britain, and for
being disaffected to America _a fortiori_, did it not recognize as a
citizen one whose estate was not forfeited, who had not been deemed
worthy of punishment, and who had been absent under the sanction of the
law?

By the constitution of South Carolina it appears, that no person was
eligible to a seat in the Legislature until he had resided three years,
nor to a seat in the Privy Council until he had resided five years in
the State. He had a seat in both those bodies before he had resided two
years in the State of South Carolina, and no objection was ever made on
that score. He could not have been qualified for either, had not the
people of South Carolina deemed his residence in that State, such a
residence as gained him a qualification; or had they not supposed the
qualification required in the constitution applied only to new comers
and new citizens, for whom that residence was necessary to wean them
from their local prejudices and national habits, and to attach them to
the commonwealth. Had they not, in short, supposed him to have been a
citizen during the revolution, and attached to his native State by every
tie which could bind an individual to any country. Three years'
residence was either not required of him, or his former residence was
deemed within the meaning of the constitution.

An act to confer the right of citizenship on aliens was passed March 26,
1784. For the purpose of possessing the subordinate rights of
citizenship, such as an exemption from the alien duty, a residence of
one year, and taking the oath of allegiance, was sufficient. To confer a
right of voting at elections, a person must have been admitted a citizen
two years prior to his voting; but for the higher privileges of a
citizen, being eligible to offices of trust, to a seat in the
Legislature and Privy Council, the alien must have been naturalized by
law. Now, in November, 1784, he was elected into the Legislature, and
took his seat without objection in January, 1785, and was elected into
the Privy Council, October, 1785; all without being naturalized by law.

In October, 1785, when he was elected to the Council, his election was
opposed, but the objection now brought forward was not then made; and
the memorialist himself, who was a member of the Legislature, voted in
favor of the choice; though, unquestionably, unless he was considered by
the Legislature as a citizen before he returned to Charleston, nothing
had afterwards occurred to make him so, and the alien act of 1784
positively required a naturalization by act of Assembly to give him a
qualification.

The constitution of South Carolina is silent as to citizenship, but
allowed any person to vote at elections who had resided a year in the
State, and paid a certain tax; to be a member of the Assembly he must
have resided three, and to be a Privy Councillor five years previous to
his election, but nothing was said about citizenship. The act of 1784,
however, expressly defined who should and who should not be deemed
citizens; and, consequently, all persons who did not become citizens
must have been held to be aliens, and considered so, till they had
conformed to the alien act of 1784. Now, as he was admitted to offices
of trust, to which aliens were not admissible, and as he was admitted to
them without having the rights of citizenship conferred upon him, in
pursuance of that act, it followed clearly, that the people of South
Carolina and the Legislature acknowledged him to be a citizen by virtue
of the revolution.

He went on to observe, that, from the doctrine laid down by the
memorialist, it was difficult to ascertain when he did become a citizen
of South Carolina. When he was admitted to the bar in 1784, he did no
act which made him a citizen, the bare act of taking an oath of
qualification to an office could not convert an alien to a citizen. The
constitution seemed to imply a mere residence of a year, by giving a
right to vote, gave a right of citizenship; if that were the case, and
if his residence prior to the revolution was considered such a residence
as the constitution required, then he was a citizen, by virtue of the
constitution, after having resided a year in Carolina. Now, it was
clear, his residence prior to the war was deemed such a residence as the
constitution required; because he was admitted to vote and admitted to a
seat in the Legislature and Council by right of such residence, not
having had the requisite residence since the war, and yet being deemed
qualified. If, therefore, that part of the constitution which gave a
right of voting, in consequence of a year's residence and paying a
certain tax, virtually conferred citizenship, by giving a right to vote,
(and it appeared absurd that a right to vote should be given to persons
not citizens,) and if, also, his residence, prior to the revolution, was
deemed a sufficient residence, then he was a citizen by virtue of the
constitution.

The points that seemed most to be relied upon by the memorialist were:

1st. That residence was actually necessary to confer citizenship, or, in
other words, that a person could not become a citizen of a country, till
he has resided in it.

2d. That a person could not become a citizen till he was of age to
choose his country.

In answer to the first, he denied that residence in the country was
absolutely necessary. Was it to be supposed, he asked, that when a man
sent his son into another country for his education and improvement, the
son was thereby to lose any political benefits which might, during such
temporary absence, accrue to his country? If his father had lived a few
years longer, would there have arisen any question on this subject?
Would he not, though absent, have acquired, according to the
petitioner's own positions, a right of citizenship? And should his
death, at such an early period, not be deemed a sufficient misfortune
for him, without using that as a pretence for making him an alien? Those
who represented him in Carolina as his guardians, who were _in loco
parentis_, were residents in Carolina at the declaration of
independence.

His property was in Carolina, his money in the treasury, assisting to
carry on the war. The declaration of independence affected him as much,
though at Geneva, as it did those in Carolina; his happiness, that of
his dearest connections, his property, were deeply interested in it: his
fate was so closely connected with that of Carolina, that any revolution
in Carolina was a revolution to him. Though a minor, as soon as he heard
of the independence of America, he considered himself an American
citizen.

If a person could not become a citizen of a country without residing in
it, what should be said of those gentlemen who had been in Europe during
the war, and were now in high office in America? Several of them went to
Europe before the war, were there at the declaration of independence,
and did not return to America till after the war, or about the close of
it. When did their citizenship commence? According to the petitioner,
they could not become citizens of America until they returned to
America, and took an oath of allegiance to the States; but Congress
employed them in offices of great confidence, before they had returned
to America, or taken such oath. Congress, therefore, considered them
citizens, by virtue of the revolution.

It had been said, that Carolina had called on her young men to come to
her assistance. This was not the true state of the case. Carolina
thought that her young men who were abroad for their education, should
not be taken from their studies till they were twenty-two years of age,
and doubly taxed them after that. His guardian wrote to him that he had
permission of the Legislature to be absent till he was twenty-two, and
that he should be doubly taxed after that age.

It has been also said, that Carolina tendered an oath, to discover who
were friends, and who were enemies. In March, 1778, the Legislature of
South Carolina passed an act to oblige every free male inhabitant of
that State, above sixteen years of age, to take an oath of allegiance to
the State. As there were notoriously many persons then in the State who
were inimical to its liberties, such a step was necessary to give a
reasonable cause for obliging them to quit the country. With that view,
the oath was generally tendered only to those who were suspected or
known not to be friendly to the cause. He had been informed by several
persons, who were zealous partisans, and then in Carolina, that they had
never taken any oath of allegiance, and that it had not been required
of them on this occasion.

The act directed, that those who did not take it, should quit the State;
and, if they returned, should be dealt with as traitors, and suffer
death. Let us examine whether this act can, in any respect, apply to the
present question. 1st. It particularly mentioned "inhabitants of the
State of South Carolina." It could not, therefore, apply to persons who
were abroad. 2dly. It directed that the oath should be taken before a
justice of peace in Carolina; this could not, therefore, extend to a
person then at Geneva. 3dly. It was directed to be taken in one month
after the passing of the act; and it was not possible that I should hear
of the existence of such an act in less than three months. 4thly. It was
directed, that if the persons refused to take it, they should quit the
State; but I was already out of it. 5thly. Those who refused to take it,
were prevented from acquiring or conveying property, and rendered
incapable of exercising any profession. But on my return to Carolina, I
took peaceable possession of my estate, part of which consisted of lands
and houses, which had been mine since the year 1770; and I was
immediately admitted to the exercise of the profession for which I was
educated. 6thly. The act directed, that if any person returned to
Carolina, after having refused to take the oath, he should be put to
death as a traitor; and, yet, on my return, never having taken the oath,
I was elected a member of the Legislature, and a Privy Councillor; and,
instead of being deemed a criminal myself, I acted as Attorney General
to punish others; and yet the petitioner, in one of his late
publications, lays great stress on the applicability of this act.

2dly. There could be no doubt that a minor might be a citizen, from the
very words of the constitution, which admitted a person to be a member
of the House of Representatives at twenty-five, and yet required a
citizenship of seven years. This was of itself a sufficient refutation
of every thing contained in the petition on this head. The constitution
acknowledged that a person might be a citizen at eighteen; if so, there
was no reason why a person might not be one at sixteen or fourteen.

Mr. LEE said, the committee had now to determine, whether Mr. SMITH was
a citizen of South Carolina during his absence from home, or not. If the
laws of that State recognized him as such, the question was determined,
because this House could not dispute a fact of that kind. From the
reference that has been made to the constitution and laws of South
Carolina, and the circumstances which took place under them, with
respect to Mr. SMITH, it was convincing that he was acknowledged there
to be a citizen in consequence of the revolution.

Mr. MADISON.--I think the merit of the question is now to be decided,
whether the gentleman is eligible to a seat in this House or not; but
it will depend on the decision of a previous question, whether he has
been seven years a citizen of the United States or not.

From an attention to the facts which have been adduced, and from a
consideration of the principles established by the revolution, the
conclusion I have drawn is, that Mr. SMITH was, on the declaration of
independence, a citizen of the United States; and unless it appears that
he has forfeited his right, by some neglect or overt act, he had
continued a citizen until the day of his election to a seat in this
House. I take it to be a clear point, that we are to be guided, in our
decision, by the laws and constitution of South Carolina, so far as they
can guide us; and where the laws do not expressly guide us, we must be
guided by principles of a general nature, so far as they are applicable
to the present case.

It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced, more precisely
defining the qualities of a citizen or an alien; particular laws of this
kind have obtained in some of the States; if such a law existed in South
Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before
us; but since this has not been the case, let us settle some general
principle before we proceed to the presumptive proof arising from public
measures under the law, which tend to give support to the inference
drawn from such principles.

It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance.
Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes
from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it
is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary
to investigate any other. Mr. SMITH founds his claim upon his
birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.

It is well known to many gentlemen on this floor, as well as to the
public, that the petitioner is a man of talents, one who would not
lightly hazard his reputation in support of visionary principles: yet I
cannot but think he has erred in one of the principles upon which he
grounds his charge. He supposes, when this country separated from Great
Britain, the tie of allegiance subsisted between the inhabitants of
America and the king of that nation, unless, by some adventitious
circumstance, the allegiance was transferred to one of the United
States. I think there is a distinction which will invalidate his
doctrine in this particular, a distinction between that primary
allegiance which we owe to that particular society of which we are
members, and the secondary allegiance we owe to the sovereign
established by that society. This distinction will be illustrated by the
doctrine established by the laws of Great Britain, which were the laws
of this country before the revolution. The sovereign cannot make a
citizen by any act of his own; he can confer denizenship; but this does
not make a man either a citizen or subject. In order to make a citizen
or subject, it is established, that allegiance shall first be due to
the whole nation; it is necessary that a national act should pass to
admit an individual member. In order to become a member of the British
Empire, where birth has not endowed the person with that privilege, he
must be naturalized by an act of Parliament.

What was the situation of the people of America, when the dissolution of
their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I
conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the
particular community in which he was born, retained his right of birth,
as a member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from
the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign. If he
were not a minor, he became bound, by his own act, as a member of the
society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country.
If he were a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that
society to which he belonged by the ties of nature. What was the
allegiance, as a citizen of South Carolina, he owed to the King of Great
Britain? He owed his allegiance to him as a king of that society to
which, as a society, he owed his primary allegiance. When that society
separated from Great Britain, he was bound by that act, and his
allegiance transferred to that society, or the sovereign which that
society should set up; because it was through his membership of the
society of South Carolina that he owed allegiance to Great Britain.

This reasoning will hold good, unless it is supposed that the separation
which took place between these States and Great Britain, not only
dissolved the union between those countries, but dissolved the union
among the citizens themselves: that the original compact, which made
them altogether one society, being dissolved, they could not fall into
pieces, each part making an independent society; but must individually
revert into a state of nature; but I do not conceive that this was, of
necessity, to be the case; I believe such a revolution did not
absolutely take place. But in supposing that this was the case, lies the
error of the memorialist. I conceive the colonies remained as a
political society, detached from their former connection with another
society, without dissolving into a state of nature; but capable of
substituting a new form of government in the place of the old one, which
they had, for special considerations, abolished. Suppose the State of
South Carolina should think proper to revise her constitution, abolish
that which now exists, and establish another form of government: surely
this would not dissolve the social compact. It would not throw them back
into a state of nature. It would not dissolve the union between the
individual members of that society. It would leave them in perfect
society, changing only the mode of action, which they are always at
liberty to arrange. Mr. SMITH being then, at the declaration of
independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society,
he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society, with
respect to the question of independence and change of Government; and if
afterwards he had taken part with the enemies of his country, he would
have been guilty of treason against that Government to which he owed
allegiance, and would have been liable to be prosecuted as a traitor.

So far as we can judge by the laws of Carolina, and the practice and
decision of that State, the principles I have adduced are supported; and
I must own, that I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. SMITH was
a citizen at the declaration of independence, a citizen at the time of
his election, and, consequently, entitled to a seat in this Legislature.

Mr. JACKSON.--I differ widely from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
MADISON) on the subject of allegiance and the social compact, and hold
the principles advanced by him exceedingly dangerous to many of the
States, and in particular to the one I have the honor to represent. The
situation of America, at the time of the revolution, was not properly to
be compared to a people altering their mode or form of government. Nor
were there two allegiances due, one to the community here, another to
that of Great Britain. We were all on a footing; and I contend the
principle is right, in some degree, of a total reversion to a state of
nature amongst individuals, and to a mere parental or patriarchal
authority, where the heads had families dependent on them; the former,
or individual pursued that line which appeared right in his own eyes,
and the cause which he thought just; and, in the latter case, the
children followed the will of the father, who chose for them, as the
person who brought them into life, and whose fortunes they were to
inherit. I conceive the whole allegiance or compact to have been
dissolved. Many of the States were a considerable period without
establishing constitutions or forms of government, and during that
period we were in a little better state than that of nature; and then it
was that every man made his election for an original compact, or tie,
which, by his own act, or that of his father for him, he became bound to
submit to. And what, sir, would otherwise be the result? And if the
gentleman's doctrines of birth were to be supported, those minors, who,
with British bayonets, have plundered and ravaged, nay, cruelly
butchered their more virtuous neighbors--the sons of the most inveterate
traitors, whose names deservedly sounded in every bill of confiscation;
and the minors, sons of those who sheltered themselves under the shade
of the British King, and supported his armies, if not with arms, with
the resources of war, until the hour of danger was over--those, I say,
after the blood of thousands has been spilt in the establishment of our
government, can now come forward and sneer at the foolish patriots who
endured every hardship of a seven years' war, to secure to them the
freedom and property they had no hand in defending. Sir, did we fight
for this? Was it for this the soldier watched his numerous nights, and
braved the inclemency of the seasons? Will he submit, after having
gained his point at the expense of property and the loss of
constitution, to have those sentiments established? If he will, he has
fought to little purpose indeed.

Sir, I again contend, that when the revolution came on we were all alike
with respect to allegiances, and all under the same social tie. An
Englishman born did not conceive himself more liable to be condemned for
treason than an American, had the enemy succeeded; nor would there have
been any distinction in the laws on coming to a trial. But, sir, how
should this primary allegiance be known to belong to the less, or
American community, where the majority did not prevail. In Georgia, the
majority were opposed to American measures; agreeably to the gentleman's
reasoning, the minors must have been all on the British side; and yet
many of them, on arriving to years of discretion, behaved well and
valiantly with us. To corroborate this, sir, I will remark, that, for a
considerable period, we had no general or federal government, or form of
constitution, and yet were in arms. I would ask what state we were in
then? Neighbor was against neighbor, and brother against brother. But,
sir, the gentleman says the hardened minor will not return. Sir,
experience has proved the contrary. The Middle and Eastern States,
except Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, never had the enemy long
with them; there was not the same trial of men, and they knew not the
audacity of those villains. After having received their equivalent for,
in many cases, feigned losses, from the British crown, they are daily
returning and pushing into office. It is necessary we should guard
against them. Britain, although humiliated, yet has a longing eye upon
this country; she has yet posts in it. Although it is improbable that so
many of these people will get into Congress as to form a corrupt
majority, yet they have ambition and resentment enough to attempt it. At
this moment, sir, in Georgia, are some of the most daring, bringing
ejectments for estates which their fathers had deservedly forfeited,
although themselves had imbrued their hands in the blood of their
fellow-citizens.

Now, to the present case: Highly as I regard the gentleman (Mr. SMITH)
as a valuable member, and esteem his abilities, I can only form my
opinion on the leave given him by the State to be absent. If that
principle is introduced into the resolution, I will vote in favor of Mr.
SMITH'S eligibility; but if not, I must decline voting.

Which he accordingly did when the question was put.

Mr. TUCKER hoped that the yeas and nays would be taken on this question,
not because he had any doubt in his own mind of Mr. SMITH'S right to a
seat, but because he had been solicited by Dr. Ramsay to have the yeas
and nays taken.

The yeas and nays were taken as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Benson, Boudinot, Cadwalader,
      Carroll, Clymer, Coles, Contee, Fitzsimons, Floyd, Gilman,
      Goodhue, Heister, Huntington, Lawrence, Lee, Leonard,
      Livermore, Madison, Moore, Muhlenberg, Page, Van
      Rensselaer, Seney, Schureman, Scott, Sinnickson, Smith, (of
      Maryland,) Sturgis, Sylvester, Thatcher, Trumbull, Tucker,
      Vining, White, and Wynkoop.

      Jonathan Grout voted in the negative.

Adjourned until Monday.


THURSDAY, May 28.

_Western Lands._

The House, on motion of Mr. SCOTT, went into a Committee of the Whole on
the State of the Union, for the purpose of considering certain
resolutions he had prepared respecting the disposal of the land in the
Western Territory. Mr. TRUMBULL in the chair.

Mr. SCOTT presumed there was little need of argument to prove to the
Committee the necessity of taking speedy measures with respect to the
unsettled lands in the Western Territory. The dissolution of the Board
of Treasury, and the death of the late Geographer of the United States,
are adventitious circumstances, which tend to increase the necessity.
Gentlemen are acquainted with the number of sales which have been made
to some of the citizens of the United States; they consequently know
that the United States are under an obligation to complete the surveys
of those lands which they have made sale of. They know, also, that until
this is done, they cannot receive a farthing of the millions of dollars
due on those contracts; they will not only be unable to receive the
principal, but will be paying interest for the same. Besides this, there
are other considerations for putting the business on a new footing. The
mode hitherto pursued of selling lands has been very expensive to the
United States. Perhaps, on inquiry, we shall find, that the specie it
has cost us in getting the land surveyed and sales completed, would have
purchased as many certificates as we get for the sale of the land. The
lands are also proposed to be sold in too great quantities. It is very
difficult to form a company for the purchase of a million acres. It
ought to be sold in small quantities, to make the sales more certain and
numerous; and, consequently, increase the public income. On this
principle, it will be well to open a land office, and grant the soil in
such quantities as may suit the applications. By this means more may be
expected for the purchase, than when it is struck off, at a wholesale
price, by the million acres; and in this way the land office will be
conducted without expense, which will be fixed on the purchaser, so that
the whole money the lands may bring will come into the treasury without
deduction.

There are other considerations why a land office should be opened for
the sale of that territory in the way just mentioned. There are, at this
moment, a great number of people on the ground, who are willing to
acquire by purchase a right to the soil they are seated upon. Allured by
its fertility, the agreeableness of the climate, and the prospect of
future ease to themselves and families, they would not seek a change.
Kentucky, already full, at least there are no more valuable lands to be
got there with a clear title, can receive no more emigrants. They,
therefore, turn their wishful eyes upon the lands of the Union. They
hope to get them of Congress upon as good terms as they can procure them
of the speculators. What will these men think, who have placed
themselves on a vacant spot, anxiously waiting its disposition by the
Government, to find their pre-emption right engrossed by the purchaser
of a million of acres? Will they expose themselves to be preyed upon by
these men? They might submit to this, but they have other offers.

There are seven thousand souls waiting for lands; they will have them
here or elsewhere; but there is some danger, if they cannot be
accommodated within the boundaries of the United States, they will do
one of two things: either move into the Spanish territory, where they
are not altogether uninvited, and become an accession of power to a
foreign nation, forming to us a dangerous frontier; or they will take
this course, move on the United States territory, and take possession
without your leave. What then will be the case? They will not pay you
money. Will you then raise a force to drive them off? That has been
tried: troops were raised, and sent under General Harmer, to effect that
purpose. They burnt the cabins, broke down the fences, and tore up the
potato patches; but three hours after the troops were gone, these people
returned again, repaired the damage, and are now settled upon the lands
in open defiance of the authority of the Union. But, nevertheless, they
are willing to pay an equitable price for those lands; and if they may
be indulged with a pre-emption to the purchase, no men will be better
friends to the Government. They went on the ground with an intention of
purchasing, and are kept there by a hope that the Government will see
their interest, and dispose of the land upon reasonable terms. But if
you do not listen to their request, if you neglect or despise their
offers, and they prove too weak to resist the omnipotent arm of
Government, they will have recourse to a neighboring Power for
protection. Hopes of that protection are now held out to them; it is my
duty to inform you of the fact. They will be led to think their interest
is separate from yours on the Atlantic shores. It will take prudent
management to prevent the fatal effects of a commotion in that country.
One of the most unhappy things we could do, would be to refuse selling
those lands in less quantities than by the million of acres: it would
certainly be a cause of disgust, if not of separation. If the object
was to prevent the settlement of the country, it would be another thing;
but that cannot be accomplished, it is not in the power of any force on
earth to prevent the increase of the population now begun; it is
therefore much better that we should incline them to friendship, than
oblige them to become our enemies. The emigrants who reach the Western
country will not stop until they find a place where they can securely
seat themselves. Your lands first offer: their fertility and
agreeableness will tempt them to pitch there; but to secure them, they
must have a well-grounded hope that the lands they cultivate may become
their own. To encourage this, you must open that territory to them, and
let them have lands for pay. You must go further, you must open the land
office in that country, because it will be impossible for the indigent
persons to travel for an office-right. You can then establish a
government among them, and derive advantages from them which are now
totally lost. They wish for your government and laws, and will be
gratified with the indulgence; but they wish also to acquire property
under them; they wish for your lands, and what good reason can be
offered to warrant a denial? If they cannot get your land, they must go
further, and obtain it of foreigners, who are desirous of having them at
any rate, who will give them lands without pay.

These observations are sufficient, no doubt, to evince the necessity of
doing something with respect to the Western territory, and something
different from what has hitherto been done. In order that the Committee
may have a full view of my ideas, I will read the plan I have in my
hand, upon which a law may be founded.

He here read a previous resolution, to be followed by the plan, which
was to this effect:

      _Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this committee, that
      an act of Congress ought to pass for establishing and
      regulating a land-office, for the sale of the vacant and
      unappropriated land in the Western territory.

      [Here, by way of separate resolutions, followed in detail
      the constituent parts of this office, and the routine in
      which the business should be conducted, directing the
      expense of the office to be supported by the fees payable
      before the warrants and patents were delivered.]

Mr. CLYMER did not believe the committee were prepared for a decision at
this time. He considered the subject to be as intricate and difficult as
it was interesting; and therefore hoped full time would be given for
investigation. Many persons had purchased large quantities of lands of
the late Congress, with a view to sell them out in small lots, to
accommodate the people who are inclined to settle upon them. If Congress
now open a land office for the sale of small quantities, it will no
doubt overcast the prospect of advantage which induced the former, and
may induce future purchasers to apply for large grants. These
observations, and others which would readily occur to every gentleman,
would satisfy the committee that they ought not to precipitate the
business. For this reason, he moved the rising of the committee.

Mr. MADISON had no objection to the rising of the committee, as the
means of obtaining information; but he thought the business deserving of
the earliest attention. The clear and full manner in which the gentleman
from Pennsylvania had opened the subject to the view of the committee,
left no doubt on his mind of the propriety of taking some early measures
to accomplish the business in the manner suggested by that gentleman.
The facts and intelligence mentioned were too important to be passed
lightly over. He should, for the present, agree to rise, but hoped the
subject would be resumed in the House.

The question was taken on the first resolution moved by Mr. SCOTT, and
passed in the affirmative; the others remaining on the table.

The committee then rose and reported progress.


FRIDAY, June 5.

_Admission of Rhode Island into the Union._

Mr. BENSON presented for consideration, the resolution which he
yesterday gave notice of his intention of introducing in relation to the
admission of Rhode Island into the Union, and moved that the House
immediately go into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union,
for the purpose of discussing his proposition.

The resolution is in the following words:

      The Congress of the United States do resolve and declare it
      to be their most earnest desire, that the Legislature of
      the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, do
      recommend to the people of that State to choose delegates
      to meet in convention and to whom the constitution of the
      United States is to be submitted, conformably to the
      unanimous resolution of the United States in Congress
      assembled, of the 28th of September, 1787.

Mr. PAGE.--I think of Rhode Island as the worthy gentleman from New York
does; but, as a member of Congress, I doubt the propriety of this body
interfering in the business. If I put myself, for a moment, into the
situation of a citizen of a State that has refused to accede to the
constitution of the United States, I must admit that I should watch your
actions with a jealous eye; I should be apprehensive of undue influence,
if I were to see you throw your weight into the scale. But what occasion
is there for adopting such a resolution? Are gentlemen afraid to leave
them to their own unbiased judgment? For my part I am not: it will
demonstrate the goodness of the constitution, if it be adopted upon
mature consideration, without any aid but its own intrinsic value. As to
amendments, when we come to consider of them, I dare say they will be
such as to make the constitution more agreeable; but, for the present, I
think it improper to have any thing to do with the gentleman's motion;
I hope he may be prevailed upon to withdraw it; he has done his duty by
bringing it forward; but if it does not meet the approbation of the
House, it will be a useless waste of time to give it any further
discussion. The gentleman has shown sufficiently his attachment to the
Federal Government, by the earnestness he shows to have it adopted
throughout the United States. But, in addition to this, let him consider
where such measures may lead us. Because the Legislature of Rhode Island
have neglected or refused to submit the consideration of the
constitution to a convention, we are to recommend it, and express a most
earnest desire that they will comply. But suppose they decline doing
what you require, what is next to be done? I hope gentlemen will
hesitate before they go any further. I think we should be employed more
in the line of our duty, by attending to the interests of our
constituents, and completing the organization of a Government they
ordered, than to spend our time about business which is not within our
powers. Why should we interfere with the concerns of our sister States
who have not yet joined the new Government? I trust the gentleman will
see the impropriety of his motion, and agree to withdraw it.

Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina.)--I think we ought to go into committee,
and hear what the gentleman has to say on the subject. Though I must
acknowledge I am at present against the adoption of the resolution he
has proposed; yet it is possible, when he has stated his reasons, and
pointed out the necessity of it, that I may alter my opinion; but I
wonder why the gentleman has omitted North Carolina.

Mr. SHERMAN.--I think Rhode Island stands in a different situation from
North Carolina. When this constitution was formed in the convention,
North Carolina was represented there; she, as well as the adopting
States, submitted that instrument to a convention of the people; but not
having adopted it, she has again called a convention, and is proceeding
to reconsider it as fast as convenient; so that such a request as is now
proposed would be unnecessary with respect to them. As Rhode Island did
not send members to the first convention, there was a delicacy in
transmitting the proceedings to them, and Congress could not, perhaps,
apply to them with the same propriety as to another. But all we are now
to consider, I believe, is, that we invite the State of Rhode Island to
join our confederacy; what will be the effect of such a measure we
cannot tell till we try it.

Mr. MADISON.--I believe, Mr. Speaker, there are cases in which it is
prudent to avoid coming to a decision at all, and cases where it is
desirable to evade debate; if there were not cases of this kind, it
would be unnecessary to guard our discussions with the previous
question.[28] My idea on the subject now before the House is, that it
would be improper in this body to expose themselves to have such a
proposition rejected by the Legislature of the State of Rhode Island. It
would likewise be improper to express a desire on an occasion where a
free agency ought to be employed, which would carry with it all the
force of a command. How far this is contemplated on the present
occasion, I cannot tell; but I heartily wish that as little may be said
about it as possible. I conceive this to be one of the cases to which
the previous question is applicable; and, if the gentleman means to call
the House to a direct decision on this motion, I shall step between, and
interpose the previous question.

Mr. AMES.--I am against the previous question being taken, because I
wish the House to consider the motion made by the gentleman from New
York; it is admitted to be a question of considerable importance; if it
is, it ought to be considered; otherwise, we are shutting the door on
information, and putting it out of our power to ascertain the propriety
or impropriety of the motion.

I should be glad to know if any gentleman contemplates the State of
Rhode Island dissevered from the Union; a maritime State, situated in
the most convenient manner for the purpose of smuggling, and defrauding
our revenue. Surely, a moment's reflection will induce the House to take
measures to secure this object. Do gentlemen imagine that State will
join the Union? If they do, what is the injury arising from the adoption
of the resolution intended to be submitted to the committee? Is there
any impropriety in desiring them to consider a question which they have
not yet decided? It has been suggested by an honorable gentleman, that
this desire will operate as a demand. If a wish of Congress can bring
them into the Union, why should we decline to express such a wish?

The previous question being insisted upon, was put--"Shall the main
question be now put?" and it was determined in the negative. Adjourned.


MONDAY, June 8.

MICHAEL JENIFER STONE, from Maryland, appeared, and took his seat.


TUESDAY, June 16.

_Department of Foreign Affairs._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill
for establishing an executive department, to be denominated the
Department of Foreign Affairs. Mr. TRUMBULL in the chair.

The first clause, after recapitulating the title of the officer and his
duties, had these words: "To be removable from office by the President
of the United States."

Mr. WHITE.--The constitution gives the President the power of
nominating, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
appointing to office. As I conceive the power of appointing and
dismissing to be united in their natures, and a principle that never was
called in question in any Government, I am averse to that part of the
clause which subjects the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to be removed at
the will of the President. In the constitution, special provision is
made for the removal of the judges; that I acknowledge to be a deviation
from my principle; but as it is a constitutional provision, it is to be
admitted. In all cases not otherwise provided for in the constitution, I
take it, that the principle I have laid down is the governing one. Now
the constitution has associated the Senate with the President in
appointing the heads of departments. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs is
the head of a department; for the words of the law declare, that there
shall be a department established, at the head of which shall be an
officer to be so denominated. If, then, the Senate are associated with
the President in the appointment, they ought also to be associated in
the dismission from office. Upon the justness of this construction, I
take the liberty of reviving the motion made in the Committee of the
Whole, for striking out these words: "to be removable from office by the
President of the United States."

Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina.)--The gentleman has anticipated me in his
motion; I am clearly in sentiment with him that the words ought to go
out. It is in the recollection of the committee, that when the subject
was last before us, this power was excepted to; and although the words
were then allowed to stand, it was generally understood that it should
be further debated. I then was opposed to giving this power to the
President, and am still of opinion that we ought not to make this
declaration, even if he has the power by the constitution.

I would premise that one of these two ideas is just: either that the
constitution has given the President the power of removal, and therefore
it is nugatory to make the declaration here; or it has not given the
power to him, and therefore it is improper to make an attempt to confer
it upon him. If it is not given to him by the constitution, but belongs
conjointly to the President and Senate, we have no right to deprive the
Senate of their constitutional prerogative; and it has been the opinion
of sensible men that the power was lodged in this manner. A publication
of no inconsiderable eminence in the class of political writings on the
constitution, has advanced this sentiment. The author, or authors, (for
I have understood it to be the production of two gentlemen of great
information,) of the work published under the signature of _Publius_,
has these words:

"It has been mentioned as one of the advantages to be expected from the
co-operation of the Senate in the business of appointments, that it
would contribute to the stability of the administration. The consent of
that body would be necessary to displace as well as appoint. A change of
the Chief Magistrate, therefore, would not occasion so violent or so
general a revolution in the officers of the Government, as might be
expected if he were the sole disposer of offices. Where a man in any
station has given satisfactory evidence of his fitness for it, a new
President would be restrained from attempting a change in favor of a
person more agreeable to him, by the apprehension that the
discountenance of the Senate might frustrate the attempt, and bring some
degree of discredit upon himself. Those who can best estimate the value
of a steady administration, will be most disposed to prize a provision
which connects the official existence of public men with the approbation
or disapprobation of that body, which, from the greater permanency of
its own composition, will, in all probability, be less subject to
inconstancy than any other member of the Government."

Here this author lays it down, that there can be no doubt of the power
of the Senate in the business of removal. Let this be as it may, I am
clear that the President alone has not the power. Examine the
constitution; the powers of the several branches of Government are there
defined; the President has particular powers assigned him; the Judiciary
have in like manner powers assigned them; but you will find no such
power as removing from office given to the President. I call upon
gentlemen to show me where it is said that the President shall remove
from office. I know they cannot do it. Now, I infer from this, that, as
the constitution has not given the President the power of removability,
it meant that he should not have that power; and this inference is
supported by that clause in the constitution which provides that all
civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on
impeachment for, and on conviction of treason, bribery, or other high
crimes and misdemeanors. Here is a particular mode described for
removing; and if there is no other mode directed, I contend that the
constitution contemplated only this mode.

I imagine, sir, we are declaring a power in the President which may
hereafter be greatly abused; for we are not always to expect a Chief
Magistrate in whom such entire confidence can be placed as in the
present. Perhaps gentlemen are so much dazzled with the splendor of the
virtues of the present President, as not to be able to see into
futurity. The framers of the constitution did not confine their views to
the first person who was looked up to to fill the Presidential chair. If
they had, they might have omitted those checks and guards with which
the powers of the Executive are surrounded. They knew, from the course
of human events, that they could not expect to be so highly favored of
heaven as to have the blessing of his administration more than seven or
fourteen years; after which, they supposed a man might get into power,
who, it was possible, might misbehave. We ought to follow their example,
and contemplate this power in the hands of an ambitious man, who might
apply it to dangerous purposes. If we give this power to the President,
he may, from caprice, remove the most worthy men from office. His will
and pleasure will be the slight tenure by which an office is to be held,
and of consequence you render the officer the mere state-dependant, the
abject slave of a person who may be disposed to abuse the confidence his
fellow-citizens have placed in him.

Mr. HUNTINGTON.--I think the clause ought not to stand. It was well
observed that the constitution was silent respecting the removal,
otherwise than by impeachment. I would likewise add, that it mentions no
other cause of removal than treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors. It does not, I apprehend, extend to cases of infirmity or
incapacity. Indeed, it appears hard to me, that after an officer has
become old in an honorable service, he should be impeached for this
infirmity. The constitution, I think, must be the only rule to guide us
on this occasion; as it is silent with respect to the removal, Congress
ought to say nothing about it, because it implies that we have a right
to bestow it, and I believe this power is not to be found among the
enumerated powers delegated by the constitution to Congress.

Mr. SEDGWICK.--I wish the words to be struck out, because I conceive
them to be unnecessary in this place. I do conceive, Mr. Speaker, that
this officer will be the mere creature of the law; and that very little
need be said to prove to you that of necessity this ought to be the
case. I apprehend, likewise, that it requires but a small share of
abilities to point out certain causes for which a person ought to be
removed from office, without being guilty of treason, bribery, or
malfeasance; and the nature of things demands that it should be so.
Suppose, sir, a man becomes insane by the visitation of God, and is
likely to ruin our affairs, are the hands of Government to be confined
from warding off the evil? Suppose a person in office, not possessing
the talents he was judged to have at the time of the appointment, is the
error not to be corrected? Suppose he acquires vicious habits, an
incurable indolence, or total neglect of the duties of his office, which
forebode mischief to the public welfare, is there no way to arrest the
threatened danger? Suppose he becomes odious and unpopular by reason of
the measures which he pursues, (and this he may do without committing
any positive offence against the law,) must he preserve his office in
despite of the public will? Suppose him grasping at his own
aggrandizement, and the elevation of his connections, by every means
short of the treason defined by the constitution, hurrying your affairs
to the precipice of destruction, endangering your domestic tranquillity,
plundering you of the means of defence, by alienating the affections of
your allies, and promoting the spirit of discord; is there no way
suddenly to seize the worthless wretch, and hurl him from the pinnacle
of power? Must the tardy, tedious, desultory road, by way of
impeachment, be travelled to overtake the man who, barely confining
himself within the letter of the law, is employed in drawing off the
vital principle of the Government? Sir, the nature of things, the great
objects of society, the express objects of this constitution, require
that this thing should be otherwise. Well, sir, this is admitted by
gentlemen; but they say the Senate is to be united with the President in
the exercise of this power. I hope, sir, that is not the case; because
it would involve us in the most serious difficulty. Suppose a discovery
of any of those events which I have just enumerated were to take place
when the Senate is not in session, how is the remedy to be applied? This
is a serious consideration, and the evil could be avoided no other way
than by the Senate's sitting always. Surely no gentleman of this House
contemplates the necessity of incurring such an expense. I am sure it
will be very objectionable to our constituents; and yet this must be
done, or the public interest be endangered by keeping an unworthy
officer in place until that body shall be assembled from the extremes of
the Union. It has been said that there is a danger of this power being
abused if exercised by one man. Certainly the danger is as great with
respect to the Senate, who are assembled from various parts of the
continent, with different impressions and opinions. It appears to me
that such a body is more likely to misuse this power than the man whom
the united voice of America calls to the Presidential chair. As the
nature of the Government requires the power of removal, I think it is to
be exercised in this way by a hand capable of exerting itself with
effect, and, the power must be conferred upon the President by the
constitution, as the executive officer of the Government.

Mr. MADISON.--If the construction of the constitution is to be left to
its natural course with respect to the executive powers of this
Government, I own that the insertion of this sentiment in law may not be
of material importance, though, if it is nothing more than a mere
declaration of a clear grant made by the constitution, it can do no
harm; but if it relates to a doubtful part of the constitution, I
suppose an exposition of the constitution may come with as much
propriety from the Legislature, as any other department of the
Government. If the power naturally belongs to the Government, and the
constitution is undecided as to the body which is to exercise it, it is
likely that it is submitted to the discretion of the Legislature, and
the question will depend upon its own merits.

I am clearly of opinion with the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr.
SMITH,) that we ought in this, and every other case, to adhere to the
constitution, so far as it will serve as a guide to us, and that we
ought not to be swayed in our decisions by the splendor of the character
of the present Chief Magistrate, but to consider it with respect to the
merit of men who, in the ordinary course of things, may be supposed to
fill the chair. I believe the power here declared is a high one, and, in
some respects, a dangerous one; but, in order to come to a right
decision on this point, we must consider both sides of the question: the
possible abuses which may spring from the single will of the First
Magistrate, and the abuse which may spring from the combined will of the
Executive and the Senatorial disqualification.

When we consider that the First Magistrate is to be appointed at present
by the suffrages of three millions of people, and in all human
probability in a few years' time by double that number, it is not to be
presumed that a vicious or bad character will be selected. If the
Government of any country on the face of the earth was ever effectually
guarded against the election of ambitious or designing characters to the
first office of the State, I think it may with truth be said to be the
case under the constitution of the United States. With all the
infirmities incident to a popular election, corrected by the particular
mode of conducting it, as directed under the present system, I think we
may fairly calculate that the instances will be very rare in which an
unworthy man will receive that mark of the public confidence which is
required to designate the President of the United States. Where the
people are disposed to give so great an elevation to one of their
fellow-citizens, I own that I am not afraid to place my confidence in
him, especially when I know he is impeachable for any crime or
misdemeanor before the Senate, at all times; and that, at all events, he
is impeachable before the community at large every four years, and
liable to be displaced if his conduct shall have given umbrage during
the time he has been in office. Under these circumstances, although the
trust is a high one, and in some degree, perhaps, a dangerous one, I am
not sure but it will be safer here than placed where some gentlemen
suppose it ought to be.

Mr. VINING.--I hoped, Mr. Chairman, after the discussion this subject
had received on a former occasion, that it would have been unnecessary
to re-examine it. The arguments against the clause are reiterated: but,
I trust, without a chance of success. They were fully answered before;
and I expect the impressions made at that time are not already effaced.
The House, as well as the Committee of the Whole, have determined that
those words shall be inserted in the bill; the special committee could
therefore do no less than place them where they are; a deference is due
to the decision of the House.

The House has determined to make a declaration of their construction of
the constitution. I am perfectly in sentiment with the majority on this
occasion; and contend, that if this power is not in the President, it is
not vested in any body whatever. It cannot be within the legislative
power of the Senate, because it is of an adverse nature; it cannot be
within the executive power of the Senate, because they possess none but
what is expressly granted by the constitution. If gentlemen will point
out where the constitution confers this power upon the Senate, I will
read my recantation, and subscribe to the justness of their doctrine.

I am not satisfied that removability shall be acquired only by
impeachment. Were the advocates of this doctrine aware of its
consequences, when they advanced it? The Senate has the sole power of
trying impeachments; the President is here out of the question. If no
officer can be constitutionally removed but by impeachment, it applies
to subordinate officers as well as heads of departments. For the
constitution only gives power to Congress to establish officers by law,
and vests the appointment in the President. If these officers are not
removable but by impeachment, what is to become of our affairs, when any
of the accidents occur which were enumerated by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. SEDGWICK)? Are we to take the circuitous route of
impeachment? The dilatory and inefficient process by that mode, will not
apply the remedy to the evil till it is too late to be of advantage.
Experience has fixed an eternal stigma upon the system of impeachment;
witness the case I mentioned, the other day, of Warren Hastings before
the British Lords; what delays and uncertainty with the forms of trial,
details of evidence, arguments of counsel, and deliberate decision! I
ask gentlemen, can there be a greater evil than this in any Government?
Why, then, will gentlemen advocate a doctrine so obnoxious to the
principles of the constitution, when a more favorable construction is at
hand?

Mr. WHITE.--Mention has been made of impeachments, as the only mode of
removing an officer. I will explain my ideas on this point, in order
that the committee may be masters of my particular objections to the
clause. I consider impeachments necessary to be employed in cases
respecting an officer who is appointed during good behavior. Thus the
judges can only be removed by impeachment. The President and Vice
President hold their offices for the terms mentioned in the
constitution, not liable to be removed from office in any other way.
These circumstances are a deviation from my general principle; but have
nevertheless a proper ground to be supported on. The electors who
appoint the President, cannot assemble to exercise the authority which
would naturally be in them. With respect to the judges, it is found
necessary for the proper and uncorrupt administration of justice, and
the security of freedom, to have them independent in their stations, so
that they be not removable at pleasure. To them, therefore, the doctrine
of impeachment is peculiarly applicable. It may properly be extended
further, in cases where the President is desirous of retaining an
officer who ought not to be retained. This House has the power of
controlling him, and may impeach the officer before the Senate. In
either of these three cases impeachments are necessary.

Mr. BOUDINOT.--This is a question, Mr. Speaker, that requires full
consideration, and ought only to be settled on the most candid
discussion. It certainly involves the right of the Senate to a very
important power. At present, I am so impressed with the importance of
the subject, that I dare not absolutely decide on any principle,
although I am firmly persuaded we ought to retain the clause in the
bill; and, so far as it has been examined, I agree that it is a
legislative construction of the constitution, necessary to be settled
for the direction of your officers. But if it is a deviation from the
constitution, or in the least degree an infringement upon the authority
of the other branch of the Legislature, I shall most decidedly be
against it. But I think it will appear, on a full consideration of this
business, that we can do no otherwise than agree to this construction,
in order to preserve to each department the full exercise of its powers,
and to give this House security for the proper conduct of the officers
who are to execute the laws.

Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina.)--I have attended to the arguments of the
gentlemen who oppose the motion for striking out, and I apprehend that
their reasoning is not perfectly consistent. The construction of some
gentlemen is, that the power of removal is given to the President by the
constitution. Others are of opinion that the constitution is silent; and
therefore the House ought to give it. To oppose these adverse arguments,
I must return to my strong ground on which my opponents dare not
venture. I state again, that if the constitution has given the power, it
is unnecessary to give it here; or if it has not given it, we have no
right to confer it, because it is not within the enumerated powers
delegated to Congress.

Gentlemen have said that it is proper to give a legislative construction
of the constitution. I differ with them on this point. I think it an
infringement of the powers of the Judiciary. It is said, we ought not to
blend the legislative, executive, or judiciary powers, further than is
done by the constitution; and yet the advocates for preserving each
department pure and untouched by the others, call upon this House to
exercise the powers of the judges in expounding the constitution. What
authority has this House to explain the law? But if it has this
privilege, the Senate is also invested with it as part of the
Legislature; and, in exercising it on the present question, we shall be
likely to differ. If the constitution is silent, and gentlemen admit
this, it is possible the Senate may view it with a favorable eye to
their own right, and reject the bill on account of this clause. A great
deal of mischief has arisen in the several States, by the Legislatures
undertaking to decide constitutional questions. Sir, it is the duty of
the Legislature to make laws; your judges are to expound them.

Mr. GERRY.--Some gentlemen consider this as a question of policy; but to
me it appears a question of constitutionality, and I presume it will be
determined on that point alone. The best arguments I have heard urged on
this occasion came from the honorable gentleman from Virginia, (Mr.
MADISON.) He says the constitution has vested the executive power in the
President; and that he has a right to exercise it under the
qualifications therein made. He lays it down as a maxim, that the
constitution vesting in the President the executive power, naturally
vests him with the power of appointment and removal. Now I would be glad
to know from that gentleman by what means we are to decide this
question. Is his maxim supported by precedent drawn from the practice of
the individual States? The direct contrary is established. In many cases
the Executives are not in particular vested with the power of
appointment; and do they exercise that power by virtue of their office?
It will be found that other branches of the Government make
appointments. How then can gentlemen assert that the powers of
appointment and removal are incident to the Executive Department of
Government? To me it appears at best but problematical. Neither is it
clear to me that the power that appoints naturally possesses the power
of removal. As we have no certainty on either of these points, I think
we must consider it as established by the constitution.

It appears very clear to me, that however this power may be distributed
by the constitution, the House of Representatives have nothing to do
with it. Why then should we interfere in the business? Are we afraid
that the President and Senate are not sufficiently informed to know
their respective duties? Our interposition argues that they want
judgment, and are not able to adjust their powers without the wisdom of
this House to assist them; to say the least on this point, it must be
deemed indelicate for us to intermeddle with them. If the fact is, as we
seem to suspect, that they do not understand the constitution, let it go
before the proper tribunal; the judges are the constitutional umpires on
such questions. Why, let me ask gentlemen, shall we commit an infraction
of the constitution for fear the Senate or President should not comply
with its directions?

Mr. AMES.--When this question was agitated at a former period, I took no
part in the debate. I believe it was then proposed, without any idea or
intention of drawing on a lengthy discussion, and to me it appeared to
be well understood and settled by the House; but since it has been
reiterated and contested again, I feel it my bounden duty to deliver the
reasons for voting in the manner I then did, and shall now do. Mr.
Chairman, I look upon every question which touches the constitution as
serious and important, and therefore worthy of the fullest discussion,
and the most solemn decision. I believe, on the present occasion, we may
come to something near certainty, by attending to the leading principles
of the constitution. In order that the good purposes of a Federal
Government should be answered, it was necessary to delegate considerable
powers; and the principle upon which the grant was made, intended to
give sufficient power to do all possible good, but to restrain the
rulers from doing mischief.

The constitution places all executive power in the hands of the
President, and could he personally execute all the laws, there would be
no occasion for establishing auxiliaries; but the circumscribed powers
of human nature in one man, demand the aid of others. When the objects
are widely stretched out, or greatly diversified, meandering through
such an extent of territory as that the United States possess, a
minister cannot see with his own eyes every transaction, or feel with
his hands the minutiae that pass through his department. He must
therefore have assistants. But in order that he may be responsible to
his country, he must have a choice in selecting his assistants, a
control over them, with power to remove them when he finds the
qualifications which induced their appointment cease to exist. There are
officers under the constitution who hold their office by a different
tenure--your judges are appointed during good behavior; and from the
delicacy and peculiar nature of their trust, it is right it should be
so, in order that they may be independent and impartial in administering
justice between the Government and its citizens. But the removability of
the one class, or immovability of the other, is founded on the same
principle, the security of the people against the abuse of power. Does
any gentleman imagine that an officer is entitled to his office as to an
estate? Or does the Legislature establish them for the convenience of an
individual? For my part I conceive it intended to carry into effect the
purposes for which the constitution was intended.

The executive powers are delegated to the President, with a view to have
a responsible officer to superintend, control, inspect, and check the
officers necessarily employed in administering the laws. The only bond
between him and those he employs, is the confidence he has in their
integrity and talents; when that confidence ceases, the principal ought
to have power to remove those whom he can no longer trust with safety.
If an officer shall be guilty of neglect or infidelity, there can be no
doubt but he ought to be removed; yet there may be numerous causes for
removal which do not amount to a crime. He may propose to do a
mischief; but I believe the mere intention would not be cause of
impeachment. He may lose the confidence of the people upon suspicion, in
which case it would be improper to retain him in service; he ought to be
removed at any time, when, instead of doing the greatest possible good,
he is likely to do an injury to the public interest by being continued
in the administration.

I presume gentlemen will generally admit that officers ought to be
removed when they become obnoxious; but the question is, how shall this
power be exercised? It will not, I apprehend, be contended, that all
officers hold their offices during good behavior. If this be the case,
it is a most singular Government. I believe there is not another in the
universe that bears the least semblance to it in this particular; such a
principle, I take it, is contrary to the nature of things. But the
manner how to remove is the question. If the officer misbehaves, he can
be removed by impeachment; but in this case is impeachment the only mode
of removal? It would be found very inconvenient to have a man continued
in office after being impeached, and when all confidence in him was
suspended or lost. Would not the end of impeachment be defeated by this
means? If Mr. Hastings, who was mentioned by the gentleman from Delaware
(Mr. VINING) preserved his command in India, could he not defeat the
impeachment now pending in Great Britain? If that doctrine obtains in
America, we shall find impeachments come too late; while we are
preparing the process, the mischief will be perpetrated, and the
offender will escape. I apprehend it will be as frequently necessary to
prevent crimes as to punish them; and it may often happen that the only
prevention is by removal. The superintending power possessed by the
President, will perhaps enable him to discover a base intention before
it is ripe for execution. It may happen that the Treasurer may be
disposed to betray the public chest to the enemy, and so injure the
Government beyond the possibility of reparation; should the President be
restrained from removing so dangerous an officer, until the slow
formality of an impeachment was complied with, when the nature of the
case rendered the application of a sudden and decisive remedy
indispensable?

But it will, I say, be admitted, that an officer may be removed. The
question then is, by whom? Some gentlemen say by the President alone;
and others, by the President, by and with the advice of the Senate. By
the advocates of the latter mode, it is alleged, that the constitution
is in the way of the power of removal being by the President alone. If
this is absolutely the case, there is an end to all further inquiry. But
before we suffer this to be considered as an insuperable impediment, we
ought to be clear that the constitution prohibits him the exercise of
what, on a first view, appears to be a power incident to the executive
branch of the Government. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) has
made so many observations to evince the constitutionality of the clause,
that it is unnecessary to go over the ground again. I shall therefore
confine myself to answer only some remarks made by the gentleman from
South Carolina, (Mr. SMITH.) The powers of the President are defined in
the constitution; but it is said, that he is not expressly authorized to
remove from office. If the constitution is silent also with respect to
the Senate, the argument may be retorted. If this silence proves that
the power cannot be exercised by the President, it certainly proves that
it cannot be exercised by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate. The power of removal is incident to Government;
but not being distributed by the constitution, it will come before the
Legislature, and, like every other omitted case, must be supplied by
law.

Mr. LIVERMORE.--I am for striking out this clause, Mr. Chairman, upon
the principles of the constitution, from which we are not at liberty to
deviate. The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. SEDGWICK,)
calls the Minister of Foreign Affairs the creature of the law, and that
very properly; because the law establishes the office, and has the power
of creating him in what shape the Legislature pleases. This being the
case, we have a right to create the office under such limitations and
restrictions as we think proper, provided we can obtain the consent of
the Senate; but it is very improper to draw as a conclusion, from having
the power of giving birth to a creature, that we should therefore bring
forth a monster, merely to show we had such power. I call that creature
a monster that has not the proper limbs and features of its species. I
think the creature we are forming is unnatural in its proportions. It
has been often said, that the constitution declares the President, by
and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint this
officer. This, to be sure, is very true, and so is the conclusion which
an honorable gentleman (Mr. WHITE) from Virginia drew from it, that an
officer must be discharged in the way he was appointed.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, this question depends upon a just construction
of a short clause in the constitution. "The President shall have power,
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of Supreme
Court, and all other officers of the United States." Here is no
difference with respect to the power of the President to make treaties
and appoint officers, only it requires in the one case a larger majority
to concur than in the other. I will not by any means suppose that
gentlemen mean, when they argue in favor of removal by the President
alone, to contemplate the extension of the power to the repeal of
treaties; because, if they do, there will be little occasion for us to
sit here. But let me ask these gentlemen, as there is no real or
imaginary distinction between the appointment of ambassadors and
ministers, or Secretaries of Foreign Affairs, whether they mean that the
President should have the power of recalling or discarding ambassadors
and military officers, for the words in the constitution are "all other
officers," as well as he can remove your Secretary of Foreign Affairs.
To be sure, they cannot extend it to the judges; because they are
secured under a subsequent article, which declares they shall hold their
offices during good behavior; they have an inheritance which they cannot
be divested of, but on conviction of some crime. But I presume gentlemen
mean to apply it to all those who have not an inheritance in their
offices. In this case, it takes the whole power of the President and
Senate to create an officer, but half the power can uncreate him. Surely
a law passed by the whole Legislature cannot be repealed by one branch
of it; so I conceive, in the case of appointments, it requires the same
force to supersede an officer as to put him in office.

I acknowledge, that the clause relative to impeachment is for the
benefit of the people; it is intended to enable their representatives to
bring a bad officer to justice who is screened by the President; but I
do not conceive, with the honorable gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr.
SMITH,) that it by any means excludes the usual ways of superseding
officers. It is said in the constitution, that the House shall have the
power of choosing their own officers. We have chosen a clerk, and, I am
satisfied, a very capable one; but will any gentleman contend we may not
discharge him and choose another and another as often as we see cause?
And so it is in every other instance; where they have the power to make,
they have likewise the power to unmake. It will be said by gentlemen,
that the power to make does not imply the power of unmaking; but I
believe they will find very few exceptions in the United States.

Mr. SHERMAN.--I wish, Mr. Chairman, that the words may be left out of
the bill, without giving up the question either way as to the propriety
of the measure. Many of the honorable gentlemen who advocate this clause
have labored to show that the President has, constitutionally, the power
of removal. If this be a well-founded opinion, they ought not to let the
words remain in the bill, because they are of such a nature as to imply
that he had not the power before it was granted him by the law.

If gentlemen would consent to make a general law, declaring the proper
mode of removal, I think we should acquire a greater degree of
unanimity, which, on this occasion, must be better than carrying the
question against a large minority.

The call for the question being now very general, it was put, shall the
words "to be removable by the President," be struck out?

It was determined in the negative; being yeas 20, nays 34.


WEDNESDAY, June 24.

_Department of Foreign Affairs._

The engrossed bill "for establishing an Executive Department, to be
denominated the Department of Foreign Affairs," was read the third time.

Mr. SUMTER.--This bill appears to my mind so subversive of the
constitution, and in its consequences so destructive to the liberties of
the people, that I cannot consent to let it pass without expressing my
detestation of the principle it contains. I do it in this public manner,
in order to fulfil what I think to be my duty to my country, and to
discharge myself of any concern in a matter that I do not approve.

Mr. PAGE discovered the fate of the bill; he knew it must pass, but,
nevertheless, he would decidedly give it his negative, and he hoped the
respectable minority which he had the honor of voting with hitherto on
the question of removability, would unite with him firmly in their
opposition; and in order to record to their constituents the sentiments
they maintained, he moved to take the question by the yeas and nays.

One-fifth of the members present joined in requiring the yeas and nays;
whereupon they were taken, and are,

      YEAS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Brown, Burke,
      Cadwalader, Carroll, Clymer, Contee, Fitzsimons, Gilman,
      Goodhue, Griffin, Hartley, Heister, Huger, Lawrence, Lee,
      Madison, Moore, Muhlenberg, Schureman, Scott, Sedgwick,
      Seney, Sinnickson, Sylvester, Trumbull, and Vining.--29.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Coles, Gerry, Grout, Hathorn, Huntington,
      Jackson, Leonard, Livermore, Matthews, Page, Parker,
      Partridge, Van Rensselaer, Sherman, Smith, of Maryland,
      Smith, of South Carolina, Stone, Sturgis, Sumter, Thatcher,
      Tucker, and White.--22.

So the question was determined in the affirmative, and the clerk
directed to carry the bill to the Senate, and desire their concurrence.


_Department of War._

The House then went into a committee on the bill for establishing the
Department of War. Mr. TRUMBULL in the chair.

Mr. BENSON proposed, with respect to the Secretary's being removable by
the President, a similar amendment to that which had been obtained in
the bill establishing the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. SHERMAN thought it unnecessary to load this bill with any words on
that subject; he conceived the gentleman ought to be satisfied with
having had the principle established in the other bill.

Mr. PAGE was of the same opinion, but further thought it argued a doubt,
even in the mind of the majority, of the truth of their principles, and
they wanted, by repetition, to force that upon the mind which was not
impressed by right reason. The question on the amendment was taken
without further debate, and carried in the affirmative, twenty-four to
twenty-two.

Some other small alterations being made, the committee rose, and
reported the bill as amended; which being partly considered, the House
adjourned.


THURSDAY, June 25.

_Department of War._

The House resumed the consideration of the amendments reported by the
Committee of the Whole to the bill for establishing the War Department;
which being agreed to, the bill was ordered to be engrossed.


_Treasury Department._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill
for establishing the Treasury Department, Mr. TRUMBULL in the chair. The
second clause being under consideration,

Mr. PAGE objected to the words making it the duty of the Secretary to
"digest and report plans for the improvement and management of the
revenue, and the support of the public credit;" observing that it might
be well enough to enjoin upon him the duty of making out and preparing
estimates; but to go any further would be a dangerous innovation upon
the constitutional privilege of this House; it would create an undue
influence within these walls, because members might be led, by the
deference commonly paid to men of abilities, who give an opinion in a
case they have thoroughly studied, to support the minister's plan, even
against their own judgment. Nor would the mischief stop here; it would
establish a precedent which might be extended, until we admitted all the
ministers of the Government on the floor, to explain and support the
plans they have digested and reported: thus laying a foundation for an
aristocracy or a detestable monarchy.

Mr. TUCKER.--The objection made by the gentleman near me is,
undoubtedly, well founded. I think it proper to strike out all the words
alluded to, because the following are sufficient to answer every
valuable purpose, namely, "to prepare and report estimates of the public
revenue and public expenditures." If we authorize him to prepare and
report plans, it will create an interference of the executive with the
legislative powers; it will abridge the particular privilege of this
House; for the constitution expressly declares, that all bills for
raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. How can
the business originate in this House, if we have it reported to us by
the Minister of Finance? All the information that can be required, may
be called for, without adopting a clause that may undermine the
authority of this House, and the security of the people. The
constitution has pointed out the proper method of communication between
the executive and legislative departments; it is made the duty of the
President to give, from time to time, information to Congress of the
state of the Union, and to recommend to their consideration such
measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. If revenue plans
are to be prepared and reported to Congress, here is the proper person
to do it; he is responsible to the people for what he recommends, and
will be more cautious than any other person to whom a less degree of
responsibility is attached. Under this clause, you give the Secretary of
the Treasury a right to obtrude upon you plans, not only undigested, but
even improper to be taken up.

I hope the House is not already weary of executing and sustaining the
powers vested in them by the constitution; and yet it would argue that
we thought ourselves less adequate to determine than any individual what
burthens our constituents are equal to bear. This is not answering the
high expectations that were formed of our exertions for the general
good, or of our vigilance in guarding our own and the people's rights.
In short, Mr. Chairman, I can never agree to have money bills originated
and forced upon this House by a man destitute of legislative authority,
while the constitution gives such power solely to the House of
Representatives; for this reason, I cheerfully second the motion for
striking out the words.

Mr. BENSON.--If the proposed amendment prevail, the bill will be nearly
nugatory. The most important service that can be rendered by a gentleman
who is at the head of the Department of Finance, is that of digesting
and reporting plans for the improvement of the revenue, and supporting
public credit; and, for my part, I shall despair of ever seeing your
revenue improved, or the national credit supported, unless the business
is submitted into the hands of an able individual. I thought this
subject was well understood, from the debate on the original motion. It
was then insisted upon by an honorable gentleman, Mr. GERRY, who opposed
the appointment of a Secretary of the Treasury, that his important
duties ought to be "to consider of the means of improving the revenue,
and introducing economy into the expenditures, and to recommend general
systems of revenue." Now, what more than this is required by the clause?

For my part, I am at a loss to see how the privilege of the House is
infringed. Can any of the Secretary's plans be called bills? Will they
be reported in such a form even? But admitting they were, they do not
become bills, unless they are sanctioned by the House; much less is the
danger that they will pass into laws without full examination by both
Houses and the President. From this view of the subject, so far is the
clause from appearing dangerous, that I believe it discovers itself to
be not only perfectly safe, but essentially necessary; and without it is
retained, the great object of the bill will be defeated.

Mr. GOODHUE.--We certainly carry our dignity to the extreme, when we
refuse to receive information from any but ourselves. It must be
admitted, that the Secretary of the Treasury will, from the nature of
his office, be better acquainted with the subject of improving the
revenue or curtailing expense, than any other person; if he is thus
capable of affording useful information, shall we reckon it hazardous to
receive it? For my part, when I want to attain a particular object, I
never shut my ears against information likely to enable me to secure it.

Mr. PAGE.--I can never consent to establish, by law, this interference
of an executive officer in business of legislation; it may be well
enough in an absolute monarchy, for a minister to come to a Parliament
with his plans in his hands, and order them to be enregistered or
enacted; but this practice does not obtain even in a limited monarchy
like Britain. The minister there, who introduces his plans, must be a
member of the House of Commons. The man would be treated with
indignation, who should attempt in that country to bring his schemes
before Parliament in any other way. Now, why we, in the free republic of
the United States, should introduce such a novelty in legislation, I am
at a loss to conceive. The constitution expressly delegates to us the
business of the revenue; our constituents have confidence in us, because
they suppose us acquainted with their circumstances; they expect, in
consequence of this knowledge, we will not attempt to load them with
injudicious or oppressive taxes; but they have no such security, if we
are blindly to follow perhaps an unskilful minister. It does not answer
me, Mr. Chairman, to say the House has a right of deliberating and
deciding upon these plans, because we may be told, if you prune away
this part or that part of the system, you destroy its efficiency.
Therefore we must act with caution; we must either take or reject the
whole; but if we reject the whole, sir, we are to depend upon ourselves
for a substitute. How are we to form one? For my part, I should not
despair, that the united wisdom of this House could procure one; but if
we are to do this in the second instance, why cannot we attempt it in
the first? I have no objection to our calling upon this or any other
officer for information; but it is certainly improper to have him
authorized by law to intrude upon us whatever he may think proper. I
presume, sir, it is not supposed by the worthy gentleman from New York
(Mr. BENSON) that we shall be at a loss to conceive what information
would be useful or proper for us to require, that we must have this
officer to present us with what he chooses. When the President requires
an opinion of him, the constitution demands him to give it; so under the
law, let him send his opinion in here when it is asked for. If any
further power is given him, it will come to this at last: we, like the
Parliament of Paris, shall meet to register what he dictates. Either
these reports of the Secretary are to have weight, or they are not; if
they are to have weight, the House acts under a foreign influence, which
is altogether improper and impolitic; if they are to have no weight, we
impose a useless duty upon the officer, and such as is no mark of our
wisdom.

Mr. AMES hoped the subject might be treated with candor and liberality;
he supposed the objections were made on those principles, and therefore
required a serious answer. The worthy gentleman who first expressed his
aversion to the clause seemed to be apprehensive that the power of
reporting plans by the Secretary would be improper, because it appeared
to him to interfere with the legislative duty of the House, which the
House ought not to relinquish.

Whenever it is a question, Mr. Speaker, said he, whether this House
ought, or ought not, to establish offices to exercise a part of the
power of either branch of the Government, there are two points which I
take into consideration, in order to lead my mind to a just decision;
first, whether the proposed disposition is useful; and, second, whether
it can be safely guarded from abuse. Now I take it, sir, that the House
by their order for bringing in a bill to establish the Treasury
Department in this way, have determined the point of utility; or, have
they erred in adopting that opinion, I will slightly make an inquiry,
How does it tend to general utility? The Secretary is presumed to
acquire the best knowledge of the subject of finance of any member of
the community. Now, if this House is to act on the best knowledge of
circumstances, it seems to follow logically that the House must obtain
evidence from that officer; the best way of doing this will be publicly
from the officer himself, by making it his duty to furnish us with it.
It will not be denied, sir, that this officer will be better acquainted
with his business than other people can be. It lies within his
department to have a comprehensive view of the state of the public
revenues and expenditures. He will, by his superintending power over the
collection, be able to discover abuses, if any, in that department, and
to form the most eligible plan to remedy or prevent the evil. From his
information respecting money transactions, he may be able to point out
the best mode for supporting the public credit; indeed, these seem to me
to be the great objects of his appointment.

Mr. LIVERMORE.--I shall vote for striking out the clause, because I
conceive it essentially necessary so to do. The power of originating
money bills within these walls, I look upon as a sacred deposit which we
may neither violate nor divest ourselves of, although at first view it
may appear of little importance who shall form a plan for the
improvement of the revenue. Although every information tending to effect
this great object may be gratefully received by this House, yet it
behoves us to consider to what this clause may lead, and where it may
terminate. Might it not, by construction, be said that the Secretary of
the Treasury has the sole right of digesting and reporting plans for the
improvement of the revenue? This construction may appear a little
extraordinary, but it is not more so than some constructions heretofore
put upon other words; but however extraordinary it may be, it may take
place, and I think the best way to avoid it, will be to leave out the
words altogether. It is certainly improper that any person, not
expressly intrusted by our constituents with the privilege of taking
their money, should direct the quantum and the manner in which to take
it.

Mr. SEDGWICK.--If the principle prevails for curtailing this part of the
Secretary's duty, we shall lose the advantages which the proposed system
was intended to acquire. The improvement and management of the revenue
is a subject that must be investigated by a man of abilities and
indefatigable industry, if we mean to have our business advantageously
done. If honorable gentlemen will for a moment consider the peculiar
circumstances of this country, the means of information attainable by
the individual members of this House, and compare them with the object
they have to pursue, they will plainly perceive the necessity of calling
to their aid the advantages resulting from an establishment like the one
contemplated in the bill; if they weigh these circumstances carefully,
their objections, I trust, will vanish.

Mr. BOUDINOT.--A proper jealousy for the liberty of the people is
commendable in those who are appointed and sworn to be its faithful
guardians; but when this spirit is carried so far as to lose sight of
its object, and instead of leading to avoid, urges on to the precipice
of ruin, we ought to be careful how we receive its impressions. So far
is the present measure from being injurious to liberty, that it is
consistent with the true interest and prosperity of the community. Are
gentlemen apprehensive we shall be led by this officer to adopt plans we
should otherwise reject? For my part, I have a better opinion of the
penetration of the representation of the people than to dread any such
visionary phantom.

Let us consider whether this power is essentially necessary to the
Government. I take it to be conceded by the gentlemen, that it is
absolutely so. They say they are willing to receive the information
because it may be serviceable, but do not choose to have it communicated
in this way. If the Secretary of the Treasury is the proper person to
give the information, I can see no other mode of obtaining it that would
be so useful. Do gentlemen mean that he shall give it piecemeal, by way
of question and answer? This will tend more to mislead than to inform
us. If we would judge upon any subject, it would be better to have it in
one clear and complete view, than to inspect it by detachments; we
should lose the great whole in the minutiae, and, instead of a system,
should present our constituents with a structure composed of discordant
parts, counteracting and defeating the operation of each other's
properties.

Mr. HARTLEY rose to express his sentiments, as he did on every occasion,
with diffidence in his own abilities; but he looked upon the clause as
both unsafe and inconsistent with the constitution. He thought the
gentleman last up proved too much by his arguments; he proved that the
House of Representatives was, in fact, unnecessary and useless; that one
person could be a better judge of the means to improve and manage the
revenue, and support the national credit, than the whole body of
Congress. This kind of doctrine, Mr. Chairman, is indelicate in a
republic, and strikes at the root of all legislation founded upon the
great democratic principle of representation. It is true, mistakes, and
very injurious ones, have been made on the subject of finance by some
State Legislatures; but I would rather submit to this evil, than, by my
voice, establish tenets subversive of the liberties of my country.

Notwithstanding what I have said, I am clearly of opinion it is
necessary and useful to take measures for obtaining other information
than what members can acquire in their characters as citizens;
therefore, I am in favor of the present bill; but I think these words
too strong. If it was modified so as to oblige him to have his plans
ready for this House when they are asked for, I should be satisfied; but
to establish a legal right in an officer to obtrude his sentiments
perpetually on this body is disagreeable, and it is dangerous, inasmuch
as the right is conveyed in words of doubtful import, and conveying
powers exclusively vested by the constitution in this House.

Mr. GERRY expressed himself in favor of the object of the clause; that
was, to get all the information possible for the purpose of improving
the revenue, because he thought this information would be much required,
if he judged from the load of public debt, and the present inability of
the people to contribute largely towards its reduction.

He could not help observing, however, the great degree of importance
they were giving this, and the other executive officers. If the doctrine
of having prime and great ministers of state was once well established,
he did not doubt but we should soon see them distinguished by a green or
red ribbon, or other insignia of court favor and patronage. He wished
gentlemen were aware of what consequences these things lead to, that
they might exert a greater degree of caution.

The practice of Parliament in Britain is first to determine the sum they
will grant, and then refer the subject to a Committee of Ways and Means:
this might be a proper mode to be pursued in this House.

Do gentlemen, said he, consider the importance of the power they give
the officer by the clause? Is it not part of our legislative authority?
And does not the constitution expressly declare that the House solely
shall exercise the power of originating revenue bills? Now, what is
meant by reporting plans? It surely includes the idea of originating
money bills, that is, a bill for improving the revenue, or, in other
words, for bringing revenue into the treasury. For if he is to report
plans, they ought to be reported in a proper form, and complete. This
is giving an indirect voice in legislative business to an executive
officer. If this be not the meaning of the clause, let gentlemen say
what is, and to what extent it shall go; but if my construction is true,
we are giving up the most essential privilege vested in us by the
constitution. But what does this signify? The officer is responsible,
and we are secure. This responsibility is made an argument in favor of
every extension of power. I should be glad to understand the term.
Gentlemen say the Secretary of the Treasury is responsible for the
information he gives the House--in what manner does this responsibility
act? Suppose he reports a plan for improving the revenue, by a tax which
he thinks judicious, and one that will be agreeable to the people of the
United States; but he happens to be deceived in his opinion, that his
tax is obnoxious, and excites a popular clamor against the
minister--what is the advantage of his responsibility? Nothing. Few men
deserve punishment for the error of opinion; all that could be done
would be to repeal the law, and be more cautious in future in depending
implicitly on the judgment of a man who had led us into an impolitic
measure. Suppose the revenue should fall short of his estimate, is he
responsible for the balance? This will be carrying the idea further than
any Government hitherto has done. What then is the officer to be
responsible for, which should induce the House to vest in him such
extraordinary powers?

Mr. LAWRENCE.--I do not see consequences so dangerous as some gentlemen
seem to apprehend; nor did they appear to them, I believe, when the
subject was last under consideration. I recollect, Mr. Chairman, that
some difficulty was made about establishing this office, because it was
feared we could not find men of sufficient abilities to fill it. The
duties were then properly deemed of a high and important nature, and
enumerated as those proposed in the bill. It was supposed by an
honorable gentleman, that the powers here expressed might be lodged in a
board, because an individual was incompetent to undertake the whole. But
now we have the wonderful sagacity of discovering, that if an individual
is appointed, he will have capacity to form plans for improving the
revenue in such an advantageous manner, as to supersede the necessity of
having the representatives of the people consulted on the business: he
will not only perform the usual duties of a Treasury Board, but be
adequate to all purposes of legislation. I appeal to the gentleman for
his usual candor on this occasion, which will assure us that he has
wire-drawn his arguments.

Mr. MADISON.--After hearing and weighing the various observations of
gentlemen, I am at a loss to see where the danger lies. These are
precisely the words used by the former Congress, on two occasions, one
in 1783, the other in a subsequent ordinance, which established the
Revenue Board. The same power was also annexed to the office of
Superintendent of Finance, but I never yet heard that any inconvenience
or danger was experienced from the regulation; perhaps, if the power had
been more fully and frequently exercised, it might have contributed more
to the public good.

There is a small probability, though it is but small, that an officer
may derive a weight from this circumstance, and have some degree of
influence upon the deliberations of the Legislature; but compare the
danger likely to result from this clause, with the danger and
inconvenience of not having well-formed and digested plans, and we shall
find infinitely more to apprehend. Inconsistent, unproductive, and
expensive schemes, will be more injurious to our constituents than the
undue influence which the well-digested plans of a well-informed officer
can have. From a bad administration of the Government, more detriment
will arise than from any other source. The want of information has
occasioned much inconvenience and unnecessary burthens under some of the
State Governments. Let it be our care to avoid those rocks and shoals in
our political voyage, which have injured, and nearly proved fatal to,
many of our cotemporary navigators.

A gentleman has asked, what is meant by responsibility? I will answer
him. There will be responsibility in point of reputation, at least a
responsibility to the public opinion with respect to his abilities; and
supposing there is no personal responsibility, yet we know that men of
talents and ability take as much care for the preservation of their
reputation as any other species of property of which they are possessed.
If a superior degree of wisdom is expected to be displayed by them, they
take pains to give proofs that they possess it in the most unequivocal
manner; this of itself will ensure us no small degree of exertion.

With respect to originating money bills, the House has the sole right to
do it; but if the power of reporting plans can be construed to imply the
power of originating revenue bills, the constitution is inconsistent
with itself, in giving the President authority to recommend such
measures as he may think expedient or necessary; but the construction is
too unnatural to require further investigation.

I have admitted there is a small probability of a small inconvenience,
but I do not think it any more an argument against the clause, than it
would be an argument against having windows in a house, that it is
possible the wind and the rain may get in through the crevices.

Mr. STONE was not afraid of giving the officer the power of reporting
plans, because he was sure Congress would, in every case, decide upon
their own judgment. A future Congress would not pay such a deference,
even to their predecessors, as to follow in their footsteps, unless they
were convinced of the good policy of their measures. He thought if the
House wanted to make use of the information acquired by the Secretary,
they ought to give him notice of their intention; consequently,
something of this kind was proper in the bill.

Mr. SHERMAN thought the principle held up by the clause, was absolutely
necessary to be received. It was of such a nature as to force itself
upon them; therefore it was in vain to attempt to elude it by
subterfuge. It was owing to the great abilities of a financier, that
France had been able to make the exertions we were witnesses of a few
years ago, without embarrassing the nation. This able man, after
considerably improving the national revenue, was displaced; but such was
the importance of the officer, that he has been restored again.

Mr. _Baldwin_.--I do not see what we are guarding against by striking
out the words, unless gentlemen mean to go so far as to introduce a
prohibitory clause, and declare that the Secretary of the Treasury shall
be restrained from digesting or preparing plans for the improvement of
the revenue. If there is any evil in having him attend to this branch of
the business, I cannot see how to avoid it. Suppose the officer is a bad
man, and there are others like him in this House, (for this must be what
the gentlemen are afraid of;) and suppose he has prepared a scheme for
peculation, which he hopes to get adopted by making dupes of the honest
part; how are you to hinder it from being brought forward? Cannot his
friends introduce it as their own, by making and seconding a motion for
that purpose? Will you restrain him from having access to the members
out of doors? And cannot he infuse his dangerous and specious arguments
and information into them as well in the closet, as by a public and
official communication? But, Mr. Chairman, can this House, or if it can,
will it prevent any of their constituents from bringing before them
plans for the relief of grievances or oppressions? Every individual of
the community can bring business before us by petition, memorial, or
remonstrance, provided it be done in a decent manner. How then do you
propose to restrain the Secretary of the Treasury?

I think the clause is very well as it stands, and shall therefore be
against the amendment.

Mr. PAGE'S motion for striking out the clause being put and negatived:

The question on Mr. FITZSIMON'S motion to amend the bill, by striking
out the word report, and inserting prepare, was taken and carried by a
great majority.

After which the House adjourned.


FRIDAY, June 26.

A number of the members attending the interesting conference which
to-day took place with the Senate on the impost and tonnage bills, no
business was done in this House.


_Saturday_, June 27.

_Revenue Bill._

Mr. _Boudinot_, from the managers on the part of this House in the
conference with the Senate on the subject of the amendments to the
Impost Bill, reported that the conference had agreed to pass the bill as
amended by the Senate, with some additional amendments, viz: the duty on
distilled spirits of Jamaica proof, to be reduced from fifteen cents to
ten cents per gallon. The duty on all other spirits, to be reduced from
twelve to eight cents per gallon. The duty on beer, ale, porter, or
cider, imported in casks, from eight to five cents per gallon. The duty
on beer imported in bottles, from twenty-five to twenty cents per
gallon. The duty on coal, from three to two cents per bushel.


MONDAY, July 13.

_Western Lands._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of
the Union. Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair.

Mr. SCOTT requested that the report of the committee on the Western
Territory might be read, which was read accordingly, as follows:

      _Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this committee, that
      an act of Congress should pass for establishing a Land
      Office, and to regulate the terms of granting vacant and
      unappropriated lands in the Western Territory.

Mr. SCOTT.--In endeavoring, sir, to open the interesting subject now
before you, I shall avoid the repetition of those ideas which I threw
out on a former occasion, as far as my memory will serve me, and the
nature of the subject will permit.

This subject, sir, will appear of great magnitude in point of interest,
if we consider the extent of the territory; I think I shall not be far
beyond the mark, if I say it is one thousand miles long by five hundred
broad; nor if I say it is sufficient to contain two millions of farms;
nevertheless, for greater caution, say it will contain one million,
(which is notoriously and greatly within the real contents,) and that
each of these farms may be peopled by six souls, they will amount to six
millions of inhabitants, double the number of the present inhabitants of
the United States. From this view, it is an object of great concern. It
will appear also an object of concern, if we contemplate the climate,
the soil, and the waters of that country; consider that it lies in the
heart of the temperate zone; its soil infinitely more rich and more
fertile than any in the Atlantic States; its waters pure and good--in a
word, it is such a territory as must command inhabitants, and will be
peopled. Its situation in the middle of our continent, gives the climate
a salubrity that accommodates it to the emigrants from both Northern and
Southern States. It is meeting them on a middle ground, softening the
harsh restrictions of the rugged North, and breathing bland the zephyr
grateful to the sun-scorched South. In short, it is such as gives to all
who have seen it the utmost satisfaction--it is both healthy and
agreeable.

It may perhaps be objected, that the measure now proposed will lead or
tend to a depopulation of the Atlantic States, and therefore ought not
to be adopted. This is a circumstance I by no means wish. I am as far
from desiring a depopulation of the Atlantic shores, as I am from
fearing it on this ground. I am confident it will not operate in any
considerable degree to bring about that event; but if it should be
thought it would, that could be no solid objection against the measure.
Whilst the desire of emigration continues, and lands are to be procured,
settlers will find their way into that territory; nor is it in the power
of Congress to withhold lands altogether, because they are to be got of
others on better terms. There is superior encouragement held out to the
people settling on the other side of the river Mississippi, where the
soil is fertile, and the climate equally agreeable. In proof of this
assertion, I will read to the committee the translation of a kind of
proclamation issued by the Governor of the Spanish posts at the
Illinois. [This paper contains an invitation to all persons inclined to
settle in the Western country, offering as inducements, lands without
charge, exemptions from taxes, protection in civil and religious
liberties, besides provision and the implements of husbandry.] After
this, Mr. S. proceeded: Now, sir, if Congress fear to sell their lands
lest it tend to depopulate the Atlantic States, what must they apprehend
from propositions like these? They will certainly have all the effect
which encouragement from this quarter can have. It may be said, that
Americans will not venture to live under the Spanish Government, or
settle a Spanish colony. To this it may be replied, that when people,
from their necessities or inclinations, are determined to emigrate, in
order to mitigate their distresses, they think little of the form of
government; all they care for is relief from their present or
approaching wants and troubles.

Nobody will emigrate from the Atlantic States but a certain description
of men, and they will go whether you hold out this encouragement to them
or not; they will pay little regard to Congressional restrictions. And
here let me make one remark, drawn from my own observation. The forming
settlements in a wilderness upon the frontiers, between the savages and
the least populated of the civilized parts of the United States,
requires men of enterprising, violent, nay, discontented and turbulent
spirits. Such always are our first settlers in the ruthless and savage
wild; they serve as pioneers to clear the way for the more laborious and
careful farmer. These characters are already in that country by
thousands, and their number is daily increasing, and will continue to
increase; for congenial spirits will assimilate maugre all our endeavors
to the contrary. But how will you prevent them? I should be glad to see
a plan for hemming in the emigration to that territory; I think the
thing wholly impracticable, therefore it becomes the immediate interest
of Congress, to direct the emigration to a proper point; direct it to
their own territory, rather than be inactive spectators of its silent,
though rapid course to the Spanish and British dependencies; rather sell
your lands and get something for them, than let your citizens leave your
dominions. By improving a part, you add to the value of the remainder;
their population will produce a hardy race of husbandmen and warriors,
always at the command of the United States, to support and defend your
liberty and property. These being facts, I leave it to the wisdom of the
House to draw the inference.

I will make one further remark, with respect to the encouragement or
discouragement of emigration. Suppose it was in the power of Congress to
stop the course of the impetuous current, which has already won its way
through insuperable obstructions, and spread itself over the fertile
lands of the Ohio. I ask, with perfect security, if it is not such an
act of contumacy, and inconsistency with the fundamental principles of
the Government, that Congress could not adopt it? Consider that many of
your citizens are destitute of the comforts, nay, the common necessaries
of life, without a prospect of providing for the subsistence of
themselves and families: I ask, would Congress prevent the emigration of
such persons if they could? I think not; they would not act as kind
protecting fathers to their people if they did. I presume this would be
too serious an objection for any man to face, with a restraining
proposition. I question if any man would be hardy enough to point out a
class of citizens by name, that ought to be the servants of the
community; yet, unless that is done, to what class of the people could
you direct such a law? But if you passed such an act, it would be
tantamount to saying that there is some class which must remain here,
and by law must be obliged to serve the others, for such wages as they
please to give.

This being the case, let us make the best of liberty, our people, and
our land. Your citizens, I tell you, are already there by thousands;
they are going by thousands more, and are every hour growing up into
consequence. They never expect to return into the Atlantic States; plant
them in your soil, add this wealth of population to your own, and form
an empire illustrious as it is extended. Remember, ye sages of my
country, an historic truth recorded for your instruction, that empire
has been slowly, but invariably, moving from East to West; emigration
has uniformly receded in that direction, from the time that our common
parents quitted the garden of Eden, till the present hour; nor doubt but
it will continue to pursue that course, as long as there are lands to be
inhabited.

Much will depend upon the energy and force of the Government established
in that country; it ought to be such as will furnish sufficient power
for its own internal purposes, and also to secure it to the Union. But
that is not the only tie by which its union is held. That country is
attached to the Atlantic States by its natural situation. To be
convinced of this truth, nothing more is necessary than to look upon
the chart: all the commerce of that country must come through the States
upon the sea-coast. We know, at Pittsburg, that we are a thousand miles
nearer to the market than settlers at the mouth of the Ohio river. When
we export our produce by that and the Mississippi, we know we can get
easier home with our returns by the way of Philadelphia, than the others
can by turning up and stemming the current of the Mississippi.
Therefore, the imports for all that territory must come through the
United States. From these considerations, I conclude it would be madness
in the extreme for them to think of a separation, unless they were
driven to it by a fatal necessity; they will be too sensible of its ill
effects ever to attempt it.

But suppose, for a moment, that they break off from the Union, and even
become our enemies, it would be good policy in us to get as much as we
can from them first, especially as they are disposed to give it us; let
us make them extinguish part of our national debt before they leave us.
The soil and climate of that country, as I said before, will be great
inducements for emigrants to settle there. If they were to break off,
they would know how to get money enough from the sale of the territory
to support their Government, without any other resource whatever. If I,
as a resident in that country, had the remotest view of a separation
from the Atlantic States, I should be sorry to see Congress sell an acre
of that land; for selling it, in that case, would be neither more nor
less than preventing us from putting the money into our pockets when we
became independent. If they meditate independency, the most likely way
to make them so, will be to let their lands alone, in order to supply
them with funds sufficient to support them in the measure. If they are
sold, it will not be in their power.

I apprehend it will be found that a Land Office will effect these
objects better than any other plan that can be devised. If this should
be effectual, and no doubt can be entertained but it will, the
inhabitants of the United States cannot, with a good grace, be called
upon for heavy taxes in order to pay the interest on a debt which can be
so easily and properly extinguished. Every individual who contemplates
the subject, will see how much it is his interest to buy a few dollars
in certificates, and purchase a piece of land with them, which will
annihilate the debt, and prevent the demand for taxes to pay the
interest; besides, it will remain as a security to reimburse the
principal to the proprietor, as the population of the country extends;
but, at all events, it would be but advancing four or five years'
interest, and the whole debt would be absorbed.

If we mean to sell our lands for ready money, or mean to trust, we have
a superior advantage. It is more probable that the necessitous person
who wants the land for the subsistence of himself and family, will labor
harder to procure a property of this kind, and secure it for himself,
than the speculator who never means to pay a farthing until he has
received it from the sale of the land; besides, the necessitous person
is better able to buy of Government than of the speculator, because he
can get it cheaper. The purchasers of large tracts retail out their land
to this class of men, and certainly charge them something for their
trouble. But if we sell on credit, as under the Proprietary Government
was the practice in Pennsylvania, those who take out small quantities
get their land surveyed, and set themselves down; they cultivate the
ground, and erect buildings for their own accommodation. Land, in this
improved state, furnishes a better security to Government for any
arrearage of purchase money, than a large tract sold on speculation, and
which lies in the same state of nature as it did when it was disposed
of, perhaps adding thereto the expense of making the survey. If the land
must revert to Congress at last for default of payment, we get nothing
in the latter case; whereas, when sold in lots, if a man has settled
himself down, and paid for his warrant and survey, which costs the Union
nothing, but for the first price and interest thereon, it must strike
every gentleman's mind that it would be disagreeable, after a man had
made a settlement for three or four years, to have to turn out. Rather
than do this, he would make every exertion to discharge the price: if
his situation was so wretched as not to furnish the means, some of his
neighbors, on such security, might befriend him; but at any rate
Government would be secure. By this argument, I do not mean to insist
that Congress should sell their lands on trust; they may do so, or sell
for ready pay, as their wisdom may think eligible. I shall be satisfied
either way.

I think the convenience of the people is a subject not unworthy of being
taken into view. My plan proposes that they should be able to perfect
their titles on the spot. I fear not the objection which has been
raised. It may be said, the titles ought not to be completed until it
was done immediately under the eye of Congress. Let this be as it may, I
will make one remark: can we not have every tie, every check, and
security upon these officers that we have upon the collectors of the
revenue? I think there is as much room for confidence in the one case as
in the other. We can take care that the Secretary of the Land Office
shall send in his accounts of patents and warrants. I think we may
depend here upon a true return.

The Receiver of the office shall take nothing but public securities,
which are not quite so great a temptation to embezzlement or illicit
practices as money. The Surveyor will be a check upon both. I think the
gentlemen employed in this business cannot be of very trifling
character. In short, this department may be as well checked and balanced
as any other; the expense of it will be nothing, because the officer may
be supported out of the fees. This being the case, I shall conclude with
moving that the committee adopt the resolution reported by the
committee, and recommend it to the House to appoint a select committee
to bring in a bill accordingly.

Mr. FITZSIMONS asked if it would not be better to settle all the
principles of the bill first, that the select committee might not lose
their labor, as had been once or twice experienced, for want of this
precaution.

He was in favor of some measure of this kind, though he had some doubts
of the necessity there was supposed to be of establishing a Land Office.

The question was now taken on the resolution, and agreed to.


_Compensation of the President, &c._

Mr. VINING wished to call the attention of the House to a business he
apprehended not very lengthy; it was the report of a committee on the
subject of compensation to be made to the President, Vice President, the
members of the Senate and House of Representatives, for their services;
he wished gentlemen to consider the situation of every one concerned in
this business, themselves, and the continent at large. He hoped they
would consent to take it up, and he flattered himself the discussion
would not last longer than a day.

Mr. WHITE wished to go into a Committee of the Whole on the business.

Mr. FITZSIMONS did not like to enter upon a lengthy discussion of a
point that was incapable of much elucidation by reasoning; he therefore
was against going into a committee at this stage of the business. He
observed, that the committee had reported something, and the members had
been pretty generally consulted on the same. He hoped the House would
despatch the business without delay or loss of time, if they were at all
inclined to take it up.

Mr. WHITE thought it necessary to go into a committee, because there
were a number of things mentioned, the reasons for which appeared to him
very uncertain.

Mr. VINING said it was a subject of considerable delicacy, and he
supposed very few gentlemen would be inclined to speak three or four
times on a point; yet this was all the advantage gained by going into a
committee. He was no more interested than others; every gentleman might
judge of his own case, but after it had been before a committee of
twelve, in order to get the fullest sense of the House upon the subject,
he was inclined to receive it without so much circumlocution. He
observed, that the business had originated in a Committee of the Whole,
and it was unusual to recommit it without showing some reasons why.

Mr. WHITE gave up his motion for a Committee of the Whole, and said,
before he consented to the report, he should be glad to know in what
style it was expected that the President would live. He observed there
was provision for the expenses of a house, furniture, secretaries,
clerks, carriages and horses. Perhaps the sum proposed might be too much
or too little. He should like to see an estimate of how much was
necessary for keeping the table, the equipage, &c. before he decided. He
hoped the committee would elucidate this subject.

There was another thing he wished to inquire of them. The Vice
President's salary was charged at five thousand dollars; he could not
conceive upon what principle that sum was reported. Did it bear a
proportion to his services, or was it in proportion to what the members
of the Senate and this House were to be allowed? There is nothing which
obliges him to be attentive to his business. No doubt but the gentleman
who holds that office at present will be regardful and diligent in
executing the business assigned him; yet there is nothing to prevent the
Vice President from residing at home and receiving his salary, without
coming within the walls of the Senate room. The Union is obliged to
support him; but I, said he, would make that support conditional; he
should have a liberal provision while in public life, but no longer. As
to delicacy, I know of none, sir, that ought to be used while we are in
pursuit of the public good. I speak therefore with candor what are my
sentiments on this subject. Other gentlemen, no doubt, do the same; but
I am clearly for examining into the principles before I agree to the
conclusion.

Mr. PAGE was sorry to see gentlemen spinning out the time to little
purpose; certainly, after having the subject under consideration for
nearly three months, they might be able to decide.

If this business was fixed, and gentlemen knew they were to have but
moderate salaries, it might perhaps tend to make them more expeditious;
but at all events, they ought to know the rate at which they attend, in
order to regulate their expenses. To some it might be a matter of no
concern, because they could bear every thing of this kind for a
twelvemonth, without inconvenience; but they ought to consider the
situation of others. We are, said he, keeping the President here without
any provision for his support; but in this we may think ourselves right,
because, in his patriotic ardor, his love for his country, he told us he
was willing to pursue that illustrious example which he set during the
period of our calamity; he refused compensation for his services. But
the constitution requires that he shall receive a compensation, and it
is our duty to provide it. We must also provide something for our own
expenses, or it may reduce gentlemen not better prepared than I am to
depend upon a friend for what the public ought to furnish.

Mr. VINING had said the subject was delicate, but he did not conceive
there was any indelicacy in asking or answering questions on this or any
other occasion, where the good of his country was concerned.

Mr. LAWRENCE did not know, whether the sum proposed was enough for the
President or not; but according to the terms of the constitution, it
ought to be granted as one sum, because he is to receive no other
emolument whatever from the United States, or either of them. Now, if it
is declared he shall receive twenty thousand dollars, and, exclusive of
that sum, we make him an allowance for furniture, horses, carriages,
&c., such an allowance is an emolument beyond the compensation
contemplated in the constitution; but I have no objection to blend these
sums together, declaring the whole to be the compensation required by
the constitution. Besides, if we establish salaries for his secretaries
and clerks, we establish them officers of the Government; this will be
improper, because it infringes his right to employ a confidential person
in the management of those concerns, for which the constitution has made
him responsible. For these reasons, Mr. L. moved to strike out all that
related to horses, carriages, furniture, &c.

Mr. SHERMAN thought it much better to give a net sum, because the
President would then have no accounts to settle with the United States.

Mr. SEDGWICK considered this a constitutional question, and therefore
thought it deserved serious investigation. The provision made in the
report, for paying the expenses of enumerated articles, does not leave
the President in the situation intended by the constitution, which was,
that he should be independent of the Legislature, during his continuance
in office; that he should have a compensation for his services, not to
be increased or diminished during that period; but there is nothing that
will prevent us from making further allowances, provided that the twenty
thousand dollars is all that is given as a compensation. By this
construction, one of the most salutary clauses in the constitution will
be rendered nugatory. From these considerations, he was led to believe
that the report was founded on unconstitutional principles.

Mr. BALDWIN said, the Committee of the Whole, when the business was
before them, had not determined any thing on this point; that,
consequently, the select committee were to frame a report upon such
principles as they judged proper. In order then to have every thing
distinct and accurate, they had brought their opinion forward in the
form it now appears. If it be deemed proper to grant an aggregate sum,
the House would no doubt add to the twenty thousand dollars, what it was
supposed these expenses would amount to.

However, he did not think the constitution was infringed; it was
intended that the compensation should not be increased or diminished,
during the President's continuance in office. Now it might be as well
fixed, by making the allowance in part money, and part furniture, &c. as
by declaring a precise sum; it will still be a stated compensation.

Mr. TUCKER thought furniture and plate ought always to be provided by
government, because, if it was necessary for every new President to buy
these articles, it might put him to great inconvenience, unless he
received a year's salary in advance; besides, when he retired from his
situation, they would not sell for half the first cost. He therefore
wished this part of the report to stand, together with the rent of a
house; but would join in striking out all the rest.

Mr. MADISON did not think the report interfered with either the spirit
or letter of the constitution, and therefore was opposed to any
alteration, especially with respect to the property of a fixed nature.
He was sure, if the furniture and plate, and house rent, could be
allowed, some of the other articles might also. The horses and carriages
will cost money, and sell for little, after being used for four years;
this will be a certain loss to the President, or his family; besides the
House have already undertaken to defray expenses of this kind, and so
set a precedent for the enumeration which had been reported.

Mr. WHITE said, if a certain sum was assigned for the expenses, the
report would be better; but as it now stood, there was no certainty in
it. One President might circumscribe it to a quarter part of the expense
another would; consequently, the compensation could not be fixed.

He admitted the propriety of paying the salary in advance for the first
year, as mentioned by the gentleman from South Carolina. He expected
this would be sufficient to defray the extra expenses, without
subjecting the President to any inconvenience.

Mr. BOUDINOT.--If the Legislature may provide the house and furniture,
they may go further on the same principle, and provide for the rest; he
was satisfied it should be so, because it could be no infringement on
the constitution.

Mr. LIVERMORE hoped the words would be struck out; indeed he was sorry
they had ever been put in. The clause in the constitution is intended to
tie down the Legislature, as well as the President; they shall make him
no compliments while in office, he shall receive nothing but a fixed
compensation for his services. Give him then this compensation, let it
be equal to his usefulness; but do not direct him to employ so much to
one use, and so much to another; it cannot be called a compensation when
you direct how it is to be expended; besides, it was wrong on another
account; why should we pretend to direct him in the style in which he
shall live? Let him have a salary, and expend it in the manner he shall
think proper.

Mr. PAGE was for striking out all the words, because he conceived it
would be against the spirit of the constitution. It would be much more
handsome to make one general provision, than to be thus particular in
enumerating the articles of expense. It has been hinted, that these
articles of expense would amount to half the sum mentioned in the report
to be given as a compensation; if so, he would propose to strike out all
that related to the subject, and so insert twenty-five or thirty
thousand, as the House shall deem most eligible.

Mr. STONE thought the President ought to be at liberty to live in any
style he thought proper, and that the House ought to give him such
compensation as they thought his services merited. If you furnish him
with a house, horses, and carriages, you declare that this is the house,
the horses, and the carriages which he shall use. There is certainly
some degree of indelicacy in this; if he was a private gentleman, he
would be at liberty to use such as he liked best. Suppose he dislikes
them, and will not have them, he is guilty of a breach of the law, is it
intended by the House to impeach him for it? I apprehend it is not, for
no part of the constitution gives us a right to dictate to him on this
head. He would rather let the President set the example how he ought to
live, than see the Legislature direct him. Economy is by no means
disadvantageous to the United States; if the President chooses to live
in an economical manner, we ought not to prevent him.

Mr. VINING thought, as the President was the representative of the
nation, that there ought to be a proper degree of dignity attached to
the office; he did not wish for splendor, but hoped to avoid the
appearance of penury. If he was right in this opinion, the House had a
right to show what they expected of the President, and, consequently,
had a right to enter into the enumeration proposed in the report, and
establish a uniform rule of conduct in the presidential chair.

With respect to its constitutionality, his mind was perfectly easy, the
constitution appeared to be silent; if so, the House had the right of
interfering. He wondered how gentlemen could agree to provide plate and
furniture, yet hesitate with respect to the clerks and secretary. Were
not the latter as necessary as the former? If so, they ought to be
equally provided for.

The question on Mr. LAWRENCE'S motion was now taken, and decided in the
affirmative.

Mr. PAGE now moved to strike out twenty thousand dollars, and insert
thirty thousand.

Mr. SMITH inquired whether it was the intention of the House to saddle
the President with the expense incurred, in consequence of their
resolution of the 15th April. He understood that near ten thousand
dollars had been laid out in purchasing furniture, and putting the house
in order for his reception; it might be disagreeable to the President to
take it. Perhaps he would be a considerable loser by such a bargain, and
many of the things might be of a nature he disliked. He thought the
House had been inconsistent with itself in ordering these things for the
President, and then refusing to let them be applied to his use.

Mr. SHERMAN thought the House need not be embarrassed on this point. The
expense is to be paid by the United States, and the furniture will be
their property, to do what they please with. Neither did he think the
House inconsistent, because it was the object of the Legislature, by
their former vote, to provide only for the temporary accommodation of
the President.

Mr. BENSON said, the business had been properly conducted. It was not in
contemplation to throw the furniture or any other expense upon the
President. He presumed the property belonged to the United States, but
they would sell to the President such part as he chose to purchase. As
to the house, the President was not confined to it; he might give it up
when he pleased, and take another if he thought proper.

The question on striking out twenty thousand and inserting thirty
thousand was divided, and the first part was agreed to, but the latter
rejected.

It was now moved to strike out the words secretary and clerks.

Mr. MADISON thought the Executive Magistrate ought not to have the power
of creating officers; yet if he appointed his secretary and clerks, and
they were recognized, either with respect to salary or official acts,
they became officers of the Government.

Mr. BENSON did not think it necessary to recognize any such officers;
they were to be esteemed the mere instruments of the President, and not
as sharing in the administration.

The motion was put, and carried in the affirmative, and then the House
adjourned.


THURSDAY, July 16.

_Compensation of the President, &c._

The House resumed the consideration of the Report of the Committee on
the Compensation to the President, Vice President, and Members of
Congress.

The blank occasioned by striking out on Monday last, was now proposed to
be filled.

Mr. LIVERMORE moved to fill it with 18,000 dollars.

Mr. BURKE said, there were some members of the committee in favor of
15,000 dollars; others indeed were for a much larger sum--he believed
they went so far as 70,000 dollars; that 20,000 dollars was an
accommodation, and as such he had agreed to it; but he was of opinion
that 15,000 dollars was sufficient; that 20,000 had been once agreed to,
but the expenses were added at a subsequent meeting of the committee;
now, as the House had concurred in striking out 20,000 dollars, and a
proposition was come forward more correspondent to his judgment, he
should give it support.

Mr. FITZSIMONS presumed it was not a question before the House what the
report of the committee had been, nor were the sentiments any gentleman
had there delivered to operate against the sense expressed by the
committee in their report; if any thing done in committee was to
influence the decision of the House, it must be the report, which spoke
the sense of the majority. He further presumed, that when the 20,000
dollars were struck out, after all the expense had been erased, it was
in the contemplation of the honorable mover to increase the sum so as to
include both articles. It was with this view he voted in favor of
striking out the 20,000 dollars.

Mr. TUCKER said it might happen, that the expenses a President would
incur at the first entering on the office would be so great as to injure
his private fortune and distress his family. A quarter's salary might be
insufficient to defray the expense; yet if the President continued but
three months in office, this sum would be all he was entitled to. He
thought it just and requisite to provide against accidents of this kind,
if it could be done consistently with the constitution. With this object
in view, he would propose that the President's compensation should be
26,000 dollars for the first year, and 16,000 dollars for every other
year; that 10,000 dollars should be paid him in advance, on his coming
to the chair, and the remainder in quarterly payments. Its amount, he
said, would be nearly what was proposed by the gentleman from New
Hampshire (Mr. LIVERMORE); and if the House was disposed to fix on that
sum, as a proper compensation, they might, without any material change,
admit his proposition; but if they meant to grant either a greater or a
less sum, he hoped they would accommodate it to his principle.

Mr. STONE said, that a sum of 25,000 dollars would be as small a sum as
would answer the purpose; and provided that amount should be agreed to,
the expense of the Executive would be less to the people than that of
any Government in the world. If it is considered that the unavoidable
expense will be great, and that the assistance of two or more
secretaries will be necessary for the President to discharge his high
and important trust, and that it cannot be expected that persons in such
a station should be in straitened or dependent circumstances, this sum
will not be found to exceed the absolute expense, with a moderate
compensation for the services of the President. It is also a maxim of
sound policy, that executive officers should be independent.

Mr. WHITE.--Sir, I do not say that 25,000 dollars will or will not be
sufficient; but in order to determine the necessary sum, I should wish
to know the style in which the President is expected to live. If a style
of magnificence and splendor is to be adopted, the sum is too small; and
if economy is pursued, it may be too much. Until this is known, it will
be extremely difficult to decide upon a proper sum; and when I give my
vote, I wish to give it on such information as will satisfy my mind with
respect to its propriety, and show my constituents the reasonableness of
the measure. Will he live in a more expensive style than the former
Presidents of Congress, or will he live nearly in the same? If so, what
was that expense, or what will be the probable increase? How was that
money applied, and what will now be necessary? If these questions can
be answered, gentlemen may decide with more precision than they can
while the subject is left afloat.

Mr. BALDWIN said, it was impossible to get the information the gentleman
required, the committee had made all the examination in their power with
respect to the actual expense of supporting the office. They found
former Presidents of Congress, whose office, by the by, was less
important, and whose assistants were less numerous, expended 7,000,
8,000, and so on to 13,000 dollars annually. From this, some gentlemen
were led to believe 17,000 dollars might be sufficient in this instance.
But we were, said he, left without any thing satisfactory on this
subject, and when the question was pressed on the committee, they varied
from 15,000 to 25,000 dollars; we were therefore obliged to average the
sum.

We were satisfied that it must be left to experiment to determine what
the allowance ought to be; and we were certain that the gentleman who
had to make the first experiment would do it in such a manner as to give
satisfaction to every body. He knows the way to blend dignity and
economy; and I would rather, on this account, make the allowance too
much than too little. I would, therefore, prefer making the experiment
at 25,000 dollars; a sum that, in the President's hands, will give
umbrage to no one.

Mr. BOUDINOT made some further observations respecting the examination
made by the committee, from which it appeared that the expenses of the
President of the United States would exceed the expenses of the late
President of Congress in a variety of cases. Two secretaries would be
wanting; they must be men of abilities and information; but the
committee conceived extra provision would be made for them by the House.
If the whole was to be comprehended in one grant to the President, he
would rather increase the sum reported by the committee than diminish
it. Originally he was in favor of allowing 16,000; but then he thought
the expense of secretaries, carriages, furniture, &c., was to be an
additional allowance. Since the House had determined otherwise, he
favored an addition to the 20,000 dollars.

Mr. JACKSON was disposed to move 30,000 dollars; but he was willing to
accommodate, and agree to 25,000 dollars.

Mr. VINING observed, that the committee had no documents whereby they
could form a judgment; they had no light to guide them. They could not
foresee what ambassadors and foreign ministers might be sent to this
country, nor the expenses the President must necessarily incur upon that
account, to support the honor and dignity of the United States. He
further remarked, that there are cases in which generosity is the best
economy, and no loss is ever sustained by a decent support of the
Magistrate. A certain appearance of parade and external dignity is
necessary to be supported. Did I, said he, represent a larger State, I
would speak with more confidence on the subject. We are haunted by the
ghost of poverty; we are stunned with the clamor of complaint throughout
the States. But under the auspices of an energetic Government, our funds
will be established and augmented, and, I make no doubt, will be found
sufficient to answer all the purposes of the Union. But our calculations
ought not to be confined to the present moment alone. If it should be
contended by any gentleman, that we have it not in our power to support
the Government in a proper style, then there is an end of the business.
We should remember that the present time is the season for organizing
the Government. A patient and mature deliberation is requisite to
investigate it, and by that means the amount of the civil list will be
increased; in future, the sessions will be short, and the load of
expense greatly diminished. He was opposed to any reduction of the sum,
as he had always thought it too small, and would rather propose to fill
the blank with 30,000 dollars.

Mr. PAGE mentioned that 30,000 dollars had been proposed; though he
thought the sum adequate, it was not sufficient to support pomp and
parade. Those, he said, were entirely out of the question. He had made a
calculation upon the probable necessary expenses, and found, that
exclusive of that dignity and pageantry talked of, this sum would
suffice. If he had contemplated the splendor and pageantry alluded to,
he should not have thought of 30,000 dollars, nor 40,000 dollars, for he
believed 100,000 dollars insufficient. But if the committee, upon
investigation, were convinced that 20,000 dollars would be a
compensation for his services, exclusive of an allowance for his
expenses, when the whole was taken together it must at least amount to
30,000 dollars; for this reason he moved to fill the blank with that
sum.

The question on 30,000 dollars was put, and rejected.

Mr. PAGE then moved 25,000 dollars, which was carried; affirmative 30,
negative 17.

The House then proceeded to the second part of the report, viz: "That
there be paid in like quarterly payments to the Vice President of the
United States, 5,000 dollars per annum."

Mr. WHITE.--I do not like the principle on which this provision is made
for the Vice President; there is nothing, I believe, in the constitution
which gives him a right to an annual sum; it fixes no duty upon him as
Vice President, requiring a constant attendance. He may be called upon
to act as President, and then I would give him the salary of the
President; at other times, he is to preside as President of the Senate,
then I would pay him for his services in that character. On this
principle, I shall move to strike out the clause; if that is agreed to,
I propose to offer one, allowing him the pay of President, when he acts
as President; and a daily pay during the time he acts as President of
the Senate.

Mr. PAGE would second the motion for striking out five thousand dollars,
but with a different view from what had been intended by his worthy
colleague. He wished it struck out, in order to introduce a larger sum.
His idea was, that a proper proportion was not observed between the
salary of the First and Second Magistrates. As to the utility of the
office, he had nothing to say. He had no hand in forming the
constitution; if he had, perhaps he should never have thought of such an
officer; but as we have got him, we must maintain him; and those
gentlemen who talk of respectability being attached to high offices,
must admit, in a comparative view, that he is not supported with
dignity, provided a situation derives its dignity from the money given
him by way of salary; for his part, he thought money, abstractedly
considered, could not bestow dignity. Real dignity of character proceeds
from a much nobler source; but he apprehended the people of the United
States, whose representative the Vice President was, would be displeased
to see so great a distinction made between the President and him.

Mr. SEDGWICK said, the arguments of the honorable gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. WHITE) did not strike him with any force, nor did he see
the impropriety spoken of. One reason why the pay of the members of the
Senate and House is per diem is, because they contemplate their being
together but a very inconsiderable part of their time; but I suppose,
said he, that every gentleman who has considered the subject, has
determined in his own mind that the Vice President ought to remain
constantly at the seat of Government; he must always be ready to take
the reins of Government when they shall fall out of the hands of the
President; hence it will be necessary that he should, for this cause, if
not for any other, preclude himself from every object of employment, and
devote his whole time to prepare himself for the great and important
charge for which he is a candidate. Under these circumstances, it is
necessary that he should be provided with a constant salary, to support
that rank which we contemplate for him to bear; I therefore conceive it
must be such a perpetual salary as the President is entitled to receive.
If the principles of the motion are inadmissible, it cannot be supported
by argument, because very little information can be obtained on which to
ground our reasoning.

Mr. SENEY said, that, according to the constitution, a compensation is
to be made for services performed. The Vice President may absent himself
the whole time. He proposed giving him a handsome allowance while
employed, but thought he ought to be paid per diem.

Mr. SHERMAN adverted to the circumstance of salaries being allowed to
Lieutenant Governors in the several States where such officers are
appointed; so that, according to this mode, the grant made to the Vice
President would correspond with the practice of the States
individually. It appeared also, he said, to be necessary, inasmuch as
this officer would be taken from all other business.

Mr. WHITE.--If I thought, sir, the attendance of the Vice President as
necessary as that of the President, I would not hesitate to allow him an
annual salary; but I do not conceive it to be so necessary; it is not
made so by the constitution. If he had been appointed Vice President as
a perpetual counsel for the President, it would have altered the case;
he would then have had services to render, for which we ought to
compensate him. The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
SEDGWICK) has intimated that he will be precluded from following any
other business; there is nothing in the constitution which precludes him
from following what profession he thinks proper. I am willing to pay him
a full and liberal allowance for all the services he renders; but I do
not think we are authorized to institute sinecures for any man.

It ought to be considered that the Vice President has personal
advantages from the appointment to that office; it holds him up as the
successor of the President; the voice of the people is shown to be
considerably in his favor; and if he be a deserving person, there will
be but little doubt of his succeeding to the presidential chair; not
that I would make this an argument to diminish his compensation. I would
pay him amply for all the services he renders, at least as amply as the
Government and circumstances of the people will admit. When performing
the duties of President, he should receive the salary as such.

The constitution has stipulated, that the President shall be compensated
for his services, that we shall ascertain it by law; but it has not said
one syllable with respect to the pay of the Vice President; hence I
consider it would be improper to pay him on any other principle than in
proportion to his services. If these require five thousand dollars a
year, it may be made to amount to that sum, at so much per diem.

As to the observations of the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. SHERMAN,)
that Lieutenant Governors receive salaries in the several States, and
therefore it will be proper to grant one to the Vice President, in order
to comport with the practice of the States individually, I shall only
remark, that in some States they have no such officer; in others, where
they have such an officer, they give him no pay at all; in some, they
are paid according to their attendance on business, in the manner that I
propose to pay the Vice President. But admitting that every State had an
officer of this kind, and that they paid him a salary like that proposed
in the report, it would be no argument why the General Government should
pursue a practice inconsistent with that economy and sense of propriety
which it ought to be the study of the Representatives of the people of
the United States to preserve to their constituents.

Mr. MADISON.--I do not concur, Mr. Speaker, in sentiment, with my
colleague on this subject. I conceive, sir, if the constitution is
silent on this point, that it is left to the Legislature to decide
according to its nature and its merits. The nature of the office will
require that the Vice President shall always be in readiness to render
that service which contingencies may require; but I do not apprehend it
to be in our power to derive much advantage from any guides furnished by
the examples of the several States; because we shall find them
differently provided for by the different Governments. If we consider
that the Vice President may be taken from the extremity of the
continent, and be from the nature of his office obliged to reside at or
within the convenient reach of the seat of Government, to take upon him
the exercise of the President's functions, in case of any accident that
may deprive the Union of the services of their first officer, we must
see, I think, it will often happen that he will be obliged to be
constantly at the seat of Government. No officer under a State
Government can be so far removed as to make it inconvenient to be called
upon when his services are required; so that, if he serve without a
salary, it may be he can reside at home, and pursue his domestic
business; therefore the application in that case does not appear to me
to be conclusive.

My colleague says that he will derive advantages from being in the line
of appointment to the presidential chair. If he is to be considered as
the apparent successor of the President, to qualify himself the better
for that office, he must withdraw from his other avocations, and direct
his attention to the obtaining a perfect knowledge of his intended
business.

The idea that a man ought to be paid only in proportion to his services,
holds good in some cases, but not in others. It holds good in
legislative business, but not in the executive or judicial departments.
A judge will be sometimes unemployed, as in the case of the Vice
President; yet it is found necessary to claim the whole of his time and
attention to the duties for which he is appointed. If the principle of
proportioning the allowance to the quantum of services performed
obtains, it will be found that the Judiciary will be as dependent on the
legislative authority, as if the Legislature was to declare what shall
be their salary for the succeeding year; because, by abridging their
services at every session, we could reduce them to such a degree, as to
require a very trifling compensation indeed. Neither do I, Mr. Speaker,
consider this as a sinecure; but that will appear from the reasons
already given. The office of a judge is liable, in some degree, to the
same objection; but these kinds of objections are levelled against the
institutions themselves. We are to consider his appointment as a part of
the constitution; and if we mean to carry the constitution into full
effect, we ought to make provision for his support, adequate to the
merits and nature of the office.

Mr. AMES said that the Vice President's acceptance of his appointment
was a renunciation of every other avocation. When a man is taken from
the mass of the people for a particular office, he is entitled to a
compensation from the public; during the time in which he is not
particularly employed, he is supposed to be engaged in political
researches for the benefit of his country.

Every man is eligible, by the constitution, to be chosen to this office;
but if a competent support is not allowed, the choice will be confined
to opulent characters. This is an aristocratic idea, and contravenes the
spirit of the constitution.

Mr. SENEY.--This, sir, is a subject of a delicate nature, and the
discussion of it rather disagreeable; but I think it my duty to declare
my sentiments freely upon it. No argument has been adduced to convince
me that the Vice President ought to receive an allowance any more than
the other members of the Legislature. He cannot be compelled to perform
any duty. This is an important subject, and ought to be maturely
considered, as a great deal depends on the decision which will now take
place.

Mr. BURKE observed that the situation of our finances was so much
embarrassed, as to dis-empower us from giving such ample salaries as we
might, under different circumstances, think necessary; that it was but
reasonable the Vice President should receive a compensation adequate to
the second officer in the Government. He will be subject to extra
expenses by living at the seat of Government, and will be obliged to
maintain his dignity. Mr. B. further suggested that the sum might not be
fully sufficient, but in our present situation, it was as much as we
could afford.

Mr. AMES, in his reply to Mr. SENEY'S observations, pointed out the
difference of the situation of the Vice President and the members of the
Legislature.

Mr. SEDGWICK made some additional remarks of a similar nature, and
further observed, it would be necessary that the members of the House
should return and associate with their constituents, in order to learn
their sentiments and their feelings, and witness their situation and
wants, that they may consequently resume their former occupations: but
with respect to the Vice President, his acceptance must be considered as
an abandonment of every other pursuit; he must reside at the seat of
Government, and will necessarily incur extra expenses in consequence of
his office.

Mr. STONE.--I am for giving such salaries to the officers of this
Government, as will render them easy in their situation. But we are
confined by the constitution; salaries are to be given for services
performed; they are considered in no other light. The Vice President
cannot be viewed in any other light than that of the President of the
Senate. I am for his being paid per diem, but would allow him a
generous support. I do not think five thousand dollars are sufficient; I
would allow him a larger sum, which allowance, per diem, would amount to
what would be fully adequate.

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, said, that by the constitution the Vice
President could not be considered as a Senator, and therefore could not,
with any propriety, be paid as such. Considering him as an officer in
the Government, next in dignity to the President, and particularly
designated by the constitution, he must support a correspondent dignity
in his style of living, and consequently ought to have a competent
allowance for that purpose. He did not think five thousand dollars would
be considered too much, and would vote for that sum. The idea of a daily
allowance must be given up, as inapplicable to the situation assigned
him by the constitution. He is there recognized as Vice President, and
as such ought to be provided for. A daily pay of twenty-five or thirty
dollars would appear a large compensation; yet if Congress sat but one
hundred days, which, in all probability, would be the length of their
future sessions, it would be insufficient for his support. But suppose
it one hundred and fifty days; this, at thirty dollars per day, would
come so near the proposed salary, that the saving would be an
inconsiderable trifle; but if the session was longer, it might amount to
more than is contemplated by any gentleman.

Mr. PAGE was clearly for making the allowance by annual salary, because
the office was permanent; a daily allowance could not be relied upon,
because if the Senate sat but a few days, it would be incompetent, even
at one hundred dollars per day; whereas, if the session was of long
continuance, that sum would be more than the services could require, if
they are to hold a comparison with those of the President. If the House
agreed to strike out the five thousand dollars he would propose eight
thousand, which was not one third of what was given to the President.

Mr. BOUDINOT.--The question seems to turn merely on this point, whether
the Vice President shall receive a per diem allowance, or an annual
salary? The constitution ought to serve as the ground on which to
determine it; therefore we are to consider the point of view in which
this office is placed by that instrument. The second article calls him
into view with the President; he is to be elected in the same manner as
the President, in order to obtain the second best character in the Union
to fill the place of the first, in case it should be vacated by any
unforeseen accident. The constitution considers him a respectable
officer; he is to supersede the President, when it shall happen that the
First Magistrate dies or is removed on impeachment and conviction. These
are the great objects of his appointment. His duty as President of the
Senate is only collateral; consequently he ought to be respected, and
provided for according to the dignity and importance of his principal
character. If still inferior duties were attached to him, would it be an
argument for reducing the compensation to an equality with what ought to
be granted, if he performed such inferior duties only? I apprehend it is
a principle of this nature which urges gentlemen on to press the
amendment. I cannot see any reason for differing with the constitution
on a point in which I think it ought to guide our decision.

I think there is an affinity between the duration of the office and the
compensation. The constitution establishes the office for four years;
the compensation ought to be made commensurate with that idea.

The question on Mr. WHITE'S motion was taken and lost, as was Mr. PAGE'S
motion for striking out 5,000 and inserting 8,000 dollars.

The proposition being then agreed to,

The House proceeded to consider the following: That the daily pay of the
members of the Senate, and House of Representatives, for their
attendance at the time appointed for the meeting of their respective
Houses, and for the time they shall be going to, and returning
therefrom, allowing the travel of twenty miles for each day, be six
dollars, and of the Speaker of the House of Representatives twelve
dollars.

Mr. SEDGWICK moved to amend this proposition, so as to give to the
members of the Senate six dollars per day, and five to the members of
the House of Representatives. His reason for introducing this
distinction was, that the convention had made it in the constitution.
The Senators are required to be of an advanced age, and are elected for
six years. Now this term taken out of the life of a man, passed the
middle stage, may be fairly deemed equal to a whole life; for it was to
be expected, that few, if any, of the Senators could return to their
former occupations when the period for retirement arrived; indeed after
six years spent in other pursuits, it may be questioned whether a man
would be qualified to return with any prospect of success.

He did not say six dollars was more than a compensation for their
services and expenses; but as economy ought to be particularly studied
by the Legislature, he had moved to reduce it. He hoped gentlemen would
pay some deference to the public opinion, on the present occasion; this
he thought to be in favor of small salaries. Not but a different
sentiment might prevail in some of the States; perhaps different
circumstances might warrant the difference of opinion. It was probable
that five dollars laid out in that part of the Union from which he came,
would be more advantageous to the person, than a like sum laid out at
the other extremity of the continent; but he believed, nevertheless,
that something would be left to those gentlemen out of the five dollars
per day, after their expenses were paid; but even if a little
self-denial was the consequence of this reduction, it would do but
little harm; whereas the precedent might have a salutary influence upon
the future administration of the Government.

Mr. JACKSON.--I am opposed to this discrimination, because all have
alike abandoned their particular pursuits in life, and all have equally
engaged in the service of their common country. On what principle can
this distinction then be contended for? Is it expected that a Senator
shall eat more, or drink more costly liquors, than a member of the House
of Representatives? I presume it is not; their expenses must be nearly
equal. I can see but one reason that can be assigned for this
difference, which is, that the Senate may sit longer than the House; but
considering they are to receive pay accordingly, this reason is of no
weight. The duties of both Houses are equal, and the pay ought to be
alike.

I will submit to the gentleman who brought this motion forward, whether
it is not much worse to the personal interest of men in business to be
taken off in the prime of life, than after the successful pursuit of
some profession at an advanced age, when the natural and proper time of
retirement arrives; and if so, his argument falls to the ground. But if
the reverse is true, it will not support his motion, because, if we look
around, our senses will inform us that this House contains as venerable
and aged members as any within the walls of the Senate; thus again we
are upon a footing. Now, unless gentlemen mean that we should depress
ourselves, and thereby set the Senate above us, I cannot conceive what
foundation there will be for a discrimination.

Mr. LEE.--I am in favor of the motion for discriminating between the
Senate and this House, because the constitution has done it in a variety
of modes. The qualifications are superior; a Senator must be a man
advanced in life, and have been nine years a citizen of the United
States; while a younger man who has been but seven years a citizen, may
obtain a seat in this House.

The constitution has made a difference in the mode of election. The
Senators are selected with peculiar care; they are the purified choice
of the people, and the best men are likely to be preferred by such a
choice; those who have shown the fullest proofs of their attachment to
the public interest, and evinced to their countrymen their superior
abilities. In order to bring forth such characters to partake of our
public councils, I think every motive of honor and of interest ought to
be called into action. If men are not brought forth who will maintain
their own dignity, and promote the public interest by a firm and
independent conduct, regardless of every risk, regardless of the voice
of calumny or popular clamor, our Government will soon lose its
importance and its energy. I contemplate, Mr. Speaker, the Senate as a
barrier between the Executive and this branch of the Legislature,
shielding the people from any apprehension of being attacked by an
aspiring Magistracy on the one hand, and on the other from being
desolated by the anarchy often generated by a time-servingness to
veering popularity. We shall gain these desirable objects at a trifling
price, if we make a distinction of two or three dollars per day--a
trifling allowance indeed to our most worthy sages. But, said the
gentleman last up, there are as young men in the Senate as in this
House; although there be, the time will come when none but the most
venerable and respectable of our citizens, men whose hoary heads are
silvered over with the honors of an experienced old age, men illustrious
by their virtues and capacity, will have the public confidence ensured
to them by the purity and notoriety of their principles.

Now is the time to deliberate and view every future circumstance which
may arise from our decision; the importance of this principle hereafter,
is infinitely above every advantage which the present members may derive
from it. By it alone you may secure dignity and permanency to the
Government, and happiness under its administration.

It is with difficulty, Mr. Speaker, that you can draw forth men of age
and much experience to participate in the political concerns of their
country. Retirement and reflection are incident to that period of life;
they are sought for, and, when obtained, they are highly prized. The
wise and virtuous sage, who from the monitions of nature has discovered
that his remaining years will be but few, must be incited by every
motive that can operate on the human heart to continue those labors
which he seeks to bury the remembrance of in the deeps of solitude.
Honor may stimulate the ingenuous mind; but interest is a great reason
of action, and may be usefully employed to influence old age.

What I have now urged is in favor of the constitutional distinction; I
approve of the amendment, but I wish the sum had been left out, that the
provision might be determined according to the sense of the House, and
not affect the principal question of discrimination. I am satisfied,
sir, that there is no heart within these walls but beats with patriotic
ardor, and has determined to pursue the noblest object, the public good.
Nothing but the anxiety I feel for this, as connected with the present
question, could have induced me to trouble the House with a repetition
of what was dilated upon, on a former occasion. Let it then be
considered, that on our decision depend the dignity of the Legislature,
and the perpetuity of that Government, the glory and the hopes of the
people of America, which, if now disappointed, must be succeeded by
confusion and gloomy despair.

Mr. WHITE.--I object, sir, to a discrimination. I cannot perceive that
difference in the constitution alluded to by the gentlemen. Among the
Senators and the people in some of the ancient commonwealths, an
artificial and political distinction was established, which was the case
at Rome, in particular. There the Senators were considered as possessing
some degree of divinity, and the rest of the people were not admitted to
associate with them. Can it be supposed that the name of Senators will
render those members superior to their fellow-citizens? I cannot see any
difference in the general estimation between a Senator and a
Representative, however great their sentiments may vary in their
respective States; and cannot conceive why any discrimination should be
made in their allowances.

The independence of the members of this House may be injured by such a
distinction; and the Senate, at some future day, may have it in their
power to carry points, and be enabled to prolong the session, when it
may be of great inconvenience to the House.

Mr. MADISON was of opinion that a discrimination was necessary; he
observed, that it had been evidently contemplated by the constitution,
to distinguish in favor of the Senate, that men of abilities and firm
principles, whom the love and custom of a retired life might render
averse to the fatigues of a public one, may be induced to devote the
experience of years, and the acquisitions of study, to the service of
their country. And unless something of this kind is adopted, it may be
difficult to obtain proper characters to fill the Senate, as men of
enterprise and genius will naturally prefer a seat in the House,
considering it to be a more conspicuous situation.

Mr. MOORE did not see the propriety of the discrimination proposed; the
business of each House is equal, or if there is a difference in their
legislative concerns, it is in favor of the House. He had no idea of
giving the public money for such an idle purpose as the support of a
fanciful dignity and superiority. His idea of the business was, each
member ought to be compensated for his services, and nothing further.

Mr. VINING.--The arguments brought forward by my honorable friend from
Virginia, (Mr. LEE,) have not proved satisfactory to my mind, that his
favorite opinion with respect to discrimination is right. He has told us
that the sages of America will be selected, and placed in this
distinguished situation. True, sir, I expect venerable and respectable
characters will find their way into every branch of the Government; but
when I consider the mode in which the Senate is elected, I apprehend we
may have there men whose wealth has created them the influence necessary
to get in. If any thing is to be expected by this refined choice, it is
that men of rank and opulence will draw the regard of the small and
select circle of a State Legislature; while the Representatives in this
House, being the choice of their fellow-citizens, among whom rank and
dignity are rather unpopular, will consist of men in middling
circumstances. Now if any thing is to be drawn from arguments like
these, it is in favor of this House. But the whole of this is a subject
on which we are better able to decide from our feelings, than from our
discussions.

I am against the motion for another reason, sir; it goes to reduce the
compensation, which I think is already set too low, to furnish good
security for the happy administration of the Government. In considering
this subject, there are two important objects necessary to engage the
attention of the Legislature. First, that the compensation be not made
an object for indigence to pursue; and second, that it be not so low as
to throw the business of legislation into the hands of rich and aspiring
nabobs, but such as to compensate a man in the middle grade of life.
These are generally men of business, who are fittest to conduct the
concerns of their fellow-citizens. Now, in compensating this class of
men, (for I would have the compensation proportioned to this class,) I
do not take into consideration the sacrifices they make, by dedicating
their time and abilities to the service of their country; but I confine
myself merely to a compensation for their time and services. If the
compensation is made an object for indigence, we shall have the sessions
protracted to an extreme length, and the expense will be increased; if
we make the reward barely commensurate with the services, you will have
men of abilities, who will despatch the public business, and return to
their private pursuits. If the business is done without pay, it may be
productive of the most enormous evils. Were every member of the British
House of Commons allowed a thousand guineas a year, they would be less
venal; we should not find them purchasing their seats, and selling their
votes, for places and pensions. The very money given in this way would
furnish a handsome compensation for every member, and add something
considerable, annually, to their sinking fund.

I apprehend, in establishing a compensation, we shall put it in the
power of gentlemen, while here, to live as independent as they can at
home. Perhaps I hazard a conjecture, when I say there is not a gentleman
on this floor, I am certain there are not many, but have found, from
experience, that six dollars per day is adequate to that object;
certainly it cannot be the wish of any man to make the public service
unpleasant, by rendering the situation of the members of Congress less
eligible than a solitary retirement from patriotic pursuits would be.
Any man who lives decently, will find six dollars a day not more than
sufficient to defray the expense of a casual residence in a splendid
city.

The experiment has been made. If a gentleman keeps a servant and his
horses, and means to reciprocate the civilities he receives, I again
assert the compensation is inadequate. It is true, we may live for two
dollars a day; but how? There is a dignity attached to the situation of
a Representative, with respect to his country; and the compensation
might be seven or eight dollars per day, without granting the members
more than a bare compensation. From all these considerations, I am
induced to hope that gentlemen will indulge a little, and rather support
an increase, than a diminution of pay.

As to the discrimination, it has been once decided against by a
considerable majority; I have no doubt but it will now meet a similar
fate; but be the decision of the House what it may, with respect to the
quantum, or manner of compensation, I shall never fear to deliver my
sentiments. On the present occasion, I wish them known to my
constituents, and I am much mistaken if they are not coincident with
their own.

Mr. SENEY.--I am sorry, sir, that the question of discrimination has
been brought before the House. Can any reason be assigned for making
this distinction? Are the services of the Senate of more importance than
those of the Representatives? I think not. Gentlemen have brought
forward the constitution upon this occasion, but I conceive it to be
opposite to the very principle they mean to advocate. This will destroy
the independence of the several branches, which is to be strictly
observed. If a discrimination should be established in favor of the
Senate, will it not naturally tend to create a sense of inferiority in
the minds of the Representatives? And the time may come when they may
find it their interest to become subservient to the views of the Senate.
I feel so sensibly, sir, the impropriety and unconstitutionality of this
measure, that had I the most distant idea it would comport with the
sentiments of a majority of the members of this House, I should call for
the yeas and nays on a division of the House upon the question. But as I
do not conceive that to be the case, I shall waive the proposition for
the present.

Mr. SEDGWICK said, that whenever he had a motion to make before the
House, he endeavored to satisfy himself of the reasonableness and
propriety of it. If he thought it proper, he did not consider the mode
of decision that might be adopted of any material consequence; but in
determining the present question, he hoped the yeas and nays would not
be called. There is a principle in mankind which revolts at the idea of
inferiority; a proposition, for example, shall be made, that has for its
object the establishment of a superiority (howsoever necessary;) that
principle is alarmed and excited to opposition; to discuss such a
question as the present, we ought to be divested of every partiality and
prejudice, that might bias our judgment in deciding an affair that will
not bear the test of reason and experience. I conceive the precedence of
the Senate has been clearly pointed out by the Constitution. There are
grades in society which are necessary to their very existence. This is a
self-evident proposition; it is recognized by every civilized nation,
and by the House in the report before us. For what reason have we made a
difference between the President and Vice President? Is it not on
account of his superior station and his dignity? And between the Vice
President and the Senate? This distinction is likewise established by
the constitution in the difference of the terms for which the members of
the Senate and those of the House of Representatives are chosen. The
time for which the Senate is chosen, demonstrates the propriety of a
difference being made in the pay they ought to receive; the duties of
their office require they should renounce every other avocation; their
attention will be wholly taken up in the discharge of public business;
therefore they should have an adequate and an independent allowance. The
generality of the members being so far advanced in years, will drop
every idea of engaging any more in their several professions, after
having once engaged in the service of their country. Their age, wisdom,
and experience, all warrant this discrimination. He concluded by saying,
that the real dignity of the House was, he thought, so far from being
diminished by adopting the proposition, that he conceived it was
essentially connected with it.

Mr. STONE thought the House ought not to assist in elevating one branch
of the Government more above the other than the constitution had done.
This had given influence to the Senate by a negative in the cases of
treaties and appointments. It had given importance to the House, by
vesting them with the sole power of originating money bills. But both
these powers could be exercised without a discrimination being made in
the pay of the members; therefore he inferred that it was not
contemplated by the constitution to make any such distinction.

A discrimination may eventually operate to the public injury; the House
of Representatives may be desirous of terminating the session, but the
Senate, finding the compensation they receive quite agreeable, may be
inclined to protract it. He thought the true way of deciding on this
subject, was to make the same allowance to both, and let it be such as
not to induce them to protract the session on the one hand, or have a
tendency to hurry over the business on the other.

Mr. JACKSON said, in reply to the inquiry of Mr. SEDGWICK--"Why have we
made a difference between the President and the Vice President?" that
the whole of the President's time would be taken up in the duties of his
station; that the Vice President might retire to his farm whenever he
thought proper. We refer, said he, to the wisdom of the Senate; but how
is this superior wisdom to be discerned? If on this account a
distinction is to be made, it necessarily follows that a difference
should be made between the members of this House, and those of the
Senate. We cannot be too cautious how we establish an undue
pre-eminence, and give an influence and importance to one branch of the
Legislature over the other. All governments incline to despotism, as
naturally as rivers run into the sea. Despotism makes its way gradually,
by slow and imperceptible steps; despotic power is never established all
at once; we shall, ere we are aware, get beyond the gulf, and then we
shall be astonished how we reached there. The services of the Senate are
not more arduous than ours; their proper business is legislation, and I
will never consent to any discrimination. If I imagined the question
would be determined in favor of discrimination, I would call the yeas
and nays, and should it be determined in favor of it, I will still call
them on purpose that my constituents may see that I have voted against a
measure which I look upon as injurious to the Government.

Mr. PAGE.--If he thought the discrimination proposed would have the
tendency which some gentlemen apprehended, he would be the last man on
the floor to support it. He would be as careful as any man how he
extended the influence of any part of the Government, or gave it the
least inclination towards aristocracy. But he apprehended gentlemen were
deceived in their principle--he did not believe the doctrine that money
confers importance, and he wished to evince to the world, that money,
under this Government would have no such effect. The Senate having more
duties to perform, may require a larger pecuniary gratification; but
this will not add to their importance. It will require something of this
kind to stimulate gentlemen to undertake the service; for his part, he
might consent to come here for two years, in order to assist in public
business, but no inducement, hardly, could engage him to undertake it
for six years. On this consideration, he thought the Senate ought to
have annual salaries, and to such an amount as would render their
situation independent and eligible.

If gentlemen are afraid of an aristocracy, they ought to be careful not
to make the compensation too low, so as to exclude men of middling
fortunes; the men of rank and distinguished opulence might serve without
any pecuniary compensation; but the Government would not be safe, if it
was exclusively in such hands. He wished to discriminate in favor of the
Senate, but he would rather increase their pay to eight dollars, than
reduce that of the members of this House, while he considered it but a
moderate compensation.

The question on Mr. SEDGWICK'S motion was taken, and lost by a
considerable majority.

The House having now gone through the report, it was _Ordered_, that a
bill or bills be brought in, pursuant thereto, and that Messrs. BURKE,
STONE, and MOORE, be a committee to prepare and bring in the same: with
instructions to insert a clause or clauses, making provision for a
reasonable compensation to the Secretary of the Senate, and Clerk of the
House of Representatives, respectively, for their services.

After which the House adjourned.


WEDNESDAY, July 22.

_Western Lands._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the state of the Union, Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair; and, after some time
spent therein, the committee rose and reported that they had had the
state of the Union under consideration, and come to a resolution
thereupon, which was read and then delivered in at the clerk's table,
where the same was twice read, and agreed to by the House, as follows:

      _Resolved_, That an act of Congress ought to pass for
      establishing a Land Office, and for regulating the terms
      and manner of granting vacant and unappropriated lands, the
      property of the United States; that the said office be
      under the superintendence of the Governor of the Western
      Territory; that the land to be disposed of be confined to
      the following limits, viz:

      That the tracts or parcels to be disposed of to any one
      person, shall not exceed ---- acres; that the price to be
      required for the same shall be ---- per acre; and that
      every person actually settled within the said limits shall
      be entitled to the pre-emption of a quantity not exceeding
      ---- acres, including his settlement.

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the said
resolution, and that Mr. SCOTT, Mr. SYLVESTER, and Mr. MOORE, do prepare
and bring in the same.


THURSDAY, July 23.

_Home Department._

On motion of Mr. VINING, the House resolved itself into a Committee of
the Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair.

Mr. VINING introduced a resolution for the adoption of the committee, by
which it is declared: That an Executive department ought to be
established, and to be denominated the Home Department; the head of
which to be called the Secretary of the United States for the Home
Department; whose duty it shall be to correspond with the several
States, and to see to the execution of the laws of the Union; to keep
the great seal, and affix the same to all public papers when necessary;
to keep the lesser seal, and to affix it to commissions, &c.; to make
out commissions, and enregister the same; to keep authentic copies of
all public acts, &c., and transmit the same to the several States; to
procure the acts of the several States, and report on the same when
contrary to the laws of the United States; to take into his custody the
archives of the late Congress; to report to the President plans for the
protection and improvement of manufactures, agriculture, and commerce;
to obtain a geographical account of the several States, their rivers,
towns, roads, &c.; to report what post-roads shall be established; to
receive and record the census; to receive reports respecting the Western
Territory; to receive the models and specimens presented by inventors
and authors; to enter all books for which patents are granted; to issue
patents, &c.; and, in general, to do and attend to all such matters and
things as he may be directed to do by the President.

Mr. BENSON objected to some of the duties mentioned in the resolution.
He thought the less the Government corresponded with particular States
the better, and there could be no necessity for an officer to see to
the execution of the laws of the United States, when there was a
Judiciary instituted with adequate powers.

Mr. WHITE was not convinced that there was a necessity for establishing
a separate department for all or any of the duties contained in the
resolution. The correspondence with the States belonged to the
Executive. To see to the execution of the laws was the duty of the
Judiciary. The great seal might be kept by the Secretary of Foreign
Affairs; the lesser seal might be deposited in the same hands.
Commissions might be made out by the departments to which the officer is
connected. The Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House might
transmit the public acts, and keep records thereof. What have Congress
to do with the acts of States? If they interfere with the constitutional
powers of the Government, the Judges will prevent their operation. The
papers of the late Congress may be distributed among the officers to
which they relate; the rest may be deposited with the officers of
Congress. The want of the reports on manufactures, agriculture, and
commerce, may be supplied by Congress. The post-roads may be left to the
Postmaster General. The census must be returned to Congress, and they
will preserve it among their files. And it can hardly be thought
necessary to establish a great department for the purpose of receiving
the models, specimens, and books presented by authors and inventors. If
none of these things are requisite to be done by a great department, why
should the United States incur the expense which such an arrangement
must necessarily draw along with it.

Mr. HUNTINGTON thought the Secretary of Foreign Affairs was not so much
overcharged with business but that he might attend to the major part of
the duties mentioned in the resolution.

Mr. VINING said, he had waited until the great Executive departments
were established; but none of those had embraced the duties contained in
his proposition, which he conceived to be of great importance; many of
the duties were as essential as those of any other department, except
the Treasury. As for their belonging to the Executive, as was said by
the gentleman from Virginia, he admitted it; but they were,
nevertheless, as proper to be put into the hands of a principal officer
under the President, as the War office, or office of Foreign Affairs;
the duties of these were especially within the Executive department of
the Government. He conceived that the President ought to be relieved
from the inferior duties of his station, by officers assigned to attend
to them under his inspection; he could then, with a mind free and
unembarrassed with the minutiae of business, attend to the operations of
the whole machine.

If the office was admitted to be necessary, and he was certain the
performance of the duties were useful and essential, the expense could
be no solid objection, because the information it would furnish would
more than counterbalance that article.

The question he conceived to be reduced to this, whether a confidential
officer would not be more useful than any other, and whether the duties
could be distributed among the officers already instituted. For his
part, he conceived most of them foreign to either of those officers; and
that they could not be performed with advantage any other way than by an
officer appointed specially for the purpose. He thought every gentleman
would admit that the duties were important, and he assured them that his
only reason for bringing the motion forward was, to provide for the
public good. He had no personal motives in pressing it; he disclaimed
every idea of serving any particular man by the arrangement, and rested
it solely upon its merits.

Mr. SEDGWICK believed the honorable gentleman in his assertions, that he
had no personal motive in pressing this business. He believed that he
thought it essential, and if his sentiments were the same, he would join
the gentleman in supporting the motion; but after duly considering the
subject, he was inclined to believe that the office was unnecessary, and
that it would be squandering the public money, at a time when the
greatest economy is requisite. He thought the principal part of the
duties might be assigned to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs; and he
would, if the committee negatived the present motion, introduce another
for that purpose.

Mr. GERRY thought the burthens of the people would be sufficiently great
in providing the supplies absolutely necessary for the support of the
Government; therefore it would be improper to add expenses which might
possibly be avoided. The people are viewing the proceedings of Congress
with an attentive solicitude, and if they observe that we erect offices
for which there is no apparent necessity, they will be apt to think we
are providing sinecures for men whom we favor; they will reluctantly pay
what is extracted from their earnings to a Government which they think
is regardless of economy. They will suspect a further view in the change
of Government. They will suppose that we contemplate the establishment
of a monarchy, by raising round the Executive a phalanx of such men as
must be inclined to favor those of whom they hold their places.

Mr. VINING.--Why do gentlemen say that such an office is unnecessary,
when they are forced to admit that all the duties are essential? Or how
can they say it is more expensive to establish it in this way than in
another? Suppose these duties distributed in the manner which some
gentlemen have mentioned, is it not fairly to be presumed that the
departments to which any of them are attached, will require an extra pay
for these extra services? If so, will there be any economy in this mode
of procedure? All that is to be wished for, is to have a confidential
person employed, let his salary be what you please: if it is not worth
fifteen hundred dollars per annum, let it be five hundred. But it would
be better to have a principal to manage the business than to have it
consigned to clerks in the other departments.

Mr. LAWRENCE said that something was necessary to be done with respect
to the business brought forward by the honorable gentleman from
Delaware. He conceived that an officer of the rolls, or some inferior
officer, ought to be appointed to transact the business detailed in the
resolution; he did not insist upon making a great department.

Mr. SEDGWICK agreed with the gentleman from New York; but, he thought,
the business might be thrown into some other department, and save to the
Union the expense of the one which the gentleman from Delaware wished to
establish, by the name of the Home Department. He thought the resolution
proposed altogether so improper, that he hoped the committee would rise.

A desultory conversation arose, whether the committee should decide upon
the resolution or not; after which a question was taken on the rising of
the committee, and decided in the negative.

Then the question was put on the first part of Mr. VINING'S proposition,
viz: "That an Executive Department ought to be established, to be
denominated the Home Department;" and lost by a considerable majority.


FRIDAY, July 24.

_Committee of Ways and Means._

Mr. FITZSIMONS.--The finances of America have frequently been mentioned
in this House as being very inadequate to the demands. I have ever been
of a different opinion, and do believe that the funds of this country,
if properly drawn into operation, will be equal to every claim. The
estimate of supplies necessary for the current year appears very great
from a report on your table, and which report has found its way into the
public newspapers. I said on a former occasion, and I repeat it now,
notwithstanding what is set forth in the estimate, that a revenue of
three millions of dollars in specie, will enable us to provide every
supply necessary to support the Government, and pay the interest and
instalments on the foreign and domestic debt. If we wish to have more
particular information on these points, we ought to appoint a Committee
of Ways and Means, to whom, among other things, the estimate of supplies
may be referred, and this ought to be done speedily, if we mean to do it
this session.

Mr. GERRY said, the estimate reported by a committee was as accurate as
possible. From this it appeared, that eight millions of dollars would be
necessary for the support of Government, for the interest and
instalments becoming due, and for the arrearages already due. He
remarked, that we had been already dunned on this subject by foreigners,
and that Congress would have to make provision for their payment. If
three millions of dollars were employed to this use, it would only be
carrying the arrearages into another year; but, as they must be paid at
last, he recommended making an immediate exertion as a better way of
giving satisfaction than procrastination would be. He thought it best to
lay the real situation of this country before the House, and not
endeavor to make things appear better than they really are.

With respect to the publication of the estimate in the papers, he knew
nothing about it; he admitted that it was such a one as ought not to be
published by order of Congress. He approved of the idea of appointing a
Committee of Ways and Means, if it were only to ascertain what part of
the interest on the debt should be paid, and what of the principal
extinguished within the current year, from the funds already provided.


FRIDAY, July 31.

Mr. SCOTT, from the committee appointed for the purpose, brought in a
bill for establishing a Land Office for the Western Territory, which was
read and laid on the table.

On motion,

      _Resolved_, That a standing committee be appointed to
      examine the enrolled bills, and to present the same to the
      President for his approbation and signature.

Messrs. WHITE and PARTRIDGE were accordingly appointed.

Mr. WHITE, of the committee appointed to examine into the measures taken
by Congress and the State of Virginia, respecting the lands reserved for
the use of the officers and soldiers of said State, &c., brought in a
report, which was read and laid on the table.

The House then resumed the consideration of the amendments agreed upon
in Committee of the Whole, to the bill for registering and clearing
vessels; which being finished, the bill was ordered to be engrossed for
a third reading on Monday next.

A message from the Senate informed the House that they had passed the
bill for establishing the Treasury Department, with amendments; to which
they desired the concurrence of the House.

Mr. SEDGWICK, from the committee appointed for the purpose, brought in a
bill to provide for the safe keeping of the acts, records, and great
seal of the United States, for the publication, preservation, and
authentication of the acts of Congress, &c.; which was read and laid on
the table.


MONDAY, August 3.

A message from the Senate informed the House that they had passed the
bill for the establishment of light-houses, beacons, and buoys, with
several amendments; to which they desired the concurrence of this House.

The amendments of the Senate were immediately considered and agreed to.

The engrossed bill for regulating the coasting trade was read a third
time; and, on motion, recommitted to a Committee of the Whole, to be
taken up to-morrow.

The bill for establishing a Land Office for the Western Territory was
read a second time, and made the order of the day for Thursday.

The bill to provide for the safe keeping of the acts, records, great
seal, &c., was read, and made the order of the day for Friday.

The report of the committee on amendments to the constitution was, on
motion of Mr. MADISON, made the order of the day for Wednesday sennight.

Mr. BENSON made a motion as follows:

      _Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to join with a
      committee of the Senate to be appointed for the purpose, to
      consider of and report when it will be convenient and
      proper that an adjournment of the present session of
      Congress should take place; and to consider and report such
      business now before Congress, necessary to be finished
      before the adjournment, and such as may be conveniently
      postponed to the next session; and also to consider and
      report such matters not now before Congress, but which it
      will be necessary should be considered and determined by
      Congress before an adjournment.


TUESDAY, August 4.

_Compensation of Members._

Mr. BURKE, from the committee appointed for the purpose, brought in a
bill for allowing a compensation to the members of both Houses, and to
their respective officers; this bill provides that the compensation
shall be as follows, viz:

To each member of the Senate and House, six dollars per day.

The Speaker of the House, twelve dollars per day.

To the Secretary of the Senate, and Clerk of the House, each fifteen
hundred dollars a year, and two dollars a day each during the session of
the Legislature; one principal clerk to each, at three dollars a day
during the session; one engrossing clerk to each, at two dollars a day
during the session.

Serjeant-at-arms, three dollars a day during the session.

Doorkeeper to the House and Senate, each seven hundred and thirty
dollars a year.

Assistant doorkeepers, during the session, one dollar and fifty cents a
day each. This bill was laid on the table.


WEDNESDAY, August 5.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the
bill for allowing compensation to the members of the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States, and to the officers of both
Houses, Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair.

Mr. GOODHUE moved to strike out six dollars, as the pay of each member
per diem.

Mr. CARROLL inquired, if it was not out of order for the committee to
alter principles, after they had been settled by the House.

Mr. PAGE wanted to know whether the gentleman meant to increase or
diminish the sum, for he presumed it was not intended to be left a blank
altogether; but he hoped the House would do neither. It had been
settled, after mature deliberation, at six dollars; the House certainly
thought that sum enough, and if it was more, that it would be too much;
he was satisfied with this determination, and would adhere to it.
Perhaps the gentleman meant to strike out the six dollars, in order to
make a discrimination between the members of this House and the Senate;
if so, he had better move to increase the compensation of the Senators,
and here he would second him, because he thought their services required
more.

He would once more mention his fears relative to a small sum. He dreaded
the abuse of economy, and was suspicious that a parsimonious provision
would throw the Government into the hands of bad men, by which the
people might lose every thing they now held dear. He thought few would
serve for a smaller sum than he would, and he was confident the
allowance was as moderate as any man could expect. Gentlemen who come a
great distance are put to considerable expense, and their domestic
arrangements destroyed: instead of laying up money by their attendance
here, it was almost certain they would spend part of their private
estates.

If it is meant that the republic should be provided with good and
wholesome laws, a proper provision should be made to bring into the
councils of the Union such men as are qualified to secure them well; it
is not to be expected that the spirit of patriotism will lead a man into
the perpetual habit of making such exertions and sacrifices as are too
often necessary in the hour of danger. No man ought to be called into
the services of his country, and receive less than will defray the
expenses he incurs by performing his duty. If he does, the public
affairs, in the time of tranquillity, will get exclusively into the
hands of nabobs and aspiring men, who will lay the foundation of
aristocracy, and reduce their equals to the capacity of menial servants
or slaves.

Mr. SEDGWICK seconded the motion for striking out. He had endeavored to
view this subject impartially, uninfluenced by any local considerations
or circumstances; and under these impressions, he was led to believe,
from all the information he had received, whether from abroad, or from
an examination in his own mind, of the effects it would produce, that it
would be expedient to establish the compensation at a lower sum. He
really did not see any solid ground for the apprehensions which his
worthy friend from Virginia (Mr. PAGE) had discovered. He had heard it
often said, that if salaries and allowances to public officers were
small, you would not be able to command the services of good men; but it
was contradicted by the fact. He would instance the late appointments,
and ask gentlemen whether they conceived better men could have been
procured, if the compensation had been doubled? If it was fair to
reason by experience and analogy, he should conclude there would be no
difficulty in procuring good and respectable men, to serve in this
House, at a less rate than six dollars per day. He had never yet
observed that men of small property shrunk from the expense of serving
in the councils of their country.

He thought the practice of the States was opposed to so high a
compensation; many of the State Legislatures allowed their members a
dollar and ten shillings a day, and yet they were served by good men.

He had been informed that it was thought by men of sense and
intelligence, that although six dollars might not be too great an
allowance for the services of the members of this House, yet,
considering the present circumstances of the people, it would be good
policy to reduce the same. He inclined to this opinion himself.

Impressed with these ideas, and knowing that it was generally the
opinion of the people, that six dollars was more than a moderate
compensation to the members of this House, he should support the motion
for striking out with a view to reduce the sum.

Mr. VINING said, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. CARROLL) had taken the
subject up in a proper point of view, by inquiring into the point of
order. He begged gentlemen to consider the manner in which the subject
had been discussed already--twice in the House, and twice in committee;
every decision had been the same; why should the point so often
determined be again agitated? It is contrary to all parliamentary
proceeding, and the House will never know when principles are settled.

He was certain that six dollars was but a moderate compensation, if a
member is to reside at the metropolis of the United States. He would
admit that they could live for less, in some more central part of the
country; but the gentlemen from the eastward should recollect that a
small allowance would be an argument for removing Congress from this
city, and when that time arrived, he should consent to a lower sum, but
not till then.

Mr. FITZSIMONS did not expect to hear the subject discussed again; he
thought it unnecessary, because he believed every gentleman would decide
more upon his own feelings than upon the arguments that could be
adduced; he would, however, just remind the committee, that six dollars
was about the average of what the members from the several States had
under the late confederation.

Mr. SEDGWICK.--According to the observation made by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, it will be deemed insolent to reason on this subject: what
I offered before, I brought forward with candor; but shall we be
precluded from debate, because a subject has been once discussed? Sir,
when I moved, some days ago, to reduce the pay of the members to five
dollars, I was rather indifferent about it; but since then, I have been
so well convinced of the necessity there is for such a measure, that I
cannot decline pressing it once more upon the committee.

Mr. STONE thought the public mind would not be much influenced by the
trifling difference between five and six dollars. They pay greater
regard to the decisions of the House, on more important subjects. The
gentleman from Massachusetts says his correspondents inform him, that
the public mind is agitated on this subject; if we are to judge what is
the state of the public mind from what our friends say, I should be apt
to think the public mind quite unconcerned on the present question; for
among all my correspondents, not one has deigned to notice it.

The question was now taken on striking out, and there appeared sixteen
in favor of it, and thirty-five against it; so the motion passed in the
negative.

Mr. MADISON renewed the motion for making a difference in the pay of the
members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, which was also
lost.

Mr. GOODHUE moved to strike out twelve dollars, the pay assigned the
Speaker, and insert ten.

Mr. PAGE hoped his motion would share the fate of the two last; he was
certain that twelve dollars was not more than a compensation for the
Speaker's services; three times the sum would not induce him to accept
such a situation.

Mr. BURKE was against the motion, because he thought that twelve dollars
was not a reward for the Speaker's labor. The Speaker of the House of
Commons in England has an annual salary of L8000 sterling.

Mr. CARROLL thought the Chair of the House of Representatives was one of
the most important and dignified offices under the Government, and as
such ought to be provided for.

This motion was lost by a great majority.

The committee rose and reported progress.


THURSDAY, August 6.

_Compensation of Members._

The House then again went into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill for
allowing a compensation to the members of Congress; and after some time
spent therein, the committee rose and reported the bill as amended: then
the House proceeded to consider the same.

Mr. THATCHER moved to insert five dollars instead of six, as the pay of
the members.

Mr. PARTRIDGE observed, that money was more valuable now than it had
been some years past; if, therefore, six dollars was the average of what
the delegates received heretofore, five dollars was now equal to that
sum. In short, he was convinced that six dollars was too much, and in
justice to his constituents, and his own conscience, he would vote
against it, and perpetuate his vote by calling the yeas and nays upon
the question.

Mr. GERRY.--I was not present when this subject was last before the
House, therefore I cannot say what was understood on this point; but I
have seen some account of the debate in the papers, from which I am led
to believe, that gentlemen view this matter in a very narrow point of
light. It appears to me a question, in which one's popularity is more
concerned than any thing else. Gentlemen perhaps suppose that by voting
for five instead of six dollars, they will establish such a character
for economy and patriotism as will redound to their honor; but I can
easily conceive, that men of knowledge and sentiment, yes, our
constituents in general, will discover, in a glaring light, the ruinous
consequences of such a measure in a very short period. The difference of
pay, as it now stands in the bill, and what my colleague has moved for,
is one dollar a day, and on this important question the yeas and nays
are to be called. For my part, I shall deliver my sentiments freely; I
am willing to leave the question to the people to decide; I care not
about the pay, and I can assure them I never wish to have a seat in this
House again: but I wish to guard against the subversion of the public
liberty--against the introduction of pensions--against exposing the
Legislature to corruption.

I would have gentlemen consider the principles upon which they are to
pay the President, their Judges and themselves; the constitution says,
the members of this House and the Senate shall receive a compensation
for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the
Treasury of the United States. The President shall receive, at stated
times, a compensation for his services, neither to be increased nor
diminished; the Judges shall, at stated times, receive for their
services a compensation, not to be diminished during their continuance
in office; hence it appears that the provision for the three branches is
to be made on the same principle, namely a compensation for their
services. Now, though it is certainly a little embarrassing that we
should have to estimate the value of our own services, yet we are bound
to do it, and that upon a fixed principle. It has been said, that the
Parliament of Britain receive no pay. This may be the case, but if they
examine back, they will find that pay, of a mark per day, was regularly
established for them. If we consider the difference of the value of
money two or three centuries ago, we shall find this no inconsiderable
allowance. But the policy of the British ministry has been, of late, to
extend the influence of the Crown; the pay of members has dropped into
disuse; but every one knows by what means a majority in Parliament is
obtained and secured. Now, such is the extent of these means, that I
venture to say, two important members of the House of Commons receive
more per annum than the whole compensation given to the members of both
Houses of Congress. I leave it to the world to judge, whether the
people are likely to be better served by men who receive their wages of
the Monarch, and who own themselves the servants of the Crown, or by
those who are immediately paid by and dependent upon themselves. While
Britain had funds enough to support this plan, they did tolerably well;
but when the evil extended itself, and they feared they could no longer
continue it without having recourse to other means, they bethought
themselves of unconstitutional ones; they were desirous of obtaining a
revenue out of this country, and placing upon our establishment men whom
they could not provide for at home. This cause lost them America, and
this cause will lose them every dependency, where they attempt to play
the like game.

From this view, the importance of an independent Legislature may be
seen. Will gentlemen then say, that to gratify a thoughtless regard for
economy, they will risk the most invaluable part of the Government? If
gentlemen say it is justice to their constituents, I am willing to
appeal to their tribunal; let them know the reason upon which we act,
and I will abide by their determination; but I am against being
influenced by an apprehension that the people will disapprove our
conduct. I am not afraid of being left out, even if it were thought a
disgrace to be left out. I would risk that disgrace rather than agree to
an establishment which I am convinced would end in the ruin of the
liberties of my fellow-citizens. It would give my heart more
satisfaction to fall the victim of popular resentment, than to establish
my popularity at the expense of their dearest interest.

As I mentioned before, the principle upon which we fix our own pay must
go through the other branches of the Government. Your President ought to
be retrenched to 16 or 18,000 dollars; your judges must be kept poor;
and I leave gentlemen to consider the happy consequences arising from a
dependent and corrupt Judiciary. Your Legislature may be corrupt, and
your Executive aspiring; but a firm, independent Judiciary will stop the
course of devastation, at least it will shield individuals from rapine
and injustice; but remove this security, and tyranny and oppression will
rush forward as a flood, and overwhelm the country.

It has been said, that the proposed compensation bears no proportion to
the pay of the members of the State Legislatures; let me ask, do members
of the State Legislatures forego their business? Do they leave their
State and relinquish their occupations? Does the lawyer neglect his
client? Does the merchant forego his commerce, or the farmer his
agriculture? No, sir, the short period they are in session, and the
opportunity of being in the vicinity affords them of going home, even
during their sitting, enables them to pursue their other avocations,
while performing their duties in the Legislature. But are not gentlemen
who come from the most distant parts of the Union, compelled to
relinquish every thing to attend here? The representation from the
States is so small, that a member can be ill spared at any time; his
absence must give him pain, when even that absence is necessary, but
cannot be often allowed. In short, I would have the allowance such, as
to secure the services of men of abilities in every rank of life; or if
that cannot be obtained, I would have all that part of the bill struck
out, which relates to a compensation for the services of the members of
this House.

Mr. PAGE said, if gentlemen were satisfied that five dollars per day was
enough to compensate them and defray their expenses, because they
resided in a part of the Union where every thing was to be procured so
much cheaper, they might receive that sum and leave the residue in the
Treasury; by this means they would demonstrate their love of economy and
disinterestedness.

Mr. VINING thought gentlemen who were satisfied with four or five
dollars, might move to amend the clause, so as to make it read "not
exceeding six dollars per day," and then they might charge as much less
as they deemed prudent.

Mr. BOUDINOT said, that whatever measures he supported, he did it upon
principle, not from a desire of acquiring popularity; he was satisfied
that six dollars per day was not extravagant compensation, but
considering the situation of the country, and the delicacy of their own
situation, he would vote for five dollars, and he thought it sufficient
to secure men of ability. He asked the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
GERRY) if he expected the paltry consideration of getting a dollar a day
more, was to induce men of abilities and integrity to come forward and
render their country their services?

He admitted that many gentlemen would find it difficult to bear all
their expenses with five dollars a day; but the compensation could not
be on a principle of discrimination, and therefore the House could not
make particular provision for such gentlemen. Others might think a less
sum sufficient, but no discrimination could here take place; it was
therefore necessary to accommodate, and upon this principle he hoped the
House would agree to five dollars per day; nor would this be any
variation from the principle established by the committee who reported
the bill. They had taken the pay of the delegates to the late Congress,
and struck an average, which was found to be about five dollars and a
half; they had reported six, but from the principles he had before
mentioned, he thought it better to agree to five.

Mr. GERRY.--The gentleman from Jersey, who was last up, says he does not
think six dollars per day more than sufficient; but that he will, from a
principle of delicacy, vote for five. I am as great a friend to delicacy
as any man, but I would not sacrifice essentials to a false delicacy. It
seems, from such sentiments, as if we were afraid to administer a
constitution which we are bound to administer. How are those sentiments
reconcilable to the oath we have taken? The constitution requires that
we shall, by law, compensate the services of the members of both Houses.

It has been said, that money is now more valuable than it was a few
years since. I admit the fact, sir, but four dollars per day was better
under the old plan of Government than six or eight under this, because a
delegate was then engaged for the whole year, but now he is to attend at
intervals. Some members were continued several years successively, and
consequently found it more advantageous. But this mode of reasoning is
fallacious; the question ought to be determined upon its own merits. But
if gentlemen are for sacrificing justice and propriety to delicacy, or
any other motive, let them come forward and agree to what I mentioned
before; let them strike out all that relates to their own compensation;
they are called upon by their own arguments to do this.

Mr. SEDGWICK did not rise to speak to the question, but merely to reply
to some observations that have fallen from the gentlemen who opposed the
present motion, particularly his colleague. The want of candor and
liberality might render gentlemen unpleasant in their situation; but the
consequences arising from such causes, were often still more unpleasant.
His colleague had insinuated, in a pointed manner, that the gentlemen
who were in favor of a reduction, were actuated by motives not only
improper and unworthy of a man of character, but such as appeared base
to his mind. It was said, that those who proposed this reduction, did it
merely to court popularity. Whether the gentleman, his colleague, who
brought forward the motion to-day, sacrificed more at that shrine than
his colleague who had opposed it, he left to those to determine who
noticed their conduct; but he believed they could never be charged with
such meanness. For his own part, if he had sacrificed in this way, as
his conduct had always been consistent with his sentiments, it must have
been known, and his character would long ere this have been blasted in
the manner it would have justly deserved. If he had done it heretofore,
he hoped the stigma would not be affixed upon him, for a conduct founded
upon the solid and substantial reasons he had advanced when the subject
was last before the House.

Mr. BOUDINOT.--The gentleman from Massachusetts makes me say, that six
dollars a day is not too much. I said it was not extravagant, but more
than I thought was proper upon due consideration of the circumstances of
this country. This is still my opinion, and upon it I shall ground my
vote. I believe no gentleman in this House regards his popularity, when
set in competition with his duty; my conduct has ever been open, and I
leave the world to judge from that what are my principles. I shall
therefore take no further notice of what has been said on that subject,
but conclude with wishing, for the honor of the House, and the dignity
of the gentlemen, that all our debates may be conducted with candor and
moderation.

Mr. AMES wished the call for the yeas and nays was withdrawn; because he
thought they lost their usefulness by a too frequent use. He was in
favor of the motion, but he did not wish to have his name entered on the
minutes on that account.

Mr. PARTRIDGE said, it was well known he never courted popularity; he
never sought a seat in this House, or any other public body; but he
insisted upon his right, as a member, to call for the yeas and nays,
when he thought the public interest might be benefited by it; however,
as the bill was not to be finished to-day, he would waive that call.

The question was taken on Mr. GOODHUE'S motion, and passed in the
negative, by a large majority.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed, and the House adjourned.


THURSDAY, August 13.

_Amendments to the Constitution._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
BOUDINOT in the chair, and took the amendments under consideration. The
first article ran thus: "In the introductory paragraph of the
constitution, before the words 'We the people,' add 'Government being
intended for the benefit of the people, and the rightful establishment
thereof being derived from their authority alone.'"

Mr. SHERMAN.--I believe, Mr. Chairman, this is not the proper mode of
amending the constitution. We ought not to interweave our propositions
into the work itself, because it will be destructive of the whole
fabric. We might as well endeavor to mix brass, iron, and clay, as to
incorporate such heterogeneous articles; the one contradictory to the
other. Its absurdity will be discovered by comparing it with a law.
Would any legislature endeavor to introduce into a former act a
subsequent amendment, and let them stand so connected? When an
alteration is made in an act, it is done by way of supplement; the
latter act always repealing the former in every specified case of
difference.

Besides this, sir, it is questionable whether we have the right to
propose amendments in this way. The constitution is the act of the
people, and ought to remain entire. But the amendments will be the act
of the State Governments. Again, all the authority we possess is derived
from that instrument; if we mean to destroy the whole, and establish a
new constitution, we remove the basis on which we mean to build. For
these reasons, I will move to strike out that paragraph and substitute
another.

The paragraph proposed was to the following effect:

      _Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
      United States in Congress assembled_, That the following
      articles he proposed as amendments to the constitution, and
      when ratified by three-fourths of the State Legislatures
      shall become valid to all intents and purposes, as part of
      the same.

Under this title, the amendments might come in nearly as stated in the
report, only varying the phraseology so as to accommodate them to a
supplementary form.

Mr. MADISON.--Form, sir, is always of less importance than the
substance; but on this occasion, I admit that form is of some
consequence, and it will be well for the House to pursue that which,
upon reflection, shall appear to be the most eligible. Now it appears to
me, that there is a neatness and propriety in incorporating the
amendments into the constitution itself; in that case the system will
remain uniform and entire; it will certainly be more simple, when the
amendments are interwoven into those parts to which they naturally
belong, than it will if they consist of separate and distinct parts. We
shall then be able to determine its meaning without references or
comparison; whereas, if they are supplementary, its meaning can only be
ascertained by a comparison of the two instruments, which will be a very
considerable embarrassment. It will be difficult to ascertain to what
parts of the instrument the amendments particularly refer; they will
create unfavorable comparisons; whereas, if they are placed upon the
footing here proposed, they will stand upon as good foundation as the
original work.

Nor is it so uncommon a thing as gentlemen suppose; systematic men
frequently take up the whole law, and, with its amendments and
alterations, reduce it into one act. I am not, however, very solicitous
about the form, provided the business is but well completed.

Mr. SMITH did not think the amendment proposed by the honorable
gentleman from Connecticut was compatible with the constitution, which
declared, that the amendments recommended by Congress, and ratified by
the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, should be part
of this constitution; in which case it would form one complete system;
but according to the idea of the amendment, the instrument is to have
five or six suits of improvements. Such a mode seems more calculated to
embarrass the people than any thing else, while nothing in his opinion
was a juster cause of complaint than the difficulties of knowing the
law, arising from legislative obscurities that might easily be avoided.
He said, that it had certainly been the custom in several of the State
Governments, to amend their laws by way of supplement. But South
Carolina had been an instance of the contrary practice, in revising the
old code; instead of making acts in addition to acts, which is always
attended with perplexity, she has incorporated them, and brought them
forward as a complete system, repealing the old. This is what he
understood was intended to be done by the committee; the present copy of
the constitution was to be done away, and a new one substituted in its
stead.

Mr. LIVERMORE was clearly of opinion, that whatever amendments were
made to the constitution, they ought to stand separate from the original
instrument. We have no right, said he, to alter a clause, any otherwise
than by a new proposition. We have well-established precedents for such
a mode of procedure in the practice of the British Parliament, and the
State Legislatures throughout America. I do not mean, however, to assert
that there has been no instance of a repeal of the whole law on enacting
another; but this has generally taken place on account of the complexity
of the original, with its supplements. Were we a mere legislative body,
no doubt it might be warrantable in us to pursue a similar method; but
it is questionable whether it is possible for us, consistent with the
oath we have taken, to attempt a repeal of the constitution of the
United States, by making a new one to substitute in its place; the
reason of this is grounded on a very simple consideration. It is by
virtue of the present constitution, I presume, that we attempt to make
another; now, if we proceed to the repeal of this, I cannot see upon
what authority we shall erect another; if we destroy the base, the
superstructure falls of course. At some future day it may be asked upon
what authority we proceeded to raise and appropriate public moneys. We
suppose we do it in virtue of the present constitution; but it may be
doubted whether we have a right to exercise any of its authorities while
it is suspended, as it will certainly be from the time that two-thirds
of both Houses have agreed to submit it to the State Legislatures; so
that, unless we mean to destroy the whole constitution, we ought to be
careful how we attempt to amend it in the way proposed by the committee.
From hence, I presume it will be more prudent to adopt the mode proposed
by the gentleman from Connecticut, than it will be to risk the
destruction of the whole by proposing amendments in the manner
recommended by the committee.

Mr. VINING disliked a supplementary form, and said it was a bad reason
to urge the practice of former ages, when there was a more convenient
method of doing the business at hand. He had seen an act entitled an act
to amend a supplement to an act entitled an act for altering part of an
act entitled an act for certain purposes therein mentioned. If gentlemen
were disposed to run into such jargon in amending and altering the
constitution, he could not help it; but he trusted they would adopt a
plainness and simplicity of style on this and every other occasion,
which should be easily understood. If the mode proposed by the gentleman
from Connecticut was adopted, the system would be distorted, and, like a
careless written letter, have more attached to it in a postscript than
was contained in the original composition.

The constitution being a great and important work, ought all to be
brought into one view, and made as intelligible as possible.

Mr. CLYMER was of opinion with the gentleman from Connecticut, that the
amendments ought not to be incorporated in the body of the work, which
he hoped would remain a monument to justify those who made it; by a
comparison, the world would discover the perfection of the original, and
the superfluity of the amendments. He made this distinction, because he
did not conceive any of the amendments essential, but as they were
solicited by his fellow-citizens, and for that reason they were
acquiesced in by others; he therefore wished the motion for throwing
them into a supplementary form might be carried.

Mr. STONE.--It is not a matter of much consequence, with respect to the
preservation of the original instrument, whether the amendments are
incorporated or made distinct; because the records will always show the
original form in which it stood. But in my opinion, we ought to mark its
progress with truth in every step we take. If the amendments are
incorporated in the body of the work, it will appear, unless we refer to
the archives of Congress, that GEORGE WASHINGTON, and the other worthy
characters who composed the convention, signed an instrument which they
never had in contemplation. The one to which he affixed his signature
purports to be adopted by the unanimous consent of the delegates from
every State there assembled. Now if we incorporate these amendments, we
must undoubtedly go further, and say that the constitution so formed was
defective, and had need of alteration; we therefore purpose to repeal
the old and substitute a new one in its place. From this consideration
alone, I think we ought not to pursue the line of conduct drawn for us
by the committee. This perhaps is not the last amendment the
constitution may receive; we ought therefore to be careful how we set a
precedent which, in dangerous and turbulent times, may unhinge the
whole.

Mr. LIVERMORE.--The mode adopted by the committee might be very proper,
provided Congress had the forming of a constitution in contemplation;
then they, or an individual member, might propose to strike out a clause
and insert another, as is done with respect to article 3, section 2. But
certainly no gentleman acquainted with legislative business would
pretend to alter and amend, in this manner, a law already passed. He was
convinced it could not be done properly in any other way than by the one
proposed by the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. GERRY asked, if the mode could make any possible difference,
provided the sanction was the same; or whether it would operate
differently in any one instance? If it will not, we are disputing about
form, and the question will turn on the expediency. Now one gentleman
tells you, that he is so attached to this instrument, that he is
unwilling to lose any part of it; therefore, to gratify him, we may
throw it into a supplementary form. But let me ask, will not this as
effectually destroy some parts, as if the correction had been made by
way of incorporation? or will posterity have a more favorable opinion
of the original, because it has been amended by distinct acts? For my
part, I cannot see what advantage can accrue from adopting the motion of
the honorable gentleman from Connecticut, unless it be to give every one
the trouble of erasing out of his copy of the constitution certain words
and sentences, and inserting others. But, perhaps, in our great
veneration for the original composition, we may go further, and pass an
act to prohibit these interpolations, as it may injure the text.

It is said that the present form of the amendments is contrary to the
5th article. I will not undertake to define the extent of the word
amendment, as it stands in the fifth article; but I suppose if we
proposed to change the division of the powers given to the three
branches of the Government, and that proposition is accepted and
ratified by three-fourths of the State Legislatures, it will become as
valid, to all intents and purposes, as any part of the constitution; but
if it is the opinion of gentlemen that the original is to be kept
sacred, amendments will be of no use, and had better be omitted;
whereas, on the other hand, if they are to be received as equal in
authority we shall have five or six constitutions, perhaps differing in
material points from each other, but all equally valid; so that they may
require a man of science to determine what is or is not the
constitution. This will certainly be attended with great inconvenience,
as the several States are bound not to make laws contradictory thereto,
and all officers are sworn to support it, without knowing precisely what
it is.

Mr. STONE asked the gentleman last up, how he meant to have the
amendments incorporated? Was it intended to have the constitution
republished, and the alterations inserted in their proper places? He did
not see how it was practicable to propose amendments, without making out
a new constitution, in the manner brought forward by the committee.

Mr. LAWRENCE could not conceive how gentlemen meant to engraft the
amendments into the constitution. The original one, executed by the
convention at Philadelphia, was lodged in the archives of the late
Congress; it was impossible for this House to take, and correct, and
interpolate that without making it speak a different language: this
would be supposing several things which never were contemplated. But
what would become of the acts of Congress? They will certainly be
vitiated, unless they are provided for by an additional clause in the
constitution.

Mr. BENSON said, that this question had been agitated in the select
committee, and determined in favor of the form in which it was reported;
he believed this decision was founded in a great degree upon the
recommendation of the State conventions, which had proposed amendments
in this very form. This pointed out the mode most agreeable to the
people of America, and therefore the one most eligible for Congress to
pursue; it will likewise be the most convenient way. Suppose the
amendments ratified by the several States; Congress may order a number
of copies to be printed, into which the alterations will be inserted,
and the work stand perfect and entire.

Mr. MADISON.--The gentleman last up has left me but one remark to add,
and that is, if we adopt the amendment, we shall so far unhinge the
business, as to occasion alterations in every article and clause of the
report.

Mr. HARTLEY hoped the committee would not agree to the alteration,
because it would perplex the business. He wished the propositions to be
simple and entire, that the State Legislatures might decide without
hesitation, and every man know what was the ground on which he rested
his political welfare. Besides, the consequent changes which the motion
would induce, were such as, he feared, would take up some days, if not
weeks; and the time of the House was too precious to be squandered away
in discussing mere matter of form.

Mr. JACKSON.--I do not like to differ with gentlemen about form; but as
so much has been said, I wish to give my opinion; it is this: that the
original constitution ought to remain inviolate, and not be patched up,
from time to time, with various stuffs resembling Joseph's coat of many
colors.

Some gentlemen talk of repealing the present constitution, and adopting
an improved one. If we have this power, we may go on from year to year,
making new ones; and in this way, we shall render the basis of the
superstructure the most fluctuating thing imaginable, and the people
will never know what the constitution is. As for the alteration proposed
by the committee, to prefix before "We the people" certain dogmas, I
cannot agree to it; the words, as they now stand, speak as much as it is
possible to speak; it is a practical recognition of the right of the
people to ordain and establish Governments, and is more expressive than
any other mere paper declaration.

But why will gentlemen contend for incorporating amendments into the
constitution? They say, that it is necessary for the people to have the
whole before them in one view. Have they precedent for this assertion?
Look at the constitution of Great Britain; is that all contained in one
instrument? It is well known, that _magna charta_ was extorted by the
barons from King John some centuries ago. Has that been altered since by
the incorporation of amendments? Or does it speak the same language now,
as it did at the time it was obtained? Sir, it is not altered a tittle
from its original form. Yet there have been many amendments and
improvements in the constitution of Britain since that period. In the
subsequent reign of his son, the great charters were confirmed with some
supplemental acts. Is the _habeas corpus_ act, or the statute _De
Tallagio non concedendo_ incorporated in _magna charta_? And yet there
is not an Englishman but would spill the last drop of his blood in
their defence; it is these, with some other acts of Parliament and
_magna charta_, that form the basis of English liberty. We have seen
amendments to their constitution during the present reign, by
establishing the independence of the judges, who are hereafter to be
appointed during good behavior; formerly they were at the pleasure of
the Crown. But was this done by striking out and inserting other words
in the great charter? No, sir, the constitution is composed of many
distinct acts; but an Englishman would be ashamed to own that, on this
account, he could not ascertain his own privileges or the authority of
the Government.

The constitution of the Union has been ratified and established by the
people; let their act remain inviolable; if any thing we can do has a
tendency to improve it, let it be done, but without mutilating and
defacing the original.

Mr. SHERMAN.--If I had looked upon this question as mere matter of form,
I should not have brought it forward or troubled the committee with such
a lengthy discussion. But, sir, I contend that amendments made in the
way proposed by the committee are void. No gentleman ever knew an
addition and alteration introduced into an existing law, and that any
part of such law was left in force; but if it was improved or altered by
a supplemental act, the original retained all its validity and
importance, in every case where the two were not incompatible. But if
these observations alone should be thought insufficient to support my
motion, I would desire gentlemen to consider the authorities upon which
the two constitutions are to stand. The original was established by the
people at large, by conventions chosen by them for the express purpose.
The preamble to the constitution declares the act: but will it be a
truth in ratifying the next constitution, which is to be done perhaps by
the State Legislatures, and not conventions chosen for the purpose? Will
gentlemen say it is "We the people" in this case? Certainly they cannot;
for, by the present constitution, we, nor all the Legislatures in the
Union together, do not possess the power of repealing it. All that is
granted us by the 5th article is, that whenever we shall think it
necessary, we may propose amendments to the constitution; not that we
may propose to repeal the old, and substitute a new one.

Gentlemen say, it would be convenient to have it in one instrument, that
people might see the whole at once; for my part, I view no difficulty on
this point. The amendments reported are a declaration of rights; the
people are secure in them, whether we declare them or not; the last
amendment but one provides that the three branches of Government shall
each exercise its own rights. This is well secured already; and, in
short, I do not see that they lessen the force of any article in the
constitution; if so, there can be little more difficulty in
comprehending them whether they are combined in one, or stand distinct
instruments.

Mr. SMITH read extracts from the amendments proposed by several of the
State conventions at the time they ratified the constitution, from
which, he said, it appeared that they were generally of opinion that the
phraseology of the constitution ought to be altered; nor would this mode
of proceeding repeal any part of the constitution but such as it
touched, the remainder will be in force during the time of considering
it and ever after.

As to the observations made by the honorable gentleman from Georgia,
respecting the amendments made to the constitution of Great Britain,
they did not apply; the cases were nothing like similar, and,
consequently, could not be drawn into precedent. The constitution of
Britain is neither the _magna charta_ of John, nor the _habeas corpus_
act, nor all the charters put together; it is what the Parliament wills.
It is true, there are rights granted to the subject that cannot be
resumed; but the constitution, or form of government, may be altered by
the authority of Parliament, whose power is absolute without control.

Mr. SHERMAN.--The gentlemen who oppose the motion say we contend for
matter of form; they think it nothing more. Now we say we contend for
substance, and therefore cannot agree to amendments in this way. If they
are so desirous of having the business completed, they had better
sacrifice what they consider but a matter of indifference to gentlemen,
to go more unanimously along with them in altering the constitution.

The question on Mr. SHERMAN'S motion was now put and lost.[29]


FRIDAY, August 14.

ABIEL FOSTER, from New Hampshire, appeared and took his seat.


SATURDAY, August 15.

_Amendments to the Constitution._

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE.

Article 1. Section 9. Between paragraphs two and three insert, "no
religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of
conscience be infringed."

Mr. SYLVESTER had some doubts of the propriety of the mode of expression
used in this paragraph. He apprehended that it was liable to a
construction different from what had been made by the committee. He
feared it might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion
altogether.

Mr. VINING suggested the propriety of transposing the two members of the
sentence.

Mr. GERRY said, it would read better if it was, that no religious
doctrine shall be established by law.

Mr. SHERMAN thought the amendment altogether unnecessary, inasmuch as
Congress had no authority whatever delegated to them by the constitution
to make religious establishments; he would, therefore, move to have it
struck out.

Mr. CARROLL.--As the rights of conscience are, in their nature, of
peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of
governmental hand; and as many sects have concurred in opinion, that
they are not well secured under the present constitution, he said he was
much in favor of adopting the words. He thought it would tend more
towards conciliating the minds of the people to the Government than
almost any other amendment he had heard proposed. He would not contend
with gentlemen about the phraseology, his object was to secure the
substance in such a manner as to satisfy the wishes of the honest part
of the community.

Mr. MADISON said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that
Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal
observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner
contrary to their conscience. Whether the words are necessary or not, he
did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the State
Conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of
the constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws
necessary and proper to carry into execution the constitution, and the
laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might
infringe the rights of conscience, and establish a national religion; to
prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he
thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.

Mr. HUNTINGTON said, that he feared, with the gentleman first up on this
subject, that the words might be taken in such a latitude as to be
extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment
to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia; but
others might find it convenient to put another construction upon it. The
ministers of their congregations to the eastward were maintained by the
contributions of those who belonged to their society; the expense of
building meeting-houses was contributed in the same manner. These things
were regulated by by-laws. If an action was brought before a Federal
Court on any of these cases, the person who had neglected to perform his
engagements could not be compelled to do it; for a support of ministers,
or building of places of worship, might be construed into a religious
establishment.

By the charter of Rhode Island, no religion could be established by law;
he could give a history of the effects of such a regulation; indeed the
people were now enjoying the blessed fruits of it. He hoped, therefore,
the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of
conscience, and a free exercise of the rights of religion, but not to
patronize those who professed no religion at all.

Mr. MADISON thought, if the word national was inserted before religion,
it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the
people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine
together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to
conform. He thought if the word national was introduced, it would point
the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.

Mr. LIVERMORE was not satisfied with that amendment; but he did not wish
them to dwell long on the subject. He thought it would be better if it
was altered, and made to read in this manner, that Congress shall make
no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.

Mr. GERRY did not like the term national, proposed by the gentleman from
Virginia, and he hoped it would not be adopted by the House. It brought
to his mind some observations that had taken place in the conventions at
the time they were considering the present constitution. It had been
insisted upon by those who were called anti-federalists, that this form
of Government consolidated the Union; the honorable gentleman's motion
shows that he considers it in the same light. Those who were called
anti-federalists at that time complained that they had injustice done
them by the title, because they were in favor of a Federal government,
and the others were in favor of a national one; the federalists were for
ratifying the constitution as it stood, and the others not until
amendments were made. Their names then ought not to have been
distinguished by federalists and anti-federalists, but rats and
anti-rats.

Mr. MADISON withdrew his motion, but observed that the words "no
national religion shall be established by law," did not imply that the
Government was a national one; the question was then taken on Mr.
Livermore's motion, and passed in the affirmative, thirty-one for, and
twenty against it.


_Amendments to the Constitution._

RIGHT OF INSTRUCTION.

"The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and consult for the common good, and to apply to
the Government for a redress of grievances," being the clause under
consideration, Mr. TUCKER, of South Carolina, moved to add thereto these
words--_to instruct their representatives_.

Mr. HARTLEY wished the motion had not been made, for gentlemen
acquainted with the circumstances of this country, and the history of
the country from which we separated, differed exceedingly on this
point. The members of the House of Representatives, said he, are chosen
for two years, the members of the Senate for six.

According to the principles laid down in the Constitution, it is
presumable that the persons elected know the interests and the
circumstances of their constituents, and being checked in their
determinations by a division of the Legislative power into two branches,
there is little danger of error. At least it ought to be supposed that
they have the confidence of the people during the period for which they
are elected; and if, by misconduct, they forfeit it, their constituents
have the power of leaving them out at the expiration of that time--thus
they are answerable for the part they have taken in measures that may be
contrary to the general wish.

Representation is the principle of our Government; the people ought to
have confidence in the honor and integrity of those they send forward to
transact their business; their right to instruct them is a problematical
subject. We have seen it attended with bad consequences, both in England
and America. When the passions of the people are excited, instructions
have been resorted to and obtained, to answer party purposes; and
although the public opinion is generally respectable, yet at such
moments it has been known to be often wrong; and happy is that
Government composed of men of firmness and wisdom to discover, and
resist popular error.

If, in a small community, where the interests, habits, and manners are
neither so numerous nor diversified, instructions bind not, what shall
we say of instructions to this body? Can it be supposed that the
inhabitants of a single district in a State, are better informed with
respect to the general interests of the Union, than a select body
assembled from every part? Can it be supposed that a part will be more
desirous of promoting the good of the whole than the whole will of the
part? I apprehend, sir, that Congress will be the best judges of proper
measures, and that instructions will never be resorted to but for party
purposes, when they will generally contain the prejudices and acrimony
of the party, rather than the dictates of honest reason and sound
policy.

In England this question has been considerably agitated. The
representatives of some towns in Parliament have acknowledged, and
submitted to the binding force of instructions, while the majority have
thrown off the shackles with disdain. I would not have this precedent
influence our decision; but let the doctrine be tried upon its own
merits, and stand or fall as it shall be found to deserve.

It appears to my mind, that the principle of representation is distinct
from an agency, which may require written instructions. The great end of
meeting is to consult for the common good; but can the common good be
discerned without the object is reflected and shown in every light. A
local or partial view does not necessarily enable any man to comprehend
it clearly; this can only result from an inspection into the aggregate.
Instructions viewed in this light will be found to embarrass the best
and wisest men. And were all the members to take their seats in order to
obey instructions, and those instructions were as various as it is
probable they would be, what possibility would there exist of so
accommodating each to the other as to produce any act whatever? Perhaps
a majority of the whole might not be instructed to agree to any one
point, and is it thus the people of the United States propose to form a
more perfect union, provide for the common defence, and promote the
general welfare?

Sir, I have known within my own time so many inconveniences and real
evils arise from adopting the popular opinions on the moment, that,
although I respect them as much as any man, I hope this Government will
particularly guard against them, at least that they will not bind
themselves by a constitutional act, and by oath, to submit to their
influence; if they do, the great object which this Government has been
established to attain, will inevitably elude our grasp on the uncertain
and veering winds of popular commotion.

Mr. PAGE.--The gentleman from Pennsylvania tells you, that in England
this principle is doubted; how far this is consonant with the nature of
the Government I will not pretend to say; but I am not astonished to
find that the administrators of a monarchical Government are
unassailable by the weak voice of the people; but under a democracy,
whose great end is to form a code of laws congenial with the public
sentiment, the popular opinion ought to be collected and attended to.
Our present object is, I presume, to secure to our constituents and to
posterity these inestimable rights. Our Government is derived from the
people; of consequence the people have a right to consult for the common
good; but to what end will this be done, if they have not the power of
instructing their representatives? Instruction and representation in a
republic, appear to me to be inseparably connected; but were I the
subject of a monarch, I should doubt whether the public good did not
depend more upon the prince's will than the will of the people. I should
dread a popular assembly consulting for the public good, because, under
its influence, commotions and tumults might arise that would shake the
foundation of the monarch's throne, and make the empire tremble in
expectation. The people of England have submitted the crown to the
Hanover family, and have rejected the Stuarts. If instructions upon such
a revolution were considered binding, it is difficult to know what would
have been the effects. It might be well, therefore, to have the doctrine
exploded from that kingdom; but it will not be advanced as a substantial
reason in favor of our treading in the same steps.

The honorable gentleman has said, that when once the people have chosen
a representative, they must rely on his integrity and judgment during
the period for which he is elected. I think, sir, to doubt the authority
of the people to instruct their representatives, will give them just
cause to be alarmed for their fate. I look upon it as a dangerous
doctrine, subversive of the great end for which the United States have
confederated. Every friend of mankind, every well-wisher of his country,
will be desirous of obtaining the sense of the people on every occasion
of magnitude; but how can this be so well expressed as in instructions
to their representatives? I hope, therefore, that gentlemen will not
oppose the insertion of it in this part of the report.

Mr. CLYMER.--I hope the amendment will not be adopted; but if our
constituents choose to instruct us, that they may be left at liberty to
do so. Do gentlemen foresee the extent of these words? If they have a
constitutional right to instruct us, it infers that we are bound by
those instructions; and as we ought not to decide constitutional
questions by implication, I presume we shall be called upon to go
further, and expressly declare the members of the Legislature bound by
the instruction of their constituents. This is a most dangerous
principle, utterly destructive of all ideas of an independent and
deliberative body, which are essential requisites in the Legislatures of
free Governments; they prevent men of abilities and experience from
rendering those services to the community that are in their power,
destroying the object contemplated by establishing an efficient General
Government, and rendering Congress a mere passive machine.

Mr. SHERMAN.--It appears to me, that the words are calculated to mislead
the people, by conveying an idea that they have a right to control the
debates of the Legislature. This cannot be admitted to be just, because
it would destroy the object of their meeting. I think, when the people
have chosen a representative, it is his duty to meet others from the
different parts of the Union, and consult, and agree with them to such
acts as are for the general benefit of the whole community. If they were
to be guided by instructions, there would be no use in deliberation; all
that a man would have to do, would be to produce his instructions, and
lay them on the table, and let them speak for him. From hence I think it
may be fairly inferred, that the right of the people to consult for the
common good can go no further than to petition the Legislature, or apply
for a redress of grievances. It is the duty of a good representative to
inquire what measures are most likely to promote the general welfare,
and, after he has discovered them, to give them his support. Should his
instructions, therefore, coincide with his ideas on any measure, they
would be unnecessary; if they were contrary to the conviction of his own
mind, he must be bound by every principle of justice to disregard them.

Mr. JACKSON was in favor of the right of the people to assemble and
consult for the common good; it had been used in this country as one of
the best checks on the British Legislature in their unjustifiable
attempts to tax the colonies without their consent. America had no
representatives in the British Parliament, therefore they could instruct
none, yet they exercised the power of consultation to a good effect. He
begged gentlemen to consider the dangerous tendency of establishing such
a doctrine; it would necessarily drive the House into a number of
factions. There might be different instructions from every State, and
the representation from each State would be a faction to support its own
measures.

If we establish this as a right, we shall be bound by those
instructions; now, I am willing to leave both the people and
representatives to their own discretion on this subject. Let the people
consult and give their opinion; let the representative judge of it; and
if it is just, let him govern himself by it as a good member ought to
do; but if it is otherwise, let him have it in his power to reject their
advice.

What may be the consequence of binding a man to vote in all cases
according to the will of others? He is to decide upon a constitutional
point, and on this question his conscience is bound by the obligation of
a solemn oath; you now involve him in a serious dilemma. If he votes
according to his conscience, he decides against his instructions; but in
deciding against his instructions, he commits a breach of the
constitution, by infringing the prerogative of the people, secured to
them by this declaration. In short, it will give rise to such a variety
of absurdities and inconsistencies, as no prudent Legislature would wish
to involve themselves in.

Mr. GERRY.--By the checks provided in the constitution, we have good
grounds to believe that the very framers of it conceived that the
Government would be liable to maladministration, and I presume that the
gentlemen of this House do not mean to arrogate to themselves more
perfection than human nature has as yet been found to be capable of; if
they do not, they will admit an additional check against abuses which
this, like every other Government, is subject to. Instruction from the
people will furnish this in a considerable degree.

It has been said that the amendment proposed by the honorable gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. TUCKER) determines this point, "that the people
can bind their representatives to follow their instructions." I do not
conceive that this necessarily follows. I think the representative,
notwithstanding the insertion of these words, would be at liberty to act
as he pleased; if he declined to pursue such measures as he was directed
to attain, the people would have a right to refuse him their suffrages
at a future election.

Now, though I do not believe the amendment would bind the
representatives to obey the instructions, yet I think the people have a
right both to instruct and bind them. Do gentlemen conceive that on any
occasion instructions would be so general as to proceed from all our
constituents? If they do, it is the sovereign will; for gentlemen will
not contend that the sovereign will presides in the Legislature. The
friends and patrons of this constitution have always declared that the
sovereignty resides in the people, and that they do not part with it on
any occasion; to say the sovereignty vests in the people and that they
have not a right to instruct and control their representatives is absurd
to the last degree. They must either give up their principle, or grant
that the people have a right to exercise their sovereignty to control
the whole Government, as well as this branch of it. But the amendment
does not carry the principle to such an extent, it only declares the
right of the people to send instructions; the representative will, if he
thinks proper, communicate his instructions to the House, but how far
they shall operate on his conduct, he will judge for himself.

The honorable gentleman from Georgia (Mr. JACKSON) supposes that
instructions will tend to generate factions in this House; but he did
not see how it could have that effect, any more than the freedom of
debate had. If the representative entertains the same opinion with his
constituents, he will decide with them in favor of the measure; if other
gentlemen, who are not instructed on this point, are convinced by
argument that the measure is proper, they will also vote with them;
consequently the influence of debate and of instruction is the same.

The gentleman says further, that the people have the right of
instructing their representatives; if so, why not declare it? Does he
mean that it shall lie dormant and never be exercised? If so, it will be
a right of no utility. But much good may result from a declaration in
the constitution that they possess this privilege; the people will be
encouraged to come forward with their instructions, which will form a
fund of useful information for the Legislature. We cannot, I apprehend,
be too well informed of the true state, condition, and sentiment of our
constituents, and perhaps this is the best mode in our power of
obtaining information. I hope we shall never shut our ears against that
information which is to be derived from the petitions and instructions
of our constituents. I hope we shall never presume to think that all the
wisdom of this country is concentrated within the walls of this House.
Men, unambitious of distinctions from their fellow-citizens, remain
within their own domestic walk, unheard of and unseen, possessing all
the advantages resulting from a watchful observance of public men and
public measures, whose voice, if we would descend to listen to it, would
give us knowledge superior to what could be acquired amidst the cares
and bustles of a public life; let us then adopt the amendment, and
encourage the diffident to enrich our stock of knowledge with the
treasure of their remarks and observations.

Mr. MADISON.--I think the committee acted prudently in omitting to
insert these words in the report they have brought forward; if,
unfortunately, the attempt of proposing amendments should prove
abortive, it will not arise from the want of a disposition in the
friends of the constitution to do what is right with respect to securing
the rights and privileges of the people of America, but from the
difficulties arising from discussing and proposing abstract propositions
of which the judgment may not be convinced. I venture to say, that if we
confine ourselves to an enumeration of simple, acknowledged principles,
the ratification will meet with but little difficulty. Amendments of a
doubtful nature will have a tendency to prejudice the whole system; the
proposition now suggested partakes highly of this nature. It is doubted
by many gentlemen here; it has been objected to in intelligent
publications throughout the Union; it is doubted by many members of the
State Legislatures. In one sense this declaration is true, in many
others it is certainly not true; in the sense in which it is true, we
have asserted the right sufficiently in what we have done; if we mean
nothing more than this, that the people have a right to express and
communicate their sentiments and wishes, we have provided for it
already. The right of freedom of speech is secured; the liberty of the
press is expressly declared to be beyond the reach of this Government;
the people may therefore publicly address their representatives, may
privately advise them, or declare their sentiments by petition to the
whole body; in all these ways they may communicate their will. If
gentlemen mean to go further, and to say that the people have a right to
instruct their representatives in such a sense as that the delegates are
obliged to conform to those instructions, the declaration is not true.
Suppose they instruct a representative, by his vote, to violate the
constitution; is he at liberty to obey such instructions? Suppose he is
instructed to patronize certain measures, and from circumstances known
to him, but not to his constituents, he is convinced that they will
endanger the public good; is he obliged to sacrifice his own judgment to
them? Is he absolutely bound to perform what he is instructed to do?
Suppose he refuses, will his vote be the less valid, or the community be
disengaged from that obedience which is due to the laws of the Union? If
his vote must inevitably have the same effect, what sort of a right is
this in the constitution, to instruct a representative who has a right
to disregard the order, if he pleases? In this sense the right does not
exist, in the other sense it does exist, and is provided largely for.

The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts asks if the sovereignty is
not with the people at large. Does he infer that the people can, in
detached bodies, contravene an act established by the whole people? My
idea of the sovereignty of the people is, that the people can change the
constitution if they please; but while the constitution exists, they
must conform themselves to its dictates. But I do not believe that the
inhabitants of any district can speak the voice of the people; so far
from it, their ideas may contradict the sense of the whole people; hence
the consequence that instructions are binding on the representative is
of a doubtful, if not of a dangerous nature. I do not conceive,
therefore, that it is necessary to agree to the proposition now made; so
far as any real good is to arise from it, so far that real good is
provided for; so far as it is of a doubtful nature, so far it obliges us
to run the risk of losing the whole system.

Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina.)--I am opposed to this motion, because I
conceive it will operate as a partial inconvenience to the more distant
States. If every member is to be bound by instructions how to vote, what
are gentlemen from the extremities of the continent to do? Members from
the neighboring States can obtain their instructions earlier than those
from the Southern ones, and I presume that particular instructions will
be necessary for particular measures; of consequence, we vote perhaps
against instructions on their way to us, or we must decline voting at
all. But what is the necessity of having a numerous representation? One
member from a State can receive the instructions, and by his vote answer
all the purposes of many, provided his vote is allowed to count for the
proportion the State ought to send; in this way the business might be
done at a less expense than having one or two hundred members in the
House, which had been strongly contended for yesterday.

Mr. STONE.--I think the clause would change the Government entirely;
instead of being a Government founded upon representation, it would be a
democracy of singular properties.

I differ from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MADISON), if he thinks
this clause would not bind the representative; in my opinion, it would
bind him effectually, and I venture to assert, without diffidence, that
any law passed by the Legislature would be of no force, if a majority of
the members of this House were instructed to the contrary, provided the
amendment became part of the constitution. What would follow from this?
Instead of looking in the code of laws passed by Congress, your
Judiciary would have to collect and examine the instructions from the
various parts of the Union. It follows very clearly from hence, that the
Government would be altered from a representative one to a democracy,
wherein all laws are made immediately by the voice of the people.

This is a power not to be found in any part of the earth except among
the Swiss cantons; there the body of the people vote upon the laws, and
give instructions to their delegates. But here we have a different form
of Government; the people at large are not authorized under it to vote
upon the law, nor did I ever hear that any man required it. Why, then,
are we called upon to propose amendments subversive of the principles
of the constitution, which were never desired?

Several members now called for the question, and the Chairman being
about to put the same:

Mr. GERRY.--Gentlemen seem in a great hurry to get this business
through. I think, Mr. Chairman, it requires a further discussion; for my
part, I had rather do less business and do it well, than precipitate
measures before they are fully understood.

The honorable gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) stated, that if the
proposed amendments are defeated, it will be by the delay attending the
discussion of doubtful propositions; and he declares this to partake of
that quality. It is natural, sir, for us to be fond of our own work. We
do not like to see it disfigured by other hands. That honorable
gentleman brought forward a string of propositions; among them was the
clause now proposed to be amended: he is no doubt ready for the
question, and determined not to admit what we think an improvement. The
gentlemen who were on the committee, and brought in the report, have
considered the subject, and are also ripe for a decision. But other
gentlemen may crave a like indulgence. Is not the report before us for
deliberation and discussion, and to obtain the sense of the House upon
it; and will not gentlemen allow us a day or two for these purposes,
after they have forced us to proceed upon them at this time? I appeal to
their candor and good sense on the occasion, and am sure not to be
refused; and I must inform them now, that they may not be surprised
hereafter, that I wish all the amendments proposed by the respective
States to be considered. Gentlemen say it is necessary to finish the
subject, in order to reconcile a number of our fellow-citizens to the
Government. If this is their principle, they ought to consider the
wishes and intentions which the convention has expressed for them; if
they do this, they will find that they expect and wish for the
declaration proposed by the honorable gentleman over the way (Mr.
TUCKER), and, of consequence, they ought to agree to it; and why it,
with others recommended in the same way, were not reported, I cannot
pretend to say; the committee know this best themselves.

The honorable gentleman near me (Mr. STONE) says, that the laws passed
contrary to instruction will be nugatory. And other gentlemen ask, if
their constituents instruct them to violate the constitution, whether
they must do it. Sir, does not the constitution declare that all laws
passed by Congress are paramount to the laws and constitutions of the
several States; if our decrees are of such force as to set aside the
State laws and constitutions, certainly they may be repugnant to any
instructions whatever, without being injured thereby. But can we
conceive that our constituents would be so absurd as to instruct us to
violate our oath, and act directly contrary to the principles of a
Government ordained by themselves? We must look upon them to be
absolutely abandoned and false to their own interests, to suppose them
capable of giving such instructions.

If this amendment is introduced into the constitution, I do not think we
shall be much troubled with instructions; a knowledge of the right will
operate to check a spirit that would render instruction necessary.

The honorable gentleman from Virginia asked, will not the affirmative of
a member who votes repugnant to his instructions bind the community as
much as the votes of those who conform? There is no doubt, sir, but it
will; but does this tend to show that the constituent has no right to
instruct? Surely not. I admit, sir, that instructions contrary to the
constitution ought not to bind, though the sovereignty resides in the
people. The honorable gentleman acknowledges that the sovereignty vests
there; if so, it may exercise its will in any case not inconsistent with
a previous contract. The same gentleman asks if we are to give the power
to the people in detached bodies to contravene the Government while it
exists. Certainly not; nor does the proposed proposition extend to that
point; it is only intended to open for them a convenient mode in which
they may convey their sense to their agents. The gentleman therefore
takes for granted what is inadmissible, that Congress will always be
doing illegal things, and make it necessary for the sovereign to declare
its pleasure.

He says the people have a right to alter the constitution, but they have
no right to oppose the Government. If, while the Government exists, they
have no right to control it, it appears they have divested themselves of
the sovereignty over the constitution. Therefore, our language, with our
principles, must change, and we ought to say that the sovereignty
existed in the people previous to the establishment of this Government.
This will be ground for alarm indeed, if it is true; but I trust, sir,
too much to the good sense of my fellow-citizens ever to believe that
the doctrine will generally obtain in this country of freedom.

Mr. VINING.--If, Mr. Chairman, there appears on one side too great an
urgency to despatch this business, there appears on the other an
unnecessary delay and procrastination equally improper and unpardonable.
I think this business has been already well considered by the House, and
every gentleman in it; however, I am not for an unseemly expedition.

Mr. LIVERMORE was not very anxious whether the words were inserted or
not, but he had a great deal of doubt on the meaning of this whole
amendment; it provides that the people may meet and consult for the
common good. Does this mean a part of the people in a township or
district, or does it mean the representatives in the State Legislatures?
If it means the latter, there is no occasion for a provision that the
Legislature may instruct the members of this body.

In some States the representatives are chosen by districts. In such
case, perhaps, the instructions may be considered as coming from the
district; but in other States, each representative is chosen by the
whole people. In New Hampshire it is the case; the instructions of any
particular place would have but little weight, but a legislative
instruction would have considerable influence upon each representative.
If, therefore, the words mean that the Legislature may instruct, he
presumed it would have considerable effect, though he did not believe it
binding. Indeed, he was inclined to pay a deference to any information
he might receive from any number of gentlemen, even by a private letter;
but as for full binding force, no instructions contained that quality.
They could not, nor ought they to have it, because different parties
pursue different measures; and it might be expedient, nay, absolutely
necessary, to sacrifice them in mutual concessions.

The doctrine of instructions would hold better in England than here,
because the boroughs and corporations might have an interest to pursue
totally immaterial to the rest of the kingdom; in that case, it would be
prudent to instruct their members in Parliament.

Mr. GERRY wished the constitution amended without his having any hand in
it; but if he must interfere, he would do his duty. The honorable
gentleman from Delaware had given him an example of moderation and
laconic and consistent debate that he meant to follow; and would just
observe to the worthy gentleman last up, that several States had
proposed the amendment, and among the rest, New Hampshire.

There was one remark which escaped him, when he was up before. The
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. STONE) had said that the amendment would
change the nature of the Government, and make it a democracy. Now he had
always heard that it was a democracy; but perhaps he was misled, and the
honorable gentleman was right in distinguishing it by some other
appellation; perhaps an aristocracy was a term better adapted to it.

Mr. SEDGWICK opposed the idea of the gentleman from New Hampshire, that
the State Legislature had the power of instructing the members of this
House; he looked upon it as a subornation of the rights of the people to
admit such an authority. We stand not here, said he, the representatives
of the State Legislatures, as under the former Congress, but as the
representatives of the great body of the people. The sovereignty, the
independence, and the rights of the States are intended to be guarded by
the Senate; if we are to be viewed in any other light, the greatest
security the people have for their rights and privileges is destroyed.

But with respect to instructions, it is well worthy of consideration how
they are to be procured. It is not the opinion of an individual that is
to control my conduct: I consider myself as the representative of the
whole Union. An individual may give me information, but his sentiments
may he in opposition to the sense of the majority of the people. If
instructions are to be of any efficacy, they must speak the sense of the
majority of the people, at least of a State. In a State so large as
Massachusetts it will behoove gentlemen to consider how the sense of the
majority of the freemen is to be obtained and communicated. Let us take
care to avoid the insertion of crude and indigested propositions, more
likely to produce acrimony than that spirit of harmony which we ought to
cultivate.

Mr. LIVERMORE said that he did not understand the honorable gentleman,
or was not understood by him; he did not presume peremptorily to say
what degree of influence the legislative instructions would have on a
representative. He knew it was not the thing in contemplation here; and
what he had said respected only the influence it would have on his
private judgment.

Mr. AMES said there would be a very great inconvenience attending the
establishment of the doctrine contended for by his colleague. Those
States which had selected their members by districts would have no right
to give them instructions, consequently the members ought to withdraw;
in which case the House might be reduced below a majority, and not be
able, according to the constitution, to do any business at all.

According to the doctrine of the gentleman from New Hampshire, one part
of the Government would be annihilated; for of what avail is it that the
people have the appointment of a representative, if he is to pay
obedience to the dictates of another body?

Several members now rose, and called for the question.

Mr. PAGE was sorry to see gentlemen so impatient; the more so, as he saw
there was very little attention paid to any thing that was said; but he
would express his sentiments if he was only heard by the Chair. He
discovered clearly, notwithstanding what had been observed by the most
ingenious supporters of the opposition, that there was an absolute
necessity for adopting the amendment. It was strictly compatible with
the spirit and the nature of the Government; all power vests in the
people of the United States; it is therefore a Government of the people,
a democracy. If it were consistent with the peace and tranquillity of
the inhabitants, every freeman would have a right to come and give his
vote upon the law; but, inasmuch as this cannot be done, by reason of
the extent of territory, and some other causes, the people have agreed
that their representatives shall exercise a part of their authority. To
pretend to refuse them the power of instructing their agents, appears to
me to deny them a right. One gentleman asks how the instructions are to
be collected. Many parts of this country have been in the practice of
instructing their representatives; they found no difficulty in
communicating their sense. Another gentleman asks if they were to
instruct us to make paper money, what we would do. I would tell them,
said he, it was unconstitutional; alter that, and we will consider on
the point. Unless laws are made satisfactory to the people, they will
lose their support, they will be abused or done away; this tends to
destroy the efficiency of the Government.

It is the sense of several of the conventions that this amendment should
take place; I think it my duty to support it, and fear it will spread an
alarm among our constituents if we decline to do it.

Mr. WADSWORTH.--Instructions have frequently been given to the
representatives of the United States; but the people did not claim as a
right that they should have any obligation upon the representatives; it
is not right that they should. In troublous times, designing men have
drawn the people to instruct the representatives to their harm; the
representatives have, on such occasions, refused to comply with their
instructions. I have known, myself, that they have been disobeyed, and
yet the representative was not brought to account for it; on the
contrary he was caressed and re-elected, while those who have obeyed
them, contrary to their private sentiments, have ever after been
despised for it. Now, if people considered it an inherent right in them
to instruct their representatives, they would have undoubtedly punished
the violation of them. I have no idea of instructions, unless they are
obeyed; a discretional power is incompatible with them.

Mr. BURKE.--I am not positive with respect to the particular expression
in the declaration of rights of the people of Maryland, but the
constitutions of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina, all of
them recognize, in express terms, the right of the people to give
instruction to their representatives. I do not mean to insist
particularly upon this amendment; but I am very well satisfied that
those that are reported and likely to be adopted by this House are very
far from giving satisfaction to our constituents; they are not those
solid and substantial amendments which the people expect; they are
little better than whip-syllabub, frothy and full of wind, formed only
to please the palate; or they are like a tub thrown out to a whale, to
secure the freight of the ship and its peaceable voyage. In my judgment,
the people will not be gratified by the mode we have pursued in bringing
them forward. There was a committee of eleven appointed; and out of the
number I think there were five who were members of the convention that
formed the constitution. Such gentlemen, having already given their
opinion with respect to the perfection of the work, may be thought
improper agents to bring forward amendments. Upon the whole, I think it
will be found that we have done nothing but lose our time, and that it
will be better to drop the subject now, and proceed to the organization
of the Government.

The question was now called for from several parts of the House; but a
desultory conversation took place before the question was put. At length
the call becoming general, it was stated from the Chair, and determined
in the negative, 10 rising in favor of it, and 41 against it.


TUESDAY, August 18.

_Amendments to the Constitution._

Mr. GERRY moved, "That such of the amendments to the constitution
proposed by the several States, as are not in substance comprised in the
report of the select committee appointed to consider amendments, be
referred to a Committee of the whole House; and that all amendments
which shall be agreed to by the committee last mentioned be included in
one report."

Mr. TUCKER remarked, that many citizens expected that the amendments
proposed by the conventions would be attended to by the House, and that
several members conceived it to be their duty to bring them forward. If
the House should decline taking them into consideration, it might tend
to destroy that harmony which had hitherto existed, and which did great
honor to their proceedings; it might affect all their future measures,
and promote such feuds as might embarrass the Government exceedingly.
The States who had proposed these amendments would feel some degree of
chagrin at having misplaced their confidence in the General Government.
Five important States have pretty plainly expressed their apprehensions
of the danger to which the rights of their citizens are exposed. Finding
these cannot be secured in the mode they had wished, they will naturally
recur to the alternative, and endeavor to obtain a federal convention;
the consequence of this may be disagreeable to the Union; party spirit
may be revived, and animosities rekindled destructive of tranquillity.
States that exert themselves to obtain a federal convention, and those
that oppose the measure, may feel so strongly the spirit of discord, as
to sever the Union asunder.

If in this conflict the advocates for a federal convention should prove
successful, the consequences may be alarming; we may lose many of the
valuable principles now established in the present constitution. If, on
the other hand, a convention should not be obtained, the consequences
resulting are equally to be dreaded; it would render the administration
of this system of government weak, if not impracticable; for no
government can be administered with energy, however energetic its
system, unless it obtains the confidence and support of the people.
Which of the two evils is the greatest would be difficult to ascertain.

It is essential to our deliberations that the harmony of the House be
preserved; by it alone we shall be enabled to perfect the organization
of the Government--a Government but in embryo, or at best but in its
infancy.

My idea relative to this constitution, whilst it was dependent upon the
assent of the several States, was, that it required amendment, and that
the proper time for amendment was previous to the ratification. My
reasons were, that I conceived it difficult, if not impossible, to
obtain essential amendments by the way pointed out in the constitution;
nor have I been mistaken in this suspicion. It will be found, I fear,
still more difficult than I apprehended; for perhaps these amendments,
should they be agreed to by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, will
be submitted for ratification to the Legislatures of the several States,
instead of State conventions, in which case the chance is still worse.
The Legislatures of almost all the States consist of two independent,
distinct bodies; the amendments must be adopted by three-fourths of such
Legislatures; that is to say, they must meet the approbation of the
majority of each of eighteen deliberative assemblies. But,
notwithstanding all these objections to obtaining amendments after the
ratification of the constitution, it will tend to give a great degree of
satisfaction to those who are desirous of them, if this House shall take
them up, and consider them with that degree of candor and attention they
have hitherto displayed on the subjects that have come before them;
consider the amendments separately, and, after fair deliberation, either
approve or disapprove of them. By such conduct, we answer in some degree
the expectations of those citizens in the several States who have shown
so great a tenacity to the preservation of those rights and liberties
they secured to themselves by an arduous, persevering, and successful
conflict.

I have hopes that the States will be reconciled to this disappointment,
in consequence of such procedure.

A great variety of arguments might be urged in favor of the motion; but
I shall rest it here, and not trespass any further upon the patience of
the House.

Mr. _Madison_ was just going to move to refer these amendments, in order
that they might be considered in the fullest manner; but it would be
very inconvenient to have them made up into one report, or all of them
discussed at the present time.

Mr. _Vining_ had no objection to the bringing them forward in the
fullest point of view; but his objection arose from the informality
attending the introduction of the business.

The order of the House was to refer the report of the committee of
eleven to a Committee of the Whole, and therefore it was improper to
propose any thing additional.

A desultory conversation arose on this motion, when Mr. _Vining_ moved
the previous question, in which, being supported by five members, it was
put, and the question was,--Shall the main question, to agree to the
motion, be now put? The yeas and nays being demanded by one-fifth of the
members present, on this last motion, they were taken as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Burke, Coles, Floyd, Gerry, Griffin, Grout,
      Hathorn, Livermore, Page, Parker, Van Renssellaer, Sherman,
      Stone, Sturgis, Sumter, and Tucker.--16.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Baldwin, Benson, Boudinot, Brown,
      Cadwalader, Carroll, Clymer, Fitzsimons, Foster, Gilman,
      Goodhue, Hartley, Heister, Huntington, Lawrence, Lee,
      Madison, Moore, Muhlenberg, Partridge, Schureman, Scott,
      Sedgwick, Seney, Sylvester, Sinnickson, Smith, (of
      Maryland,) Smith, (of South Carolina,) Thatcher, Trumbull,
      Vining, Wadsworth, and Wynkoop.--34.

So the motion was lost.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate had passed
the bill providing for expenses which may attend negotiations or
treaties with the Indian tribes, and the appointment of commissioners
for managing the same, with an amendment, to which they desire the
concurrence of the House.


THURSDAY, September 3.

_Permanent Seat of Government._

Mr. _Scott_, agreeably to notice given, moved the following: "That a
permanent residence ought to be fixed for the General Government of the
United States at some convenient place, as near the centre of wealth,
population, and extent of territory, as may be consistent with
convenience to the navigation of the Atlantic Ocean, and having due
regard to the particular situation of the Western country."

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, to take into
consideration the motion presented by Mr. _Scott_, on Thursday last, for
establishing the permanent residence of Congress, Mr. BOUDINOT in the
chair.

Mr. _Goodhue_.--The motion before the committee I consider too
indefinite for the House to decide upon satisfactorily; I wish,
therefore, to add something which may bring the question to a point. It
is well known that the gentlemen from the Eastward are averse to taking
up this business at this time. Not that the subject was improper for our
discussion, but that the present session is drawing to a period, and
there remains yet much important business to be transacted before the
adjournment; but their opinion being overruled by a late vote of the
House, they have since taken it into consideration, and are now ready
and willing to come to a decision. The Eastern members, with the members
from New York, have agreed to fix a place upon national principles,
without a regard to their own convenience, and have turned their minds
to the banks of the Susquehanna. This is a situation as nearly central
as could be devised, upon some of the principles contained in the
resolution. It is, however, supposed to be considerably to the southward
of the centre of the population. Motives of convenience would have led
us to fix upon the banks of the Delaware, but it was supposed it would
give more lasting content to go further south. They were, therefore,
unitedly of opinion, that the banks of the river Susquehanna should be
the place of the permanent residence of the General Government; and that
until suitable buildings could be there erected for accommodation, they
should remain in the city of New York. Agreeably to these ideas, I move
the following resolution:

      _Resolved_, That the permanent seat of the General
      Government ought to be in some convenient place on the east
      bank of the river Susquehanna, in the State of
      Pennsylvania; and that until the necessary buildings be
      erected for the purpose, the seat of Government ought to
      continue at the city of New York.

Mr. STONE said, it ought to be "Government of the United States,"
instead of General Government.

Mr. LEE.--The House are now called upon to deliberate on a great
national question; and I hope they will discuss and decide it with that
dispassionate deliberation which the magnitude of the subject requires.
I hope they will be guided in this discussion and decision, by the great
principles on which the Government is founded. I have, with a view,
therefore, of bringing them before a committee, drawn up a preamble,
which recognizes them, in the words following:

      Whereas the people of the United States have assented to
      and ratified a constitution for their Government, to
      provide for their defence against foreign danger, to secure
      their perpetual union and domestic tranquillity, and to
      promote their common interests; and all these great objects
      will be the best effected by establishing the seat of
      Government in a station as nearly central as a convenient
      water communication with the Atlantic Ocean, and an easy
      access to the Western Territory will permit; and as it will
      be satisfactory to the people of the United States, and
      give them a firm confidence in the justice and wisdom of
      their Government, to be assured that such a station is
      already in the contemplation of Congress; and that proper
      measures will be taken to ascertain it, and to provide the
      necessary accommodations, as soon as the indispensable
      arrangements for carrying into effect the constitution can
      be made, and the circumstances of the United States will
      permit;

      _Resolved_, That a place, as nearly central as a convenient
      communication with the Atlantic Ocean, and an easy access
      to the Western Territory, will permit, ought to be selected
      and established as the permanent seat of the Government of
      the United States.

I wish the principles to be recognized, that the people of the United
States may be able to judge whether, in the measures about to be
adopted, they are carried into execution by this House. If these great
principles are not observed, it will be an unhappy fulfilment of those
predictions which have been made by the opponents of the constitution;
that the general interest of America would not be consulted; that
partial measures would be pursued; and that, instead of being influenced
by a general policy, directed to the good of the whole, one part of the
Union would be depressed and trampled on, to benefit and exalt the
other. Instead of accomplishing and realizing those bright prospects
which shone upon us in the dawn of our Government, and for which our
patriots fought and bled, we shall find the whole to be a visionary
fancy. I flatter myself, that before the House decides on the question
before them, those principles will be recognized, if it is meant they
shall be regarded.

Mr. CARROL seconded Mr. LEE'S motion.

Mr. SHERMAN said, if they were both adopted, or blended together, they
would only amount to a preamble, and determine nothing. He thought the
first preamble the best, inasmuch as it stated the principles simply and
concisely.

Mr. HARTLEY.--Several places have been mentioned, and some have been
offered to Congress as proper situations for the Federal Government.
Many persons wish it seated on the banks of the Delaware, many on the
banks of the Potomac. I consider this as the middle ground between the
two extremes. It will suit the inhabitants to the north better than the
Potomac could, and the inhabitants to the south better than the Delaware
would. From this consideration, I am induced to believe, it will be a
situation more accommodating and agreeable than any other. Respecting
its communication with the Western Territory, no doubt but the
Susquehanna will facilitate that object with considerable ease and great
advantage; and as to its convenience to the navigation of the Atlantic
Ocean, the distance is nothing more than to afford safety from any
hostile attempt, while it affords a short and easy communication with
navigable rivers and large commercial towns. Nay, its intercourse may be
without land carriage, if proper measures are pursued to open the
navigation to the Delaware and Chesapeake. Perhaps, as the present
question is only intended to be on general principles, it may be
improper to be more minute than the honorable mover has been; but I
think it would be better to come to the point at once, and fix the
precise spot, if we could. With this view, I mention Wright's Ferry, on
the Susquehanna. Not, however, that the House should decide upon it,
until they have ascertained its advantages, which will, perhaps, come
more properly forward when the question on the preamble is determined.

Mr. THATCHER was against a preamble being prefixed to the resolution of
the committee, because the House had, on every occasion when preambles
were brought forward, rejected them. He thought this a prudent conduct,
because it avoided embarrassments. He observed, that it was not
unfrequently the case that the preambles occasioned more difficulty in
understanding the laws than the most intricate part of the laws
themselves; and, therefore, the committee would act wisely to reject
such trammels. He conceived, moreover, that the motion was out of order,
as it was a substitute for one before the committee.

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) looked upon the motion as a preamble to a
preamble, both of which he conceived unnecessary; nay, he doubted the
truth of some of the assertions. So far from cementing the Union, by a
measure of the kind in contemplation, he rather feared it would have a
tendency to rend the Union in two; for which reason he was against
adopting it.

Mr. TUCKER wished the proposition might lie on the table, to give
gentlemen time to consider it.

Mr. LEE conceived it proper to adopt the preamble as a guide to their
decision. No gentlemen pretended to say it contained improper
principles. As to the whole being a preamble to a preamble, he did not
conceive that to be the case, because the resolution, subsequent to the
preamble, decided, that Congress should select a place for their
permanent residence. He did not conceive how gentlemen could refuse
their assent to a self-evident proposition. He thought such conduct
would give an alarm to the inhabitants of the United States; it amounted
to a declaration, that, on this important question, they would not be
governed by principles founded on rectitude and good policy.

Mr. MADISON.--I cannot, Mr. Chairman, discover why the opposition to my
colleague's preamble is so strenuous. Is it contended to be out of
order? I submit that to the decision of the Chair. Does it contain any
thing which is not true? I appeal, on that point, to the candid judgment
of the committee. Are the truths in it applicable to the great object we
are about to decide? I appeal to the justice and policy of the people of
the United States.

I flatter myself the Chair will decide with me, that the proposition is
strictly in order; that the committee will agree, that its contents are
substantial truths; and the whole world, that they are applicable to the
important point now under consideration.

It declares the principles which ought to govern our decision on this
question, and will, therefore, stand properly prefixed to the motion
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. GOODHUE.) By it we
declare our sentiments, and engage to conform to them, in fixing upon a
seat for the residence of Congress. Is there any thing improper or
unwise in this determination? An honorable gentleman near me (Mr.
TUCKER) says, that he feels himself embarrassed on this occasion; that
the propositions are a bandage over his eyes, to lead him blindfolded to
an object he cannot tell what. I must beg leave to differ from him. They
appear to me to contain those luminous truths which ought to guide him
through his embarrassment to the object which I am sure his justice and
patriotism are in pursuit of. I hope, therefore, he will agree with us
in adopting the motion, unless something more essential is offered
against it.

Mr. SHERMAN.--The resolution connected with the preamble contains a
proposition which, I think, ought not to be adopted. It selects a place,
having a convenient water-communication with the Atlantic. Now, it may
be just and expedient to fix upon a place at some distance from a
navigable river, therefore it may not agree with the intention of the
committee. As to the principles which are to guide our decisions, they
are as well expressed in the propositions of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania as in the substitute, and as free from ambiguity.

The question on Mr. LEE'S motion was taken, and determined in the
negative; yeas 17, nays 34.

Mr. TUCKER declared, that the majority for fixing upon any set of
principles whatever, could not govern his mind with regard to the fact.
If, on the whole, he did not think that place best, which the principles
adopted seemed to lead to, he certainly could not vote for it. Of what
use, then, was it to establish principles which could not govern the
conduct of the House? But the principles offered are vague, and lead to
no certain conclusion. What is the centre of wealth, population, and
territory? Is there a common centre? Territory has one centre,
population another, and wealth a third. Now, is it intended to determine
a centre from these three centres? This was not a practicable mode of
settling the place; and it was to be doubted whether the centre of
wealth ought at all to be considered. The centre of population is
variable, and a decision on that principle now, might establish the seat
of Government at a very inconvenient place to the next generation. The
centre of territory may be ascertained, but that will lead to a
situation entirely ineligible; consequently, whether these centres were
considered separately or together, they furnish no satisfactory
direction, no possible guide to the committee. The only way, then, to
come at a result yielding satisfaction, would be to consider the several
places to be proposed, according to their merits; and this would be done
by gentlemen in the course of the business. He was, therefore, against
settling any principles by vote.

Mr. MADISON.--I move to strike out the word wealth, because I do not
conceive this to be a consideration that ought to have much weight in
determining the place where the seat of Government ought to be. The two
other principles, I admit, are such as ought to have their influence;
but why wealth should is not so clear. Government is intended for the
accommodation of the citizens at large; an equal facility to communicate
with Government is due to all ranks; whether to transmit their
grievances or requests, or to receive those blessings which the
Government is intended to dispense. The rich are certainly not less able
than those who are indigent to resort to the seat of Government, or to
establish the means necessary for receiving those advantages to which,
as citizens, they are entitled.

I should rather suppose, if any distinctions are to be made, or superior
advantages to be enjoyed from the presence of the Government, that the
Government ought rather to move toward those who are the least able to
move toward it, and who stand most in need of its protection.

The question on this motion was taken, and passed in the negative; yeas
22, nays 28.

The question on Mr. SCOTT'S motion was then taken, and adopted; yeas 32,
nays 18.

Mr. GOODHUE'S motion was now taken into consideration.

Mr. LEE hoped that gentlemen would show how the banks of the Susquehanna
conformed with the principles laid down in the resolution adopted by the
House; how it communicated with the navigation of the Atlantic, and how
it was connected with the Western Territory. He hoped they would also
point out its other advantages, respecting salubrity of air and
fertility of soil. He expected all these advantages ought to be combined
in the place of the residence of the Federal Government, and every other
requisite to cement the common interest of America.

Mr. Hartley wished some gentleman had risen to satisfy the inquiries of
the honorable member, who could have given a description of the
advantages of that situation in better language than himself. But as no
gentleman had offered to undertake the subject, he thought himself bound
to make him an answer; and he trusted, in doing this, he should clearly
show that all the advantages contemplated would result from adopting the
motion. But he wished it had extended further, and selected the place
most convenient on the banks of the Susquehanna, as then the answer
would be more pointed and decisive. He had already mentioned Wright's
Ferry, and would consider that as the proper spot. Now, Wright's Ferry
lies on the east bank of the Susquehanna, about thirty-five miles from
navigable water; and, from a few miles above, is navigable to the source
of the river, at Lake Otsego, in the upper part of the State of New
York. The Tioga branch is navigable a very considerable distance up, and
is but a few miles from the Genesee, which empties into Lake Ontario.
The Juniata is navigable, and nearly connects with the Kisskemanetas,
and that with the Ohio; besides the West Branch connects with the
Alleghany River; forming a communication with the distant parts even of
Kentucky, with very little land carriage. The great body of water in
that river renders it navigable at all seasons of the year. With respect
to the settlements in the neighborhood of Wright's Ferry, he would
venture to assert it was as thickly inhabited as any part of the country
in North America. As to the quality of the soil, it was inferior to none
in the world, and though that was saying a good deal, it was not more
than he believed a fact. In short, from all the information he had
acquired, and that was not inconsiderable, he ventured to pronounce,
that in point of soil, water, and the advantages of nature, there was no
part of the country superior. And if honorable gentlemen were disposed
to pay much attention to a dish of fish, he could assure them their
table might be furnished with fine and good from the waters of the
Susquehanna; perhaps not in such variety as in this city, but the
deficiency was well made up in the abundance which liberal nature
presented them of her various products. It was in the neighborhood of
two large and populous towns, one of them the largest inland town in
America. Added to all these advantages, it possessed that of centrality,
perhaps, in a superior degree to any which could be proposed.

Mr. LEE asked the gentleman what was the distance of Wright's Ferry from
Yorktown, and whether that town, as it had once accommodated Congress,
could do it again? If a permanent seat is established, why not go to it
immediately? And why, let me ask, shall we go and fix upon the banks of
a rapid river, when we can have a more healthful situation? And here he
would inquire if the Codorus Creek, which runs through Yorktown into the
Susquehanna, was, or could be made navigable?

Mr. HARTLEY answered, that Yorktown was ten miles from the Ferry, that
it contained about five hundred houses, besides a number of large and
ornamental public buildings; that there was no doubt, but if Congress
deemed it expedient to remove immediately there, they could be
conveniently accommodated; but as gentlemen appeared to be inclined to
fix the permanent residence on the east banks of the Susquehanna, he was
very well satisfied it should be there.

Mr. MADISON.--The gentleman who brought forward this motion was candid
enough to tell us, that measures have been preconcerted out of doors,
and that the point was determined; that more than half the territory of
the United States, and nearly half its inhabitants have been disposed
of, not only without their consent, but without their knowledge. After
this, I hope the gentleman will extend his candor so much further, as to
show that the general principles now to be established are applicable to
their determination, in order that we may reconcile this fate to our own
minds, and submit to it with some degree of complacency.

I hope, if the seat of Government is to be at or near the centre of
wealth, population, and extent of territory, that gentlemen will show
that the permanent seat there proposed is near the permanent centre of
wealth, population and extent of territory, and the temporary seat, near
the temporary centre. I think we may, with good reason, call upon
gentlemen for an explanation on these points, in order that we may know
the ground on which the great question is decided, and be able to assign
to our constituents satisfactory reasons for what some of them may
consider a sacrifice of their interest, and be instrumental in
reconciling them, as far as possible, to their destiny.

Mr. GOODHUE thought the question, stated by the gentleman from Virginia,
was proper to be asked, and proper to be answered. The gentlemen from
the eastward, as he said before, were in favor of the Susquehanna; that
in contemplating the geographical centre of territory, they found the
banks of that river to be near the place. In point of population, they
considered the Susquehanna was south of that centre; but, from a spirit
of conciliation, they were inclined to go there, although the principle
and their own convenience would not lead them beyond the banks of the
Delaware. He believed the centre of population would not vary
considerably for ages yet to come, because he supposed it would
constantly incline more toward the Eastern, and manufacturing States,
than toward the Southern, and agricultural ones.

Mr. JACKSON.--I was originally opposed to the question coming forward,
and am so still. I thought the subject ought not to be touched till the
States, who have not yet acceded to the Union, might have an opportunity
of giving their voice. I agree with the gentleman from Virginia. I am
sorry that the people should learn that this matter has been
precipitated; that they should learn, that the members from New England
and New York had fixed on a seat of Government for the United States.
This is not proper language to go out to freemen. Jealousies have
already gone abroad. This language will blow the coals of sedition, and
endanger the Union. I would ask, if the other members of the Union are
not also to be consulted? Are the eastern members to dictate in this
business, and fix the seat of Government of the United States? Why not
also fix the principles of Government? Why not come forward, and demand
of us the power of Legislation, and say, give us up your privileges, and
we will govern you? If one part has the power to fix the seat of
Government, they may as well take the Government from the other. This
looks like aristocracy: not the united, but the partial voice of America
is to decide. How can gentlemen answer for this, who call themselves
representatives, on the broad basis of national interest?

I deny the fact of the territorial centrality of the place proposed.
From New York, to the nearest part of the province of Maine, it is two
hundred and fifty miles; and from New York, to the nearest part of the
upper district of Georgia, from which my colleague, General Matthews,
comes, is eleven hundred miles; and from the proposed place on the
Susquehanna, it is four hundred miles to the nearest part of Maine, and
nine hundred to the nearest part of that district; the proportion is
more than two to one. But the gentlemen should have an eye to the
population of Georgia; one of the finest countries in the world cannot
but rapidly extend her population; nothing but her being harassed by the
inroads of savages has checked her amazing increase, which must, under
the auspices of peace and safety, people her western regions. Georgia
will soon be as populous as any State in the Union. Calculations ought
not to be made on its present situation.

North Carolina is not yet in the Union, and perhaps the place may give
umbrage to her, which ought, at this moment, to be cautiously avoided.
I should, therefore, think it most advisable to postpone the decision
for this session at least. But, if we are to decide, I own, I think the
Potomac a better situation than the Susquehanna, and I hope it will be
selected for that purpose.

Mr. GOODHUE.--If gentlemen examine this subject with candor, they will
find that the banks of the Susquehanna are as near the geographical
centre as can be fixed upon. It is from the extreme of the Province of
Maine about seven hundred and sixty miles; to Savannah, in Georgia,
about seven hundred and sixty; and about seven hundred and thirty, or
seven hundred and forty, from Kentucky; so that it is rather south of
the centre of territory.

Mr. LAWRENCE.--When this subject was under discussion some time since,
it appeared to be the wish of gentlemen from the eastward, and of the
members from this State, that the question should not now be decided.
They urged several reasons why it would be improper. I thought those
reasons weighty, and was for postponing the consideration till our next
meeting. But it was answered, that the business was important; that the
citizens of the United States were uneasy and anxious; that as factions
did not now exist, it was the proper time to decide the question. What
was the representation to do? Was it not necessary for them to consult,
and fix upon a proper place?

They are, in a degree, disinterested, because they have no expectation
that the seat of Government will be fixed in any of the Eastern States.
On the other hand, there is a well-grounded expectation, that it will be
fixed either in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, or Jersey. We are
called on to determine a question in which we conceive ourselves
unbiased, and shall decide it on those principles that will reflect
honor on the House. I trust it will be found that we have fixed on those
principles, and that this resolution will be confirmed by Congress. We
do not decide for the Union, nor for the Southern States, we decide for
ourselves; and if our reasons are substantial, I trust that gentlemen
will meet us in the determination.

There are several principles which have been agreed to in the general
resolution; and I believe it will be shown, with exactness, that the
place proposed will come within these principles. The first respects
population. Is the House to consider the present, or the expected
population? The resolution has a determinate meaning; it speaks of the
population at the present period; and to calculate on this principle no
gentleman can say is unjust. The representation in this House is itself
a demonstration of it. The population of this country may be pretty
safely determined by the proportion of representatives in this House;
for it is established on this ground. I therefore believe, that the
principle of population inclines to this place, in preference to a more
southern situation.

But, in taking the principle of territory, are the House to calculate on
the uninhabited wilderness? Shall they take the Lake of the Woods on one
side, and the Missouri on the other, and find a geographical centre? If
so, to what an extent must they go? The inhabited and populated part of
the country ought chiefly to be considered. If St. Croix is taken as the
eastern limit, and St. Mary as the southern, the centre of the line will
be found to fall pretty near the Susquehanna.

Mr. SEDGWICK.--I beg leave to ask, if there really is any impropriety in
gentlemen's consulting together, who have a uniformity of interest, upon
a question which has been said to be of such infinite importance? My
colleague has barely stated that such a consultation has taken place,
and that, in consequence of it, men's minds have been induced to run in
a current. Is there any thing wrong in this? Let those, then, who are
determined not to consult, nor have any communication on such a subject,
decide for themselves. I should think myself lost to that regard I owe
to my country, and to my immediate constituents in particular, should I
abstract myself from the contemplation of the benefits that would flow
from knowing the feelings and sentiments of those with whom I am to act.
Instead of being an evidence to that aristocratic spirit which has been
mentioned, it is only a proof that men, attentive to their business, had
preferred that way, which every honest man had in view. I have
contemplated the subject with great anxiety, and though I cannot declare
that my local situation has had no influence on my mind, yet I will say
I endeavored to prevent its having any. I believe that the true
interests of the country will be best answered by taking a position
eastward and northward of the Susquehanna.

The Delaware is one extreme, the Potomac another; but when I reflect how
anxious some gentlemen are for the one, and some for the other, I am
willing to accommodate both parties, by advancing to a middle ground, to
which I hope the public mind will be reconciled. I was also influenced
in fixing this opinion, by the sentiment of the celebrated Montesquieu.
He had laid it down, that in a country partaking of northern and
southern interests, of a poor and productive soil, the centre and the
influence of Government ought to incline to that part where the former
circumstances prevailed; because necessity stimulates to industry,
produces good habits and a surplus of labor; because such parts are the
nurseries of soldiers and sailors, and the sources of that energy which
is the best security of the Government.

The Susquehanna is, in my opinion, south-west of the centre of wealth,
population, and resources of every kind. I would beg leave, gentlemen,
to suggest another idea. In my view, on the principles of population,
the Susquehanna is far beyond the centre; for I do not think it just,
on this subject, to take the constitutional computation. Will any
gentlemen pretend, that men, who are merely the subject of property or
wealth, should be taken into the estimate; that the slaves of the
country, men who have no rights to protect, (being deprived of them
all,) should be taken into view, in determining the centre of
Government? If they were considered, gentlemen might as well estimate
the black cattle of New England.

I would ask, if it is of no importance to take a position in which the
credit of the Government may procure those supplies that its necessities
might require? Will the strength and riches of the country be to the
north or to the south of the Susquehanna? Certainly to the north.

It is the opinion of all the Eastern States, that the climate of the
Potomac is not only unhealthy, but destructive to northern
constitutions. It is of importance to attend to this, for whether it be
true or false, such are the public prepossessions. Vast numbers of
Eastern adventures have gone to the Southern States, and all have found
their graves there; they have met destruction as soon as they arrived.
These accounts have been spread, and filled the Northern people with
apprehension.

Mr. VINING.--Although I must acknowledge myself a party to the bargain,
yet I had no share in making it. It is to me an unexpected bargain.
Though the interest of the State which I have the honor to represent is
involved in it, I am yet to learn of the committee, whether Congress are
to tickle the trout on the stream of the Codorus, to build their
sumptuous palaces on the banks of the Potomac, or to admire commerce
with her expanded wings, on the waters of the Delaware. I have, on this
occasion, educated my mind to impartiality, and have endeavored to
chastise its prejudices.

I confess to the House, and to the world, that, viewing this subject,
with all its circumstances, I am in favor of the Potomac. I wish the
seat of Government to be fixed there; because I think the interest, the
honor, and the greatness of this country require it. I look on it as the
centre from which those streams are to flow that are to animate and
invigorate the body politic. From thence, it appears to me, the rays of
Government will most naturally diverge to the extremities of the Union.
I declare, that I look on the Western Territory in an awful and striking
point of view. To that region the unpolished sons of earth are flowing
from all quarters; men, to whom the protection of the laws, and the
controlling force of the Government, are equally necessary. From this
great consideration, I conclude that the banks of the Potomac are the
proper station.

Mr. SENEY mentioned Peach Bottom, on the Susquehanna, about fifteen
miles above tide-water, as the proper place.

Mr. GOODHUE did not wish the particular spot pointed out, because some
inconvenience would result from such a measure; however, he was free to
declare, that his own idea was in favor of a situation near Wright's
Ferry.

Mr. HEISTER moved to insert Harrisburg in the resolution. He conceived
the spot to be more eligible than any yet mentioned; from hence there
was an uninterrupted navigation to the sources of the river, and through
this place runs the great Western road leading to Fort Pitt, and the
Western Territory. A water communication can be effected at small
expense with Philadelphia. The waters of the Swetara, a branch of the
Susquehanna, about eight miles below Harrisburg, run to the north-east,
and are navigable fifteen miles from thence to the Tulpehoken, a branch
of the Schuylkill; a canal may be cut across, of about a mile and a
half, the ground has been actually surveyed, and found practicable; this
will unite the Susquehanna and Delaware, and open a passage for the
produce of an immense tract of country. It is but little further from
Philadelphia than is Wright's Ferry; and, on many accounts, he thought
it a preferable situation for the permanent seat of Government.

Mr. MADISON meant to pay due attention to every argument that could be
urged on this important question. Facts had been asserted, the
impressions of which he wished to be erased, if they were not well
founded. It has been said, that the communication with the Western
Territory, by the Susquehanna, is more convenient than by the Potomac. I
apprehend this is not the case; and the propriety of our decision will
depend, in a great measure, on the superior advantages of one of these
two streams. It is agreed, on all hands, that we ought to have some
regard to the convenience of the Atlantic navigation. Now, to embrace
this object, a position must be taken on some navigable river; to favor
the communication with the Western Territory, its arms ought likewise to
extend themselves towards that region. I did not suppose it would have
been necessary to bring forward charts and maps, as has been done by
others, to show the committee the comparative situation of those rivers.
I flattered myself it was sufficiently understood, to enable us to
decide the question of superiority; but I am now inclined to believe,
that gentlemen have embraced an error, and I hope they are not
determined to vote under improper impressions. I venture to pledge
myself for the demonstration, that the communication with the Western
Territory, by the Potomac, is more certain and convenient than the
other. And if the question is as important as it is admitted to be,
gentlemen will not shut their ears to information; they will not
precipitate the decision; or if they regard the satisfaction of our
constituents, they will allow them to be informed of all the facts and
arguments that lead to the decision of a question in which the general
and particular interests of all parts of the Union are involved.

Mr. STONE found gentlemen had determined on a step that was not
generally liked; he wished, therefore, the committee to rise, and give
all of them an opportunity of trying to mend the bargain that had been
made; perhaps they might find, upon reflection, that they ought to
decide the question on more national principles than they seemed yet to
be governed by.

Mr. SENEY could not say how far the motion was agreeable to every part
of America; but he believed it would be acceptable to a very
considerable part of the State he had the honor to represent.

Mr. SUMTER was in favor of the committee's rising, in order to give
gentlemen time to ascertain the facts necessary to guide them to a
decision. There was one impropriety which struck him forcibly; the
resolution adopted as a principle that the seat of Government ought to
be in a convenient place for the navigation of the Atlantic Ocean. But
the situation mentioned in the resolution under consideration had no
communication whatever with the Atlantic navigation. It had been said,
that the Susquehanna afforded the most convenient communication with the
Western Territory. He believed the Hudson possessed superior advantages;
it connected with the country about the Lakes and the Ohio. From New
York to Albany was navigable; from thence to Schenectady, there was a
short portage; after ascending Schenectady, there was a short portage of
half a mile to the Mohawk; from thence, another short portage to Wood
Creek, and thence into Lake Ontario, which connects with Lake Erie; and
from thence are portages to the Wabash, Miami, Muskingum or Alleghany,
all falling into the Ohio. But the Potomac possessed advantages superior
to these; and was, both on account of communicating with the Atlantic
and Western Territory, much to be preferred to the Susquehanna. He
assured gentlemen that he was unbiased in giving a preference to the
Potomac; because, if he studied his own convenience, he should consider
New York as more eligible than either. It accommodated the Atlantic
navigation in a superior manner, and had its pretensions to a connection
with the Western waters, as he had already shown. He hoped, however,
that the subject would be debated with candor and good temper, and
decided in the way most likely to promote the general interests and
harmony of the Union.

Mr. SHERMAN was against taking up the subject so soon; but since it had
been determined against him,--gentlemen, he presumed, had endeavored to
make up their minds,--he had turned his attention to it, and was now
prepared to decide.

Mr. CLYMER knew the advantages possessed by the Susquehanna in
communicating with the Western country; they were mentioned by his
colleague; but, with the additional circumstance that the Juniata branch
afforded a convenient navigation to a road lately laid out by the State
of Pennsylvania, which connected with the Kisskaminetas, from whence was
a short voyage down the Alleghany, and shorter still down that to the
Ohio, at Pittsburg. He questioned much if the navigation by the Potomac
was so convenient.

Mr. STONE did not mean to govern his vote on this occasion by what was
said to be the sense of the citizens of Maryland; because they were, he
apprehended, divided in opinion. One part or the other would be
particularly benefited, as the seat of Government should be fixed either
on the Susquehanna or Potomac, because those rivers watered its
territory. Perhaps the majority of the present inhabitants would prefer
the Susquehanna; but as their settlements extended westward, and the
population increased, the majority would be favored by the Potomac.

Mr. SENEY did not mean to determine this question on the principle of
benefiting, exclusively, the citizens of Maryland; he considered himself
as a Representative of the Union, and should decide on the principle of
general convenience.

Mr. TUCKER hoped the committee would rise, in order to give gentlemen
time to consider the subject maturely, and to prepare themselves to come
forward and discuss, fairly and fully, the advantages and disadvantages
of the rival places. He could not believe they meant to decide a
question of this importance on the superficial discussion which had
taken place.

The question, on the committee's rising, was now put, and it passed in
the negative; for it 23, against it 27.

Mr. STONE.--We are called upon, sir, to determine a question that has
not been introduced to our notice more than two hours and a half; a
question too, as admitted on both sides, of the highest importance to
the interests and harmony of the Union. I cannot help thinking it a
hardship to be compelled so abruptly to a decision; but since it must be
the case, I shall take the liberty of suggesting a few of my thoughts,
in order to justify the vote I mean to give.

There are a variety of considerations and doubts in my mind, respecting
the two rivers that have been mentioned. These doubts are increased when
a particular place is named upon one of them; but had gentlemen told us,
that they had settled this point also, it might have precluded any sort
of debate whatever; because when an agreement had taken place, not only
as to the banks of the Susquehanna, but as to the favored spot on those
banks, we should not have entertained a single hope that we could have
changed the position. But, as gentlemen differ among themselves on this
point, perhaps they will permit us to participate with them in selecting
the place most likely to give general satisfaction. But how can they
suppose we are prepared on this head, without a general consideration of
all the places which may offer themselves along the east bank of the
river.

I am not apprised, sir, of the extent of this continent certainly,
because I never calculated it by figures, or measured it on the map; but
if there is the smallest degree of accuracy in the draft that has been
handed about, no man, who takes a view of it, in my opinion, will doubt
a single moment, whether the Susquehanna is the river, which nearly
equally divides the territory of the United States, in its extent north
and south, that separates, in equal parts, the country east and west.
The eastern part, I take it, is little, if any thing, more than half as
large as what lies west. We observe that the course of the main branch
tends more toward the Atlantic Ocean, than it does toward the Western
Territory; but even its western inclination goes only toward the lakes
Erie and Ontario, through the middle of which runs the boundary line of
the United States. How can this, then, be supposed a direct or
convenient communication with that part of the country which is usually
termed, and is in fact, the Western Territory?

In fixing the permanent residence, we ought not only to have in view the
immediate importance of the States, but also what is likely to be their
weight at a future day; not that we should consider a visionary
importance, or chimerical expectation, but such a one as can be
demonstrated with as much certainty as effects follow their causes. I
apprehend the increase of population to the eastward is merely
conditional; there is nothing to invite people to settle in the northern
parts of this continent, in preference to the southern; even if they
were settled there, every principle which encourages population would
operate to induce them to emigrate to the southern and western parts. We
know the northern climate is severe, the winters long, and summers
short, and that the soil is less fertile. Were we not assuredly
acquainted that this was the case on the continent of America, we should
be led to the same conclusion, by reasoning from our knowledge of the
other parts of the globe. Men multiply in proportion to the means of
support, and this is more abundant in a mild than a severe climate.
Hence, I infer, that the climate, and means of subsistence, will ever
operate as a stimulus to promote the population of the Southern, in
preference to the Northern States. This doctrine is daily exemplified.
If we advert to the situation of that part of the Western country,
called Kentucky, and compare its increase of population since the war,
with any part of the Eastern States, we shall find men multiplied there
beyond any thing known in America; and if we consider its natural
advantages, we shall conclude it will be an important part of the Union.
The river which has been mentioned by the southern gentlemen is, as far
as I am acquainted, extremely well calculated to furnish Government with
the key of that country; and a river, I believe, richer in its exports
than any I have contemplated on the face of the earth.

A call was now made to order, and Mr. STONE sat down. A desultory
conversation took place on the point of order. It was contended, that
the question was on the insertion of Harrisburg, in the proposition
offered by Mr. GOODHUE; whereas Mr. STONE was speaking to the main
question.

Messrs. CARROLL, LEE and MADISON insisted that Mr. STONE was in order,
inasmuch as Mr. HEISTER'S motion necessarily involved the main question,
and was inseparable from it.

But it was decided by the Chair to be out of order; whereupon the
question was taken, without further debate, on inserting Harrisburg, and
it was determined in the negative.

The main question being now before the committee,

Mr. STONE proceeded. I feel myself unhappy to be obliged to address
gentlemen, who are not disposed to attend to any thing I may say; but as
gentlemen have chosen this time for discussing the subject, they will
not think it improper in me to persist in detailing my ideas. When I was
interrupted by the call to order, I was about to show the importance of
the Potomac to the United States. Its waters afford a practical, safe,
and short communication with the Ohio and Mississippi, beyond comparison
preferable to the Susquehanna. If it is intended that the people settled
upon those great rivers should communicate with the General Government,
after ascending the former they must proceed a vast distance northward,
up the Alleghany, against a rapid stream, before they can reach the
Susquehanna. I am inclined to believe a land-carriage would be better
than such a laborious round-about water communication. Now the Potomac,
as I am informed, connects with the Youghiogheny, a river less rapid
than the Alleghany, and is itself communicable with the Atlantic. In
this case, the Potomac will be the highway for such vast quantities of
wealth as to give every superiority; and, however we may determine at
this day, it will not be long before the seat of Government must be
carried thither. The vast population that is extending itself through
the Western country requires that the Government should take a position
favorable to its convenience; because new settlements at a vast distance
from the old are more exposed to temptation than others; but in the
present case, it is proper for us to guard against the operation of a
foreign country, which seems to be forming settlements near our
frontiers to rival ours. It may be the more necessary, inasmuch as we
ought to keep the boundary line distinct between the Spaniards and
savages, as I fear, do what we will, we run the greatest risk of
entering into a quarrel with them; for, it is well known, that
emigrants, in forming new settlements, are not much concerned about an
ascertainment of jurisdiction; they are generally bold, enterprising
spirits, who feel some aversion to strict government; it is therefore
necessary that the Government should approach toward them, and be placed
in such situation as would give it the greatest possible influence over
them. Beside their contiguity to a rival nation, they are independent in
their condition; they want hardly any thing this country can give; their
soil is rich and fertile; their exports will furnish them with every
foreign article from the southward which they can require. Their
interests are more strongly connected with the Southern States than the
Southern States are with the Eastern. The advantages of this Government
are felt, in a peculiar manner, by the mercantile and commercial States;
the agricultural States have not the same strong reasons for maintaining
the Union. Hence we may apprehend that the Western country may be
inclined, as it advances its importance, to drop off. The Susquehanna is
no bond by which to hold them; its direction is more northern than
westerly. Upon the whole, I am inclined to believe that it would not
give general satisfaction at the present day; and the inequality would
daily grow more striking, until we should be compelled to remove again
to where there was a probability of finding a centre of territory as
well as population. I have thrown out these ideas in a crude manner, but
gentlemen have forced me to it by their urgency to take the question; I
could wish to be allowed time for further discussion, and I believe it
would be no ill sacrifice of a day, if we were to put off the
determination till to-morrow.

Mr. LEE observed, that since gentlemen would not admit of a moment's
delay; since they seemed to declare, that they had settled the matter
without giving an opportunity for full discussion; since the House were
hurried to a decision on a point that involved the welfare of the
community, duty to his country, duty to the better half of the territory
of the United States, called on him to come forward with another
proposition.

He then moved to strike out the words "east bank of the Susquehanna,"
and to insert a clause to this effect; that, whereas the banks of the
Potomac united all the aforesaid advantages, with fertility of soil,
salubrity of climate, &c. Resolved, That the permanent seat of
Government ought to be fixed somewhere on the banks of the said river.

He flattered himself that these two rival places would be considered
with an attention that would do honor to the House; that their several
advantages would be fully compared, and that such a decision would
result as would be for the lasting benefit of the United States.

He then stated at large the comparative advantages of the Potomac; its
great and increasing improvements; the extent of its navigation; its
direct communication with the Western country, and its easy
communication with the Eastern and Southern States.

The House, he said, were now to determine whether regard was to be had
to the people of the Western Territory, to the greater portion of the
territory of the Union; in point of climate, it was extremely
salubrious; in fertility of soil, it was exceeded by no country on
earth. Thither would emigrants flock from all quarters.

He asked whether this Government was intended for a temporary or a
lasting one? Whether it was to be a fleeting vision, or to continue for
ages? He hoped the result would proclaim that the Government was
calculated for perpetuity; and that the common interests of the country
had been consulted. If that was done, the Government would be removed to
the Potomac; if not, we should stop short of it; and what would be the
consequence? He said he was averse to sound alarms, or introduce terrors
into the House; but if they were well founded, he thought it his duty.
It was well known with what difficulty the constitution was adopted by
the State of Virginia. It was then said, that there would be
confederacies of the States east of Pennsylvania, which would destroy
the Southern States; that they would unite their councils in discussing
questions relative to their particular interests, and the Southern
States would be disregarded. To these suspicions, it was answered, no!
It was contended that the magnanimous policy, arising from mutual
interests and common dangers would unite all the States, and make them
pursue objects of general good. But if it should be found that there
were such confederacies as were predicted, that the Northern States did
consult their partial interests, and form combinations to support them,
without regarding their Southern brethren, they would be alarmed, and
the faith of all south of the Potomac would be shaken. It would be shown
to them, that what had been predicted by the enemies to the constitution
had come to pass; that the Northern States had not waited till the
Government was organized before they sacrificed the Southern people to
their own interests.

Let the seat of Government be fixed where it may, Virginia had not
solicited Congress to place the seat of Government in her State. She
only contended, that the interests of the Southern and Western country
should be consulted; and he declared that these interests would be
sacrificed, if Congress fixed upon any place but the Potomac. The
greater part of Virginia was distant from that river. Many parts were
not nearer than New Jersey. She wished not to have the seat on the
Potomac but for the general good; it was not for the benefit of that
State, but for the benefit of the Union.

Mr. LAWRENCE said, it was improper and unnecessary to hold out terrors
to the fancy of members. The true way to convince them, was to address
their understandings. He was certain there was no dangerous confederacy
which the gentleman had talked of; and believed the conduct of the
Northern States would bear the strictest scrutiny; that, if probed to
the bottom, it would be found fair and candid. He remembered in the
debate upon the Tonnage bill, a gentleman from Virginia observed, that
could the moderate and equal policy of that day's proceedings have been
foreseen in the convention of Virginia, many objections that were there
produced against the constitution would have been thereby obviated.

He trusted, that, in conducting the business before them, gentlemen
could find no cause, eventually, to entertain different sentiments from
what he then delivered.

Mr. MADISON.--I acknowledge, that, on a former day, I made the
observation alluded to with singular complacency. I said, I had found a
moderation and liberality prevailing here, which I sincerely believed,
if foreseen in the convention of Virginia, would have obviated a very
powerful objection to the adoption of the Federal constitution. But,
give me leave now to say, that if a Prophet had risen in that body, and
brought the declarations and proceedings of this day into view, that I
as firmly believe Virginia might not have been a part of the Union at
this moment.

A motion was now made for the committee to rise, and several gentlemen
said, they wished it to prevail, in order that an opportunity might be
afforded for a fuller discussion.

Mr. SEDGWICK hoped the committee would not rise. Will it be contended,
that the majority shall not govern; and shall the minority, because they
cannot carry their points, accuse the House of want of candor? Are we to
be told, that an important State would not have joined the Union, had
they known what would have been the proceedings of this House. Gentlemen
have brought forward this business themselves; they have precipitated
the House into it. We prayed, we supplicated for time; and now
gentlemen, from some causes not explained, wish to postpone the matter,
in order to have time to deliberate. He believed that a deliberation of
six weeks would not alter a single opinion, and therefore it was not
proper to consume the public time uselessly.

Mr. MADISON.--When I alluded to the proceedings of this day, I
contemplated the manner in which the business was conducted; and though
I acknowledge that a majority ought to govern, yet they have no
authority to deprive the minority of a constitutional right; they have
no authority to debar us the right of free debate. An important and
interesting question being under consideration, we ought to have time
allowed for its discussion. Facts have been stated on one side, and
members ought to be indulged on the other with an opportunity of
collecting and ascertaining other facts. We have a right to bring
forward all the arguments which we think can, and ought to have an
influence on the decision. It is unusual, on a partial discussion, even
of questions of inferior magnitude, to decide in the course of a single
day. How, then, can gentlemen reconcile their conduct of this day to the
liberality they have hitherto shown? This manner of proceeding would
mark a genius in this body which will contradict the expectations of its
warmest friends. I hope nothing will be fixed by a hasty determination.
I said before, and repeat it again, that I wish to make some
observations on what has been advanced, for which at present there is
not time. But, if there was, I do not wish to address a determined and
silent majority. No, sir, if this be the temper of to-day, let me
appeal to a more favorable temper to-morrow. If gentlemen refuse this
appeal, I must submit; but I will, to the last moment, assert my right,
and remonstrate against a precipitate decision.

Mr. BURKE observed, that the Northern States had had a fortnight to
manage this matter, and would not now allow the Southern States a day.
What was the conduct of gentlemen? A league has been formed between the
Northern States and Pennsylvania.

Mr. FITZSIMONS interrupted Mr. BURKE, and denied the assertion, as it
respected Pennsylvania.

Mr. BURKE then proceeded, and said that the Eastern members had combined
with some other States, he could not positively say which, but the first
information that was furnished was given this morning, every gentleman
had heard it as well as himself, but that had nothing to do with his
object; he wanted time to get information; and called on gentlemen, for
the honor of the House, to comply with this request.

Mr. WADSWORTH said, he rejoiced to hear the gentlemen calling for time,
and crying out fair play. He remembered when he entreated the gentleman
who spoke last, and others, not to precipitate themselves into this
situation; his entreaties had been of no avail. Knowing that the pride
of a majority was one of those things to which he had to submit, he,
with all the New England members, solicited for time. With respect to
bargaining, he believed that it would reflect no honor on either side of
the House. He said he must either give his vote now, or submit to more
bargaining. He was willing that the whole business of bargaining should
be exposed; he would not excuse himself; he did not dare to go to the
Potomac. He feared that the whole of New England would consider the
Union as destroyed. Since the matter had been so prematurely brought on,
since members had been forced, and, as it were, dragged by the throat to
this business, he hoped it was now finished.

The question was now put, on the rising of the committee, and carried:
Whereupon the committee rose and reported progress, and then the House
adjourned.


THURSDAY, September 4.

_Seat of Government._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the
Resolution for establishing a permanent Seat of Government, Mr. BOUDINOT
in the chair.

Mr. STONE wished to hear the sentiments of the gentleman who first
brought forward this business: he expected to derive some advantage from
that gentleman's knowledge of the country, which, he presumed, was
pretty accurate, as it was derived from actual observation.

After waiting some time,

Mr. STONE repeated his request, under an apprehension that he had not
the honor of being heard by the worthy gentleman.

Mr. GOODHUE rose and said, he had given his sentiments yesterday, but,
if the gentleman desired it, he was ready to repeat them.

Mr. STONE said, he addressed his request to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.

Mr. SCOTT.--I understood the gentleman so, and I have no objection to
giving my sentiments on the occasion. The resolution I laid on the table
has been honored with the vote of a majority of the committee. It
contains such principles as, I believe, ought to govern in the
settlement of the grand question: they have declared, that they mean to
be governed by these principles, and this is a declaration to the world
that their hearts are good. What may follow in consequence of that
resolution, cannot impeach the motive, it can only prove, that our heads
are uninformed; an error of the head is pardonable, but an error of the
heart is not easily forgiven.

Whether the spot which has been moved is the right spot or not, seems to
be the matter under inquiry. I had prepared myself with documents, which
I should have produced had they been needed, to prove, that the State I
have the honor to represent involves, within its limits the centre of
wealth and population of the United States, taking the sea-coast for a
guide; for all that has been said of the importance of the Western
country, has not prevailed on me to imagine, that all the vacant
territory should be taken into view, the same as the settled and
cultivated parts; my resolution had no other idea but that the Atlantic
States should consent to go as near that territory as their convenience
would allow. I am convinced that going further than would suit the
Atlantic States would injure the Western country itself.

Mr. MADISON said, if this delay should not have produced any alteration
in the sentiments of the gentlemen, it will at least soften that hard
decision which seems to threaten the friends of the Potomac. He hoped
that all would concur in the great principle on which they ought to
conduct and decide this business; an equal attention to the rights of
the community. No government, he said, not even the most despotic,
could, beyond a certain point, violate that idea of justice and equal
right which prevailed in the mind of the community. In Republican
Governments, justice and equality form the basis of the system; and
perhaps the structure can rest on no other that the wisdom of man can
devise. In a Federal Republic, give me leave to say, it is even more
necessary and proper, that a sacred regard should be paid to these
considerations. For beyond the sense of the community at large, which
has its full agency in such a system, no such Government can act with
safety. The Federal ingredient involves local distinctions, which not
only produce local jealousies, but give, at the same time, a greater
local capacity to support, and insist upon equitable demands. In a
Confederacy of States, in which the people operate, in one respect as
citizens, and in another as forming political communities, the local
Governments will ever possess a keener sense and capacity, to take
advantage of those powers, on which the protection of local rights
depends. If these great rights be the basis of republics, and if there
be a double necessity of attending to them in a Federal Republic, it is
further to be considered, that there is no one right, of which the
people can judge with more ease and certainty, and of which they will
judge with more jealousy, than of the establishment of the permanent
seat of Government; and I am persuaded, that however often this subject
may be discussed in the representative body, or however the attention of
the committee may be drawn to it, the observations I have made will be
more and more verified. We see the operation of this sentiment fully
exemplified in what has taken place in the several States. In every
instance where the seat of Government has been placed in an uncentral
position, we have seen the people struggling to place it where it ought
to be. In some instances they have not yet succeeded, but I believe they
will succeed in all. In many they have actually gained their point.

With respect, however, to the Federal Government, there is one
consideration that shows, in a peculiar manner, the necessity and policy
of paying a strict attention to this principle. One of the greatest
objections which has been made by the opponents of the system, which has
been allowed most weight by its friends, is the extent of the United
States. It has been asserted by some, and almost feared by others, that
within so great a space, no free Government can exist. I hope and trust,
that the opinion is erroneous; but, at the same time, I acknowledge it
to have a certain degree of force, and it is incumbent on those who wish
well to the Union, to diminish this inconvenience as much as possible.
The way to diminish it, is to place the Government in that spot which
will be least removed from every part of the empire. Carry it to a
remote position, and it will be equivalent to an extension of our
limits; and if our limits are already extended so far as warrants, in
any degree, the apprehension before mentioned, we ought to take care not
to extend them further.

The seat of Government is of great importance, if you consider the
diffusion of wealth that proceeds from this source. I presume that the
expenditures which will take place, where the Government will be
established by those who are immediately concerned in its
administration, and by others who may resort to it, will not be less
than half a million dollars a year. It is to be regretted that those who
may be most convenient to the centre should enjoy this advantage to a
higher degree than others; but the inequality is an evil imposed by
necessity; we diminish it as we place the source from which those
emanations of wealth are to proceed as near the centre as possible.

If we consider, sir, the effects of Legislative power on the aggregate
community, we must feel equal inducements to look for the centre, in
order to find the proper seat of Government. Those who are most adjacent
to the seat of Legislation will always possess advantages over others.
An earlier knowledge of the laws, a greater influence in enacting them,
better opportunities for anticipating them, and a thousand other
circumstances, will give a superiority to those who are thus situated.
If it were possible to promulgate our laws, by some instantaneous
operation, it would be of less consequence in that point of view where
the Government might be placed; but if, on the contrary, time is
necessary for this purpose, we ought, as far as possible, to put every
part of the community on a level.

If we consider the influence of the Government in its Executive
Department, there is no less reason to conclude that it ought to be
placed in the centre of the Union. It ought to be in a situation to
command information relative to every part of the Union, to watch every
conjuncture, to seize every circumstance that can be improved. The
Executive eye ought to be placed where it can best see the dangers which
may threaten, and the Executive arm, whence it may be extended most
effectually to the protection of every part. Perhaps it is peculiarly
necessary, that, in looking for the position, we should keep our eye as
much as possible towards our Western borders; for a long time dangers
will be most apt to assail that quarter of the Union.

He was sure, that if justice required us to take any one position in
preference to another, we had every inducement, both of interest and of
prudence to fix on the Potomac, as most satisfactory to our Western
brethren. It is impossible to reflect a moment on the possible severance
of that branch of the Union without seeing the mischiefs which such an
event must create. The area of the United States divided into two equal
parts, will leave, perhaps, one half on the west side of the Alleghany
Mountains. From the fertility of the soil, the fineness of the climate,
and every thing that can favor a growing population, we may suppose the
settlement will go on with every degree of rapidity which our
imagination can conceive.

If the calculation be just, that we double in twenty-five years, we
shall speedily behold an astonishing mass of people on the Western
waters. Whether this great mass will form a permanent part of the
confederacy, or whether it will be separated into an alien, a jealous
and a hostile people, may depend on the system of measures that is
shortly to be taken. The difference, he observed, between considering
them in the light of fellow-citizens, bound to us by a common affection,
obeying common laws, pursuing a common good, and considering them in the
other light, presents one of the most interesting questions that can
occupy an American mind. Instead of peace and friendship, we shall have
rivalship and enmity; instead of being a great people, invulnerable on
all sides, and without the necessity of those military establishments
which other nations require, we shall be driven into the same expensive
and dangerous means of defence. We shall be obliged to lay burthens on
the people, to support establishments which, sooner or later, may prove
fatal to their liberties. It is incumbent on us, if we wish to act the
part of magnanimous legislators, or patriotic citizens, to consider
well, when we are about to take a step of such vast importance, that it
be directed by the views he had described; we must consider what is
just, what is equal, and what is satisfactory.

On a candid view of the two rivers, he flattered himself that the seat
which would most correspond with the public interest would be found on
the banks of the Potomac. It was proper that we should have some regard
to the centre of territory; if that was to have weight, he begged leave
to say, that there was no comparison between the two rivers. He defied
any gentleman to cast his eye in the most cursory manner over a map and
say that the Potomac is not much nearer this centre than any part of the
Susquehanna. If we measure from the banks of the Potomac to the most
eastern parts of the United States, it is less distant than to the most
southern. If we measure this great area diagonally, the Potomac will
have the advantage. If you draw a line perpendicularly to the direction
of the Atlantic coast, we shall find that it will run more equally
through the Potomac than through any part of the Union; or, if there be
any difference between one side and the other, there will be a greater
space on the south-west than on the north-east. All the maps of the
United States show the truth of this. From the Atlantic coast to that
line which separates the British possessions from the United States, the
average distance is not more than one hundred and fifty miles. If you
take the average breadth of the other great division of the United
States, it will be found to be six, seven, and eight hundred miles.

From this view of the subject, which is not easy to describe by words,
but which will strike every eye that looks on a map, I am sure that if
the Potomac is not the geographical centre, it is because the
Susquehanna is less so.

Mr. CLYMER begged to set the gentleman right; his colleague, if he
understood him, had only related the communication by the north-western
branches, but there was a communication by the Juniata, a branch of the
Susquehanna, about fifteen miles above Harrisburg, tending westerly, and
navigable eighty miles, from whence to the Connemagh was a portage, with
a road actually laid out of about forty miles, hence you descend the
Kisskaminetas to the Alleghany, and from thence to Pittsburg is thirty
miles.

Mr. SCOTT knew this communication pretty well, but we who live in that
country never take it into consideration, as the waters are too small to
afford a certainty of communication, but even here the portage was
greater than between the Potomac and Youghiogheny.

Mr. CLYMER said, with respect to the navigation of the Juniata, that it
was in evidence before the House of Assembly of Pennsylvania, when they
were considering the means of uniting that navigation with the western
waters, that produce to the amount of fourteen hundred bushels had been
brought down it to Middletown.

Mr. MADISON proceeded and said, he wished every fact to be ascertained
that could throw any light upon the subject. Taking the Susquehanna, as
it was practicable for navigation, it would be found, that through that
route of communication, Fort Pitt would be four or five hundred miles
from the proposed seat on its banks, and that the distance by land was
not less than two hundred and fifty miles; whereas, through the Potomac
the distance from the proposed spot on its banks to Fort Pitt was not
calculated at more than two hundred and fifty miles, and he believed the
distance by land would be found not to exceed one hundred and sixty or
one hundred and seventy miles.

Whether we measure the distance by land or water, then, the result is in
favor of the Potomac. If we consider the progress already made in
opening this great channel, its title becomes still stronger. Let me
add, that it has been found, on accurate research, that the waters
communicating with the Ohio are not more than two or three miles distant
from the sources of the Potomac. This is a fact of peculiar importance.

The gentleman from Massachusetts yesterday raised great objections
against the Potomac, because it was, as he supposed, subject to
periodical maladies, from which the other river was free. I am not
authorized, from personal experience, or very particular information, to
draw a comparison between them; but there are some general facts that
may serve to show, that if there is any difference, it is more likely to
be in favor of the Potomac than of the Susquehanna. The position
contemplated on the banks of the former is considerably further from
tide water than the place proposed on the latter. On this account,
therefore, we have little reason to suppose that the Potomac is more
unhealthy. If we regard their comparative situations, westwardly, the
spot on the Potomac is almost as much further to the west, as it is
distant from the proposed spot on the Susquehanna; and he well knew
that, generally speaking, as were tire towards the Western and upper
country, we are generally removed from the causes of those diseases to
which southern situations are exposed. As the two places are moreover in
the same latitude, the objection advanced, with respect to that point,
cannot apply to one more than the other. It is only their western or
eastern position, their remoteness from, or their proximity to the lower
country, and to fresh or stagnant waters, that can possibly affect the
question. It is not because we advance so much to the south that we
advance to the centre, it is because we go more to the west. I do not
know that there is a difference of more than a degree and five or six
minutes between the latitude of New York and the place proposed on the
Potomac.

Mr. AMES never intended that this question should be carried through the
committee by the strength of a silent majority; he had confidence in the
weight of the arguments to be urged in favor of the Susquehanna, and he
was willing to put the decision of the question on that ground. He would
now come forward, and give the reasons of his opinion, especially as
gentlemen had entered fully into the reasons which guided their own to a
different conclusion. He did not conceive it would be necessary for him,
coming from the part of the United States from which he did, to disclaim
the local views and narrow prejudices with which the subject teemed. He
had feared, when the question was first brought forward, that the minds
of gentlemen would be highly fermented, indeed so much, that he almost
despaired of coming to a proper decision, nor did he think these
apprehensions were illusive, if he judged from what had already taken
place. He had observed that some gentlemen, whose discernments were
clear and who were generally guided by the straight line of rectitude,
had been most surprisingly warped on the present occasion; he was
fearful that their wishes had misled them from a due regard of the real
object of their pursuit, viz: the public interest and convenience. He
was sensible, that he himself was liable to some improper impressions;
but he trusted he did not feel them in that degree which he thought he
saw in others.

He was willing to be led by the great principles which other gentlemen
had laid down as the rule of their decision; but he thought they would
lead to a different conclusion from what had been drawn from them; he
admitted that a central situation is to be taken, and in considering
this centre, the centre of a sea-coast line ought to be regarded,
because it is more conveniently accessible, has more wealth, and more
people than an equal area of inland country. Being more liable to
invasion, government should be near to protect it. It is the interest of
the back country to have the Government near the sea, to inspect and
encourage trade, by which their abundant produce will find an export.
And lastly, he said, the contingency of the separation of the Western
country was a reason for preferring the sea-coast.

He proceeded next to say, there will not be any contest where this
centre of the sea-coast line is to be found: it falls between the rivers
Potomac and Susquehanna. It will be found that there are good reasons
why we should rather move east than south.

If the sea-coast line is to be preferred, it will follow that the back
lands, west of the Ohio, which the gentleman from Virginia has so often
taken into his calculations, will be excluded; they are not peopled;
they do not affect the sea-coast line; and that line has already been
voted to be the proper one by the committee. As it is true that the
sea-coast has more wealth and more people than the inland country in
proportion to the extent, it is equally true that the eastern half of
the sea-coast has more of both than the southern. If we reckon Maryland,
which will be as well accommodated by the Susquehanna as by the Potomac,
we shall find the population of the eastern part nearly two millions,
and that of the southern only one million, and the population of free
inhabitants still less in favor of the latter.

But, sir, instead of seeking a centre geographically, we should consider
the centre of common convenience. The place is the proper one where the
greatest number of persons will be best accommodated. I will endeavor to
show that that will be on the Susquehanna. Is the zeal of gentlemen, who
oppose this design, influenced by their despair of removing the seat of
Government afterwards? I believe the people of America will not complain
of it. If fixed there, I think it will be found convenient and will
remain there.

The Susquehanna is the centre of the common convenience. At this moment
there are more wealth and more inhabitants east than south of it. But
the future population of America is calculated, and it is pretended that
the balance of population is receding from the East. Surely the present
inhabitants may be allowed principally to consult their own convenience.
West of the Ohio is an almost immeasurable wilderness; when it will be
settled, or how it will be possible to govern it, is past calculation.
Gentlemen will pardon me if I think it perfectly romantic to make this
decision depend upon that circumstance. Probably it will be near a
century before those people will be considerable; if we fix the national
seat in the proper place now, it would give me no inquietude to know
that a hundred years hence it may be liable to be removed; but, in fact,
the principle which is assumed by the committee, and which I have
attempted to justify, of taking the centre of the sea-coast line, will,
even in the event of that vast tract being settled, furnish abundant
reasons for its remaining on the Susquehanna. I will not recapitulate
those reasons. We must take some principle to guide us; and though some
inequalities will appear, yet let gentlemen remember, that in so vast a
country great inconveniences will attend the communications of the
people with Government, be the seat of it where it may; and by taking
the centre of the sea-coast line there will be less than any other
principle. It will be found best to accommodate the greatest number; or,
in other words, to be the centre of common convenience: indeed, this is
not denied to be true at this moment; but the case is said to be
changing. On the one hand, I think it is Utopian to calculate upon the
population of the United States a century hence; and, on the other hand,
I admit that it is impolitic at least, perhaps unjust, to confine our
attention to the present population; a quarter of a century may be a
medium. Will gentlemen deny that trade and manufactures will accumulate
people in the Eastern States, in proportion of five to three, compared
with the Southern? The disproportion will, doubtless, continue to be
much greater than I have calculated. It is actually greater at present;
for the climate and <DW64> slavery are acknowledged to be unfavorable to
population: so that husbandry, as well as commerce and manufactures,
will give more people in the Eastern than in the Southern States. The
very circumstance that gentlemen found their reasonings upon is pretty
strongly against their calculations. They tell us of the vast quantities
of good land still unsettled in their States; that will produce a thin
population; for the old lands will not be crowded, so long as new ones
are to be had.

Mr. CARROLL begged leave to give the Committee some information
respecting the distance from tide-water to Fort Cumberland; from the
tide-water to the Little Falls was three miles, to the Great Falls six
more, from thence to the Seneca Falls was also six more, and from thence
to Old Town one hundred and seventeen; which last place was fifteen
miles from Fort Cumberland, making in all one hundred and forty-five
miles, instead of two hundred, as stated by the gentleman.

Mr. AMES imagined his statement to be nearly right, and he found Mr.
JEFFERSON stated in his Notes, that the Falls of the Potomac were
fifteen miles in extent, and a navigation extremely difficult to be
made.

Mr. CARROLL said, it was not near that distance; in the fifteen miles
there were three falls: the Seneca, the Great and Little Falls, but they
occupy but a small part of the fifteen miles; he could certainly form
some judgment of a place which he might say was almost at his door, and
did not expect that Mr. JEFFERSON'S Notes would have been adduced as an
authority to contradict information he had given in his place. As to the
difficulty of the navigation, he had to observe that many of the
obstacles were already so far removed as to render the transportation
down to the Great Falls practicable; that there the canal was nearly
finished, and ready to sink the lock-seats and insert the frames, so
that in a little time there was a probability that no impediment
whatever would obstruct the descent of produce to the tide-water.

The question, on Mr. Lee's motion for striking out Susquehanna, and
inserting Potomac, was put and lost; for it 21, against it 29.

Mr. MADISON then moved, to add, after "Susquehanna" the words "or
Potomac;" this would furnish an opportunity to examine and compare the
two situations. It was so favorable to a discovery of the truth, that he
did not doubt but gentlemen who were desirous of grounding their
decision upon a full understanding of the subject would agree to the
motion.

Mr. BOUDINOT seconded this motion, and supported it, by observing the
necessity there appeared to be, of obtaining a more accurate knowledge
of the two rivers, as gentlemen seemed to differ materially with
respect to the matter of fact.

Mr. SHERMAN contended, upon the principles adopted yesterday by the
committee, that they could not think of going to the Potomac; he said,
that taking the population, even allowing the slaves in the Southern
States, there was the greatest weight of population north-east of the
Susquehanna; but upon the ratio of representation, at a member for forty
thousand inhabitants, there were but one million two hundred thousand
south of Pennsylvania, one million four hundred thousand north,
including Pennsylvania; but if the calculation was made from the
Potomac, the South would contain nine hundred and sixty thousand
inhabitants, and the North one million six hundred and eighty thousand.
Now, he would ask, if gentlemen could expect that the northern people
would incline to go so far south? He apprehended they would not.

The question being taken on inserting "or Potomac," it passed in the
negative.

On motion of Mr. PAGE, the committee rose and reported progress, and
then the House adjourned.


SATURDAY, September 5.

_Permanent Seat of Government._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on
establishing the permanent residence of Congress; when

Mr. FITZSIMONS presented the following resolution:

      _Resolved_, As the opinion of this committee, that the
      President of the United States be authorized to appoint
      ---- commissioners, to examine, and report to him, the most
      eligible situation on the east bank of the Susquehanna, for
      the permanent seat of Government of the United States. That
      the said commissioners be authorized, by and with the
      advice of the President, to purchase such quantity of lands
      as may be thought necessary, and to erect thereon, within
      ---- years, suitable buildings for the accommodation of the
      Congress, and of the officers of the United States. That
      the Secretary of the Treasury, together with the
      commissioners so to be appointed, be authorized to borrow a
      sum not exceeding ---- dollars, to be paid in ---- years,
      with interest, at the rate of ---- per cent. per annum,
      payable out of the duties on impost and tonnage, to be
      applied to the purchase of the land, and the erection of
      the buildings aforesaid. And that a bill ought to pass, in
      the present session, in conformity with the aforegoing
      resolutions.

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) doubted the propriety of the resolution,
because he conceived the declaration in the constitution required a
cession of territory as well as jurisdiction. If he was joined in this
sentiment by the committee, he would move that the President be
empowered to appoint commissioners to examine and report a proper place
on the banks of the Susquehanna for a federal town, and that, whenever
the State of Pennsylvania shall cede to the United States a certain
district or territory, not exceeding ten miles square, Congress would
accept thereof for the above purpose.

Mr. LAWRENCE would inquire for what purpose the cession, mentioned in
the constitution, was required? It was, in the words of that instrument,
to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever; now, did this
consequence involve in it a territorial possession? It certainly did
not. It involved nothing more than the power of making laws independent
of the State jurisdiction. The gentleman might have carried his idea
further, for as the cession is to be made by particular States, it seems
to infer that two States, at least, should be concerned in the cession;
but would objections, from such forced constructions, have any weight in
the judgment of the committee? He trusted they would not. He supposed it
more rational to attend to the plain literal meaning of the constitution
than to engage in the discussion of the refined speculations of
ingenious men.

Mr. VINING observed, that Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, had offered
to cede territory, as well as jurisdiction, and there would be a great
impropriety in expending the federal treasure, in purchasing the soil,
when they might have it without expense.

Mr. AMES endeavored to show that such a cession, as was contemplated in
the constitution, might be made by one State to another, without giving
a property to a foot of land, by comparing it with the cession of
Silesia to Prussia, where not a single acre of soil was conveyed, but of
jurisdiction to the whole province; so, when territory changes its
government, by being the sacrifice of a treaty of peace. He supposed
that Congress were to purchase the soil necessary to erect buildings for
the accommodation of the Government, and was satisfied the cession might
be made subsequent to their election of a particular spot.

Mr. SENEY.--The gentleman from Delaware has said, that Maryland proposed
a cession of soil; but I believe, sir, there is not such a word as soil
mentioned in the law.

Mr. CARROLL agreed with his colleague, and supposed that a cession of
soil could not have been contemplated, because the State of Maryland had
offered any part of the State, not excepting the town of Baltimore. He
believed if Congress were disposed to fix in that town, it would be
agreeable to the State; but he did not imagine they would agree to give
the General Government a property to the whole town, and the surrounding
country. The other parts of the State had never contemplated making the
inhabitants of Baltimore a compensation for such an immense property.

Mr. GOODHUE believed, if the House had agreed to go to the Potomac,
there would have been none of these constitutional difficulties stated.
It was well known, he said, that the gentlemen from the eastward had no
desire to take up the subject; but those from the southward were
sanguine in their expectations that they should get the Government to
the Potomac; and were, therefore, for pressing the business, and not
allowing it to be postponed as was contended for on the other hand.

Mr. MADISON said, the business was not brought on by their original
motion, though they gave it their support. It was true, that a
proposition for postponement was made, but what was the extent of that
postponement? Till December or January next. Was there any reason to
suppose that those gentlemen, who were, at this day, opposed to the
Potomac, would give in to such a change of opinion by that time, as to
induce us to agree to their proposition. We saw no reason to expect such
a change. And, as in fact, we find a predetermined majority ready to
dispose of us, the sooner we know our destiny the better; for it can be
of little consequence, if we are to be disposed of, whether we are
disposed of in September or December.

Mr. WADSWORTH.--The reiteration of being disposed of by bargaining,
induces me to rise and make one remark. It is a notorious fact to the
members within these walls, that the New England members, to a man, were
opposed to a decision at present; and that they were disposed to
accommodate the Southern States. They refused all bargaining, till they
were assured there was a bargaining set on foot to carry them to the
Potomac; why, then, are we reproached with this? Whatever bargaining
there has been, we were the last to come into it; we never thought of
it, till we were told that we were a property, and should be disposed
of, unless we took care of ourselves. I hope, as we have gone so far, we
shall settle the subject in dispute, by granting the money and erecting
the necessary buildings.

Mr. JACKSON denied being concerned in any bargaining whatever, and
defied any gentleman to say he knew any thing of one, till he heard it
mentioned on this floor; he was determined to keep himself disengaged,
and to vote according as his judgment should lead him, after hearing the
subject coolly and thoroughly discussed.

Mr. MADISON hoped, if he travelled a little out of order, he should be
justified, after what had taken place; but he could not withhold this
public declaration of his wish, that every thing that had passed on the
subject alluded to by the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. WADSWORTH,)
were to be fully understood, and were reduced to writing. Every thing he
knew of it he was willing, on his part, to put into that form; and he
was well persuaded that it would be found, on examination, that the
opposition of the Southern gentlemen was of a defensive nature, and that
they had not listened to a proposition, until they had reason to think
it necessary to prevent a sudden and improper decision of this very
important question.

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, begged gentlemen to remember, that all the
Southern members had not been in favor of bringing forward the business
at the present session; he had opposed it as well as some others.

Mr. LEE conceived it to be his duty to present once more the preamble,
which had been rejected in committee. He flattered himself, after the
discussion which had taken place, that gentlemen were prepared to decide
on liberal and national principles, and therefore they would adopt those
he presented.

Mr. SENEY approved of the Susquehanna in preference to the Potomac, on
every principle which had been brought into view, as proper to guide the
House in deciding the present question. He treated the alarm which
gentlemen apprehended would be given by fixing on the Susquehanna as
merely ideal, and existing nowhere but in the imagination of gentlemen;
so far from exciting jealousy, or disturbing the public mind, he
contemplated it as tending to allay uneasiness, and to give general
satisfaction.

On motion, the House now adjourned.


MONDAY, September 7.

_Permanent seat of Government._

The House resumed the consideration of the resolutions reported by the
Committee of the Whole for establishing the permanent residence of
Congress.

Whereupon, the first resolution was agreed to, and the second, to wit:

      _Resolved_, That the permanent seat of the Government of
      the United States ought to be at some convenient place on
      the east bank of the river Susquehanna, in the State of
      Pennsylvania; and that, until the necessary buildings be
      erected for the purpose, the seat of Government ought to
      continue at the city of New York,

Being under consideration,

Mr. LEE withdrew his proposition offered yesterday, and moved to amend
the said resolution, by striking out the words "East Bank of the river
Susquehanna, in the State of Pennsylvania," and inserting, in lieu
thereof; the "North Bank of the river Potomac, in the State of
Maryland."

And, on the question that the House do agree to the said amendment, the
yeas and nays were demanded, and are

      AYES.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bland, Brown, Burke, Carroll,
      Coles, Contee, Gale, Griffin, Jackson, Lee, Madison,
      Matthews, Moore, Page, Parker, Smith, (of South Carolina,)
      Stone, Sumter, Tucker and Vining--21.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Benson, Boudinot, Cadwalader, Clymer,
      Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Grout,
      Hartley, Hathorn, Lawrence, Livermore, P. Muhlenberg,
      Partridge, Van Rensselaer, Scott, Seney, Sherman,
      Sylvester, Sinnickson, Smith, (of Maryland,) Thatcher,
      Trumbull, Wadsworth and Wynkoop--29.

So it was determined in the negative.

Mr. VINING said, it now became his duty, after having sacrificed a
prejudice, if he had one, by giving his vote for the Potomac, to bring
before the House the humble claim of Delaware. He apprehended that her
claim to centrality, as it respected wealth and population, was
superior to that of the Susquehanna; and that, if a sea-coast line was
to be a criterion, she was near the centre of territory. He supposed
that this was the line upon which the Committee was to decide for the
present. It was not supposed necessary, at this time, to take into
consideration the vacant and extensive Western Territory, or why refuse
the Potomac, which offered itself under the greatest advantages of an
easy intercourse with that quarter? Add to the reasons he had mentioned,
that the United States would consult their interest by fixing on the
Delaware, as they would not incur the heavy expense of purchasing
territory, and erecting magnificent palaces and hotels for the
Government, and he thought gentlemen would not hesitate to agree with
him.

The place he meant to offer was possessed of eminent superiority, as to
salubrity of air and fertility of soil; it also united the advantages of
the Atlantic and inland navigation; inasmuch as, by cutting a canal from
the waters of the Chesapeake to the Delaware, a communication would be
opened from Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland, to New Jersey,
Pennsylvania and the midland counties of New York. The spot that he
proposed for their acceptance was Wilmington in the State of Delaware;
round which they might have a district for exclusive legislation, if it
was thought proper to accept it. Under these impressions, he would frame
his motions in such a way, as to enable Congress, when they did adjourn,
to adjourn to meet at that borough. It was made in this form: To strike
out the word "permanent," and all the remainder of the clause, after the
words "ought to be at," and to insert in lieu of the last "the borough
of Wilmington, in the State of Delaware."

On the question that the House do agree to the said amendment, the yeas
and nays were demanded, and are

      AYES.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bland, Boudinot, Burke, Cadwalader,
      Coles, Contee, Griffin, Jackson, Lee, Madison, Matthews,
      Moore, Page, Parker, Sinnickson, Smith, (of South
      Carolina,) Sumter, and Vining--19.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Brown, Carroll, Clymer,
      Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gale, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue,
      Grout, Hartley, Hathorn, Heister, Lawrence, Livermore, P.
      Muhlenberg, Partridge, Van Rensselaer, Scott, Seney,
      Sherman, Sylvester, Smith, (of Maryland,) Stone, Thatcher,
      Trumbull, Tucker, Wadsworth and Wynkoop--32.

Mr. BOUDINOT remarked that the peculiar situation in which he had been
placed, by having the chair of the Committee, prevented him from giving
his sentiments on the subject then; he therefore hoped to be indulged
with stating the claim of the Delaware to the honor of the Federal City.
When a question of such great magnitude, and which involved the
interests of the Union, was to be decided, he thought he could be
neither doing justice to the United States at large, nor his immediate
constituents, were he to neglect to call their attention to what the
former Congress had done in favor of the Delaware. He was surprised that
gentlemen, who contended for the accommodation of their constituents,
should be led so far astray from pursuing that object, as to pass far
beyond the centre of wealth and population, as well as territory; or, if
they did not pass the centre of territory, they went to a place, maugre
all that had been said, devoid of those advantages which ought to attend
the Federal residence. The want of communication with the Atlantic, the
difficulty of navigating its waters, from the innumerable rocks, falls
and shoals with which it abounds, which, from actual observation, he was
induced to believe were insuperable obstructions to a connection with
the Western waters, or, if they could be surmounted, it would be at such
cost of money and labor, as the United States were not in a condition to
expend, at a time when the widows and orphans were starving for want of
the pittance due to them by the Government. The sterility of the soil,
and the unhealthiness of a situation on the banks of a river which was
subject to rise twenty feet and more, and overflow its banks, leaving
behind vast quantities of stagnant water, whence proceeded noxious
exhalations, the cause of a long catalogue of diseases, were altogether,
in his mind, such objections to the place, that he could never imagine a
majority of the House could consent to it. He further observed, that the
Government would be secluded from the world, and the channels of
information; there were few inhabitants, unless it was in the
neighborhood of York or Lancaster.

But, beside all these considerations, there was this further, that there
was an existing resolution of Congress for erecting the necessary
buildings for their accommodation on the banks of the Delaware and
Potomac, and an absolute grant of money for the purpose of defraying the
expense. Now, as these had each of them strong pretensions, he was
willing to have them considered and examined by commissioners sent on
the ground. For the sake of accommodation, he would, therefore, move to
amend the resolution, by striking out the words "east bank of the river
Susquehanna, in the State of Pennsylvania," and inserting in lieu
thereof the words "Potomac, Susquehanna, or Delaware."

On the question that the House do agree to the said amendment, it passed
in the negative; the yeas and nays being required, are as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bland, Boudinot, Brown, Burke,
      Cadwalader, Carroll, Coles, Contee, Griffin, Jackson, Lee,
      Madison, Matthews, Moore, Parker, Page, Sinnickson, Smith,
      (of South Carolina,) Stone, Sumter, Tucker and Vining--23.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Clymer, Fitzsimons, Floyd,
      Foster, Gale, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Grout, Hartley,
      Hathorn, Heister, Lawrence, Livermore, P. Muhlenberg,
      Partridge, Van Rensselaer, Scott, Seney, Sherman,
      Sylvester, Smith, (of Maryland,) Thatcher, Trumbull,
      Wadsworth and Wynkoop--28.

Mr. BOUDINOT then moved to amend the resolution by striking out the
words "east bank of the river Susquehanna, in the State of
Pennsylvania," and inserting in lieu thereof, the words, "banks of
either side of the river Delaware, not more than eight miles above or
below the lower falls of Delaware."

On this question, the yeas and nays were demanded, and are:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Boudinot, Cadwalader, Gerry and
      Sinnickson--4.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Baldwin, Benson, Bland, Brown, Burke,
      Carroll, Clymer, Coles, Contee, Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster,
      Gale, Gilman, Griffin, Grout, Goodhue, Hartley, Hathorn,
      Heister, Jackson, Lawrence, Lee, Livermore, Madison,
      Matthews, Moore, Muhlenberg, Page, Parker, Partridge, Van
      Rensselaer, Scott, Seney, Sherman, Sylvester, Smith, (of
      Maryland,) Smith, (of South Carolina,) Stone, Sumter,
      Thatcher, Trumbull, Tucker, Wadsworth and Wynkoop--46.

Mr. STONE then moved to amend the resolution, by striking out the words
"east bank," and inserting in lieu thereof the word "banks;" and on the
question, that the House do agree to the said amendment, the yeas and
nays being demanded, were as follow:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bland, Boudinot, Brown, Burke,
      Cadwalader, Carroll, Coles, Contee, Gale, Griffin, Jackson,
      Lee, Madison, Matthews, Moore, Page, Parker, Seney,
      Sinnickson, Smith, (of Maryland,) Smith, (of South
      Carolina,) Stone, Sumter, Tucker, and Vining--26.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Clymer, Fitzsimons, Floyd,
      Foster, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Grout, Hartley, Hathorn,
      Heister, Lawrence, Livermore, Muhlenberg, Partridge, Van
      Rensselaer, Scott, Sherman, Sylvester, Thatcher, Trumbull,
      Wadsworth and Wynkoop--25.

So it passed in the affirmative.

A motion was then made and seconded, further to amend the said
resolution, by inserting, after the word "Pennsylvania," the words "or
Maryland," and, on the question the House do agree to the said
amendment, it passed in the negative; and the yeas and nays being
demanded, were as follow:

      AYES.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bland, Boudinot, Brown, Burke,
      Cadwalader, Carroll, Coles, Contee, Gale, Griffin, Jackson,
      Lee, Madison, Matthews, Moore, Page, Parker, Sinnickson,
      Smith, (of M.) Smith, (of S. C.) Stone, Sumter, Tucker and
      Vining--25.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Clymer, Fitzsimons, Floyd,
      Foster, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Grout, Hartley, Hathorn,
      Heister, Lawrence, Livermore, P. Muhlenberg, Partridge, Van
      Rensselaer, Scott, Seney, Sherman, Sylvester, Thatcher,
      Trumbull, Wadsworth and Wynkoop--26.

Mr. LEE expected the question would be divided on the resolution, as it
contained two distinct objects, the permanent and temporary residence.

Mr. PAGE suggested the propriety of striking out the latter part of the
clause, relating to New York, and to confine the resolution merely to
the avowed object, namely, the permanent residence.

The question was taken on striking out, and it passed in the negative,
24 for, 27 against it.

Mr. VINING then moved to strike out the words "City of New York," and
insert, in lieu thereof, "Borough of Wilmington, in the State of
Delaware;" and on the question to agree to the said amendment, the yeas
and nays being demanded, were as follow:

      AYES.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bland, Boudinot, Brown, Burke,
      Cadwalader, Carroll, Coles, Contee, Gale, Griffin, Jackson,
      Lee, Madison, Matthews, Moore, Page, Parker, Sinnickson,
      Sumter and Vining--21.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Clymer, Fitzsimons, Floyd,
      Foster, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Grout, Hartley, Hathorn,
      Heister, Lawrence, Livermore, Muhlenberg, Partridge, Van
      Rensselaer, Scott, Seney, Sherman, Sylvester, Smith, (of
      Maryland,) Smith, (of South Carolina,) Stone, Thatcher,
      Trumbull, Tucker, Wadsworth and Wynkoop--30.

So it passed in the negative.

Mr. PARKER moved to strike out "New York" and insert "Philadelphia."

Mr. LEE said the city of New York possessed every convenience and
accommodation; he was strongly impressed in favor of the inhabitants,
their urbanity and industry did honor to America, and nothing could
induce him to vote for striking out the words, but a sense of duty. He
flattered himself that a regard would now be paid to the great
principles of centrality, which Philadelphia possessed in a great
degree; the conveniences and accommodations to be found in that city
were equal, if not superior, to what New York presented; her public
buildings and institutions were, he believed, at their command; the
inhabitants were industrious, temperate, and frugal; in short, every
principle which operated in favor of the Susquehanna, as a permanent
residence, applied with equal or more force in favor of Philadelphia as
the temporary seat of Government.

Mr. SHERMAN hoped the House were disposed to make as few removes as
possible, and that as the buildings for their accommodation might be in
readiness in two or three years at the permanent residence, they would
be disposed to continue in New York till that time.

On the question, that the House do agree to the said amendment, the yeas
and nays being demanded, are as follows:

      AYES.--Messrs. Baldwin, Boudinot, Brown, Burke, Cadwalader,
      Carroll, Coles, Contee, Gale, Griffin, Heister, Jackson,
      Lee, Madison, Matthews, Moore, Page, Parker, Sinnickson,
      Stone, Sumter and Vining--22.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Bland, Clymer, Fitzsimons,
      Floyd, Foster, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Grout, Hartley,
      Hathorn, Lawrence, Livermore, P. Muhlenberg, Partridge, Van
      Rensselaer, Scott, Seney, Sherman, Sylvester, Smith, (of
      Maryland,) Smith, (of South Carolina,) Thatcher, Trumbull,
      Tucker, Wadsworth and Wynkoop--29.

The main question being put, the second resolution, as amended, was
agreed to by the House, in the words following, to wit:

      "_Resolved_, That the permanent seat of the Government of
      the United States ought to be at some convenient place on
      the banks of the river Susquehanna, in the State of
      Pennsylvania; and that, until the necessary buildings be
      erected for the purpose, the seat of Government ought to
      continue in the city of New York."

The third resolution, in the words following, to wit:

      "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
      authorized to appoint three commissioners, to examine and
      report to him the most eligible situation on the banks of
      the Susquehanna, in the State of Pennsylvania, for the
      permanent seat of the Government of the United States; that
      the said Commissioners be authorized under the direction of
      the President, to purchase such quantity of land as may be
      thought necessary, and to erect thereon, within four years,
      suitable buildings for the accommodation of the Congress,
      and of the other officers of the United States; that the
      Secretary of the Treasury, together with the Commissioners
      so to be appointed, be authorized to borrow a sum, not
      exceeding one hundred thousand dollars, to be repaid within
      twenty years, with interest, not exceeding the rate of five
      per cent. per annum, out of the duties on impost and
      tonnage, to be applied to the purchase of the land, and the
      erection of buildings aforesaid; and that a bill ought to
      pass, in the present session, in conformity with the
      foregoing resolutions."

A motion was made by Mr. GALE, to amend the same, by inserting after the
word "aforesaid" the following proviso, viz:

"Provided, nevertheless, that, previous to any such purchase, or
erection of buildings as aforesaid, the Legislatures of the States of
Pennsylvania and Maryland make such provision for removing all
obstructions to the navigation of the said river, between the seat of
the Federal Government and the mouth thereof, as may be satisfactory to
the President of the United States."

The ayes and nays being demanded, it passed in the negative.

      AYES.--Messrs. Baldwin, Boudinot, Brown, Burke, Cadwalader,
      Carroll, Coles, Contee, Gale, Jackson, Lee, Madison,
      Matthews, Moore, Page, Parker, Seney, Sinnickson, Smith,
      (of Maryland,) Smith, (of South Carolina,) Stone, Sumter,
      Tucker and Vining--24.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Clymer, Fitzsimons, Floyd,
      Foster, Gale, Gilman, Goodhue, Grout, Hartley, Hathorn,
      Heister, Lawrence, Livermore, Muhlenberg, Partridge, Van
      Rensselaer, Scott, Sherman, Sylvester, Thatcher, Trumbull,
      Wadsworth and Wynkoop--25.

And then the main question being put, Do the House agree to the said
third resolution, as reported by the Committee of the whole House?

The ayes and nays being demanded, it passed in the affirmative.

      AYES.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Clymer, Fitzsimons, Floyd,
      Foster, Gale, Gilman, Goodhue, Grout, Hartley, Hathorn,
      Heister, Lawrence, Livermore, Muhlenberg, Partridge, Van
      Rensselaer, Scott, Seney, Sherman, Sylvester, Smith, (of
      Maryland,) Stone, Thatcher, Trumbull, Wadsworth and
      Wynkoop--28.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Boudinot, Brown, Burke, Cadwalader,
      Carroll, Coles, Contee, Gerry, Jackson, Lee, Madison,
      Matthews, Moore, Page, Parker, Sinnickson, Smith, (of South
      Carolina,) Sumter, Tucker and Vining--21.

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the foregoing
resolutions, and that Messrs. AMES, LAWRENCE, and CLYMER, do prepare and
bring in the same.


MONDAY, September 21.

_Seat of Government._

The House proceeded to consider the bill to establish the seat of
Government of the United States, which lay on the table, with the
amendments, as reported by the Committee of the whole House.

Mr. SMITH proposed to confine the choice of a situation on the banks of
the Susquehanna, between Checkiselungo creek and the mouth of the river.
He was seconded by Mr. SENEY.

Mr. HARTLEY hoped the committee would limit it as near the spot
contemplated as possible.

Mr. HEISTER said, he moved, the other day, for a particular spot on the
river, which he conceived entitled to a preference; if the proposed
motion obtained, that place would be excluded, and he should hesitate
respecting his vote upon the bill.

Mr. SENEY by no means wished to embarrass the committee; if the motion
proposed would, any how, have that effect, he should withdraw his
second.

Mr. MADISON felt himself compelled to move for striking out that part of
the bill which provided that the temporary residence of Congress should
continue at New York; as he conceived it irreconcilable with the spirit
of the constitution. If it was not from viewing it in this light, he
should have given the bill no further opposition; and now he did not
mean to enter on the merits of the main question.

From the constitution, it appeared that the concurrence of the two
Houses of Congress was sufficient to enable them to adjourn from one
place to another; nay, the legal consent of the President was, in some
degree, prescribed in the 7th section of article 1st, where it is
declared, that every order, resolution, or vote, to which the
concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary,
(except on a question of adjournment,) shall be presented to the
President of the United States, and approved by him, before the same
shall take effect. Any attempt, therefore, to adjourn by law, is a
violation of that part of the constitution which gives the power,
exclusively, to the two branches of the Legislature. If gentlemen saw it
in the same light, he flattered himself they would reject that part of
the bill; and, however little they valued the reflection that this city
was not central, which had been so often urged, they would be guided by
arguments springing from a superior source.

He would proceed to state the reasons which induced him to be of this
opinion; it is declared in the constitution, that neither House, during
the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other,
adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in
which the two Houses shall be sitting; from hence he inferred, that the
two Houses, by a concurrence, could adjourn for more than three days,
and to any other place which they thought proper; by the other clause he
had mentioned, the Executive power is restrained from any interference
with the Legislative on this subject; hence, he concluded, it would be
dangerous to attempt to give to the President a power which the
constitution expressly denied him.


TUESDAY, September 22.

_Seat of Government._

The engrossed bill to establish the seat of Government of the United
States was read a third time; and the question was, Shall this bill
pass?

Mr. CARROLL said, he felt himself under peculiar circumstances on the
decision of this important question. The House had determined that the
permanent seat of the Government of the United States should be on the
Susquehanna, in Pennsylvania, and not in Maryland on the Potomac. It was
his opinion that the last would have been most conducive to the interest
of the Union; the voice of the majority of this House is against it. The
Susquehanna, said he, being the next object most likely to attain what I
have laid down as the rule of my conduct on this occasion, and, at the
same time, must be agreeable to the wishes of a great part of my
constituents, I felt myself under an obligation to vote for the
Susquehanna, upon obtaining the clause which made it obligatory upon the
States of Maryland and Pennsylvania to concur in opening the navigation
of that river; and nothing would restrain me from giving my assent to
the bill, but that clause which requires the concurrence of the
President respecting the seat of Government, until Congress meet at
their permanent seat. To this clause I have strong constitutional
objections; they were yesterday fully stated to this House by other
gentlemen.

I have endeavored to remove this conviction from my mind, in order to
give my assent to the bill; but as I am under the sacred obligation of
an oath to support the constitution, as I cannot efface the conviction
from my mind that it is contrary to the constitution, and as we could
not succeed in striking out the clause, I feel myself under the
disagreeable necessity of giving my dissent to the bill.

The yeas and nays, on passing the bill, being required by one-fifth of
the members present, were as follow:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Ames, Baldwin, Benson, Clymer, Contee,
      Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gale, Gilman, Goodhue, Grout,
      Hartley, Hathorn, Jackson, Lawrence, Leonard, Livermore,
      Muhlenberg, Partridge, Van Rensselaer, Scott, Seney,
      Sherman, Sylvester, Smith, (of Maryland,) Stone, Thatcher,
      Trumbull, Wadsworth and Wynkoop--31.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bland, Boudinot, Burke, Cadwalader,
      Carroll, Coles, Lee, Madison, Matthews, Moore, Parker,
      Schureman, Smith, (of South Carolina,) Sumter, Tucker,
      Vining, and White--17.

The bill having passed, was sent to the Senate for their concurrence.


SATURDAY, September 26.

_Seat of Government._

A message from the Senate was received, informing the House that they
had passed the bill for establishing the seat of Government of the
United States, with an amendment, which the House immediately took into
consideration. The amendment went to strike out all that related to the
river Susquehanna, both as to fixing the seat of Government there, and
removing the obstructions to the navigation; and to insert, in lieu
thereof, "a district of ten miles square, bounded on the south by a line
running parallel at one mile's distance from the city of Philadelphia,
on the east side of the river of Delaware, and extending northerly and
westerly, so as to include Germantown."

Mr. BLAND thought the bill was so materially changed as to warrant the
House to postpone its consideration. The principles upon which the
Senate had proceeded, he believed, had not yet been discussed in the
House, and the short time which now remained of the session forbade the
attempt.

Mr. PAGE seconded this motion.

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) hoped that gentlemen would agree to let
the bill lie on the table, and not to be driven into a measure which
they considered injurious to the public interest. He trusted they would
not be influenced to adopt this bill, by the Senate's keeping the
appropriation bill as a hostage for it, which he understood to be the
case.

Mr. FITZSIMONS was sorry to hear a thing of that kind insinuated against
so respectable a body. He trusted the gentleman had been misinformed;
but should be glad to know his authority.

Mr. PARTRIDGE declared that a knowledge of this fact would have
considerable influence on his conduct; therefore, he was desirous of
knowing to what an extent it was a certainty.

Mr. BLAND would not charge the Senate with retaining the appropriation
bill as a hostage; but he thought it of more importance than the bill
they had now sent down, and wished it had been first acted upon.

Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that the appropriation bill was sent only
yesterday to the Senate.

Mr. STONE did not suspect the Senate of the conduct which had been
intimated; but, nevertheless, he was in favor of the postponement.

Mr. LEE remarked that the great principles which this House had adopted,
on full debate, were now thrown out of view; they had nothing to do with
the amendment which the Senate had made. He could not, after this
circumstance, bring himself to believe that the House would agree to
the alteration, without discussing the other principles upon which it
must be founded. And here the approaching termination of the session,
and the quantity of unfinished business, presented to the mind a strong
objection; either it could not be done at all, or done to great
disadvantage. Beside, if it is laid over to the next session, the voice
of the people may be better understood on this important question; when
that was fully and fairly expressed, he flattered himself with a
harmonious determination, to which all parties would submit without a
single murmur.

Mr. SHERMAN thought the amendment of the Senate founded in wisdom, and
upon true principles; the House had now nothing else before them.
Indeed, they had just been spending an hour or two upon a very
uninteresting subject respecting printers; he therefore trusted they
would proceed to consider the amendment fully, and come in a proper time
to a decision upon it.

Mr. WHITE considered the amendment of the Senate as totally changing the
tenor of the bill, and therefore it was like introducing a new subject.
Indeed, in all the long arguments which the question had drawn out, he
believed this place had never been mentioned. The gentleman last up,
said there was no business before the House at present: but he would
ask, if a business had never yet been before them, whether a member
would be permitted to bring it forward at this late hour. He might be
told, that the act of the Senate carried greater weight in it than the
motion of a member. But he would place against that weight, the weight
of the vote of this House, which on a former day agreed to fix the seat
of Government on the banks of the Susquehanna; so that the question may
be supposed to stand on independent ground.

But there was a collateral observation he would make. If Germantown was
the proper place for the permanent residence of Congress, it was so near
Philadelphia as to prove that that city would be the proper place for
the temporary residence, and of course they ought to move there
immediately, and order the next session to be held there; but both these
questions were of too much moment to be fixed by a hasty vote of the
House.

Mr. JACKSON had given his assent to the bill as it passed the House,
after a fair opposition: he was satisfied his fellow-citizens would
submit to what appeared to be the voice of their country; though they
would have preferred the Potomac on account of its centrality and
contiguity to the Western Territory, yet he acceded to the Susquehanna;
but this was no reason he should vote for Germantown. Who are those that
say to us, Germantown is the most proper spot that can be selected? They
are the representatives of the State sovereignties; where the large and
small States are equally represented, the voice of the majority of the
people is lost in the inequality of the political branch of the
Legislature. He could not but think an alteration in the sentiment of
the House, on this ground, would excite serious alarm in the minds of
the people; to avoid which consequence, he should agree to the
postponement.

Mr. GERRY urged, as a reason for postponement, that North Carolina and
Rhode Island were out of the Union at present; and that, as there was a
flattering expectation that at least one of those States would adopt the
constitution by the next session, it would be extremely desirable to
have their voice in determining this great question.

Mr. MADISON.--However different our sentiments, with respect to the
place most proper for the seat of the Federal Government, I presume we
shall all agree that a right decision is of great importance; and that a
satisfactory decision is of equal moment to the happiness and
tranquillity of the Union: that even the manner and circumstances under
which such decision may take place, are worthy of serious consideration.

Now, sir, the amendment proposed by the Senate, not only deserves the
name of a new bill, but it proceeds on principles different from those
which served for the basis of the bill sent up to them from this House:
hence I presume, sir, it is not only necessary to examine the merits of
the proposition, but to enter into a full and minute investigation of
those principles upon which it is founded: the proposition is new and in
some degree opposed to what has heretofore prevailed: the public mind
has not yet been called to the consideration of it; nay, I believe it
never yet has been contemplated by the inhabitants of any one State: the
eye of America should be indulged with an opportunity of viewing it
before it be made their fixed abode. All the other places which have
been mentioned as candidates for the seat of Government, on this
occasion, have at different times, and in different forms, been held up
to the public attention; two of them had not only employed the
deliberation, but had obtained the favorable decision of the old
Congress; now after all this, to take up and adopt in a moment, a rival
place, never before contemplated, is risking an improper and a
dissatisfactory decision.

Mr. STONE reminded the House of the majority there was in selecting the
Susquehanna, which he conceived to be the second best spot in the United
States; and how much greater that majority would have been than 31 to
17, if no other question had been involved in the bill: he could hardly
suppose such a change of sentiment would take place without argument, as
was necessary in order to get the Senate's amendment adopted, which, he
understood, was carried by a small majority indeed.

Mr. WHITE would just add one observation, which was respecting the
enormous price of land in the vicinity of Philadelphia; and how
imprudent it would be for Congress to subject themselves to an
exorbitant demand of this nature, by fixing upon the precise spot where
this Federal town should be.

The question was now taken on postponing the consideration of the
amendment proposed by the Senate, until the next session; and the yeas
and nays being called, are:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bland, Brown, Burke, Carroll,
      Coles, Contee, Gale, Gerry, Griffin, Jackson, Lee, Madison,
      Matthews, Moore, Page, Parker, Schureman, Seney, Smith, (of
      Maryland,) Smith, (of South Carolina,) Stone, Sumter,
      Tucker and White--25.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Cadwalader, Clymer,
      Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gilman, Goodhue, Grout, Hartley,
      Hathorn, Heister, Lawrence, Leonard, Livermore, Muhlenberg,
      Partridge, Van Rensselaer, Scott, Sherman, Sylvester,
      Sinnickson, Thatcher, Trumbull, Vining, Wadsworth, and
      Wynkoop--29.

So it was determined in the negative.


MONDAY, September 28.

_Seat of Government._

Mr. SHERMAN--In our deliberations on this occasion, we should have an
eye to the general accommodation of the Union, and the best way of
defraying the expense. The place fixed upon by the Senate, he presumed,
was known to the members generally; hence they were able to judge of its
eligibility at the first view; it certainly possessed some advantages
over the other situation; and he believed it was as central, if not more
so than the Susquehanna, as it respected the present inhabitants; the
air, the soil, in that neighborhood, were quite as agreeable as the
other. But there was an access by water, from every part of the United
States, which furnished a very great convenience; but beside this, those
who came from the Southern States, had generally an inland navigation,
with a short distance to come by land from the head of the Elk; so the
citizens of the Eastern States, in like manner, would be accommodated by
coming through the Sound and crossing to Amboy, on which route they
would have but about 70 miles land carriage; a distance nearly equal
with the other. He admitted that Germantown was not quite so near to the
Western Territory as the Susquehanna was; but he contemplated a very
distant day before it would be settled, and much longer before the
inhabitants would have frequent occasion of travelling to the seat of
Government. Added to the advantages he had mentioned, there were good
buildings, and convenience for arsenals and ship-yards, with abundance
of artificers on the spot; these considerations, taken together, induced
him to think it best to concur with the Senate.

Mr. SMITH thought the honorable gentleman rather inconsistent in his
argument to-day. If he recollected right, the gentleman had formerly
urged in favor of the Susquehanna, that it was not accessible by vessels
from sea; and now he recommends this quality as an advantage in favor of
the Delaware. The gentleman admits that this position is not quite so
near the Western Territory as the one chosen by the House; but then he
thinks no inconvenience will arise, inasmuch as it will be some years
before it is peopled: but how does this comport with the principle laid
down by an almost unanimous vote of the House? At the beginning of this
business, we declare that a due regard should be had to the Western
Territory; he now tells us, as an argument in favor of the Senate's
amendment, that we should have no regard to it at all. He thinks the
change made in the manner of obtaining the money favorable; but what
advantage will accrue to the United States from Pennsylvania's granting
100,000 dollars, when Congress will have to purchase the land on which
they are to sit down? Land in the neighborhood of Philadelphia, he had
been told, was worth 40 or 50 pounds an acre. The 100,000 dollars, given
by Pennsylvania, would not go far in a purchase at this rate. He thought
the Government would have a better bargain in buying cheap lands on the
Susquehanna; or perhaps they might have been got there for nothing. He
thought this alteration unfavorable to the Public Treasury, which could
illy supply such a demand upon it.

Mr. MADISON contended that the amendment proposed by the Senate was a
departure from every principle adopted by the House; but he would not
trouble them with a recapitulation of arguments, which he feared would
be unavailing; he wished, however, that the House would provide against
one inconvenience, which was, to prevent the district in Pennsylvania,
chosen by Congress, from being deprived for a time of the benefit of the
laws. This, he apprehended, would be the case, unless Congress made
provision for the operation of the laws of Pennsylvania, in the act by
which they accepted of the cession of that State; for the State
relinquished the right of legislation from the moment that Congress
accepted of the district. The propriety of this proposition was so
apparent, that he had not a doubt but the House would consent to it. He
then moved the following proviso: "And provided, that nothing herein
contained shall be construed to affect the operation of the laws of
Pennsylvania, within the district ceded and accepted, until Congress
shall otherwise provide by law."

Mr. LIVERMORE objected to this motion; because he supposed there was no
necessity for it.

The question was then taken, do the House agree to the amendment? and
decided in the affirmative. The yeas and nays being demanded, are as
follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Ames, Cadwalader, Clymer, Fitzsimons, Floyd,
      Foster, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Grout, Hartley, Hathorn,
      Heister, Huntington, Lawrence, Leonard, Livermore,
      Muhlenberg, Partridge, Van Rensselaer, Schureman, Scott,
      Sherman, Sylvester, Sinnickson, Thatcher, Trumbull, Vining,
      Wadsworth and Wynkoop--31.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bland, Boudinot, Brown, Burke,
      Carroll, Coles, Contee, Gale, Griffin, Jackson, Lee,
      Madison, Matthews, Moore, Page, Parker, Seney, Smith, (of
      Maryland,) Smith, (of South Carolina,) Stone, Sumter,
      Tucker, and White--24.

And here the bill was dropped for the session.


TUESDAY, September 29.

The two following messages were received from the President:


                                  UNITED STATES, Sept. 29, 1789.

      _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_

      His Most Christian Majesty, by a letter dated the 7th of
      June last, addressed to the President and members of the
      General Congress, of the United States of North America,
      announces the much lamented death of his son the Dauphin.
      The generous conduct of the French monarch and nation
      towards this country renders every event that may affect
      his or their prosperity interesting to us; and I shall take
      care to assure him of the sensibility with which the United
      States participate in the affliction which a loss so much
      to be regretted must have occasioned both to him and them.

                                  GEO. WASHINGTON.


                                  UNITED STATES, Sept. 29, 1789.

      _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_

      Having yesterday been informed, by a joint committee of
      both Houses of Congress, that they had agreed to a recess,
      to commence this day, and to continue until the first
      Monday in January next, I take the earliest opportunity of
      acquainting you that, considering how long and laborious
      this session has been, and the reasons which, I presume,
      have produced this resolution, it does not appear to me
      expedient to recommend any measures to their consideration
      at present.

                                  GEO. WASHINGTON.

On motion of Mr. GERRY, it was ordered, that it shall be the duty of the
Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House, at the end of each
session, to send a printed copy of the Journals thereof, respectively,
to the Supreme Executive, and each branch of the Legislature, of every
State.

And then it was ordered that a message be sent to the Senate, to inform
them that this House having completed the business before them, are now
about to proceed to close the present session, by an adjournment on
their part, agreeably to the order of the 26th instant; and that the
Clerk of this House do go with the said message.

The Clerk accordingly went with the said message, and being returned,

The Speaker adjourned the House until the first Monday in January next.




FIRST CONGRESS.--SECOND SESSION.

BEGUN AT THE CITY OF NEW YORK, JANUARY 4, 1790.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.


MONDAY, January 4, 1790.

The following members of the Senate assembled:

From New Hampshire, JOHN LANGDON and PAINE WINGATE.

From Massachusetts, CALEB STRONG and TRISTRAM DALTON.

From Connecticut, WILLIAM S. JOHNSON.

From New York, RUFUS KING and PHILIP SCHUYLER.

From South Carolina, RALPH IZARD and PIERCE BUTLER.

From Georgia, WILLIAM FEW.

A quorum of members not being present, they adjourned till to-morrow.


TUESDAY, January 5.

JOHN HENRY, from Maryland, in addition to the members assembled
yesterday, attended; but not being a quorum, they adjourned.


WEDNESDAY, January 6.

WILLIAM MACLAY, from Pennsylvania, attended; a quorum of the members of
the Senate were present, and the Secretary was directed to inform the
House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate have assembled, and
are ready to proceed to business.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. STRONG and IZARD be a committee on the part of
the Senate, with such committee as the House of Representatives may
appoint on their part, to inform the President of the United States that
a quorum of the two Houses is assembled, and will be ready in the Senate
Chamber, at such time as the President may appoint, to receive any
communications he may be pleased to make.


THURSDAY, January 7.

OLIVER ELLSWORTH, of Connecticut, and WILLIAM PATERSON, from New Jersey,
attended.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that
they have resolved that two Chaplains, of different denominations, be
appointed to Congress for the present session, one by each House, who
shall interchange weekly.

Mr. STRONG, on behalf of the joint committee, reported to the Senate,
that they had waited on the President of the United States, agreeably to
the order of both Houses, and that he informed the committee that he
would meet the two Houses in the Senate Chamber to-morrow at 11 o'clock.


FRIDAY, January 8.

_Ordered_, That the House of Representatives be informed that the Senate
are ready to meet them in the Senate Chamber, to receive any
communication the President of the United States may be pleased to make
to the two Houses of Congress; and that the usual seats will be assigned
them.

The House of Representatives having accordingly taken their seats, the
President of the United States came into the Senate Chamber, and
addressed both Houses of Congress as followeth:

      _Fellow-Citizens of the Senate, and House of
      Representatives:_

      I embrace with great satisfaction the opportunity which now
      presents itself of congratulating you on the present
      favorable prospects of our public affairs. The recent
      accession of the important State of North Carolina to the
      constitution of the United States, (of which official
      information has been received;) the rising credit and
      respectability of our country; the general and increasing
      good-will towards the Government of the Union; and the
      concord, peace, and plenty with which we are blessed, are
      circumstances auspicious in an eminent degree to our
      national prosperity.

      In resuming your consultations for the general good, you
      cannot but derive encouragement from the reflection that
      the measures of the last session have been as satisfactory
      to your constituents, as the novelty and difficulty of the
      work allowed you to hope. Still further to realize their
      expectations, and to secure the blessings which a gracious
      Providence has placed within our reach, will, in the course
      of the present important session, call for the cool and
      deliberate exertion of your patriotism, firmness, and
      wisdom.

      Among the many interesting objects which will engage your
      attention, that of providing for the common defence will
      merit particular regard. To be prepared for war, is one of
      the most effectual means of preserving peace.

      A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined;
      to which end, a uniform and well-digested plan is
      requisite: and their safety and interest require that they
      should promote such manufactures as tend to render them
      independent of others for essential, particularly military
      supplies.

      The proper establishment of the troops which may be deemed
      indispensable will be entitled to mature consideration. In
      the arrangements which may be made respecting it, it will
      be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of
      the officers and soldiers with a due regard to economy.

      There was reason to hope that the pacific measures adopted
      with regard to certain hostile tribes of Indians, would
      have relieved the inhabitants of our Southern and Western
      frontiers from their depredations; but you will perceive,
      from the information contained in the papers which I shall
      direct to be laid before you, (comprehending a
      communication from the commonwealth of Virginia,) that we
      ought to be prepared to afford protection to those parts of
      the Union, and, if necessary, to punish aggressors.

      The interests of the United States require that our
      intercourse with other nations should be facilitated by
      such provisions as will enable me to fulfil my duty, in
      that respect, in the manner which circumstances may render
      most conducive to the public good; and to this end, that
      the compensations to be made to the persons who may be
      employed, should, according to the nature of their
      appointments, be defined by the law; and a competent fund
      designated for defraying the expenses incident to the
      conduct of our foreign affairs.

      Various considerations also render it expedient that the
      terms on which foreigners may be admitted to the rights of
      citizens, should be speedily ascertained by a uniform rule
      of naturalization.

      Uniformity in the currency, weights and measures, of the
      United States, is an object of great importance, and will,
      I am persuaded, be duly attended to.

      The advancement of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures,
      by all proper means, will not, I trust, need
      recommendation; but I cannot forbear intimating to you the
      expediency of giving effectual encouragement, as well to
      the introduction of new and useful inventions from abroad,
      as to the exertions of skill and genius in producing them
      at home; and of facilitating the intercourse between the
      distant parts of our country by a due attention to the
      Post-Office and post-roads.

      Nor am I less persuaded that you will agree with me in
      opinion, that there is nothing which can better deserve
      your patronage than the promotion of science and
      literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis
      of public happiness. In one in which the measures of
      Government receive their impression so immediately from the
      sense of the community as in ours, it is proportionably
      essential. To the security of a free constitution it
      contributes in various ways. By convincing those who are
      intrusted with the public administration, that every
      valuable end of Government is best answered by the
      enlightened confidence of the people, and by teaching the
      people themselves to know and to value their own rights to
      discern and provide against invasions of them; to
      distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise
      of lawful authority; between burthens proceeding from a
      disregard to their convenience, and those resulting from
      the inevitable exigencies of society; to discriminate the
      spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness, cherishing
      the first, avoiding the last, and uniting a speedy but
      temperate vigilance against encroachments, with an
      inviolable respect to the laws.

      Whether this desirable object will be best promoted by
      affording aids to seminaries of learning already
      established, by the institution of a national university,
      or by any other expedients, will be well worthy of a place
      in the deliberations of the Legislature.


      _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_

      I saw with peculiar pleasure, at the close of the last
      session, the resolution entered into by you, expressive of
      your opinion that an adequate provision for the support of
      the public credit is a matter of high importance to the
      national honor and prosperity. In this sentiment I entirely
      concur. And, to a perfect confidence in your best endeavors
      to devise such a provision as will be truly consistent with
      the end, I add an equal reliance on the cheerful
      co-operation of the other branch of the Legislature. It
      would be superfluous to specify inducements to a measure in
      which the character and permanent interests of the United
      States are so obviously and so deeply concerned, and which
      has received so explicit a sanction from your declaration.


      _Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:_

      I have directed the proper officers to lay before you,
      respectively, such papers and estimates as regard the
      affairs particularly recommended to your consideration, and
      necessary to convey to you that information of the state of
      the Union, which it is my duty to afford.

      The welfare of our country is the great object to which our
      cares and efforts ought to be directed. And I shall derive
      great satisfaction from a co-operation with you, in the
      pleasing though arduous task of insuring to our
      fellow-citizens the blessings which they have a right to
      expect from a free, efficient and equal Government.

                                  GEO. WASHINGTON.

      UNITED STATES, January 8, 1790.


The President of the United States having retired, and the two Houses
being separated:

_Ordered_, That Messrs. KING, IZARD, and PATERSON, be a committee to
prepare and report the draft of an address to the President of the
United States, in answer to his speech delivered this day to both Houses
of Congress, in the Senate Chamber.

_Ordered_, That the speech of the President of the United States,
delivered this day, be printed for the use of the Senate.

The Senate adjourned to Monday next.


MONDAY, January 11.

Mr. KING, on behalf of the committee, reported an address to the
President of the United States, in answer to his speech to both Houses
of Congress, which being amended, was adopted as followeth:

      _To the President of the United States._

      SIR:--We, the Senate of the United States, return you our
      thanks for your speech delivered to both Houses of
      Congress. The accession of the State of North Carolina to
      the Constitution of the United States gives us much
      pleasure: and we offer you our congratulations on that
      event, which at the same time adds strength to our Union,
      and affords a proof that the more the constitution has been
      considered, the more the goodness of it has appeared. The
      information which we have received, that the measures of
      the last session have been as satisfactory to our
      constituents as we had reason to expect, from the
      difficulty of the work in which we were engaged, will
      afford us much consolation and encouragement in resuming
      our deliberations, in the present session, for the public
      good; and every exertion on our part shall be made to
      realize and secure to our country those blessings which a
      gracious Providence has placed within our reach. We are
      persuaded that one of the most effectual means of
      preserving peace is to be prepared for war; and our
      attention shall be directed to the objects of common
      defence, and to the adoption of such plans as shall appear
      the most likely to prevent our dependence on other
      countries for essential supplies. In the arrangements to be
      made respecting the establishment of such troops as may be
      deemed indispensable, we shall, with pleasure, provide for
      the comfortable support of the officers and soldiers, with
      a due regard to economy. We regret that the pacific
      measures adopted by Government, with regard to certain
      hostile tribes of Indians, have not been attended with the
      beneficial effects towards the inhabitants of our Southern
      and Western frontiers which we had reason to hope, and we
      shall cheerfully co-operate in providing the most effectual
      means for their protection, and, if necessary, for the
      punishment of aggressors. The uniformity of the currency,
      and of weights and measures; the introduction of new and
      useful inventions from abroad, and the exertions of skill
      and genius in producing them at home; the facilitating the
      communication between the distant parts of our country, by
      means of the Post-Office and post-roads; a provision for
      the support of the Department of Foreign Affairs, and a
      uniform rule of naturalization, by which foreigners may be
      admitted to the rights of citizens, are objects which shall
      receive such early attention as their respective importance
      requires. Literature and Science are essential to the
      preservation of a free constitution: the measures of
      Government should, therefore, be calculated to strengthen
      the confidence that is due to that important truth.
      Agriculture, Commerce, and Manufactures, forming the basis
      of the wealth and strength of our confederated Republic,
      must be the frequent subject of our deliberation, and shall
      be advanced by all proper means in our power. Public Credit
      being an object of great importance, we shall cheerfully
      co-operate in all proper measures for its support. Proper
      attention shall be given to such papers and estimates as
      you may be pleased to lay before us. Our cares and efforts
      shall be directed to the welfare of our country; and we
      have the most perfect dependence upon your co-operating
      with us, on all occasions, in such measures as will insure
      to our fellow-citizens the blessings which they have a
      right to expect from a free, efficient, and equal
      Government.


TUESDAY, January 12.

_Ordered_, That the Address to the President of the United States, in
answer to his speech, be presented by the Vice President, attended by
the Senate, and that the committee which reported the address wait on
the President, and desire to be informed at what time and place he will
receive the same.

Mr. KING, in behalf of the committee, reported that it would be
agreeable to the President to receive the address of the Senate, in
answer to his speech, on Thursday next, at 11 o'clock, at his own house.


WEDNESDAY, January 13.

JONATHAN ELMER, from New Jersey, attended.

BENJAMIN HAWKINS, from North Carolina, appeared, produced his
credentials, and took his seat.

The Vice President administered the oath to Mr. HAWKINS.


THURSDAY, January 14.

Agreeably to the order of the 12th instant, the Senate waited on the
President of the United States, at his own house, where the Vice
President, in their name, delivered to the President of the United
States the address agreed to on the 11th instant:

To which the President of the United States was pleased to make the
following reply:

      _Gentlemen:_ I thank you for your address, and for the
      assurances which it contains of attention to the several
      matters suggested by me to your consideration.

      Relying on the continuance of your exertions for the public
      good, I anticipate for our country the salutary effects of
      upright and prudent counsels.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.

The Senate having returned to the Senate Chamber, adjourned.


FRIDAY, January 15.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. ELLSWORTH, HAWKINS, and PATERSON, be a committee
to bring in a bill, in addition to "An act to establish the Judicial
Courts of the United States."


WEDNESDAY, January 20.

On motion,

      _Resolved_, That Messrs. ELLSWORTH, MACLAY, and HENRY, be a
      committee to confer with such committee as may be appointed
      on the part of the House of Representatives, to consider
      and report whether or not the business began previous to
      the late adjournment of Congress, shall now be proceeded in
      as if no adjournment had taken place.

_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the House of Representatives,
acquainting them herewith, and requesting the appointment of a similar
committee on their part.


THURSDAY, January 21.

ROBERT MORRIS from Pennsylvania, attended.

      A message from the House of Representatives informed the
      Senate that they had agreed to the appointment of a
      committee on their part, consisting of Messrs. SHERMAN,
      THATCHER, HARTLEY, WHITE, and JACKSON, to confer with the
      committee appointed on the part of the Senate, to consider
      and report whether or not the business begun previous to
      the late adjournment of Congress, shall now be proceeded in
      as if no adjournment had taken place.


FRIDAY, January 22.

Mr. ELLSWORTH, on behalf of the "joint committee of the two Houses,
appointed to consider and report whether or not the business begun
previous to the late adjournment of Congress, shall now be proceeded in
as if no adjournment had taken place," reported.

_Ordered_, That the consideration of the report be deferred until Monday
next.


MONDAY, January 25.

The Senate proceeded to consider the report of the joint committee of
the Senate and House of Representatives, appointed the 20th instant, to
wit: "that the business unfinished between the two Houses at the late
adjournment ought to be regarded as if it had not been passed upon by
either;"

And, on motion that the report of the committee be postponed, it passed
in the negative.

And, upon the question to agree to the report of the committee, the yeas
and nays being required by one-fifth of the Senators present:

      _Yeas._--Messrs. Butler, Dalton, Ellsworth, Few, Hawkins,
      Henry, Johnson, King, Schuyler, and Strong--10.

      _Nays._--Messrs. Bassett, Elmer, Izard, Langdon, Maclay,
      Morris, Paterson, and Wingate--8.

And so it passed in the affirmative.

And it was

      _Resolved_, That the business unfinished between the two
      Houses at the late adjournment ought to be regarded as if
      it had not been passed upon by either.


TUESDAY, January 26.

A message from the House of Representatives announced their agreement
with the Senate in their resolution, that the business unfinished
between the two Houses, at the late adjournment, ought to be regarded as
if it had not been passed upon by either.


THURSDAY, January 28.

On motion it was

_Ordered_, That the letter from the Governor of Rhode Island of the 18th
of January instant, to the President of the United States, requesting a
further suspension of the acts of Congress subjecting the citizens of
the State of Rhode Island to the payment of foreign tonnage and foreign
duties, during the pleasure of Congress, and communicated with the
President's message this day, be referred to the same committee.

FRIDAY, January 29.

SAMUEL JOHNSTON, from North Carolina, appeared, produced his
credentials, and took his seat in the Senate.

The Vice President administered the oath to Mr. JOHNSTON.


TUESDAY, May 11.

The Senate proceeded to consider the report of the committee appointed
the 28th of April, to consider what provisions will be proper for
Congress to make, in the present session, respecting the State of Rhode
Island; whereupon,

_Resolved_, That all commercial intercourse between the United States
and the State of Rhode Island, from and after the first day of July
next, be prohibited, under suitable penalties; and that the President of
the United States be authorized to demand of the State of Rhode Island
---- dollars, to be paid into the Treasury of the United States by the
---- day of ---- next; which shall be credited to the said State, in
account with the United States; and that a bill or bills be brought in
for those purposes.

_Ordered_, That the committee who brought in the above report prepare
and report a bill accordingly.


THURSDAY, May 13.

Mr. ELLSWORTH, reported, from the committee appointed May 3d, to
consider and report their opinion on the question, when according to the
constitution, the terms for which the President, Vice President,
Senators, and Representatives, have been respectively chosen, shall be
deemed to have commenced; and, also, to consider of, and report their
opinion on such other matters as they shall conceive have relation to
this question.

_Ordered_, That this report lie for consideration.


FRIDAY, May 14.

The Senate proceeded to consider the report of the joint committee,
appointed the 28th of April, which is as follows:

      The committee of the Senate, to join with a committee
      appointed by the House of Representatives, to consider and
      report their opinion on the question, when, according to
      the Constitution, the terms for which the President, Vice
      President, Senators, and Representatives, have been
      respectively chosen, shall be deemed to have commenced;
      and, also, to consider of, and report their opinion on,
      such other matters as they should conceive to have relation
      to this question, report, as the opinion of the said joint
      committee:

      That the terms for which the President, Vice President,
      Senators, and Representatives, of the United States, were
      respectively chosen, did, according to the constitution,
      commence on the 4th day of March, 1789; and so the Senators
      of the first class, and the Representatives, will not,
      according to the constitution, be entitled, by virtue of
      the same election by which they hold seats in the present
      Congress, to seats in the next Congress, which will be
      assembled after the 3d day of March, 1791; and further,
      that, whenever a vacancy shall happen in the Senate or
      House of Representatives, and an election to fill such
      vacancy, the person elected will not, according to the
      constitution, be entitled, by virtue of such election, to
      hold a seat beyond the time for which the Senator or
      Representative in whose stead such person shall have been
      so elected, would, if the vacancy had not happened, have
      been entitled to hold a seat.

      That it will be advisable for the Congress to pass a law or
      laws for determining, agreeable to the provision in the
      first section of the second article of the constitution,
      the time when the electors shall, in the year which will
      terminate on the 3d day of March, 1793, and so in every
      fourth year thereafter, be chosen, and the day on which
      they shall give their votes; for declaring what officer
      shall, in case of vacancy, both in the office of President
      and Vice President, act as President; for assigning a
      public office where the lists, mentioned in the second
      paragraph of the first section in the second article of the
      constitution, shall in case of vacancy in the office of
      President of the Senate, or his absence from the seat of
      Government, be, in the mean time, deposited; and for
      directing the mode in which such lists shall be
      transmitted: whereupon,

      _Resolved_, That the Senate do agree to this report.


MONDAY, May 17.

The Senate proceeded to the third reading of the bill to prevent
bringing goods, wares, and merchandises from the State of Rhode Island
and Providence Plantations into the United States, and to authorize a
demand of money from the said State, and,

On motion,

_Ordered_, That this bill be recommitted.


TUESDAY, May 18.

Mr. CARROLL, from the committee appointed April the 28th, to consider
what provisions will be proper for Congress to make, in the present
session, respecting the State of Rhode Island, and to whom it was
referred, to bring in a bill on that subject, reported several
additional clauses to the bill to prevent bringing goods, wares, and
merchandises, from the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
into the United States, and to authorize a demand of money from the said
State; which report was agreed to as amendments to the bill.

The Senate proceeded to the third reading of the bill to prevent
bringing goods, wares, and merchandises, from the State of Rhode Island
and Providence Plantations into the United States, and to authorize a
demand of money from the said State;

And, on the question, "Shall this bill pass?" the yeas and nays being
required by one-fifth of the Senators present, were:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bassett, Carroll, Dalton, Ellsworth,
      Johnson, Johnston, Izard, King, Langdon, Morris, Reed,
      Schuyler, and Strong--13.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Butler, Elmer, Hawkins, Henry, Lee, Maclay,
      Walker, and Wingate--8.

So it was _Resolved_, That this bill do pass, and that it be carried to
the House of Representatives for concurrence therein.


TUESDAY, June 1.

The following message was received from the President of the United
States, and was read:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and House of Representatives:_

      Having received official information of the accession of
      the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations to the
      constitution of the United States, I take the earliest
      opportunity of communicating the same to you, with my
      congratulations on this happy event, which unites, under
      the General Government, all the States which were
      originally confederated; and have directed my Secretary to
      lay before you a copy of the letter from the President of
      the Convention of the State of Rhode Island to the
      President of the United States.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.
      UNITED STATES, June 1, 1790.

The Senate then entered on Executive business.

The following message from the President of the United States, by his
Secretary, was read:


                                  UNITED STATES, May 31, 1790.

      _Gentlemen of the Senate:_

      Mr. De Poiery served in the American army for several of
      the last years of the late war, as Secretary to Major
      General the Marquis de Lafayette, and might probably at the
      same time have obtained the commission of Captain from
      Congress, upon application to that body. At present, he is
      an officer in the French National Guards, and solicits a
      Brevet Commission from the United States of America. I am
      authorized to add, that while the compliance will involve
      no expense on our part, it will be particularly grateful to
      that friend of America, the Marquis de Lafayette.

      I therefore nominate M. De Poiery to be a Captain by
      Brevet.

                                  GEORGE WASHINGTON.

_Ordered_, That the message lie for consideration.


WEDNESDAY, June 2.

      _Resolved_, That the Senate will attend the funeral of
      Colonel Bland, late a member of the House of
      Representatives of the United States, at five o'clock this
      afternoon.[30]

The Senate then entered on Executive business, and consented to the
nomination of M. De Poiery to be a Captain by Brevet, in the service of
the United States.


WEDNESDAY, August 4.

The Senate then entered on Executive business, and the following message
from the President of the United States was read:[31]

                                  UNITED STATES, August 4th, 1790.

      _Gentlemen of the Senate:_

      In consequence of the general principles agreed to by the
      Senate in August, 1789, the adjustment of the terms of a
      treaty is far advanced between the United States and the
      Chiefs of the Creek Indians now in this city, in behalf of
      themselves and the whole Creek Nation.

      In preparing the articles of this treaty, the present
      arrangements of the trade with the Creeks have caused much
      embarrassment. It seems to be well ascertained, that the
      trade is almost exclusively in the hands of a company of
      British merchants, who by agreement, make their
      importations of goods from England into the Spanish ports.

      As the trade of the Indians is a main means of their
      political management, it is therefore obvious, that the
      United States cannot possess any security for the
      performance of treaties with the Creeks, while their trade
      is liable to be interrupted, or withheld, at the caprice of
      two foreign powers.

      Hence it becomes an object of real importance to form new
      channels for the commerce of the Creeks through the United
      States. But this operation will require time, as the
      present arrangements cannot be suddenly broken without the
      greatest violation of faith and morals.

      It therefore appears to be important to form a secret
      article of a treaty, similar to the one which accompanies
      this message.

      If the Senate should require any further explanation, the
      Secretary of War will attend them for that purpose.

                                  GEO. WASHINGTON.

The President of the United States puts the following question for the
consideration and advice of the Senate: If it should be found essential
to a treaty for the firm establishment of peace with the Creek nation of
Indians, that an article to the following effect should be inserted
therein, will such an article be proper? viz:

      SECRET ARTICLE.

      The commerce necessary for the Creek nation shall be
      carried on through the ports, and by the citizens of the
      United States, if substantial and effectual arrangements
      shall be made for that purpose by the United States, on or
      before the 1st day of August, one thousand seven hundred
      and ninety-two. In the mean time, the said commerce may be
      carried on through its present channels, and according to
      its present regulations.

      And whereas, the trade of the said Creek nation is now
      carried wholly, or principally, through the territories of
      Spain, and obstructions thereto, may happen by war or
      prohibitions of the Spanish Government: it is therefore
      agreed between the said parties, that in the event of such
      obstructions happening, it shall be lawful for such persons
      as ---- ---- shall designate, to introduce into, and
      transport through the territories of the United States to
      the country of the said Creek nation, any quantity of
      goods, wares, and merchandise, not exceeding in value, in
      any one year, sixty thousand dollars, and that free from
      any duties or impositions whatsoever, but subject to such
      regulations for guarding against abuse, as the United
      States shall judge necessary; which privilege shall
      continue as long as such obstruction shall continue.

                                  GEO. WASHINGTON.

      UNITED STATES, August 4th, 1790.

The Senate proceeded to consider the message from the President of the
United States of this day; whereupon,

      _Resolved_, That the Senate do advise and consent to the
      execution of the secret article referred to in the message,
      and that the blank in said article be filled with the words
      "President of the United States."


WEDNESDAY, August 11.

The Senate then entered on Executive business; and the following message
was received and read, from the President of the United States:

                                  UNITED STATES, August 11, 1790.

      _Gentlemen of the Senate:_

      Although the treaty with the Creeks may be regarded as the
      main foundation of the future peace and prosperity of the
      south-western frontier of the United States, yet, in order
      fully to effect so desirable an object, the treaties which
      have been entered into with the other tribes in that
      quarter must be faithfully performed on our part.

      During the last year, I laid before the Senate a particular
      statement of the case of the Cherokees. By a reference to
      that paper it will appear, that the United States formed a
      treaty with the Cherokees in November, 1785; that the said
      Cherokees thereby placed themselves under the protection of
      the United States, and had a boundary assigned them; that
      the white people settled on the frontiers had openly
      violated the said boundary, by intruding on the Indian
      lands; that the United States, in Congress assembled, did
      on the first day of September, 1788, issue their
      proclamation, forbidding all such unwarrantable intrusions,
      and enjoined all those who had settled upon the hunting
      grounds of the Cherokees to depart with their families and
      effects, without loss of time, as they would answer their
      disobedience to the injunctions and prohibitions expressed,
      at their peril.

      But information has been received that, notwithstanding the
      said treaty and proclamation, upwards of five hundred
      families have settled on the Cherokee lands, exclusively of
      those settled between the fork of French Broad and Holstein
      Rivers, mentioned in the said treaty.

      As the obstructions to a proper conduct on this matter have
      been removed since it was mentioned to the Senate, on the
      22d of August, 1789, by the accession of North Carolina to
      the present Union, and the cessions of the land in
      question, I shall conceive myself bound to exert the powers
      intrusted to me by the constitution, in order to carry into
      faithful execution the treaty of Hopewell, unless it shall
      be thought proper to attempt to arrange a new boundary with
      the Cherokees, embracing the settlements, and compensating
      the Cherokees for the cessions they shall make on the
      occasion. On this point, therefore, I state the following
      questions, and request the advice of the Senate thereon:

      1st. Is it the judgment of the Senate that overtures shall
      be made to the Cherokees to arrange a new boundary, so as
      to embrace the settlements made by the white people since
      the treaty of Hopewell, in November, 1785?

      2d. If so, shall compensation, to the amount of ----
      dollars annually, or of ---- dollars in gross, be made to
      the Cherokees for the land they shall relinquish, holding
      the occupiers of the land accountable to the United States
      for its value?

      3d. Shall the United States stipulate solemnly to guarantee
      the new boundary which may be arranged?

                                  GEO. WASHINGTON.

Agreed, by unanimous consent, to proceed to the consideration of this
message. Whereupon,

      _Resolved_, That the Senate do advise and consent that the
      President of the United States do, at his discretion, cause
      the treaty concluded at Hopewell with the Cherokee Indians,
      to be carried into execution, according to the terms
      thereof, or to enter into arrangements for such further
      cessions of territory, from the said Cherokee Indians, as
      the tranquillity and interest of the United States may
      require; provided the sum which may be stipulated to be
      paid to the Cherokee Indians do not exceed one thousand
      dollars annually; and provided, further, that no person who
      shall have taken possession of any lands within territory
      assigned to the said Cherokee Indians, by the said treaty
      of Hopewell, shall be confirmed in any such possessions,
      but by a compliance with such terms as Congress may
      hereafter prescribe.

      _Resolved_, In case a new, or other boundary than that
      stipulated by the treaty of Hopewell, shall be concluded
      with the Cherokee Indians, that the Senate do advise and
      consent solemnly to guarantee the same.


THURSDAY, August 12.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that
the House of Representatives having finished the business before them
are about to adjourn, agreeably to the vote of the two Houses of
Congress on Tuesday night.

On motion,

      _Resolved, unanimously_, That the thanks of the Senate be
      given to the corporation of the city of New York for the
      elegant and convenient accommodations provided for
      Congress, and that a copy of this resolve be enclosed in
      the following letter from the Vice President:

                                  NEW YORK, August 12, 1790.

      SIR: It is with great pleasure, that, in obedience to an
      order of the Senate of the United States, I have the honor
      to enclose their resolution of this date, which was
      unanimously agreed to; and, in behalf of the Senate, I
      request that you will be pleased to communicate the same to
      the corporation of the city, and, at the same time, signify
      to them, that it is the wish of the Senate that the
      corporation will permit such articles of furniture, &c. now
      in the City Hall, as have been provided by Congress, to
      remain for the use of that building.

                   I am, sir, your most obedient humble servant,

                                  JOHN ADAMS,
                         _Vice President of the United States,
                          and President of the Senate._

      To the Mayor of the city of New York.

The Senate then entered on Executive business, and proceeded to consider
the message from the President of the United States, of the 7th of
August, 1790, communicating a treaty entered into with the Chiefs of the
Creek nation of Indians.

And, on the question to advise and consent to the ratification of the
said treaty, made with the Creek nation, and referred to in the message
of the President of the United States, of the 7th of August, 1790; the
yeas and nays were required by one-fifth of the Senators present, and
were:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Carroll, Dalton, Ellsworth, Foster, Hawkins,
      Henry, Johnson, Johnston, Izard, King, Lee, Paterson, Read,
      Schuyler, and Stanton--15.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Butler, Few, Gunn, and Walker--4.

The Senate resuming their Legislative character,

_Ordered_, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives that
the Senate having finished the Legislative business before them, are
about to adjourn, agreeably to the vote of both Houses of Congress of
the 10th instant.

And the Vice President adjourned the Senate accordingly, to meet on the
first Monday in December next.




FIRST CONGRESS.--SECOND SESSION.

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES

IN

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.


MONDAY, January 4.

The following is a list of the Members composing the House of
Representatives:

New Hampshire--NICHOLAS GILMAN, SAMUEL LIVERMORE, and ABIEL FOSTER.

Massachusetts--FISHER AMES, ELBRIDGE GERRY, BENJAMIN GOODHUE, JONATHAN
GROUT, GEORGE LEONARD, GEORGE PARTRIDGE, GEORGE THATCHER, and THEODORE
SEDGWICK.

Connecticut--BENJAMIN HUNTINGTON, ROGER SHERMAN, JONATHAN STURGES,
JONATHAN TRUMBULL, and JEREMIAH WADSWORTH.

New York--EGBERT BENSON, WILLIAM FLOYD, JOHN HATHORN, JEREMIAH VAN
RENSSELAER, JOHN LAWRENCE, and PETER SYLVESTER.

New Jersey--ELIAS BOUDINOT, LAMBERT CADWALADER, JAMES SCHUREMAN, and
THOMAS SINNICKSON.

Pennsylvania--GEORGE CLYMER, THOMAS FITZSIMONS, THOMAS HARTLEY, DANIEL
HEISTER, F. A. MUHLENBERG, _Speaker_, PETER MUHLENBERG, THOMAS SCOTT,
and HENRY WYNKOOP.

Delaware--JOHN VINING.

Maryland--DANIEL CARROLL, BENJAMIN CONTEE, GEORGE GALE, JOSHUA SENEY,
WILLIAM SMITH, and MICHAEL JENIFER STONE.

Virginia--THEODORICK BLAND, JOHN BROWN, ISAAC COLES, SAMUEL GRIFFIN,
RICHARD BLAND LEE, JAMES MADISON, JUN., ANDREW MOORE, JOHN PAGE,
ALEXANDER WHITE, and JOSIAH PARKER.

South Carolina--EDANUS BURKE, DANIEL HUGER, WILLIAM SMITH, THOMAS
SUMTER, and THOMAS TUDOR TUCKER.

Georgia--ABRAHAM BALDWIN, JAMES JACKSON, and GEORGE MATHEWS.

The SPEAKER and twenty-five other members, viz: Messrs. FOSTER, GILMAN,
LIVERMORE, AMES, GERRY, GOODHUE, GROUT, PARTRIDGE, THATCHER, SHERMAN,
BENSON, FLOYD, LAWRENCE, P. MUHLENBERG, SCOTT, SENEY, BROWN, COLES,
GRIFFIN, WHITE, BURKE, HUGER, SMITH, (of S. C.,) TUCKER, and BALDWIN,
appeared and took their seats; but not being a quorum, they adjourned.


TUESDAY, January 5.

Mr. BOUDINOT took his seat.--No quorum.


WEDNESDAY, January 6.

Mr. SCHUREMAN, Mr. PAGE, and Mr. LEE took their seats.--No quorum.


THURSDAY, January 7.

JONATHAN STURGIS and JEREMIAH WADSWORTH, from Connecticut; JEREMIAH VAN
RENSSELAER, from New York; DANIEL CARROLL, from Maryland; and GEORGE
MATHEWS, from Georgia, appearing and taking their seats, a quorum of the
whole House was present; of which the Senate were informed.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the President of the
United States, of the 4th instant, requesting that when there shall be a
sufficient number of the two Houses of Congress assembled to proceed to
business, he may be informed of it; and, also, at what time and place it
will be convenient for Congress that he should meet them, in order to
make some oral communications at the commencement of their session;
which was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

A message from the Senate informed the House, that they had appointed a
committee on their part, jointly with such committee as shall be
appointed on the part of the House, to wait on the President of the
United States, and notify him that a quorum of the two Houses had
assembled, and will be ready, in the Senate Chamber, at such time as he
shall appoint, to receive any communications which he shall think proper
to make.

Messrs. GILMAN, AMES, and SENEY, were then appointed a committee on the
part of the House for the purpose expressed in the message from the
Senate.

It was then ordered, That a committee be appointed to examine the
Journal of the last session, and to report therefrom all such matters of
business as were then depending and undetermined, and a committee was
appointed, consisting of Messrs. BOUDINOT, SHERMAN, and WHITE.

      _Resolved_, That two Chaplains of different denominations
      be appointed to Congress for the present session, one by
      each House, who shall interchange weekly.

_Ordered_, That the Clerk of the House do carry the said resolution to
the Senate, and desire their concurrence.

Mr. GILMAN, from the committee appointed to wait on the President of the
United States, pursuant to the order of this day, reported that they
had, according to order, performed that service, and that the President
was pleased to say he would attend to make his communications to both
Houses of Congress to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock.


FRIDAY, January 8.

HENRY WYNKOOP, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and took his seat.

The Speaker and members present attended in the Senate Chamber, to
receive the President of the United States, who addressed both Houses.
His address will be found in the Proceedings of the Senate.

The Speaker and the members of the House having returned from the
Senate, a copy of the President's speech was read, and committed to a
Committee of the whole House on to-morrow.

The Journal was then read by the Clerk.

Mr. BOUDINOT moved to correct the title by striking out all the words,
after declaring it merely the Journal of the House of Representatives.

After some further desultory conversation, the title of the Journal was
established by a vote of the House, as follows:

_Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States._

      At a session of the Congress of United States, begun and
      held at the city of New York, on Monday the 4th day of
      January, 1790, being the second session of the First
      Congress, held under the present Constitution of
      Government, for the United States, being the day appointed
      by law for the meeting of the present session.

On the further reading of the Minutes, Mr. THATCHER observed, that a
call of the House which had taken place at the meeting was not entered
on the Journal.

Mr. PAGE was sorry to find any gentleman insist upon the entry of a
measure which was not completed. He was concerned, likewise, that he had
not been here to answer to his name, but he was delayed seven days by
head winds, and two days by extreme badness of the roads. Under such
circumstances, he thought the gentlemen who were so fortunate as to get
here in time, deserved little more credit than those who were plunging
at the risk of their lives through almost insuperable difficulties. He
hoped it was not intended to stigmatize gentlemen who did not deserve
it.

Mr. WHITE.--If the absentees were from the remote States, there would be
some indelicacy in ordering a call of the House at so early a period of
the session, because there might be natural unavoidable impediments to
prevent their punctual attendance, but he had observed, that the
absentees were mostly from the neighboring States, Connecticut, New
York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; and some of the members had
declared, they would not come until they were informed that there was a
House. Now, in order to make the Journal a true transcript of what had
really passed in the House, it was necessary to have this call inserted;
for the motion was regularly made, seconded, and carried; the absentees
were noted, and, after some time, they were called again, and those who
were known to be sick, or on their way, were apologized for, and
excused; here, indeed, the business terminated, and they were not
ordered into the custody of the Sergeant-at-arms. After these remarks,
he concluded by saying, that he did not move to have it inserted on the
Journal, and was unconcerned about it.

Mr. LAWRENCE hoped the call would not be entered on the Journal, if it
was intended to reproach the conduct of the absent members, for he was
very well satisfied in his own mind, that few, if any, of them were
guilty of neglecting their duty.

Mr. WADSWORTH likewise hoped the entry would not be made. He had left
home a week ago, but had been detained by head winds. He dared to say
that this would be found to be the case with respect to a number of
other gentlemen; and as far as his knowledge went with relation to such
as were absent, it was on necessary occasions.

Mr. PARTRIDGE did not wish to stigmatize any gentleman by an entry of
this kind on the Journals. He meant simply that the fact should appear
as it really happened in the House; however, as the business had not
been completed, he would withdraw his second to the motion for having
the entry made.

Mr. PAGE said, no new stigma could be received by him or his colleague,
(Mr. LEE.) By the entry on the Journals, it appeared they were not here
on Monday or Tuesday, but on Wednesday it is said that John Page and R.
B. Lee appeared, and took their seats; consequently, what he had said
could not be construed to favor himself or his colleague, but it was
generally for those who had not been able to get here so soon.

The motion for entering on the Journals the call of the House, was
withdrawn.


SATURDAY, January 9.

GEORGE CLYMER, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and took his seat.

_Secretary of the Treasury's Report._

A letter from Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, was read,
informing the House that, agreeably to their resolution of the 21st of
September, he had prepared a Plan for the support of the Public Credit,
and that he was ready to report the same to this House, when they should
be pleased to receive it.

It was proposed that Thursday next be assigned for this purpose.

Mr. GERRY wished to add to the motion, that it should be made in
writing.

Mr. BOUDINOT hoped that the Secretary of the Treasury might be permitted
to make his report in person, in order to answer such inquiries as the
members might be disposed to make, for it was a justifiable surmise that
gentlemen would not be able clearly to comprehend so intricate a subject
without oral illustration.

Mr. CLYMER expressed some doubts with respect to the propriety of
receiving oral communications from the head of such an important
department. He was rather inclined to think that such communications
ought to be in writing.

Mr. AMES conceived it to be the duty of the House to obtain the best
information on any subject; but on this very important one they ought to
be particularly careful to get it from the highest source. The Secretary
of the Treasury is a most important and responsible officer; the
delicacy of his situation required every indulgence to be extended to
him, that had a tendency to enable him to complete the arduous
undertaking in which he was engaged. It would be a real misfortune that
a salutary measure should be defeated for want of being understood; yet
the most advantageous plans may miscarry in their passage through this
House, by reason of their not being clearly comprehended. He hoped,
therefore, that the financier would be authorized to make such
communications and illustrations as he judged necessary; but he wished
these communications to be in writing; in this shape they would obtain a
degree of permanency favorable to the responsibility of the officer,
while, at the same time, they would be less liable to be misunderstood.

Mr. BENSON observed, that the Secretary of the Treasury was directed, by
a resolution of the last session, to prepare a plan for the support of
public credit, and to report the same at this meeting. The point to be
settled is whether it shall be done by an oral communication, or
transmitted in writing? In the former order of the House, this point was
untouched, and the Secretary was left at his discretion to prepare
himself for reporting in either way; consequently when we have fixed the
time for receiving his report, he may make it in the manner for which he
is prepared; but no doubt, this officer, actuated by motives of
deference and respect, will conform to any rule the House may think
proper to enjoin.

Mr. GERRY conceived it would be necessary the Secretary should be
authorized, by a vote of the House, to give explanations to his plans.
This, he was not expressly authorized to do by the vote of the last
session, which confined him merely to prepare a plan for support of the
public credit. Would any gentleman on this floor suppose himself
capable of comprehending and combining the parts of a general system,
calculated to produce such a grand effect? In a plan for supporting
public credit may be comprehended every species of finance. The
Secretary, under such an order, may propose an extension of your impost
to entire new articles, an increase of some, and a diminution upon
others. He may propose an introduction of a system of excise; with all
these he may combine duties, stamps, and direct taxes. Can the human
mind retain, with any great degree of decision, objects so extensive and
multifarious upon a mere oral communication? This consideration alone
ought to be sufficient to induce gentlemen to agree to his proposition
of making the report in writing; but his proposition extended still
further, it went to give him a right to lay before them his
explanations, if he thinks explanations necessary.

On the question, the resolution for receiving the report of the
Secretary of the Treasury in writing, was carried in the affirmative.


_President's Speech._

On motion, the House now resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole
on the President's Speech. Mr. BALDWIN in the chair.

Mr. SMITH (of S. C.) proposed a resolution that an address be presented
to the President, in answer to his Speech to both Houses, assuring him
that this House will, without delay, proceed to take into their serious
consideration the various and important matters recommended to their
attention.

Mr. WHITE thought this motion hardly sufficient; it was too general to
warrant a select committee to draft that particular reply which he hoped
the House was disposed to make to every part of the President's speech;
he therefore begged the gentleman to withdraw it, and permit him to
substitute one in its stead, which he read in his place.

Mr. BOUDINOT thought the proposition just read by the honorable
gentleman from Virginia much superior to that proposed by his worthy
friend from South Carolina. It must have struck every gentleman that
there were other matters contained in the Speech deserving of notice,
besides those recommended to their serious consideration. There was
information of the recent accession of the important State of North
Carolina to the Constitution of the United States. This event ought to
be recognized in a particular manner, according to its importance; and
he presumed to think that its importance was of the very first
magnitude.

A desultory conversation now took place on amending the original
proposition in such a manner as to embrace generally the subjects of the
speech; when, at length, it was amended to read as follows:

      _Resolved_, As the sense of this committee, that an address
      be presented by the House to the President of the United
      States, in answer to his speech to both Houses, with
      assurances that this House will, without delay, proceed to
      take into consideration the various and important matters
      recommended to their attention.

Whereupon Messrs. SMITH, (of S. C.,) CLYMER, and LAWRENCE, were
appointed a committee to prepare the said address.


MONDAY, January 11.

JONATHAN TRUMBULL, from Connecticut; JOHN HATHORN, from New York; and
ANDREW MOORE, from Virginia, appeared, and took their seats.

_Answer to the President's Speech._

Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina,) from the committee appointed for the
purpose of preparing an address in answer to the President's speech,
presented a report; which being read,

Mr. PAGE moved to go into a Committee of the Whole on the same
to-morrow, which was agreed to.


TUESDAY, January 12.

Agreeably to the order of the day the House resolved itself into a
Committee of the Whole on the address in answer to the President's
speech to both Houses.

Mr. BALDWIN being placed in the chair, the address was read as follows:

_The Address of the House of Representatives to the President of the
United States._

      The Representatives of the people of the United States have
      taken into consideration your speech to both Houses of
      Congress at the opening of the present session.

      We reciprocate your congratulations on the accession of
      North Carolina; an event which, while it is a testimony of
      the increasing good-will towards the Government of the
      Union, cannot fail to give additional dignity and strength
      to the American Republic, already rising in the estimation
      of the world in national character and respectability.

      The information that our measures of the last session have
      not proved dissatisfactory to our constituents, affords us
      much encouragement at this juncture, when we are resuming
      the arduous task of legislating for so extensive an empire.

      Nothing can be more gratifying to the representatives of a
      free people than the reflection, that their labors are
      rewarded by the approbation of their fellow-citizens. Under
      this impression, we shall make every exertion to realize
      their expectations, and to secure to them those blessings
      which Providence has placed within their reach. Still
      prompted by the same desire to promote their interests
      which then actuated us, we shall, in the present session,
      diligently and anxiously pursue those measures which shall
      appear to us conducive to that end.

      We concur with you in the sentiment that agriculture,
      commerce, and manufactures, are entitled to legislative
      protection, and that the promotion of science and
      literature will contribute to the security of a free
      Government; in the progress of our deliberations, we shall
      not lose sight of objects so worthy of our regard.

      The various and weighty matters which you have judged
      necessary to recommend to our attention, appear to us
      essential to the tranquillity and welfare of the Union, and
      claim our early and most serious consideration. We shall
      proceed, without delay, to bestow on them that calm
      discussion which their importance requires.

      We regret that the pacific arrangements pursued with regard
      to certain hostile tribes of Indians, have not been
      attended with that success which we had reason to expect
      from them; we shall not hesitate to concur in such further
      measures as may best obviate any ill effects which might be
      apprehended from the failure of those negotiations.

      Your approbation of the vote of this House at the last
      session, respecting the provision for the public creditors,
      is very acceptable to us: the proper mode of carrying that
      resolution into effect, being a subject in which the future
      character and happiness of these States are deeply
      involved, will be among the first to claim our attention.

      The prosperity of the United States is the primary object
      of all our deliberations, and we cherish the reflection,
      that every measure which we may adopt for its advancement,
      will not only receive your cheerful concurrence, but will
      at the same time derive from your co-operation additional
      efficacy in insuring to our fellow-citizens the blessings
      of a free, efficient, and equal Government.

                                  FRED'K A. MUHLENBERG,

                       _Speaker of the House of Representatives_.

Mr. BOUDINOT moved to strike out at the beginning of the third paragraph
"the information," because the House were possessed of this knowledge by
other means: they had, during the recess of Congress, an opportunity of
consulting their constituents, and could therefore say of their own
motion, that the measures of the last session have not proved
dissatisfactory.

Mr. CLYMER, as one of the committee appointed to prepare a report, had
agreed to the address, but he did not think himself precluded from
agreeing to what he supposed would be an amendment. The words appeared
to him necessary, as they were strongly implied, inasmuch as the address
was in answer to the speech of the President, which really contained
such information.

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) contended, that the House had no
information with respect to the satisfaction their constituents
experienced in the measures of the last session, except what was
contained in the President's speech. He did not presume to deny, but
every individual member of Congress might have received information of
this nature in private conversation with the people, but no official
communication could possibly be got at; it was therefore necessary to
recognize, in the address, the quarter from whence they drew that
information; in this view he considered the words necessary, and hoped
they would be retained.

Mr. BOUDINOT meant to avoid the idea that it was from the Executive
alone they drew this information, when it was a notorious fact,
perceptible to common observation.

Mr. LAWRENCE said, the Executive was the proper source to draw such
information from, and he was very happy to learn it from so respectable
a quarter; he therefore hoped it would be permitted to remain in the
report.

The question was now taken for striking out the words, and it passed in
the negative.

It was then moved to strike out, in the first line of the fourth
paragraph, the word "gratifying" and insert "grateful."

Mr. WADSWORTH did not mean to call in question the right of gentlemen to
amend the address in what manner they thought proper, but he would just
remark, that the composition of two or three gentlemen, done with
deliberation and coolness, generally had more elegance and pertinency,
than the patchwork of a large assembly. He should therefore vote against
every alteration that went to nothing more than to change the style; if
gentlemen were disposed to contend for principle, he should listen to
them with attention, and decide according to the best of his judgment,
but he really conceived it to be a waste of time to discuss the
propriety of two such terms as grateful and gratifying.

Mr. PAGE hoped that gentlemen would proceed to amend the address in such
a way as to give it the highest degree of perfection. He would rather
have his feelings hurt, provided they could be said to be hurt by
changing the language of his most favorite production, than that an
address should go from this body with any incorrectness whatever. He
hoped the House would always criticise upon, strike out and amend,
whatever matter was before them with boldness and freedom. And he would
observe to gentlemen, that the most refined and accurate writers were
never ashamed to have it said of them, that they blotted out.

Mr. WHITE said, that every gentleman had an undoubted right to take the
sense of the House upon an amendment, and that it ought not to be
considered as a reflection upon those who drew up the address.

Mr. WADSWORTH did not pretend to be a critic, but thought he understood
the meaning of the words gratifying and grateful, and he conceived the
difference to be too trifling to engage the attention of the House. He
hoped that he had been as modest as a man could be in his observations,
and was sorry to have drawn his worthy friend from Virginia into any
severities.

Mr. THATCHER apprehend the meaning of these two words to be the same,
and the reception of either was only important as it related to the
measure or harmony of the period. Now those gentlemen who are qualified
to decide this point, might vote for the substitute; but for his part he
was very well satisfied with it as it stood.

Mr. STURGES wished the sentence struck out altogether, because he did
not conceive the assertion to be true; for he did believe that there was
something which could and ought to be more gratifying to the
representatives of a free people than the reflection that their labors
are rewarded by the approbation of their fellow-citizens; to be sure it
was a grateful reflection, but there was one much more so, which was,
that their labors had tended to advance the real interests of the
people. If it is, as it ought to be, our highest ambition to promote the
general interest, it must be most gratifying to us to learn that we have
attained that desirable end.

Mr. PAGE had only heard some expressions from the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. WADSWORTH) which he imagined had a tendency to
discourage the House from making necessary alterations; but he was
convinced, from the known candor and impartiality of that gentleman,
that he must not have fully comprehended his intentions, and therefore
begged to apologize to him for any thing he might have said partaking of
severity.

The question was now put for striking out "gratifying" and inserting
"grateful," and passed in the negative.

The committee then agreed to the report, rose, and the Chairman reported
it without amendment.

Mr. Speaker being seated in the chair, the address was read again and
unanimously agreed to by the House.

It was then moved that a committee be appointed to wait on the President
of the United States, to learn from him at what time, and in what place
he would receive this address. Messrs. SMITH, (of South Carolina,)
CLYMER, and LAWRENCE, were appointed the committee on this occasion.


WEDNESDAY, January 13.

BENJAMIN HUNTINGTON, from Connecticut; LAMBERT CADWALADER, from New
Jersey; DANIEL HEISTER, from Pennsylvania, and WILLIAM SMITH, from
Maryland, appeared and took their seats.

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) reported that the President would be ready
to receive their address to-morrow at 12 o'clock.


THURSDAY, January 14.

THEODORE SEDGWICK, from Massachusetts, and THOMAS HARTLEY, from
Pennsylvania, appeared and took their seats.

The House then went and presented the address to the President, to which
the President was pleased to make the following reply:

      _Gentlemen:_

      I receive, with pleasure, the assurances you give me, that
      you will diligently and anxiously pursue such measures as
      shall appear to you conducive to the interests of your
      constituents; and that an early and serious consideration
      will be given to the various and weighty matters
      recommended by me to your attention.

      I have fall confidence that your deliberations will
      continue to be directed by an enlightened and virtuous zeal
      for the happiness of our country.

                                  GEO. WASHINGTON.


FRIDAY, January 15.

JAMES JACKSON, from Georgia, appeared and took his seat.

Mr. HARTLEY moved an adjournment, when

Mr. PAGE rose and said, he wished to call the attention of the House,
before they adjourned, to a subject which he thought of importance, and
which ought no longer to be in the undecided state it had been in since
the last session; it was this, whether the persons who had taken down
and published the debates of the House, by the tacit consent of the
members during the last session, and who had withdrawn from the seats
they then held in the House, to the gallery, during this session, might
not return to the same seats. He supposed that they had modestly
withdrawn, on the supposition that the debate which took place just
before the adjournment, showed that the sense of the members was against
their sitting in the House; but the contrary was the case; that he knew
their publications had given great satisfaction to many of the
constituents of that House; that the House was applauded for its conduct
on that occasion, both at home and abroad, and had been highly commended
for it in some British publications; that he was anxious that the
short-hand writers should resume their seats in the House, lest it might
be insinuated by the jealous enemies of our Government, that the House
of Representatives were more republican and indulgent the last session
than this; that removing those writers to the gallery, was but a step
towards removing them from the House, and that this suspicion would be
increased by circumstances which, however innocent, nay proper in
themselves, might be misunderstood and excite uneasiness. The doors of
the gallery had been two days shut, the House had made a parade through
the streets, and had displayed their eagle in their hall; that these
circumstances, if followed by the exclusion of the short-hand writers,
might spread an alarm which ought to be avoided; he therefore hoped that
those gentlemen who had retired to the gallery might be informed that
they might return to the seats they occupied in the last session--that
he avoided making a regular motion to this effect, because he knew that
some worthy members who wished to admit those writers, or any others,
did not think their admission ought to be sanctioned by vote, and appear
on the journals, lest that might sanction and authenticate erroneous
publications; but that if he should not discover that the sense of the
members present was in favor of the ideas he had expressed, that
to-morrow he would bring forward a motion made by a member from South
Carolina, (Mr. TUCKER,) last session, for that purpose, for he had no
fears that a vote of the House to authorize the admission of such
writers, would make the House answerable for their publications.

Mr. HARTLEY withdrew his motion for adjournment, in order that the
subject alluded to by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. PAGE) might be
understood.

Mr. WHITE said, he felt averse to enter into a positive resolution for
the admission of any person to take down the debates, but wished them
permitted to a convenient seat within the bar for the purpose of hearing
with greater accuracy. But he feared that a vote of the House would give
a sanction to the details, which the publications ought not to have. Not
that he thought them worse than similar publications in other countries;
on the contrary, he thought them better, if he judged from what had
fallen under his particular observation, and what he recollected to have
from others. He did not wish a positive motion for the admission of
short-hand writers, because gentlemen might object to a vote of the
kind, and he should be very loth to discourage publications of the
advantages of which he was well convinced; he knew they had given great
satisfaction to the people of America, and it was a satisfaction of
which he would not deprive them. Although these publications had not
given an exact and accurate detail of all that passed in Congress, yet
their information had been pretty full, and he believed the errors not
very many; those that were made, he supposed to arise rather from haste
or inadvertence, than from design. He was convinced of this, from the
disposition the publishers had manifested to correct any errors that
were pointed out, and the pains they sometimes took to ask gentlemen
what were their particular expressions, when they either did not hear
distinctly, or did not comprehend the speaker's meaning. He wished,
therefore, the business might go on; but silently, as it had heretofore
done, without the express approbation of the House. He was fully
convinced, that neither the editor of the Register, nor any other man,
but the members of the House, had a right to a seat within those walls,
without the consent of every member; but he thought this consent would
be tacitly given if no gentleman opposed their introduction, and in this
way he most heartily concurred with his colleague in agreeing to the
admission of such persons as thought themselves qualified, and were
inclined to take down and publish their debates and proceedings; he
should be glad to see them in the seats they had last session, but he
should object to the vote being entered on the journals of the House.

Mr. BOUDINOT thought the mode proper to be pursued on this occasion,
would be to give a discretionary power to the Speaker to admit such
persons as he thought proper. Under such a regulation, short-hand
writers might be admitted, without giving to their publications any
degree of legislative authority.

Mr. THATCHER hoped that it was not the intention of gentlemen to confine
the business to one person only, because others might appear of equal
capacity, and equally deserving of encouragement.

Mr. PAGE said, he did not wish to confine the vote to any two or three
writers, he cared not how many were admitted. It ought to be remembered,
that he said, when this subject was before the House at the last
session, that he saw no reason why Mr. FENNO should not be within the
House as well as Mr. LLOYD, instead of being in the gallery. He had no
objection to admitting any number of short-hand writers, provided they
did not incommode the members.

Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina.)--I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to exclude
others from a convenient seat; but at the same time, I think those who
were here before, have a pre-emption right to the best. I assure you,
sir, I am sorry for the loss of them off the floor, because I think
their publications had a salutary tendency. It has been said, that it
was the design of the short-hand writers to give a partial
representation of our proceedings. I believe, if they are not correctly
given, it is owing to the hurry in which business of this kind is
conducted, and I am confirmed in this opinion, by some errors which I
have discovered in the publication of our proceedings. It was said that
a committee was appointed to bring in a bill for the preservation and
safe-keeping of the _accounts_ of the United States. I thought within
myself that we were not so tenacious on this head, therefore suspected
some mistake, and on consulting the journals I found that a committee
had been appointed to bring in a bill for the safe-keeping and
preservation of the _acts_ of the United States. The similarity of the
letters in those two words, and the great abridgment short-hand writers
are obliged to make for the sake of expedition, may have caused him to
substitute the one for the other. In another place I found a greater
blunder still; it was said, that the House had appointed a committee for
the regulation of the _barbers_ of the United States; this struck me as
a very gross misrepresentation, for I could hardly believe that the
Legislature of the Union would, at so early a day, attempt to usurp an
authority not vested in them by the constitution, and that, too, over a
body of men who could at any time put an end to the tyranny with the
edge of the razor; but on searching the minutes in this case, I found
that a bill was brought in for the regulation of the _harbors_ of the
United States. Upon the whole, I believe, inaccurate as this work is, it
has given to our constituents great satisfaction, and I should be glad
to see our _Argus_ restored to his former situation behind the Speaker's
chair, from whence he could both see and hear distinctly every thing
that passed in the House.


TUESDAY, January 19.

The bill for enumerating the inhabitants of the United States was read a
second time, and ordered to be committed to a Committee of the Whole.


WEDNESDAY, January 20.

JAMES MADISON and JOSIAH PARKER, from Virginia, appeared and took their
seats.


THURSDAY, January 21.

GEORGE LEONARD, from Massachusetts, PETER SYLVESTER, from New York, and
THOMAS FITZSIMONS, from Pennsylvania, appeared and took their seats.


MONDAY, January 25.

_Census of the Union._

The House resolved into Committee of the Whole on the bill providing for
the actual enumeration of the inhabitants of the United States, Mr.
BALDWIN in the chair.

Mr. MADISON observed, that they had now an opportunity of obtaining the
most useful information for those who should hereafter be called upon to
legislate for their country, if this bill was extended so as to embrace
some other objects besides the bare enumeration of the inhabitants; it
would enable them to adapt the public measures to the particular
circumstances of the community. In order to know the various interests
of the United States, it was necessary that the description of the
several classes into which the community is divided should be accurately
known. On this knowledge the Legislature might proceed to make a proper
provision for the agricultural, commercial, and manufacturing interests,
but without it they could never make their provisions in due proportion.

This kind of information, he observed, all Legislatures had wished for;
but this kind of information had never been obtained in any country. He
wished, therefore, to avail himself of the present opportunity of
accomplishing so valuable a purpose. If the plan was pursued in taking
every future census, it would give them an opportunity of marking the
progress of the society, and distinguishing the growth of every
interest. This would furnish ground for many useful calculations, and at
the same time answer the purpose of a check on the officers who were
employed to make the enumeration; forasmuch as the aggregate number is
divided into parts, any imposition might be discovered with
proportionable ease. If these ideas meet the approbation of the House,
he hoped they would pass over the schedule in the second clause of the
bill, and he would endeavor to prepare something to accomplish this
object.

The committee hereupon agreed to pass over the part of the bill alluded
to.

Mr. LIVERMORE moved to amend the last clause of the bill, by striking
out all that related to the mode of compensating the Marshal and his
assistants, which were specified sums, proportioned to the service, and
to substitute a provision, authorizing the Marshal, or his assistants,
to receive from every male white inhabitant above the age of twenty-one,
five cents; and of the owner of every male slave, of like age, three
cents; reserving, for his own use, four cents out of every five, and
paying the other one cent to the Marshal. He thought this was an
equitable tax, agreeable to the spirit of the constitution; that it
might be collected with safety and satisfaction; while, on the other
hand, the mode proposed in the bill would be extremely inconvenient; it
would draw a considerable sum out of the Treasury, which their present
situation did not enable them to spare.

On the question this motion was lost.

The committee then, after making some small amendments, rose and
reported progress.


THURSDAY, January 28.

_Report of the Secretary of the Treasury._

Mr. AMES observed, that the subject of the Secretary's report, on the
means of promoting public credit, is the order for this day; but when I
consider the circumstances under which this order was entered into, I am
inclined to wish for an extension of the time. It will be recollected
that this report was ordered to be printed, in order that the members
might have it in their hands for consideration; when this was done, it
was expected that the printing would be more expeditiously executed than
the event has demonstrated it could be, of consequence our time for
deliberation has been curtailed; and those gentlemen who were against so
early a day before, will think the present rather premature. In order to
accommodate them, I shall move you a longer day than otherwise I might
be disposed to do; and if I am seconded, I move that the order of the
day be postponed till next Monday week.

Mr. JACKSON.--The report of the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Speaker,
embraces subjects of the utmost magnitude, which ought not to be lightly
taken up, or hastily concluded upon. It appears to me to contain two
important objects, worthy of our most serious and indefatigable
disquisition. The first is, that all idea of discrimination among the
public creditors, as original holders and transferees, ought to be done
away; and on this head, I must own to you, sir, that I formerly
coincided in something like the same opinion, but circumstances have
occurred, to make me almost a convert to the other. Since this report
has been read in this House, a spirit of havoc, speculation, and ruin,
has arisen, and been cherished by people who had an access to the
information the report contained, that would have made a _Hastings_
blush to have been connected with, though long inured to preying on the
vitals of his fellow-men. Three vessels, sir, have sailed within a
fortnight from this port, freighted for speculation; they are intended
to purchase up the State and other securities in the hands of the
uninformed, though honest citizens of North Carolina, South Carolina,
and Georgia. My soul rises indignant at the avaricious and moral
turpitude which so vile a conduct displays.

Then, sir, as to the other object of the report, the assumption of the
State debts by the General Government, it is a question of delicacy as
well as importance. The States ought to be consulted on this point, some
of them may be against the measure, but surely it will be prudent in us
to delay deciding upon a subject that may give umbrage to the community.
For my part, before I decide, I should be glad to know the sentiments of
the Legislature of the State from which I come, and whether it would, in
their opinion, be more conducive to the general and particular interests
of these United States, than retaining them on their present footing. I
trust I am not singular on this point; for gentlemen desirous of
deciding on full information, will not only wish for the sense of the
Legislatures of the several States, but of every individual also.
Perhaps gentlemen of the neighboring States may think it proper to take
up this business at an early day, because they can learn the desires of
their constituents in a short time; but let those gentlemen consider for
a moment, that the distant States ought to have an equal opportunity,
and we cannot hear the voice of Georgia in a week, nor a month. I should
therefore be as much in the dark on Monday week, as I am at present; I
would wish, if the postponement is intended to answer any valuable
purpose, that it should be extended to a longer period. I think the
first Monday in May would be sufficiently soon to enter upon it, and
shall therefore move it. In this time, the State Legislatures may have
convened, and be able to give us their sentiments on a subject in which
they are so deeply concerned.

Mr. BOUDINOT agreed with the honorable gentleman who was last up, that
this subject is a matter of the highest importance, and worthy of due
deliberation; that speculation had risen to an alarming height; but this
consideration bade him to be in favor of the only measure which could
put a stop to the evil, that is, appreciating the public debt, till the
evidences in the hands of the creditors came to their proper value. I
also agree, said he, with the gentleman, that it would be a desirable
thing to have the sense of the State Legislatures, and every part of the
community, because it would tend to elucidate the subject; but we should
not be led by visionary pursuits to defer a business of this magnitude
too long. I think we may go into a Committee of the Whole on Monday
week, without coming to a final determination; but if it is put off for
a long period, it will cause a still greater fluctuation in the market,
and increase those circumstances which the honorable gentleman laments
as injurious to the peace and happiness of the community. We had better,
therefore, look the business in the face, take it into consideration,
and go through it deliberately; but, at the same time, as expeditiously
as the novelty of our circumstances will admit. In this way also we may
acquire information, because we obtain more from listening to each
other's sentiments, than we can procure from any other source. But if,
after all, gentlemen should find themselves unprepared on Monday week,
the business may be postponed to a further day. But I would by no means
consent to lose sight of it for so long a period as from now till May.

Mr. JACKSON.--If the members of this body had known the plan in
contemplation, and they had had an opportunity of consulting their
constituents on the subject, then, I venture to say, this demon of
speculation would not have extended its baleful influence over the
remote parts of the Union. It arose and seized on us by surprise,
advantages are taken without any warning, and such as cannot but
exasperate. But, sir, waiving all these reflections, let us recollect
that the State of North Carolina forms a part of this Union; this
measure is to affect her, as well as the States who are represented on
this floor. Shall we then proceed without them? Her citizens are
indubitably as much concerned in the event as others, and will you bind
her in a case of this importance, when she has not a single
Representative within these walls? If no other consideration can induce
gentlemen to defer this business, deference to a sister State who has so
lately acceded to the Union ought. But, in addition to this, I contend
that the State Legislatures ought to be consulted; and I declare myself,
that I shall not know how to vote until I learn the sense of my
constituents. If we consent to this proper and reasonable delay, our
constituents will be prepared for our decisions, and a stop will be put
to the speculation; or if any man burns his fingers, which I hope to
God, with all the warmth of a feeling heart, they may, they will only
have their own cupidity to blame. The people will then generally remain
satisfied, under the general assurance, that Congress will pursue proper
measures for the support of public credit, and little or no evil can be
apprehended; but much substantial good may arise from a delay of a few
months.

Mr. SHERMAN hoped the business would be conducted in such a way as to be
concluded before the end of the present session. As to obtaining the
sense of the State Legislatures, he did not think that necessary. The
people appointed the members of this House, and their situation enabled
them to consult and judge better what was for the public good, than a
number of distinct parts, void of relative information, and under the
influence of local views. He supposed that Congress contained all the
information necessary to determine this or any other national question.
As to the first observation of the gentleman from Georgia, that
speculations had been carried on to a great extent, he had only to
observe, that this had been the case from the time when the public
securities were first issued, and he supposed they would continue until
the holders were satisfied with what was done to secure the payment.

As to the State debts, it was a subject which he apprehended would not
be ultimately decided, till the sense of the people is generally known;
and on this occasion, it might be well to be acquainted with the sense
of the State Legislatures; he hoped, therefore, that it would be the
case. But with regard to the foreign and domestic continental debts, he
did not hesitate to say, it was proper for Congress to take them into
consideration as speedily as possible; for the sooner they are
discussed, the sooner will the House make up there judgment thereon. He
believed they were possessed of all the facts they could be possessed
of, and therefore any great delay was improper. He was in favor of
making the business the order of the day for Monday week.

Mr. SEDGWICK.--I believe the House at present have not come to a
conclusion in their own opinion, on the various circumstances which are
necessary to be attended to in the report of the Secretary of the
Treasury; therefore, I think some delay is necessary, but it should be
as early a day as we could act upon it understandingly. The ardent
expectations of the people on this subject want no other demonstration
than the numerous body of citizens assembled within these walls.[32] And
while the public expectation is kept thus alive and in suspense,
gentlemen cannot but suppose designs will be framed and prosecuted that
may be injurious to the community. For, although I do not believe that
speculation, to a certain degree, is baneful in its effects upon
society, yet, when it is extended too far, it becomes a real evil, and
requires the administration to divert or suppress it. If the capital
employed in merchandise is taken from that branch of the public
interest, and employed in speculations no way useful in increasing the
labor of the community, such speculation would be pernicious. The
employment of the time of merchants in this way, in addition to the
employment of their capital, is a serious and alarming circumstance. A
spirit of gambling is of such evil tendency, that every legislative
endeavor should be made to suppress it. From these considerations, I
take it, Mr. Speaker, that there are two things very evident; first,
that the postponement should be so long as to enable us to enter upon
the task with understanding; and that this pernicious temper, or spirit
of speculation, should be counteracted at as early a period as can
possibly take place.

Mr. GERRY.--I am a friend to the postponement, Mr. Speaker, though not
for so long a time as the gentleman from Georgia proposes. It will be
agreed, on all hands, that public credit is the main pillar on which
this Government is to stand; but so embarrassed are our finances, that
they require both time and consideration for their due arrangement.

With respect to the suppression of speculation, I do not conceive that
possible, by either a longer or a shorter postponement. Does any
gentleman expect, while we have a public debt, to prevent speculation in
our funds? If they do, they expect to accomplish what never was
effected by any nation, nor, in my opinion, ever will be. But if they
could accomplish it, they would do an injury to the community; for
speculation gives a currency to property that would lie dormant; all
public debts would hereafter be contracted on terms ruinous to the
debtors. As to the policy of speculation, I doubt whether the
speculation of foreigners in our funds is not rather advantageous than
disadvantageous to the community. If we look abroad, and judge by
comparative reasoning, we shall be led to believe that nations derive
great advantages from being possessed of the money of foreigners; they
not only endeavor to acquire it by direct, but also by indirect loans.
During the late war, the Dutch held 40 or 50,000,000 sterling, in the
funds of Great Britain, and she was sensible of the benefit. The
speculations of individuals have perhaps been of the greatest advantage
to those who held public securities, by giving a circulation to the
certificates. Hence it has been thought that a public debt is a source
of great emolument to a nation, by extending its capital, and enlarging
the operations of productive industry.

Mr. JACKSON.--I know, sir, that there is, and will be, speculation in
the funds of every nation possessed of public debt; but they are not
such as the present report has given rise to, by the advantage those at
the seat of Government obtained of learning the plan contemplated by the
principal of the Treasury Department, before others had heard a word
thereof. If we had either received this report privately, or not sat in
a large city, then, sir, none of these speculations would have arisen,
because Congress could have devised means of diffusing the information
so generally as to prevent any of its ill effects. Under these
impressions, I am led to express my ardent wish to God, that we had been
on the banks of the Susquehanna or Potomac, or at any place in the
woods, and out of the neighborhood of a populous city; all my
unsuspecting fellow-citizens might then have been warned of their
danger, and guarded themselves against the machinations of the
speculators. To some gentlemen, characters of this kind may appear to be
of utility; but I, sir, view them in a different light; they are as
rapacious wolves, seeking whom they may devour, and preying upon the
misfortunes of their fellow-men, taking an undue advantage of their
necessities. This, sir, is the sentiment of my heart, and I will always
use its language. I say, sir, whatever might be the happy effects of
speculation in other countries, it has had the most unhappy and
pernicious effects in this. Look at the gallant veteran, who nobly led
your martial bands in the hour of extreme danger, whose patriotic soul
acknowledged no other principle than that his life was the property of
his country, and who evinced it by his repeated exposures to a vengeful
enemy. See him deprived of those limbs, which he sacrificed in your
service! and behold his virtuous and tender wife sustaining him and his
children in a wilderness, lonely, exposed to the arms of savages, where
he and his family have been driven by these useful class of citizens,
these speculators, who have drained from him the pittance which a
grateful country had afforded him, in reward for his bravery and toils,
and a long catalogue of merits. Nor is their insatiable avarice yet
satisfied, while there remains a single class of citizens who retain the
evidence of their demands upon the public; the State debts are to become
an object for them to prey upon, until other citizens are driven into
scenes of equal distress. Is it not the duty of the House to check this
spirit of devastation? It most assuredly is. If by the ill-timed
promulgation of this report, we have laid the foundation for the
calamity, ought we not to counteract it? This may be done by postponing
the subject, until the sense of the State Legislatures is obtained, with
respect to their particular debts. Then these men may send off other
vessels to countermand their former orders; and, perhaps, we may yet
save the distant inhabitants from being plundered by these harpies.


MONDAY, February 1.

GEORGE GALE, from Maryland, appeared and took his seat.


TUESDAY, February 2.

THEODORE BLAND, from Virginia, appeared and took his seat.


WEDNESDAY, February 3.

The engrossed bill for enumerating the inhabitants of the United States
was read the third time, and then ordered to lie on the table.

_Rule of Naturalization._

The House then went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill
establishing a uniform rule of Naturalization, Mr. BALDWIN in the chair.
The first clause enacted, that all free white persons, who have, or
shall migrate into the United States, and shall give satisfactory proof,
before a magistrate, by oath, that they intend to reside therein, and
shall take an oath of allegiance, _and shall have resided in the United
States for one whole year_, shall be entitled to all the rights of
citizenship, except being capable of holding an office under the State
or General Government, which capacity they are to acquire after a
residence of two years more.

Mr. TUCKER moved to strike out the words "and shall have resided within
the United States for one whole year;" because he conceived it the
policy of America to enable foreigners to hold lands, in their own
right, in less than one year; he had no objection to extending the term,
entitling them to hold an office under Government, to three years. In
short, the object of his motion was, to let aliens come in, take the
oath, and hold lands without any residence at all.

Mr. HARTLEY said, he had no doubt of the policy of admitting aliens to
the rights of citizenship; but he thought some security for their
fidelity and allegiance was requisite besides the bare oath; that is, he
thought an actual residence of such a length of time as would give a man
an opportunity of esteeming the Government from knowing its intrinsic
value, was essentially necessary to assure us of a man's becoming a
citizen. The practice of almost every State in the Union countenanced a
regulation of this nature; and perhaps it was owing to a wish of this
kind, that the States had consented to give this power to the General
Government. The terms of citizenship are made too cheap in some parts of
the Union; to say, that a man shall be admitted to all the privileges of
a citizen, without any residence at all, is what can hardly be expected.

The policy of the old nations of Europe has drawn a line between
citizens and aliens: that policy has existed to our knowledge ever since
the foundation of the Roman Empire; experience has proved its propriety,
or we should have found some nation deviating from a regulation inimical
to its welfare. From this it may be inferred, that we ought not to grant
this privilege on terms so easy as is moved by the gentleman from South
Carolina. If he had gone no further in his motion than to give aliens a
right to purchase and hold lands, the objection would not have been so
great; but if the words are stricken out that he has moved for, an alien
will be entitled to join in the election of your officers at the first
moment he puts his foot on shore in America, when it is impossible, from
the nature of things, that he can be qualified to exercise such a
talent; but if it was presumable that he was qualified by a knowledge of
the candidates, yet we have no hold upon his attachment to the
Government.

Mr. SHERMAN thought that the interest of the State where the emigrant
intended to reside ought to be consulted, as well as the interests of
the General Government. He presumed it was intended by the convention
who framed the constitution, that Congress should have the power of
naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving
citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them
in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper
mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon
easier terms than those adopted by the several States. Now, the
regulation provided for in this bill, entitles all free white persons,
which includes emigrants, and even those who are likely to become
chargeable. It certainly never would be undertaken by Congress to compel
the States to receive and support this class of persons; it would
therefore be necessary that some clause should be added to the bill to
counteract such a general proposition.

Mr. PAGE was of opinion, that the policy of European nations and States
respecting naturalization, did not apply to the situation of the United
States. Bigotry and superstition, or a deep-rooted prejudice against the
Government, laws, religion, or manners of neighboring nations had a
weight in that policy, which cannot exist here, where a more liberal
system ought to prevail. I think, said he, we shall be inconsistent with
ourselves, if, after boasting of having opened an asylum for the
oppressed of all nations, and established a Government which is the
admiration of the world, we make the terms of admission to the full
enjoyment of that asylum so hard as is now proposed. It is nothing to
us, whether Jews or Roman Catholics settle amongst us; whether subjects
of kings, or citizens of free States wish to reside in the United
States, they will find it their interest to be good citizens, and
neither their religious nor political opinions can injure us, if we have
good laws, well executed.

Mr. BOUDINOT was against striking out the words, because he would rather
choose to alter it from one year to two years, than strike out all that
respected the capacity of an alien to be elected into any office. He
conceived, that after a person was admitted to the rights of
citizenship, he ought to have them full and complete, and not be
divested of any part.

Mr. WHITE noticed the inconvenience which would result from permitting
an alien to all the rights of citizenship, merely upon his coming and
taking an oath that he meant to reside in the United States. Foreign
merchants and captains of vessels might by this means evade the
additional duties laid on foreign vessels; he thought, therefore, if the
words were struck out, that another clause ought to be added, depriving
persons of the privilege of citizenship, who left the country and staid
abroad for a given length of time.

Mr. LAWRENCE was of opinion, that Congress had nothing more to do than
point out the mode by which foreigners might become citizens. The
constitution had expressly said how long they should reside among us
before they were admitted to seats in the Legislature; the propriety of
annexing any additional qualifications is therefore much to be
questioned. But this bill is not confined to the qualifications of the
General Government only, it descends to those of the State Governments;
it may be doubly questioned how far Congress has the power to declare
what residence shall entitle an alien to the right of a seat in the
State Legislatures.

The reason of admitting foreigners to the rights of citizenship amongst
us is the encouragement of emigration, as we have a large tract of
country to people. Now, he submitted to the sense of the committee,
whether a term, so long as that prescribed in the bill, would not tend
to restrain rather than encourage emigration? It has been said, that we
ought not to admit them to vote at our elections. Will they not have to
pay taxes from the time they settle amongst us? And is it not a
principle that taxation and representation ought to go hand and hand?
Shall we then restrain a man from having an agency in the disposal of
his own money? It has been also observed, that persons might come and
reside amongst us for some time, and then leave the country; he did not
doubt that such might be the case, but it was not presumable, that after
they had once taken an oath that they meant to reside here, and had
become citizens, that they would return as soon as the occasion which
required their absence had terminated.

Mr. MADISON.--When we are considering the advantages that may result
from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the
cautions necessary to guard against abuses. It is no doubt very
desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for
the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw
their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable?
Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase
the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the
rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the
community, are not the people we are in want of. And what is proposed by
the amendment is, that they shall take nothing more than an oath of
fidelity, and declare their intention to reside in the United States.
Under such terms, it was well observed by my colleague, aliens might
acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which
they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and
industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying at
the same time all the advantages of citizens and aliens.

I should be exceedingly sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization
excluded a single person of good fame that really meant to incorporate
himself into our society; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man
should acquire the privilege, but such as would be a real addition to
the wealth or strength of the United States.

It may be a question of some nicety, how far we can make our law to
admit an alien to the right of citizenship, step by step; but there is
no doubt we may, and ought to require residence as an essential.

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) thought some restraints proper, and that
they would tend to raise the Government in the opinion of good men, who
are desirous of emigrating; as for the privilege of electing, or being
elected, he conceived a man ought to be some time in the country before
he could pretend to exercise it. What could he know of the Government
the moment he landed? Little or nothing: how then could he ascertain who
was a proper person to legislate or judge of the laws? Certainly
gentlemen would not pretend to bestow a privilege upon a man which he is
incapable of using?

Mr. HARTLEY said that the subject had employed his thoughts for some
time, and that he had made up his mind in favor of requiring a term of
residence. The experience of all nations, and the constitutions of most
of the States induced the same opinion. An alien has no right to hold
lands in any country, and if they are admitted to do it in this, we are
authorized to annex to it such conditions as we think proper. If they
are unreasonable, they may defeat the object we have in view, but they
have no right to complain; yet, considering the circumstances of this
country, he was favorable to easy terms of admission, because, he
thought, it might be some inducement to foreigners to come and settle
among us. It has been remarked, that we must admit those whom we call
citizens to all the rights of citizenship at once. This opinion, he
presumed, was not well founded; the practice of this country in no
instance warrants it. The constitutions of the several States admit
aliens to the privilege of citizenship, step by step; they generally
require a residence for a certain time, before they are admitted to vote
at elections; some of them annex to it the condition of payment of taxes
and other qualifications; but he believed none of the States render a
foreigner capable of being elected to serve in a legislative capacity,
without a probation of some years. This kind of exception is also
contemplated in the Constitution of the United States. It is there
required, that a person shall be so many years an inhabitant before he
can be admitted to the trust of legislating for the society. He thought,
therefore, that this part of the objection is not well supported.

Mr. WHITE doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on
what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands, in the respective
States; the power vested by the constitution in Congress, respecting the
subject now before the House, extends to nothing more than making a
uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a
citizen, the power of Congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights
and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States;
but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and
immunities of the citizens in the several States. Now, if any State in
the Union should choose to prohibit its citizens from the privilege of
holding real estates, without a residence of a greater number of years
than should be thought proper by this House, they could do it, and no
authority of the Government, he apprehended, could enforce an obedience
to a regulation not warranted by the constitution. So, in the case of
elections, if the constitution of a particular State requires four,
five, or six years residence, before a man is admitted to acquire a
legislative capacity, with respect to the State Government, he must
remain there that length of time notwithstanding you may declare he
shall be eligible after a residence of two years; all, therefore, that
the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to a
uniform rule of naturalization, and not to a general definition of what
constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.

Mr. JACKSON conceived the present subject to be of high importance to
the respectability and character of the American name; the veneration he
had for, and the attachment he had to, this country, made him extremely
anxious to preserve its good fame from injury. He hoped to see the title
of a citizen of America as highly venerated and respected as was that of
a citizen of old Rome. I am clearly of opinion, that rather than have
the common class of vagrants, paupers, and other outcasts of Europe,
that we had better be as we are, and trust to the natural increase of
our population for inhabitants. If the motion made by the gentleman from
South Carolina, should obtain, such people will find an easy admission
indeed to the rights of citizenship; much too easy for the interests of
the people of America. Nay, sir, the terms required by the bill on the
table are, in my mind, too easy. I think, before a man is admitted to
enjoy the high and inestimable privileges of a citizen of America, that
something more than a mere residence amongst us is necessary. I think he
ought to pass some time in a state of probation, and at the end of the
term, be able to bring testimonials of a proper and decent behavior; no
man, who would be a credit to the community, could think such terms
difficult or indelicate: if bad men should be dissatisfied on this
account, and should decline to emigrate, the regulation will have a
beneficial effect; for we had better keep such out of the country than
admit them into it. I conceive, sir, that an amendment of this kind
would be reasonable and proper; all the difficulty will be to determine
how a proper certificate of good behavior should be obtained; I think it
might be done by vesting the power in the grand jury or district courts
to determine on the character of the man, as they should find it.

Mr. PAGE.--I observed before, Mr. Chairman, that the European policy did
not apply to the United States. I gave my reasons for it; they are such
as have not been controverted, and I presume cannot be.

With respect to the idea of excluding bad men from the rights of
citizenship, I look upon it as impracticable; hard terms of admission
may exclude good men, but will not keep out one of the wretches alluded
to; they will come in various forms, and care little about citizenship.
If we make use of the grand jury for this purpose, as proposed by the
member from Georgia, (Mr. JACKSON,) we must, to complete the plan,
authorize the grand jury to indict such emigrants as are unworthy to
become citizens, and expel them. We must add an inquisition, and as it
will not be sufficient for our views of having immaculate citizens, we
should add censors, and banish the immoral from amongst us. Indeed, sir,
I fear, if we go on as is proposed now, in the infancy of our republic,
we shall, in time, require a test of faith and politics of every person
who shall come into these States. As to any precautions against
admitting strangers to vote at elections, though I think them of less
importance than some gentlemen, I object not to them; but contend, that
every man, upon coming into the States, and taking the oath of
allegiance to the Government, and declaring his desire and intention of
residing therein, ought to be enabled to purchase and hold lands, or we
shall discourage many of the present inhabitants of Europe from becoming
inhabitants of the United States.

Mr. LAWRENCE.--We are authorized to establish a uniform rule of
naturalization; but what are the effects resulting from the admission of
persons to citizenship, is another concern, and depends upon the
constitutions and laws of the States now in operation. I have therefore
an objection to that part of the bill which respects the qualification
of the members of the State Legislatures. But with respect to residence,
before a man is admitted, I am of opinion with the gentleman from
Virginia, (Mr. PAGE,) at least it may be questioned, whether any good
can result from it, to compensate for the evil it may effect by
restraining emigration. The gentleman has said he would admit none but
such as would add to the wealth or strength of the nation. Every person
who comes among us must do one or the other; if he brings money, or
other property with him, he evidently increases the general mass of
wealth, and if he brings an able body, his labor will be productive of
national wealth, and an addition to our domestic strength. Consequently,
every person, rich or poor, must add to our wealth and strength, in a
greater or less degree.

Mr. TUCKER had no object in making his motion, but to enable people to
hold lands, who came from abroad to settle in the United States. He was
otherwise satisfied with the clause, so far as it made residence a term
of admission to the privilege of election; but there was a seeming
contradiction in making them freeholders, and, at the same time,
excluding them from the performance of duties annexed to that class of
citizens. He thought the citizens had a right to require the performance
of such duties, by every person who was eligible under their State laws
and constitutions. Now, if the motion could be modified in any way to
accomplish his object with consistency, he would cheerfully acquiesce
therein.

He had no doubt the Government had a right to make the admission to
citizenship progressive; the constitution pointed out something of this
kind, by the different ages and terms of residence they annexed to the
right of holding a seat in this House and in the Senate, and of being
chosen President. No inhabitant can become President of the United
States, unless he has been an inhabitant fourteen years; which plainly
infers that he might have been a citizen for other purposes, with a
shorter residence. But it goes still further, it enables Congress to
dictate the terms of citizenship to foreigners, and to prevent them from
being admitted to the full exercise of the rights of citizenship by the
General Government; because it declares that no other than a
natural-born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this
constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.

Mr. SMITH (of S. C.) hoped the question would not be put to-day, as he
wished to reflect further on the subject. A variety of observations had
been made, which merited the serious attention of the committee; he
would suggest another. An alien, in Great Britain, is not permitted to
inherit, or hold real estate for his own use; consequently, a citizen of
the United States, and a subject of Great Britain, would not be on an
equal footing with respect to estates descended to them by inheritance.
He thought this, and other weighty observations, would induce the House
to postpone the subject till to-morrow.

Mr. SEDGWICK was against the indiscriminate admission of foreigners to
the highest rights of human nature, upon terms so incompetent to secure
the society from being overrun with the outcasts of Europe; besides, the
policy of settling the vacant territory by emigration is of a doubtful
nature. He believed, in the United States, the human species might be
multiplied by a more eligible and convenient mode, than what seemed to
be contemplated by the motion now before the committee. He was well
satisfied for himself, that there existed no absolute necessity of
peopling it in this way; and, if there was no absolute necessity, he
thought Congress might use their discretion, and admit none but
reputable and worthy characters; such only were fit for the society into
which they were blended. The citizens of America preferred this country,
because it is to be preferred; the like principle he wished might be
held by every man who came from Europe to reside here; but there was at
least some grounds to fear the contrary; their sensations, impregnated
with prejudices of education, acquired under monarchical and
aristocratical governments, may deprive them of that zest for pure
republicanism, which is necessary in order to taste its beneficence with
that gratitude which we feel on the occasion. Some kind of probation, as
it has been termed, is absolutely requisite, to enable them to feel and
be sensible of the blessing. Without that probation, he should be sorry
to see them exercise a right which we have gloriously struggled to
attain.

Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men,
such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would
hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class
he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be
room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to
come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and
he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your
European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of
remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then
they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with
them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in
this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They
stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they
fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen
to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such
people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the
convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish
sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such;
but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought
to be considered as a high misdemeanor.

Mr. STONE had no doubt but an alien might be admitted to the rights of
citizenship, step by step; but he questioned the power of the House to
say that a man shall be citizen for certain purposes, as it respects the
individual State Governments; he concluded that the laws and
constitutions of the States, and the constitution and laws of the United
States would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain
degrees of citizenship. Congress may point out a uniform rule of
naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that
naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot
say that foreigners, naturalized under a general law, shall be entitled
to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens.

Mr. BOUDINOT.--An exchange of sentiment on this floor I find always
tends to throw more light on a subject than is generally to be obtained
in any other way. But, as the subject is not yet fully elucidated, I
shall be in favor of letting it remain undecided till to-morrow, for
which reason, I move the committee to rise.

This motion being put, the committee rose, and reported progress, after
which the House adjourned.


=Tuesday=, February 4.

_Rule of Naturalization._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
naturalization bill, Mr. BALDWIN in the chair.

Mr. TUCKER'S motion was still before the committee.

The committee being about to take a question on the motion,

Mr. PAGE wished it delayed until he saw the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. BURKE) in his place.

Mr. SMITH (of S. C.) said, he believed the object of his colleague was
nothing more than to let foreigners, on easy terms, be admitted to hold
lands; that this object could be better effected by introducing a clause
to that purpose, and he had no doubt but it would be equally
satisfactory to his colleague.

Mr. GOODHUE was against the motion, because it made our citizenship too
cheap; after it was decided against, he would move to make the term two
years, instead of one, before an alien should be entitled to the
privilege of a citizen.

Mr. JACKSON.--It was observed yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that we could not
modify or confine our terms of naturalization; that we could not admit
an alien to the rights of citizenship progressively. I shall take the
liberty of supporting the contrary doctrine, which I contend for, by a
reference to the very accurate commentator on the laws of England,
_Justice Blackstone_, I., 10.--"Naturalization," says he, "cannot be
performed but by an act of Parliament; for by this an alien is put in
exactly the same state as if he had been born in the King's legiance,
_except_ only, that he is incapable, as well as a denizen, of being a
member of the Privy Council, or Parliament, holding offices, grants, &c.
No bill for naturalization can be received in either House of Parliament
without such disabling clause in it." So that here we find, in that
nation from which we derive most of our ideas on this subject, not only
that citizens are made progressively, but that such a mode is absolutely
necessary to be pursued in every act of Parliament for the
naturalization of foreigners.

The same learned Judge then goes on to show the attempts that were made
to introduce a general system of naturalization, and how they failed;
and that, to this day, even of their meritorious naval and military
characters they make an exception, as to sitting in Parliament, &c., and
holding grants of land from the Crown, within the Kingdoms of Great
Britain and Ireland. After this, I presume, it will not be contended
that we cannot found our law on the principle of a progressive and
probational naturalization.

Mr. HUNTINGTON.--The terms of the bill are too indefinite; they require
the emigrant to take an oath that he intends to reside in the United
States; but how long, and for what purpose, is not ascertained. He may
determine to stay here until he accomplishes a particular object; and he
may go into the most obscure part of the Union to take this oath. The
community certainly will not be benefited by such emigrants, and
therefore they ought not to be admitted to the privileges of
citizenship. The mode of naturalization, pointed out in this bill, is
much too easy. In the State to which I belong, said he, no person could
be naturalized, but by an act of the Legislature; the same is the case
in several of the other States, and in Britain. He never knew a good
inhabitant, who wished to be admitted to the rights of citizenship, but
what found this mode sufficiently easy. The term that an emigrant should
reside ought to be sufficiently long to give him an opportunity of
acquiring a knowledge of the principles of the Government, and of those
who are most proper to administer it; otherwise he cannot exercise his
privilege with any advantage to himself, or to the community. He
therefore wished that the clause might be amended, in such a manner as
to leave the naturalization of foreigners to the State Legislatures.

Mr. BURKE.--Unless some residence is required, it may be attended with
confusion. In large cities, like Boston, New-York, or Philadelphia, an
election may be carried by the votes of the body of sailors who happened
to be in port. If the French fleet was here at such a time, and a spirit
of party strongly excited, perhaps one of the candidates might get the
crews of every ship in the fleet, and after qualifying them, by taking
an oath of no definite meaning, carry them up to the hustings, and place
himself or his friend on this floor, contrary to the voice of
nine-tenths of the city. Even a residence of one year is too short, it
ought to be two, three, or four; but seven is too long. Indeed, the
whole of this bill seems somehow objectionable; there are some cases
also omitted, which may show the necessity of recommitting it.

The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be
provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th
year of William III. There are several other cases that ought to be
likewise attended to.

Mr. JACKSON had an objection to any persons holding land in the United
States without residence, and an intention of becoming a citizen; under
such a regulation the whole Western Territory might be purchased up by
the inhabitants of England, France, or other foreign nations; the
landholders might combine and send out a large tenantry, and have
thereby such an interference in the Government as to overset the
principles upon which it is established. It will be totally subversive
of the old established doctrine that allegiance and land go together; a
person owing no allegiance to a sovereign, ought not to hold lands under
its protection, because he cannot be called upon and obliged to give
that support which invasion or insurrection may render necessary. But
with respect to residence and probation, before an alien is entitled to
the privilege of voting at elections, I am very clear it is necessary;
unless gentlemen mean to render the rank of an American citizen the
maygame of the world. Shall stories be told of our citizenship, such as
I have read in the Pennsylvania Magazine, of the citizenship there: if
my memory serves me right, the story runs, that at a contested election
in Philadelphia, when parties ran very high, and no stone was left
unturned, on either side, to carry the election, most of the ships in
the harbor were cleared of their crews, who, ranged under the masters
and owners, came before a magistrate, took the oath of allegiance, and
paid half-a-crown tax to the collector, as the constitution required,
then went and voted, and decided the contest of the day. On the return
of one of the vessels, whose crew had been employed in the affair of the
election, they fell in with a shoal of porpoises off Cape Henlopen:
"Ha!" said one of them, "what merry company have we got here! I wonder
where they are going so cheerfully?" "Going," replied one of his
comrades, "why, going to Philadelphia, to be sure, to pay taxes and vote
for Assembly men!" I hope, Mr. Chairman, we have more respect for our
situation as citizens, than to expose ourselves to the taunts and jeers
of a deriding world, by making that situation too cheap.

Mr. BURKE said, no person ought to be permitted to inherit by descent in
America, unless the same privilege was reciprocated by other nations;
perhaps this point would be properly settled by treaty, and it would be
well to introduce a provisionary clause to this effect. He was also in
favor of admitting foreigners to hold lands on easy terms, if they would
come to reside among us: and here he would take an opportunity of doing
justice to some of them, as it might be supposed, from what had fallen
from various parts of the House, that foreigners, educated under a
monarchy, were inimical to the pure principles of republicanism. He was
convinced that this doctrine was untrue, because he had often remarked,
that foreigners made as good citizens of republics as the natives
themselves. Frenchmen, brought up under an absolute monarch, evinced
their love of liberty in the late arduous struggle; many of them are now
worthy citizens, who esteem and venerate the principles of our
Revolution. Emigrants from England, Ireland, and Scotland, have not been
behind any in the love of this country; so there is but little occasion
for the jealousy which appears to be entertained for the preservation of
the Government.

Mr. TUCKER thought the bill must be recommitted; but he did not wish it
done till the sense of the House was known on some of the various points
that had presented themselves during the debate. With respect to the
latter part of the first clause, he agreed with the gentleman from
Maryland, (Mr. SENEY,) that we ought to provide a rule of
naturalization, without attempting to define the particular privileges
acquired thereby under the State Governments. By the Constitution of the
United States, the electors of the House of Representatives are to have
the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of
the State Legislatures. He presumed it was to be left to the discretion
of the State constitutions, who were to be the electors of the State
Legislatures, and therefore the General Government had no right to
interfere therein.

Mr. HARTLEY observed, that the subject was entirely new, and that the
committee had no positive mode to enable them to decide; the practice of
England, and the regulations of the several States, threw some light on
the subject, but not sufficient to enable them to discover what plan of
naturalization would be acceptable under a government like this. Some
gentlemen had objected to the bill, without attending to all its parts,
for a remedy was therein provided for some of the inconveniences that
have been suggested. It was said the bill ought to extend to the
exclusion of those who had trespassed against the laws of foreign
nations, or been convicted of a capital offence in any foreign kingdom;
the last clause contains a proviso to that effect, and he had another
clause ready to present, providing for the children of American citizens
born out of the United States.

Mr. LIVERMORE thought the bill very imperfect, and that the committee
ought to rise, and recommend it to be referred to a select committee;
observing, that it was extremely difficult for fifty or sixty persons to
arrange and make a system of a variety of motions and observations that
had been brought forward.

On the question being put, the committee rose and reported, and the bill
was recommitted to a committee of ten.[33]


MONDAY, February 8.

_Public Credit._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union. The report of the Secretary of the Treasury relative
to a provision for the support of public credit was before them. Mr.
BALDWIN in the chair.

After a silence of some minutes,

Mr. LIVERMORE asked, what part of the report it was expected that
gentlemen should speak to? He wished some gentleman would select such
parts as he conceived to be of importance, and submit them to the
committee.

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) was of opinion, that the committee had
better consider the object of the report, in separate points of view, by
which means they would be able to go through the investigation with a
greater degree of accuracy than if they were left to range at large in
the extensive field before them. The report contains objects so various,
that it is possible gentlemen may agree, with respect to one or two, and
yet differ on a third: from this consideration, he was induced to
suggest the idea of single and independent resolutions, and had prepared
the following: if the manner met the approbation of the committee, he
would lay them on the table for consideration. They were to the
following effect:

_Resolved_, That Congress ought not adjourn, until they have adopted
such measures as will make an adequate provision for the public debt.

_Resolved_, That in making such provision, no discrimination shall be
made between the original holders of the evidences and the assignees
thereof.

_Resolved_, That such of the debts of the individual States as have been
incurred by them, during the late war, ought to be assumed by the
General Government, and like funds provided for them.[34]

_Resolved_, That the arrearages of interest, on the Continental and
State debts, ought to be funded, and consolidated with the principal.

_Resolved_, That the interest to be paid thereon does not exceed ----
per cent. per annum, for the present.

These motions were severally expressive of objects contemplated in the
Secretary's report. The last was upon a principle of modification, such
as was held out in the plan for reloaning the debt.


TUESDAY, February 9.

      _Public credit: Providing for the public debt: Assuming the
      State debts: Funding their certificates: Report of General
      Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury._

      [To the first object, that of providing for the public
      debt, there was no objection; to the assumption and the
      funding there was a strenuous opposition, and their
      adoption became one of the landmarks of party.]

Mr. JACKSON.--Believe me, Mr. Chairman, I have as high a sense of the
obligation we are under to the public creditors, and feel as much
gratitude towards them as any man on this floor. I shall ever cheerfully
acknowledge the duty we owe to our benefactors, and in a peculiar manner
to those brave soldiers who, at the risk of their lives and fortunes,
secured the independency of America. I have also the most sincere wishes
for the re-establishment of public credit, and that upon firm and solid
ground, and on principles which cannot be called in question; but there
appears to me a previous question, which has not yet been brought
forward; it is this, whether there exists an immediate necessity for
funding the national debt in the permanent manner proposed?

The high regard I have for the nature and circumstances of the foreign
debt, induced me to let the first proposition pass without any
animadversion. The vote which has been taken on that point will serve to
show foreigners that we are concerned to preserve our credit with them
by a rigid performance of our stipulations; trusting, at the same time,
that our fellow-citizens cannot object to a distinction so just and
proper in itself; for, notwithstanding what the domestic creditors may
say, it is the money of foreigners that has, in a great measure,
established our independence.

It is doubtful with me whether a permanent funded debt is beneficial or
not to any country; some of the first writers in the world, and who are
most admired on account of the clearness of their perceptions, have
thought otherwise, and declared that wherever funding systems have been
adopted in a Government, they tend more to injure posterity than they
would injure the inhabitants to pay the whole debt at the time it was
contracted. The principle, I apprehend, is demonstrated by experience;
the first system of the kind that we have any account of originated in
the State of Florence in the year 1634; that Government then owed about
L60,000 sterling, and being unable to pay it, formed the principal into
a funded debt, transferable with interest at five per cent. What is the
situation of Florence in consequence of this event? Her ancient
importance is annihilated. Look at Genoa and Venice; they adopted a
similar policy, and are the only two of the Italian Republics who can
pretend to an independent existence, but their splendor is obscured;
they have never been able since the period at which a funding system was
introduced to raise themselves to that formidable state to which they
were before. Spain seems to have learned the practice from the Italian
Republics, and she, by the anticipation of her immense revenue, has sunk
her consequence beneath that level which her natural situation might
have maintained. France is considerably enfeebled, and languishes under
a heavy load of debt. England is a melancholy instance of the ruin
attending such engagements. In the reign of King William, 1706, the
policy of the English Parliament laid the foundation of what is called
their national debt; but the sum was inconsiderable; it little exceeded
L5,000,000 sterling; the example then set has been closely followed. In
1711, it amounted to L9,177,769 sterling, during the wars in the reign
of Queen Anne; since that, the capital of the debt of Great Britain
amounted, in 1777, to about L136,000,000 sterling; and to such a pitch
has the spirit of funding and borrowing been carried in that country,
that in 1786, their national debt had increased to L230,000,000
sterling; a burthen which the most sanguine mind can never contemplate
they will ever be relieved from. If future difficulties should involve
that nation still further, what must be the consequence? The same effect
must be produced that has taken place in other nations; it must either
bring on a national bankruptcy, or annihilate her existence as an
independent empire. Hence I contend that a funding system in this
country will be highly dangerous to the welfare of the Republic; it may,
for a moment, raise our credit, and increase our circulation by
multiplying a new species of currency; but it must hereafter settle upon
our posterity a burthen which they can neither bear nor relieve
themselves from. It will establish a precedent in America that may, and
in all probability will be pursued by the sovereign authority, until it
brings upon us that ruin which it has never failed to bring, or is
inevitably bringing, upon all the nations of the earth who have had the
temerity to make the experiment. Let us take warning by the errors of
Europe, and guard against the introduction of a system followed by
calamities so universal. Though our present debt be but a few millions,
in the course of a single century it may be multiplied to an extent we
dare not think of; for my part, I would rather have direct taxes imposed
at once, which, in the course of a few years, would annihilate the
principal of our debt. A few years' exertion in this way will save our
posterity from a load of annual interest, amounting to the fifth, or
perhaps the half of the sum we are now under engagements to pay.

But why, Mr. Chairman, should we hasten on this business of funding? Are
our debts ascertained? The report of the Secretary of the Treasury
proposes that we should not only fund the debts that are ascertained,
but the unliquidated and unsettled debts due from the Continent; nor
does the plan stop here, it proposes that we should assume the payment
of the State debts--debts to us totally unknown. Many of the States,
sir, have not yet ascertained what they owe; and if we do not know the
amount of what we owe, or are to be indebted, shall we establish funds?
Shall we put our hands into the pockets of our constituents, and
appropriate moneys for uses we are undetermined of? But more especially
shall we do this, when, in doing it, it is indisputably certain, that
the encumbrance will more than exceed all the benefits and conveniences?
Gentlemen may come forward, perhaps, and tell me, that funding the
public debt will increase the circulating medium of the country, by
means of its transferable quality; but this is denied by the best
informed men. The funding of the debt will occasion enormous taxes for
the payment of the interest. These taxes will bear heavily both on
agriculture and commerce. It will be charging the active and industrious
citizen, who pays his share of the taxes, to pay the indolent and idle
creditor who receives them, to be spent and wasted in the course of the
year, without any hope of a future reproduction; for the new capital
which they acquire must have existed in the country before, and must
have been employed, as all capitals are, in maintaining productive
labor. Thus the honest, hard-working part of the community will promote
the ease and luxury of men of wealth; such a system may benefit large
cities, like Philadelphia and New York, but the remote parts of the
continent will not feel the invigorating warmth of the American
treasury; in the proportion that it benefits one, it will depress
another.

Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina.)--The report of the Secretary of the
Treasury contains a proposition for the establishment of a sinking fund.
I wish the gentleman who brought forward the resolutions under
consideration, had included that part of the system in his
propositions, as it might have had a tendency to ease the mind of the
honorable gentleman from Georgia, and to have shown him that the public
debt is not intended to acquire the permanency which he dreads. If our
present debt cannot be paid off at once, all that can be done is to
provide such funds for its gradual extinction as will morally ensure the
object.

The gentleman has contended, that public funding is a public injury. I
agree with him that funding a debt to a very great amount may be very
injurious; yet funding a small debt is beneficial. But whether this is,
or is not a fact, is not the object of our present inquiry; we are not
in a situation to determine whether we will or will not have a public
debt. We have it already, and it appears to me to be a matter of
necessity that we should appropriate some funds for the payment of the
interest upon it. When we consider the nature of the contract, for what
it is we owe the money, and our ability to comply, it follows, of
consequence, that we must pay; it follows as close as the shadow follows
its substance; or as close as the night follows the day. The only
question that can come before us is, the mode of doing it.

With respect to that part of our debt which is yet unascertained, I
would just beg leave to observe, that it is not our fault that it
remains in an unsettled state; neither is it the fault of those who have
brought in their accounts and had them liquidated. Hence, it appears to
me extremely hard that we should refuse to provide for the payment of
those to whom we acknowledge ourselves to be indebted, because there are
others whose claims against us are not yet adjusted. The argument,
therefore, which relates to this point, as well as that which relates to
the Western Territory, will apply ten years hence as well as now, and
form an eternal pretext for deferring the business.

Mr. FITZSIMONS said, that the circumstances of the foreign debt were
such as left no choice in our power, according to the plan proposed by
the Secretary of the Treasury; but we have it in our power, and are
recommended to make a different arrangement with respect to the domestic
debt. I stated, when I introduced the resolutions, that they were
intended to bring the Secretary's plan fairly before the committee. This
resolution is differently worded on that account; but it may be
observed, that the foreign creditors are not here to make a contract
with the people of the United States, but the domestic creditors are;
and we may hold out a modification to them for their acceptance. With
respect to the means by which we shall be enabled to pay the interest
and principal of our debt, this resolution has nothing to do, it leaves
it to the consideration of the committee; and every gentleman will be
perfectly at liberty to propose and support such as he supposes to be
most suitable to our abilities.

Mr. LIVERMORE.--I do not clearly understand the import of the resolution
before the committee. It seems worded rather in a doubtful manner. If
it means, that funds ought to be appropriated for the payment of the
interest and principal of the domestic debt, as the amount appears on
the face of the certificates, I shall be totally against it; whether it
pointedly carries that meaning or not, I cannot say.

For my part, I consider the foreign and domestic debt to carry with them
very material distinctions. The one is not like a debt, while the other
has all the true qualities of one. However gentlemen may think on this
subject, there is a great difference between the merits of that debt
which was lent the United States in real coin, by disinterested persons,
not concerned or benefited by the revolution, and at a low rate of
interest, and those debts which have been accumulating upon the United
States, at the rate of six per cent. interest, and which were not
incurred for efficient money lent, but for depreciated paper, or
services done at exorbitant rates, or for goods or provisions supplied
at more than their real worth, by those who received all the benefits
arising from our change of condition. It is within the knowledge of
every gentleman, that a very considerable part of our domestic
loan-office debt arose in this manner. It is well known that loan-office
certificates were issued as a kind of circulating medium, when the
United States were in such straits for cash, that they could not raise
the necessary supplies in any other way. And it is very well known, that
those who sold goods or provisions for this circulating medium, raised
their prices from six to ten shillings at least.

There is another observation I would beg leave to make. The prices at
which our supplies were procured were such, even in hard money, that it
might be said specie had depreciated, or, what amounted to the same
thing, the commodities were sold for more than their current price; in
many cases, half the price would now purchase the same thing. If so,
there is as much reason that we should now consider these public
securities in a depreciated state, as every holder of them has
considered them from that time to this. There was a period at which they
were considered of no greater value than three or four shillings in the
pound; at this day they are not at more than eight or ten. If this,
then, is the case, why should Congress put it upon the same footing as
the foreign debt, for which they received a hard dollar for every dollar
they engaged to pay? Could any possible wrong be done to those who hold
the domestic debt, by estimating it at its current value? I do not speak
of those only who have speculated in certificates. With respect to them,
I do not see how a difference can be made. By the resolutions of
Congress, and from the face of the papers, it appears that they were
transferable.

It may be said, that there was some part of the domestic debt incurred
by loans of hard money. There might be a small part lent in this way,
but it was very small indeed, compared with the whole of the domestic
debt. It is in the memory of every gentleman, that, before the beginning
of the revolution, every State issued paper-money; it answered the
exigencies of Government in a considerable degree. The United States
issued a currency of the same nature, which answered their purposes,
except in some particular cases, and these were effected by loans of
certain sums of hard money. If any distinctions are to be made among the
domestic creditors, they ought to be made in favor of such only, and
that in consequence of the origin of the debt; while the great mass
given for the depreciated paper, or provisions sold at double prices,
ought to be liquidated at its real value. I cannot think it injustice to
reduce the interests on those debts. I should therefore be against
passing this resolution, if it carries in it the idea of paying the
principal and interest, according to the face of the paper. It is well
known, that a large proportion of this domestic debt was incurred for
paper-money lent. To be sure Congress acknowledged its value equal to
its name; but this was done on a principle of policy, in order to
prevent the rapid depreciation which was taking place. But money lent in
this depreciated and depreciating state, can hardly be said to be lent
from a spirit of patriotism; it was a mere speculation in public
securities. They hoped, by putting their money in the loan-office,
though in a depreciated state, to receive hard money for it by and by. I
flatter myself this prediction will never be effected.

The Secretary of the Treasury has offered some alternatives to the
creditors, out of which they may make their election; but it seems to me
that they, all of them, propose a reduction in the principal and
interest, that they may have an annuity of two-thirds, at six per
centum, or for the whole sum at four per centum, or they may accept of
the other terms. Though this may make a reduction favorable to the
public, yet this is not such a reduction as justice, in my opinion,
requires; and as the resolution before the committee is intended to make
way for the adoption of those principles, I shall vote against it,
though I would rather it was passed over for the present, in order to
see what is the sense of the House on making a specific provision for
the payment of the debt.

Mr. PAGE was glad that the question had been asked the mover of the
propositions on the table what was the object of the resolution now
under consideration, because it was liable to be misunderstood. But now,
he presumed, the answer had satisfied every gentleman's mind.

The gentleman from New Hampshire was pleased to observe, that foreigners
were not interested in the late revolution; that what they did was from
such motives as demanded our gratitude; but our citizens were deeply
interested, and, I believe, if they were never to get a farthing for
what is owing to them for their services, they would be well paid; they
have gained what they aimed at; they have secured their liberties and
their lives; they will be satisfied that this House has pledged itself
to pay to foreigners the generous loans they advanced us in the day of
distress. If we were to make distinctions adverse to their interests, we
could never expect from them a further favor in the future exigencies of
this country. But we may also look with confidence at home for loans and
services; on such occasions they will be supplied us on the principles
of patriotism; the adoption of the first resolution was therefore
politic and just, but the motion of my worthy colleague is not
necessary. I feel for my fellow-citizens who have gloriously exerted
themselves in the salvation of their country by their services in the
field, or the supplies which they yielded, as much as any man can do. I
acknowledge the debt of gratitude the community owes to those select
citizens, and am willing to pay it as far as we possibly can; but they
cannot, they will not complain of the deference we have shown to others,
whose particular situation merited such regard at our hands.

Mr. SCOTT.--I find myself obliged to consider the Government of the
United States in a very different situation, with respect to our foreign
and domestic creditors. With respect to the foreign debt, we, the
representatives of the United States, are vested with full power, and we
are bound in duty to provide for the punctual payment according to the
nature of the contract; but when I turn my eyes to the domestic debt, I
find myself in a very different situation. I conceive myself a mere
arbiter among the individuals of which the Union is composed. A part of
the people have a claim upon somebody. I think that claim is against the
people at large, and we are not only to provide for the payment of that
claim, if just, but to determine whether that claim is just or not. One
part of the community applies to us to recover of the other what is due
to it; the other says, the debt is too large, it is more than is justly
due; you must try and determine between us, and say what part is just,
and what is not. This brings clearly into my view the whole subject, as
a thing within the power of Congress to new model or modify, if we find
that justice demands it; but we have no such authority with respect to
the foreign debt. It is very clear to me, that we have the power to
administer justice and impartiality among the members of the Union; and
this will lead me freely to assert, that we have not only authority, but
it is our duty, if, on examination, we find that not more than half the
sum that is claimed is justly claimed, to strike off the other half.

Mr. BOUDINOT.--I am glad to see gentlemen bring into view principles on
which to determine the great question before us; because, when they are
once established, they will enable us to proceed with certainty to a
decision. If the principles brought forward by the honorable gentleman
from Pennsylvania are just, his arguments are of great weight; but if,
on consideration, we shall find that the principles are unjust, then I
presume, however cogent the system of reasoning he has founded thereon,
it will not prevail. He supposes we sit here as judges to determine the
different claims of the creditors of the United States. If we are in
that predicament, I agree we ought not to proceed but on full evidence
and hearing of those claims. But I have never hitherto been led to
consider Congress in this light, nor can I now consider them in any such
point of view. I consider the Congress, who entered into these
engagements, as complete representatives of the United States, and, in
their political capacity, authorized, by the articles of Confederation,
to contract the debts for which our public faith is pledged; instead of
being judges, or arbitrators, on this occasion, we are parties to the
contract; nor is our case varied, by the dissolution of the old
Confederacy, because the existing constitution has expressly recognized
the engagements made under the former. All debts contracted before the
adoption of this constitution, shall be as valid against the United
States, under this Government, as under the Confederation. Now is the
moment to establish the principle; if the constitution admits the
borrowing of money, or paying for supplies, to be a contract, we are one
of the parties to this contract, and all idea of being arbiters must
vanish. We cannot judge in our own cause. The case will now stand clear;
we owe a debt, contracted for a valuable consideration. The evidences of
our debt are in the hands of our creditors, and we are called upon to
discharge them; if we have it in our power, we ought to consider
ourselves bound to do it, on every principle of honor, of justice, and
of policy; but as we have not the ability to pay the whole off, nor,
perhaps, the whole interest, we must endeavor to make such a
modification as will enable us to satisfy every one. Not that this
modification shall take place without the consent of the creditors; this
would be improper and unjust. Each party is as much to be consulted on
this occasion, as it was at the time of the first contract. If, then,
Congress is bound by the first contract, no gentleman can say we are
judges. If we are parties, what would be the decision before a court of
justice? The creditor produces my bond, by which I have bound myself to
pay a hundred dollars; I cannot gainsay the fact; no man is allowed to
plead that he has made a bad bargain, and that at other times, he could
have purchased what he got of the creditor at half the sum he was forced
to allow him. The inquiry with the judges is not, whether the debtor
made a good bargain or not, but whether he did it fairly and
voluntarily. We are in the same predicament if we fairly and honestly
received the _quid pro quo_; we are bound, as parties to the honest
performance of the contract, to discharge the debt; otherwise, what
avails the clause in the constitution, declaring all debts contracted,
and engagements entered into, before the adoption to be as valid against
the present Government as they were under the old Confederation? The
debt was _bona fide_ contracted; it was acknowledged by the United
States; and the creditor received a certificate as to the evidence of
his debt. It is immaterial to us what he did with it. I confess, if the
original holder was to come forward, and say that he had been robbed of
such evidence, we ought not to pay it until the point was ascertained in
a court of justice.

Some observations were made to point out a difference between the
foreign and domestic debt. I admit there is a distinction, and that in
another instance, which has not been mentioned. His Most Christian
Majesty, when he first became our important ally, presented Congress
with a large sum of money; but this being insufficient to procure us the
necessary supply of military stores, a loan was made us from the royal
coffers of France. But this also being inadequate, we endeavored to
obtain further aid from foreigners. The credit of the United States was
so much impaired, as to hold out but little encouragement to individuals
to trust us with their money. The French King added another mark of his
distinguished attention: he guarantied the loan, and the money was
obtained--obtained of the widow and fatherless; of persons whose all
depended upon a punctual payment of the interest. On this point I could
refer you to letters from our commissioners in Europe, who beg that we
may not put them on this business, unless we are certain that the United
States will carefully provide for the payment of the interest; because,
in case of failure, hundreds must perish for want. This is another
motive why we should attend to the performance of our contracts; and I
will repeat again, it is what we are called upon to do upon every
principle of honor, justice, and policy.

Mr. LAWRENCE.--The observations of the honorable gentleman from
Pennsylvania, (Mr. SCOTT,) if I rightly understand them, apply to the
principal, and not the interest of the domestic debt. He imagines it to
be too large; that is, that the individual who performed services, or
rendered supplies during the late war, received evidences of rather too
great nominal value; and that, at this period of time, it is necessary
to investigate every particular claim, and judge whether the balances
are respectively due or not. The gentleman has distinguished between the
foreign and domestic creditor on this point; he supposes the foreign
debt ought not to be re-examined, because the holders of it are
unconnected with our Government. They lent us money, and we are bound
according to the precise terms of the contract. Here I agree with him;
but that there should be a solid distinction in justice between the
foreign and domestic creditor is to me a singular thing. It was
observed, that the citizens of America would be well paid for their
loans, supplies, and services, by the benefits and profits arising to
them by the revolution; but are we to sacrifice the claims of
individuals of the community for the advantage of the whole? Who are
benefited by the revolution? Every citizen. Then every citizen is bound
to contribute his equal part of the expenses attending the procurement.
Should those of our citizens who furnished the supplies, or loaned their
money, be the only class who are injured? Every citizen is bound to pay
according to his ability, because every one has participated in the
benefits: then the only question to ask is, whether this discrimination
should be made to ascertain or new proportion the debt? This will lead
me to inquire whether it is proper for us, after the resolution we
passed at the last session, after the resolution we have just now
passed, to scale the public debt anew? Shall we say that the evidence
carries on its face fraud and deception? I contend we shall not. Why
shall we liquidate a debt which is established upon a complete and final
settlement? From the face of the evidences arises the demand, and that
is the demand we are to make provision for. Shall we go to our officers
and soldiers who served during the late war, individually, and say that
the balance struck to be due to them is an imposition on the public,
when the Government itself has determined that they were entitled to
such particular reward? If, at the time those securities were given to
them, Government had paid them in money, would any gentleman now contend
that their accounts ought to be reliquidated, and every individual
called upon to refund a part of what he acquired in conformity to the
laws of this country? Certainly no gentleman would contend for such a
measure. How is the nature of the case altered from the circumstances of
our having been so unfortunate as to pay those worthy men with a
certificate in lieu of the money which was due? The nature of the case,
I conceive, is perfectly the same; and we are in duty bound to make a
full compensation. The face of the paper expresses what that is, and it
is to be our guide; the demand surely is not to be lessened.

Mr. JACKSON said there were, most surely, principles on which to ground
a discrimination betwixt a foreign and domestic creditor; if there was
no other, there was this, that the domestic creditors are those that are
bound to pay the foreign creditors their demand; they ought,
consequently, to do justice to others, by a punctual payment, before
they require a discharge of their own claims.

Mr. AMES did not conceive it material to inquire whether there be an
equal obligation on the people of the United States to pay their foreign
and domestic creditors, when they meant to pay both; but if it is
intended to reduce the principal of either, it will lead us into a
discussion of the principles on which such a measure ought to be
founded. The honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SCOTT) probably
intends by the amendment to have a reduction of the debt; I have, said
he, so much respect for the good sense and upright intentions of that
honorable gentleman, that I will not impute to him unworthy motives; nor
do I believe that he governs his conduct in private life by maxims
which I suspect to be contained in the amendment now before us. I would
not be understood, by any means, to convey an improper reflection upon
the opinions of any one. The science of finance is new in America; a
gentleman may therefore propose the worst of measures with the best
intentions. What, let me inquire, will be the pernicious consequences
resulting from the establishment of this doctrine? Will it not be
subversive of every principle on which public contracts are founded? The
evidences of the debt, possessed by the creditors of the United States,
cannot, in reason, justice, or policy, be considered in any other light
than as public bonds, for the redemption and payment of which the
property and labor of the whole people are pledged. The only just idea
is, that when the public contract a debt with an individual, that it
becomes personified, and that with respect to this contract, the powers
of Government shall never legislate. If this was not the case, it would
destroy the effect it was intended to produce; no individual would be
found willing to trust the Government, if he supposed the Government had
the inclination and power, by virtue of a mere major vote, to set aside
the terms of the engagement. If the public in such a case is, as I have
said, personified, what conceivable difference is there, except in favor
of the creditor, between the public and an individual in the case? If,
then, the public contract is a solemn obligation upon us, we are bound
to its true and faithful performance. What is the object for which men
enter into society, but to secure their lives and property? What is the
usual means of acquiring property between man and man? The best right to
property is acquired by the consent of the last owner. If, then, an
individual is possessed of property, in consequence of this right, how
can Government, founded on this social compact, pretend to exercise the
right of divesting a man of that object which induced him to combine
himself with the society? every gentleman may determine this question by
his own feelings. Shall it be said that this Government, evidently
established for the purpose of securing property, that, in its first
act, it divested its citizens of seventy millions of money, which is
justly due to the individuals who have contracted with Government! I
believe those gentlemen, who are apprehensive for the liberties and
safety of their fellow-citizens, under the efficiency of the present
constitution, will find real cause of alarm from the establishment of
the present doctrine. I have heard, that in the East Indies the stock of
the labor and property of the empire is the property of the prince; that
it is held at his will and pleasure; but this is a slavish doctrine,
which I hope we are not prepared to adopt here. But I will not go
further into a consideration of the idea of discrimination. I will ask,
though, is this country ever to be in a settled and quiet state? Must
every transaction that took place, during the course of the last war,
be ripped up? Shall we never have done with the settlement and
liquidation of our accounts?

Mr. LIVERMORE.--The arguments advanced by the gentlemen from
Massachusetts and New York prove too much, and therefore prove nothing.
That the late Congress had, at all times, from their first institution,
the power to contract debts, for the benefit of the United States,
cannot be denied; and that we are authorized to pay such debts, is
equally certain. But this by no means contravenes the opinion of those
gentlemen who think, that the whole may be properly considered and
discharged at the rate which justice requires; for the same argument
which is urged for the payment of the public securities at their nominal
value, might be urged in favor of paying off the Continental debts of
credit, according to the sums expressed on the face of them. They were
issued with as much confidence, and were received with as much reliance
on the public faith, as any species of securities whatever; yet, it
seems to be given up on all hands, that the owners of the old
Continental paper bills ought not to be paid according to their nominal
value. Perhaps it may be said, on comparing them with the loan-office
certificates, that the United States had not the benefit of that money;
but had they not the value of it? It will be answered, that when the
money was first issued, Congress had nearly the value for it; but
afterwards the money greatly depreciated, and they had not the full
value for it, yet the obligation to pay it is as explicit as words can
make it. No advocate will be found for making all that money good. It
has been thought proper, and it is just, that it should be reduced from
its nominal value; if it is reduced on a scale of one hundred for one,
the holders of it, I dare say, would cheerfully receive that sum. If the
United States then had value for it, and if they had not value for the
certificates, who can doubt of the justice of reliquidating, and duly
ascertaining the public debt? All I contend for is this, that the
present Government pay the debts of the United States; but as the
domestic part of the debt has been contracted in depreciated notes, that
less interest should be paid upon it than six per cent. Six per cent.
was the usual interest upon the certificates when they were issued by
Congress; but if the possessor has received no part of this six per
cent. until this time, that now the principal and interest be
consolidated into one sum, hereafter to bear an interest of three or
four per cent.; then those citizens, who now stand as creditors of the
Union, will find that part of their property has been the most
productive of any, much more productive than the property of the
citizens of the United States has generally been. Those who lent their
money to individuals before and during the late war, generally lost or
suffered by the depreciation some three-quarters of the capital; nay,
some thirty-nine fortieths. But is this the case of the domestic
creditor of the United States? No! he will preserve his property,
through the chaos of the revolution, and be put now in a more eligible
situation than he was at the time when he loaned the money. The capital
sum which he lent is now increased, and very rapidly increased, for six
per cent. is a very large interest. He will now receive 160 dollars for
his 100, and putting that into the funds, at three or four per cent. he
will find it more productive than any other method in which he could
employ his money; for, I contend, that neither improved, nor unimproved
lands, will give an interest near half of what the public creditor will
receive. People who have held real property have sunk, with the taxes,
and other losses, the greatest part of it; but the public creditor has
let his run through the confusion of the revolution, and nevertheless
gets it returned to him safe; and, so far from being impaired, that he
has prodigiously accumulated, not only in a manner superior to the
property of his fellow-citizens, but superior to the foreigner who lent
his money at four per cent. Justice and equity require, on the behalf of
the community, that these people be content with reasonable profit. They
ought not, therefore, to receive, on a funded debt, so much as six per
cent.; whether three or four, or something between three and four, would
be a proper sum, I shall not pretend to determine. But I consider it a
proper question for this committee to consider, in justice to those who
are to pay, as well as to those who are to receive; nor do I believe the
domestic creditors would be dissatisfied with it, provided they were
sure of receiving this annual interest; for their debts, on such a
footing, would be better to them than if they were established on an
extravagant plan that could never be effected, but which would be likely
to throw the nation into confusion. Every body has suffered more or less
by the depreciation, but the public creditors very little, in regard to
that part of their property which they had deposited in the hands of
Government: it is true, that it has slept; but it is now waked up to
some purpose.

Mr. SCOTT.--A great deal has been said on a great principle that must be
attended to in some stage of this business; but gentlemen have been led
into a more extensive discussion on the doctrine of discrimination than
I had any idea of when I proposed the amendment. It has been urged by
some of the gentlemen, that however just my principle is, that the
Legislature is in the quality of an arbitrator, yet we cannot adopt the
amendment; others again have said, that the debt is a contract between
the Government and the individual, and that we being parties we cannot
be judges; for it is contrary to the principles of the law, that we
should be judges in our own cause. If, in national transactions like
this, interesting to our citizens only, the Government is to be supposed
one party, and the individual the other party, I would ask the gentleman
who is the judge? Can two parties exist in a well organized Government
to dispute about property, and have no judge? The very idea must induce
the gentleman to abandon his ground. It has been said, as the foundation
of an opinion, that there is a great similitude between a certificate
and a bond that is brought into court to demand payment upon; that no
opposition can be made; that no plea can be entered; but I would wish to
ask the gentleman who made the remark, as a professional man, whether
the want of consideration would not be a good plea? In Courts of Equity,
relief can be given against _prima facie_ evidence.

Mr. BOUDINOT.--I am a friend to the discussion of every principle on
which the great business before us may be supposed to turn, because I
have a great desire that they should be settled on full information,
that the public, as well as ourselves, may be satisfied with their
propriety. This leads me again to notice the arguments which have been
urged in favor of considering this body as judges or arbitrators between
the public and the individuals who have claims upon the public.

It must appear to the satisfaction of every unprejudiced mind, from the
resolutions of the late Congress, that they acknowledge themselves a
party on behalf of the public, to every engagement they entered into for
services, supplies, or moneys loaned. If then it is admitted that the
late Congress were parties to the contract, we must agree that our
situation is precisely the same, because we stand in their shoes; and in
my former argument I urged, if we are parties we cannot be judges.

Mr. JACKSON.--If there is no part of the debt of the United States
unliquidated, besides the two millions which the gentleman alludes to,
yet there is a very considerable part of what is in contemplation to
fund, as Continental debt, not at present ascertained. I mean the State
debts. The Secretary himself had no evidence before him, from which he
could make a probable guess of the amount; if these are to be assumed by
the General Government, I presume the General Government ought to be at
liberty duly to ascertain them; and, therefore, the amendment proposed
by the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania ought to be admitted.

The honorable gentlemen who are in opposition, contend that no sort of
discrimination ought to take place; yet from what they have let fall, on
this occasion, I am led to believe that they favor that part of the
report of the Secretary which makes a discrimination, in fact, equal to
a loss of one-third of the principal. What will hold good in one case
ought to hold good in another, and a discrimination might take place
upon the same principles, between those to whom the Government was
originally indebted, and who have never received satisfaction therefor,
and those who had nothing to do with the Government in the first
transaction; but have merely speculated, and purchased up the evidence
of an original debt. Some gentlemen think, that the claims of this
latter class merit a greater degree of attention, because by their
actions, they seem to have evinced a greater degree of confidence in the
Government than those who sold them. But, sir, these men have had more
information, they have been at the seat of Government, and knew what was
in contemplation before citizens of other parts of the Union could be
acquainted with it. There has been no kind of proportion of knowledge
between the two classes--to use the expression of a British Minister,
the reciprocity has been all on one side. The people in this city are
informed of all the motions of Government; they have sent out their
money, in swift sailing vessels, to purchase up the property of
uninformed citizens in the remote parts of the Union. Were those
citizens acquainted with our present deliberations, and assured of the
intention of Congress to provide for their just demands, they would be
on an equal footing; they would not incline to throw away their property
for considerations totally inadequate. Such attempts at fraud would
justify the Government in interfering in the transactions between
individuals, without a breach of the public faith; but this, sir, is not
the object of the present motion, it only goes so far as to ascertain
the amount of the debt, before we make provision for the payment; and
this appears to me to be proper upon every principle of justice and
discretion.

Mr. BURKE wished the question postponed till to-morrow, as it was a
subject of such high importance. He moved the committee to rise;
whereupon the committee rose, and reported progress.


WEDNESDAY, February 10.

_Public Credit._

The House again went into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. BALDWIN in the
chair, on the report of the Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. SCOTT'S amendment being still under consideration.

Mr. SCOTT.--Some time was spent yesterday in the consideration of this
subject; in my opinion, that time was not ill spent, nor would two or
three days more be ill spent in discussing the question, for it involves
in it the whole doctrine of discrimination and liquidation. If these two
great points are once settled, the way will be clear and open before us
to proceed to the discussion of the report: for if the principles of the
report are good, I believe the plan itself is good. I believe, upon the
principles which it holds forth, that it is wisely and judiciously drawn
out, and does great honor to the officer who framed it. But it is
incumbent on us to examine its principles before we adopt it; if they do
not consist with equity and justice among the several inhabitants of the
Union, they must be rejected. Now I doubt whether they consist with that
equity and justice; I think there are others on this floor who have
their doubts also. I wish, therefore, that we should coolly examine
those principles, consult our judgment and understanding, and when we
have collected all the information we can get from each other, we may
determine; and when we have determined this, and the two grand points I
have mentioned, our business will be easy.

In support of the principles held out in the report, it is said that a
solemn contract is entered into that cannot be violated; that the debt
is ascertained and cannot be extinguished, but by the absolute payment
of what it acknowledged to be due. Now, I doubt whether the necessary
concomitants of a contract to the amount mentioned on the face of the
paper, really accompanies the public securities. Let us revert back to
the time that this contract was entered into. At the close of the war,
at the commencement of issuing final settlements, there was a demand
against the United States for real and essential services rendered; the
claimants came forward, and asked something for their demand. Congress
having no money to give them, offered something; what? A certificate to
a certain nominal amount; nay more, of a certain known value; the
nominal amount was twenty shillings, the certain known value was two and
sixpence. Did the soldier accept of this offer? Yes. On what principle
did he accept it? He knew it was putting the capstone on the building
which he had erected by his labor and cemented with his blood. I have
done you services, said he, to the amount of twenty shillings, but you
are poor and unable to pay me; I will accept now of your two and
sixpence, and give you a discharge. Thus, the soldier who had, through
blood and slaughter, established the liberties of his country, crowned
the whole by the sacrifice of pecuniary emoluments. His consent was
given to the contract, and he received two and sixpence in the pound.
Now, if there is any other contract existing like this, I cannot see it.
The soldier never received it, nor the officer who handed it out, never
believed it to be worth more than two and sixpence in the pound. It was
like compounding a debt by the consent of the creditor, and there an
equal liquidation ought to take place. If this reasoning is right, we
know the value at once of our paper currency; if it is not right, I
would wish to know upon what principle of rationality, a rate can be
established for the value of our certificates.

Mr. BOUDINOT.--I am convinced that the principles laid down by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, if true, ought to effect the final
determination of this question; and if I was satisfied with them, I
should clearly vote with him. If I was convinced that the certificates,
at the time they were given out, were worth no more than 2_s._ 6_d._ in
the pound, and that the creditors received them at that price, in full
discharge of their demands, I should be very loath to raise them to so
great a value; I would treat them precisely the same as Continental
money. I should think that the public did complete justice by complying
with the terms of their contract; while this is a matter of dispute we
can never agree in our determination. But if I can show that this is not
the case, that he has not looked into the origin of this debt, so as to
be well ascertained of the fact, I hope he will give up his opinion, and
join with me in the conclusion.

The debt of the United States is of four kinds; first, paper money;
second, money lent; third, the pay to the army, including commutation,
and the allowance for depreciation; and fourth, certificates, or
evidences of the debts due from the United States to individuals, for
supplies furnished, or services rendered at different periods of the
last war. As to the bills of credit, I mentioned yesterday that they
stand upon a different footing from the rest; because it was one of the
parties who ascertained their depreciation, contrary to the opinion of
the other, who had a desire of keeping them up to their nominal value.
The money loaned to the United States, is a debt which we are bound to
pay, on every principle of honor and justice; nor can it be said that
the certificate given to the person who loaned the money, was given as a
payment in discharge of the debt. With respect to the army, including
commutation, I shall beg leave to read two or three resolutions of
Congress, to show that Congress had a different idea of the certificates
they gave to the officers and soldiers, in evidence of the balance of
their account, which is still due. When they were first issued to the
soldiers, Congress guarded them from being transferable; but as the
soldiers could get nothing for them in that form, upon representation,
Congress passed another resolution, by which they were made
transferable, in order that the soldier might avail himself of the
acknowledgment of Congress in his favor; (the resolutions referred to
were in May, 1783, April, 1784, and June, 1784.) This recurrence to the
resolutions of Congress, under which the evidences of the debt were
issued, sufficiently explodes a supposition, that they were understood
to be worth no more than 2_s._ 6_d._ in the pound, at the time they were
issued and received. From the personal knowledge I have of the
transactions of that time, I can venture to say, that no idea of payment
was ever entertained. They were, in fact, and were so considered,
evidences of the liquidated and specific sums due to the creditors of
the United States. The step which Congress took for the benefit of the
army, in making their certificates transferable, so far from
accommodating them, would have proved a real injury. If the assignee had
supposed himself to stand in a less eligible situation than the
assignor, he never would have been induced to have given him the price
which he did. If the soldier had received a certificate of twenty
shillings, as only 2_s._ 6_d._ nobody would have inclined to have given
him 2_s._ 6_d._ for it, because he could never expect to obtain a
repayment of a greater sum, even in such money as Congress should find
convenient; upon every principle of assignation of debts or contracts,
such an idea ought to be reprobated.

Mr. SEDGWICK.--I will express my idea on the point which the gentleman
has made an inquiry respecting, in a few words. I said, that I conceived
a delay of this business would endanger the peace of the Union by
diminishing the energy of the Government, without which this
constitution would be of no value. These are considerations which must
appear weighty and important, if justly considered by the committee. A
great and respectable body of our citizens are creditors of the United
States. There are a variety of opinions prevailing respecting their
claims, with respect to funding, discrimination, and interest. This
diversity of opinion may probably irritate and produce heats and
animosities, which may terminate in forming factions among the people.
The State debts may produce a difference between the General and
particular Governments. If the matter is taken up as the business of a
party, one may be pitted against the other, until, in the end, they
disturb the public tranquillity, or sacrifice the general welfare to
opposition and party spirit. Besides this, the reputation, the credit of
the Government is at stake; the public expectation is alive to all the
measures of Government at the present moment. They expect that justice
and equity will be administered as far as the abilities of our country
extend; it lies with the Legislature to realize this expectation. If
Congress pursue the present inquiry, and come to a determination without
delay, the public sentiment will be brought to a point, and a general
acquiescence may be expected; but if it is postponed to a future
session, such may be the effect of faction and disappointment during the
recess, that the probability is, that no one party will comprise a
sufficient number to comprehend the majority of the whole.

Mr. JACKSON.--Do not gentlemen think there is some danger on the other
side? Will there not be ground of uneasiness when the soldier and the
meritorious citizen are called upon to pay the speculator more than ten
times the amount they ever received from him for their securities? I
believe, Mr. Chairman, there is more just reason of alarm on this than
on the other side of the question.

A gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. HARTLEY) has noticed my arguments of
yesterday, respecting a funding system. I beg leave to make a few
observations in answer to him. He has said, that a funded debt is of
great advantage to a nation, and has adduced the situation of England as
a proof, founded on experience. But England is a solitary example, and
the force of that example dwindles into nothing, if we examine into the
real cause of her seeming affluence. She does not owe much of
respectability to her national debt; she owes the most of it, at
present, to the troubles of other countries, and when those have
subsided, the bubble of her credit may blow up, as did the South Sea
project, for Government stock can never be considered as cash. The stock
employed in agriculture, commerce, and manufactures may, by great
prospects of advantage, be diverted into the hands of brokers, for the
purpose of speculating further in the funds; but no real addition will
be made to the means of productive industry, nor was any thing of this
kind contemplated at the time funding was first introduced into England.
We learn from _Blackstone_, that the reason for establishing a national
debt, was in order to support a system of foreign politics, and to
establish the new succession at the revolution; because it was deemed
expedient to create a new interest, called the moneyed interest, in
favor of the Prince of Orange, in opposition to the landed interest,
which was supposed to be generally in favor of the king, who had
abdicated the throne. I hope there is no such reason existing here; our
Government, I trust, is firmly established without the assistance of
stock-jobbers. We ought to reign universally in the hearts of our
fellow-citizens, on account of the salutary tendency of our measures to
promote the general welfare, and not depend upon the support of a party,
who have no other cause to esteem us but because we realize their golden
dreams of unlooked-for success.

Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina.)--If we were about to contract debts for
the purpose of funding them, the observations of the gentleman from
Georgia would apply; but we have already contracted them, and the only
question is, shall we fund or pay? We must do one or the other. With
respect to the remark of Blackstone, he is writing of an enormous public
debt when he mentions it as injurious, because he expressly says, that
"a certain proportion of debt seems to be highly useful to a trading
people; but what proportion that is it is not for me to determine." To
be sure he adds afterwards, "that the present magnitude of our national
encumbrances very far exceeds all calculations of commercial benefit,
and is productive of the greatest inconveniences." And here I agree with
him: but our public debt is not of such enormous magnitude as to
counterbalance the good effects of throwing out such a quantity of a
stable paper as will answer all the purposes of a circulating medium.

Mr. TUCKER.--I very much applaud the gentleman who made the motion now
before the committee, because he has boldly come forward to combat an
opinion so generally received in this place, that many thought it could
not be controverted by any man possessed of common honesty; and because
I am persuaded, that he has done it with an honorable intention of
substituting real and substantial justice, in the place of that which he
deems to be only the name and the shadow.

Although it is probable I differ with the gentleman who moved the
amendment, I am inclined to think a discrimination of some kind is
equitable and necessary. I believe it may be fairly said, that there are
three classes of domestic creditors. The first, those who hold the
Continental bills of credit, which have been long out of circulation.
Second, those who hold certificates that were given for services or
supplies, in their own names. And, third, those who hold certificates by
purchase. I would wish to consider the obligation to each of these three
classes, and whether, in equity, some kind of discrimination may not be
made. On a strict and impartial examination, I am inclined to believe
they will not appear to be the same. I will now turn to the examination
of the first; namely, the holders of the Continental bills of credit.
The Secretary of the Treasury has reported in favor of some degree of
provision being made for them. But, sir, what is the situation of the
people who hold these bills? If I recollect rightly, the face of the
bills declares, that the bearer shall be entitled to receive so many
Spanish milled dollars as is therein expressed. When these bills were
issued, their real value was equal to their nominal value; no person
refused, or wished to refuse, them as such; but, in a short time, too
large a quantity were issued, and they began to depreciate. Congress
then recommended to the several States to pass tender-laws for the
support of their credit. This was done by all the States; and they
continued, in some of them, to pass as specie, under those laws, when
they were depreciated twenty, thirty, and forty for one. Those people,
who received them in this state, suffered a very great loss by an act of
the Government, and many were ruined by the measure. When these bills
had thus depreciated, Congress passed a resolution, calling them in at
forty for one. This ordinance of Congress immediately reduced the claims
of the first class of creditors by an arbitrary act of power. I do not
pretend to say that the measure was unnecessary, but it was rigorous to
deprive them of 39-40ths of their claims. Perhaps we cannot return to
all the transactions of that time, because it would involve the
Government in a thousand difficulties, and produce, perhaps, greater
evils than it would remedy. But there remains a claim upon our justice
to pay the holders one dollar, at least, for forty. By the act of
Congress, which I alluded to before, these bills were thrown out of
circulation, and have ever since lain in the hands of individuals. Now,
it appears to me, that, in equity, we ought to make all the reparation
in our power. Surely, then, we ought to allow interest on the principal
from the time the bills were scaled, and forced out of circulation.
These creditors, I take it, have a strong claim upon us; because the
Government has materially injured them, and the least satisfaction we
can give them, is to put this part of the debt on the best footing we
can; if we cannot do complete justice, let us approximate towards it as
far as it is in our power. The second class of our creditors have
obligations that are strong. It has been said, and generally passed
current as an incontrovertible opinion, that those who transferred their
certificates have conferred to the purchaser every claim they had upon
the public. I mean, sir, to deny this assertion. There is a claim which
they could not transfer, that is, a claim in equity;, they were entitled
to the principal sum when they presented their accounts to the United
States, and we ought, in justice, to have paid it at that time; but,
perhaps, from our inability to do this, we were obliged to force on them
a certificate of the balance, with a promise to pay them an annual
interest thereon; but a promise to pay the interest does not exonerate
us from paying the principal, as soon as we have it in our power. Now,
this is a claim which the original creditor, who parted with the
evidence of his debt, did not transfer to the person to whom he sold it.
The United States are under no contract with the purchaser who bought a
loaned debt, to pay him any thing more than what the paper specifies,
that is, to pay him the interest from year to year, but not the
principal, until we find it convenient.

Then, with respect to the third class, if the residue of the revenue is
insufficient to pay them the interest on their whole principal, I would
give them certificates for such part as we are able to provide for the
payment of the interest upon, at six per cent., to be paid in the same
manner with the others. And I would give them other certificates for the
remainder, on a like interest of six per cent., the payment whereof
should commence at a fixed period, say three, four, or five years, as it
might be found that the increasing resources of our country would,
enable us to do; but I would undertake nothing now beyond our present
ability.


THURSDAY, February 11.

[Mr. FITZSIMONS presented the address of the yearly (Quaker) meeting of
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Western parts of Maryland
and Virginia, held at Philadelphia, against the continuance of the
African slave trade, and praying Congress to remove that reproach from
the land, and Mr. LAWRENCE presented an Address to the same effect from
the Society of Friends in New York.]

Mr. HARTLEY moved to refer the Address of the annual assembly of
Friends, held at Philadelphia, to a committee; he thought it a mark of
respect due to so numerous and respectable a part of the community.

Mr. WHITE seconded the motion.

Mr. SMITH (of S. C.)--However respectable the petitioners may be, I hope
gentlemen will consider that others equally respectable are opposed to
the object which is aimed at, and are entitled to an opportunity of
being heard before the question is determined. I flatter myself
gentlemen will not press the point of commitment to-day, it being
contrary to our usual mode of procedure.

Mr. FITZSIMONS.--If we were now to determine the final question, the
observation of the gentleman from South Carolina would apply; but, sir,
the present question does not touch upon the merits of the case; it is
merely to refer the memorial to a committee, to consider what is proper
to be done; gentlemen, therefore, who do not mean to oppose the
commitment to-morrow, may as well agree to it to-day, because it will
tend to save the time of the House.

Mr. JACKSON wished to know why the second reading was to be contended
for to-day, when it was diverting the attention of the members from the
great object that was before the Committee of the Whole? Is it because
the feelings of the Friends will be hurt to have their affair conducted
in the usual course of business? Gentlemen, who advocate the second
reading to-day, should respect the feelings of the members who represent
that part of the Union which is principally affected by the measure. I
believe, sir, that the latter class consists of as useful and as good
citizens as the petitioners, men equally friends to the revolution, and
equally susceptible of the refined sensations of humanity and
benevolence. Why, then, should such particular attention be paid to
them, for bringing forward a business of questionable policy? If
Congress are disposed to interfere in the importation of slaves, they
can take the subject up without advisers, because the constitution
expressly mentions all the power they can exercise on the subject.

Mr. SHERMAN suggested the idea of referring it to a committee, to
consist of a member from each State, because several States had already
made some regulations on this subject. The sooner the subject was taken
up he thought it would be the better.

Mr. PARKER.--I hope, Mr. Speaker, the petition of these respectable
people will be attended to with all the readiness the importance of its
object demands; and I cannot help expressing the pleasure I feel in
finding so considerable a part of the community attending to matters of
such momentous concern to the future prosperity and happiness of the
people of America. I think it my duty, as a citizen of the Union, to
espouse their cause; and it is incumbent upon every member of this House
to sift the subject well, and ascertain what can be done to restrain a
practice so nefarious. The constitution has authorized us to levy a tax
upon the importation of such persons as the States shall authorize to be
admitted. I would willingly go to that extent; and if any thing further
can be devised to discountenance the trade, consistent with the terms of
the constitution, I shall cheerfully give it my assent and support.

Mr. MADISON.--The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. FITZSIMONS) has put
this question on its proper ground; if gentlemen do not mean to oppose
the commitment to-morrow, they may as well acquiesce in it to-day; and,
I apprehend, gentlemen need not be alarmed at any measure it is likely
Congress will take; because they will recollect, that the constitution
secures to the individual States the right of admitting, if they think
proper, the importation of slaves into their own territory, for
eighteen years yet unexpired; subject, however, to a tax, if Congress
are disposed to impose it, of not more than ten dollars on each person.
The petition, if I mistake not, speaks of artifices used by
self-interested persons to carry on this trade; and the petition from
New York states a case that may require the consideration of Congress.
If any thing is within the Federal authority to restrain such violation
of the rights of nations and of mankind, as is supposed to be practised
in some parts of the United States, it will certainly tend to the
interest and honor of the community to attempt a remedy, and is a proper
subject for our discussion. It may be, that foreigners take the
advantage of the liberty afforded them by the American trade, to employ
our shipping in the slave trade between Africa and the West Indies, when
they are restrained from employing their own by restrictive laws of
their nation. If this is the case, is there any person of humanity that
would not wish to prevent them? Another consideration why we should
commit the petition is, that we may give no ground of alarm by a serious
opposition, as if we were about to take measures that were
unconstitutional.

Mr. _Stone_ feared that if Congress took any measures indicative of an
intention to interfere with the kind of property alluded to, it would
sink it in value very considerably, and might be injurious to a great
number of the citizens, particularly in the Southern States. He thought
the subject was of general concern, and that the petitioners had no more
right to interfere with it than any other members of the community. It
was an unfortunate circumstance, that it was the disposition of
religious sects to imagine they understood the rights of human nature
better than all the world besides; and that they would, in consequence,
be meddling with concerns in which they had nothing to do. As the
petition relates to a subject of a general nature, it ought to lie on
the table as information. He would never consent to refer petitions,
unless the petitioners were exclusively interested. Suppose there was a
petition to come before us from a society, praying us to be honest in
our transactions, or that we should administer the constitution
according to its intent, what would you do with a petition of this kind?
Certainly it would remain on your table. He would, however, not have it
supposed that the people had not a right to advise and give their
opinion upon public measures; but he would not be influenced by that
advice or opinion to take up a subject sooner than the convenience of
other business would admit. Unless he changed his sentiments, he would
oppose the commitment.

Mr. BURKE thought gentlemen were paying attention to what did not
deserve it. The men in the gallery had come here to meddle in a business
with which they have nothing to do; they were volunteering in the cause
of others, who neither expected nor desired it. He had a respect for the
body of Quakers, but, nevertheless, he did not believe they had more
virtue or religion than other people, nor perhaps so much, if they were
examined to the bottom, notwithstanding their outward pretences. If
their petition is to be noticed, Congress ought to wait till counter
applications were made, and then they might have the subject more fairly
before them. The rights of the Southern States ought not to be
threatened, and their property endangered, to please people who would be
unaffected by the consequences.

Mr. HARTLEY thought the memorialists did not deserve to be aspersed for
their conduct, if influenced by motives of benignity. They solicited the
Legislature of the Union, to prevent, as far as is in their power, the
increase of a licentious traffic; nor do they merit censure, because
their behavior has the appearance of more morality than other people.
Congress ought not to refuse to hear the applications of their
fellow-citizens, while those applications contain nothing
unconstitutional or offensive. What is the object of the address before
us? It is intended to bring before this House a subject of great
importance to the cause of humanity; there are certain facts to be
inquired into, and the memorialists are ready to give all the
information in their power; they are waiting, at a great distance from
their homes, and wish to return; if, then, it will be proper to commit
the petition to-morrow, it will be equally proper to-day, for it is
conformable to our practice; besides, it will tend to their conveniency.

Mr. LAWRENCE.--The gentleman from South Carolina says, the petitioners
are of a society not known in the laws or constitution. Sir, in all our
acts, as well as in the constitution, we have noticed this society; or,
why is it that we admit them to affirm in cases where others are called
upon to swear? If we pay this attention to them, in one instance, what
good reason is there for contemning them in another? I think the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. STONE) carries his apprehensions too far,
when he fears that <DW64> property will fall in value, by the suppression
of the slave trade; not that I suppose it immediately in the power of
Congress to abolish a traffic which is a disgrace to human nature; but
it appears to me, that, if the importation was crushed, the value of a
slave would be increased instead of diminished; however, considerations
of this kind have nothing to do with the present question. Gentlemen may
acquiesce in the commitment of the memorial, without pledging themselves
to support its object.

Mr. JACKSON.--I differ much in opinion with the gentleman last up. I
apprehend, if through the interference of the General Government the
slave trade was abolished, it would evince to the people a disposition
towards a total emancipation, and they would hold their property in
jeopardy. Any extraordinary attention of Congress to this petition may
have, in some degree, a similar effect. I would beg to ask those, then,
who are desirous of freeing the <DW64>s, if they have funds sufficient
to pay for them? If they have, they may come forward on that business
with some propriety; but, if they have not, they should keep themselves
quiet, and not interfere with a business in which they are not
interested. They may as well come forward and solicit Congress to
interdict the West India trade, because it is injurious to the morals of
mankind; from thence we import rum, which has a debasing influence upon
the consumer. But, sir, is the whole morality of the United States
confined to the Quakers? Are they the only people whose feelings are to
be consulted on this occasion? Is it to them we owe our present
happiness? Was it they who formed the constitution? Did they, by their
arms or contributions, establish our independence? I believe they were
generally opposed to that measure: why, then, on their application,
should we injure men who, at the risk of their lives and fortunes,
secured to the community their liberty and property? If Congress pay any
uncommon degree of attention to their petition, it will furnish just
ground of alarm to the Southern States. But why do these men set
themselves up in such a particular manner against slavery? Do they
understand the rights of mankind, and the disposition of Providence,
better than others? If they were to consult that book, which claims our
regard, they will find that slavery is not only allowed but commended.
Their Saviour, who possessed more benevolence and commiseration than
they pretend to, has allowed of it: and if they fully examine the
subject, they will find that slavery has been no novel doctrine since
the days of Cain; but be these things as they may, I hope the House will
order the petition to lie on the table, in order to prevent an alarm to
our Southern brethren.

Mr. SEDGWICK.--If it was a serious question whether the memorial should
be committed or not, I would not urge it at this time; but that cannot
be a question for a moment, if we consider our relative situation with
the people. A number of men, who are certainly very respectable, and of
whom, as a society, it may be said with truth, that they conform their
moral conduct to their religious tenets, as much as any people in the
whole community, come forward and tell you, that you may effect two
objects by the exercise of a constitutional authority, which will give
great satisfaction. On the one hand, you may acquire revenue, and on the
other, restrain a practice productive of great evil. Now, setting aside
the religious motives which influence their application, have they not a
right as citizens to give their opinion of public measures? For my part,
I do not apprehend that any State, or any considerable number of
individuals in any State, will be seriously alarmed at the commitment of
the petition, from a fear that Congress intend to exercise an
unconstitutional authority, in order to violate their rights. I believe
there is not a wish of the kind entertained by any member of this body;
how can gentlemen hesitate, then, to pay that respect to a memorial
which it is entitled to, according to the ordinary mode of procedure in
business? Why shall we defer doing that till to-morrow, which we can do
to-day; for the result, I apprehend, will be the same in either case.

Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina.)--The question, I apprehend, is whether
we will take the petition up for a second reading, and not whether it
shall be committed? Now, I oppose this, because it is contrary to our
usual practice, and does not allow gentlemen time to consider of the
merits of the prayer. Perhaps some gentlemen may think it improper to
commit it to so large a committee as has been mentioned; a variety of
causes may be supposed to show that such a hasty decision is improper;
perhaps the prayer of it is improper. If I understood it right on its
first reading, though to be sure I did not comprehend perfectly all that
the petition contained, it prays that we should take measures for the
abolition of the slave trade. This is desiring an unconstitutional act,
because the constitution secures that trade to the States, independent
of Congressional restrictions, for a term of twenty-one years. If,
therefore, it prays for a violation of constitutional rights, it ought
to be rejected as an attempt upon the virtue and patriotism of the
House.

Mr. BOUDINOT.--It has been said, that the Quakers have no right to
interfere in this business. I am surprised to hear this doctrine
advanced, after it has been so lately contended and settled, that the
people have a right to assemble and petition for redress of grievances.
It is not because the petition comes from the society of Quakers that I
am in favor of the commitment, but because it comes from citizens of the
United States who are equally concerned in the welfare and happiness of
their country with others. There certainly is no foundation for the
apprehensions which seem to prevail in gentlemen's minds. If the
petitioners were so uninformed as to suppose that Congress could be
guilty of a violation of the constitution, yet I trust we know our duty
better than to be led astray by an application from any man or set of
men whatever. I do not consider the merits of the main question to be
before us; it will be time enough to give our opinions upon that when
the committee have reported. If it is in our power, by recommendation,
or any other way, to put a stop to the slave trade in America, I do not
doubt of its policy; but how far the constitution will authorize us to
attempt to depress it, will be a question well worthy of our
consideration.

Mr. SHERMAN observed, that the petitioners from New York stated, that
they had applied to the Legislature of that State to prohibit certain
practices which they conceived to be improper, and which tended to
injure the well-being of the community; that the Legislature had
considered the application, but had applied no remedy, because they
supposed that power was exclusively vested in the General Government
under the Constitution of the United States; it would, therefore, be
proper to commit that petition, in order to ascertain what are the
powers of the General Government in the case.

Mr. GERRY thought gentlemen were out of order in entering upon the
merits of the main question at this time, when they were considering the
expediency of committing the petition. He should, therefore, not follow
them further in that track than barely to observe, that it was the right
of the citizens to apply for redress, in every case in which they
conceived themselves aggrieved; and it was the duty of Congress to
afford redress as far as in their power. That their Southern brethren
had been betrayed into the slave trade by the first settlers, was to be
lamented; they were not to be reflected on for not viewing this subject
in a different light, the prejudice of education is eradicated with
difficulty; but he thought nothing would excuse the General Government
for not exerting itself to prevent, as far as they constitutionally
could, the evils resulting from such enormities as were alluded to by
the petitioners; and the same considerations induced him highly to
commend the part the Society of Friends had taken; it was the cause of
humanity they had interested themselves in, and he wished, with them, to
see measures pursued by every nation, to wipe off the indelible stain
which the slave trade had brought upon all who were concerned in it.

Mr. MADISON thought the question before the committee was no otherwise
important than as gentlemen made it so by their serious opposition. Had
they permitted the commitment of the memorial, as a matter of course, no
notice would have been taken of it out of doors; it could never have
been blown up into a decision of the question respecting the
discouragement of the African slave-trade, nor alarm the owners with an
apprehension that the General Government were about to abolish slavery
in all the States; such things are not contemplated by any gentleman;
but they excite alarm by their extended objections to committing the
memorials. Gentlemen may vote for the commitment of the petition without
any intention of supporting the prayer of it.

Mr. WHITE would not have seconded the motion, if he had thought it would
have brought on a lengthy debate. He conceived that a business of this
kind ought to be decided without much discussion; it had constantly been
the practice of the House, and he did not suppose there was any reason
for a deviation.

Mr. PAGE said, if the memorial had been presented by any individual,
instead of the respectable body from whom it emanated, he should have
voted in favor of a commitment, because it was the duty of the
Legislature to attend to subjects brought before them by their
constituents; if, upon inquiry, it was discovered to be improper to
comply with the prayer of the petitioners, he would say so, and they
would be satisfied.

Mr. STONE thought the business ought to be left to take its usual
course; by the rules of the House, it was expressly declared that
petitions, memorials, and other papers, addressed to the House should
not be debated or decided on the day they were first read.

Mr. BALDWIN felt at a loss to account why precipitation was used on this
occasion, contrary to the customary usage of the House. He had not heard
a single reason advanced in favor of it. To be sure it was said the
petitioners are a respectable body of men; he did not deny it; but
certainly gentlemen did not suppose they were paying respect to them or
to the House, when they urged such a hasty procedure. It was contrary to
his idea of respect, and the idea the House had always expressed, when
they had important subjects under consideration; and, therefore, he
should be against the motion. He was afraid that there was really a
little volunteering in this business, as it had been termed by the
gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. HUNTINGTON considered the petitioners as much disinterested as any
persons in the United States; he was persuaded they had an aversion to
slavery, yet they were not singular in this; others had the same; and he
hoped, when Congress took up the subject, they would go as far as
possible to prohibit the evil complained of. But he thought that would
be better done by considering it in the light of revenue; when the
Committee of the Whole on questions of finance might properly take the
subject into consideration, without giving any ground for alarm.

Mr. TUCKER.--I have no doubt on my mind respecting what ought to be done
on this occasion; so far from committing the memorial, we ought to
dismiss it without further notice. What is the purport of the memorial?
It is plainly this, to reprobate a particular kind of commerce, in a
moral point of view, and to request the interposition of Congress to
effect its abrogation. But Congress has no authority, under the
constitution, to do more than lay a duty of ten dollars upon each person
imported; and this is a political consideration, not arising from either
religion or morality, and is the only principle upon which we can
proceed to take it up. But what effect do these men suppose will arise
from their exertions? Will a duty of ten dollars diminish the
importation? Will the treatment be better than usual? I apprehend not;
nay, it may be worse, because an interference with the subject may
excite a great degree of restlessness in the minds of those it is
intended to serve, and that may be a cause for the masters to use more
rigor towards them than they would otherwise exert: so that these men
seem to overshoot their object. But if they will endeavor to procure the
abolition of the slave trade, let them prefer their petitions to the
State Legislatures, who alone have the power of forbidding the
importation. I believe their applications there would be improper; but
if they are any where proper, it is there. I look upon the address then
to be ill-judged, however good the intention of the framers.

Mr. SMITH claimed it as a right that the petition should lie over till
to-morrow.


THURSDAY, February 11.

_Assumption of State Debts._

      [Mr. MADISON's motion to discriminate between original
      creditors and present holders, so as to pay claims in full
      to the former, and the highest market price to the
      assignee, and the remainder to the original creditor.]

The House then again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole upon
the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. BALDWIN in the chair.

Mr. BURKE's amendment being under consideration,

Mr. BURKE said, he had brought his motion forward, in consequence of a
hasty promise he had given a member of this House; but as he did not
mean to support it, or vote for it, he would withdraw it.

Mr. MADISON.--No gentleman, Mr. Chairman, has expressed more strongly
than I feel, the importance and difficulty of the subject before us.
Although I have endeavored to view it under all its aspects, and analyze
it in all its principles, yet have I kept my mind open, and been anxious
to aid my own reflections by the reflected light to be expected from
gentlemen on this floor who enter into the discussion. For this purpose,
I have chosen hitherto rather to be a hearer than a speaker on the
subject, and should even at this moment have continued in my seat, but
that the turn which the business has taken, renders it requisite for me
now, if at all, to trouble the committee with my reflections, and the
opinion in which they have terminated.

It has been said, by some gentlemen, that the debt itself does not exist
in the extent and form which is generally supposed. I confess, sir, I
differ altogether from the gentleman who takes that ground. Let us
consider, first, by whom the debt was contracted, and then let us
consider to whom it is due. The debt was contracted by the United
States, who, with respect to that particular transaction, were in a
national capacity. The Government was nothing more than the agent or
organ, by which the whole body of the people acted. The change in the
Government which has taken place has enlarged its national capacity, but
it has not varied the national obligation, with respect to the
engagements entered into by that transaction. For, in like manner, the
present Government is nothing more than the organ, or agent, of the
public. The obligation which they are under, is precisely the same with
that under which the debt was contracted; although the Government has
been changed, the nation remains the same. There is no change in our
political duty, nor in the moral or political obligation. The language I
now use, sir, is the language of the constitution itself; it declares
that all debts shall have the same validity against the United States,
under the new, as under the old form of Government. The obligation
remains the same, though I hope experience will prove that the ability
has been favorably varied.

The next question is, to what amount the public are at present indebted?
I conceive the question may be answered in a few words. The United
States owe the value they received, which they acknowledge, and which
they have promised to pay: what is that value? It is a certain sum in
principal, bearing an interest of six per cent. No logic, no magic, in
my opinion, can diminish the force of the obligation.

The only point on which we can deliberate is, to whom the payment is
really due; for this purpose, it will be proper to take notice of the
several descriptions of people who are creditors of the Union, and lay
down some principles respecting them, which may lead us to a just and
equitable decision. As there is a small part of the debt yet
unliquidated, it may be well to pass it by and come to the great mass of
the liquidated debt. It may here be proper to notice four classes into
which it may be divided:

      _First_, Original creditors, who have never alienated their
      securities.

      _Second_, Original creditors who have alienated.

      _Third_, Present holders of alienated securities.

      _Fourth_, Intermediate holders, through whose hands
      securities have circulated.

The only principles that can govern the decision on their respective
pretensions, I take to be, 1. Public Justice; 2. Public Faith; 3. Public
Credit; 4. Public Opinion.

With respect to the first class, there can be no difficulty. Justice is
in their favor, for they have advanced the value which they claim;
public faith is in their favor, for the written promise is in their
hands; respect for public credit is in their favor, for if claims so
sacred are violated, all confidence must be at an end; public opinion is
in their favor, for every honest citizen cannot but be their advocate.

With respect to the last class, the intermediate holders, their
pretensions, if they have any, will lead us into a labyrinth, for which
it is impossible to find a clew. This will be the less complained of,
because this class were perfectly free, both in becoming and ceasing to
be creditors; and because, in general, they must have gained by their
speculations.

The only rival pretensions, then, are those of the original creditors,
who have assigned, and of the present holders of the assignments.

The former may appeal to justice, because the value of the money, the
service, or the property advanced by them, has never been really paid
to them.

They may appeal to good faith, because the value stipulated and
expected, is not satisfied by the steps taken by the Government. The
certificates put into the hands of the creditors, on closing their
settlements with the public, were of less real value than was
acknowledged to be due; they may be considered as having been forced, in
fact, on the receivers. They cannot, therefore, be fairly adjudged an
extinguishment of the debt. They may appeal to the motives for
establishing public credit, for which justice and faith form the natural
foundation. They may appeal to the precedent furnished by the
compensation allowed to the army during the late war, for the
depreciation of bills, which nominally discharged the debts. They may
appeal to humanity, for the sufferings of the military part of the
creditors can never be forgotten, while sympathy is an American virtue.
To say nothing of the singular hardship, in so many months, of requiring
those who have lost four-fifths, or seven-eighths of their due, to
contribute the remainder in favor of those who have gained in the
contrary proportion.

On the other hand, the holders by assignment have claims, which I by no
means wish to depreciate. They will say, that whatever pretensions
others may have against the public, these cannot affect the validity of
theirs. That if they gain by the risk taken upon themselves, it is but
the just reward of that risk. That as they hold the public promise, they
have an undeniable demand on the public faith. That the best foundation
of public credit is that adherence to literal engagements on which it
has been erected by the most flourishing nations. That if the new
Government should swerve from so essential a principle, it will be
regarded by all the world as inheriting the infirmities of the old. Such
being the interfering claims on the public, one of three things must be
done; either pay both, reject wholly one or the other, or make a
_composition_ between them on some principle of equity. To pay both is
perhaps beyond the public ability; and as it would far exceed the value
received by the public, it will not be expected by the world, nor even
by the creditors themselves. To reject wholly the claims of either is
equally inadmissible; such a sacrifice of those who possess the written
engagements would be fatal to the proposed establishment of public
credit; it would moreover punish those who had put their trust in the
public promises and resources. To make the other class the sole victims
is an idea at which human nature recoils.

A composition, then, is the only expedient that remains; let it be a
liberal one in favor of the present holders, let them have the highest
price which has prevailed in the market; and let the residue belong to
the original sufferers. This will not do perfect justice; but it will do
more real justice, and perform more of the public faith, than any other
expedient proposed. The present holders, where they have purchased at
the lowest price of the securities, will have a profit that cannot
reasonably be complained of; where they have purchased at a higher
price, the profit will be considerable; and even the few who have
purchased at the highest price cannot well be losers, with a well funded
interest of six per cent. The original sufferers will not be fully
indemnified; but they will receive, from their country, a tribute due to
their merits, which, if it does not entirely heal their wounds, will
assuage the pain of them. I am aware, that many plausible objections
will lie against what I have suggested, some of which I foresee and will
take some notice of. It will be said, that the plan is impracticable;
should this be demonstrated, I am ready to renounce it; but it does not
appear to me in that light. I acknowledge that such a scale as has often
been a subject of conversation, is impracticable.

The discrimination proposed by me, requires nothing more than a
knowledge of the present holders, which will be shown by the
certificates; and of the original holders, which the office documents
will show. It may be objected, that if the Government is to go beyond
the literal, into the equitable claims against the United States, it
ought to go back to every case where injustice has been done. To this
the answer is obvious: the case in question is not only different from
others in point of magnitude and of practicability, but forces itself on
the attention of the committee, as necessarily involved in the business
before them. It may be objected, that public credit will suffer,
especially abroad; I think this danger will be effectually obviated by
the honesty and disinterestedness of the Government displayed in the
measure, by a continuance of the punctual discharge of foreign interest,
by the full provision to be made for the whole foreign debt, and the
equal punctuality I hope to see in the future payments on the domestic
debts. I trust also, that all future loans will be founded on a previous
establishment of adequate funds; and that a situation, like the present,
will be thereby rendered impossible.

I cannot but regard the present case as so extraordinary, in many
respects, that the ordinary maxims are not strictly applicable to it.
The fluctuations of stock in Europe, so often referred to, have no
comparison with those in the United States. The former never exceeded
50, 60, or 70 per cent.: can it be said, that because a Government
thought this evil insufficient to justify an interference, it would view
in the same light a fluctuation amounting to seven or eight hundred per
cent.

I am of opinion, that were Great Britain, Holland, or any other country,
to fund its debts precisely in the same situation as the American debt,
some equitable interference of the Government would take place. The
South Sea scheme, in which a change, amounting to one thousand per cent.
happened in the value of stock, is well known to have produced an
interference, and without any injury whatever to the subsequent credit
of the nation. It is true, that in many respects, the case differed from
that of the United States; but, in other respects, there is a degree of
similitude, which warrants the conjecture. It may be objected, that such
a provision as I propose will exceed the public ability; I do not think
the public unable to discharge honorably all its engagements, or that it
will be unwilling, if the appropriations shall be satisfactory. I
regret, as much as any member, the unavoidable weight and duration of
the burthens to be imposed; having never been a proselyte to the
doctrine, that public debts are public benefits. I consider them, on the
contrary, as evils which ought to be removed as fast as honor and
justice will permit, and shall heartily join in the means necessary for
that purpose. I conclude with declaring, as my opinion, that if any case
were to happen among individuals, bearing an analogy to that of the
public, a Court of Equity would interpose for its redress; or that if a
tribunal existed on earth, by which nations could be compelled to do
right, the United States would be compelled to do something not
dissimilar in its principles to what I have contended for.

Mr. LIVERMORE wished the amendment he had formerly mentioned might be
made to the original proposition; it was, to insert, before the word
"interest," the words, "at a certain rate o."

Mr. SHERMAN apprehended it would strongly imply that Congress meant to
reduce the rate of interest, and he did not wish that question involved
with the present.

Mr. LIVERMORE's motion being seconded, the question was put thereon, and
it being lost,

Mr. MADISON moved to amend the original proposition, so as to read as
follows:

      _Resolved_, That adequate funds ought to be provided for
      paying the interest and principal of the domestic debt, as
      the same shall be liquidated; and that in such liquidation,
      the present holders of public securities, which have been
      alienated, shall be settled with according to the highest
      market rate of such securities; and that the balance of the
      sums due from the public, be paid in such proportion to the
      original holder of such securities.

Mr. BOUDINOT said, he had long been in the habit of paying great respect
to the sentiments of the gentleman from Virginia; but he feared, on this
occasion, he had not viewed the subject with his usual accuracy. He was
not surprised that the gentleman was led away by the dictates of his
heart, for he believed he really felt for the misfortunes of his
fellow-citizens, who had been the prey of avaricious men. Indeed, it is
matter of less surprise, on another account, for heretofore I
contemplated the subject in nearly the same point of view. Influenced by
a desire to do justice to every person connected with the public, I
wished for the means of compensating the original holders, who had sold
their certificates at a great loss; but I found the thing, upon long and
careful examination, to be both unjust and impracticable.

The honorable gentleman tells us, that the debt was contracted for
meritorious services, and inquires whether the creditor received an
adequate compensation in full discharge? I say, sir, this debt is still
due, and that the person to whom it is due, has received nothing but a
certificate as evidence of his claim; but then, if any of our first
creditors have put another person in their shoes, the question will
arise, are we to disown the act of the party himself? Are we to say, we
will not be bound by your transfer, we will not treat with your
representative, but insist upon a resettlement with you alone? But the
same reasoning will oblige us to go further, and investigate all the
claims of those who have received of the Government Continental money,
which they afterwards parted with for ten, forty, or one hundred for
one.


FRIDAY, February 12.

_Abolition of Slavery._

The following memorial of the Pennsylvania Society for promoting the
Abolition of Slavery, the relief of free <DW64>s unlawfully held in
bondage, and the improvement of the condition of the African race, was
presented and read:

The memorial respectfully showeth,

      That from a regard for the happiness of mankind, an
      association was formed several years since in this State,
      by a number of her citizens, of various religious
      denominations, for promoting the abolition of slavery, and
      for the relief of those unlawfully held in bondage. A just
      and acute conception of the true principles of liberty, as
      it spread through the land, produced accessions to their
      numbers, many friends to their cause, and a Legislative
      co-operation with their views, which, by the blessing of
      Divine Providence, have been successfully directed to the
      relieving from bondage a large number of their
      fellow-creatures of the African race. They have also the
      satisfaction to observe, that in consequence of that spirit
      of philanthropy and genuine liberty which is generally
      diffusing its beneficial influence, similar institutions
      are forming at home and abroad.

      That mankind are all formed by the same Almighty Being,
      alike objects of his care, and equally designed for the
      enjoyment of happiness, the Christian religion teaches us
      to believe, and the political creed of Americans fully
      coincides with the position. Your memorialists,
      particularly engaged in attending to the distresses arising
      from slavery, believe it their indispensable duty to
      present this subject to your notice. They have observed,
      with real satisfaction, that many important and salutary
      powers are vested in you for "promoting the welfare and
      securing the blessings of liberty to the people of the
      United States;" and as they conceive that these blessings
      ought rightfully to be administered, without distinction of
      color, to all descriptions of people, so they indulge
      themselves in the pleasing expectation, that nothing which
      can be done for the relief of the unhappy objects of their
      care will be either omitted or delayed.

      From a persuasion that equal liberty was originally the
      portion, and is still the birthright of all men; and
      influenced by the strong ties of humanity, and the
      principles of their institution, your memorialists conceive
      themselves bound to use all justifiable endeavors to loosen
      the bands of slavery, and promote a general enjoyment of
      the blessings of freedom. Under these impressions, they
      earnestly entreat your serious attention to the subject of
      slavery; that you will be pleased to countenance the
      restoration of liberty to those unhappy men, who alone, in
      this land of freedom, are degraded into perpetual bondage,
      and who, amidst the general joy of surrounding freemen, are
      groaning in servile subjection; that you will devise means
      for removing this inconsistency from the character of the
      American people; that you will promote mercy and justice
      towards this distressed race, and that you will step to the
      very verge of the power vested in you for discouraging
      every species of traffic in the persons of our fellow-men.

                                  BENJ. FRANKLIN, _President_.

      PHILADELPHIA, _February_ 3, 1790.

Mr. HARTLEY then called up the memorial presented yesterday, from the
annual meeting of Friends at Philadelphia, for a second reading;
whereupon the same was read a second time, and moved to be committed.

Mr. TUCKER was sorry the petition had a second reading, as he conceived
it contained an unconstitutional request, and from that consideration he
wished it thrown aside. He feared the commitment of it would be a very
alarming circumstance to the Southern States; for if the object was to
engage Congress in an unconstitutional measure, it would be considered
as an interference with their rights, the people would become very
uneasy under the Government, and lament that they ever put additional
powers into their hands. He was surprised to see another memorial on the
same subject; and that signed by a man who ought to have known the
constitution better. He thought it a mischievous attempt, as it
respected the persons in whose favor it was intended. It would buoy them
up with hopes, without a foundation, and as they could not reason on the
subject, as more enlightened men would, they might be led to do what
they would be punished for, and the owners of them, in their own
defence, would be compelled to exercise over them a severity they were
not accustomed to. Do these men expect a general emancipation of slaves
by law? This would never be submitted to by the Southern States without
a civil war. Do they mean to purchase their freedom? He believed their
money would fall short of the price. But how is it they are more
concerned in this business than others? Are they the only persons who
possess religion and morality? If the people are not so exemplary,
certainly they will admit the clergy are; why, then, do we not find them
uniting in a body, praying us to adopt measures for the promotion of
religion and piety, or any moral object? They know it would be an
improper interference; and to say the best of this memorial, it is an
act of imprudence, which he hoped would receive no countenance from the
House.

Mr. SENEY denied that there was any thing unconstitutional in the
memorial; at least, if there was it had escaped his attention, and he
should be obliged to the gentleman to point it out. Its only object was,
that Congress should exercise their constitutional authority to abate
the horrors of slavery, as far as they could; indeed, he considered that
all altercation on the subject of commitment was at an end, as the House
had impliedly determined yesterday that it should be committed.

Mr. BURKE saw the disposition of the House, and he feared it would be
referred to a committee, maugre all their opposition; but he must
insist, that it prayed for an unconstitutional measure; did it not
desire Congress to interfere and abolish the slave trade, while the
constitution expressly stipulates that Congress shall exercise no such
power? He was certain the commitment would sound an alarm, and blow the
trumpet of sedition in the Southern States. He was sorry to see the
petitioners paid more attention to than the constitution; however, he
would do his duty and oppose the business totally; and if it was
referred to a committee, as mentioned yesterday, consisting of a member
from each State, and he was appointed, he would decline serving.

Mr. SCOTT.--I cannot entertain a doubt but the memorial is strictly
agreeable to the constitution; it respects a part of the duty
particularly assigned to us by that instrument, and I hope we may be
inclined to take it into consideration. We can at present lay our hands
upon a small duty of ten dollars; I would take this, and if it is all
that we can do, we must be content: but I am sorry that the framers of
the constitution did not go further, and enable us to interdict the
traffic entirely; for I look upon the slave trade to be one of the most
abominable things on earth; and if there was neither God nor devil, I
should oppose it upon the principles of humanity, and the law of nature.
I cannot, for my part, conceive how any person can be said to acquire a
property in another; is it by virtue of conquest? What are the rights of
conquest? Some have dared to advance this monstrous principle, that the
conqueror is absolute master of his conquest; that he may dispose of it
as his property, and treat it as he pleases; but, enough of those who
reduce men to the state of transferable goods, or use them like beasts
of burthen, who deliver them up as property or patrimony to others. Let
us argue on principles countenanced by reason and becoming humanity; the
petitioners view the subject in a religious light, but I do not stand in
need of religious motives to induce me to reprobate the traffic in human
flesh; other considerations weigh with me to support the commitment of
the memorial, and to support every constitutional measure likely to
bring about its total abolition. Perhaps, in our Legislative capacity,
we can go no further than to impose a duty of ten dollars; but I do not
know how far I might go, if I was one of the Judges of the United
States, and those people were to come before me and claim their
emancipation; but I am sure I would go as far as I could.

Mr. JACKSON differed with the gentleman last up, and supposed the master
had a qualified property in his slave. He said the contrary doctrine
would go to the destruction of every species of personal service. The
gentleman said, he did not stand in need of religion to induce him to
reprobate slavery, but if he is guided by that evidence upon which the
Christian system is founded, he will find that religion is not against
it. He will see, from Genesis to Revelations, the current setting strong
that way. There never was a Government on the face of the earth, but
what permitted slavery. The purest sons of freedom in the Grecian
Republics, the citizens of Athens and Lacedaemon, all held slaves. On
this principle the nations of Europe are associated; it is the basis of
the feudal system. But suppose all this to have been wrong, let me ask
the gentleman if it is good policy to bring forward a business at this
moment, likely to light up the flame of civil discord; for the people of
the Southern States will resist one tyranny as soon as another? The
other parts of the continent may bear them down by force of arms, but
they will never suffer themselves to be divested of their property
without a struggle. The gentleman says, if he was a Federal Judge, he
does not know to what length he would go in emancipating these people;
but I believe his judgment would be of short duration in Georgia,
perhaps even the existence of such a judge might be in danger.

Mr. SHERMAN could see no difficulty in committing the memorial; because
it was probable the committee would understand their business, and
perhaps they might bring in such a report as would be satisfactory to
gentlemen on both sides of the House.

Mr. BALDWIN was sorry the subject had ever been brought before Congress,
because it was of a delicate nature as it respected some of the States.
Gentlemen who had been present at the formation of this constitution
could not avoid the recollection of the pain and difficulty which the
subject caused in that body. The members from the Southern States were
so tender upon this point, that they had well-nigh broken up without
coming to any determination; however, from the extreme desire of
preserving the Union, and obtaining an efficient Government, they were
induced mutually to concede, and the constitution jealously guarded what
they agreed to. If gentlemen look over the footsteps of that body, they
will find the greatest degree of caution used to imprint them, so as not
to be easily eradicated; but the moment we go to jostle on that ground,
I fear we shall feel it tremble under our feet. Congress have no power
to interfere with the importation of slaves beyond what is given in the
ninth section of the first article of the constitution; every thing
else is interdicted to them in the strongest terms. If we examine the
constitution, we shall find the expressions relative to this subject
cautiously expressed, and more punctiliously guarded than any other
part, "The migration or importation of such persons shall not be
prohibited by Congress." But lest this should not have secured the
object sufficiently, it is declared, in the same section, "That no
capitation or direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the
census;" this was intended to prevent Congress from laying any special
tax upon <DW64> slaves, as they might, in this way, so burthen the
possessors of them as to induce a general emancipation. If we go on to
the fifth article, we shall find the first and fifth clauses of the
ninth section of the first article restrained from being altered before
the year 1808.

Gentlemen have said that this petition does not pray for an abolition of
the slave trade. I think, sir, it prays for nothing else; and therefore
we have no more to do with it than if it prayed us to establish an order
of nobility, or a national religion.

Mr. SYLVESTER said, that he had always been in the habit of respecting
the Society called Quakers; he respected them for their exertions in the
cause of humanity; but he thought the present was not a time to enter
into a consideration of the subject, especially as he conceived it to be
a business within the province of the State Legislatures.

Mr. LAWRENCE observed, that the subject would undoubtedly come under the
consideration of the House; and he thought, as it was now before them,
that the present time was as proper as any; he was therefore for
committing the memorial, and when the prayer of it had been properly
examined, they could see how far Congress may, constitutionally,
interfere: as they knew the limits of their power on this, as well as
every other occasion, there was no just apprehension to be entertained
that they would go beyond it.

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) insisted that it was not in the power of
the House to grant the prayer of the petition, which went to the total
abolishment of the slave trade, and it was therefore unnecessary to
commit it. He observed, that in the Southern States difficulties had
arisen on adopting the constitution, inasmuch as it was apprehended that
Congress might take measures under it for abolishing the slave trade.

Perhaps the petitioners, when they applied to this House, did not think
their object unconstitutional, but now they are told that it is, they
will be satisfied with the answer, and press it no further. If their
object had been for Congress to lay a duty of ten dollars per head on
the importation of slaves, they would have said so, but that does not
appear to have been the case. The commitment of the petition, on that
ground, cannot be contended. If they will not be content with that,
shall it be committed to investigate facts? The petition speaks of
none. For what purpose, then, shall it be committed? If gentlemen can
assign no good reason for the measure, they will not support it when
they are told that it will create jealousies and alarm in the Southern
States; for I can assure them that there is no point on which they are
more jealous and suspicious, than on a business with which they think
the Government has nothing to do.

When we entered into this confederacy, we did it from political, not
from moral motives, and I do not think my constituents want to learn
morals from the petitioners; I do not believe they want improvements in
their moral system; if they do, they can get it at home.

The gentleman from Georgia has justly stated the jealousy of the
Southern States. On entering into this Government, they apprehend that
the other States, not knowing the necessity the citizens of the Southern
States were under to hold this species of property, would, from motives
of humanity and benevolence, be led to vote for a general emancipation;
and had they not seen that the constitution provided against the effect
of such a disposition, I may be bold to say they never would have
adopted it. And, notwithstanding all the calmness with which some
gentlemen have viewed the subject, they will find that this discussion
alone will create great alarm. We have been told, that if this would be
the case, we ought to have avoided it, by saying nothing; but it was not
for that purpose that we were sent here. We look upon this measure as an
attack upon the palladium of the property of our country; it is
therefore our duty to oppose it by every means in our power. Gentlemen
should consider, that when we entered into a political connection with
the other States, that this property was there; it was acquired under a
former Government, conformably to the laws and constitution, therefore
any thing that will tend to deprive them of that property, must be an
_ex post facto_ law, and, as such, is forbidden by our political
compact.

I said the States would never have entered into the Confederation,
unless their property had been guarantied to them, for such is the state
of agriculture in that country, that without slaves it must be
abandoned. Why will these people, then, make use of arguments to induce
the slave to turn his hand against his master? We labor under
difficulties enough from the ravages of the late war. A gentleman can
hardly come from that country with a servant or two, either to this
place or Philadelphia, but there are persons trying to seduce his
servants to leave him; and, when they have done this, the poor wretches
are obliged to rob their master, in order to obtain a subsistence; all
those, therefore, who are concerned in this seduction, are accessories
to the robbery.

The reproaches which they cast upon the owners of <DW64> property, is
charging them with the want of humanity. I believe the proprietors have
as much humanity as persons in any part of the continent, and are as
conspicuous for their good morals as their neighbors. It was said
yesterday that the Quakers are a society known to the laws and the
constitution, but they are no more so than other religious societies;
they stand exactly in the same situation; their memorial, therefore,
relates to a matter in which they are no more interested than any other
sect, and can only be considered as a piece of advice, which it is not
customary to refer to a committee; but if it is supposed to pray for
what they think a moral purpose, is that sufficient to induce us to
commit it? What may appear a moral virtue in their eyes, may not be so
in reality. I have heard of a sect of Shaking Quakers, who, I presume,
suppose their tenets of a moral tendency. I am informed one of them
forbids to intermarry, yet you may see them with a numerous offspring
about them. Now, if these people were to petition Congress to pass a law
prohibiting matrimony, would gentlemen agree to refer such a petition? I
think if they would reject one of that nature, as improper, they ought
also to reject this.

Mr. PAGE was in favor of the commitment. He hoped that the designs of
the respectable memoralists would not be stopped at the threshold, in
order to preclude a fair discussion of the prayer of the memorial. He
observed, that gentlemen had founded their arguments upon a
misrepresentation; for the object of the memorial is not declared to be
the total abolition of the slave trade, but that Congress will consider
whether it be not in reality within their power to exercise justice and
mercy, which, if adhered to, they cannot doubt must produce the
abolition of the slave trade. If, then, the prayer contained nothing
unconstitutional, he trusted the meritorious effort of the petitioners
would not be frustrated.

With respect to the alarm that was apprehended, he conjectured there was
none; but there might be just cause if the memorial was not taken into
consideration. He placed himself in the case of a slave, and said, that,
on hearing that Congress had refused to listen to the decent suggestions
of a respectable part of the community, he should infer that the General
Government (from which was expected great good would result to every
class of citizens) had shut their ears against the voice of humanity,
and he should despair of any alleviation of the miseries he and his
posterity had in prospect; if any thing could induce him to rebel, it
must be a stroke like this, impressing on his mind all the horrors of
despair. But if he was told that application was made in his behalf, and
that Congress was willing to hear what could be urged in favor of
discouraging the practice of importing his fellow-wretches, he would
trust in their justice and humanity, and wait the decision patiently. He
presumed that these unfortunate people would reason in the same way, and
he, therefore, conceived the most likely way to prevent danger was to
commit the petition. He lived in a State which had the misfortune of
having in her bosom a great number of slaves; he held many of them
himself, and was as much interested in the business, as any gentleman in
South Carolina or Georgia, yet if he was determined to hold them in
eternal bondage, he should feel no uneasiness or alarm on account of the
present measure, because he should rely upon the virtue of Congress that
they would not exercise any unconstitutional authority.

Mr. MADISON.--The debate has taken a serious turn, and it will be owing
to this alone if an alarm is created; for, had the memorial been treated
in the usual way, it would have been considered as a matter of course,
and a report might have been made so as to have given general
satisfaction. If there was the slightest tendency by the commitment to
break in upon the constitution, he would object to it; but he did not
see upon what ground such an event was to be apprehended. The petition
prayed, in general terms, for the interference of Congress, so far as
they were constitutionally authorized: but even if its prayer was, in
some degree, unconstitutional, it might be committed, as was the case on
Mr. Churchman's petition, one part of which was supposed to apply for an
unconstitutional interference by the General Government. He admitted,
that Congress is restricted by the constitution from taking measures to
abolish the slave trade; yet there are a variety of ways by which it
could countenance the abolition, and regulations might be made in
relation to the introduction of them into the new States to be formed
out of the Western Territory. He thought the object well worthy of
consideration.

Mr. GERRY thought the interference of Congress fully compatible with the
constitution, and could not help lamenting the miseries to which the
natives of Africa were exposed by this inhuman commerce. He never
contemplated the subject, without reflecting what his own feelings would
be, in case himself, his children, or friends were placed in the same
deplorable circumstances. He then adverted to the flagrant acts of
cruelty which are committed in carrying on that traffic; and asked,
whether it can be supposed that Congress has no power to prevent such
abuses? He then referred to the constitution, and pointed out the
restrictions laid on the General Government respecting the importation
of slaves. It was not, he presumed, in the contemplation of any
gentleman in this House to violate that part of the constitution; but
that we have a right to regulate this business, is as clear as that we
have any rights whatever; nor has the contrary been shown by any person
who has spoken on the occasion. Congress can, agreeably to the
constitution, lay a duty of ten dollars on imported slaves; they may do
this immediately. He made a calculation of the value of the slaves in
the Southern States, and supposed they may be worth ten millions of
dollars. Congress have a right, if they see proper, to make a proposal
to the Southern States to purchase the whole of them, and their
resources in the Western Territory might furnish them with the means. He
did not intend to suggest a measure of this kind; he only instanced
these particulars to show that Congress certainly has a right to
intermeddle in the business. He thought that no objection had been
offered of any force to prevent the commitment of the memorial.

Mr. BOUDINOT had carefully examined the petition and found nothing like
what was complained of by gentlemen contained in it; he, therefore,
hoped they would withdraw their opposition and suffer it to be
committed.

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) said, that as the petitioners had
particularly prayed Congress to take measures for the annihilation of
the slave trade; and as that was admitted, on all hands, to be beyond
their power, and as the petitioners would not be gratified by a tax of
ten dollars per head, which was all that was within their power, there
was, of consequence, no occasion for committing it.

The question on the commitment being about to be put, the yeas and nays
were called for, and were as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Brown, Cadwalader,
      Clymer, Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gale, Gerry, Gilman,
      Goodhue, Griffin, Grout, Hartley, Hathorn, Heister,
      Huntington, Lawrence, Lee, Leonard, Livermore, Madison,
      Moore, Muhlenberg, Page, Parker, Partridge, Rensselaer,
      Schureman, Scott, Sedgwick, Seney, Sherman, Sinnickson,
      Smith, (of Maryland,) Sturges, Thatcher, Trumbull,
      Wadsworth, White, and Wynkoop--43.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bland, Burke, Coles, Huger,
      Jackson, Matthews, Sylvester, Smith, (of South Carolina,)
      Stone, and Tucker--14.

The memorials were referred accordingly.


MONDAY, February 15.

_Public Credit._

The House went again into a Committee of the Whole on the report of the
Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. BALDWIN in the chair.

Mr. MADISON's motion for a discrimination being under consideration,

Mr. SEDGWICK.--The proposition, Mr. Chairman, contains a question of the
utmost importance. And the committee must be obliged to the gentleman
who brought it forward for his very ingenious discussion of the subject
of the domestic debt. With respect to the question now before the
committee, so much has been said, that I think it will not be necessary
to consume much of their time in the investigation. On the subject of
contracts I have to observe, that whenever a voluntary engagement is
made for a valuable consideration for property advanced or services
rendered, and the terms of the contract are understood, if no fraud or
imposition is practised, the party engaging is bound to the performance,
according to the literal meaning of the words in which it is expressed.
Such contract, whether of a Government or an individual, may be either
transferable or not transferable. The latter species of contract
receives an additional value from its capacity of being transferred, if
the circumstances of the possessor should render a sale of it necessary
or convenient to him. To render the transferable quality of such
evidences of contract in any degree advantageous to the possessor, it is
necessary to consider, in case of sale, the alienee possessed of all the
property of the original holder; and indeed it is highly absurd, and
even contradictory, to say, that such evidences of debt are
transferable, and at the same time to say that there is in them a kind
of property that the holder could not convey by _bona fide_ contract.

This is the construction which has invariably been given to these
contracts, whether formed by Government or by individuals. To deprive
the citizen of the power of binding himself by his own voluntary
contract, or to prevent a disposition of property in its nature
alienable, would be a violent and unjustifiable invasion of one of those
rights of which man, as a citizen, is the most tenacious, and would
indeed break one of the strongest bonds by which society is holden
together.

In the transfers which have been made, the contracts were fairly made;
the whole rights have been transferred. It is not pretended any fraud or
imposition has been practised. The risk was calculated by the parties,
and it was observed, that the risk contemplated a revolution in the
Government.

From the foregoing deduction of particulars, it is presumed to be proved
that a property is vested in the transferees. That if this property is
divested by the Government, the law for that purpose would have a
retrospective operation, and that no _ex post facto_ law could be more
alarming than that by which the right of private property is violently
invaded.

Having considered the nature of the contract, and of the obligations
which result from it, I beg leave to call the attention of the committee
to those circumstances by which that obligation may be destroyed,
impaired, or suspended. They are stated to be, 1. Performance. 2.
Voluntary discharge. 3. Composition. 4. Inability.

And gentlemen are called upon to give information of any other causes
which can produce either of those effects.

With regard, more particularly, to the proposition before the committee,
I have, to observe, that with regard to these contracts, there has
existed a depreciation in consequence of the failure of Government
regularly to pay the interest. That in this depreciated state, the
securities have been alienated; that of course the original holders have
sustained a loss; that if the loss resulted from the fault, and not the
misfortune of Government, the creditors have, undeniably, a demand
against the Government for compensation; that this demand, however well
founded, can never authorize the Government to invade the honestly
acquired property of the present possessors, a property warranted by the
terms of the contract itself, and sanctioned by the act of Congress, of
April, 1783, and the validity of it recognized by the constitution we
have sworn to support.

With regard to the claims of the original holders, it is, however,
observable, that the domestic creditor, at the time the contract was
formed, well knew the nature of the constitution of the Government
administered by Congress, the other contracting party; that its power of
performance depended on the ability and good-will of the States; that
Congress had always performed its duty, had made the necessary
requisitions; that this was its utmost power; and that the failure had
arisen wholly from the neglect of the States. I therefore submit it to
the committee, whether, if the original holder has a just or equitable
demand, he should not resort to the State of which he is a member?

I admit, that the case of an original holder is indeed a hard one; that
I have a respect for his misfortunes and for his pretensions; that if
satisfaction is discovered to be just and practicable, I would not
hesitate to go to the utmost ability of the Government for that purpose.
But let me ask, what merit will the Government possess, if it strip one
class of citizens, who have acquired property by the known and
established rules of law, under the specious pretence of doing justice
to another class of citizens?

It was implicitly agreed, that eighty per cent. depreciation would not
authorize the interference proposed by the motion. I ask, then, for some
point of depreciation to be pointed out, which will authorize such
interference.

The question for which I contend has received the universal approbation
of mankind; there are no instances of the interference contended for,
and this general sense of mankind affords me some evidence of truth.

This contract was founded on a valuable consideration. It was the price
of our liberty and independence. The possessor claimed, according to the
very terms of the contract, though it is not pretended that the
engagements of Government have been performed. No composition with the
creditors is proposed; nor is the proposition founded on any pretended
inability of the Government; for to comply with the intention of it,
1,600,000 dollars, annually, more than is proposed by the report of the
Secretary, would be required.

By reason of the circumstances which have taken place, the honorable
gentleman (Mr. MADISON) supposes, that, if the whole amount of a
security shall be paid to the present possessor, he will have a sum of
money to which the original holder is equitably entitled. If this is
true, then, no interposition is necessary, it being a well-known rule of
law, that an action will always lie to recover money out of the hands of
another, to which the plaintiff, from the principles of equity and good
conscience, is entitled.

With regard to the effects, which will probably result from this
measure, I have to observe, that they will be destructive to our
national character. That the world is now willing, charitably, to impute
our former miscarriages to events we could not control; but should our
first measures, in regard to public faith, be a violent infraction of
our contracts, it will sanction all our bitterest enemies have said, to
our disadvantage. With regard to its effects on credit, little
dependence will be placed on the plighted faith of a Government which,
under the pretence of doing equity, has exercised a power of dispensing
with its contracts, and has thereby formed for itself a precedent of
future violations, both with respect to its funds and contracts. With
regard to discovering who was the original holder, except so far as
respects the army debt, I am certain there are no documents by which the
necessary facts can be discovered.

I presume it is a fact, with regard to much the greater part of the
debt, that any fictitious name was inserted. And with regard to the army
debt, the soldiers, generally, who were in the service at the conclusion
of the war, had received ample satisfaction for their services, at the
time of their enlistment, having been paid more, on an average, than two
hundred and fifty dollars per man.

I have only to add, that the proposed system will lay a foundation for
infinite frauds and perjuries, and that it will, beyond all powers of
calculation, multiply the evils of speculation.

Mr. LAWRENCE observed, that the proposition of the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. MADISON) derived force from the talents and knowledge of
that gentleman in public transactions; but that, on examination, it
would be found to contain doctrines very repugnant to the interest and
prosperity of the Union.

He then stated, that the debts contracted by the United States were for
loans of money, supplies of articles necessary for the public wants, and
for actual services rendered in different employments. That these debts
were ultimately adjusted and reduced to their present transferable form.
That every part of the contract was essential to it. The negotiability
was a material part. That the nature of the contract was frequently
recognized by the late Government. That, in 1783, Congress recommended
certain funds to be established to pay the interest, and put the
principal in a course of discharge. That this recommendation was
unequivocal, as to the nature of it, and made no discrimination between
the possessor and original holder. That the subsequent conduct of that
body was conformable to this recommendation. That they had annually
called on the States to furnish money to pay the interest, without
discriminating between the original holder and present possessor. That
they had paid interest on the securities, without making any
discrimination. That provision had been made for holders of loan-office
certificates that were subject to liquidation, to have them cancelled,
and others issued for the specie value. That the holders of certificates
were enabled to have them registered, to guard against accidents; and
that no distinction was made between the original holder and the
alienee. That the transferable nature of the claim was for the benefit
of the creditor, because it gave it an active value. That he consented
to take it, and consulted his own advantage. That the conduct of the
late Congress, since the war, had been uniform in the support of this
contract, and they had done no act to impair its obligation, according
to the terms of it. That this contract was valid against the Government;
for, notwithstanding the truth of the gentleman's observations, that the
nation is the same, though the bodies that administered the Government
were different, there was yet far greater security; and to remove all
doubt, a clause that made all debts and engagements valid against the
United States, under the late General Government, valid against the
present, was inserted in the constitution.

He further observed, that this contract having descended upon the
Government, there was no right in the Legislature to impair the force of
it. That the particular Governments are restrained from passing laws
impairing the obligations of contracts. That this interference would be
a violation of the contract, between the individuals, when the
certificate was transferred; and it would not be presumed, the States
being prohibited, that the General Government had the power to do it.

He then adverted to the principles of the gentleman, to wrest the
obligation of the public to the original holder; and observed, that the
same principles were in favor of the present possessor. That public
justice required a performance of contracts, when there was no fraud on
the part of the holder. That the possessor had been guilty of no fraud,
no deception. That the contract between him and the original holder was
fair, and that a hazard and risk attended the purchase adequate to the
advantage. That nothing short of a revolution in Government could have
produced payment. That if there was an imposition, the public occasioned
it; and between the original holder and the public, there might be a
claim for retribution. That public faith was as sacredly pledged to the
bearer, or present possessor, as to the original creditor. That public
credit results from fair and upright conduct; that the Government, to
support it, must perform its contract. That this was a contract
recognized by them, and as such should be discharged. That the condition
we have been in made it proper for us to be cautious on this subject;
and even at present, people doubted our disposition to establish our
credit. That this would give a fatal blow to it, and when we should
recover, if ever, was doubtful. That the public opinion was difficult
to be ascertained; gentlemen had different modes to determine it. He
supposed it was better ascertained by the acts of public bodies than by
squibs in the newspapers, or by pamphlets written by individuals. That
the uniform conduct of men, deputed by the particular States to
represent them, in the late General Government, was the best standard;
and their opinion, from the year 1783, was in favor of the present
possessor. That the conduct of the particular States was another
circumstance; that he did not know of any discrimination made by them,
though it had been attempted. That the general opinion of men of
property was in favor of it; and that these sources of public opinion
were more certain than those he had before mentioned.

He further observed, that although he believed gentlemen supposed no
advantage would be derived to the United States from this
discrimination, yet much would arise. That part of the army was composed
of foreigners, many had left the country, others were dead; all their
part would be unclaimed. That certificates were issued to public
officers to a great amount, and were paid by them to persons from whom
they purchased. The difficulty of making proof of the original creditor
would be great; and, from this circumstance, great sums would be gained
to the public. That there were persons enough who would have sagacity to
discern this; and they would doubt the purity of the public motive,
should the gentleman's plan be adopted.

He then adverted to the circumstance of the new creditor receiving
paper. That this paper might be subject to another liquidation on the
same principle as the present. That it would introduce doubt and
distrust of public engagements; and there would be no greater security,
although a fund was pledged, than there is at present, for whenever the
public pleased, they might destroy the obligation. Arguments were
improperly addressed to their feelings; but that however hard it may be
for the original creditor, who had parted with his certificates, to
contribute to pay the debt, yet it would be equally hard on him who had
been injured by Continental money, who had been plundered by the enemy,
who had had his property burned by them in the course of the war; and
that instances of these kinds were numerous.

He then adverted to the doctrine of the Court of Equity; and urged that
this court must be governed by principle. That were the committee this
high court, and the United States the original creditor, and the present
possessor before them; and if there appeared no fraud on the part of the
possessor, the original creditor would have no just claim on him. That
between the United States and original creditors, the United States were
in fault, and the claim, if good, would be against them.

Mr. SMITH (of S. C.) remarked, that it was necessary and proper the
House should give the subject the most ample discussion. The question
had long agitated the public mind, and the people should know that it
had occupied the serious attention of their Representatives, and be made
acquainted with the principles of their decision. For his part, having
bestowed on it the most attentive consideration, he could assert, that
the more he contemplated it, the more he was impressed with a
conviction, that the proposition was unjust, impolitic, and
impracticable. It consisted of two parts: The one was to take away the
property of one person; the other was to give that property to another;
and this by a voluntary interposition of the House, by a mere act of
power, without the assent of the former, or without even the application
of the latter. For it was remarkable, that the original holders, who had
alienated their certificates, had not come forward with this demand; and
it is presumable, that, had they applied for redress, they would reject
any indemnification which was the result of such manifest injustice. To
prove that this was taking away the property of a citizen by force, he
observed, that the purchaser had, by a fair purchase, acquired a right
to the full amount of the sum expressed in the certificate, which it was
not within the power of the House to divest him of. No tribunal on earth
could lawfully deprive a man of his property fairly obtained. The
purchaser bought under the act of Congress, making the securities
transferable; and having given the market price, without fraud or
imposition, he was, by virtue of such purchase, vested with the complete
and absolute ownership of the certificate, as fully as the original
holder; and had as much right to demand full payment as the original
holder would have had, had the security been still in his hands. Even
should the House refuse, by an act of power, to pay him more than half
his demand, the other half would still remain against the public; it
could not be extinguished. The debt would continue to haunt them; the
creditors would loudly clamor for justice, and sooner or later the
balance would be paid. Then would they incur all the odium of a
violation of private rights, without deriving to the public any
advantage whatever. He considered the measure as doing a certain evil,
that a possible good might result from it. This was not, in his opinion,
the proper mode of doing good. Justice cannot be founded on injustice;
and to take money out of the pocket of one man, to put it into that of
another, is a precedent which may justify future interferences. This
step would lead the House to others: for, if the principle be a just
one, then the Government should look into all the transactions and
speculations of individuals, in order to correct them, and make
retribution to every individual according to his losses. He was
persuaded, that the true policy of a Legislative body was, to pursue the
broad road of justice, clearly marked out before them; for it was an
undeniable truth, that whenever they deviated into by-roads and
trackless paths, without any other guide than their own imagination,
they would get bewildered in a labyrinth of difficulties, and rejoice to
trace back their steps, and regain the plain road. Now, the plain line
of conduct is, to do strict justice, such as is enforced in judicial
tribunals, between man and man, in a similar case. The debtor is bound
to pay the debt to the holder of the security; the contract, between the
giver of the bond and the person to whom it was given, is done away the
moment the latter assigns it to another person. If A gives a bond to B,
who parts with it to C, there is no longer any obligation on the part of
A to pay B, but he must pay it to C. A has nothing to do with the
private negotiations between B and C, nor to inquire what consideration
was given for the security. All that he has to inquire is, whether he
really signed it and had value received for it, and the amount of it. He
cannot say to the holder, you gave but fifty dollars for this security
of one hundred dollars, and I will pay you only fifty; for the law will
compel him to pay the hundred. This is a point of justice between man
and man. Is there another point of law and justice for the Government?
By what rule is the Government to square its conduct, if not by those
sacred rules which form the basis of civil society, and are the
safeguard of private property?

The gentleman from Virginia has said, that giving the present holders,
by alienation, the highest market price, would be doing them ample
justice; but did the public mean to refund them the money they had
actually advanced? No; they were to receive this ample justice by a bit
of paper, nominally for ten shillings; but which this very measure would
instantly depreciate to eight, or six shillings. They would have this
consolation, that, according to the gentleman's reasoning, they would
still have a claim against the Government for the balance. For, if the
original holder, by selling his certificate for four shillings, has now
a just claim against the Government for the balance of sixteen
shillings, which it is asserted he has, of course the alienee, to whom
the public should now acknowledge a debt of ten shillings, which he
would sell for only six, would hereafter have a just demand against the
public for four shillings. The reasoning might be carried further, for
it would follow, that whenever the public shall pay in paper which shall
depreciate, the seller will have a demand against the Government for the
difference.

The constitution itself, he said, was opposed to the measure, for it was
an _ex post facto_ law, which was prohibited in express terms. The
transfer of public securities was lawful at the time these alienations
were made; an attempt, therefore, to punish the transferees is an
attempt to make an _ex post facto_ law, by making that now unlawful
which was lawful at the time it was done. It alters the nature of the
transaction, and annexes the idea of guilt to that which at the moment
of commission, was not only perfectly innocent, but was explicitly
authorized and encouraged by a public act of Congress. By that act those
who had money were invited to purchase of those who held securities, and
now we are called upon to punish the purchasers who bought under that
invitation. The constitution restrains the States from passing any laws
impairing the force of contracts; _a fortiori_ is the Legislature of the
Union restrained. What an example to hold up to the Judiciary of the
United States! How could they annul a State law, when the State would be
able to plead a precedent on the part of Congress? The right of property
is a sacred right; no tribunal on earth can deprive a citizen of his
property, unless for a fair equivalent, for the public welfare. The
purchaser is vested, by the sale, with an absolute right, to the full
amount of the security, and it is beyond their authority to divest him
of it. They might, indeed, by an act of power, declare that he should be
paid only half; but his right to the other moiety would not be
extinguished. It had been said, that the original holder still had a
claim against the public, because he had received only two shillings and
sixpence for services worth twenty shillings. On the same principle, and
with more justice, the present holder would still have a claim for ten
shillings, because he has the public bond for twenty shillings. No
ingenuity can overcome these stubborn principles of law and justice;
they are immutable, and must ultimately prevail. The House had been told
that if the Government had defrauded the original holders out of their
dues, it was fit the public should rectify the fraud. The former
Government was not deficient in inclination to do them ample justice;
but, from the imbecility of the Confederation, had not the means. In
those days of democratic enthusiasm, the people were afraid of an
energetic Government: having so recently experienced the severity of the
former one, the citizens of these States were cautious in trusting any
Government with power; and it is not improbable that some of the
original holders, who suffered their embarrassments, from the want of a
Government competent to the payment of its debts, would themselves have
opposed vesting Congress with powers adequate to this object. Even the
present constitution, which is a mild one, met with considerable
opposition: had it been rejected, the public securities would have never
been paid.

Mr. AMES agreed with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) in regard
to the validity of the debt. There was propriety in saying the nation is
the same, though the Government be changed. The debt is the price of our
liberties, and cannot be diminished a farthing, the gentleman from
Virginia says; and why? Because the Government, as one of the
contracting parties, cannot annul, or vary the bargain without the
consent of the other. If the measure proposed by that gentleman
corresponds with that sound principle, he should have the pleasure of
agreeing with him on the ultimate decision; but if the measure should
be found, on a fair discussion, to be subversive of that principle, it
would not merit the countenance of the committee.

A claim upon our justice is made, on behalf of the original holders of
securities, who have transferred them. Does the plighted faith of the
country stand charged to pay the difference between the price their
securities sold for in the market and their nominal sum? In order to
make the affirmative appear, the worthy gentleman has said, that the
paper is the only evidence of a prior contract; and while the paper was
sold, the residuary right to the debt still remained in the seller.
Supposing this novel doctrine to be true, which cannot be conceded, it
will not warrant any conclusion in prejudice of any purchaser of the
Loan-office debt; for the paper was given when the loan was made; as no
prior debt existed, the paper is the very debt. The gentleman ought,
therefore, to confine his motion to the army debt, as his principle
seems inapplicable to any other. And even on liquidating the army debt,
the certificate extinguished the prior debt; otherwise the public would
be twice charged. As, when one man owes another an account, and gives
his bond for the balance, the account is no longer of force. By the
terms of the certificate, the person transferring has lost his claim
against the public. He has freely transferred; for if violence or fraud
were practised, the law will afford him redress. In society, as well as
in a state of nature, property is changed by the consent of the last
occupant. He may dispose of it by gift or at half price, and give a
complete title. Nor will the pretence that this transfer was free only
in appearance, avail; for the motives which disposed the owner to sell
cannot affect the right of the purchaser. Every such creditor risked
something; either that the Government would not pay him at all, or not
in due season. The risk, computed in free and open market, will be
nearly right. It is a kind of insurance against these risks, and the
insurers and insured will calculate the rate of insurance better than
Government can do it. If there is a new risk of Government interposing,
it seems that the purchaser, who may be called the insurer, did not rate
his risk high enough. It seems pretty clear, therefore, that there is no
claim on the stipulated justice of the country.

The committee rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.


TUESDAY, February 16.

_Public Credit._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
report of the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. BALDWIN in the chair.

Mr. MADISON's proposition still under consideration.

Mr. JACKSON observed, that although as young a politician as any on the
floor, and convinced that the weight of experience was against him, on
so important a national subject, he could not be silent; particularly as
he had the honor of seconding the gentleman's motion (Mr. MADISON) now
before the House, that it would be therefore expected that he should
bring forward his reasons, and the principle which actuated him to it.
He confessed, that had he not before leaned to the side of a
discrimination, the arguments of that able gentleman would have induced
him to support the plan he had brought forward. He was induced on
another motive to rise, to show that the numerous arguments of the
gentlemen in opposition, yesterday, had not convinced him of the
impracticability or injustice of the composition.

The House were told much of the moral obligations we were under of
paying our debts, and the impolicy and injustice of interfering with
private contracts. The obligation, he believed, was nowhere denied; the
debt was of the highest nature; it was the price of our independence:
the only difficulty is, how that debt shall be discharged. He would here
observe, that the justice of the plan before the House, had not been so
fully objected to, as the impracticability, although it had been
asserted to be unjust, by some of the gentlemen who had spoken.

He would consider the justice of the proposition. The House had been
told the nature of those contracts, and the valuable considerations of
them. The contract, as it struck him, fell under the legal terms of _do,
ut des_; I give that thou mayest give--or, I give that I may receive. In
all contracts there are three requisites: 1st. The agreement. 2d. The
consideration. 3d. The thing to be done or omitted. This consideration
is to be an equivalent, or full recompense for the thing to be
performed. Let us examine what is the thing to be done, and what the
consideration is. The creditor, who was to perform the third article of
the contract, held twenty shillings, which was to be given for a
valuable consideration. What was this consideration? Two shillings and
sixpence. He argued, that if this twenty shillings was worth no more
than two shillings and sixpence, the contract was fair and substantial;
but, if gentlemen carried the idea further, and declared this twenty
shillings was money of equal value with the two shillings and sixpence
given, he contended that the contract was destroyed. Equity would
relieve, would declare it an unrighteous bargain, that there was not an
adequate compensation, and would set aside the contract.

This public opinion is in favor of the original creditor; it is
impossible to be otherwise. The people of America are a grateful people,
and they cannot, with indifference, view the earnings of those who
established their independence, converted into the coffers of the
wealthy and ambitious. The speculator, he contended, was already more
than satisfied, if it was only on the principle of interest which had
accrued for six, seven, and eight years past, and which they had
speculated on since.

Mr. BENSON.--The gentlemen in favor of this motion come forward as the
advocates of the late army. I wish, therefore, to be ascertained of one
fact, do the army wish a measure of this kind to take place? I apprehend
they do not; and I am led to this opinion from a knowledge of the habits
of military men; they prefer their honor to every pecuniary
consideration, and they generally are actuated by that principle alone.
I will state a case. Suppose I purchased an officer's certificate for
one hundred dollars, and I was to fund it; the Treasurer would say, you
are to receive but fifty dollars, the other fifty are reserved for the
original holder. Now, if I was to go and tell the officer, that,
notwithstanding my purchase of all his right, title, and claim to the
one hundred dollars, the Government would give me but fifty, retaining
the other fifty for him, he would answer, I will never receive a
farthing of it, because it is your money, fairly and honorably purchased
of me. Now, in this case, what would you do? Should these fifty dollars
fall to the Government, or to me? I reason in this manner, because I
suppose this would be a general case. The Society of Cincinnati, of the
State of New York, have, by a resolution, which they have published in
the papers, disavowed the principle; and, in Rhode Island, a member of
the Society was expelled for taking advantage of the tender-law of that
State, and paying off a _bona fide_ debt with depreciated paper. I
apprehend the principle of action still remains the same throughout the
whole of the army. When the soldier conveyed his certificate, there was
a contract between the parties, that whatever sum the Government could
pay, the whole of it should go to the assignee. Now, by an act of
violence, you take the half of it away, and enable the assignor to
discharge the contract by paying fifty dollars, when he had engaged that
the purchaser should receive one hundred. This is, in effect, the same
as the payment of depreciated paper under a tender-law, and would be
equally rejected by those whom it is intended to favor.

I would state the case, as if it had happened between the gentleman and
myself, could he hesitate to say the whole sum was fairly mine, and
surrender it up, notwithstanding the legal interference of the
Government? This is a question I would not suffer myself to reason upon;
I would not trust my mind with it, lest it should preponderate in favor
of self-interest, though against the common principles of truth and
justice. I cannot think the army would accept the interposition; we
ought, therefore, to be cautious how we trifle with the honor of other
people.

I do not pretend to say, that the persons intended to be relieved by the
proposed scheme have not a claim against the United States; but I deny
that it is a claim upon our equity or justice; it may be a claim upon
our humanity; and, whether we will satisfy this claim, depends on
circumstances which have no connection with the present question.

Mr. JACKSON.--God forbid, Mr. Chairman, that I should trifle with the
honor of men I value, and esteem so highly; it would be the last thing I
could think of. But, sir, as a Legislator, I cannot consent that the
pittance which was the reward of distinguished services, shall be torn
from them by the arts of insidious speculators; but there are others,
who have a claim in equity upon our justice, who ought not to be
sacrificed to the soldier's honor.

Mr. WHITE said he agreed with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
SEDGWICK) in the principle, that if a contract is made for a valuable
consideration, and with the understanding of both parties, the
Legislature ought not to interfere in it; and should it appear that the
transaction between the original holders of certificates and the
purchasers was a fair one, the dispute, in his mind, was at an end. But
no gentleman had attempted to show that this was the case, though all
the arguments against a discrimination were founded on that supposition.
Perhaps it might be said, that every argument ought to be considered as
fair; unless the contrary be proved. But where one man has obtained the
property of another to the amount of L100 for L10, or L12 10s. the
transaction must be explained to him, before he would believe it to be
honest. What is the present case? The original holders, who have parted
with the evidences of their debts, were principally common soldiers,
militiamen, and farmers in indigent circumstances. Who were the
purchasers? The Secretary of the Treasury tells us, that the most
enlightened among our citizens are the creditors of the United States;
common soldiers cannot be comprehended in this description. What must
have passed, he asked, between the soldier, the militiaman, or farmer,
and the purchaser? What reason could the purchaser assign for offering
L10 for a paper which specified an obligation to pay L100? It must be
something like this--the States will never pay you; if they do, it will
be at a very remote period, so long as to be useless to you; but to
relieve your present necessities, I will take the risk on myself, and
give you L10. Now, could any enlightened man, he asked, in 1783, or at
any subsequent period, in which time the transfers took place, believe
that the independence of America was in danger, or that the debts could
not be provided for?

He knew so many instances of transactions like that which he had stated,
that he doubted not the greater part of the certificates had been
obtained by similar means. Indeed he could not conceive any other by
which they could be obtained.

He said we were, perhaps, without a precedent in any other nation which
would be strictly applicable; but he desired gentlemen to determine for
themselves, whether, under such circumstances, the man who had rendered
services to his country should be deprived of his reward, or whether the
purchaser ought to receive it. He said it was very different in the
common transactions of life. If a man purchased a tract of land for
L1,000, paid the money, and took a bond for the conveyance, a third
person, by informing the purchaser that the seller could not make a
title, or by other false suggestions should obtain a transfer of the
bond in consideration of L100, and get a conveyance and possession of
the land, yet, on repaying the L100, the conveyance would be set aside,
and he would be restored to his land.

He gave some other instances of a similar nature, and said, he believed,
if a bond, whether due, or to become due, was assigned under such
circumstances, that the obligee would be justifiable in contesting it in
a court of law, and that the injured person would, on application,
obtain redress. He said, that in cases of extreme hardship, Courts of
Equity would give relief without express proof of fraud; that this was
the law of Great Britain, and was agreeable to the principles of the
civil law; that the Roman jurists, he believed, had fixed the point of
extreme hardship to one half of the value of the property transferred;
in England the court was to judge.

He said he did not think the present holders were strictly entitled to
any thing more than the original purchasers; that here the maxim, quoted
on the other side of the question, that the assignee stands in the shoes
of the assignor, properly applied. You cannot place another on more
advantageous ground than that on which you stand yourself. The plea of
an innocent purchaser could not take place; the nature of the
transaction must appear evident to every man concerned in the transfer.

He said the reverse of this did not hold. An assignee was not always in
as advantageous a situation as the assignor; and instanced the case of
an executor who should obtain the assignment of his testator's bond at
an undervalue; and who, he said, could not retain in his hands the
amount of the sum specified in the bond, which the creditor might have
recovered, but only the sum which he actually paid for the bond.

He said, that, though in his opinion the present holders of certificates
were strictly entitled to no more than what had been paid to the
original holders, yet, as an investigation of that circumstance would be
involved in inextricable difficulties, and since we were (as had been
very properly observed and well expressed by a gentleman from South
Carolina) settling the business of a family, he was willing to acquiesce
in the motion of his colleague. He said, that arbitrators often gave the
injured party less than his due, for peace sake; and he was willing to
act on the same principle. He doubted not but courts of justice would
give relief in particular cases; but in a matter of that magnitude, he
thought the interference of the Legislature very proper. The South Sea
business, he thought, in that respect, a good precedent. Two gentlemen
had mentioned the business; he would not say they had misstated the
transaction, but he thought their accounts imperfect. They said they had
the documents under their hands; he wished they had been read; he had
them not, but would state from memory what he thought applicable to the
case in question. The directors of the South Sea Company, by various
arts, induced the people to give as high as L1,000 for L100 stock; in
many instances the money was paid, in others it was contracted to be
paid. A gentleman has said, that Parliament interfered, not to violate,
but to perfect the contract: but what did Parliament do? They
confiscated the estates of the directors, and applied the amount to the
relief of those who had actually paid their money, and suspended suits
against those who had not paid; and authorized the debtors to discharge
their debts by the payment of ten per cent. on the real value of the
stock subscribed for. But if he was wrong in supposing the present
holders ought to stand in the place of the first purchasers, they could
be considered only as having purchased, in market, a paper of indefinite
value; if, then, they get the highest market price, they are not
injured.

He would now endeavor to obviate some of the objections to the measure,
on account of its impracticability; and in general terms observed, that
much greater pains had been taken to show the impracticability than the
injustice of it. He said, if it was just, we ought to adopt it; and he
did not doubt but the wisdom of the Legislature would be able to carry
it into effect. Purchasers, he said, had been represented as the
supporters of public credit; but he could not consider them in that
light. The offering a tenth or an eighth part of the value of the bond
of an individual would tend rather to blast his credit than to support
it; it would have the same effect with respect to the public.

He said he had lived long enough to be convinced that wise and great
men, having the same object in view, often differ in opinion with
respect to the means of accomplishing it; therefore, every proposition
ought to be treated with candor and respect. He made that observation in
consequence of what passed yesterday. A gentleman from Massachusetts had
introduced his speech in a manner somewhat new--with an apology for an
impropriety which he _intended to commit_. He pursued the arguments of
those who went before him, in opposition to the amendment; but his
speech consisted principally in an effusion of opprobrious epithets,
some of which he repeated, and said, to detail the whole would perhaps
fill half a column of a newspaper. He said he felt, on the occasion, not
for himself, for he had not expressed his sentiments on the subject
under debate, but for the honor of the House, in which, he thought, no
such language ought to be used.

It had been said we came forward as volunteers; that the original
holders did not put in their claim. That might be easily accounted for;
they were generally obscure and indigent; had too much modesty, or
perhaps not the capacity, to come forward. That he believed the crowd in
the gallery did not consist of original holders.

Mr. HARTLEY.--I do not wish to trespass upon the time of the committee,
but I cannot consent to give a silent vote on this occasion. I mean,
however, to confine myself to a few observations, as many of my ideas
have been communicated by other gentlemen. The honorable gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. SMITH) has anticipated much of what I had to urge; I
shall therefore reduce my view of the subject to two points; first, as
to the justice or legality of the measure, in obliging a creditor, or
assignee, to take less than a certificate expresses, and pay the
difference to another: second, as to the practicability or policy of the
motion and its consequences.

As to making further satisfaction to the officers and soldiers of the
late army, who have sold their certificates for an inconsiderable sum,
and who have in consequence reaped a less reward than the Government
contracted for, and intended them, I conceive it has nothing to do with
the present question. However, if there is a disposition in Congress to
make a further compensation to those brave and meritorious men, I would
be among the first to support the measure; but I think this a subject
too momentous to be involved collaterally in the question now under
consideration.

With respect to the first point that offers itself, I have to remark,
that a man who enters into a contract should know the consideration, and
understand the principles upon which it is made, and these should be
expressed on the face of the evidence of the contract. Now, if this
contract be of a negotiable nature, the person to whom the same is
offered, looks on its face, from which it discovers the _agrementum_,
and is naturally led to consider the circumstances of the debtor, his
ability and integrity. Suppose even the evidence of the contract to be
obtained by fraud, unless it be against the express provision of a
statute, and is transferred to a third person for a valuable
consideration, without notice of fraud, it, must be paid. A fraud in any
link of the chain is corrected by a _bona fide_ transfer for a valuable
consideration, without a knowledge of that circumstance by the
purchaser.

Now, let us apply these principles to the present case. Here is an
instrument of writing, specifying a debt to be due from the United
States to the original holder, or bearer; this being brought into
market, is offered to a third person, he, before his purchase, sees that
the contract was executed in consequence of a consideration, and not
against any positive statute; he then inquires the ability of the
Union, and its disposition to comply with the contract; and, from a
consideration of these circumstances, he concludes, with respect to his
own interest and safety in the purchase, and pays what is conceived to
be the value. What is there to discharge the Government from the
payment? Is it pretended that the services and supplies were an
inadequate compensation? If it even was so supposed, it would not
authorize us to refuse a compliance with our engagements; any
interference would set afloat the great principle upon which the public
tranquillity and happiness depend. This leads me to consider the subject
in my second point of view, with respect to its policy and
practicability, and the consequences that would result from the attempt.

There are but few original holders who have transferred, that can be
found; of consequence, you would throw the major part of the debt into
an intricate labyrinth. The present possessor would be shifting back the
certificate to the original holder, as far as a latitude is given. Many
persons who were bare trustees, would be reaping advantages, and drawing
money from the Public Treasury, to which they are not entitled; oaths
would be multiplied on oaths; perjuries on perjuries; fraud upon fraud;
and every species of speculation would ensue; deception would be a
strong trait in the character of the times, and the whole of the United
States would be in motion, each endeavoring to prey upon the other. The
consequences of a second inundation of this nature are to be dreaded,
and ought to be carefully avoided.

Mr. MOORE observed, that it was agreed on all hands, and proposed in the
report of the Secretary, that some discrimination ought to take place.
It was, therefore, incumbent on the House to inquire how this might be
effected with the greatest degree of equity. He supposed the result
would be, that we are at liberty to pay the most meritorious first. Who
constituted this class of citizens? He trusted the late army had an
incontrovertible title to it. He could never believe that the men who
stripped the soldiers of their hard earnings, by allowing them a tenth
of their claim, would have the temerity to pretend that they had
acquired the title of merit with their money, and that the soldier
relinquished, with his certificate, the honor of his corps.

Had the present question been agitated in the hour of distress, when an
army was essential to our defence, the arguments of justice and equity
would have had their weight. Perhaps it is the soldier's misfortune,
that the question arises at a time when the object for which he was
employed is secured. But notwithstanding all that has been said, I am
fully convinced that his claim is insuperable in equity. The soldier did
not engage to fight your battles to be compensated with a certificate,
acknowledging you were indebted to him; it was specie you promised, and
specie he had a right to expect, or something equal to it in reality.
The public faith was actually pledged to him for a compensation for his
services; but will any one say the public faith was inviolably kept with
him, when a certificate, worth but two shillings in the pound was forced
upon him as specie? The poor soldier, thus situated, was followed by
gangs of speculators, who endeavored to impose on his judgment by the
relation of artful and insidious opinions of the public capacity and
integrity in the discharge of these acknowledgments. The soldier,
incapable of detecting the specious falsehood, swallows the bait, and
becomes the easy prey of designing men. The people felt and resented the
injuries thus perpetrated on those they esteemed; and I am much mistaken
if the citizens of America do not still retain favorable impressions of
the soldiers' services.

A great deal has been said, with respect to public opinion on this
question. It is impossible, perhaps, to ascertain the public mind with
precision; but there is but one way in our power, that is, to suffer the
subject to be suspended for the present session, and on our return, or
the election of our successors, the public sentiment in this respect
will be evinced; but if we are to determine the public mind from our own
observation, I should not hesitate to say that nine out of ten would be
in favor of a discrimination. The people would, on this principle, I
conceive, submit cheerfully to the payment of those taxes which are
requisite to discharge the public engagements; but if they are to flow
into the large cities, or into the hands of foreigners, who have
speculated upon the misfortunes of the most meritorious class of our
citizens, they will bear the burthen with murmurs and complaints.

Can any principle of justice demand the payment of the present possessor
of a certificate, that does not apply more forcibly as it respects
original holders? Will gentlemen, then, comply with the one, and neglect
the other? Or rather, as my colleague has proposed, if they are
incapable to pay both, will they not prefer a composition?

Mr. WADSWORTH.--It appears to me that we have mistaken this business
from the beginning, for we are proceeding as if it was taken for granted
that all those who had alienated their certificates, have been compelled
to it by necessity; there is nothing further from the truth. So far as
it respects the army debt it may be just; and at this moment, were a
soldiery to be paid in certificates, they would part with them at as
great a discount as ever. There is a disposition in soldiers generally
to despise pecuniary considerations; if they want money, they will
dispose of their property at an inconsiderate value to obtain it. But
this remark does not extend to the industrious part of the public
creditors, because they have carefully retained the evidences of their
debt, and now will receive its value. But even of the army, it is not
true that they will suffer the loss of the discount at which their
certificates have been sold. Having an opportunity of being well
acquainted with the circumstances of the army, I know that many of the
officers lived upon their friends, who supported them from time to time,
with such sums as they had occasion for, and when they retired from the
army, they repaid their friends with the certificates which they had
received. The best way for gentlemen to ascertain the amount of the
public debt which has been transferred from necessity, is to mix in the
world, and try, from the circle of their acquaintance, to learn what the
actual transfers have been. I have done this, and am conscious within
myself, that seven-eighths of all the alienated debt has not been
disposed of by the original holder from necessity.

When the requisitions of Congress were rejected by the State Assemblies,
some of the most wealthy persons of the community, and those most
violently opposed to Continental measures, seemed to concur in the
opinion, that the States would never raise a revenue for the purpose of
paying the domestic debt. The people finding this a prevailing opinion,
were impressed with a dread of its consequences, and sold this species
of negotiable property at a rate dictated by their apprehensions. I
should conceive it as a great evil, if the Government were now to
restore to such persons what they lost for want of confidence. I think
this circumstance will operate considerably against the gentleman's
principle of equity; now, as to the practicability of the measure, those
gentlemen who are acquainted with the history of the manner in which the
public debt was contracted, will readily agree with me, that it is an
insuperable objection. In the years 1776 and 1777, very few advances
were made to those who procured supplies to the public; they purchased
what they got generally upon credit, and they were obliged, before their
accounts could be settled, and they could get their money from the
Public Treasury, to get receipts for all the articles they had
furnished, and then they received orders upon the loan-officers, who,
not having money, paid them in certificates, which these people, in
return, paid over to those who furnished them with supplies. So that the
agent appears a creditor to a very considerable amount, when his
personal claim is very trifling, and those who risked their property,
without pay of any kind, and who are undoubtedly deserving of some
credit, appeared to be no other than speculators in public securities. I
cannot see, in this case, any possible mode of discrimination. There are
a variety of other official transactions which would demonstrate the
impracticability, if it was necessary to oppose the proposition on that
ground.


WEDNESDAY, February 17.

_Public Credit._

The House again went into a committee on the report of the Secretary of
the Treasury, Mr. BALDWIN in the chair.

Mr. MADISON's proposition still under consideration.

Mr. PAGE.--I do not wish to trouble the committee with a formal argument
in favor of the motion offered by my colleague; but I wish to inquire of
the gentlemen in opposition, whether they conceive the principles upon
which it is grounded to be unjust? I observed, that their replies have
generally gone against the practicability of the measure; but that does
not prove to me that it is inequitable. If there is justice in the case,
we must not consider the difficulty of the attempt. I trust, if it shall
be found to stand on the foundation of immutable justice, that its
practicability will be demonstrated. However, I shall not enter on that
ground, but leave it to my colleague, who has so ably supported it on
the other.

I would, however, beg gentlemen to answer these questions, and show to
my mind the injustice of the United States complying with their
engagements made to the first holders of certificates, as far as the
case, and their abilities, will permit. Or where is the justice of doing
more for the assignee than he, or his assignor, expected could or would
be done? Where is the breach of faith in Government, if it pays its
whole debt, with a justice, blended with mercy, resembling that of
Heaven itself, making impartial retribution among the children of men,
on the great day of accounts? Where is the propriety of branding a
measure of this nature with epithets of infamy? or using such harsh
expressions as have issued like a torrent from a gentleman on the other
side of the House? So far am I from viewing the propositions through
such a discolored medium, that I am induced to believe, if Congress
adopt it, they may submit its rectitude, and stand the decision, of not
only a superior order of beings, but of the Great Judge of the Universe,
who is immutable truth itself.

What will the assignee lose by the measure? He will lose nothing, but
the sanguine expectation lately raised in his mind.

Where is the interference in contracts, when the proposition is to
comply sacredly, as far as the case will admit, with the contract
between the State and its creditors? Is not the assignment of the
certificates confirmed by the nation? Does it not give to the assignee
the very thing stipulated between the assignor and assignee, that is,
whatever sum the Government shall be pleased to pay for the certificate?
And is not the sum now proposed, more than either the first or last
assignee ever contemplated, till within a few days past, would ever be
paid him?

The time is now arrived when justice ought to be done; it is looked for,
with anxious expectation, by all classes of our fellow citizens; it will
not avail us to say, it is impracticable, until experience has
demonstrated it to be so. But the measure we contend for is termed an
_ex post facto_ law, and as such, is declared to be unconstitutional.
Gentlemen torture every thing, in order to produce evidence against an
act of justice. How can it be such an _ex post facto_ law as is
prescribed by the constitution, when that expression is conjunctive with
a bill of attainder? It relates to that only, and can have no reference
to the subject of the proposition before us. The same idea, which
prevents us from an interference on the present occasion, will prevent
us, as was observed by the gentleman from Georgia, from making a statute
of limitation, or from correcting any frauds, which have been
perpetrated on the unsuspicious soldiery. We must not contemplate the
restoration of the starving soldier, with his humble wife and numerous
and naked offspring, to a more eligible situation; we must not restore
confidence to the man of honor who is buried in abject poverty, because
it is addressing a language to the heart, which the haughtiness of the
head disdains to hear; but, in doubtful cases of justice, the heart is
the best director on this subject; happy will it be for us, if, as I
think, they both concur to give their approbation to the present
measure.


THURSDAY, February 18.

_Public Credit._

The House again went into a committee on the Secretary of the Treasury's
report, Mr. BALDWIN in the chair.

Mr. MADISON's proposition still under consideration.

Mr. STONE.--I shall not attempt to show the importance of the subject
before us, as it relates to public credit; or as it will affect our
character as a nation, at home and abroad. These have been explained;
but it is proper for us to consider how far the amendment may operate to
establish a precedent of Continental and State Legislation, the
influence it may have on society, and the rules of civil conduct between
man and man. Every community must experience that the conduct of the
Government will influence the opinions of the individuals; and the
spirit of the individual will transfuse itself into the Government. This
action and reaction operates more powerfully in a Republican Government,
founded on representation, than on any other.

Our situation is made more important, on the present occasion, by a
disagreement on principles which ought to be fixed and plain; to me it
seems that we differ on the principle of public justice. This may be
unfortunate--let us endeavor to be reconciled. If the true distinction
between natural and civil justice be accurately drawn, we may annihilate
the point in contest. Agreeably to the principle of natural justice, no
contract is perfect unless there be an equivalent; and that which we
call a valuable consideration, on which to ground a contract, is founded
on the idea of an equivalent, and presupposes it. And, I believe the
idea of such a consideration being an equivalent, is the foundation of
the validity of a contract, even in the English law; and is always
carried into effect, wherever the execution is safe and certain; because
I think, whenever it appears in any court of justice, that the
consideration was not an equivalent, that then the contract is not
carried into execution. The execution of the principle of natural
justice then is safe; for instance, L99 19_s._ 11_d._ is not a
consideration for L100, but a small sum may be a consideration for a
valuable property; this does not arise from an infraction of the
principle; but because the property may not have a determinate value in
the society; and it would make judges arbitrary, legal proceedings
extremely expensive, and contracts uncertain, if an extensive discretion
as to the value was admitted. But whenever the consideration is so small
and inadequate, as to appear so plainly and satisfactorily that the
judge cannot be mistaken in determining it not to be an equivalent,
there the contract is not valid.

Now, if we have received services from the soldier, and have given him
paper, the question will be, whether that was an equivalent, and the
paper a proper payment; or whether it is only an evidence of the debt? I
take it to be a granted point that it was not a payment, but an
obligation to pay whenever the United States should be able. It appears
to me, then, that it was the duty of the person who received the paper,
to wait a reasonable time; and the duty of the nation to make actual
payment as speedily as possible. If the person who had received this
paper had wantonly parted with it for nothing, I agree we should have
been under no more obligation to pay him the expressed sum, than if we
had paid him money, and he had flung it away or wasted it; but if, on
the contrary, there was a delay in the execution of the contract, on the
part of the Government, which compelled him to part with it, a
compensation is equitable.

The same rule will apply between the original holder, or person who
rendered the service, and present possessor or assignee; for shortness
we will distinguish them by the names of soldier and speculator. The
speculator, when he dealt with the soldier, must, from the nature of the
thing, have induced him to believe that he gave him an equivalent for
his purchase; and it might have been an inducement to the soldier to
sell, to think he had something more than an equivalent; the speculator
thought he had more than an equivalent, throwing necessity on the one
side, and fraud on the other, out of the question. Then the confidence
was equal, perhaps not a penny between them: I can hardly conceive the
exchange took place on any other terms. You never can allow the
confidence of the speculator to be estimated very highly, perhaps at not
more than one for ten. For if it is admitted, that the speculator had
entire confidence, he was guilty of a palpable fraud, and a violation of
the first principle of justice; it amounted to this, that he gave L10 in
money for L100 bond, which he was certain would be paid. I believe, if
the case stood exactly in this form, no man would hesitate in deciding
its illegality. If a man takes L100 for L10, it is illegal; but suppose
there was a risk, and this risk was considered by the speculator as
little less than ten for one, has he not discovered his own mistake when
he sees he gets an interest of sixty per cent. on his capital; and that
capital tenfold? This contract then ought to be void on the principle of
a mistake; and here you place the speculator between Scylla and
Charybdis. If he really thought the certificates only worth one for ten,
you can give him no credit for his confidence; and you will admit that
he ought to be satisfied with a reasonable advance on his purchase. But
if you give him entire credit for his confidence in Government, you must
give him no credit for his honesty. If both parties had known of this
event, the contract would never have taken place. If you pay the whole
sum, the speculator ought to take no more than what he gave a fair
equivalent for. Gentlemen who seem afraid of giving to the soldier a
part of his original claim, lest they affront his nobleness of soul,
make no scruple to offer the speculator ten times the sum he is entitled
to, on the principle of natural justice, without any apprehension that
his honor will receive a wound. If the claim of the soldier was
extinguished by receiving two shillings in the pound of the speculator,
upon what principle is it contended that the latter should receive more
than distributive justice? Arguments, proving that the justice due to
the first has been satisfied by what has been done, apply with greater
force to the latter.

It has been doubted, and a question has been agitated, whether we shall
exercise the power of reconsidering these contracts, and whether a
modification is constitutionally in our power? I will not go into this
subject, or any other which ought to be taken for granted. I shall take
it, that we are authorized, and do mean to interfere; you must act. Do
you mean to pay the principal and interest now due? I believe not. Will
you shelter yourself under the plea of necessity? That is impossible. I
dare say, if the United States were sold, they would at least be worth
six hundred millions of dollars; and we have but eighty millions to
provide for. Having, then, the means and power, I trust you mean to
exercise them; and as you exercise them, you ought to exercise them as
justly as possible; then, to do this, you will, it is said, personify
the three parties concerned--the United States, the original holder, and
the speculator. I do not clearly comprehend the idea of a personified
State; perhaps it arises from my dulness of apprehension. Man, in his
natural capacity, is sometimes obliged to do what is considered unjust;
but a State, when it has power, is not obliged to do what is unjust. The
State, then, in this respect, is doing what an honest man would do, if
he had the power of conducting this business as he thought proper.

The speculator comes to you with his bond, and tells you it is due. The
soldier tells you that he has done services to a considerable amount,
for which he never has been paid; and that those evidences of the demand
which you gave to him, were obtained from him, for one-tenth part of
what they were declared to be worth. The State says to the speculator,
you have made a great deal, and out of a man who has risked his life,
and borne every burthen which human nature could bear, with the greatest
fortitude which the most virtuous heart is capable of exerting, let him
have a part back. The speculator answers no; here is your bond. Consider
again, replies the State, that the veteran's services, at the expense of
his health and property, at the risk of his life, has saved you and
yours; and not only that, but he is obliged to pay of your demand, more
than he has ever received. What is now his answer? Here is the bond, pay
me my bond. Under these circumstances, supposing the State an
individual, he might, without much infamy to his character, exercise the
power which he has over his own bond, in order to do justice between the
parties. He might say to the speculator, you had the soldier in your
power; you did him injustice; we have you now in our power, we will do
you complete justice, but no more. A private man could never be injured
in his reputation by such conduct: indeed, according to the result of
these circumstances, the hardships of war, and the breach of contract,
have unfortunately inflicted upon the man, the most meritorious in this
community, or perhaps in any other community, sufferings and miseries--a
punishment sufficient to atone for the guilt of the greatest crimes.
This, in the event, appears to be the situation of the saviors of
America.

Mr. _Madison_ said that the opponents of his proposition had imposed on
its friends not only a heavy task, by the number of their objections,
but a delicate one by the nature of some of them. It had been arranged
as an embarrassing measure which ought to be facilitated, and producing
discussions which might end in disagreeable consequences. However
painful it might be to contradict the wishes of gentlemen whom he
respected, he could promise nothing more, in the present case, than his
endeavors to disappoint their apprehensions. When his judgment could not
yield to the propositions of others, the right to make and support his
own, was a right which he could never suffer to be contested. In
exercising it, he should study to maintain that moderation and
liberality which were due to the greatness of the subject before the
committee. He felt pleasure in acknowledging, that the like spirit had,
in general, directed the arguments on the other side. Free discussions
thus conducted are not only favorable to a right decision, but to a
cheerful acquiescence of the mistaken opponents of it. They might have
the further advantage of recommending the result to the public, by fully
explaining the grounds of it. If the pretensions of a numerous and
meritorious class of citizens be not well founded, or cannot be complied
with, let them see that this is the case, and be soothed, under their
disappointment, with the proof that they have not been overlooked by
their country.

He would proceed now to review the grounds on which the proposition had
been combated; which he should do without either following those who had
wandered from the field of fair argument, or avoiding those who had kept
within its limits.

It could not have escaped the committee, that the gentlemen to whom he
was opposed, had reasoned on this momentous question as on an ordinary
case in a court of law; that they had equally strained all the maxims
that could favor the purchasing, or be adverse to the original holder;
and that they dwelt with equal pleasure on every circumstance which
could brighten the pretensions of the former, or discredit those of the
latter. He had not himself attempted, nor did he mean to undervalue the
pretensions of the actual holders. In stating them, he had even used as
strong terms as they themselves could have dictated; but beyond a
certain point he could not go. He must renounce every sentiment which he
had hitherto cherished, before his complaisance could admit that America
ought to erect the monuments of her gratitude, not to those who saved
her liberties, but to those who had enriched themselves in her funds.

All that he wished was, that the claims of the original holders, not
less than those of the actual holders, should be fairly examined and
justly decided. They had been invalidated by nothing yet urged. A debt
was fairly contracted; according to justice and good faith, it ought to
have been paid in gold or silver; a piece of paper only was substituted.
Was this paper equal in value to gold or silver? No. It was worth, in
the market, which the argument for the purchasing holders makes the
criterion, no more than one-eighth or one-seventh of that value. Was
this depreciated paper freely accepted? No. The Government offered that
or nothing. The relation of the individual to the Government, and the
circumstances of the offer, rendered the acceptance a forced, not a free
one. The same degree of constraint would vitiate a transaction between
man and man, before any Court of Equity on the face of the earth. There
are even cases where consent cannot be pretended; where the property of
the planter or farmer had been taken at the point of the bayonet, and a
certificate presented in the same manner. But why did the creditors part
with their acknowledgment of the debt? In some instances, from
necessity; in others, from a well-founded distrust of the public.
Whether from the one, or the other, they had been injured; they had
suffered loss, through the default of the debtor; and the debtor cannot,
in justice or honor, take advantage of the default.

Here, then, was a debt acknowledged to have been once due, and which
was never discharged; because the payment was forced and defective. The
balance, consequently, is still due, and is of as sacred a nature as the
claims of the purchasing holder can be; and if both are not to be paid
in the whole, is equally entitled to payment in part.

He begged gentlemen would not yield too readily to the artificial
niceties of forensic reasoning; that they would consider not the form,
but the substance--not the letter, but the equity--not the bark, but the
pith of the business. It was a great and an extraordinary case; it ought
to be decided on the great and fundamental principles of justice. He had
been animadverted upon, for appealing to the heart as well as the head;
he would be bold, nevertheless, to repeat, that, in great and unusual
questions of morality, the heart is the best judge.

It had been said, by a member from Massachusetts, that the proposition
was founded on a new principle in Congress. If the present Congress be
meant, that is not strange, for Congress itself is new; if the former
Congress be meant, it is not true, for the principle is found in an act
which had been already cited. After the pay of the army had, during the
war, been nominally and legally discharged in depreciated paper, the
loss was made up to the sufferers.

It had been said, by a member from New York, that this case was not
parallel, there being no third party like the present holders of
certificates. This objection could not be valid. The Government paid ten
dollars' worth in fact, but only one to the soldier. The soldier was
then the original holder. The soldier assigned it to the citizen; the
citizen then became the actual holder. What was the event? The loss of
the original holder was repaired, after the actual holder had been
settled with, according to the highest market value of his paper.

He did not mean, however, to decide on the whole merits of this last
transaction; or to contend for a similitude, in all respects, between
the two kinds of paper. One material difference was, that the bills of
credit, by more frequent transfers, and by dividing the change of value
among a greater number of hands, rendered the effect of less consequence
to individuals, and less sensible to the public mind. But this
difference, whatever force it might give to the claims of the purchasing
holder of certificates, could diminish nothing from the claims of the
original holders who assigned them.

It had been said, by another member from Massachusetts, that the old
Government did every thing in its power. It made requisitions, used
exhortations, and in every respect discharged its duty; but it was to be
remembered, that the debt was not due from the Government, but the
United States. An attorney, with full powers to form, without the means
to fulfil engagements, could never, by his ineffectual, though honest
efforts, exonerate his principal.

He had been repeatedly reminded of the address of Congress in 1783,
which rejected a discrimination between original and purchasing holders.
At that period, the certificates to the army, and citizens at large, had
not been issued. The transfers were confined to loan-office
certificates, were not numerous, and had been, in great part, made with
little loss to the original creditor. At present, the transfers extend
to a vast proportion of the whole debt, and the loss to the original
holders has been immense. The injustice which has taken place has been
enormous and flagrant, and makes redress a great national object. This
change of circumstances destroys the argument from the act of Congress
referred to; but if implicit regard is to be paid to the doctrines of
that act, any modification of the interest of the debt will be as
inadmissible as a modification of the principal.

It had been said, that if the losses of the original creditors are
entitled to reparation, Congress ought to repair those suffered from
paper money--from the ravages of the war, and from the act of barring
claims not produced within a limited time. As to the paper money, either
the case is applicable, or it is not: if not applicable, the argument
fails; if applicable, either the depreciated certificates ought to be
liquidated by a like scale, as was applied to the depreciated money; or
the money, even if the whole mass of it was still in circulation, ought
to be literally redeemed, like the certificates. Leaving the gentleman
to make his own choice of these dilemmas, he would only add, himself,
that if there were no other difference between the cases, the manifest
impossibility of redressing the one, and the practicability of
redressing the other, was a sufficient answer to the objection. With
respect to the towns burnt, and other devastations of war, it was
taught, by the writers on the law of nations, that they were to be
numbered among the inevitable calamities of mankind. Still, however, a
Government owed them every alleviation which it could conveniently
afford; but no authority could be found that puts on the same footing
with those calamities, such as proceed from a failure to fulfil the
direct and express obligations of the public. The just claims barred by
the act of limitation, were, in his opinion, clearly entitled to
redress. That act was highly objectionable. The public, which was
interested in shortening the term, undertook to decide, that no claim,
however just, should be admitted, if not presented within nine months.
The act made none of the exceptions usual in such acts, not even in
favor of the most distant parts of the Union. In many instances, it had
been absolutely impossible for the persons injured to know of the
regulation. Some of these instances were within his own knowledge. To
limit the duration of a law to a period, within which it could not
possibly be promulged, and then take advantage of the impossibility,
would be imitating the Roman tyrant, who posted up his edicts so high
that they could not be read, and then punished the people for not
obeying them.

It has been said, that if the purchased certificates were funded at the
rate proposed, they would fall in the market, and the holders be
injured. It was pretty certain, that the greater part, at least, would
be gainers. He believed that the highest market price, especially with
the arrears of interest incorporated, well funded at six per cent, would
prevent every loss that could justify complaint.

But foreigners had become purchasers, and ought to be particularly
respected. Foreigners, he remarked, had themselves made a difference
between the value of the foreign and domestic debt; they would,
therefore, the less complain of a difference made by Government here. It
was his opinion that the term stated in the proposition would yield a
greater profit to the foreign purchasers than they could have got for
their money if advanced by them in any of the funds of Europe.

The proposition had been charged with robbing one set of men to pay
another. If there were robbery in the case, it had been committed on the
original creditors. But, to speak more accurately, as well as more
moderately, the proposition would do no more than withhold a part from
each of two creditors, where both were not to be paid the whole.

A member from New York has asked whether an original creditor, who had
assigned his certificate, could, in conscience, accept a reimbursement
in the manner proposed? He would not deny that assignments might have
been made with such explanations, or under such circumstances, as would
have that effect; but, in general, the assignments have been made with
reference merely to the market value, and the uncertainty of the steps
that might be taken by the Government. The bulk of the creditors had
assigned under circumstances from which no scruples could arise. In all
cases where a scruple existed, the benefit of the provision might be
renounced. He would, in turn, ask the gentleman, whether there was not
more room to apprehend that the present holder, who had got his
certificate of a distressed and meritorious fellow-citizen for
one-eighth or one-tenth its ultimate value, might not feel some remorse
in retaining so unconscionable an advantage?

Similar propositions, it was said, had been made and rejected in the
State Legislatures. This was not a fact. The propositions made in the
State Legislatures were not intended to do justice to the injured, but
to seize a profit to the public.

But no petitions for redress had come from the sufferers. Was merit,
then, to be the less regarded, because it was modest? Perhaps, however,
another explanation ought to be given. Many of the sufferers were poor
and uninformed. Those of another description were so dispersed, that
their interests and efforts could not be brought forward. The case of
the purchasing holders was very different.

The constitutionality of the proposition had been drawn into question.
He asked whether words could be devised that would place the new
Government more precisely in the same relation to the real creditors
with the old? The power was the same; the obligation was the same. The
means only were varied.

An objection had been drawn from the article prohibiting _ex post facto_
laws. But as _ex post facto_ laws relate to criminal, not civil cases,
the constitution itself requires this definition, by adding to a like
restriction on the States an express one against retrospective laws of a
civil nature.

It had been said, that foreigners had been led to purchase, by their
faith in the article of the constitution relating to the public debts.
He would answer this objection by a single fact: Foreigners had shown,
by the market price in Europe, that they trusted the nature of foreign
debt more under the old Government, than the nature of the domestic debt
under the new Government.

Objections to the measure had been drawn from its supposed tendency to
impede public credit. He thought it, on the contrary, perfectly
consistent with the establishment of public credit. It was in vain to
say, that Government ought never to revise measures once decided. Great
caution on this head ought, no doubt, to be observed; but there were
situations in which, without some legislative interposition, the first
principles of justice, and the very ends of civil society, would be
frustrated. The gentlemen themselves had been compelled to make
exceptions to the general doctrine; they would probably make more before
the business was at an end.

It had been urged, that if Government should interpose in the present
case, as interposition would be authorized in any case whatever where
the stock might fluctuate, the principle would apply as well to a fall
of sixty or seventy per cent. as to a fall of six hundred or seven
hundred per cent. He could not admit this inference. A distinction was
essential between an extreme case, and a case short of it. The line was
difficult to be drawn; but it was no more incumbent on him than on his
opponents to draw it. They themselves could not deny that a certain
extremity of the evil would have justified the interposition. Suppose
that the distress of the alienating creditors had been ten times as
great as it was; that instead of two, three, and four shillings in the
pound, they had received a farthing only in the pound; and that the
certificates lay now in the hands of the purchasers in that state, or
even at a less value, was there a member who would rise up and say, that
the purchasers ought to be paid the entire nominal sum, and the original
sufferer be entitled to no indemnification whatever?

Gentlemen had triumphed in the want of a precedent to the measure. No
government, it was said, had interposed to redress fluctuations in its
public paper. But where was the government that had funded its debts
under the circumstances of the American debt? If no government had done
so, there could be no precedent either for or against the measure,
because the occasion itself was unprecedented. And if no similar
occasion had before existed in any country, the precedent to be set
would at least be harmless, because no similar occasion would be likely
to happen in this.

If gentlemen persisted, however, in demanding precedents, he was happy
in being able to gratify them with two, which, though not exactly
parallel, were, on that account, of the greater force, since the
interposition of Government had taken place where the emergency could
less require them.

The first was the case of the Canada bills. During the war which ended
in 1763, and which was attended with a revolution of the Government in
Canada, the supplies obtained for the French army in that province were
paid for in bills of exchange and certificates. This paper depreciated,
and was bought up chiefly by British merchants. The sum and the
depreciation were so considerable as to become a subject of negotiation
between France and Great Britain at the peace. The negotiations produced
a particular article, by which it was agreed by France that the paper
ought to be redeemed, and admitted by Great Britain that it should be
redeemed at a liquidated value. In the year 1766 this article was
accordingly carried into effect by ministers from the two courts, which
reduced the paper in the hands of the British holders, in some
instances, as much as seventy-five per cent. below its nominal value. It
was stated, indeed, by the reporter of the case, that the holders of the
paper had themselves concurred in the liquidation; but it was not
probable that the concurrence was voluntary. If it was voluntary, it
shows that they themselves were sensible of the equity of the sacrifice.

The other case was of still greater weight, as it had no relation to war
or treaty, and took place in the nation which has been held up as a
model with respect to public credit. In the year 1713, the civil list of
Great Britain had fallen into arrears to the amount of L500,000. The
creditors who had furnished supplies to the Government had, instead of
money, received debentures only from the respective officers. These had
depreciated. In that state, they were assigned in some instances; in
others, covenanted to be assigned. When the Parliament appropriated
funds for satisfying these arrears, they inserted an express provision
in the act, that the creditors who had been obliged, by the default of
Government, to dispose of their paper at a loss, might redeem it from
the assignees by repaying the actual price, with an interest of six per
cent., and that all agreements and covenants to assign should be
absolutely void. Here then was an interposition on the very principle,
that a Government ought to redress the wrongs sustained by its default,
and on an occasion trivial when compared to that under consideration;
yet it does not appear that the public credit of the nation was injured
by it.

The best source of confidence in Government was the apparent honesty of
its views. The proposition could not possibly be ascribed to any other
motive than this, because the public was not to gain a farthing by it.
The next source was an experienced punctuality in the payments due from
the Government. For this support to public credit, he relied on what had
been experienced by a part of the foreign creditors; on the provision to
be made for the residue; and on the punctuality which, he flattered
himself, would be observed in all future payments of the domestic
creditors. He was more apprehensive of injury to public credit from such
modifications of the interest of the public debt as some gentlemen
seemed to have in view. In these the public would be the gainer, and the
plea of inability the more alarming, because it was so easy to set up,
so difficult to be disproved, and for which, consequently, the
temptations would be so alluring.

Mr. SENEY rose and observed, that it was with reluctance he attempted to
express to the committee his ideas upon a question which had been so
fully and ably discussed. However, as it had been expected that
gentlemen would not, in a case of such magnitude, be content with merely
a silent vote, he rose to declare the reasons upon which his decision
was founded. In doing this, he hoped that he should not use epithets
which might be deemed harsh, or language which would be offensive; that
although the sentiments of other members should differ from his, he
wished so far to respect those sentiments as to treat them with decency.

He considered the proposition of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
MADISON) was designed to effect two purposes: the one, a compensation to
the original creditors, who, during the late war, in times of distress,
had loaned money, furnished supplies, and rendered military services;
and who had only received satisfaction therefor in paper of
inconsiderable value, forced on them by the public, and depreciated by
their acts. This class of citizens, he conceived, had a just and
equitable claim for the full difference in value between that paper,
when paid, and specie. The other object of the proposition alluded to,
was, he said, to compensate those creditors who now hold alienated
certificates. Each description of those creditors had, in his opinion,
claims on the public. The first was founded on an original contract
between them and the Government, part of which only had been complied
with, and the residue still remained undischarged. The other was
grounded on having possession of the paper which contained the promise
to pay.

It has been contended that the United States have not ability to pay
both. In this case a question arises: What is, upon the whole, most just
and expedient? Some gentlemen contend, that it is incumbent on us to
make full provision for those who hold the assigned certificates,
without any for the original creditors who have alienated them. Others
think, that the misfortune of Government, in this respect, should not be
felt by either class solely, but be borne by both. That it is more just
to adopt a mode of composition, by which those creditors should mutually
share in this misfortune, and be mutually benefited by a provision
within our power to make; with those his sentiments accorded. He could
not be impressed with the justice or reason of a measure calculated to
make a total sacrifice of one class of creditors, and full payment to
the other class. Such a step could not, in his opinion, be justified in
any distinction or precedence which existed in their claims. When it was
considered that the original creditors furnished money and supplies, and
rendered services essential to the preservation of their country, and at
a time when its liberties were invaded, and every thing which can be
dear to freemen was in jeopardy and at stake, he could not apprehend
that their claims would be deemed inferior to those of their rivals. In
his opinion, these circumstances entitled them to superior notice.
Believing, however, that the amendment under consideration would, upon
the whole, effect more substantial justice than any other practicable
scheme that had been proposed to the committee, or which he had heard
of, his assent would, therefore, be given to it.


TUESDAY, February 19.

_Public Credit._

The House again went into a committee on the report of the Secretary of
the Treasury, Mr. BALDWIN in the chair.

Mr. MADISON's proposition still under consideration.

Mr. LIVERMORE said he was against any discrimination between the soldier
and other public creditor, who held a public security, made payable to
bearer, and consequently transferable, with intent that they might be
sold, if convenience or necessity should require it. This had been
understood by all parties, as well in America as in foreign countries,
and they had been sold accordingly. The advocates for discrimination
have not denied this; they have only alleged that the low rate at which
the poor soldier or other public creditor had sold his securities was a
sufficient reason for Congress to interfere and set aside the sale. In
opposition to this, he observed, that persons had a right to buy and
sell at such prices as they could mutually agree upon, provided there
was no fraud.

A diamond, a horse, or a lot of ground, might be sold too cheap, or too
dear, and so might any other property; but Government could not
interfere without destroying the general system of law and justice. Esau
had sold his birthright for a mess of pottage, and heaven and earth had
confirmed the sale. The distresses of the army, both officers and
soldiers, at the time they received and sold their securities, had been
painted in too strong colors. They were not so emaciated by sickness and
famine as had been represented. They were crowned with victory, and
received with applause by their fellow-citizens; and although they had
been paid in paper, their loss had been made up by large bounties, and
in other emoluments; so that, in point of property, they were equal to
their fellow-citizens who had borne the burden of taxes under which many
are laboring to this day. Let them be called brave soldiers, patriotic
soldiers, but not poor soldiers. They ought to be governed by the same
system of justice that governs others; but their contracts ought not to
be set aside out of partiality to them. The case quoted from the statute
of Queen Anne is not applicable to this case, inasmuch as Government had
not originally made the debentures therein mentioned transferable.
Neither did the case of the Canada bills apply; for, as he understood,
those bills were paid to British merchants and to others who had
purchased them.

Mr. MADISON.--If paper, or the honor of statues or medals can discharge
the debts of justice, payable in gold or silver, we can not only
exonerate ourselves from those due to the original holders, but from
those of the assignees. So far as paper goes, the latter have received
the compensation. If honor can discharge the debt, they have received
civil honors; look around to the officers of every Government in the
Union, and you find them sharing equal honors with those bestowed on the
original creditors. But, sir, the debt due in gold and silver is not
payable either in honor, appointments, or in paper.

Gentlemen say it will work injustice; but are we not as much bound to
repair the injustice done by the United States? Yet I do not believe the
assertion has been established by any thing that has been urged in its
support. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. STONE) acknowledges that there
is a moral obligation to compensate the original holders; how will they
get what he admits is their due? He is willing to make an effort, by
applying the resources of the country to that purpose; but if we are to
judge by the sentiments of other gentlemen who have spoken on this
occasion, we have little to expect from that quarter. Suppose the debt
had depreciated to a mere trifle, and suppose the sale of the Western
Territory had extinguished the certificates, let me ask, whether, if the
United States had thus exonerated themselves from the obligation to the
assignee, whether the claim of the original holder would not still
remain in its full force in a moral view? But believing the point of
justice to be exhausted, I will just add one remark upon the
practicability. The transferred certificates, generally, will show the
names of the original holders, and here there is no difficulty. With
respect to those granted to the heads of either of the five great
departments, the books of the Treasurer of Loans, as well as the
accounts of those departments now in the Treasury, will designate, with
a great degree of accuracy, and this may be followed up by the usual
mode of obtaining evidence; and I believe every security may be provided
against fraud in this case that was provided in the case of the
commissioners who were sent into the respective States for ascertaining
and liquidating the claims of individuals. That there will be some
difficulty I admit, but it is enough for me that it is not insuperable;
and I trust, with the assistance which the cause of equity and justice
will ever obtain from the members of the National Legislature, they will
easily be surmounted.


MONDAY, February 22.

_Public Credit._

The House then resolved itself into a committee on the Report of the
Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. BALDWIN in the chair.

Mr. MADISON's proposition still under consideration.

Mr. PAGE.--As the worthy and eloquent member who replied to me did not
answer the questions I put to the committee, I suppose, he either did
not hear them, did not understand me, or could not answer them. I hope,
before the committee decide, they will attempt at least to resolve them.
I asked, where is the injustice of the State's complying with its
engagements made to the first holders of certificates as far as the case
admits? Where is the justice of doing more for the assignee than he or
his assignor expected could or would be done? Where is the breach of
faith in Government, if it paid its whole debt with justice, blended
with mercy? Where is the interference in contracts, when the proposition
is to comply sacredly, as far as the case will admit, with the contracts
between a State and its creditors? I asked, is not the assignment of
certificates confirmed by the motion? Does it not give to the assignee
the very thing stipulated to be given, that is, whatever sum Government
shall be pleased to pay for the certificates, for that was the condition
of the assignment? And is not the sum now proposed more than either the
first or last holder, till within these few days, supposed would be paid
him? I asked also, ought not an honest assignee to be pleased that
Government intends to do that justice to his assignor which he ought to
do himself, were the whole payment made to him? I asked, of what is the
assignee deprived but of his late sanguine expectations? I asked,
whether the proposition before us does not rather establish confidence
in Government than the contrary? For, sir, to make use of the comparison
which has been often made here between the State and an obligor on a
bond, what could give more credit to any man's bonds than to find that,
though they had depreciated to half a crown in the pound, he paid the
whole twenty shillings; ten shillings to the assignee, who had given but
two shillings and sixpence, and ten to the obligee who had sold at so
great a loss?

It is true Congress may, consistently with the rules of common law
courts, pay the bearer and take no notice of the creditors; but were a
Court of Equity instituted to decide on the case of certain speculators,
how would they decide? Government, in the most solemn manner, pledged
itself to make compensation to the soldiers, have they done it? Instead
of doing this, certain persons, who took advantage of their ignorance
and their poverty, bought up the evidence of their debt at one-eighth of
the nominal value; and in some States these very men had drawn what
constituted the principal of the purchase with six per cent. interest in
three years.

In what does the case differ between the depreciated paper and the
certificates? Paper money was redeemed at forty for one, as well to the
last as the first holder; the same principle would lead to give the last
holder of the certificate the depreciated value at which he bought it.
But we propose to work no injustice, we give the first holder, if he is
the holder still, the full value stipulated. It would not be injustice
to consider the assignee, as having paid what he advanced, in
consequence of his confidence in Government, on account of that
Government; and that the Government ought to repay him what he so
advanced; having repaid that sum, the balance ought to go to the credit
of the assignee. I am willing, on this consideration, to call the
speculator the friend and supporter of the Government, who kindly lent
us when in need, two shillings and sixpence in every pound, to advance
to the poor soldier. If certificates are the evidence of the debt, it
proves, sir, that the balance is due to him in whose name it issued.
This is the day of payment, and we must pay accordingly; and here permit
me to remark, in reply to the observation of the gentleman from New
Hampshire, (Mr. LIVERMORE,) that _Jacob_ was punished for his fraud, but
for his faith enjoyed the promise; even so let us regard those who had
so much confidence in us as to advance two shillings and sixpence to the
distressed soldier.

Mr. HEISTER was in hopes this question would be postponed for the
present, in order to go into a consideration of the ways and means:
when, if it appeared that the United States were incapable of making
full provision, it might be considered, whether one deviation would not
authorize the other? If any gentleman would make a motion to that
effect, he would second him.

The question was now taken on Mr. MADISON's proposition for a
composition, and it passed in the negative; yeas 13, nays 36.[35]


WEDNESDAY, March 17.

_On Slavery._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
Report of the committee, to whom was referred the memorial of the people
called Quakers, &c., Mr. BENSON in the chair.

The question of order was put, when it was determined that Mr. TUCKER's
last amendment was not in order.

The report was then taken up by paragraphs. The first proposition being
read,

Mr. WHITE moved that it be struck out. He did this, he said, because he
was against entering into a consideration at this time of the powers of
Congress. He thought it would be time enough for this when the powers
are called in question. He then read the next, which he said was
entirely unnecessary, as it contains nothing more than what is contained
in express terms in the constitution. He passed on to the third, which
he said was equally unnecessary; and to the fourth, which was provided
for by the constitution. He said, that he should agree to the fifth and
sixth, with certain modifications. Agreeable to this idea, he offered
those two in a different form. He disagreed to the seventh proposition,
as unnecessary and improper. He concluded by observing, that his wish
was to promote the happiness of mankind--and among the rest those who
are the objects of the present consideration--but this he wished to do
in conformity to the principles of justice and with a due regard to the
peace and happiness of others; he would contribute all in his power to
their comfort and well-being while in a state of slavery; but he was
fully of opinion that Congress has no right to interfere in the
business, any further than he proposed by the two propositions as
modified. He did not, however, anticipate the difficulties from a total
prohibition which some gentlemen seem to apprehend--and if Congress had
it in their power to interdict this business at the present moment, he
did not think the essential interests of the Southern States would
suffer. Twenty years ago, he supposed the idea he now suggested would
have caused universal alarm. Virginia, however, about twelve years
since, prohibited the importation of <DW64>s from Africa, and the
consequences apprehended never were realized; on the contrary, the
agriculture of that State was never in a more flourishing situation.

Mr. HARTLEY.--I have the honor to be one of the committee on the
memorials, and will, with the leave of this committee, mention some
particulars which took place in the course of the investigation of the
business. He premised that he was sorry that the question of right had
been brought forward yesterday--and was not a little surprised to hear
the cause of slavery advocated in that House, and language held towards
the petitioners which his experience had never shown to be
Parliamentary--he read some memorandums taken in committee, and had
particular reference to a law passed in Grenada, which he applauded for
its humanity, and truly benevolent spirit. He reprobated the illiberal
treatment which the memorialists had received, and asserted that they
were friends to the constitution, and that on the present occasion they
came forward from the most laudable motives, from a wish to promote the
happiness of mankind; that their conduct, so far from meriting censure,
deserved, and would receive, the applause of the civilized world.

Mr. BROWN, in a considerable speech, advocated the motion of Mr. WHITE.
He enlarged on the pernicious consequences that may be expected to flow
from the interference of Congress; he pointed out the effects which had
resulted from the interposition of the Quakers, by which the prospects
of the Southern States in slaves had been rendered very precarious--and
if Congress should adopt the report as it stands, the consequences would
be pernicious in the highest degree. The <DW64> property will be
annihilated. The emancipation of slaves will be effected in time, it
ought to be a gradual business; but he hoped that Congress would not, to
gratify people who never had been friendly to the independence of
America, precipitate the business to the great injury of the Southern
States.

Mr. BURKE entered into a very extensive consideration of the subject. He
gave an account of the humane treatment which the slaves of the Southern
States received, their habitations, families, children, privileges, &c.
He then showed that their emancipation would tend to make them wretched
in the highest degree. He animadverted with great freedom on the past
and present conduct of the Quakers. He denied that they were the friends
of freedom; he said, that during the late war, they were for bringing
this country under a foreign yoke; they descended to the character of
spies; they supplied the enemy with provisions; they were guides and
conductors to their armies; and whenever the American army came into
their neighborhood, they found themselves in an enemy's country. Mr.
BURKE was proceeding in this strain, when he was interrupted by being
called to order. A warm altercation ensued, and in the midst of it, a
motion was made that the committee rise. This motion was negatived, and
Mr. BURKE added a few more observations on the injustice of the measure
of interference, as it respected the property of the Southern States.

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) said he lamented much that this subject
had been brought before the House; that he had deprecated it from the
beginning, because he foresaw that it would produce a very unpleasant
discussion; that it was a subject of a nature to excite the alarms of
the Southern members, who could not view, without anxiety, any
interference in it on the part of Congress. He remarked, that as they
were resolved into a Committee of the Whole on the powers of Congress
respecting slavery and the slave trade, in consequence of certain
memorials from the people called Quakers and the Pennsylvania Society
for the abolition of slavery, the whole subject, as well as the contents
of these memorials, was under consideration. He should therefore enter
into the business at large, and offer some comments on the contents of
the memorial.

The memorial from the Quakers contained, in his opinion, a very indecent
attack on the character of those States which possess slaves. It
reprobates slavery as bringing down reproach on the Southern States, and
expatiates on the detestation due to the licentious wickedness of the
African trade, and the inhuman tyranny and bloodguiltiness inseparable
from it. He could not but consider it as calculated to fix a stigma of
the blackest nature on the State he had the honor to represent, and to
hold its citizens up to public view as men divested of every principle
of honor and humanity. Considering it in that light, he felt it
incumbent on him not only to refute those atrocious calumnies, but to
resent the improper language made use of by the memorialists. Before he
entered into the discussion, he begged to observe, that when any class
of men deviated from their own religious principles, and officiously
came forward in a business with which they had no concern, and attempted
to dictate to Congress, he could not ascribe their conduct to any other
cause but to an intolerant spirit of persecution. This application came
with the worst grace possible from the Quakers, who professed never to
intermeddle in politics, but to submit quietly to the laws of the
country.

He had met with a publication which came out in the year 1775, (at a
period when the affairs of America were in a very desponding situation,)
entitled "The ancient Testimony and Principles of the Quakers." It set
forth that their religious principles restrained them from having any
hand or connivance in setting up and putting down kings and governments;
that this was God's peculiar prerogative for causes best known to
himself; that it was not their business to be busybodies above their
stations, but only to pray for the King and safety of their nation, that
they might live a quiet and peaceable life, under the Government which
God was pleased to set over them. If these were really their
sentiments, why did they not abide by them? Why did they not leave that,
which they call God's work, to be managed by himself? Those principles
should instruct them to wait with patience and humility for the event of
all public measures, and to receive that event as the Divine will. Their
conduct on this occasion proved that they did not believe what they
professed, or that they had not virtue enough to practise what they
believed. Did they mean to rob the Almighty of what they call his
prerogative? And were they not partial ministers of their own
acknowledged principles? It was difficult to credit their pretended
scruples; because, while they were exclaiming against the Mammon of this
world, they are hunting after it with a step steady as time, and an
appetite keen as the grave.

The memorial from the Pennsylvania Society applied, in express terms,
for an emancipation of slaves, and the report of the committee appeared
to hold out the idea that Congress might exercise the power of
emancipating after the year 1808; for it is said that Congress could not
emancipate slaves prior to that period. He remarked, that either the
power of manumission still remained with the several States, or it was
exclusively vested in Congress; for no one would contend that such a
power would be concurrent in the several States and the United States.
He then showed that the State Governments clearly retained all the
rights of sovereignty which they had before the establishment of the
constitution, unless they were exclusively delegated to the United
States; and this could only exist where the Constitution granted, in
express terms, an exclusive authority to the Union, or where it granted
in one instance an authority to the Union, and in another prohibited the
States from exercising the like authority, or where it granted an
authority to the Union, to which a similar authority in the States would
be repugnant.

He applied these principles to the case in question; and asked, whether
the constitution had, in express terms, vested the Congress with the
power of manumission? Or whether it restrained the States from
exercising that power? Or whether there was any authority given to the
Union, with which the exercise of this right by any State would be
inconsistent? If these questions were answered in the negative, it
followed that Congress had not an exclusive right to the power of
manumission. Had it a concurrent right with the States? No gentleman
would assert it, because the absurdity was obvious. For a State
regulation on the subject might differ from a Federal regulation; in
which case one or the other must give way. As the laws of the United
States were paramount to those of the individual States, the Federal
regulations would abrogate those of the States, consequently the States
would thus be divested of a power which it was evident they now had, and
might exercise whenever they thought proper. But admitting that
Congress had authority to manumit the slaves in America, and were
disposed to exercise it, would the Southern States acquiesce in such a
measure without a struggle? Would the citizens of that country tamely
suffer their property to be torn from them? Would even the citizens of
the other States, which did not possess this property, desire to have
all the slaves let loose upon them? Would not such a step be injurious
even to the slaves themselves? It was well known that they were an
indolent people, improvident, averse to labor: when emancipated, they
would either starve or plunder. Nothing was a stronger proof of the
absurdity of emancipation than the fanciful schemes which the friends to
the measure had suggested; one was, to ship them out of the country, and
colonize them in some foreign region. This plan admitted that it would
be dangerous to retain them within the United States after they were
manumitted: but surely it would be inconsistent with humanity to banish
these people to a remote country, and to expel them from their native
soil, and from places to which they had a local attachment. It would be
no less repugnant to the principles of freedom, not to allow them to
remain here, if they desired it. How could they be called freemen, if
they were, against their consent, to be expelled from the country? Thus
did the advocates for emancipation acknowledge that the blacks, when
liberated, ought not to remain here to stain the blood of the whites by
a mixture of the races.

Another plan was to liberate all those who should be born after a
certain limited period. Such a scheme would produce this very
extraordinary phenomenon, that the mother would be a slave and her child
would be free. These young emancipated <DW64>s, by associating with
their enslaved parents, would participate in all the debasements which
slavery is said to occasion. But allowing that a practicable scheme of
general emancipation could be devised, there can be no doubt that the
two races would still remain distinct. It is known, from experience,
that the whites had such an idea of their superiority over the blacks,
that they never even associated with them; even the warmest friends to
the blacks kept them at a distance, and rejected all intercourse with
them. Could any instance be quoted of their intermarrying; the Quakers
asserted that nature made all men equal, and that the difference of
color should not place <DW64>s on a worse footing in society than the
whites; but had any of them ever married a <DW64>, or would any of them
suffer their children to mix their blood with that of a black? They
would view with abhorrence such an alliance.

Mr. S. then read some extracts from Mr. Jefferson's Notes on Virginia,
proving that <DW64>s were by nature an inferior race of beings; and that
the whites would always feel a repugnance at mixing their blood with
that of the blacks. Thus, he proceeded, that respectable author, who was
desirous of countenancing emancipation, was, on a consideration of the
subject, induced candidly to avow that the difficulties appeared
insurmountable. The friends to manumission had said, that by prohibiting
the further importation of slaves, and by liberating those born after a
certain period, a gradual emancipation might take place, and that in
process of time the very color would be extinct, and there would be none
but whites. He was at a loss to learn how that consequence would result.
If the blacks did not intermarry with the whites, they would remain
black to the end of time; for it was not contended that liberating them
would whitewash them; if they would intermarry with the whites, then the
white race would be extinct, and the American people would be all of the
mulatto breed. In whatever light, therefore, the subject was viewed, the
folly of emancipation was manifest. He trusted these considerations
would prevent any further application to Congress on this point, and
would so far have weight with the committee as to reject the clause
altogether, or at least to declare, in plain terms, that Congress has no
right whatever to manumit the slaves of this country.

Various objections, said he, had at different times been alleged against
the abominable practice, as it had been called, of one man exercising
dominion over another; but slavery was no new thing in the world. The
Romans, the Greeks, and other nations of antiquity, held slaves at the
time Christianity first dawned on society, and the professors of its
mild doctrines never preached against it. [Here Mr. S. read a quotation
from the Roman and Grecian History, and from some accounts of the
government and manners of the people of Africa, before they had any
knowledge of the African traders, from which it appeared that slavery
was not disapproved of by the Apostles when they went about diffusing
the principles of Christianity; and that it was not owing to the African
trade, as had been alleged, that the people of Africa made war on each
other.]

Another objection against slavery was, that the number of slaves in the
Southern States weakened that part of the Union, and in case of invasion
would require a greater force to protect it. <DW64>s, it was said, would
not fight; but he would ask whether it was owing to their being black or
to their being slaves? if to their being black, then unquestionably
emancipating them would not remedy the evil, for they would still remain
black; if it was owing to their being slaves, he denied the position:
for it was an undeniable truth, that in many countries slaves made
excellent soldiers. In Russia, Hungary, Poland, peasants were slaves,
and yet were brave troops. In Scotland, not many years ago, the Highland
peasants were absolute slaves to their lairds, and they were renowned
for their bravery. The Turks were as much enslaved as the <DW64>s--their
property and lives were at the absolute disposal of the Sultan, yet they
fought with undaunted courage. Many other instances might be quoted,
but those would suffice to refute the fact. Had experience proved that
the <DW64>s would not make good soldiers? He did not assert that they
would, but they had never been tried; discipline was every thing; white
militia made but indifferent soldiers before they were disciplined. It
was well known that according to the present art of war, a soldier was a
mere machine, and he did not see why a black machine was not as good as
a white one; in one respect the black troops would have the advantage in
appearing more horrible in the eyes of the enemy. But admitting that
they would not fight, to what would the argument lead? Undoubtedly to
show that the Quakers, Moravians, and all the non-resisting and
non-fighting sects, constitute the weakness of the country. Did they
contribute to strengthen the country against invasion by staying at home
and joining the invader as soon as he was successful? But they furnished
money, he should be told, and paid substitutes; and did not the slaves,
by increasing the agriculture of the country, add to its wealth, and
thereby increase its strength? Did they not moreover perform many
laborious services in the camp and in the field, assist in transporting
baggage, conveying artillery, throwing up fortifications, and thus
increase the numbers in the ranks by supplying their places in these
services? Nor was it necessary that every part of the empire should
furnish fighting men; one part supplied men, another money; one part was
strong in population, another in valuable exports, which added to the
opulence of the whole. Great Britain obtained no soldiers from her East
and West India settlements, were they therefore useless? She was obliged
to send troops to protect them, but their valuable trade furnished her
with means of paying those troops.

Another objection was that the public opinion was against slavery. How
did that appear? Were there any petitions on the subject excepting that
from the Pennsylvania Society and a few Quakers? And were they to judge
for the whole Continent? Were the citizens of the Northern and Eastern
States to dictate to Congress on a measure in which the Southern States
were so deeply interested? There were no petitions against slavery from
the Southern States, and they were the only proper judges of what was
for their interest. The toleration of slavery in the several States was
a matter of internal regulation and policy, in which each State had a
right to do as she pleased, and no other State had any right to
intermeddle with her policy or laws. If the citizens of the Northern
States were displeased with the toleration of slavery in the Southern
States, the latter were equally disgusted with some things tolerated in
the former.

He had mentioned on a former occasion the dangerous tenets and
pernicious practices of the sect of Shaking Quakers, who preached
against matrimony, and whose doctrine and example, if they prevailed,
would either depopulate the United States, or people it with a spurious
race. However the people of South Carolina reprobated the gross and
immoral conduct of these Shakers, they had not petitioned Congress to
expel them from the Continent, though they thought such a measure would
be serviceable to the United States.

The Legislature of South Carolina had prohibited theatrical
representations, deeming them improper; but they did not trouble
Congress with an application to abolish them in New York and
Philadelphia. The Southern citizens might also consider the toleration
of Quakers as an injury to the community, because in time of war they
would not defend their country from the enemy, and in time of peace they
were interfering in the concerns of others, and doing every thing in
their power to excite the slaves in the Southern States to insurrection;
notwithstanding which, the people of those States had not required the
assistance of Congress to exterminate the Quakers.

But he could not help observing, that this squeamishness was very
extraordinary at this time. The Northern States knew that the Southern
States had slaves before they confederated with them. If they had such
an abhorrence for slavery, why, said Mr. S., did they not cast us off
and reject our alliance? The truth was, that the best informed part of
the citizens of the Northern States knew that slavery was so ingrafted
into the policy of the Southern States, that it could not be eradicated
without tearing up by the roots their happiness, tranquillity, and
prosperity; that if it were an evil, it was one for which there was no
remedy, and therefore, like wise men, they acquiesced in it. We, on the
other hand, knew that the Quaker doctrines had taken such deep root in
some of the States, that all resistance to them must be useless; we
therefore made a compromise on both sides--we took each other, with our
mutual bad habits and respective evils, for better, for worse; the
Northern States adopted us with our slaves, and we adopted them with
their Quakers. There was then an implied compact between the Northern
and Southern people that no step should be taken to injure the property
of the latter, or to disturb their tranquillity. It was therefore with
great pain that he viewed the anxiety of some of the members to pay such
uncommon respect to the memorialists, as even to set aside the common
rules of proceeding, and attempt to commit the memorials the very day
they were presented, though the Southern members had solicited one day's
delay. Such proceedings had justly raised an alarm in the minds of
himself and his Southern colleagues; and feeling that alarm, they would
have acted a dishonorable part to their constituents had they not
expressed themselves with that warmth and solicitude which some
gentlemen had disapproved.

A proper consideration of this business must convince every candid mind
that emancipation would be attended with one or other of these
consequences: either that a mixture of the races would degenerate the
whites, without improving the blacks, or that it would create two
separate classes of people in the community, involved in inveterate
hostility, which would terminate in the massacre and extirpation of one
or the other, as the Moors were expelled from Spain, and the Danes from
England. The <DW64>s would not be benefited by it; free <DW64>s never
improve in talents, never grow rich, and continue to associate with the
people of their own color. This is owing either to the natural aversion
the whites entertain towards them, and an opinion of the superiority of
their race, or to the natural attachment the blacks have to those of
their own color; in either case it proves that they will, after
manumission, continue a distinct people, and have separate interests.
The author already quoted has proved that they are an inferior race even
to the Indians.

After the last war, a number of <DW64>s which had been stolen from the
Southern States, and carried to England, either quitted the persons who
had carried them there, or were abandoned by them. Unable to provide for
themselves, and rejected from the society of the common people of
England, they were begging about the streets of London in great numbers;
they supplicated captains of vessels to carry them back to their owners
in America, preferring slavery there to freedom in England. Many of them
were shipped to Africa by the humanity of the English, and were either
butchered or made slaves of by their savage countrymen, or reshipped for
sale to the plantations.

But some persons have been of opinion, that if the further importation
of slaves could be prohibited, there would be a gradual extinction of
the species. Having shown the absurdity of liberating the _postnati_
without extending it to all the slaves old and young, and the great
absurdity and even impracticability of extending it to all, I shall say
a few words with regard to the extinction. That would be impossible,
because they increase; to occasion an extinction, Congress must prohibit
all intercourse between the sexes; this would be an act of humanity they
would not thank us for, nor would they be persuaded that it was for
their own good; or Congress must, like Herod, order all the children to
be put to death as soon as born. If, then, nothing but evil would result
from emancipation, under the existing circumstances of the country, why
should Congress stir at all in the business, or give any countenance to
such dangerous applications? We have been told that the Government ought
to manifest a disposition inimical to this practice which the people
reprobate. If some citizens, from misinformation and ignorance, have
imbibed prejudices against the Southern States, if ill-intentioned
authors have related false facts, and gross misrepresentations tending
to traduce the character of a whole State, and to mislead the citizens
of other States, is that a sufficient reason why a large territory is to
be depopulated, merely to gratify the wish of some misinformed
individuals? But what have the citizens of the other States to do with
our slaves? Have they any right to interfere with our internal policy?

This is not an object of general concern, for I have already proved that
it does not weaken the Union; but admit that it did, will the abolition
of slavery strengthen South Carolina? It can only be cultivated by
slaves; the climate, the nature of the soil, ancient habits, forbid the
whites from performing the labor. Experience convinces us of the truth
of this. Great Britain made every attempt to settle Georgia by whites
alone, and failed, and was compelled at length to introduce slaves;
after which that State increased very rapidly in opulence and
importance. If the slaves are emancipated, they will not remain in that
country; remove the cultivators of the soil, and the whole of the low
country, all the fertile rice and indigo swamps will be deserted, and
become a wilderness. What, then, becomes of its strength? Will such a
scheme increase it? Instead of increasing the population of the whites,
there will be no whites at all. If the low country is deserted, where
will be the commerce, the valuable exports of that country, the large
revenue raised from its imports and from the consumption of the rich
planters? In a short time, the Northern and Eastern States will supply
us with their manufactures; if you depopulate the rich low country of
South Carolina and Georgia, you will give us a blow which will
immediately recoil on yourselves. Suppose there are one hundred and
forty thousand slaves in those States, which require annually five yards
of cloth each, making seven hundred thousand yards at half a dollar a
yard, this makes three hundred and fifty thousand dollars, besides the
articles of linen, flannel, Osnaburgh, blankets, molasses, sugar, and
rum, for the use of the <DW64>s; now, either the Eastern and Middle
States will supply us with all these articles, or they will receive the
benefit of the impost on them if they are imported from foreign
countries. Without the rice swamps of Carolina, Charleston would decay,
so would the commerce of that city; this would injure the back country.
If you injure the Southern States, the injury would reach our Northern
and Eastern brethren; for the States are links of one chain; if we break
one, the whole must fall to pieces. Thus it is manifest, that in
proportion to the increase of our agriculture will our wealth be
increased; the increase of which will augment that of our sister States,
which will either supply us with their commodities, or raise a large
revenue upon us, or be the carriers of our produce to foreign markets.

It has been said, that the toleration of slavery brings down reproach on
America. It only brings reproach on those who tolerate it, and we are
ready to bear our share. We know that none but prejudiced and uncandid
persons, who have hastily considered the subject, and are ignorant of
the real situation of the Southern States, throw out these insinuations.
We found slavery ingrafted in the very policy of the country when we
were born, and we are persuaded of the impolicy of removing it; if it be
a moral evil, it is like many others which exist in all civilized
countries, and which the world quietly submit to. Humanity has been a
topic of declamation on this subject: that sentiment has different
operations on different individuals, and he had it in his power to show,
that humanity first gave origin to the transportation of slaves from
Africa into America. _Bartholomew de las Casas_, Bishop of Chiapa, a
Spaniard renowned for his humanity and virtues, in order to save the
Indians in South America from slavery, prevailed on his monarch to
substitute Africans, which were accordingly purchased on the coast of
Africa, and shipped to the Spanish colonies to work in the mines: this
appears in _Robertson's History of America_, which Mr. S. quoted. At
this day, the Spaniards give considerable encouragement to the
transportation of slaves into their islands. Mr. S. read the edict for
that purpose.

Another objection is, that slavery vitiates and debases the mind of the
owner of this sort of property. Where, he asked, is the proof of this
allegation? Do the citizens of the Southern States exhibit more
ferociousness in their manners, more barbarity in their dispositions,
than those of the other States? Are crimes more frequently committed
there? A proof of the absurdity of this charge may be found in the
writings of those who wish to disseminate this mischievous idea, and
yet, in their relations of facts, they themselves contradict it. They
lay down general principles, which they take upon credit from others, or
which they publish with sinister views, and when they enter into a
detail of the history of those States, they overset their own doctrines.
Thus, one writer tells us, that the Southern citizen, who is educated in
principles of superiority to the slaves which surround him, has no idea
of government, obedience, and good order, till he mingles with the hardy
and free-spirited yeomanry of the North, and that after mixing with
them, he will return home with his mind more enlarged, his views more
liberalized, and his affections rectified, and he becomes a more
generous friend to the rights of human nature. But hear what the Eastern
traveller is to learn by visiting the enslaved regions of the South. He
will see, says the same writer, immediately after, industry crowned with
affluence, independence, hospitality, liberality of manners; and,
notwithstanding the prevalence of domestic slavery, he will find the
noblest sentiments of freedom and independence to predominate; he will
extol their enterprise, art, and ingenuity, and will reflect that nature
is wise, and that Providence in the distribution of its favors is not
capricious. Take another striking instance of this contradiction from
Morse's Geography. He says, that there are more slaves than free persons
in South Carolina, and mentions the mischievous influence of slavery on
their manners, which, he observes, by exempting them from the necessity
of labor, leads to luxury, dissipation, and extravagance, and savors too
much of a haughty, supercilious behavior; that the inhabitants want that
enterprise and perseverance which are necessary for the attainment of
the arts and sciences; that they have few motives to enterprise, and too
generally rest contented with barely knowledge enough to transact the
common affairs of life. Now, for the author's proofs: they are contained
in these words:

"Many of the inhabitants spare no pains nor expense in giving the
highest polish of education to their children; literature has begun to
flourish since the peace; several flourishing academies and colleges
have been established; the ladies have an engaging softness and delicacy
in their manners; theatrical exhibitions have been prohibited by law;
gaming of all kinds is more discountenanced than in any of the Southern
States; all denominations of religion are on an equal footing; commerce
is flourishing; economy is becoming more fashionable, and science begins
to spread her salutary influence among the citizens."

But was South Carolina, at the commencement of the war, with all her
slaves, backward in her resistance to Great Britain? View the conduct of
her citizens, their zeal and ardor in the cause of liberty; their labor
at Fort Sullivan. Are crimes more frequent in that country than in the
other States? Are there more executions? I believe there have been as
few as in any part of the Continent, and those which have taken place
have been generally of emigrant convicts, or fugitive wheel-barrow men;
he would be bold to assert that in no State on the Continent is there
more order, sobriety, and obedience to good government; more industry
and frugality; nor is there any trace of the influence of slavery on the
character of her citizens.

The French, so far from curbing and cramping the African trade with
needless regulations, give large premiums upon every <DW64> landed on
their islands; in some instances as much as two hundred livres per head.
Is that nation more debased than others? Are they not a polished people,
sensible of the rights of mankind, and actuated by proper sentiments of
humanity? The Spaniards encourage slavery; they are people of the nicest
honor, proverbially so. The Romans and Greeks had slaves, and are not
their glorious achievements held up as excitements to great and
magnanimous actions? Sparta teemed with slaves at the time of her
greatest fame as a valiant Republic. The absolute power of the
Lacedaemonians over the Helotes is frequently spoken of by the ancient
writers; they were not only the slaves of the Commonwealth, but of every
individual; they could not be set at liberty, neither could they be
sold; hence arose a saying, that a free man at Sparta was most a free
man, and a slave most a slave.

The system of the Roman policy with regard to slavery was still more
severe. Slaves were not even under the protection of the laws; they were
considered as things, _inter res_. A master, merely from caprice, might
torture, dismember, and even murder his slave. If a slave did any damage
exceeding his value, he was delivered to the person injured, who did
with him what he pleased. Yet these slaves were of the same color as
their masters, and equal to them in mental faculties; many of them were
men of great learning, philosophers, poets, &c. Much had been said of
the cruel treatment of slaves in the West Indies and the Southern
States; with respect to the latter, he denied the fact from experience,
and accurate information, and believed in his conscience that the slaves
in South Carolina were a happier people than the lower order of whites
in many countries he had visited. With regard to the West Indies, _Lord
Rodney_ and _Admiral Barrington_ had both declared, that they had spent
some time in the West Indies, and that they had never heard of a <DW64>
being cruelly treated; that they had often spoken of their happiness in
high terms, declaring that they should rejoice exceedingly if the
English day laborer was half as happy. Some have said that slavery is
unnecessary; so far from it, that several essential manufactures
depended on it. Indigo, cochineal, and various other dyeing materials,
which are the produce of the West Indies, could only be raised by
slaves; the great staple commodities of the South would be annihilated
without the labor of slaves. It is well known that when the African
slaves were brought to the coast for sale, it was customary to put to
death all those who were not sold; the abolition of the slave trade
would therefore cause the massacre of the people.

The cruel mode of transportation was another motive to this abolition;
but was it to be presumed that the merchants would so far attend to
their own interests as to preserve the lives and the health of the
slaves on the passage. All voyages must be attended with
inconveniencies, and those from Africa to America not more than others.
As to their confinement on board, it was no more than necessary; as to
the smallness of space allotted them, it was more than was allotted to
soldiers in a camp; for the measurement of cubical air breathed by the
Africans, compared with that of soldiers in a camp, was in favor of the
former as thirty to seventeen; it was full as much as was allotted in
ships of war to seamen, who, by the laws of England, were frequently on
their return to their families, after a long and dangerous voyage,
seized by violence, hurried away by a press-gang, and forced on another
voyage more tedious and perilous than the first, to a hot and sickly
climate, where several hundreds of them were stowed away in the hold of
a vessel. In cases of disobedience, the captain had a right, for slight
offences, to inflict on them corporal punishment without the
intervention of a court-martial, and in other cases they are punishable
by very severe laws, executed by martial courts, established for that
purpose. The same may be observed of the soldiers, who were frequently
flogged severely for trifling offences; instances have been known of
their being put under the care of a surgeon, after receiving a small
part of the intended flagellation, to refit them for the residue.

Having thus removed the force of the observations which have been
advanced against the toleration of slavery, by a misguided and
misinformed humanity, I shall only add, that I disapprove of the whole
of the report; because it either states some power sufficiently
expressed in the constitution, which is unnecessary, or it sets forth
some power which I am clear Congress do not possess. The concluding
paragraph is an extraordinary one. In what mode are the memorialists to
be informed of our humane dispositions? Are we to send a special
committee to inform them? Or is the Speaker to write them a letter, or
the Sergeant-at-Arms with the mace to wait on them? In short, Mr.
Chairman, the whole of this business has been wrong from beginning to
end, and as one false step generally leads to others, so has the hasty
commitment of these memorials involved us in all this confusion and
embarrassment. I hope, therefore, if any kind of report is agreed to, it
will be something like that proposed by my colleague.

The committee rose, and reported progress.


FRIDAY, March 19.

HUGH WILLIAMSON, a member from North Carolina, appeared and took his
seat.


MONDAY, March 22.

_Subject of Slavery._

Mr. BOUDINOT said, although he most heartily approved of many of the
arguments and doctrines of his friend from Pennsylvania, yet he could
not go all lengths with him. He thought with him, that our time had been
taken up, and great labor had been used in arguments that nowise related
to the merits of the question before the committee, but he could not
agree that the clause in the constitution relating to the want of power
in Congress "to prohibit the importation of such persons, as any of the
States _now existing_ shall think proper to admit, prior to the year
1808, and authorizing a tax or duty on such importation, not exceeding
ten dollars for each person," did not extend to <DW64> slaves. Candor
required that he should acknowledge, that this was the express design of
the constitution, and, therefore, Congress could not interfere in
prohibiting the importation, or promoting the emancipation of them,
prior to that period. He said he was well informed that the tax or duty
of ten dollars was provided instead of the five per cent. _ad valorem_,
and was so expressly understood by all parties in the Convention. That
therefore it was the interest and duty of Congress to impose this tax,
or it would not be doing justice to the States, or equalizing the duties
throughout the Union. If this was not done, merchants might bring their
whole capitals into this branch of trade, and save paying any duties
whatever. Mr. B. had hoped that the great lengths to which the gentleman
from Pennsylvania had carried the argument, would have convinced
gentlemen in the opposition of the propriety, if not the necessity of
the resolutions on the table. Is it not prudent now, while the design of
the framers of the constitution is well known, and while the best
information can be obtained, for Congress to declare their sense of it,
on points which the gentlemen say, involve their great and essential
interests, especially when the gentleman from Pennsylvania gives so
different a construction to it from what the gentleman from the
Southward thinks right? Is it not advantageous to the Southern States to
have an explicit declaration calming their fears and preventing
unnecessary jealousies on this subject? Can there be any foundation for
alarm, when Congress expressly declare, that they have no power of
interference prior to the year 1808? But gentlemen say they have been
charged with impropriety of conduct, in discovering so much warmth and
earnestness, on a subject with which their dearest interests are so
intimately connected--that all men are led by interest, and they are
justified in pursuing the same line of conduct.

Mr. B. declared, for his own part, he never blamed them for standing
forth for what they conceived the true interests of their constituents;
but it was the manner in which this had been done, that he complained
of. On resolutions declaring that Congress had not power to prohibit the
importation of slaves into any State, or interfering in their
emancipation or internal government, long arguments had been used, and
much precious time had been spent, to prove the lawfulness of the
African trade in slaves; this, indeed, was an arduous task, in this day
of light and knowledge. An author, said to be of reputation, was brought
forward to prove the state of that unhappy country, but it turned out to
be in the fifteenth century; this could be of little avail. An hour was
taken up in reading the labors of a newspaper writer in the island of
Jamaica. This writer appeared wholly uninformed as to historic facts
relating to the miserable Africans, and as ignorant of the principal
arguments against the slave trade. It was necessary for him to deny the
authority of _Anthony Benezet_, who had published some pointed facts on
the subject. Mr. _Benezet_ was a man of the strictest integrity, and of
the best information--a man that was an honor to his country, and an
ornament to society. Mr. B. had been well acquainted with him, and spoke
from personal knowledge; he had examined into the facts from captains of
Guineamen, and a person who had lived twelve years in that country, and
he could say, with confidence, that _Mr. Benezet's_ account had been
generally confirmed. Not only the practice of ancient nations, and that
of all modern Europe, had been brought into view, but even the sacred
Scriptures had been quoted, to justify this iniquitous traffic. It is
true, that the Egyptians held the Israelites in bondage for four hundred
years, and Mr. B. doubted not, but much the same arguments as had been
used on the present occasion, had been urged with great violence by the
King of Egypt, whose heart, it is expressly said, had been extremely
hardened, to show why he should not consent to let the children of
Israel go, who had now become absolutely necessary to him; but, said he,
gentlemen cannot forget the consequences that followed; they were
delivered by a strong hand and stretched-out arm, and it ought to be
remembered that the Almighty Power that accomplished their deliverance
is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. The New Testament has
afforded a number of texts to countenance this doctrine, in the
gentleman's opinion. One would have imagined that the uniform tenor of
the Gospel, that breathes a spirit of love and universal philanthropy to
our fellow-creatures--that commands our love to our neighbor to be
measured by our love to ourselves--that teaches us that whatsoever we
would that men should do to us to do so to them, would have prevented
this misapplication. Surely the gentleman overlooked the prophecy of St.
Peter, where he foretells, that, among other damnable heresies, "through
covetousness shall they, with feigned words, make merchandise of you."

A quotation from a modern author, of great note in the philosophical
world, has been most ungenerously made use of by the newspaper writer
before referred to--I mean from the works of the famous _Mr. Paley_,
whose treatise on Moral Philosophy does him the greatest credit--a
single sentence or two is taken from this work, without regard to the
connection, to brand him with the charge of countenancing slavery. Mr.
B. then produced the book and read the passage, wherein it appeared that
_Mr. Paley_ laid down "the obligation of slavery to arise from crimes,
captivity, and debt;" that the slave trade on the coast of Africa is not
excused by these principles; that no questions are there asked relative
to the justice of the vender's title, but this is the least crime with
which this traffic is chargeable; the natives are excited to war, with
this the wickedness begins; the slaves torn away from parents, wives,
children, from their friends and companions, their fields and flocks,
their home and country, are transported to the European settlements in
America, with no other accommodation on ship-board than what is provided
for brutes. This is the second stage of cruelty from which they are
delivered, only to be placed, and that for life, in subjection to a
dominion and system of laws the most tyrannical that ever were tolerated
upon the face of the earth. But necessity is pretended, and after all it
has never been proved that it exists. _Mr. Paley_ then refers to the
present situation of the United States. "The great revolution in the
Western World," says he, "may probably conduce (and who knows but that
it was designed) to accelerate the fall of this abominable tyranny; and
now it is a season for reflecting whether a Legislature, which had so
long lent its assistance to the support of an institution replete with
human misery, was fit to be trusted with an empire the most extensive
that ever obtained in any age or quarter of the world." He then shows
that slavery was a part of the civil constitution of most countries when
Christianity appeared; and the reason that its precepts did not
expressly condemn or prohibit slavery was, because, soliciting admission
into all nations, it abstained from meddling with the civil institutions
of any. Then follows the passage quoted by the newspaper writer--"That
the discharging of slaves from all obligation to their masters, which is
the consequence of pronouncing slavery unlawful, would have no better
effect than to let loose one-half of mankind on the other. Slaves would
have been tempted to embrace a religion which asserted their right to
freedom; masters would hardly have been persuaded to consent to claims
founded on such authority; the most calamitous of all contests, a
_bellum servile_, might probably have ensued, to the reproach, if not
the extinction of the Christian name." He then asserts, that
emancipation should be gradual, and by the provisions of laws, and under
the protection of civil government. "Christianity can only operate as an
alterative. By the mild diffusion of its light and influence, the minds
of men are insensibly prepared to perceive and correct the enormities,
which folly, wickedness, or accident, have introduced into their public
establishments." Thus, proceeded Mr. B., justice is done to this worthy
philosopher and my own sentiments are more concisely and explicitly set
forth than I could have done without it.

But when gentlemen attempt to justify this unnatural traffic, or to
prove the lawfulness of slavery, they should advert to the genius of our
Government, and the principles of the Revolution. By the declaration of
Congress, in 1775, setting forth the causes and necessity of taking up
arms, they say: "If it was possible for men who exercise their reason,
to believe that the Divine author of our existence intended a part of
the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power
over others, marked out by His infinite goodness and wisdom, as the
objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however
severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might at least
require from the Parliament of Great Britain some evidence that this
dreadful authority over them had been granted to that body." And by the
Declaration of Independence, in 1776, Congress declare: "We hold these
truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

This, then, is the language of America in the day of distress. Mr.
Chairman, I would not be understood, to contend the right of Congress at
this time to prohibit the importation of slaves, whatever might have
been the principles of the Revolution or the genius of the Government;
by the present constitution we are clearly and positively restrained
till the year 1808, and I am sure that no gentleman in this committee
would have the most distant wish to wound this instrument of our
connection.

But there is a wide difference between justifying this ungenerous
traffic, and supporting a claim to property, vested at the time of the
constitution, and guarantied thereby. Besides, it would be inhumanity
itself to turn these unhappy people loose to murder each other, or to
perish for the want of the necessaries of life. I never was an advocate
for so extravagant a conduct.

Many arguments were pointed against the danger of our emancipating these
slaves, or even holding up an idea that we had a power so to do, and
much time has been taken up to disprove this right in Congress. As no
claim of this kind is contended for, and the resolutions already passed
expressly contradict it, I shall make no further observations on them.

But the characters of the signers of these memorials are called in
question, as an argument against the adoption of the resolution on the
table. One of these memorials was signed by the Society of people called
Quakers: the other by Dr. Franklin, as President of a private Society in
Philadelphia. The indiscriminate abuse that has been thrown out against
Quakers, without distinction, has not comported with the honor or
dignity of this House. Not only their characters, but their very names
have been called upon, and private anecdotes, relating to individuals,
been mentioned on the floor. Many of the Quakers I have long lived in
the habits of friendship with, and can testify to the respectability of
their characters and the regularity of their lives. Their conduct in the
late war has been arraigned, and they have been condemned in the lump. I
have known many of them during the war, and impartial justice requires
it from me, to give the committee some official information on the
subject. I had the honor of serving the United States at the
commencement of the war, as Commissary General of prisoners. Congress
not being able to afford them supplies, those unhappy men in this town
were reduced to the very depths of distress, without food or raiment,
without blankets or firing, they suffered every thing that human nature
could bear. In this situation many of the Quakers of this city exercised
such humanity towards them as did honor to human nature. The miserable
prisoner not only felt the happy effects of their exertions in his
favor, but participated in their money, their food, and clothing. Nay,
such were the jealousies created by this conduct, in the British army
here, that an armed force entered the house of one of them, seized his
books, and though a man of great property, and large commercial
dealings, on finding that he had loaned large sums of money to our
distressed prisoners, he was turned out of their lines, and with his
family was a refugee during the whole of the war afterwards, separated
from his business and property.

To whom was the care of our prisoners in Philadelphia committed? To a
Quaker: and I have been witness to the just tribute of gratitude and
thankfulness paid by great numbers of our unhappy fellow-citizens to
that gentleman for his kindness and humanity. And is this indiscriminate
charge, without the least respect to characters, a decent or a just
return for a conduct like this? Where is the denomination amongst us,
that did not furnish opposers to our glorious Revolution? Were not
hundreds of Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and almost of every other
denomination, among our enemies? What denominations formed the thousands
of new levies, that endeavored to deluge our country in blood? On the
other hand, were not a Greene and a Mifflin furnished from the Society
of the Quakers?

In short, I rejoice to say, that our cause was not carried on by
fanaticism or religious zeal, but a general struggle for the rights of
human nature. Then why all this abuse of this particular sect, without
discrimination? Can any solid argument against the resolution on the
table arise from a conduct of this kind? I am at a loss to know what
other argument has been used to show the impropriety of the resolution
before you. It goes to declare the power of Congress to prohibit
foreigners from fitting out vessels in our ports, to supply foreigners
with slaves from Africa. For my part, I think it a prudent, a humane,
and a constitutional resolution. It will render further interference on
this subject, perhaps, unnecessary, when it is known that the power of
Congress extends to remedy the evil. They will hardly venture to risk a
voyage that may be ruined before its being finished.

The gentleman last up (Mr. SMITH) said, that it was now acknowledged,
that one of the memorials had asked something contrary to the
constitution. I have never acknowledged this. The language is, that
Congress would go to "the very verge of the constitution," to accomplish
the business; but there is no request to exceed it.

The character of the celebrated signer of the last memorial, Dr.
Franklin, has been touched upon. The firmness of his mind has been
suspected. An ingenious parable of his has been read to the committee,
but its application totally mistaken. If the Supreme Being has borne
with the unhappy subjects of our consideration, not for one hundred, but
for thousands of years, in their own native land; has provided them
with climate, soil, and social comforts, in which they rejoice; must we
be discontented, and suppose, by adding to their misery, we can add to
their happiness?


TUESDAY, March 23.

_Subject of Slavery._

It was then moved, that the House should take up the report of the
Committee of the Whole on the report of the committee to whom were
referred the memorials of the people called Quakers, and of the
Pennsylvania Society for promoting the abolition of slavery.

This motion was opposed by Mr. JACKSON, Mr. SMITH, Mr. BURKE, and Mr.
BLAND; they severally observed, that the discussion of the subject has
already excited a spirit of dissension among the members of the House,
and that every principle of policy and concern for the dignity of the
House, and the peace and tranquillity of the United States, concur to
show the propriety of dropping the subject, and letting it sleep where
it is. On the other hand, Mr. VINING, Mr. HARTLEY, and Mr. PAGE,
observed, that there was the same propriety in taking up the subject at
the present moment, and bringing it to a conclusion, as there was for
first taking it up; that it has been so fully discussed it cannot be
supposed gentlemen will go over the same ground again; it may soon be
determined; to pass it over will be unprecedented, and will leave the
public mind in the same state of uncertainty from which so much danger
is apprehended. The motion for taking up the report was warmly contested
in a lengthy debate, and finally passed in the affirmative, by a
majority of one. Whereupon, on motion, that the said report of the
committee, and also the report of the Committee of the whole House, of
amendments to said report, be inserted on the Journal, it was resolved
in the affirmative, 29 votes to 25. The yeas and nays were as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative, were,

      Messrs. Boudinot, Brown, Cadwalader, Contee, Floyd, Foster,
      Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Griffin, Hartley, Hathorn, Heister,
      Huntington, Lawrence, Lee, Leonard, Madison, Muhlenberg,
      Parker, Partridge, Schureman, Scott, Sedgwick, Sherman,
      Sylvester, Sinnickson, Vining, and Wynkoop.

Those who voted in the negative, were,

      Messrs. Ames, Baldwin, Benson, Bland, Burke, Carroll,
      Coles, Gale, Grout, Jackson, Livermore, Mathews, Moore,
      Page, Van Rensselaer, Smith, (of Maryland,) Smith, (of
      South Carolina,) Stone, Sturges, Sumter, Thatcher,
      Trumbull, Tucker, White, and Williamson.

The said reports are as follow:

_Report of the Special Committee._

      The committee to whom were referred sundry memorials from
      the people called Quakers, and also, a memorial from the
      Pennsylvania Society for promoting the Abolition of
      Slavery, submit the following report:

      That from the nature of the matters contained in these
      memorials, they were induced to examine the powers vested
      in Congress, under the present constitution, relating to
      the Abolition of Slavery, and are clearly of opinion,

      _First._ That the General Government is expressly
      restrained from prohibiting the importation of such persons
      "as any of the States now existing shall think proper to
      admit, until the year one thousand eight hundred and
      eight."

      _Secondly._ That Congress, by a fair construction of the
      constitution, are equally restrained from interfering in
      the emancipation of slaves, who already are, or who may,
      within the period mentioned, be imported into, or born
      within, any of the said States.

      _Thirdly._ That Congress have no authority to interfere in
      the internal regulations of particular States, relative to
      the instructions of slaves in the principles of morality
      and religion; to their comfortable clothing,
      accommodations, and subsistence; to the regulation of their
      marriages, and the prevention of the violation of the
      rights thereof, or to the separation of children from their
      parents; to a comfortable provision in cases of sickness,
      age, or infirmity; or to the seizure, transportation, or
      sale of free <DW64>s; but have the fullest confidence in
      the wisdom and humanity of the Legislatures of the several
      States, that they will revise their laws from time to time,
      when necessary, and promote the objects mentioned in the
      memorials, and every other measure that may tend to the
      happiness of slaves.

      _Fourthly._ That, nevertheless, Congress have authority, if
      they shall think it necessary, to lay at any time a tax or
      duty, not exceeding ten dollars for each person of any
      description, the importation of whom shall be by any of the
      States admitted as aforesaid.

      _Fifthly._ That Congress have authority to interdict, or
      (so far as it is or may be carried on by citizens of the
      United States, for supplying foreigners) to regulate the
      African trade, and to make provision for the humane
      treatment of slaves, in all cases while on their passage to
      the United States, or to foreign ports, so far as respects
      the citizens of the United States.

      _Sixthly._ That Congress have also authority to prohibit
      foreigners from fitting out vessels in any port of the
      United States, for transporting persons from Africa to any
      foreign port.

      _Seventhly._ That the memorialists be informed, that in all
      cases to which the authority of Congress extends, they will
      exercise it for the humane objects of the memorialists, so
      far as they can be promoted on the principles of justice,
      humanity, and good policy.


_Report of the Committee of the whole House._

The Committee of the whole House, to whom was committed the report of
the committee on memorials of the people called Quakers, and of the
Pennsylvania Society for promoting the Abolition of Slavery, report the
following amendments:

Strike out the first clause, together with the recital thereto, and in
lieu thereof insert, "That the migration or importation of such persons
as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, cannot be
prohibited by Congress, prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and
eight."

Strike out the second and third clauses, and in lieu thereof insert,
"That Congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of
slaves, or in the treatment of them within any of the States; it
remaining with the several States alone to provide any regulations
therein, which humanity and true policy may require."

      Strike out the fourth and fifth clauses, and in lieu
      thereof insert, "That Congress have authority to restrain
      the citizens of the United States from carrying on the
      African trade, for the purpose of supplying foreigners with
      slaves, and of providing, by proper regulations, for the
      humane treatment, during their passage, of slaves imported
      by the said citizens into the States admitting such
      importation."

      Strike out the seventh clause.[36]


WEDNESDAY, March 24.

JOHN BAPTIST ASHE, another member from North Carolina, appeared and took
his seat.


THURSDAY, April 22.

_Benjamin Franklin._

Mr. MADISON rose and addressed the House as follows:

Mr. SPEAKER: As we have been informed, not only through the channel of
the newspapers, but by a more direct communication, of the decease of an
illustrious character, whose native genius has rendered distinguished
services to the cause of science and of mankind in general; and whose
patriotic exertions have contributed in a high degree to the
independence and prosperity of this country in particular; the occasion
seems to call upon us to pay some tribute to his memory expressive of
the tender veneration his country feels for such distinguished merit. I
therefore move the following resolution:

      "The House being informed of the decease of BENJAMIN
      FRANKLIN, a citizen whose native genius was not more an
      ornament to human nature than his various exertions of it
      have been precious to science, to freedom, and to his
      country, do resolve, as a mark of the veneration due to his
      memory, that the members wear the customary badge of
      mourning for one month."

Which was agreed to.


THURSDAY, June 24.

_Officers of the Navy._

On motion of Mr. HARTLEY, the report of the committee on the memorial of
the Officers of the Navy was taken into consideration by the committee
of the Whole: the report is as follows:

      The committee report, that they do not find any reason
      sufficient to justify the difference that has been made in
      the compensation of the officers of the army and of the
      navy of the United States, and are, therefore, of opinion,
      that a law ought to pass for granting five years' pay,
      equal to the commutation of half-pay, and also a bounty of
      land, to the officers of the navy, upon the same
      principles, and in the same manner, as has been granted to
      the officers of the army of the United States.


Mr. SHERMAN observed, that, by the memorial and the report, it appears
that the memorialists do not pretend to have any claim on the public by
virtue of any existing resolutions of Congress. The subject is very
fully before the committee; it lies with Congress, therefore, to
determine what is proper to be done under such circumstances. The
application stands entirely on the basis of its own merits, and he could
conceive of no difficulty in deciding on it.

Mr. STONE observed, that it is true there is no claim by virtue of any
antecedent contract or promise; nor was commutation, he believed,
promised to the officers of the army. In this view, the officers of the
navy stand exactly upon the same footing with those of the army. He then
entered into a consideration of the merits, services, and sufferings, of
the officers of the navy; and from these and other considerations, urged
the justice of their claims, as he could see no reason for the
difference that had been made.

Mr. HUNTINGTON said, but a little consideration was necessary to
recollect the reason of the difference between the officers of the navy
and army. The officers of the army were first in the public service; the
navy was not formed until some time after hostilities commenced. The
officers of the navy were put on the same footing, in respect to pay, as
the army; the former had some advantages in point of rank, and they were
entitled to a part of their captures. He then gave an account of the
origin of commutation--which was granted on account of the peculiar
exigencies of affairs at that time. During the time this business was in
agitation there were very few navy officers in the public service, and
no application was made by them for half-pay or commutation. They were
ashore, and many of them had retired to civil life. The reason,
therefore, why they are not included in the commutation was, there did
not appear at the time any necessity for the measure, as the United
States did not then want a navy; whereas the public exigencies with
respect to the army were such as rendered the resolution for the
commutation to them absolutely necessary. He, however, thought the claim
of the navy officers founded on justice; and justice, said he, is the
strongest plea that can be urged in support of any demand whatever.

Mr. HARTLEY supported the memorial. He gave the officers great credit
for their bravery, services, and attachment to the cause of their
country. He dilated on the hardships and sufferings they endured; he
adverted to the advantages they derived from captures, which he stated
to be very inconsiderable. Their claims, said he, appear to me to be
founded on the the strictest and most impartial justice; he hoped,
therefore, that the report would be accepted, and a committee appointed
to bring in a bill accordingly.

Mr. BALDWIN, who was one of the select committee which made the report,
stated some of the reasons which influenced the committee; also the
considerations which were supposed to have led to the distinction
between the navy and army, in respect to commutation--one of which was,
that the officers of the navy were in the line of their particular
calling, and which they were enabled to pursue with perhaps greater
advantages than they ever did before. Other circumstances were mentioned
by him, tending to invalidate their claim.

Mr. SHERMAN observed, that if this report is adopted, it will open a
very wide door indeed to applications for half pay or commutation. He
then gave a history of the origin of commutation or half pay, which, he
said, was considered at the time as a measure of necessity, and not of
justice; and has been very much complained of by several of the States.
The above necessity did not exist with respect to the officers of the
navy, as, at the time, there were but two or three ships in service.
From this state of facts, he inferred that no precedent could be drawn
in favor of extending the commutation to the officers of the navy. He
thought that their case was entitled to the consideration of the
Legislature, on the principles of equity; he should, therefore, be for
the committee's making full inquiry into the circumstances of the whole
business, and making such provision as justice should point out; but he
was against the report in its present latitude.

Mr. BURKE replied to the observations of Mr. BALDWIN, respecting the
officers of the navy being in the way of their profession; and, from the
nature of the service, he showed that there was little weight in the
observation. Their circumstances were very much altered for the worse,
and they were now left in a very destitute situation; whereas the
officers of the army are enjoying posts and places of honor and profit.
Their silence on the subject has been mentioned. He observed that their
dispersed situation had been the principal reason of their not coming
forward with their petition before. Mr. B. observed, that the officers
of the navy were not treated like other prisoners when they were taken;
they suffered peculiarly, not as prisoners of war, but were treated like
rebels, whose crimes were of the blackest nature.

Mr. SENEY said he was, and always had been an advocate for the claims of
the officers of the navy: he thought their memorial founded on the
strictest justice. He introduced the representation to Congress of the
"illustrious" Commander-in-chief of the late army, on the subject of
half pay and pensions, which he read. He then entered into a comparative
view of the relative merits of the army and navy; and said it was well
known that many of them made as great sacrifices as the other
description of officers. With respect to prize money, he doubted whether
they had ever been benefited by it. In some instances, where they had
expected the most, they had, through the failure of agents, received
only a certificate, worth about five shillings in the pound; and that
received only for a part of what was due. He replied to the several
objections which had been offered, and concluded by saying it would be
unjust and impolitic not to grant their claims.

Mr. SEDGWICK observed, that no gentleman in the committee had deeper
impressions made upon him, by the grateful recollection of the merits
and services of those brave men to whom America owed its freedom, than
himself. Yet, under the present circumstances of the country, he thought
it a duty he owed the people who had confided their interest to his
management, to examine, on principle, the demands which were made upon
the Government for pecuniary grants. The applicants in the present
instance, did not place their demand on the ground of contract. For the
contract, under which the services had been rendered, had been complied
with according to the specified terms, and performed to the extent of
the powers of the Government, in the same manner as other claims of a
similar nature had been satisfied. It was further, he said, to be
noticed, that during the time those services were performing, no
dissatisfaction had been manifested by the present memorialists. From
these observations, then, it clearly followed, that, in point of
contract, the claims of the officers of the navy were in all respects
similar to those of every other individual in the community, who had
received satisfaction by the same means. It would then become gentlemen
to reflect on the consequences which would result from the establishment
of a precedent, which would go to the invalidation of all the final
settlements which had been made.

Mr. SEDGWICK said, gentlemen had supported the claim of the applicants
from a supposed analogy of their circumstances to those of the gentlemen
of the army. He said there was the difference which arose from the
circumstance already mentioned. The commutation was founded in contract;
the present claim was destitute of that support. There were also other
material circumstances which very widely differed in the two cases. The
officers of the army were called from pursuits by which they were
enabled to support and provide for their families, and to abandon their
prospects of establishment by the business to which they had been
educated. On the other hand, the gentlemen of the navy were promised
handsome wages for continuing in that business to which they had been
educated, and for which they were best, if not only qualified; and this,
too, at a time when, by the destruction of our commerce, many of them
otherwise must have wanted employment. They had likewise additional
encouragement from a participation in the avails of prizes, while the
army derived no emolument from any such source. That the report of the
Select Committee being unsupported either on the ground of contract, or
the principles on which the grant to the officers of the army was made,
the application was merely to the generosity of the Government. He said
it was a principle, from which he professed himself determined never to
depart, not to dissipate that property in idle or visionary projects of
generosity, which is necessary to the performance of justice. That the
arduous scenes in which we had been engaged, had imposed the necessity
of practising a rigid economy. That the conduct which we might, under
present embarrassments, pursue, it would be improper hereafter to
consider as a precedent. That it would, indeed, be a noble and generous
sentiment to compensate all those losses which our friends had sustained
by the war. But he asked, if such would not be a vain attempt? Can we
compensate all the desolation of fire and wanton depredation, provoked
from the enemy by the patriotism of particular districts in this
country? Can we retribute the sufferings which have been caused by the
depreciation of our currency? Or the ruin of thousands and thousands by
our delays of payment, and the consequent depreciation of our
securities? Can we administer to the relief of the vast number of widows
and orphans, who, from those circumstances, have been reduced from
affluence to want and beggary? Remember, too, he said, the sages, who,
in the hour of danger, watched over your security; and who, in their
best days, abstracted themselves from every lucrative pursuit, and
devoted all their time and talents to the service of their country.
These patriots, now in the evening of life, are the most meritorious
objects of the generosity of the Government, yet they would nobly
disdain to ask, or to receive the aid of the Government, however
necessary to them, until efficient provision was made for the
performance of those contracts, which we are under the most solemn
obligation, if in our power, to fulfil. And he concluded by observing,
that when the improving resources of our country should enable the
Government generously to compensate the sufferings of those several
descriptions of persons, then, and not till then, might we extend to the
memorialists the relief which they now sought for.

Mr. JACKSON supported the claim of the officers. He observed, that if
the country had not derived so extensive advantages from the exertions
of the navy, it must be imputed to peculiar circumstances, and not to
any deficiency in the officers and sailors; so far as their abilities
could be exerted, no men distinguished themselves more. Had ours been a
maritime instead of an agricultural country, the importance of a navy
would have struck us more forcibly. Their claims he considered as
founded in the strictest justice, and he had no doubt that if they had
applied to the old Congress they would have granted their request; but
restrained by a consideration of the embarrassments of the United
States, they did not obtrude their petitions upon them; and now this
very circumstance is urged as a reason for not granting their petition.
In his opinion, this did them great honor; since that time, they have
been scattered through all parts of the Union. This and other
circumstances have delayed their application to this time, but have not
lessened the equity of it. He added many other observations, and
concluded by saying that he was fully in favor of the report.


FRIDAY, June 25.

_Foreign Intercourse._

The House proceeded to consider the amendments last proposed on the part
of the Senate to the bill providing the means of intercourse between the
United States and foreign nations. The first amendment was to strike out
thirty thousand, and to insert forty thousand dollars.

It was moved that the House should agree to this amendment; this motion
was opposed.

It was said that the committee had exceeded their commission in
proposing this alteration in the bill, as both Houses had agreed in the
sum of thirty thousand dollars. It was further said that more than one
Minister Plenipotentiary was unnecessary; that the Court of Great
Britain had sent only a Consul to this country; and that, from the
present appearances, no advantages could be expected to arise from
sending a Minister, equivalent to the expense; the necessity contended
for is merely conjectural; and by that rule, the Ministers
Plenipotentiary may be increased, and one sent to Spain and another to
Portugal. If only one Minister is sent to Europe, the first sum will be
sufficient; with respect to the Court of London, a Charge des Affaires
will answer every purpose.

In support of the motion, it was urged that the President of the United
States is, by the constitution, vested with the power of appointing such
foreign officers as he may think necessary, and it must devolve upon the
Legislature to make provision for defraying the expense. The Committee
of Conference did not rely on their own judgment, they consulted the
Secretary of Foreign Affairs. His opinion was, that in the present
situation of this country with respect to foreign nations, two Ministers
and two Charges des Affaires were necessary; a Minister at the Court of
Versailles is generally conceded to be requisite. The peculiar situation
of this country with respect to the posts, the Northern and Eastern
frontiers, and the state of our commerce in respect to Great Britain,
can scarcely leave a doubt of the necessity and importance of sending a
Minister to that country. This being the state of affairs, a less sum
than that proposed, it is demonstrably evident, will not be found
adequate.

The question on concurring in this amendment was carried in the
affirmative.

The other amendments were agreed to, with amendments.


TUESDAY, July 6.

_Seat of Government._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill sent
from the Senate for establishing the temporary and permanent seat of
the Government of the United States, Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair.

Mr. SHERMAN.--As this bill respects the permanent residence of the
Government, which is an important subject, it ought to be a matter of
inquiry, whether the place proposed is the real centre of population and
territory or not? He thought it too far southward. He moved, therefore,
that the Potomac should be struck out, and a district to include the
town of Baltimore be inserted.

Mr. BURKE seconded this motion.

Mr. LEE desired the gentleman to inform the committee where he meant the
temporary residence should be, provided this motion should be carried.

Mr. SHERMAN said, he had no objection to making Philadelphia the
temporary residence, as soon as it was convenient. He then mentioned
several particulars which would render it inconvenient to go there at
present.

Mr. HUNTINGTON said, that the only reason for removing, which he had
ever heard was, that this place is not so central. If there is any force
in the reasoning, he wished not to go to a place less central. He
adverted to the mode of conveyance to this place, generally adopted by
members to get to the seat of Government. He supposed that the present
centre was somewhere between Philadelphia and Baltimore; but the place
contemplated is very much removed from the centre, more than three
hundred miles west. With respect to centrality, he said that it is not
an idea which predominates in regard to any other country of which he
knew any thing respecting the geography; other and various important
considerations operated in fixing the seat of Government.

Mr. WHITE observed, that if this House was alone to be consulted, on the
principle of accommodation, Baltimore might answer; but when it is
considered that this bill originated in the other House, who have an
equal voice with us in determining the question, and in which this place
has been repeatedly rejected, it is evident, that, if the clause is
struck out the bill will be lost. He then controverted the calculations
of the gentleman last speaking, and stated the difference of travel
between the Southern and Northern distances, which is made to be as four
and one-half to one; but he said, that so far as respected himself, he
should make no difficulty on that account; but the accommodation of the
citizens who may have business at the seat of Government is a
consideration of very great importance. With respect to the uncentral
situation of the seat of Government in other countries, this arose from
the mere whims of the sovereigns of those kingdoms; but modern policy
has obliged the people of European countries, (I refer particularly to
Great Britain,) to fix the seat of Government near the centre of trade.
It is the commercial importance of the city of London which makes it the
seat of Government; and what is the consequence? London and Westminster,
though they united send only six members to Parliament, have a greater
influence on the measures of Government than the whole empire besides.
This is a situation in which we never wish to see this country placed.
He concluded by observing, that if this amendment is agreed to, the bill
will be lost, and we shall be without either a temporary or permanent
residence.

Mr. LEE, after a few introductory observations, entered into a
consideration of the relative interests of the Southern, Middle, and
Northern States. He interspersed a variety of reflections, tending to
conciliate and blend those different interests--and to disseminate the
sentiments of union and concord. He alluded particularly to the great
object of funding the debts of the United States; the seat of Government
will concentrate the public paper. Hence he inferred the necessity of a
situation from whence all parts of the Union may be equally benefited.
From these considerations, he deduced the necessity of placing the
Government in a central situation. He observed, that while the present
position continued to be the seat of Government, the agriculture of the
States to the eastward is invigorated and encouraged, while that to the
southward is languishing and expiring. He then showed the fatal tendency
of this preponderating encouragement to those parts of the country,
already considered as the strongest parts of the Union--and from the
natural operation of these principles he inferred that the interest of
the Southern States must be eventually swallowed up. The decision of the
Senate, said he, affords a most favorable opportunity to manifest that
magnanimity of soul, which shall embrace, upon an extensive, liberal
system, the best interest of the great whole. This cannot be done while
the present unequal situation of the seat of Government of the United
States continues. Nations have their passions as well as individuals. He
drew an alarming picture of the consequences to be apprehended from
disunion, ambition and rivalship. He then gave a pleasing sketch of the
happy effects to be derived from a national, generous, and equal
attention to the Southern and Northern interests. Will gentlemen, said
he, blast this prospect by rejecting the bill? I trust they will not.

He then entered into the merits of the question. The States of Delaware,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, which contribute more than
one-half to the revenue, and which have the only rival claim to the
permanent seat of Government, are satisfied with the arrangement in the
bill. That Philadelphia is the nearest centre of the present wealth and
population of the United States, the gentlemen from New York themselves
will confess; the Potomac will become the nearest centre for a permanent
residence probably by the period proposed--to oppose this, therefore,
will be acting from merely local motives.

The gentleman moves to insert Baltimore. Mr. L. insisted that Baltimore
is as far South as the place proposed, besides being exposed by its
frontier position on the sea; we are not confined, said he, to a
particular spot on the Potomac; we may fix on a place as far North as
the gentleman from Connecticut wishes. I consider the motion, therefore,
calculated to destroy the bill, and ought to be opposed by every one who
is in favor of a Southern situation.

This State has no pretensions to the permanent residence. It is true the
citizens of this place have put themselves to a great expense to
accommodate the Government, and are entitled to much praise for their
exertions; but he wished to take up the subject on national ground, and
to have it decided on principles which apply to the best interests of
the whole. He then referred to a map of the Potomac, and the adjacent
country, which lay on the table, and which had been sent from the
Executive of the State of Virginia. He referred also to other papers and
documents.

Mr. BURKE said, he wished that the whole business of the temporary and
permanent residence might now be settled. He exculpated the members who
are in favor of Baltimore from all design to defeat the present bill. He
referred to some observations which had been made on the conduct of the
members of the States south of Virginia, and said, that they had
consulted the interest of the whole. One reason why he was in favor of
the motion was, because he preferred Baltimore to Conococheague. He
thought a populous city better than building a palace in the woods.
Another reason was, that there was no political necessity existing for
removing the Government from New York to Philadelphia. He said that the
measure would excite the most turbulent passions in the minds of the
citizens. It is unjust to the people of this city, to remove from this
place till the expense they have incurred is repaid them. It is a breach
of honesty and justice. It is injustice to the State--to the whole
nation. He entered into a consideration of their sacrifices and
services. He thought it a very extraordinary measure indeed. It is
calculated, said he, to arrest the funding system, and to throw every
thing into confusion. If the bill is passed in its present form,
Congress will never leave Philadelphia; for the Commissioners to be
appointed will incur no penalty for a neglect of doing their duty. This
is a most essential defect in the bill, and there are other defects in
it. He spoke in handsome terms of the State of Pennsylvania. He said he
had as high an opinion of that State, as any man whatever, but he was
afraid of their influence; and that State was the last in which he would
ever consent the permanent seat of Government should be. He then
adverted to the influence of the members from that State, who by their
political management, had raised a storm in the United States. [Here Mr.
BURKE was called to order.] After a short interruption, he proceeded,
and said a Quaker State was a bad neighborhood for the South
Carolinians. Here he adverted to the Quaker business last winter. He
objected to Philadelphia, also, on account of there being no gallery in
the House proposed for the accommodation of Congress--an open gallery he
considered as a very important check to the Legislature.

Mr. LAWRENCE.--The gentleman from Virginia has observed, that the object
of the amendment is to defeat the bill. He has also mentioned the States
which are most particularly interested in the question. Mr. L. said, the
State of New York might have been considered. He wished the motion might
succeed, because he thought that it would conduce to the peace of the
Union. He objected to the place proposed for the permanent residence; by
the bill it is conceded that the place is not, at present, a suitable
position. By what magic can it be made to appear it will be more proper
at the end of ten years? What reason can be given why those parts of the
Union should not populate which are at a distance from the Potomac, in
proportion to those parts in the vicinity of that place? I presume none
can be assigned. Why, then, is a period of ten years to expire, previous
to going there? The reason is plain. The people would not now consent to
have the Government dragged to so remote a part of the United States. He
then adverted to the funding business, and other important matters which
remain to be decided on, and very strongly intimated that these
questions were to be determined agreeable to the fate of this bill. He
showed, from a variety of particulars, that Philadelphia would become
the permanent residence. He then adverted particularly to the several
parts of the bill. The first was respecting the place where it is
proposed to erect the public buildings. He said, they could not be
erected within the time mentioned, and showed the various difficulties
which would attend the whole business. He then stated the advantages of
Baltimore, and said that that place would have obtained in the Senate,
if the Maryland Senators would have voted for it. He concluded by
observing, that, as no necessity exists for removing the temporary
residence, he hoped that Congress would sit down contented where they
are.

Mr. BLOODWORTH observed, that as the funding bill had been alluded to,
he could wish that the objection from that quarter might be taken out of
the way. He moved that the committee should rise, in order to take up
the ways and means.

Mr. STONE.--All we seem to differ about is whether Baltimore or the
Potomac shall be the seat of the Government; and if this was all, the
Delegates of that State might fold their arms and sit down contented;
but the State of Maryland has been placed in the situation of Tantalus.
He then stated how the gentlemen had formerly voted, who now appear in
favor of Baltimore. Had the bill come down from the Senate with
Baltimore inserted, instead of Potomac, he should have had no difficulty
in determining how to act; but he conceived, that if the amendment now
proposed should take place, nothing would be done, and the business will
be left in a very inauspicious state. From this and other
considerations, he was resolved not to be drawn off from his present
determination by any motion, amendment, or modification of the bill
whatever. With respect to himself, he had no election between the town
of Baltimore and the Potomac; yet, as a Marylander, he would, if he saw
a prospect of success, vote for the town of Baltimore; but as it
respects the United States, he should vote for the Potomac; and on this
idea he was willing to make some sacrifices. He considered the subject
as one of the most painful and disagreeable that could be agitated, and
he wished to have the business finally and unalterably fixed.

Mr. SENEY also considered this as an unhappy question to come before the
House at this time. The State of Maryland is as much divided on the
subject as the United States appeared to be; a great rivalship subsists
between the Potomac and Susquehanna rivers, and he doubted not but that
when the question was ultimately decided, it would be either on the one
or the other of those rivers. He agreed with Mr. LEE, that Pennsylvania,
Maryland and Virginia, were the only States who could make any
reasonable pretensions for the seat of Government; but a majority of
voices from these States had been against the Potomac. Pennsylvania and
Maryland, he observed, had given the preference to the Susquehanna. Mr.
S. then noticed some transactions of the Legislature of Maryland, which
he said clearly evinced their determination to support the pretensions
of the Susquehanna. Maryland certainly had an equal right with
Pennsylvania and Virginia to have her interests consulted. The interests
of Maryland, it appeared, were now to be sacrificed to those two
adjoining States. And however flattering it may seem to Maryland to fix
the seat of Government on her side of the Potomac, the real advantages
were in a great measure nugatory, as it would be but a very small
portion of that State that could reap any benefit therefrom. The real
advantages would undoubtedly result to Pennsylvania and Virginia. It
appeared somewhat extraordinary to him, that gentlemen should be willing
to confine the residence to a particular spot, previous to their
removing to a permanent residence. Why is it necessary to fix upon
Philadelphia for ten years? Surely this is putting the Government in a
very ineligible situation, for it is by no means improbable that many
serious and important occurrences might render a removal highly
expedient, perhaps unavoidable. Besides, after the Government shall have
remained ten years in Philadelphia, the probability of quitting it for
the Potomac appeared to be very slight indeed. For though it was
understood by the bill that the offices were to be removed to the
Potomac, yet if a majority in either House were opposed to going there,
Congress would remain at Philadelphia, and they would be obliged to
repeal the bill from necessity.

Mr. SCOTT said, he should not notice many things which had been offered
on the subject. He would only observe, that from the town of Baltimore
there is no water conveyance to the interior country; but from the
proposed site on the Potomac, there are two hundred miles navigation
directly into the heart of the country. Nor is Baltimore more northerly
than the position contemplated. A connection with the Western country is
of the utmost consequence to the peace and union of the United States,
let the gentlemen from the sea-coast say what they will.

Mr. MADISON.--In order to decide this question rightly, we ought to
compare the advantages and disadvantages of the two places as they
relate to the good of the United States. Now, I will defy any gentleman,
however sanguine he may be with respect to Baltimore, to point out any
substantial advantage that is not common to the Potomac; and I defy them
to disprove that there are not several important advantages belonging to
the Potomac, which do not appertain to Baltimore. The committee have had
ample information with respect to the Northern and Southern positions of
the two places. In point of salubrity of air, without disparaging the
pretensions of Baltimore, the Potomac is at least equally favored in
that respect. In regard to centrality of situation, the Potomac has
undoubtedly the advantage. In respect to security from invasion, I aver
the Potomac has the advantage also. With relation to the Western
country, there is not a shadow of comparison. If we should go as far
South as Baltimore, why not an equal distance south-west to the Potomac?
Those who are acquainted with the country on the Potomac, and that in
the neighborhood of Baltimore, do not hesitate to give the preference to
the Potomac. It is true, that Baltimore has respectable resources; her
rapid growth is a clear proof of it; but look at the resources of the
Potomac; the great range of rich country that borders on it, and see if
these are not advantages that must, in a short time, produce a
commercial town. Sir, a period might be named, not exceeding ten years,
within which the town of Baltimore obtained the greater part of its
increase and consequence; a period of ten years will produce the same
effects on the Potomac, because the same causes exist; and when,
superadded to this, the residence of Government shall be there, there
can be no doubt but that there will be every accommodation that can be
desired.

It is said, that before the ten years expire, a repeal of the act may
take place, and thus Congress be kept at Philadelphia. But what more can
we do than pass a law for the purpose? It is not in our power to guard
against a repeal. Our acts are not like those of the Medes and Persians,
unalterable. A repeal is a thing against which no provision can be made.
If that is an objection, it holds good against any law that can be
passed. If those States that may have a superiority in Congress at a
future day will pay no respect to the acts of their predecessors, or to
the public good, there is no power to compel them.

But I flatter myself that some respect will be paid to the public
interest, and to the plighted faith of the Government. As to centrality,
the best evidence we have at this time in favor of the Potomac is the
different travelling of the members; and this, sir, proves incontestably
that the proposed place on the Potomac is near the centre. If any
arguments could be brought against it, it is its being too far to the
northward. For the mileage south of the Potomac is twelve thousand seven
hundred and eighty-two miles, to the north of it twelve thousand four
hundred and twenty-two miles. If to this Rhode Island be added, it will
not be more than equal. If the bill once passes, I am not under any
apprehensions of a repeal; but if danger of repeal does exist, it is of
that kind against which we cannot guard. Sir, we should calculate on
accepting the bill as it now stands; we ought not to risk it by making
any amendment. We have it now in our power to procure a Southern
position. The opportunity may not again speedily present itself. We know
the various and jealous interests that exist on this subject. We should
hazard nothing. If the Potomac is struck out, are you sure of getting
Baltimore? May no other place be proposed? Instead of Baltimore, is it
not probable we may have Susquehanna inserted, perhaps the Delaware?
Make any amendment, sir, and the bill will go back to the Senate. Are we
sure that it will come back into our possession again? By amending, we
give up a certainty for an uncertainty. In my opinion, we shall act
wisely, if we accept the bill as it now stands, and I beg leave to press
it on gentlemen not to consent to any alteration, lest it be wholly
defeated and the prospect of obtaining a Southern position vanish for
ever.

Mr. GERRY said, he rose with greater reluctance on this than he ever did
on any former occasion; and it is because it appears pretty evident the
advocates of the bill are sure of a majority, and are determined not to
change their minds let what arguments will be offered on the subject.
The business of establishing the permanent residence is contrary to the
sentiments of a majority of the members of this House, and of the
Senate, as they have both negatived a bill for this purpose the present
session. It is to be regretted that it has ever been brought forward,
for it is very evident that it has had a very pernicious influence on
the great business of funding the public debt. He then mentioned the
former removals of Congress, which had never been complained of, as the
public business was never neglected. He said, that if the present bill
is carried into execution, a very great uneasiness will ensue; for the
measures of Congress, and not their residence, are the objects of
concern to the people. Those States who think that they shall be
injured, it cannot be expected will then acquiesce. He then gave an
account of the process of this measure the last session. The travelling
has been mentioned. This, he said, could not be considered as an
argument in favor of the bill, for the expense is not paid by particular
States, it comes out of the common treasury. He asserted that the
accessibility to New York is better than to the Potomac. He contended
that the risk by land is greater than by water. He stated the advantages
that the Southern members derived from coming to the northward, while,
on the other hand, is there, asked he, any thing to balance the risk and
difficulties which the Northern members must encounter in such a
Southern situation? He said it was highly unreasonable to fix the seat
of Government in such a position as to have nine States out of thirteen
to the northward of the place. He adverted to the sacrifices which the
Northern States are ready to make in being willing to go so far south as
Baltimore. He contended that the explicit consent of the Eastern States
ought to be obtained, before they are dragged still further south. He
ridiculed the idea of fixing the Government at Conococheague. He did not
think there was any serious intention of ever going to this Indian
place. He considered the whole business as a mere manoeuvre. Baltimore
holds out the only prospect of a permanent seat of Government. He
recapitulated the account which before had been given. From this he
adverted to the general expectation of the public with respect to the
Government's tarrying here till the permanent seat was established. He
particularized the expenses that had been incurred by the citizens, and
for which they merited great honor. He said, it had been promised to New
York that this place should be the temporary residence of Congress, and
on this engagement they came into an unconditional adoption of the
constitution. Should this bill pass, what can it be denominated but a
delusion, a deception, sanctioned by Congress itself? He remarked on the
several observations offered by Messrs. MADISON, LEE, STONE, and SCOTT.

Mr. VINING.--When I find arguments made use of to inflame the minds of
gentlemen against the members of this House, I think it my duty to
notice such observations. Attempts are made to hold up, in an odious
point of light, the members of Pennsylvania. Sir, it is a fact, which
your Journals will justify, that the members from Pennsylvania voted the
last session against Philadelphia. I trust that none of those
observations will have the least influence on the mind of one single
individual. We are sent here to do the public business, and I trust that
our constituents have not sent men that are to be deterred from doing
their duty by such insidious insinuations, such ill-founded suggestions
of deceiving and deluding the citizens of this place. Mr. V. added some
more strictures on Mr. GERRY's observations, and then entered largely
into the merits of the question. He supported the bill on general
principles, and noticed the several objections that had been made by
different members. He imputed the embarrassments of the public business
to the assumption, and not to the subject of residence.

Mr. CLYMER made a few remarks on the observations of Mr. BURKE, which
were not distinctly heard.

The committee rose, and reported progress


WEDNESDAY, July 7.

_Seat of Government._

The House again resolved itself into a committee on the bill for
establishing the temporary and permanent seat of Government, Mr.
BOUDINOT in the chair.

Mr. BURKE made some remarks on the observations of Mr. VINING, in which
he exculpated himself from all design to excite mobs and tumults among
the citizens of New York, as had been insinuated by that gentleman. He
declared that he believed the citizens incapable of behaving so much out
of character. For himself, he disclaimed any such idea. He further
observed, that the delegates from Pennsylvania were fully competent to
advocate the interests of their particular State; they had given
abundant evidence of their abilities; they therefore did not need the
assistance of the gentleman from Delaware.

Mr. HARTLEY observed, that it was the fault of the New York Senators
last year that they did not vote for a four years' residence in their
own city, and the permanent one at Germantown, which they could then
have carried. He defended himself and his colleagues from any charge of
want of generosity, and also defended the character of the Quakers. The
gentleman (Mr. BURKE) is not acquainted with the people called Quakers
or their history, or he would entertain different sentiments concerning
them. Under the famous William Penn, they settled the former Province of
Pennsylvania, between the years 1680 and 1690, near the close of the
last century; and such was their justice, wisdom, moderation and good
policy, that they gained reputation abroad. Men emigrated from the
European world to this land of freedom. They preserved peace at home;
for it was not until the year 1753, in a war, fomented on the borders of
another Province, that an inhabitant of Pennsylvania was killed by the
hands of an Indian. The Quakers had always been remarkable for their
moral laws, for the plainness of their manners, and their benevolence.
Nay, should the gentleman go to Philadelphia, he will find that these
people will treat him as well as any other society. They merit not the
abuse which has been so frequently thrown upon them.

Mr. BLOODWORTH thought that if the New York Senators had acted wrong,
yet the people should not be blamed for it. The proposition of Mr.
BURKE was so reasonable and just, that he said he could not avoid
approving of it.

Mr. LAWRENCE defended the New York Senators, and explained the reasons
of their former conduct, which, when it was known, he believed, would
rather merit the approbation of the people. He then proceeded to remark
upon the conduct of New York during the war and since. Her revenue had
been thrown into the Treasury of the United States, and every succor
that could possibly be expected was received from her. Upon the whole,
he wished the dispute of residence could be left to the decision of the
three Northern and three Southern States; and he appealed to the House,
as politicians and men, for the justice of the case.

Mr. WADSWORTH rose next. He was proceeding when he was called to order.
After some altercation on the question of order,

Mr. PAGE spoke to the merits of the question, in which he introduced
several conciliatory observations, and then added, as to the place for
the permanent residence of Congress, any unprejudiced disinterested man
in the world, looking over the map of the United States, would put his
finger on the district pointed out in the bill, and say, "This is your
place, sir." As to going to Philadelphia, it is not my wish to go and
stay there as proposed in the bill; but I say, with my colleague, (Mr.
MADISON,) that I consent to go there to get into a more central
position, and to be fairly on our way to the permanent residence on the
Potomac. As to our present situation, the citizens of New York
themselves acknowledge, nay, even the member himself who has called me
to order, acknowledges that it has no pretensions to be the permanent
residence; and it must be confessed that in proportion as it is improper
for the permanent residence, it must be improper for the temporary
residence. The continuance of Congress here has been acquiesced in by
the Southern States, merely on the supposition that a removal to the
permanent residence would take place sooner if Congress sat here than at
some other place more central. The wise and virtuous citizens of New
York know this, and cannot resist the removal.

Sir, I was not apprehensive that the observations made by gentlemen
yesterday could excite an improper resentment in their minds. There is
not a city in the world in which I would sooner trust myself and
Congress than in New York; for it is superior to any place I know for
the orderly and decent behavior of its inhabitants; but, sir, when the
member behind me, (Mr. BURKE,) who alluded to me when he was last up,
said that they were injured and robbed by Congress, I told him, as a
friend, that had I been in the chair, I should have called him to order.

I confess I was shocked to hear that gentleman's declarations repeated
by a member on the other side of the House, who is remarkable for his
coolness and his peculiar attention to every sentiment offered in debate
(Mr. GERRY.) I took the liberty, when the House adjourned, to tell that
gentleman, perhaps too freely, what I thought respecting those
declarations; if I gave him, or the member behind me any offence, I ask
their pardon; but I still think I should have done my duty had I taken
notice of the impropriety of their declarations in my place in the
House, as a friend to order and freedom of debate.

Mr. LIVERMORE said, that the motion for striking out the Potomac and
inserting Baltimore is so reasonable in itself, that I cannot conceive
there should be one person opposed to it. He observed, that Baltimore is
as far south as the Potomac; the members will then have as far to go to
one as the other. There is a river, it is said, which runs two hundred
miles into the country as far as the Allegany mountains; what advantage
can this be to Congress? I can conceive none, except that it may be to
send the acts of Congress by water to the foot of the Allegany
mountains. He thought that the centre of population was the only true
centre. It is not pretended that the Potomac is at present this centre;
but it is said that it will in time become the centre of population.
What reason is there for any such supposition? The place in which this
favorite spot is has been as long settled as any other part of the
Continent, but the population has not kept pace with many other parts of
the United States; it is therefore entirely chimerical and problematical
whether it ever will become the centre of population. He then enlarged
on the superior advantages of a populous city for the seat of
Government, and concluded by repeating that the amendment is so
reasonable in itself that he hoped every member of the committee would
vote for it.

Mr. GERRY.--In discussing this subject yesterday, I made use of such
arguments as appeared to me pertinent to the occasion. But, sir, those
arguments have had the most extraordinary construction put on them by
the gentleman from Delaware; they have been represented as tending to
excite mobs, and to raise insurrections in this city. Sir, I insist that
the observations I made had a direct contrary tendency. I said that the
bill contained those malignant principles which had a direct tendency to
agitate and inflame the minds of the citizens of America. Those
principles I was endeavoring to expose, and to show what must be their
obvious effects. Is this exciting mobs? Directly the reverse, in my
opinion. I never had any such idea; and as to the citizens of New York,
I have too just a sense of their wisdom and good judgment to harbor such
a sentiment. He then adverted to the constitution, to show that there
could be no danger of an insurrection or rebellion against the
Government. Congress is vested with a sufficient power to protect
themselves from every insult whatever; they have a right to call forth
the whole militia of the Union for their protection. [Here Mr. G. was
called to order, and some altercation ensuing, Mr. G. said he would say
nothing farther on this particular topic.] He then proceeded to state
his arguments against the Potomac, in the course of which he noticed
some observations which had fallen from Messrs. VINING and CLYMER. One
of the gentlemen had said that "Pennsylvania had a right to the seat of
the General Government." This he denied; he said no State in the Union
could pretend to such a right; Congress alone has a right to determine
where the seat of Government shall be. He entered into a lengthy
discussion on the merits of the Potomac, and among other observations
asserted that taking so southern a situation would amount to a
disqualification of many of the Northern members, who would forego their
election rather than attend the National Legislature on that river.

Mr. VINING read a report of a committee of the late Congress, respecting
two seats of Government, in which report Georgetown was mentioned. Mr.
GERRY, being one of this committee, rose to explain.

Mr. SEDGWICK, in a speech of considerable length, stated his objections
to so southern a situation as either Baltimore or the Potomac, and said
that he should have the unhappiness, he feared, of dividing on the
question from his colleagues.

Mr. SHERMAN offered some calculations respecting distances, and made
Baltimore to be the nearest to the centre of any other place that had
been mentioned.

Mr. WHITE said, he had no idea of altering the sentiments of a single
member of the committee; he did not expect the gentleman from New
Hampshire would agree with him. The gentleman from Massachusetts had
said something about the Government going into the wilderness; he said
it was true that there was not at present every accommodation which
gentlemen might wish; but there is every probability that there will be.
He said that such improvements were making in the navigation of the
Potomac as will render it a place affording every accommodation whether
Congress go there or not. He instanced several places on the Potomac
which were at this day sufficiently populous to accommodate Congress. He
then adverted to situations, and observed that a line from the Atlantic,
east and west, to the extreme point mentioned in the bill, will
intersect the State of New Jersey, include the whole of Delaware and
Maryland, and will throw thirty-one members of the representation in the
southern division of the United States. He then observed, that after the
present ferment is subsided, this position will be considered as a
permanent bond of union; and the Eastern States will find their most
essential interests promoted by the measure. He adverted to the trade of
Massachusetts, which he said was greater to Virginia than to the whole
Union besides; the Southern States will be cordial in promoting their
shipping and advancing their interests, when they observe that the
principles of justice influence them on this great national question.

He then remarked on the observation of Mr. SHERMAN respecting the
repealing of the law, and reprobated the principles on which such
observations are founded; he remarked on the attraction of populous
cities, and trusted that other ideas would prevail in this country than
what influenced in fixing the seats of Government in Europe.

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) said, he was in favor of the motion, as
the only one which held out a probability of ever fixing on a southern
residence. He enlarged on the difficulty and improbability of ever
removing from Philadelphia. He said that it was evident, from the
present representation, and what is most likely it will be ten years
hence, that Congress could not be removed from that place. He then
stated the number of the members to the southward and northward of
Philadelphia, and observed that the Congress that would exist at the
expiration of ten years may think entirely different from the present,
and will not think themselves bound by the law; but if they should, what
can the measure be denominated but legislating for the next century? A
system proposed the last session, which combined a much greater interest
than the present, failed; and what reason have we to suppose that this
bill will ever be carried into execution? He said no gentleman pretends
that the place proposed is now ready for the reception of the
Government; and even if the buildings were now erected, is there any
gentleman who would give his vote for going there? He would agree to a
place in the neighborhood of Baltimore, and this he supposed was the
furthest southern position the gentlemen from the eastward will ever
consent to. From all the views he could take of the measure, he was
fully convinced that the Potomac was tacked to the bill merely to carry
Philadelphia; he wished gentlemen seriously to consider the consequences
of passing a law which would so intimately and inauspiciously affect the
interests of so many people.

Mr. MADISON objected to the motion for inserting Baltimore, as it would
be risking the bill with a place which has already been repeatedly
rejected by the Senate; he religiously believed, he said, that if
Baltimore was inserted the bill would never pass the Senate; and the
fate of the bill which the gentleman mentions ought to be a serious
warning to us never to risk this with an amendment; the instance,
therefore, produced by the gentleman, is very much against his own
argument.

The question being put for striking out the word "Potomac," and
inserting "Baltimore," it was negatived--37 to 23.


THURSDAY, July 8.

_General Post Office._

The House proceeded to consider the amendments proposed by the Senate to
the bill to establish the Post Office and post roads within the United
States.

The first amendment was to strike out the first and second sections,
which specified and established the several roads, and to insert a
clause empowering the Postmaster General, under the direction of the
President of the United States, to establish them.

A concurrence in this amendment was opposed by Messrs. BLOODWORTH,
WHITE, STEELE, LIVERMORE, HARTLEY, and GERRY.

It was said, that it was delegating the power of legislation to the
Supreme Executive in one of the most important points that could be
mentioned. The revenue also will centre in the hands of the Executive;
and in process of time this revenue may be converted into an engine
destructive to the liberties of the United States; for as it is a
perpetual law, and as the time may, and probably will come, when the
Executive may be corrupt, as the revenue increases, the officers of the
department will be increased, and we do not know to what extent the
consequences may be carried. It is unconstitutional, as that expressly
reserves the power of establishing Post Offices and post roads to the
Legislature. It was further observed, it would be throwing a burden upon
the President which he cannot execute with any convenience to himself,
and, from his situation, with satisfaction to the people. The
representatives of the people, who come from all parts of the United
States, must be supposed to have a more competent knowledge of the
proper places for establishing post roads than the Postmaster General.

A concurrence was advocated by Mr. PARTRIDGE, and Mr. SEDGWICK.

It was said, that upon an accurate calculation it was found that the
roads proposed by the bill as it passed the House, are so numerous, that
so far from affording a revenue, they will prove a great burden to the
United States. The circumstances of the country are continually
changing; the seats of Government in the several States are removed from
their ancient situations to one hundred miles' distance; to accommodate
the people in such cases, old routes must be discontinued and new roads
opened, which will be a perpetual source of legislation and unnecessary
expense. This business was left to the Postmaster General by the late
Congress, and very few complaints were heard; the Postmaster General, by
his office, must be the most competent judge, as the business will be a
principal object of his attention, and actual surveys of the roads will
be made by his assistants in all parts of the United States; but if the
responsibility of this officer is divided into sixty-five parts, every
one of which has its own particular convenience in view, it must appear
evident that all responsibility is entirely dissipated. As to the
unconstitutionality, it was said that the bill proposes no more in the
present instance than is provided for in the other Executive
Departments; the principles of conducting the business are established
by the House; the mode of carrying those principles into execution is
left with the Executive, and this of necessity is done in almost every
case whatever. The House adjourned without coming to a vote.


FRIDAY, July 9.

_Seat of Government._

The House proceeded to consider the bill sent from the Senate for the
establishing the temporary and permanent seat of Government of the
United States.

Mr. BOUDINOT, after expressing his disapprobation of the bill generally,
moved that the Potomac should be struck out and the Delaware inserted,
and called for the yeas and nays; after some debate, this motion was
negatived, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Floyd, Foster,
      Gerry, Goodhue, Grout, Huntington, Hathorn, Leonard,
      Lawrence, Livermore, Partridge, Rensselaer, Trumbull,
      Schureman, Sherman, Sylvester, Sturges, Sedgwick,
      Wadsworth--22.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Ashe, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Burke,
      Cadwalader, Carroll, Clymer, Coles, Contee, Fitzsimons,
      Gilman, Heister, Hartley, Jackson, Gale, Griffin, P.
      Muhlenberg, Madison, Mathews, Moore, Page, Parker, Lee,
      Steele, Scott, Sinnickson, Stone, Sevier, Seney, Smith, (of
      Maryland,) Smith, (of South Carolina,) Sumter, Thatcher,
      Tucker, Vining, White, Williamson, Wynkoop--39.

Mr. AMES moved to strike out Potomac and insert Germantown, as the
permanent residence. Yeas 22, nays 39.

Variation--Mr. GILMAN, yea; Mr. TRUMBULL, nay.

Mr. SMITH (of Maryland) moved to strike out Potomac and insert between
the Potomac and Susquehanna. Yeas 25, nays 36.

Variation--Messrs. SMITH, (of Maryland,) SMITH, (of South Carolina,)
TRUMBULL, and THATCHER, yea; Mr. SHERMAN, nay.

Mr. LAWRENCE moved to strike out Potomac and insert Baltimore.

      YEAS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Floyd, Foster,
      Gerry, Goodhue, Grout, Hathorn, Huntington, Lawrence,
      Leonard, Livermore, Rensselaer, Partridge, Schureman,
      Sedgwick, Seney, Sherman, Smith, (of Maryland,) Smith, (of
      South Carolina,) Sylvester, Sturges, Thatcher, Trumbull,
      Wadsworth--26.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Ashe, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown,
      Cadwalader, Carroll, Clymer, Coles, Contee, Fitzsimons,
      Gilman, Gale, Griffin, Hartley, Heister, Jackson, Lee,
      Madison, Mathews, Moore, Muhlenberg, Page, Parker, Scott,
      Sevier, Sumter, Sinnickson, Steele, Stone, Tucker, Vining,
      White, Williamson, Wynkoop--34.

A motion was made to adjourn; which was also negatived.

The bill was then read the third time; and on the question, Shall the
bill pass? the yeas and nays were as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Ashe, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown,
      Cadwalader, Carroll, Clymer, Coles, Contee, Fitzsimons,
      Gale, Griffin, Hartley, Heister, Jackson, Lee, Madison,
      Mathews, Moore, Muhlenberg, Page, Parker, Scott, Sevier,
      Sinnickson, Steele, Stone, Sumter, Vining, White,
      Williamson, Wynkoop--32.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Burke, Floyd,
      Foster, Gerry, Goodhue, Gilman, Grout, Hathorn, Huntington,
      Lawrence, Leonard, Livermore, Partridge, Rensselaer,
      Schureman, Sedgwick, Seney, Sherman, Sylvester, Smith, (of
      Maryland,) Smith, (of South Carolina,) Sturges, Thatcher,
      Trumbull, Tucker, Wadsworth--29.[37]



THURSDAY, August 12.

Agreeably to the concurrent vote of the two Houses, an adjournment took
place this day--to meet in the city of Philadelphia on the first Monday
in December next.

Previous to the adjournment, a unanimous vote passed both Houses,
returning thanks to the Corporation of this City for the elegant and
convenient accommodations furnished the Congress of the United States.

Adjourned, _sine die_.




FIRST CONGRESS.--THIRD SESSION.

HELD AT THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, DECEMBER 6, 1790

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.


MONDAY, December 6, 1790.

The Senate assembled: present,

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

From New Hampshire, JOHN LANGDON and PAINE WINGATE.

From Massachusetts, TRISTRAM DALTON.

From Connecticut, OLIVER ELLSWORTH.

From New York, RUFUS KING.

From Pennsylvania, WILLIAM MACLAY and ROBERT MORRIS.

From Delaware, RICHARD BASSETT.

From North Carolina, SAMUEL JOHNSTON and BENJAMIN HAWKINS.

From South Carolina, PIERCE BUTLER and RALPH IZARD.

From Georgia, WILLIAM FEW.

PHILEMON DICKINSON, from the State of New Jersey, produced his
credentials and took his seat in the Senate, in the place of Governor
PATERSON.

JAMES MONROE, appointed by the Legislature of the State of Virginia, in
the place of JOHN WALKER, who was appointed by the Executive of the said
State in the room of WILLIAM GRAYSON, deceased, produced his
credentials, and took his seat in the Senate.

The VICE PRESIDENT administered the oath required by law to Mr.
DICKINSON and Mr. MONROE, respectively.

A letter was read from WILLIAM PATERSON, Governor of the State of New
Jersey, communicating the resignation of his appointment to be a Senator
of the United States.

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


TUESDAY, December 7.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that a
quorum of that body is assembled and ready to proceed to business.

Messrs. LANGDON and MORRIS were appointed a committee, on the part of
the Senate, to inform the President of the United States that a quorum
of the two Houses is assembled, and will be ready, in the Senate
Chamber, at such time as he may appoint, to receive any communication
which he may be pleased to make.

Mr. LANGDON, in the course of the day, reported that the President would
meet the two Houses, as proposed, to-morrow, at 12 o'clock.


WEDNESDAY, December 8.

JONATHAN ELMER, from New Jersey; CALEB STRONG, from Massachusetts; and
GEORGE READ, from the State of Delaware; attended.

A letter from the Commissioners of the city and county of Philadelphia
was received, offering to Congress the county court-house for their
accommodation during their residence in Philadelphia.

The members of the House of Representatives having taken their seats,
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES entered the Senate Chamber, and
addressed both Houses as follows:

      _Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and House of
      Representatives:_

      In meeting you again, I feel much satisfaction in being
      able to repeat my congratulations on the favorable
      prospects which continue to distinguish our public affairs.
      The abundant fruits of another year have blessed our
      country with plenty, and with the means of a flourishing
      commerce. The progress of public credit is witnessed by a
      considerable rise of American stock abroad as well as at
      home; and the revenues allotted for this and other national
      purposes have been productive beyond the calculations by
      which they were regulated. This latter circumstance is the
      more pleasing, as it is not only a proof of the fertility
      of our resources, but as it assures us of a further
      increase of the national respectability and credit; and,
      let me add, as it bears an honorable testimony to the
      patriotism and integrity of the mercantile and marine part
      of our citizens. The punctuality of the former in
      discharging their engagements has been exemplary.

      In conforming to the powers vested in me by acts of the
      last session, a loan of three millions of florins, towards
      which some provisional measures had previously taken place,
      has been completed in Holland. As well the celerity with
      which it has been filled, as the nature of the terms,
      (considering the more than ordinary demand for borrowing,
      created by the situation of Europe,) give a reasonable hope
      that the further execution of those powers may proceed
      with advantage and success. The Secretary of the Treasury
      has my directions to communicate such further particulars
      as may be requisite for more precise information.

      Since your last sessions I have received communications by
      which it appears that the district of Kentucky, at present
      a part of Virginia, has concurred in certain propositions
      contained in a law of that State; in consequence of which
      the district is to become a distinct member of the Union,
      in case the requisite sanction of Congress be added. For
      this sanction application is now made. I shall cause the
      papers on this very important transaction to be laid before
      you. The liberality and harmony with which it has been
      conducted will be found to do great honor to both the
      parties; and, the sentiments of warm attachment to the
      Union and its present Government, expressed by our
      fellow-citizens of Kentucky, cannot fail to add an
      affectionate concern for their particular welfare to the
      great national impressions under which you will decide on
      the case submitted to you.

      It has been heretofore known to Congress, that frequent
      incursions have been made on our frontier settlements by
      certain banditti of Indians from the north-west side of the
      Ohio. These, with some of the tribes dwelling on and near
      the Wabash, have of late been particularly active in their
      depredations; and, being emboldened by the impunity of
      their crimes, and aided by such parts of the neighboring
      tribes as could be seduced to join in their hostilities, or
      afford them a retreat for their prisoners and plunder, they
      have, instead of listening to the humane invitations and
      overtures made on the part of the United States, renewed
      their violences with fresh alacrity, and greater effect.
      The lives of a number of valuable citizens have thus been
      sacrificed, and some of them under circumstances peculiarly
      shocking, whilst others have been carried into a deplorable
      captivity.

      These aggravated provocations rendered it essential to the
      safety of the Western settlements, that the aggressors
      should be made sensible that the Government of the Union is
      not less capable of punishing their crimes, than it is
      disposed to respect their rights and reward their
      attachments. As this object could not be effected by
      defensive measures, it became necessary to put in force the
      act which empowers the President to call out the militia
      for the protection of the frontiers; and I have,
      accordingly, authorized an expedition, in which the regular
      troops in that quarter are combined with such drafts of
      militia as were deemed sufficient: the event of the measure
      is yet unknown to me. The Secretary of War is directed to
      lay before you a statement of the information on which it
      is founded, as well as an estimate of the expense with
      which it will be attended.

      The disturbed situation of Europe, and particularly the
      critical posture of the great maritime Powers, whilst it
      ought to make us the more thankful for the general peace
      and security enjoyed by the United States, reminds us, at
      the same time, of the circumspection with which it becomes
      us to preserve these blessings. It requires, also, that we
      should not overlook the tendency of a war, and even of
      preparations for a war, among the nations most concerned in
      active commerce with this country, to abridge the means,
      and thereby at least to enhance the price of transporting
      its valuable productions to their proper markets. I
      recommend it to your serious reflection how far, and in
      what mode, it may be expedient to guard against
      embarrassments from these contingencies, by such
      encouragements to our own navigation as will render our
      commerce and agriculture less dependent on foreign bottoms,
      which may fail us in the very moments most interesting to
      both of these great objects. Our fisheries, and the
      transportation of our own produce, offer us abundant means
      for guarding ourselves against this evil.

      Your attention seems to be not less due to that particular
      branch of our trade which belongs to the Mediterranean. So
      many circumstances unite in rendering the present state of
      it distressful to us, that you will not think any
      deliberations misemployed which may lead to its relief and
      protection.

      The laws you have already passed for the establishment of a
      Judiciary system have opened the doors of justice to all
      description of persons. You will consider, in your wisdom,
      whether improvements in that system may yet be made; and,
      particularly, whether a uniform process of execution, on
      sentences issuing from the Federal courts, be not desirable
      through all the States.

      The patronage of our commerce, of our merchants, and
      seamen, has called for the appointment of Consuls in
      foreign countries. It seems expedient, to regulate by law,
      the exercise of that jurisdiction, and those functions
      which are permitted them, either by express convention, or
      by a friendly indulgence, in the places of their residence.
      The Consular Convention, too, with His Most Christian
      Majesty, has stipulated, in certain cases, the aid of the
      national authority to his Consuls established here. Some
      legislative provision is requisite to carry these
      stipulations into full effect.

      The establishment of the Militia, of a Mint, of Standards
      of Weights and Measures, of the Post Office and post roads,
      are subjects which (I presume) you will resume of course,
      and which are abundantly urged by their own importance.

      _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_

      The sufficiency of the revenues you have established for
      the objects to which they are appropriated, leaves no doubt
      that the residuary provisions will be commensurate to the
      other objects for which the public faith stands now
      pledged. Allow me, moreover, to hope that it will be a
      favorite policy with you not merely to secure a payment of
      the debt funded, but as far and as fast as the growing
      resources of the country will permit, to exonerate it of
      the principle itself. The appropriation you have made of
      the Western lands explains your dispositions on this
      subject, and I am persuaded the sooner that valuable fund
      can be made to contribute, along with other means, to the
      actual reduction of the public debt, the more salutary will
      the measure be to every public interest, as well as the
      more satisfactory to our constituents.

      _Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:_

      In pursuing the various and weighty business of the present
      session, I indulge the fullest persuasion that your
      consultations will be equally marked with wisdom, and
      animated by the love of your country. In whatever belongs
      to my duty, you shall have all the co-operation which an
      undiminished zeal for its welfare can inspire. It will be
      happy for us both, and our best reward, if, by a successful
      administration of our respective trusts, we can make the
      established Government more and more instrumental in
      promoting the good of our fellow-citizens, and more and
      more the object of their attachment and confidence.

                                  GEO. WASHINGTON.

      UNITED STATES, _December_ 8, 1790.

The President of the United States having retired, and the two Houses
being separated, Messrs. ELLSWORTH, KING, and IZARD, were appointed a
committee to prepare and report the draft of an Address to the
PRESIDENT, in answer to his Speech to both Houses.

      THURSDAY, December 9.

      _To the President, and the Honorable the Congress of the
      United States of America._

      The memorial of the Representatives of the people of
      Kentucky, in Convention assembled, pursuant to an act of
      the Legislature of Virginia, passed the 18th December,
      1789, entitled "An act concerning the erection of the
      District of Kentucky into an independent State," humbly
      showeth:

      That the inhabitants of this country are warmly devoted to
      the American Union, and as firmly attached to the present
      happy establishment of the Federal Government, as any of
      the citizens of the United States.

      That, migrating from hence, they have, with great hazard
      and difficulty, effected their present settlements. The
      hope of increasing numbers could alone have supported the
      early adventurers under those arduous exertions. They have
      the satisfaction to find that hope verified. At this day,
      the population and strength of this country render it fully
      able, in the opinion of your memorialists, to form and
      support an efficient domestic Government.

      The inconveniences resulting from its local situation, as a
      part of Virginia, at first but little felt, have for some
      time been objects of their most serious attention; which
      occasioned application to the Legislature of Virginia for
      redress.

      Here your memorialists would acknowledge, with peculiar
      pleasure, the benevolence of Virginia in permitting them to
      remove the evils arising from that source, by assuming upon
      themselves a state of independence.

      This they have thought expedient to do, on the terms and
      conditions stipulated in the above recited act; and fixed
      on the first day of June, 1792, as the period when the said
      independence shall commence.

      It now remains with the President and the Congress of the
      United States to sanction these proceedings, by an act of
      their honorable Legislature, prior to the first day of
      November, 1791, for the purpose of receiving into the
      Federal Union the people of Kentucky, by the name of the
      State of Kentucky.

      Should this determination of your memorialists meet the
      approbation of the General Government, they have to call a
      Convention, to form a Constitution, subsequent to the act
      of Congress, and prior to the day fixed for the
      independence of this country.

      When your memorialists reflect upon the present
      comprehensive system of Federal Government, and when they
      also recollect the determination of a former Congress on
      this subject, they are left without a doubt that the object
      of their wishes will be accomplished.

      And your memorialists, as in duty bound, shall for ever
      pray.

                                  GEORGE MUTER, _President_.
                     Attest,      THOMAS TODD, _Clerk of the Con._

A letter from the Secretary of War was communicated to the VICE
PRESIDENT, enclosing sundry papers referred to in the President's Speech
to both Houses of Congress, on the 8th instant, which, being read, were
ordered to lie for consideration.


FRIDAY, _December_ 10.

A letter from Monsieur Beniere, President of the Commonalty of Paris,
addressed to the PRESIDENT and members of Congress of the United States,
with twenty-six copies of a Civic Eulogy on BENJAMIN FRANKLIN,
pronounced the 21st day of July, 1790, in the name of the Commonalty of
Paris, by Monsieur L'Abbe Fauchet, was delivered to the Senate, by Mr.
Lear, Secretary to the President of the United States.

Read, and

_Ordered_, That the letter and copies of the Eulogy be sent to the House
of Representatives.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that
they have, on their part, appointed the Rev. Dr. BLAIR one of the
Chaplains of the present Congress.

Mr. ELLSWORTH, from the committee appointed to prepare and report the
draft of an Address to the President of the United States, reported
accordingly; and, the report being amended, was adopted, as followeth:

      _To the President of the United States of America._

      We receive, sir, with particular satisfaction, the
      communications contained in your speech, which confirm to
      us the progressive state of the public credit, and afford,
      at the same time, a new proof of the solidity of the
      foundation on which it rests; and we cheerfully join in the
      acknowledgment which is due to the probity and patriotism
      of the mercantile and marine part of our fellow-citizens,
      whose enlightened attachment to the principles of good
      government is not less conspicuous in this than it has been
      in other important respects.

      In confidence that every constitutional preliminary has
      been observed, we assure you of our disposition to concur,
      in giving the requisite sanction to the admission of
      Kentucky as a distinct member of the Union; in doing which,
      we shall anticipate the happy effects to be expected from
      the sentiments of attachment towards the Union, and its
      present Government, which have been expressed by the
      patriotic inhabitants of that district.

      While we regret that the continuance and increase of the
      hostilities and depredations which have distressed our
      north-western frontiers, should have rendered offensive
      measures necessary, we feel an entire confidence in the
      sufficiency of the motives which have produced them, and in
      the wisdom of the dispositions which have been concerted,
      in pursuance of the powers vested in you; and, whatever may
      have been the event, we shall cheerfully concur in the
      provisions which the expedition, that has been undertaken,
      may require on the part of the Legislature, and in any
      other which the future peace and safety of our frontier
      settlements may call for.

      The critical posture of the European Powers will engage a
      due portion of our attention, and we shall be ready to
      adopt any measures which a prudent circumspection may
      suggest, for the preservation of the blessings of peace.
      The navigation and the fisheries of the United States are
      objects too interesting not to inspire a disposition to
      promote them, by all the means which shall appear to us
      consistent with their natural progress and permanent
      prosperity.

      Impressed with the importance of a free intercourse with
      the Mediterranean, we shall not think any deliberations
      misemployed which may conduce to the adoption of proper
      measures for removing the impediments that obstruct it.

      The improvement of the Judiciary system, and the other
      important objects to which you have pointed our attention,
      will not fail to engage the consideration they respectively
      merit.

      In the course of our deliberations upon every subject we
      shall rely upon that co-operation which an undiminished
      zeal, and incessant anxiety for the public welfare, on your
      part, so thoroughly ensure; and, as it is our anxious
      desire, so it shall be our constant endeavor, to render the
      established Government more and more instrumental in
      promoting the good of our fellow-citizens, and more and
      more the object of their attachment and confidence.

_Ordered_, That the Address to the President of the United States, in
answer to his Speech, be presented by the Vice President, attended by
the Senate, and that the committee which reported the Address wait on
the President, and desire to be informed at what time and place he will
receive the same.


MONDAY, December 13.

WILLIAM S. JOHNSON, from Connecticut, and PHILIP SCHUYLER, from New
York, attended.

Mr. ELLSWORTH, from the committee appointed on the 10th, to wait on the
President of the United States, reported:

That it would be agreeable to the President to receive the Address of
the Senate, in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress, on
Monday next, at 12 o'clock.

Whereupon,

The Senate waited upon the President of the United States at his own
house, and the Vice President, in their name, communicated to him the
Address agreed to on the 10th instant; to which the President of the
United States was pleased to make the following reply:

      GENTLEMEN: These assurances of favorable attention to the
      subjects I have recommended, and of entire confidence in my
      views, make the impression on me which I ought to feel. I
      thank you for them both, and shall continue to rely much
      for the success of all our measures for the public good, on
      the aid they will receive from the wisdom and integrity of
      your councils.

                                  GEO. WASHINGTON.

The Senate returned to the Senate Chamber.


WEDNESDAY, December 15.

JOSEPH STANTON, junior, from Rhode Island, attended.


MONDAY, January 10.

JOHN HENRY, from Maryland, attended.


MONDAY, January 17.

JAMES GUNN, from Georgia, attended.


FRIDAY, January 21.

CHARLES CARROLL, from the State of Maryland, attended.


MONDAY, February 14.

The Senate on Executive business. The following Message from the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES was under consideration:

_Gentlemen of the Senate:_

      Conceiving that in the possible event of a refusal of
      justice on the part of Great Britain, we should stand less
      committed should it be made to a private rather than a
      public person, I employed Mr. Gouverneur Morris, who was on
      the spot, and without giving him any definite character, to
      enter informally into the conferences before mentioned. For
      your more particular information, I lay before you the
      instructions I gave him, and those parts of his
      communications wherein the British ministers appear either
      in conversation or by letter. These are two letters from
      the Duke of Leeds to Mr. Morris, and three letters of Mr.
      Morris, giving an account of two conferences with the Duke
      of Leeds, and one with him, and Mr. Pitt. The sum of these
      is, that they declare, without scruple, they do not mean to
      fulfil what remains of the Treaty of Peace to be fulfilled
      on their part, (by which we are to understand the delivery
      of the posts and payment for property carried off,) till
      performance on our part, and compensation where the delay
      has rendered the performance now impracticable; that on the
      subject of a treaty of commerce they avoided direct
      answers, so as to satisfy Mr. Morris they did not mean to
      enter into one unless it could be extended to a treaty of
      alliance offensive and defensive, or unless in the event of
      a rupture with Spain.

      As to the sending a Minister here, they made excuses at the
      first conference, seemed disposed to it in the second, and
      in the last express an intention of so doing.

      Their views being thus sufficiently ascertained, I have
      directed Mr. Morris to discontinue his communications with
      them. GEO. WASHINGTON.

      UNITED STATES, _Feb._ 14, 1791.

_Ordered_, That this Message lie for consideration.


TUESDAY, February 15.

RICHARD HENRY LEE, from Virginia, attended.

No business of importance before the Senate to-day.


THURSDAY EVENING, March 3.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that
they, having completed the Legislative business before them, intend
shortly to adjourn without day.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives that
the Senate, having completed the Legislative business before them, are
about to adjourn; and having acquainted the VICE PRESIDENT that he had
delivered the message,

The Senate adjourned without day.




FIRST CONGRESS.--THIRD SESSION.

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES

IN

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.


MONDAY, December 6, 1790.

On which day, being the day appointed by adjournment of the two Houses
for the meeting of the present session, the following members appeared
and took their seats, to wit:

_From New Hampshire_--ABIEL FOSTER, NICHOLAS GILMAN, and SAMUEL
LIVERMORE.

_From Massachusetts_--FISHER AMES, BENJAMIN GOODHUE, and GEORGE
THATCHER.

_From Connecticut_--BENJAMIN HUNTINGTON, ROGER SHERMAN, and JONATHAN
STURGES.

_From New York_--EGBERT BENSON, WILLIAM FLOYD, JOHN LAWRENCE, and PETER
SYLVESTER.

_From New Jersey_--ELIAS BOUDINOT, LAMBERT CADWALADER, and JAMES
SCHUREMAN.

_From Pennsylvania_--GEORGE CLYMER, THO'S FITZSIMONS, FREDERICK AUGUSTUS
MUHLENBERG, PETER MUHLENBERG, and HENRY WYNKOOP.

_From Maryland_--JOSHUA SENEY.

_From Virginia_--JOHN BROWN, SAMUEL GRIFFIN, and JAMES MADISON, Junior.

_From North Carolina_--TIMOTHY BLOODWORTH and HUGH WILLIAMSON.

_From South Carolina_--WILLIAM SMITH.

_From Georgia_--ABRAHAM BALDWIN.

Which not forming a quorum of the whole number, the House adjourned
until to-morrow.


TUESDAY, December 7.

DANIEL HEISTER and THOMAS SCOTT, from Pennsylvania; RICHARD BLAND LEE,
from Virginia; and DANIEL HUGER, from South Carolina, appeared and took
their seats.

WILLIAM B. GILES, from Virginia, returned in the place of Theodorick
Bland, deceased, also appeared, produced his credentials, and took his
seat.


WEDNESDAY, December 8.

ELBRIDGE GERRY and JONATHAN GROUT, from Massachusetts; ANDREW MOORE and
ALEXANDER WHITE, from Virginia; and THOMAS TUDOR TUCKER, from South
Carolina, appeared and took their seats.

A message from the Senate informed the House that they are ready to meet
the members of this House in the Senate Chamber, to receive the usual
communication from the President of the United States.

Mr. SPEAKER, attended by the members of this House, then withdrew to the
Senate Chamber, for the purpose expressed in the above message.

And being returned, the SPEAKER laid before the House a copy of the
Speech, delivered by the PRESIDENT (which will be found in the
proceedings of the Senate),

Which being read, it was, on motion, committed to the consideration of a
Committee of the whole House to-morrow.


THURSDAY, December 9.

JAMES JACKSON and GEORGE MATHEWS, from Georgia, appeared and took their
seats.

_Address to the President._

On motion, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on
the Speech of the President of the United States, Mr. LIVERMORE in the
chair.

On motion of Mr. LAWRENCE, the committee agreed to a resolution, which
the committee rose and reported to the House, which was concurred with
as follows:

      _Resolved_, that it is the opinion of this committee, that
      an Address ought to be presented by the House to the
      President of the United States, in answer to his Speech to
      both Houses, with assurances that this House will, without
      delay, proceed to take into consideration the various and
      important matters recommended to their attention.

And Messrs. MADISON, AMES, and TUCKER, were appointed to prepare the
Address.


FRIDAY, December 10.

GEORGE PARTRIDGE, from Massachusetts; JONATHAN TRUMBULL and JEREMIAH
WADSWORTH, from Connecticut; THOMAS SINNICKSON, from New Jersey; and
WILLIAM SMITH, from Maryland, appeared and took their seats.


SATURDAY, December 11.

A translation of the Letter from the President of the Commonalty of
Paris, addressed to the Federal Legislature, was read as follows:

      _Mr. President--Gentlemen:_

      The news has reached our ears--FRANKLIN is no
      more!--FRANKLIN, the citizen of the world!--All nations are
      indebted to him for instruction in every branch of science.
      They are all bound to participate in the grief occasioned
      by this common loss. But the Assembly of the
      Representatives of the Commonalty of our capital, thinking
      it their duty, in addition to the general mourning, to pay
      to his memory a further tribute of honor, have ordered, by
      a public decree, that the virtues and talents of this great
      philosopher should be perpetuated to distant ages, in a
      public and solemn Eulogy--the first of the kind ever
      bestowed by our nation on civic worth.

      By order of the Assembly I transmit it to your hands; and,
      with the most lively sensations of pleasure, embrace the
      opportunity of paying due homage to a body of men, who not
      only possess, but are justly entitled to enjoy the sweets
      of Liberty.

      May the approbation of your Assembly attend, as well the
      present itself, as the fraternal and respectful sentiments
      with which

                                  I am, Mr. President--Gentlemen,
                                  Your most obedient humble servant,
                                  BENIERE,

                            _Doctor of the Sorbonne, Suppletory Member
                             of the National Assembly, and President
                             of the Commonalty of Paris._

      To the PRESIDENT and CONGRESS _of the United States_.

The letter accompanied twenty-six copies of the Eulogium on Dr.
FRANKLIN, delivered by the Abbe Fauchet, pursuant to a decree of that
body.

Mr. BOUDINOT proposed that thirteen copies of the Eulogium be returned
to the President of the United States and the Senate; which was done.

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) observed, that it would be proper to
request the President of the United States to return an answer to the
President of the Commonalty of Paris, or that a Joint Committee of the
House and Senate should be appointed for the purpose. He was not
tenacious of any particular mode, but supposed it highly proper that
some notice should be taken of the polite attention shown the Government
by the President of the Commonalty of Paris. The business was specially
committed to the SPEAKER.

Agreeably to the order of the day, the House resolved itself into a
Committee of the Whole, to take into consideration the Address to the
President of the United States, in answer to his Speech to both Houses,
as reported yesterday. Mr. LIVERMORE in the chair.

The Address was read by the clerk, and then discussed by the committee
in paragraphs.

On reading the clause respecting the Western expedition against the
Indians,

Mr. JACKSON rose and observed, that he was as fully impressed with the
importance of an Indian war, and of extending the protection of
Government to our defenceless frontiers, as any man whatever, and had no
doubt of the necessity of the measures taken to chastise the banditti
on the Ohio; but as a Representative from the State of Georgia, he
should think himself inexcusable were he not to express his astonishment
that no notice is taken in the President's speech of the treaty with the
Creek Nation; a treaty which has spread alarm among the people of that
State--a treaty by which more than three millions of acres of land, the
property of the State of Georgia, guarantied to that State by the
Constitution of the United States, are ceded away without any
compensation. Mr. J. then adverted to several articles of the treaty,
which he said controverted the plainest principles of the constitution,
particularly those parts which secure to every citizen the rights of
property. He contrasted the present situation of the inhabitants of
Georgia, with what it was under the British Government, and said this
treaty placed them in a less eligible situation in respect to the
Indians.

It had been said, exclaimed he, that there are secret articles in the
treaty. Good God! at this early period are there to be secret articles
existing between the United States and any other nation under heaven!
Treaties by the constitution are to be considered the supreme law of the
land; but will Congress permit the laws of the United States, like those
of _Caligula_, to be placed where they cannot be read, and then punish
the people for not obeying them? The people will never submit to be
bound by secret articles.

[Here the Chairman interrupted Mr. JACKSON, by inquiring whether his
observations were intended as introductory to any motion on the
paragraph just read.]

Mr. J. replied, that it was his intention, at a future day, to introduce
a motion, that the President be requested to lay before this House the
treaty with the Creek Indians--not excepting the secret articles. He
then expatiated on the sufferings of the people of Georgia, and asked,
what must be their feelings when they reflect on the preparations made
to chastise the Wabash banditti, while the exertions of Congress have
not been called forth to their relief. The President sent three
Commissioners to Georgia (not one of whom was a citizen of that State).
They investigated the truth of her representations, and made a report
favorable to her claims, that the lands in dispute were fairly
purchased, and as fully obtained as the Confederation, or the nature of
the case would admit; but what has been the result? The treaty, so far
from recognizing the rights of Georgia, has sacrificed them--the report
of the Commissioners does not appear to have been attended to. On the
other hand, a savage of the Creeks has been invited and brought to the
seat of Government, and there loaded with favors, and caressed in the
most extraordinary manner.

He said, he would not at present engross any more of the time of the
House, only to give notice that, at a future opportunity, he should move
that the President of the United States be requested to lay before the
House for their consideration, the treaty with the Creek Indians--not
excepting the secret articles.

The paragraph respecting encouraging our own navigation being read,

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) observed, that he did not rise to propose
any alterations in the style of the Address; the language was such as
might be expected from the acknowledged abilities of the gentleman who
drafted it. The paragraph just read, he conceived, pledged the House to
take measures in respect to our own navigation, which may, in the issue,
prove injurious to the agricultural interests of the United States. At
this early period of the session, it appeared extremely improper for the
House to commit itself, especially as few, if any of the States, are
fully represented on the floor. He was afraid that the mode of
expression adopted in the Address would conduce to the exclusion of
foreign bottoms altogether. If the opinion of the committee should be
adopted by the House, he conceived it would be anticipating a decision
to the precluding future discussions of the subject. He foresaw that
this paragraph would be called up at some future period, and brought as
an argument against any different propositions that might be
offered--and thus the question be determined without any debate. He
thought the Address went into too minute a consideration of the several
parts of the Speech, and could have wished that more general terms had
been used. As a substitute for the paragraph under consideration, he
moved the following amendment in substance:

      "We shall consider with attention the best means of
      guarding against the embarrassments you mention, and will
      take such measures as may remove every obstruction to the
      prosperity of the commerce and agriculture of the United
      States."

Mr. WILLIAMSON observed, that he saw no material difference between the
paragraph in the report and the amendment proposed. The mode of
expression adopted by the committee is in so general terms, that he
hoped it would have met the full approbation of every member of the
committee. The President proposes that the commerce of the United States
should be relieved from all injurious restrictions; nothing can be more
just and reasonable: and this is perfectly compatible with supporting
the agricultural interests of the country; the promotion of the former
involves that of the latter. He touched on the impositions of Great
Britain on our commerce, and observed, that reason and justice point out
the propriety of seeking redress. He, however, saw no opposition in the
two propositions; but as the obvious design in bringing forward the
substitute is to preclude such an inquiry as the exigency of the case
seems to require, he hoped it would not be adopted.

Mr. JACKSON observed that he had seconded the motion of the gentleman
from South Carolina, because he thought there was an obvious difference
in the two modes of expression. He then entered into a discussion of the
subject generally; and enlarged on the injurious consequences which
would result to the Southern States particularly by enhancing the duties
on foreign bottoms. He said, that the tonnage was at present so high as
to prevent foreigners from becoming our carriers; several instances of
this had been mentioned to him from good authority; and while the
American shipping was incompetent to the object, and he called on
gentlemen to show that it was, the exclusion of foreign ships from our
ports must be ruinous to South Carolina and Georgia; therefore, he hoped
the amendment would take place.

Mr. SHERMAN said, that the words in the report appeared to him less
exceptionable than those in the proposed amendment, even on the
principle supported by the gentleman in favor of the amendment. In the
report it was only said, we should consider what means, &c., but the
amendment declared we should take effectual measures. The words in the
report only binding us to consider--those in the amendment obliging us
to act. He thought the answer should be general, and was therefore
against the amendment.

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) observed, that the member last up had
confined his observation to the first words in the paragraph objected
to. If he will take the trouble of reading a little further, he will
see, that as the report stands, we give it as our opinion, that foreign
bottoms ought to be excluded, which would be severely felt by the States
of South Carolina and Georgia. We cannot wholly depend upon our own
vessels for the exportation of our produce; they are not sufficiently
numerous, nor will they be for many years; therefore, let us not at this
time, in a hasty manner, declare, that all articles exported shall be
carried in our own bottoms. To settle this important question, Mr. S.
thought that some time should be given to reflect, and a day fixed for
discussion; in the mean time, he thought it improper at this stage of
the session, that the opinion of the House should be given.

Mr. WILLIAMSON remarked, that the report did not say that we should have
no dependence on foreign bottoms; but that we should not depend
altogether upon them for the exportation of our produce. He had no idea
of excluding foreign bottoms. He was for making provision in case that
resource should fail.

Mr. JACKSON.--To show the importance of foreign shipping to the Southern
States, and the inadequacy of our own to transport their produce,
notwithstanding the low duty on American shipping, Mr. J. read a
statement of the tonnage duties paid by each, in the State of Georgia,
for the same period; the foreign tonnage amounted to eight thousand two
hundred and twenty-seven dollars, the American to six hundred and
twenty-nine dollars only. This being the fact, he inquired, what could
be done with the Southern produce, in case of the exclusion of foreign
bottoms? It must rot in the planter's hands. With respect to the
amendment's being as positive as the clause in the report, as had been
asserted, if this is the case he could see no objection to its being
adopted.

Mr. TUCKER said, he thought it improper that in an Address on this
occasion, the committee should go into a particular detail on every
subject; much less commit their judgment without a previous discussion.
The President may have maturely considered the subject during the
recess, but the committee cannot be supposed to be prepared for a
decision. The thinness of the House was a further objection, in his
opinion, to entering into a discussion of the question. He was not
pleased with the paragraph in the report, as it seemed to imply that
nothing had been done for the encouragement of our own navigation, the
reverse of which was fact. The posture of affairs in Europe suggested no
stronger reasons for giving further encouragement to our own navigation
than what was presented last session; the expediency of the measure is
not therefore apparent from any change of circumstances. Though he was
dissatisfied with the report, the amendment proposed fell short of his
wishes. It did not recognize what had been done for the encouragement of
American shipping. He would, therefore, propose a substitute by leave of
his colleague; which he did to the following purport: "The encouragement
of our own navigation has at all times appeared to us highly important,
and has employed a large share of our deliberations; we shall continue
to pay due attention to the subject, and consider by what means our
commerce and agriculture may be best promoted."

Mr. SMITH withdrew his motion to admit Mr. TUCKER's.

Mr. SENEY said, he could not conceive what ground of apprehension there
was in the Address, to lead gentlemen to suppose that the opinion of the
House would be committed by its adoption. He thought it couched in the
most general and unexceptionable terms. The amendment proposed he did
not think essentially variant from the paragraph under consideration;
but as the original was well expressed, he saw no reason for expunging
the clause; it contained an assertion, the truth of which he supposed
would not be controverted. As to the objection against going into a
detail of particulars, it was fully justified by precedent in the last
Address; the gentleman from South Carolina, he will recollect, was on
the committee who framed it; that Address more pointedly committed the
House than the present.

Mr. MADISON thought proper to take some notice of the objections that
had been made to the report. There were two modes of proceeding, which
might be adopted in drawing up the answer. The first method was
generally to declare, that the House would take into their serious
consideration the business recommended to their attention by the
President. And this, he observed, would be saying nothing, for, as by
the constitution it was the President's duty to communicate what matters
he judged of importance, so it was undoubtedly that of the House to pay
attention to the objects recommended. The second method was, to enter
into a detail of the different points mentioned in the President's
Address, and in such cases where there was no doubt as to the propriety
of measures being taken, assure him, in the answer, that measures would
be adopted; and if any thing doubtful occurred, merely promise that the
subject would be attended to. This rule the committee had followed in
drawing up their report, and as in the business mentioned in the
paragraph now before the House, they did not hesitate to believe some
measures necessary, they could see no impropriety in assuring him that
the best would be adopted. He added, that as it is clear that a war in
Europe would, by depriving us of foreign bottoms to export our produce,
injure this country; and as wars were doubtful, it was of the utmost
importance that the American navy be put on so respectable a footing as
not to need foreign aid for the exportation of her produce. He further
observed, that the answer returned last session was more full, and went
even to give the President assurances that the House would concur in
certain points proposed for their consideration in his address. He
concluded by remarking, that the amendment proposed was binding on the
House quite as much as the paragraph in the report.

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) said, it was true those who reported the
Address the last session, adverted to particulars; but were cautious in
their mode of expression, and adopted ambiguous language to avoid giving
an opinion. This would appear by recurring to that Address. The charge
of inconsistency on his part was therefore not well founded. Mr. S. read
some paragraphs of that Address, and observed that the House was not
pledged by the expressions then read; but in the present Address there
is an opinion given. It says that we ought not to depend on foreign
bottoms, because in case of war we may be deprived of that resource.
These declarations originated the objections, and gave rise to the
amendment. He proposed, therefore, as gentlemen appear to have no
objection to either mode of expression, that they would accommodate for
the sake of harmony and unanimity.

The question on the amendment was lost by a considerable majority.

The remainder of the Address was read, and agreed to by the committee.
The committee then rose and reported, and the House adopted it
unanimously.

A committee was then appointed to wait on the President of the United
States, to know at what time and place it would be convenient for him to
receive the Address.

The committee having waited on the President, Mr. MADISON reported, that
the President was pleased to return for answer, that, at two o'clock on
Monday next, he would receive the Address at his own house.

Messrs. WILLIAMSON and SHERMAN were added to the committee on the bill
to amend the act for promoting the progress of the useful arts.

Mr. MATHEWS was appointed on the committee on the militia bill, _vice_
Mr. JACKSON, who begged leave to decline serving, as his colleague had
been heretofore on that business, and must consequently be better
acquainted with the subject than he was.


MONDAY, December 13.

GEORGE LEONARD from Massachusetts; JOHN VINING, from Delaware; JOSIAH
PARKER, from Virginia; JOHN BAPTIST ASHE, from North Carolina; and
EDANUS BURKE, from South Carolina, appeared and took their seats.

_Eulogium on Dr. Franklin._

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) introduced the following motion, which was
read, and laid on the table:

      The House being highly sensible of the polite attention of
      the Commonalty of Paris, in directing a eulogium to the
      illustrious memory of Dr. Benjamin Franklin, pronounced
      before them, to be transmitted to the President and
      Congress of the United States,

      _Resolved_, That the Speaker communicate the sense of this
      House in a letter addressed to the President and Commonalty
      of Paris.

_Address to the President._

At two o'clock, the House, preceded by the Sergeant-at-Arms, waited on
the President of the United States, at his house where the SPEAKER
delivered the following Address in answer to his Speech to both Houses:

      SIR: The Representatives of the people of the United States
      have taken into consideration your Address to the two
      Houses at the opening of the present session of Congress.

      We share in the satisfaction inspired by the prospects
      which continue to be so auspicious to our public affairs.
      The blessings resulting from the smiles of Heaven on our
      agriculture, the rise of public credit, with the further
      advantages promised to it, and the fertility of resources
      which are found so little burdensome to the community,
      fully authorize our mutual congratulations on the present
      occasion. Nor can we learn, without an additional
      gratification, that the energy of the laws for providing
      adequate revenues have been so honorably seconded by those
      classes of citizens whose patriotism and probity were more
      immediately concerned.

      The success of the loan, opened in Holland under the
      disadvantages of the present moment, is the more important,
      as it not only denotes the confidence already placed in the
      United States, but as the effects of a judicious
      application of that aid will still further illustrate the
      solidity of the foundation on which the public credit
      rests.

      The preparatory steps taken by the State of Virginia, in
      concert with the District of Kentucky, towards the erection
      of the latter into a distinct member of the Union, exhibit
      a liberality mutually honorable to the parties. We shall
      bestow on this important subject the favorable
      consideration which it merits, and with the national policy
      which ought to govern our decision, shall not fail to
      mingle the affectionate sentiments which are awakened by
      those expressed in behalf of our fellow-citizens of
      Kentucky.

      Whilst we regret the necessity which has produced offensive
      hostilities against some of the Indian tribes north-west of
      the Ohio, we sympathize too much with our Western brethren,
      not to behold with approbation the watchfulness and vigor
      which have been exerted by the Executive authority for
      their protection; and which, we trust, will make the
      aggressors sensible that it is their interest to merit, by
      a peaceable behavior, the friendship and humanity which the
      United States are always ready to extend to them.

      The encouragement of our own navigation has at all times
      appeared to us highly important. The point of view under
      which you have recommended it to us is strongly enforced by
      the actual state of things in Europe. It will be incumbent
      on us to consider in what mode our commerce and agriculture
      can be best relieved from an injurious dependence on the
      navigation of other nations, which the frequency of their
      wars renders a too precarious resource for conveying the
      productions of our own country to market.

      The present state of our trade in the Mediterranean seems
      not less to demand, and will accordingly receive, the
      attention which you have recommended.

      Having already concurred in establishing a Judiciary
      system, which opens the doors of justice to all without
      distinction of persons, it will be our disposition to
      incorporate every improvement which experience may suggest;
      and we shall consider, in particular, how far the
      uniformity which in other cases is found convenient in the
      administration of the General Government through all the
      States may be introduced into the forms and rules of
      executing sentences issuing from the Federal Courts.

      The proper regulation of the jurisdiction and functions
      which may be exercised by Consuls of the United States in
      foreign countries, with the provisions stipulated to those
      of His Most Christian Majesty established here, are
      subjects of too much consequence to the public interest and
      honor not to partake of our deliberations.

      We shall renew our attention to the establishment of the
      militia and other subjects unfinished at the last session,
      and shall proceed in them with all the despatch which the
      magnitude of all, and the difficulty of some of them, will
      allow.

      Nothing has given us more satisfaction than to find that
      the revenues heretofore established have proved adequate to
      the purposes to which they were allotted. In extending the
      provision to the residuary objects, it will be equally our
      care to secure sufficiency and punctuality in the payments
      due from the Treasury of the United States. We shall also
      never lose sight of the policy of diminishing the public
      debt, as fast as the increase of the public resources will
      permit; and are particularly sensible of the many
      considerations which press a resort to the auxiliary
      resources furnished by the public lands.

      In pursuing every branch of the weighty business of the
      present session, it will be our constant study to direct
      our deliberations to the public welfare. Whatever our
      success may be, we can at least answer for the fervent love
      of our country, which ought to animate our endeavors. In
      your co-operation, we are sure of a resource which
      fortifies our hopes that the fruits of the established
      Government will justify the confidence which has been
      placed in it, and recommend it more and more to the
      affection and attachment of our fellow-citizens.

To the foregoing Address the PRESIDENT was pleased to reply:

      GENTLEMEN: The sentiments expressed in your Address are
      entitled to my particular acknowledgment. Having no object
      but the good of our country, this testimony of approbation
      and confidence, from its immediate representatives, must be
      among my best rewards, as the support of your enlightened
      patriotism has been among my greatest encouragements. Being
      persuaded that you will continue to be actuated by the same
      auspicious principle, I look forward to the happiest
      consequences from your deliberations during the present
      session.

                                  GEO. WASHINGTON.


TUESDAY, December 14.

JEREMIAH VAN RENSSELAER, from New York, and THOMAS HARTLEY, from
Pennsylvania, appeared and took their seats.


FRIDAY, December 17.

JOHN HATHORN, from New York, and JOHN SEVIER, from North Carolina,
appeared and took their seats.

BENJAMIN BOURNE, a member returned from Rhode Island, produced his
credentials, and took his seat.


MONDAY, December 27.

_Public Lands._

The House then went into Committee of the Whole on the state of the
Union, Mr. LIVERMORE in the chair.

The report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the establishment of land
offices for the disposal of the vacant lands belonging to the United
States was taken up; when

Mr. BOUDINOT offered the following resolution:

      _Resolved_, That it is the sense of the committee that a
      Land Office be established at the seat of the General
      Government, under the direction of ---- Commissioners.

Mr. SCOTT wished the House to take a general view of the business before
they went into the particulars of the Secretary's report. Upon the
whole, he was pleased with the plan drawn up by that officer; one part,
however, he objected to--that part of the report which provided for the
distribution of the land. He did not approve of setting apart tracts for
particular descriptions of purchasers. As an amendment, he offered seven
propositions, which he wished, for the present, to lie on the table, and
which he proposed to offer as substitutes to different parts of the
Secretary's report, as they came before the House. His principal object
was to let the tracts which Congress proposed to sell be
indiscriminately located.

Mr. BOUDINOT thought the committee could not then enter into the minutiae
of the business. It was enough to fix the general principles, viz:
Whether there shall be a General Land Officer and two subordinates?
Whether they shall be under the direction of Commissioners? And whether
certain tracts of land should be reserved by Congress for certain
purposes? And then to appoint a committee to bring in a bill on those
principles, and to take into consideration the minutiae of the business.

Mr. SCOTT moved as a substitute his second proposition, that such
districts as shall be set apart for sale, shall include the actual
settlements, and be left to be indiscriminately located. He said it was
improper to set aside different tracts for different modes of
location--some in large tracts, others in small lots. He conceived it
would be the interest of Government to let every one purchase where he
pleased, and as much or as little as he chose. From experience, he knew
that those parts were always settled with the most celerity that were
not bound down to any of those restrictions. For his part, he could see
no good argument in favor of them.

He wished some of the gentlemen who approved of this mode would give him
some reasons for preferring it. There could be no fear of individual
settlers scattering and losing themselves in the backwoods; there was a
sufficient check to prevent it--the Indians would keep them compact much
more effectually than any regulations Congress could make. If, after
granting certain scattered tracts to individual settlers, a considerable
tract, including these, was wanted, he could see no inconvenience in
granting it, reserving to the former settlers their rights.

Mr. WILLIAMSON rose to give the gentleman last up one reason for
opposing indiscriminate location. Hitherto, he owned, much mischief had
not arisen from this mode of settlement; but now there were persons rich
in securities and cash, ready to take up considerable quantities of
land, which, if they were permitted to select here and there, would
select every choice tract they could; and those who might not have the
same means of purchasing immediately at command, could only obtain the
indifferent parcels. Many, he knew, had it in contemplation to do this,
if the opportunity offered. He instanced North Carolina as an example of
the injurious tendency of this liberty; where many tracts are unsaleable
owing to this circumstance. If these tracts were to be purchased by
actual settlers, the case would be different; they would only be taken
up by persons under the name of actual settlers. Such a practice would
be an impediment to such companies of Europeans as might wish to settle
among us.

Mr. SCOTT said he expected the gentleman would have offered more solid
objections to his plan, and more forcible arguments in favor of the
other. Though the first settlers had the choice of the land, yet he
conceived the remaining part would acquire a considerable additional
value from the surrounding settlements. As for the European companies
who might be tempted to settle among us, he did not contemplate it as
an object so desirable. A body of French people settling in that way
would preserve their language and manners two thousand years perhaps.
This would not be for the true interest of the country; all its
inhabitants should, by mutual intercourse, become assimilated, and no
name be known but that of Americans.

Mr. BOUDINOT was against indiscriminate location. He had seen the bad
effects of it in the State from which he came. Persons had bought up the
low lands, and sold them again to such as absolutely needed a water lot
to their farms, at enormous prices. He mentioned another objection to
the plan--the tendency it had to create lawsuits. He said more money had
been spent at law, in disputes arising from that mode of settlement, in
New Jersey, than would have been necessary to purchase all the land of
the State. The late Congress, he was informed, had adopted a method to
obviate the inconveniences of the former mode--the lands were laid out
into a mile square; these were divided into four equal squares, and in
that form sold.

Mr. SCOTT said there were tracts of land which it is impossible to sell,
even by offering good parcels with them. Between Philadelphia and his
home there were spots which were only intended by nature for the birds
and beasts--that could be of no value for cultivation. He could not see
much probability that the best land would be picked out. The difficulty
of exploring a wild and uncultivated desert opposed a considerable
barrier to such attempts.

Mr. SCOTT's amendment was lost.


TUESDAY, December 28.

_Land Offices._

The House then went again into a Committee of the Whole on the state of
the Union, Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair. The report of the Secretary of the
Treasury on the subject of a Land Office being under consideration.

Mr. SCOTT said, he was ready to give some information relative to the
extent of the seven ranges. He produced a map of them, from which it
appeared that they included thirty-five lots, each six miles square. The
tract is in the shape of a triangle, of which one leg measured about
sixty, and the other forty-two--in all, about twelve hundred square
miles. His amendment was agreed to.

The next article was agreed to, with a trifling amendment, without
debate.

Then the following was read:

      "That the price shall be thirty cents per acre, to be paid
      either in gold or silver, or public securities, computing
      those which shall bear an immediate interest of six per
      cent. as at par with gold and silver, and those which shall
      bear a future or less interest, if any there be, at a
      proportional value."

Mr. SCOTT moved that thirty cents should be struck out.

Mr. SHERMAN was in favor of inserting fifty cents per acre. He said
there was every reasonable probability the lands would be worth that sum
in a few years.

Mr. LAWRENCE said, that as the quality of the land would vary, it
appeared proper to fix on two prices at which they should be sold, viz:
That the price shall not be more than ----, nor less than ----. He
submitted the idea to the consideration of the committee.

Mr. SEDGWICK preferred the insertion of a sum below which the lands
should not be sold.

Mr. WILLIAMSON suggested the propriety of making a difference in the
price to those who purchase large quantities, from the price to those
who purchase small quantities.

The motion for striking out was lost.

Mr. SEDGWICK then moved to amend the clause, by inserting "that the
price per acre shall not be less than thirty cents."

Mr. STONE objected to the motion. He said the operation of it would be
to leave it discretionary with the Surveyors to fix the price of the
various tracts. This would be to constitute a tribunal in a measure
independent of the Government. He thought the policy of the Government
should be to fix on a price, which shall be so reasonable, that persons
may feel every inducement to pay it before they take up the lands; for
it has been found by experience, that when once a tract of distant
country is taken possession of, you never can get any thing more than
the settlers are willing to pay. He insisted that it was impracticable
to fix the relative value of unlocated lands--it had been repeatedly
tried without effect. He asked if any of the States had ever established
various rates for their lands? He knew of none.

Mr. SEDGWICK answered the inquiry respecting the relative value of lands
being ascertained in the several States. He said, that so far as his
information extended, which respected only the States of New York, New
Hampshire, and Massachusetts, this had invariably been the case. Every
man knows there is a most essential difference in the value of lands.
Those on navigable rivers may be ten times as valuable as those on the
top of a mountain. This every individual is so sensible of, that a
difference in the price is constantly made; and why the Government
should not make a difference, it is impossible to say. Any man, by
casting his eye upon the map, can at once determine that some part of
the land is unspeakably more valuable than other parts. He was certain
that vesting a discretionary power, in the disposal of the lands, would
be productive of the greatest advantage to the United States, and on
this principle he could not conceive why the Surveyors should not
determine the relative quality, that the United States may stand some
chance of getting the value of this property.

Mr. LIVERMORE was in favor of Mr. SEDGWICK's motion, and enlarged on the
unreasonableness of fixing a particular price.

Mr. JACKSON was opposed to investing a discretionary power to determine
the price with any persons whatsoever. It had been productive of
mischievous consequences in the State of Georgia. He was for fixing a
price, and the highest price--the best the land would bear; when that is
sold, if the revenue will not bear the price established, it can then be
reduced.

Mr. SCOTT objected to the motion. He stated several difficulties; the
principal was, that foreigners would be deterred from adventuring, owing
to the uncertainty in the price; for when they arrive in the country to
settle, they must purchase, and they will then lie at the mercy of
speculators.

Mr. LAWRENCE.--The people have great dependence on the Western territory
as a fund to extinguish their debt; it therefore becomes the duty of the
Government to obtain the best price they can for it. The question is,
whether we shall fix a price, or adopt the plan proposed by the
gentleman from Massachusetts. He was in favor of the latter, and said he
doubted not it would be easy to make a discrimination in the relative
qualities of the lands. This difference in price may render it worth
while for the Commissioners to have the land of a particular district
explored. He replied to the objection from the want of integrity in the
surveyors. Admitting the full force of the objection, it was probable
that the United States would gain by it; at any rate, it would not lose;
and it was probable that, to avoid suspicion, if the surveyors should be
interested in the tract surveyed, they would give more than thirty
cents. With respect to foreigners, after they arrive in this country,
they then will be on the same footing with our own citizens. He adverted
to the mode which had been adopted by New York--they had sold lands in
every way, at a certain price, at auction, and are now selling them at
the discretion of Commissioners, at a rate not below a certain sum.

Mr. STONE objected to the mode of leaving the price unfixed, as it would
involve a complex system, subjecting the purchasers to great
inconvenience, perplexity, and uncertainty. He reprobated the system
adopted by New York, and asked the gentleman (Mr. LAWRENCE) whether New
York had not been subjected to great loss and vexation in consequence of
the plan they had pursued? He wished the system of New York should be
fully understood, in order that the United States may avoid it. He
concluded by saying, that he was in favor of fixing a price, and
supposed that the Western Territory, sold at thirty cents per acre,
would sink the whole of the national debt.

Mr. LAWRENCE replied to Mr. STONE. He said, that when the State of New
York sold their lands at a fixed price, there had been complaints on
account of the best tracts being taken up. When they had sold them at
auction, the value of the lands had been generally realized in
proportion to the quality. With respect to the last mode adopted, the
result was not yet known.

Mr. WHITE said, if gentlemen had proposed the amendment to the clause
which respects large purchases, he should not have objected to it. He,
however, objected to it in the present case, and, in order to show that
a fixed price was most eligible for small quantities, he instanced the
practice of Lord Fairfax, who had been a great proprietor in Virginia;
and also the practice of the first proprietors of Pennsylvania. These
sold their lands, good and bad, at one price; their experience for such
a length of time, near a century, he thought sufficient to show that
mode to be the most eligible. He would not object to fixing that
condition to special contract.

Mr. SEDGWICK obviated the objection in the first instance, by saying
that the officers will be able to determine, with very considerable
precision, what will be for the interest of the United States. He said
experience had proved that there were no insuperable difficulties in the
case.

Mr. MOORE observed, that the actual value of the best lands in that
territory was about thirty cents per acre. When all of that description
is sold, the next will bring the same price; from whence he inferred,
that there could be no difficulty or loss attending fixing the price. He
stated some difficulties which would result from adopting the mode
proposed.


WEDNESDAY, January 5.

_Duties on Spirits._

The House, agreeably to the order of the day, resolved itself into a
Committee of the Whole, Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair, and took into
consideration the bill repealing, after a certain time, the act laying
duties on distilled spirits, &c., and imposing others in their stead.

Mr. JACKSON moved to strike out the essential part of the first clause.
He stated his objections at large against the principles of the bill,
and reprobated the funding system, and an excise in particular, as an
auxiliary to it.

The tenor of his observations was to show that this mode of taxation was
odious, unequal, unpopular, and oppressive, more particularly in the
Southern States; in which he observed its unequal operation would be
most sensibly felt, as the citizens of those States have no alternative
to adopt by which they can diminish the weight of the tax; no breweries
or orchards to furnish a substitute for spirituous liquors; hence they
become a necessary article. He contended that they were not only
necessary, but salutary in the Southern regions. This, he said, had been
acknowledged by an Eastern author, _Mr. Morse_, an authority which he
presumed would not be disputed by the Northern gentlemen, especially
when it was considered he was a clergyman. Mr. M. declares that grog is
a necessary article of drink in the Southern States.

Mr. J. took notice of the petition of the College of Physicians, which
had lately been read in the House on the subject of distilled spirits.
He disapproved highly of their interfering in the business. He thought
they might with equal propriety interpose their offices to prevent the
use of many other articles which were deemed pernicious or of a
poisonous quality. He instanced mushrooms; they might petition Congress
to pass a law interdicting the use of catsup, because some ignorant
persons had been poisoned by eating mushrooms.

Mr. J. then gave a short sketch of the history of excises in England. He
said they always had been considered by the people of that country as an
odious tax, from the time of _Oliver Cromwell_ to the present day; even
_Blackstone_, a high prerogative lawyer, has reprobated them. He said,
he hoped this country would take warning by the experience of the people
of Great Britain, and not sacrifice their liberties by wantonly
contracting debts which would render it necessary to burden the people
by such taxes as would swallow up their privileges. We are, said he, too
much in the habit of imitating that country; and I plainly perceive that
the time will come when a shirt shall not be washed without an excise.
He then expatiated on the unequal operation of excises, and instanced
the experience of this State. A few counties, said he, approximate to
the capital, have borne the weight of the whole, while the distant parts
of the State did not feel the burden; and, by an indication of several
particulars, he showed its unequal operation in the Southern States. It
will deprive the mass of the people of almost the only luxury they
enjoy, that of distilled spirits. He did not see the necessity of
passing this law the present session. The amount of the produce of the
duties laid last session is not yet known, nor is it yet ascertained
whether the citizens will subscribe to the assumption. Let us not lay a
tax for a purpose which may never exist; for my part, I hope they never
will subscribe. He then adverted to the excess of duties already laid,
and the probability of a great increase of that excess; and urged the
propriety of waiting at least another quarter to see what that excess
may amount to. These observations he enforced by recurring to the recent
transactions of the States of Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina;
and he expected to hear very shortly that the Assembly of Georgia had
expressed similar opinions with the latter States on the business of the
assumption. He concluded by expressing a general disapprobation of the
various parts of the bill.

Mr. PARKER said, he had seconded the motion of the gentleman from
Georgia, not because he was more averse to this particular clause than
to the subsequent parts of the bill. He exceedingly disliked the several
provisions contained in it. He then adverted to the general process of
the revenue business the last session; and observing on the conduct of
the mercantile interest, to which so much credit had been given, said,
he thought they were not entitled to the liberal encomiums which had
been bestowed on them for their promptitude in paying the duties, as
the certainty and increase of the revenue had served to enhance the
value of the public securities, of which it is well known they hold a
very considerable portion.

He then touched on the subsequent parts of the bill, which he reprobated
as hostile to the liberties of the people, as contrary to the general
sentiment; not only as partial and unequal in the mode of assessment,
but particularly on account of the mode of collecting the tax. It will,
said he, convulse the Government; it will let loose a swarm of harpies,
who, under the denomination of revenue officers, will range through the
country, prying into every man's house and affairs, and like a
Macedonian phalanx bear down all before them. And though the Government
has proceeded with a degree of prosperity and success beyond the most
sanguine expectations, yet he very much doubted the policy of trying its
strength by an experiment of this nature.

Recurring to the actual and probable produce of the duties already laid,
he attempted to show that the additional sum of upwards of eight hundred
thousand dollars, contemplated to be raised by this bill, is not
necessary. He controverted the policy of the measure, and contended that
it would, in all probability, rather diminish than increase the revenue
of the United States. For the mercantile part of the community, who have
been applauded for acting so honorably in making their entries, and
paying the impost, will find it for their interest to alter their
conduct; they will combine to defeat the excise, which will in its
operations bear so unequally on them.

He objected very particularly to the bill on account of its tendency to
promote smuggling. Mr. P. said, no man was more heartily disposed than
he was to give his approbation to every just measure for supporting the
public credit, and doing every thing in his power to support the
constitutional operations of the Government; but this mode of raising a
revenue he considered as particularly odious to the people; and at the
present moment he was not satisfied that such an increase to the public
burdens is necessary.

Mr. STONE said, he had no objection to the design of the bill so far as
additional revenue was necessary; but the mode of raising it by excise
he exceedingly disliked. He had no doubt that other means might be
devised; but at present he thought the committee was not sufficiently
informed respecting the actual and probable amount of the revenue from
the duties already imposed, to determine the necessity of an addition to
the revenue. He therefore moved that the committee should rise without
any further discussion of the bill at this time, and that a select
committee should be appointed to make the necessary previous inquiries
upon the subject, and report to the House.

Mr. FITZSIMONS observed that there was already on the table a statement
from the proper officers of the product of the revenue, from September,
1789, to September, 1790.

This statement was read.

The motion for the committee's rising was put and lost.

The question on Mr. JACKSON's motion for striking out the clause was
put, and negatived by a great majority.


THURSDAY, January 6.

_Duties on Spirits._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
bill repealing after the last day of ---- next, the act laying duties on
distilled spirits, &c., and imposing others in their stead. Mr. BOUDINOT
in the chair.

The twelfth section, which specifies the rates of duties, being read,

Mr. PARKER moved that it should be struck out, in order to admit a
substitute which should provide for a different mode of raising the
requisite additional revenue; the proposition he had in view, he said,
was a duty on molasses. This, he observed, would answer every purpose,
without being liable to the objections which had been offered against
the plan of the bill.

Mr. MADISON observed, that he had felt the force of the objections which
had been urged against the bill. He was in general principled against
excises, but of all excises, that on ardent spirits he considered the
least exceptionable. The question now to be determined, he conceived,
was this--is an addition to the present amount of the revenue necessary?
It had appeared that an addition is necessary; for his own part, he
should prefer direct taxation to any excises whatever; but he conceived
this would be contrary to the sentiments of a majority of the people of
the United States; and he was fully convinced that it was contrary to
the opinion of a great majority of the House. If, said he, any mode
could be adopted, without having recourse to excises, he would be the
last that would give them support; but he conceived there was none, and
the plan proposed was divested of the most exceptionable provisions
usually connected with an excise system.

Mr. JACKSON observed, that his defeat yesterday should not deter him,
while he had a monitor within, from rising in his place to do his duty,
in opposition to a system unfriendly to the liberties of the people. He
said, he was not the first on this floor who had been outvoted by silent
majorities; gentlemen of superior abilities had met with similar
treatment. He, however, felt so much respect for himself as to suppose
that this silence proceeded from an inability to answer the arguments
which he had the honor to offer against what he considered a most
ruinous and mischievous system of taxation.

He then stated certain particulars respecting the produce of the
revenue, to show that so great a sum as is proposed to be raised by
excise is unnecessary.

He doubted not other resources of revenue might be explored which would
be more palatable; he instanced a tax on salaries, pensions, and
lawyers, and in these particulars, he wished that the example of Great
Britain might be followed.

He then dilated on the practice of smuggling, which he contended would
be promoted by this bill; also the difficulties and opposition which
were justly to be expected, by which the dignity of the Government would
be insulted. Can this Government, said he, protect its officers from the
resentment of any one State in the Union? He reprobated the idea of
placing the Government in such a situation.

Mr. LAWRENCE observed, that he doubted not every gentleman's mind was
open to conviction, and he hoped and expected that every question would
be treated dispassionately. He did not rise yesterday to answer the
gentleman, because he was not impressed with the force of his arguments
in the manner the gentleman supposed the House was. He then adverted to
the act of the last session, by which the debts of the particular States
were assumed. Having taken this debt upon ourselves, the consequence is
obvious, nor can we ever get over the dishonor of not making the
necessary provision for paying it. He then adverted to the statements
which had been submitted to the House by the officer to whom the Union
had intrusted the direction of its finances. From these it fully
appeared that a much greater deficiency in the revenue existed than some
gentlemen appeared willing to allow. If this deficiency exists, and if
the United States are bound to make provision for the debts they have
assumed to pay, the duties contemplated by the bill appear the most
obvious for the Government to recur to. He adverted to the idea of
direct taxation, and inquired, on what principle will gentlemen consent
to this mode of raising the necessary supplies? Will they make the
representation of the several States the rule by which it shall be
apportioned? He doubted whether direct taxes on this principle would be
agreeable, even to the gentlemen who have mentioned them. He then
remarked on the objections to an excise, on account of the mode of
collection. He said a rigorous collection would bear hard only on the
dishonest, while it would protect the fair trader from bearing an undue
proportion of the public burdens.

He observed on the uneasiness which is said to prevail in some of the
States; and to obviate the force of these reflections he instanced the
harmony and peace that prevailed in those States which bear a much
greater proportion of the public burdens than those which complain, as
was abundantly evident from the documents in possession of the House.

Mr. STEELE stated his objections at large to an excise; he adverted to
the particular situation of affairs in some of the Southern States,
especially North Carolina. The Assembly of that State had rejected the
proposal of taking an oath to support the Constitution of the United
States, with scorn; they had also refused to admit Continental prisoners
into their jails; and another circumstance more hostile to the General
Government than either of the foregoing had taken place, which he
forbore to mention. He said such was the present state of the public
mind, in various parts of the Union, that he should dread taking any
measures which might serve to increase the fermentation which the people
are in. An excise he considered of this nature; it would in its
operations produce the worst consequences. A more exceptionable mode of
taxation he conceived could not be devised. A direct or poll tax, he
supposed, would not be so odious; and though, for his own part, he
should prefer an excise to either of the former taxes, yet such was the
aversion of the people to it, that he should prefer almost any other
alternative. He thought other objects might be found from which the
necessary revenue could be raised. He instanced duties on inland
navigation, law proceedings, legal conveyances, &c.

He then adverted to the operation of an excise, especially in the State
of North Carolina, and said that the consumption of ardent spirits in
that State was so great that the duty would amount perhaps to ten times
as much as in the State of Connecticut. On the whole, he hoped, if the
section is not struck out, that the excise will be reduced.

Mr. SHERMAN observed, that the subject now before the committee was
thoroughly discussed the last session; and as nothing new or of weight
or importance had been offered the present session against it, he
thought it would be a useless waste of the time of the House to go into
a particular reply to the objections offered against the bill. This he
thought a sufficient answer to the charge of carrying questions by
silent majorities.

He then entered into a short consideration of the subject generally, and
defended the system from the charges which had been adduced respecting
its unequal operation.

Mr. LIVERMORE was in favor of the bill. He said he considered it as an
equal and just mode of taxation; and, as such, will be agreeable to the
people--they will consider it as drinking down the national debt. So
far, said he, as my observations have extended, I have not found a
single individual who has objected to it. He then obviated the
objections to the bill, which he conceived arose principally from the
word excise. He thought the term very improperly applied on the present
occasion, for the duty cannot be said to be an excise. He then gave a
description of what had been considered in times past as an excise,
which, to be sure, is a very unequal tax, inasmuch as it fell on the
poor only, who were obliged to purchase in small quantities; while the
rich, by storing their cellars, escaped the duty. But this bill provides
that the duty shall fall equally on the rich and poor. It is to be paid,
or secured, by the importer of foreign spirits, and on the still-head on
domestic spirits. This will equalize the burden, and leave no room for
complaint. He then adverted to direct taxation; and by a variety of
particulars, showed that it was utterly impossible to lay a direct tax
that would not prove unjust, unequal, and grievously oppressive.

Mr. BLOODWORTH spoke against the bill. He dilated largely on the present
uneasiness which prevailed in the State of North Carolina. His
experience, he said, was directly contrary to that of the gentleman from
New Hampshire; the people to the southward universally condemned an
excise.

Mr. SEDGWICK said, he was unhappy to hear that discontents prevailed in
any part of the United States. He could assure gentlemen that he did not
contemplate the execution of the laws by military force. He was sure
that in no part of the Legislature were entertained designs inimical to
the public liberty. In framing the present bill, great attention had
been paid to prevent its being attended with those qualities which, in
other countries, rendered taxation by excise justly obnoxious to popular
resentment. He relied on the good sense and well-informed understandings
of the people in every part of America, for the execution of such
systems for the support of public credit, and for the diminution of the
national debt, as should be devised by the wisdom of their
Representatives. For the same purposes, he said, he confided in the
patriotism of the gentlemen who came from those districts of country
where uneasiness was said to exist. He believed there was indeed
considerable deficiency to be provided for, for the support of
Government and of the public credit. This belief was founded in his
confidence in the information received from the Secretary of the
Treasury. But if there was no deficiency, his disposition to support the
bill would be the same; for he had never believed that a public debt was
a public benefit. Is it not, then, the duty of those to whom the people
have delegated the important trust of guarding their prosperity, in a
season of profound peace, to liberate them from the burden and pressure
of debt? Therefore the only question to be determined is, whether the
proposed duties are a proper source from whence we might derive the
necessary aids to provide for the payment of the interest, or the
diminution of the principal of our debt? He believed that of all the
subjects of revenue which were within the power of Congress, none was so
proper as the duty on ardent spirits, contemplated by the bill. In this
sentiment, he believed he concurred with that of the great body of the
people. The several species of taxation may be divided into the four
following: by impost; a tax on internal negotiations; direct taxes; and
that now under consideration, excise. The impost duties had been
extended as far as was, in the opinion of any gentleman, dictated by
sound policy. The tax on internal negotiations, which could not be
carried on to any considerable extent without the intervention of
stamps, was subject to the objection brought against the present bill,
and that in a degree incomparably beyond it, of being opposed by public
opinion. Direct taxes are still more objectionable on that account, at
least in every part of the country to which his knowledge extended. They
are of all taxes the most unequal, and in this country would be found
the most oppressive. They are unequal, because with whatever exactness
they might be apportioned upon capital or income, the only two
principles on which an apportionment can be made, they may, and will be,
very unequal as to the burden imposed; because a man's ability to pay
taxes is not in proportion either to his capital, his property, or his
income, but to that part of his income which is over and above his
necessary expenses, according to the usual manner of living for persons
of his degree in the community. They will be oppressive in this country,
because in many of the States the plentiful circulation of money, and
the facility of obtaining it, does not extend to the interior parts, nor
could it be obtained by many of our citizens without a great sacrifice
of property. It may be added, that from the extent of our settlements
compared with the number of our citizens, the expense of collection
would be immense.

In regard to excises, Mr. S. said, that in all insensible modes of
taxation, it should be observed, that a much greater sum would be
obtained from an individual than by any mode of direct imposition: this,
without entering into a discussion of the reasons upon which it was
founded, is demonstrated by fact. He instanced the porters of London,
from whom, in the single article of beer, was drawn ten times as much as
could be procured by the most rigorous mode of direct taxation. With
regard to the proposed duties, though the well-meant consideration of
morality which had been urged by some gentlemen weighed but little with
him, because he doubted whether it was well founded, yet, if the
consumption should be lessened, he did not believe it would be attended
with any sensible inconvenience. The consumption, at present, amounts to
an enormous quantity; from these considerations, as the measure is
dictated by sound policy, he hoped and believed it would be supported by
a good degree of unanimity.

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) adverted to the funding system, to show
that the faith of the United States was pledged to raise a sufficient
revenue to discharge the debt, which, by that system, they have engaged
to pay. The Secretary's statements point out a deficiency; those
statements, he had no doubt, were as accurate as the nature of things
would admit. Gentlemen who find fault with the proposed plan do not
offer a substitute. He then entered into a defence of the bill, and
showed in what respects it differed from the English plan of an excise.

He said, the present bill was not so exceptionable on account of its
violating private property as the collection law.

He instanced, in a particular clause of that law, the power of entering
houses by warrant from a justice of the peace--trial by jury is secured
by this bill, and other provisions friendly to personal rights are
added.

Direct taxes are as much objected to by North Carolina as the excise;
and though direct taxes are mentioned, no plan is offered.

He then enlarged on the importance of punctuality in paying the interest
of the public debt, and of having a surplus revenue in the Treasury. He
doubted not the gentlemen in favor of the bill were as patriotic as
those who are averse to it. Difference of opinion is to be expected; but
he had a better opinion of the good sense of the community than to
suppose they would be led away by a sound; they will see and judge for
themselves; and when they see that the law is free from all those
obnoxious qualities which have been suggested, they will submit to it
without complaint, especially when they realize that the tax is equal,
and the only effective resource within the present command of the
Government. The General Government is authorized to lay excises--North
Carolina knew this when she adopted the constitution. The opposition, he
suspected, was against the object to which the money is to be
appropriated.

Mr. GILES said, the sentiments of the people of the Southern States have
been so differently represented from what he conceived to be the state
of facts, that, in justice to them he conceived himself bound to take
some notice of the observations which had fallen from gentlemen. He then
stated certain principles on which taxation should be formed. Taxes
should be necessary, and raised on a plan consistent with the principles
of liberty. He adverted to the necessity, which, he observed, was
abundantly apparent from the report of the Secretary of the Treasury;
but he did not confine his opinion to what had fallen from him. He
instanced other reasons which would occasion a necessity for
replenishing the public Treasury. The expediency of the present mode he
argued from the impost's being carried to the utmost; from the
approbation of this mode by a majority of the people; and though
uneasiness might prevail in some of the Southern States, he considered
them as originating altogether from want of due information. Possessed
of that information, he could pledge himself to the committee that they
would cheerfully acquiesce in whatever the Legislature should decide to
be for the general interest.

With respect to the bill's being agreeable to the principles of liberty
and republicanism, this would more properly come into view when that
part of the bill which designates the mode of collection comes under
consideration. At present he would only say, that he had observed with
pleasure, that there appeared to be a universal disposition in the
members of the House to manifest the most scrupulous attention, in all
their deliberations, to the liberties of the people.

On the whole, he had no doubt that, on mature reflection, the people
would acquiesce in the present plan, when the honor, security, and peace
of the United States appeared to be essentially connected with a
further provision for the public exigencies.

Mr. STONE particularly alluded to the statement offered by Mr. JACKSON,
by which it appears that only the sum of 146,000 dollars was
wanting--whereas the Secretary's report calls for the enormous sum of
800,000 dollars. He called on gentlemen to show the errors of the
statement offered by the gentleman. It had not been done.

He then adverted to the number of people that would probably be wanted
in order to make the duty productive. He believed they would be so
numerous as to be sufficient to constitute an army.

Mr. FITZSIMONS read an estimate of the actual and probable produce of
the present impost and tonnage for the current year, by which it appears
there will be a deficiency of upwards of 300,000 dollars; but taking
into consideration certain contingencies, which, should they take place,
will diminish the amount of the present duties, it appeared that the
deficiency would be much larger than the sum mentioned; but even in case
of a surplus being produced by this bill, there are objects to which it
can be applied highly beneficial to the United States. He instanced
sinking the deferred stock, and the three per cents. The reduction of
the public debt is an object which ought never to be lost sight of.


MONDAY, January 10.

_Vacancy in the Presidency._

In Committee of the Whole on the bill, declaring what officer, in case
of vacancy [by death, removal, or inability] in the offices of President
and Vice President, shall act as President, Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair.

The first clause of the bill was read, which contains a blank to be
filled up, designating the person who shall act as President.

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) observed that, by the constitution, the
vacancy is to be filled with an officer of the United States. This
narrows the discussion very much. But he conceived there was a previous
question necessary to be determined; and that was, whether the person
appointed to supply the vacancy should hold the office during the time
for which the President and Vice President were elected, or whether he
was to hold the office only till a new election could take place. He
thought that, by the constitution, a new election was not to take place
till the term for which the President and Vice President had been
elected was expired.

He then descanted on the respective offices of the Chief Justice,
Secretary of State, and Secretary of the Treasury; and, by several
particulars, showed that the appointment would most naturally devolve on
the Secretary of State. He accordingly moved that the blank be filled
with the words "The Secretary of State."

Mr. LIVERMORE observed, that in considering this question, he thought no
reference should be had to the officers which had been mentioned, for,
as it was supposed that the case contemplated would not happen once in
a hundred years, he conceived that the present characters, who now hold
the above offices, would be entirely out of the question. He had in view
a different person, and that was the President of the Senate, _pro
tempore_, and moved that the blank be filled with this person.

Mr. WHITE observed, that the constitution says the vacancy shall be
filled by an officer of the United States. The President, _pro tempore_,
of the Senate, is not an officer of the United States. Besides, this
will give one branch of the Legislature the power of electing a
President. This, he conceived, was contrary to the constitution, as both
branches have a right to an equal voice in the appointment in this case.
This will introduce the very evil intended to be guarded against.

Mr. WILLIAMSON said, the motion was directly repugnant to the
constitution. Why not choose the Speaker of this House?

Mr. LIVERMORE said, he was well aware of the objections offered by the
gentlemen. He could have wished the constitution had pointed out the
person. But he conceived that the Senate was the only body that could do
this business. If either of the officers mentioned should be the person
designated to supply the vacancy, it would be in the power of the Vice
President, by virtue of the power of removing officers, absolutely to
appoint a successor, without consulting either branch of the
Legislature.

Mr. SHERMAN observed that this matter is left with the Legislature. The
whole power of the people, in case of vacancy, devolves on the
Legislature. The particular officer is not pointed out; it lies with
Congress to say who it shall be. The President of the Senate is an
officer of the United States. In case of the death of a Governor and
Lieutenant Governor, it is common in the several States, for the oldest
councillor to preside. He instanced the case of the abdication of James
II. Adverting to the constitution, he showed that the appointment of
Vice President, in certain cases, devolves on the Senate. The vacancy
may be filled for a longer or shorter time, and this appears to be a
question previous in its nature to be determined.

Mr. SEDGWICK said he should be in favor of the motion of the gentleman
from New Hampshire, if it was not for the express provision in the
constitution, which says, the office shall be filled by an officer of
the United States. Should the vacancy now happen, there would be no
officer of the Senate that could be appointed.

He mentioned that the office of Chief Justice was considered as next to
that of President, and therefore on the whole, he considered him as the
most proper person to fill the vacancy. He thought the bill respecting
the votes for President and Vice President should be first determined.
He moved, therefore, that the committee should rise, and take up the
next bill.

Mr. CARROLL and Mr. LIVERMORE objected to the motion for the committee's
rising.

Mr. MADISON was also opposed to the motion. He enlarged on the subject,
and said he thought it a duty urged by a variety of considerations,
important in themselves, and more so, perhaps, in their consequences,
that the decision should now be made.

Mr. SMITH started a variety of objections to Mr. LIVERMORE's
proposition. He thought it unconstitutional, as it would, in its
operation, deprive a State of a vote in the Senate.

Mr. BOURNE said he seconded the motion for the committee's rising,
because he conceived there was other business of more immediate
importance to be considered; and he saw no necessity for coming to a
decision on this question at the present time.

Mr. LAWRENCE supposed that the blank could be filled up in the House; he
was, therefore, in favor of the committee's rising.

The motion for the committee's rising was negatived.

Mr. BENSON was in favor of filling up the blank with the Chief Justice.
He observed that the objection arising from the Vice President's having
it in his power to name his successor, in case the Secretary of State is
inserted, does not apply to the Chief Justice. He is independent of the
Executive.

He pointed out several particulars, in which there was an
incompatibility in the offices of Secretary of State, and that of
President. He observed that the appointment to the Regency, in all
countries, is generally of the first law officer.

Mr. JACKSON objected to the Chief Justice, and said the Speaker of the
House of Representatives was, in his opinion, the next officer in point
of dignity to the President and Vice President.

Mr. MADISON objected to the Chief Justice, as it would be blending the
Judiciary and the Executive. He objected to the President _pro tem._ of
the Senate. He will be a Senator of some particular State, liable to be
instructed by the State, and will still hold his office--thus he will
hold two offices at once. He adverted to the other objections which had
been offered against the Secretary of the State, and showed the
compatibility of the two offices.

Mr. STONE stated sundry difficulties respecting all the officers that
had been named; but, on the whole, thought there were fewer against the
Secretary of State than any other officer that had been mentioned.

Mr. SENEY was opposed to coming to any decision at the present time. He
thought more important business was before the House. He was not for
making any decision that would give umbrage to any officer of the
Government. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury
were equally entitled to public notice.

Mr. CARROLL was in favor of coming to a decision; and if nothing more
could be offered against the motion for filling up the blank with the
Secretary of State, he presumed the committee were ripe for a decision.
He referred to the situation of countries who had not, in season, made
provision for a Regent, &c.

Mr. SHERMAN said, he was in favor of the committee's rising and
reporting the bill, and leaving the blanks to be filled up in the House.

Mr. WHITE was in favor of filling up the blank in the committee--he saw
no reason for a delay. The officers mentioned are as well known now as
they will be three days hence. The President and Vice President being in
health, is a reason why the subject should now be considered; it can be
done with coolness and freedom from all warmth.

Mr. LAWRENCE said, he thought there was no necessity for precipitating
the decision. With respect to every person that has been named,
difficulties have been started. The subject is important, and time
should be given to deliberate on the several officers that have been
named. He hoped, therefore, that the committee would rise and report the
bill, and leave the blank to be filled up at another time.

Mr. BURKE was in favor of the committee's rising. He observed, that the
members in general appeared to be very much undetermined. This is the
first day the subject has been under consideration. He hoped the members
would not be precipitated to vote on the occasion.

Mr. CARROLL said, if the committee should rise, he hoped the bill would
not be reported, but that they would sit again.

Mr. BURKE said, he hoped the committee would sit again.

The question on the committee's rising and reporting progress, was
carried in the affirmative.


THURSDAY, January 13.

_Vacancy in the Presidency._

In Committee of the Whole, on the bill declaring the officer who, in
case of vacancy in the offices of President and Vice President, shall
exercise the office of President of the United States, Mr. BOUDINOT in
the chair.

The motion for filling up the blank with "the Secretary of State for the
time being," was renewed by Mr. CARROLL.

Mr. LIVERMORE observed, that the character of the gentleman who fills
that office should have no weight in determining the question, because
the House was about to provide for a case that might not happen before a
number of years were elapsed. The House should fix on the officer who
would, from the nature of his office, most naturally succeed. He hoped
they would not determine in favor of an officer of their own creating,
and of which no mention is made in the constitution. The Chief Justice,
he remarked, had been spoken of: one great objection he mentioned
against him--the provision which the constitution makes in case the
President is impeached, viz: that he should preside. As this was an
elective Government, he wished its principles preserved, and not to see
the Chief Magistracy filled by an officer not the choice of the people.
The President of the Senate _pro tem_, appeared to him a much fitter
officer to fill that station: he was originally chosen by the people to
the Senate.

When amendments to the constitution came to be thought of, perhaps it
would be proper to provide for this case by a special clause in it,
empowering the Electors who had chosen the President and Vice President,
in case of vacancy, to meet again, and make another choice; only,
however, for the remainder of the four years; because, at the end of
that time, the power of choosing the Electors should return to, and be
exercised by the several States.

If the motion before the committee was negatived, he gave notice that he
would bring in his, viz: to fill up the blank with the person last
antecedently chosen President of the Senate.

Mr. BALDWIN said, that he should vote for the present motion, because he
conceived that the constitution is express, that an officer of the
Government, designated either by the law or the constitution, should be
appointed to fill this vacancy. He stated some objections against the
Chief Justice. He is an officer who ought to be entirely detached from
all political agitations whatever--his mind ought to be kept calm and as
unembarrassed as possible. He quoted the precedent established in the
law instituting the Governor of the Western Territory--there the
Secretary is to succeed the Governor. The Secretary of State is an
Executive officer, an assistant to the President, and must be supposed,
from his situation, to be the most proper person to supply the vacancy.

Mr. SHERMAN was of opinion, that putting the Chief Magistracy into the
hands of a subordinate officer, was by no means proper. As to the
observations made by the gentleman last up, on the arrangements in the
Government of the Western Territory, he did not think they could be
applied to the present case. That Government is a subordinate one, and a
kind of legislative power is vested in the Governor of selecting, from
the laws and regulations of the different States, such as he thought
requisite for the Government of those he had under his care.

He was in favor of giving the supreme Executive, in case of accident, to
the President of the Senate. The Government would certainly suffer fewer
inconveniences by that arrangement than if the head of a department was
put in. The Vice President, by the constitution, succeeds to the
President--the President of the Senate to the office of the first; it is
therefore very natural that he should also exercise the duties of the
second in case of a vacancy.

To designate any officer as possible successor to the President, would
be giving him too much dignity, and raising him, in a manner, even above
the Legislature.

Mr. CARROLL observed, that the vacancy might happen in the recess of the
Legislature, or in the absence of the President of the Senate; the
Secretary of State would always be at the seat of Government. Besides,
the constitution declares the vacancy shall be filled by an officer of
the Government. The President of the Senate is only an officer _pro
tem_. If the framers of the constitution had intended the vacancy should
be filled by an officer named in it, they could have designated him; but
this they had not done; he therefore supposed they had in view some
officer not then in existence.

Mr. GERRY regretted that the subject should have been taken up at this
moment, when so much important business is before Congress. He adverted
to the motion, and said, that the character which now fills the office
of Secretary of State undoubtedly possessed the confidence of the
Legislature in the fullest manner, and very justly; but when the
exigency shall arrive for which we now are about to provide, a character
may fill that office who would be a scourge to the Union. Besides, said
he, if the office of Vice President was now to be filled, the Secretary
of State would be ineligible, coming from the same State with the
President. He stated other objections from the constitution. He thought
the nomination should not be confined to officers of the United States.
He supposed the views of Government may be extended even to officers of
the several States. He, however, wished the whole business postponed;
but if this idea is overruled, he suggested the propriety of filling the
blank with the constitutional clause respecting the highest candidates
who are primarily voted for as President and Vice President.

Mr. SMITH remarked, that there appeared to be so great a diversity of
opinion on the subject before the House, that he doubted the possibility
of procuring a majority for either of the motions that had been made.
There would be objections, he conceived, to any proposition that could
be offered; but the committee should determine on that to which there
were fewest. To the Secretary of State he thought there were less than
to any other officer proposed. Those against the Chief Justice he
thought unanswerable. Indeed, the gentleman who proposed him had not
offered any answer to the objections made to that officer.

The duties of the President of the Senate, and those of the President of
the United States, appeared to him incompatible. The first was the
Representative of a particular State, and bound to obey the instructions
of it. If he was to be deprived of his seat in the Senate, his State
would lose a vote there, and the balance of that branch of the
Legislature would be destroyed.

He recapitulated the objections that had already been made to the Chief
Justice's filling the chair. His power of expounding treaties would be
improperly mixed with that of making them; that of condemning for
offences, with a power of granting reprieves and pardons. Then the Chief
Justice could not act with propriety as Commander-in-Chief of the army
and navy. It had been said, he observed, that the Judiciary business
might go on for some time without the assistance of the Chief Justice.
He thought not; there were three Circuit Courts, and two Judges for
each, including the Chief Justice. If he was absent, the business of one
of the circuits could not proceed; besides, he should preside in the
Supreme Court.

He concluded by saying, that the office of Secretary of State and the
duties of President were analogous. He was a kind of assistant to the
Chief Magistrate, and would, therefore, very properly supply his place;
besides, he was always at the seat of Government.

Mr. BURKE said, that he had consulted a gentleman skilled in the
doctrine of chances, who, after considering the subject, had informed
him, that there was an equal chance that such a contingency would not
happen more than once in eight hundred and forty years. He hoped,
therefore, that the committee would not spend any more time upon the
subject, but postpone it altogether.

Mr. GILES conceived, that the probability of the event taking place was
much greater than Mr. BURKE seemed to think. According to the doctrine
of politics, he said, it was not more than fifty to one that it would
not happen in two months. However, even if the chance was much less, it
was the duty of the House to make provision for the accident before it
occurred. If it was left till the case actually took place, it would
then be too late to think of remedying the evil; for it was to be
provided for by a Legislative act, which could not be made complete
without the President's approbation and signature, and could therefore
not be obtained when the chair was vacant. Then, if the event should
happen before it was provided for, there would be, he conceived, an end
to this Government.

He used another argument to urge the necessity of a speedy provision.
Suppose, said he, the Vice President should die, then the fate of this
Government would remain in the hands of the President, who, by
resigning, would destroy its organization, without leaving a
constitutional mode of filling the vacancy.

In addition to the loss of this Government, would not every member of
the Legislature, he asked, lose his character, credit, and reputation?

Having shown the necessity of making immediate provision for a case of
so much importance to the very existence of the Government, Mr. GILES
declared he was in favor of filling up the blank with the Secretary of
State. He chiefly rested his opinion on the idea, that if the
constitution had not intended that the vacancy should be filled by some
officer not there mentioned, they would have determined who it should
be.

Mr. SEDGWICK was sorry that the business had been brought forward, and
more so that gentlemen should discover a zeal on the occasion which
indicated too much of taking a personal interest in the question.

He did not apprehend the consequences which would follow, if the
accident should occur, would be so dreadful as the gentleman last up
appeared to think. There was more danger, he conceived, in ruffling
men's tempers now, by designating one officer heir apparent (if he might
be allowed the expression) to the office of Chief Magistrate.

He objected to filling up the blank with the Secretary of State; it
would be putting in the hands of the President (or of the Vice
President) a power of appointing his successor. The authority with which
the Chief Justice is vested, the respect which his station commands, and
his independence, induced him, he said, at first to think him the most
proper person to be at the head of affairs, in case of vacancy in the
Chief Magistracy. However, if it could not be agreed to postpone the
business, he should now vote for the President of the Senate _pro tem_.

Mr. BENSON said, that an honorable gentleman (Mr. SMITH) had remarked
that he had not attempted to answer the objections which were made to
the Chief Justice's being designated to fill the vacancy, and had drawn
the conclusion that the objections were unanswerable. He was sensible
that there might and would be objections to any officer that could be
mentioned; but those against the Chief Justice he did not think
unanswerable. It had been objected that there would be an impropriety in
his condemning as Chief Justice, and pardoning as President. But
something like this is frequently the case. He supposed that whoever
exercised the office of Chief Magistrate would for the time resign his
first office. He only mentioned this to show that the objections made to
the Chief Justice had not been answered because they were deemed
unanswerable. But his wish was to see the vacancy filled by an
independent officer; he had, therefore, no objection to the President of
the Senate _pro tem_.

Mr. JACKSON moved that the consideration of this business be postponed,
which was agreed to. The committee rose and reported.


FRIDAY, January 21.

_Duty on Spirits._

The House resumed the consideration of the new Revenue Bill.

Mr. JACKSON proposed an amendment, by adding a clause to prevent
inspectors, or any officers under them, from interfering, either
directly or indirectly, in elections, further than giving their own
votes, on penalty of forfeiting their offices.

This being seconded,

Mr. SHERMAN said, he should propose an addition to the amendment, and
that was to extend the prohibition to every other person whatever. He
supposed that to practise the arts of electioneering would be as
criminal in persons in general as in the officers of the revenue; but if
any provision is necessary in the case, he thought it might be made in
some other bill.

Mr. LIVERMORE approved the motion. These officers, said he, will hold
their places under the Government, and, from the duties assigned them,
will acquire such a knowledge of persons and characters, as will give
them great advantages, and enable them to influence elections to a great
degree. He thought the proposition important, and merited the attention
of the House.

Mr. VINING observed, that the motion went to disfranchise a great number
of citizens of the rights of suffrage. It appeared to him, also, to be
unconstitutional, as it will deprive them of speaking and writing their
minds; a right of which no law can divest them. He offered some
observations on the eligibility of the duty now contemplated, in
preference to direct taxes; and then urged the bad policy of rendering
the law odious, by fixing a stigma on the officers appointed to execute
it.

Mr. JACKSON replied to the observations against his motion. He said the
experience of Great Britain showed the propriety of the prohibition. He
read a section from a law passed in the reign of William and Mary on the
subject. A law was found necessary in that country to prevent the
interference of excise officers in elections, though the excise law then
in existence was only for ten years, and that now before us is a
perpetual law; for it is to exist till the whole State debts are
extinguished. He denied that it was a disfranchisement of the citizens;
they will have the same right to vote at the elections as other
citizens; it only goes to defining an offence, which may be of
pernicious consequence. Did I consider it as depriving the citizens of
the rights of suffrage, I would be the last to vote for it. He adverted
particularly to the dangerous influence that some future President would
acquire, by virtue of the power which he will possess of removing these
officers. He read some clauses from the British Excise Law, to show its
resemblance to the law now under consideration. He added some strictures
on the bill, and regretted that it had not been recommitted; but to
render it less odious and mischievous he strongly urged the necessity of
the section he had proposed.

Mr. BENSON said, there appeared to him to be an absurdity to say a man
shall forfeit an office which he holds during pleasure.

Mr. GERRY objected to the motion, because he thought it did not go far
enough; it ought to extend to all other revenue officers. He gave a
short account of the nature of civil government; no form, said he, is
stationary, they are always verging either to Democracy or Monarchy, or
to Aristocracy and Despotism. From hence, he drew an inference favorable
to a provision which should tend to abate and lessen the influence of
the Executive power in certain cases.

Mr. AMES objected to the motion. He said, the circumstances of this
country and Great Britain were not similar. That country is without a
constitution; the United States are blessed with one, which defines the
rights of the electors and the elected; rights of which they cannot be
deprived. The law which the gentleman referred to was not passed till
the abuses it was intended to remedy had arisen to an enormous height.
If ever there should be a necessity for a similar law in this country,
which he by no means expected, it will then be time enough to make the
regulation; but this clause will muzzle the mouths of freemen, and take
away the use of their reason.

Mr. BLOODWORTH replied to Mr. AMES. He observed, that corruptions had
taken place; elections have been influenced, and human nature being the
same, the same evils are to be expected. He thought it would be best to
prevent the evil if possible by enacting a law in season, and not wait
till the mischief is done.

Mr. SENEY was in favor of the clause. He thought it would be a salutary
provision, and no infringement on the rights of the people, as it would
be optional to accept the offices or not, with this restriction.

Mr. STONE was in favor of the motion. He observed, that it was a painful
consideration that a number of citizens should be disfranchised, and
deprived of their reason and speech, but this is a dilemma to which we
shall be reduced by means of this excise law; we must either deprive the
excise officers of this privilege of interfering, or give up the freedom
of elections.

Mr. VINING controverted the oft-repeated observation, that there was an
analogy between the two countries, Great Britain and America. He urged
an acceleration of the bill; delays he thought did not produce
conviction, they only serve to inflame; he hoped the clause would not be
agreed to, nor the bill recommitted.

Mr. LAWRENCE was sorry that there were so many impediments thrown in the
way of this bill. He could wish that the clause might be deferred, and
made the subject of a separate discussion. He objected to it as not
extensive enough. It ought to include all the officers of the
Government. At present, he should waive any further remarks, but hoped
the motion would not be agreed to at this time, but wished that the bill
might be finished.

Mr. SEDGWICK opposed the motion. He said, the natural tendency would be
to render the law odious; to deprive the Government of the services of
the best men in our country. Let me ask gentlemen, if they, or any of
their connections, would accept an appointment under this law, with such
an exceptionable clause in it? He observed on the total difference in
the circumstances of this country and those of Great Britain; and asked,
shall we transplant the corrupt maxims of that country to this? I hope
we shall not.

Mr. GERRY replied to the several objections which had been offered
against the motion. It will be too late, said he, when the evil takes
place to apply the remedy. The President will then have it in his power
to influence the elections in such manner as to procure a Legislature
that would not consent to a law for applying a remedy.

Mr. AMES reprobated the motion in very pointed terms, as impolitic in
respect to the law, as repugnant to the constitution, and as degrading
to human nature. Besides, he observed, that it was nugatory in itself,
because it goes to deprive the citizens of an inalienable right, which
you cannot take from them, nor can they divest themselves of it.

Mr. JACKSON made a short reply to Mr. AMES. He observed, that he had
always supposed that the English nation possessed a constitution, and
that the violation of the freedom of elections was the greatest
infringement on that constitution.

Mr. SHERMAN observed, that this motion went to create a positive
offence. He said he could not conceive any reason why this offence
should be chargeable on one description of officers only; he thought it
ought to go through, and include every class. He replied to the several
objections arising from the influence of the President; and observed,
that fixing such a stigma would oblige the President to appoint mean and
ordinary characters--characters fit to make tools of; for persons of
credit and respectability will not accept of appointments under such a
disqualification.

The question was determined in the negative, the yeas and nays being as
follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Ashe, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Burke,
      Floyd, Gerry, Grout, Hathorn, Heister, Jackson, Livermore,
      Mathews, Moore, Parker, Rensselaer, Seney, Sylvester,
      Stone, Tucker, and White--21.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Bourne, Cadwalader,
      Carroll, Clymer, Fitzsimons, Foster, Gale, Gilman, Goodhue,
      Griffin, Giles, Hartley, Huntington, Lawrence, Lee,
      Leonard, Madison, P. Muhlenberg, Schureman, Scott,
      Sedgwick, Sevier, Sherman, Sinnickson, Smith, (of
      Maryland,) Smith, (of South Carolina,) Steele, Sturges,
      Thatcher, Trumbull, Vining, Wadsworth, Williamson, and
      Wynkoop--37.[38]


THURSDAY, January 27.

_Duty on Spirits._

The engrossed bill, repealing, after the last day of June next, the
duties heretofore laid on distilled spirits imported from abroad, and
laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits distilled within the
United States, and for appropriating the same, was passed by a majority
of fourteen.

The yeas and nays being called for, were as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Bourne, Cadwalader,
      Carroll, Clymer, Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gerry, Gilman,
      Goodhue, Griffin, Grout, Huntington, Lawrence, Lee,
      Leonard, Livermore, Madison, Partridge, Schureman,
      Sedgwick, Sherman, Sylvester, Sinnickson, Smith (of South
      Carolina), Sturges, Thatcher, Trumbull, Vining, Wadsworth,
      White, and Wynkoop--35.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Ashe, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Burke,
      Giles, Hartley, Hathorn, Heister, Jackson, Mathews, Moore,
      Muhlenberg, Parker, Van Rensselaer, Seney, Smith (of
      Maryland), Steele, Stone, Tucker, and Williamson--21.


TUESDAY, February 1.

_Bank of the United States._

The bill sent from the Senate, to incorporate the subscribers to the
Bank of the United States, was read the third time; and, the question
being on the passage of the bill,

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) observed, that the bill being taken up
rather unexpectedly yesterday, gentlemen did not appear prepared to
discuss the subject. It therefore was suffered to be read in Committee
of the Whole, and passed to the third reading, in his opinion, rather
informally; as the members were thereby deprived of giving their
sentiments in the usual manner on a bill of the greatest importance. He
thought it susceptible of various amendments. [The SPEAKER having
observed, that the bill, agreeably to the rules of the House, could not
be amended without being recommitted,] Mr. S. moved, that the bill
should be recommitted, for the purpose of making sundry alterations, and
removing objections which he thought the bill liable to. He then
enumerated several objections. Those who are to receive the
subscriptions, he said, by the bill, are not obliged to give any bonds
for their fidelity. He thought the clause which excludes foreigners from
voting by proxy exceptionable; and the time in which subscriptions are
to be received, he thought too contracted.

Mr. JACKSON said he was in favor of the motion for a recommitment; but
not for the reasons offered by the gentleman from South Carolina. He was
opposed to the principle of the bill altogether. He then adverted to the
situation of the United States, and observed, that it was so different
from that of Great Britain, at the time the Bank was established in that
country, that no reason in favor of the institution can be deduced from
thence. He adverted to the arguments arising from the facility which
banks afford of anticipating the public resources in case of emergency.
This idea of anticipations he reprobated, as tending to involve the
country in debt, and an endless labyrinth of perplexities. This plan of
a National Bank, said he, is calculated to benefit a small part of the
United States, the mercantile interest only; the farmers, the yeomanry,
will derive no advantage from it; as the bank bills will not circulate
to the extremities of the Union. He said he had never seen a bank bill
in the State of Georgia, nor will they ever benefit the farmers of that
State, or of New Hampshire. He urged that there was no necessity for
instituting a new bank. There is one already established in this city,
under the style of the Bank of North America. This proposed institution
is an infringement of the charter of that bank, which cannot be
justified. He urged the unconstitutionality of the plan; called it a
monopoly; such a one as contravenes the spirit of the constitution; a
monopoly of a very extraordinary nature; a monopoly of the public moneys
for the benefit of the corporation to be created. He then read several
passages from the _Federalist_, which he said were directly contrary to
the assumption of the power proposed by the bill. He hoped, therefore,
that it would be recommitted; and he could not help hoping, also, that
it would be deferred to the next session.

Mr. LAWRENCE observed, that the friends of the institution proposed had
been unjustly charged with precipitating the bill; but, he said, it had
long been in the hands of the members; they have had time to consider
it; the usual forms have been observed in its progress thus far; and if
those who are opposed to the bill did not see proper to come forward
with their objections, it surely is their own fault, and the advocates
of the bill are not justly chargeable with precipitancy. He then
particularly replied to the objections offered by Mr. SMITH, of South
Carolina; and after considering them, said, that those objections did
not, in his opinion, constitute sufficient reason to induce a
recommitment of the bill. He then noticed the constitutional objections
of Mr. JACKSON, and said, the Government of the United States is vested
by the constitution with a power of borrowing money; and in pursuance of
this idea, they have a right to create a capital, by which they may,
with greater facility, carry the power of borrowing on any emergency
into effect. Under the late Confederation, the Pennsylvania Bank, called
the Bank of North America, was instituted. He presumed that it will not
be controverted, that the present Government is vested with powers equal
to those of the late Confederation. He said, that he had no doubt its
operation would benefit, not only the centre, but the extremities also
of the Union. The commercial, mechanical, and agricultural interests of
the United States are so combined, that one cannot be benefited without
benefiting the other. He concluded by observing, that he thought the
Legislature of the United States could not better answer the purposes of
their appointment, than by passing this bill. He hoped, therefore, that
it would not be recommitted, but that it would now pass.

Mr. LEE observed, that having been confined by sickness, he was
precluded from attending the House yesterday; but sick as he was, had he
supposed that there was a prospect of a bill of such magnitude and
importance passing without a discussion of its principles, he certainly
would have attended, and offered his objections to various parts of it,
which he thought very exceptionable. He hoped, therefore, it would now
be recommitted; that a bill which is so unequal and so partial may
undergo a thorough discussion.

Mr. TUCKER was in favor of a recommitment. He acknowledged that those
who had their objections to the bill were certainly blamable for not
coming forward with them yesterday. He then stated sundry objections to
the bill. The time allowed to receive the subscriptions, he said, is too
short, and will benefit those only in the vicinity of the Bank. The
clause which authorizes the loaning of one hundred thousand dollars to
the Government, without express provision by law, he thought
exceptionable, as the Executive will be able, by this means, to borrow
at any time, without being authorized, to almost any amount, of the
Bank. The loan of two millions of dollars by the United States to the
Bank, he objected to; as diverting that sum from the particular object
for which it was borrowed. There is no appropriation, he said, of the
half yearly dividend of profits accruing to the United States, which, he
observed, was a very essential defect. Mr. T. stated other objections,
as reasons for a recommitment.

Mr. WILLIAMSON was in favor of the recommitment, to give those who say
they have not had an opportunity of offering their objections, time to
do it; and if the motion be not agreed to, he should not give his vote
for the bill. He then adverted to the objections deduced from the
constitution, and explained the clause respecting monopolies as
referring altogether to commercial monopolies.

Mr. SHERMAN objected to the recommitment. He said, that though the bill
could not be amended without its being recommitted, yet it was open to
discussion and objection previous to taking a vote on its passage. He
did not think the objections offered afforded sufficient reasons for a
recommitment. He replied to the observations offered by several
gentlemen who had spoken in favor of the motion.

Mr. GERRY expressed his surprise at the observations of gentlemen who
had neglected to offer their objections to the bill before, and said it
could only be imputed to their own neglect, and not to any precipitancy
on the part of the friends of the bill. Mr. G. noticed several
objections which had been offered, and said, if nothing more important
could be offered, he thought it would be unjustifiable in the House to
go into a committee.

Mr. MADISON observed, that at this moment it was not of importance to
determine how it has happened that the objections which several
gentlemen now say they have to offer against the bill were not made at
the proper time. It is sufficient for them, if the candor of the House
should lead them now to recommit the bill, that in a Committee of the
Whole they may have an opportunity of offering their objections.

Mr. AMES replied to Mr. MADISON. He said, he did not conceive that the
appeal now made to the candor of the House was in point. The gentlemen
who object to the bill had an opportunity to offer their objections;
the customary forms have been attended to; and the whole question for
the recommitment turns on the force of the objections which are now
offered to the general principles of the bill altogether. The candor of
the House, he conceived, was entirely out of the question, and therefore
not to be appealed to; but the justice due to their constituents in the
proper discharge of the duty reposed in them. He said, it appeared to
him absurd to go into Committee of the Whole to determine whether the
bill is constitutional or not. If it is unconstitutional, that amounts
to a rejection of it altogether.

Mr. MADISON thought there was the greatest propriety in discussing a
constitutional question in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. STONE and Mr. GILES were in favor of the recommitment. They objected
to the unconstitutionality of the bill, and to several of its particular
clauses.

Mr. VINING said, he thought it was a subject of congratulation that the
bill was in its present situation; it had happily passed to the third
reading without that tedious discussion which bills usually receive. The
subject has been a considerable time before the House, and gentlemen
have had time to contemplate it. The bill is now in the stage to which
gentlemen very usually reserve themselves to state their objections at
large, and he hoped they would now do it. He was not perfectly satisfied
as to the constitutional point. He therefore hoped gentlemen would state
their objections, that those who are satisfied on that point may offer
their reasons.

Mr. BOUDINOT stated the process of the business yesterday. He observed
that he had then the honor to be in the chair. He had read the bill very
distinctly and deliberately, with proper pauses; he thought that the
fullest opportunity had been offered for gentlemen to come forward with
their objections. He was opposed to the recommitment, as it would, he
feared, issue in a defeat of the bill this session. He had one
difficulty, however, respecting the unconstitutionality of the bill,
which he hoped to have removed; and he hoped that a full discussion of
its general principles would take place.

The motion for a recommitment was lost, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Ashe, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Bourne, Brown,
      Burke, Carroll, Contee, Gale, Grout, Giles, Jackson, Lee,
      Madison, Mathews, Moore, Parker, Smith, (of Maryland,)
      Smith, (of South Carolina,) Stone, Tucker, White, and
      Williamson--23.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Cadwalader, Clymer,
      Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Hartley,
      Hathorn, Heister, Huntington, Lawrence, Leonard, Livermore,
      Muhlenberg, Partridge, Rensselaer, Schureman, Scott, Seney,
      Sherman, Sylvester, Sinnickson, Steele, Sturges, Thatcher,
      Trumbull, Vining, Wadsworth, and Wynkoop--34.


WEDNESDAY, February 2.

_Bank of the United States._

The House resumed the consideration of the bill sent from the Senate to
incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States.

The bill being on its passage,

Mr. MADISON began with a general review of the advantages and
disadvantages of banks. The former he stated to consist in, first, the
aid they afford to merchants, who can thereby push their mercantile
operations further with the same capital. Second, The aids to merchants
in paying punctually the customs. Third, Aids to the Government in
complying punctually with its engagements, when deficiencies or delays
happen in the revenue. Fourth, In diminishing usury. Fifth, In saving
the wear of gold and silver kept in the vaults, and represented by
notes. Sixth, In facilitating occasional remittances from different
places where notes happen to circulate.

The effect of the proposed Bank, in raising the value of stock, he
thought had been greatly overrated. It would no doubt raise that of the
stock subscribed into the Bank; but could have little effect on stock in
general, as the interest on it would remain the same, and the quantity
taken out of the market would be replaced by bank stock.

The principal disadvantages consisted in, first, banishing the precious
metals, by substituting another medium to perform their office. This
effect was inevitable. It was admitted by the most enlightened patrons
of banks, particularly by _Smith on the Wealth of Nations_. The common
answer to the objection was, that the money banished was only an
exchange for something equally valuable that would be imported in
return. He admitted the weight of this observation in general; but
doubted whether, in the present habits of this country, the returns
would not be in articles of no permanent use to it.

Second. Exposing the public and individuals to all the evils of a run on
the Bank, which would be particularly calamitous in so great a country
as this, and might happen from various causes, as false rumors, bad
management of the institution, an unfavorable balance of trade from
short crops, &c.

It was proper to be considered, also, that the most important of the
advantages would be better obtained by several banks, properly
distributed, than by a single one. The aids to commerce could only be
afforded at or very near the seat of the Bank. The same was true of aids
to merchants in the payment of customs. Anticipations of the Government
would also be most convenient at the different places where the interest
of the debt was to be paid. The case in America was different from that
in England: the interest there was all due at one place, and the genius
of the Monarchy favored the concentration of wealth and influence at the
metropolis.

He thought the plan liable to other objections. It did not make so good
a bargain for the public as was due to its interests. The charter to the
Bank of England had been granted for eleven years only, and was paid for
by a loan to the Government on terms better than could be elsewhere got.
Every renewal of the charter had, in like manner, been purchased; in
some instances, at a very high price. The same had been done by the
banks of Genoa, Naples, and other like banks of circulation. The plan
was unequal to the public creditors; it gave an undue preference to the
holders of a particular denomination of the public debt, and to those at
and within reach of the seat of Government. If the subscriptions should
be rapid, the distant holders of evidences of debt would be excluded
altogether.

In making these remarks on the merits of the bill, he had reserved to
himself the right to deny the authority of Congress to pass it. He had
entertained this opinion from the date of the constitution. His
impression might, perhaps, be the stronger, because he well recollected
that a power to grant charters of incorporation had been proposed in the
General Convention and rejected.

Is the power of establishing an incorporated bank among the powers
vested by the constitution in the Legislature of the United States? This
is the question to be examined.

After some general remarks on the limitations of all political power, he
took notice of the peculiar manner in which the Federal Government is
limited. It is not a general grant, out of which particular powers are
excepted; it is a grant of particular powers only, leaving the general
mass in other hands. So it had been understood by its friends and its
foes, and so it was to be interpreted.

As preliminaries to a right interpretation, he laid down the following
rules:

An interpretation that destroys the very characteristic of the
Government cannot be just.

Where a meaning is clear, the consequences, whatever they may be, are to
be admitted--where doubtful, it is fairly triable by its consequences.

In controverted cases, the meaning of the parties to the instrument, if
to be collected by reasonable evidence, is a proper guide.

Contemporary and concurrent expositions are a reasonable evidence of the
meaning of the parties.

In admitting or rejecting a constructive authority, not only the degree
of its incidentality to an express authority is to be regarded, but the
degree of its importance also; since on this will depend the probability
or improbability of its being left to construction.

Reviewing the constitution with an eye to these positions, it was not
possible to discover in it the power to incorporate a bank. The only
clauses under which such a power could be pretended, are either:

1. The power to lay and collect taxes to pay the debts, and provide for
the common defence and general welfare; or,

2. The power to borrow money on the credit of the United States; or,

3. The power to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry into
execution those powers.

The bill did not come within the first power. It laid no tax to pay the
debts, or provide for the general welfare. It laid no tax whatever. It
was altogether foreign to the subject.

No argument could be drawn from the terms "common defence and general
welfare." The power as to these general purposes was limited to acts
laying taxes for them; and the general purposes themselves were limited
and explained by the particular enumeration subjoined. To understand
these terms in any sense that would justify the power in question, would
give to Congress an unlimited power; would render nugatory the
enumeration of particular powers; would supersede all the powers
reserved to the State Governments. These terms are copied from the
Articles of Confederation; had it ever been pretended that they were to
be understood otherwise than as here explained?

It had been said, that "general welfare" meant cases in which a general
power might be exercised by Congress, without interfering with the
powers of the States; and that the establishment of a National Bank was
of this sort. There were, he said, several answers to this novel
doctrine.

1. The proposed Bank would interfere, so as indirectly to defeat a State
Bank at the same place.

2. It would directly interfere with the rights of the States to prohibit
as well as to establish Banks, and the circulation of bank notes. He
mentioned a law in Virginia actually prohibiting the circulation of
notes payable to bearer.

3. Interference with the power of the States was no constitutional
criterion of the power of Congress. If the power was not given, Congress
could not exercise it; if given, they might exercise it, although it
should interfere with the laws, or even the constitution of the States.

4. If Congress could incorporate a bank merely because the act would
leave the States free to establish banks also, any other incorporations
might be made by Congress. They could incorporate companies of
manufacturers, or companies for cutting canals, or even religious
societies, leaving similar incorporations by the States, like State
Banks, to themselves. Congress might even establish religious teachers
in every parish, and pay them out of the Treasury of the United States,
leaving other teachers unmolested in their functions. These inadmissible
consequences condemned the controverted principle.

The case of the Bank established by the former Congress had been cited
as a precedent. This was known, he said, to have been the child of
necessity. It never could be justified by the regular powers of the
Articles of Confederation. Congress betrayed a consciousness of this in
recommending to the States to incorporate the Bank also. They did not
attempt to protect the bank notes by penalties against counterfeiters.
These were reserved wholly to the authority of the States.

The second clause to be examined is that which empowers Congress to
borrow money.

Is this bill to borrow money? It does not borrow a shilling. Is there
any fair construction by which the bill can be deemed an exercise of the
power to borrow money? The obvious meaning of the power to borrow money,
is that of accepting it from, and stipulating payment to those who are
able and willing to lend.

To say that the power to borrow involves a power of creating the
ability, where there may be the will, to lend, is not only establishing
a dangerous principle, as will be immediately shown, but is as forced a
construction as to say that it involves the power of compelling the
will, where there may be the ability to lend.

The third clause is that which gives the power to pass all laws
necessary and proper to execute the specified powers.

Whatever meaning this clause may have, none can be admitted, that would
give an unlimited discretion to Congress.

Its meaning must, according to the natural and obvious force of the
terms and the context, be limited to means necessary to the end, and
incident to the nature of the specified powers.

The clause is in fact merely declaratory of what would have resulted by
unavoidable implication, as the appropriate, and, as it were, technical
means of executing those powers. In this sense it has been explained by
the friends of the constitution, and ratified by the State conventions.

The essential characteristic of the Government, as composed of limited
and enumerated powers, would be destroyed, if, instead of direct and
incidental means, any means could be used, which, in the language of the
preamble to the bill, "might be conceived to be conducive to the
successful conducting of the finances, or might be conceived to tend to
give facility to the obtaining of loans." He urged an attention to the
diffuse and ductile terms which had been found requisite to cover the
stretch of power contained in the bill. He compared them with the terms
necessary and proper, used in the constitution, and asked whether it was
possible to view the two descriptions as synonymous, or the one as a
fair and safe commentary on the other.

If, proceeded he, Congress, by virtue of the power to borrow, can create
the means of lending, and, in pursuance of these means, can incorporate
a bank, they may do any thing whatever creative of like means.

The East India Company has been a lender to the British Government, as
well as the Bank, and the South Sea Company is a greater creditor than
either. Congress, then, may incorporate similar companies in the United
States, and that too not under the idea of regulating trade, but under
that of borrowing money.

Private capitals are the chief resources for loans to the British
Government. Whatever then may be conceived to favor the accumulation of
capitals may be done by Congress. They may incorporate manufacturers.
They may give monopolies in every branch of domestic industry.

If, again, Congress, by virtue of the power to borrow money, can create
the ability to lend, they may, by virtue of the power to levy money,
create the ability to pay it. The ability to pay taxes depends on the
general wealth of the society, and this, on the general prosperity of
agriculture, manufactures, and commerce. Congress then may give bounties
and make regulations on all of these objects.

The States have, it is allowed on all hands, a concurrent right to lay
and collect taxes. This power is secured to them, not by its being
expressly reserved, but by its not being ceded by the constitution. The
reasons for the bill cannot be admitted, because they would invalidate
that right; why may it not be conceived by Congress, that a uniform and
exclusive imposition of taxes, would not less than the proposed Banks
"be conducive to the successful conducting of the national finances, and
tend to give facility to the obtaining of revenue, for the use of the
Government?"

The doctrine of implication is always a tender one. The danger of it has
been felt in other Governments. The delicacy was felt in the adoption of
our own; the danger may also be felt if we do not keep close to our
chartered authorities.

Mark the reasoning on which the validity of the bill depends! To borrow
money is made the end, and the accumulation of capitals implied as the
means. The accumulation of capitals is then the end, and a bank implied
as the means. The bank is then the end, and a charter of incorporation,
a monopoly, capital punishments, &c., implied as the means.

If implications thus remote and thus multiplied, can be linked together,
a chain may be formed that will reach every object of legislation, every
object within the whole compass of political economy.

The latitude of interpretation required by the bill is condemned by the
rule furnished by the constitution itself.

Congress have power "to regulate the value of money;" yet it is
expressly added, not left to be implied, that counterfeiters may be
punished.

They have the power "to declare war," to which armies are more incident
than incorporated banks to borrowing; yet the power "to raise and
support armies" is expressly added; and to this again, the express power
"to make rules and regulations for the government of armies;" a like
remark is applicable to the powers as to the navy.

The regulation and calling out of the militia are more appertinent to
war than the proposed Bank to borrowing; yet the former is not left to
construction.

The very power to borrow money is a less remote implication from the
power of war, than an incorporated monopoly bank from the power of
borrowing; yet, the power to borrow is not left to implication.

It is not pretended that every insertion or omission in the constitution
is the effect of systematic attention. This is not the character of any
human work, particularly the work of a body of men. The examples cited,
with others that might be added, sufficiently inculcate, nevertheless, a
rule of interpretation very different from that on which the bill rests.
They condemn the exercise of any power, particularly a great and
important power, which is not evidently and necessarily involved in an
express power.

It cannot be denied that the power proposed to be exercised is an
important power.

As a charter of incorporation, the bill creates an artificial person,
previously not existing in law. It confers important civil rights and
attributes which could not otherwise be claimed. It is, though not
precisely similar, at least equivalent, to the naturalization of an
alien, by which certain new civil characters are acquired by him. Would
Congress have had the power to naturalize, if it had not been expressly
given?

In the power to make by-laws, the bill delegated a sort of Legislative
power, which is unquestionably an act of a high and important nature. He
took notice of the only restraint on the by-laws, that they were not to
be contrary to the law and the constitution of the Bank, and asked what
law was intended; if the law of the United States, the scantiness of
their code would give a power never before given to a corporation, and
obnoxious to the States, whose laws would then be superseded, not only
by the laws of Congress, but by the by-laws of a corporation within
their own jurisdiction. If the law intended was the law of the State,
then the State might make laws that would destroy an institution of the
United States.

The bill gives a power to purchase and hold lands; Congress themselves
could not purchase lands within a State "without the consent of its
Legislature." How could they delegate a power to others which they did
not possess themselves?

It takes from our successors who have equal rights with ourselves, and
with the aid of experience will be more capable of deciding on the
subject, an opportunity of exercising that right for an immoderate term.

It takes from our constituents the opportunity of deliberating on the
untried measure, although their hands are also to be tied by it for the
same term.

It involves a monopoly, which affects the equal rights of every citizen.

It leads to a penal regulation, perhaps capital punishments, one of the
most solemn acts of sovereign authority.

From this view of the power of incorporation exercised in the bill, it
could never be deemed an accessory or subaltern power, to be deduced by
implication as a means of executing another power; it was in its nature
a distinct, an independent and substantive prerogative, which not being
enumerated in the constitution, could never have been meant to be
included in it, and not being included could never be rightfully
exercised.

He here adverted to a distinction, which he said had not been
sufficiently kept in view, between a power necessary and proper for the
Government or Union, and a power necessary and proper for executing the
enumerated powers. In the latter case, the powers included in the
enumerated powers were not expressed, but to be drawn from the nature of
each. In the former, the powers composing the Government were expressly
enumerated. This constituted the peculiar nature of the Government; no
power, therefore, not enumerated could be inferred from the general
nature of Government. Had the power of making treaties, for example,
been omitted, however necessary it might have been, the defect could
only have been lamented, or supplied by an amendment of the
constitution.

But the proposed Bank could not even be called necessary to the
Government: at most it could be but convenient. Its uses to the
Government could be supplied by keeping the taxes a little in advance;
by loans from individuals; by the other banks, over which the Government
would have equal command; nay greater, as it might grant or refuse to
these the privilege (a free and irrevocable gift to the proposed Bank)
of using their notes in the Federal revenue.

He proceeded next to the contemporary expositions given to the
constitution.

The defence against the charge founded on the want of a bill of rights
presupposed, he said, that the powers not given were retained; and that
those given were not to be extended by remote implications. On any other
supposition, the power of Congress to abridge the freedom of the press,
or the rights of conscience, &c., could not have been disproved.

The explanations in the State Conventions all turned on the same
fundamental principle, and on the principle that the terms necessary and
proper gave no additional powers to those enumerated.

[Here he read sundry passages from the Debates of the Pennsylvania,
Virginia, and North Carolina Conventions, showing the grounds on which
the constitution had been vindicated by its principal advocates, against
a dangerous latitude of its powers, charged on it by its opponents.]

He did not undertake to vouch for the accuracy or authenticity of the
publications which he quoted. He thought it probable that the
sentiments delivered might, in many instances, have been mistaken, or
imperfectly noted; but the complexion of the whole, with what he himself
and many others must recollect, fully justified the use he had made of
them.

The explanatory declarations and amendments accompanying the
ratifications of the several States formed a striking evidence, wearing
the same complexion. He referred those who might doubt on the subject,
to the several acts of ratification.

The explanatory amendments proposed by Congress themselves, at least,
would be good authority with them; all these renunciations of power
proceeded on a rule of construction, excluding the latitude now
contended for. These explanations were the more to be respected, as they
had not only been proposed by Congress, but ratified by nearly
three-fourths of the States. He read several of the articles proposed,
remarking particularly on the 11th and 12th; the former, as guarding
against a latitude of interpretation; the latter, as excluding every
source of power not within the constitution itself.

With all this evidence of the sense in which the constitution was
understood and adopted, will it not be said, if the bill should pass,
that its adoption was brought about by one set of arguments, and that it
is now administered under the influence of another set? and this
reproach will have the keener sting, because it is applicable to so many
individuals concerned in both the adoption and administration.

In fine, if the power were in the constitution, the immediate exercise
of it cannot be essential; if not there, the exercise of it involves the
guilt of usurpation, and establishes a precedent of interpretation
levelling all the barriers which limit the powers of the General
Government, and protect those of the State Governments. If the point be
doubtful only, respect for ourselves, who ought to shun the appearance
of precipitancy and ambition; respect for our successors, who ought not
lightly to be deprived of the opportunity of exercising the rights of
legislation; respect for our constituents, who have had no opportunity
of making known their sentiments, and who are themselves to be bound
down to the measure for so long a period; all these considerations
require that the irrevocable decision should at least be suspended until
another session.

It appeared on the whole, he concluded, that the power exercised by the
bill was condemned by the silence of the constitution; was condemned by
the rule of interpretation arising out of the constitution; was
condemned by its tendency to destroy the main characteristic of the
constitution; was condemned by the expositions of the friends of the
constitution, whilst depending before the public; was condemned by the
apparent intention of the parties which ratified the constitution; was
condemned by the explanatory amendments proposed by Congress themselves
to the constitution; and he hoped it would receive its final
condemnation by the vote of this House.


THURSDAY, February 3.

_Bank of the United States._

The House resumed the consideration of the bill sent from the Senate, to
incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States.

A motion was made by Mr. WILLIAMSON to recommit the bill, for the
purpose of amending the first section by prolonging the time for
receiving subscriptions from October to April; this motion occasioned
some debate, and was determined in the negative; the yeas and nays being
as follow:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Burke, Carroll,
      Contee, Gale, Giles, Grout, Jackson, Lee, Madison, Mathews,
      Moore, Sevier, Smith, (of South Carolina,) Steele, Stone,
      Tucker, White, and Williamson--21.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Bourne, Cadwalader,
      Clymer, Fitzsimons, Floyd, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Griffin,
      Hartley, Hathorn, Heister, Huntington, Lawrence, Leonard,
      Livermore, Muhlenberg, Parker, Partridge, Rensselaer,
      Schureman, Scott, Sedgwick, Seney, Sherman, Smith, (of
      Maryland,) Sylvester, Sinnickson, Sturges, Thatcher,
      Trumbull, Vining, Wadsworth, and Wynkoop--38.

Mr. AMES.--Little doubt remains with respect to the utility of banks. It
seems to be conceded within doors and without, that a public bank would
be useful to trade, that it is almost essential to revenue, and that it
is little short of indispensably necessary in times of public emergency.
In countries whose forms of government left them free to choose, this
institution has been adopted of choice, and in times of national danger
and calamity, it has afforded such aid to Government as to make it
appear, in the eyes of the people, a necessary means of
self-preservation. The subject, however intricate in its nature, is at
last cleared from obscurity. It would not be difficult to establish its
principles, and to deduce from its theory such consequences as would
vindicate the policy of the measure. But why should we lose time to
examine the theory when it is in our power to resort to experience?
After being tried by that test, the world has agreed in pronouncing the
institution excellent. This new capital will invigorate trade and
manufactures with new energy. It will furnish a medium for the
collection of the revenues; and if Government should be pressed by a
sudden necessity, it will afford seasonable and effectual aid. With all
these and many other pretensions, if it was now a question whether
Congress should be vested with the power of establishing a bank, I trust
that this House and all America would assent to the affirmative.

This, however, is not a question of expediency, but of duty. We are not
at liberty to examine which of several modes of acting is entitled to
the preference. But we are solemnly warned against acting at all. We are
told that the constitution will not authorize Congress to incorporate
the subscribers to the bank. Let us examine the constitution, and if
that forbids our proceeding, we must reject the bill; though we shall do
it with deep regret that such an opportunity to serve our country must
be suffered to escape for the want of a constitutional power to improve
it.

The gentleman from Virginia considers the opposers of the bill as
suffering disadvantage, because it was not debated as bills usually are
in the Committee of the Whole. He has prepared us to pronounce a
eulogium upon his consistency by informing us that he voted in the old
Congress against the Bank of North America, on the ground of his present
objection to the constitutionality. He has told us that the meaning of
the constitution is to be interpreted by contemporaneous testimony. He
was a member of the Convention which formed it, and of course his
opinion is entitled to peculiar weight. While we respect his former
conduct, and admire the felicity of his situation, we cannot think he
sustains disadvantage in the debate. Besides, he must have been prepared
with objections to the constitutionality, because he tells us they are
of long standing, and had grown into a settled habit of thinking. Why,
then, did he suffer the bill to pass the committee in silence? The
friends of the bill have more cause to complain of disadvantage; for
while he has had time to prepare his objections, they are obliged to
reply to them without premeditation.

In making this reply I am to perform a task for which my own mind has
not admonished me to prepare. I never suspected that the objections I
have heard stated had existence; I consider them as discoveries; and had
not the acute penetration of that gentleman brought them to light, I am
sure that my own understanding would never have suggested them.

It seems strange, too, that in our enlightened country the public should
have been involved in equal blindness. While the exercise of even the
lawful powers of Government is disputed, and a jealous eye is fixed on
its proceedings, not a whisper has been heard against its authority to
establish a bank. Still, however unseasonably, the old alarm of public
discontent is sounded in our ears.

Two questions occur; may Congress exercise any powers which are not
expressly given in the constitution, but may be deduced by a reasonable
construction of that instrument? And, secondly, will such a construction
warrant the establishment of the Bank?

The doctrine that powers may be implied which are not expressly vested
in Congress has long been a bugbear to a great many worthy persons. They
apprehend that Congress, by putting constructions upon the constitution,
will govern by its own arbitrary discretion; and therefore that it ought
to be bound to exercise the powers expressly given, and those only.

If Congress may not make laws conformably to the powers plainly implied,
though not expressed in the frame of Government, it is rather late in
the day to adopt it as a principle of conduct. A great part of our two
years' labor is lost, and worse than lost to the public, for we have
scarcely made a law in which we have not exercised our discretion with
regard to the true intent of the constitution. Any words but those used
in that instrument will be liable to a different interpretation. We may
regulate trade; therefore we have taxed ships, erected light-houses,
made laws to govern seamen, &c., because we say that they are the
incidents to that power. The most familiar and undisputed acts of
legislation will show that we have adopted it as a safe rule of action,
to legislate beyond the letter of the constitution.

He proceeded to enforce this idea by several considerations, and
illustrated it by various examples. He said, that the ingenuity of man
was unequal to providing, especially beforehand, for all the
contingencies that would happen. The constitution contains the
principles which are to govern in making laws; but every law requires an
application of the rule to the case in question. We may err in applying
it; but we are to exercise our judgments, and on every occasion to
decide according to an honest conviction of its true meaning.

The danger of implied power does not arise from its assuming a new
principle; we have not only practised it often, but we can scarcely
proceed without it; nor does the danger proceed so much from the extent
of the power as from its uncertainty. While the opposers of the Bank
exclaim against the exercise of this power by Congress, do they mark out
the limits of the power which they will leave to us, with more certainty
than is done by the advocates of the Bank? Their rules of interpretation
by contemporaneous testimony, the debates of conventions, and the
doctrine of substantive and auxiliary powers, will be found as obscure,
and of course as formidable, as that which they condemn; they only set
up one construction against another.

The powers of Congress are disputed. We are obliged to decide the
question according to truth. The negative, if false, is less safe than
the affirmative, if true. Why, then, shall we be told that the negative
is the safe side? Not exercising the powers we have, may be as
pernicious as usurping those we have not. If the power to raise armies
had not been expressed in the enumeration of the powers of Congress, it
would be implied from other parts of the constitution. Suppose, however,
that it were omitted, and our country invaded, would a decision in
Congress against raising armies be safer than the affirmative? The blood
of our citizens would be shed, and shed unavenged. He thought,
therefore, that there was too much prepossession with some against the
Bank, and that the debate ought to be considered more impartially, as
the negative was neither more safe, certain, nor conformable to our duty
than the other side of the question. After all, the proof of the
affirmative imposed a sufficient burden, as it is easier to raise
objections than to remove them. Would any one doubt that Congress may
lend money, that they may buy their debt in the market, or redeem their
captives from Algiers? Yet no such power is expressly given, though it
is irresistibly implied.

If, therefore, some interpretation of the constitution must be indulged,
by what rules is it to be governed? The great end of every association
of persons or States is to effect the end of its institution. The matter
in debate affords a good illustration: a corporation, as soon as it is
created, has certain powers, or qualities, tacitly annexed to it, which
tend to promote the end for which it was formed; such as, for example,
its individuality, its power to sue and be sued, and the perpetual
succession of persons. Government is itself the highest kind of
corporation; and from the instant of its formation, it has tacitly
annexed to its being, various powers which the individuals who framed it
did not separately possess, but which are essential to its effecting the
purposes for which it was framed; to declare, in detail, every thing
that Government may do could not be performed, and has never been
attempted. It would be endless, useless, and dangerous; exceptions of
what it may not do are shorter and safer.

Congress may do what is necessary to the end for which the constitution
was adopted, provided it is not repugnant to the natural rights of man,
or to those which they have expressly reserved to themselves, or to the
powers which are assigned to the States. This rule of interpretation
seems to be safe, and not a very uncertain one, independently of the
constitution itself. By that instrument certain powers are specially
delegated, together with all powers necessary or proper to carry them
into execution. That construction may be maintained to be a safe one
which promotes the good of society, and the ends for which the
Government was adopted, without impairing the rights of any man, or the
powers of any State.

This, he said, was remarkably true of the Bank; no man could have cause
to complain of it; the bills would not be forced upon any one. It is of
the first utility to trade. Indeed, the intercourse from State to State
can never be on a good footing without a bank, whose paper will
circulate more extensively than that of any State bank. Whether the
power to regulate trade from State to State will involve that of
regulating inland bills of exchange and bank paper, as the instruments
of the trade, and incident to the power, he would not pause to examine.
This is an injury and wrong which violates the right of another. As the
bank is founded on the free choice of those who make use of it, and is
highly useful to the people and to Government, a liberal construction is
natural and safe. This circumstance creates a presumption in favor of
its conformity to the constitution. This presumption is enforced by the
necessity of a bank to other governments. The most orderly governments
in Europe have banks. They are considered as indispensably necessary;
these examples are not to be supposed to have been unnoticed. We are to
pay the interest of our debt in thirteen places. Is it possible to
transport the revenue from one end of the continent to the other? Nay, a
week before the quarter's interest becomes due, transfers will be made
which will require double the sum in Boston which was expected. To guard
against this danger, an extra sum must be deposited at the different
loan offices. This extra sum is not to be had; our revenue is barely
equal to the interest due. This imposes an absolute necessity upon the
Government to make use of a bank. The answer is, that the State banks
will supply this aid. This is risking a good deal to the argument
against the Bank; for will they admit the necessity, and yet deny to the
Government the lawful and only adequate means for providing for it? Ten
of the States have no banks; those who have may abolish theirs, and
suffer their charters to expire. But the State banks are insufficient to
the purpose; their paper has not a sufficient circulation; of course
their capitals are small. Congress is allowed to have complete
legislative power over its own finances; and yet without the courtesy of
the States it cannot be exercised. This seems to be inconsistent.

If a war should suddenly break out, how is Congress to provide for it?
Perhaps Congress would not be sitting; great expenses would be incurred;
and they must be instantly provided for. How is this to be done? By
taxes? And will the enemy wait till they can be collected? By loans at
home? Our citizens would employ their money in war speculations, and
they are not individually in a condition to lend a sufficient sum in
specie. Or shall we send across the sea for loans? The dispute between
England and Spain furnishes an example; the aid of their banks for
several millions was prompt and effectual. Or, will you say that
Congress might issue paper money? That power, ruinous and fallacious as
it is, is deduced from implication, for it is not expressly given. A
bank only can afford the necessary aid in time of sudden emergency. If
we have not the power to establish it, our social compact is incomplete,
we want the means of self-preservation.

I shall, perhaps, be told that necessity is the tyrant's plea. I answer
that it is a miserable one when it is urged to palliate the violation of
private right. Who suffers by this use of our authority? Not the States,
for they are not warranted to establish a National Bank; not
individuals, for they will be assisted in trade, and defended from
danger by it.

Having endeavored to enforce his argument, by noticing the uses of banks
to trade, to revenue, to credit, and, in cases of exigency, he adverted
to the authority of our own precedents. Our right to govern the Western
Territory is not disputed. It is a power which no State can exercise; it
must be exercised, and therefore it resides in Congress. But how does
Congress get this power? It is not expressly given in the constitution,
but is derived either from the nature of the case, or by implication
from the power to regulate the property of the United States. If the
power flows from the nature and necessity of the case, it may be
demanded, is the renot equal authority for the Bank? If it is derived
from the power of Congress to regulate the territory and other property
of the United States, and to make all needful rules and regulations
concerning it, and for the disposal of it, a strict construction would
restrain Congress merely to the management and disposal of property, and
of its own property; yet it is plain that more is intended. Congress has
accordingly made rules, not only for governing its own property, but the
property of the persons residing there. It has made rules which have no
relation to property at all--for punishing crimes. In short, it
exercises all power in that territory. Nay, it has exercised this very
power of creating a corporation. The government of that territory is a
corporation; and who will deny that Congress may lawfully establish a
bank beyond the Ohio? It is fair to reason by analogy from a power which
is unquestionable, to one which is the subject of debate.

He then asked, whether it appeared, on this view of the subject, that
the establishment of a National Bank would be a violent
misinterpretation of the constitution? He did not contend for an
arbitrary, unlimited discretion in the Government to do every thing. He
took occasion to protest against such a misconception of his argument.
He had noticed the great marks by which the construction of the
constitution, he conceived, must be guided and limited; and these, if
not absolutely certain, were very far from being arbitrary or unsafe. It
is for the House, to judge whether the construction which denies the
power of Congress is more definite and safe.

In proving that Congress may exercise powers which are not expressly
granted by the constitution, he had endeavored to establish such rules
of interpretation, and had illustrated his ideas by such observations as
would anticipate, in a considerable degree, the application of his
principles to the point in question. Before he proceeded to the
construction of the clauses of the constitution which apply to the
argument, lie observed that it would be proper to notice the qualities
of a corporation, in order to take a more exact view of the controversy.

He adverted to the individuality and the perpetuity of a corporation,
and that the property of the individuals should not be liable for the
debts of the bank or company. These qualities are not more useful to the
corporation than conformable to reason; but Government, it is said,
cannot create these qualities. This is the marrow of the argument; for
Congress may set up a bank of its own, to be managed as public property,
to issue notes which shall be received in all payments at the Treasury,
which shall be exchangeable into specie on demand, and which it shall
be death to counterfeit. Such a bank would be less safe and useful than
one under the direction of private persons; yet the power to establish
it is indisputable. If Congress has the authority to do this business
badly, the question returns, whether the powers of a corporation, which
are essential to its being well done, may be annexed as incident to it.
The Bank of New York is not a corporation, yet its notes have credit.
Congress may agree with that bank, or with a company of merchants, to
take their notes, and to cause all payments to pass through their
coffers. Every thing that Government requires, and the bank will
perform, may be lawfully done without giving them corporate powers; but
to do this well, safely, and extensively, those powers are
indispensable. This seems to bring the debate within a very narrow
compass.

This led him to consider whether the corporate powers are incidental to
those which Congress may exercise by the constitution.

He entered into a discussion of the construction of that clause which
empowers Congress to regulate the territory and other property of the
United States. The United States may hold property; may dispose of it;
they may hold it in partnership; they may regulate the terms of the
partnership. One condition may be, that the common stock only shall be
liable for the debts of the partnership, and that any purchaser of a
share shall become a partner. These are the chief qualities of a
corporation. It seems that Congress, having power to make all needful
rules and regulations for the property of the United States, may
establish a corporation to manage it: without which we have seen that
the regulations cannot be either safe or useful; the United States will
be the proprietor of one-tenth of the bank stock.

Congress may exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over
the ten miles square, and the places ceded by the States for arsenals,
light-houses, docks, &c. Of course it may establish a bank in those
places with corporate powers. The bill has not restrained the bank to
this city; and if it had, the dispute would lose a part of its
solemnity. If, instead of principles, it concerns only places, what
objection is there to the constitutional authority of Congress to fix
the Bank at Sandy Hook, or Reedy Island, where we have light-houses, and
a right of exclusive legislation? A bank established there, or in the
district located by law on the Potomac for the seat of Government, could
send its paper all over the Union; it is true that the places are not
the most proper for a bank; but the authority to establish it in them
overthrows the argument which is deduced from the definite nature of the
powers vested in Congress, and the dangerous tendency of the proposed
construction of them.

The preamble of the constitution warrants this remark, that a bank is
not repugnant to the spirit and essential objects of that instrument.

He then considered the power to borrow money. He said it was natural to
understand that authority as it was actually exercised in Europe; which
is, to borrow of the bank. He observed, the power to borrow was of
narrow use without the institution of a bank; and in the most dangerous
crisis of affairs would be a dead letter.

After noticing the power to lay and collect taxes, he adverted to the
sweeping clause, as it is usually called, which empowers Congress to
exercise all powers necessary and proper to carry the enumerated powers
into execution. He did not pretend that it gives any new powers; but it
establishes the doctrine of implied powers. He then demanded whether the
power to incorporate a bank is not fairly relative, and a necessary
incident to the entire powers to regulate trade and revenue, and to
provide for the public credit and defence.

He entered into a particular answer to several objections, and after
recapitulating his argument, he concluded with observing that we had
felt the disadvantages of the Confederation. We adopted the
constitution, expecting to place the national affairs under a Federal
head; this is a power which Congress can only exercise. We may reason
away the whole constitution. All nations have their times of adversity
and danger; the neglect of providing against them in season may be the
cause of ruining the country.


FRIDAY, February 4.

_Bank of the United States._

The House resumed the consideration of the bill for incorporating the
Bank of the United States.

The question being on the passage of the bill,

Mr. SEDGWICK said, he would endeavor not to fatigue the patience of the
House in the observations he should make on the important subject now
under consideration. Without entering into the discussion on a scale so
extensive as had been indulged by some gentlemen, he would dwell only on
a few important principles, and such consequences as were conclusively
deducible from them, which had made a strong impression on his own mind.
The opposition to the bill had called in question the constitutional
powers of Congress to establish the proposed corporation, and the
utility of banks, neither of which till within a few days did he suppose
was doubted by any intelligent man in America; and had charged the
present system with holding out unequal terms against the Government to
those who should subscribe to the proposed stock.

With regard to the question of constitutionality, much had been said
which, in his opinion, had not an intimate relation to the subject now
before the House. We have with great earnestness been warned of the
danger of grasping power by construction and implication; and this
warning has been given in very animated language by the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. MADISON.) I do not wish to deprive that member of the
honor of consistency; but I well remember the time when the energy of
his reasoning impressed on the minds of the majority of this House a
conviction that the power of removal from office, holden at pleasure,
was, by construction and implication, vested by the constitution in the
President; for there could be no pretence that it is expressly granted
to him.

He would only observe, in answer to every thing which had been said of
the danger of extending construction and implication, that the whole
business of legislation was a practical construction of the powers of
the Legislature; and that probably no instrument for the delegation of
power could be drawn with such precision and accuracy as to leave
nothing to necessary implication. That all the different Legislatures in
the United States had, and this, in his opinion, indispensably must
construe the powers which had been granted to them, and they must assume
such auxiliary powers as are necessarily implied in those which are
expressly granted. In doing which, it was no doubt their duty to be
careful not to exceed those limits to which it was intended they should
be restricted. By any other limitation the Government would be so
shackled that it would be incapable of producing any of the effects
which were intended by its institution.

He observed, that on almost all the great and important measures which
come under the deliberation of Congress there were immense difficulties
to be surmounted. If we attempt, said he, to proceed in one direction,
our ears are assailed with the exclamation of "the constitution is in
danger!" if we attempt to attain our objects by pursuing a different
course, we are told the pass is guarded by the stern spirit of
democracy. Did I concur with gentlemen in opinion on this subject, I
should think it my duty to go home to my constituents, and honestly
declare to them that by their jealousy of power they had so restrained
the operations of the Government that we had not the means of effecting
any of the great purposes for which the constitution was designed,
without attempting, what perhaps would be found impracticable, to fix by
general rules the nice point within which Congress would be authorized
to assume powers by construction and implication, and beyond which they
may be justly considered as usurpers.

He wished gentlemen to reflect what effect a single principle,
universally acknowledged, would have in determining the question now
under consideration. It is universally agreed that wherever a power is
delegated for express purposes, all the known and usual means for the
attainment of the objects expressed are conceded also. That to decide
what influence this acknowledged principle would have on the subject
before the House, it would be necessary to reflect on the powers with
which Congress are expressly invested. He then repeated that Congress
was authorized to lay and collect taxes, to borrow money on the credit
of the United States, to raise and support armies, provide and maintain
navies, to regulate foreign and domestic trade, and to make all laws
necessary and proper to carry these and the other enumerated powers into
effect. They were, in fine, intrusted with the exercise of all those
powers which the people of America thought necessary to secure their
fame and happiness against the attacks of internal violence and external
invasion; and in the exercise of those powers, the Legislature was
authorized, agreeably to the principle which he had mentioned, to employ
all the known and usual means necessary and proper to effectuate the
ends which are expressed. It might be of use to determine with precision
what was the meaning of the words _necessary_ and _proper_--they did not
restrict the power of the Legislature to enacting such laws only as are
indispensable. Such a construction would be infinitely too narrow and
limited; and, to apply the meaning strictly, it would prove, perhaps,
that all the laws which had been passed were unconstitutional; for few,
if any of them, could be proved indispensable to the existence of the
Government. The conduct of Congress had a construction on those words
more rational and consistent with common sense and the purposes for
which the Government was instituted; which he conceived to be that the
laws should be established on such principles, and such an agency in the
known and usual means employed in the execution of them, as to effect
the ends expressed in the constitution with the greatest possible degree
of public utility.

If banks were among the known and usual means to effectuate or
facilitate the ends which had been mentioned, to enable the Government,
with the greatest ease and least burden to the people, to collect taxes,
borrow money, regulate commerce, raise and support armies, provide and
maintain fleets, he thought the argument irrefragable and conclusive to
prove the constitutionality of the bill. Pursuing further the same idea,
he asked for what purposes were banks instituted and patronized by
Governments which were unrestricted by constitutional limitations? Were
they not employed as the means and the most useful engines to facilitate
the collection of taxes, borrowing money, and the other enumerated
powers? Besides, he said, it was to be observed that the constitution
had expressly declared the ends of legislation; but in almost every
instance had left the means to the honest and sober discretion of the
Legislature. From the nature of things this must ever be the case; for
otherwise the constitution must contain not only all the necessary laws
under the existing circumstances of the community, but also a code so
extensive as to adapt itself to all future possible contingencies. By
our constitution, Congress has not only the power to lay and collect
taxes, but to do every thing subordinate to that end; the objects, the
means, the instruments, and the purposes, are left to the honest and
sober discretion of the Legislature. The power of borrowing money was
expressly granted; but all the known and usual means to that end were
left in silence. The same observations might with truth be made
respecting the other delegated powers. The great ends to be obtained as
means to effectuate the ultimate end--the public good and general
welfare--are capable, under general terms, of constitutional
specification; but the subordinate means are so numerous, and capable of
such infinite variation, as to render an enumeration impracticable, and
must therefore be left to construction and necessary implication. He
said, on this ground, he was willing to leave the general argument; it
was simple, intelligible, and he hoped would be thought conclusive.

He said the constitutionality had been attacked from another quarter. It
was said, we could not give commercial advantages to one port above
another. The constitutional provision which had been quoted was
undoubtedly intended to prevent a partial regulation of commerce; if
extended to the case under consideration, it would much more strongly
prove that Congress ought not to reside in any commercial city; for he
verily believed that the commercial advantages of Philadelphia were
incomparably greater from that residence than they could be supposed
from the institution of a National Bank. Indeed, it was his opinion
that, considering that this city had a bank, the capital of which was
adequate to all her commercial exigencies; that she could enlarge that
capital as her necessity should require; and that her bank will, if this
bill should be rejected, receive the benefit of national operations, the
measure will not advance her individual interest.

With regard to the utility of banks, he observed that he would not
attempt to display a knowledge of the subject by repeating all he had
read and heard in relation to it, nor fatigue the House by a detail of
his own reflections and reasoning upon it; the causes were unnecessary
to be explained; the effects had been such in all countries where banks
had been instituted, as to produce a unanimous opinion that they were
alike useful for all the great purposes of Government, and to promote
the general happiness of the people. Nor was our own experience wanting
to the same purpose. At a time when our public resources were almost
annihilated, our credit prostrate, our Government imbecile, and its
patronage inconsiderable, a bank of small capital was among the most
operative causes which produced that first dawn that ultimately
terminated in meridian splendor by the establishment of peace,
independence, and freedom. There were two circumstances which he would
take the liberty to mention, which would render banks of more importance
in this country than in any other country where they are at present in
use: the first, the commercial enterprise of our merchants compared
with the smallness of their capitals, which, as we had no large
manufacturing capitals, whereby the precious metals could be retained in
circulation, would frequently, by their exportation, greatly distress
the people; the other originated from a measure of the Government.
Congress, from a laudable intention of accommodating their constituents,
instituted Treasuries in all the States; in some of these there would
be, in the ordinary course of events, a deficiency, and in others a
redundancy. To keep them in equilibrium by the transportation of the
precious metals, or by the purchase of bills in the market, would be not
only inconvenient and expensive, but would keep out of circulation a
considerable part of the medium of the country.

Gentlemen had been pleased to consider the proposed terms as giving an
undue advantage to the stockholders. He would leave this part of the
subject to gentlemen who better understood it; only observing, that as
Government must rely principally on merchants to obtain the proposed
stock, it would be necessary to afford to them sufficient motives to
withdraw from their commercial pursuits a part of their capitals.

He would attempt an answer to some of those desultory objections which
had been made, and in doing this, he would omit to answer such as had
been, in his opinion, already refuted. He observed, that it had been
said that granting charters of incorporation was a high prerogative of
Government. He supposed it was not intended that it was, in the nature
of things, too transcendent a power to be exercised by a National
Government, but that the exercise of it should only be in consequence of
express delegation. Let this objection be compared with the conduct of
Congress on another subject, in all respects at least as important.
There is not, by the constitution, any power expressly delegated to
mortgage our revenues, and yet, without any question being made on the
constitutionality of the measure, we have mortgaged them to an immense
amount. From whence, he asked, do we acquire the authority to exercise
this power? Not from express grants, but being empowered to borrow money
on the credit of the United States, we have very properly considered the
pledging funds as among the known and usual means necessary and proper
to be employed for the attainment of the end expressly delegated.

It has been said that the bill authorized the stockholders to purchase
real estate. He considered the provision in the bill in that regard, not
a grant, but a limitation of power. Any man, or body of men, might, by
the existing laws, purchase, in their own private capacities, real
estate to any amount. This right was limited as it respected the
proposed corporation.

It is said there are banks already, and therefore the proposed
incorporation is unnecessary. To this he answered, that if the
Government should agree to receive all its demands in the paper of the
existing banks, it would give to them every advantage which, in the
opinion of gentlemen, renders the present system objectionable, without
stipulating for any equivalent to the Government. But are, he asked,
gentlemen serious in these observations? Do they believe the capitals of
those banks adequate to the exigencies of the nation? Do they believe
that those banks possess any powers by which they can give a projectile
force to their paper, so as to extend its circulation throughout the
United States? Or do they really wish to have the Government repose
itself on institutions with which they have no intimate connection, and
over which they have no control?

Mr. S. concluded by observing he was very confident a majority of the
House could never be induced to believe that it was the intention of the
constitution to deprive the Legislature of one of the most important and
necessary means of executing the powers expressly delegated.

Mr. LAWRENCE.--The advocates of this measure stand in an unfortunate
situation; for being those who in general advocate national measures,
they are charged with designs to extend the powers of the Government
unduly. He, however, consoled himself with a conscious attachment to the
constitution, and with the reflection that their conduct received the
approbation of their constituents. If the present be contrasted with the
former circumstances of this country, he doubted not the measures of
this Government would continue to receive the approbation of the people
of the United States.

The silence of the people on the subject now before the House is
strongly presumptive that the measure of the Bank is not considered by
them as unconstitutional. He then endeavored to show the
constitutionality of the bank system. It must be conceded that there is
nothing in the constitution that is expressly against it, and therefore
we ought not to deduce a prohibition by construction; he adverted to the
amendment proposed by Congress to the constitution, which says, "powers
not delegated are retained;" here, said he, to prove that the Bank is
unconstitutional, the constructive interpretation so much objected
against is recurred to.

The great objects of this Government are contained in the context of the
constitution. He recapitulated those objects, and inferred that every
power necessary to secure these must necessarily follow; for as to the
great objects for which this Government was instituted, it is as full
and complete in all its parts as any system that could be devised; a
full, uncontrollable power to regulate the fiscal concerns of this
Union, is a primary consideration in this Government, and from hence it
clearly follows that it must possess the power to make every possible
arrangement conducive to that great object.

He then adverted to the late Confederation, and pointed out its defects
and incompetency; and hence the old Congress called on the States to
enact certain laws which they had not power to enact; from hence he
inferred, that as the late Confederation could not pass those laws, and
to capacitate the Government of the United States, and form a more
perfect union, the constitution under which we now act was formed. To
suppose that this Government does not possess the powers for which the
constitution was adopted, involves the grossest absurdity.

The deviation from charters, and the infringement of parchment rights,
which had been justified on the principle of necessity by the gentleman
from Virginia, (Mr. MADISON,) he said had been made on different
principles from those now mentioned; the necessity, he contended, did
not at the time exist; the old Congress exercised the power, as they
thought, by a fair construction of the Confederation.

On constructions, he observed, it was to be lamented that they should
ever be necessary; but they had been made; he instanced the power of
removability, which had been an act of the three branches, and has not
been complained of. It was at least as important a one as the present.

But the construction now proposed, he contended, was an easy and natural
construction. Recurring to the collection law, he observed, that it was
by construction that the receipts are ordered to be made in gold and
silver.

With respect to creating a mass of capital, he supposed just and upright
national measures would create a will to form this capital.

Adverting to the idea that Congress has not the power to establish
companies with exclusive privileges, he observed, that by the amendments
proposed by New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York, it plainly
appears that these States considered that Congress does possess the
power to establish such companies.

The constitution vests Congress with power to dispose of certain
property in lands, and to make all useful rules and regulations for that
purpose; can its power be less over one species of its own property than
over another?

With respect to giving preference to one State over another, he
observed, that ten years hence the seat of Government is to be on the
Potomac, and wherever the Government is finally settled, the place will
enjoy superior advantages; but still the Government must go thither, and
the places not enjoying those advantages must be satisfied.

It is said we must not pass a problematical bill, which is liable to a
supervision by the Judges of the Supreme Court; but he conceived there
was no force in this, as those judges are invested by the Constitution
with a power to pass their judgment on all laws that may be passed.

It is said that this law may interfere with the State Governments; but
this may or may not be the case; and in all interference of the kind the
particular interest of a State must give way to the general interest.

With respect to the corporation possessing the power of passing laws,
this, he observed, is a power incidental to all corporations; and in
the instance of the Western Territory, Congress have exercised the power
of instituting corporations or bodies politic, to the greatest possible
extent.

He defended the right of Congress to purchase and possess property, and
quoted a passage in the Constitution to show that they possess this
right.

He then touched on the expediency of banks, and of that proposed in
particular. The advantages generally derived from these institutions, he
believed, applied peculiarly to this country. He noticed the objection
from banks banishing the specie; he said the surplus only would be sent
out of the country; but is it given away? No, sir, it is sent off for
articles which are wanted, and which will enrich the country.

With respect to a run on the Bank, he mentioned the circumstances under
which those runs on the British banks, which had been noticed, took
place; and showed there was no parallel that would probably ever take
place in this country.

For several particulars he showed that the objection which arose from
the United States not having a good bargain by the system was not well
founded. He then mentioned the peculiar advantages which the United
States will enjoy over common subscribers.

The objection from banks being already established in the several States
he obviated by stating the mischiefs which might arise from an ignorance
of the situation of those banks; and concluded by some remarks on the
inexpediency of the General Government having recourse to institutions
of merely a local nature.

Mr. JACKSON said, that having been the person who brought forward the
constitutional objection against the bill, he thought himself bound to
notice the answers which had been offered to that objection. Newspaper
authorities, said he, have been alluded to, and their silence on the
subject considered as indicating the approbation of the people. He would
meet the gentlemen on that ground; and, though he did not consider
newspapers as an authority to be depended on, yet if opinions through
that channel were to be regarded, he would refer the gentlemen to those
of this city; the expediency and constitutionality of the bill have been
called in question by the newspapers of this city.

The latitude contended for in constructing the constitution on this
occasion he reprobated very fully. If the sweeping clause, as it is
called, extends to vesting Congress with such powers, and necessary and
proper means are an indispensable implication in the sense advanced by
the advocates of the bill, we shall soon be in possession of all
possible powers, and the charter under which we sit will be nothing but
a name.

This bill will essentially interfere with the rights of the separate
States, for it is not denied that they possess the power of instituting
banks; but the proposed corporation will eclipse the Bank of North
America, and contravene the interests of the individuals concerned in
it.

He then noticed the several arguments drawn from the doctrine of
implication; the right to incorporate a National Bank has been adduced
from the power to raise armies; but he presumed it would not be
contended that this is a bill to provide for the national defence. Nor
could such a power, in his opinion, be derived from the right to borrow
money. It has been asked what the United States could do with the
surplus of their revenue without the convenience of a bank in which to
deposit it with advantage? For his part, though he wished to anticipate
pleasing occurrences, he did not look forward to the time when the
General Government would have this superabundance at its disposal. The
right of Congress to purchase and hold lands has been urged to prove
that they can transfer this power; but the General Government is
expressly restricted in the exercise of this power; the consent of the
particular State to the purchase for particular purposes only is
requisite; these purposes are designated, such as building light-houses,
erecting arsenals, &c.

It has been said that banks may exist without a charter; but that this
incorporation is necessary in order that it may have a hold on the
Government. Mr. J. strongly reprobated this idea. He was astonished to
hear such a declaration, and hoped that such ideas would prevent a
majority of the House from passing a bill that would thus establish a
perpetual monopoly; we have, said he, I believe, a perpetual debt; I
hope we shall not have a perpetual corporation. What was it drove our
forefathers to this country? Was it not the ecclesiastical corporations
and perpetual monopolies of England and Scotland? Shall we suffer the
same evils to exist in this country instead of taking every possible
method to encourage the increase of emigrants to settle among us? For if
we establish the precedent now before us, there is no saying where it
will stop.

The power to regulate trade is said to involve this as a necessary
means; but the powers consequent on this express power are specified,
such as regulating light-houses, ships, harbors, &c. It has been said
that Congress has borrowed money; this shows that there is no necessity
of instituting any new bank, those already established having been found
sufficient for the purpose. He denied the right of Congress to establish
banks at the permanent seat of Government, or on those sandheaps
mentioned yesterday; for if they should, they could not force the
circulation of their paper one inch beyond the limits of those places.
But it is said, if Congress can establish banks in those situations, the
question becomes a question of place, and not of principle; from hence
it is inferred that the power may be exercised in any other part of the
United States. This appeared to him to involve a very dangerous
construction of the powers vested in the General Government.

Adverting to the powers of Congress in respect to the finances of the
Union, he observed that those powers did not warrant the adoption of
whatever measures they thought proper. The constitution has restricted
the exercise of those fiscal powers; Congress cannot lay a poll tax, nor
impose duties on exports; yet these undoubtedly relate to the finances.

The power exercised in respect to the Western Territory, he observed,
had reference to property already belonging to the United States; it
does not refer to property to be purchased, nor does it authorize the
purchase of any additional property; besides, the powers are express and
definite, and the exercise of them in making needful rules and
regulations in the government of that Territory does not interfere with
the rights of any of the respective States.

Mr. J. denied the necessity of the proposed institution; and noticing
the observation of Mr. AMES, that it was dangerous on matters of
importance not to give an opinion, observed that be could conceive of no
danger that would result from postponing that construction of the
constitution now contended for to some future Congress, who, when the
necessity of a banking institution shall be apparent, will be as
competent to the decision as the present House.

Alluding to the frequent representations of the flourishing condition of
the country, he inferred that this shows the necessity of the proposed
institution does not exist at the present time; why, then, should we be
anticipating for future generations? State banks he considered
preferable to a National Bank, as counterfeits can be detected in the
States; but if you establish a National Bank, the checks will be found
only in the city of Philadelphia or Conococheague. He passed a eulogium
on the Bank of Pennsylvania; the stockholders, said he, are not
speculators; they have the solid coin deposited in their vaults.

He adverted to the preamble and context of the constitution, and
asserted that this context is to be interpreted by the general powers
contained in the instrument. Noticing the advantages which it had been
said would accrue to the United States from the Bank, he asked, is the
United States going to commence stockjobbing? The "general welfare" are
the two words that are to involve and justify the assumption of every
power. But what is this general welfare? It is the welfare of
Philadelphia, New York, and Boston; for as to the States of Georgia and
New Hampshire, they may as well be out of the Union for any advantages
they will receive from the institution. He reprobated the idea of the
United States deriving any emolument from the Bank, and more especially
he reprobated the influence which it was designed the Government should
enjoy by it. He said the Banks of Venice and Amsterdam were founded on
different principles. In the famous Bank of Venice, though the
Government holds no shares, yet it has at command five millions of
ducats; but the United States were to be immediately concerned in
theirs, and become stockholders.

The Bank of Amsterdam was under the entire direction of the
burgomasters, who alone had the power of making by-laws for its
regulation. This power, by the bill, was given up by Government, very
improperly he thought, and was to be exercised by the stock-jobbers.

The French Bank, he added, was first established upon proper principles
and flourished, but afterwards became a royal bank; much paper was
introduced, which destroyed the establishment, and was near oversetting
the Government.

The facility of borrowing he deprecated; it will involve the Union in
irretrievable debts; the facility of borrowing is but another name for
anticipation, which will in its effects deprive the Government of the
power to control its revenues; they will be mortgaged to the creditors
of the Government. Let us beware of following the example of Great
Britain in this respect. He said, undue advantages had been taken in
precipitating the measure, and the reasonable proposition respecting the
State debts is not admitted. This I consider as partial and unjust.

A gentleman from Virginia has well observed that we appear to be divided
by a geographical line; not a gentleman scarcely to the eastward of a
certain line is opposed to the Bank, and where is the gentleman to the
southward that is for it? This ideal line will have a tendency to
establish a real difference. He added a few more observations, and
concluded by urging a postponement, if any regard was to be had to the
tranquillity of the Union.

Mr. BOUDINOT said he meant to confine himself to two or three great
points on which the whole argument appeared to him to rest. He
considered the objections to the bill as pointed against its
constitutionality and its expediency. It was essential, he observed,
that every member should be satisfied, as far as possible, of the first;
for however expedient it might be, if it was clearly unconstitutional,
the bill should never receive the sanction of the representatives of the
people. He would, in a great measure, refer its expediency, if
constitutional, to the experience of every gentleman of the House, as
the most satisfactory proof on that head, and he conceived there was no
need of much argument in support of its decision. The first question
then was, is Congress vested with a power to grant the privileges
contained in the bill? This is denied, and ought to be proved. In order
to show in what manner this subject had struck his mind, he first laid
down these principles:

Whatever power is exercised by Congress must be drawn from the
constitution; either from the express words or apparent meaning, or from
a necessary implication arising from the obvious intent of the framers.

That whatever powers (vested heretofore in any individual State) not
granted by this instrument, are still in the people of such State, and
cannot be exercised by Congress. That whatever implication destroys the
principle of the constitution ought to be rejected. That in construing
an instrument, the different parts ought to be so expounded as to give
meaning to every part which will admit of it.

Having stated these preliminaries, Mr. B. proceeded to inquire what were
the powers attempted to be exercised by this bill? For, until the powers
were known, the question of constitutionality could not be determined.

By it Congress was about to exercise the power of incorporating certain
individuals, thereby establishing a banking company for successfully
conducting the finances of the nation.

The next inquiry is, what rights will this company enjoy in this new
character, that they do not enjoy independent of it? Every individual
citizen had an undoubted right to purchase and hold property, both real
and personal, to any amount whatever; to dispose of this property to
whom and on what terms he pleased; to lend his money on legal interest
to any person willing to take the same; and indeed to exercise every
power over his property that was contained in the bill. Individual
citizens, then, having these powers, might also associate together in
company or copartnership, and jointly exercising the same rights, might
hold lands in joint tenancy, or as tenants in common, to any amount
whatever; might put any sum of money into joint stock; might issue their
notes to any amount; might make by-laws or articles of copartnership for
their own government; and, finally, might set up a bank to any amount,
however great, and no authority in the Government could legally
interfere with the exercise of these rights. The great difference
between this private association of citizens, in their individual
capacities, and the company to be created by this bill, and which is
held up in so dangerous a light, is, that the one exposes the company to
the necessity of using each individual's name in all their transactions;
suits must be brought in all their names; deeds must be taken and given
in like manner; each one in his private estate is liable for the default
of the rest; the death of a member dissolves the partnership as to him;
and for want of a political existence the union may be dissolved by any
part of its members, and of course many obvious inconveniences must be
suffered merely of an official kind. By the bill these difficulties are
to be removed by conveying three qualities to them.

1st. Individuality, or constituting a number of citizens into one legal
artificial body, capable by a fictitious name of exercising the rights
of an individual.

2d. Irresponsibility in their individual capacity, not being answerable
beyond the joint capital.

3d. Durability, or a political existence for a certain time, not to be
affected by the natural death of its members.

These are the whole of the powers exercised, and the rights conveyed. It
is true these are convenient and advantageous to the company, but of
trifling importance when considered as a right of power exercised by a
National Legislature for the benefit of the Government. Can it be of any
importance to the State whether a number of its citizens are considered,
in legal contemplation, as united in an individual capacity, or
separately as so many individuals, especially if the public weal is
thereby promoted? By their irresponsibility being known, every person
dealing with them gives his tacit consent to the principle, and it
becomes part of the contract. And by political duration their powers and
abilities are limited, and their rights restricted, so as to prevent any
danger that might arise from the exercise of their joint natural right,
not only as to the amount of their capital, but as to the by-laws they
may make for their government.

A private bank could make contracts with the Government, and the
Government with them, to all intents and purposes, as great and
important as a public bank, would their capital admit of it; though they
would not possess such qualities as to justify the confidence of
Government, by depending on them in a time of danger and necessity. This
might put it in the power of any individuals to injure the community in
its essential interests by withdrawing the capital when most needed. To
prevent this, and many other inconveniences, it is necessary that a bank
for the purposes of Government should be a legally artificial body,
possessing the three qualities above mentioned.

Mr. B. then took up the constitution, to see if this simple power was
not fairly to be drawn by necessary implication from those vested by
this instrument in the legislative authority of the United States. It
sets out in the preamble with declaring the general purposes for which
it was formed: "The insurance of domestic tranquillity, provision for
the common defence, and promotion of the general welfare." These are the
prominent features of this instrument, and are confirmed and enlarged by
the specific grants in the body of it, where the principles on which the
Legislature should rest after their proceedings are more fully laid
down, and the division of power to be exercised by the general and
particular Governments distinctly marked out. By the 8th section,
Congress has power "to levy taxes, pay debts, provide for the common
defence and general welfare, declare war, raise and support armies,
provide for and maintain a navy;" and as the means to accomplish these
important ends, "to borrow money," and finally, "to make all laws
necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers."
Let us, then, inquire, is the constituting a public bank necessary to
these important and essential ends of Government? If so, the right to
exercise the power must be in the supreme Legislature.

He argued that the power was not contained in express words, but that
it was necessarily deduced by the strongest and most decisive
implication, because he contended that it was a necessary means to
attain a necessary end. Necessary implication had led Congress under the
power to lay and collect impost and taxes, to establish officers for the
collection, to inflict penalties against those who should defraud the
revenue, to oblige vessels to enter at one port and deliver in another;
subjected them to various ceremonies in their proceedings, for which the
owners were made to pay; and he conceived that it was not so great an
exertion of power by implication to incorporate a company for the
purpose of a bank. He also deduced the right from the power of paying
debts, raising armies, providing for the general welfare and common
defence, for which they were to borrow money. All these necessarily
include the right of using every proper and necessary means to
accomplish these necessary ends. It is certain, he said, that money must
be raised from the people. This could not be done in sums sufficient for
the exigencies of Government in a country where the precious metals were
as scarce as in this. The people in general are poor when compared with
European nations; they have a wilderness to subdue and cultivate; taxes
must be laid with prudence, and collected with discretion; the
anticipation of the revenues, therefore, by borrowing money, becomes
absolutely necessary. If so, then as the constitution had not specified
the manner of borrowing, or from whom the loan was to be obtained, the
supreme Legislature of the Union were at liberty, it was their duty, to
fix on the best mode of effecting the purposes of their appointment. For
it was a sound principle, that when a general power is granted, and the
means are not specified, they are left to the discretion of those in
whom the trust is reposed, provided they do not adopt means expressly
forbidden. The public defence, or general welfare, resting on the annual
supplies from uncertain revenues, would expose the very existence of the
community. It is the duty of those to whom the people have committed
this power to prepare in time of peace for the necessary defence in a
time of war. The United States are now happily in a state of peace; but
it was impossible for any one to say how long it would continue. By
prudent management it might be long preserved; but this prudence
consisted in being always found in a state of preparation to defend our
country.

The constitution contemplates this very duty by authorizing Congress to
provide for the common defence by borrowing money. Why borrow money? Are
not the annual revenues sufficient? It might be so, if nothing was to be
attended to but internal wants; but the common defence and general
welfare loudly call for that provision which will produce a constant
guard on external enemies and internal insurrections. To this necessary
end it becomes Congress to provide that the necessary means may be
always at hand, by being able to arm their citizens and provide their
support while engaged in the defence of their common country. This can
be done only by borrowing money, which is usually of citizens or
foreigners; if of the first, it must be from individuals or from private
banks: will it be prudent to trust to either? Loans from individuals
were attempted during the war, when patriotism produced a will in some
lenders, and others were glad to get rid of a depreciating paper
currency almost on any terms whatever.

But even these loans, arising from this paper medium with which the
market was glutted, were altogether insufficient; and by one change of
circumstances every hope was precluded of being any way successful in
procuring money from that source. The circumstances of individuals, too,
in this country are such, when compared with the wants of a nation, as
to render the source too vague and uncertain to rely upon; and it would
be a most improvident execution of the powers granted for the express
purpose of the common defence and general welfare. Private banks are
almost as inadequate to the object, and for reasons already given, were
neither to be depended on for will or capital as to the supply for the
principal wants of Government. They are generally established for
commercial purposes, and on capitals not always sufficient for them. If
they should be prevailed upon at any time to attempt to supply the
demands of a nation at war, it must be from a general combination of
their whole stocks, to the destruction of the original designs of their
several institutions. This ought not to be expected; for as far as it
goes to the depression of the mercantile interests, so far it is
injurious to the Government; besides, a dependence upon such a
combination would be impolitic, both from its slowness and uncertainty.
The votes of a few individuals affected by local, selfish, or adverse
politics, might endanger the whole people. Such a dependence ought not
to be attributed to the wise framers of the constitution, neither does
the language warrant it. But foreign loans have been mentioned, as a
proper source for this purpose. The imprudence of placing the common
defence of a nation on the will of those who have no interest in its
welfare is a good answer to this observation. Would it be prudent to
trust a foreigner, perhaps a rival, if not an enemy, with your supply of
what has emphatically been called the sinews of war? Would it not expose
us to exorbitant demands, and often a refusal? Many adventitious
circumstances of a war, increasing demands from all quarters, scarcity
of coin, and difficulty of communication, as well as the intrigues of
courts, all loudly oppose the measure, as contrary to the spirit and
meaning of a provision for the common defence and general welfare. The
only resort then, he conceived, was by a timely provision to secure
institutions at home from which loans might be obtained at all times on
moderate terms, and to such amount as the necessity of the State might
require. But gentlemen say that the constitution does not expressly
warrant the establishment of such a corporation. If by _expressly_,
express words are meant, it is agreed that there are no express words;
and this is the case with most of the powers exercised by Congress; for
if the doctrine of necessary implication is rejected, he did not see
what the supreme Legislature of the Union could do in that character. If
this power is not clearly given in the constitution by necessary
implication, then is a necessary end proposed and directed, while the
common and usual necessary means to attain that end are refused, or at
least not granted.

Mr. B. was firmly of opinion that a National Bank was the necessary
means, without which the end could not be obtained. Theory proved it so
in his opinion, and the experience of the Union in a day of distress had
fully confirmed the theory. The struggles of the friends of freedom
during the late contest had nearly been rendered abortive for want of
this aid. That danger which was then so hardly avoided became a solemn
memento to this House to provide against a similar case of necessity.
This was the time to do it with advantage, being in such profound peace.
He had not heard any argument by which it was proved that individuals,
private banks, or foreigners, could with safety and propriety be
depended on as the efficient and necessary means for so important a
purpose. Although money was at present plentiful in Europe, and might be
borrowed on easy terms, it might not be so to-morrow, in case a war
should break out, and our necessities become pressing. He again
enumerated the harmless qualities with which it was proposed to vest the
bank corporation, by the bill on the table, for the important purposes
of the common defence and general welfare. Gentlemen had not yet pointed
out any danger arising to the community, neither did he think it
possible that any could ever be mentioned equal to those of suffering
the Government to depend on individuals or private banks for loans in a
day of distress.

But it was said that this bill gave the corporation a right to hold real
property in a State, which Congress had no power to do. The terms of the
bill are misapprehended; this is a right which has been already shown,
attaches to the citizens individually, or in their associated capacity;
the bill, therefore, does no more than to vest a number with an
artificial single capacity under a fictitious name, and by that name to
hold lands, make by-laws, &c.; all which they might have done before as
citizens in a collective capacity. So far from giving a new power, their
original individual rights are limited for the public safety as to the
amount of their stock and the duration of their existence.

Mr. B. then proceeded to cite numerous instances of powers exercised by
Congress during the last two years, deduced under the constitution by
necessary implication, to show the utter impossibility of carrying any
one provision of that authority into execution for the benefit of the
people without this reasonable latitude of construction. He also
adverted to some instances of the like conduct under the former
Confederation. It had been urged that the new Congress had no rights or
powers but what had been vested in and given to them by the individual
States, and therefore they could not accept a cession from Great Britain
by the treaty of peace of the lands extending to the Lake of the Woods,
because not before included in any individual State. Every member was
soon convinced of the absurdity of the argument, and by a necessary
implication established the power of the Confederated Legislature.
During the war the Commander-in-chief gave a passport to a British
officer to transmit clothing to the British prisoners at Lancaster. He
accordingly conveyed a very large quantity of British goods into
Pennsylvania for that purpose; which being directly against an express
law of that State, they were seized and condemned by the proper
magistrate. On a complaint to the Legislature of the State, they
referred the same to their Judicial officers, upon whose report (that
Congress being vested with the power of declaring war, the right of
giving safe passports to an enemy was necessarily implied, which,
therefore, was duly exercised by their Commander-in-chief, though no
express power was given to him for that purpose) the Legislature
declared their law directing the condemnation of the goods void _ab
initio_, and the judgment of condemnation had no effect.

This was also the rule that governed this House with regard to the
removability of officers by the President, and the authority given to a
Council to legislate for the Western Territory. In fine, he concluded,
that it was universally understood that whenever a general power was
given, especially to a supreme Legislature, every necessary means to
carry it into execution were necessarily included. This was the common
sense of mankind, without which it would require a multitude of volumes
to contain the original powers of an increasing Government that must
necessarily be changing its relative situation every year or two.

If power was given to raise an army, the making provision for all the
necessary supplies and incidental charges was included. If a navy was to
be formed, the manning and supplying the warlike stores are necessarily
included. If a power is given to borrow money, a right to mortgage or
pledge the public property to secure the repayment is understood to be
vested in the borrower. Take up the present statute book, and every page
will afford evidence of this doctrine. Examine the law with regard to
crimes and punishments; under the power of establishing courts, we have
implied the power of punishing the stealing and falsifying the records,
and ascertained the punishment of perjury, bribery, and extortion. Under
the power of regulating trade, we have accepted cessions of real estate,
and built light-houses, piers, &c. All this is under the doctrine of
necessary implication for the public good; and in cases not so strong as
the present, and on the exercise of which no gentleman thought proper to
start this objection.

This construction appears so natural and necessary, that the good sense
of every gentleman on the floor has hitherto led him to proceed on this
principle ever since we began to legislate; what principle of the
constitution does it destroy? It gives nothing that can affect the
rights of any State or citizen. Indeed, it has been said that it is
exercising a high act of power; he thought it had been shown to be
rather of the inferior kind; but allow the position, and who so proper
as the Legislature of the whole Union to exercise such a power for the
general welfare? It has also been said that this power is a mere
conveniency for the purpose of fiscal transactions, but not necessary to
attain the ends proposed in the constitution. This is denied, and at
best is mere matter of opinion, and must be left to the discretion of
the Legislature to determine.

Mr. B. said, he should now conclude what he had to say, had not an
honorable gentleman (Mr. JACKSON) brought forward the observations of
the author of the _Federalist_, vol. 2, p. 72, 73, 74, to show a
different contemporaneous exposition of the constitution, and charged
the author, who he alleged was said to be also the author of the present
plan before the House, with a change of sentiment. As this gentleman is
not here to speak for himself, he ought to have the next best chance by
having what he then wrote candidly attended to, especially as gentlemen
allow him to be a good authority. Mr. B. read only part of the 73d page
referred to by Mr. JACKSON, in these words: "Had the Convention
attempted a positive enumeration of the powers necessary and proper for
carrying their other powers into effect, the attempt would have involved
a complete digest of laws on every subject to which the constitution
relates; accommodated, too, not only to the existing state of things,
but to all the possible changes which futurity may produce; for in every
new application of a general power, the particular powers which are the
means of attaining the general power must always necessarily vary with
that object, and be often properly varied whilst the object remains the
same." How these sentiments can be said to be a different
contemporaneous exposition must be left to the House to determine.

Mr. B. then begged the indulgence of the House to hear the same
gentlemen when arguing expressly on that part of the constitution now
under consideration; and then read pp. 144, 145, and 146, of the 1st
vol. of the _Federalist_, which are too long to be inserted. He declared
that, in his opinion, it was impracticable to put together language in
the same length that could more forcibly and pointedly elucidate and
prove the construction contended for in support of the bill on the
table. There remained yet but two objections, to answer which Mr. B.
would detain the House a little longer.

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. JACKSON) had charged the measure with
establishing the commercial interests, to the great injury of the
agricultural. If this was true he never would agree to it, for he
considered the agricultural interests of America as its great and sure
dependence. Mr. B. confessed that so far from seeing these measures in
this point of light, he could not bring his mind to comprehend how the
commercial interests of a country could be promoted without greatly
advancing the interests of agriculture. Will the farmer have any
temptation to labor, if the surplus of what he raises beyond his
domestic consumption is to perish in his barn for want of a market? Can
a market be obtained without the merchant? If commerce flourishes, the
merchants increase, and of course the demand for the produce of the
land; but if the mercantile interests fail, there is none to export the
surplus produced by agriculture. If the farmer should undertake to
export his own produce, he could not give his whole attention to his
affairs; or, if the merchant should attempt to raise the grain he
wanted, he could not carry on his merchandise. The one interest depends
on the other; a separation destroys both.

But the incapacity of the Bank to extend its influence to the extremes
of the Union has been argued from the gentleman never having seen a note
of the present Bank of North America in Georgia; he therefore concludes
that bank has never been of any service to her agricultural interests.
Mr. B. said that he drew very different conclusions from this fact. He
supposed that by means of the bank the traders with Georgia had been
enabled to send her the precious metals, while the bank paper had
answered their purposes nearer home, where it circulated with undoubted
credit. He instanced a case of a Philadelphia merchant, who was
possessed of L100 in gold, and L100 credit at the bank; the merchant
wanted L100 worth of rice of a Georgia planter, and the like value in
flour of a Pennsylvania farmer. When he purchased the one of the
Georgian, he could safely pay him the whole in gold, while he found the
Pennsylvanian would as readily receive the bank paper for his flour; but
had there been no bank, he could have purchased but L50 worth of each,
and the Georgia and Pennsylvanian both would have gone without a market
for the residue. In short, the whole Union may be likened to the body
and limbs; you cannot aid or comfort one but the other must be likewise
benefited.

He said it was, however, difficult and impracticable to show that every
measure adopted by the Government should have an effect perfectly equal
over so extensive a country as that of the United States; it was
sufficient if, upon the whole, the measures of Government, taken all
together, produced the desired equality.

The last objection was, that by adopting this bill we exposed the
measure to be considered and defeated by the Judiciary of the United
States, who might adjudge it to be contrary to the constitution, and
therefore void; and not lend their aid to carry it into execution. This,
he alleged, gave him no uneasiness. He was so far from controverting
this right in the Judiciary, that it was his boast and his confidence.
It led him to greater decision on all subjects of a constitutional
nature, when he reflected that if, from inattention, want of precision,
or any other defect, he should do wrong, that there was a power in the
Government which could constitutionally prevent the operation of such a
wrong measure from affecting his constituents. He was legislating for a
nation, and for thousands unborn; and it was the glory of the
constitution that there was a remedy even for the failures of the
supreme Legislature itself.

Upon the whole, then, he said, that on taking the power in question in
every point of view, and giving the constitution the fullest
consideration, under the advantage of having the objections placed in
the strongest point of light by the great abilities of the gentlemen in
the opposition, he was clearly in favor of the bill; as to its
expediency, there could be little doubt in the minds of any gentleman;
and unless more conclusive arguments could be adduced to show its
unconstitutionality, he should in the end vote for passing the bill.


SATURDAY, February 5.

_Bank of the United States._

The House resumed the consideration of the bill for incorporating the
Bank of the United States.

The question being on the passage of the bill,

Mr. SMITH observed, that he considered it his duty to offer the reasons
which should influence him in giving his vote on this occasion. He had
wished amendments to the bill, as some parts of it, he confessed, did
not perfectly please him; but his wishes having been overruled, the
question now is, whether the bill shall pass? Though he came southward
of the Potomac, the principle of the bill met his approbation. It would
be a deplorable thing if this Government should enact a law subversive
of the constitution, or that so enlightened a body as the Senate of the
United States should, by so great a majority as were in favor of this
bill, pass a law so hostile to the liberties of this country, as the
opposition to this measure have suggested the bank system to be; and it
would be very extraordinary if an officer of this Government who has
produced a performance explanatory of the constitution, of such
celebrity as to be resorted to as an authority, should be so
inconsistent with himself as to propose a law entirely subversive of the
principles laid down in his able defence of the constitution.

He then adverted to the objection drawn from that article of the
constitution, that no preference shall be given to one port over
another. He showed that the clause was inserted for a particular
purpose, and could not be cited as a rule not to be deviated from, as a
preference was and must necessarily be given to one port over another.
He produced numerous instances in point. In consequence of various
clauses in the revenue laws, general regulations sometimes operate
partially, and commercial arrangements, apparently unequal, produce the
good of the community at large.

In reference to construing the constitution, he observed, that the
present moment, when the powers of the Government were assailed from
various quarters, he conceived the most improper to contract these
powers.

The right to construe the constitution he argued from the principles
advanced by Mr. MADISON, in the debate on the power of removability, and
read sundry observations from _Lloyd's Register_, made by that
gentleman, corroborative of this sentiment. Those arguments, he
conceived, applied very aptly to the present subject.

Matters of a fiscal nature necessarily devolve on the General
Government, and he urged that every power resulting from the
acknowledged right of Congress to control the finances of this country
must be as necessarily implied as in the case of the power of
removability.

He then alluded to the expediency of a National Bank. The Secretary gave
notice, in his first report, that this plan was in contemplation.
Nothing was ever read with greater avidity; and though it is now more
than a year since this intimation was given, yet no objections have been
offered against it either by the States or by individuals--even the
State of North Carolina has not mentioned it. [Here Mr. BLOODWORTH (if
the reporter did not misunderstand) informed Mr. SMITH that the report
had not been seen by the Legislature of North Carolina.] Mr. SMITH said
he was sorry for it--and then proceeded to notice some partial
quotations, made by Mr. JACKSON, from _Dr. Smith's Wealth of Nations_,
against bank systems. He said, he could have wished the gentleman had
been more copious in his quotations from that author; if he had, he
would have found that that author has fully demonstrated their utility.

He noticed the divisions of opinions on the subject of a National Bank
in the city of Philadelphia. He supposed ideas of personal advantages
induced these opposing sentiments. He, however, thought this subject
should be taken up altogether on general principles; and even if its
immediate influence should not extend to the extremes of the Union, if
the establishment promises a general preponderating advantage, local
considerations must be considered in a secondary point of view. The
principal inquiry is, will the institution facilitate the management of
the finances? This, he thought, had been made apparent. This is the
opinion of the Secretary of the Treasury, after due and mature
consideration of the subject; and he certainly enjoys the best means of
forming an opinion; he is at the head of the Fiscal Department, and
deservedly enjoys the public confidence. Very little has been offered to
disprove his sentiments on this part of the question, and the
inexpediency of the measure should be clearly proved before the plan is
rejected; for an officer who deservedly enjoys the public confidence is
entitled to the support of the Legislature in those plans which are
expedient and constitutional.

Mr. S. mentioned instances in which Congress exercised power by
implication, and observed, that this was necessary to the execution of
the duties which devolve on the Government by the constitution. The
power to establish a National Bank must reside in Congress, for no
individual State can exercise any such power. The right of no particular
State is therefore infringed by the institution. It had repeatedly been
said, that Philadelphia would derive peculiar advantages from the Bank
of the United States, but, he said, if the present plan should fail, it
was a question whether the stockholders of the Bank of North America
would not derive greater advantages from the necessity which, in that
case, Government would be under of resorting to them for loans. The
institution, as before observed, is founded on general principles, and
will undoubtedly, in its operations, prove of general utility.

Mr. STONE said, if, upon questions like the present, he had given pain
to members he regarded, they might be assured the pain was reciprocal.
Let us cherish mutual toleration. We might conceive that each pursued
the system which he advocated from the purest motives. We differ in our
ideas of Government, and our sense of the sacredness of the written
compact. We varied widely in our opinions of the direction of this
Government. The great lesson of experiment would show who is right; but
we are influenced in our habits of thinking by our local situations,
and, perhaps, the distinct interests of the States we represent. He
observed, that upon the present occasion, the opinions respecting the
constitution seem to be divided by a geographical line, dividing the
continent. Hence it might be inferred, that other considerations mixed
with the question; and it had been insinuated that it was warped by the
future seat of Government. But other causes may be assigned for the
diversity of sentiment--the people to the eastward began earliest in
favor of liberty. They pursued freedom into anarchy--starting at the
precipice of confusion, they are now vibrating far the other way. He
said, that all our taxes are paid by the consumers of manufactures;
those taxes are all bounties upon home manufactures. The people to the
eastward are the manufacturers of this country; it was no wonder that
they should endeavor to strengthen the hands of a Government by which
they are so peculiarly benefited.

It is a fact that the greatest part of the Continental debt has
travelled eastward of the Potomac. This law is to raise the value of the
Continental paper. Here, then, is the strong impulse of immediate
interest in favor of the Bank. He took notice of the distinction made by
the plan of the bill, between Continental and State paper. The State
paper, on account of partial payments of interest, still remained in the
respective States. But this could not, by the present system, be
subscribed; so that the Southern States were deprived of the advantage
that might have been given to the only paper they have. But if gentlemen
charge us with defending the seat of Government, let them remember that
this betrays consciousness of an attack. If they believe that this
scheme tends to break the faith of the Union pledged to the Potomac, it
is no wonder they suppose we oppose it upon that ground. He would not
have mentioned this subject, had it not been hinted at. But let the
whole of it come forth; let gentlemen consult their own bosoms; let the
public decide the truth of his observations. He hoped he should not be
suspected of any bias. That so uniform had been his conduct upon all
questions, turning upon principles similar to the present, that every
member in the House, he believed, had conjectured rightly of the side he
would take, before he had uttered a word upon the subject, When
implication first raised its head in this House, he started from it as a
serpent which was to sting and poison the constitution. He felt in
unison with his country. The fears, the opinions, the jealousies of
individuals and of States, had been explained by a gentleman from
Virginia, (Mr. MADISON.) He should only remark, that all those who
opposed the Government dreaded this doctrine; those who advocated it,
declared that it could not be resorted to; and all combined in opinion
that it ought not to be tolerated. Never did any country more completely
unite in any sentiment than America in this, "that Congress ought not to
exercise, by implication, powers not granted by the constitution." And
is it not strange? For the admission of this doctrine destroys the
principle of our Government at a blow; it at once breaks down every
barrier which the Federal constitution had raised against unlimited
legislation. He said, that necessity was the most plausible pretext for
breaking the spirit of the social compact, but the people of this
country have anticipated that pretext. They have said to the Ministers
of this country, "we have given you what we think competent powers, but
if experience proves them inadequate, we will enlarge them; but, in the
mean time, dare not usurp those which we have reserved."

It is agreed on all hands, that the power to incorporate the subscribers
to a banking company, is not expressly granted, and although gentlemen
have agreed that it is implied--that it is an incident, that it is a
means for effectuating powers expressly granted, yet they are not agreed
as to the particular power to which this is an incident. They admit,
that the sweeping clause in the constitution confers no additional
power. But if he understood the gentlemen, several of them were of
opinion that all governments, instituted for certain ends, draw to them
the means of execution as of common right. This doctrine would make ours
but a short constitution. [Here he read the preamble and then said:]
Here is your constitution! Here is your bill of rights! Do these
gentlemen require any thing more respecting the powers of Congress, than
a description of the ends of government? And if, of right, they can
carry these into effect, will they regard the means, though they be
expressly pointed out? But I would ask if there is any power under
heaven which could not be exercised within the extensive limits of this
preamble?

The Convention might have stopped here; and there was no need, according
to the doctrine of the gentleman, to point out any of the means for the
ends mentioned in the preamble. That portion of the constitution which
by all America has been thought so important, according to their logic,
would become a dead letter; but the preamble, in fair construction, is a
solemn compact, that the powers granted shall be made use of to the ends
thereby specified.

He then reprobated, in pointed terms, the latitude of the principles
premised. He said the end of all government is the public good; and if
the means were left to legislation, all written compacts were nugatory.
He observed, that the sober discretion of the Legislature, which, in the
opinions of gentlemen, ought to be paramount, was the very thing
intended to be curbed and restrained by our constitution.

He then declared, that our form of government not only pointed out the
ends of government, but specified the means of execution. He said, we
may make war--this would draw to it the power of raising an army and
navy, laying taxes, establishing a judiciary, &c. But the spirit of the
constitution, in this respect, had been well explained by Mr. MADISON,
and he should not recapitulate.

He said, a gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SMITH) had remarked that
all our laws proceeded upon the principle of expediency--that we were
the judges of that expediency--as soon as we gave it as our opinion that
a thing was expedient, it became constitutional. What then remains of
your constitution, except its mode of organization? We may look into it
to refresh our memories respecting the times, places, and manner of
composing the Government; that, as to the powers of Congress, were he of
that gentleman's opinion, he would never look into it again. Gentlemen
see the difficulties of their theories, and are obliged to confess that
these incidental powers are not easily defined. They rest in the sober
discretion of the Legislature.

One gentleman (Mr. AMES) has said, no implication ought to be made
against the law of nature, against rights acquired, or against power
pre-occupied by the States; that it is easier to restrain than to give
competent powers of execution. Now these notions are hostile to the main
principle of our Government, which is only a grant of particular
portions of power, implying a negative to all others. It has been shown
that the ends of government will include every thing. If gentlemen are
allowed to range in their sober discretion for the means, it is plain
that they have no limits. By the cabalistic word _incident_, your
constitution is turned upside down, and instead of being a grant of
particular powers, guarded by an implied negative to all others, it is
made to imply all powers. But, strange to tell, America forgot to guard
it by express negative provisions. Is there any difference in effect
between lodging general powers in a government, and permitting the
exercise of them by subtle constructions? He said there was a
difference. In the one case the people fairly gave up their liberty, and
stood prepared; in the other, they were unexpectedly tricked out of
their constitution.

The preceding remarks showed how dangerous is the doctrine of
implication, and upon what small data ingenuity can raise the most
dangerous superstructure. He should now take a view of these precedents,
in the former and present Congress, which are relied on to justify the
present measure.

1st. The Bank of North America. Here he stated the distressful and
critical situation of America at the period of its establishment; he
remarked, that it was at the time of the declension of the Continental
money. He showed that there were no powers in the Confederation to which
(even according to the reasoning of the other side) this power could be
incidental, but what required the vote of nine States; that the
ordinance passed by a vote of seven States, which showed that necessity
alone gave birth to that measure. He showed the dissimilarity of the
situations of the former and this Congress, and the difference in their
powers, and, consequently, in the dangers to be apprehended from the
encroachment of either.

2d. The redemption of our prisoners at Algiers. This comes within the
power to regulate trade. If, said he, we are not capable of redeeming,
by the best means in our power, our citizens, our trade may be entirely
ruined; and hence, the law which would be made for their redemption
would be necessary and proper. But, by the constitution, the Executive
may make treaties; these may be general, or for a particular object, and
the Legislature may effectuate them by grants of money.

3d. We have bought certificates, and not destroyed them. This, they say,
is implied from the power of paying the debts.

He asked if, before the purchase, the certificates were debts due from
the United States? And demanded, if, by the purchase, they were divested
of that quality? In my judgment, when a debt is fairly cancelled, it is
as much like a payment as need be.

4th. We had no right, except by implication, to give a salary to the
Vice President. He had voted against the salary, and had been for a _per
diem_ allowance, because he thought the Vice President was viewed by the
constitution only as the President of the Senate. But this example fails
most palpably, as Congress, in the compensations, are not confined by
the constitution either to a particular sum or mode of payment.

5th. Congress have made corporations, and exercised complete legislation
in the Western Territory. He said, to answer this case, nothing more was
necessary than to read the clause in the constitution which gives to
Congress expressly the power to make all the rules and regulations for
them.

It seemed to him as if gentlemen were inverting the order of things, by
making powers where there were none, and attempting to prove express
grants to the implications.

6th. Our regulations respecting freighters and owners, and between
captains and seamen. He had not those regulations correctly in his
memory, but he believed them proper and necessary regulations of
commerce.

7th. It has been said we have exclusive jurisdiction in places belonging
to Congress, and within the ten miles square. We could erect a bank in
any of those places; its influence would extend over the continent; the
principle upon which we founded this power could not be confined to a
particular time or a spot of land. Gentlemen ridicule the idea that the
exercise of a pervading influence and a general principle should be
limited by any particular number of years, or be confined within a fort.
He said, the power of exclusive legislation in those places was
expressly granted, and, under its influence, the Congress might exercise
complete and exclusive legislation within those limits; that the power
was confined to the places. But if the general powers of this
constitution are to be governed by the same rules of construction, and
we are to have no regard to place, it follows that Congress can exercise
exclusive legislation over this continent. He was astonished at this
doctrine. It would be equally reasonable to say, that France, because
within the limits of her own dominions, and over her own property, she
exercised exclusive legislation, that hence she had a right to legislate
for the world.

8th. The power of removal of officers by the President alone. He said,
it was known he had opposed that doctrine. He left it to be defended by
those who had voted for it. But he hoped Mr. Smith, of South Carolina,
and some other gentlemen, who had opposed it, would review the arguments
they had used upon that occasion.

He observed, after taking a view of these precedents on the danger of
laying down improper principles in legislation, how eagerly men grasped
at the slightest pretexts for exercise of power. He shuddered to think
what a broad and commanding position this Bank will form for further
encroachments.

A gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. SEDGWICK) has said, that whenever a
power is granted, all the known and usual means of execution are always
implied. The idea had been properly examined by Mr. GILES, but he would
ask, if incorporating the subscribers to a bank was the known and usual
means of borrowing money, especially when the subscribers were not
obliged to loan; or of collecting taxes, when no taxes were levied on
the bank.

But gentlemen tell us, that if we tie up the constitution too tightly,
it will break; if we hamper it, we cannot stir; if we do not admit the
doctrine, we cannot legislate at all. And with a kind of triumph, they
say that implication is recognized by the constitution itself in the
clause wherein we have power to make all laws, to carry, &c. He said, he
was ready to meet the gentlemen upon this ground. This clause was
intended to defeat those loose and proud principles of legislation which
had been contended for. It was meant to reduce legislation to some rule.
In fine, it confined the Legislature to those means that were necessary
and proper.

He said, it would not be pretended that it was necessary and proper for
the collection of taxes. Indeed, one gentleman (Mr. AMES) had attempted
to show that the payments in specie could not be made, if by chance a
great quantity of debt suddenly accumulated in a particular place. But
it might be remembered, that this necessity, if it arrived, was created
by the Legislature, and that would be strange reasoning which broke a
good constitution to mend a bad law. No taxes are to be collected by
this bill.

It would not be necessary and proper as a means of borrowing money,
because, first, we do not want to borrow money, and, if we did, this
law, though it may be the probable, is not the necessary mean; for if it
was the interest of the stockholders, they might, and he believed would,
refuse to loan. He said, that the institution might be defended upon
more plausible grounds, if the Bank had been taxed; or if a condition to
loan money to the public had been part of the plan. Upon what ground,
then, do gentlemen stand? They can only say, that they have implied a
great and substantive power in Congress, which gives to Government, or
to individuals, the influence of fifteen millions of dollars,
irrevocably, for twenty years, with a power of making by-laws, &c.,
because there is a probability that this institution may be convenient
and agreeable in the operations of Government. He asked, upon parallel
principles, what might Congress not do? He said, that the gentleman from
Virginia, (Mr. MADISON,) pursuing the doctrine into all the forms in
which it might appear, had struck upon several cases which were very
pointed--an incorporation of manufacturers with exclusive privileges;
merchants with the same; a national religion. This a gentleman (Mr.
AMES) has said was unfair and extravagant reasoning; and yet, in five
minutes, the gentleman's own reasoning led him to ask, with warmth, if
Congress could not join stocks with a company to trade to Nootka? And he
condescended to doubt, if the privileges given to such a company might
not be exclusive. He saw clearly, himself, that his theory led to the
latter conclusion; for if expediency, if convenience, if facility, if
fears of war, if preparations for events which might never happen, can
justify an incorporation upon the present plan, the same suggestions,
the same logic, will legalize incorporations with exclusive privileges.
The deductions of the gentleman from Virginia are sound and right, and
cannot be fairly controverted. Congress may then do any thing. Nay, if
the principles now advocated are right, it is the duty of the
Legislature of the Union to make all laws; not only those that are
necessary and proper to carry the powers of the Government into effect,
but all laws which are convenient, expedient, and beneficial to the
United States. Then where is your constitution! Are we not now sitting,
in our sober discretion, a General Government, without the semblance of
restraint? Yes, said he, we have still a constitution, but where is it
to be found? Is it written? No. Is it among the archives? No. Where is
it? It is found in the sober discretion of the Legislature--it is
registered in the brains of the majority!

He proceeded. I say there is no necessity, there is no occasion, for
this Bank. The States will institute banks which will answer every
purpose. But a distrust of the States is shown in every movement of
Congress--will not this implant distrust also in the States? Will you
gain by this contest? This scheme may give, and I am convinced will
give, partial advantages to the States. In the fair administration of
our Government, no partial advantages can be given; but, by this bill, a
few stockholders may institute banks in particular States, to their
aggrandizement and the oppression of others. This Bank will swallow up
the State banks; it will raise in this country a moneyed interest at the
devotion of Government; it may bribe both States and individuals. He
said, gentlemen asked who would be offended or hurt by this plan? Have
we heard any complaints against it? Have the newspapers reprobated it?
These questions had no influence on his mind. He said it was one of
those sly and subtle movements which marched silently to its object; the
vices of it were at first not palpable or obvious; but when the people
saw a distinction of banks created--when they viewed with astonishment
the train of wealth which followed individuals, whose sudden exaltation
surprised even the possessors--they would inquire how all this came
about? They will then examine into the powers by which these phenomena
have arisen, and they will find--they will reprobate the falsehood of
the theories of the present day.

He said, that gentlemen had told us of the sudden irruptions of enemies.
When those necessities arrive, it is time enough to make use of them to
break your constitution. But, gentlemen say, upon emergencies the Bank
will loan money. We differ in opinion. I think when we want it most, the
Bank will be most unable and unwilling to lend. If we are in
prosperity, we can borrow money almost any where; but in adversity,
stockholders will avoid us with as much caution as any other
capitalists.

But a gentleman (Mr. AMES) tells us not to be alarmed, the Bank will not
eat up liberty--he said he was not afraid. He was not under any
apprehensions that all the little influence that Congress possessed
would destroy the great spirit of American liberty. The body of the
people would laugh at and ridicule any attempt to enslave them; but a
conduct which had that tendency might arouse alarming passions. He said,
there existed at this moment ill-blood in the United States, which to
quiet he would readily agree to enter into a foreign war. America with
us, we might defy the world. There was but one people he was afraid of
offending. This was America. He was not afraid of foreign enemies, but
the resentment of our own country is always a subject of serious
apprehension. He observed, that there were other parts of this important
and diffusive subject which he might have touched, but he had fatigued
himself and the House.

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) said, as he had been greatly misunderstood
by the gentleman last up, he wished to explain the position he had laid
down. He had never been so absurd as to contend, as the gentleman had
stated, that whatever the Legislature thought expedient, was therefore
constitutional. He had only argued that in cases where the question was,
whether a law was necessary and proper to carry a given power into
effect, the members of the Legislature had no other guide but their own
judgment, from which alone they were to determine whether the measure
proposed was necessary and proper to carry the powers vested in Congress
into full effect. If, in such cases, it appeared to them, on solemn
deliberation, that the measure was not prohibited by any part of the
constitution, was not a violation of the rights of any State or
individual, and was peculiarly necessary and proper to carry into
operation certain essential powers of the Government, it was then not
only justifiable on the part of Congress, but it was even their duty to
adopt such measure. That, nevertheless, it was still within the province
of the Judiciary to annul the law, if it should be by them deemed not to
result by fair construction from the powers vested by the constitution.


MONDAY, February 7.

_Bank of the United States._

The House resumed the consideration of the bill for incorporating the
Bank of the United States.

The question being on the passage of the bill,

Mr. GILES.--In the course of discussing the present important question,
it has been several times insinuated that local motives, and not a
candid and patriotic investigation of the subject upon its merits, have
given rise to that difference of opinion which has been heretofore
manifested in this House. I shall not examine the truth of this
observation, but merely remark, that the causes which may have produced
the arguments against the proposed measure, whatever they may be, can
neither add to, nor take from, their merit or influence, and, of course,
the insinuations might have been spared without injury to the subject;
but so far as the observation may have been intended to apply to myself,
I can truly say, that if a bias were to influence my conduct, it would
rather direct it to favor, than to oppose the proposed measure. This
bias would arise from two causes: the one from the respect which I
entertain for the judgments of the majority who advocate the measure;
the other of a more serious nature. I have observed with regret a
radical difference of opinion between gentlemen from the Eastern and
Southern States, upon the great Governmental questions, and have been
led to conclude, that the operation of that cause alone might cast
ominous conjecture on the promised success of this much valued
Government. Mutual concessions appear to be necessary to obviate this
effect, and I have always been pleased in manifesting my disposition to
make advances; but from the most careful view of the arguments in favor
of the proposed measure considered under this impression, they do not
seem to me sufficient to establish the propriety of its adoption, and I
am therefore impelled, by the joint influence of duty and opinion, to be
one in the opposition.

A gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. AMES) prefaced his observations with
this remark, that it is easier to point out defects and raise objections
to any proposed system, than to defend it from objections, and prove its
affirmative propriety, and warned the House against the effects of
arguments of this nature, urged in opposition to the measures now under
consideration. I agree with the gentleman in this idea in general, but
we should reflect that in the present case the address of the arguments
in favor of the measure is made to one of the strongest affections of
the human mind, the love of dominion; and hence we may justly conclude,
that they will be received and relished with their full and unabated
influence. This reflection appears to me to be at least a counterpoise
to that remark.

The advocates of this bill have been called on, and I conceive with
propriety, to show its constitutionality and expediency, both of which
have been doubted by those of the opposition. In support of the first
position, a multitude of arguments have been adduced, all of which may
be reducible to the following heads; such as are drawn from the
constitution itself; from the incidentality of this authority to the
mere creation and existence of government; from the expediency of the
measure itself; and from precedents of Congress; to which may be added a
similar exercise of authority by Congress, under the former
Confederation.

Observations arising from the constitution itself, were of two kinds.
The right of exercising this authority is either expressed in the
constitution, or deducible from it by necessary implication. One
gentleman only, from Massachusetts, (Mr. SEDGWICK,) has ventured to
assert, that, discarding the doctrine of implication, he could show that
the right to exercise the authority contended for was expressly
contained in the constitution. This, I presume, must have been a mistake
in language, because the difference between an express and an implied
authority appears to me to consist in this--in the one case, the natural
import of the words used in granting the authority would of themselves
convey a complete idea to the mind of the authority granted, without the
aid of argument or deduction; in the other, to convey a complete idea to
the mind, the aid of argument and deduction is found necessary to the
usual import of words used; and that gentleman proceeded with a labored
argument to prove, that the authority was expressly granted, which would
have been totally useless, if his assertion had been just.

[Mr. SEDGWICK rose to explain; he never conceived the authority granted
by the express words of the constitution, but absolutely by necessary
implication from different parts of it.]

I shall not contend as to the assertion, but shall proceed to consider
the arguments in favor of the measure upon the doctrine of implication;
which, indeed, are those only which deserve consideration.

In doing this, I shall consider the authority contended for to apply to
that of granting charters to corporations in general, for I do not
recollect any circumstance, and I believe none has been pretended, which
could vary this case from the general exercise of that authority. To
establish the affirmative of this proposition, arguments have been drawn
from the several parts of the constitution; the context has been
resorted to. "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity,
provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure
the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," &c. It has
been remarked, that here the ends for which this Government was
established are clearly pointed out; the means to produce the ends are
left to the choice of the Legislature, and that the incorporation of a
bank is one necessary mean to produce these general ends. It may be
observed, in reply, that the context contemplates every general object
of Government whatever; and if this reasoning were to be conclusive,
every object of Government would be within the authority of Congress,
and the detail of the constitution would have been wholly unnecessary,
further than to designate the several branches of the Government which
were to be intrusted with this unlimited, discretionary choice of means,
to produce these specified ends. The same reasoning would apply as
forcibly to every clause of the constitution, restraining the authority
of Congress to the present case, or to any one in which the constitution
is silent. The only candid construction arising from the context appears
to me to be this; it is designed, and it is the known office of every
member to point out the great objects proposed to be answered by the
subsequent regulations of which the constitution is composed. These
regulations contain the means by which these objects are presumed to be
best answered. These means consist in a proper distribution of all
Governmental rights between the Government of the United States and the
several State governments, and in fixing limits to the exercise of all
authorities granted to the Government of the United States. The context,
therefore, gives no authority whatever, but only contemplates the ends
for which certain authorities are subsequently given. Arguments drawn
from this source appear to be ineffectual in themselves, and the
reliance of gentlemen upon them indicates a suspicion and distrust of
such as may be drawn from other parts of the constitution. The advocates
of the bill have turned away from this context, and have applied to the
body of the constitution in search of arguments. They have fixed upon
the following clauses, to all or some one of which they assert the
authority contended for is clearly incidental; the right to lay and
collect taxes, &c., &c.; to provide for the common defence and general
welfare, &c.; to borrow money, &c.; to regulate commerce with foreign
nations, &c. The bill contemplates neither the laying nor collecting
taxes, and, of course, it cannot be included in that clause; indeed, it
is not pretended, by the bill itself, to be at all necessary to produce
either of those ends; the furthest the idea is carried in the bill, is,
that it will tend to give a facility to the collection.

The terms "common defence and general welfare" contain no grant of any
specific authority, and can relate to such only as are particularly
enumerated and specified. "To borrow money." Gentlemen have relied much
upon this clause; their reasoning is, that a right to incorporate a bank
is incidental to that of borrowing money, because it creates the ability
to lend, which is necessary to effectuate the right to borrow. I am at a
loss to discover one single relation between the right to borrow, and
the right to create the ability to lend, which is necessary to exist
between principal and incident. It appears to me that the incidental
authority is paramount to the principal, for the right of creating the
ability to lend is greater than that of borrowing from a previously
existing ability. I should, therefore, rather conclude that the right to
borrow, if there be a connection at all, would be incidental to the
right to grant charters of incorporation, than the reverse of that
proposition, which is the doctrine contended for by the advocates of the
measure. The same reasoning which would establish a right to create the
ability to lend, would apply more strongly to enforce the will after
the ability is created; because the creator would have a claim of
gratitude at least upon the created ability, which if withheld, perhaps,
with justice might be insisted on. "To regulate commerce with foreign
nations." This is by no means a satisfactory ground for the assumption
of this authority; for if it be deemed a commercial regulation, there is
a clause in the constitution which would absolutely inhibit its
exercise. I allude to that clause which provides that no preference
shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of
one State over those of another; and it seems to be admitted, that one
principal effect to be produced by the operation of this measure will be
to give a decided commercial preference to this port over every other in
the United States.

Gentlemen finding it difficult to show that necessary relation and
intimate connection between the authority contended for, and any one of
the specified authorities before mentioned, which would be essential to
the establishment of their doctrine, have referred to what has been
generally called the sweeping clause, and have made deductions from the
terms "necessary" and "proper;" they have observed that certain
specified authorities being granted, all others necessary to their
execution follow without any particular specification. This observation
may in general be true, but its fallacy here consists in its application
to this particular case. It cannot be applied until the exercise of this
authority be proved to be necessarily connected with some one of the
previously enumerated authorities, and here the argument, as well as the
fact, fails.

The authority contended for seems to me to be a distinct substantive
branch of legislation, and, perhaps, paramount to any one of the
previously enumerated authorities, and should therefore not be usurped
as an incidental subaltern authority.

I am confirmed in this opinion from the indistinct, confused conceptions
of gentlemen who advocate the measure. They rely upon the incidentality
of this authority to some one of those particularly specified, and yet
have applied it as an incident to several distinct, unconnected subjects
of legislation; and then, distrusting their own conclusions, or as if
the inquiry would be too troublesome or minute, they leave this ground,
and assert that it is incidental to the result of the whole combined
specified authorities. Gentlemen must, therefore, view this right
through different optics, at different times; or, what I rather believe
to be the fact, they have no distinct view of it at all, the right
having no existence.

A gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. SEDGWICK,) finding the usual import
of the terms used in the constitution to be rather unfavorable to the
doctrines advanced by him, has favored us with a new exposition of the
word "necessary." He says that "necessary," as applicable to a mean to
produce an end, should be construed so as to produce the greatest
quantum of public utility. I have been taught to conceive that the true
exposition of a necessary mean to produce a given end was that mean
without which the end could not be produced.

The gentleman's reasoning, however, if pursued, will be found to teem
with dangerous effects, and would justify the assumption of any given
authority whatever. Terms are to be so construed as to produce the
greatest degree of public utility. Congress are to be the judges of this
degree of utility. This utility, when decided on, will be the ground of
constitutionality. Hence any measure may be proved constitutional which
Congress may judge to be useful. These deductions would suborn the
constitution itself, and blot out the great distinguishing
characteristic of the free constitutions of America, as compared with
the despotic Governments of Europe, which consist in having the
boundaries of governmental authority clearly marked out and ascertained.

The exclusive jurisdiction over ten miles square has been adverted to by
one gentleman (Mr. AMES) as a specified authority, to which the one
contended for is suggested to be incidental. He has reasoned in this
manner: Congress possess jurisdiction over ten miles square, &c.;
Congress may therefore establish a bank within the ten miles square,
and, as principle is not applicable to place, Congress may exercise the
same authority any where else. This seems to me to be an ingenious
improvement upon sophistical deduction; the gentleman, however, should
have reflected that the ground upon which he built the right to exercise
this authority was that of exclusive jurisdiction, and to extend the
principle it is necessary to extend the right of exclusive jurisdiction;
without this, the basis of his argument fails, and the superstructure,
however beautiful, must follow; for the principle, if at all deducible
from that source, is expressly confined to place, and cannot operate
beyond it.

I shall now consider the second resource, whence the constitutional
right of exercising the proposed authority is derived; its incidentality
to the mere creation and existence of government. It has been observed,
that in all governments there are certain rights tacitly granted, and
certain other rights retained; that it is impossible, in framing a
constitution, to enumerate every minute governmental right, and that
such an attempt would be chimerical and vain. And hence the
incidentality of this authority to the mere existence of government is
inferred. These observations seem to me to apply to a government growing
out of a state of society, and not to a government composed of chartered
rights from previously existing governments, or the people of those
governments. I have been taught to consider this as a Federal, not as a
consolidated Government, and am not prepared or disposed at present to
relinquish that idea. A gentleman from New York (Mr. LAWRENCE) has
remarked, that the Government is consolidated _quo ad_ the powers
granted, and of course _quo ad_ their incidents; but he should first
have shown that the authority contended for is one of those granted, or
incidental to some one of them, before the application can be made. The
observation can have no tendency to establish either of those positions.
What effect would this doctrine, if admitted, have upon the State
governments? And how would it be relished by them? Their dignity and
consequence will not only be prostrated by it, but their very existence
radically subverted. A third resource of deducing this constitutional
authority is resorted to--the expediency of the proposed measure itself.
I presume the great object of the constitution was to distribute all
governmental rights between the several State Governments and the
Government of the United States; the expediency, therefore, of the
exercise of all constitutional rights, as they relate to State or
General Governments, is properly contemplated and decided by the
constitution, and not by the Governments among which the distribution is
made. A gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SMITH) has said, that the
expediency and constitutionality of the proposed measure cannot be
considered separately, because the constitutionality grows out of the
expediency. This is but candidly unveiling the subject of that
sophistical mask which has been ingeniously thrown over it by some
gentlemen; for all the arguments adduced in favor of the measure, from
whatever source they arise, if pursued, will be found to rush into the
great one of expediency, to bear down all constitutional provisions, and
to end themselves in the unlimited ocean of despotism.

Several gentlemen have said, that this authority may be safely
exercised, since it does not interfere with the rights of States or
individuals. I think this assertion not very correct; if the States be
constitutionally entitled to the exercise of this authority, it is an
intrusion on their rights to do an act which would eventually destroy or
impede the freest exercise of that authority; for it is totally
immaterial whether the effect be produced by the operation of this, or
by an inhibition in express terms. The States may not only incorporate
banks, but may of right prohibit the circulation of bank paper within
their respective limits; the act, therefore, if it be intended to have
an effectual operation, will certainly infringe this right, or exist at
the mercy of the State governments. This reasoning, however, places the
subject in another point of view a little singular. It contemplates the
authority contended for as vacant ground, and justifies the tenure by
the mere title of occupancy. In almost all the remarks in favor of the
measure, gentlemen seem to have forgotten the peculiar nature of this
Government. It being composed of mere chartered authorities, all
authority not contained within that charter would, from the nature of
the grant, have been retained to the granting party; and I will venture
to assert, that this opinion was the _sine qua_ _non_ of the adoption
and existence of this Government; but if this opinion had been doubtful,
Congress themselves have made an express declaration in favor of this
construction to the proposed amendments to the constitution. Gentlemen
have inferred a constitutional right to exercise the authority contended
for from a fourth resource--the former usages and habits of Congress. In
affirmance of this argument, several acts of Congress have been referred
to--the power of removal from office, the government of the Western
Territory, the cession from North Carolina, the purchase of West Point,
&c. I shall not examine into the propriety of these several acts, though
I conceive it would not be difficult to show, that they differ
materially, upon constitutional grounds, from the one now proposed. I
shall only remark, that, if Congress have heretofore been in the usage
and habit of disregarding and violating the constitution, it is high
time that that habit and usage be corrected. I hope and trust that the
people of the United States will not tamely see the only security of
their rights and liberties invaded and violated, but also see one
violation of it with impunity boldly urged as an argument to justify
another.

An instance of a similar exercise of authority by the Congress which
existed under the former Confederation, has been mentioned in favor of
its exercise by the present Congress. The argument has been, that as the
powers of the present Congress are greater than those of the former
Congress, and the former were competent to the exercise of this right,
the present must be more so. It is to be remarked, that that act was the
child of necessity, and that Congress doubted its legitimacy, and the
act itself was never confirmed by a judicial decision; and it should be
also remarked, that the same Congress did not pretend to possess the
right to punish those who should counterfeit the paper of the Bank, and
recommended it to the States to confirm the act which they had done, and
to pass laws for the purpose of punishing those who should counterfeit
the paper, and it is a little remarkable that this circumstance, which
is one of the most essential to the existence and operation of this act,
is withheld from our view. But as I think arguments drawn from this
source wholly foreign to the subject, I shall make no further remark
upon them.

I shall now suggest a few observations respecting the expediency of the
proposed measure. In doing this, I shall not say any thing as to the
utility of banks in general, nor as to the effects of the banks of
England, Scotland, Holland, &c. I possess not sufficient practical or
theoretical knowledge to justify the inquiry; I shall only point out a
few circumstances, which are peculiarly attached to the government we
are now administering, which might vary the application of general
rules, drawn from governments of a different nature, and which possess
the unquestioned right of granting charters of incorporation.

In the first place, the right of exercising that authority by the
Government is at least problematical, it is nowhere granted in express
terms; the Legislature, therefore, can have no competent security
against a judicial decision but a dependent or a corrupt court. I
presume that a law to punish with death those who counterfeit the paper
emitted by the Bank will be consequent upon the existence of this act.
Hence a judicial decision will probably be had of the most serious and
awful nature; the life of an individual at stake on the one hand, an
improvident act of the Government on the other. A distrust arising from
this cause will for ever keep the Bank in jeopardy, and the very first
trial of this nature will probably subject the Bank to a run which it
will be unable to withstand; for all stockholders will require the
greatest possible security for their money, and a distrust of such an
institution will be its destruction. This observation seems to me to
have peculiar force, from the great proportion of paper to that of gold
and silver, upon which the Bank is proposed to be founded. The peculiar
relation between the General and State Governments, will naturally
produce a contest for governmental rights, until long experience shall
settle the precise boundaries between them. The present measure appears
to me to be an unprovoked advance in this scramble for authority, and a
mere experiment how far we may proceed without involving the opposition
of the State Governments. It should be remarked that this Government is
in its childhood; it is therefore unfitted for such bold and manly
enterprises, and policy would dictate that it should wait at least until
it may have become more matured or invigorated. Two modes of
administering this Government present themselves; the one with mildness
and moderation, by keeping within the known boundaries of the
constitution, the other, by the creation and operation of fiscal
mechanism; the first will ensure us the affections of the people, the
only natural and substantial basis of Republican Governments; the other
will arise and exist in oppression and injustice, will increase the
previously existing jealousies of the people, and must be ultimately
discarded, or bring about a radical change in the nature of our
Government. Having suggested these observations upon the measure in
general, I shall now proceed to point out a few objections to the
details of the bill. I think the authority given to the Bank to purchase
and hold lands objectionable; in the first place I doubt the
constitutional right of Congress to invest such an authority; the lands
within the United States are holden of the individual States, and not of
the United States; and that tenure appears to me to be the true ground
upon which the right to exercise that authority grows. I believe it is
admitted, that although Congress may naturalize a foreigner, they cannot
authorize him to purchase lands; and I think the case at least as
strong, when they first create an artificial person, and then invest the
authority; besides, if we have any reference to the experience of other
countries, we shall find it dangerous to allow incorporated bodies to
hold lands at all. The exercise of that right produced great oppression
in England, and nothing but the masterly activity of an absolute prince
could apply a competent remedy. A gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
SEDGWICK) has denied that the Bank is invested with this right. It is
true it is confined to the mode of purchasing by mortgage, but that is
the most effectual mode of purchasing, and the most ruinous to the
landholder.

I will merely mention one other objection without a comment--the
authority given to make laws not contrary to law or its own
constitution; but the most objectionable clause is that which limits its
duration, and pledges the faith of the United States that no other bank
shall be established in the mean time, however dangerous and offensive
the present measure might prove in its operation, and whatever may be
the utility and advantage in any other scheme of banking which
experience may suggest. Such a stipulation cannot be justified but from
the most pointed necessity, and from the maturest deliberation. When I
search for the necessity of this measure, it escapes me; it is not
pretended in the bill itself; the chief stimulus which I can discover to
the existence of this measure, is to give artificial impulse to the
value of stock. This is not a sufficient justification; the subject has
not been sufficiently considered, and I therefore hope it may be
postponed to some future session of Congress; many evils may be avoided
by such a conduct, none can result from it.

Mr. GERRY said, he should principally confine himself to the objections
of the gentleman first up from Virginia, (Mr. MADISON,) not from a
disrespect to the observations of other gentlemen in the opposition, but
because he considered their arguments as grafts on the original stock of
those urged by the gentleman alluded to, and if the trunk fell, its
appendages must fall also.

The objects of the bill were to render the fiscal administration
successful, and to give facility to loans on sudden emergencies, and to
benefit trade and industry in general; and that these were objects of
high importance had not been denied, neither had it been asserted that
they ought not, if possible, to be attained.

It is objected, however, that the mode proposed by the bill is
unconstitutional, and the bill itself defective.

The mode proposed is a National Bank; to establish which he thought
Congress were as competent as either House were to adjourn from day to
day.

It is said that Congress have no power relating to this subject, except
what is contained in the clauses for laying and collecting taxes,
imposts, excises, &c.; for borrowing money, and for making all laws
necessary and proper for carrying these powers into effect; and that
these do not authorize the establishment of a National Bank.

To ascertain this, the gentleman from Virginia proposes a candid
interpretation of the constitution, which we shall agree to, and he
offers to assist us with his rules of interpretation, for his good
intentions in doing which we give him full credit; but as he
acknowledges that he has been long decided against the authority of
Congress to establish a bank, and is therefore prejudiced against the
measure; as his rules, being made for the occasion, are the result of
his interpretation, and not his interpretation of the rules; as they are
not sanctioned by law exposition, or approved by experienced judges of
the law, they cannot be considered as a criterion for regulating the
judgment of the House, but may, if admitted, prove an _ignis fatuus_
that may lead to destruction.

We wish not, however, by establishing our own rules of interpretation,
to enjoy the privilege which is denied to the gentleman, but will meet
him on fair ground, by applying rules which have the sanction mentioned;
and as the learned _Judge Blackstone_ has laid down such, it is presumed
the gentleman from Virginia will not contend for a preference, or refuse
to be tried by this standard.

The Judge observes: "That the fairest and most rational method to
interpret the will of the legislator is by exploring his intentions at
the time when the law was made by signs the most natural and probable;
and these signs are either the words, the context, the subject-matter,
the effect and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the law." With
respect to words, the Judge observes, that "they are generally
understood in their usual and most ordinary signification, not so much
regarding the grammar as their general and popular use."

The gentlemen on different sides of the question do not disagree with
respect to the meaning of the terms _taxes_, _duties_, _imposts_,
_excises_, &c., or of _borrowing money_, but of the word _necessary_:
and the question is, what is the general and popular meaning of this
term? Perhaps the answer to the question will be truly this, that in a
general and popular one the word does not admit of a definite meaning,
but that this varies according to the subject and circumstances. With
respect to the subject for instance, if the people, speaking of a
garrison besieged by a superior force, and without provisions, or a
prospect of relief, should say it was under the necessity of
surrendering, they would mean a physical necessity, for troops cannot
subsist long without provisions; but if speaking of a debtor, the people
should say he was frightened by his creditor and then reduced to the
necessity of paying his debts, they would mean a legal, which is very
different from a physical necessity; for although the debtor, by
refusing payment, might be confined, he would be allowed subsistence,
and the necessity he was under to pay his debts would not extend beyond
his confinement. Again, if it should be said that a client is under the
necessity of giving to his lawyer more than legal fees, the general
popular meaning of necessity would, in this instance, be very different
from that in the other; the necessity would neither be physical nor
legal, but artificial, or, if I may be allowed the expression, a
long-robe necessity.

The meaning of the word "_necessary_," varies also according to
circumstances; for although Congress have power to levy and collect
taxes, duties, &c., to borrow money, and to determine the time, quantum,
mode, and every regulation necessary and proper for supplying the
Treasury, yet the people would apply a different meaning to the word
"necessary" under different circumstances. For instance, without a
sufficiency of precious metals for a medium, laws creating an artificial
medium would be generally thought necessary for carrying into effect the
power to levy and collect taxes; but if there was a sufficiency of such
metals, those laws would not generally be thought necessary. Again, if
specie was scarce, and the credit of the Government low, collateral
measures would be by the people thought necessary for obtaining public
loans: but not so, if the case was reversed. Or, if part of the States
should be invaded and overrun by an enemy, it would be thought necessary
to levy on the rest heavy taxes, and collect them in a short period, and
to take stock, grain, and other articles from the citizens without their
consent, for the common defence; but in a time of peace and safety, such
measures would be supposed unnecessary. Instances may be multiplied in
other respects; but it is conceived that these are sufficient to show
that the popular and general meaning of the word "necessary," varies
according to the subject and circumstances.

The second rule of interpretation relates to the _context_, and the
Judge conceives that "if words are still dubious, we may establish their
meaning by the context; thus the preamble is often called in to help the
construction of an act of Parliament." The constitution, in the present
case, is the great law of the people, who are themselves the sovereign
Legislature, and the preamble is in these words: "We, the people of the
United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,
insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote
the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves
and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the
United States of America."

These are the objects for which the constitution was established, and in
administering it we should always keep them in view. And here it is
remarkable, that although the common defence and general welfare are
held up in the preamble among the primary objects of attention, they are
again mentioned in the eighth section of the first article, whereby we
are enjoined in levying taxes, duties, &c., particularly to regard the
common defence and general welfare; indeed common sense dictates the
measure; for the security of our property, families, and liberty--of
every thing dear to us, depends on our ability to defend them. The
means, therefore, for attaining this object, we ought not to omit a
year, month, or even a day, if we could avoid it; and we are never
provided for defence unless prepared for sudden emergencies. Should
Government be surprised in this case, it would be as dishonorable as for
a general to be surprised in a state of warfare, and the event to the
community may be much more fatal. If provision then for sudden
emergencies is indispensable, it must be evident that it will depend in
a great measure on the ability of the Government to command, at all
times, for this purpose, a sufficient sum of money, which is justly
denominated the sinews of war; and how is this to be effected? By
emissions of bills of credit? During the Revolution, bills of credit, it
must be acknowledged, have done wonders; they have, in conflict with the
banks, Treasury, and public credit of Great Britain, risen superior to
them all, and have since died a natural death. We have honored them with
a funeral pile; we now bid peace to their manes, and devoutly hope that
bills of credit will for ever be extinct in the United States. Are we to
depend, then, on taxes for commanding money in cases of urgent
necessity? These, as has been shown by other gentlemen, will be too slow
in their operations, unless, indeed, we should levy a tax for drawing
into and locking up in the Treasury three or four millions of dollars; a
law which would be universally considered as unnecessary and improper.

By loans, and loans only, can provision be made for sudden emergencies;
but if loans should be made previously to an emergency, the people would
be unnecessarily burdened by the interest thereof, and most of the other
evils would ensue that would arise from previous taxes; and if they were
to be made at an emergency, without previous arrangements, of whom are
we to borrow? Of individuals? These cannot be depended on, as has been
fully proved by our own experience at the commencement of the
Revolution. Are we to apply to the banks already established in the
States for loans? These can no more be depended upon than individuals;
for stockholders having not more attachment to Government than other
citizens, would, in cases of public danger, attend to the preservation
of their property by other means than loaning it to Government. And
moreover, the united capitals of all the banks existing in the Union
would be insufficient for Government, for they do not amount to a
million and a half of dollars, and only a part in this could, in any
case, be reasonably expected on loan.

Are we to apply to foreign banks or individuals? These, as has been
shown, are too remote; and if not, we have not been able, without the
assistance of an ally, to obtain foreign loans during the war, and
perhaps the power on whose assistance we may rely would be hostile to
us. Such dependence, then, as has been stated, would necessarily leave
us in a deplorable state; and it must be evident that a previous
arrangement to aid loans in cases of sudden emergency is necessary and
proper in the general and popular use of the term, inasmuch as any other
measure that Congress can adopt would be inadequate to the purpose of
common defence; and what previous arrangement can we make so proper as
that of a National Bank? If gentlemen in the opposition know of any, let
them produce it, and let the merits of it be investigated; for it is
unreasonable to propose a rejection of this plan without producing a
better. The plan proposed by the Secretary of the Treasury, which is now
the subject of discussion, does honor, like all his other measures, to
his head and heart; it will be mutually beneficial to the stockholders
and to Government, and consequently so to the people. The stockholders
by this plan will be deeply interested in supporting Government; because
three-quarters of their capital, consisting of funded certificates,
depend on the existence of Government, which therefore is the prop of
their capital, the main pillar that supports the bank. Again, the credit
of Government, which is immaterial to the other banks, is essential to
the National Bank, for the annual interest of three-quarters of its
capital, which must form a great share of its profits, will depend
altogether on the credit of Government, and produce, on the part of the
stockholders, the strongest attachment to it. On the other hand, it will
be the interest of Government to support the Bank, as well on account of
the benefits which the public will generally derive from the
institution, and the profits arising from the shares of Government in
the stock which will be hereafter noticed, as of the supplies of money
which it will be for the interest of the Bank to furnish in cases of
urgent necessity. Whenever these exist, Congress may lay a tax for
supplying the Treasury, and anticipate it with certainty by means of the
National Bank. It being then our duty to provide for the common defence
in cases of emergency, the provision must evidently be made by taxes,
loans, or by arrangements for obtaining the latter on the earliest
notice; and previous taxes and loans being oppressive, improper, and
unnecessary, the arrangements for aiding loans become indispensable, and
a bank consequently necessary and constitutional.

The third rule of the Judge, relative to the "subject-matter" of a law,
it is unnecessary to apply, because the members agree in their ideas
relative to the meaning of the terms taxes, duties, loans, &c.

The fourth rule, which relates to "effects and consequences," is
important; and here the learned Judge observes that "as to effects and
consequences, the rule is, where the words bear none, or a very absurd
signification, if literally understood, we must a little deviate from
the received sense of them." In the present case, the gentlemen in the
opposition generally, as well as the gentleman first up from Virginia,
give the whole clause by which Congress are authorized "to make all laws
necessary and proper," &c., no meaning whatever; for they say, the
former Congress had the same power under the Confederation without this
clause as the present Congress have with it. The _Federalist_ is quoted
on this occasion, but although the author of it discovered great
ingenuity, this part of his performance I consider as a political
heresy. His doctrine, indeed, was calculated to lull the consciences of
those who differed in opinion with him at that time; and having
accomplished his object, he is probably desirous that it may die with
the opposition itself. The rule in this case says, that where the words
bear no signification, we must deviate a little; and as this deviation
cannot be made by giving the words less than no meaning, it must be made
by a more liberal construction than is given by gentlemen in the
opposition. Thus their artillery is turned on themselves, for their own
interpretation is an argument against itself.

The last mentioned rule relates to the spirit and reason of the law, and
the Judge is of opinion "that the most universal and effectual way of
discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by
considering the reason and spirit of it, or the cause which moved the
Legislature to enact it". The causes which produced the constitution
were an imperfect union, want of public and private justice, internal
commotions, a defenceless community, neglect of the public welfare, and
danger to our liberties. These are known to be the causes not only by
the preamble of the constitution, but also from our own knowledge of the
history of the times that preceded the establishment of it. If these
weighty causes produced the constitution, and it not only gives power
for removing them, but also authorizes Congress to make all laws
necessary and proper for carrying these powers into effect, shall we
listen to assertions that these words have no meaning, and that this
constitution has not more energy than the old? Shall we thus unnerve the
Government, leave the Union, as it was under the Confederation,
defenceless against a banditti of Creek Indians, and thus relinquish the
protection of its citizens? Or shall we, by a candid and liberal
construction of the powers expressed in the constitution, promote the
great and important objects thereof? Each member must determine for
himself; I shall without hesitation choose the latter, and leave the
people and States to determine whether or not I am pursuing their true
interest. If it is inquired where we are to draw the line of a liberal
construction, I will also inquire where the line of restriction is to be
drawn? The interpretation of the constitution, like the prerogative of a
sovereign, may be abused; but from hence the disuse of either cannot be
inferred. In the exercise of prerogative the minister is responsible for
his advice to his sovereign, and the members of either House are
responsible to their constituents for their conduct in construing the
constitution. We act at our peril; if our conduct is directed to the
attainment of the great objects of Government, it will be approved, and
not otherwise; but this cannot operate as a reason to prevent our
discharging the trusts reposed in us.

Let us now compare the different modes of reasoning on this subject, and
determine which is right, for both cannot be.

The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) has urged the dangerous
tendency of a liberal construction; but which is most dangerous, a
liberal or a destructive interpretation? The liberty we have taken in
interpreting the constitution, we conceive to be necessary, and it
cannot be denied to be useful in attaining the objects of it; but whilst
he denies us this liberty, he grants to himself a right to annul a part,
and a very important part of the constitution. The same principle that
will authorize a destruction of part, will authorize the destruction of
the whole of the constitution; and if gentlemen have a right to make
such rules, they have an equal right to make others for enlarging the
powers of the constitution, and indeed of forming a despotism. Thus, if
we take the gentleman for our pilot, we shall be wrecked on the reef
which he cautions us to avoid.

The gentleman has referred us to the last article of the amendments
proposed to the constitution by Congress, which provides that the powers
not delegated to Congress, or prohibited to the States, shall rest in
them or the people; and the question is, what powers are delegated? Does
the gentleman conceive that such only are delegated as are expressed? If
so, he must admit that our whole code of laws is unconstitutional. This
he disavows, and yields to the necessity of interpretation, which, by a
fair and candid application of established rules of construction to the
constitution, authorizes, as has been shown, the measure under
consideration.

The usage of Congress has also been referred to; and if we look at their
acts under the existing constitution, we shall find they are generally
the result of a liberal construction. I will mention but two. The first
relates to the establishment of the Executive Departments, and gives to
the President the power of removing officers. As the constitution is
silent on this subject, the power mentioned, by the gentleman's own
reasoning, is vested in the States or the people; he, however, contended
for an assumption of the power, and when assumed, urged that it should
be vested in the President, although, like the power of appointment, it
was by a respectable minority in both Houses conceived that it should
have been vested in the President and Senate. His rule of interpretation
then was therefore more liberal than it is now. In the other case,
Congress determined by law, with the sanction of the President, when and
where they should hold their next session, although the constitution
provides that this power should rest solely in the two Houses. The
gentleman also advocated this measure, and yet appears to be
apprehensive of the consequences that may result from a construction of
the constitution which admits of a National Bank. But from which of
these measures is danger to be apprehended? The only danger from our
interpretation would be the exercise by Congress of a general power to
form corporations; but the dangers resulting from the gentleman's
interpretations, in the cases alluded to, are very different; for what
may we not apprehend from the precedent of having assumed a power on
which the constitution was silent, and from having annexed it to the
Supreme Executive? If we have this right in one instance, we may extend
it to others, and make him a despot. And here I think it necessary to
declare, that such is my confidence in the wisdom, integrity, and
justice of the Chief Magistrate, as that I should be at ease, if my
life, liberty, and property were at his disposal; but this is a trust
which I am not authorized to make for my constituents; and as his
successors in office will possess equal powers, but may not possess
equal virtues, caution with respect to them is necessary. Again, what
may be the result of the precedent relating to the session of Congress?
If we had a right by law to determine where the next Congress should
hold their session, one Congress may oblige another to sit in Kentucky,
or in the intended State Yazoo, under the protection of a Choctaw chief,
or his Excellency, Governor Tallan. It must therefore be evident that
the usage of Congress in both instances is against the gentleman, and
that the dangers from the precedent of establishing a bank are
comparatively small to those resulting from the other measures referred
to.

The gentleman from Virginia has endeavored to support his interpretation
of the constitution by the sense of the Federal Convention; but how is
this to be obtained? By applying proper rules of interpretation? If so,
the sense of the Convention is in favor of the bill; or are we to depend
on the memory of the gentleman for a history of their debates, and from
thence to collect their sense? This would be improper, because the
memories of different gentlemen would probably vary, as they had already
done, with respect to those facts; and if not, the opinions of the
individual members who debated are not to be considered as the opinions
of the Convention. Indeed, if they were, no motion was made in that
Convention, and therefore none could be rejected for establishing a
National Bank; and the measure which the gentleman has referred to was a
proposition merely to enable Congress to erect commercial corporations,
which was, and always ought to be, negatived.

The gentleman's arguments respecting the sense of the State Conventions
have as little force as those relating to the Federal Convention. The
debates of the State Conventions, as published by the short-hand
writers, were generally partial and mutilated; in this, if the
publications are to be relied on, the arguments were all on one side of
the question; for there is not in the record, which is said to contain
the Pennsylvania debates, a word against the ratification of the
constitution; although we all know that arguments were warmly urged on
both sides.

The gentleman has quoted the opinions, as recorded in the debates of
this State and North Carolina, of two of our learned judges; but the
speech of one member is not to be considered as expressing the sense of
a convention; and if it was, we have no record which can be depended on
of such speeches. Indeed, had even this been the case, the Union was at
that time divided into two great parties, one of which feared the loss
of the Union if the constitution was not ratified unconditionally, and
the other the loss of our liberties if it was. The object on either side
was so important as perhaps to induce the parties to depart from candor,
and to call in the aid of art, flattery, professions of friendship,
promises of office, and even good cheer; and when these failed, the
_Federal Bull_ was published, denouncing political death and destruction
to anti-federal infidels. Under such circumstances, the opinions of
great men ought not to be considered as authorities, and in many
instances could not be recognized by themselves.

Mr. G. then observing that the sense of the States respecting a bank
would be best ascertained by their legislative acts, showed, from the
journals of Congress, that when restrained by the Confederation from
exercising any powers but what were expressly delegated, Congress had,
without any authority, established a bank whose capital might extend to
ten millions of dollars; and had not only pledged the faith of the Union
not to erect any other, but had recommended it to the States to prohibit
any State establishment of the kind, and had also determined that the
bank bills should be receivable in the taxes and duties of every State.
That the States did not remonstrate against, or tacitly acquiesce in,
but actually supported the measures of Congress relative to the bank,
whilst the war continued, and after the peace. That this was the
strongest evidence the States could give that they thought the measure
salutary, and had no objection to it on the ground of its being
unconstitutional. He then urged, that if the States and the people at
large had no objection to a bank in that case, they could not in this;
and inquired whether there was any evidence of their disapprobation of
such an institution in the debates of their Conventions or propositions
for amendments? To this he answered in the negative, and urged, that
whilst the Conventions were silent on the subject, and had no objections
to such a measure, several of them had proposed amendments to the
constitution for restraining Congress from establishing commercial
corporations; which evinced their disapprobation of such institutions,
and admitted at the same time, in some degree, the power of Congress,
under the existing constitution, to form them.

Mr. G. then showed, that as a monopoly had been urged as an objection to
the bill, no such consequence could result from it; for the bill does
not restrain State or private banks, or even individuals, from
negotiations of a similar nature with those permitted to the
stockholders; nor does it restrain the States from forming similar
corporations. This plan has not a feature of monopoly, and the gentlemen
who oppose it contend for a bank which, according to its original
institution, was founded in monopoly.

He then answered the arguments urged against the authority of Congress
to enable corporations to hold lands, when they had no power themselves
of purchasing and holding land; and showed, that although Congress are
restrained from purchasing lands, (except in certain cases,) and from
exercising over the same exclusive legislation, yet that they may hold
lands obtained by execution, conquest, and by other means as well as by
those clauses of the constitution which relate to lands now belonging to
the Union; and that Congress had often invested others with powers which
they themselves could not exercise.

He then noticed the argument, that, by a law of Virginia, notes payable
to the bearer, or order, would not circulate in that State, and observed
that this law could not be supposed to extend to bank notes; and if it
did, it would be null and void, because the constitution of the Union,
and laws, made in pursuance thereof, were paramount to the laws and
constitutions of the several States. Having considered the arguments
against the constitutionality of the bill, he entered into the policy
and utility of the measure.


TUESDAY, February 8.

_Bank of the United States._

The House resumed the consideration of the bill for incorporating the
Bank of the United States.

The question still being on the passage of the bill,

Mr. VINING apologized for rising to offer his sentiments on this
subject, which had been already so ably discussed; but considering the
nature of the objections as arising from constitutional principles, it
had acquired an importance which would justify his troubling the House
with some remarks.

He began by noticing the leading argument of Mr. MADISON respecting the
sense of the Continental Convention on the power proposed to be
exercised by Congress in this bill. He showed that the opinion of the
gentleman, in this instance, was, if not singular, different from that
of his contemporaries; at least a similar objection had not been started
by those gentlemen of the Senate, who had been members of the
Convention; but granting that the opinion of the gentleman from Virginia
had been the full sense of the members of the Convention, their opinion
at that day, he observed, is not a sufficient authority by which for
Congress at the present time to construe the constitution.

Mr. V., in explaining the powers proposed by the bill to be given to the
corporation of the Bank, adverted to the particular power of "making
rules and regulations not contrary to law." He showed that this term law
means the common law; and alluded to the inquiry of Mr. MADISON, as to
what law was intended by this clause, who, in answering his own
question, said, "that if the laws of the United States were intended,
the power contemplated was dangerous and unconstitutional, as those laws
were very few in number."

Mr. V. observed, that the restriction contended for by the gentleman as
the result of his objection, would annihilate the most essential rights
and privileges of the citizens of the United States. He then observed, a
corporation is nothing more than constituting a body with powers to
effect certain objects in a combined capacity, which an individual may
do in his individual capacity, agreeable to the usage and customs of
common law.

Adverting to the act by which the United States became a free and
independent nation, he said, from that declaration, solemnly recognized
at home and abroad, they derive all the powers appertaining to a nation
thus circumstanced, and consequently the power under consideration. He
traced the origin of corporations to the time of Numa, the first of
which was for agricultural purposes; they were afterwards extended to
other objects; and from that day to this, all civilized and independent
nations have been in the practice of creating them; and what do they
amount to but this--enabling a number of persons, in a combined
capacity, to do that to a more certain effect than an individual may do;
but subject to the control of common law, in all its regulations and
transactions.

On the doctrine of construction, as applied to the constitution, he
observed, that on some occasions the constitution is like the sensitive
plant, which shrinks from the smallest touch; on others it is like the
sturdy oak, which braves the force of thunder. He referred to the act
containing the power of removability; in which the utmost latitude of
construing the constitution was contended for and adopted; and, said he,
the funding system cannot be defended on any other principle than of
implication.

He then inquired, of what right does this incorporation deprive a single
citizen? And can an act possibly meet the disapprobation of a single
person which does not infringe his rights, and which puts money into his
pocket? I think not. He insisted that the power of Congress alone was
equal to establishing a bank competent to creating a currency which
shall pervade all parts of the Union; the paper of the State banks
cannot circulate beyond the bounds of the particular States.

From the restrictions to the Government contended for by the opposers of
the bill, he compared the constitution to a horse finely proportioned in
every respect to the eye, and elegantly caparisoned, but deficient in
one, and the most essential requisite, that of ability to carry the
owner to his journey's end; he had rather, he said, mount the old
Confederation, and drag on in the old way, than be amused with the
appearance of a Government so essentially defective.

Mr. MADISON observed, that the present is a question which ought to be
conducted with moderation and candor; and, therefore, there is no
occasion to have recourse to those tragic representations which have
been adduced. Warmth and passion should be excluded from the discussion
of a subject which ought to depend on the cool dictates of reason for
its decision.

Adverting to the observation of Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina,) "that it
would be a deplorable thing for the Senate of the United States to have
fallen on a decision which violates the constitution," he inquired, What
does the reasoning of the gentleman tend to show but this, that from
respect to the Senate this House ought to sanction their decisions? And
from hence it will follow, that the President of the United States
ought, out of respect to both, to sanction their joint proceedings; but
he could remind the gentleman of his holding different sentiments on
another occasion.

Mr. M. then enlarged on the exact balance or equipoise contemplated by
the constitution, to be observed and maintained between the several
branches of Government; and showed, that except this idea was preserved,
the advantages of different independent branches would be lost, and
their separate deliberations and determinations be entirely useless.

In describing a corporation, he observed, that the powers proposed to be
given are such as do not exist antecedent to the existence of the
corporation; these powers are very extensive in their nature, and to
which a principle of perpetuity may be annexed.

He waived a reply to Mr. VINING's observations on the common law, [in
which that gentleman had been lengthy and minute, in order to invalidate
Mr. MADISON's objections to the power proposed to be given to the Bank,
to make rules and regulations, not contrary to law.] Mr. M. said the
question would involve a very lengthy discussion; and other objects more
intimately connected with the subject remained to be considered.

The power of granting charters, he observed, is a great and important
power, and ought not to be exercised unless we find ourselves expressly
authorized to grant them. Here he dilated on the great and extensive
influence that incorporated societies had on public affairs in Europe.
They are powerful machines, which have always been found competent to
effect objects on principles in a great measure independent of the
people.

He argued against the influence of the precedent to be established by
the bill; for though it has been said, that the charter is to be granted
only for a term of years, yet he contended, that granting the powers on
any principle is granting them in _perpetuum_; and assuming this right
on the part of the Government involves the assumption of every power
whatever.

Noticing the arguments in favor of the bill, he said, it had been
observed that "Government necessarily possesses every power." However
true this idea may be in the theory, he denied that it applied to the
Government of the United States.

Here he read the restrictive clause in the constitution; and then
observed, that he saw no pass over this limit.

The preamble to the constitution, said he, has produced a new mine of
power; but this is the first instance he had heard of, in which the
preamble has been adduced for such a purpose. In his opinion, the
preamble only states the objects of the Confederation, and the
subsequent clauses designate the express powers by which those objects
are to be obtained; and a mean is proposed through which to acquire
those that may be found still requisite, more fully to effect the
purposes of the Confederation.

It is said, "there is a field of legislation yet unexplored." He had
often heard this language; but he confessed he did not understand it. Is
there a single blade of grass--is there any property in existence in the
United States, which is not a subject of legislation, either of the
particular States, or of the United States? He contended that the
exercise of this power, on the part of the United States, involves, to
all intents and purposes, every power which an individual State may
exercise. On this principle, he denied the right of Congress to make use
of a bank to facilitate the collection of taxes. He did not, however,
admit the idea, that the institution would conduce to that object. The
bank notes are to be equal to gold and silver, and consequently will be
as difficult to obtain as the specie. By means of the objects of trade
on which gold and silver are employed, there will be an influx of those
articles; but paper being substituted, will fill those channels which
would otherwise be occupied by the precious metals. This, experience
shows, is the uniform effect of such a substitution.

The right of Congress to regulate trade is adduced as an argument in
favor of this of creating a corporation; but what has this bill to do
with trade? Would any plain man suppose that this bill had any thing to
do with trade?

He noticed the observation respecting the utility of banks to aid the
Government with loans. He denied the necessity of the institution to aid
the Government in this respect. Great Britain, he observed, did not
depend on such institutions; she borrows from various sources.

Banks, it is said, are necessary to pay the interest of the public debt.
Then they ought to be established in the places where that interest is
paid; but can any man say, that the bank notes will circulate at par in
Georgia? From the example in Scotland, we know that they cannot be made
equal to specie, remote from the place where they can be immediately
converted into coin; they must depreciate in case of a demand for
specie; and if there is no moral certainty that the interest can be
paid by these bank bills, will the Government be justified in depriving
itself of the power of establishing banks in different parts of the
Union?

We reason, and often with advantage, from British models; but in the
present instance there is a great dissimilarity of circumstances. The
bank notes of Great Britain do not circulate universally. To make the
circumstances parallel, it ought to have been assumed as a fact, that
banks are established in various parts of Great Britain, at which the
interest of the national debt is paid; but the fact is, it is only paid
in one place.

The clause of the constitution which has been so often recurred to, and
which empowers Congress to dispose of its property, he supposed referred
only to the property left at the conclusion of the war, and has no
reference to the moneyed property of the United States.

The clause which empowers Congress to pass all laws necessary, &c., has
been brought forward repeatedly by the advocates of the bill; he noticed
the several constructions of this clause which had been offered. The
conclusion which he drew from the commentary of the gentleman from
Massachusetts, (Mr. GERRY,) was, that Congress may do what they please;
and recurring to the opinion of that gentleman in 1787, he said the
powers of the constitution were then dark, inexplicable, and dangerous;
but now, perhaps, as the result of experience, they are clear and
luminous!

The constructions of the constitution, he asserted, which have been
maintained on this occasion, go to the subversion of every power
whatever in the several States; but we are told, for our comfort, that
the judges will rectify our mistakes. How are the judges to determine in
the case; are they to be guided in their decisions by the rules of
expediency?

It has been asked, that if those minute powers of the constitution were
thought to be necessary, is it supposable that the great and important
power on the table was not intended to be given? Mr. M. interpreted this
circumstance in a quite different way, viz: if it was thought necessary
to specify in the constitution those minute powers, it would follow that
more important powers would have been explicitly granted, had they been
contemplated.

The Western Territory business, he observed, was a case _sui generis_,
and therefore cannot be cited with propriety. West Point, so often
mentioned, he said, was purchased by the United States, pursuant to law,
and the consent of the State of New York is supposed, if it has not been
expressly granted; but, on any occasion, does it follow that one
violation of the constitution is to be justified by another?

The permanent residence bill, he conceived, was entirely irrelative to
the subject; but he conceived it might be justified on truly
constitutional principles.

The act vesting in the President of the United States the power of
removability has been quoted; he recapitulated, in a few words, his
reasons for being in favor of that bill.

The Bank of North America he had opposed, as he considered the
institution as a violation of the Confederation. The State of
Massachusetts, he recollected, voted with him on that occasion. The Bank
of North America was, however, the child of necessity; as soon as the
war was over, it ceased to operate as to Continental purposes. But,
asked he, are precedents in war to justify violations of private and
State rights in a time of peace? And did the United States pass laws to
punish the counterfeiting the notes of that bank? They did not, being
convinced of the invalidity of any such law; the bank, therefore, took
shelter under the authority of the State.

The energetic administration of this Government is said to be connected
with this institution. Mr. M. here stated the principles on which he
conceived this Government ought to be administered; and added, other
gentlemen may have had other ideas on the subject, and may have
consented to the ratification of the constitution on different
principles and expectations; but he considered the enlightened opinion
and affection of the people the only solid basis for the support of this
Government.

Mr. M. then stated his objections to the several parts of the bill. The
first article he objected to was the duration. A period of twenty years
was, to this country, as a period of a century in the history of other
countries; there was no calculating for the events which might take
place. He urged the ill policy of granting so long a term, from the
experience of the Government in respect to some treaties, which, though
found inconvenient, could not now be altered.

The different classes of the public creditors, he observed, were not all
put on an equal footing by this bill; but in the bill for the disposal
of the Western Territory this had been thought essential. The holders of
six per cent. securities will derive undue advantages. Creditors at a
distance, and the holders of three per cent. securities, ought to be
considered, as the public good is most essentially promoted by an equal
attention to the interest of all.

I admit, said he, that the Government ought to consider itself as the
trustee of the public on this occasion, and therefore should avail
itself of the best disposition of the public property.

In this view of the subject, he objected to the bill, as the public, he
thought, ought to derive greater advantages from the institution than
those proposed. In case of a universal circulation of the notes of the
proposed bank, the profits will be so great that the Government ought to
receive a very considerable sum for granting the charter.

There are other defects in the bill, which render it proper and
necessary, in my opinion, that it should undergo a revision and
amendment before it passes into a law. The power vested by the bill in
the Executive to borrow of the bank, he thought was objectionable; and
the right to establish subordinate banks ought not to be delegated to
any set of men under Heaven.

The public opinion has been mentioned. If the appeal to the public
opinion is suggested with sincerity, we ought to let our constituents
have an opportunity to form an opinion on the subject.

He concluded by saying, he should move for the previous question.

The previous question, "Shall the main question now be put?" being
determined in the affirmative,

Mr. GERRY rose to reply to Mr. MADISON; but the House discovering an
impatience to have the main question put, after a few remarks, he waived
any further observations.

The yeas and nays were then taken as follows, on the passage of the
bill:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Bourne, Cadwalader,
      Clymer, Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue,
      Hartley, Hathorn, Heister, Huntington, Lawrence, Leonard,
      Livermore, P. Muhlenberg, Partridge, Rensselaer, Schureman,
      Scott, Sedgwick, Seney, Sevier, Sherman, Sylvester,
      Sinnickson, Smith, (of Maryland,) Smith, (of South
      Carolina,) Steele, Sturges, Thatcher, Trumbull, Vining,
      Wadsworth, and Wynkoop--39.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Ashe, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Burke,
      Carroll, Contee, Gale, Grout, Giles, Jackson, Lee, Madison.
      Mathews, Moore, Parker, Stone, Tucker, White, and
      Williamson--20.


MONDAY, February 14.

_Commerce with England._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and House of Representatives:_

      Soon after I was called to the administration of the
      Government, I found it important to come to an
      understanding with the Court of London, on several points
      interesting to the United States; and particularly to know
      whether they were disposed to enter into arrangements, by
      mutual consent, which might fix the commerce between the
      two nations on principles of reciprocal advantage. For this
      purpose, I authorized informal conferences with their
      Ministers; and from these, I do not infer any disposition,
      on their part, to enter into any arrangements merely
      commercial. I have thought it proper to give you this
      information, as it might, at some time, have influence on
      matters under your consideration.

                                  GEO. WASHINGTON.

      UNITED STATES, _February 14, 1791_.


THURSDAY, March 3.

_Jails of the States._

On motion that the House do come to the following resolution:

      Whereas Congress did, by a resolution of the 23d of
      September, 1789, recommend to the several States to pass
      laws making it expressly the duty of the keepers of their
      jails to receive, and safely keep therein, all prisoners
      committed under authority of the United States: In order,
      therefore, to ensure the administration of justice:

      _Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
      United States of America in Congress assembled_, That, in
      case any State shall not have complied with the said
      recommendation, the Marshal in such State, under the
      direction of the Judge of the District, be authorized to
      hire a convenient place to serve as a temporary jail, and
      to make the necessary provision for the safe-keeping of
      prisoners committed under the authority of the United
      States, until permanent provision shall be made by law for
      that purpose; and the said Marshal shall be allowed his
      reasonable expenses incurred for the above purposes, to be
      paid out of the Treasury of the United States.

It was resolved in the affirmative.

_Session Closed._

The business of the session being gone through, on motion,

      _Resolved_, That the thanks of the House of Representatives
      of the United States be presented to Frederick Augustus
      Muhlenberg, in testimony of their approbation of his
      conduct in the chair, and in the execution of the difficult
      and important trust reposed in him as Speaker of the said
      House.

It was resolved, unanimously: whereupon

Mr. SPEAKER made his acknowledgments to the House, in manner following:

      _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_

      This unexpected mark of your approbation of my conduct has
      made so deep an impression on my mind, that I cannot find
      words to express the high sense of gratitude I entertain on
      this occasion.

      I have not vanity sufficient to suppose that my feeble,
      though well-meant, endeavors merit so great a reward; for
      it was your kind indulgence and support alone which enabled
      me to go through the duties of the station which you were
      pleased to assign me; but I shall ever consider this
      distinguished and honorable testimony as the most fortunate
      circumstance in my life.

      Gentlemen, I most sincerely thank you. May every possible
      happiness attend you and every individual of this body, and
      may your zealous endeavors to promote the welfare of our
      beloved country, which I have so long and so often been a
      witness to, be crowned with unbounded success.

_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate, to inform them that
this House, having completed the business before them, are now about to
adjourn without day, and that the Clerk of this House do go with the
said message.

The Clerk accordingly went with the said message, and being returned,

A message was received from the Senate, notifying that the Senate,
having completed the legislative business before them, are now about to
adjourn; whereupon,

Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without day.




SECOND CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION.

HELD AT THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, OCTOBER 24, 1791, TO MAY 8, 1792.


LIST OF MEMBERS.

SENATORS.

_New Hampshire._--John Langdon, Paine Wingate.

_Vermont._--S. R. Bradley, Moses Robinson.

_Massachusetts._--George Cabot, Caleb Strong.

_Rhode Island._--Theodore Foster, Joseph Stanton.

_Connecticut._--Oliver Ellsworth, Roger Sherman.

_New York._--Aaron Burr, Rufus King.

_New Jersey._--Philemon Dickinson, John Rutherford.

_Pennsylvania._--Robert Morris, James Ross.

_Delaware._--Richard Bassett, George Read.

_Maryland._--Charles Carroll, John Henry.

_Virginia._--Richard H. Lee, James Monroe.

_North Carolina._--Benjamin Hawkins, Samuel Johnston.

_South Carolina._--Pierce Butler, Ralph Izard.

_Georgia._--William Few, James Gunn.


REPRESENTATIVES.

_New Hampshire._--Nicholas Gilman, S. Livermore, Jeremiah Smith.

_Vermont._--Nathaniel Niles, Israel Smith.

_Massachusetts._--Fisher Ames, S. Bourne, Elbridge Gerry, Benjamin
Goodhue, George Leonard, T. Sedgwick, George Thatcher, Artemas Ward.

_Rhode Island._--Benjamin Bourne.

_Connecticut._--James Hillhouse, Amasa Learned, Jonathan Sturges,
Jonathan Trumbull, Jeremiah Wadsworth.

_New York._--Egbert Benson, James Gordon, John Laurance, C. C.
Schoonmaker, Peter Sylvester, T. Tredwell.

_New Jersey._--Elias Boudinot, Jonathan Dayton, Aaron Kitchell.

_Pennsylvania._--William Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, Andrew Gregg,
Thomas Hartley, Daniel Heister, Israel Jacobs, John W. Kittera,
Frederick A. Muhlenberg.

_Delaware._--John Vining.

_Maryland._--Philip Key, William Pinkney, Joshua Seney, Updine
Sheredine, Samuel Sterrett, William Vans Murray.

_Virginia._--John Browne, William B. Giles, Samuel Griffin, Richard
Bland Lee, James Madison, Andrew Moore, John Page, Josiah Parker, A. B.
Venable, Alexander White.

_North Carolina._--John B. Ashe, Timothy Bloodworth, William B. Grove,
Nathaniel Macon, John Sevier, John Steele, Hugh Williamson.

_South Carolina._--Robert Barnwell, Daniel Huger, William Smith, Thomas
Sumter, Thomas Tudor Tucker.

_Georgia._--Abraham Baldwin, Anthony Wayne, Francis Willis.


PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.

MONDAY, October 24, 1791.

This being the day fixed by law for the annual meeting of Congress, at
the first session of the second Congress, the following members of the
Senate appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats:

JOHN ADAMS, Vice President and President of the Senate.

JOHN LANGDON and PAINE WINGATE, from New Hampshire.

CALEB STRONG and GEORGE CABOT, from Massachusetts.

THEODORE FOSTER and JOSEPH STANTON, jr., from Rhode Island.

ROGER SHERMAN, from Connecticut, in the place of WILLIAM S. JOHNSON,
resigned.

AARON BURR, from New York.

PHILEMON DICKINSON and JOHN RUTHERFORD, from New Jersey.

ROBERT MORRIS, from Pennsylvania.

GEORGE READ, from Delaware.

SAMUEL JOHNSTON and BENJAMIN HAWKINS, from North Carolina.

PIERCE BUTLER and RALPH IZARD, from South Carolina; and

WILLIAM FEW, from Georgia.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. Butler, Morris, and Dickinson, be a committee to
wait on the President of the United States, and inform him that a quorum
of the Senate is assembled, and ready to receive any communication he
may be pleased to make to them.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives that
a quorum of the Senate is assembled and ready to proceed to business;
and that they have notified the President of the United States that they
are ready to receive such communications as he may be pleased to make to
them.

Mr. IZARD, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the President
of the United States, agreeably to the resolution of the two Houses, of
this day, reported that they had executed the business, and that the
President of the United States proposed to-morrow, at 12 o'clock, to
meet the two Houses of Congress in the Senate Chamber.


TUESDAY, October 25.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary inform the House of Representatives that
the Senate are ready to meet them in the Senate Chamber, to receive any
communications the President of the United States may be pleased to make
to the two Houses of Congress; and that the usual seats will be assigned
them.

The House of Representatives having accordingly taken their seats, the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES came into the Senate Chamber, and
addressed both Houses of Congress as followeth:[39]

      _Fellow-Citizens of the Senate, and of the House of
      Representatives:_

      I meet you upon the present occasion with the feelings
      which are naturally inspired by a strong impression of the
      prosperous situation of our common country, and by a
      persuasion, equally strong, that the labors of the session
      which has just commenced will, under the guidance of a
      spirit no less prudent than patriotic, issue in measures
      conducive to the stability and increase of national
      prosperity.

      Numerous as are the Providential blessings which demand our
      grateful acknowledgments, the abundance with which another
      year has again rewarded the industry of the husbandman is
      too important to escape recollection.

      Your own observations in your respective situations will
      have satisfied you of the progressive state of agriculture,
      manufactures, commerce, and navigation. In tracing their
      causes, you will have remarked, with particular pleasure,
      the happy effects of that revival of confidence, public as
      well as private, to which the Constitution and laws of the
      United States have so eminently contributed; and you will
      have observed, with no less interest, new and decisive
      proofs of the increasing reputation and credit of the
      nation. But you, nevertheless, cannot fail to derive
      satisfaction from the confirmation of these circumstances,
      which will be disclosed in the several official
      communications that will be made to you in the course of
      your deliberations.

      The rapid subscriptions to the Bank of the United States,
      which completed the sum allowed to be subscribed in a
      single day, is among the striking and pleasing evidences
      which present themselves, not only of confidence in the
      Government, but of resource in the community.

      In the interval of your recess, due attention has been paid
      to the execution of the different objects which were
      specially provided for by the laws and resolutions of the
      last session.

      Among the most important of these, is the defence and
      security of the Western frontiers. To accomplish it on the
      most humane principles was a primary wish.

      Accordingly, at the same time that treaties have been
      provisionally concluded, and other proper means used to
      attach the wavering, and to confirm in their friendship the
      well-disposed tribes of Indians, effectual measures have
      been adopted to make those of a hostile description
      sensible that a pacification was desired upon terms of
      moderation and justice.

      These measures having proved unsuccessful, it became
      necessary to convince the refractory of the power of the
      United States to punish their depredations. Offensive
      operations have therefore been directed, to be conducted,
      however, as consistently as possible with the dictates of
      humanity. Some of these have been crowned with full
      success, and others are yet depending. The expeditions
      which have been completed were carried on under the
      authority, and at the expense, of the United States, by the
      militia of Kentucky; whose enterprise, intrepidity, and
      good conduct are entitled to peculiar commendation.

      Overtures of peace are still continued to the deluded
      tribes, and considerable numbers of individuals belonging
      to them have lately renounced all further opposition,
      removed from their former situations, and placed themselves
      under the immediate protection of the United States.

      It is sincerely to be desired, that all need of coercion in
      future may cease; and that an intimate intercourse may
      succeed, calculated to advance the happiness of the
      Indians, and to attach them firmly to the United States.

      In order to this, it seems necessary--

      That they should experience the benefits of an impartial
      dispensation of justice.

      That the mode of alienating their lands, the main source of
      discontent and war, should be so defined and regulated as
      to obviate imposition, and, as far as may be practicable,
      controversy concerning the reality and extent of the
      alienations which are made.

      That commerce with them should be promoted under
      regulations tending to secure an equitable deportment
      towards them, and that such rational experiments should be
      made, for imparting to them the blessings of civilization,
      as may from time to time suit their condition.

      That the Executive of the United States should be enabled
      to employ the means to which the Indians have been long
      accustomed for uniting their immediate interests with the
      preservation of peace.

      And that efficacious provision should be made for
      inflicting adequate penalties upon all those who, by
      violating their rights, shall infringe the treaties, and
      endanger the peace of the Union.

      A system corresponding with the mild principles of religion
      and philanthropy towards an unenlightened race of men,
      whose happiness materially depends on the conduct of the
      United States, would be as honorable to the national
      character as conformable to the dictates of sound policy.

      Pursuant to the authority contained in the several acts on
      that subject, a district of ten miles square, for the
      permanent seat of the Government of the United States, has
      been fixed, and announced by proclamation; which district
      will comprehend lands on both sides of the river Potomac,
      and the towns of Alexandria and Georgetown. A city has also
      been laid out, agreeably to a plan which will be placed
      before Congress. And, as there is a prospect, favored by
      the rate of sales which have already taken place, of ample
      funds for carrying on the necessary public buildings, there
      is every expectation of their due progress.

      The completion of the census of the inhabitants, for which
      provision was made by law, has been duly notified,
      (excepting one instance in which the return has been
      informal; and another, in which it has been omitted or
      miscarried,) and the returns of the officers who were
      charged with this duty, which will be laid before you, will
      give you the pleasing assurance, that the present
      population of the United States borders on four millions of
      persons.

      _Gentlemen of the Senate:_

      Two treaties which have been provisionally concluded with
      the Cherokees and Six Nations of Indians, will be laid
      before you for your consideration and ratification.

      _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_

      In entering upon the discharge of your legislative trust,
      you must anticipate, with pleasure, that many of the
      difficulties, necessarily incident to the first
      arrangements of a new Government, for an extensive country,
      have been happily surmounted by the zealous and judicious
      exertions of your predecessors, in co-operation with the
      other branch of the Legislature. The important objects
      which remain to be accomplished, will, I am persuaded, be
      conducted upon principles equally comprehensive, and
      equally well calculated for the advancement of the general
      weal.

      It is particularly pleasing to me to be able to announce to
      you that the revenues which have been established promise
      to be adequate to their objects, and maybe permitted, if no
      unforeseen exigency occurs, to supersede, for the present,
      the necessity of any new burdens upon our constituents.[40]

      An object which will claim your early attention is a
      provision for the current service of the ensuing year,
      together with such ascertained demands upon the Treasury as
      require to be immediately discharged, and such casualties
      as may have arisen in the execution of the public business,
      for which no specific appropriation may have yet been made;
      of all which a proper estimate will be laid before you.

       _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of
      Representatives:_

      I shall content myself with a general reference to former
      communications for several objects, upon which the urgency
      of other affairs has hitherto postponed any definitive
      resolution. Their importance will recall them to your
      attention; and, I trust that the progress already made in
      the most arduous arrangements of the Government will afford
      you leisure to resume them with advantage.

      There are, however, some of them of which I cannot forbear
      a more particular mention. These are: the Militia, the Post
      Office and Post Roads, the Mint, Weights and Measures, and
      a provision for the sale of the vacant lands of the United
      States.

      The disorders in the existing currency, and especially the
      scarcity of small change, a scarcity so peculiarly
      distressing to the poorer classes, strongly recommend the
      carrying into immediate effect the resolution already
      entered into concerning the establishment of a Mint.
      Measures have been taken pursuant to that resolution for
      procuring some of the most necessary artists, together with
      the requisite apparatus.

      A provision for the sale of the vacant lands of the United
      States is particularly urged, among other reasons, by the
      important considerations, that they are pledged as a fund
      for reimbursing the public debt; that, if timely and
      judiciously applied, they may save the necessity of
      burthening our citizens with new taxes for the
      extinguishment of the principal; and that, being free to
      discharge the principal but in a limited proportion, no
      opportunity ought to be lost for availing the public of its
      right.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.

      UNITED STATES, _October 25, 1791_.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES having retired, and the two Houses
being separated,

_Ordered_, That Messrs. BURR, CABOT, and JOHNSTON, be a committee to
prepare and report the draft of an Address to the President of the
United States, in answer to his Speech delivered this day to both Houses
of Congress.

_Ordered_, That the Speech of the President of the United States,
delivered this day, be printed for the use of the Senate.


WEDNESDAY, October 26.

RUFUS KING, from the State of New York, and JOHN HENRY, from the State
of Maryland, attended.


THURSDAY, October 27.

The following message was received from the President of the United
States:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate and of the House of
      Representatives:_

      I lay before you a copy of a letter, and of sundry
      documents, which I have received from the Governor of
      Pennsylvania, respecting certain persons who are said to
      have fled from justice out of the State of Pennsylvania,
      into that of Virginia; together with a report of the
      Attorney General of the United States upon the same
      subject.

      I have received from the Governor of North Carolina a copy
      of an Act of the General Assembly of that State,
      authorizing him to convey to the United States the right
      and jurisdiction of the said State over one acre of land in
      Ocracock Island, and ten acres on the Cape Island, within
      the said State, for the purpose of erecting light-houses
      thereon, together with the deed of the Governor, in
      pursuance thereof, and the original conveyances made to the
      State by the individual proprietors, which original
      conveyances contain conditions that the light-house on
      Ocracock shall be built before the first day of January,
      1801, and that on the Cape Island, before the eighth day of
      October, 1800. And I have caused these several papers to be
      deposited in the office of the Secretary of State.

      A statement of the Returns of the Enumeration of the
      Inhabitants of the United States, which have been received,
      will at this time be laid before you.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.

      UNITED STATES, _October 27, 1791_.

Mr. BURR reported, from the committee appointed to prepare an Address to
the President of the United States, in answer to his Speech to both.
Houses of Congress at the opening of the session.

_Ordered_, That to-morrow be assigned to take the report into
consideration.


FRIDAY, October 28.

Agreeably to the order of the day, the Senate proceeded to take into
consideration the Address reported by the committee, in answer to the
Speech of the President of the United States, on the 24th instant, to
both Houses of Congress; which report was agreed to, as follows:

      _To the President of the United States:_

      SIR: The Senate of the United States have received with the
      highest satisfaction the assurances of public prosperity
      contained in your Speech to both Houses. The multiplied
      blessings of Providence have not escaped our notice, or
      failed to excite our gratitude.

      The benefits which flow from the restoration of public and
      private confidence are conspicuous and important; and the
      pleasure with which we contemplate them is heightened by
      your assurance of those further communications which shall
      confirm their existence and indicate their source.

      While we rejoice in the success of those military
      operations which have been directed against the hostile
      Indians, we lament with you the necessity that has produced
      them; and we participate the hope that the present prospect
      of a general peace, on terms of moderation and justice, may
      be wrought into complete and permanent effect; and that the
      measures of Government may equally embrace the security of
      our frontiers and the general interests of humanity. Our
      solicitude to obtain which, will insure our zealous
      attention to an object so warmly espoused by the principles
      of benevolence, and so highly interesting to the honor and
      welfare of the nation.

      The several subjects which you have particularly
      recommended, and those which remain of former sessions,
      will engage our early consideration. We are encouraged to
      prosecute them with alacrity and steadiness, by the belief
      that they will interest no passion but that for the general
      welfare; by the assurance of concert, and by a view of
      those arduous and important arrangements which have been
      already accomplished.

      We observe, sir, the constancy and activity of your zeal
      for the public good. The example will animate our efforts
      to promote the happiness of our country.

_Ordered_, That the Address to the President of the United States, in
answer to his Speech, be presented by the Vice President, attended by
the Senate; and that the committee which reported the Address wait on
the President of the United States, and desire to be informed at what
time and place he will receive the same.


MONDAY, October 31.

JAMES MONROE, from the State of Virginia, attended, and took his seat.

MOSES ROBINSON, from the State of Vermont, produced his credentials, and
took his seat in the Senate.

Mr. BURR, from the committee appointed on the 28th to wait on the
President of the United States, reported, that it would be agreeable to
the President of the United States to receive the Address of the Senate,
in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress, on Monday next at
12 o'clock.

Whereupon, the Senate waited on the President of the United States at
his own house, and the VICE PRESIDENT, in their name, communicated to
him the Address agreed to on the 28th instant, to which the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES was pleased to make the following reply:

      GENTLEMEN: This manifestation of your zeal for the honor
      and the happiness of our country derives its full value
      from the share which your deliberations have already had in
      promoting both.

      I thank you for the favorable sentiments with which you
      view the part I have borne in the arduous trust committed
      to the Government of the United States; and desire you to
      be assured that all my zeal will continue to second those
      further efforts for the public good which are ensured by
      the spirit in which you are entering on the present
      session.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.

The Senate returned to the Senate Chamber.


FRIDAY, November 4.

STEPHEN R. BRADLEY, from the State of Vermont, appeared, produced his
credentials, and took his seat.


WEDNESDAY, November 9.

OLIVER ELLSWORTH, from the State of Connecticut, attended, and took his
seat.


THURSDAY, November 10.

JAMES GUNN, from the State of Georgia, attended, and took his seat.


FRIDAY, January 6.

CHARLES CARROLL, from the State of Maryland, attended, and took his
seat.


MONDAY, January 9.

RICHARD BASSETT, from the State of Delaware, attended, and took his
seat.


MONDAY, March 5.

The following Message was received from the President of the United
States:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of
      Representatives:_

      Knowing the friendly interest you take in whatever may
      promote the happiness and prosperity of the French nation,
      it is with pleasure that I lay before you the translation
      of a letter which I have received from his Most Christian
      Majesty, announcing to the United States of America his
      acceptance of the constitution presented to him in the name
      of his nation.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.

      UNITED STATES, _March 5, 1792_.

[Translation.]

      _Very dear, Great Friends and Allies:_

      We make it our duty to inform you that we have accepted the
      constitution which has been presented to us in the name of
      the nation, and according to which France will be
      henceforth governed.

      We do not doubt that you take an interest in an event so
      important to our kingdom, and to us; and that it is with
      real pleasure we take this occasion to renew to you
      assurances of the sincere friendship we bear you.
      Whereupon, we pray God to have you, very dear, great
      friends and allies, in his just and holy keeping.

      Written at Paris, the 19th of September, 1791.

                                  Your good friend and ally,

                                  LOUIS.

      MONTMORIN.

      THE UNITED STATES OF NORTH AMERICA.


TUESDAY, March 13.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made yesterday on the
Message from the President of the United States, transmitting a copy of
a letter from his Most Christian Majesty to the United States of
America.

A motion was made and seconded to postpone this motion, in order to take
up the following:

      "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
      informed that the Senate have received with satisfaction
      the official intelligence that the King of the French has
      accepted the constitution presented to him by the National
      Assembly, and are highly gratified by every event that
      promotes the freedom and prosperity of the French nation
      and the happiness and glory of their King."

It passed in the negative; yeas 6, nays 21--as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bassett, Cabot, Ellsworth, King, Strong, and Wingate.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bradley, Burr, Butler, Carroll, Dickinson, Few, Foster,
Gunn, Hawkins, Henry, Johnston, Izard, Langdon, Lee, Monroe, Morris,
Read, Robinson, Rutherford, Stanton, and Sherman.

The original motion, being amended, was agreed to. Whereupon, it was

_Resolved_, That the President be requested to make known to the King of
the French, that the Senate of the United States have received with the
highest satisfaction the official communication of his acceptance of the
constitution which, it is their earnest wish, may establish, on a solid
basis, the freedom and prosperity of the French nation, and the
happiness and glory of the Monarch presiding over it.


WEDNESDAY, March 14.

_Ordered_, That the resolution of the Senate, on the Message of the
President of the United States, enclosing the letter from his Most
Christian Majesty, be signed by the Vice President, and laid before the
President of the United States, by the Secretary.


MONDAY, March 26.

A motion was made by Mr. MONROE, seconded by Mr. LEE, as follows:

"_Resolved_, That it be a standing rule, that the doors of the Senate
Chamber remain open whilst the Senate shall be sitting in their
Legislative capacity, except on such occasions as in their judgment may
require secrecy; and that this rule shall commence and be in force on
the first day of the next session of Congress;" and it passed in the
negative--yeas 8, nays 17, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Butler, Carroll, Foster, Hawkins, Johnston, King, Lee,
and Monroe.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bassett, Bradley, Cabot, Dickinson, Ellsworth, Few, Gunn,
Henry, Izard, Langdon, Read, Robinson, Rutherford, Sherman, Stanton,
Strong, and Wingate.


WEDNESDAY, April 18.

The VICE PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceeded to the election of
a President _pro tempore_ as the constitution provides, and the Hon.
RICHARD HENRY LEE was duly elected.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary wait on the President of the United
States, and lay before him an attested copy of this proceeding, and that
he notify the House of Representatives of the election of a President
_pro tempore_.


THURSDAY, April 19.

_Resolved_, That the President _pro tempore_ of the Senate, as a member,
retain his right to vote upon all questions.


TUESDAY EVENING, May 8.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the
House of Representatives, having completed the business before them, are
about to adjourn.

In conformity to the resolution of the 4th instant, the President _pro
tempore_ adjourned the Senate to the first Monday in November next,
being the time appointed by law for the next annual meeting of Congress.




SECOND CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION.

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES

IN

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.


MONDAY, October 24, 1791.

This being the day appointed by law for the meeting of the present
Congress, the following members appeared, produced their credentials,
and took their seats:

_From New Hampshire_, NICHOLAS GILMAN, SAMUEL LIVERMORE, and JEREMIAH
SMITH.

_From Massachusetts_, FISHER AMES, SHEARJASHUB BOURNE, ELBRIDGE GERRY,
BENJAMIN GOODHUE, GEORGE THATCHER, and ARTEMAS WARD.

_From Rhode Island_, BENJAMIN BOURNE.

_From Connecticut_, JAMES HILLHOUSE, JONATHAN STURGES, JONATHAN
TRUMBULL, JEREMIAH WADSWORTH, and AMASA LEARNED.

_From New York_, JAMES GORDON, JOHN LAURANCE, PETER SYLVESTER, and
THOMAS TREDWELL.

_From New Jersey_, ELIAS BOUDINOT.

_From Pennsylvania_, THOMAS FITZSIMONS, DANIEL HEISTER, and FREDERICK
AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG.

_From Delaware_, JOHN VINING.

_From Maryland_, JOSHUA SENEY, and SAMUEL STERRETT.

_From Virginia_, JOHN BROWN, WILLIAM B. GILES, SAMUEL GRIFFIN, JAMES
MADISON, ANDREW MOORE, and ALEXANDER WHITE.

_From North Carolina_, JOHN STEELE, and HUGH WILLIAMSON.

_From South Carolina_, DANIEL HUGER, WILLIAM SMITH, and THOMAS TUDOR
TUCKER.

_From Georgia_, FRANCIS WILLIS.

A quorum of the members being present, the House proceeded to ballot for
Speaker, when it appeared that JONATHAN TRUMBULL, from Connecticut, was
elected.

On being conducted to the chair, Mr. TRUMBULL addressed the House as
follows:

      GENTLEMEN: I find myself unable to express to you the full
      sense I have of the distinguished honor you have done me in
      the choice of your Speaker.

      The diffidence I feel in my abilities to discharge, with
      propriety, the duties of the chair, is almost insuperable
      in my own mind. But, encouraged by the known candor of this
      honorable body, and depending, as I think I may confidently
      do, on the kind assistance of each individual in it, I
      shall enter on its duties, with full assurances to you,
      gentlemen, that I shall endeavor to conduct myself with
      that impartiality, integrity, and assiduity, which become
      the conspicuous station in which you have been pleased to
      place me.

The House then proceeded to ballot for a Clerk, when there appeared a
unanimous vote for JOHN BECKLEY.

The oath to support the constitution was then administered to the
members present, and the oath of office to the Speaker and Clerk.

_Ordered_, That the Speaker appoint committees until the House shall
otherwise determine.

A message was received from the Senate, informing the House that a
quorum of that body is assembled and ready to proceed to business; and
that the Senate have informed the President of the United States that
they are ready to receive any communications he may be pleased to make
to them.

_Resolved_, That Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, Mr. LAURANCE, and Mr.
WHITE, be a committee on the part of this House, to act jointly with the
committee from the Senate, to wait on the President.

_Ordered_, That a committee be appointed to prepare and report Standing
Rules and Orders of proceeding for the House. Messrs. MUHLENBERG,
TUCKER, WILLIAMSON, AMES, and SMITH, of New Hampshire, were named.

JOSEPH WHEATON was appointed Sergeant-at-Arms; and GIFFORD DALLEY,
Doorkeeper, and THOMAS CLAXTON, assistant Doorkeeper.

_Resolved_, That two Chaplains, of different denominations, be appointed
to Congress for the present session, to interchange weekly.

Mr. SMITH, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the President
of the United States, reported that the President would make a
communication to both Houses to-morrow at twelve o'clock, in the Senate
Chamber.

A message from the Senate announced the agreement of that body to the
resolution of this House for the appointment of two Chaplains, and had
elected the Right Reverend Bishop WHITE, on their part.


TUESDAY, October 25.

The following members appeared, presented their credentials, and took
their seats: ABRAHAM CLARK, JONATHAN DAYTON, and AARON KITCHELL, from
New Jersey; and ISRAEL JACOBS, from Pennsylvania.

The House proceeded to ballot for a Chaplain, when a majority of the
votes were found in favor of the Rev. Mr. BLAIR.

A message being received from the Senate, stating that they were ready
to receive the communication from the President of the United States,
the Speaker, attended by the members of the House, withdrew to the
Senate Chamber for the purpose of receiving the same.

On the return of the members, the Speaker laid before the House a copy
of the Speech delivered by the President, (which will be found in the
proceedings of the Senate.)

The Speech was committed to a Committee of the Whole to-morrow.


WEDNESDAY, October 26.

_President's Speech._

The House then went into Committee of the Whole, on the President's
Speech, Mr. MUHLENBERG in the chair.

The Speech being read, Mr. VINING moved a resolution, of which the
following is the purport:

      "_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this committee that
      an Address should be presented to the President of the
      United States by the House of Representatives, in answer to
      his Speech, to congratulate him on the prosperous situation
      of the United States, expressive of the approbation of the
      House of the wise and prudent measures he has pursued
      during their recess, in the execution of the duties
      committed to his charge: promising speedy attention to the
      important and momentous objects recommended to their
      consideration, and expressing their approbation of the
      humane and effectual steps taken, under his direction, for
      the defence of the Western frontiers."

This resolution was objected to by Messrs. LAURANCE, SEDGWICK, SMITH,
(of South Carolina,) and LIVERMORE, upon the principle, that it
expressed the sense of the House upon points which required further
information and investigation before the House could, with propriety,
determine. It was difficult to say, before proper documents were laid
before the House, whether the measures adopted for the defence of the
Western frontiers were the most prudent that could be adopted. It was
impossible positively to assert, that the President, in the execution of
the duties assigned him in carrying into effect the excise act, had done
all for the best. Every member that spoke agreed in expressing his
individual opinion, that no doubt the President had acted with his
wonted prudence and wisdom in the execution of the trusts reposed in
him; but also agreed that it was improper, indeed, it was no compliment
paid to the President, to approve, before a formal examination.

In answer to these objections it was observed, that so far as
circumstances had been made known to the members, relative to the steps
taken by the President during the recess of the Federal Legislature, so
far they claimed the approbation of the House; and that the opinion of
the House was only meant to be given as far as they were informed. It
was urged, that the answer of the House should be a candid expression of
their feelings; feelings which the prosperous situation of the country
undoubtedly called forth, and which the issue of the measures adopted
could not fail to excite.

Several modifications were proposed to the resolution, which was finally
agreed to, as follows:

      "_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this committee that
      a respectful Address ought to be presented by the House of
      Representatives to the President of the United States, in
      answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress at the
      commencement of this session, containing assurances that
      this House will take into consideration the various and
      important matters recommended to their attention."

Mr. MADISON, Mr. LAURANCE, and Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina,) were
appointed a committee to prepare an Address, pursuant to the resolution.


THURSDAY, October 27.

Mr. MADISON, from the committee appointed, reported an Address to the
President of the United States, in answer to his Speech to both Houses
of Congress; which was read, and ordered to be committed to a Committee
of the whole House immediately.

_Address to the President._

The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the whole
House on the said Address; and, after some time spent therein, Mr.
MUHLENBERG reported that the committee had had the said Address under
consideration, and made no amendment thereto. Whereupon, it was

_Resolved, unanimously_, That this House doth agree to the said Address,
in the words following:

      SIR: In receiving your Address, at the opening of the
      present session, the House of Representatives have taken an
      ample share in the feelings inspired by the actual
      prosperity and flattering prospects of our country; and
      whilst, with becoming gratitude to Heaven, we ascribe this
      happiness to the true source from which it flows, we behold
      with an animating pleasure the degree in which the
      Constitution and laws of the United States have been
      instrumental in dispensing it.

      It yields us particular satisfaction to learn the success
      with which the different important measures of the
      Government have proceeded; as well those specially provided
      for the last session, as those of preceding date. The
      safety of our Western frontier, in which the lives and
      repose of so many of our fellow-citizens are involved,
      being peculiarly interesting, your communications on that
      subject are proportionally grateful to us. The gallantry
      and good conduct of the militia, whose services were called
      for, is an honorable confirmation of the efficacy of that
      precious resource of a free State. And we anxiously wish
      that the consequences of their successful enterprises, and
      of the other proceedings to which you have referred, may
      leave the United States free to pursue the most benevolent
      policy towards the unhappy and deluded race of people in
      our neighborhood.

      The amount of the population of the United States,
      determined by the returns of the census, is a source of the
      most pleasing reflections, whether it be viewed in relation
      to our national safety and respectability, or as a proof of
      that felicity in the situation of our country, which favors
      so unexampled a rapidity in its growth. Nor ought any to be
      insensible to the additional motive suggested by this
      important fact to perpetuate the free Government
      established with a wise administration of it, to a portion
      of the earth which promises such an increase of the number
      which is to enjoy those blessings within the limits of the
      United States.

      We shall proceed with all the respect due to your patriotic
      recommendations, and with a deep sense of the trust
      committed to us by our fellow-citizens, to take into
      consideration the various and important matters falling
      within the present session; and, in discussing and deciding
      each, we shall feel every disposition, whilst we are
      pursuing the public welfare, which must be the supreme
      object with all our constituents, to accommodate, as far as
      possible, the means of attaining it to the sentiments and
      wishes of every part of them.

Mr. MADISON, from the committee appointed to wait on the President of
the United States, to know when and where it will be convenient for him
to receive the Address of this House, in answer to his Speech to both
Houses of Congress, reported that the committee had waited on the
President, who signified to them that it would be convenient to him to
receive the said Address at twelve o'clock to-morrow, at his own house.


FRIDAY, October 28.

The SPEAKER, attended by the House, then withdrew to the house of the
President of the United States, and there presented to him the Address
of this House, in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress; to
which the President made the following reply:

      _Gentlemen:_

      The pleasure I derive from an assurance of your attention
      to the objects I have recommended to you is doubled by your
      concurrence in the testimony I have borne to the prosperous
      condition of our public affairs.

      Relying on the sanctions of your enlightened judgment, and
      on your patriotic aid, I shall be the more encouraged in
      all my endeavors for the public weal, and particularly in
      those which may be required on my part for executing the
      salutary measures I anticipate from your present
      deliberations.

                                        G. WASHINGTON.


MONDAY, October 31.

Several other members, to wit: from Vermont, NATHANIEL NILES and ISRAEL
SMITH; from Maryland, UPTON SHERIDINE; from North Carolina, WILLIAM
BARRY GROVE; and from South Carolina, ROBERT BARNWELL; appeared,
produced their credentials, and took their seats in the House.


TUESDAY, November 1.

ANTHONY WAYNE, member from Georgia, and JOSIAH PARKER, from Virginia,
took their seats this day.


THURSDAY, November 3.

Two other members, to wit, RICHARD BLAND LEE and JOHN PAGE, from
Virginia, appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats in
the House.


FRIDAY, November 4.

Another member, to wit, EGBERT BENSON, from New York, appeared, produced
his credentials, and took his seat in the House.


MONDAY, November 7.

Several other members, to wit: from Pennsylvania, WILLIAM FINDLAY; from
North Carolina, JOHN BAPTIST ASHE; and from Georgia, ABRAHAM BALDWIN;
appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats in the House.


TUESDAY, November 8.

Another member, to wit, ANDREW GREGG, from Pennsylvania, appeared,
produced his credentials, and took his seat in the House.

_John Torrey._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
Report of the Secretary of War on the petition of John Torrey,
administrator of Major Joseph Torrey, deceased.

Mr. AMES objected to the motion for accepting the Report of the
Secretary of War. He said, it must be apparent that he was placed by
accident in a relation to the subject in debate, which he should not
have adopted of choice. With very little knowledge of the parties and
their connections, and the interests that would be involved by the
decision, he seemed to be considered as standing sponsor for the
petitioner. He might justify this active support of the petition, by
assigning motives which were common to other gentlemen; but as they have
continued silent, I will assign a reason for speaking, which is peculiar
to myself. Nothing excites a person to a more fervid defence of his
opinions, than the supposed discovery that they are misunderstood, and
the force of the reasons on which he had formed them unduly estimated.

Congress promised half-pay to the officers who should continue in
service _to the end of the war_. This was afterwards made a commutation
for half-pay. Major Torrey continued in service till September, 1783,
when he died. The question is, did he continue in service to the end of
the war? The provisional articles of peace were signed on the 30th
November, 1782; but they were to remain without force till terms of
peace should be agreed upon between Great Britain and France. This took
place on the 30th January, 1783, and the ratifications were exchanged on
the 3d February, 1783, at Paris. The provisional treaty between Great
Britain and America was then _a treaty of peace_, and according to the
words of that treaty was _concluded_. Accordingly, on the 11th April,
1783, Congress by a proclamation made known those facts, and the
stipulations made, in regard to the periods when hostilities should
cease, by the contracting parties to the treaty. Hostilities did cease,
and before the end of April, 1783, all America was in perfect peace. The
late hostile nations shook hands, our vessels sailed in safety, and by
sea and land reconciliation succeeded to hostility.

But did all this put an end to the war? The children in the street would
answer this question: they would say, it is peace when it is not war. Of
all facts, the most notorious seems to be the state of war; and it is
the fact that the war was at an end, (and not any after resolve of
Congress,) that the commutation of Major Torrey was made to hinge upon.
When the meaning of a bargain is disputed, it is usual to search out the
intention of the contracting parties when it was made. Supposing,
instead of interpreting a resolve of Congress, any twelve of this body
had to try a case between two private persons; suppose that a man had
given his note of hand for a sum to be paid at the _end of the war_.
Would twelve of this House, or would any jury in the country say that
the war continued longer than hostilities? In private life, a man would
think it touched his character to refuse paying his note in such case.
Surely a government ought to perform its promise with as much delicacy
and exactness. Congress did not promise the half-pay, and afterward the
commutation, on the condition that a man should serve till they should
think proper to say the war was at an end. He depended on the stubborn
_fact_ that it did end, which no resolution of Congress could change;
and not on the refining opinion when the officers might safely be
discharged--for that we see might be differently formed, according to
the different views of policy and safety at the time. An officer having
this promise of Congress, has a right to this commutation on the
cessation of hostilities, in pursuance of the treaty. If this is
disputed, the meaning of the words, "_the end of the war_," should be
decided as it was understood at the time of the promise. Will any one
believe that the 3d November, 1783, was the term, after the state of war
and all the treaties which put an end to it, had been long passed? If
any doubt still remains, writers on the law of nations should be
consulted. For the officer may justly claim an execution of the promise
according to law; that is the umpire between Government and the people.
On appealing to the law of nations, we find that war is defined to be
"the state in which a nation prosecutes its right by force." "Peace is
opposed to the state of war--an accommodation is proposed and conditions
agreed on, and thus peace puts an end to war." "When the powers at war
agree to lay down their arms, the agreement is the treaty of peace."
"The general and necessary effects of peace, are the reconciliation of
enemies and the cessation of hostilities; it restores the two nations to
their natural state." Would any jury in this country say, that the
matter of fact and the principles of law were not in favor of the
petition? Apply these maxims of law to the case. The provisional
articles of November, 1782, were of themselves nothing, it is true, but
they were to constitute the treaty of peace, whenever Great Britain and
France had agreed on the terms of peace. As these two powers did agree
on the 30th January, and ratified the terms on the 3d February, 1783,
_then_ the provisional articles, to use the very words of the preamble,
did _constitute the treaty of peace_; it was _then_ a _concluded_ thing;
and peace in fact took place in the several parts of the world on the
appointed days.

It has been said, that the preliminaries were no more than a suspension
of arms--that the state of war still continues, until a _definitive_
treaty. To this it is answered, that preliminaries bind the national
faith; if violated, the perjured faithless nation would kindle a new
war. By the law of nations there is not such a distinction as that which
is alleged, between preliminary and definitive treaties. Let the
authorities for such a distinction be produced by those who make it. But
they do not exist--a truce does not put an end to a war--a truce is,
however, a suspension of war for a specified term. At the end of this
term, the war begins again, of course, without any fresh declaration.
But a suspension of hostilities for an indefinite period, is not a
truce, but a peace; especially if it is added, that it is agreed upon by
the belligerent nations in consequence of a settlement of their
disputes, and if it happens in fact that the war is not revived. Those
who make so much of a definitive treaty, and so light of preliminaries,
should consider that, on their own system, the former is a kind of
defeasance which annuls the latter. But when the definitive treaty is
signed, the preliminaries, which before were liable to be annulled, now
become of force, and the treaty, now become indefeasible, takes its date
from the preliminaries. Though this mode of reasoning has not much
weight on my mind, it ought to have some with those who have set up the
distinction which it is adduced to overthrow.

These are the reasons on which I have formed my opinion that the war
ended in fact in April, 1783, when hostilities ceased by mutual
agreement of the powers at war. My opinion is supported by authority
much more reputable than any I can give to it. The law courts in this
country have decided it judicially; cases of captured vessels, and the
question of interest on British debts, have produced decisions in every
State of the Union, unless I am misinformed, that the war ended in March
or April, 1783. The courts in England, and in every country where the
war spread, on trials of property, have made similar decisions. Major
Torrey died in September, 1783; shall this body decide against the
settled rule of all the law courts?

It remains to remove some objections:

It is alleged, that Congress have by various resolves fixed the period
of the war, and have declared that the 3d November, 1783, is the term.
If they had declared that it should be computed from the end of the
world, it would not alter the truth of the fact. _After_ declarations
ought not to be received to change their own promises. But a
declaration, or a dozen of them, made for another purpose, and not to
declare the meaning of the contract, cannot on any principle be received
to interpret it. It is not necessary, however, to contend against those
resolves of Congress. They are irreconcilable with the former engagement
to Major Torrey. In undertaking to reconcile them, I feel that I impose
a task on myself, which is made heavy by the prepossessions of many of
my friends; I believe the minds of gentlemen are perfectly fair, and
well-disposed to doing the petitioner justice. But I hope I shall not be
thought to intend any offence, when I remark that certain ideas, such as
that this claim is cut off by resolves of Congress, and that on allowing
it, confusion would take place in the business of the public offices,
were started with the discussion, and they have remained so woven into
the texture of the debate, that I think it hard to unravel them. It was
soon manifested that there was a general disposition to vote against the
petition. This opportunity for debate seems to have been accorded as of
grace, rather than as a means of removing any existing doubts of their
own. Having adopted these opinions, this is rather a form of refusal
than a mode of inquiring; and it seems to have been chosen with every
circumstance of decency, and with all possible steadfastness of purpose.
Yet I will proceed to state, that the point whether the war was at an
end when hostilities ended in April, 1783, being already considered
fully, we are to look for other reasons than such as relate to the
commutation, to explain the resolves of Congress which continued the
service of the officers beyond the end of the war, and as late as
November, 1783. A mistake seems to have crept in here. It seems to be
supposed that the officers were engaged to serve to the end of the war,
just long enough to secure their commutation. But the commutation
depended on one thing--the term of their service on another. The former
was their right at the end of the war; but they were to remain in
service till dismissed, unless they should think fit sooner to resign.
They held their commissions during the pleasure of Congress. Though
when the war ended they had a right to the commutation, they had no
right to say their service was at an end. They did not choose to resign:
Congress, for wise reasons, did not choose to dismiss them. A foreign
army was still in New York. They were sent home on furlough, but drawing
pay, and liable to be called into the field. Congress, in their
resolves, did not say that it was not peace, but in effect that it was
unsafe to disarm. Gentlemen are not well agreed among themselves as to
the end of the war. Some fix it at the definitive treaty of September 3,
1783; others at November 3. Their conclusions agree as illy with their
principles; for if the definitive treaty put an end to the war, how can
the same gentlemen say that the war was kept alive, on the journals of
Congress, till November, 1783? Here, then, were Peace and War subsisting
quietly together during two months.

The fears of making confusion by opening a door to many applications,
seem to be groundless. A man must have died between the end of
hostilities and November, 1783, to place a claim on the like footing.
The living have had their commutations; they cannot come: and no other
officer died in that period, as far as I can learn. I have inquired, and
cannot find at the office of the Secretary of War any precedent which
militates with this claim, or any reason to suppose that any similar one
will be offered. The case is a new one; it stands alone, and probably
ever will, and it must be decided on its own merits. Believing the fact
to be indisputable that Major Torrey served to the end of the war,
confiding in the principles of the law of nations, and the settled
decisions of the Judicial Courts, I have endeavored to explain my ideas
with perspicuity, and to impress them with force. I have said more than
questions touching an individual will often be found to merit; but when
public principles are construed to the prejudice of private rights, the
debate cannot be treated too seriously.

Mr. BOUDINOT said, he differed in opinion from the gentleman in his
construction of the business. He did not coincide in the idea that the
decision of the present question should be on a strictly judicial
principle. The petition is founded on certain resolutions and laws of
Congress; and as there are certain established rules which have been
observed in settling with every other officer similarly circumstanced,
Congress cannot now with propriety break through those rules; to these
they ought to adhere, till by the decision of some judicial court it
shall appear that they are contrary to the rules of justice. [Here Mr.
AMES requested Mr. BOUDINOT to point out the rules to which he
referred.] Mr. B. referred to the report now under consideration, which
was founded on a resolution of Congress, that the time for which the
army was engaged should expire in November, 1783. This has been made a
rule in all the settlements with the officers of the army.

The terms of the contract, between the officers and the United States,
depended, he said, on the decision of the sovereign power; that was
authorized alone to determine when the war should cease. That power was
vested in the then existing Congress, who, although they entered into
provisional articles in November, 1783, did not, however, think proper
immediately to disband their armies or put an end to the war, as it was
yet uncertain whether those provisional articles would be ratified by
Great Britain, or a treaty of peace concluded between Great Britain and
France; a circumstance which was necessary before those articles could
be definitively binding. It was only when the definitive treaty was
made, that Congress determined the period of the war. The army, when
finally disbanded and paid up to that day, acknowledged, by accepting
their pay, that it was then only the war ended; and, as far as was in
their power, assented to the principle which he maintained, that the
provisional articles had not before put an end to the war. Suppose that,
on the arrival of the definitive treaty, Congress had not agreed to the
terms, would the war have then been considered as at an end? Would not
Congress have been in the same situation as before the signing of the
provisional articles? It was necessary that Congress should, by a
definitive act, determine when the war ceased. Congress had passed such
an act; and the House at present cannot with propriety enter into a
resolution to alter the period. The argument of inconvenience ought also
to have some weight with the House; for if any alteration were now to be
made in the law, it must have a retrospect to all the widows and
children of deceased officers, who have received half pay for years
past. Besides, many officers who have not hitherto considered themselves
as entitled to half pay, would, in consequence of such an alteration,
have a right to apply for it.

Mr. LAURANCE said, he doubted not the gentleman who supported the
petition was fully satisfied as to the justice of the claim which he
advocated with so much ardor; he begged leave to state his opinion,
however, on the subject, in which he should differ from that gentleman.

The contract with the officers of the late army was, that those should
be entitled to certain benefits who served to the end of the war. But
Major Torrey was not thus circumstanced, as he died previous to the
period when the war ceased, and left neither widow nor orphan to receive
the benefit of the provisions allowed by law; his case is not
contemplated by any existing resolution of Congress.

It is well known that hostilities ceased at the time of publishing the
provisional articles which formed the basis for the treaty of peace; but
can any man say that every soldier had a right on that event to demand a
discharge? Surely not. The provisional articles had the peace in
contemplation, but the army was not to be discharged till the articles
of the definitive treaty were ratified by the belligerent powers. The
army of the United States was, therefore, only furloughed, and Congress
retained the power of recalling them into service; and had the officers
and soldiers been recalled from their furloughs to take the field, it
would have been a continuance of the same war; but if the definitive
treaty had been signed, and hostilities had commenced the very next day,
it would have been a new war, and would have been prosecuted on entirely
new principles. The second article of the provisional treaty looks
forward to a _future_ period for a conclusion of the war; and he
inferred, that the definitive articles being ratified, and the
ratifications exchanged, alone constituted a termination of the war. Mr.
L. added some observations on the legal ideas of Mr. Ames, in which he
also differed from that gentleman; and concluded by expressing his
approbation of the Report of the Secretary of War.

Mr. AMES's remarks were further combated by Mr. WILLIAMSON, Mr. DAYTON,
Mr. HILLHOUSE, Mr. WADSWORTH, Mr. CLARK, and Mr. WHITE.

Mr. WAYNE was opposed to the report, and stated certain particulars to
show that the army was not furloughed by Congress because it was
apprehended there would be any further demand for their services, but
because it was inconvenient to give them an absolute discharge at that
period.

The motion for accepting the Secretary's Report was carried by a large
majority.


WEDNESDAY, November 9.

Two other members, to wit: from Maryland, WILLIAM VANS MURRAY; and from
South Carolina, THOMAS SUMTER; appeared, produced their credentials, and
took their seats in the House.

The Speaker laid before the House a letter from the Governor of
Maryland, enclosing a letter to him from WILLIAM PINKNEY, a member
returned to serve in this House for the said State, containing his
resignation of that appointment; also a return of JOHN FRANCIS MERCER,
elected a member to serve in this House, in the room of the said WILLIAM
PINKNEY: which were read, and ordered to be referred to the standing
Committee of Elections.


THURSDAY, November 10.

_The Census._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the Schedule of the Enumeration of the Inhabitants of the United States.

Mr. LAURANCE had previously moved, that until the next enumeration the
number of Representatives should be one for every thirty thousand
persons.

Mr. DAYTON moved to strike out "thirty," before "thousand." This
amendment was under consideration.

Mr. GERRY observed, that in all the decisions of the Legislature, we
ought to follow as far as possible the opinion of the great body of the
people. If this opinion should be found to be against the ratio of
thirty thousand, the amendment ought to be adopted; but if we refer to
the amendments, proposed by the Conventions to the constitution, we
shall find that five States are in favor of one Representative to every
thirty thousand persons, till the number should amount to two hundred.
None of the propositions now moved as amendments to the motion of the
gentleman from New York, amount to that number. Several others of the
Conventions were of opinion that the representation was too small to
secure the liberties of this country. This Government, said he, is a
Government of representation; the people may control their
Representatives, but their influence is small in respect to the Senate
and the Executive, and still less over the officers of Government. On
what then do the people depend for checking encroachments, or preventing
abuses? On their Representatives? If these should be too few, or if they
should fail them, they never can redress their grievances without having
recourse to violence. If the number is small, a majority may be the more
easily corrupted. On the other hand, too large a number will be attended
with difficulties; a medium then is most eligible. An adequate number is
absolutely necessary; and to show that one to thirty thousand would not
produce more than an adequate number, he referred to the ratio of
representation in England and France, in which there was a greater
proportion of Representatives than in the Legislature of the United
States.

He then adverted to the objection arising from the additional expense;
but, he observed, after Congress shall have passed a few more of the
most important acts, it is not probable that the public business will in
future require that the sessions should be for more than four months
annually; this would reduce the expense greatly, in the first instance;
and, agreeably to a calculation, an addition of forty-seven members to
the present number, would make the aggregate expense but about
one-eighteenth part more than at present, supposing the sessions to be
four months long. But he considered the objection on account of the
expense as merely speculative.

Although Congress is not positively bound by the constitution to give
one member for every thirty thousand inhabitants, yet he would ask,
whether the citizens of the United States did not expect that this ratio
would be adopted? and whether they would not consider it as an abuse of
power, if Congress, instead of one to thirty thousand, should settle the
representation at one to forty thousand? Eight States have already
adopted the first article of the proposed amendments to the
constitution: and if the House should either settle the number of the
Representative body, as it now stands, or reduce it, or establish it at
one hundred, perhaps they might, before the end of the session, be
obliged to repeal their act--as they would be bound by the amendment,
as soon as it is ratified by a sufficient number of States. If gentlemen
thought it probable that the proposed amendment would be ratified by the
several States, they ought already to consider it as a rule for their
conduct, and be restrained by it, from giving less than one
Representative for thirty thousand inhabitants. After the representation
amounts to one hundred, Congress will, no doubt, have a right to fix it
there, until it is increased by the ratio of one to forty thousand: but
that is a power which, he presumed, Congress will not exercise; but that
they then will establish some ratio, by which the increase of
representation shall keep pace with the increase of population, until
the House consists of two hundred members.

Mr. BOUDINOT was convinced of the propriety of striking out the word
"thirty." The House ought to consider what would be an adequate number
for doing the business of the Union; and that number ought not to be
exceeded, except to answer some very valuable purpose. Business would
proceed with difficulty, if the representation was so numerous as it
would become by the ratio of one to thirty thousand. The present
representation of the United States is in a ratio very different from
that of one to thirty thousand; and yet he thought it fully adequate.
From a rough calculation, the ratio of thirty thousand would produce one
hundred and thirteen members; thirty-five thousand would give
ninety-seven; and forty thousand would produce eighty-one. If the number
once settled was to rest there, he would not be over anxious to oppose
the increase; but if gentlemen would take into view the increase
consequent on the next enumeration, they would find that the number will
by far exceed the due bounds.

He thought the people of the United States would be duly represented,
and to their entire satisfaction, if the ratio was set higher than
thirty thousand; nor could he imagine that such an exact proportion,
between the Representatives and the represented, was at all requisite to
secure their liberties, or to do the necessary business of Government.
This indeed might be the case, if the power vested in Congress was
proportionate to their number; but, since the House would possess the
same powers, whether it consisted of a greater or a smaller number, he
thought the people equally secure in either case. The ratio of
thirty-five thousand, which would produce ninety-seven members, would,
in his opinion, be a very proper one. If, however, the people should
think otherwise, they had it in their power to correct the mistake, by
ratifying the proposed amendment. Their not having as yet ratified it,
was to him an argument that they thought the ratio too low; or, at
least, that they considered the question as doubtful. Some of the
States, he observed, have postponed the consideration of the amendment;
and eight only have as yet agreed to it. On the whole, the House might
safely adopt the ratio of one to thirty-five thousand; for that the
increasing population of the United States would ever supply a
representation sufficiently numerous to answer every good purpose.

Mr. CLARK observed, that his objection was not merely on account of the
pay of the members, but an increase in the representation would bring an
additional expense on the people, by increasing the number of public
officers; as almost every man would wish to see his friend provided for.
The liberties of America could be in no danger from the present ratio of
representation. The doors of the House are open, and the people know
what their Representatives are doing.

Mr. STEELE was in favor of the motion for striking out _thirty_. In
discussing the important subject before the committee, he observed that
there were two inquiries to be attended to: What is the proper number to
constitute a Representative body for the United States, and what ratio
will leave the fewest fractions in the respective States? One member to
thirty thousand, he conceived, would give too numerous a representation.
According to the present number of inhabitants, it will almost double
the present number; it will divide and diminish the responsibility, make
the House too unwieldy, <DW44> public business, and increase the public
expenses unnecessarily. An adequate representation, he thought, would be
comprised within a much smaller number.

Gentlemen have called our attention to the House of Commons of Great
Britain, and the National Assembly of France; but God forbid that we
should draw our precedents from such examples as may be cited from
European representation.

He was opposed to thirty thousand as the ratio: it would, in fractions,
throughout the United States, leave above three hundred and sixty-nine
thousand citizens unrepresented. Thirty-five thousand he thought the
most eligible number, as it would leave the fewest fractions.

Mr. LAURANCE agreed that an adequate number was the great object to be
attended to; but he contended that the original motion would give this
number more completely than a larger ratio: and it ought to be
considered, that, before the next enumeration, it will not be probably
more than one to fifty thousand. As to the increase of expense, he
observed that the great objects being accomplished, the future sessions
will be short; besides which, the compensation of the members may be
diminished. But he considered a necessary increase in the expense to be
fully counterbalanced by affording greater security to the liberties of
the people. The firmness of a government depends on a strong Executive;
but this Executive should be founded on a broad bottom; and the broader
the basis, the more secure is the public freedom under a vigorous
Executive.

The existence of the Union may depend on the fullness of the
representation. The inequality in the proportional increase of the
number of inhabitants in different States, ought also to be taken into
consideration; for it is very probable that in a short time, while some
of the smaller States had a Representative for every thirty thousand,
others would not have one to forty thousand. He was governed by general
principles, and not by any calculations of fractional numbers: the
constitution contemplates the ratio he had proposed, and therefore he
hoped the motion for striking out would not obtain.

Mr. GOODHUE observed, that the situation and circumstances of the
Government of the United States are so different from those of France or
Great Britain, that no parallel could be drawn respecting them. Nor is
there an absolute similarity between this Government and those of the
State Governments. The objects of legislation which come under the
cognizance of Congress, are but few compared with those which engage the
British House of Commons and the National Assembly of France. A much
larger representation for them, and in our State Legislatures, is
therefore more proper, than is necessary for us in the General
Government. He doubted the opinion that a large representation was less
liable to corruption than a small one: some facts appear to confirm the
former sentiment. He did not consider the expense as a material
objection, if an increase of the number be necessary to doing more ample
justice, or for the greater security of the liberties of the people;
but, as he thought this was by no means the case, he was in favor of
striking out "thirty," in order to insert a larger number.

Mr. BARNWELL agreed with the gentleman last up. He should vote for
striking out "thirty," in order to substitute the largest number that
had been mentioned. Mr. B. entered into an abstract and philosophical
discussion of the principle of representation in Government. The leading
sentiment was, that a large proportion of Representatives is not
necessary to obtain the best objects of legislation, in expressing the
will of the people, or to secure the liberties of the constituent body.
The great point, he observed, was, to combine the greatest portion of
honesty with a due degree of activity. That number which would comprise
a due proportion of these, would be competent to all the purposes of
legislation, whether the number for which it legislates is ten thousand,
or five hundred thousand. On this principle, he was decidedly against a
large number, and in favor of a small one. Adverting to the British
House of Commons and the National Assembly of France, with respect to
the former, he said, their corruption is, in a great degree, owing to
their numbers: as to the latter, he observed, that the National Assembly
had acted, in his opinion, politically and wisely. They set out with a
large representation, in conformity to the sentiments of the people at
the moment; but, on experience, finding the number too great, they have
reduced it from twelve hundred to about two hundred and fifty. He
believed that the general sense of the people was against a large
representation in Congress; the inconveniences experienced from numerous
bodies in the State Legislatures have led several of the States to
lessen the number. He instanced Georgia, South Carolina, and
Pennsylvania.

Mr. BALDWIN was opposed to the motion. One Representative for thirty
thousand appeared to him by no means a great representation. The opinion
that, of late, had been so often advanced from the press, and in public
discussion, for reducing the Representative branch in Government to a
small number, he held to be full of dangerous error. He was sensible
that the terms great and small were so merely relative in their
signification, that it was difficult precisely to understand each other
in the use of them. Perhaps they may most properly, both of them, be
considered as extremes. No doubt representation, which of late seems to
be used as the character of Republican Government, is a great
improvement upon Democracy, or legislation by the whole body of the
people. He could conceive that a representation might be so large as to
partake of the evils of assembling the whole body of the people; but it
was a very improbable and not a dangerous extreme: the other extreme was
full of danger. These observations acquire much force, when applied
particularly to the Governments of this country: enfeeble the
representative part of them, and you sap the very principles of life.
They stand on a different basis from the Governments which have gone
before them, and may justly be said to be new experiments in government;
time, as yet, has scarcely given room to judge of the probable issue;
but this we may pronounce with much certainty--Let the principles of
representation languish, and they have no chance of success.

It had not been found practicable to ground representation in the
Federal Constitution upon any other principle than that of numbers; but
extent of territory is unquestionably one of the natural principles on
which it rests, and should if possible be regarded. One for thirty-four
or thirty-five thousand may be deemed a proper representation in the
Kingdom of France, or of Great Britain. The four millions which compose
the United States, compactly settled where there was great sameness in
the country, and pretty equally distant from a common centre, would be
properly represented by a smaller number than in their present sparse
settlement. But still further: the settlement of the United States is a
fillet stretched along the sea-coast for seventeen hundred miles,
comprehending as great a variety of climate and interests as one of the
other quarters of the globe. It is difficult to conceive of a situation
which calls for a greater extension of the principle of representation.

It has been said, that one for thirty thousand will make too large and
unwieldy a body. He was sensible that was a point that did not admit of
being determined by any conclusive reasoning; it was a mere matter of
opinion; sound judgment only is to be used, time and experience will
come on and confirm or correct the opinion. In such a case, it is wise
to inquire how this has been judged of by others who have had a
Representative body. In France, one thousand two hundred was not thought
too great a representation in forming their National Assembly; and the
number established by their new constitution for their stated
Legislature was not two hundred and fifty, as the member last up had
stated, but, if he had not been misinformed by the publications in this
country, it was nearly seven hundred and fifty.

In the Kingdom of Great Britain, five hundred is not thought too great a
representation: and can one hundred and thirteen, which is the greatest
number contended for, be considered in this country as a huge and
impracticable mass of representation?

It had ever appeared to him to be among the strongest marks of our youth
and inexperience, that we grow wise too suddenly. He was afraid this
instantaneous wisdom which sprung up so at once, and set at nought, or
removed to the extreme of absurdity and folly, the deliberate and tried
opinions of the most profound and enlightened among men, in
circumstances peculiarly favorable to honest decision, will itself be
left by time on that extreme.

The Federal Government, it must be admitted, is in fact pretty highly
seasoned with prerogative; practice has already evinced the necessity,
in many instances, of increasing it, by devolving much of the
Legislative power upon the Executive Department, arising from the
difficulty of making particular provisions and details in our laws, and
accommodating them to the various interests of so extensive a country.

The other branch of the Legislature has many traits of a perpetual--at
least of a very solid constituent part of the Government. He did not
mention these as imperfections in the Government; they are perfections,
if the other parts can be in due proportion: but it is surely a sound
reason against taking positive measures at this time to diminish the
Representative branch. For his own part, he was not well satisfied as to
the intention. If there is any reason to apprehend that the Government
will depart from the point on which it was first placed, he could
scarcely suppose that any one could be honestly alarmed with the fear
that the departure would be towards Democracy. He concluded, by
expressing his hopes that the representation to the next Congress would
be fixed at one for thirty thousand, as it had hitherto been, and that
the motion for striking out would not prevail.


FRIDAY, November 11.

JOHN W. KITTERA, from Pennsylvania, appeared, produced his credentials,
and took his seat in the House to-day.


MONDAY, November 14.

A petition of James Jackson, of the State of Georgia, was presented to
the House and read, complaining of the undue election and return of
ANTHONY WAYNE, one of the members returned to serve in this House for
the said State.


_Ratio of Representation._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the Schedule of the Enumeration of the Inhabitants of the United States.

Mr. FINDLAY declared himself to be in favor of one Representative for
every thirty thousand persons. The opinion of the people should be the
guide of the committee; that opinion, he conceived, to be in favor of
the ratio he had mentioned.

The representation ought as nearly as possible to express not only the
will, but to participate in the wishes and interests of the people. A
large representation embraces these interests more fully, and is more
competent to giving and receiving information. The objects of
legislation are such as come home to the doors, to the feelings of every
man; the Government ought therefore to secure the confidence of the
people by a large representation. The expense he considered as trifling
compared to the benefits--and the people expect and are willing to pay
for being well governed, and having their liberties secured. An
increased representation is an additional security against corruption.
As to delays occasioned by a numerous body, he observed that the
Representatives were chosen to deliberate and to mature every subject
before decision; he instanced the advantages derived from the numerous
representations in France and in Ireland; the former had framed a
constitution in two years for twenty-six millions of citizens, and
provided for securing the liberties of their country--and the latter had
proved a successful barrier against the encroachments of the arbitrary
power of England. He concluded, by asserting that the voice of the
people was in favor of the amendment proposed to the constitution, which
would give one Representative to every thirty thousand persons.

Mr. GILES said this subject had struck him in two points of view:
whether Congress are not precluded from exercising any discretion on the
subject? and whether, if they are not, it is expedient for them to
exercise this discretion at this time? The ratio of representation is a
constitutional, and not a Legislative act. He referred to the
constitution, in which it is said that there shall be one Representative
to every State; and, secondly, that until the enumeration, the number
should be as therein appointed to each State. After the enumeration, the
number is mentioned below which it shall not be placed; but there is a
negative power to increase the ratio, and from this negative power, a
positive discretionary power is inferred. But, he observed that Congress
had precluded itself from a right to exercise this discretionary power,
by sending out to the several State Legislatures an amendment on this
very subject. This amendment he considered in a serious point of view;
and had this idea been attended to at the commencement of the
discussion, he conceived that it would have prevented the opinion from
being brought forward whether it was expedient that any change in the
ratio of the representation should take place. The idea of one to thirty
thousand, he considered as fully settled in the minds of the people; and
a change on the part of the Government would indicate a changeable
disposition, and a mutability of counsels, which is but another name for
weakness.

Mr. G. then took a view of the objects of legislation to the State
Assemblies, and of those of the General Government. In the former, above
one thousand persons are employed, though their attention is confined to
their internal police. Those of the General Government, on the other
hand, are on the great objects of the whole finance of the Union, a sum
of more than eighty millions of dollars, &c., &c.

It is said that we shall want abilities, but I should be sorry if a
representation of ten times the present number of this House should
comprise the abilities of a single State.

He assigned different causes than numbers, for the corruption in the
British House of Commons; among these were the frequent mortgages of the
funds, and the immense appropriations at the disposal of the Executive,
the mode of their elections, &c. A large number is not so easily
corrupted as a small body.

An inequality of circumstances, he then observed, produces revolutions
in Government, from Democracy to Aristocracy and Monarchy. Great wealth
produces a desire of distinctions, rank, and titles. The revolutions in
property in this country have created a prodigious inequality of
circumstances. Government has contributed to this inequality; the Bank
of the United States is a most important machine in promoting the
objects of this moneyed interest. This bank will be the most powerful
engine to corrupt this House. Some of the members are directors of this
institution; and it will only be by increasing the representation that
an adequate barrier can be opposed to this moneyed interest. He next
adverted to certain ideas which he said had been disseminated through
the United States; and here he took occasion to observe, that the
Legislature ought to express some public disapprobation of these
opinions. The strong Executive of this Government ought to be balanced
by a full representation in this House. He hoped the motion to strike
out thirty thousand would not obtain.

Mr. BOUDINOT closed the debate of this day by a few remarks, reinforcing
his former observations in favor of an increased ratio.


TUESDAY, November 15.

_Ratio of Representation._

The House again resolved itself into a committee of the whole House on
the Schedule of the Enumeration of the Inhabitants of the United States.

Mr. PAGE addressed the Chair as follows:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I can no longer refrain from expressing my sentiments
respecting the question before the committee; not only because I wish if
possible to remove the error which I think several members, for whom I
have the highest respect, have fallen into, but because I feel myself
more interested in the question than I ever was in any one I have had to
decide on.

Sir, it gave me pain to find those worthy members calculating and coldly
applying the rules of arithmetic to a subject beyond the power of
numbers to express the degree of its importance to their
fellow-citizens. I was distressed, sir, to find that, in their honest
zeal for securing order, despatch of business, and dignity in
respectability of members in the General Legislature, they used
arguments which have been applied in other countries to the
establishment of insolent aristocracies--in some, tyrannical
despotisms--and in others, kings; those countries which were most on
their guard with a semblance of a free Government.

Sir, the errors I wish to correct are these. They think that because it
is _proposed_, by a _proposed_ amendment to the constitution, to
authorize them to interfere in the business of ascertaining and fixing
the ratio of representation to the population of the States, that
Congress ought, without any hesitation, to enter on that business; but I
humbly conceive that Congress, as this is a delicate question in which
their own weight and importance must unite with the weight and
substantial interest of their constituents, ought to listen to the
suggestions of delicacy, and leave its discussion to a disinterested
convention of the States. I say it appears to me no small error to quit
the plain path of legislation, marked out for us by the constitution,
needlessly to wander into the field of political speculation respecting
its supposed defects.

Let me, therefore, advise to leave the restriction of the numbers of
members of this House to the people, or to some future Congress, which
can see more plainly than can now be descried, the evils of a too
numerous representation. By so doing, we shall avoid, if not an improper
measure, at least a rash step--at least we shall stand clear of a charge
of indelicacy, and deprive our enemies of the triumph they expected in
the completion of their predictions, that Congress would never propose
any amendments to the constitution but such as would be subservient to
their own views and aggrandizement. Let us not give the enemies of our
new Government cause to exult, and its friends to sigh and mourn. Let us
not give our friends occasion to repeat what many have said, that so
many of our citizens have been led away by theoretical writers on
government, as to render it problematical whether the American States
are not at this time as much indebted to the National Assembly for its
remains of Republican principles, as France was to Congress, in 1776,
for their first ideas of that liberty which they now enjoy. Let us not,
in this moment of general exultation of the friends to the rights of
man, take a step which may damp their joy, and lead them to fear that
Americans, who were foremost in the glorious career of liberty, have
stopped short.

But, not to take up the precious time of this House with relations of
facts to show what was and is the opinion of our fellow-citizens on this
interesting subject, I will only state a few arguments which have weight
with me as being in themselves evident truths, viz: Our constitution
being framed by the people, and introduced to us in their name, and
Congress being the creatures of their will, spoken into existence by the
word of their power, for Congress to lessen _their_ weight, to diminish
their importance, and to exclude them from as full a share in their own
Government as can be consistent with the nature of it, and indeed from
that share which they claim, must be impolitic and dangerous.

But, granting that the people wished not a greater share in the General
Government than is proposed by the amendment, as it is impossible, in a
country like the United States, that one man can be sufficiently
informed of the opinions, wishes, and real interests of thirty-five
thousand of his fellow-citizens, and therefore laws might be enacted
contrary to the opinions, wishes, and interests of the people, in which
they might nevertheless acquiesce, sacrificing their interests for the
sake of peace and quiet to the wills of their Representatives, one
thirty-five-thousandth part of their own number, what friend to his
country would wish to see such a dangerous influence on the one hand,
and such a blind submission on the other? How long could an enlightened
people remain in such a state of insensibility and torpor? And what
might not be the consequence of their awakening from their lethargy? If
not an expensive revolution, an expensive repeal of laws. And here I
will remark, that the smallest number of Legislators, and they, too,
well selected for their wisdom and respectability, if unacquainted with
their constituents, might pass well-framed laws, founded on the wisdom
of other countries, and yet find them disagreeable to their
constituents, and be under a necessity of repealing them; but this could
not be the case, if the people had in that Legislature a sufficient
number of Representatives on whose fidelity, attachment, and
disinterestedness they could rely. This, sir, is a truth worthy of our
attention--an ignorance of which, or inattention thereto, I suspect has
been the occasion of much political evil in the world. Happily for
France, the people had such a number of Representatives in the National
Assembly as could engage their feeling, inform their judgment, attach
their interest, and establish their confidence in their fidelity and
disinterestedness; had that number been much smaller, it is probable
France would never have been delivered from oppression by their
exertions.

I know, sir, that many friends of our constitution thought that the
convention did not pay a sufficient attention to the interests of their
constituents, when they restrained them from having more than one
Representative for every thirty thousand citizens. I know that there is
a report that the people are indebted to their President, even for this
share in their Government; and I believe, sir, if this report be true,
that whatever has been so justly said of him, as compared to Fabius, to
Hannibal, to Alexander, may be forgotten, when this instance of his
wisdom, disinterestedness, and attachment to the interests of his
fellow-citizens, will be more and more known and applauded, and be for
ever engraved on the hearts of their posterity. Shall we, then, Mr.
Chairman, the direct Representatives of the people, be less attentive to
their interest, and that too respecting their share in the deliberations
of their own House of Representatives, than the President of their
convention was? I trust not.

I will not pretend to say, however, whether in an Assembly where
attempts are frequently made to carry into effect the projects of
monarchical or aristocratical juntos, the virtuous struggles of
patriotic members may not produce mob-like disorders; but in an Assembly
like Congress, where I should suppose no such question can be agitated;
none which may not be discussed with temper and decency, such disorder
need not be apprehended. I should suppose there would be less clanger of
animosities and disorderly debates in Congress, amongst twelve hundred
members, than in the British Parliament, if it consisted but of one
hundred. Where we have all but one and the same great object in view,
the happiness of our country, (not the interests of a particular body of
men born with privileges insulting to the feelings and rights of
freemen, nor the whims of an individual, born to trample on his
fellow-creatures,) we can have no cause to be dissatisfied with one
another.

Surely, sir, unless these gentlemen suppose the members of Congress void
of sense, or of every idea of decency and propriety, they cannot suppose
that even five hundred members would not be easily restrained within the
bounds of order.

Mr. CLARK said, he did not rise to trouble the House with a lengthy
discourse, for he had always believed that long speeches answer no
valuable purpose. He meant only to offer a few remarks on what had been
said in opposition to his former observations, and he hoped that,
although the gentlemen contend for the ratio of 30,000 as the only basis
whereon to found the liberties of the people, he should not be
stigmatized with the name of an aristocrat for voting in favor of a
large ratio. Hitherto he had not borne that character, and he could not
suppose himself yet infected, unless he had caught the disorder since he
became a member of the present House. Much has been said about the
influence of the bank, and that bank directors are members of the House
of Representatives. The bank (said he) is public property, and therefore
he could not see the force of the gentleman's arguments respecting the
dangerous influence of that institution, unless it was that he was
displeased at the distribution of the shares, so much of the stock being
held at New York and to the eastward, and so little at Conococheague. In
the same predicament he viewed the other objections respecting the
influence of speculators; for he did not know that any members of the
House were speculators, neither could he see any danger from bribery.

In reply to Mr. FINDLAY'S observation, that more wisdom would be brought
into the House by increasing the ratio, he asked whether this would not
also bring in more folly? For the probability is, that the ratio of both
wisdom and folly will increase with the increase of numbers, and
likewise of honesty and dishonesty; and with respect to the smallness of
the district, or that it was safer for a small number to send a member
than a greater, he was of a different opinion, as he believed that if
ever the practice of bribery should come into play in America, it would
be easier for a Representative to purchase a small district than a large
one. If ever the liberties of the people are endangered, it will not be
by the smallness of the representation, but by the corruption of
electors and elections. This is the door which Congress should guard in
the strictest manner, and that will secure the people against corruption
in the House.

A gentleman from Georgia has observed, that the disposition of a great
many millions of dollars has been in the hands of a quorum of this
House, of whom it requires only seventeen to form a majority. On this
Mr. C. observed, that the old Congress, which was composed of a much
smaller number, were intrusted with the disposal of larger sums,
although there were sometimes only two members from the largest State,
Virginia, and no complaints were heard of their conduct.

But there is an argument which ought to have weight in the present
question. The Senate, although a much smaller body than this House, are
fully competent to judge of our proceedings, and of the safety of the
country. Indeed, (said Mr. C.,) it appears very evident to me that we
are not in want of a larger number in the House of Representatives to
debate any question, if it be considered how much has already been said
on the subject now before us.

Mr. VINING expressed much surprise that the subject, which to him
appeared perfectly definable, should have occasioned the debate to
travel so widely from the line marked out by the constitution. The
pendulum seems to vibrate between the numbers 81, 96, and 113; and
should that pendulum rest on any one of them in preference to the
others, he could not suppose that it would affect the liberties of
America. Why, therefore, all this extraneous argument about a point of
so easy decision? We are sent here to administer the Government, the
first principles of which are already fixed, so that neither branch can
encroach on the other. The Senate, the House of Representatives, the
President, have each defined powers; and whilst those remain, I shall
always believe the liberties of America are invulnerable.

Under this impression, Mr. Chairman, I shall vote for striking out
30,000, in order to accommodate the question to a medium. But I shall do
this on different principles from some other gentlemen; notwithstanding,
I at the same time confess that the ratification of the first amendment
to the constitution ought to govern us in deciding this question. The
spirit of the amendment appears to me clearly to imply that we should
not suffer the number of Representatives to exceed one for 30,000. I am
here, not as a person who shall exercise discretionary opinions, but
judge by the letter of the constitution. And in this case we may
increase the number, but we cannot make it less after the enumeration.
In the mean time, until that enumeration is complete, the representation
remains as it has been hitherto, which I believe may be about one member
to every 40,000 or 41,000.

If we go upon theory only, I would enlarge the representation to its
greatest extent, and hand down the principle to futurity, in letters of
gold, that a very great representation--that Democracy is the very best
Government that can possibly be devised, provided it were practicable to
give it stability. Next to a government as free as theory could extend,
we have the freest in the world--a Government of representation, which
will increase with the population of the country, and the ten new States
will always preserve an equilibrium; but if you increase it to an
extreme, you may render it tumultuous, although it may be safe.

I cannot, however, see the propriety of comparing this to the Government
of Great Britain, although that is called a Government of
Representation, consisting of two Houses of Parliament, one of which is
elective, the Lords are hereditary, and the King can do no wrong; and it
has hitherto been, I believe, the next best Government, after our own,
in the world. And yet we know with how much reluctance Ireland obtained
a participation of the trade and commerce of Great Britain; although a
FLOOD bellowed forth with the voice of liberty like a Demosthenes, still
nothing could induce the British Ministry to give way, until the
_volunteers_ effected it. And have we not the volunteers, sir, in this
country to protect our rights? Yes, sir, the American volunteers are
perfectly competent to this service.

I am under no apprehensions from the stockholders of the bank, or the
speculators in the funds; for it is their interest to have a wise and
good representation. The people who are employed in the more simple path
of agriculture, removed at a great distance, are not more interested in
the security of the Government than the more informed stockholder. As an
example of the discernment of the great commercial people of London and
Bristol, I need only mention their choice of a FOX and a BURKE, for
until a late day Mr. Burke was the champion of the people and the friend
of liberty.

If our Senate should take any unwarrantable stride towards aristocracy,
have we not the power to check them? No President can very well attempt
it at any time hereafter; and we are perfectly secure in the present
time from all suspicion of corruption.

Mr. HILLHOUSE said he had ever been a friend to a Republican form of
Government, and God forbid, that he should ever give his vote for any
measure that should endanger the liberties of his country. He was in
favor of an energetic government, as that alone can secure the blessings
of liberty. As to the dread of corruption in this House, which some
gentlemen appeared to entertain, he thought there was no foundation for
such an apprehension; at least as the idea refers to one or two hundred
Representatives--two hundred he contended, were as easily corrupted as
one. But the corruption contemplated was a mere matter of opinion; no
facts, he presumed, existed in this country to justify a positive
assertion; and as to foreign countries, it seems to be conceded that a
larger number than any that has been mentioned is susceptible of undue
influence. He then adverted to the restrictions on the President of the
United States, and the Senate, in respect to the means of corrupting the
Legislature. The constitution has also made provision to secure the
independence of the members, &c. He then urged some difficulties which
would be occasioned by a small ratio. He observed that the population of
some of the States is nearly stationary: if a small ratio is now
established, the consequence will be, when it is augmented, that the
representation of those States must be diminished. This would be a
measure that would be greatly disliked. With respect to the proposed
amendment, he thought it was entirely out of the question, till it was
ratified by three-fourths of the States. A very numerous representation
would tend to weaken, if not destroy the State Governments, and, in the
issue, would destroy the General Government. For, said he, they mutually
depend on each other for support.

Mr. KITCHELL was in favor of a numerous representation. He thought the
amendment proposed to the constitution ought to be the guide to the
House on this occasion. He did not draw his ideas of what should
constitute a proper representation, from the examples cited from foreign
countries; nor was he actuated by an apprehension of corruption, as more
applicable to a small number than to a large one; but when he considered
the various objects, views, denominations, professions, callings and
interests of the citizens of the United States, he was fully convinced
that a large representation was necessary to embrace the wishes and
answer the expectations of the people. He should, therefore, vote
against the motion for striking out thirty thousand.

Mr. GERRY took a general survey of the arguments against the proposed
ratio of one to thirty thousand. In noticing the objection from the
instability of the State Legislatures, he said it was not owing to their
numbers, but to the mode in which they are elected. Were the Senates and
Executives of the several States chosen as those of the General
Government, there would have been as much stability and consistency in
their transactions, as in those of the Government of the Union. A
gentleman had said that the proposed amendments to the constitution had
been adopted with reluctance by some of the States which had accepted
them. He called on the gentleman to produce his authorities for this
assertion. A relative proportion between the members of the House and
the Senate had been suggested; this idea had no foundation in the
constitution. And he further observed, that the constitution has so
completely guarded and secured the rights and independence of the
Senate, that he could not conceive of the apprehensions of gentlemen,
who appear to think that an increase of the members of this House will
overwhelm that branch of the Legislature. In all events, the privileges
of that body will remain the same. The States, it is said, have reduced
their Representative Assemblies. This, so far from being an argument
against the proposed ratio, was directly in favor of it. The diminution
of the State Legislatures has been occasioned by the idea which the
people entertain of the increasing importance of the General Government.
The objects of legislation to both Governments are nearly similar; they
relate to those important concerns which interest the feelings of every
citizen of the United States; all the difference lies in the magnitude
of their respective spheres of action. Hence, it must evidently be the
wish and expectation of the people, that their interests in every point
of view, should be fully and adequately represented in this House.

The resolution being again read, in the following words:

      "_Resolved_, That the number of Representatives shall,
      until the next enumeration, be one for thirty thousand."

The question was taken thereupon and agreed to by the House; yeas 35,
nays 23, as follows:

YEAS.--Abraham Baldwin, Egbert Benson, John Brown, William Findlay,
Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, William B. Giles, James Gordon,
Andrew Gregg, Samuel Griffin, Daniel Heister, Daniel Huger, Israel
Jacobs, Aaron Kitchell, John W. Kittera, John Laurance, Amasa Learned,
Richard Bland Lee, James Madison, Andrew Moore, Frederick Augustus
Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, John Page, Josiah Parker, Joshua Seney,
Upton Sheridine, Thomas Sumter, Peter Sylvester, Thomas Tredwell,
Thomas Tudor Tucker, Abraham Venable, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Anthony Wayne,
Alexander White, and Francis Willis.

NAYS.--Fisher Ames, John Baptist Ashe, Robert Barnwell, Elias Boudinot,
Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Abraham Clark, Nicholas Gilman,
Benjamin Goodhue, William Barry Grove, James Hillhouse, Samuel
Livermore, Nathaniel Macon, Nathaniel Niles, Theodore Sedgwick, Jeremiah
Smith, Israel Smith, William Smith, John Steele, Jonathan Sturges,
George Thatcher, John Vining, and Artemas Ward.

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the said
resolution; and that Mr. PAGE, Mr. MURRAY, and Mr. MACON do prepare and
bring in the same.


TUESDAY, November 22.

A memorial of the committee of the counties of Washington, Westmoreland,
Fayette, and Alleghany, in the State of Pennsylvania, was presented to
the House and read, stating their objections to an act, passed at the
last session, imposing a duty on spirits distilled within the United
States, and praying that the same may be repealed. Referred to the
Secretary of the Treasury for his information.

_Representative from Maryland._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
report of the standing Committee of Elections, to whom was referred the
Letter from the Executive of the State of Maryland, containing the
resignation of WILLIAM PINKNEY, a member returned to serve in this House
for the said State; and also a certificate of the election of JOHN
FRANCIS MERCER, in the room of the said WILLIAM PINKNEY.

The law of the State of Maryland regulating elections being called for,
was produced and read; by which it appeared that the Governor and
Council of that State were authorized to fill up vacancies in the
representation of that State in Congress.

Some objections having been offered against accepting the report,

Mr. SENEY observed, that the case appeared to him to be so plain that he
was surprised to find gentlemen objecting to an acceptation of the
report of the committee. He then stated the whole process of the
business, in the resignation of Mr. PINKNEY and the election of Mr.
MERCER, in which the law of the State had been strictly adhered to. He
concluded by saying, that two cases in point had already occurred in the
State of Connecticut, and no difficulty respecting them had taken place
in the House.

Mr. GILES said, that he was a member of the select committee which had
made the report; and from an accurate attention to all the circumstances
of the case, he was led to think the report a very improper one. From
recurring to the constitution, he was of opinion that a resignation did
not constitute a vacancy. The constitution speaks only of vacancies in
general, and does not contemplate one as resulting from a resignation.
Adverting to the British House of Commons, he observed that in that body
there could be no resignation. This is an established principle. The
people having once chosen their representatives, their power ceases, and
consequently the body to which the resignation ought to be made no
longer exists. From the experience of the British Government in this
respect, he argued against a deviation from this rule. He showed from
the constitution, that the Executives of the States who are empowered to
fill vacancies, are not at all authorized to declare the existence of
such vacancies; for, if they are to judge in the case, the whole power
is invested in them of determining the whole business of vacancies--an
idea that materially and essentially affects the privileges of the
members of the House. He remarked that, even by the law of Maryland, the
requisite steps had not been pursued by the Executive of that State. He
concluded by saying that, if the principles he had advanced were just,
he hoped the report would not be accepted.

Mr. SMITH (S. C.) had had his doubts on the report; but on more mature
consideration he was convinced that on account of the inconvenience
which would result from rejecting it, and from other considerations, it
was proper to adopt it, but not without a full discussion. He then
stated some particulars to show that the vacancy which had occurred on
this occasion could not properly be called a resignation. Mr. PINKNEY
had never taken his seat, nor the requisite oath. He said that there was
no analogy between the Parliament of Great Britain and this House; the
mode of issuing the writs originally, and of filling up vacancies, is
essentially different. No part of the constitution prohibits a member
from resigning, and for convenience it ought to be concluded that he may
resign. The public interest may suffer extremely in cases of sickness or
embarrassments, which may prevent a member from attending. This argument
from the body's not existing to whom the resignation ought to be made,
will apply to the President of the United States, whose resignation is
expressly mentioned in the constitution. The objection urged from the
Executives of the States judging of vacancies, he conceived had no great
force, for Congress would finally judge in every case of election. It is
uncertain how the practice of the British Parliament originated.
_Blackstone_ says nothing of resignations. When a member wants to resign
in that Legislature, he gets appointed to some fictitious office which
disqualifies him from sitting in the House. He thought it best to
establish some precedent, rather than oblige members who may wish to
resign to have recourse to some familiar method, by accepting of some
appointment in the State which is incompatible with a seat.

Mr. MURRAY said he was in favor of accepting the report, both on account
of propriety and conveniency. Vacancies may happen from various
causes--by resignation, by death, or by expulsion--the Executive of the
State is the proper judge in the first case. He stated certain
differences between a resignation after a person has taken his seat, and
a resignation before that event. In the former case Congress will of
course give notice to the Executive of the State; in the latter, the
Executive alone can take cognizance of the resignation. He stated the
extreme inconveniency which would result from the ideas of the gentleman
from Virginia, as it would respect the State of Georgia. He then stated
several particulars to show that Mr. PINKNEY was not a member of the
House agreeably to the constitution, and therefore the House cannot
proceed with him as one. He said that we ought to be willing to derive
information from the experience of every country; but he conceived that
no precedents could be drawn that would apply in the present case from a
country which had none, to one which had a constitution that so clearly
defined and guarded the rights of the citizens. The custom which had
been mentioned as obtaining in that country, arose from a wish to
prevent a frequency of elections. From what had been offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina, and the ideas he had suggested, he hoped
the committee would be induced to accept the report.

Mr. WILLIAMSON said, that it appeared to him that the constitution
contemplates that a member may resign. He read the clause, which says
that no member of the Legislature shall accept of an office made _during
the time_ for which he was chosen--from hence he inferred that
resignations were clearly contemplated.

Mr. GERRY said that he had heard nothing to show that Mr. PINKNEY had
ever accepted of his appointment, and therefore it ought to have been
expressed that he had declined; but, granting he had resigned after
accepting his appointment, he asserted that nothing had been offered to
prove that resignations might not take place in one House as well as in
the other; and the constitution plainly expresses that a Senator may
resign. The House of Commons originated with the Kings, who formed that
body to control the Lords; and hence arose the prohibition against
resignations, as they would weaken the body, and the expense of a new
election would fall on the King. With respect to the Executive declaring
improper vacancies, he observed that Congress was invested with full
power to control the Executives of the States in respect to such
declarations.

Mr. SENEY observed upon a distinction made by Mr. GILES between a
resignation on the part of a Senator and a Member of the House, he
supposed a resignation in either would equally vacate a seat, and that
no difference did really exist.

Mr. SEDGWICK observed that, if a power of adjudication was vested in the
Executives of the States to determine on a vacancy in cases of
resignation, it would involve this consequence, that a power of judging
of vacancies in all possible cases would be the necessary result. He
thought the proposition involved the most serious effects with respect
to the privileges and independency of this House.

This subject was further discussed the next day, and ended in an
acceptation of the report of the committee, which was in favor of Mr.
MERCER's election.


MONDAY, December 5.

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the bill making appropriations for the support of Government, for the
year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-two; and, after some time
spent therein,

_Ordered_, That the said bill, with amendments, be recommitted to Mr.
LAURANCE, Mr. BALDWIN, and Mr. ASHE.

The Speaker laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the
Treasury, accompanying his report on the subject of manufactures, made
pursuant to an order of the House of the fifteenth of January, one
thousand seven hundred and ninety; which was read, and ordered to lie on
the table.

The Speaker laid before the House a letter from the Treasury of the
United States, accompanying his account of receipts and expenditures of
the public moneys between the first of July, and the thirtieth of
September, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one; which were read
and ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. BENSON laid on the table a resolution for the appointment of a
committee to join a committee of the Senate, to consider and report the
most eligible manner of carrying into effect a former resolution of
Congress respecting the erection of an Equestrian Statue, in honor of
General WASHINGTON.

_Appropriation Bill._

The House then, pursuant to the order of the day, resolved itself into a
Committee of the Whole, and resumed the consideration of the
appropriation bill, Mr. MUHLENBERG in the chair.

In proceeding through the bill, the several items were separately
considered and agreed to. Some occasional remarks were made; but no
material debate took place. One amendment was proposed, by which the
bill is made to express the several purposes for which the moneys are
appropriated, instead of appropriating sums in gross, with a reference
to the Secretary's estimate, for particulars.

The committee having reported the bill and the amendment, the House
adopted the same, and recommitted the bill to the select committee, who
had originally framed it, with instructions to new-model it pursuant to
the sense of the House.

Mr. GERRY presented a resolution in lieu of one which he laid on the
table on Friday last, making it the duty of the Secretary of the
Treasury to report to the House, on the third Monday of every session,
an account of the receipts and expenditures of the public money
appropriated during the preceding session, so far as he shall then have
it in his power to state particulars; and if he be unable to give an
accurate statement of the whole, at the time appointed, he is to
complete it as soon afterwards as may be.


TUESDAY, December 6.

_Resolved_, That Mr. BENSON, Mr. GERRY, and Mr. SMITH, (of South
Carolina,) be appointed a committee on the part of this House, jointly,
with such committee as shall be appointed on the part of the Senate, to
consider and report to Congress the most eligible manner for carrying
into effect the resolution of the United States in Congress assembled,
of the seventh of August, 1783, directing that an Equestrian Statue of
General WASHINGTON should be erected.


MONDAY, December 12.

The following Message was received from the President of the United
States.

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of
      Representatives:_

      It is with great concern that I communicate to you the
      information received from Major General St. Clair, of the
      misfortune which has befallen the troops under his command.

      Although the national loss is considerable, according to
      the scale of the event, yet it may be repaired without
      great difficulty, excepting as to the brave men who have
      fallen on the occasion, and who are a subject of public as
      well as private regret.

      A farther communication will shortly be made of all such
      matters as shall be necessary to enable the Legislature to
      judge of the future measures which it may be proper to
      pursue.

                                  GEORGE WASHINGTON.

      UNITED STATES, _December_ 12, 1791.


FRIDAY, December 16.

_The Post Office Bill._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, on
the bill "for establishing the Post Office and Post Roads within the
United States."

      [The following is a condensed view of the arguments made on
      striking out the section which gives to members the
      privilege of franking.]

When the bill under consideration is once passed into a law, it is
presumable that no gentleman will ever ask a member to frank for him, as
he cannot grant the request consistently with his honor; the
apprehension entertained of the existence of abuses, and of their
increasing with the increase of numbers, would be an argument equally
valid against every law; for no law can be framed, as that the people
will not find means to evade it. But still the Legislature will have the
power of correcting the abuses, as soon as discovered, by passing new
laws to check them. The committee who drafted the bill, had before them
all the acts of the British Legislature, respecting the post office;
they saw the abuses and how they had been remedied; and with such light
to guide their steps, they had proceeded in the execution of their task.
The privilege of franking they had introduced into the bill, upon mature
considerations; to take it away would be leveling a deadly stroke at the
liberty of the press; the information conveyed by franks, may be
considered as the vital juices, and the channels of the post office as
the veins; and if these are stopped, the body must be destroyed; it is
treading on dangerous ground, to take any measures that may stop the
channels of public information, especially of that which relates to
matters in which the people are interested; to check the circulation
even of foreign intelligence may be dangerous; but it is highly so, to
deprive the people of information respecting the measures of the General
Government; nor ought the members to complain of being obliged to read
so many letters and petitions as come to their hands in consequence of
the exemption from postage. If any gentleman thought this a heavy task,
he ought to remember that it was only his duty, and a task which every
member had undertaken when he accepted a seat in the House.

The privilege of franking was granted to the members, not as a personal
advantage, (for in fact it proved rather a burden), but as a benefit to
their constituents, who, by means of it, derive information from those
who are best qualified to give it, as they are the persons chosen to
administer the General Government. The members also receive useful
information through the same channel. When the impost law and the excise
law were under consideration, many persons who were better acquainted
with the operation of such laws, transmitted to the House much valuable
information on those subjects; and to such information the House ought
ever to be open; as, on the other hand, the motives for adopting certain
measures, ought always to be explained to influential characters in the
different parts of the Union. Such conduct will produce the most
salutary effects in reconciling the people to the measures of
Government, when the principles upon which every law is framed, are
explained to them, as well by the correspondence of the members, as by
their debates, published in the newspapers. It is the duty of the
members to disperse the newspapers among those people who cannot,
perhaps, otherwise obtain them, under the protection of franks. Even
along the post roads, the common packets of newspapers are not safe from
depredation; but when once they get into the interior parts of the
country, there is hardly any chance of their escaping; whereas, under
the cover of a frank, they are sure to reach their destination in
safety.

If the privilege were confined, during the session, to letters sent from
and received at the seat of Government, and the members limited to
their own letters, and obliged to write the whole superscription, the
increase of the apprehended abuses would be prevented; if it were
further restricted, by limiting to those letters only what are sent to
or come from the State to which the member belongs, this would convince
the people, that the privilege was intended for the benefit, not of the
members, but of their constituents.

Further, it was observed, that every argument, which might be adduced in
favor of withdrawing the privilege from the members of Congress, might
be used with equal force in the cases of President, Vice President, and
every other public officer, mentioned in the same section. If the
allowance of six dollars per day was a reason for subjecting the members
to the payment of postage, every public officer ought also, on the same
principle, to pay for his letters, as they were all compensated with
equal liberality. If abuses were apprehended from the members, others
were as likely to introduce them as they; if an increase of revenue was
contemplated, the postage of all letters to and from the President, the
Vice President, the Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of the
Department of War, &c., would contribute to that increase; but, on the
other hand, those gentlemen must have their compensations increased, if
their letters were to be taxed; for they could not be expected to pay
for them at their own expense. If the privilege can be guarded against
abuse, with respect to those officers, it can also be guarded in the
case of members of Congress.

The establishment of the post office is agreed to be for no other
purpose than the conveyance of information into every part of the Union;
and a greater portion of that had been conveyed into many of the
interior parts of the country, by the newspapers sent by the members of
the House, than could be conveyed by other means, excepting on the main
roads on which stages go. That information had proved highly serviceable
to the present Government; for wherever the newspapers had extended, or
even the correspondence of the members, no opposition has been made to
the laws; whereas, the contrary was experienced in those parts to which
the information had not penetrated; and even there, the opposition
ceased, as soon as the principles on which the laws had been passed,
were made known to the people.

As long as the privilege can be thus used for the general advantages of
the citizens, it ought not to be relinquished by the members merely
through fear of its being thought a personal privilege; it might be
confined to members actually attending the session; they might be
obliged to write the whole superscription, and even to add the date. In
short, the wisdom of the House, it was hoped, would prevent all the
evils apprehended from it, and retain the advantages.

The question being taken on the motion, for withdrawing the privilege
from the members, it passed in the negative; yeas 21, nays 35.


TUESDAY, December 20.

_Post Office Bill._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the bill for establishing the Post Office and Post Roads within the
United States.

Mr. WADSWORTH moved an amendment, to withdraw the privilege of franking
from the members of both Houses of Congress.

In support of this motion, it was said, that the grand security which
the people of the United States have in their Representatives is, that
those Representatives are subject to the same regulations as their
constituents. In the article of postage, this was not the case.
Congress, in this case, assume to themselves a privilege, which they
refuse to the people; they took money from their constituents, and paid
none themselves. The people viewed this privilege with a jealous eye,
and could not be pleased to see it enjoyed by Congress, whilst neither
the members of the State Assemblies, nor even the Governors were
indulged in it. Congress enjoys only chartered rights; and all rights
not expressly mentioned in the charter, are of course excluded. The
constitution is their charter; the Convention, who framed it, had, no
doubt, well considered the whole subject of privileges and accurately
defined all such as they wished the Legislative body should enjoy
distinct from their constituents. In the enumeration of those
privileges, there is not a syllable tending to exonerate them from their
share of the common burden of postage; they have no constitutional claim
to such an immunity, and if they assumed it they would increase the
burden on their constituents. The post office, if unable to maintain
itself, must derive its support from other sources of revenue. Already
the members of both Houses send and receive, during their session, as
many letters through the General Post Office as all the other
inhabitants of Philadelphia; those letters, if paid at the usual rates,
would amount to half the postage of the United States. The number and
bulk of the franked letters and packets excluded the newspapers from the
mail, and thus prevented the circulation of intelligence; if the evil
increased (and there was no probability of its being diminished, except
by the utter abolition of the privilege) it would eventually prove the
ruin of the post office. The example of Britain showed to what an
enormous height the abuse of such a privilege may be carried; and though
similar abuses may not as yet have taken place here, yet it could hardly
be doubted that many unnecessary letters were daily sent by the post,
which never would have been written if subject to postage; those letters
are not only unproductive, but an actual expense to the post office, as
the postmaster receives a certain percentage on these, as well as upon
other letters. The privilege of franking is moreover unequal in its
operation; while some members use it only for the purpose of
transmitting political information to their constituents, others,
absent perhaps during the whole session, use it for very different
purposes: to men in trade it was a considerable advantage, amounting
probably, in some instances, to a hundred dollars a year. It would be
better to take away the privilege entirely, and reduce the general rates
of postage one-half, or to allow the members, at the close of each
session, to make a charge for all letters on public business, from their
constituents, or to make them an allowance in gross to defray the
expense of postage; better, even, if necessary, to make an addition to
the compensation which the members receive for their services, if the
present one be found incompetent to their honorable support.

On the other hand, it was observed, that the privilege of franking was
not assumed by the members for their own private accommodation, but for
the benefit of their constituents, to transmit to them every necessary
information respecting the operations of the General Government, and to
receive from them such information as they might have to communicate.
Petitions are frequently enclosed to members; and if these were to be
subject to the payment of postage, the privilege of petitioning the
House, would be in a great measure destroyed. The diminution of revenue
which the post office might in some instances suffer from the privilege
of franking, ought not to be deemed a sufficient reason for abolishing
that privilege; since it is allowed, that the object contemplated in the
establishment was the general convenience, and an easy and speedy mode
of disseminating public and private intelligence. Revenue was but a
secondary consideration. Although the citizens who live at the seat of
Government, and have daily opportunities of learning from the newspapers
what public measures are going forward, may not be materially affected
by the abrogation of the privilege, yet the case would be widely
different with those who live at a distance, especially when fiscal
operations were on foot; those who are informed, will make a prey of
those who are ignorant, and destructive speculation will enrich the few,
at the expense of the many. In a government of opinion (which is the
Government of America) much greater reliance is to be placed on the
confidence of the people than upon any other circumstance: that
confidence can only be the result of the fullest information; but if the
privilege of franking were taken away, the avenues of information would
be, in a great measure, closed, for the members could not undertake, at
their own private expense, to transmit intelligence to every part of the
Union; yet the citizens have a right to expect information, not only of
the acts of Government, but also the principles upon which they were
grounded. The abuses of the privilege, that have prevailed in England,
do not prevail here; and its abolition would give general
dissatisfaction, particularly in the more distant parts of the Union,
where information would be subject to a very high tax, if circulated
through the post office, at the ordinary rates of postage. Of those
bundles of letters received and dispatched by members of Congress, many
(though far from being unnecessary, as had been said) would perhaps
never be written, if they were not to pass free of postage; and thus
that free communication of sentiment between the Representative and
constituent, which is so essential in a Government like this, would be
in a great measure cut off; and the post office would gain little or
nothing by it, as those packets of newspapers, bills, reports, &c.,
would either be sent by private hand, or not sent at all; even here an
inequality would prevail, as the people who live near the seat of
Government, and all along the main road, could, from the greater
frequency of opportunities, receive such packets with more ease and
regularity, whilst those in more remote situations could seldom or never
receive them, unless by the mail. The expense arising from the
percentage to the postmaster on the free letters, is but trifling, as in
such cases he receives no more for a packet of two ounces than for a
single letter; and as to the idea of allowing the members to make a
charge for their letters, this would be no better than receiving with
one hand and paying away with the other. If, however, it were found
absolutely necessary to take precautions against the abuses that were
apprehended, this might be done by limiting the number or weight of
letters that should go free by any one post, without entirely preventing
the interchange of sentiments between the Representative and his
constituents.

The committee then rose, without taking the question on the amendment.


THURSDAY, December 22.

_Election of President, &c._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act relative to the election of
a President and Vice President of the United States, and declaring the
officer who shall act as President, in case of vacancies in the offices
both of President and Vice President."

The bill was read by the Clerk. The first section being again read by
the Chairman,

Mr. TUCKER moved to amend this clause by striking out these words,
"except in cases in which an extraordinary election of President and
Vice President shall take place, as hereinafter specified." This motion
was agreed to.

Mr. SEDGWICK made some general observations on the great objects of the
bill, and adverting to the term proposed for the choice of Electors of
President and Vice President, observed that he had his doubts whether it
would not be best to give a longer time. He enlarged on the disagreeable
consequences which would probably ensue, in case there should not be a
choice by the Electors; as the matter must then be determined by the
House, voting according to the constitution, by States. He descanted on
the pernicious consequences which might result from the collision of
parties, and the working of passions in the breasts of men whose ardor
would probably be excited to the greatest degree on such an occasion;
every reasonable measure should be adopted to prevent the evils which he
deprecated; he therefore moved that the words "thirty days" should be
struck out, in order to give the people a longer time to give in their
votes for Electors.

Mr. WHITE objected to the motion. He conceived it was calculated to
produce the very mischiefs the gentleman appeared to deprecate. If it
had been possible, he could have wished that the Electors should meet
and give in their votes on the very day of their being chosen; he wished
as much as the gentleman to adopt measures to prevent the evils he
mentioned; but did not think the motion would conduce to that object; he
thought the time should rather be contracted than extended.

Mr. DAYTON also objected to the motion; he thought fourteen days would
be a more proper time; it was the design of the constitution, though it
is not expressed, that the President should not know the characters to
whom he is indebted for his election.

Mr. SEDGWICK observed, that the objections would be very proper was it
certainly known that the Electors would always agree in a choice; but
this he conceived, it was hardly possible should always be the case; and
what will then take place? The election devolves on this House, and the
Electors will then be known, and liable to all that intrigue and cabal
which has prevailed in other countries. He left it to the consideration
of the committee to determine on the immense importance of providing in
season against the evils of a contested election, in the case now before
them.

Mr. BALDWIN objected to the motion; but said if it was struck out, he
should then move to insert a clause which should assign different
periods according to the circumstances of the several States, so that
the Electors should meet as nearly as possible at the same time in all
the States.

Mr. NILES objected to the motion; and the question being put it was
negatived.

The clause which makes it the duty of the Executive of the several
States to cause the names of the Electors to be certified, was objected
to.

Mr. NILES observed that no person could be called upon to discharge any
duty on behalf of the United States, who had not accepted of an
appointment under their authority. He thought that this was opening the
door too wide, and involves a blending of the respective powers and
duties of each, which is not warranted by the constitution; and he
observed that he should be sorry that the Government of the United
States should attempt to exercise a power which they are not competent
to carry into execution. He moved that the clause should be struck out.

Mr. SEDGWICK observed that if Congress were not authorized to call on
the Executives of the several States, he could not conceive what
description of persons they were empowered to call upon.

Mr. NILES said he considered this section as degrading to the Executive
of the several States; and inquired, what is to be done in case those
Executives should refuse to comply with the requisition?

Mr. CLARK said, it appeared to him that the committee was creating
difficulties where none before existed. He observed that the choosing
these Electors was a privilege conferred on the people, and that this
was merely pointing out the mode of exercising this privilege; he
thought the clause stood very well and would create no uneasiness
whatever.

Mr. HILLHOUSE said, he considered the provision improper. It imposed a
duty on the Supreme Executives of the several States, which they might
or might not execute; and thus the necessary certificates may not be
made. He seconded the motion to strike out the clause, and proposed a
substitute making it the duty of the Electors to procure for themselves
the necessary certificates.

Mr. LIVERMORE spoke in favor of the clause; he did not consider it
either as an undue assumption of power, or degrading to the Executives
of the respective States.

Mr. BARNWELL said, a small addition to the clause would in his opinion
obviate every difficulty; the words he proposed to insert were--"or such
person as the Executive may appoint."

Mr. STURGES moved to strike out "Executive," and insert "the
Legislature."

Mr. J. SMITH said, it appeared to him that the proposed alteration would
amount to exactly the same thing; for the duty of giving the certificate
would eventually devolve on the Executive.

The motion for striking out the clause was negatived.

The ninth section provides, that in case of vacancies in the offices of
President and Vice President, the President of the Senate _pro tem._, or
the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall act as President.

Mr. WHITE moved the section should be struck out. He said the House had
formerly discussed the subject and could not agree; the first part of
the bill is necessary; this is not of immediate importance to be
attended to.

Mr. FITZSIMONS said, he supposed the question must be determined some
time or other, and he knew of no reason why it should not be decided at
this time; to strike out the clause would, in effect, be to declare that
the House could not agree.

Mr. WILLIAMSON was in favor of striking out.

Mr. LIVERMORE objected to the motion; he said no two subjects could
possibly be more intimately connected; and the provisions of the bill
are such as to render the intermission, during which this regency was
to take place, as short as possible; he hoped the clause would not be
stricken out.

Mr. WHITE added some further objections to the section; he said it was
distinct from the bill, and though a majority of the committee were in
favor of the characters nominated, yet he thought it would be best to
make it the object of another bill, and of an independent discussion.

Mr. SEDGWICK said, he hoped the section would not be struck out,
especially if there is a majority of the committee in favor of it. He
observed, that last session there was no decision in the case; he
conceived it necessary that the business should be now decided on; and
adverting to the particular characters named, he said they were as far
removed from any influence of the Executive as any persons that could be
possibly pointed out.

Mr. BARNWELL was in favor of going into a discussion of the subject at
this time. He said there was a large number of the present House who had
not heard the observations offered in the last Congress; he supposed the
present as proper a time to consider the subject as any that could
occur. If gentlemen who are opposed to the section will offer their
objections, he should be glad to hear them; if they were conclusive, he
should vote to strike out the section. If nothing was offered, he should
vote against the motion.

Mr. STURGES mentioned several objections to the section, which in his
opinion rendered it unconstitutional; he could not find that the Speaker
of the House, or President of the Senate _pro tem._ were officers of the
Government in the sense contemplated by the constitution. The
compensations of the President and Vice President are settled by the
House; the Speaker would have to decide on those compensations; this he
said rendered him evidently improper. He further observed that the
consequence would be caballing and electioneering in the choice of
Speaker.

Mr. WHITE said, the Speaker was not a permanent officer, if he could be
considered as one in any point of view; but he was of opinion, that he
was no more an officer of the Government than every other member of the
House.

The question for striking out the section was negatived.

Mr. STURGES then moved to strike out the words, "the President of the
Senate _pro tempore_, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives."

Mr. GILES stated the reasons which he conceived fully proved the
unconstitutionality of the clause. The characters referred to he did not
think were officers. If they had been considered as such, it is probable
they would have been designated in the constitution; the constitution
refers to some permanent officer to be created pursuant to the
provisions therein contained. These persons are not permanent; a
permanent officer was contemplated; the subject was not to be left to
any casuality, if it could possibly be prevented.

Mr. SEDGWICK said, he did not know what officer could with propriety be
said to be permanent; offices are held during good behavior in some
instances, and in others during pleasure; but it will be impossible to
say that any officer is a permanent officer, for the expression is very
extensive. He was surprised to hear the idea controverted, that the
Speaker of the House, or the President of the Senate _pro tem._, is not
an officer. In common parlance he was sure there was no difficulty in
the matter.

Mr. GERRY observed, that some gentleman had said the Speaker is not an
officer; but if he is not an officer, what is he? He then read a clause
from the constitution, which says that the House shall choose their
Speaker _and other officers_. He hoped, however, that the Speaker of the
House of Representatives would be struck out, in order to avoid blending
the Legislative and Executive branches together. He considered this
measure as a political stroke of the Senate; but he hoped that the House
would never consent to making their Speaker an amphibious animal. He
moved therefore that the words "Speaker of the House of Representatives"
should be struck out.

Mr. HILLHOUSE objected to any officer appointed by the Executive being
inserted. He said, if that should be the case, the appointments would in
most cases be made with reference to that object; and hence important
offices would often be filled with improper and incompetent persons.
Besides, it was taking away the choice from the people, and thus
violating the first principle of a free elective Government. The Senate
are appointed by the people, or their Representatives, and hence, in his
opinion, filling the vacancy would devolve with the greatest propriety
on that body.

Mr. WILLIAMSON was in favor of the motion for striking out both the
characters. He observed, that this extensive construction of the meaning
of the word officer, would render it proper to point out any person in
the United States, whether connected with the Government or not, as a
proper person to fill the vacancy contemplated.

Before taking the question upon the amendment, the committee rose.


TUESDAY, January 10.

A memorial of George Turner, one of the Judges in and over the territory
of the United States north-west of the Ohio, was presented to the House
and read, praying a revision of the ordinance for the government of the
said territory, and also an increase of compensation to the Judges
thereof. Referred to Mr. LIVERMORE, Mr. LAURANCE, Mr. WHITE, Mr.
WILLIAMSON, and Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina); that they do examine the
matter thereof, and report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to
the House.

On a motion made and seconded,

      "That the Secretary of War be instructed to lay before this
      House an accurate statement of all ascertained balances of
      pay, which appear by the books of the United States to be
      due to the officers and soldiers of the late Army of the
      United States, and which still remain either unclaimed, or
      claimed and unpaid, together with the reasons for
      withholding payment from those who may have respectively
      entered claims therefor;"

_Ordered_, That the said motion be referred to Mr. WADSWORTH, Mr. GILES,
and Mr. SMITH, (of New Hampshire;) that they do examine the matter
thereof, and report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the
House.

The House proceeded to fill up the remaining blanks in the bill to
establish the Post Office and Post Roads of the United States; which was
then read a third time and passed.

_Petition of Catharine Greene._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, on the
Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the petition of Catharine
Greene, relict of the late General Greene.

The object of the petition is to obtain an indemnification from the
United States against certain engagements which were entered into by her
husband, the deceased Major General Nathaniel Greene, while commanding
officer in the Southern department; and for the circumstances on which
it is founded, refers to a representation of the 22d August, 1785, which
was then made by the said General Greene to Congress.

The petition is accompanied by a number of vouchers, arranged in
alphabetical order by the Secretary of the Treasury in his Report; from
all which he draws the following conclusion:

      "That strong and extraordinary motives of national
      gratitude for the very signal and important services
      rendered by General Greene to his country, must serve to
      give a keener sting to the regret, which ought ever to
      attend the necessity of a strict adherence to claims of
      public policy, in opposition to claims founded on useful
      acts of zeal for the public service, if no means of
      protecting from indigence and penury the family of that
      most meritorious officer shall, upon examination, be found
      admissible."

Mr. WAYNE rose and gave his reasons for supporting the petition, as
follows:

Mr. Chairman: It may not be improper to mention the motives that impel
me to wish a fortunate issue to the _claim_ now under consideration of
this committee, which I must also offer as an apology for the part I
have taken, or that I may eventually take, in support of the claim. From
my first interview with General Greene until the moment of his
dissolution, we always lived in the strictest habits of friendship and
confidence. He was an officer with whom I had participated in almost
every vicissitude of fortune, (in many a well-tried field,) from the
frozen waters of the North to the burning sands of the South. He was a
man whose virtues and talents I knew and revered; his noble soul would
have revolted at the idea of imposition. He never would have offered in
a _claim_ to Congress, but upon the purest principles of honor and
justice. I was a witness to the pressing necessity that _compelled_ him
to become the surety, for which indemnity is now claimed. He did what I
would have done, (as second in command,) had he been absent at that
trying crisis. The claim I _know_ to be just, and I am decidedly of
opinion that he was drawn into that security from the situation in which
he was placed by Congress, as Commander-in chief of the Southern
Department. Under these impressions, I beg leave to submit to the
consideration of this committee the resolutions now in my hand, and
doubt not of their concurrent support.

      "_Resolved, as the opinion of this Committee_, That the
      estate of the late Major General Nathaniel Greene ought to
      be indemnified for and on account of the engagements
      entered into by that General with certain persons in the
      State of South Carolina, for the purpose of obtaining
      supplies for the American Army, in the year 1783, and that
      ---- be granted to the Executors of the estate of the late
      Major General Nathaniel Greene, for that purpose.

      "_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to bring in a
      bill in conformity to the foregoing resolution."

Mr. BOUDINOT said, there was no greater friend to the memory of General
Greene than he was, nor any person more anxious to have justice done to
his widow and family; but he was apprehensive that the resolution
proposed by the worthy gentleman who had first brought forward this
subject was not drawn up in such a manner as to ensure it a passage
through both Houses of Congress. He wished, therefore, that it should be
so expressed as to prevent any tedious discussion, and at the same time
do ample justice. The Report of the Secretary of the Treasury puts the
subject on the best footing. The motives which led him to make the
contract were, first, the public good; and perhaps, secondly, to serve
his friend, Mr. Burnett, because he was his aide-de-camp, and he wished
to put him in the way of being established in business after the war;
but Mr. Burnett was never in any other way connected with General Greene
than as a young man brought up in the family, whom he wished to
patronize.

After a few other observations, Mr. BOUDINOT moved to strike out the
preamble of the resolution proposed by Mr. WAYNE, and to adopt words
nearly in substance as follows:

      "_Resolved_, That it is becoming the dignity of Congress to
      make compensation for the widow and orphans of the late
      Major General Greene, who so gloriously served his country;
      and that they be indemnified for the loss which his estate
      is likely to sustain by his having entered into certain
      bonds for supplying the Southern army with rations and
      clothing, at a time when they were threatening to
      disperse."

Mr. FINDLAY observed, that on the question as it is now stated, the
committee have a choice of three alternatives; the claim may be
rejected, a pension or gratuity may be granted to the amount, or the
claim of the petition may be granted as a matter of right, upon the
footing of its own merits by a special law, as all authorized claims
which Congress grant are given. Claims for which the standing laws are
competent, do not come before us. I am in favor of the last alternative.
I am against rejecting the petition; because, as the facts are stated in
the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, General Greene putting
himself in this situation of risk was from the most public-spirited
motive; it was to support the public interest at a most important
crisis, when the well-being, if not the existence of the Southern army
was at stake, as well as the security of the inhabitants. If a
commander-in-chief of an army may be ruined in his private affairs by
making an unauthorized exertion to save his army or his country, the
precedent may be dangerous; it may teach commanders lessons of prudence,
which may have ruinous effects. It is true the necessity of the case
must be such as will justify the unauthorized measure: from the Report,
this appears to have been the case in the subject of the present debate.
From the whole state of the facts before us, General Greene appears not
to have had his own interest in view in this transaction, if the proof
of this only lay between Banks and him. The established character of
General Greene, not only as an officer, but as a man of integrity and
public spirit, certainly cannot sink when laid in the balance with the
secret insinuation of an unprincipled speculator. Such has been my own
opinion of General Greene's character, that I would certainly require
other proofs than this before I would even indulge suspicions: but it
does not rest upon this. We have Banks's own testimony to the contrary,
and his partner, and we know it would have been the interest of Banks &
Co. to have made the contrary appear: nay, we have such a cloud of
witnesses, all concurring to the same point, as appears sufficient to
remove doubts from the most scrupulous mind. Unauthorized accounts are
admitted in settlements between the United States and the individual
States, upon the principles of equity. I consider this as a case of the
same nature, and will vote for it agreeably to this precedent. I
consider granting the prayer of the petition in this manner, as an act
of justice, not only to his estate, but to the memory of his character.
But I object to granting the relief in the indirect way of a pension; it
is not so safe to the public, nor so honorable to the heirs of General
Greene. To the public it is highly dangerous as a precedent; it will
operate as an opening wedge to other claims without limitation. Few
indeed can have an unauthorized though just claim as commanders-in-chief
of an army reduced to such a dilemma as originated the present question;
but merit and distress are not confined to commanders alone; they are to
be found in every rank of citizens. The struggles during the late
revolution produced abundance of merit; we cannot look around in this
House, nor in any large collection of citizens, but our eye meets with
those who have claims of merit. We can scarcely be acquainted in any
neighborhood, but we must be acquainted with such as have been reduced
to distress by their meritorious exertions, either in the camp, in the
cabinet, or by granting supplies. How many who have aided the public
with their substance, have been obliged to part with the evidences of
their meritorious claims for a temporary relief. Many of the aged, many
widows and orphans, to my knowledge, labor in penury, and mourn in
secret, on the account of such meritorious aids not being recompensed
when they ought to have been; though this was owing to the public
misfortune, yet the merit and sufferings were not the less. I am very
sensible of the great merit of General Greene; it is so well known, and
so generally acknowledged, on all hands, as to render it improper for me
to enlarge thereon. But, superior as his merit was, if we grant a
pension or relief not founded on a just claim, merit of a lower order
must be also admitted: there is no distinguishing the shades. I have
heard of claims on the footing of merit brought before Congress,
supported by such arguments as would induce a stranger to think that
nearly all the merit of accomplishing the revolution was centred in the
claimant. If merit is to be rewarded by pensions, we shall soon have
claimants in abundance. In the exercise of supreme command, difficulties
often arise which render exertions necessary for which general rules
cannot be provided; these have been generally treated as objects of
indemnification. Many claims are now before Congress; they are various
in their nature, and no doubt a number of them will be admitted; but
from every view I have taken of the claim before us, I think the present
as strongly addresses our justice and sympathy as any of them.

Mr. WAYNE thought it necessary to make some observations on what had
fallen from the gentleman on his right, (Mr. BOUDINOT.) In order to
place this subject in a proper point of view, he begged leave to mention
certain circumstances previous to the evacuation of Charleston. Some of
the first characters in South Carolina obtained a flag from General
Greene, to meet a deputation of merchants and others under a flag from
the British lines. Those merchants were anxious to remain after the
army, for the purpose of disposing of their stock in trade, and wished
for a reasonable time to transact that business; this indulgence was
readily granted, for it was thought an object of consequence to retain
supplies for the use of the country as well as for the army; and they
were permitted to continue in the place for the space of _twelve months_
after the abandonment should take effect. Assurances were also given
them for the inviolable protection of their persons and property for
that period. Thus sanctioned, they were probably induced to speculate
upon such stores as the British army could spare, (for that army was
redundantly supplied,) whilst the Americans were experiencing almost
every possible distress for want of the common necessaries of life.
About this time hopes were entertained of the speedy appearance of a
superior marine force from the French West Indies, to that of the
British; and the operating army under my command was advanced to the
quarter-house, in a position to prevent the enemy from embarking with
impunity, and to protect the town and its inhabitants from depredation
and insult. This manoeuvre had the desired effect; it created a
jealousy in the British General for the safety of his rear, and General
Leslie was, in a manner, compelled to come into a convention, more
resembling a _capitulation_ than an _abandonment_, for he was under the
necessity to "agree not to commit any insult upon the inhabitants, or
depredation upon their property, or damage to the city, at or _after_
his embarkation." The word _after_ caused some demur; but it was
insisted upon and complied with, in consequence of the orders I had
previously received from General Greene; a measure which at once
afforded security to the inhabitants, and a flattering prospect of full
supplies, as well for the citizens as for the army.

The gentleman (Mr. BOUDINOT) says--How are we to distinguish between the
articles and necessaries that were actually made use of by the army, and
of the other goods purchased of the British merchants? This may be fully
answered and explained by mentioning this fact: that those merchants
took advantage of their situation, and would not dispose of any article
suitable for the army unless _their whole stock were purchased
together_; having but twelve months to dispose of their goods and
collect their debts. Nor could the necessary articles be obtained at the
point of the bayonet, as the merchants were protected by a compact made
under the sanction of a flag. Nor would they trust the contractor
_Banks_ with their property, unless General Greene became his security;
by which act, in their opinion, the _United States_ would be bound in
honor to fulfil a contract made by their commanding officer; nor did
General Greene come into the measure until compelled by dire necessity,
to prevent a mutiny and dissolution of the army. And such was the
exhausted situation of the country in the vicinity of Charleston, that
the Executive and the Legislature found it expedient to send a distance
into the country to obtain supplies for themselves and the refugee
families who were returning to the city after the evacuation: in fact,
we were under the necessity of taking part of these very provisions, to
prevent an instantaneous revolt.

But the gentleman (Mr. BOUDINOT) says that General Greene's private
friendship for Major Burnett, who had been his aide-de-camp, was a
peculiar inducement for his entering into that security, and that Major
Burnett had mortgaged an island to General Greene as a collateral
security. This, indeed, was an act of private friendship; but it was a
subsequent transaction, and noways connected with the former, nor is it
amongst the charges. This was a private purchase by Major Burnett from
Mr. John M'Queen, a gentleman well known in South Carolina; and it was
thought to be a very advantageous purchase for Major Burnett at the time
it was made, (although it has turned out otherwise,) but it was
necessary for him to obtain security, previous to receiving _titles_. He
applied to General Greene to become his security upon that occasion,
which was complied with; and in that act he certainly displayed a
superior degree of private friendship, and such as has already been
found extremely injurious to his family; but it is by no means connected
with the claim now under consideration.

The danger of establishing a precedent in future, unsupported by
previous authority obtained from Congress, is also mentioned as an
objection. Mr. Chairman, there never can be any danger of drawing this
circumstance into precedent; for the page of history never did before,
nor I believe ever will again, produce a similar precedent, _i. e._ an
army facing and surmounting every difficulty and danger through a long
and bloody contest, badly clothed and worse paid, and frequently
destitute of the common necessaries of life. Sir, it is for the honor of
General Greene that we contend; and I am warranted in asserting, that he
was not interested in the contract of Mr. Banks, otherwise than from the
pure and virtuous motives of serving and saving his country. I therefore
feel myself interested, and bound in honor to support and defend the
character of my departed friend, and to demand this claim as a matter of
_right_, and not of _grace_; and I have a confidence that the candor and
justice of this committee will induce them to adopt the principles of
the resolutions submitted to their consideration.

Mr. SUMTER.--With respect to the resolution as it now stands, I feel
myself obliged to oppose it. Nothing that has fallen from the gentleman
over the way (Mr. WAYNE) has convinced me that the measure is proper or
just. It is necessary to be cautious in the manner of discussing a
matter of so much delicacy. I rise, not to make any pointed objections
that can in any degree injure the reputation of the officer, whose
abilities I respect, or to hurt the feelings of his family or
connections. I suppose that no gentleman will decide in favor of the
resolution without examining the merits of the case. The committee will
have that information which they shall deem to be requisite on the
occasion. I am sorry to differ in opinion with the gentleman from
Georgia, and am therefore disposed to make sacrifices of my own feelings
of past injuries, and will not suffer them to warp my judgment, but will
endeavor to decide in conformity with the opinions of the people of the
State of South Carolina, and in particular of the district which I have
the honor to represent. In going into the investigation of this matter,
I will give my reasons why I do not think the country, although in
extreme distress, was in that deplorable situation which has been
represented; neither was its credit reduced so low but that relief might
have been obtained, and that so small an army might have been
accommodated, had a proper application been made in time to the
Government. The gentleman must therefore be mistaken in stating those
circumstances; for if the proper documents be examined, it will appear
that the army received very ample supplies from the same source, some
months previous to the contract made by Mr. Banks, which must have been
in November, or early in December, and previous to the evacuation of
Charleston. Whether it was better to adopt the means used by General
Greene, or those within the power of the Government, I shall not pretend
to determine; but I have no doubt that the Government possessed both the
means and the inclination to find supplies. The contract was first made
by Banks in November or December, and General Greene did not become the
guarantee until the April following; whether there were any reasons for
preferring this mode to that of an application to Government, will
perhaps appear in the course of the investigation.

Mr. Chairman, this contract has been considered to have operated rather
as a misfortune, although it may have afforded a temporary relief; it
was the occasion of much complaint, vexation, and distrust, rather than
of conciliation; and that this discontent ran through the army is within
the knowledge of several officers whose names could be mentioned. It is
therefore necessary to bring the matter into the full view of the
committee, and to have recourse to the files of the public offices,
before we agree to the resolution on the table. At the same time, it is
my sincere wish to render justice to the family of the deceased in every
reasonable accommodation; but it does not appear to me that the family
is reduced to that disagreeable situation which has been represented.
The large grants that have been made by the States of Georgia, North and
South Carolina, are still in the possession of the heirs of the
deceased, and I have been informed that a gentleman offered $30,000 for
that granted by North Carolina, so late as last summer; neither have I
heard that any distress has been levied upon any of these estates, or
that they are so much affected, in reality, but that the claims made
against them are rather of a nominal and visionary nature. But admitting
that General Greene was security for the United States, and that the
operation had been beneficial, (which I deny;) does it appear that
executions have been levied to any considerable amount, or to such an
extent as to justify the present application? To me it does not appear
this has been the case, neither do I believe that the estate has been
reduced in the manner represented; and, whilst I say it, I honestly and
sincerely hope it; under which impression, I can never accede to the
resolution on the table.

Mr. WADSWORTH.--The gentleman last up has said many things to me utterly
unintelligible, and others which directly militate with what has been
said by the gentleman from Georgia. He has, however, declared that no
real or supposed personal injury shall influence him in giving his
opinion or vote. I hope, sir, he will not now feel or resent those real
or supposed injuries. I do believe they are not real; and from my long
and intimate acquaintance with General Greene, I had good opportunity to
know him; a better man I never did know. That he had enemies is not to
be wondered at; the nature of his command to the southward was
important, critical, and difficult, and he might be constrained to do
things that necessity only would justify. If he has injured any man, he
has atoned for it; neither the tongue nor pen of malice have been able
to affix a stigma on his character. If I ever knew a man whose heart was
pure and without guile, it was General Greene. Yet he had enemies; no
man deserved them so little. More honest fame is due to no man. And if
his fortune is to be sacrificed, and his family beggared, it is a
consolation that his good name will last for ever. Being one of his
executors, I know something of his affairs; but it was with reluctance I
rose, as my attachments to him and concern for his family render it
extremely difficult for me to enter on the subject. The gentleman from
South Carolina has told us he is acquainted with the affairs of the
estates in the Carolinas, and has said they are without any executions
against them, the bonds on good credit, and the family in no danger of
poverty, &c. I can hardly allow, sir, that he is acquainted with the
affairs of General Greene, even in South Carolina and Georgia; but if he
is, I will ask him if he does not know that all the <DW64>s from the
South Carolina estate are sold, and that the land is totally
unproductive? that Mr. Rutledge has prevented executions from taking the
Georgia estate by his personal interference? that all the estates in
Rhode Island and New Jersey are sold? and that the hope of the justice
we now ask for has delayed the sale of all the rest, to satisfy his
creditors--his Southern creditors?

The proofs and documents alluded to by the gentleman (Mr. SUMTER) have
been before Congress for several years, and the friends and executors of
General Greene have challenged his enemies, in every part of the Union,
to disprove them; and I hope no delay will now take place. The subject
is fully before Congress. I hope justice will be done to the widow and
orphans of the late General Greene, and that the investigation will now
be finished, his honest fame vindicated and established, and his family
saved from the ruin that awaits them.

Mr. HARTLEY, in support of Mr. WAYNE's motion, observed, that he had
paid some attention to the report and the documents referred to in it,
as well as the objections made to the resolutions under consideration.
Many of the objections, said he, have been answered by gentlemen who
were nearer to the scene of action than myself; I shall strive to
obviate others. The mode of conducting our affairs in South Carolina
does not seem to have been agreeable to the gentleman opposite to me
from that State, (Mr. SUMTER,) and he expresses his high disapprobation
of many parts of it. When I disagree with that gentleman, I do it with
great reluctance; for no one on this floor has a greater respect for him
than myself. In a hazardous and difficult situation, or in carrying on
war, or even in great political questions, the best friends may differ
in the mode of conducting them; and it has too frequently happened, that
such difference has tended to lessen the friendship which formerly
existed. Upon the whole, our arms to the southward were crowned with
success; we must presume the means generally used were right. If
supplies could have been furnished by the State of South Carolina, it is
a pity they were not granted. I say, it is possible General Greene might
have pursued a different mode to obtain clothing and provisions. He did
not. He was of opinion no other plans could have been successfully
followed but those which were adopted. The idea of his being a partner
with Banks & Co., seems to be given up by the opposition. The mere
insinuation of Mr. Banks and some others can have no influence against
such a cloud of evidence and documents. These are so strong for the
General, that they would work conviction on the greatest infidel. I
shall barely advert to a part of them, as mentioned in the report, and
on this head give a few observations of my own. And, first, the
application to the Legislature of South Carolina, in order to create a
competition: Had he been concerned as a partner, or intended to be so,
no competition through that channel would have been proposed. If he was
to be a partner, the more secret the transaction, the higher the
advantage. The bond of indemnity to General Greene, oaths of Banks and
Hunter, certificate from Major Forsyth, Nathaniel Pendleton's oath,
Charles C. Pinckney's oath, (now Governor of South Carolina,) and the
certificates of the two Chancellors of South Carolina, who were both
high in the Executive, when these transactions should have happened.
Besides, sir, if we consider how many partners there were concerned with
Banks in the different transactions, had General Greene been one of the
company, it must long since have been manifested to the world. The
secret could not have been kept; nor can we possibly think that General
Greene, who was undoubtedly a man of understanding, would have expressed
himself in the manner he has done, in the close of his letter from
Newport, dated the 24th of August, 1785, had he been a partner. He says
there, "Thus have I given your Excellency a short narration of the
origin and situation of this matter, and have only to add on this
subject, that I never held any commercial connection with the company,
other than what concerned the public, either directly or indirectly, or
ever received one farthing profit or emolument, or the promise of any
one from them; and my bond of indemnity expressly declares that I have
no interest, connection, or concern, in the debts for which I became
bound, all which I am willing to verify on oath." Would he have pledged
his honor, his reputation, had he been interested? No, it is impossible!
He would have been silent had he been a culprit, and not have challenged
the world, as the power of detection would have laid with so many, and
the shaft of envy always ready. I hope every man must be satisfied that
the General was no partner.

The great points of contest before the committee seem now to be--

1st. Did the General enter into these engagements out of personal regard
to individuals, without a view to the public interest?

2dly. Was not the good of the public his principal object?

3dly. Under all circumstances, should not his estate be indemnified?

As to the first, I cannot think that the General, out of mere personal
regard to individuals, without a view to the public good, would have
been bail. He had been esteemed a man of prudence, and was not a person
of large fortune. How would he embarrass his family and property in such
engagements? Who, under mere motives of friendship, would have done so?
The sum was too large; he had no interest. He got no goods or money for
himself. He might have had a favorable opinion of some of the company,
but his responsibility was become necessary with a view to the public
good.

As to the second, public good must have been his principal object. The
contracts before made would not have been carried into execution,
without the aid of the contract, for which the indemnity was made in
April, 1783. A great many articles were absolutely necessary to the
army; they were connected with others; the necessaries could not at that
critical period, or for the moment, be obtained elsewhere. The
merchants, as I understand, insisted upon two conditions before they
would deliver the goods: 1st, that all the goods should go together; 2d,
that the commanding officer should become security. There was a
necessity for an additional capital to furnish the means for supporting
the army; and as most of the goods were useful and necessary, the
residue might be disposed of to the best advantage, and the money
arising from them be applied to the payment of the debt. Public
necessity and the state of things would oblige the General to agree to
the first condition. The compliance with the second condition became a
necessary consequence. The General's letter from Newport, and General
Wayne's oath, Nathaniel Pendleton's oath, and other evidence, prove the
situation of the army. As to the third point, should not his estate be
indemnified? Through his zeal for the public good, he has unfortunately
involved his estate in difficulty. Whatever the conduct of the company
might be, the creditors were not to be affected either by the fraud or
failure of Banks and the purchasers. General Greene was liable. The
General, when he hears of misconduct, does all he can to save and
indemnify himself, and through him the United States. Securities were
taken in as ample a manner as they could he obtained from the
delinquents; and General Greene never wished to call upon the public,
until every other means failed. So late as the year 1785 he had still
hopes there would be no loss; but when he found the danger, a sense of
duty obliged him to come forward to save himself and family, to ask the
protection of the public to indemnify him from a debt that he had
contracted to save an army from mutiny and disbanding; to protect a
country which otherwise would have been exposed. Many exertions had he
to make to feed the hungry and cover the naked; were not these for the
public good, and shall his private property suffer? Shall his family be
reduced to beggary, be stripped of their all, to discharge what the
United States are in honor and in justice bound to pay?

Retrospective laws, to affect rights attacked, ought never to pass; but
laws have frequently been enacted to indemnify persons for a conduct,
though not strictly legal, yet founded on the special circumstances of
the case--the safety or honor of a nation or army, where the
constitutional authority could not come forward in time. Such was the
treaty or system formed by the Duke of Marlborough and the great De
Witt. The Dutch, instead of punishing their minister, approved the
measure; it eventually tended to the safety and honor of the allies. The
individual who undertakes risks for his country's good, a magnanimous
Government will always sanctify. We should consider the case upon
substantial principles, not according to the letter, not act as the
Lacedaemonians did to one of their leaders; they fined him for the
infringement of the letter of the law, yet for the same act rewarded the
hero with a garland. The fine here ruins the General's estate, and the
garland alone, I fear, in this country, will not give his children bread
or a becoming education.

In our late contest, the common maxims of old nations could not always
be adhered to. We were obliged to act according to emergencies. In the
case of General Greene, he seems to have intended for the best. He
helped to serve and save a country. His merit stands high indeed. I need
not repeat the number of his great and glorious actions, which mark him
the General and the hero. His name will be handed down with honor to
succeeding ages.

Under all circumstances, I think his estate should be indemnified. If
the committee do not like the whole of the resolution, let there be a
division, as proposed by one of the gentlemen from South Carolina;
though I should think we might safely vote for the whole of the
resolution, and let the bill make any other provisions which it may be
thought necessary.

Mr. LEE, Mr. BARNWELL, Mr. WAYNE, and Mr. BOURNE, R. I., spoke in favor
of agreeing to the resolutions, and Mr. MACON and Mr. STURGES against
the motion. Mr. SUMTER closed the debate in sundry remarks on extracts
from letters wrote by General Greene during the late war, inserted in
Gordon's History of the American Revolution, which extracts contain
unfavorable reflections on the militia of South Carolina, and the
patriotism of the inhabitants of that State. These reflections, Mr.
SUMTER said, were gross calumnies on, and misrepresentations of the
character of that people, which he said were invalidated by facts that
at that time took place, and by the general tenor of the conduct of
South Carolina throughout the whole course of the war.


MONDAY, January 23.

_Petition of Catharine Greene._

The order of the day being called for, on the report of the Secretary of
the Treasury on the petition of Catharine Greene, several members
objected to taking up this subject, being of a private nature, while
matters of the greatest public importance demand the immediate attention
of Congress. The question being taken, the motion for going into
Committee of the Whole was carried, 21 to 16; and Mr. LIVERMORE took the
chair.

After considerable debate, the question was put for agreeing to the
first resolution, in the following words:

      _Resolved_, as the opinion of this committee, That the
      estate of the late Major General Greene ought to be
      indemnified for the engagements entered into by that
      General, with certain persons in the State of South
      Carolina, for the purpose of obtaining supplies for the
      Army of the United States, under his command, in the year
      1783.

Which was negatived, 28 to 25.

The committee then rose, and the Chairman reported that the Committee of
the whole House had had under consideration a report of the Secretary of
the Treasury on the petition of Catharine Greene, and had come to no
resolution thereon.

Mr. MACON then moved that the Committee of the Whole should be
discharged from any further proceedings on the subject; which motion was
agreed to.

Mr. BOURNE then laid on the table a resolution for referring the
Secretary's Report, together with Mrs. Greene's petition, and the
vouchers accompanying it, to a select committee, with instruction to
inquire into the facts which rendered it necessary for General Greene to
become security to Banks & Co., and the nature, circumstances, and
amount of the original debt, and the obligation entered into by General
Greene for payment thereof; with an account of the moneys or collateral
security received by the obligees, or by General Greene in his lifetime,
or his representatives since his death, in part thereof; and the
eventual loss which his estate will sustain in consequence of the said
securities; and after examining all the circumstances and such further
evidence as may be offered relative to the transaction, to report their
opinion thereon to the House.


THURSDAY, January 26.

An engrossed bill to ascertain and regulate the claims to half-pay and
to invalid pensions was read the third time and passed.

_Protection of the Frontiers._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
bill for making further and more effectual provision for the Protection
of the Frontiers of the United States.

A motion being made to strike out the second section of the bill, which
contemplates the raising of three additional regiments of infantry and a
squadron of light dragoons, amounting in all to three thousand and forty
men, exclusive of commissioned officers--

It was urged in favor of the motion, that the Indian war, in which the
United States are at present involved, was, in its origin, as unjustly
undertaken as it has since been unwisely and unsuccessfully conducted;
that depredations had been committed by the whites as well as by the
Indians; and the whites were most probably the aggressors, as they
frequently made encroachments on the Indian lands, whereas the Indians
showed no inclination to obtain possession of our territory, or even to
make temporary invasions, until urged to it by a sense of their wrongs.
A proof of this unencroaching disposition on their part plainly appeared
in their conduct, after the victory they lately obtained over our
troops; for, when flushed with success, they might have swept the
country before them, and penetrated as far as Pittsburg, they contented
themselves with the advantage they had gained over their invaders, and
did not attempt to invade our territories in return, although there was
nowhere at hand a sufficient force to check their career.

The mode of treating the Indians in general was reprobated as unwise and
impolitic. The Indians are with difficulty to be reduced by the sword,
but may easily be gained by justice and moderation;[41] and, although
their cruelties are alleged as reasons for a different conduct, and the
sufferings of the white people pathetically deplored, these narratives,
it was said, are at best but _ex parte_ evidence--we hear nothing of the
sufferings of the Indians--but if Cornplanter's speech were read, it
would set the matter in a very different point of view, and furnish a
complete answer to all the charges of their accusers.

Peace, it was said, may be obtained from the Indian tribes at a much
less expense than would be necessary for the support of the war. To
persevere in hostilities would be wasting the public money to a very bad
purpose indeed; for, supposing our arms crowned with victory, what are
the advantages we may expect to reap from our success? We can only gain
possession of their lands--a possession that must long continue
unproductive of the smallest benefit, as we already possess land
sufficient--more, in fact, than we will be able to cultivate for a
century to come.

Instead of being ambitious to extend our boundaries, it would answer a
much better national purpose to check the roving disposition of the
frontier settlers, and prevent them from too suddenly extending
themselves to the Western waters. If kept closer together, and more
nearly connected with the old settlements, they would be more useful to
the community at large, and would not so frequently involve us in
unnecessary and expensive wars with the Indians; but if permitted to
rove at pleasure, they will keep the nation embroiled in perpetual
warfare as long as the Indians have a single acre of ground to rest
upon.

If the citizens of the United States were recalled within their proper
boundaries, there they might, for years to come, cultivate the soil in
peace, neither invaded nor invading. As the country progresses in
population, and our limits are found too narrow, it will then be soon
enough to contemplate a gradual extension of our frontier; but, in the
mean time, it is an idle profusion of blood and treasure to carry war
beyond our present line of forts. It is only exposing our arms to
disgrace, betraying our own weakness, and lessening the public
confidence in the General Government, to send forth armies to be
butchered in the forests, while we suffer the British to keep possession
of the posts within our territory.

As long as Britain is suffered to retain these posts, we can never hope
to succeed against the Indians; nor ought we to trace our late
misfortune to any other source than her still holding them in her
possession. Were they in our hands, the Indians could not carry on their
operations against us with the same degree of vigor as they now do; for
it is from those forts that they obtain their supplies of arms and
ammunition, with which they can be at all times plentifully furnished,
as long as things continue on their present footing.

Until those posts are in our possession, it will be in vain to send our
armies into the wilderness. A body of five thousand men, sent out
against the Indians, under the present circumstances, would be as
effectually defeated as the smaller ones have already been. In those
wilds, our troops have no friend at hand to furnish them with supplies,
or to give them intelligence of the approach and operations of the
enemy; whereas, the Indians, receiving both aid and information from
their friendly neighbors, can preconcert their plans, and choose,
according to their own convenience, the place and the hour of attack, as
they did before.

It was here observed, by an honorable gentleman on the other side of the
question, that we ought undoubtedly to get possession of those posts;
and that we might have long since obtained it, if we had only laid a
seasonable embargo on all the British shipping in our ports; though he
doubted whether it would at present be worth while to take such a step,
as the English have lost so great a portion of our carrying trade, in
consequence of the additional tonnage laid on their vessels.

In favor of the motion, it was further urged, that, supposing even the
war to have been originally undertaken with justice on our
side--supposing, also, that the national honor and interest called for a
continuance of hostilities--yet, as it was by no means either necessary
or prudent to invade the Indian territory, as this had been attempted in
two successive campaigns, and the event had, in both instances, been
such as to afford no very flattering prospect from a third expedition of
the same kind, it was thought much more advisable to content ourselves
with defending the frontier; and this might be done without making so
great an augmentation in the military establishment.

The only use of regular troops on the frontier is to garrison the forts,
and to have a standing force in the neighborhood to form a station, to
which the militia may resort either for protection or supplies; but as
to active service, the frontier militia and rangers were pronounced to
be by far preferable to the regular troops, as being more expert
woodsmen, and better habituated to the Indian mode of fighting. To
defend the forts, a small number of regulars would be sufficient. The
present establishment of two regiments would, if completed, be amply
adequate to the purpose, and, when assisted by such forces as might at
all times be collected on the frontier, would be able to repel every
inroad of the enemy.

Experience has proved that the sudden and desultory attacks of the
frontier militia and rangers are ever attended with better success than
the methodical operations of a regular force. The former are better
calculated for expedition and surprise, making unexpected sallies,
scouring the country in small bodies, harassing the Indians, and
intercepting their straggling parties, by whom their motions are
unobserved; whereas, when a body of regulars take the field, encumbered
with baggage and heavy artillery, the unavoidable slowness of their
movements affords the enemy an opportunity of watching all their
operations, collecting their whole force, and skulking in the woods
around them till they can seize the favorable moment to strike a sudden
blow, which they generally do with success, but which they could never
attempt if exposed every hour to the unforeseen attacks of our woodsmen,
who would keep their attention constantly engaged in all quarters, and
thus prevent them from uniting in large bodies.

It was further observed by some gentlemen, who even admitted the
propriety of invading the Indian territory, that, to effect this with
success, it was by no means necessary to make such an increase in the
military establishment as that contemplated in the bill. The miscarriage
of the former expeditions could not (they said) be alleged as a
sufficient reason; for it is well known that the former establishment
was far from being complete. The regulars intended for the service of
the last campaign were to have been above two thousand two hundred; the
President was, besides, empowered to raise two thousand five hundred
levies, in addition to the regulars; and these would, together, have
constituted an army of about four thousand seven hundred men. Had such a
body been employed, we might reasonably have expected much better
success against the Indians, whose numbers were so far inferior; the
whole force of the Wabash tribes not amounting to above eleven or twelve
hundred warriors, who never could keep the field for any length of time,
but must be soon obliged to disperse, without venturing an attack upon
an army of such superior strength.

Instead of this, our army consisted of only about twelve hundred men,
and of these not above four or five hundred were regular troops;
besides, had even this force been sufficient, if employed in season, the
delays that had taken place in the execution of the plan would alone
have been sufficient to defeat the intended purpose. During the winter,
the law was passed for raising the additional troops for carrying on the
war with greater vigor. The whole summer was spent in the business, and
the few men that we did enlist were not raised till late in the fall.
Collected at length at the head of the Ohio, they fruitlessly loitered
away their time, till they finally erected a monument to our eternal
disgrace and infamy.

Whatever troops are to be employed, ought to be raised with diligence
and despatch, if we wish to avoid a similar miscarriage in our next
attempt. The army ought not to enter the Indian country till their whole
force is complete. Difficulties, however, and delay, equal to those of
last year, may be expected in enlisting the men; and we shall have the
officers in pay a considerable time without any soldiers. Perhaps the
former pay of the troops was too low, and proper effective men were
unwilling to accept of it; if so, let it be raised, let the men be well
clothed and fed, and they will more readily engage in the service.
Probably, also, the term of three years was an objection with many, who
would otherwise have joined our standard. If enlisted only for six
months, the ranks will be sooner filled; and this ought to have
considerable weight with those who advocate the augmentation of the
military establishment, as they cannot but know that, if we set about
enlisting the number of men contemplated in the bill, and in the manner
there prescribed, they cannot be raised time enough to render any
service in the next campaign.

The information contained in the report on the table was not, it was
said, to be implicitly relied on. That report was made by a man who had
not personally visited the frontier. Others, who had been on the spot,
were of opinion that, if two thousand levies had been raised last year,
they would have been sufficient, not only for the defence of the
frontier, but even for any offensive operations that might have been
thought necessary. Such troops, collected in the vicinity, are more
competent to the undertaking than the troops now in contemplation. No
complaint had been made of their conduct. Whenever they were tried, they
behaved as well as the regulars, and, in the action under General St.
Clair, they gave equal proofs of their valor.

It was further urged, that the frontier militia are not only equal, but
infinitely superior to any regular troops whatever, for the defence of
the borders, and that they are, in fact, the only force that can be
effectually employed in expeditions against the hostile Indians, whose
mode of fighting is familiar to them, and does not strike them with that
degree of terror with which it inspires those men who enlist on the
regular establishment. These latter being collected in the heart of
populous cities, where the face of an Indian is seldom seen, hardly know
whether the Indian and his horse are not the same animal. And when they
approach the enemy, at the very first shout, even before he is in view,
they are terrified at the idea of savage barbarity, which they have ever
been taught to reflect on with horror, and, being incapable of
resistance, they commit their safety to flight. To prove the superiority
of the militia, gentlemen need only contrast the despatch and success of
the expedition conducted by General Scott, with the delays, disgrace,
and mortification, which attended that under General St. Clair, and
consider the difference of the expense on those two occasions.

The expense of such an army as the bill contemplates is an object well
worthy of serious consideration, especially at the present moment, when
there is scarcely a dollar in the Treasury. Gentlemen would also do well
to advert to the progress of this business, and consider where they were
likely to stop, if they went on at the present rate. At first, only a
single regiment had been raised, and the expense was about $100,000; a
second was afterwards added, which swelled the expense to about
$300,000; and now a standing force of 5,168 men is contemplated, at an
annual expense of above a million and a quarter of dollars. Can this be
justified in the present state of our finances, when it is well known
that the Secretary of the Treasury, having been requested by the members
from a particular State to build a light-house on a part of their coast,
declined the undertaking, and alleged the want of funds as the reason?

Our resources, however, might be made to answer for the support of such
a force as that which was intended for the service of the preceding
year, and there would be little complaint or dissatisfaction among the
people. Very few murmurings were heard against the former establishment;
but such a one as is now contemplated will be thought extravagant, will
breed discontent among the citizens of the United States, and perhaps
afford our neighbors in Canada an opportunity to take advantage of our
divided situation, and involve us in a war more dangerous than the
former which separated us from Great Britain.

Apprehensions, it is said, are entertained that the object contemplated
in raising these additional troops is not so much to punish and coerce
the Indians, as to have a standing regular force equal to what the
British have on this continent. This is said to amount to about six
thousand men, including those in Canada. But it is to be remarked, that
the British nation has not above _one thousand_ men within the limits of
the United States; and yet, with this handful of troops, they not only
keep the Indians in awe, but even, in opposition to the wishes of the
United States, retain possession of those posts which should have been
ceded to us pursuant to the terms of the treaty. Why, then, is it
necessary, for the purpose of establishing posts and garrisoning them,
to increase the standing force to so large a number as that contemplated
in the clause under consideration? During our late arduous struggle for
liberty, when we had to cope with the most powerful nation under heaven,
the commander-in-chief had never at any one time above ten thousand men
under his own immediate command; and if, with so small a force, we were
able to effect so glorious a revolution, there can be no necessity of
going such lengths at present, for the sake of establishing a military
character. It is strange policy, indeed, to raise five or six thousand
men to oppose a handful of Indian banditti, whose utmost amount does
not, from the documents on the table, appear to exceed twelve hundred.

We are preparing to squander away money by millions; and no one, except
those who are in the secrets of the Cabinet, knows for what reason the
war has been thus carried on for three years. But what funds are to
defray the increased expense of maintaining such a force as is now
contemplated? The excise is both unpopular and unproductive. The impost
duties have been raised as high as is consistent with prudence. To
increase them, would be but to open a door for smuggling, and thus
diminish their productiveness. And if those sources of revenue fail--if
our finances be thus exhausted in unnecessary wars--we shall be unable
to satisfy, the public creditors, unless recourse be had to new taxes,
the consequence of which may, with just reason, be deplored; whereas, if
we but keep our expenses within bounds--if we nurse our finances--we
shall be respectable among the nations of the earth, nor will any nation
dare to insult us, or be able to do it with impunity.

During the course of these observations, an honorable gentleman asked,
whether this was a day set apart for rhetorical flourishes, as the
galleries were open, and he saw the short-hand writers stationed at
their different posts?

At an early stage of the debate, an honorable gentleman had suggested,
that, instead of passing a law for raising at all events the additional
regiments, which, for his part, he did not think necessary, the House,
if they finally determined the present establishment to be insufficient,
would perhaps do better to appropriate a certain sum of money, to enable
the Executive to call in such additional aid as circumstances may
require.

To this it was objected, that it is the duty of the Representatives of
the people, in all appropriations of the public money, to make them for
certain specific purposes. To act otherwise on the present occasion
would be setting a precedent that might, in its consequences, prove
highly injurious; for, although the greatest confidence may safely be
reposed in the virtue and integrity of him who now fills the
Presidential chair, it is impossible to foresee what use may hereafter
be made of the precedent by his successors, or how far it may be
carried.

Against the motion for striking out, and in favor of the proposed
augmentation of the military establishment, it was urged: That, as to
the justice of the war carried on against the Indian tribes, that was a
question which could not admit of a doubt in the mind of any man who
would allow that self-preservation and indispensable necessity are
sufficient causes to justify a nation in taking up arms. If the present
war be not in every respect justifiable, then there never was, nor ever
will be, a just war. It was originally undertaken, and since carried on,
not for the sake of conquest, but to defend our fellow-citizens, our
friends, our dearest connections, who are daily exposed, in the frontier
settlements, to all the rage of savage barbarity, to which they, with
their wives and children, must soon fall victims, unless we speedily fly
to their assistance; and, although there are some people who utterly
deny the justice of any war whatever, this doctrine, however fine in
theory, will hardly ever obtain in practice; for, is it to be imagined,
that any set of men are of such a passive disposition as calmly to look
on whilst their friends and relations are butchered before their eyes,
and to refuse giving them every assistance in their power?

The murders and depredations which have for years past been repeatedly
committed by the savages, loudly call for redress. From various
documents of unquestionable authority, now in the hands of the Secretary
of War, signed and attested by the Executive and Legislature of
Kentucky, by the District Judge, and the Captains of the militia, it
appears, that, from the year 1783 to 1790, there have been, of the
inhabitants of that District, or of emigrants on their way thither, no
less than fifteen hundred persons either massacred by the savages, or
dragged into captivity, two thousand horses taken away, and other
property plundered or destroyed to the amount of fifty thousand dollars.
And there is good reason to suppose that on the other frontiers of
Virginia and Pennsylvania the number of persons murdered or taken
prisoners during the above-mentioned period would furnish a list of one
thousand or fifteen hundred more.

The white people, it is true, have sometimes committed depredations on
the Indians; but the instances have been rare (the honorable gentleman
who spoke did not recollect above one or two) of their making unjust
attacks upon the savages; nor did they, on those occasions, commence
hostilities against them till exasperated by the strongest provocations
that could possibly stimulate the human heart. This circumstance may be
justly allowed as some palliation of the offence. Even in these
instances, however, a few individuals only were concerned; and, when the
affair came to the knowledge of the State, ample reparation was made to
the injured party. The General Government, too, had shown an equal
disposition to do justice to the Indian tribes. Witness the affair of
the Cherokees; for, as soon as Congress had heard their complaints of an
encroachment made on them by some of the people from the frontier of the
Carolinas, immediate orders were issued for obliging the intruders to
evacuate the Indian territory.

But, notwithstanding the disposition that prevails, as well in the
Legislatures of those States whose frontiers are most exposed, as in the
General Government, to cultivate peace and amity with the neighboring
Indians, that desirable object is become utterly unattainable in the
present posture of affairs. The frontier Indians have killed a number of
whites; the whites, in their turn, have made retaliation. Both parties
are in the highest degree exasperated against each other, and likely to
continue so, in spite of every endeavor that can be made to effect a
reconciliation. With minds thus irritated, it is vain to hope for peace,
as long as they continue in each other's neighborhood. It is therefore
necessary to form a strong barrier, to keep them asunder, unless,
indeed, the advocates for a cessation of hostilities would oblige the
frontier settlers to abandon their lands. But by what new-invented rule
of right should the inhabitants of Kentucky, and the other frontier
settlers, be laid under a greater obligation than any other citizens of
the United States to relinquish a property legally acquired by their
purchase? Were it even proposed to pacify the savages, by purchasing
the lands anew, such a measure would answer no other purpose than that
of procuring a temporary peace, which would soon again be interrupted by
a war that would reproduce the necessity of again having recourse to the
same expedient. We should have to purchase the lands again and again,
without end. By thus squandering the public money, year after year, we
should swell the national debt to an amount that we cannot possibly
foresee. Better at once to make a vigorous effort, to act in a manner
becoming the national dignity, and to maintain our ground by war, since
we cannot obtain a durable or an honorable peace.

Attempts have, at various times, been made to effect treaties of peace
with the Indian tribes with whom we are now at war; and, although these
efforts have constantly proved ineffectual, they yet show, that neither
the United States nor the State of Virginia were backward on their part
to adopt conciliatory measures, and to do away that animosity which had
commenced on the part of the savages at an early period of the late war
with Great Britain, and had continued to break out at intervals ever
since. In the years, 1783, '84, '85, '87, '88, and '90, offers of peace
were made to them. On the last-mentioned occasion, when a treaty was
proposed at the Miami village, the Indians at first refused to treat.
They next required thirty days to deliberate; and, in the interim, the
inhabitants of Kentucky were expressly prohibited by the President of
the United States from carrying on any offensive operations against
them; yet, notwithstanding this forbearance on the part of the whites,
no less than one hundred and twenty persons were killed or captured by
the savages, and several prisoners roasted alive, during that short
period, at the expiration of which, the Indians refused to give any
answer at all.

On another occasion, the Indians, not content with rejecting our offers
of peace, proceeded even so far as to insult us, by telling us we have
lands within the British posts, and asking us why we did not go and take
possession of them? Will it be said that we are unable to do it? Is this
language to be used within the United States? No! We _are_ able,
abundantly able to do it, whenever we please; and if we would but
retrench our expenses in some instances, which might well admit of a
reduction, our ability would still increase; our finances are not quite
so insufficient as some gentlemen seem to imagine, nor so easily
deranged. We are still able to prove that the boasted efficiency of the
General Government is something more than an empty name--we can yet
raise both men and money sufficient to defend the nation from either
injury or insult.

It is now too late to inquire whether the war was originally undertaken
on the principles of justice or not. We are actually involved in it, and
cannot recede, without exposing numbers of innocent persons to be
butchered by the enemy; for, though we should determine to discontinue
the war, can it he said that the savages will also agree to a cessation
of hostilities? It is well known that they are averse to peace; and even
the warmest advocate of pacific measures must therefore allow that the
war is a war of necessity, and must be supported. We cannot, without
impeachment both to our justice and our humanity, abandon our
fellow-citizens on the frontier to the rage of their savage enemies. And
although the excise may be somewhat unpopular, although money may still
be wanted; what is the excise? what is money, when put in competition
with the lives of our friends and brethren?

A sufficient force must be raised for their defence; and the only
question now to be considered is, what that force shall be? Experience
has proved, that the force employed in the last campaign was inadequate.
It is true the establishment was not complete; but who will venture to
assert that, if it had been complete, it would have been sufficient for
the intended purpose? Are gentlemen who assert this so well acquainted
with the circumstances of the enemy, as to be able to give an accurate
statement of the amount of their forces on the frontier? There are
stronger opinions in favor of an augmentation of the army than can be
adduced against it--opinions given by men of judgment and experience,
who have themselves been on the spot, and are well acquainted with the
situation of affairs in that quarter. These gentlemen, who must be
allowed to be competent judges, are decidedly of opinion that the
present establishment, though completed to the last man, will not
furnish an adequate force to carry on the war with effect; and that it
will be a hopeless attempt to open another campaign, with less than
about five thousand regular troops, the number contemplated in the bill.

Nor ought that number to be deemed extravagant, under an idea that we
have only a contemptible handful of banditti to contend with. Their
numbers were, last year, from authentic documents, stated at about
twelve hundred warriors, from twenty-three different tribes: such was
the opposition then contemplated; but it is impossible to ascertain what
accessions of strength they have since received, or even what force they
had engaged in the late unfortunate action, as the very men who were in
the engagement do not pretend to form any just or accurate estimate of
the number of their assailants; but there is good reason to suppose that
they had previously entered into an association with various tribes,
that have not as yet come within our knowledge. The bows and arrows used
against our troops on that occasion, afford a convincing proof that they
had foes to encounter from distant nations, as yet unacquainted with the
use of fire-arms. Nor does the account of the bows and arrows depend,
for its authenticity, on newspaper evidence alone; gentlemen of
unquestionable veracity, who were personally engaged in the action,
have declared that they had themselves noticed the arrows flying.

When we consider the warlike disposition of the Indians in general, and
the alacrity with which the victors are ever sure to be joined by
numerous allies, we have every reason to expect a much more formidable
opposition in the next campaign. It is well known that the savages place
all their glory in deeds of war; and that, among them, a young man
cannot make his appearance in company till he has signalized his valor
by some martial achievement. When, to this powerful incentive, a new
stimulus is added by the trophies obtained in the late action, it is
presumable that numbers will crowd to their standard; and it strongly
behooves us to prepare in time for a much more vigorous effort than any
we have yet made against them.

The objections drawn from the increased expense, must entirely vanish
from before the eyes of any man who looks forward to the consequences of
one more unsuccessful campaign. Such a disaster would eventually involve
the nation in much greater expense than that which is now made the
ground of opposition. Better, therefore, at once to make a vigorous and
effectual exertion to bring the matter to a final issue, than to
continue gradually draining the Treasury, by dragging on the war, and
renewing hostilities from year to year.

If we wish to bring the war to a speedy and a happy conclusion, and to
secure a permanent peace to the inhabitants on the frontier, we must
employ such troops and adopt such measures as appear best calculated to
ensure success. If we delay our determination until the force of the
enemy be ascertained, we can make no provision at all; for the nature
and circumstances of the case preclude us from the very possibility of
obtaining a knowledge of their strength and numbers. And are we,
meanwhile, to remain inactive and irresolute, and make no efforts to
repel their intended attacks? No! Whatever their numbers may be,
prudence calls aloud for provision of some kind. And if experience is to
have any weight with us, the example of the French and of the British
points out the true mode of securing our frontier, and rendering it
invulnerable to an Indian foe. Let us occupy posts in the vicinity of
the enemy, let them be properly garrisoned and well provided, and the
business is done.

These will afford an opportunity of trading with the friendly tribes,
and will prevent all intercourse between the whites and the Indians,
except under proper regulations. Should hostilities be meditated by any
tribes who are not in amity with us, early intelligence of their
movements can be obtained; their marauding parties may either be beaten
off on their approach, or intercepted on their return; opportunities may
be taken of separately attacking the hostile tribes; their old men,
their squaws, their children, will be exposed a great part of the year,
whilst the others are out hunting. In short, if fear, hope, interest,
can be supposed to have any influence on the Indians, this mode of
defence must be allowed to be preferable to any other, as giving the
fullest scope to the operation of all those motives.

A different mode has long been pursued in Virginia, and adopted by the
inhabitants of Kentucky, but its success has not been such as to offer
any inducement to the General Government to follow the same plan.
Rangers have there been employed for a number of years to scour the
frontiers; and those rangers, too, were expert woodsmen, perfectly
inured to the Indian mode of warfare; yet, notwithstanding their utmost
vigilance, these savages still found means to commit all the murders and
depredations already enumerated. It is true, however, that a frontier
militia man, trained up in the woods, may be, in many respects,
preferable to a regular soldier, who has not the same knowledge of the
country, and of the mode of fighting; but with equal experience, (and
proper men possessed of that experience, may be enlisted on the
establishment,) regular troops will be found infinitely superior to any
militia upon earth.

Every man who has ever seen militia in the field, cannot but know that a
very trifling disaster, or a slight cause of discontent, is sufficient
to make them disband, and forget all subordination, so far as even to
neglect the means of self-defence; whereas regular troops, under proper
discipline, and acting with greater steadiness and concert, are much
more to be depended on, especially when the object of attack is distant,
and great fatigue is to be undergone. The militia, in whatever mode they
may be called out, will hardly furnish men of the proper description; if
large pay be offered, the temptation will equally prevail upon those who
are unfit for the service as it will upon good, effective men; besides,
some of the States have no militia laws; and, even in those States which
have such laws, they are gone into disuse; no dependence can therefore
be placed on militia under any laws now existing. There is, indeed, a
general militia law now before the House: but if it ever passes, it
certainly cannot be passed in due season to answer the purpose of
providing for the immediate defence of the frontier. Regular troops must
be raised, or nothing effectual can be done; and if to avoid the expense
we refuse the only aid that may prove of any real service, we render
ourselves responsible for the consequences of this parsimonious policy,
which may be attended with the ruin and destruction of our
fellow-citizens in the Western country.

The Cornplanter's speech was again mentioned and called for; but, as it
had been confidentially communicated by the President, an objection was
made to having it read, without clearing the galleries. Whereupon,

An honorable member rose, and mentioned his having read it in one of the
public newspapers in the State of New Jersey.

To this it was answered, that if any gentleman had the newspaper to
produce, the speech might be publicly read from that; otherwise,
although it might be very proper that the speech itself should be read,
yet, as it had been confidentially received from the Executive, there
would be a manifest trespass on propriety and decorum in having it read
with open galleries; it was therefore wished that the galleries might be
cleared.

The Parliamentary etiquette requiring that this should be done by the
House, and not by a committee, the committee rose for the purpose; and,

The Speaker having resumed the chair, the motion for clearing the
galleries was renewed.

An objection was here started by an honorable gentleman in favor of the
augmentation, who said that, as some gentlemen had spoken on the popular
side of the question, whilst the galleries had been open, it was unfair
to preclude those of opposite sentiments from an opportunity of
answering their arguments in the same public manner, and proving to the
people the justice and necessity of the war.

The motion, however, was persisted in, and the galleries were
cleared.[42]

[The speakers in this day's debate were Messrs. WAYNE, GOODHUE,
BOUDINOT, LIVERMORE, STEELE, PARKER, BOURNE, (Rhode Island,) WHITE, and
MOORE. Mr. WHITE and Mr. MOORE opposed the motion; they were in favor of
the augmentation proposed in the bill. The other gentlemen were in favor
of striking out the clause.]


FRIDAY, January 27.

_Protection of the Frontiers._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the bill for making further and more effectual provision for the
protection of the frontiers of the United States.

Mr. MERCER rose and addressed the Chair as follows:

Mr. Chairman: I originally opposed the reference of this subject to the
Secretary of the Treasury, on principles supported by the constitution,
by the theory of free government, and from practical observation on the
progress of our own, and I believe the result now before us will fully
exemplify every evil predicted.

Let any man examine this bill, and compare it with the terms of the
original reference. Let it then be asked, whether the submission to
devise ways and means to provide for the defence of the Western
frontier, authorized the plans proposed by the Treasury Department, that
we are now giving sanction to? Did it authorize a perpetual tax,
irrepealable by the whole Legislature, without a breach of faith,
according to received doctrine? At least, so far placing the
purse-strings in the hands of the Executive, who may refuse an assent to
the repeal; in the power of the Senate also, and consequently beyond the
reach of the Representatives of the people, who alone are deputized by,
and may be recalled by the great mass of society, and to whom the
constitution expressly confines the power of originating money bills.
Have we, in truth, originated this money bill? Do we ever originate any
money bill? If a reference, such as made to the Secretary, was proposed
to the Senate, who are a branch of the Legislature, nearly of equal
importance with ourselves, would it not be held a breach of the
constitution? Were they to propose such a plan as this to us, would it
not be received with indignation? Why so little jealousy of the
Executive Department, separated by the constitution with so much care
from us? Of the Treasury Department, too, which is considered in other
countries as possessing and exercising the means of corruption? It is in
my judgment a direct infraction of the letter and spirit of the
constitution, of the principles of free government, and I have heard no
attempt to defend it, but on the ground of pitiful evasion, more
dishonorable to ourselves and dangerous to the public, than an open
violation, that would rouse their resentment and ensure opposition.

But did the submission of a provision to defend the frontier authorize a
system for the encouragement of manufactures, thereby placing the
occupations and productive labor of our citizens under the direction of
Government, and rendering the living of the artist and subsistence of
the farmer, so far equally dependent on and subservient to the views of
Administration? Did it authorize an entire provision for the public
debt, past, present, and to come? Did it authorize a plan for supplying
former deficiencies, which it is admitted do not exist? Lastly, did it
authorize an extensive increase of the Sinking Fund, which we are
informed is one of the principal objects? It would be an affront to
common sense to answer one of these queries in the affirmative--it
authorized none of them. And yet these are all its offspring; these are
the great objects it produced. It is true there are in the bill two or
three little clauses that were authorized, and which relate to the
submission, and which might well have escaped my attention, and would
probably never attract the observation of the public, but for the
title--a bill for the protection of the frontiers. By these clauses five
hundred and twenty-three thousand dollars of the whole moneys to be for
ever raised from its perpetual revenue, are appropriated for this year's
campaign. After that sum is expended, we must, even the next year, look
out for new taxes, and upon the same principles, as long as the Indian
war continues (and by the enlistments it is not contemplated to be of
very short duration) new taxes must be provided, for the residue of
these taxes are by this bill appropriated to other purposes, for ever,
after five hundred and twenty-three thousand dollars are paid. This
appropriation is unalterable even by the whole Legislature, unless by a
breach of public faith, or providing other equal revenue. Should every
year's Indian war, and every national disaster excuse Government for
laying a perpetual tax, equal to the increased annual demand, it will be
selling us defeats at a very high price; and if Government are paid so
well, they may be tempted to repeat the tragical representation.

But what is the reflection that naturally arises from a contemplation of
this bill. That Administration will not even permit us to defend the
helpless women and children of the frontier from the brutal ferocity of
a savage foe, but on condition that the Representatives surrender up for
ever the sacred trust of the constitution, and place in the power and
under the control of the Executive and Senate, a perpetual tax. Unless
they throw the power of regulating the labor and industry of their
fellow-citizens into the hands of Government, and into a mean dependence
on Administration; and unless they furnish a large sum of money, under
the denomination of a Sinking Fund, for the purposes of speculation, in
order to raise and lower the price of stocks at pleasure, or as may suit
the views and interest of the band of favorites that are in the secret.

Hard and oppressive conditions! Was this the object of the reference to
the Secretary? It was not the avowed one, nor could it have been
suspected, from a simple proposition to devise ways and means to defend
the frontier. A mighty fabric has been erected on this slight
foundation, to hurry us into its adoption. We have been officially, I
suppose, informed that the money for the War Department is almost
expended; that the preparations for the Western expedition must stop,
unless we pass the bill immediately; and thus, with the tomahawk
suspended over our heads, we must give up to Administration the dearest
interests of the people, and sacrifice the most sacred rights of the
constitution.


MONDAY, January 30.

_Protection of the Frontiers._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the bill making farther and more effectual provision for the protection
of the frontiers of the United States; and, after some time spent
therein, the Chairman reported that the committee had again had the said
bill under consideration, and made several amendments thereto; when the
same being read, some were agreed to, and others disagreed to.

And then the said bill being before the House, a motion was made, and
the question being put to amend the same, by striking out the second
section thereof, in the words following:

      "_And be it further enacted_, That there shall be raised
      three additional regiments of infantry, each of which,
      exclusively of the commissioned officers, shall consist of
      nine hundred and twelve non-commissioned officers,
      privates, and musicians:"

It passed in the negative--yeas 18, nays 34, as follows:


      YEAS.--John Baptist Ashe, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub
      Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue,
      William Barry Grove, Samuel Livermore, Nathaniel Macon,
      Nathaniel Niles, Josiah Parker, Israel Smith, John Steele,
      Thomas Sumter, George Thatcher, Artemas Ward, Hugh
      Williamson, and Francis Willis.

      NAYS.--Fisher Ames, Abraham Baldwin, Robert Barnwell,
      Egbert Benson, John Brown, Jonathan Dayton, William
      Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, William B. Giles, Andrew Gregg,
      Thomas Hartley, Daniel Huger, Philip Key, Aaron Kitchell,
      John W. Kittera, John Laurance, Amasa Learned, James
      Madison, Andrew Moore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg,
      William Vans Murray, John Page, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker,
      Joshua Seney, William Smith, Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan
      Sturges, Peter Sylvester, Thomas Tredwell, Thomas Tudor
      Tucker, Abraham Venable, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Anthony Wayne,
      and Alexander White.

The farther consideration of the said bill was then postponed until
to-morrow.


TUESDAY, January 31.

The Speaker laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War,
covering his report on the petitions of James Swaine, Abraham Springer,
Timothy Mountford, sundry seamen, Samuel Wail, for himself and servant,
John Carnaghan, James Shields, Henry Skinner, and William Loring; which
were read, and ordered to lie on the table.

_Protection of the Frontiers._

The House resumed the consideration of the bill for making farther and
more effectual provision for the protection of the frontiers of the
United States; and the same being further amended, was

_Ordered_, To be engrossed, and read the third time to-morrow.


WEDNESDAY, February 1.

Mr. PAGE, from the committee to whom was referred the petition of John
Churchman, made a report; which was read, and ordered to lie on the
table.

_Protection of the Frontiers._

An engrossed bill for making farther and more effectual provision for
the protection of the frontiers of the United States, was read the
third time, and the blanks therein filled up; and on the question that
the said bill do pass,

It was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 29, nays 19.


FRIDAY, February 3.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate recede from
their amendments, disagreed to by this House, to the bill to establish
Post Offices and Post Roads within the United States, and do agree to
the amendments proposed by the House to their amendment to the said
bill.

_The Cod Fisheries._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
bill sent from the Senate, entitled, "An act for the encouragement of
the Bank and other Cod Fisheries, and for the regulation and government
of the fishermen employed therein."

The first section being read as follows:

      "_Be it enacted, &c._, That the bounty, now allowed upon
      the exportation of dried fish of the fisheries of the
      United States, shall cease on all dried fish exported after
      the tenth day of June next; and in lieu thereof, and for
      the more immediate encouragement of the said fisheries,
      there shall be afterwards paid, on the last day of December
      annually, to the owner of every vessel or his agent, by the
      collector of the district where such vessel may belong,
      that shall be qualified agreeably to law, for carrying on
      the Bank and other cod fisheries, and that shall actually
      have been employed therein at sea, for the term of four
      months at least, of the fishing season next preceding
      (which season is accounted to be from the last day of
      February, to the last day of November in every year) for
      each and every ton of such vessel's burden, according to
      her admeasurement, as licensed or enrolled; if of twenty
      tons and not exceeding thirty tons, one and a half dollars,
      and if above thirty tons, two and a half dollars, of which
      bounty three-eighth parts shall accrue and belong to the
      owner of such fishing vessel, and the other five-eighths
      thereof shall be divided by him, his agent or lawful
      representative, to and among the several fishermen who
      shall have been employed in such vessel, during the season
      aforesaid, or a part thereof, as the case may be, in such
      proportions as the fish they shall respectively have taken
      may bear to the whole quantity of fish taken on board such
      vessel during such season. _Provided_, That the bounty, to
      be allowed, and paid on any vessel for one season, shall
      not exceed one hundred and seventy dollars."

Mr. GILES expressed some doubt respecting the principle of the bill; and
for the purpose of collecting the sense of the committee on the subject,
he thought the most effectual means would be a motion to amend the bill,
by striking out the whole section. He accordingly made the motion,
observing at the same time, that he could not positively assert, whether
the reasons which determined him against the principle of the bill, were
well founded or not; that, in matters where a local preference is given,
it is necessary to accommodate; and he would be happy if his objections
could be removed. The present section of the bill appears to contain a
direct bounty on occupations; and if that be its object, it is the first
attempt as yet made by this Government to exercise such authority; and
its constitutionality struck him in a doubtful point of view; for in no
part of the constitution could he, in express terms, find a power given
to Congress to grant bounties on occupations: the power is neither
directly granted, nor (by any reasonable construction that he could
give) annexed to any other power specified in the constitution. It might
perhaps be brought in under a mode of construction already adopted by
the House, viz: that of "ways and ends," by which any power whatever
might be equally implied; but he wished ever to see some connection
between a specified power, and the means adopted for carrying it into
execution. There is a great difference between giving encouragement, and
granting a direct bounty. Congress have a right to regulate commerce;
and any advantage thereby resulting to a particular occupation connected
with commerce, comes within that authority; but when a bounty is
proposed to a particular employment or occupation, this is stepping
beyond the circle of commerce; and such a measure will affect the whole
manufacturing and agricultural system. In all cases, the revenue, to be
employed in this bounty, is drawn from all the sources of revenue in the
United States, and confined to a particular object. He was averse to
bounties in almost every shape, as derogations from the common right;
and he thought there would be no great difficulty in proving, that a
government is both unjust and oppressive in establishing exclusive
rights, monopolies, &c., without some very substantial merit in the
persons to whom they are granted; although even in that case, the
propriety of such grants is still questionable. Under a just and equal
government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment
of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is
necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only
in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive
right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part;
for, by such a regulation, the product of one man's labor is transferred
to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the
part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the
whole product of the labor of every individual is the real property of
Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the
community by governmental discretion; such a supposition would directly
involve the idea that every individual in the community is merely a
slave and bondman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to
expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any
government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system
of tyranny.

He entertained fewer doubts, respecting the principle, as it regards
political economy. All occupations that stand in need of bounties,
instead of increasing the real wealth of a country, rather tend to
lessen it; the real wealth of every country consisting in the active
product of useful labor employed in it. It is therefore bad policy to
encourage any occupation that would diminish, instead of increasing the
aggregate wealth of the community; and if an occupation is really
productive, and augments the general wealth, bounties are unnecessary
for its support; for when it reimburses the capital employed, and yields
a profit besides, it may be said to support itself. When it fails in
these points, any forced advantage that is given to it by the
Government, only tends to decrease the wealth of the country. The
subject, however, might be considered in a more favorable point of view:
and that is, whether the provision be essential to the defence of the
United States, and whether the bounties proposed in the bill were more
than equivalent to the portion of defence that would be procured by
them. The bill does not (in his opinion) contain that kind of
encouragement, which is essential to the national defence. Any man who
takes a view of this country, must be convinced that its real support
rises from the land, and not from the sea; and the opposite mistake must
have arisen merely from a servile imitation of the conduct of Great
Britain: the inhabitants of this country heretofore thought favorably of
her Government, and the Revolution has not yet altered their former
ideas respecting it. But the circumstances of the two countries will, on
examination, be found widely different; Britain, surrounded by the sea
on every side, finds a navy necessary to support her commerce; whilst
America, possessed of an immense territory, and having yet ample room to
cultivate that territory, has no occasion to contend by sea with any
European power: her strength and her resources are all to be found
within the United States; and if she but attends to her internal
resources, the object of national defence will be much better answered.

Mr. G. next proceeded to consider whether that portion of the national
defence which might be derived from the fisheries, would not be
purchased at too high a price. Although the apparent intention of the
bill is only to convert the present existing drawbacks into a bounty;
yet the drawbacks being allowed only to the actual exportation of the
fish, and the bounty being granted on the tonnage of the fishing
vessels, there can be no comparative value between the drawback and the
bounty; they have no necessary relation to each other, and the latter
may exceed the former, or the former exceed the latter. He had made a
calculation, and upon the most favorable principles, grounded on the
Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of State.
Here he produced a calculation, tending to show that the proposed bounty
on the tonnage of the fishing vessels, would considerably exceed the
amount of the present drawbacks. From a comparison between the bounty,
and the number of sailors employed in the fisheries, he showed what an
expense each man would be to the United States; and, after other
remarks, observed, that even Great Britain, whose whole national support
and defence depends on her navy, had found, that the men employed in the
fisheries, though so necessary for that defence, had cost her too much;
that America, whose consequence, as a nation, does not depend on a navy,
ought to take a lesson from the experience of Britain: that he did not
wish to enter into a competition with Britain and France, in supplying
the different markets with fish; that, as those nations are able to hold
out greater encouragement to their fishermen, than we can to ours, we
would, by such a competition, only exhaust the Treasury of the United
States to no purpose; and upon this principle alone, he thought there
was some reason to doubt the policy of the measure proposed in the
section under consideration, which therefore he hoped the committee
would agree to strike out, unless his objection could be obviated.

Mr. MURRAY observed, that in order to demonstrate the propriety of the
measure, it would be incumbent on the friends of the bill, first, to
prove that the fishery trade is in a state of decay, that the stock
employed in it does not yield the ordinary profits, so as to justify the
merchants in embarking their capital in this branch of trade: that there
is a system of defence in contemplation, which the circumstances of the
country call for, and which this trade is calculated to furnish; that
other branches of trade, which do not stand in need of encouragement,
are not equally capable of furnishing seamen for the purpose: that this
particular object so peculiarly claims the attention and encouragement
of the United States, as to leave far behind every consideration of the
manufacturing interest, the agricultural, &c. All this he thought
necessary for gentlemen to prove, and to show some very strong necessity
for encouraging one particular class of men, in preference to all
others.

Mr. GOODHUE.--It happens that the fisheries of the United States are
almost entirely confined to the State of Massachusetts; and they furnish
a considerable, a principal portion of our export trade. As we are a
part of the United States, the United States in general are interested
in the prosperity of that branch of business, so far at least as it
contributes to the national defence: it furnishes a copious nursery of
hardy seamen, and offers a never-failing source of protection to the
commerce of the United States. If we engage in a war with any European
power, those seamen will be excluded from their ordinary employment, and
must have recourse to privateering. During the late war with Great
Britain, we annoyed the enemy more in that line than in all others; and
had it not been for privateering, it would often have been impossible to
keep together our armies, who frequently, in the hour of need, were
supplied by the privateers with ammunition and clothing, of which they
were wholly destitute. All that we wish to obtain by this bill is, that
we may not be burdened with duties. An opinion has been entertained,
that no drawbacks ought to be allowed on the re-exportation of articles
imported from foreign countries; but if this opinion were to obtain in
practice, and no drawbacks were to be admitted, we must confine our
importation to articles for our own consumption. The drawback allowed by
the existing law, on the exportation of salt fish, was calculated to be
only equal to the duty beforehand paid on the quantity of salt used in
curing the fish; but the fishermen complain that, as the act now stands,
they are wholly excluded from any participation in the benefit, which
centres entirely in the coffers of the merchants. The object of the
present bill is, only to repay the same money into the hands of those
persons who are immediately concerned in catching the fish; and there
can no reasonable objection be made to such a transfer of the drawback,
as Government will not lose a single dollar by the change. The gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. GILES) talks of the unconstitutionality of granting
bounties; but no bounty is required. We only ask, in another mode, the
usual drawback for the salt used on the fish. If we can make it appear
that the bill does not contemplate any greater sums to be drawn from the
Treasury, than are already allowed, it is to be hoped that no further
opposition will be made to the measure; and that this is really the
case, can be proved by documents from the Treasury office. Here he read
a statement and calculation to prove his assertion; and to show that the
United States will probably pay one thousand dollars per annum less in
the proposed bounties on the tonnage of the fishing vessels, than they
would in the drawbacks on the exportation of the fish. The fishermen, he
continued, are now under no control; and in consequence of this want of
a proper restraint, they often take whims into their heads and quit the
vessels during the fishing season. To prevent the inconveniences of this
practice, the bill contemplates their exclusion from the bounty, unless
they enter into such contracts and regulations, as may be found
necessary for the proper and successful conducting of the business,
which, from our advantageous situation, would be entirely in our hands,
if we did not meet with such opposition and discouragement from foreign
nations, whose bounties to their own fishermen, together with the duties
laid upon our fish, would, to persons less advantageously situated than
us, amount almost to a total prohibition.

In the Report from the Secretary of State, a drawback is contemplated of
the duties on all foreign articles, used by the seamen employed in the
fishing trade, such as coffee, rum, &c.; but we ask it on the salt
alone; nor is it asked as a bounty, but merely as a transfer from the
hand of the merchant to that of the fishermen.

Mr. WHITE had no objection to give the trade a proper degree of
encouragement; but he did not relish the idea of granting bounties; if
any gentleman would prepare an amendment, so as to make them drawbacks
in fact, as well as in words, he would consent to the measure.

Mr. AMES, after some introductory observations, adverted to the
necessity of fixing some point in which both sides would agree.
Disputes, he said, could not be terminated--or, more properly, they
could not be managed at all, if some first principles were not conceded.
The parties would want weapons for the controversy.

Law is in some countries the yoke of government, which bends or breaks
the necks of the people; but, thank Heaven, in this country, it is a
man's shield--his coat of mail--his castle of safety. It is more than
his defence: it is his weapon to punish those who invade his rights--it
is the instrument which assists--it is the price that rewards his
industry.

If I say that fishermen have equal rights with other men, every
gentleman feels in his own bosom a principle of assent. If I say that no
man shall pay a tax on sending his property out of the country, the
constitution will confirm it; for the constitution says, _no duty shall
be laid on exports_. If I say, that on exporting dried fish, the
exporter is entitled to drawback the duty paid on the salt, I say no
more than the law of the land has confirmed. Plain and short as these
principles are, they include the whole controversy. For I consider the
law allowing the drawback as the right of the fishery, the defects of
that law as the wrong suffered, and the bill before us as the remedy.
The defects of the law are many and grievous. Supposing 340,000 quintals
exported----

    The salt duty is                               $42,744
    The drawback is only                            34,000
                                                  --------
    Loss to the fishery                              8,744

    Whereas Government pays $45,900, at
    13-1/2 cents, including charges, which are
    3-1/2 cents on a quintal: which is beyond
    what the fishery receives                       11,900
                                                  --------
    Being a clear loss to the Government of          3,156

So that, though the whole is intended for the benefit of the fishery,
about one-fourth of what is paid is not so applied: there is a heavy
loss both to Government and the fishery. Even what is paid on the export
is nearly lost money; the bounty is not paid till the exportation, nor
then, till six months have elapsed; whereas the duty on salt is paid
before the fish is taken: it is paid to the exporter, not to the
fisherman. The bounty is so indirect, that the poor fisherman loses
sight of it. It is paid to such persons, in such places, and at such
periods, as to disappoint its good effects; passing through so many
hands, and paying so many profits to each, it is almost absorbed. The
encouragement, too, is greatest in successful years, when least needed;
and is least in bad fishing seasons, when it is most needed. It is a
very perplexed, embarrassing regulation to the officers of Government
and to the exporter; hence the great charge: and, with all this charge
and trouble, it is liable to many frauds. Four hundred miles of coast,
little towns, no officer. All these defects the bill remedies; and,
besides, gives the money on condition that certain regulations are
submitted to, which are worth almost as much as the money.

The bill is defended on three grounds. First, it will promote the
national wealth; second, the national safety; third, justice requires
it: the last is fully relied on.

To show that the fishery will increase the wealth of the nation, it
cannot be improper to mention its great value. The export before the war
brought more than a million of dollars into this country; probably it is
not less at present, and no small part in gold and silver. It is
computed that thirty thousand persons, including four thousand seamen,
subsist by it. Many say, very composedly, if it will not maintain
itself, let it fall. But we should not only lose the annual million of
dollars which it brings us; an immense capital would be lost. The
fishing towns are built on the naked rocks, or barren sands, on the side
of the sea. Those spots, however, where trade would sicken and
die--which husbandry scorns to till--and which nature seems to have
devoted to eternal barrenness, are selected by industry to work miracles
on. Houses, stores, and wharves, are erected, and a vast property
created, all depending on this business. Before you think it a light
thing to consign them to ruin, see if you can compute what they cost; if
they outrun your figures, then confess that it would be bad economy, as
well as bad policy, to suffer rival nations to ruin our fishery. The
regulations of foreign nations tend to bring this ruin about. France and
England equally endeavor, in the language of the Secretary of State, to
mount their marine on the destruction of our fishery. The fishers at
Newfoundland are allowed liberal bounties by the English Government;
and, in the French West Indies, we meet bounties on their fish and
duties on our own, and these amount to the price of the fish. From the
English islands we are quite shut out; yet such is the force of our
natural advantages, that we have not yielded to these rivals. The
Secretary of State has made these statements in his Report.

The more fish we catch, the cheaper; the English fish will need a
greater bounty: whereas if we should yield, the English would probably
need no bounty at all; they would have the monopoly. For example;
suppose the English can fish at two dollars the quintal--we catch so
much that we sell at one dollar and two-thirds: the loss to them is
one-third of a dollar on each quintal. They must have that sum as a
bounty. Whereas, if we increase our fishery, a greater and a greater
bounty is needed by foreign nations. The contest so painfully sustained
by them must be yielded at last, and we shall enjoy alone an immense
fund of wealth to the nation, which nature has made ours; and though
foreigners disturb the possession, we shall finally enjoy it peaceably
and exclusively. If the lands of Kentucky are invaded, you drive off the
invader; and so you ought. Why not protect this property as well? These
opinions are supported by no common authority. The State of
Massachusetts having represented the discouragements of the fishery, the
subject has received the sanction of the Secretary of State; he confirms
the facts stated in the petition; he says it is too poor a business to
pay any thing to Government.

Yet, instead of asking bounties, or a remission of the duties on the
articles consumed, we ask nothing but to give us our own money back,
which you received under an engagement to pay it back, in case the
article should be exported. If nothing was in view, therefore, but to
promote national wealth, it seems plain that this branch ought to be
protected and preserved; because, under all the discouragements it
suffers, it increases, and every year more and more enriches the
country, and promises to become an inexhaustible fund of wealth.

Another view has been taken of the subject, which is drawn from the
naval protection afforded, in time of war, by a fishery. Our coasting
and foreign trade are increasing rapidly; but the richer our trade
becomes, the better prize to the enemy: so far from protecting us, it
would be the very thing that would tempt him to go to war with us. As
the rice and the tobacco planter cheerfully pay for armies, and turn out
in the militia to protect their property on shore, they cannot be so
much deceived as to wish to have it left unprotected when it is afloat;
especially when it is known that this protection, though more effectual
than the whole revenue expended on a navy could procure, will not cost a
farthing; on the contrary, it will enrich while it protects the nation.
The coasters and other seamen, in the event of a war, would be doubly in
demand, and could neither protect themselves nor annoy the enemy to any
considerable degree; but the fishermen, thrown out of business by a war,
would be instantly in action. They would, as they formerly did, embark
in privateers; having nothing to lose, and every thing to hope, they
would not dishonor their former fame. Their mode of life makes them
expert and hardy seamen. Nothing can be more adventurous. They cast
anchor on the banks, three hundred leagues from land, and with a great
length of cable ride out the storms of winter. If the gale proves too
strong they often sink at their anchors, and are food for fish which
they came to take: for ever wet, the sea almost becomes their element.
Cold and labor in that region of frost, brace their bodies, and they
become as hardy as the bears on the islands of ice: their skill and
spirit are not inferior: familiar with danger, they despise it. If I
were to recite their exploits, the theme would find every American heart
already glowing with the recollection of them; it would kindle more
enthusiasm than the subject has need of. My view is only to appeal to
facts, to evince the importance of the fishery as a means of naval
protection. It is proper to pass over Bunker's Hill, though memorable by
the valor of a regiment of fishermen; nor is it necessary to mention,
further, that five hundred fishermen fought at Trenton.

It is known, that the privateers manned by fishermen, in want of every
thing, not excepting arms, which they depended on taking from their
enemies, brought into port warlike stores of every kind, as well as
every kind of merchandise sufficient for the army and country: the war
could not have been carried on without them. Among other exploits almost
beyond belief, one instance is worth relating: these people, in a
privateer of sixteen guns, and one hundred and fifty men, in one cruise
took more than twenty ships, with upwards of two hundred guns, and
nearly four hundred men. The privateers from a single district of
Massachusetts, where the fishery is chiefly seated, took more than two
thousand vessels, being one third of the British merchant vessels, and
brought in near one thousand two hundred. A hundred sail of privateers,
manned by fishermen, would scour every sea in case of a war.

The first question is, how much does Government receive by the duty on
the salt used in curing the fish which is exported? The quantity of fish
must be known. Several ways of information are to be explored. The
Secretary of State supposes the fish of 1790 to be 354,276 quintals. A
Treasury return of fish exported from August 20, 1789, to September 30,
1790, which is thirteen and one-third months, is 378,721 quintals. For a
year, equal to 340,849 quintals.

Foreign dried fish imported from August 15, 1789, to August, 1790, 3,701
quintals; five per cent. drawback thereon is only three hundred and ten
dollars, at one dollar and sixty-six cents per quintal. Mr. GILES is
mistaken in supposing that foreign fish deducts $16,000 from our
estimate. Return of fish in seven months, from May 30, to December,
1790, exported, all fish of the United States, 197,278 quintals: which,
for a year, is 338,184 quintals. The medium may be fairly taken for the
time past at 340,000 quintals a year.

Six gentlemen of Marblehead certify, that 5,043 hogsheads, or 40,344
bushels of salt, were used on 38,497-1/2 quintals; which, for 340,000
quintals, gives 356,200 bushels. The duty, at twelve cents, is $42,744,
which Government receives. But the charge to the United States, is, at
thirteen and a half cents per quintal

                                              $45,900
Whereof the fishery receives ten cents
on each quintal exported                       34,000
                                               ------
Charges as the law stands                      11,900

Further, this is but an estimate made up from what the last year proved.
The next may be very different, and probably it will be. If more money
should be demanded than $44,000, we must not be accused of misleading
Congress. But in that case an increase would be made by law; for the
more fish is exported, the more thirteen and a half cents must be paid;
so that the bill creates no burden in that way. But the increase of the
export of fish will probably operate in favor of Government. For it is
known that the economy, skill, and activity of the fishery are making
progress. Its success has progressed. The more fish to a vessel, the
cheaper the allowance on the tonnage. Therefore, the tonnage of vessels
will not increase in a ratio with the increase of the fish.

The very objections prove this. For they deem the encouragement too
great. But any encouragement must have the effect.

The difference of the agreements for distributing the fish according to
the present practice, or by this bill, makes a great one in the quantity
taken. The bill reforms the practice in this point. Marblehead vessels
take less than those from Beverly. The former throw the fish into a
common stock, which is afterwards divided upon a plan very unfriendly to
exertion. A man works for the whole--perhaps twelve hours, and they take
about eight hundred quintals to a vessel. But in Beverly, the exertion
is as great as can be made; eighteen hours a day, because each man has
what he catches, and they catch eleven hundred quintals.

Marblehead seamen sailing from other towns, and dividing as last
mentioned, which the bill establishes, seldom fail to catch two or three
hundred quintals more than vessels and men from Marblehead on the first
plan. Accordingly, I assert on good authority, that the increase in
Marblehead only may be computed at fifteen thousand quintals, merely in
consequence of the reform by the bill. The best informed persons whom I
have consulted, entertain no doubt that the export, in case the bill
should pass, would not be less than four hundred thousand quintals,
probably more; but at four hundred thousand quintals, it would add seven
thousand two hundred dollars more to the salt duty; a sum more than
equal to any estimate of the actual tonnage, or any probable increase of
it

                                 $42,744
                                   7,200
                                  ------
Salt duty on 400,000 quintals     49,944

Other facts confirm the theory, that skill and exertion are increasing
in this business.

In 1775, 25,000 tons, 4,405 seaman. Fish sold for $1,071,000. In 1790,
three-fourths of the seamen and three-fourths of the tonnage take as
much fish. It is owing to this that our fishery stood the competition
with foreign nations.

Finally, the average in future may be relied on not to be less than
350,000 quintals.

Salt duty on which               $43,944
Bounties                          44,000
                                  ------
Wanted                                56

The calculations first made will answer the purpose,

340,000 quintals pay salt duty   $42,744
Tonnage bounty                    44,000
                                  ------
Wanted                             1,256

This is the mighty defect. Observe the authentic return of the export of
fish may be, and we can almost prove it to be, below the future export.
Whereas, to banish all doubt, we go to the top of the scale for the
tonnage, we take what we know to be the utmost. This we might have
represented more favorably if we had chosen to conceal any thing. But
even this will answer our purpose.

For two hundred tons are wanting in the estimate of the bounties, being
nineteen thousand eight hundred, not twenty thousand, which will take
off one-third of the deficient sum.

The tonnage over sixty-eight, which receives nothing, is not mentioned;
and which probably is not less than another third.

The boats under five tons, though trifling, are to be noticed--they
receive nothing.

But, above all, the chances of non-compliance with the regulations are
in favor of the remainder of the twelve hundred and fifty-six dollars
being stopped. Boats may not get twelve quintals to the ton, or vessels
may have their voyages broken up, and not stay four months on the
fishing ground; in either case they would receive nothing. Take all
these together, is it not to be doubted that twelve hundred and
fifty-six dollars will remain of the forty-four thousand in the
Treasury?

But these are trifles which I cannot believe gentlemen are anxious
about.

For the event cannot be reduced to a certainty. What quantity of fish
will be exported, no man can tell now. But as Government may receive
more than it will pay, the chance may turn the other way, and it may
have to pay a few hundred dollars more than it will have received. We
have seen that the chance is most in favor of Government. But one chance
must balance the other. This answer is sincerely relied on as a good
one.

I barely mention that the wear of cordage, cables, sails, and anchors,
is very great. These articles, on being imported, pay duties. So that it
is probable the extra duty paid by the fishery on their extra
consumption, will overbalance any little sums supposed to exceed in the
bounty.

It has been asked, as if some cunning was detected, why if the money
received in the Treasury to pay the drawbacks is equal to the proposed
bounties, a further appropriation should be made? This cunning question
admits of several very simple answers.

The bill being for seven years, the average product is the proper sum to
be calculated. But the three first years may fall short of the bounties,
say two thousand dollars a year, which is six thousand dollars.

The four last may exceed two thousand dollars, say eight thousand
dollars.

Shall a poor fisherman wait for the whole, or if he takes his part
according to the money in the Treasury--for a twenty-fourth part of the
bounty on his vessel, from 1792 to 1795?

2d. This delay would happen after a bad year, the very time when he
would most need prompt pay.

3d. But fish taken this year will not be exported till December next.
Therefore the money will not be stopped by the drawback as the law
stands, till six months after.

A substitute has been proposed for the clause, to appropriate the
drawback only.

This is absolutely improper. For the ten cents allowed as drawback is
but a part of the duty paid on salt. It is not easy to see any reason
why a part stopped at the Treasury should be equal to the whole paid
there long before. The drawback falls near nine thousand dollars short
of the salt duty received by the Government. The expense of the drawback
would be very heavy and useless.

Nor may gentlemen apprehend that Government, by paying next December,
will advance money to the fishery. The salt duty will have been paid,
and Government will have the use of the money many months before the
fishermen will have a right to call for the bounties.

It is left to the candor of the gentlemen who have urged this objection,
whether a better or further answer is desired.

After having laboriously gone through the estimate of the probable
export of fish, it will not be necessary to be equally minute as to the
quantity or kind of vessels which are to receive the bounty.

The estimate we believe to be very high. That it is high enough, we
suppose very probable from the estimate of the Secretary of State, which
is only nineteen thousand one hundred and eighty-five tons.

This mode of paying the bounty on the tonnage is very simple and safe.
The measurement is already made and costs nothing; and as it was made to
pay a duty on tonnage, we are very sure that Government will not be
cheated by an over-measure. The mode of paying the drawback, as the law
now stands, is expensive, perplexed and embarrassing; liable to frauds
and delays.

This intricate and disgusting detail of calculations was necessary to
satisfy the committee that each of the three grounds of defence on which
the bill rests, is tenable.

Instead of impoverishing the nation by scattering the treasures of the
whole to benefit a part, it appears that we are preserving a mine of
treasure. In point of naval protection, we can scarcely estimate the
fishery too highly. It is always ready, always equal to the object; it
is almost the only sufficient source of security by sea. Our navigation
is certainly a precious interest of the country. But no part of our
navigation can vie with the fishery in respect to the protection it
affords. There is no point which regards our national wealth or national
safety, in respect to which it seems practicable to do so much with so
little.

We rely on the evidence before you, that the public will not sustain the
charge of a dollar. Those ought not to doubt the evidence who cannot
invalidate it. If then the fishermen ask you to restore only their own
money, will you deny them? Will you return to every other person
exporting dutied goods the money he has paid, and will you refuse the
poor fisherman?

If there must be an instance of the kind, will you single out for this
oppressive partiality, that branch which is described by the Secretary
of State as too poor even to bear its own part of the common burden;
that branch which nevertheless has borne the neglect of our nation, and
the persecution of foreign prohibitions and duties; a branch which,
though we have received much and expect more, both of money and
services, urges no claims but such as common justice has sanctioned?

Mr. GERRY having moved to strike out the words "bounty allowed" in order
to insert _allowance made_, by way of accommodation,

Mr. MURRAY observed, that the question was, whether a bounty should be
given for the encouragement of the fishery: the amendment proposed by
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. GERRY) did not alter the
principle--it was still "_the old cocked hat_" on the one hand, and on
the other, "_the cocked old hat_:" the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
FITZSIMONS) had asserted, that Congress have a right to alter the
drawbacks, and allow them in any other mode, by which the citizens may
receive back their own money; but this is not a case of that nature; for
the bill says, "in case the moneys appropriated (_for the payment of the
duties_) shall be inadequate, the deficiency shall be supplied from the
Treasury;" here the Treasury is pledged for the payment of the bounties;
and the question is, not on the principle of changing the drawback, but
the giving encouragement to a particular branch, at the expense of the
community at large.

Mr. BARNWELL observed, that those who are best acquainted with the
fisheries, look on the proposed mode of encouragement as the best; and
that they ought to be allowed to use the gifts of the public in the most
advantageous manner: that, if he were himself concerned in the
cultivation of any particular commodity, for the encouragement of which
a sum were granted, he would be much surprised to meet a refusal, in
case he should come forward and propose some more effectual mode of
applying that grant: that even if the bounties should happen to exceed
the drawbacks, by eight or ten thousand dollars, the number of seamen to
be maintained would be well worth that sum: that whenever the two Houses
of Congress and the President of the United States are of opinion that
the general welfare will be promoted by raising any sum of money, they
have undoubted right to raise it, provided that the taxes be uniform;
that although it may not at present be an object of great consequence to
America to become a maritime power, yet it is of some importance to have
constantly at hand a nursery of seamen, to furnish our merchants with
the means of transporting their commodities across the sea; that,
whatever allowance or bounty is granted upon any particular commodity,
must ever be paid by the whole, for the advantage of a part, whether it
be upon cotton to the Southward, upon fish to the Eastward, or upon
other commodities to the Middle States; that if the people cannot have
so much confidence in their Representatives, as to trust them with the
power of granting bounties, the Government must be a very paltry one
indeed. The object of the bill was only to allow to the fishermen, in
the manner that would be most beneficial to them, the same sum that
would otherwise be allowed. If, however, from time and experience, it
should appear that this bounty proved an imposition on Government, he
would not hesitate to revoke it.

Mr. GERRY.--The State of Massachusetts asks nothing more than equal
justice. We do not come forward to request favors from the United
States, we only wish that the same system which is applied to other
parts of the Union, may be applied to us. But, in examining this
question, we wish that gentlemen would not make distinctions which will
not admit of a difference.

The proposed allowance has been called a bounty on occupation, and is
said to be very different from that encouragement, which is the
incidental result of a general commercial system; but in reality it is
no bounty: a bounty is a grant, made without any consideration whatever,
as an equivalent; and I have no idea of a bounty, which admits of
receiving from the person, on whom it is conferred, the amount of what
is granted. We have imposed a duty on salt, and thereby draw a certain
sum of money from the fishermen; the drawback is, in all instances, the
amount of the money received; this is all we ask; and we ask it for a
set of men who are as well entitled to the regard of Government as any
other class of citizens.

It has been supposed, that the allowance made to the fishermen, will
amount to a greater sum than the drawback on the exportation of the
fish; but I think it has been clearly shown that this will not be the
case: on the contrary, it is presumable, that the drawback on the fish
would on the whole exceed the sum which is proposed to be allowed to the
fishermen; sometimes it might be more, sometimes less. The calculation
is made on general principles; and it is impossible to calculate to a
single cent: the quantity of salt to be expended on the fish, cannot be
minutely ascertained; but this was not heretofore considered as a
sufficient reason why Congress should refuse to allow the drawback; they
allowed it, though in a different shape. It is now proposed to make a
further commutation: gentlemen call this a bounty on occupation; but is
there any proposition made for paying to the fishermen, or other persons
concerned in the fishery, any sums which we have not previously received
from them? If this were the case, it would indeed be a bounty; but if we
beforehand receive from them as much as the allowance amounts to, there
is no bounty granted at all.

If, however, it really was a bounty on occupation, it would after all be
only an indulgence similar to what has been granted to the landed and
agricultural interest. We have laid on hemp a duty of fifty-four cents
per hundredweight; and on beer, ale, and porter, five cents per gallon.
Now, I ask gentlemen, whether the professed design of those duties was
to raise a revenue, or to prevent the importation of those articles?
They were laid for no other purpose, than to prevent foreigners from
importing them, and thereby to encourage our own manufactures; and was
not that encouragement a bounty to the persons concerned in producing
such articles in this country? If the duties had not been laid, the
importer could sell much cheaper than he now can; and the landed
interest would be under a necessity of selling cheaper in proportion. If
those prohibitory duties operate as a bounty in favor of raising hemp,
and of brewing beer, ale, and porter, I ask, whether, if a bounty were
proposed on every quintal of fish, it might not, with the same
propriety, be granted? If we have not a right to grant a bounty in the
one case, we have as little right to grant it in the other.

A calculation has been offered to show that the proposed allowance will
exceed the amount of the present drawbacks, by ten thousand dollars a
year; but that calculation has been proved to be erroneous. Suppose,
however, that this was the fact, what comparison is there between such a
tax on the citizens of the United States, and the tax borne by the
citizens of Massachusetts, for the defence of the Western frontier? A
commercial war is waged against the American fisheries, by foreign
nations, who lay heavy duties on the American fish, and apply the
produce of those duties in bounties to their own fishermen; and their
fisheries being less extensive than ours, the duty thus imposed on our
fish, and bestowed in bounties to their vessels, operate in a twofold
proportion to the discouragement of our fishermen, and the encouragement
of theirs.

I wish to know on what principle gentlemen can expect, that the citizens
of Massachusetts should contribute two hundred thousand dollars, or
perhaps a greater sum, for the protection of the Western frontier
against the Indians, when no contribution is made to support the
commerce of Massachusetts, which, without this support, will be as
effectually ruined, as if their vessels were captured by an enemy. The
principle is carried farther with respect to the protection of the
frontier: we have voted large sums as presents to the savages, to keep
them friends to the frontier settlers; there is, however, no clause in
the constitution that will authorize a measure of this kind: it is true,
indeed, we have a power to regulate trade and commerce with the Indian
tribes; but does that give us a power to render the United States
tributary to the savages? and if we make them such grants every year, do
we not in fact become tributary to them?

The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. GILES) says that although this plan of
encouraging the fisheries may be wise policy in Britain, as being on all
sides surrounded by the sea, yet the United States will not equally find
their account in pursuing the same plan. The State of Virginia is, in
point of exposure from the sea, very differently circumstanced from the
State of Massachusetts: _we_ have a vast extent of country four hundred
and fifty miles of sea-coast, exposed; the citizens of all the towns
along the coast are obliged to pursue marine occupations and I hope the
gentleman does not wish that the country should be depopulated, and the
inhabitants driven off to settle the Western territory.

The State of Virginia is very happily circumstanced with respect to a
marine war: should such an event take place, that State is pretty secure
from depredations; but when we consider how much the inhabitants of
Massachusetts are exposed in a case of that kind, we ought to look
forward, and make some provision for their defence: they have as good a
right to expect that Government will make some arrangements for their
protection, as that they shall be obliged to contribute for the defence
of the Western frontier.

But their commerce, it seems, must not be supported! Taxes however must
be laid; and those taxes applied to encourage the former, and to bribe
the Indians into peace! Is this fair? Is this pursuing a liberal system
of politics? Will this reconcile the minds of our people to the General
Government? If so reasonable a proposition be neglected by the House, it
will convince the citizens of that State, that it is the object of
Government to destroy their commerce, and to make them entirely
dependent on the agricultural interest.

Here Mr. GERRY read a statement, to show the diminution of the revenue
in consequence of the failure of the fisheries; and added,

To support the fisheries, is to support the revenue: by that staple, the
citizens of Massachusetts are enabled to pay the revenue that is
expected from them; and, by an attempt to save ten thousand dollars,
Government will probably sacrifice a hundred thousand; and besides, lose
the confidence of the citizens of that State.

The only question now is, whether this be a direct bounty, or simply a
commutation of the allowance already granted by Congress? If the latter
be the case, I can see no reason why we should refuse our assent to a
proposition, which is only calculated to do justice to the people
concerned, and to give encouragement to a very important branch in the
United States; especially as the proposition will even have a tendency
to increase the revenue.

Mr. WILLIAMSON.--It has been urged with great propriety, in favor of the
bill now submitted to our consideration, that the operation of our laws
should in all cases tend to encourage useful industry; that while we are
giving back the duties on all other foreign goods which are exported,
it would be unjust and cruel to refuse a full drawback of the duties on
salt which may be exported, especially when the circumstances of its
exportation are attended with an increase of riches and strength to the
nation. Impressed as I am with the force of these arguments, and
desirous as I am to protect and encourage the native seamen of America,
by all prudent, practicable, and constitutional means, I shall
nevertheless find it my duty to vote for striking out the first section
of the bill, because it proposes to give a bounty for the encouragement
of the vessels employed in the fisheries.

We have been told that the name is improper; that it is simply a
drawback of the duty upon salt; and gentlemen have produced a very
ingenious calculation, by which they attempt to prove, that in some
years it may happen that the whole duty on the salt will not be repaid;
but they admit that in some years the drawback or bounty will exceed the
duty. It is certainly their opinion--and in this we are perfectly
agreed--that the money to be paid will be more than that received, else
there had been no use for so large an appropriation. We shall not
trouble the committee with calculations on this subject. It is conceded,
that the encouragement to be given, probably will exceed the full
drawback of the duty on salt. In other words, a douceur or a proper
bounty is to be given: let us call it one thousand dollars per annum. Is
it within the powers of this Congress to grant bounties? I think not;
and on this single position I would rest the argument.

In the constitution of this Government there are two or three remarkable
provisions, which seem to be in point. It is provided, that direct taxes
shall be apportioned among the several States according to their
respective numbers. It is also provided, that all duties, imposts, and
excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States; and it is
provided, that no preference shall be given, by any regulation of
commerce or revenue, to the ports of one State over those of another.
The clear and obvious intention of the articles mentioned was, that
Congress might not have the power of imposing unequal burdens; that it
might not be in their power to gratify one part of the Union by
oppressing another. It appeared possible, and not very improbable, that
the time might come, when, by greater cohesion, by more unanimity, by
more address, the Representatives of one part of the Union might attempt
to impose unequal taxes, or to relieve their constituents at the expense
of other people. To prevent the possibility of such a combination, the
articles that I have mentioned were inserted in the constitution.
Suppose a poll-tax should be attempted; suppose it should be enacted
that every poll in the Eastern States shall pay a tax of half a dollar,
and every poll in the Southern States should pay a tax of one dollar. Do
you think we should pay the tax? No certainly. We should plead the
constitution, and tell you that the law was impotent and void.

But we have been told, that Congress may give bounties for useful
purposes; that is to say, they may give bounties for all imaginable
purposes; because the same majority that votes the bounty will not fail
to call the purpose a good one. Establish the doctrine of bounties, and
let us see what may follow. Uniform taxes are laid to raise money, and
that money is distributed--not uniformly; the whole of it may be given
to the people in one end of the Union. Could we say, in such a case,
that the tax had been uniform? I think not. There is certainly a
majority in this House who think that the nation would be stronger and
more independent, if all our labor was performed by free men. This
object might be promoted by a bounty. Let a poll-tax be laid, according
to the constitution, of one dollar per poll: in this case, sixty cents
must be paid for each slave; and the number of slaves being 680,186,
their tax would amount to $334,911. To encourage the labor of citizens,
let Congress then give an annual bounty of one dollar to every free man
who is a mechanic, or who labors in the field. We might be told that the
bounty was small, and the object was good; but the measure would be most
oppressive, for it would be a clear tax of rather more than three
hundred thousand dollars on the Southern States.

Perhaps the case I have put is too strong--Congress can never do a thing
that is so palpably unjust--but this, sir, is the very mark at which the
theory of bounties seems to point. The certain operation of that measure
is the oppression of the Southern States, by superior numbers in the
Northern interest. This was to be feared at the formation of this
Government, and you find many articles in the constitution, besides
those I have quoted, which were certainly intended to guard us against
the dangerous bias of interest, and the power of numbers. Wherefore was
it provided that no duty should be laid on exports? Was it not to defend
the great staples of the Southern States--tobacco, rice, and
indigo--from the operation of unequal regulations of commerce, or
unequal indirect taxes, as another article had defended us from unequal
direct taxes?

I do not hazard much in saying, that the present constitution had never
been adopted without those preliminary guards in it. Establish the
general doctrine of bounties, and all the provisions I have mentioned
become useless. They vanish into air, and like the baseless fabric of a
vision, leave not a trace behind. The common defence and general
welfare, in the hands of a good politician, may supersede every part of
our constitution, and leave us in the hands of time and chance.
Manufactures, in general, are useful to the nation; they promote the
public good and general welfare. How many of them are springing up in
the Northern States? Let them be properly supported by bounties, and you
will find no occasion for unequal taxes. The tax may be equal in the
beginning--it will be sufficiently unequal in the end.

We are told, that a nursery of seamen may be of great use to the nation,
and the bounty proposed is a very small one. These, sir, are the reasons
why I have marked this as a dangerous bill; the most dangerous
innovations are made under these circumstances. To begin with a great
bounty would be imprudent, and to give a small bounty for a doubtful
purpose, might deserve a worse epithet. Half a million of dollars per
annum would have been too much for a beginning, and perhaps a bounty on
the use of sleighs, though they are convenient for travelling in winter;
or a bounty on stone fences, though they are durable, would not at this
time be prudent. The object of the bounty, and the amount of it, are
equally to be disregarded in the present case; we are simply to consider
whether bounties may safely be given under the present constitution. For
myself, I would rather begin with a bounty of one million per annum than
one thousand. I wish that my constituents may know whether they are to
put any confidence in that paper called the constitution.

You will suffer me to say, that the Southern States have much to fear
from the progress of this Government, unless your strength is governed
by prudence. The operation of the funding system has translated at least
two millions of dollars from the Southern States, that is to say, from
Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia, to the Northern States. The
interest of that sum, when it shall be six per cent., will be $120,000;
but the quota of those States is at least one-third of the whole; whence
it follows, that they must pay forty thousand dollars every year, in the
form of interest to the Northern States. This, it seems, is not
sufficient, and other measures are to be adopted for draining the
Southern States. Bounties to promote the general welfare are already
brought forward. We shall not hear of a bounty for raising rice, or
preparing naval stores. If that was the question, the general welfare
would not have such prominent features. Unless the Southern States are
protected by the constitution, their valuable staples, and their
visionary wealth, must occasion their destruction. Three short years has
this Government existed--it is not three years--but we have already
given serious alarms to many of our fellow-citizens. Establish the
doctrine of bounties, set aside that part of the constitution which
requires equal taxes and demands similar distributions, destroy this
barrier, and it is not a few fishermen that will enter, claiming ten or
twelve thousand dollars, but all manner of persons--people of every
trade and occupation--may enter at the breach, until they have eaten up
the bread of our children.

Perhaps I have viewed this project in too serious a light; but if I am
particularly solicitous on the subject of finance, that we do not even
seem to depart from the spirit of the constitution, it is because I wish
that the Union may be perpetual. The several States are now pretty well
relieved from their debts, and our fellow-citizens in the Southern
States have very little interest in the national funds; press them a
little with unequal taxes, and the remedy is plain.

While I would shun bounties, as leading to dangerous measures, I am not
inattentive to every argument that has been advanced by the honorable
member who first rose in defence of the bill. That gentleman tells us,
that more than a bushel of salt is used in curing a quintal of fish. If
this fact be established, the former act should be amended, by giving a
greater drawback. He says the drawback, as it is now paid to the
merchant, does not operate so as to encourage the seamen, who have most
need of such assistance. This is very probable, and the parties may be
relieved by dividing the drawback in the very manner that is proposed by
the bill. If it is true that the proposed bounties will not exceed the
average of the drawback that should be paid on salt, why do they contend
about names, unless they are solicitous about the precedent? If our
object is to encourage industry, and to increase our commerce, by
sending fish to a foreign market, we must adhere to the drawback; for,
according to the terms of the bill, the bounty is to be paid, though
every fish that is caught should be consumed in the country; in which
case we should be paying a visionary drawback, when nothing was
exported. According to the terms of the bill, there is no proportion
between the labor and the reward, so far as the bank fishery is
concerned; the bounty in all cases being the same.

Having exercised your patience in objecting to this new system of
bounties, and having hinted on some objections to the general operations
of the bill, so far as industry and enterprise may be desired, I shall,
in a few words, submit the outline of a plan that seems to comprehend
all the useful parts of the bill, without any speculation upon bounties.

If the drawback on dried fish exported, is not equal to the duty on the
salt used in curing such fish, let the drawback be increased to eleven
cents or twelve cents, as the case may be. Let us suppose that the
drawback for the next year will be equal to the drawback on the last
year; and let that sum of money, being the expected drawback, be divided
between the seamen and owners, according to the terms of the bill. The
accounts must be made up annually. If the drawback exceeds the allowance
that had been made, the difference will be considered as advanced to the
fishery, and the allowance for the next year must be somewhat reduced,
according to the actual amount of the drawback. If the fishermen are
more fortunate or more active, and the exports are increased, the
allowance for the next year must be raised. The rule being fixed by law,
all that remains, being pure calculation, may be done from year to year
by the Executive. Every important object of this bill, that has been
presented to our view, may be obtained by safe and constitutional steps.
Why should a man take a dangerous and a doubtful path, when a safe one
presents itself? If nothing more is desired than to regulate and protect
the fishery, the bill may be altered and accommodated to that purpose.
If the theory of bounties is to be established, by which the Southern
States must suffer while others gain, the bill informs us what we are to
expect.

The committee now rose, without taking any question.


MONDAY, February 6.

A member from Maryland, to wit, JOHN FRANCIS MERCER, returned to serve
in the room of WILLIAM PINKNEY, resigned, appeared, and took his seat in
the House.

A petition of the tanners of the town of Newark, in the State of New
Jersey, was presented to the House and read, stating the inconveniences
they suffer from the erection of mills for the purpose of grinding
tanners' bark for exportation, and praying that Congress will adopt such
measures for their relief as may appear just and right. Ordered to lie
on the table.

_The Cod Fisheries._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act for the encouragement of
the Bank and other Cod Fisheries, and for the regulation and government
of the fishermen employed therein."

Mr. GOODHUE.--The gentleman last up (Mr. WILLIAMSON) says, that an
appropriation of money being made by the bill now before us, and the
Treasury standing pledged for the payment, therefore a direct bounty is
granted. At present, we pay in drawbacks about $45,000; but we cannot
say that this sum will be adequate to the payment of the drawbacks next
year; for, if a greater quantity of fish be taken, a greater sum, of
course, must be allowed; and, as the sum depends entirely on the
quantity of fish, it is impossible to ascertain beforehand the precise
amount. There is not, however, in the whole bill, any thing of a bounty
except the bare name. The gentleman allows that we may commute the
present drawbacks, and give them to the fisherman instead of the
merchant; but it is impossible to do this with safety in any other mode
than that pointed out in the bill. Shall we leave it to the fisherman,
to be determined by his oath? This would not be advisable.

The plan proposed is a much less exceptionable one. It is founded on a
calculation that a certain quantity of tonnage is employed in taking a
certain quantity of fish. On this calculation the allowance is
apportioned to the tonnage. If gentlemen think the allowance too high,
let the sum be reduced; but let it not be stigmatized as a bounty. It is
no such thing. The word "bounty" is an unfortunate expression, and I
wish it were entirely out of the bill.

Mr. LIVERMORE.--The bill now under consideration has two important
objects in view. The one is, to give encouragement to our fishermen,
and, by that encouragement, to increase their numbers; the other is to
govern those fishermen by certain laws, by which they will be kept under
due restraint. Both these objects are of great importance to such
persons as choose to employ their capitals in the fishery business. And
I believe it will not be disputed that the business itself is of
considerable importance to the United States, insomuch as it affords a
certain proportion of remittance or exportation to foreign countries,
and does not impoverish the country, but enriches it by the addition of
so much wealth drawn from the sea.

It is the object of those gentlemen who favor the bill that the
fishermen should have some encouragement, not given to them at the
expense of the United States, but directed to them out of what was in
the former law called a drawback of the duty on salt. The calculation,
as I understand it, has been made as nearly as possible to give that
drawback, not to the merchants who export the fish, but to the fishermen
who take it, in order to increase that description of men, without whose
assistance it is vain to expect any benefit from the fisheries; for, if
the merchants at present engaged in that branch possessed the whole
capital of the United States, yet, if they cannot get fishermen, they
cannot carry on the fishery. This is done by a particular class of men,
who must be not only expert seamen, but also accustomed to taking the
fish and curing it. If these men cannot be had, the capital cannot be
employed, and those who undertake the business cannot carry it on, or
reap any profit from it.

Whilst the drawback is payable only to the merchant who exports the
fish, it is impossible to convince the fishermen that they reap from it
any advantage whatever; or, if the more discerning among them do
perceive any advantage in it, the others who are not so clear-sighted
cannot discern it, and are therefore not disposed to undertake the
business. It is, however, of considerable importance to the merchants
that the fisherman should receive a proper encouragement, even if they
were obliged to allow him a bounty out of their own pocket.

The government of the fishermen, after their engagement in this
business, is also necessary to be provided for; otherwise, frequent
instances may occur among that class of men of quitting one vessel to
embark on board another, or of shipping themselves for a foreign voyage,
before the expiration of the fishing season. In the latter case, the
vessel lies useless on the owner's hands, and he, together with the
whole expense of the outfit, loses all his prospects of future gain.

The two objects here mentioned are fully provided for in the bill.
Still, however, it is objected to. But what is the objection? It is,
that the word "_bounty_" is twice used in this clause. Let us now see
what advantage will result from striking out this obnoxious "_bounty_."
None at all. The bill says it shall cease; and have gentlemen any
objection to the bounty's ceasing? Since the bounty is to cease by this
bill, what advantage in striking it out? The sense would still remain
the same; and I do not know why we should make a law expressly to strike
out the word "bounty," but to strike out the bounty itself.

It is strange to me that any gentleman, whether he is for giving a great
bounty or no bounty at all, should quarrel with this unfortunate word.
There is, indeed, one part of the section which I will readily consent
to strike out, and I believe every other gentleman who is in favor of
the bill will consent to it likewise; and that is the clause which
provides that the bounty to be allowed and paid on every vessel for one
season, shall not exceed one hundred and seventy dollars. If, when the
vote is taken on the section, there does not appear a majority of the
House in favor of striking out the whole, we may then move for striking
out the _proviso_, if it be offensive to any gentleman. If it be not
offensive, it may remain.

If gentlemen are disputing only because the word "_bounty_" is in the
bill, they may be perfectly relieved from their uneasiness on that
score; for the bill expressly says, "that the bounty now allowed upon
the exportation of dried fish of the fisheries of the United States
shall cease, and in lieu thereof," a different kind of encouragement is
to be given. Here is no reason to dispute about a word. If gentlemen are
disposed to consent to the principle of the bill, that the drawback of
the duties on salt shall be commuted for a certain sum, to encourage the
fishermen, they will vote in favor of the bill; if not, they will vote
against it. But it is impossible for me to conceive why any gentleman
under heaven should be against it. It is only fixing, for the merchants
engaged in this branch, a clear and equitable ratio for distributing
among the fishermen that encouragement which they think necessary in
order to attach those people to the business, and to prevent them from
going to other occupations on land. The bill is an important one, and
will increase that branch of business, which is very useful to the
community. It does not lay a farthing of bounty or duty on any other
persons than those who are immediately concerned in it. It will serve
them, and will not injure any body.

Mr. LAURANCE said, from examining the section, he conceived it
contemplated no more than what the merchant is entitled to by existing
laws. The merchant is now entitled to the drawback; but it is found by
experience that the effect has not been to produce that encouragement to
the fishermen which was expected; and he presumed the way was perfectly
clear to give a new direction to the drawback, and this is all that is
aimed at in the bill. He supposed that the clause had no necessary
connection with the question which had been started respecting the right
of the Government to grant bounties; but, since the question has been
brought forward, it may be proper to consider it. In discussing the
question, he inquired, What has Congress already done? Have we not laid
extra duties on various articles, expressly for the purpose of
encouraging various branches of our own manufactures? These duties are
_bounties_ to all intents and purposes, and are founded on the idea only
of their conducing to the _general interest_. Similar objections to
those now advanced were not made to these duties. They were advocated,
some of them, by gentlemen from the Southward. He traced the effects of
these duties, and showed that they operated fully as indirect bounties.

Mr. L. then adverted particularly to the constitution, and observed that
it contains _general_ principles and powers only. These powers depend on
_particular_ laws for their operation; and on this idea, he contended
that the powers of the Government must, in various circumstances, extend
to the granting bounties. He instanced, in case of a war with a foreign
power, will any gentleman say that the General Government has not a
power to grant a bounty on arms, ammunition, &c., should the general
welfare require it? The general welfare is inseparably connected with
any object or pursuit which in its effects adds to the riches of the
country. He conceived that the argument was given up by gentlemen in
opposition to the bill, when they admit of encouragement to the
fishermen in any possible modification of it. He then adverted
particularly to the fisheries, stated the number of men employed, the
tons of shipping necessary to export the fish taken, and inferred the
sound policy of encouraging so important a branch of business.

Gentlemen say that we do not want a navy. Grant it; but can they say
that we shall never have a war with any European power? May not the time
arrive when the protection to the commerce of this country, derived from
this source, may be of the utmost necessity to its existence? Adverting
to Mr. WILLIAMSON's objection from the unequal operation of bounties,
and who had referred to the article of the constitution which says that
taxes shall be equal in all the States, Mr. L. observed, that this
article in the constitution could only respect the _rates_ of the
duties, and that the _same_ duties should be paid in Virginia that are
paid in New York--at the Northward as at the Southward. It surely could
not mean that every individual should pay exactly the same sum in every
part of the Union. This was a provision that no law could possible
contemplate.

He concluded by a summary recapitulation of his arguments, and saying he
hoped the section would be retained.

Mr. MADISON.--In the conflict I feel between my disposition on one hand
to afford every constitutional encouragement to the fisheries, and my
dislike, on the other, of the consequences apprehended from some clauses
of the bill, I should have forborne to enter into this discussion, if I
had not found, that over and above such arguments as appear to be
natural and pertinent to the subject, others have been introduced which
are, in my judgment, contrary to the true meaning, and even strike at
the characteristic principles of the existing constitution. Let me
premise, however, to the remarks which I shall briefly offer, on the
doctrine maintained by these gentlemen, that I make a material
distinction, in the present case, between an allowance as a mere
commutation and modification of a drawback, and an allowance in the
nature of a real and positive bounty. I make a distinction also, as a
subject of fair consideration at least, between a bounty granted under
the particular terms in the constitution, "a power to regulate trade,"
and one granted under the indefinite terms which have been cited as
authority on this occasion. I think, however, that the term "bounty," is
in every point of view improper as it is here applied, not only because
it may be offensive to some, and in the opinion of others carries a
dangerous implication, but also because it does not express the true
intention of the bill, as avowed and advocated by its patrons
themselves. For if, in the allowance, nothing more is proposed than a
mere reimbursement of the sum advanced, it is only paying a debt; and
when we pay a debt, we ought not to claim the merit of granting a
bounty.

It is supposed by some gentlemen, that Congress have authority not only
to grant bounties in the sense here used, merely as a commutation for
drawbacks, but even to grant them under a power by virtue of which they
may do any thing which they may think conducive to the "general
welfare." This, sir, in my mind, raises the important and fundamental
question, whether the general terms which had been cited, are to be
considered as a sort of caption or general description of the specified
powers, and as having no further meaning, and giving no further power
than what is found in that specification; or as an abstract and
indefinite delegation of power extending to all cases whatever; to all
such, at least, as will admit the application of money, which is giving
as much latitude as any government could well desire.

I, sir, have always conceived--I believe those who proposed the
constitution conceived, and it is still more fully known, and more
material to observe that those who ratified the constitution
conceived--that this is not an indefinite Government, deriving its
powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers, but a
limited Government, tied down to the specified powers which explain and
define the general terms. The gentlemen who contend for a contrary
doctrine are surely not aware of the consequences which flow from it,
and which they must either admit or give up their doctrine.

It will follow, in the first place, that if the terms be taken in the
broad sense they maintain, the particular powers afterwards so carefully
and distinctly enumerated would be without any meaning, and must go for
nothing. It would be absurd to say, first, that Congress may do what
they please, and then that they may do this or that particular thing;
after giving Congress power to raise money, and apply it to all purposes
which they may pronounce necessary to the general welfare, it would be
absurd, to say the least, to superadd a power to raise armies, to
provide fleets, &c. In fact, the meaning of the general terms in
question must either be sought in the subsequent enumeration which
limits and details them, or they convert the Government from one
limited, as hitherto supposed, to the enumerated powers, into a
Government without any limits at all.

It is to be recollected, that the terms "common defence and general
welfare," as here used, are not novel terms, first introduced into this
constitution. They are terms familiar in their construction, and well
known to the people of America. They are repeatedly found in the old
Articles of Confederation, where, although they are susceptible of as
great latitude as can be given them by the context here, it was never
supposed or pretended that they conveyed any such power as is now
assigned to them. On the contrary, it was always considered as clear and
certain, that the old Congress was limited to the enumerated powers, and
that the enumeration limited and explained the general terms. I ask the
gentlemen themselves, whether it ever was supposed or suspected that the
old Congress could give away the moneys of the States in bounties, to
encourage agriculture, or for any other purpose they pleased? If such a
power had been possessed by that body, it would have been much less
impotent, or have borne a very different character from that universally
ascribed to it.

The novel idea now annexed to these terms, and never before entertained
by the friends or enemies of the Government, will have a further
consequence, which cannot have been taken into the view of the
gentlemen. Their construction would not only give Congress the complete
Legislative power I have stated--it would do more--it would supersede
all the restrictions understood at present to lie on their power with
respect to the Judiciary. It would put it in the power of Congress to
establish courts throughout the United States, with cognizance of suits
between citizen and citizen, and in all cases whatsoever. This, sir,
seems to be demonstrable; for if the clause in question really
authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for
the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be
applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a
Judiciary Establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases
favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner
as they have power to pass laws and apply money, providing in any other
way for the general welfare. I shall be reminded, perhaps, that
according to the terms of the constitution, the Judicial Power is to
extend to certain cases only, not to all cases. But this circumstance
can have no effect in the argument, it being presupposed by the
gentlemen that the specification of certain objects does not limit the
import of general terms. Taking these terms as an abstract and
indefinite grant of power, they comprise all the objects of Legislative
regulation, as well such as fall under the Judiciary article in the
constitution, as those falling immediately under the Legislative
article; and if the partial enumeration of objects in the Legislative
article does not, as these gentlemen contend, limit the general power,
neither will it be limited by the partial enumeration of objects in the
Judiciary article.

There are consequences, sir, still more extensive, which, as they follow
clearly from the doctrine combated, must either be admitted, or the
doctrine must be given up. If Congress can apply money indefinitely to
the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general
welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they
may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them
out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the
education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout
the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads, other than
post roads. In short, every thing, from the highest object of State
legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown
under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would
admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress
pleased, provisions for the general welfare.

The language held in various discussions of this House, is a proof that
the doctrine in question was never entertained by this body. Arguments,
wherever the subject would permit, have constantly been drawn from the
peculiar nature of this Government, as limited to certain enumerated
powers, instead of extending, like other Governments, to all cases not
particularly excepted. In a very late instance--I mean the debate on the
Representation bill--it must be remembered, that an argument much urged,
particularly by a gentleman from Massachusetts, against the ratio of one
for thirty thousand, was, that this Government was unlike the State
Governments, which had an indefinite variety of objects within their
power; that it had a small number of objects only to attend to, and
therefore that a smaller number of Representatives would be sufficient
to administer it.

Several arguments have been advanced to show, that because, in the
regulation of trade, indirect and eventual encouragement is given to
manufactures, therefore Congress have power to give money in direct
bounties, or to grant it in any other way that would answer the same
purpose. But surely, sir, there is a great and obvious difference, which
it cannot be necessary to enlarge upon. A duty laid on imported
implements of husbandry, would, in its operation, be an indirect tax on
exported produce; but will any one say, that by virtue of a mere power
to lay duties on imports, Congress might go directly to the produce or
implements of agriculture, or to the articles exported? It is true,
duties on exports are expressly prohibited; but if there were no article
forbidding them, a power directly to tax exports could never be deduced
from a power to tax imports, although such a power might directly and
incidentally affect exports.

In short, sir, without going further into the subject, which I should
not have here touched on at all but for the reasons already mentioned, I
venture to declare it as my opinion, that were the power of Congress to
be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very
foundation, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government
established by the people of America; and what inferences might be
drawn, or what consequences ensue from such a step, it is incumbent on
us all well to consider.

With respect to the question before the House, for striking out the
clause, it is immaterial whether it be struck out, or so amended as to
rest on the avowed principle of a commutation for the drawback; but as a
clause has been drawn up by my colleague, in order to be substituted, I
shall concur in a vote for striking out, reserving to myself a freedom
to be governed in my final vote by the modification which may prevail.

Mr. BOURNE, of Massachusetts--

Mr. Chairman: I think little can be added after so full a discussion of
the subject before you. The object of the first section in this bill is
intended for the relief of the fishermen and their owners. They complain
that the law now in force was meant for their benefit, by granting a
drawback on the fish exported; this they find by experience is not the
case, for they say, that neither the fishermen who catch the fish, nor
the importer of the salt, receive the drawback; and I rather suppose,
sir, it is the case. The owners of the greater part of the fishing
vessels are not merchants, neither do they import the salt they consume;
but when the fish they take are cured for market, they are sold at the
market price; and it frequently happens that those persons who purchase
the fish are not the exporters of them, or the importers of the salt,
but a third person, who purchases with a prospect of selling them at a
profit, is the exporter; and when it so happens, neither the fisherman
who catches the fish, nor the importer of the salt, receives any benefit
from the drawback, unless the purchaser (the third person) give a
greater price in contemplation of the drawback, which I think is not to
be supposed.

Is it worthy the attention of Government that the cod fishery should be
preserved? It appears to me that it is. When we consider the labor and
assiduity bestowed on this object by our Ministers, at the settlement of
peace between us and Great Britain, and the care then taken to secure
this privilege, as appears by the treaty--[here Mr. B. read that part of
the treaty which secures to us the fishery, he then proceeded]--and
consider the struggle made to deprive us of this inestimable branch of
commerce, I cannot suppose that any one would, at this day, voluntarily
relinquish it, and suffer Great Britain to monopolize this branch, and
supply the Mediterranean, French, and other markets. Great Britain, at
present, enjoys a sufficient portion of this commerce, while France is
confined to the narrow limits of St. Peters and Miquelon. If we
relinquish this branch of the cod fishery, what is left us? Our whale
fishery is nearly at an end, and unless Government speedily interpose,
by granting relief, we shall totally lose it. Does not the British
Government wish to deprive us of this branch also? Have not letters of
agents been sent to the island of Nantucket, as well as New Bedford,
where this branch of business is principally prosecuted, inviting the
whale fishermen to remove, and offering them permanent settlements at
Milford-Haven, at the expense of their Government? This must be viewed
as a great encouragement, in addition to their bounties on oil, to a
class of poor men employed in that business. If the cod fishery is
relinquished, the fishermen have only to remove to the opposite shore of
Nova Scotia, where they will find encouragement fully adequate to their
services--of all which they are not unapprised. By encouraging this
class of men, your revenue will be increased; for in return for the fish
exported, you will receive sugar, coffee, cocoa, indigo, molasses,
pimento, cotton, dye-woods, rum, wine, salt, fruit, and other articles
subject to duty, and consumed in the country. And again, your Treasury
will receive an excess by the provision in this bill; for I presume the
greater proportion of vessels employed in this business are from twenty
to forty tons; the town of Marblehead, perhaps, has principally large
ones. Suppose, then, a vessel of thirty tons obtains, in a season, six
hundred quintals of fish? (a very moderate voyage indeed,) her tonnage
is seventy-five dollars; the drawback on exportation would be
seventy-eight dollars; so that your Treasury retains three dollars gain
by this bill, which would be a loss on the drawback.

Mr. Chairman, I think, upon the whole, that granting the encouragement
to the fishermen and their owners, held out in the bill, would prove
very beneficial to the United States; I hope, therefore, the section
before you will not be struck out.

At this point, the committee rose, and had leave to sit again.


TUESDAY, February 7.

_Ordered_, That the petitions of the tanners of the town of Newark, in
the State of New Jersey, which was presented yesterday, be referred to
Mr. BOUDINOT, Mr. WHITE, Mr. THATCHER, Mr. BOURNE, of Rhode Island, and
Mr. NILES; that they do examine the matter thereof, and report the same,
with their opinion thereupon, to the House.

Mr. BENSON, from the committee appointed, presented a bill for an
apportionment of Representatives among the several States, according to
the first enumeration, and making provision for another enumeration, and
apportionment of Representatives thereon, to compose the House of
Representatives after the third day of March, 1797; which was received
and read the first time.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the
Treasury, accompanying his report stating the amount of the
subscriptions to the loans proposed by the act making provision for the
public debt, as well in the debts of the respective States as in the
domestic debt of the United States, and of the parts which remain
unsubscribed, together with such measures as are, in his opinion,
expedient to be taken on the subject, pursuant to an order of this House
of the 1st of November last; which were read, and ordered to be
committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.


_The Fishery Bill_

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act for the encouragement of
the Bank and other Cod Fisheries, and for the regulation and government
of the fishermen employed therein."

Mr. PAGE said no man in this House was more heartily disposed to
encourage the fisheries of the United States than he was; nor could any
one more sincerely wish to encourage the bold, active, and enterprising
adventurers in that branch of our commerce to persevere in it, than he
did; being sensible of the importance of their traffic in peace, and of
their defence of their country and annoyance of their enemies in war.
But, sir, (said Mr. P.,) I much doubt whether Congress can give that
encouragement to the fisheries to which they are entitled, and which
policy would lead the General Government to give, were it not restricted
by the constitution. I consider, sir, the constitution as intended to
remedy the defects of the Confederation to a certain degree; so far only
as would secure the independence and general welfare of the Confederated
States, without endangering the sovereignty and independence of the
individual States. Congress, therefore, was authorized to pay the debts
of the Union, and to regulate commerce, partly for that purpose, and
partly to prevent improper and dangerous commercial combinations,
jealousies, and altercations between the States. But Congress was not
intrusted with any regulation of exports which could admit of an
interposition which might be dictated by partiality; nor was Congress
permitted to lay any tax which could by any possibility operate
unequally on the States in general. It is said, indeed, that, if a
drawback be not allowed on the salt used in salting fish, there will be,
in fact, a duty on the exportation of the fish. But to this I think it
may be replied, that the constitution guards the exports of each State
against the possibility of a _partial_ restriction by Congress, or even
by the States themselves; that Congress cannot lay a duty on the
exportation of rice, indigo, tobacco, &c., or any other article exported
from any State, because this might be done to the injury of the State
where such duty would operate, and to the advantage and aggrandizement
of some particular States, its competitors more favored by the General
Government, or possessing more influence in the debates of Congress; and
that the States are also individually restrained from laying such duties
without the consent of Congress, to prevent acts which might produce
jealousies, commercial combinations, and, perhaps, at length, civil
dissensions. That this restriction, if it be intended to prevent
partiality, therefore, cannot extend to authorize drawbacks, which may
be productive of partial preferences and their consequent jealousies;
that if drawbacks be granted at all, they ought to be universally
extended to every article which is or can be exported from any of the
States, having in its composition a dutiable ingredient; that hence,
ships and other vessels, &c., should have drawbacks on the sails,
cordage, iron, &c.; but it may also be said that, as to the duty on
salt, that is amply repaid to the merchant by the price annexed to his
fish; the sums laid out in salt and fish together form a capital on
which he takes care to have a sufficient profit. Those merchants
employed in this traffic, if allowed a drawback, would have a preference
to other merchants, who import largely, pay heavy duties, and have no
other advantage than the usual advance on their goods. The exporter of
any article, with a drawback, must have an advantage over his
fellow-citizens, who purchase through necessity many dutiable articles,
and are obliged to consume them, without any other benefit than the use
of them. I mention this because it has been said (by Mr. AMES) that,
having made the men of Marblehead pay for salt, they have a right to
demand the money expended in that salt on the exportation of their fish;
for it would be as reasonable for the man who had ate his fish on which
his salt was expended, or who had used any other article for which he
had paid a duty, to claim of Congress a return of his money expended
therein, as the exporter of fish. The only difference is, that, if both
were paid the exact sum so expended by them, the exporter of fish would
get twice paid. The purchaser or consumer of his fish would pay him for
his salt therein, as if it were substantial fish, and the State for it
as mere salt. Here, then, is a field for partiality, discontent, and
complaints, which the constitution wisely guards against. It cannot,
therefore, be to any purpose to tell us that a bounty, or allowance, as
it is now called, is preferable to a drawback, as there is not so great
room for fraud in the one as in the other; nor can it be of importance
to show that the fishermen have not the profits to which they are
entitled. That their services in the last war deserve rewards, &c.,
their country shared with them the glory of their gallant behavior; but
they alone received the rewards they aimed at. The twelve hundred ships
they took were a compensation for services and a reward for those
exploits. It is true, they annoyed the enemy; it is certain their prizes
sometimes fed, armed, and clothed our armies; but it is not said that
they did not receive payment for furnishing those things.

But here we are asked, Is it not of great consequence to the United
States to employ those bold, skilful seamen in our service, that we may
enjoy the commercial advantage they give us in peace, and their powerful
assistance in war? To this I reply, that it ought first to be proved
that Congress has the power and authority to give them the encouragement
demanded; and even if Congress have that power, it ought to be shown
that it can be extended to the benefit of the sailors of some of the
States, and not to those of every State. It may be said that Congress
may with as much propriety give bounties to our hunters in the Western
country, to raise up a nursery of soldiers as a barrier against the
Indians, and to promote the fur trade, as to give drawbacks and bounties
to the fishermen of the Eastern States, with a view to encourage
fisheries, and to raise a nursery of seamen for their defence against
enemies who may invade our Eastern frontiers. Indeed, if defence be the
object in view, we might as well give bounties to sturdy landsmen to be
in readiness and constant training for war.

Indeed, sir, I confess I am not altogether convinced, that, if Congress
have this power, it ought to be thus exerted; because it is not clear to
me that those fishermen would not be more profitable to the United
States, if they were cultivating the lands which now lie waste, and
raising families, which would be of ten times more value than their
fisheries. A nursery of virtuous families, which will produce soldiers,
sailors, husbandmen, and statesmen, must be preferable to a mere nursery
of sailors, who generally live single, and often perish at sea. I always
look upon the loss of a crew to an infant Republic as the loss almost of
a new State.

I speak of this question, however, as a citizen of the United States, as
a member of this House. Were I to discuss it as a citizen of
Massachusetts, and in their Legislature, I should say, as the State is
nearly filled with inhabitants, and our fishermen increase our commerce
in peace, protect us in war, and, indeed, even enrich us by their
prizes, it is our interest to encourage them to the utmost, and to
prevent their going into the service of other countries. I might,
therefore, as a member of the Legislature of that State, do all in my
power to procure bounties for them, and indeed for all the sailors
belonging to that State; but I should not think of applying to Congress
for their assistance; not only because I doubt their right to afford it,
but because I should look upon it as in some degree derogatory to the
sovereignty and independence of the State. I should look upon such an
interference of Congress as a step towards swallowing up the powers of
the State Governments, and as consolidating the different States into
one Government, which the wise and virtuous in every State always
protested against as dangerous to their liberties; the fear of which
consolidation prevented many good men from voting for the adoption of
the new Government.

The framers of the constitution guarded so much against a possibility of
such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to
grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the
granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing
could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interests of the
individual States than the encouragement which might be given to
ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and
sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to
the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if
judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor,
magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise
framers of our constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of
exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes,
Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence;
might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the
views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one
State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a
powerful State, it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of
less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not
sufficient to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have
said, that Congress is incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that
they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell
them the constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and
to restrain abuses of mistaken powers. The constitution has been said by
some one to be, like answers of the oracles of old, capable of various
and opposite constructions; that it has been ingeniously contrived, like
some of them, to suit two events--a republican or a monarchical issue. I
will not pretend to say that this is not, in some instances, too just an
observation; nor will I undertake to deny that it was not the intention
of some of the Convention that such ambiguities might be in their
constitution, to correspond with the critical and ambiguous state of the
American mind respecting government; but I will boldly affirm, that,
whatever the theories of that day might lead some to think respecting
the application of monarchical principles to the Government of the
United States, no one can, at this day, pretend that they are applicable
to their circumstances, their dispositions, or interests, or even are
agreeable to the wishes of the people. Even before the adoption of the
constitution, when the rights of men had not been so thoroughly
investigated as they since have been, it must be remembered that whole
States, and large and respectable minorities in other States complained
of and objected to the aristocratical and monarchical features of the
new Government. In vain did the friends of the new Government--friends
of order, of union, or of liberty--contend that the powers granted by
the constitution which appeared so alarming were such as would never be
exerted but when all good men would acknowledge the necessity of
exercising them, and that, indeed, they would be explained or restrained
by some future amendments. The sagacious and eloquent HENRY shook his
head at such promises, sighed and submitted to the will of the
majority--a small one indeed--but foretold, from his knowledge of the
human heart, what would be done and said in justification of every
measure which might extend the power of Congress.

Is it politic and wise, then, Mr. Chairman, to exert the power contended
for, even if it be authorized by the constitution? May not the
interferences of Congress in the business of regulating the trade of the
Eastern States, excite, if not envy on account of a supposed partiality,
a jealousy lest Congress undertake to intermeddle in the commercial
regulations of other States? May not Congress with equal propriety,
undertake to regulate the tobacco, the rice, and indigo trade, as well
as that of the fisheries? If they intermeddle in the business of
sailors, why not in that of manufacturers and farmers? Where, I may ask
with my colleague, may they not go on in their zeal, and, I may add, in
their laudable pursuit, of promoting the general welfare--and how
totally may they be mistaken? If jealousy of rival States, instead of
mutual satisfaction and pleasure--if distrust and suspicion of Congress,
instead of confidence in their measures, be the consequence--how will
the Union be promoted, or the General Government secured? However
virtuously disposed the present members may be, (and I am ready to
applaud their honest intentions,) let them consider, sir, that they had
better suppress their patriotic emotions, than give a pretext for their
successors to abuse the powers which they now wish to exert for the
public good. I know they will quote the opinion of as wise and virtuous
a citizen as is in the United States. I know his patriotism, and know
well his true Republican principles; but, sir, with the freedom of a
fellow-citizen, I take the liberty of saying, that his honest zeal, like
that of the friends of the bill, has led him into a mistake.[43] That
able statesman and virtuous citizen, like the eloquent advocates of the
bill, has considered the acts now quoted as a full sanction for the one
before the committee. But I am of opinion, that those acts had better be
repealed than give a sanction to the enacting of a law which goes to the
establishing of bounties, or drawbacks, or by whatever other name they
are called, which may be used to the partial encouragement of any branch
of trade or employment whatsoever. I shall therefore vote against the
bill before us, and, to get rid of it shall vote for striking out of it
the first section, according to the motion now before the committee. As
a member of this House, I shall think it my duty to protect the
fisheries, and every other branch of our commerce, the fisherman as well
as every other citizen, as far as may be within my ability; but I am not
permitted, as a member of Congress, I humbly conceive, to select the
fisheries and fishermen as objects of more consequence than any other
branches of trade, or persons employed in them, lest Congress should not
only show a mistaken attachment, or, even if judiciously placed, excite
jealousies and discontents between the States, and distrust, destructive
of their weight and influence. My constant wish has been to see Congress
confined to such acts as would form a more perfect union, promote the
general welfare, ensure domestic tranquillity, and engage the confidence
of our fellow-citizens.

My wish is, that the members of Congress would leave their respective
States in the full enjoyment of every right and privilege they held
before their adoption of the new constitution, which can be exercised
without prejudice to the General Government. Let the Legislatures of the
different States encourage, as far as in their power, the commerce,
agriculture, or manufactures of their respective States? and let
Congress, as far as can be consistent with the most steady impartiality,
patronize their patriotic exertions, by wise regulations of their
commerce with foreign nations, such as may open as full an intercourse
with those nations as the States may desire. The emulation of the sister
States in commerce, manufactures, or agriculture, would lead to the
early establishment of that branch of either to which each State might
be best adapted. This rivalship could produce no jealousy, no general
national discontent in the States, no localities in Congress. Virginia
would not attempt to rival Massachusetts in her fisheries or carrying
business, nor will South Carolina and Georgia rival the manufactories of
New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Each State may rejoice to see its sister
States enjoying the advantages with which Heaven has blessed them; and
Congress, if confined to subjects which admit not of local
considerations, may debate with temper and decide with unbiased
judgment. I confess I have wished that Congress possessed the power that
the friends of the bill tell us we do possess, and tell us we have
exerted; but, on examining the constitution with a view to my wish, I
found reason to think, not only that Congress has not that power, but
that it ought not to possess it, unless the constitution was intended to
establish a consolidated Government on the ruin of the State
Legislatures; but this, I conceive, cannot be the case, because the
constitution guarantees to the States their respective Republican
Governments. The general powers of Congress, no doubt, ought to be (as
they are) adequate to the purpose of forming a more _perfect union_ than
subsisted under the Confederation, to establish justice, &c.; but, as
they are bound to guarantee to the States their respective Republican
forms of Government, I cannot conceive how any of these powers can be
employed, consistently with the ends for which they were given, in
diminishing the power and sovereignty of the State Legislatures. How
Congress can interfere in the regulations respecting the merchants and
their sailors at Marblehead with more propriety than with those at
Philadelphia, Norfolk, or Charleston, I cannot conceive; nor how this
interference could take place without alarming those States, I know not.
Viewing the bill before us in this light, Mr. Chairman, I shall vote
against it, and, as I said before, to get rid of it, shall vote to
strike out the first section, according to the motion now before the
committee.

The question on striking out the first section was taken, and
negatived--32 to 26.


WEDNESDAY, February 8.

A message was received from the President of the United States, together
with a statement of certain articles of expense, which have occurred in
the Department of Foreign Affairs, and for which no provision is made by
law. [The expense alluded to was incurred for the relief of a number of
American sailors, impressed in England to serve on board the British
navy.] The message and accompanying papers were referred to a select
committee, to examine and report.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War,
accompanying certain communications with the Executive of Virginia
relative to the existing temporary defensive protection of the exposed
frontiers of that State, pursuant to the orders of the President of the
United States; which were read, and ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. WHITE, from the committee appointed, presented a bill providing for
the settlement of the claims of persons under particular circumstances
barred by the limitations heretofore established; which was read twice
and committed.

Mr. BENSON, from the committee to whom was referred the report of the
Secretary of the Treasury on the petition of Comfort Sands, and others,
made a report; which was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

_The Cod Fisheries._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, on
the bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act for the encouragement of
the Bank and other Cod Fisheries, and for the regulation and government
of the fishermen employed therein."

On a motion to strike out the words "bounty now allowed," and insert
_allowance now made_, &c.--

Mr. GILES observed, that he conceived the vote of yesterday against
striking out the first section, was a decision in favor of the policy of
granting Governmental aid to the fisheries; the inquiry of to-day will
be on what terms this aid shall be granted? He felt but little regret at
the decision of yesterday, because he had himself previously
contemplated some reasons, not unimportant, to justify that decision,
and others had been suggested by several gentlemen in the course of the
debate. The principles of this policy, he thought, however, might be
combated by reasons of at least equal, and as far as he was able to
judge, of paramount importance; but as he admitted considerable weight
in the reasons on each side of the question, he was not particularly
tenacious of the preference which his own opinion suggested. When he
first mentioned his doubts respecting the principle of the bill, it was
with diffidence, and those doubts in some measure arose from an idea
that the bill contained a direct bounty upon occupation; upon a more
minute examination, he thought the term bounty unnecessarily introduced
into the bill, and that the object of it could be answered without the
use of terms, which might hereafter be deemed to contain a decision upon
the general principle of the constitutional right to grant bounties; it
was to avoid any thing which might wear the appearance of such a
decision, that induced him to make the present motion.

He proceeded to remark, that as great a difference of opinion often
existed respecting the precise meaning of the terms used, as the
consequences which flow from them after attaining such precision of
meaning; and it is of importance to the present discussion that an
accurate definition of the terms used in the bill, and those proposed to
be used, should be had. The avowed object of the bill is not to
increase, but to transmute the sum, or a portion thereof, now allowed to
the fisheries in lieu of the drawback upon salt, from the merchant who
is now supposed to receive the sole benefit, to the fishermen really
employed in the fishing vessels. This is a mere chimerical project, but
if it be admitted that this is the object to be effected by the bill,
the term bounty is improperly applied.

A gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. AMES,) who rests the defence of
this bill almost solely upon this position, that those who receive the
benefit intended by it, are of right entitled to such benefit in
consideration of a previous advancement in value, and that this bill
contains a mere permission to them to retain their own, has at the same
time declared, that he thought the term bounty the most proper and
technical, to convey this idea. In this, the gentleman appears to have
deviated from his usual accuracy. A bounty is the granting a benefit
without a correspondent return in value; a drawback is the retaking of
something in consideration of a previous advancement; this is always
founded upon a consideration previously received--that is a grant of
favor _ex mero motu_. But the great characteristic distinction between
bounties and drawbacks as they essentially relate to the administration
of this Government consists in the governmental objects to which they
may severally be applied: drawbacks are necessarily confined to
commercial regulations; bounties may be extended to every possible
object of Government, and may pervade the whole minutiae of police. They
may not only be extended to commerce, but to _learning_, _agriculture_,
_manufactures_, and even the _sacredness_ of religion will be found too
feeble to furnish complete protection from their influence. The people
of the United States have always been scrupulously tenacious of a
constitutional security for the most free and equal exercises of this
right, but through the medium of bounties, even this right may be
invaded, and the only security against such invasion must be
_governmental discretion_. The same characteristic distinction will
attend that _species_ of bounty which may incidentally result from
commercial regulations; and direct bounties upon occupation founded upon
the broad basis of discretionary right. The specification in the
constitution of the right to regulate commerce, may possibly in some
cases give rise to this indirect species of bounty, not from any right
in the constitution to grant bounties, but as the necessary result from
the specified right to make commercial regulations; and this
specification can be the only foundation of justification to this
indirect species of bounty; but there is no specification in the
constitution of a right to regulate _learning_, or _agriculture_,
_manufactures_, or _religion_, and so far as the sense of the
constitution can be collected, it rather forbids than authorizes the
exercise of that right.

Arguments used to deduce any given authority from the term _general
welfare_, abstractedly from the specification of some particular
authority, are dangerous in the extreme to rights constitutionally
reserved, and ought ever to be viewed with great caution and suspicion.
They serve directly to show that this Government is not only
consolidated in all its parts, but that it is a consolidated Government
of unlimited discretion; that it contains no constitutional limitation
or restriction. If any given authority be inferred from the term
_general welfare_ in the abstract, any other authority is equally
deducible from it, because the term is applicable to every possible
object of Government, and differs only in degree, as to the several
Governmental objects.

He could not see the force of the novel and curious distinction taken by
a gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. HILLHOUSE) between _general welfare_
and _particular welfare_; for every particular welfare, however minute,
may be in a degree for the general welfare, and if the decision
respecting the existence of this distinction, have no other limitation
than Congressional discretion, it is equally destructive of all
constitutional restraint. Gentlemen who have advocated this principle of
construction, appear startled at some consequences suggested to result
from it, and have denied that they have made the admission of such
consequences. This is true, nor have those in reply so asserted, but
they have taken up the principles of construction furnished by its
advocates, and made the application of it to the consequences which they
themselves infer; and if the principle be admitted, it is undeniable
that the conclusions drawn from it will necessarily follow in their
utmost latitude.

A gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. BARNWELL) confidently spoke of the
inherent rights of this Government; this is a new source of authority,
and totally inapplicable to this Government. If there be inherent rights
in governments at all, they must belong to governments growing out of a
state of society, and not to a government deriving all its authorities
by charter from previously existing governments, or the people of those
governments. In such a government, the exercise of every authority not
contained in the instrument, or deducible from it by a fair and candid
construction, is an unjustifiable assumption and usurpation. He did not
mean to analyze this subject further at this time, and had been led into
these general remarks, because the impatience of the committee to have
the question upon striking out the section had caused him to refrain
from delivering these sentiments at that time.

He would remark further, that bounties in all countries and at all
times, have been the effect of favoritism; they have only served to
divert the current of industry from its natural channel, into one less
advantageous or productive; and in fact, they are nothing more than
governmental _thefts_ committed upon the rights of one part of the
community, and an _unmerited_ governmental _munificence_ to the other.
In this country, and under this Government, they present an aspect
peculiarly _dreadful_ and _deformed_.

To contemplate the subjects upon which bounties are to operate in the
United States, the nature of the Government to dispense them, the State
preferences which now do and will for ever, more or less, continue to
exist, the impossibility of an equal operation of bounties throughout
the United States, upon any subject whatever, should be considered; and
one of these two effects will necessarily follow the exercise of them;
either the very existence of the Government will be destroyed, or its
administration must be radically changed, it must be converted into the
most complex system of tyranny and favoritism.

He observed, that it is not unfrequent at this time to hear of an
Eastern and Southern interest, and he had for some time silently and
indignantly seen, or thought he saw, attempts by this means to influence
the deliberations of this House upon almost every important question.
So far as he was the insulted object of these attempts, he felt that
contempt for their authors, which appeared to him to be the
correspondent tribute to the impurity of their designs; yet he thought
that this had been the most formidable and effectual _ministerial
machine_ which had been yet used in the administration of Government.
But one great mischief he apprehended from establishing the principle of
the unrestrained right to grant bounties, will be, that it will make the
difference of interest between Eastern and Southern, so far as they
differ in their respective States of manufacture and agriculture, real,
which is now only ideal. It will make that party real, which is now
artificial. The jealousies and suspicions arising from _party_, will
then have a substantial foundation, which now have no foundation in
fact, but are ingeniously stimulated by a few, for the purpose of
effecting particular objects; as long as the Government shall be
administered liberally and impartially, as long as the principle of
reciprocal demand and supply between East and South shall remain
inviolate, so long there can exist no essential distinct interest
between them; but the instant bounties or governmental preferences are
granted to occupation, that instant is created a separate and distinct
interest, not wholly between East and South, but between the
manufacturer and the cultivator of the soil. There will still exist a
community of agricultural interests throughout the United States, and he
hoped the time was not far distant, when a common sympathy will be felt
by the whole of that class of the community. For these reasons, he hoped
the motion would prevail.

The bill having been gone through with, and amended, the committee rose
and reported it with amendments which the House immediately took into
consideration and adopted. The bill was then further amended and the
House adjourned.


THURSDAY, February 9.

_The Cod Fisheries._

The bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act for the encouragement of
the Bank and other Cod Fisheries, and for the regulation and government
of the fishermen employed therein," together with the amendments
thereto, was read the third time; and the question being put that the
same do pass, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 38, nays 21, as
follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Fisher Ames, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson,
      Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne,
      Abraham Clark, Jonathan Dayton, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge
      Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon,
      Andrew Gregg, Samuel Griffin, Thomas Hartley, James
      Hillhouse, Daniel Huger, John W. Kittera, John Laurance,
      Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee, Samuel Livermore, James
      Madison, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg Nathaniel Niles,
      Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith,
      William Smith, Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan Sturges, Peter
      Sylvester, George Thatcher, Thomas Tredwell, John Vining,
      Jeremiah Wadsworth, and Artemas Ward.

      NAYS.--Messrs. John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, John
      Brown, William B. Giles, William Barry Grove, Daniel
      Heister, Philip Key, Nathaniel Macon, John Francis Mercer,
      Andrew Moore, William Vans Murray, John Page, Josiah
      Parker, Joshua Seney, John Steele, Thomas Sumter, Thomas
      Tudor Tucker, Abraham Venable, Alexander White, Hugh
      Williamson, and Francis Willis.

_Resolved_, That the title of the said bill be, "An act concerning
certain fisheries of the United States, and for the regulation and
government of the fishermen employed therein."

Mr. LAURANCE presented a petition from the tanners and curriers of the
city of New York, praying relief from the hardships they labor under, in
consequence of the exportation of tanners' bark. Referred to a select
committee.


WEDNESDAY, February 22.

_Indemnity to Gen. Greene's Estate._

On a motion made and seconded, that the House do come to the following
resolution:

      "Whereas the late Major General Nathaniel Greene, on the
      eighth day of April, one thousand seven hundred and
      eighty-three, the more effectually to procure rations, and
      supplies for the Southern Army of the United States, became
      bound as surety for John Banks & Company to Newcomen &
      Collet, merchants in Charleston, for the payment of eight
      thousand seven hundred and forty-three pounds fifteen
      shillings and sixpence, sterling money, being the condition
      of said bond:

      "And whereas, on the first day of May, one thousand seven
      hundred and eighty-six, the balance of principal and
      interest of said bond, being then eight thousand six
      hundred and eighty-eight pounds six shillings sterling, was
      paid by the said General Greene: Therefore,

      "_Resolved_, That the United States shall indemnify the
      estate of the said General Greene for the said sum last
      mentioned, and the interest thereof: _Provided_, The
      Executors of the said General Greene shall account for a
      sum, being about two thousand pounds, be the same more or
      less, received of John Ferrie, one of the partners of the
      said Banks & Company, to be in part of the indemnification
      aforesaid; and also shall make over, for the use of the
      United States, all mortgages, bonds, covenants, or other
      counter-securities whatsoever, now due, which were obtained
      by the said General Greene in his lifetime, from the said
      Banks & Company on account of his being surety for them as
      aforesaid, to be sued for in the name of the said
      executors, for the use of the United States:"

_Ordered_, That the said resolution be committed to a Committee of the
whole House immediately.

The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the whole
House on the said resolution; and, after some time spent therein, the
committee rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.


SATURDAY, March 10.

_Courtesies to France._

On a motion made and seconded, that the House do come to the following
resolution:

      "_Resolved_, That this House hath received, with sentiments
      of high satisfaction, the notification of the King of the
      French, of his acceptance of the constitution presented to
      him in the name of the Nation; and that the President of
      the United States be requested, in his answer to the said
      notification, to express the sincere participation of the
      House in the interests of the French Nation, on this great
      and important event; and their wish that the wisdom and
      magnanimity displayed in the formation and acceptance of
      the constitution, may be rewarded by the most perfect
      attainment of its object, the permanent happiness of so
      great a people."

It was moved and seconded that the said motion be committed. And on the
question for commitment, it passed in the negative--yeas 17, nays 35.

And then debate arising on the said motion, a division thereof was
called for. Whereupon,

The question being put, that the House do agree to the first part of the
said motion, in the words following:

      "_Resolved_, That this House has received, with sentiments
      of high satisfaction, the notification of the King of the
      French, of his acceptance of the constitution presented to
      him in the name of the Nation: And that the President of
      the United States be requested, in his answer to the said
      notification, to express the sincere participation of the
      House in the interests of the French Nation, on this great
      and important event:"

It was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 50, nays 2, as follows:

      YEAS.--Fisher Ames, John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin,
      Benjamin Bourne, Abraham Clark, William Findlay, Thomas
      Fitzsimons, William B. Giles, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin
      Goodhue, James Gordon, Andrew Gregg, Thomas Hartley, Daniel
      Heister, James Hillhouse, Israel Jacobs, Philip Key, Aaron
      Kitchell, John W. Kittera, John Laurance, Amasa Learned,
      Richard Bland Lee, Samuel Livermore, Nathaniel Macon, James
      Madison, John Francis Mercer, William Vans Murray,
      Nathaniel Niles, John Page, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker,
      Theodore Sedgwick, Joshua Seney, Jeremiah Smith, Israel
      Smith, William Smith, John Steele, Samuel Sterrett,
      Jonathan Sturges, Thomas Sumter, George Thatcher, Thomas
      Tredwell, Thomas Tudor Tucker, Abraham Venable, John
      Vining, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Artemas Ward, Anthony Wayne,
      Alexander White, Hugh Williamson, and Francis Willis.

      NAYS.--Robert Barnwell and Egbert Benson.

On the question, that the House do agree to the second part of the said
motion, in the words following:

      "And their wish that the wisdom and magnanimity displayed
      in the formation and acceptance of the constitution, may be
      rewarded by the most perfect attainment of its object, the
      permanent happiness of so great a people:"

It was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 35, nays 16.

_Ordered_, That Mr. TUCKER, Mr. MADISON, Mr. MERCER, Mr. VINING, and
Mr. PAGE, be appointed a committee to wait on the President of the
United States, with the said resolution.


SATURDAY, March 24.

_Establishment of a Mint._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
bill sent from the Senate, entitled, "An act establishing a Mint, and
regulating the coins of the United States." The following amendment
being under consideration, viz:

      "In the tenth section, strike out the words, '_Or
      representation of the head of the President of the United
      States for the time being, with an inscription, which shall
      express the initial or first letter of his Christian or
      first name, and his surname at length, the succession of
      the Presidency numerically_,' and, in lieu thereof, insert,
      'Emblematic of Liberty,' with an inscription of the word
      LIBERTY."

Mr. PAGE, in support of this motion said, that it had been a practice in
monarchies to exhibit the figures or heads of their kings upon their
coins, either to hand down, in the ignorant ages in which this practice
was introduced, a kind of chronological account of their kings, or to
show to whom the coin belonged. We have all read, that the Jews paid
tribute to the Romans, by means of a coin on which was the head of their
Caesar. Now as we have no occasion for this aid to history, nor any
pretence to call the money of the United States the money of our
Presidents, there can be no sort of necessity for adopting the idea of
the Senate. I second the motion, therefore, for the amendment proposed;
and the more readily because I am certain it will be more agreeable to
the citizens of the United States, to see the head of Liberty on their
coin, than the heads of Presidents. However well pleased they might be
with the head of the great man now their President, they may have no
great reason to be pleased with some of his successors; as to him, they
have his busts, his pictures every where; historians are daily
celebrating his fame, and Congress have voted him a monument. A further
compliment they need not pay him, especially when it may be said, that
no Republic has paid such a compliment to its Chief Magistrate; and when
indeed it would be viewed by the world as a stamp of royalty on our
coins: would wound the feelings of many friends, and gratify our
enemies.

Mr. WILLIAMSON seconded the motion also, and affirmed that the Romans
did not put the heads of their Consuls on their money; that Julius Caesar
wished to have his on the Roman coin, but only ventured to cause the
figure of an elephant to be impressed thereon; that by a pun on the
Carthaginian name of that animal, which sounded like the name of Caesar,
he might be said to be on the coin. He thought the amendment consistent
with Republican principles, and therefore approved of it.

Mr. LIVERMORE ridiculed, with an uncommon degree of humor, the idea
that it could be of any consequence to the United States whether the
head of Liberty were on their coins or not; the President was a very
good emblem of Liberty; but what an emblematical figure might be, he
could not tell. A ghost had been said to be in the shape of the sound of
a drum, and so might Liberty for aught he knew; but how the President's
head being on our coins could affect the liberty of the people, was
incomprehensible to him. He hoped, therefore, that the amendment would
be rejected.

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, agreed with Mr. LIVERMORE in opinion;
adding, that the President representing the people of the United States,
might with great propriety represent them on their coins. He denied that
Republics did not place the images of their Chief Magistrates on their
coins; and said, he was surprised that a member who so much admired the
French and their new constitution, should be so averse to a practice
they have established; the head of their King is by their constitution
put upon their money. Besides, it was strange that for a circumstance so
trivial we should lose time in debating, and risk the loss of an
important bill.

The said amendment was again read, and a division of the question
thereon called for: Whereupon,

The question being taken, that the House do agree to the first part of
the said amendment, for striking out the words "or representation of the
head of the President of the United States for the time being, with an
inscription, which shall express the initial or first letter of his
Christian or first name, and his surname at length, the succession of
the Presidency numerically:"--it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas
26, nays 22.

And then the question being taken that the House do agree to the second
part of the said amendment, for inserting, in lieu of the words stricken
out, the words, "Emblematic of liberty, with an inscription of the word
Liberty:"--it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 42, nays 6.


MONDAY, March 26.

_Establishment of a Mint._

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate disagree to
the amendment proposed by this House to the bill entitled "An act
establishing a Mint, and regulating the coins of the United States;" and
agree to the amendment proposed by this House to the bill entitled "An
act supplemental to the act for making further and more effectual
provision for the protection of the frontiers of the United States."

It was moved that the House should recede from their amendment to the
bill entitled "An act establishing a Mint, and regulating the coins of
the United States."

Mr. LIVERMORE supported the motion. He said, he did not conceive it
possible that and friend to the President of the United States, the
Chief Magistrate, that great and good man, would have refused to pay
every tribute of respect which was justly due to him. We have now a
favorable opportunity of complimenting him, without any shadow of
flattery, and without any expense. But, instead of this, what is
proposed? An emblematical figure of Liberty. But what is this liberty
which some appear to be so fond of? He had no idea of such liberty as
appears to possess the minds of some gentlemen. It is little better than
the liberty of savages--a relinquishment of all law that contradicts or
thwarts their passions or desires. His idea of liberty was that which
arose from law and justice, which secured every man in his proper and
social rights. Some gentlemen may think a bear broke loose from his
chain a fit emblem of liberty; others may devise a different emblem; but
he could not conceive that any of them would be applicable to the
situation of the United States, which justly boasted of being always
free. If any idea of an emblem is necessary, he thought it might be
applied to the head of the President of the United States. The present
occasion affords the best opportunity of doing honor to the man we love;
instead of which, we offer him an affront. He could not reconcile this
conduct to propriety or consistency; for, while it is proposed to raise
a monument to the memory of the President, which will cost fifty
thousand guineas, a proposition to honor him in a more effectual manner,
and in a way which will be satisfactory to the people, without any
expense, and with perfect security to their liberties, is objected to.
He hoped the House would recede.

Mr. MERCER replied to Mr. LIVERMORE with some degree of asperity. He
observed that there was a rule in the British House of Commons that the
name of the King should never be mentioned in any debate. He thought
some such rule might be introduced with advantage into this House. In
the course of his remarks, to show that the circumstance of having the
President's head stamped on the coin could not be justly considered as
doing him an honor, he said, that persons of no better character than a
Nero, a Caligula, or a Heliogabalus, may enjoy it as well as a Trajan,
&c.

Mr. SENEY animadverted with severity on the remarks offered by Mr.
LIVERMORE, and on the conduct of the Senate; particularly in returning
the bill with a negative to the amendment of the House, within a period
that left them no time to deliberate on the reasons which might have
influenced the House.

Mr. GILES opposed the motion for receding. He adverted to the ideas
which are connected with the subject in European countries. The
President's head will not designate the Government. There is to be but
one head; but does not our Government consist of three parts? Is there
any other head proposed to be on the coin but the President's? He said
this circumstance was of a piece with the first act of the Senate. It
had a near affinity to titles, that darling child of the Senate, which
has been put to nurse, with an intention that it shall be announced at
some future period in due form.

Mr. BENSON said, he supposed he should be extremely disorderly were he
to mention the motives which influenced the Senate in their discussions.
He knew not what they were, nor was it of importance that he should. He
then observed, that plain pieces of metal will not answer for money;
some impression is necessary to guard against counterfeits. The Senate
have determined what the device shall be; but the House, by their
amendment, have left the matter entirely to the judgment of the artist,
who may form such an emblem as suits his fancy. Mr. B. ridiculed the
idea of the people's being enslaved by their Presidents, and much less
by his image on their coin.

Mr. PAGE replied that he was sorry to find that some gentlemen
endeavored to ridicule Republican cautions. He thought it both
indelicate and inconsistent with their situations, as well as highly
impolitic. He confessed that, as long as the people were sensible of the
blessings of liberty, and had their eyes open to watch encroachments,
they would not be enslaved; but if they should ever shut them, or become
inattentive to their interests and the true principles of a free
government, they, like other nations, might lose their liberties; that
it was the duty of the members of that House to keep the eyes of their
constituents open, and to watch over their liberties. It was therefore
unbecoming a member to treat with levity and to ridicule any sentiment
which had that tendency. For his part, he thought it the peculiar duty
of the Representative of a free people to put them upon their guard
against any thing which could possibly endanger their liberties. That
with this view he warned his constituents of the danger, not merely of
imitating the flattery and almost idolatrous practice of Monarchies with
respect to the honor paid to their Kings, by impressing their images and
names on their coins, but he wished to add as few incentives as possible
to competitors for the President's place. He warned his country against
the cabals, the corruption, and animosities, which might be excited by
the intrigues of ambitious men, animated with the hope of handing their
names down to the latest ages on the medals of their country. But this
indiscriminate honor is unworthy of the President's acceptance. A Nero,
a Caligula, a Heliogabalus, it has been observed, (by Mr. MERCER,) may
enjoy it as well as a Trajan. To apply it to the present Chief
Magistrate, alone, would be less exceptionable. But this would be highly
improper; for, if he should pass an act for this purpose, it might blast
his reputation. I am of opinion that the Senate knew his delicacy would
not permit him to pass such a one. They have therefore extended the
compliment to all his successors. We are under obligations to the great
man now our President; but a lover of liberty and friend to the rights
of man would be cautious how he showed his sense of that obligation. As
a friend to the President, I am unwilling to offer him a compliment
which, if accepted, might damn his reputation. Were I in his place, I
would cut off my hand rather than it should sign the act as it now
stands. Were I his greatest enemy, I should wish him to pass it as it
was passed by the Senate. Sir, I am as much his friend as the member
from New Hampshire, and have shown, at proper times and places, that I
was so. I am too sensible of the honor our President has acquired to
suppose that an unbecoming compliment can in any degree contribute to
its increase. I hope, therefore, the amendment which the House has made
will not be receded from.

The question being now put, that this House doth recede from the said
amendment, it passed in the negative--yeas 24, nays 32, as follows:

      YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Elias
      Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Thomas
      Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin
      Goodhue, Thomas Hartley, James Hillhouse, Daniel Huger,
      Israel Jacobs, John W. Kittera, Amasa Learned, Samuel
      Livermore, Theodore Sedgwick, William Smith, Jonathan
      Sturges, Peter Sylvester, George Thatcher, Jeremiah
      Wadsworth, and Artemas Ward.

      NAYS.--John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, John Brown,
      Abraham Clark, William B. Giles, James Gordon, Andrew
      Gregg, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, Daniel Heister,
      Philip Key, Aaron Kitchell, Richard Bland Lee, Nathaniel
      Macon, James Madison, John Francis Mercer, Andrew Moore,
      William Vans Murray, Nathaniel Niles, John Page, Josiah
      Parker, Joshua Seney, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, John
      Steele, Thomas Sumter, Thomas Tredwell, Thomas Tudor
      Tucker, Abraham Venable, John Vining, Alexander White, and
      Hugh Williamson.

_Resolved_, That this House doth adhere to the said amendment.

_Ordered_, That the Clerk of this House do acquaint the Senate
therewith.


TUESDAY, March 27.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate recede from
their disagreement to the amendment adhered to by this House to the bill
entitled "An act establishing a Mint, and regulating the coins of the
United States."


WEDNESDAY, April 4.

_General Nathaniel Greene._

The House proceeded to consider the resolution reported from the
Committee of the whole House on the 24th of February last, to indemnify
the estate of the late General Nathaniel Greene for a certain suretyship
entered into by the said Nathaniel Greene, in his lifetime, on the
public behalf. Whereupon, the said resolution being read at the Clerk's
table, as follows:

      "Whereas, the late Major General Nathaniel Greene, on the
      8th day of April, 1783, the more effectually to procure
      _rations_ and supplies for the Southern Army of the United
      States, became bound as surety for John Banks & Co., to
      Newcomen & Collet, merchants in Charleston, for the payment
      of L8,743 15_s._ 6_d._, sterling money, being the condition
      of the said bond:

      "And whereas, on the 1st of May, 1786, the balance of
      principal and interest of said bond, being then L8,688
      6_s._ sterling, was paid by the said General Greene.
      Therefore,

      "_Resolved_, That the United States shall indemnify the
      estate of the said General Greene for the said sum last
      mentioned, and the interest thereof, or for such sum as,
      upon due investigation by the officers of the Treasury of
      the transactions between John Banks & Co., with Messrs.
      Newcomen & Collet, in which General Greene was security for
      said Banks & Co., it shall appear that neither General
      Greene nor his executors shall have received any payment or
      compensation for: _Provided_, The executors of the said
      General Greene shall account for a sum being about L2,000,
      be the same more or less, recovered by John Ferrie, one of
      the partners of the said John Banks & Co., to be in part of
      the indemnification aforesaid; and also shall make over for
      the use of the United States, all mortgages, bonds,
      covenants, or other counter-securities whatsoever, now due,
      which were obtained by the said General Greene, in his
      lifetime, from the said Banks & Co., on account of his
      being surety for them as aforesaid, to be sued for in the
      name of the said executors, for the use of the United
      States."

The previous question thereon was called for by five members, to wit:
"Shall the main question, to agree to the said resolution, be now put?"
And on the previous question, "Shall the main question be now put?" it
was resolved in the affirmative. And then the main question, "That the
House do agree to the said resolution?" being put, it was resolved in
the affirmative--yeas 29, nays 26, as follows:

      YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Abraham Baldwin, Robert Barnwell,
      Egbert Benson, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, William
      Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Andrew Gregg,
      Thomas Hartley, Daniel Heister, Philip Key, John W.
      Kittera, John Laurance, Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee,
      Samuel Livermore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, William
      Vans Murray, John Page, Theodore Sedgwick, Upton Sheridine,
      William Smith, Samuel Sterrett, George Thatcher, John
      Vining, Jeremiah Wadsworth, and Francis Willis.

      NAYS.--John Baptist Ashe, Elias Boudinot, John Brown,
      Abraham Clark, William B. Giles, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin
      Goodhue, James Gordon, William Barry Grove, James
      Hillhouse, Israel Jacobs, Aaron Kitchell, Nathaniel Macon,
      Andrew Moore, Nathaniel Niles, Joshua Seney, Jeremiah
      Smith, Israel Smith, John Steele, Jonathan Sturges, Thomas
      Sumter, Peter Sylvester, Thomas Tredwell, Artemas Ward,
      Alexander White, and Hugh Williamson.

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the said
resolution, and that Mr. LIVERMORE, Mr. PAGE, and Mr. BARNWELL, do
prepare and bring in the same.


THURSDAY, April 5.

_Apportionment Bill._

A message was received from the President of the United States returning
to the House the bill passed by the two Houses entitled "An act for an
Apportionment of Representatives among the several States according to
the first Enumeration," and presented to the President for his
approbation on Monday, the 26th of March; to which bill the President
having made objections, the said objections were read, and ordered to be
entered at large on the Journal, as follows:

                          "UNITED STATES, _April 5, 1792_."

      _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_

      "I have maturely considered the act passed by the two
      Houses entitled 'An act for an Apportionment of
      Representatives among the several States, according to the
      first Enumeration;' and I return it to your House, wherein
      it originated, with the following objections:

      "First. The constitution has prescribed that
      Representatives shall be apportioned among the several
      States according to their respective numbers; and there is
      no one proportion or divisor which, applied to the
      respective numbers of the States, will yield the number and
      allotment of Representatives proposed by the bill.

      "Second. The constitution has also provided that the number
      of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty
      thousand; which restriction is, by the context, and by fair
      and obvious construction, to be applied to the separate and
      respective numbers of the States; and the bill has allotted
      to eight of the States more than one for every thirty
      thousand.

                                  "G. WASHINGTON."

_Resolved_, That to-morrow be assigned for the reconsideration of the
said bill, in the mode prescribed by the Constitution of the United
States.


FRIDAY, April 6.

_Apportionment Bill._

The House proceeded to reconsider the bill passed by the two Houses
entitled "An act for an Apportionment of Representatives among the
several States, according to the first Enumeration," which was presented
for approbation on Monday, the 26th of March, and returned by the
President yesterday, with objections.

The said bill was read, and is as follows:

      "An act for an Appointment of Representatives among the
      several States, according to the first Enumeration.

      "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
      of the United States of America in Congress assembled_,
      That, from and after the 3d day of March, in the year one
      thousand seven hundred and ninety-three, the House of
      Representatives shall be composed of one hundred and twenty
      members, elected within the several States, according to
      the following apportionment, that is to say: Within the
      State of New Hampshire, five; within the State of
      Massachusetts, sixteen; within the State of Vermont, three;
      within the State of Rhode Island, two; within the State of
      Connecticut, eight; within the State of New York, eleven:
      within the State of New Jersey, six; within the State of
      Pennsylvania, fourteen; within the State of Delaware, two;
      within the State of Maryland, nine; within the State of
      Virginia, twenty-one; within the State of Kentucky, two;
      within the State of North Carolina, twelve; within the
      State of South Carolina, seven; and within the State of
      Georgia, two.

                                  "JONATHAN TRUMBULL,

           "_Speaker of the House of Representatives._

                                  "JOHN ADAMS,

       "_Vice President U. S. and President of Senate._"

The President's objections were also read; and, after debate on the
subject-matter of the said bill, the question "That the House, on
reconsideration, do agree to pass the bill," was determined in the mode
prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, and passed in the
negative--yeas 23, nays 33, as follows:

      YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Egbert Benson, Shearjashub Bourne,
      Benjamin Bourne, Abraham Clark, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge
      Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon,
      Thomas Hartley, Israel Jacobs, Aaron Kitchell, John W.
      Kittera, John Laurance, Amasa Learned, Samuel Livermore,
      Nathaniel Niles, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, Theodore
      Sedgwick, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, John Steele, George
      Thatcher, Thomas Tredwell, John Vining, Jeremiah Wadsworth,
      and Artemas Ward.

      NAYS.--John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, Robert Barnwell,
      John Brown, William Findlay, William B. Giles, Andrew
      Gregg, Samuel Griffin, Wm. Barry Grove, Daniel Heister,
      James Hillhouse, Daniel Huger, Philip Key, Richard Bland
      Lee, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, John Francis Mercer,
      Andrew Moore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, William Vans
      Murray, John Page, Josiah Parker, Joshua Seney, Upton
      Sheridine, William Smith, Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan
      Sturges, Thomas Sumter, Thomas Tudor Tucker, Abraham
      Venable, Alexander White, Hugh Williamson, and Francis
      Willis.

And so the bill was rejected, two-thirds of the House not agreeing to
pass the same.


MONDAY, April 9.

_Apportionment Bill._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
bill for an Apportionment of Representatives among the several States,
according to the first Enumeration; at the ratio of one for every ----
thousand persons, in the respective States.

Mr. GILES observed, that, although this subject has been heretofore
thoroughly discussed, and the minds of gentlemen probably fatigued with
the discussion, yet he could not help trespassing upon the patience of
the committee, by mentioning some of the principal reasons which would
influence his vote against the motion, and in favor of that ratio which
will afford the greatest number of Representatives authorized by the
constitution. He was induced to do this from an opinion that, in the
usual course of things, arguments will have an effect upon the public
mind in some measure proportioned to their own solidity, and the purity
of the motives which actuate them. That the compound of these qualities
form a common standard, by which all arguments would and ought to be
measured by the great majority of the people; and he had no objections
to submitting his reasons to the application of this common standard; he
meant, however, to confine himself to general remarks, and not to
fatigue the committee unnecessarily with minute exemplification of them.

He proceeded by observing, that the expression in the constitution
induced and justified the general expectation among the people of the
United States, that one Representative for every thirty thousand persons
was secured to them by the constitution; that a definitive certainty in
the number of Representatives, as well as the manner of procuring them,
is, in its nature, of constitutional and not of legislative provision,
and affords a reason against varying the ratio mentioned in the
constitution, although that ratio be expressed in terms of latitude;
that Congress had confirmed the general expectation in the public mind
by the proposed amendments to the constitution, and had at least given a
solemn opinion in favor of the ratio of one to thirty thousand, until
the number of Representatives should amount to one hundred, after
acquiring which number by that rule only, a qualified discretion is
admitted; that the opinions of the great bulk of the people of America
were in favor of an increased representation, at least as far as the
utmost limits prescribed by the constitution; that this circumstance was
evidenced by the conventions which adopted the constitution; that it was
further evidenced by the several Legislatures which adopted the proposed
amendments before alluded to; that it was still further evidenced by the
number of Representatives in the respective State Legislatures; that
this last circumstance is rendered peculiarly forcible by a comparative
view of the objects of legislation chartered to the Government of the
United States, and those retained to the State Governments. The objects
of legislation chartered to the Government of the United States, are
wholly national and important; the objects of legislation retained to
the State Governments are comparatively local and subaltern: those
peculiarly prompt temptation and invite corruption--these offer no
inducements to either. In the Government of the United States, the
constituents of the Representative body are complex and diversified; in
the State Governments they are comparatively simple and assimilated.
That a sympathy with the feelings of the people should characterize this
branch of the Government; wisdom is the expected characteristic of the
Senate; and despatch of the Executive.

To the inequality of representation relatively to States suggested to
result from the application of this rule, Mr. G. replied that the
inequality complained of is rather ideal than real; that to determine
how far this consideration really ought to exist among States, it is
right and proper to ascertain the whole comparative Government: and the
issue of this inquiry will be, that those States in whose favor the rule
is said to operate, possess the least governmental influence in the
Senate, proportioned to numbers; and that the casual gain here is no
equivalent for the certain loss there. As far, therefore, as the
governmental influence of States in relation to numbers is to operate,
it will furnish a motive of preferment for the rule he contended for.

It has been said (continued Mr. G.) that the representation of the
States in the Senate is strictly defined by the constitution, and that
therefore the consideration of the relative influence of the States,
then, should not be resorted to as an argument in the apportionment of
Representatives to this House. But, it should be observed, that the rule
contended for, though not so strictly defined, is equally within the
pale of the constitution; and the most extended use to be made of this
consideration is, to manifest the impropriety of resorting to the
pretended inequality among States, as a conclusive argument to vary that
ratio of representation for this House which is admitted to be the most
proper, upon its intrinsic merits, and when viewed without a reference
to that consideration. This particular subject suggests a peculiar
equity and propriety, in taking into consideration the comparative
governmental influence of the States in the Senate, proportioned to
numbers; because, it is in consequence of a representation by States,
there, that they gain this unequal influence: and nothing more is
contended for by this rule than a representation of the people through
the medium of the several States, here. The rule of representation is
not the cause of the present inequality, as far as it may appear to
exist; it is a mere contingent circumstance, depending upon arbitrary
facts and numbers, which cannot be rendered subservient to any general
rule. It should also be remarked, that most of the States supposed to be
favored by the operation of this rule, have, heretofore, been unequally
represented in the extreme; and from the extent and rapid population of
these States, it may be concluded, with certainty, that previously to
the expiration of the present apportionment, the real inequality of
representation in this House, as well as in the Senate, will continue to
bear particularly hard upon them. Perfect equality is unattainable; and
the proposed ratio is, in the principle, equally subject with any other
to all the inconveniences which it is intended to remedy.

The inconveniences of the rule he contended for, in their utmost extent,
can never be very great, because the same rule is applied in the same
manner to the respective States; and the most extended scope for its
unequal operation must be confined to the casual result of the
fractional numbers within the several States. In reflecting upon this
argument of inequality of representation in relation to States, an idea
had presented itself to his mind which seemed to him both novel and
important; and that is, that a quality exists in the Government, from
its peculiar organization which enables a minority of constituents,
through the medium of a majority of Representatives, to give law to a
majority of constituents, absolutely against the will of their minority
of Representatives. This quality of the Government arises from the State
representations in the Senate; and it exists not merely in speculation
or idea--it has been sensibly felt in practice, and there is a real
tendency in the Government to make it still more so. The very bill now
under consideration will probably furnish one strong evidence of its
efficacy in practice; it would have passed very differently from the
present proposition, if it had not met with this unnatural check; and I
am concerned, said he, to remark, that almost in every important measure
of the Government, the minority of the people of the Union had given law
to the majority of the people, against their consent, as far as this can
be evidenced through the medium of their Representatives. This, it is to
be feared, is a radical evil in the Government, and its magnitude would
be in a great measure proportioned to the extension of the objects of
legislation by this Government. If the people be the only legal source
of governmental authority, and this right of individuals be equal, this
is certainly a heterodox principle in the Government. He would not
pretend to say, however, that this was a cancer upon the body politic
too inveterate and vital to admit of a cure; but he conceived it to be a
sore of that sort which it would be unwise to irritate or tamper with:
and he conceived, also, the present proposition not to be without its
irritating qualities.

Mr. G. then proceeded to consider, upon general principles, of
increasing the representation in this House to the full extent
authorized by the constitution, and particularly with a view to the
necessity of establishing, in this branch of the Government, a permanent
sympathy with the landed interest. He observed, that all Representative
Governments appeared to possess a natural tendency from Republicanism to
Monarchy; that, great inequalities in the distribution of wealth among
individuals, consequent upon the progress of all governments, appeared
to be the cause of their political evolutions; that no competent remedy
against this evil had been heretofore discovered, or at least
practically applied by any Government; that perhaps this great political
light may first shine forth through the medium of the American
constitutions, and serve, as some others have previously done, to
illumine not only the American, but the European world.

The peculiar circumstances of the United States, however, since the late
Revolution, and in the infancy of the American Governments, favored
extremely this natural principle of the growing inequality in the
distribution of wealth amongst individuals. An extensive, unexhausted,
fertile country furnished full scope for agriculture, the plenty and
cheapness of provisions and rude materials for manufactures, and an
unshackled commerce for the merchant; and to these were added the
blessings of peace, and laws securing to the individual the exclusive
possession of the fruits of his own industry, however abundant. There
were intrinsic circumstances; there was a contingent one. A public
debt--the price of the Revolution itself and its consequent
blessings--had been incurred, and, from the imbecility of the then
existing Confederacy, and other causes, was depreciated considerably
below its nominal value; but it was then in small masses, and not very
unequally spread amongst the individuals throughout the whole United
States. The Government of the United States, instead of managing this
contingent circumstance with caution, and declaring so in its
ministration, seized upon it with its fiscal arrangement, and applied it
as the most powerful machine to stimulate this growing inequality in the
distribution of wealth--a principle perhaps too much favored by other
existing causes. The Government, not satisfied with the debts contracted
by the former Confederacy, assumed the payment of a great proportion of
the debts contracted by the respective State Governments, and
established funds for paying the interest of the whole. This measure
produced two effects, not very desirable amongst individuals. It
gathered these scattered debts, at a very inferior price, from the hands
of the many, and placed them in the hands of the few; and it stimulates
the value of them. Thus collected into greater masses, beyond all
calculation, by the artificial application of fiscal mechanism, it
produced a variety of serious effects with respect to the Government. In
opposition to the agricultural or republican, it enlisted a great
moneyed interest in the United States, who, having embarked their
fortunes with the Government, would go all lengths with its
Administration, whether right or wrong, virtuous or vicious, by
rendering the debt but partially redeemable, passing perpetual tax laws,
and mortgaging their products to the payment of the interest of this
perpetually-existing debt. It gave the Executive a qualified control
over the best moneyed resources of the United States, not contemplated
by the constitution, nor founded in wisdom. It gave rise to an
unauthorized incorporation of the moneyed interest, and placed it as far
as possible from the reach of future Legislative influence. It
established the doctrine that one systematic financier was better able
to originate money bills and tax the people of the United States, than
the whole collected wisdom of their Representatives, with the aid of a
reciprocity of feeling. It gave rise to the idea of a Sinking Fund,
without limitation as to amount, to be placed in the hands of a few
trustees, and there to be protected from Legislative control by all the
sanctions and securities annexed to private property. In short, it
established the doctrine that all authority could be more safely
intrusted to, and better executed by a few, than by many; and, in
pursuance of this idea, made more continual drafts of authority from
the Representative branch of the Government, and placed it in the hands
of the Executive; lessening, by this mechanism of administration, the
constitutional influence of the people in the Government, and
fundamentally changing its native genius and original principle. He (Mr.
G.) knew of no competent remedy against the abominable evils to be
apprehended from the future operation of these unhallowed principles,
but a permanent establishment of the candid or Republican interest in
this House; and the best chance of effecting this great object he
conceived to be a full representation of the people. His alarms
respecting these fashionable, energetic principles were greatly
increased by a perspective view of some of the proposed measures of
Government. He saw systems introduced to carve out of the common rights
of one part of the community privileges, monopolies, exclusive rights,
&c., for the benefit of another, with no other view, in his opinion, but
to create nurseries of immediate dependants upon the Government, whose
interest will always stimulate them to support its measures, however
iniquitous and tyrannical, and, indeed, the very emoluments which will
compose the price of their attachment to the Government will grow out of
a tyrannical violation of the rights of others. He would forbear to
mention a variety of other circumstances, to prove that principles
having a tendency to change the very nature of the Government, have
pervaded even the minutest ramifications of its fiscal arrangements, nor
would he dwell upon the undue influence to be apprehended from moneyed
foreigners, who had become adventurers in the funds, nor the various
avenues opened to facilitate the operation of corruption. He would
merely remark, that, acting under impressions produced by these
considerations, and strengthened by others not less pertinent and
important, suggested by a number of gentlemen, in the course of the
discussion of this subject, and believing that a full representation of
the people will furnish the only chance of remedy for the existing, and
a competent protection against future evils, he should feel himself
criminal if by his vote he should give up a single Representative
authorized by the constitution. The same impressions would have induced
him to have voted for the proposition which gave one hundred and twenty
members, had it not been for a conscientious and paramount regard for
the preservation of the constitution. The difference of the position of
the members throughout the United States, which would have been assumed
by the difference in the manner of making the apportionment, never
amounted to the minimum of a consideration with him against the
proposition; for he felt a conviction that the agricultural or
equalizing interest was nearly the same throughout all parts of the
United States; and he hoped that the increased representation would
furnish strong testimonies of the truth of the position. He would
remark, generally, the Government of America was now in a state of
puberty, that is, at this time. She is to assume a fixed character, and
he thought it in some degree rested upon the vote now to be given,
whether she would preserve the simplicity, chastity, and purity of her
native representation and Republicanism, in which alone the true dignity
and greatness of her character must consist; or whether she will, so
early in youth, prostitute herself to the venal and borrowed artifices
and corruptions of a stale and pampered Monarchy? Whatever his own
opinions or suspicions may be respecting the tendency of the present
Administration, and whatever may be the discussion of to-day, he should
still preserve a hope that the increased representation, supported by
the enlightened spirit of the people at large, will form an effectual
resistance to the pressure of the whole vices of the Administration, and
may yet establish the Government upon a broad, permanent, and Republican
basis.

When Mr. GILES had concluded, the committee rose, and reported an
amendment, viz: to fill up the blank with the word "thirty-three;" which
was carried in the affirmative--yeas 34, nays 30, as follows:

      YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Elias
      Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Abraham
      Clark, Jonathan Dayton, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry,
      Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Andrew
      Gregg, Thomas Hartley, Daniel Heister, James Hillhouse,
      Daniel Huger, Israel Jacobs, Aaron Kitchell, John W.
      Kittera, Amasa Learned, Samuel Livermore, Nathaniel Niles,
      Theodore Sedgwick, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, William
      Smith, Jonathan Sturges, Peter Sylvester, George Thatcher,
      John Vining, Jeremiah Wadsworth, and Artemas Ward.

      NAYS.--John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, John Brown,
      William Findlay, William B. Giles, Samuel Griffin, William
      Barry Grove, Philip Key, John Laurance, Richard Bland Lee,
      Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, John Francis Mercer, Andrew
      Moore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray,
      John Page, Josiah Parker, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, Joshua
      Seney, Upton Sheridine, John Steele, Samuel Sterrett,
      Thomas Sumter, Thomas Tredwell, Thomas Tudor Tucker,
      Abraham Venable, Alexander White, Hugh Williamson, and
      Francis Willis.

_Ordered_, That the said bill, together with the amendments, be
engrossed and read the third time to-morrow.


FRIDAY, April 20.

_Publication of the Debates._

Before the House proceeded to the order of the day--

Mr. GERRY said, that the circumstance of a publication which had made
its appearance that morning induced him to rise for the purpose of
bringing forward a proposition respecting a full and impartial
publication of the debates of that House. Every gentleman, he believed,
would agree with him that, from a publication of this kind, the citizens
of the United States would derive such information respecting the
proceedings of the Legislature, and the principles on which the laws are
grounded, as must be productive of the most salutary effects, and attach
the people more strongly to the General Government; but the _ex parte_
publications can have no other tendency than to misrepresent their
proceedings, and alienate the affections of the citizens. He therefore
moved the following resolution:

      "Whereas an impartial publication of the Debates of
      Congress stating accurately their Legislative measures, and
      the reasons urged for and against them, is a desirable
      object, inasmuch as it may aid the Executive in
      administering the Government, the Judiciary in expounding
      the laws, the Governments and citizens of the several
      States in forming a judgment of the conduct of their
      respective Representatives, and Congress themselves in
      revising and amending their Legislative proceedings: And
      whereas, from the want of proper arrangements, such
      publication has not been accomplished--

      "_Resolved_, That ---- persons, of good reputation, and
      skilled in the art of stenography, be, at the next session,
      appointed by ballot, to take and publish, impartially and
      accurately, the Legislative subjects which may be submitted
      to the consideration of the House, and the debates thereon
      of the members respectively; that the persons so to be
      appointed be considered as officers of the House, and
      provided for accordingly; that they be severally qualified
      by oath to a faithful discharge of the trust; and that such
      regulations shall be prescribed, as may be necessary to
      protect them in attaining the salutary objects of their
      appointment."

This, Mr. G. said, was a subject which ought no longer to be overlooked.
Whilst Congress sat at New York, great uneasiness had been occasioned in
the House by the mode in which the debates were published. Sometimes
members were introduced as uttering arguments directly the reverse of
what they had advanced. At other times, the substance of the arguments,
as published, wore an aspect widely different from what they had when
offered in debate. In some instances, their arguments were so garbled
that they themselves were unable to recognize them in print; in others,
they were disfigured with grammatical errors, and rendered totally
unintelligible; and on many occasions, the arguments on one side of the
question only were published.

Such were the effects produced by this mode of publication that a
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. BURKE) brought forward a motion for
correcting those evils, which was debated for some time. After the
subject had been two or three times under discussion, the House was
informed that there was a probability of care being taken in future to
correct the errors; and thus the matter was passed over.

Mr. G. then mentioned a circumstance which he had learned from a
gentleman who had declared he could prove it on oath before the House,
if called upon, viz: that, having asked one of those persons who at that
time published the debates, "how he could think of publishing them so
inaccurately?" the answer was, "that he was under a necessity of
obliging his employers." Hence, he concluded that there must have been a
corrupt faction who influenced that short-hand writer.

When Congress first came to this city, the debates were published pretty
accurately; and so they were this session, in some of the papers, but,
in others, the case was otherwise; and he himself, as well as other
gentlemen, had been under a necessity of publicly contradicting them in
print. In some of the debates, the answer to an argument was published
before the argument itself made its appearance; on other occasions, they
were published very fully on one side of the question, whilst nothing
appeared on the other. Every gentleman, he believed, would admit that
this was a true state of the business; and it was well known that, on
many important occasions, no debates had been published at all.

The want of regularity in the publication was, he supposed, owing, in
some measure, to the want of proper encouragement, as the printers of
newspapers would not probably find their account in allowing a
sufficient compensation to induce short-hand writers to devote their
whole time to the business.

Mr. G. then read from the American Daily Advertiser (of Friday last) the
following passage:

      "A warm debate hereupon took place, during the course of
      which one gentleman, who strenuously supported the motion,
      was several times interrupted. Apprehensions were expressed
      of dangerous consequences, in case his speech should appear
      in print; and an honorable member, who opposed the motion,
      (Mr. GERRY,) declared that the manner in which the Debates
      of Congress had been published, and the business conducted,
      during the present session, had a direct tendency to bring
      about a dissolution of the Union.

      "As the honorable gentleman did not further explain
      himself, we are at a loss to determine whether he meant to
      tax the publishers of the debates with inaccuracy in
      stating them wrong,----or imprudence, in stating them
      right, and freely publishing whatever sentiments any member
      of that House may think proper to express, in the
      constitutional exercise of the freedom of debate. But,
      certain we are, that he could not mean to stigmatize them
      as actuated by partiality, undue influence, or sinister
      motives of any kind."

Here, said Mr. G., an idea was held up that the gentleman who had spoken
first (Mr. MERCER) was interrupted. But it is not said that I was
interrupted too. I was interrupted as often as he. The House can
determine whether I have ever taken any measure to prevent a free and
candid publication of the debates. On the contrary, I have always
endeavored to obtain it; and I will still proceed to accomplish it as
far as possible. I think neither this House nor any of its members ought
to be subject to publications of this kind. If they are, they will be
obliged either to enter into paper wars with printers, or to relinquish
the public good. It is incumbent on the House to take measures to
prevent misrepresentation. I therefore submit to the House the
resolution which I have read; and I hope that, if the proposition itself
appears worthy of their attention, they will take it into consideration;
or, if it wants any amendment, they will refer it to a committee; for I
think the subject ought not to be any longer neglected.

Mr. MERCER.--I second the motion; and I think the publication which the
honorable gentleman has read to the House contains but a fair statement
of facts. The gentleman, in the course of the former debate, made some
very strange allusions to what was said by me, which were wholly
unauthorized. I consider it as a primary object in this Government that
we should on this floor be at all times free to express our sentiments
of the Government, without involving the Government itself. I consider
such a measure as is now contemplated to be well worthy the serious
attention of the House. We are at a distance from our constituents; and
it is a misfortune that we are withdrawn from their inspection, by being
placed in a part of the Union where it is not easy to compare our
circumstances and conduct in private life with the motives which may be
supposed to influence our political conduct. Our constituents ought to
be acquainted with our proceedings here; and it is only from a full and
accurate publication of the debates of this House that they can obtain
any satisfactory information on this subject.

Mr. GERRY said, that the paragraph he had read did not contain a full
statement of facts, as the apprehensions he had expressed were only in
case the arguments should go "_unanswered_."

Mr. GILES made, and Mr. W. SMITH seconded, a motion for referring the
resolution to a select committee, to report such regulation as they may
think necessary for the publication of the debates. An additional reason
for the reference was, that some alteration in the wording appeared
necessary, to (Mr. SMITH,) so far as respects the Judiciary, &c.

Mr. BOUDINOT objected to the commitment, as he thought it a subject of
considerable consequence, and there would not be time to take it up
during the present session, the House having already outsat the time
which the other branch of the Legislature had proposed for the
adjournment. This was his only objection; otherwise, he was far from
being opposed to the measure.

Mr. GILES thought the consequence of letting the matter lie over till
next session would be, that it would die away, and nothing would be
done. Unless some steps be taken during the present session, no persons
would come forward as candidates at the commencement of the next. But if
a committee report on the subject, the House may determine what steps
are to be taken, and the people will be prepared accordingly.

The question being taken on the commitment, it passed in the
affirmative--yeas 27, nays, 22.

_Ordered_, That the said motion be committed to Mr. GERRY, Mr. MERCER,
Mr. LEE, Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina,) and Mr. KITTERA.


TUESDAY, May 8.

A message was received from the Senate, notifying the House that the
Senate, having completed the Legislative business before them, are now
about to adjourn. Whereupon,

_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that this
House, having completed the business before them, are now about to
adjourn until the first Monday in November next, and that the Clerk of
this House do go with the said message.

The Clerk accordingly went with the said message; and, being returned,

The SPEAKER adjourned the House, to meet on the first Monday in November
next.




SECOND CONGRESS.--SECOND SESSION.

BEGUN AT THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, NOVEMBER 5, 1792.


PROCEEDINGS OF THE SENATE.

MONDAY, November 5, 1792.

This being the day fixed by law for the annual meeting of the second
session of the second Congress, the following Senators appeared, and
took their seats:

JOHN LANGDON and PAINE WINGATE, from New Hampshire.

CALEB STRONG and GEORGE CABOT, from Massachusetts.

THEODORE FOSTER, from Rhode Island.

OLIVER ELLSWORTH and ROGER SHERMAN, from Connecticut.

STEPHEN R. BRADLEY and MOSES ROBINSON, from Vermont.

RUFUS KING, from New York.

PHILEMON DICKINSON and JOHN RUTHERFORD, from New Jersey.

GEORGE READ, from Delaware.

JAMES MONROE, from Virginia.

JOHN BROWN and JOHN EDWARDS, from Kentucky.

BENJAMIN HAWKINS, from North Carolina.

PIERCE BUTLER and RALPH IZARD, from South Carolina; and

WILLIAM FEW, from Georgia.

In the absence of the VICE PRESIDENT, and also of RICHARD HENRY LEE,
elected President _pro tempore_ at a former session, the Senate
proceeded to the choice of a President _pro tempore_, as the
constitution provides, and JOHN LANGDON was duly elected.

JOHN BROWN and JOHN EDWARDS, from the State of Kentucky, respectively,
produced their credentials; and the oath required by law was, by the
PRESIDENT _pro tempore_, administered to them.

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

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that a
quorum of the House of Representatives is assembled, and ready to
proceed to business.

A second message informed the Senate that the House of Representatives
have resolved that a committee be appointed, jointly with such committee
as the Senate shall appoint, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, and notify him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled, and
ready to receive any communications he may please to make to them; in
which resolution they desire the concurrence of the Senate.

_Resolved_, That the Senate concur in the appointment of a joint
committee to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, agreeably to
the resolution of the House of Representatives, and that Messrs. IZARD
and STRONG be the committee on the part of the Senate.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the
House of Representatives have resolved that two Chaplains, of different
denominations, be appointed to Congress, for the present session, one by
each House, who shall interchange weekly; in which they desire the
concurrence of the Senate.

The Senate proceeded to consider the said resolution; and

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

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the
House of Representatives have proceeded to the election of a Chaplain to
Congress for the present session, and have appointed the Rev. Doctor
GREEN on their part.

Mr. IZARD, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES, agreeably to the resolution of the two Houses of
this day, reported,

That they had executed the business, and that the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES proposed to meet the two Houses of Congress in the Senate
Chamber to-morrow at 11 o'clock.


TUESDAY, November 6.

ROBERT MORRIS, from the State of Pennsylvania, attended, and took his
seat.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives that
the Senate are ready to meet them in the Senate Chamber, to receive any
communications the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES may be pleased to make
to the two Houses of Congress, and that the usual seats will be assigned
to them.

The House of Representatives having accordingly taken their seats, the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES came into the Senate Chamber, and
addressed both Houses of Congress, as follows:

      _Fellow-Citizens of the Senate, and of the House of
      Representatives:_

      It is some abatement of the satisfaction with which I meet
      you on the present occasion, that, in felicitating you on a
      continuance of the national prosperity, generally, I am not
      able to add to it information that the Indian hostilities,
      which have, for some time past, distressed our
      north-western frontier, have terminated.

      You will, I am persuaded, learn with no less concern than I
      communicate it, that reiterated endeavors, towards
      effecting a pacification, have hitherto issued only in new
      and outrageous proofs of persevering hostility on the part
      of the tribes with whom we are in contest. An earnest
      desire to procure tranquillity to the frontier; to stop the
      further effusion of blood; to arrest the progress of
      expense; to forward the prevalent wish of the nation for
      peace, has led to strenuous efforts, through various
      channels, to accomplish these desirable purposes; in making
      which efforts, I consulted less my own anticipations of the
      event, or the scruples which some considerations were
      calculated to inspire, than the wish to find the object
      attainable; or, if not attainable, to ascertain
      unequivocally that such is the case.

      A detail of the measures which have been pursued, and of
      their consequences, which will be laid before you, while it
      will confirm to you the want of success, thus far, will, I
      trust, evince that means as proper and as efficacious as
      could have been devised have been employed. The issue of
      some of them, indeed, is still depending; but a favorable
      one, though not to be despaired of, is not promised by any
      thing that has yet happened.

      In the course of the attempts which have been made, some
      valuable citizens have fallen victims to their zeal for the
      public service. A sanction commonly respected even among
      savages has been found, in this instance, insufficient to
      protect from massacre the emissaries of peace: it will, I
      presume, be duly considered whether the occasion does not
      call for an exercise of liberality towards the families of
      the deceased.

      It must add to your concern to be informed, that, besides
      the continuation of hostile appearances among the tribes
      north of the Ohio, some threatening symptoms have of late
      been revived among some of those south of it.

      A part of the Cherokees, known by the name of Chickamagas,
      inhabiting five villages on the Tennessee River, have long
      been in the practice of committing depredations on the
      neighboring settlements.

      It was hoped that the treaty of Holston, made with the
      Cherokee nation in July, 1791, would have prevented a
      repetition of such depredations. But the event has not
      answered this hope. The Chickamagas, aided by some banditti
      of another tribe, in their vicinity, have recently
      perpetrated wanton and unprovoked hostilities upon the
      citizens of the United States in that quarter. The
      information which has been received on this subject will be
      laid before you. Hitherto, defensive precautions only have
      been strictly enjoined and observed.

      It is not understood that any breach of treaty, or
      aggression whatsoever, on the part of the United States, or
      their citizens, is even alleged as a pretext for the spirit
      of hostility in this quarter.

      I have reason to believe that every practicable exertion
      has been made (pursuant to the provision by law for that
      purpose) to be prepared for the alternative of a
      prosecution of the war, in the event of a failure of
      pacific overtures. A large proportion of the troops
      authorized to be raised have been recruited, though the
      number is still incomplete. And pains have been taken to
      discipline and put them in condition for the particular
      kind of service to be performed. A delay of operations
      (besides being dictated by the measures which were pursuing
      towards a pacific termination of the war) has been in
      itself deemed preferable to immature efforts. A statement,
      from the proper Department, with regard to the number of
      troops raised, and some other points which have been
      suggested, will afford more precise information, as a guide
      to the Legislative consultations; and among other things,
      will enable Congress to judge whether some additional
      stimulus to the recruiting service may not be advisable.

      In looking forward to the future expense of the operations
      which may be found inevitable, I derive consolation from
      the information I receive, that the product of the revenues
      for the present year is likely to supersede the necessity
      of additional burdens on the community for the service of
      the ensuing year. This, however, will be better ascertained
      in the course of the session; and it is proper to add, that
      the information alluded to proceeds upon the supposition of
      no material extension of the spirit of hostility.

      I cannot dismiss the subject of Indian affairs without
      again recommending to your consideration the expediency of
      more adequate provision for giving energy to the laws
      throughout our interior frontier, and for restraining the
      commission of outrages upon the Indians; without which all
      pacific plans must prove nugatory. To enable, by competent
      rewards, the employment of qualified and trusty persons to
      reside among them as agents, would also contribute to the
      preservation of peace and good neighborhood. If, in
      addition to these expedients, an eligible plan could be
      devised for promoting civilization among the friendly
      tribes, and for carrying on trade with them, upon a scale
      equal to their wants, and under regulations calculated to
      protect them from imposition and extortion, its influence
      in cementing their interest with ours, could not but be
      considerable.

      The prosperous state of our revenue has been intimated.
      This would be still more the case were it not for the
      impediments which, in some places, continue to embarrass
      the collection of the duties on spirits distilled within
      the United States. These impediments have lessened, and are
      lessening, in local extent; and, as applied to the
      community at large, the contentment with the law appears to
      be progressive.

      But symptoms of increased opposition having lately
      manifested themselves in certain quarters, I judged a
      special interposition on my part proper and advisable; and,
      under this impression, have issued a Proclamation, warning
      against all unlawful combinations and proceedings, having
      for their object or tending to obstruct the law in
      question, and announcing that all lawful ways and means
      would be strictly put in execution for bringing to justice
      the infractors thereof, and securing obedience thereto.

      Measures have also been taken for the prosecution of
      offenders; and Congress may be assured that nothing within
      constitutional and legal limits, which may depend upon me,
      shall be wanting to assert and maintain the just authority
      of the laws. In fulfilling this trust, I shall count
      entirely upon the full co-operation of the other
      Departments of the Government, and upon the zealous support
      of all good citizens.

      I cannot forbear to bring again into the view of the
      Legislature the subject of a revision of the Judiciary
      system. A representation from the Judges of the Supreme
      Court, which will be laid before you, points out some of
      the inconveniences that are experienced. In the course of
      the execution of the laws, considerations arise out of the
      structure of that system, which, in some cases, tend to
      relax their efficacy. As connected with this subject,
      provisions to facilitate the taking of bail upon processes
      out of the Courts of the United States, and a supplementary
      definition of offences against the constitution and laws of
      the Union, and of the punishment for such offences, will,
      it is presumed, be found worthy of particular attention.

      Observations on the value of peace with other nations are
      unnecessary. It would be wise, however, by timely
      provisions to guard against those acts of our own citizens,
      which might tend to disturb it, and to put ourselves in a
      condition to give that satisfaction to foreign nations
      which we may sometimes have occasion to require from them.
      I particularly recommend to your consideration the means of
      preventing those aggressions by our citizens on the
      territory of other nations, and other infractions of the
      law of nations which, furnishing just subject of complaint,
      might endanger our peace with them, and, in general, the
      maintenance of a friendly intercourse with foreign Powers,
      will be presented to your attention by the expiration of
      the law for that purpose, which takes place, if not
      renewed, at the close of the present session.

      In execution of the authority given by the Legislature,
      measures have been taken for engaging some artists from
      abroad to aid in the establishment of our Mint: others have
      been employed at home. Provision has been made for the
      requisite buildings, and these are now putting into proper
      condition for the purposes of the establishment. There has
      also been a small beginning in the coinage of half-dimes;
      the want of small coins in circulation calling the first
      attention to them.

      The regulation of foreign coins, in correspondency with the
      principles of our national coinage, as being essential to
      their due operation, and in order to our money concerns,
      will, I doubt not, be resumed and completed.

      It is represented that some provisions in the law which
      establishes the Post Office, operate, in experiment,
      against the transmission of newspapers to distant parts of
      the country. Should this, upon due inquiry, be found to be
      the fact, a full conviction of the importance of
      facilitating the circulation of political intelligence and
      information will, I doubt not, lead to the application of a
      remedy.

      The adoption of a constitution for the State of Kentucky
      has been notified to me. The Legislature will share with me
      in the satisfaction which arises from an event interesting
      to the happiness of the part of the nation to which it
      relates, and conducive to the general order.

      It is proper likewise to inform you, that, since my last
      communication on the subject, and in further execution of
      the acts severally making provision for the Public Debt,
      and for the reduction thereof, three new loans have been
      effected, each for three millions of florins; one at
      Antwerp, at the annual interest of four and one-half per
      cent., with an allowance of four per cent., in lieu of all
      charges; and the other two at Amsterdam, at the annual
      interest of four per cent., with an allowance of five and
      one-half per cent. in one case, and of five per cent. in
      the other, in lieu of all charges. The rates of these
      loans, and the circumstances under which they have been
      made, are confirmations of the high state of our credit
      abroad.

      Among the objects to which these funds have been directed
      to be applied, the payment of the debts due to certain
      foreign officers, according to the provision made during
      the last session, has been embraced.

      _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_

      I entertain a strong hope that the state of our national
      finances is now sufficiently matured to enable you to enter
      upon a systematic and effectual arrangement for the regular
      redemption and discharge of the Public Debt, according to
      the right which has been reserved to the Government; no
      measure can be more desirable, whether viewed with an eye
      to its intrinsic importance, or to the general sentiment
      and wish of the nation.

      Provision is likewise requisite for the reimbursement of
      the loan which has been made of the Bank of the United
      States, pursuant to the eleventh section of the act by
      which it is incorporated; in fulfilling the public
      stipulations in this particular, it is expected a valuable
      saving will be made.

      Appropriations for the current service of the ensuing year,
      and for such extraordinaries as may require provision, will
      demand, and I doubt not will engage, your early attention.

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of
      Representatives:_

      I content myself with recalling your attention, generally,
      to such objects, not particularized in my present, as have
      been suggested in my former communications to you.

      Various temporary laws will expire during the present
      session. Among these, that which regulates trade and
      intercourse with the Indian tribes will merit particular
      attention.

      The results of your common deliberations hitherto, will, I
      trust, be productive of solid and durable advantages to our
      constituents; such as, by conciliating more and more their
      ultimate suffrage, will tend to strengthen and confirm
      their attachment to that constitution of Government upon
      which, under Divine Providence, materially depend their
      Union, their safety, and their happiness.

      Still further to promote and secure these inestimable ends,
      there is nothing which can have a more powerful tendency,
      than the careful cultivation of harmony, combined with a
      due regard to stability in the public councils.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.

      UNITED STATES, _November 6, 1792._

The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES having retired, and the two Houses
being separated,

_Ordered_, That Messrs. STRONG, KING, and RUTHERFORD, be a committee to
prepare and report the draft of an Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, in answer to his Speech this day, to both Houses of
Congress convened in the Senate Chamber.

_Ordered_, That the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
delivered this day, be printed for the use of the Senate.


THURSDAY, November 8.

JOHN HENRY, from the State of Maryland, attended, and took his seat.

Agreeably to the order of the day, the Senate took into consideration
the Address reported by the committee to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress; which, being
recommitted and amendments reported, was agreed to, as amended.

_Ordered_, That the same committee wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, and desire him to acquaint the Senate at what time and place it
will be most convenient for him that it should be presented.

Mr. STRONG, from the above-mentioned committee, reported that the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES proposed to receive the Address of the
Senate at 11 o'clock to-morrow.


FRIDAY, November 9.

The Senate waited on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES at his own
house, and the PRESIDENT _pro tempore_, in their name, communicated to
him the Address agreed to on the 8th instant, which is as follows:

      _To the President of the United States:_

      Accept, sir, our grateful acknowledgments for your Address
      at the opening of the present session. We participate with
      you in the satisfaction arising from the continuance of the
      general prosperity of the nation, but it is not without the
      most sincere concern that we are informed that the
      reiterated efforts which have been made to establish peace
      with the hostile Indians, have hitherto failed to
      accomplish that desired object. Hoping that the measures
      still depending may prove more successful than those which
      have preceded them, we shall nevertheless concur in every
      necessary preparation for the alternative; and, should the
      Indians on either side of the Ohio persist in their
      hostilities, fidelity to the Union, as well as affection to
      our fellow-citizens on the frontiers, will ensure our
      decided co-operation in every measure which shall be deemed
      requisite for their protection and safety.

      At the same time that we avow the obligation of the
      Government to afford its protection to every part of the
      Union, we cannot refrain from expressing our regret that
      even a small portion of our fellow-citizens in any quarter
      of it should have combined to oppose the operation of the
      law for the collection of duties on spirits distilled
      within the United States: a law repeatedly sanctioned by
      the authority of the nation, and, at this juncture,
      materially connected with the safety and protection of
      those who oppose it. Should the means already adopted fail
      in securing obedience to this law, such further measures as
      may be thought necessary to carry the same into complete
      operation cannot fail to receive the approbation of the
      Legislature, and the support of every patriotic citizen.

      It yields us particular pleasure to learn, that the
      productiveness of the revenue of the present year will
      probably supersede the necessity of any additional tax for
      the service of the next.

      The organization of the government of the State of Kentucky
      being an event peculiarly interesting to a part of our
      fellow-citizens, and conducive to the general order,
      affords us particular satisfaction.

      We are happy to learn that the high state of our credit
      abroad has been evinced by the terms on which the new loans
      have been negotiated.

      In the course of the session we shall proceed to take into
      consideration the several objects which you have been
      pleased to recommend to our attention; and, keeping in view
      the importance of union and stability in the public
      councils, we shall labor to render our decisions conducive
      to the safety and happiness of our country.

      We repeat with pleasure our assurances of confidence in
      your Administration, and our ardent wish that your unabated
      zeal for the public good may be rewarded by the durable
      prosperity of the nation, and every ingredient of personal
      happiness.

                                  JOHN LANGDON,

                                  _President pro tempore._

To this Address, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES was pleased to make
the following reply:

      I derive much pleasure, gentlemen, from your very
      satisfactory Address. The renewed assurances of your
      confidence in my Administration, and the expression of your
      wish for my personal happiness, claim and receive my
      particular acknowledgments. In my future endeavor for the
      public welfare, to which my duty may call me, I shall not
      cease to count upon the firm, enlightened, and patriotic
      support of the Senate.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.

The Senate returned to their Chamber.


MONDAY, November 12.

SAMUEL JOHNSTON, from the State of North Carolina, and JOSEPH STANTON,
from the State of Rhode Island, attended.


WEDNESDAY, November 14.

The petition of William Dunbar, executor of the last will and testament
of George Galphin, deceased, late a Commissioner of Indian affairs, was
presented and read, praying in behalf of the children of the said George
Galphin, that the compensation allowed to the other Commissioners of
Indian affairs may be extended to them, the legal representatives of
their late father.

On motion that this petition be referred to a committee, it passed in
the negative.


FRIDAY, November 23.

RICHARD BASSETT, from the State of Delaware, attended and took his
seat.


THURSDAY, January 3, 1793.

A motion was made and seconded that the Senate adopt the following
resolutions, to wit:

      "_Resolved_, That the Senate of the United States are
      individually responsible for their conduct to their
      constituents, who are entitled to such information as will
      enable them to form a just estimate thereof.

      "_Resolved_, That the journals are too voluminous and
      expensive to circulate generally; and, if it were
      otherwise, that the information they contain, as to the
      principles, motives, and designs of individual members, is
      inadequate.

      "_Resolved_, That this information, defective as it is,
      becomes more nugatory and delusive, in proportion as the
      occasion for it increases, since the Senate make their own
      Journals.

      "_Resolved_, That the conducting of the Legislative and
      Judicial powers of the Senate in public, and suffering an
      account of their measures and deliberations to be published
      in the newspapers, is the best means of diffusing general
      information concerning the principles, motives, and conduct
      of individual members; and that, by withholding this
      information, responsibility becomes unavailing, the
      influence of their constituents over one branch of the
      Legislature, in a great measure, annihilated, and the best
      security which experience has devised against the abuse of
      power and a maladministration abandoned.

      "_Resolved_, _therefore_, That it be a standing rule that
      the doors of the Senate Chamber remain open whilst the
      Senate shall be sitting in a Legislative and Judicative
      capacity, except on such occasions as, in their judgment,
      may require secrecy; and that this rule shall commence and
      be in force on the first day of the next session of
      Congress.

      "_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Senate request the
      Commissioners of the city and county of Philadelphia to
      cause a proper gallery to be erected for the accommodation
      of an audience."

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

_Ordered_, That they lie on the table, and that the consideration
thereof be the order of the day for the first Monday in February next.


FRIDAY, January 4.

The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill respecting fugitives
from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters,
and the report of the committee thereon; and, after debate, the
consideration thereof was further postponed.


FRIDAY, January 18.

The bill respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the
service of their masters, was read the third time, and being further
amended, on a motion to strike out "five hundred dollars," for the
purpose of inserting a less sum in section 4th, the penalty on "any
person who shall knowingly and willingly obstruct or hinder such
claimant, his agent or attorney, in so seizing or arresting such
fugitive from labor, or shall rescue such fugitive from such claimant,
his agent, or attorney, when so arrested, pursuant to the authority
herein given or declared, or shall harbor or conceal such person, after
notice that he or she was a fugitive from labor as aforesaid;" it passed
in the negative.

_Resolved_, that this bill pass, that it be engrossed, and that the
title thereof be, "An act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons
escaping from the service of their masters."


MONDAY, February 4.

RICHARD POTTS, from the State of Maryland, appointed in place of CHARLES
CARROLL, resigned, produced his credentials, and took his seat.

Agreeably to the order of the day, the Senate proceeded to consider the
motion made the 3d of January, 1793, "That the doors of the Senate
Chamber remain open whilst the Senate shall be sitting in their
Legislative and Judicative capacity."

On motion for the previous question, to wit: Shall the question be now
put on the following preliminary resolutions?

      "_Resolved_, That the Senate of the States are,
      individually, responsible for their conduct to their
      constituents, who are entitled to such information as will
      enable them to form a just estimate thereof:

      "_Resolved_, That the journals are too voluminous and
      expensive to circulate generally; and, if it were
      otherwise, that the information they contain, as to the
      principles, motives, and designs, of individual members, is
      inadequate:

      "_Resolved_, That this information, defective as it is,
      becomes more nugatory and delusive, in proportion as the
      occasion for it increases, since the Senate make their own
      journals:

      "_Resolved_, That the conducting of the Legislative and
      Judicial powers of the Senate in public, and suffering an
      account of their measures and deliberations to be published
      in the newspapers, is the best means of diffusing general
      information concerning the principles, motives, and
      conduct, of individual members: and that, by withholding
      this information, responsibility becomes unavailing, the
      influence of their constituents over one branch of the
      Legislature in a great measure annihilated, and the best
      security which experience has devised against the abuse of
      power and a maladministration abandoned:"

It passed in the negative--yeas 7, nays 21, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Burr, Butler, Edwards, Gunn, Monroe, Potts,
      and Taylor.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bassett, Bradley, Brown, Cabot, Dickinson,
      Ellsworth, Foster, Hawkins, Henry, Johnston, Izard, King,
      Langdon, Morris, Read, Robinson, Rutherford, Stanton,
      Sherman, Strong, and Wingate.

And on motion to agree to the main question, to wit:

      "that the doors of the Senate Chamber remain open whilst
      the Senate shall be sitting in a Legislative and Judicative
      capacity, except on such occasions as, in their judgment,
      may require secrecy; and that this rule shall commence and
      be in force on the first day of the next session of
      Congress."

It passed in the negative--yeas 10, nays 18, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Brown, Burr, Butler, Edwards, Gunn, Hawkins,
      King, Monroe, Potts, and Taylor.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bassett, Bradley, Cabot, Dickinson,
      Ellsworth, Foster, Henry, Johnston, Izard, Langdon, Morris,
      Read, Robinson, Rutherford, Sherman, Stanton, Strong, and
      Wingate.

On the question to agree to the last resolution moved for on this
subject, it passed in the negative.


TUESDAY, February 5.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that
the House of Representatives have resolved, that a committee be
appointed to join such committee as may be appointed by the Senate to
ascertain and report a mode of examining the votes for PRESIDENT and
VICE PRESIDENT, and of notifying the persons who shall be elected of
their election; and for regulating the time, place, and manner, of
administering the oath of office to the PRESIDENT; and have appointed a
committee on their part.

This resolution of the House was read.

_Ordered_, That the consideration thereof be postponed until to-morrow.

The Senate proceeded to consider the amendment of the House of
Representatives to the bill sent from the Senate for concurrence,
entitled, "An act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons
escaping from the service of their masters," and agreed to the
amendment, to wit: To strike out the word "deemed," in section first.

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


WEDNESDAY, February 6.

The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution of the House of
Representatives, that a committee be appointed, to join such committee
as may be appointed by the Senate, to ascertain and report a mode of
examining the votes for PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT, and of notifying
the persons who shall be elected of their election, and for regulating
the time, place and manner of administering the oath of office to the
PRESIDENT.

_Resolved_, That the Senate concur in this resolution, and that Messrs.
KING, IZARD, and STRONG be the committee on the part of the Senate.


MONDAY, February 11.

Mr. KING, from the joint committee, appointed the 6th February, instant,
reported that the two Houses should assemble in the Senate Chamber on
Wednesday next, at twelve o'clock; that one person be appointed a
teller, on the part of the Senate, to make a list of the votes as they
shall be declared; that the result shall be delivered to the PRESIDENT
of the Senate, who shall announce the state of the vote, and the persons
elected, to the two Houses assembled as aforesaid; which shall be deemed
a declaration of the persons elected PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT, and,
together with a list of the votes, be entered on the journals of the two
Houses, and the report was agreed to.


TUESDAY, February 12.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that
the House of Representatives agree to the report of the joint committee
appointed the 6th of February, instant, respecting the manner of
counting the votes for PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.

_Ordered_, That Mr. KING be appointed, on the part of the Senate, a
teller of the votes for PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, conformably to the report of the joint committee, agreed to the
11th instant.


WEDNESDAY, February 13.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary notify the House of Representatives that
the Senate are ready to meet them in the Senate Chamber, to attend the
opening and counting the vote for PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, as the constitution provides.

The two Houses having accordingly assembled, the certificates of the
Electors of the fifteen States in the Union, which came by express,
were, by the VICE PRESIDENT, opened, read, and delivered to the tellers
appointed for the purpose, who, having examined and ascertained the
votes, presented a list of them to the VICE PRESIDENT; which list was
read to the two Houses, and is as follows:

FOR GEORGE WASHINGTON.

New Hampshire,        6
Massachusetts,       16
Rhode Island,         4
Connecticut,          9
Vermont,              3
New York,            12
New Jersey,           7
Pennsylvania,        15
Delaware,             3
Maryland,             8
Virginia,            21
Kentucky,             4
North Carolina,      12
South Carolina,       8
Georgia,              4
                    ---
                    132

FOR JOHN ADAMS.

New Hampshire,        6
Massachusetts,       16
Rhode Island,         4
Connecticut,          9
Vermont,              3
New Jersey,           7
Pennsylvania,        14
Delaware,             3
Maryland,             8
South Carolina,       7
                     --
                     77
FOR GEORGE CLINTON.

New York,            12
Pennsylvania,         1
Virginia,            21
North Carolina,      12
Georgia,              4
                     --
                     50

FOR THOMAS JEFFERSON.

Kentucky,             4

FOR AARON BURR.

South Carolina,       1

Whereupon the VICE PRESIDENT declared GEORGE WASHINGTON unanimously
elected PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES, for the period of four years, to
commence with the fourth day of March next; and JOHN ADAMS elected by a
plurality of votes, VICE PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES, for the same
period, to commence with the 4th day of March next.

After which, the VICE PRESIDENT delivered the duplicate certificates of
the Electors of the several States, received by post, together with
those which came by express to the Secretary of the Senate.

The two Houses then separated, and the Senate adjourned.


THURSDAY, February 14.

Mr. KING, from the committee appointed the 6th instant, to join the
committee on the part of the House of Representatives, to report a mode
of notifying the person who should be elected PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES of his election, submitted the following resolve:

_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to join such committee as
shall be appointed by the House of Representatives, to wait on the
PRESIDENT and notify him of his unanimous re-election to the office of
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

And the report was adopted. _Ordered_, That Messrs. KING, IZARD, and
STRONG, be the committee on the part of the Senate.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the
House of Representatives have adopted the report of the joint committee,
appointed the 6th instant, to ascertain and report a mode of examining
the votes for _President_ and VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and
for other purposes; and have appointed a joint committee on their part
to wait on the PRESIDENT, and notify him of his unanimous re-election to
the office of PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.


FRIDAY, February 15.

Mr. KING, from the joint committee appointed for that purpose, reported:

"That pursuant to the resolutions of the 14th instant, the joint
committee of the Senate and House of Representatives have this day
waited on the PRESIDENT, and notified him of his unanimous re-election
to the office of PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES."


MONDAY, February 18.

On motion to adopt the following resolution, to wit:

      _Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury be
      instructed to revise the account of the pension granted by
      Congress for the education and board of Hugh Mercer, son of
      the late General Mercer, from its date to the present
      period, and correct any error that may have taken place
      therein, paying all arrearages, if any now due; and that he
      likewise pay hereafter without account, annually, and until
      his education shall be completed, for that purpose, to the
      guardian of the said Hugh, the sum of four hundred dollars.

It was agreed to postpone the consideration of this motion until
to-morrow.


THURSDAY, February 28.

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a certificate, purporting that
the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have this day chosen
ALBERT GALLATIN a Senator of the United States.


FRIDAY, March 1.

The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a Letter from the Secretary of the
Department of State, enclosing a triplicate certificate of the votes of
the Electors of the State of Kentucky for PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES, obtained by express, sent from the seat of
Government, as the law provides.


SATURDAY, March 2.

Mr. KING, from the committee appointed this day on the communication of
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, relative to his taking the oath of
office, reported that the Secretary inform the House of Representatives
that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES will, on Monday next, take the
oath of office required by the constitution, in the Senate Chamber, at
twelve o'clock; and that he inform the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
that the Senate will be in session at that time. And the report was
adopted.


SPECIAL SESSION.

MONDAY, March 4.

In conformity to the summons from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
the Senate assembled in the Senate Chamber.

The Hon. JOHN LANGDON, President _pro tempore_, read the summons of the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, as follows:

      _The President of the United States to the President of the
      Senate:_

      Certain matters, touching the public good, requiring that
      the Senate shall be convened on Monday the 4th instant, I
      have desired their attendance, as I do yours, by these
      presents, at the Senate Chamber, in Philadelphia, on that
      day; then and there to receive and deliberate on such
      communications as shall be made to you on my part.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.

      _March 1, 1793._

The following Senators were present:

JOHN LANGDON, from New Hampshire.
GEORGE CABOT, from Massachusetts.
THEODORE FOSTER, from Rhode Island.
OLIVER ELLSWORTH and ROGER SHERMAN, from Connecticut.
RUFUS KING, from New York.
JOHN RUTHERFORD, from New Jersey.
ROBERT MORRIS, from Pennsylvania.
GEORGE READ, from Delaware.
JOHN HENRY and RICHARD POTTS, from Maryland.
JAMES MONROE, from Virginia.
JOHN BROWN and JOHN EDWARDS, from Kentucky.
BENJAMIN HAWKINS, from North Carolina.
RALPH IZARD, from South Carolina.
JAMES GUNN, from Georgia.

SAMUEL LIVERMORE, from the State of New Hampshire, produced his
credentials, and took his seat in the Senate; and the oath was
administered to him by the PRESIDENT of the Senate, as the law provides.

Agreeably to notice given by the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, on the
2d instant, he came to the Senate Chamber and took his seat in the chair
usually assigned the PRESIDENT of the Senate, who, on this occasion, was
seated at the right, and in advance of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES; a seat on the left, and also in advance, being provided for
Judge Cushing, appointed to administer the oath: the doors of the
Senate Chamber being open, the Heads of the Departments, Foreign
Ministers, the late Speaker, and such members of the late House of
Representatives as were in town, together with as many other spectators
as could be accommodated, were present.

After a short pause, the PRESIDENT of the Senate arose, and addressed
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, as follows:

      "SIR: One of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United
      States is now present, and ready to administer to you the
      oath required by the constitution to be taken by the
      PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES."

On which the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, rising from his seat, was
pleased to address the audience as follows:

      "FELLOW-CITIZENS: I am again called upon, by the voice of
      my country, to execute the functions of its Chief
      Magistrate. When the occasion proper for it shall arrive, I
      shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of
      this distinguished honor, and of the confidence which has
      been reposed in me by the people of United America.

      "Previous to the execution of any official act of the
      PRESIDENT, the constitution requires an oath of office.
      This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence;
      that, if it shall be found, during my administration of the
      Government, I have, in any instance, violated, willingly or
      knowingly, the injunction thereof, I may (besides incurring
      constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of
      all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony."

Judge CUSHING then administered the oath of office required by the
constitution; after which, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES retired,
and the spectators dispersed.

After acting upon several nominations received from the PRESIDENT, the
Senate adjourned _sine die_.




SECOND CONGRESS.--SECOND SESSION.

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.


MONDAY, November 5, 1792.

This being the day appointed by law for the meeting of the present
Congress, the following members appeared, produced their credentials,
and took their seats:

_From New Hampshire_, NICHOLAS GILMAN, SAMUEL LIVERMORE, and JEREMIAH
SMITH.

_From Massachusetts_, FISHER AMES, SHEARJASHUR BOURNE, ELBRIDGE GERRY,
BENJAMIN GOODHUE, GEORGE THATCHER, and ARTEMAS WARD.

_From Rhode Island_, GEORGE LEONARD, BENJAMIN BOURNE.

_From Connecticut_, AMASA LEARNED, JONATHAN STURGES, and JONATHAN
TRUMBULL, (Speaker.)

_From Vermont_, NATHANIEL NILES and ISRAEL SMITH.

_From New York_, EGBERT BENSON, JOHN LAURANCE, and THOMAS TREDWELL.

_From New Jersey_, ELIAS BOUDINOT, ABRAHAM CLARK, and JONATHAN DAYTON.

_From Pennsylvania_, THOMAS FITZSIMONS and FREDERICK AUGUSTUS
MUHLENBERG.

_From Maryland_, PHILIP KEY and WILLIAM VANS MURRAY.

_From Virginia_, WILLIAM B. GILES, JAMES MADISON, ANDREW MOORE, JOSIAH
PARKER, ABRAHAM VENABLE, and ALEXANDER WHITE.

_From North Carolina_, NATHANIEL MACON, JOHN STEELE, and HUGH
WILLIAMSON.

_From South Carolina_, WILLIAM SMITH, THOMAS SUMTER, and THOMAS TUDOR
TUCKER.

_From Georgia_, ABRAHAM BALDWIN and FRANCIS WILLIS.

A quorum of members being present, a message was sent to the Senate to
inform that body thereof. And a similar message was received by the
House from the Senate; and that JOHN LANGDON had been chosen their
President _pro tempore_.

A joint committee were then appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, to inform him that a quorum of the two Houses is
assembled, and ready to receive any communications he may think proper
to make them.

_Resolved_, That two Chaplains, of different denominations, be appointed
to Congress, one by each House, to interchange weekly.

The House then proceeded to appoint a Chaplain on their part, when a
majority of votes appeared in favor of the Reverend ASHBEL GREEN.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Governor of Georgia,
enclosing a proclamation and return of the election of JOHN MILLEDGE, to
serve as one of the members of this House for the said State, in the
room of ANTHONY WAYNE, whose seat was declared vacant; which was read
and ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. BOUDINOT, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and notify him that a quorum of the two
Houses is assembled and ready to receive any communications he may be
pleased to make to them, reported that the committee had performed that
service, and that the PRESIDENT was pleased to say, that he would make a
communication to both Houses of Congress to-morrow, at twelve o'clock in
the Senate Chamber.


TUESDAY, November 6.

Several other members, viz: from New York, JAMES GORDON; from
Pennsylvania, JOHN WILKES KITTERA; and from Virginia, SAMUEL GRIFFIN and
JOHN PAGE, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate are now
ready, in the Senate Chamber, to attend this House in receiving the
communication from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, agreeably to his
notification to both Houses yesterday.

The SPEAKER, attended by the members of this House, then withdrew to the
Senate Chamber for the purpose expressed in the message from the Senate;
and, being returned, the SPEAKER laid before the House a copy of the
Speech delivered by the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to both Houses of
Congress, in the Senate Chamber. [A copy of the Speech appears in the
proceedings of the Senate.]

_Ordered_, That the said Speech be committed to the consideration of a
Committee of the whole House to-morrow.


WEDNESDAY, November 7.

_Defeat of General St. Clair._

_Ordered_, That the report of the committee appointed to inquire into
the causes of the failure of the late expedition under Major General St.
Clair, which was made on the 8th day of May last, be referred to the
consideration of a Committee of the whole House on Wednesday next.

_Answer to the President._

The order of the day being called for, (Mr. LAURANCE in the chair,) the
Speech of the PRESIDENT, delivered yesterday to Congress, was taken up;
and, on motion of Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, the following resolve
was agreed to: "That a committee be appointed to prepare and report a
respectful Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in answer to
his Speech delivered to both Houses of Congress at the opening of the
present session; with assurances, that they would take into
consideration the important matters therein contained." An amendment was
now moved, to strike out the word "important;" but it was negatived, as
being a word of too much importance to be neglected. The resolution was
carried, in substance, as above, and the committee rose and reported it.
The House immediately agreed, and a committee of three--Messrs. MADISON,
BENSON, and MURRAY--were appointed by the SPEAKER to prepare the answer
in conformity with the said resolve.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of
      Representatives:_

      I lay before you copies of certain papers relative to the
      Spanish interference in the execution of the treaty entered
      into in the year 1790, between the United States, and the
      Creek nation of Indians, together with a letter from the
      Secretary of State to the President of the United States,
      on the same subject.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.

      UNITED STATES, November 7, 1792.

The papers accompanying the said message were read and ordered to lie on
the table.

The SPEAKER laid before the House two letters from Thomas Barclay,
Consul of the United States at the Court of Morocco, one dated the 28th
of May, the other the 17th of July, 1792, enclosing petitions from
Richard O'Brien, in behalf of himself and other citizens of the United
States, now in captivity at Algiers, stating the peculiar hardships they
have undergone during the time they have been kept in slavery, and
praying that Congress will consider their distressed situation, and take
such measures for their releasement as to their wisdom shall seem meet.

_Ordered_, That the said letters and petitions be referred to the
Secretary of State, for information.


THURSDAY, November 8.

Several other members, to wit: from Connecticut, JAMES HILLHOUSE; from
Pennsylvania, WILLIAM FINDLAY and ISRAEL JACOBS; and from Kentucky,
ALEXANDER D. ORR, appeared, and took their seats in the House.


SATURDAY, November 10.

Two other members, to wit: PETER SYLVESTER, from New York, and THOMAS
HARTLEY, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

_Address to the President._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in answer to his Speech
to both Houses of Congress; and, after some time spent therein, the
SPEAKER resumed the chair, and Mr. LAURANCE reported that the committee
had had the said Address under consideration, and made several
amendments thereto; which were severally twice read, and agreed to by
the House.

And then the said Address, as amended, being again read, was, on the
question put thereon, agreed to by the House, as follows:

      "SIR: The House of Representatives, who always feel a
      satisfaction in meeting you, are much concerned that the
      occasion for mutual felicitation afforded by the
      circumstances favorable to the national prosperity should
      be abated by a continuance of the hostile spirit of many of
      the Indian tribes, and, particularly, that the reiterated
      efforts for effecting a general pacification with them
      should have issued in new proofs of their persevering
      enmity, and the barbarous sacrifice of citizens, who, as
      the messengers of peace, were distinguishing themselves by
      their zeal for the public service. In our deliberations on
      this important department of our affairs, we shall be
      disposed to pursue every measure that may be dictated by
      the sincerest desire, on one hand, of cultivating peace,
      and manifesting, by every practicable regulation, our
      benevolent regard for the welfare of those misguided
      people; and by the duty we feel, on the other, to provide
      effectually for the safety and protection of our
      fellow-citizens.

      "While with regret we learn that symptoms of opposition to
      the law imposing duties on spirits distilled within the
      United States, have manifested themselves, we reflect with
      consolation, that they are confined to a small portion of
      our fellow-citizens. It is not more essential to the
      preservation of true liberty, that a Government should be
      always ready to listen to the representations of its
      constituents, and to accommodate its measures to the
      sentiments and wishes of every part of them, as far as will
      consist with the good of the whole, than it is, that the
      just authority of the laws should be steadfastly
      maintained. Under this impression, every department of the
      Government, and all good citizens must approve the measures
      you have taken, and the purpose you have formed, to
      execute this part of your trust with firmness and energy;
      and be assured, sir, of every constitutional aid and
      co-operation, which may become requisite on our part. And
      we hope that, while the progress of contentment under the
      law in question, is as obvious as it is rational, no
      particular part of the community may be permitted to
      withdraw from the general burdens of the country, by a
      conduct as irreconcilable to national justice, as it is
      inconsistent with public decency.

      "The productive state of the public revenue, and the
      confirmation of the credit of the United States abroad,
      evinced by the loans at Antwerp and Amsterdam, are
      communications the more gratifying, as they enforce the
      obligation to enter on systematic and effectual
      arrangements for discharging the public debt, as fast as
      the conditions of it will permit; and we take pleasure in
      the opportunity to assure you of our entire concurrence in
      the opinion, that no measure can be more desirable, whether
      viewed with an eye to the urgent wish of the community, or
      the intrinsic importance of promoting so happy a change in
      our situation.

      "The adoption of a constitution for the State of Kentucky,
      is an event on which we join in all the satisfaction you
      have expressed. It may be considered as particularly
      interesting, since, besides the immediate benefits
      resulting from it, it is another auspicious demonstration
      of the facility and success with which an enlightened
      people is capable of providing, by free and deliberate
      plans of government, for their own safety and happiness.

      "The operation of the law establishing the Post Office, as
      it relates to the transmission of newspapers, will merit
      our particular inquiry and attention, the circulation of
      political intelligence through these vehicles being justly
      reckoned among the surest means of preventing the
      degeneracy of a free government, as well as of recommending
      every salutary public measure to the confidence and
      co-operation of all virtuous citizens.

      "The several other matters which you have communicated and
      recommended, will, in their order, receive the attention
      due to them, and our discussions will, in all cases, we
      trust, be guided by a proper respect for harmony and
      stability in the public Councils, and a desire to
      conciliate, more and more, the attachment of our
      constituents to the constitution, by measures accommodated
      to the true ends for which it was established."

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

Mr. MADISON, from the committee appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, to know when and where it will be convenient for him
to receive the Address of this House, in answer to his Speech to both
Houses of Congress, reported that the committee had waited on the
PRESIDENT, who signified to them that it would be convenient to him to
receive the said Address at 12 o'clock on Monday next, at his own house.


MONDAY, November 12.

Another member, to wit, JOHN BAPTIST ASHE, from North Carolina,
appeared, and took his seat in the House.

_Address to the President._

The SPEAKER, attended by the House, then withdrew to the house of the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and there presented to him the Address
of this House, in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress; to
which the PRESIDENT made the following reply:

      "GENTLEMEN: It gives me pleasure to express to you the
      satisfaction which your Address affords me. I feel, as I
      ought, the approbation you manifest of the measures I have
      taken, and the purpose I have formed, to maintain, pursuant
      to the trust reposed in me by the constitution, the respect
      which is due to the laws; and the assurance which you, at
      the same time, give me, of every constitutional aid and
      co-operation that may become requisite on your part.

      "This is a new proof of that enlightened solicitude for the
      establishment and confirmation of public order, which,
      embracing a zealous regard for the principles of true
      liberty, has guided the deliberations of the House of
      Representatives; a perseverance in which can alone secure,
      under the Divine blessing, the real and permanent felicity
      of our common country.

                                  "G. WASHINGTON."

The House having returned to their Chamber, resumed the reading of the
papers communicated by the Secretary of War, on Wednesday last, relative
to the Indians north-west and south of the river Ohio, and to the troops
in the service of the United States, and made a farther progress
therein.


TUESDAY, November 13.

Two other members, to wit: ROBERT BARNWELL and DANIEL HUGER, from South
Carolina, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

_Defeat of General St. Clair._

On a motion made and seconded, that the House do come to the following
resolution:

      "_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury and the
      Secretary of War be notified that this House intend, on
      Wednesday next, to take into consideration the Report of
      the committee appointed to inquire into the causes of the
      failure of the late expedition under General St. Clair, to
      the end that they may attend the House, and furnish such
      information as may be conducive to the due investigation of
      the matters stated in the said report:"

Mr. WILLIAMSON moved to strike out the latter part of the resolution,
which respected the attendance of the Secretaries on the House. This
motion, if carried, leaves the resolution a simple proposition to inform
those officers that the House were, on Wednesday, to take the report on
the failure of General St. Clair's expedition into consideration.

Mr. VENABLE objected generally to the resolution, as inconsistent with
the dignity of the House. He doubted the propriety of the measure
altogether. The gentlemen are not impeached, and therefore the House has
no right to cite them to make their appearance; and, with respect to
information, the House can command such from the Heads of Departments as
they may see proper to require. He was at a loss in attempting to
investigate the object of the resolution. He could see no purpose that
it would answer, which could not as well be obtained without it.

Mr. WHITE offered several objections to the resolution, of a similar
import with the above.

Mr. DAYTON supported the motion by a few remarks, stating the importance
of that information which those gentlemen alone could give. He adverted
to the report of the committee, which he observed had exculpated the
commanding General on that expedition, whereas he was of opinion that
the failure was owing to the misconduct of that gentleman.

Mr. TUCKER objected to the resolution. He preferred the mode of
requiring that information which the House might think necessary, in
writing.

Mr. MADISON objected to the motion on constitutional grounds, and as
being contrary to the practice of the House. He had not, he said,
thoroughly revolved the matter in his own mind, and therefore was not
prepared to state fully the effects which would result from the adoption
of the resolution; but he would hazard thus much, that it would form an
innovation in the mode of conducting the business of this House, and
introduce a precedent which would lead to perplexing and embarrassing
consequences; as it involved a conclusion, in respect to the principles
of the Government, which at an earlier day would have been revolted
from. He was decidedly in favor of written information.

Mr. CLARK was opposed to the resolution; as a member of the committee
who made the report, he had no apprehension; with respect to
information, the report and the vouchers are before the House; and such
further inquiry may be made of the proper officers as the House may
think necessary.

Mr. AMES supported the resolution. He noticed the impressions which the
failure of the late expedition had made on the public mind. Characters
had suffered in the general estimation. It was of the utmost importance
that a thorough investigation should take place, that if the failure of
the expedition was a mere casualty, and the fortune of war, it might be
made to appear; or if it was owing to misconduct, the blame might fall
on the proper subjects. The mode suggested to obtain information
appeared to him the best that could be adopted--the most adequate to the
object. It was due to justice, to truth, and to the national honor, to
take effectual measures to investigate the business thoroughly. This
inquiry appears to be the beginning of an arrangement preparatory to an
impeachment; on whom this will fall, he should not presume to say; but
still it places the subject in an important point of view, and shows in
the strongest manner the necessity of adopting the best possible mode
of ascertaining the real state of facts. This, he conceived, could not
be done so effectually as by the mode proposed in the resolution.

Mr. GILES objected to the resolution. He preferred a thorough discussion
of the report, in the first place, and a comparison of the vouchers with
the report; and if, in the issue, it should appear necessary to call for
information from these officers, it could then be done; but, in the
present state of the business, to adopt the resolution would place the
committee in a very disagreeable situation.

Mr. LAURANCE observed that the committee, in their report, say that, for
want of time, they had not been able to complete it; it is, then,
apparent from the report itself that it is immature. He stated several
particulars in the report which were incomplete, and from hence inferred
that there was material information to be received previous to being
able to form a competent judgment on the matter. He observed that, as
the information must be had, he saw no necessity of postponing the
attendance of those officers in the first instance.

Mr. MADISON, in reply to Mr. AMES's remark, that the best possible mode
ought to be adopted, observed, that there seemed to be different ideas
entertained by the different advocates of the resolution; one seemed to
implicate the officers alluded to as parties concerned; another appeared
to consider them merely as witnesses. For his part, he thought there was
no other way of proceeding, but that of adopting one or the other of
these alternatives: either to take up the report and discuss its merits,
or for the House to begin the inquiry themselves, _de novo_.

Mr. LIVERMORE objected to the resolution. He could not see any advantage
which would result from adopting it. He thought the causes of the
failure of the expedition were sufficiently obvious, without criminating
any body. He adverted to these causes--they were, the rawness of the
troops, and the superiority of the Indians as marksmen. On these points
he could not see what information could be derived from the Secretary of
the Treasury. He thought that the Legislature had gone too far already,
and that no satisfaction would result from further proceedings, but that
the subject would appear more and more involved.

Mr. BOUDINOT, after stating sundry particulars relative to the state of
the public mind at the time of the report, adverted to several parts of
it which appear to criminate particular persons, some of whom were
absent at the time of the investigation on which the report is founded.
He therefore urged the necessity of receiving from the Heads of the
Departments that information which was requisite to throw light on
several parts of the report, and that this ought to be done previous to
taking the report into consideration.

Mr. FITZSIMONS said he should vote against the resolution. He did not
think this the proper time to call for the information alluded to; nor
the mode proposed a proper one. Some remarks have been made on the
report, though it is not before the House; to these he should not
particularly reply, but would only observe, that no person had applied
to the House for redress of any supposed injury received by the report.
It has been said that the inquiry ought to have been a military one; but
it was well known that it was impossible to institute such an inquiry by
reason of the want of officers. He then gave a sketch of the mode of
proceeding adopted by the committee in conducting the inquiry, to show
that they had availed themselves of every means of information within
their power.

Mr. WILLIAMSON said he had moved to strike out the latter part of the
resolution, but he was equally opposed to the whole of it; and since he
had heard the remarks of several gentlemen, on both sides of the House,
he was clearly of opinion that the best way was to dispose of it
altogether, and let the subject proceed in the course which it had
already taken.

Mr. GILES observed, that he thought there was less delicacy observed on
this occasion, in respect to the committee, than was usual in this
House. With respect to the report, the vouchers on which every assertion
is founded are before the House. As to the incompleteness of the report,
it is an immaterial object; the few blanks it contains are occasioned by
the want of time to examine the voluminous papers necessary to be
examined, in order to ascertain some of the facts--facts not in
themselves of the first importance. He observed, that he had not the
smallest objection to the fullest investigation of the subject; he was
in favor of all the information that could be possibly obtained; he
objected not only to the mode now contended for, which he thought not
only liable to all the objections which had been made, but to many
others which might be offered.

Mr. DAYTON observed that he was one of those who were not satisfied with
the report; he did not think the conclusion which exculpated the
commanding officer could be supported by the report itself. He adverted
to several facts stated in it, which showed that the commander must have
been highly culpable; he instanced the slowness of his movements, the
dilatoriness in constructing forts, and his being surprised by the
enemy. He thought that the remarks which had fallen from gentlemen, on
what he had said, were illiberal, as they had virtually impeached his
candor, when he was not conscious of deviating from its dictates. It was
not his intention to have touched on the merits of the report, but he
had been impelled to do it from the turn the debate had taken.

Mr. GERRY was in favor of the resolution. He enlarged on the magnitude
of the object of investigation, and insisted that it was the
indispensable duty of the House thoroughly to probe the subject to the
bottom, that if any persons have been to blame they may suffer, or if
the event which has taken place, by which the national character has
suffered, and so severe and unproductive an expense has been incurred,
amounting probably to one million dollars, has been owing to
circumstances which could not be avoided or controlled, the public may
receive satisfaction as to the whole matter.

Mr. PAGE objected to the resolution, particularly to the precedent it
would establish; but, at the same time, he was in favor of the fullest
inquiry the subject was susceptible of. He said, the mode proposed would
operate to clog the freedom of inquiry, and the freedom of debate.

Mr. AMES, adverting to the spirit of the report, pointed out the
peculiar situation of the two Secretaries, and that they did not stand
on the same ground with other persons who are not so intimately
implicated in the matter. He alluded to the various objections which had
been urged from precedent, from the fulness of the investigation which
the subject had undergone in the hands of the committee, and from the
remark by Mr. LIVERMORE, that sufficient had already been done. To this
last objection he particularly replied, by saying that the public wanted
further satisfaction, and that the House could not justify themselves to
their constituents without a stricter and fuller investigation, that the
whole of the facts might be laid before them.

Mr. MADISON said, the mode now proposed involved a dereliction of the
only practicable mode of transacting public business; and that, however
imperfect that mode might be, still he believed that it was the only one
that had received the sanction of experience and utility. He therefore
hoped that the resolution would be rejected, and the mode already
adopted persevered in, and the necessary information called for in
writing, from every person in anywise interested or competent to give
it.

Mr. W. SMITH supported the resolution. He showed by the report itself,
and from the reasoning used by gentlemen in opposition to the
resolution, that the two Secretaries were implicated in the causes of
the failure of the expedition; from hence, he inferred the justice and
propriety of giving them an opportunity of exculpating themselves.

Mr. GERRY expressed surprise at the apprehension which some gentlemen
appear to entertain of the measure of introducing the Heads of
Departments into the House; for his part he had no such apprehensions.
The Secretary will attend at the orders of the House merely to give such
information as may be required, and not as members or ministers to
influence and govern the determinations of the House.

Mr. VENABLE objected further to the resolution; he urged the impropriety
of any of the Heads of Departments coming forward, and attempting in any
way to influence the deliberations of the Legislature.

Mr. LAURANCE replied to Mr. VENABLE; he observed that the gentleman
appeared to mistake the object of the resolution; it was not
contemplated that either of the Secretaries should appear on the floor
of the House to influence, in any degree, its decisions; they are to be
called on merely for information.

Mr. MURRAY objected to the resolution. The report, he observed, is made
to the House; if in the course of its discussion any further light or
information should be deemed necessary, it may then be called for, and
in that mode which shall appear most eligible; at present the question
appears to be premature. Mr. MURRAY added several other remarks, and
then the question being put, Mr. WILLIAMSON's motion for striking out
was carried.

And then the main question being put, that the House do agree to the
said resolution as amended, it passed in the negative.

_Resolved_, That the Committee of the whole House, to whom is referred
the report of the committee appointed to inquire into the causes of the
failure of the expedition under Major General St. Clair, be empowered to
send for persons, papers, and records, for their information.


WEDNESDAY, November 14.

Another member, to wit, WILLIAM BARRY GROVE, from North Carolina,
appeared and took his seat in the House.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War,
together with a memorial of Samuel Hodgdon, late Quartermaster General
to the Army, respectively praying that they may be heard, and permitted
to give information and explanations as to the causes of the failure of
the expedition under Major General St. Clair; which were read. The
letter of the Secretary of War is as follows:

                            WAR DEPARTMENT, _November 14, 1792_.

      SIR: After the close of the last session of Congress, I saw
      with much concern the report to the committee appointed to
      inquire into the causes of the failure of the expedition,
      under Major General St. Clair, of the 8th of May, 1792;
      which, having been presented to the House in the last
      moments of the session, was ordered to be printed, and has
      since circulated in the public newspapers throughout the
      United States, containing suggestions, most of them founded
      upon _ex parte_ investigation, which have been understood
      in a sense very injurious to my reputation.

      Learning that the present day was appointed for taking into
      consideration the above-mentioned report, I have waited
      with anxious expectation for some act of the House enabling
      me to attend the progress of the examination upon which
      they are about to enter, for the purpose of furnishing such
      information and explanations as might conduce to a right
      understanding of facts, in which I am so materially
      implicated. The failure of a proposition, which I am
      informed was made to the House with that view, has added to
      my solicitude and regret.

      Thus situated, I feel myself called upon to ask of the
      justice of the House that some mode may be devised, by
      which it will be put into my power to be present during the
      course of the intended inquiry, as well to hear the
      evidence on which the several allegations contained in the
      report are founded, as to offer the information and
      explanations to which I have alluded.

      To this step I am impelled by a persuasion that an accurate
      and satisfactory investigation cannot otherwise be had with
      equal advantage, if at all. And my entire reliance upon the
      equity and impartiality of the House, will not permit a
      doubt to exist on my part that such an investigation will
      be exclusively the object of their desire and pursuit.

      I have the honor to be, sir, with the highest respect, your
      most obedient humble servant,

                                  H. KNOX.

      _The_ SPEAKER _of the honorable the House of
      Representatives of the U. S._


_Defeat of General St. Clair._

And then the order of the day, that the House do resolve itself into a
Committee of the whole House on the report of the committee appointed to
inquire into the causes of the failure of the expedition under Major
General St. Clair, being taken up--

Mr. MADISON suggested that the most simple, most practicable and
consistent plan would be, to recommit the report of the select
committee, and refer the present applications[44] to the committee to
whom the report shall be recommitted. He therefore moved that the
Committee of the Whole should be discharged from considering the reports
on the causes of the failure of the late expedition.

Mr. SMITH (S. C.) observed that several objections struck him in
opposition to this motion. The House must at some period, said he, meet
this case; if it is recommitted, there will be an impropriety in
referring it to the same committee; if a new committee is appointed,
they must begin the whole subject _de novo_; and, if their investigation
should take up such a length of time as that of the former committee,
the session will be expended, and at the close of it the business will
recur on the House, and the same discussion will occur again that is now
proposed. He hoped the House would therefore proceed in the
consideration of the report, assign two or three days in the week for
the purpose, and continue the investigation till the whole is finished.

Mr. GILES replied, that he had no doubt that the vouchers on which the
committee had founded the report would appear sufficient to justify the
decisions that they had made. He said that he did not suppose that the
applicants would adduce any new information; one of them had been called
on, he attended the committee, and he supposed that he had furnished all
the information he was in possession of. He objected to a recommitment;
as one of the committee, he was perfectly satisfied with the report; nor
did he conceive there was any additional evidence to be produced, except
it was of a recent date.

Mr. AMES said, he perceived such a disinclination to go into the subject
as indicated a proper temper of mind in relation to the persons
supposed to be in any ways interested in the ultimate decision of the
House. He was opposed to a recommitment, as it would procrastinate
instead of expediting the inquiry. He adverted to the report. Facts are
stated; the public have been left to draw the inferences; the committee
have not explicitly criminated any body; but they have determined, in
several instances, who is not to blame. What is the situation of those
who are implicated in the causes of the failure? Every citizen knows
that, in consequence of the issue of the expedition, clamors against the
War Department, in respect to Indian affairs, have rung through the
Continent. Should public officers, who have been placed in situations of
such importance, be silent, and submit calmly to such imputations, they
would be unworthy of public confidence, unworthy to breathe the vital
air. They now apply for an opportunity to be heard in their own
vindication. Shall they be sent to a committee-room, and make their
defence against the allegations brought forward to their disadvantage,
which have been published to the world, in the hearing of perhaps ten or
a dozen persons only? He hoped not--he thought justice to them and to
the public required that they should be allowed to make their defence in
the face of the world. Will not precluding them look like a wish to
smother all further inquiry into the matter?

Mr. BALDWIN was in favor of recommitting; he said it was the most
eligible mode, and was consonant to the practice of the House.

Mr. MADISON remarked that it had been said a disposition was discovered
to smother inquiry. In reply he observed that, if he wished to prevent a
thorough investigation, he should be in favor of the whole subject being
undertaken by the House; because, he observed, that if a select
committee of a few members took seven weeks to form an incomplete
report, it must appear evident that so large a body as this House could
never get through the matter. He further observed, that the same reason
existed for referring the residue of the evidence to a select committee
as induced the measure in the first instance.

Mr. FITZSIMONS said he was at first in favor of a recommitment, but on
further consideration he was convinced the House would be able to get
through the subject in a shorter time than a select committee. He added
several other reasons which induced him to be in favor of the House
proceeding with the report.

Mr. GERRY said it appeared to him that the only question seemed to be,
whether the House or the select committee shall establish the facts. If
these facts are established by the committee, would it give equal
satisfaction as if they were established by the House? He conceived it
would not; but, should the result be a conviction on the part of the
House that some of the officers are culpable, will the House rest an
impeachment on the report of the committee? He conceived the House
ought to found their decisions on facts ascertained by themselves. It
has been said there is no difference between the House and the
committee. If this is the case, does it not imply a censure by the House
on certain characters? He thought it did. It therefore becomes the House
to discuss the report, that it may be determined on what footing it
stands. If, in the case of a contested election, the House revolted from
the idea of submitting their judgment to facts substantiated by a
committee, the case before us is of unspeakably greater magnitude. For
these, and several other reasons, he hoped the report would not be
recommitted.

Mr. WILLIAMSON was in favor of the motion for recommitting; he supported
his opinion by the uniform practice of the House, which in every case
where new evidence was adduced, always provided that the new evidence
should be examined by the same committee, who had originally brought in
the report. He said if this mode was departed from, we should find no
committee would bring forward a state of facts in future. He thought it
was not treating the committee with proper candor to decide on their
report in its present situation.

Mr. SYLVESTER observed, that the resolution of the House at the close of
the last session, that they would take up the subject early in the
present session, precluded a recommitment; he was therefore opposed to
the motion.

Mr. BOUDINOT was in favor of a recommitment; he said, if there is new
evidence to be brought, the House ought to wait till that is received
and reported at the Clerk's table; and this he conceived ought to be
done in the usual way, by a select committee; till the whole testimony
is completed it appeared to him the House was not prepared to take one
step in the matter.

Mr. MADISON replied to Mr. GERRY's allusion to the ease of the contested
election. He inquired of him whether the House itself went into an
investigation of facts in the first instance? He believed he would not
say they did. With respect to the memorials, he inquired, whether, if
they had been presented at the time of the investigation of the subject
by the select committee, they would not have been referred to the
committee? If they would then have been referred, the same reason exists
for referring them to a select committee at the present time.

Mr. LAURANCE was of opinion that a recommitment would tend to a saving
of time; the committee will not be obliged to go over the same ground
again that has already been explored; all they will be obliged to do is,
to investigate the new testimony which will be adduced. He hoped,
therefore, that the motion would prevail.

Mr. GILES said, that the proceedings of the committee were public, and
that the Secretaries could have attended all the time, had they seen
proper. They attended but once, and then appeared extremely anxious to
get away to attend to their offices. The committee would have been
extremely glad to have had those gentlemen present oftener, and to
receive all the information they could give, and supposed they had done
it.

Mr. GERRY replied to Mr. MADISON. He said, if gentlemen would recur to
the proceedings of the House on the contested election, they will find
that the House expressly reserved to itself the right of substantiating
the facts, which should appear from an examination of the depositions,
taken in conformity to the resolutions of the House; and here he
adverted to the mode pointed out by the House in taking those
depositions. The adverse party was to be summoned to attend to the
taking them; but in this report it appears that _ex parte_ evidence has
been admitted as the foundation on which some of the decisions have been
made.

Mr. MURRAY supported the motion for a recommitment. He observed that the
matter, in its present state, was so incomplete that he could not see
how the House could proceed upon it. One part of the evidence only is
finished, and the report is made on that evidence. Now, we are told new
testimony is offered; let the whole be brought into view at once, and
then the House will be in a situation to judge.

Mr. PAGE was in favor of a further commitment of the subject; but
whether to the committee who made the report, or to a new committee, he
should not take upon him to say. With respect to the admission of any
head of a department to the bar of this House, except in case of an
impeachment, he would never consent to it. It would be a precedent of a
most dangerous nature, tending to a destruction of all freedom of
inquiry by committees.

Mr. FINDLAY observed, that the committee wished that Mr. Hodgdon should
have been present, but he did not make his appearance; the committee
therefore proceeded on the testimony they had, and as there is now new
evidence brought forward, he thought it was proper that the report
should be recommitted. As one of the committee, he should have no
objections to such alterations as might appear proper on further and
more complete investigation of the matter.

Mr. STEELE called for the reading of a clause in the memorial of the
Secretary of War, which states that the committee had drawn conclusions
from _ex parte_ evidence. This being read, Mr. STEELE remarked on the
want of candor towards the committee, which had been shown by some of
the members in the course of their observations. He then adverted to the
above clause respecting _ex parte_ evidence, and observed that, with
respect to the Secretary of War, it was not true that the committee had
proceeded on _ex parte_ evidence; that officer, said he, was notified of
the meetings of the committee; he attended those meetings; he furnished
the committee with papers and documents, &c.; and further, he was
requested to detain officers in town whose testimony was necessary in
the matter, and that he complained of some of those officers being
detained by the delays of the committee from the recruiting service.
With respect to Mr. Hodgdon the same cannot be said, as he was not then
in the country.

Mr. STEELE then concluded by some additional remarks on the indelicacy
manifested by some gentlemen in their treatment of the committee, and
observed that he did not apply it to himself personally, but as it
respected the committee at large, he thought proper to express the
contempt which he conceived it merited.

Mr. DAYTON replied to Mr. STEELE. He repeated the substance of his
original remarks on the report, and added, that in the course of the
discussion he should attempt to show that the deductions made in several
parts of the report were false. Mr. D. added, that whatever the
gentleman last speaking might say, as one of the committee who signed
the report, he was certainly implicated in whatever censure it merited.

The question for a recommitment was then agreed to, 30 to 22. And it was
accordingly

_Resolved_, That the Committee of the whole House, to whom was committed
the report of the committee appointed to inquire into the causes of the
failure of the expedition under Major General St. Clair, be discharged
from the consideration thereof; and that the said report, together with
the documents relating thereto, including the letter of the Secretary of
War, and the memorial of Samuel Hodgdon, be recommitted to Mr.
FITZSIMONS, Mr. GILES, Mr. STEELE, Mr. CLARK, and Mr. FINDLAY.


THURSDAY, November 15.

Another member, to wit, THEODORE SEDGWICK, from Massachusetts, appeared,
and took his seat in the House.


MONDAY, November 19.

Another member, to wit: JOHN FRANCIS MERCER, from Maryland, appeared,
and took his seat in the House.

_Protection to American Commerce._

Mr. WILLIAMSON moved that a committee be appointed to prepare and bring
in a bill or bills for promoting commerce, by the increase of American
seamen. In moving the above, Mr. W. addressed the House as follows:

Measures have already been taken by Congress for increasing the number
of our shipping; but no effectual and _general_ measure has been adopted
for increasing the number of native American seamen. Every gentleman in
my hearing knows that there are always a considerable number of
foreigners employed on board American vessels; but none of us could have
expected, and some of us may not have heard of the injury and insults to
which our commerce has been exposed, from having British seamen on board
our ships.

A schooner called the David and George, belonging to Portsmouth, in
Virginia, and commanded by Captain Goffigan, lately touched at Sierra
Leone, on the coast of Africa; she was navigated by eleven persons.
Three of that number who had been on shore, informed Captain Wickham who
commanded an armed vessel, that they were British subjects. Captain
Wickham went on board the American vessel and claimed the three seamen;
he also claimed wages for them. Captain Goffigan refused to deliver the
men, and declared with truth that nothing was due them. Captain Wickham
took the men by force, and by the same regulation he went into the hold,
and took as much of the cargo as he thought fit, under the cover of
substitute for wages. Captain Goffigan complained of this violence and
robbery to Mr. Clarkson, who is Governor of the Province. The Governor
replied, that he should have done the same thing, and that _he had
orders from his superiors_ so to act in such cases.

The ship Illustrious President, belonging to Virginia, commanded by
Captain Butler, touched some time ago at Madeira, on her passage to the
East Indies. The British frigate Hyena, commanded by Captain Hargood,
lay at that time in the road. Seven of Captain Butler's sailors being
British subjects, Captain Hargood sent to take them by force from on
board the American ship, and he would have done so, had not the Governor
of the Island, remembering what he owed to the honor of his nation and
to every ship under his protection, interrupted his authority.

The ship Fame belonging to Philadelphia, commanded by Walter Sims, on
her way to the East Indies, lately touched at Table Bay, at the Cape of
Good Hope. Captain Blith, who commanded a ship of twenty guns, then lay
in the road. One of Captain Sims' sailors, a native of Scotland, offered
his service to Captain Blith, calling himself a British subject. That
very man in Philadelphia had taken the oath of allegiance to the United
States; but the British claim was best, for Captain Blith's ship was
strongest. He took the man, sent an officer on board the American ship,
who took the liberty of opening the after hatch, searching the hold and
looking out a chest and clothes. Captain Blith justified these acts of
violence, by saying, that he had _printed instructions_ to take all who
called themselves British subjects.

These are a few out of the numberless cases in which our ships have been
robbed of their seamen, and they are samples of the manner in which we
shall be constantly treated, while we depend on foreigners to navigate
our ships. If these cases had terminated in threats and abusive
language, to which our flag is too much accustomed, it might have been
questioned whether the nation of the offending party was to blame. When
you are told by one officer and another, that he is instructed to
distress our trade, we should, if possible, deprive them of the present
excuse. Is it not our business to inquire into the cause of this
strange conduct? By a vitiated passion for British goods, we are
universally clothed in the manufactures of that nation. Our debts
increase every year, and we labor to make her rich, while we are
becoming poor. We pour our treasures into her lap more than any other
nation under the sun. Observe the rewards! I say nothing about her
measures on our Western Frontier; but our trading ships are boarded and
plundered at discretion by her ships of war; and yet, Great Britain,
whose commerce we cherish, is the only nation that treats us in this
manner. Perhaps it is conjectured that Americans are of that species of
animals whose favor is increased by rough treatment. Be this as it may,
it is our duty to consider of the safest and surest mode of extending
our commerce. After we have been told that an American vessel having
sailors on board, who chance to have been born in the British dominion,
is subject to be deprived of her hands, robbed of her property, and
turned adrift without help, it can hardly be necessary to adduce other
arguments in favor of native American seamen; but other strong and
conclusive arguments in favor of the measure present themselves. The
merchants' property in critical situations, or in distant or obscure
parts of the world, is always most safe when a ship is navigated by men
who uniformly strive to return to their native home, and whose hopes and
happiness centre in that country to which their ship belongs. The crew
of a French brig some weeks ago, murdered their captain and mate on our
coast; that misfortune, in all probability, would not have happened, if
the seamen had been natives of France. Two of them only were of that
kingdom. Is it necessary to add, that a powerful body of seamen, at some
future day, may save us from the vast expense and danger of a standing
army? Upon this single argument of native seamen we might rest the
question. It needs neither support nor illustration. I shall, therefore,
presume, that it is our duty as soon as possible, to provide for the
daily operations of pride or injustice, by furnishing the merchant with
seamen, of whom he cannot be robbed, except by open declaration of
war--with seamen in whom he can trust--with men, who, actuated by those
passions which are inseparable from the human breast, the pride of
nation and the love of country, may serve him in every part of the
world,--to furnish the nation with a safe and strong bulwark against
foreign tyranny and invasion.

I shall now take the liberty of moving that committees may be appointed
to bring in bills for the purposes mentioned.

Mr. WILLIAMSON, Mr. LAURANCE, Mr. GOODHUE, Mr. BENJAMIN BOURNE, and Mr.
BARNWELL, were appointed to prepare and bring in the same.


THURSDAY, November 22.

Another member, to wit, JOHN MILLEDGE, returned to serve in this House
for the State of Georgia in the room of ANTHONY WAYNE, whose seat was
declared vacant, appeared, produced his credentials, and took his seat
in the House.


WEDNESDAY, November 28.

_Warner Mifflin's Petition._

Mr. STEELE called the attention of the House to the memorial and
representation of Warner Mifflin on the subject of <DW64> slavery. Mr. S.
said that after what had passed at New York on this subject, he had
hoped the House would have heard no more of it; but, to his surprise, he
found the subject was started anew, and had been introduced by a
fanatic, who, not content with keeping his own conscience, undertook to
become the keeper of the consciences of other men, and in a manner which
he deemed not very decent, had intruded his opinions into this House.
Had an application been made to him to present such a petition, he
thought he should have avoided a compliance with it. Gentlemen in the
Northern States do not realize the mischievous consequences which have
already resulted from measures of this kind, and if a stop were not put
to such proceedings, the Southern States would be compelled to apply to
the General Government for their interference. He concluded, by moving
"that the paper purporting to be a petition from Warner Mifflin, be
returned to him by the Clerk of the House; and that the entry of said
petition be expunged from the Journal."

Mr. AMES rose to explain his motives in presenting the petition. He said
it was his opinion, which he had expressed to the House long ago, that
this Government could not, with propriety, take any steps in the matter
referred to in this petition; but, on the general principle that every
citizen has a right to petition the Legislature, and to apply to any
member to present his request to the House, he had handed it in. The
petitioner is a citizen of Delaware; and had the member from that State
been in the House, he should not have thought himself obliged to have
introduced it; but that gentleman being absent, the petitioner had a
right to apply to a member from any other State. He had no idea of
supporting the prayer of the petition, his mind having been long made up
on the subject. He considered it as totally inexpedient to interfere
with the subject, and had uniformly opposed the applications made at a
former session of Congress.

Mr. LIVERMORE did not consider the motion in order, the subject not
being properly before the House; nor did he believe there was any
disposition to bring it forward.

Mr. W. SMITH said he had seconded the motion, with a view of putting it
out of the power of any member to call it up when persons might be
absent who would find it their duty to oppose it. Mr. S. said he
admitted, in its full extent, the right of each citizen to petition for
a redress of grievances, and the duty of the House to consider such
petitions; but the paper in question is a mere rant and rhapsody of a
meddling fanatic, interlarded with texts of Scripture, and concluded
with no specific prayer. He observed it was the general practice of
Legislative bodies for members presenting petitions to read them, in
order to make known their objects, and to have them entered on the
journal. In this particular instance the practice might be attended with
danger. Citizens of the Southern States learning that papers of this
kind meet with countenance here would be alarmed. The gentleman who
presented this paper had not, on this occasion, shown his usual regard
to Southern interests. Had he stated its dangerous object, the House
would undoubtedly have refused its reception. After the proceedings at
New York, when a similar application was made, his constituents had a
right to expect that the subject would never be stirred again. He would
assure the House, that while he continued a member of it, he should
never fail to express his abhorrence against all such applications, as
they could have none but a mischievous tendency. So far from being
calculated to meliorate the condition of the race who were the object of
them, they had a tendency to alienate their affections from their
masters, and by exciting in them a spirit of restlessness, to render
greater severity towards them necessary. He therefore earnestly called
on the House to agree to the motion, and thereby convince this
enthusiast, and others, that they can never meet countenance in the
Legislature of the Union.

The part of the motion directing the petition to be returned by the
Clerk was agreed to. The remainder was withdrawn by Mr. STEELE, the
mover.


THURSDAY, December 13.

ANDREW GREGG, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and took his seat in the
House.


TUESDAY, December 18.

A memorial of the officers, now residing in the State of New York, of
the late American Army, in behalf of themselves and their brethren, the
soldiers of the said Army, was presented to the House and read, praying
that the depreciation which accrued on the certificates of debt granted
them in reward for their military services during the late war, may be
made good to them, or such other relief afforded them as the present
circumstances of the United States will admit. Also, a memorial of the
Pennsylvania line of the late Army, to the same effect.

_Ordered_, That the said memorials do lie on the table.


THURSDAY, December 27.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War,
accompanying a statement of the present organization of the troops;
also, Returns of the commissioned officers, non-commissioned officers,
and privates, in the service of the United States; which were read, and
ordered to lie on the table.


FRIDAY, December 28.

A memorial of the officers and soldiers of the late New Hampshire line
of the Continental Army was presented to the House and read, praying
that the depreciation which accrued on the certificates of debt granted
them in reward for their military services during the late war may be
made good to them, or such other relief afforded them as the present
circumstances of the United States will admit; which was laid on the
table.


_Reduction of the Army._

Mr. STEELE called up his resolution laid on the table some days ago, as
follows:

      "_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to prepare and
      bring in a bill to reduce the military establishment of the
      United States to ---- regiments or corps, consisting each
      of ---- non-commissioned officers, privates and musicians,
      with such proportion of commissioned officers as the
      PRESIDENT may think proper to continue in service; and to
      repeal so much of an act, passed the fifth of March, one
      thousand seven hundred and ninety-two, entitled 'An act for
      making farther and more effectual provision for the
      protection of the frontiers of the United States,' as may
      contravene this intention.'"

Mr. STEELE, in proposing the above resolution, said, the situation of
the frontiers, and the inefficiency of the measures adopted through the
medium of the War Department, to relieve them; the extreme burdens which
those measures were heaping on the people, and the probability of their
continuance, afforded ample scope for inquiry; and to sit silent on such
an occasion, he thought, would be to partake of and support the errors
from which those misfortunes may have arisen. The citizens of the United
States, he said, were of a peaceable and patient disposition, and they
have with cheerfulness acquiesced in the measures of the National
Legislature; but they were not become so tame as to submit to immense
and fruitless expenses, and the disgrace of their military character, to
answer any vain projects of folly and ambition, without a prospect of
guaranteeing a peace. Is it not evident, said he, that plans have been
persevered in without regard to common sense, by an unnecessary increase
of our army, until the indignation of the whole continent has been
roused up against it?

To elucidate this position, Mr. S. recited the expenses, charges, and
increase of the War Department from its first establishment under the
present Government, to its present enormous demands, which for the year
1793, are no less, agreeably to the estimate furnished by the Secretary
of the Treasury, than $1,171,719;[45] more than double the sum
necessary for the support of all the other branches of the National
Government. The better to illustrate this subject of the Indian war, he
entered into comparative statements of the years 1790, '91, '92, and
'93; and, animadverting on the different items of calculation, he
asserted, in strong terms, that they exceeded every thing that the
history of the Indian wars afforded for twenty years back; he wished any
gentleman to enter into an investigation and comparison of the alarming
increase of the expenses of the department, and to take a retrospect of
the subject for twenty years back; and he was certain neither the
Secretary of War nor any other person could account rationally for the
occasion of such an establishment. There was no precedent to be found in
any of the States; not one of them has a War Department; neither was it
contemplated in the Constitution of the United States. Yet it has, in
the short space of three or four years, been imposing on the country
burdens which the people have at length expressed their abhorrence of;
it has been increased from $137,000 in 1789, to the extravagant demand
now required, of $1,171,719 and $50,000 contingencies for the support of
1793. This is so alarming an increase, that it calls loudly for
reformation, or the entire abolition of the department, and that another
system shall be adopted for the protection of the frontiers. Armies of
regulars will never afford protection; they have never answered any good
purpose against the Indians from the time of Braddock's defeat down to
that of Major General St. Clair, although this last-mentioned
unfortunate expedition cost the United States an immense sum of money,
and the lives of a great number of valuable officers and citizens.
History and the experience of ages have proved this fact, that unwieldy
armies will never be able to fight the savages in the wilderness;
indeed, the Secretary of War confesses the fact in one of his reports,
which Mr. S. read, wherein the Secretary accounts for the ill success of
the plans, by observing, "that it was owing to the extreme activity of
the enemy and our ignorance of the wilderness through which our troops
had to march." But the Secretary might have also added, our entire
ignorance of the mode of carrying on the war.

Here Mr. S. took occasion to observe, that this alarmingly expensive and
useless department had crept upon the country entirely from our fondness
for taking up money on loans; for had it not been that the money was
thus obtained with a sort of facility that was not directly felt by the
people, they never would have consented to be directly taxed to support
the parade of so unnecessary an establishment. This is my reason for
being an enemy to loans; they deceive citizens, and lull them for a
time, in order to levy double contributions afterwards.

But it may be demanded, how are the frontiers to be protected, if the
army was disbanded? In reply to this Mr. S. said he wished that the
former two regiments might be retained to garrison the forts, and that a
militia near the scene of action should be raised, who would be able to
make five expeditions against the savages in a year, if necessary,
instead of one solitary fruitless attempt, which, upon an average, is as
much as a regular army can do; and sometimes not so much, for it does
not appear that any expedition took place during the last twelve months:
moreover, it is not so easy for the Indians to discover the plans and
approaches of militia, as they do the slow motions of an unwieldy army,
dragging their heavy artillery through the woods. The fact is, that the
Indians have the best intelligence and know every motion of the army,
and they can even calculate the time and place to meet them, and the
numbers of their tribes that will be necessary to receive such a force;
they will always be prepared when a regular army are to march against
them. But if the business be left to a militia of the frontier
inhabitants, who know the country, and have their property at stake, it
would not cost the Government one-fourth part of the expense to give a
complete protection, and to repel all the depredations of the savages,
if that be our intention. If it be the protection and happiness of our
brethren on the frontiers--if we are serious to check the progress of
expense, the motion which I have brought forward will be the most
effectual means, and to establish a proper Militia System. On this
motion, therefore, will depend the question, whether we are to continue
a fruitless warfare in the present mode for seven or ten years, or shall
we adopt a better system, which will not cost one-fourth of the expense,
and which would completely check the Indians; nay, it would entirely
exterminate them, if that was thought to be necessary.

In order to bring the matter to a point, Mr. S. suggested, that it would
be proper to disband all the troops except the two former regiments of
two thousand one hundred and twenty-eight men, which would be more than
sufficient to garrison all the fourteen posts on the frontier. These,
with a militia, under proper regulations, and the officers appointed by
the PRESIDENT, would be found a more certain protection. The garrisons
are at Fayette, Hamilton, Steuben, Knox, Tammany, Telfair, Harmar,
Franklin, Jefferson, St. Clair, Marietta, Massachusetts, Matthews, and
Knoxville. Most of these are commanded by captains, except two that are
commanded by majors: now, reducing the establishment to two thousand one
hundred and eighteen non-commissioned and privates, and average them
amongst the garrisons, it will give one hundred and fifty-two men for
each; the sum saved by this reduction would be six hundred and
twenty-four thousand six hundred and seven dollars--the difference
between the appropriations for 1792 and those required for 1793.

With regard to the expense that would be incurred from militia
expeditions, none of them would cost above thirty thousand dollars; and
four or five of those, if made in a year, would have ten times the
success and effect that could be expected from the present system. Had
the militia plan been adopted, we should not at this day hear such
murmurs from our constituents, nor would the people be saddled with
heavy taxes and imposts; but, on the contrary, the money that has been
actually wasted would have sunk a considerable part of our National
Debt. But by the system of warfare lately adopted of dragging heavy
cannon and camps into a wilderness, of which we have confessed our
ignorance, if it be allowed any longer, our Treasury will be exhausted,
and the public revenues which the Secretary of the Treasury reported as
affording a prospect of income beyond the permanent wants of Government,
will not all together be sufficient for our War Establishment; we must
fly to loans, and pursue a system of ruin and distress to the country.
Under these impressions, said Mr. S., I have introduced the proposition
now before the House; and I entreat gentlemen to think seriously of it,
for thereon, in a high degree, will depend the real protection of our
frontier, the safety of our garrisons, and the ultimate ease, happiness,
and tranquillity of the continent.

Mr. HARTLEY, although he did not wish to advocate the continuance of a
standing army, yet he was averse to disbanding the troops at present,
while it is known that a negotiation for a peace is going forward, and
may not perhaps be brought to a decision before the spring. It is a
well-known maxim in politics, that a peace can always be easiest
obtained by a nation which is prepared for war. He noticed the great
prudence and economy of the PRESIDENT in forming the army into a legion;
and he differed in opinion with Mr. STEELE respecting the insufficiency
of regular troops. No instance could be quoted where regulars had
engaged the Indians without beating them.

Mr. PARKER said he had always abhorred the idea of keeping up standing
armies in this country; and he believed he could from experience
demonstrate that it was an unwise measure at the commencement of the
present Government; for it answered no better purpose than throwing out
a hint to the British and Spanish Governments, on our Northern and
Southern frontiers, to increase their forces, and even to administer
countenance and support to the Indians, which they never would have
thought of doing, but for our vain attempt at military parade. He
mentioned a letter which had been written by Lord Dorchester to the
Indians, informing them "that Prince Edward had arrived with a number of
chosen warriors to protect them," meaning against the United States.

Thus, said Mr. P., we have been warring with our finances for the last
three years, by keeping up an army in imitation of European plans, which
are formed in countries altogether unanalogous to America in every
possible view. The consequences have been unsuccessful, and produced
military disgraces, by sending into the field a collection of beings,
collected from stews and brothels and from the most unprincipled of
their species, to fight against Indians well supported on both sides,
and fighting, as they do, for their property, their hunting ground,
their wives, and children, instead of calling forth the militia, the
natural strength of the country. But the present plan has involved us in
such difficulties that we are not now able to provide for the payment of
our debts, without the medium of loans; nay, we are now called on for a
small sum of two hundred thousand dollars at the bank, which would have
been easily paid out of the surplus in the Treasury, were it not that
our finances have been exhausted by those ill-judged expeditions under
General Harmer and General St. Clair. He mentioned the naked, starved
appearance of the men who were sent out--with shoes that would not last
three days, clothes that did not half cover their miserable bodies from
the inclemency of the weather, and food sometimes not fit for dogs. He
could mention the particulars, if required, of some other very
abominable abuses, but refrained from it at present. He concluded by
expressing the same opinion of militia that Mr. S. had done; and, with
regard to the starved soldiery who had appeared in the woods, they were
despised so much by the Indians, that they called them Coatmen, and shot
them down like wild turkeys.

Mr. FITZSIMONS was apprehensive that it would be a dangerous experiment,
so suddenly to alter the system of defence already adopted. He remarked,
that when Mr. STEELE had stated the War Department to have cost the
United States three million five hundred and forty thousand dollars, he
had committed a great mistake, for there was one million one hundred and
seventy-one thousand dollars of that sum not yet granted. [Mr. STEELE
explained, that he had gone by the estimates for the appropriations
proposed, &c.] Mr. FITZSIMONS did not wish to advocate a standing army;
and if any better mode of defence for the frontiers could be digested,
he would be amongst the foremost who would agree to it.

Mr. WHITE could not entirely approve of the motion for striking out,
unless a proper substitute for defence was fairly brought forward.

Mr. WILLIAMSON said, it was not disbanding an army of men, but the
disbanding an army of paper, that he conceived to be the object of the
motion, and it should have his support. He mentioned an affair between
ninety militia and two hundred and forty Indians, wherein the militia
_received_ them much better than any of the regulars could boast of
having done!

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) reverted to a clause in the law which
empowers the PRESIDENT either to raise those three additional
regiments, or to forbear to raise them, or discharge them, &c., provided
he thought it consistent with the safety of the country. From this Mr.
S. said it was evident there was a sort of indelicacy in the motion, as
it implies a doubt that the PRESIDENT might fail in this instance, or
vary from his usual line of prudence.

Mr. DAYTON said, he would vote for referring the motion to a Committee
of the Whole, although he disapproved of it. He should not have risen
had he not heard from the two North Carolina members the strangest
perversion of argument and the most extraordinary reasoning. The
gentleman who has brought forward the motion, said Mr. D., has decried
every idea of energy and efficacy in regular disciplined troops
considering them not only inefficient, but contemptible, when employed
against Indians; and, to confirm this assertion, he has instanced the
expedition under General St. Clair, when it is well known that there
were not, in fact, two companies of regular disciplined infantry among
them. The other gentleman (Mr. WILLIAMSON) has extravagantly commended
the back-country militia, and extolled them for their efficiency and
success in Indian warfare; and instances the affair of a rencontre
between Major Adair, with ninety militia, against two hundred and forty
Indians. In reply to this, Mr. D. felt himself compelled to remark, that
that affair did not appear so successful in his mind; for those very
militia were unquestionably surprised and beaten, inasmuch as they were
driven into a corner, until the Indians captured all their horses and
other property in their camp; and what is still more disgraceful, one
half of the Major's party deserted him at the commencement of the
action, and secured themselves within their garrison.

Whilst he was up, Mr. D. would further observe on the extraordinary
speech of the mover of the question, that it was such as no person could
have ever expected to hear within the walls of that House. It seemed to
be calculated to prejudice the minds of the people against the whole
Administration; and it appeared still the more extraordinary that such a
speech should come from a gentleman who so lately expressed the nicest
delicacy in matters of order and decency; for, in this instance, he has
committed the greatest breach of decorum and propriety, by a direct
censure of the Secretary of War, the PRESIDENT, and both Houses of the
Legislature. [Here several members called Mr. DAYTON to order.] He
proceeded, however, and appealed to the House, whether he had not drawn
a just picture of the expressions of the gentleman from North Carolina.
The very calculations which he has so laboriously produced have been
questioned by other members. In regard to the surprise expressed by the
gentleman at the increase of the War Department from 1791 to '92 and
'93, it was not so strange that five thousand men would require greater
supplies than two thousand. Yet the gentleman is surprised at the
increase of expense, and seems to imply that abuses have been committed;
but if an increase of expense for protecting the frontiers has accrued,
the censure ought to fall on the Legislature for directing it by their
laws, and not upon the Executive, who are merely the instruments for
carrying them into effect.

Upon the whole, Mr. D., however he might himself be in favor of a
reduction of the army, if it stood simply on its own merits, yet, as it
now struck him, it being connected with some recent circumstances, he
would therefore oppose it as tending only to embarrass the Executive in
their attempts towards a pacification. Moreover, he said he knew the
temper of Indians so well, by having lived amongst them, that there was
not a nation on earth more extravagant in their demands, when they saw
the force against them was lessening. So that what is intended by the
motion for reduction at present, as economical, may turn out to be, in
the end, the most expensive of any.

Mr. WADSWORTH was also against the motion; and Mr. AMES closed the
debate by a few observations on the necessity of committing to a
Committee of the Whole, as there would be no other way of answering the
industrious calculations of the mover.

The question on committal was carried, and made the order of the day for
next Wednesday.


WEDNESDAY, January 2.

_Military Establishment._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
motion of the 28th ultimo, for reducing the Military Establishment of
the United States.

Mr. WADSWORTH rose and observed, that he had pledged himself to the
House last Friday to show that the calculations of the gentleman from
North Carolina were not true; and, if true, that the inferences drawn
from them were not correct. There was a material difference (he said)
between the appropriations quoted by the gentleman and those which he
would now read to the House. Here he read a statement which he had
prepared, from which it would appear that Mr. STEELE had overrated the
contingencies, hospitals, quartermasters, forage, cavalry, ordnance,
pay, and subsistence, each of them.

The total difference between Mr. STEELE's and Mr. WADSWORTH's
calculations, from this representation, was $27,080 in the year 1790.

In like manner, Mr. W. read his calculations for 1791. On comparing
which with those of Mr. STEELE, he said there was a difference in the
total of $252,312; and in the total of 1792, he showed a difference of
$567,530. He also particularly objected to Mr. STEELE's statements of
the ordnance expense for 1793, which had been called $23,000; but that
sum, although it comes under the head of ordnance in the estimate, is
not altogether appropriated for the purchase of cannon; the whole amount
of the expense of cannon, he said, had been very trifling--about $700
or $800. Having proceeded thus far in attempting to controvert the
calculations of the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. W. said, it would
indeed have been an alarming thing to the United States, had they been
founded in reality. But the gentleman had not confined himself to
misstatements--he had gone further; for he had "lamented the necessity
of quoting even truths from that office"--the War Office. Here Mr. W.
stated that the quotation which Mr. STEELE had made from a report of the
Secretary of War had not been correctly quoted. After Mr. W. had thus
represented Mr. STEELE's calculations as erroneous, and his quotations
as misstated, he said that the House ought to beware of not being led
astray by them. He next observed, that the gentleman had laid a great
deal of blame of the present hostilities between the United States and
the Indians, and the expense attending them, to the War Department. But
Mr. W. conceived that there were other causes to be assigned for the
Indian war. There had never been a day, from the first settlement of
America to the present moment, without our being at war with the
Indians, in one place or another. The history of the country, the
resolves of the old Congress, every book published by Congress, show
this to have been the case. [Here he read some quotations from the
resolves of 1784, to show the appropriations for defraying the expenses
of Indian wars.] He wished the House to take a retrospect of the
subject, from the beginning of those troubles down to the late
application for assistance from the National Government by the Governor
of Georgia. Although they have three thousand men on the frontier of
that State, yet it is not found sufficient, and the Indians have driven
them in. Indeed, there has been a time when the town of Savannah has
been obliged to keep a guard.

It was not his intention to introduce commendations of the officer at
the head of the War Department, but he thought it proper to observe,
that he is not to be blamed on account of the expenses referred to. He
is no more than an instrument acting under the Supreme Executive. It is
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES who has found it necessary and proper
to recommend the establishment of a military force. It is, therefore,
not the Secretary's, it is the PRESIDENT's war; and to assert that the
Secretary has had any undue influence with the Legislature, would be
altogether false; for, on the contrary, his reports have been treated
with disrespect in this House. Was not his report at New York ridiculed,
and called "preaching," &c., because it was in favor of peace, and spoke
with great humanity respecting the hardships often inflicted by the
whites on the Indians? Indeed, the Secretary of War has been uniform in
his endeavors to bring about a durable peace. This, however desirable an
object, has been found hitherto impracticable, and the Indians have
lately carried their depredations to so great a length that the
PRESIDENT has judged it necessary to repel them by force. They have
murdered in cold blood our ambassadors of peace, whilst holding a flag
of truce in one hand and reaching the other out in friendship to the
Indians. Perhaps they may have been excited to this degree of barbarity
by many causes. It is hard to determine which are the greatest
aggressors--the settlers on the frontiers or the Indians. The murder of
the Moravian Indians, the proclamation of Congress against our own
people, all show that the Indians have ground for complaint.

Here Mr. W. recapitulated the affairs of the banditti at Fort St.
Vincennes; the representations of Judge Innis, of Kentucky, from 1783 to
1790, respecting the people there who could not be restrained from the
commission of crimes against the peace of the country. From these causes
and the common fatality of the times, our attempts towards peace have
proved abortive, and the war has been prolonged, but the Secretary is
entirely innocent of promoting it.

In regard to the other arguments of the gentleman (Mr. STEELE)
respecting the militia, that they would afford either a cheaper or
better defence for the frontiers, he had his doubts.

Mr. W. now went over the whole history of the frontier wars; a line of
posts was once established and garrisoned by militia, yet they could not
prevent the Indians from coming within sixty miles of Winchester, and
murdering, scalping and plundering the women and children. After the
peace of 1762, the Indians drove in the militia, and advanced as far as
Cumberland and Carlisle, in the State of Pennsylvania.

But Colonel Boquet, with the remains of two regiments of regular troops,
who had just before arrived from the West Indies, marched against the
savages, and hired pack-horses to carry some of his sick men. With these
regulars, Colonel Boquet fought them and drove them with the bayonet
from one end of the country to the other. The battle began at one
o'clock the first day and lasted until night, and was renewed the next
morning with superior force by the Indians; yet they were entirely
discomfited. This news went to Fort Pitt and Virginia, and revived the
spirits of the country. Virginia raised more troops--and Colonel Boquet
dictated a peace to the savages.

These instances furnished sufficient arguments to show the superiority
of regular troops over militia. But he could mention many others, viz:
General Hartman, with eight hundred chosen men, giving a total defeat to
the Indians; Colonel Willet's attack and defeat of them; and General
Sullivan's affair in South Carolina.

As to the defeat of Harmer and St. Clair, their men ought not to be
reckoned regular troops. They were raw recruits, undisciplined, &c. But
even they stood better than the militia; for the militia ran away, and
those who remained to fight the savages fell, to their honor be it
spoken, whilst the militia, who were the advanced guard, ran and threw
away their guns, nay, their coats.

Upon the whole, the balance of argument, Mr. W. thought, must appear in
favor of regular troops.

He further took occasion to animadvert on what Mr. WILLIAMSON had said,
when that gentleman expressed himself so strongly in favor of the
militia under Major Adair. That officer, Mr. W. observed, had been a
Continental officer, and from his own words, it appeared that he had no
very great opinion of the militia, for they had fled to the garrison;
and the Indians obtained their ends, notwithstanding the _reception_
given by Major Adair. Theirs was the triumph, and when they retired, it
seems to have been not so much a matter of necessity, as a thing of
choice, on their part. The loss of horses, one hundred, perhaps, and the
expense of this affair, amounted to a much greater sum than any regular
troops would have cost. The party under Major Adair, supposing it to
consist of a hundred men, cost one hundred dollars a day, reckoning the
attendant circumstances--and considering it, as Mr. W. did, a complete
defeat--for there are no circumstances to prove that it was
otherwise--the militia having deserted him and left the few regulars he
had exposed to the whole of the danger.

Mr. W. did not stop here in his details of military disgraces--he
recounted many other cases. He mentioned the Grant's expedition against
the Cherokees, &c. And still he drew a balance against the successes of
the militia; for, he said, they had constantly been defeated, and the
country left exposed to the depredations of the enemy.

Much has been said, observed Mr. W., of Clark and Sevier's successes.
They, indeed, afford an exception to the cases above mentioned; but how
far were they successful? The immense expense of men and money, and the
interruption given to the agriculture of the country by calling away
from their business so many industrious citizens, is a thing beyond the
power of calculation; for my part, said he, I do not know figures enough
to count it up. For the truth of this position, and for the enormous
waste and expense incurred by militia, he appealed to one of the members
(Col. PARKER) on the other side of the House, who had experience in the
matter, whether it was not absolutely impossible either to bring militia
under a proper discipline, or prevent their enormous waste. A whole
brigade of regular troops would not cost so much as one regiment of
militia to a country. The militia of Kentucky have cost more blood and
wealth than all the American war; when the circumstances are considered
of calling out men from the tillage of the field, &c. It is enormous the
number of lives, and the aggregate loss is countless. The causes of
these things are, want of order and discipline, &c. And those causes
have produced _a universal reprobation of the war establishment_; but
all those who condemn are not well acquainted with those causes; they
judge from hearing only one-half of the truth in our newspapers. It is
supposed a peace can be easily effected, but I know of no peace that
has not been effected by force; for, although promises have been made
and peace often treated for with the Indians, yet they have as
constantly broken those promises. This is a good reason for keeping up
the present force of the United States. We are now able to meet the
Indians and demand a safe peace. But the gentleman from North Carolina
calls our establishment a mere military parade, which, it is said by
another gentleman, (Mr. PARKER,) will only tend to rouse the Spaniards
and the British, &c.

He went on quoting the conduct of the Indians and their threatening
manner, when they told you, "go to your own side of the Ohio," &c. What
language do they now hold out? But I am not at liberty, said Mr. W., to
mention it, as it was confidentially communicated to this House, and
read with our doors shut. However, it is well known to all the members
present the insolence of that language. For my part, I have little hopes
of a peace from any promises of the Indians; and although a negotiation
is said to be upon the carpet, I can never depend upon the promises of
savages who have so often broken them.

In speaking of the recruits that have been lately raised for the regular
army, Mr. W. opposed his opinion to that of Mr. PARKER, who mentioned
them in such contemptible terms as having been collected from the stews
and brothels of the cities, &c. For his part, Mr. W. had often seen
them, and he believed they were equal, if not superior in spirit and
appearance, to most of the soldiery during the British war, and better
than the soldiery were at the close of the war, with some exceptions,
such as respects the men who cost L300 each. Before he could quit the
subject, he begged leave to mention another instance of the efficacy of
regular troops; it was the affair of General Wayne's surprise, when the
light-horse dismounted, and cut the militia to pieces, and the infantry
drove them off at the point of the bayonet.

He ridiculed the idea of calling out a militia upon every emergency.
Where are they to be formed? In Pennsylvania it would be attended with a
tenfold loss, if they must quit their daily labor. He would admit that
the character of the Kentucky militia had been brave and intrepid; but
there was still occasion for a new war, and no ultimate protection
afforded to the frontier.

The Governor of North Carolina had complained of a friendly Indian being
murdered, &c. On the whole, he thought it improper to take militia to
fight Indian warriors. He admitted that some abuses might have been
practised in the regular army, but they were as little, if not less,
than in any other army he could remember.

He insisted that the scheme of the Department of War was not a scheme of
the Secretary, but a scheme of the United States from the PRESIDENT down
to the members of the Legislature, and the meanest of their
constituents. He took a retrospect of the great skill of the PRESIDENT
after Braddock's defeat. The PRESIDENT must be the best judge of the
disposition of Indians, and the best way of treating with them; he
approves the scheme of the present war, and shall we imprudently attempt
to change his plan, by sending out a few men to be knocked on the head
by the Indians, as those _coat_ men were? so called by the gentleman
from Virginia, (Mr. PARKER,) but instead of coat men, he, Mr. W. thought
they might also have been called petty-coat men, &c. He finished his
observations by again remarking, that the calculations of the gentleman
(Mr. STEELE) who had introduced the motion for reducing the present war
establishments were founded in error and ought not to have any weight
with the House.

Mr. STEELE.--When the House have deliberated upon the merits of the
gentleman's arguments, and the truth of my statements; and when they
have decided the question, I will submit to their decision; but, in the
mean time, I insist that my calculations are founded on the reports of
the Secretary and the public printed documents on the table, of the
appropriations and laws, &c. I wish the gentleman (Mr. WADSWORTH) had
told us where he has found those papers, from which he attempts to
controvert such authentic documents as I have quoted. I wish he had made
the House understand them; for my part they appear unintelligible.

Mr. WADSWORTH said it was from the laws.

Mr. STEELE explained some things in his former statements; and in reply
to some suggestions that might be thrown out with respect to his
indelicate mode of attacking the Secretary of War, or the PRESIDENT, he
defied any member to show that he had acted beyond the line of his duty,
or that he had ever shown any disrespect towards the PRESIDENT. On the
contrary, he was of opinion that that gentleman's character would for
ever be secured against all the possible attacks of ingratitude or
malice, &c. He also used some other very handsome expressions on this
occasion. But whilst he was ready to declare these things, and to prove
that he had no personal intentions of injuring the Secretary of War,
yet, he would not suffer himself to be deprived of his privilege, whilst
he had the honor of a seat in that House; and, in the present instance,
he thought it his duty to hold up his opposition against the rapid
increase of expenses in all the Departments of Government, which he said
were grown to an enormous burden upon the people, and unwarranted by the
constitution; that they therefore ought to be immediately checked. He
hoped, for the future, gentlemen would confine their arguments to
measures, and not apply them to persons. He sat down, for the present,
with this proviso: that he would reserve to himself the right of
answering to what might be advanced against his proposition, which he
could prove to be salutary; and that the present system is fundamentally
wrong.

Mr. HARTLEY was against adopting the motion under the present
circumstances of the country, and he entered into a particular
investigation of the merits of the question. When the last law for the
more effectual protection of the frontiers passed, the subject now under
consideration was very fully and ably discussed, and the gentlemen who
were averse to the augmentation, had several alterations made to satisfy
them.

Instead of the PRESIDENT's being obliged to raise the whole of the three
regiments, he was to exercise his discretion either to make the
augmentation complete, or raise a part, and he had authority to disband
them after being raised.

The 12th section of that law is thus expressed: "It shall be lawful for
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to forbear to raise, or to disband
after they shall be raised, the whole or any part of the said three
additional regiments, in case events shall in his judgment render his so
doing consistent with the public safety."

We should therefore consider whether circumstances have so materially
changed since that time as to render it proper that the Legislature
should interfere, repeal the powers given to the PRESIDENT, and
discharge the three regiments. This necessarily leads us first to view
the situation of our finances, and the state of the frontiers at and
immediately before the time of passing the law. The extent of our
revenue was not as well known then as at present, and every good man
deprecated the misfortune which obliged him to increase the taxes. The
war was a disagreeable one, but necessary, if peace could not otherwise
be obtained. The Legislature considered the expense, and were of opinion
that we had means and abilities to defray the same. Many murders and
ravages had been committed by the savages on the frontiers. One army had
suffered in the year 1790, and nearly a whole army cut off on the 4th of
November, 1791. And we had every reason to suppose that the Indians
would act in great force against us. Our finances are still respectable.
It is true, I should be happy if we could apply the money towards
discharging the national debt already contracted, but the unfortunate
situation of our frontiers prevent it. War, though an evil, may (from
the present disposition of the world) be sometimes necessary, when
nations are unreasonable and justice cannot be otherwise obtained.
Hostilities have lately been committed on our troops commanded by Major
Adair, and several of the Southern tribes show themselves inimical, and
we have no absolute assurances that we shall have peace in the spring.
The agreement by some tribes to a suspension of hostilities, was only
convenient to them as it protected their families for the winter.

The great object of the additional armament was to obtain peace: this is
not yet effected. May we promise ourselves more success in negotiation
by laying down our arms, or by retaining them? History is in favor of
the latter. Indeed, I hold it as a maxim, that the nation which is
prepared for war can most easily obtain peace. For my own part, I can
discover no existing causes for altering the system established by the
act to which I have before referred. The expense has been made a very
serious objection. It ought to have weight; but where measures have been
proper, America has not regarded it. She has freely expended her
treasure to support her rights. We are bound in justice and honor to
protect our fellow-citizens on the frontiers; we demand from them an
excise. They require from the General Government protection. I am for
making peace with all the Indians upon reasonable terms; but any country
which has been fairly purchased from the Indians, they should not be
permitted to repossess or hold by conquest. If an offensive war be
necessary says the gentleman from North Carolina, regular troops are not
the most proper to carry it on. They are more expensive, and unfit to
meet the savages of the wilderness. As to the expense, I have partly
answered before. But if the gentleman is to have five expeditions in one
year, I believe he would find that his calculations are not correct: a
misfortune to either detachments or party would bear very hard upon the
district they came from; the partial loss of regulars would not be
equally felt, very few of them having families.

I have a high opinion of the backwoods riflemen, but I am confident that
we cannot certainly rely upon their turning out as often as they might
be wanted; we could not rely on such uncertainty; and yet this is
offered as a favorite project. If you cannot rely upon them, you may say
that the ordinary militia can be drafted. You would find them unfit for
such a service; they would in general be composed of substitutes,
inexperienced and undisciplined, and it would be unfair to take them all
from the frontiers, and some of the States, or at least one, have no
militia laws. I am for retaining the regular troops.

The PRESIDENT has practised economy in organizing the troops voted for,
and I am told they have made considerable progress in discipline; they
are formed into legionary corps, composed of horse, riflemen,
light-infantry, and battalion-men. The three former will be fit for
active service in the field, the latter for the common duties in the
camp or garrison. I will allow volunteers and militia their full credit;
but I do not think the regular troops merit the disparagement attempted.
Volunteer corps have not been free from misfortunes. Colonel Crawford,
at the head of five hundred volunteers from Virginia and Pennsylvania,
was defeated in the Western country, and he was burnt at the stake.
General Braddock, it is said, was obstinate, and his European troops
were undisciplined for such a service. The army under General St. Clair
was lost, because the men were undisciplined and unfitted for that
service. I can mention several instances where regular troops have
successfully penetrated the Indian country, among warlike tribes, with
success: Colonel Montgomery, into the Cherokees; Colonel Armstrong to
the Kittaning; Colonel Boquet's campaign of 1763, and 1764. Three
detachments of the American army, in the year 1778, (one under the
command of General Broadhead, one under Lieutenant Colonel Butler, and
the last commanded by your humble servant,) penetrated the country
possessed by the Six Nations. Neither of the detachments was large, and
the last had to contend against superior numbers. In General Sullivan's
campaign, the year following, his vanguard beat an equal, if not a
superior number of Indians. I might mention the Roman legions; they
almost constantly were successful against those they called Barbarians,
until their enemies adopted the Roman discipline. I have a high opinion
of the personal bravery and prowess of an Indian, but I do deny that
they can act to the best advantage in large bodies. They have not an
experience of that kind; disciplined troops would have the advantage. I
reprobate the idea of a standing army, which might endanger the liberty
of this country; but I consider the troops contemplated in the act of
Congress to be absolutely necessary, until peace shall be obtained, and
therefore shall vote against a reduction. Every step has been taken, and
I dare say will be taken, by the PRESIDENT, to procure a peace without
bloodshed. Our messengers of peace have, in some places, been murdered,
and yet he has sent messengers to others.

Mr. CLARK.--One would suppose from the style of the debate, that we were
going to abandon the frontiers, the safety of the country, &c., and to
disband the whole of the army: for, the arguments of those gentlemen who
are opposed to the motion seem to be calculated to mislead the House in
that way, and to prove that the question under consideration is for
reducing the whole of the troops now existing. But this is so far from
being the true state of the matter, that it is not even contemplated to
disband a single man of them; it only goes to the prevention of raising
any more troops, which perhaps would be the safest policy under the
present circumstances and temper of the United States. There are about
three thousand three hundred effective men already raised, who are
sufficient to garrison the forts on the frontier, agreeably to the
gentleman's statement who introduced the motion; and, indeed, it seems
as if they were fully competent, if we believe the report that the whole
of the Indian force, at the time of meeting General St. Clair, and when
they exerted themselves to the utmost, was but one thousand two hundred
warriors.

Mr. C. made some further remarks on the sentiments which had been
expressed by the gentleman last up; and, in speaking of the
discretionary powers vested in the PRESIDENT, he was of opinion that the
situation of the Chief Magistrate in this respect was extremely
delicate: for, supposing he might be inclined to stop the recruiting
service, and reduce the war establishment; and supposing the frontiers
to be again harassed, it might be charged to him for not having kept up
the legal complement of men. Under this impression, Mr. C. wished that
some way could be adopted of conveying to the PRESIDENT the sentiments
of the Legislature on this subject, without the tedious form of a law.

Mr. PARKER.--The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. HARTLEY) has been
reading a section of the law, to inform us of the discretionary powers
vested in the PRESIDENT, which we have heard from other members before
he rose, and which we all knew as well as himself. I am sorry to hear
gentlemen, when they have no other resource of argument left, so often
resorting to the name of the PRESIDENT, to carry their measures; and
yet, in the present instance, I much doubt whether those sentiments are
avowed by the PRESIDENT, which have been laid to his charge in the
course of this debate: however, if they were really so, this is not a
sufficient reason to silence me, or to prevent me from delivering my own
sentiments, and those of my constituents who sent me here to do so. He
vindicated the character of the militia, in opposition to the
disgraceful picture which Mr. WADSWORTH had painted of this respectable
class of citizens, whom he (Mr. P.) insisted were always more spirited
soldiery, and fitter for fighting the Indians than the regulars,
although they did not always move at the sound of a trumpet or beat of a
drum, which were necessary to rouse the attention of heart-broken,
mercenary troops, who seldom act but from force, or fear of the
whipping-post. Militia were not so well acquainted with military show,
or the display of columns; neither did the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, when acting Major of a regiment little better than militia, find
that the doctrine of tactics was of any great service to him.

Mr. P. further mentioned, that the forerunners of General Burgoyne's
army were taken by General Stark's militia near Bennington; and the
capture of the whole of Burgoyne's army was chiefly brought about by
militia, as General Lincoln had very few regular troops at the time of
his surrender. In short, the militia bore a conspicuous share of almost
every engagement during the war. At Trenton, the men who took the
Hessians were little other than militia, as they had been raised but a
short time before. Mr. P. could vouch for them, as he was a witness of
their activity and bravery. Another instance offered of their success at
Charleston, after it was taken by the British and the regulars drove
off; the militia kept possession of the country and supported
themselves. He also remembered having been called away from the regular
army in the North to take the command of some militia in Virginia, who
supported themselves for twelve months without either pay or provisions
from the United States; and yet they were never once defeated or
disgraced, neither did they leave the country unprotected and exposed;
and all they received for their services was certificates which
necessity obliged them to alienate at three shillings in the pound to
persons who are now in possession of them drawing an annual interest of
nearly as much, and who never perhaps had a good wish toward the
Revolution. He next quoted the militia under Colonel Mercer, at
Yorktown, who were successful in a skirmish with the enemy under
Tarleton. These and several other arguments in favor of the militia,
whom he still maintained to be the best security of a country, were used
by Mr. P. He would not advocate the raising them from all parts of the
United States, but only in such places as the safety of the frontiers
required it most: they were not, to be sure, accustomed to the display
of the column, &c., but they knew how to take the Indians in a proper
way through the woods.

It gave him pain to hear the character of the militia so much traduced,
and it also was a painful reflection to think of the two disgraceful
defeats of our armies under Generals Harmar and St. Clair; indeed, it
would have a strange appearance to the world, to think that this country
is inhabited by the same men who lived in 1776. He repeated what he had
before asserted, that most of the present regulars were collected from
the stews and brothels of the cities, and had none of the spirit or
principles of the honest yeomanry, who composed the militia during
former wars, when every man turned out impressed with a good cause.

It was not, he said, his desire to criminate any individual in office,
although he would maintain his right of expressing his opinion on that
floor, so long as he held a seat in the House. But with regard to
myself, said he, I am not disposed to pour incense into any man's cup; I
respect the PRESIDENT as much as any man, and think him incapable of
doing wrong, at least on those principles that foreign despots are
supposed to do no wrong, because the people are their subjects, and dare
not to say their sovereigns do wrong, and dare not contradict this
tyrannic maxim. If the House, or if the PRESIDENT, have committed an
error, they ought to correct it; for my part, I conceived the whole of
the plan wrong from the beginning. From the present appearances, he was
convinced we should get no peace with the Indians, unless it were
dictated by the British agents in Canada; for it was clear, as long as
they can do us the injustice to withhold territory from us, we can have
little reason to expect their aid or friendship in bringing about a
peace which is so desirable. He hoped to live to see the day that
America will be able to show herself superior to her enemies, and
chastise them: at present, it would be improper to engage in any war, if
it could be avoided.

In addition to the foregoing reasons offered by Mr. P. for being opposed
to a war establishment, he also remarked, that it was from a desire to
see the public debt redeemed without resorting to new _taxes_; for if
_they_ once should get fixed _there_, (pointing up to the Senate
Chamber,) we should never be able to withdraw them, whether they were
necessary or not. He concluded by a hearty wish that the motion made by
his friend from North Carolina might succeed.

Mr. BOUDINOT was against the motion, as he thought any immediate
alteration of the present system would be attended with dangerous
consequences, under the present circumstances of the United States. He
did not think it would be justifiable to alter it. It would show an
instability in our public measures, especially at this moment, when we
have done every thing to bring about a peace with the hostile Indians:
and, when it is just advancing to the season for effecting it--when it
is at the eve of completion--shall we rashly counteract the whole? and
after having brought the enemy, who were so much elated on account of
their recent success, to a proper sense of our power and force to impose
an honorable peace, would it not be extremely imprudent to lessen our
own consequence before we have accomplished the object? The Indians
would, in this case, most indubitably raise their demands in proportion
to what they supposed to be our weakness. Mr. B. added several other
observations.

Mr. WILLIS had always been strongly impressed with a dislike for
standing armies; but when he considered the situation of the frontiers,
and particularly of the State of Georgia, he must give his vote against
the motion. Neither did he think two regiments by any means a sufficient
force, even to garrison the posts.

On motion, the committee rose and reported progress.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of State,
enclosing a list of the several persons employed in his office, with the
salary allowed to each, pursuant to the resolution of this House of the
thirty-first ultimo; which was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
bill making compensation to the widows and orphans of certain persons
who were killed by Indians, under the sanction of flags of truce, and,
after some time spent therein, the committee rose and reported progress.


THURSDAY, January 3.

Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, from the committee appointed, presented a bill to
regulate the claims to Invalid Pensions: which was received, and read
twice, and committed.

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
bill to make compensation to the widows and orphans of certain persons
who were killed by Indians, under the sanction of flags of truce; and,
after some time spent therein, the Chairman reported that the committee
had again had the said bill under consideration, and made several
amendments thereto.

_Ordered_, That the said bill, with the amendments, do lie on the table.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War,
enclosing a list of the persons employed in the several offices of his
Department, with the salary allowed to each, pursuant to the resolution
of this House, of the 31st ultimo; which were read, and ordered to lie
on the table.

_Military Establishment._

The order of the day being called for, the House went into Committee of
the Whole, (Mr. _White_ in the chair,) on Mr. STEELE's motion for
reducing part of the present military establishment of the United
States.

In reply to the speech made yesterday by Mr. WADSWORTH, and which had
been expressed in such strong language, Mr. STEELE thought it necessary
to make a few observations, as a preliminary, before the House went
further into the debate.

The gentleman from Connecticut had disputed the calculations which he,
Mr. S., had produced. Perhaps the gentleman's calculations may be right,
and perhaps both of our statements may be so; but with respect to those
which I produced, if the acts of Congress are false, if the reports and
estimates of the Heads of Departments on your table, Mr. SPEAKER, are
false, then my statements are wrong, or "untrue" as the gentleman
expressed it, and for which, I hope, on more cool reflection, he will
not adhere to. Mr. S. then read the acts of Congress of the 29th of
September, 1789, 26th of March, 1790, and 12th of August, same year; the
11th of February, 1791, and 23d December, 1792, &c., from which he
clearly proved that every item of his calculations was exactly quoted.
He knew of no surplusage unexpended at the War Department, but $140,000
as reported by the Secretary of the Treasury; if any gentlemen in the
House knew of any other, he hoped they would mention them. For his part,
he thought the estimate for 1793 showed very little savings any where
from the grants of the preceding year, but it contained demands for new
grants much larger than for any former year. This, however, was a
subject he did not at present mean to say much on, until he should hear
the sentiments of other members. He therefore sat down with a
reservation, that he would take the liberty of replying to such
arguments as might be adduced against his proposition.

Mr. WADSWORTH disavowed any intention of being indelicate in his
expressions yesterday, toward the gentleman from North Carolina; and if
he had, in the warmth of debate, said any thing to which that gentleman
could take offence, it was not meant so, and he was ready to retract it.
He could not, however, avoid taking notice, that the gentleman's
arguments appeared to him to convey a strong censure on the Executive,
and to spread abroad improper impressions. The principal error which he
dwelt on, was that of quoting the difference between the appropriations
of 1789 and 1790, to be so great as appeared from that gentleman's
statement. But the fact is, that the gentleman had overlooked the laws,
and instead of quoting the amount of the _two_ appropriations made in
1789, he had only mentioned the amount of _one_, consequently this was
giving an improper impression of the real comparative appropriations of
those two years; for, when they are taken in the whole, the difference
is not so great, nor the increase so much as Mr. STEELE exhibited it, by
$27,080. In like manner, the comparative increases of the other years,
1791, 1792, and 1793, have been misstated, and the truth is, that the
total increases are not less, but _more_ than the gentleman represented
them by the sum of $567,530.72.

Mr. CLARK hoped the gentleman last up did not suppose that the House was
going to war with the Secretary of War. He sincerely wished that some
means should be adopted of conveying the sense of the House to the
PRESIDENT, who would thereby be considerably relieved from the delicate
situation in which he now stands with regard to the discretionary powers
vested in him. Before Mr. C. sat down, he suggested the idea of filling
up the blank in Mr. STEELE's motion with the word three, so as to limit
the military to three regiments.

Mr. MILLEDGE liked the spirit of the motion, in regard to the prevention
of standing armies; but he was against its being put in practice at the
present time. He differed from the gentleman from New Jersey, and as his
motion had not a second he would proceed. He wished the question under
consideration to go to a Committee of the Whole, that a fair and open
discussion of every point of the important subject might be brought into
view. The situation of the State he had the honor to represent, had been
mentioned in the course of debate; he therefore felt himself called on
to deliver his sentiments; that he was persuaded there was not a member
in the House who more ardently wished for peace than himself, or who
would go further to promote so desirable an object, as putting an end to
a savage war, and an enormous public expense; but he was of opinion that
the reduction of the military establishment would not answer either of
those purposes; that it well became members to take into consideration
such parts of the Union as lay exposed, and then judge the propriety of
the intended measure; that it was well known that Georgia was a frontier
State, bordered on one side by a nation with whom a just understanding
and intercourse still remains to be settled by treaty, and on the other
by a warlike tribe of Indians, the most numerous of any on the
continent, ten thousand warriors, besides the Cherokee nation of three
thousand and five hundred--a State, in proportion to its wealth, and in
proportion to what it contributes to the General Government, of the
fewest inhabitants, an extent of frontier from the river St. Mary to the
northernmost line, full three hundred miles--a country hardly at any
period enjoying perfect safety, since the commencement of the
Revolution. My constituents said he, adopted the Federal system, from a
hope that we should be protected: some of them at this moment, have
never been able to return to their habitations, which they left at the
commencement of the war; and I am warranted in saying that a part of my
constituents are now throughout the State under arms. Let members for a
moment place their constituents in the situation of mine, and let me ask
them if they would not demand the protecting arm of Government? As yet
we have experienced little more than the enforcing a treaty, that has
not been complied with on the part of the British, which has reduced
some of our first citizens to a state of dependence on those who not
long ago were their avowed and open enemies, and a deprivation of our
territorial right, for the yielding of which a permanent peace and
permanent line were to be established. Of the peace we have experienced
no great share, and as for the permanent line, it still remains to be
run, and, from well-grounded information, the half-way conduct of the
Creeks the other day with Mr. Seagrove, gives very little reason to
expect it. Such was the situation of his State. But to the point: he was
of opinion that we set out wrong in warring with the Indians at any
rate. Unfortunately for us, the event has not answered the design, and
we are now reduced to that state that hardly any change can mend. The
unaccountable success of the Indians has so elated them with their
prowess,--and which likewise has presented views to the English and
Spanish they never dreamed of; and the federated situation of the
different tribes occasioned him not to hesitate in pronouncing that the
several frontier States would be more or less exposed to the cruel
ravages of a savage warfare. If the customs of savage tribes did not
direct them towards us, they were incessantly excited by the British and
Spaniards to amuse us with false pretences of peace, while they were
engrossing the advantages of their trade. The aged Indians kept to their
hunting, and the young men were gratified in the military exploits with
the blood of our fellow-citizens. In this situation the frontier of the
United States, a distance of not less than fifteen hundred miles, must
be garrisoned. He left it to gentlemen to calculate what force would be
required for that purpose, if troops should be employed in no other way.
Militia, he said, were for sudden invasion; they were scattered when
they returned, and must be protected while at home. The jealousy of the
English, and their augmenting their force, surely ought not to occasion
the reduction of any part of ours; if any thing, it ought to have a
contrary effect. He likewise said that it would be necessary to view the
early history of our country, and find what had been the conduct of
Spaniards and Indians about the commencement of the present century. The
Spaniards, at the same spot where they now are, by their treachery, when
they were at peace with the English, at a time when the Carolinians
little suspected, when they imagined they were in perfect alliance with
the Indians, the Yamasses, Creeks, and Cherokees, those Indians, by
their instigation, massacred one hundred and thirty of their
inhabitants, and drove the rest into Charleston. The inhabitants of the
capital of Georgia are as much exposed as the Carolinians then were; a
distance of twenty miles from Savannah, places them in an open,
uninhabited country, to the Creek nation, and within that twenty miles,
thinly inhabited on account of the nature of their cultivation. What had
happened, he said, might happen again: the Spaniards had not changed
their policy. If, therefore, we are forewarned, ought we not to be
forearmed? That, from their dangerous situation, even on a peace
establishment, there ought to be at least five hundred troops on that
frontier.

If public officers have misapplied the public money, the constitution
pointed out a mode to punish them. The Government belongs to the people,
the officers are their servants, we are their Representatives, and we
ought to do them justice. He conceived it was praiseworthy in any member
to afford any aid or information in his power to bring these things to
light; that he felt it his duty to make strict inquiry into the
expenditure of public money; that he was sent by his constituents to
protect their property, and in doing that should vote against the
present proposition.

Mr. FINDLAY observed that a difference of opinion existed in respect to
the motion for reducing the army. The mover was for filling up the blank
with _two_ regiments; but Mr. CLARK had proposed _three_, and was
against discharging any of those already enlisted. The principle of the
motion was what he wished to speak to. Passing by the comparative view,
so much alluded to in the course of the debate, of militia and regulars,
he struck at once into the heart of the question. The redemption of the
public debt, from the savings to be made by the reduction of the army,
seemed to be a principal object with some members, but in his opinion,
it was no more than a secondary one: the defence of the frontier is of
superior concern.

The origin of the war goes much farther back than that of the present
Government; it arose out of the war with Britain; and it has been ever
since changing for the worse, until it has at length assumed a very
alarming complexion; for it has united a greater number of tribes than
has ever been known, and it has exposed a much greater extent of our
frontier. With regard to the mismanagement or abuses, if any there were,
it was no place to discuss such subjects by desultory debating in this
House, whilst there were other modes open. He did not, however, believe
that any material abuses had taken place indeed. This war is not one of
the faults chargeable to the Executive, for it might with more justice,
perhaps, be said to have had its origin in the ineffectual measures of
the Legislature. The first Congress assembled under the present
Government found the Union in a state of war; and although one regiment
was stationed at Pittsburg, yet the militia were not relieved from
actual service. But the lately raised troops may perhaps be found more
effectual, as it is said there is an excellent system of discipline
established amongst them.

With regard to the argument that the Union cannot support so heavy an
expense by new taxes, he was of opinion that every consideration ought
to give way to the safety and protection of the country.

A particular plan is set into operation for accomplishing a peace, and
it ought not to be arrested without a trial being made. The ill-defined
law authorizing the PRESIDENT to call out the militia, and the levies
under General Harmar, did not answer the end intended, for the time of
their enlistment had nearly expired ere they had reached their
destination; but if General Harmar had carried out two regiments of
permanent troops, he could, without the assistance of the militia, have
destroyed all the Indian towns and villages that stood in his way, and
he would have completed the object of erecting a line of posts which
would secure a lasting peace; but from the weakness of the force and the
inefficacy of the law, the purpose was arrested at a critical moment,
and the vengeance of the Indians roused to the utmost pitch; instead of
their fears being alarmed, the next step of raising another regiment was
of a piece with the former weak policy; for the encouragement was
insufficient, and the miserable two-dollar men who were raised for a six
months' service--their fate is too well known, and will be long
remembered. They arrived at the wilderness with clothing that lasted
only to the time they reached the scene of action, and those who were
not cut off by the enemy were left to starve with cold in the most
inclement season.

The fatal catastrophe of this campaign has only served to elate the
Indians, and render them insolent, as appears from their treatment of
our messengers under flags of truce. The parsimony on those occasions
has been the cause of a double expense.

In opposition to this it may be said that those parsimonious plans were
recommended by the Executive, and only enacted into laws by the
Legislature. This, however, if it were the fact, is no apology for the
Legislature, for they have no right to cast their Legislative
responsibility upon the Executive Department; nor can they do it without
a breach of trust towards their constituents. The members knew that the
encouragement of pay and time of enlistments would never answer any good
purpose; the want of resources could have been no reason for that
parsimony toward the defence of the frontiers, because it is known that
we found revenue enough not only to pay the interest of the public debt,
and to support the Government, but even to pay the debts of the
individual States. The conviction of these mistakes induced Congress at
last to make adequate provision, and now an attempt is made to withdraw
the means before the end is accomplished. The other branch of the
Legislature has prevented us from giving higher wages to encourage the
recruiting service; but notwithstanding all this, it appears to go on
with considerable success.

Here he mentioned something of the confidential communications which he
was not now at liberty to explain. The gentleman who says that two
regiments are sufficient to garrison the forts, ought to consider that
garrisoning those is not the only object in contemplation. If we expect
to exist as a nation we must protect the whole frontier, and make it the
interest of the Indians to be at peace with us.

But do gentlemen consider the consequences of throwing all internal
defence and distant expeditions upon the militia? Is it not enough that
they already stand as a picket guard to their brethren who live at ease;
that they eat their bread in the fear of their lives, and are frequently
embittered with the view of mournful incidents; but that we must lay a
deliberate plan for increasing the number of their fatherless children
and childless parents?

To say that those States who have frontiers, ought to be left to protect
themselves, is a very anti-Federal sentiment, which he was sorry to hear
advanced in that House. Neither is it generous to say we will pay the
expense, and let them fight for us. Do gentlemen contemplate to what
issue these principles would lead? Do they not observe that the fate of
the Government is deeply involved in the decision? Perhaps I may be
asked, Did not the States depend chiefly upon their own exertion for the
defence of the frontiers under the old Congress? Yes, they did, and were
better protected than since that period. But let it be recollected that
at the time the States had the command of their own resources, and the
laying and executing their own plans, that the Indians were not so
formidably combined. But that since the States had not the power of
retaliating, nor the means of gratifying with presents; since the
Indians have been solemnly told to look away from the little fires of
the States, to the great fire of the Union, they have looked upon us as
a more formidable and dangerous foe, and made their arrangements
accordingly; and European nations, and emissaries among them, have
improved upon the circumstance, and excited and aided them in their
union and exertions.

He made some further remarks on the impolicy of oppressing the militia
at Marietta, &c., and asked if it were possible that those unfortunate
few could be able to protect the whole frontier against the united force
of the Indians?

He agreed with those who said that the sense of the people of America
was in favor of peace; but the question is come to this. It is not to
begin a war that we have raised this army, but to procure a peace, and
so soon as this end is attained, the army will be discharged. It is
raised to protect, not to oppress, or to aid in governing our citizens.
I know, said he, that standing armies have always been sources of
oppression and aids of tyranny. Our people may long be governed without
such aids; their situation will not admit of abuses from standing
armies, nor would the citizens submit to them.

He was confident that the army would be discharged by the next
Legislature, as soon as a prospect of our affairs will admit it. The
present prospects were not of a very flattering nature, and therefore it
was good policy to keep up the force at the present crisis; and it would
be dangerous to repeal the law under the circumstances.

The present Indian war is essentially different from any former one.
When Britain and France divided North America betwixt them, if the
emissaries of both excited the Indians to war, the power of both
afforded protection. When Britain became possessed of the Western posts,
and many tribes of Indians commenced a war, the British Government
conducted the war, carried it into the Indian country, and by the dread
of their arms procured peace; but the Indians were not then supported by
other powers. In the present war, the Indians, who at that time knew
nothing of us, have combined to make it a common cause; and no superior
powers interest themselves in our favor. No: they conceive our interest
to be inimical to theirs. But if they did not receive encouragement,
protection, and supplies from our superior neighbors, a peace would soon
be procured. The gentlemen who support this resolution know well how
that matter stands, and they know explanations here are not convenient.
He concluded by declaring that he could not vote for the motion.

The committee now rose, and had leave to sit again.


FRIDAY, January 4.

SAMUEL STERRETT, from Maryland, appeared, and took his seat in the
House.

The House proceeded to consider the amendments reported yesterday by the
Committee of the whole House to the bill to make compensation to the
widows and orphans of certain persons who were killed by Indians, under
the sanction of flags of truce; and the same being read, some were
agreed to and others disagreed to. And then the said bill, being further
amended at the Clerk's table, was, together with the amendments, ordered
to be engrossed and read the third time to-morrow.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the
Treasury, enclosing lists of the persons employed in the several offices
of his Department, with the salary allowed to each; also, a letter
accompanying certain statements relative to foreign loans, which have
been made by the United States, under the authority of the President,
pursuant to the resolutions of this House of the 24th and 27th ultimo;
which were read and ordered to lie on the table.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
bill to regulate the claims to Invalid Pensions; and, after some time
spent therein, the committee rose and reported progress.


SATURDAY, January 5.

A petition of the inhabitants of the city of Hudson, in the State of New
York, was presented to the House and read, stating the inconveniences
under which they labor, from being obliged to register, enter, and clear
their vessels at the port of New York, and praying that the said city of
Hudson may be made a port of entry. Referred to the Secretary of the
Treasury, with instruction to examine the same, and report his opinion
thereupon to the House.

An engrossed bill to make compensation to the widows and orphans of
certain persons who were killed by Indians, under the sanction of flags
of truce, was read the third time and passed.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War,
accompanying the copy of a message of Cornplanter and New Arrow to Major
General Wayne, dated the 8th of December last, relative to the measures
which they have taken to conclude a peace, on behalf of the United
States, with certain tribes of hostile Indians; which were read and
ordered to lie on the table.

_Military Establishment._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the motion of the 28th ultimo, for reducing the military establishment
of the United States.

Mr. MOORE said, that there was not sufficient information before the
House respecting the prospect of a peace, to warrant a sudden reduction
of the army. He referred to the abuses which had been hinted at in some
of the branches dependent on the War Establishment, but he did not
believe there had been any worth much notice. He also mentioned the
abstruseness of attempting an investigation into the origin of the
war--whether the frontier settlers, or the Indians, were in fault, was a
difficult thing to determine; but from many circumstances, it appeared
to him, the white people were often guilty of committing depredations.
This was, in his opinion, a good reason why the protection of those
frontiers should not be intrusted to the militia that would be raised
there. Shall we intrust the conduct of that matter to the very persons
who it has been alleged are often the aggressors? Can the President, at
the distance he is situated from the Western territory, check all the
irregular proceedings that might happen amongst such a militia? There
were two obvious reasons for passing the law of the 5th of March, 1792,
for the protection of the frontiers by regular forces. First, it could
not be expected that militia would always prove successful against the
Indians, because the latter are gaining more experience every day in the
mode of warfare, and there can be no dependence on a treaty between
those militia and the Indians. The second reason was, that the
President was strongly impressed with the necessity of establishing the
greatest degree of harmony between the United States and the Indians, by
encouraging and protecting a trade with them, and that this could be
easiest and best effected by establishing a line of forts along the
frontiers, to be garrisoned by regular troops. Mr. M. next mentioned
something of the manners and customs of the Indians, whose practice it
is to spend most of their time on their hunting grounds, leaving their
old men, women, and children, in their towns. They have no regular plan
of government, and can only be attached by influencing some of their
chiefs. The system of harassing them by burning and destroying their
towns at the time they are employed in hunting, has come recommended to
us by experience, and regular troops are the best to be employed in this
service. Their present inexperience will soon be done away by a proper
mode of discipline, and why may not these troops be soon instructed? Are
they not as capable of receiving instructions as militia, and may we not
expect more subordination amongst them, than could possibly be
established over militia? He concluded by declaring himself against the
motion.

[Here the SPEAKER informed the Chair that lie had received a
confidential message from the PRESIDENT. The committee then rose, and
the galleries were closed for some time.]

The House having gone into Committee, the debate was renewed by Mr.
WILLIAMSON, Mr. MADISON, and Mr. STEELE.

Mr. STEELE rose after Mr. MADISON, and said he was perfectly in
sentiment with that gentleman, in regard to the propriety of inserting
an amendment to the motion, which might secure a sufficient
appropriation to carry on offensive operations against the hostile
Indians, by the militia of the frontiers; and if an alteration was
proposed to that effect, he would second it. The attention of the House
to this question speaks its importance; it is probable one more
important will not occur during the present session. On its decision are
suspended the hopes and fears of the people of this country, their hopes
of a speedy and honorable peace, and their fears of a standing army,
with its usual retinue of political evils.

The present is regarded as an interesting epoch in the affairs of the
United States; and it has been perceived, with serious regret, that
while our national character is forming, (he hoped it was not yet
formed,) it seems to partake, in some respects, more of the unnatural
spirit of monarchy, than of the mild and conciliatory temper of a
republic. The principle of keeping up standing armies, though highly
obnoxious to the great body of the people, has not been equally so to
the Government; they have been maintained and increased without
affording protection, or even defence to the frontiers. The supplies
necessary to support the establishment begin to discover an alarming
derangement of the public finances, and it is now incumbent on the
House of Representatives to check this growing mischief.

Mr. S. then adverted to the effects of standing armies on the morals and
political sentiments of the people, wherever they had been employed; of
the expensiveness of all such establishments, and of the wicked purposes
to which they had been, and might be subservient. He said he had
prepared himself to have spoken largely to this point, and to have
quoted the pernicious effects of such a policy in other nations; but the
debate having been already lengthy, and the committee probably fatigued,
it would be sufficient for his present purpose, for the members to make
their own reflections, and to mark the rapid progress of the army from
1789 to 1792, both in numbers and expenses. Instances from foreign
history are superfluous, when our own affords such ample testimony. The
establishment began with one regiment: it is now five. The House was
called on in 1789 to appropriate a little more than $100,000 for that
Department; in the present year, above $1,000,000 is demanded. The
reason of this extraordinary additional expenditure, this unexpected
increase of the army, if not enveloped in darkness, has been founded on
policy hitherto not satisfactorily explained. He said, however lightly
he was disposed to touch this part of the subject, he could not avoid
reminding the committee of the memorable sentiments of 1776, in regard
to standing armies; of the universal abhorrence of the Americans to them
at that time; and, to illustrate it more clearly, he read the
expressions of some of the States in their Bills of Right. These were
the sentiments of the Whigs of 1776, and to such Whigs he wished to
appeal on this occasion. He also reminded the committee of the recent
debates of 1788, of the amendments proposed in several of the State
Conventions; of the unanimity which prevailed among all ranks of people
on this particular point; and it is now to be lamented, said he, that
while the ink which recorded these objections to the constitution is yet
drying, the evil then predicted has taken place.

If there is a subject on which much deliberation is unnecessary, in
order to form a right opinion, it would be in regard to military
establishments. The feelings of a free people revolt at their
continuance, and every man who reads or thinks, can point out their
dangers. He said he felt more anxiety for the fate of this motion, than
commonly marks his conduct, because this is the last session that will
ever afford him an opportunity to trouble the House with his sentiments
on this or any other subject. The motion was brought forward to
discharge a duty which he owed to his constituents, to satisfy his own
conscience, and to afford that protection to the frontiers which they
deserved, and to save the public money. If an uncommon degree of zeal
was discovered in supporting the motion, it ought to be attributed to
these, and no other motives.

The question will now soon be taken; if adopted, I shall be among those
who rejoice; if rejected, among those who have always submitted with a
proper degree of decency to the decision of the majority. But in any
event, the public will know that we have asserted the sense of the
people against standing armies; that we are anxious to defend the
frontiers against their enemies; that we have recommended a system of
economy and efficiency, instead of profusion and delay; that we have
recommended a system calculated to produce victory and peace, instead of
disgrace and war; and that we wish to rescue the Government from the
intoxication of the times, and all the apery of military establishments.

He said he had been attentive to the arguments of the opposition, and
they led principally to four points. If neither of these positions be
found tenable, the motion will certainly succeed; and that they are not
tenable, is believed and will be shown.

1st. It has been boldly asserted that the PRESIDENT is the author of the
existing system.

2dly. They call in question the sincerity of our declarations in wishing
to afford effectual protection to the frontiers.

3dly. They deny the competency of the militia.

4thly. The impolicy of reducing the establishment, when a treaty is
expected.

In regard to the first, we deny that the PRESIDENT is the author of this
plan of prosecuting the war. Not having avowed explicitly himself that
he is so, no document appearing to confirm that opinion, we are
justified in attributing a system which appears to us ineffectual to his
Secretary, and not to him.

It is true, that the Secretary is only a finger of his hand, and the
intimate connection which must of necessity subsist between them,
perhaps, is the ground upon which the assertion has been made. The
Secretaries are all equally near to the PRESIDENT, and if it be admitted
that he is the author of this, he may, with equal propriety, be said to
have been the author of every system on general subjects which either of
them have recommended.

Was he the author of the report on the fisheries? Was he the author of
the plan for establishing the National Bank? It is known that he was
not, and circumstances might be mentioned (which are withheld from
delicacy) to confirm this opinion.

Was he the author of the Funding System? Some gentlemen in the
opposition to this motion, would not be willing to give the PRESIDENT
that credit if he claimed it, and some who support this motion would not
only be sorry that the PRESIDENT had even claimed such a credit, but
believe that it was in no respect attributable to him. The same
gentleman (Mr. WADSWORTH) who first asserted that the PRESIDENT was the
author of this military plan, in the same speech admitted it to be the
war, as well as the plan of the House, and then argued on the necessity
of stability in our measures. It is not very material to the present
question whose plan it is; being a public measure, we are justified in
offering our objections to it; and this is the first time that I have
heard it publicly asserted that a Government should persevere in an
error, because they had undertaken it. If the plan be a good one, it may
be supported by reason; if a bad one, no name ought to be called in to
prop it up.

The inconsistency of that gentleman's (Mr. WADSWORTH's) arguments not
only supports the motion before the committee, but shows the wretched
shifts which have been used to defeat it.

It has been said, in the course of the debate, that individual members,
and even this House, are incompetent to decide upon the efficacy or
inefficacy of military plans. In answer to this it may be said, that if
we are not all Generals, we are all members, and that we have the
privilege of thinking for ourselves and for our constituents. To admit
this doctrine in the latitude which has been expressed, would be to
introduce military ideas indeed; it would be to make soldiers of us,
instead of Legislators: nay, worse than that, it would be to revive the
exploded doctrines of passive obedience and non-resistance.

In regard to the sincerity of his intentions to afford effectual
protection to the frontiers, Mr. S. said that he had been sufficiently
explicit; that a feeling for the sufferers had dictated this motion;
that he was sorry that it had been whispered in the ears of some of the
members that it was intended to withhold the necessary appropriations,
and divert them to other purposes.

If two regiments were insufficient to garrison all the posts necessary
for defence, he would even, under certain restrictions, consent to
continue the three sub-legions, thereby enabling the PRESIDENT to
establish double the number of posts now erected, if he should deem it
advisable. Regular troops being incapable of active expeditions against
Indians in the wilderness, his wish was to abandon that system and
confine them entirely to the garrison.

The next objection to the motion is the incompetency of the militia; and
to support this opinion the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. WADSWORTH)
has made this expression, "that as to the expedition under General St.
Clair, the regulars were few, and not to be named when compared with the
number of the militia." The truth is, there was not a man engaged that
day as a militia man, except the advance guard commanded by Colonel
Oldham, which consisted of about three hundred, perhaps a few more. The
field return of the day preceding the action being in the War Office,
this can be ascertained with precision. The balance of the army on that
unfortunate day, had been enlisted as regulars, were fought as regulars,
even clothed as regulars, and, poor fellows, died like regulars. They
suffered the fate which awaits every regular army destined for similar
expeditions. Even the handful of militia employed that day, did not
deserve that name; they were chiefly substitutes for drafted men from
the ceded territory. This draft became unavoidable, from a misfortune to
General Sevier, which Mr. STEELE related.

The attack on Major Adair has also been mentioned as a proof of the
incompetency of militia, and Mr. S. insisted that the only inference
which could be drawn from thence was, that one hundred militia were able
to repel, but not destroy, near two hundred Indians. This event he
conceived was in favor of and not against his motion.

He next adverted to the arguments of Mr. WADSWORTH, in regard to the war
of 1762; of the establishment of posts in Pennsylvania and Virginia, and
of the success of Colonel Boquet's expedition. If two worn-out regiments
at that time were sufficient to defend the frontiers, and, with the aid
of the militia, to terminate the war, two new regiments, with all the
vigor which the gentleman described them to possess, with the aid of
established posts, and a much more effective militia, can certainly be
equal to the same end. After examining Mr. W.'s arguments for some time,
Mr. S. said, that when analyzed, it would be found that they proved more
than they were intended to prove; but the merits of this motion did not
require that he should take advantage of these indiscretions.

He showed from the history of 1762, that though posts were established,
with a handful of regular troops in each, they never answered the
purpose of effectual protection; but the frontier people were always
obliged, in a great degree, to defend themselves; that they were best
calculated for that service, and that they would perform it now with
alacrity and success, if well rewarded.

Mr. S. then refuted the objection against the militia on account of
their waste and expense which Mr. W. had alluded to. The law allows a
mounted volunteer, furnishing himself with a good horse, good arms,
provisions, and every other necessary, except ammunition, at his own
risk and expense, one dollar per day. The exact expense of such an
expedition can be calculated. Whether successful or not, the charge to
the public cannot be increased. The contractors, quartermasters, and
hospital departments, are all avoided, with the abuses, expenses, and
frauds, attending such establishments. Mr. S. enlarged upon this point,
and said that these were always found to be the most expensive
departments in any army, and that the Federal Treasury had felt their
effects already. In favor of the militia, it may be asked, who fought
the battle of Bunker's Hill? Who fought the battles of New Jersey? Who
have fought the Indians so often with success, under Generals Wilkinson,
Scott, Sevier, and others? Who marched in 1776 under General
Rutherford, through the Cherokee nation, laid waste their country, and
forced them to peace? Who fought the battles of Georgia, under Clark and
Twiggs? Who fought the battles of South Carolina, under the command of
an honorable member now present? Delicacy forbids me to enlarge upon his
successes in his presence.

Who fought the ever-memorable battles of Cowpens, King's Mountain,
Hanging Rock, Blackstocks, the pivots on which the Revolution turned in
the Southern States? In short, who fought all the battles of the
Southern States, while we had a mere handful of regular troops, scarcely
the shadow, much less the reality of an army?

They were all fought by freemen, the substantial freeholders of the
country--the men attached to the Revolution from principle, men who were
sensible of their rights and fought for them.

Such men will not enlist in regular armies, nor will any one who has the
disposition or the constitution of a freeman. It would give me pain to
describe the trash which composes all regular armies: they enlist for
three dollars a month; which, in a country like the United States, is a
sufficient description of their bodies as well as their minds. Such men
are not fit to combat the most active enemy in the world. Here Mr. S.
read Major Gaither's and Major Trueman's depositions, respecting the
defeat of the 4th November, 1791, stating that they could not see the
Indians, because they were behind trees, &c.; that the regular troops
tried, but could not fight that way; that they seemed to be stupid, and
incapable of resistance; and that if any General in the world had
commanded such men that day, he must have been defeated as they were.

An additional argument, and one of the most weighty, too, against
regular expeditions, in this species of warfare, is, that, by the
slowness of their movements, the force of the enemy may be concentrated;
time is afforded them to form alliances, and to confederate against
those whom they consider a common enemy. It is otherwise with militia
incursions. He offered a number of reasons to show that it was so, and
how essential for the interest of the United States to adopt a policy
calculated to detach the tribes from each other as much as possible.

But it has been said, these men were not regular troops. Mr. S. asked,
what, then, were they? They surely were not militia. The last objection,
and the least serious of all, to this motion, is the expectations of a
treaty in the spring. Mr. S. said, if he thought the gentleman who threw
this difficulty in the way believed himself that we have any reason to
expect a permanent peace from the treaty now proposed, it might deserve
an answer. Facts are more to be relied upon than words. From the channel
through which these propositions have come--from the whole complexion of
their talks, and from the late attack on Major Adair, it may safely be
asserted that no peace can be effected in the spring. He recapitulated
some of the difficulties which this motion had to conflict with, and
said that he could mention others, if he was at liberty to do so. Under
such circumstances, success is hardly to be expected; but he knew the
merits of the motion deserved it.

Mr. HILLHOUSE, who had hitherto sat silent, observed that nothing new
had been advanced in the whole course of this long debate, but what he
had heard mentioned last winter in that House. He was then opposed in
principle to a war establishment, and he still retained the same
opinion; but, from the complexion of affairs, it appeared to him that he
ought to submit, and give up his own opinion to the general sense of the
Legislature, which at present seemed to be for persevering in the system
already adopted, and which, as it had scarcely had time for a fair
trial, he thought, therefore, ought not to be arrested, perhaps in the
very instant when its efficacy was to be expected. If peace should not
be established during the next summer, he would then join with such
members as would propose a better system; but as the law provides for
the discretionary powers of the Executive, it would be best to rely on
them. A standing army, he said, was a thing impossible to be
accomplished in the United States whilst the House of Representatives
have the power of granting money only for two years at any time; he
therefore had no fears on that score. An army existing in time of peace
was the idea he had of a standing army, and not an army embodied for
only a year or two. Upon the whole, it would be as expensive to disband
the present force, and to institute another of militia, &c., as it will
be to keep up the existing establishment for a little longer time; it
was therefore his advice to let the matter rest where it is, with the
Executive, for the present. But, in case of a peace not being
accomplished within a reasonable period, he would join those who would
be for a change in the system; and he was clearly of opinion that a
system might easily be adopted, not only to protect our frontiers by
repelling the savages, but to exterminate them altogether.

Mr. FINDLAY felt himself inclined to say a word or two more in reply to
Mr. STEELE. He thought it would be unjust to lay so much of the weight
of protecting the frontiers on the militia only. He expatiated on the
meaning of the word _militia_ as defined by law, &c. He also remarked
that, however it might be fashionable to despise the levies, yet amongst
them there were examples of great bravery to be found, and particularly
in one battalion of the unfortunate army on the 4th of November, 1791.
He noticed the well-conducted retreat of Major CLARK, and the success of
General Broadhead up the Alleghany. It was unjust to expect to raise
enough of militia in the back parts of Pennsylvania; and the inhabitants
of Virginia are so dispersed near the frontiers that they cannot be
expected from that State. With respect to the men who went out with
General Harmar, and whose time of enlistment expired soon after they
reached the scene of operations, many of them remained and settled in
that country. He again repeated the injustice of calling out heads of
families from one part of the frontier; and above all, he lamented the
risk and loss of lives. But, if it should be determined to carry on the
war with militia, let them be called from all parts of the United
States. The burden already laid on a part of the inhabitants is
extremely unequal, and must not lie longer on them. Let the troops now
raising be disciplined. I am informed that many of them are considerably
advanced in point of discipline, and may before spring become expert
soldiers. Let these go on in the present system, and let the militia
also be kept up or increased, until the object shall be attained for
which the law was intended, and then, and not before, it may be proper
to talk of reducing the present establishment. We are now in a situation
that it would be extremely imprudent to retreat from.

Mr. MURRAY delivered some opinions on the preceding arguments of all the
members, and remarked that the army, under the present establishment,
had no right to be compared to or called a standing army; it bore no
more comparison to a standing army than a chameleon to an owl.

Mr. WADSWORTH closed this tedious debate with a few further
explanations. He accounted for the difference between his calculations
and those of the gentleman from North Carolina by observing that he got
some of his statements from the War Office. Mr. STEELE's were taken from
the appropriation laws, and in one instance he had underrated the
appropriations. With regard to the opinions he had delivered on the
militia, he had never meant to traduce the character of militia, because
he had often experienced their brilliant actions; his arguments went no
further than to show that the operations of regular troops were in
general more effectual. He never wished to detract from the honor of
militia, but only to remark that they were not so efficient as regular
troops.

The question on the original motion being now put, was negatived.

Mr. WILLIAMSON did not entirely approve of the motion in its present
form; the blanks might be so filled, he thought, as to import a thing
opposite to his wishes--they might import a discharge of the regular
troops already raised. He believed his colleague had no such desire; he
thought the measure would be improper; but he wished not to have a
regiment of officers without soldiers; he wished to fix a time at which
the recruiting service should cease and the supernumerary officers
should be discharged. As he intended to move that the proposition might
be so amended, he should consider it in that light, and he believed the
measure would not be imprudent nor inconsistent with the most vigorous
measures of defence or offence.

It should be remembered that the House of Representatives, when they had
the bill before them, which last winter passed into a law, for defending
the frontiers, sent it to the Senate, with a clause importing that
officers below the rank of field-officers should not be put into
commission any faster than troops could be enlisted. The Senate,
adhering to their privilege, refused to agree to that clause in the
bill, and it became necessary immediately to commission the officers for
five thousand men, some of whom, if report speaks truth, not covetous of
honor, are content with their pay, without having raised three men. By
the proposed amendment the officers only would be dismissed, whom most
of us wished never to have seen in commission.

The proposed regulation has been censured as implicating some kind of
censure on the Executive. He viewed it in a different light. The
Executive had done what was proper and necessary at the time. But if it
should appear that other measures would fit the change of circumstances,
he did not see why those measures should not be adopted. It should be
recollected that, during the last winter, when the estimate of five
thousand men as necessary for the defence of our frontiers was handed to
Congress, there was no militia law. A well-armed effective militia, that
palladium of liberty, had once and again been recommended by the
PRESIDENT to the attention of Congress; but Congress, from year to year,
as if they wished for a standing army, had neglected the militia.
Towards the close of the last session, indeed, they passed a law. He
hoped he might, without offence, call it the shadow of a law. It was
saying, in a few words, that the several States might have a good
militia if they pleased; and, if they pleased, they might have none at
all. Was the Executive to trust the defence of a country to a militia
formed under such a law? He thought not. But he observed that, since the
last winter, it had come to be generally known that a class of our
fellow-citizens exist on the frontiers who are at all times ready to
serve, not as drafted militia, but as volunteers. These are the men by
whom the Indians must be chastised, or we shall never have peace. They
are the best woodsmen and marksmen, and they have no professional
interest in spinning out the war. He must repeat the observation that
volunteers of the militia are the only troops for vigorous offensive
operations. Figure to yourselves an army of regulars creeping through
the wilderness, with all its cannon and other military apparatus, in
chase of a naked savage, who sees it without being seen. It is an
elephant in chase of a wolf. The troops already raised may be pretty
well disciplined before the season for action; they are sufficient, with
the co-operation of the militia, to take a post, and build forts where
they please; every thing else is beyond their power, if they were not
five but fifteen thousand. They will never see an Indian unless he
chooses to be seen. He wished to be indulged in a single observation
respecting a case in which it was said the other day, the militia had
been surprised. He was sorry that his naming Major Adair had produced
the remark. He would nevertheless venture to repeat the case as an
instance of vigilance and bravery. The Major, believing there was an
enemy at hand, had visited all his posts at midnight in person; his
Lieutenant, Madison, before the dawn of day, roused all the men, telling
them that the Indians were coming. The Major, wishing to leave the
ground before daylight, called in the sentinels; but the Indians,
rushing in with them, gave a heavy fire before there was light by which
they could be seen. The Major had not the merit, as he believed, of
having been a continental officer, but he had the merit, not less
honorable, of having served bravely in the militia. He questioned
whether any of the green troops to be recruited next spring or summer
will make so good a defence as Major Adair's militia had made. They had
taken scalp for scalp, though they fought against the odds of three to
one. He prayed it might be remembered that his ideas were not founded on
any hopes of sudden peace with the Indians; on the contrary, every
motion of the Indians, and every measure taken by those who had most
influence over the Indians, induced him to regard an Indian war as the
perpetual tax of at least one million per annum. It is fortunate, as he
conceived, that the United States know the source of their misfortunes;
and if they are compelled to spend one million per annum in opposing a
savage enemy, who seems to be hunted upon them, perhaps they may be
taught to indemnify themselves by refusing to expend several millions
which they can easily save. If a perpetual tax on this head must be
raised, sound policy will readily point to the proper object of
taxation; but this must remain over for our successors. In the mean
time, believing that the troops already raised are sufficient to
maintain every fort that is or may be erected, and being confident that
volunteers may be found at any time sufficient, if it shall be
necessary, to extirpate every hostile tribe of Indians, he should vote
for the proposition with the proposed amendment.

The question being taken on Mr. W.'s amendment, viz:

      "_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to bring in a
      bill to reduce the military establishment of the United
      States to ---- regiments, to consist of the men who are now
      in service, or who may be recruited before the ---- day of
      ---- next," &c.--

was negatived--32 to 24. The question then was on the original
resolution, as moved by Mr. STEELE; which, being put, it was
negatived--21 members only rising in favor of it. The committee then
rose, and the Chairman reported accordingly. The report was laid on the
table, and the House adjourned.


MONDAY, January 7.

Mr. LIVERMORE, from the committee appointed, presented a bill to repeal
part of a resolution of Congress of the 29th of August, 1788, respecting
the inhabitants of Post Saint Vincents; which was received, read twice,
and committed.

Mr. LAURANCE, from the committee to whom was recommitted the bill making
appropriations for the support of Government for the year 1793, reported
an amendatory bill; which was read twice, and committed to a Committee
of the whole House immediately.

The House accordingly resolved itself into the said committee, and,
after some time spent therein, the Chairman reported that the committee
had had the said bill under consideration, and made no amendment
thereto.

_Ordered_, That the said bill do lie on the table.

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the bill to regulate the claims to Invalid Pensions; and, after some
time spent therein, the committee rose, and reported progress.


TUESDAY, January 8.

The House proceeded to the consideration of the bill making
appropriations for the support of Government for the year 1793, which
lay on the table; and the said bill being amended, was, together with
the amendments, ordered to be engrossed, and read the third time
to-morrow.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed
a bill entitled "An act in addition to the act entitled 'An act to
establish the Judicial Courts of the United States;'" to which they
desire the concurrence of this House.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of State,
accompanying a report of the assays and experiments made by the Director
of the Mint, on the gold and silver coins of France, England, Spain, and
Portugal, pursuant to the order of the 29th of November last; which were
read, and ordered to lie on the table.

The bill sent from the Senate entitled "An act in addition to the act
entitled 'An act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United
States,'" was read twice, and committed.

_Military Establishment._

The House proceeded to consider the motion of the 28th ultimo, for
reducing the Military Establishment of the United States, to which the
Committee of the whole House had reported their disagreement on Saturday
last. Whereupon,

A motion was made and seconded to amend the same by striking out the
words "each of ---- non-commissioned officers, privates, and musicians,"
and inserting, in lieu thereof, the words "of ---- non-commissioned
officers, musicians, and ---- of the privates who are now in service, or
may be recruited before the ---- day of ---- next."

And the question being put thereupon, it passed in the negative--yeas
26, nays 32, as follows:

      YEAS.--John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Clark, Elbridge Gerry,
      William B. Giles, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue,
      Christopher Greenup, William Barry Grove, Richard Bland
      Lee, George Leonard, Samuel Livermore, Nathaniel Macon,
      James Madison, John Francis Mercer, Andrew Moore, Nathaniel
      Niles, Alexander D. Orr, Josiah Parker, Jeremiah Smith,
      John Steele, Thomas Sumter, Thomas Tredwell, Thomas Tudor
      Tucker, Abraham Venable, Artemas Ward, and Hugh Williamson.

      NAYS.--Fisher Ames, Abraham Baldwin, Robert Barnwell,
      Egbert Benson, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin
      Bourne, Jonathan Dayton, William Findlay, Thomas
      Fitzsimons, Andrew Gregg, Thomas Hartley, Daniel Heister,
      James Hillhouse, Daniel Huger, Aaron Kitchell, John Wilkes
      Kittera, John Laurance, John Milledge, Frederick Augustus
      Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker,
      Theodore Sedgwick, Peter Sylvester, Israel Smith, William
      Smith, Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan Sturges, George Thatcher,
      Jeremiah Wadsworth, Alexander White, and Francis Willis.

And then the main question being put, that the House do agree to the
said motion, it passed in the negative--yeas 20, nays 36, as follows:

      YEAS.--John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Clark, William B. Giles,
      Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, Christopher Greenup,
      William Barry Grove, George Leonard, Samuel Livermore,
      Nathaniel Macon, John Francis Mercer, Nathaniel Niles,
      Alexander D. Orr, Josiah Parker, Jeremiah Smith, John
      Steele, Thomas Sumter, Thomas Tredwell, Abraham Venable,
      and Artemas Ward.

      NAYS.--Fisher Ames, Abraham Baldwin, Robert Barnwell,
      Egbert Benson, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin
      Bourne, Jonathan Dayton, William Findlay, Thomas
      Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Andrew Gregg, Thomas Hartley,
      James Hillhouse, Daniel Huger, Aaron Kitchell, John Wilkes
      Kittera, John Laurance, Richard Bland Lee, John Milledge,
      Andrew Moore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, William Vans
      Murray, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, Theodore Sedgwick, Peter
      Sylvester, Israel Smith, William Smith, Samuel Sterrett,
      Jonathan Sturges, George Thatcher, Thomas Tudor Tucker,
      Jeremiah Wadsworth, Alexander White, Hugh Williamson, and
      Francis Willis.

_Ordered_, That the committee to whom was commiteed the letter and
representation from the Chief Justice and Associate Judges of the
Supreme Court of the United States, referred to in the PRESIDENT's
Message of the 7th of November last, be discharged from the further
consideration of the same.

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the bill to regulate the claims to Invalid Pensions; and, after some
time spent therein, the Chairman reported that the committee had again
had the said bill under consideration, and made several amendments
thereto; which were read, and partly considered.


FRIDAY, January 18.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed
a bill, entitled "An act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons
escaping from the service of their masters," in which they desire the
concurrence of this House.


MONDAY, January 21.

The bill sent from the Senate entitled "An act respecting fugitives from
justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters," was
read twice, and committed.


MONDAY, February 4.

_Fugitives from Justice and from Labor._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
bill sent from the Senate entitled, "An act respecting fugitives from
justice and persons escaping from the service of their masters;" and,
after some time spent therein, the Chairman reported that the committee
had had the said bill under consideration, and made an amendment
thereto; which was twice read, and agreed to by the House.

_Ordered_, That the said bill, with the amendment, do lie on the table.


TUESDAY, February 5.

_Fugitives from Justice and from Labor._

The House proceeded to consider the bill sent from the Senate entitled
"An act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the
service of their masters," which lay on the table: Whereupon, the said
bill, together with the amendment agreed to yesterday, was read the
third time; and, on the question that the same do pass, it was resolved
in the affirmative--yeas 48, nays 7, as follows:

      YEAS.--Fisher Ames, John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin,
      Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub
      Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Abraham Clark, Jonathan Dayton,
      Wm. Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas
      Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Christopher
      Greenup, Andrew Gregg, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove,
      Thomas Hartley, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Daniel
      Huger, Israel Jacobs, Philip Key, Aaron Kitchell, Amasa
      Learned, Richard Bland Lee, George Leonard, Nathaniel
      Macon, Andrew Moore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, William
      Vans Murray, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Cornelius C.
      Schoonmaker, Theodore Sedgwick, Peter Sylvester, Israel
      Smith, William Smith, John Steele, Thomas Sumter, Thomas
      Tudor Tucker, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Alexander White, Hugh
      Williamson, and Francis Willis.

      NAYS.--Samuel Livermore, John Francis Mercer, Nathaniel
      Niles, Josiah Parker, Jonathan Sturges, George Thatcher,
      and Thomas Tredwell.[46]

MONDAY, February 11.

_Examining Votes for President, &c._

Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, from the committee appointed on the part of this
House jointly with a committee appointed on the part of the Senate, to
ascertain and report a mode of examining the votes for PRESIDENT and
VICE PRESIDENT of the United States, and for other purposes expressed in
the resolution of the fifth instant, made a report; which was twice
read, and agreed to by the House, as follows:

      "That the two Houses shall assemble in the Senate Chamber
      on Wednesday next, at twelve o'clock: that two persons be
      appointed tellers on the part of this House, to make a list
      of the votes as they shall be declared: that the result
      shall be delivered to the PRESIDENT of the Senate, who
      shall announce the state of the vote, and the persons
      elected, to both Houses, assembled as aforesaid, which
      shall be deemed a declaration of the persons elected
      PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT, and, together with a list of
      the votes, be entered on the journal of the two Houses."

_Ordered_, That Mr. WILLIAM SMITH and Mr. LAURANCE be appointed tellers
on the part of this House, pursuant to the said report.


WEDNESDAY, February 13.

_Votes for President and Vice President._

A message from the Senate informed the House that a PRESIDENT of the
Senate is elected for the sole purpose of opening the certificates, and
counting the votes of the several States, in the choice of a PRESIDENT
and VICE PRESIDENT of the United States; and that the Senate is now
ready, in the Senate Chamber, to attend, with this House, on that
occasion.

_Resolved_, That the SPEAKER, attended by the House, do now withdraw to
the Senate Chamber, for the purpose expressed in the said message.

The SPEAKER accordingly left the chair, and, attended by the House,
withdrew to the Senate Chamber, and, after some time, returned to the
House.

The SPEAKER resumed the chair.

Mr. WILLIAM SMITH and Mr. LAURANCE then delivered in, at the Clerk's
table, a list of the votes of the Electors of the several States, in the
choice of a PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT of the United States, as the
same were declared by the PRESIDENT of the Senate, in the presence of
the Senate and of this House; which was ordered to be entered on the
journal, and is as follows:

      [The same as in the Senate proceedings.]


THURSDAY, February 28.

_Official conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury._

The resolutions brought forward yesterday by Mr. GILES, were called for
by that gentleman. The reading being finished, Mr. AMES moved that the
resolutions should be taken up.

Mr. MURRAY suggested the necessity of giving a preference to the
Judiciary Bill reported by him some days since. He was seconded by Mr.
KEY.

The motion for taking up the resolutions was carried, forty members
rising in favor of it. The resolutions were accordingly read by the
Clerk, and are as follow, viz:

      1. _Resolved_, That it is essential to the due
      administration of the Government of the United States, that
      laws making specific appropriations of money should be
      strictly observed by the administrator of the finances
      thereof.

      2. _Resolved_, That a violation of a law making
      appropriations of money, is a violation of that section of
      the Constitution of the United States which requires that
      no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in
      consequence of appropriations made by law.

      3. _Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has
      violated the law passed the 4th of August, 1790, making
      appropriations of certain moneys authorized to be borrowed
      by the same law, in the following particulars, viz:
      _First_, By applying a certain portion of the principal
      borrowed to the payment of interest falling due upon that
      principal, which was not authorized by that or any other
      law. _Secondly_, By drawing part of the same moneys into
      the United States, without the instructions of the
      President of the United States.

      4. _Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has
      deviated from the instructions given by the President of
      the United States, in exceeding the authorities for making
      loans under the acts of the 4th and 12th of August, 1790.

      5. _Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has
      omitted to discharge an essential duty of his office, in
      failing to give Congress official information in due time,
      of the moneys drawn by him from Europe into the United
      States; which drawing commenced December, 1790, and
      continued till January, 1793; and of the causes of making
      such drafts.

      6. _Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has
      without the instructions of the President of the United
      States, drawn more moneys borrowed in Holland into the
      United States than the President of the United States was
      authorized to draw, under the act of the 12th of August,
      1790: which act appropriated two millions of dollars only,
      when borrowed, to the purchase of the Public Debt: And that
      he has omitted to discharge an essential duty of his
      office, in failing to give official information to the
      Commissioners for purchasing the Public Debt, of the
      various sums drawn from time to time, suggested by him to
      have been intended for the purchase of the Public Debt.

      7. _Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury did not
      consult the public interest in negotiating a loan with the
      Bank of the United States, and drawing therefrom four
      hundred thousand dollars, at five per cent. per annum, when
      a greater sum of public money was deposited in various
      banks at the respective periods of making the respective
      drafts.

      8. _Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has been
      guilty of an indecorum to this House, in undertaking to
      judge of its motives in calling for information which was
      demandable of him, from the constitution of his office; and
      in failing to give all the necessary information within his
      knowledge, relatively to the subjects of the reference made
      to him of the 19th January, 1792, and of the 22d November,
      1792, during the present session.

      9. _Resolved_, That a copy of the foregoing resolutions be
      transmitted to the President of the United States.

Mr. GILES then moved that they should be referred to a Committee of the
whole House.

Mr. W. SMITH was decidedly opposed to referring those resolutions to the
consideration of the Committee of the whole House, because he neither
viewed a discussion of them as necessary on the present occasion nor
warranted by the nature of the inquiry into the Secretary's conduct. It
was trifling with the precious time of the House to lavish it on
abstract propositions, when the object of the inquiry ought to be into
the facts. He was satisfied that should the House once involve itself in
an investigation of theoretic principles of government, the short
residue of the session would be exhausted, and no opportunity remain for
examining the charges themselves. Those charges being made, it became
the House, from a sense of duty to the public and justice to the
accused, to proceed immediately to consider them. If the mover intended
to apply the principles of the two first resolutions to the facts
contained in the subsequent ones, it was unquestionably proper first to
substantiate the facts, and then establish the principles which were
applicable to them; but it was surely a reversal of order to spend much
time in establishing principles, when it might happen that the charges
themselves would be totally unsupported. He did not like this mode of
proceeding, because it might tend to mislead the House; it was sometimes
a parliamentary practice to endeavor to lead the mind to vague and
uncertain results, by first laying down theorems from which no one could
dissent, and then proceeding by imperceptible shades to move unsettled
positions, in order ultimately to entrap the House in a vote which in
the first instance it would have rejected. This mode of conducting
public business, he considered as inconsistent with fair inquiry. The
question was, had the Secretary violated a law? If so, let it be shown;
every member was competent to decide so plain a question. He could
examine the proofs, read the law, and pronounce him guilty or innocent
without the aid of these preliminary metaphysical discussions.

If it were urged that the propositions are so plain and obvious that no
time would be lost in considering them, he then begged leave to observe
that all antecedent discussions of constitutional questions had never
failed to occupy a large portion of their time, and that however
self-evident the resolutions might at the first glance appear, a more
critical attention would satisfy a mind not much given to doubt that
they were by no means so conclusive as to be free from objections.

Though the position contained in the first resolution, as a general
rule, was not to be denied; yet it must be admitted, that there may be
cases of a sufficient urgency to justify a departure from it, and to
make it the duty of the Legislature to indemnify an officer; as if an
adherence would in particular cases and under particular circumstances,
prove ruinous to the public credit, or prevent the taking measures
essential to the public safety, against invasion or insurrection. In
cases of that nature, and which cannot be foreseen by the Legislature
nor guarded against, a discretionary authority must be deemed to reside
in the PRESIDENT, or some other Executive officer, to be exercised for
the public good; such exercise, instead of being construed into a crime,
would always meet the approbation of the National Legislature. If there
be any weight in these remarks, it does not then follow, as a general
rule, that it is essential to the due administration of the Government,
that laws making specific appropriations should in all cases whatsoever,
and under every public circumstance, be strictly observed. Before the
committee could come to a vote on such a proposition, it would be proper
to examine into the exceptions out of the rule, to state all the
circumstances which would warrant any departure from it, to whom the
exercise of the discretion should be intrusted, and to what extent. Did
any member wish at this period to attempt this inquiry? He supposed not.
Let every deviation from law be tested by its own merits or demerits.

The second resolution was liable to stronger objections. It might with
propriety be questioned whether, as a general rule, the position was
well founded. A law making appropriations may be violated in various
particulars without infringing on the constitution, which only enjoins
that no moneys shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of
the appropriations made by law. This is only to say, that every
disbursement must be authorized by some appropriation. Where a sum of
money is paid out of the Treasury, the payment of which is authorized by
law, the constitution is not violated, yet there may have been a
violation of the law in some collateral particulars. There may even have
been a shifting of funds, and however exceptionable this may be on other
accounts, it would not amount to that species of offence which is
created by the constitution. The Comptroller of the Treasury must
countersign every warrant, and is responsible that it be authorized by a
legal appropriation; yet it cannot be supposed that he is to investigate
the source of the fund.

One of the alleged infractions stated in the subsequent resolution,
namely, the drawing part of the loans into the United States without the
instructions of the PRESIDENT, evinces that the opposite construction is
not a sound one. For suppose the fact proved, and suppose it a violation
of the law, it certainly would be a very different thing from drawing
money out of the Treasury without an appropriation by law; for in this
case, there would be no drawing money from the Treasury at all, the
money never having been in the Treasury.

Mr. S. then, said, he should also object to referring the last
resolution, which is in these words,

      "_Resolved_, That a copy of the foregoing resolutions be
      transmitted to the PRESIDENT."

The object of this resolution went clearly to direct the PRESIDENT to
remove the Secretary from office; the foregoing were to determine the
guilt, the last to inflict the punishment, and both the one and other
without the accused being heard in his defence. When the violation of
the constitution was so uppermost in our minds, it would be indeed
astonishing that we should be so hoodwinked as to commit such a palpable
violation of it in this instance. The principles of that constitution,
careful of the lives and liberties of the citizens, and what is dearer
to every man of honor, his reputation, secure to every individual in
every class of society, the precious advantage of being heard before he
is condemned.

That constitution, peculiarly careful of the reputation of great public
functionaries, directs that when accused of a breach of duty, the
impeachment must be voted by a majority of the House of Representatives,
and tried by the Senate, who are to be on oath, and two-thirds of whom
must concur before a sentence can pass, by which the officer is to be
deemed guilty. The officer is to be furnished with a copy of the charge,
and is heard by himself or his counsel in vindication of his conduct.
Such are the solemnities and guards by which they are protected, and
which precede a sentence, the only effect of which is a removal from
office. But if the House proceed in the manner contemplated by this
resolution; if they first vote the charges, and send a copy of them to
the PRESIDENT, as an instruction to him to remove the officer, they will
violate the sacred and fundamental principles of this, and every free
Government. They will condemn a man unheard, nay, without his having
even been furnished with the charges against him; they will condemn to
infamy a high and responsible officer convicted by the Representatives
of the people, of a violation of the important trusts committed to him,
without affording him one opportunity of vindicating his character and
justifying his conduct.

Mr. MURRAY said he was opposed to the reference of the resolutions to
the Committee of the Whole. He had, as far as the time permitted,
examined the several reports on which the examination depended, and was
then ready to vote on them, though he confessed, from the intricacy
which was inherent in such a subject, as well as from the vast variety
of the detail involved, he had not had sufficient time for a complete
investigation. Nor did he imagine that any man who had not previously
meditated on the subject for a length of time, and made choice of his
ground of attack, could say he was completely master of the subject.
Some vote, however, was now rendered essential to the character, not
only of Government, but of the gentleman who presided over the finances
of the country. But three days were left for this inquiry, and to finish
a great deal of other business; and he thought that despatch which was
usual in the House ought to be used in preference to the indulgence
which a committee afforded. As to the abstract propositions, if it were
necessary now to go into them, he thought it would be proper to decide
on them first. He thought it most logical to lay down principles of
reasoning before facts were developed. Were they agreed to by the House,
it would be under provisions and restrictions. They could not have the
implicit force of axioms, but at most must be yielded to as wholesome
maxims, the application of which must be frequently modified by a
certain degree of discretion. With respect to all the other resolutions,
he imagined they would, on examination, be found to be unwarranted by
facts. He hoped the movers and supporters of the resolutions would not
be gratified at so late a season by the House in resolving itself into a
Committee of the Whole. The mode in which they were brought forward did
not entitle them to much confidence. He said, a more unhandsome
proceeding he had never seen in Congress. It had been a practice,
derived from the lights of common liberty, common right, and the first
principles of justice, that whoever was charged with a violation of law
on which a punishment ensued, should have some mode of answering to the
charge. It had, in a recent instance, been the practice of Congress,
when an officer's conduct was even in the first instance inquired into,
to afford the officer an opportunity of attending upon the examination
on which his offence or his freedom from blame was to appear. He alluded
to the conduct of the House when an examination took place relatively to
the failure of General St. Clair's expedition. Suspicions were
entertained that blame lay somewhere. A committee was appointed to
examine. The three officers particularly concerned were, he understood,
invited, as it were, to come before the committee, to explain, to
interrogate, and to give information. Though the Secretary of War was
not permitted to explain on this floor, justice and delicacy, and the
most common principles of jurisprudence, to which we attempted to hold
some analogy, demanded that he should be heard somewhere, and the
committee was renewed for this purpose. The Quartermaster General asked
to be heard on this floor. Though refused, he was permitted to attend
that committee on whose examination his character as a Quartermaster
depended. Were any man responsible as an officer to this House to fall
under the suspicion of its members, a regard to decency and to the
established rights of citizenship, would teach gentlemen to inquire
formally before they hastily laid a charge on the table, to which they
might move the assent of the House. But in this proceeding a Legislative
charge was gone into before inquiry had been instituted. Every rule of
justice, and all that delicacy which ought ever to attend her progress,
had been disregarded, and in the very first instance, a number of
charges are brought forward, not for inquiry, but conviction, which, if
sanctioned by a majority of the House, are to be followed by the
dismission of one of the highest officers in the Government. This mode
was as tyrannical as it was new, and if any thing could throw a bias
against the resolutions, independent of inquiry, it was the partial and
unjust form in which the proceeding had commenced. Resolutions of
conviction might rise out of the report of a committee of inquiry, who
would act as a Grand Jury to the House, but could never precede it. He
hoped the House would not refer to a Committee of the Whole what might
be decided in the House with more despatch.

Mr. PAGE in reply to Mr. SMITH, spoke, in substance, as follows:

Mr. Chairman: The more precious our time, the more readily shall I vote
for a consideration of the first resolution; for I think it of more
consequence that we should decide on it, than on any other before us. We
find, from the inquiry which has been set on foot into the conduct of
the Secretary of the Treasury, that he differs from the mover of the
resolution in opinion respecting his powers, and the constitutional
obligation he may be under of regarding acts of appropriation; it
therefore must be the wish of the Secretary himself, whether we agree
with him or not; and it is our duty, as soon as possible, I conceive,
to let our constituents know whether we approve, or not, of his opinion.
The Secretary himself, I think, confesses "that a strict adherence to
appropriations, in certain cases, would be pusillanimity." He preferred,
no doubt, the public good, which he thought he had in view, to a strict
compliance with an act of appropriation. It becomes us, then, to
determine whether we wish that the Secretary shall hereafter be bound by
our acts of appropriation or not.

I cannot conceive that the rejection of the first resolution can alter
the nature of the case before us, or in any manner confirm or invalidate
the truth of facts which some gentlemen seem so apprehensive may lead to
an impeachment. For my part, I keep in view the first resolution,
without thinking a moment of the last, or the intermediate propositions.
When they shall come under consideration, I shall be ready to show a
proper attention to them. How the first resolution can be called an
abstract proposition, I know not, when the nature of the last before us
requires a decision on it. The Secretary himself should desire it, and
our constituents must expect it. If the Committee of the Whole shall be
of opinion that appropriations ought to be sacredly regarded, they will
agree to the resolution; if they think they may be dispensed with "in
certain cases," they may amend the resolution, and qualify it so as to
justify the conduct of the Secretary. To call the resolution a preamble,
and to object to it as such, appears to me as extraordinary as to call
it an abstract proposition; for I have always thought it inconsistent
with Republican principles to object to preambles. I have remarked, sir,
when they have been objected to, it became the Representatives of a free
people to show on what principles and with what views their laws are
enacted, and, not in a dictatorial manner enact that it shall be so and
so. The framers of our constitution have set us an example of an
excellent preamble; and, as it has been remarked by several members,
this House has occasionally used them; I think, therefore, that none of
the objections to the commitment of the first resolution are of
sufficient weight to induce the House to agree to the motion for
striking out the two first resolutions.

The question was now taken on committing the first two resolutions, and
negatived--25 to 32. On the question of referring the last, only
fourteen members voted in the affirmative.

_Ordered_, That the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth
resolutions contained in the said motion be committed to a Committee of
the whole House immediately.

The House accordingly resolved itself into the said committee; and,
after some time spent therein, the committee rose, and had leave to sit
again.


FRIDAY, March 1.

_Official conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth resolutions
contained in the motion of yesterday, respecting the official conduct of
the Secretary of the Treasury.

The third resolution being under consideration, in the words following,
viz:

      "_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has
      violated the law, passed the fourth of August, one thousand
      seven hundred and ninety, making appropriations of certain
      moneys authorized to be borrowed by the same law, in the
      following particulars, to wit:

      "1. By applying a certain portion of the principal borrowed
      to the payment of the interest falling due upon that
      principal, which was not authorized by that or any other
      law.

      "2. By drawing part of the same moneys into the United
      States without the instructions of the President of the
      United States."

Mr. BARNWELL.--Mr. Chairman, before I proceed to discuss the
observations which yesterday fell from the gentleman who introduced the
resolutions now before us, I cannot refrain from saying that I am
extremely happy that, in passing through the medium of that gentleman's
examination, this subject has changed its hue from the foul stain of
peculation to the milder coloring of an illegal exercise of discretion,
and a want of politeness in the Secretary of the Treasury. I feel happy,
because I always am so when any man charged with guilt can acquit
himself; and the more so now, when a man in a high responsible office,
and high in the estimation of his countrymen, can reduce a charge from a
quality calculated to have excited an alarm, even in Pandemonium, to
such a shape as I fancy will scarce serve to satisfy the uncommon
curiosity which it appears to have excited. As I have never been in the
habit of taking notes, I shall depend upon memory in answering the
gentleman from Virginia; although I imagine, as that gentleman usually
sticks very close to his point, whatever it may be, that, in pursuing
his charges, I shall substantially answer his arguments. In commenting
upon the two first resolutions, to which I am by order confined, I shall
consider, in the first instance, what regards the right of drawing money
into this country. The gentleman appears not to have considered the law
properly, for there cannot be a doubt that the PRESIDENT had a right to
make what arrangements he pleased, in order to attain what he might
consider a proper modification of the debt due by the United States
abroad. He might have borrowed the money here, or have paid it here; he
might have borrowed the money in England, or wherever he thought fit. I
will ask the gentleman by what precise authority he borrowed the money
in Amsterdam and Antwerp, and paid it in Paris? Certainly by none but
that discretion which has been depended upon to modify the debt in the
manner most conducive to the interest of the United States. I take it,
then, for granted, Mr. Chairman, that the right of the PRESIDENT to draw
the money borrowed here, or to send it any where, must be conceded. The
question will then arise, whether the Secretary of the Treasury had a
right to do this or not, and whether this has not been done without,
nay, against the instructions of the PRESIDENT? I really consider this
as one of the most extraordinary cases that I have ever known exhibited.
Let us consider its form. A highly important trust, of no less import
than the discretionary use of fourteen millions of dollars, is placed in
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; he, by a general commission, and by
special instruction, deputes this power to the Secretary of the
Treasury, stating that he is to conform to these and whatever
instructions he might from time to time give him. Let any man seriously
examine these powers, and I am of opinion that the Secretary, under
these, had a right to draw, if he thought proper, unless instructed to
the contrary; for the PRESIDENT conveys a complete power to modify the
debt, provided that it should be, with all convenient despatch, applied
to pay the principal and interest due to France; for where the payments
are to be made is certainly left to the Secretary. If this has not been
exercised advantageously, this is another circumstance which the
gentleman himself has not questioned. But, says the gentleman, the
Secretary, under these instructions, had no special authority to draw;
notwithstanding which, he began to draw in 1790, and has continued to
draw, at different times, into this country the enormous sum of three
millions of dollars, and therefore he must have done this without, nay,
against the instructions of the PRESIDENT, who, it is presumed, having
delegated this great trust, has never, for three years, inquired into
the performance of it. Can this be the inference of common sense? Can
this be the inference of the experience which we have had of the
PRESIDENT, one of the prominent features of whose character always has
been an industry to investigate particulars, as remarkable as his
sagacity to frame generals? If, then, instructions have not been given,
or have been exceeded, was it necessary for us to come in aid of the
PRESIDENT, he who by our law has the power, which we ourselves cannot
exercise, of removing any of the Executive officers at pleasure? It
certainly cannot be necessary; for, as this officer continues to act, we
must conclude that he has either acted by instructions, or in such
manner as to have given satisfaction to his principal without them.
Really, Mr. Chairman, I cannot but believe that if suspicion had not led
the gentleman from Virginia astray, the usual correctness of his
understanding would have prevented him from pursuing such an _ignis
fatuus_ as this.

Mr. W. SMITH regretted that so important an inquiry had been instituted
at the very close of the session, when the members were thronged with
business of an indispensable nature, and it was scarcely possible for
them to bestow that attention and deliberation which the nature of the
subject called for. But, while he expressed this regret, he assured the
committee that it was mingled with much satisfaction, in finding that
the vague charges of mismanagement, with which the public had long been
alarmed, were at length cast into a shape susceptible of investigation
and decision. Previous to an examination of the specific charge then
under consideration, he claimed the indulgence of the committee in
offering a few preliminary remarks, which, though they did not bear
precisely upon the charge itself, yet were intimately connected with the
subject-matter of the inquiry, and were justified by the general remarks
of gentlemen who had preceded him.

In recurring back to the origin and progress of this examination, it
must appear somewhat surprising that that which, in the commencement of
the session, was sounded forth as gross peculation, now turned out to be
nothing more than a mere substitution of funds, and that that which was
announced as abominable corruption, was dwindled away into a mere
drawing of money from Europe into this country, to be applied here
according to law.

Whatever credit might be due to the motives which had originated this
inquiry, every member would concur in the sentiment, that in a
government constituted like that of the United States, which had nothing
but the public confidence for its basis, premature alarms and groundless
suspicions respecting the conduct of public officers were pregnant with
the most injurious consequences. This opinion was more peculiarly
applicable to the important station of Secretary of the Treasury.
Intrusted with the management of a large revenue, and necessarily
clothed with some latitude of discretion, it was to be expected that he
would excite the jealousy of the public vigilance; but as long as he
kept in view the injunctions of law, and the public good, his reputation
was entitled to that security which is due to every citizen.

An officer, intrusted with the care and distribution of public moneys,
is generally looked at with a watchful eye; mankind are too prone to
suspect the purity of his conduct; slight insinuations are but too often
sufficient to injure him in the public estimation. Such being the
natural propensity of things, it doubtless behoved those who wished for
tranquillity in the country to withhold charges not clearly warranted by
proof--to suspend animadversions which were not likely to terminate in
conviction. A contrary proceeding had an inevitable tendency
unnecessarily to alarm the public mind, to instil into it suspicions
against the integrity of men in high stations, to weaken their public
confidence in the Government, and to enervate its operations.

There was something remarkable in the nature of the present allegations
against the Secretary. Taking them all into view, they presented
nothing which involved self-interested, pecuniary considerations; and in
this, they essentially differed from accusations against financiers in
other countries, to whom motives of interest were generally ascribed as
the source of their peculations. To the Secretary, no such motive was
imputed; notwithstanding former insinuations against his integrity, the
sum of all the charges now amounted to nothing more than arrogance, or
an assumption of power, or an exercise of unauthorized discretion.

Mr. S. proceeded next to examine the charge under consideration. It
consisted of two items: the first, the application of a certain portion
of the principal sum borrowed in Europe to the payment of interest
falling due upon that principal, which it was contended was not
authorized by any law; the second, the drawing part of the same moneys
into the United States, without the instructions of the PRESIDENT.

The first item of this supposed violation of law appeared of so
frivolous a nature that it did not merit much discussion; at any rate,
it was more an objection of form than of substance. If he comprehended
well the purport of the charge, it was nothing more than this--that the
Secretary having moneys at his disposal in Europe applicable to the
purchase of stock in this country, and having at the same time moneys in
this country applicable to the payment of the interest abroad, had
substituted the one for the other. He had paid the foreign interest out
of the foreign funds, and he had purchased stock with the domestic
funds. This was the heinous offence with which he was charged, and which
was thought sufficient to remove him from office. If the moneys in
Europe might have been drawn to this country by bills, for the purchase
of the debt, it might have equally been drawn here, by ordering the
application of a sum in Europe, for a purpose which would be represented
by an equal sum here, to be applied to the purchase. The substance, not
the form, is to decide whether this mode of negotiating the matter was
proper. Suppose bills had been ordered to be drawn on the commissioners,
and remitted to them on account of the foreign interest, would not this
have been as regular as to draw them for sale? Did the execution of the
law require that the Secretary, having funds in Europe with which the
foreign interest might be discharged, should nevertheless remit moneys
abroad for that purpose, and then, having funds in this country with
which the purchases of the debt might be made, should draw bills to
bring the foreign funds here? Was there any necessity for this complex
operation, for the expense of remittance, the probable loss on the sale
of bills, the loss of interest while the money was _in transitu_, when
the whole matter could be negotiated by the simple and economical mode
pursued? So far from this arrangement being a ground of censure, Mr. S.
asserted that, had the Secretary pursued the other mode, he would have
been animadverted upon with great severity for such an extraordinary
course. He would have been accused of ignorance of his duty, and every
loss incidental to the transaction would have been charged to his
account.

The second division of the charge, being of more magnitude, required a
more lengthy discussion. This instance of violation consisted in a
supposed deviation from the instructions of the PRESIDENT, or a supposed
acting without any instruction whatever. It was, however, begging the
question; it was taking for granted that which did not appear, and which
ought not to be presumed. And here, Mr. S. observed, the gentlemen on
the other side had entirely reversed one of the fundamental maxims of
criminal jurisprudence, which declared that innocence should be presumed
and guilt proved; whereas they had presumed guilt, and called upon the
accused to prove his innocence.

And what was the slender basis on which the presumption was built? Why,
say the gentlemen, the instructions from the PRESIDENT to the Secretary,
which have been laid before the House, relate only to the payment of the
French debt, and convey no authority to draw any of the foreign loan
into this country for the purchase of stock; and hence they infer, he
had no authority for this latter purpose.

To comprehend the fallacy of the inference, it was only necessary to
recur to the laws, and to the PRESIDENT's commission to the Secretary to
negotiate the loans. Two acts of Congress had passed; one on the 4th of
August, the other on the 12th of August, 1790. The first authorized a
loan of twelve millions of dollars, applicable to the payment of the
French debt; the other, a loan of two millions, applicable to the
purchase of the domestic debt. The PRESIDENT's commission to the
Secretary embraced both acts and both objects, and under that commission
one loan was negotiated applicable to both objects. True it is, that the
PRESIDENT's first instructions were confined to one object, namely, the
French debt; but the inference is not that no other instructions were
given, and that the Secretary acted without authority; but the very
reverse, that the PRESIDENT either left the other object to the general
discretion of the Secretary, who was, _ex officio_, the proper agent and
his representative; or that he reserved it for subsequent and occasional
instructions.

This inference must be the true one; first, because a contrary
supposition would impute to the PRESIDENT an illegal intention, that of
applying all the moneys borrowed under both acts to the object of one
only; secondly, because the commission extending to the borrowing
fourteen millions of dollars, and embracing both objects, and the
instructions being confined to twelve millions of dollars, and to only
one object, it followed that the other either was left to discretionary
management, or to after regulation, for the law enjoined the execution
of both.

If presumption, then, was to govern, the more natural presumption was,
that the officer acted according to some general discretion reposed in
him, or according to instructions from time to time given. These
instructions may have been verbal, as well as written. The written
instructions given in the first instance were evidently confined to the
object of the first act. The necessary conclusion is, that the
application of the moneys borrowed under the second act was not meant to
be included in that instruction, but was left to be regulated by a
general discretion, or by occasional directions, verbal or otherwise.

Having gone through this resolution, Mr. S. observed, that, if there was
as little of criminality in the subsequent charges as in that which he
had just discussed--and from an attentive examination he sincerely
believed it--he was satisfied that, notwithstanding all the severe
animadversions within, and all the virulent calumny without, the walls
of Congress, the conduct of the Secretary would come forth chaste and
unblemished. Instead of any thing being detected which would disgrace
Pandemonium, nothing could be chargeable to him which would sully the
purest angel in heaven. Whatever difference of opinion might exist as to
the wisdom and benefit of his measures, he was confident in saying, that
in every thing the Secretary had done, he had been guided by principles
honorable and patriotic, and he trusted that a very great majority of
the committee would, by their votes, evince the same sentiment. The
sword of justice, it was said, ought at times to be taken from its
scabbard to keep great public functionaries within the pale of the law;
but it should be remembered that if Justice had its sword to punish the
guilty, it had likewise its shield to protect the innocent. If the
Secretary had committed a wanton violation of law, let the sword be
drawn forth for his punishment; but if he has pursued the dictates of an
enlightened patriotism, the committee were called upon to raise the
shield for the defence of a faithful officer.

Mr. FINDLAY addressed the Chair as follows:

Mr. Chairman: Being strongly impressed with the importance of our time,
which is now so near an end, though I had the honor of seconding the
resolutions, I took no part in the debates of yesterday; nor will I now
detain you with replies to many of the arguments which have been offered
against the resolution now under discussion.

Upon one argument frequently introduced by the gentleman last up, viz:
the greatness of the Secretary's character, &c., I will only make a
single remark. There is no character officially known in Executive
departments of this Government, who merits pre-eminence, or to whom a
degree of greatness can be ascribed, but in proportion to his prompt
execution of the laws, and the attention with which he discharges the
duties of his office. From this rule, the PRESIDENT himself is not
exempt, much less a subordinate Secretary, whose appointment is during
pleasure, and the duties assigned him of a changeable and temporary
nature. But to come to the resolution before us. The first questions
that offer themselves, are: Was the money in question appropriated to
special and distinct purposes? Did the Secretary of the Treasury apply
the money to other uses than the law directed?

In answer to the first, it is only necessary to advert to the law
authorizing the loans. The law authorizing the twelve million loan,
appropriates whatever amount may be borrowed solely to the payment of
debts then due to France and Holland. The law authorizing the two
million loan directs the application thereof to the redemption of the
domestic debt, in aid of about ---- dollars, arising from the revenues
previous to the 1st of January, ----. These appropriations are precise,
distinct, and unconditional. With respect to the uses, no room was left
for the exercise of discretion. The will of the Legislature was express
and clearly defined; it left no room for evasion, nor any excuse for
mistake; nor did the PRESIDENT transfer to the Secretary any other
authority or instructions than what the law expressed.

But the gentleman from South Carolina says, that the presumption is,
that the PRESIDENT did give other instructions than he has communicated;
that, in this case, presumption should be admitted as conclusive
testimony, and that neither the Secretary nor the PRESIDENT is obliged
to communicate the instructions or authority to us. The gentleman is a
lawyer: I will appeal to himself; I will appeal to all the professional
members on the floor, whether presumptions can be admitted as proof,
where, in the nature of the case, positive testimony can be procured.
Surely, in courts of justice, positive testimony is always required, and
presumptive is rarely admitted; but in this case, the presumptive is by
the gentleman set in opposition to the positive. However, this is not
the case in fact. The PRESIDENT did give commission and instructions,
and those are fully communicated to us. If he conceived we had no right
to demand them, he would have told us so; if he had kept any part of
them back, he would have informed us, and assigned his reasons for doing
so. I presume that the PRESIDENT has acted the part of a candid, honest
man; the gentleman presumes the reverse. The suggestion that this House,
which has the exclusive right of originating the appropriation of money,
has no right to be informed of the application of it, is so novel and
extraordinary, so inconsistent with every idea of propriety and good
government, that it requires no reply.

Did the Secretary apply the money borrowed in Europe agreeably to the
legal appropriations and the instructions of the PRESIDENT? No, he did
not; though some of the gentlemen do not acknowledge this, yet the
Secretary has clearly acknowledged it himself, and has filled his
reports with labored and ingenious apologies for so doing. He has
suggested a variety of motives, and taken infinite pains to charm us
with the mighty public advantages resulting from his doing so. He
acknowledges combining the loans, and directing the application of them,
in the very offset, in a way contrary to law; he acknowledges having
drawn to this country, and applied in Europe, to uses for which other
moneys were appropriated, near $3,000,000. Out of this he has paid
upwards of $400,000 of the French debt, to St. Domingo. I do not
complain of paying the interest due in Europe out of the money drawn
here. The gentlemen apply the force of their arguments, with great
attention, to support or apologize for this part of the Secretary's
conduct, as if against this only the charge in the resolution lay. But
we do not object to applying that money in Holland, which ought to have
been brought here, if the money which, according to the appropriation,
should have gone to Holland, had been put to the use here for which the
other was intended. A simple exchange of money for the purposes of
conveniency or economy, is properly one of those cases to which
ministerial discretion may safely be extended; but the question before
us is, the money has not been replaced. The amount of money has not been
applied to the uses intended; consequently, the appropriation has been
disregarded. It is acknowledged that though there were upwards of
$1,300,000 of the Domestic Sinking Fund, and upwards of $2,300,000 drawn
from Europe, besides the moneys applied to the relief of St. Domingo;
yet, when these inquiries began, there was not $1,000,000 applied to the
redemption of the public debt, and even yet the whole of the domestic
appropriation has not been applied to the Sinking Fund, notwithstanding
that the public debt is now, and has for some time been under par. We
have it on record that the Secretary never informed the commissioners of
the drafts he made on Europe, although the fund was exclusively to be at
their disposal.

Mr. GILES rose.--He was sensible that he stood in a peculiarly delicate
situation, in which nothing short of the public good could have induced
him to place himself. If a public and highly responsible officer had
violated the laws, it was necessary that he should be called to an
account for it; and to determine whether in the instances before the
House, he had been guilty of that violation, it is necessary to compare
the testimony with the facts alleged in the resolutions before the
committee. He first adverted to the law authorizing the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES to borrow twelve millions of dollars for the purpose of
paying the foreign debt. On this, he remarked that the authority of
borrowing was expressly given to the PRESIDENT, no doubt, with an eye to
the personal virtues of the character who fills that office; the loan is
also directed to be made solely for the purpose of paying the public
debt. Here he remarked, that in every appropriation law, the
appropriation is always emphatically mentioned, which is an evidence
that the Legislature intend to remain the sole judges of the
applications of money. He read a letter from the Secretary of the
Treasury, who was employed by the PRESIDENT to negotiate this loan, to
Mr. Short, the Secretary's foreign agent for this purpose, dated the 9th
of May, 1791, in which the Secretary informs Mr. Short, that one million
and a half of the money he had obtained on loan, was destined for
France; of which sum he was authorized to apply immediately one million,
but to reserve eight hundred thousand florins to answer such subsequent
directions as he should receive from the PRESIDENT. He cited this
passage to show that the million and a half which had been obtained on
loan, was destined for France.

To remove any doubt that might remain upon this head, he referred to a
preceding letter from the Secretary to Mr. Short, dated the 13th of
April, in which it is also expressly said, that of the two millions
borrowed, one million and a half is intended for France, the remaining
half million to wait for further directions. Having established this
point, he adverted to the resolution before the committee, which says,
that he applied a portion of the principal borrowed to the payment of
the interest falling due upon that principal, without being authorized
so to do by any law. To show this, he referred to a report of the 3d of
January, containing sundry statements respecting foreign loans. That
part of the report to which he alluded in proof of the fact, stated in
general terms, a sum paid on account of foreign loans, and this sum was
taken from the principal borrowed, and amounted to 1,833,189 florins. If
his statement was accurate, the fact he wished to establish was proved.
He wanted more light, he confessed, than he could collect from the
Secretary's official communications. He should not go into the
examination of what circumstances might have induced the Secretary to
deviate from the positive injunctions of the law, or to make any remarks
upon his conduct, until he had heard what gentlemen would say to
controvert the fact he wished to establish.

Another fact of consequence he wished to prove, viz: that part of the
money obtained on loan in Europe had been drawn over, though not wanted
here for any public purpose. This appeared from other papers. He turned
to the instructions from the PRESIDENT to the Secretary of the Treasury,
authorizing him to borrow $14,000,000, in which the Secretary is
cautioned to keep in view the two several acts authorizing the loans,
and the distinct conditions they contemplate. By the instructions of the
PRESIDENT, the Secretary is authorized to apply the moneys. In the
execution of the trust confided to him, the PRESIDENT generally directs
him to employ Mr. Short to negotiate the loans, to borrow in the manner
prescribed by the acts, and to discharge immediately the arrears of
interest due to the French, to which purpose and to the complete payment
of that debt the twelve million loan was altogether appropriated. If
this money, then, was shown to have been drawn here, it was neither
warranted by law nor by the PRESIDENT's instructions. The Secretary did
begin to draw as early as 1790, and had continued to draw from time to
time, till 1793, without giving notice of this to the Legislature.
Having shown that the Secretary had drawn without authority to draw, he
next proceeded to consider the purpose of those drafts.

The money thus drawn for was not, he stated, applied to the purchase of
the public debt. No money obtained from foreign loans was thus applied
until this year; the domestic resources appropriated to this object were
never exhausted. These were the facts involved in the first resolution,
which he wished to establish. Before he proceeded further into the
discussion, he wished to hear what gentlemen had to say to controvert
them. He wished to see justice done in the matter before the House; he
wished justice, also, to be tempered with moderation and mercy; and if
gentlemen could show the necessity for deviations from positive law,
which he had endeavored to point out, it would exonerate the Secretary
from a very great share of blame.

Mr. BARNWELL called for the reading of certain parts of the two acts
authorizing the loans. One of the 4th of August, authorizes a loan of
$12,000,000, to be obtained without limitation as to the interest, for
the purpose of paying the foreign debt; the other is of the 12th of
August, for $2,000,000, the interest to be not more than five per cent.,
and for the purpose of reducing the domestic debt.

Mr. SEDGWICK, to disprove that the drafts alluded to have been made
without the knowledge of the Legislature, called for the reading of the
PRESIDENT's Speech to both Houses on the 8th of December, 1790, and a
subsequent report of the Secretary of the Treasury to the same point. By
this, it appeared that the power of borrowing, having been exercised
under the joint authority of the two acts, the Secretary states a
difficulty that had occurred to him on the subject of the drafts alluded
to. The money having been obtained on an interest of five per cent.,
exclusive of douceurs, he wished the Legislature to determine whether it
might strictly be considered as borrowed under the second act, which
limited the interest at five per cent. This was sufficient, he
conceived, to show that the Legislature were not ignorant of those
drafts, and an act was passed solving the Secretary's doubt, and
sanctioning his construction of the law.

Mr. GILES remarked that he had drawn before that sanction was obtained.

Mr. FITZSIMONS observed, on the first charge in the resolution, that, as
the interest of the money borrowed in Europe is payable where borrowed,
it was economical in the Secretary to pay that interest with moneys
there, which were to be drawn here, and replace the sum by taking the
amount from the funds here destined for that payment. A financial
operation of this nature is simple, and saves the trouble of drawing
with one hand and remitting with the other. He conceived there was no
just foundation for the first charge.

Mr. LAURANCE said, that when the resolutions calling for information
from the Treasury Department were first brought forward, the public mind
was impressed with an idea that there were moneys unaccounted for. This
charge is now dropped, and it is honorable to the officer concerned
that, after much probing, nothing is found to support it. The inquiry
now is, whether a debt was paid out of this or that fund. He did not
admit the fact, that it was paid out of any other moneys than what law
strictly warranted. He went into a history of the subject from its
origin. He stated the nature and purposes of the loans. There was
nothing to prevent the PRESIDENT from consolidating the two loans,
provided such an arrangement did not interfere with the purposes
intended by them. The PRESIDENT employed the Secretary to obtain the
loans under the joint authority of both acts, as it was found that the
object could best be carried into effect by such an arrangement. The
money thus borrowed became subject to the appropriations of both acts,
and not exclusively for the payment of the foreign debt. Then, as part
of that money was subject to be drawn here for the redemption of the
domestic debt, and the interest of the loan was to be paid with domestic
funds, it was perfectly reasonable to avoid further drafts and
remittances to pay the debt there with money there, and replace it here
with money already here. The fact stated in the first part of the
resolution is, by this plain statement of the case, substantially
refuted, and appears altogether unfounded; but if the fact is proved,
what is implied? No injury to the interests of the community; the
intention of the Legislature has been in every point fulfilled. If the
Secretary had acted differently, he would have been guilty of an
absurdity, and to blame for sacrificing the public interest and
neglecting the spirit of a law for a strict and unprofitable observance
of its letter.

Mr. SEDGWICK, by adverting to the Speech of the PRESIDENT and Report of
the Secretary, had shown that the Legislature had been made acquainted
with the drafts, and sanctioned future ones on the same principles. The
latter part of the first resolution criminates the Secretary for making
them without instructions from the PRESIDENT. Even if this was the case,
he did not know whether this was really reprehensible. He defended it on
the ground, that the Secretary is the officer appointed by law to
superintend the finances and apply all moneys agreeably to
appropriations. He took a view of the subject, as stated by Mr.
LAURANCE, and concluded by asking, whether, if the Secretary was found,
on a critical examination, to have deviated in a trifle from the letter
of the law, such a deviation was sufficient to warrant the alarm's being
sounded from St. Croix to St. Mary's, and whether the precious time of
the House, at the close of the session with a vast variety of business
on their hands, should be taken up in so unprofitable and frivolous an
investigation?

Mr. GILES said, the transaction alluded to by the gentleman to
controvert the fact laid down in the first part of the resolution before
the committee was not immaterial, as they had endeavored to show it. It
was not merely a financial operation to avoid the necessity of drawing
and remitting. The truth was, that the Secretary had drawn over nearly
$3,000,000. The PRESIDENT's authority was limited to $2,000,000.

Mr. LAURANCE was of opinion, that if the PRESIDENT, or his agent, had
drawn the whole amount of the money obtained under both loans, he could
not be said to have gone beyond his authority. He was authorized to
borrow $12,000,000 to pay the arrears on the foreign debt, and to modify
the whole. In the execution of this trust, he might have found it
advisable to draw to the country the whole of that sum. It had been
found advisable to draw for part, and to pay the French by shipping
produce to St. Domingo. If the money expended for supplies to St.
Domingo is deducted, the balance will be found less than $2,000,000.

Mr. L. contended, that the interest of the moneys borrowed was not paid
out of the principal of the loan, as set forth in the first charge of
the resolution before the committee. If gentlemen would attend to the
history of the transaction, they would find this strictly true. This
interest was paid out of the moneys borrowed for the reduction of the
public debt, and not out of those intended to pay the French, and the
funds appropriated for the payment of that interest were here to replace
the former and be applied as those were appropriated. He referred to the
PRESIDENT's Speeches at the commencement of the two last sessions, to
show that the loan was obtained under the joint authority of both acts;
and adverted to the act of Congress, in consequence of a doubt suggested
by the Secretary, explaining that the moneys first obtained might be
considered as borrowed under the act authorizing the two million loan.
Having shown the first charge in the resolution to be unfounded, he
turned to the second.

The Secretary is accused of drawing moneys to this country without
instructions. In this transaction the PRESIDENT must be considered as
the principal, and the Secretary the agent, or the Secretary must be
looked upon as the principal. If the PRESIDENT is the principal, and he
be authorized to obtain the loans, as soon as the money is obtained it
naturally falls under the direction of the financier; but if it be
contended that the PRESIDENT was to have applied the moneys as well as
to borrow them, then we have nothing to do with the agent; that agent is
accountable to his principal, and as this principal is not called to an
account by the Legislature for any improper exercise of discretion, he
must be considered as having acted strictly within the law. If the
Secretary is considered as the principal, (and by a strict attention to
the law, he believed, it would be found so, for the PRESIDENT is by it
authorized to borrow, and it is not expressed who shall apply the
money,) then it was not one of the duties of the Secretary to procure
the instructions of the PRESIDENT; being the principal, and consequently
having the direction of the money borrowed, he is made the judge of the
time of drawing, to fulfil the intention of the law. Was the money, he
asked, to have remained in the hands of the banker in Europe? Since it
was borrowed for the purchase of the public debt, the sooner it was
drawn over the better, and the Secretary having the direction of those
moneys, could do it without consulting the PRESIDENT. He proceeded to
show, however, that the Secretary had by no means acted entirely without
regard to the PRESIDENT's instructions. His letter to Mr. Short, which
had been read, expressly says, that he is waiting for instructions from
the PRESIDENT, and the only instructions brought forward clearly show,
that he did not act without them. On this occasion it was not necessary,
he conceived, that all the private communications between these two
officers should be brought forward; indeed, many of the instructions
might have been verbal, and of a private nature. Another proof lies
before the committee, to show that the Secretary did not act independent
of instructions. A report of the Secretary mentions that some matters
relative to the loans were under consideration of the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES. This document, the gentlemen were in possession of when
they framed the resolutions; and it, in his opinion, left very little
ground indeed to suppose that the Secretary had acted without
instructions.

Mr. MERCER next rose. None of the communications from the Secretary of
the Treasury had removed his suspicions relative to the transactions of
that department. What had fallen in the course of the discussion, had
not removed his doubts. He confessed himself more at a loss than ever to
account for the conduct of that officer. To judge of the propriety of
his conduct, it was necessary to consider what his duties are, and
investigate whether a necessity existed to justify the drawing
complained of. Gentlemen, in their arguments, had alluded to some
observations that had fallen from him on other occasions expressive of
his opinion, that there had been corruption in that department. This
opinion he still entertained. He suggested that some irregularities had
taken place as to the money appropriated to the Sinking Fund. This might
be the fact, and his suspicions were sufficiently urgent to warrant him
in suggesting that it might be possible. At the close of 1792, he stated
there was a balance of cash in the Treasury of $2,331,182, and the bonds
due in the course of the present year would produce a sum of about
$2,269,000. Yet a proposition was made in the House, predicated on a
total want of money in the Treasury, to borrow $800,000 in addition to
the $400,000 already borrowed of the bank.

[Here Mr. BOUDINOT interrupted the member, as being out of order. The
Chairman, conceiving Mr. MERCER's remarks to be introductory to, and
connected with the observations he intended to make on the resolution,
declared him in order.]

Mr. MERCER proceeded to show, by sundry statements and calculations,
that there was no necessity for this loan of $800,000. The House, he
said, to discharge their duty, should be satisfied how the money
appropriated was applied, before they consented to repeated additional
appropriations. When calls for information had been made by the House,
with a view to comply with this their indispensable duty, the Secretary
had thought it sufficient to balance money actually received, by
calculations of sums that would probably be wanted agreeably to
appropriations. Were dollars, he asked, to be balanced by absolute
appropriations? Can things certain be balanced by things uncertain?
Actual expenditure would alone balance actual receipt. Appropriations
founded only on uncertain calculations could not show the money actually
laid out. He adverted to some calculations made to ascertain the
probable expenses of the War Department.

[Here the member was again called to order, and was declared out of
order by the Chairman.]

Mr. M. confined his observations more immediately to the resolution
before the committee. It had been said, that the interest paid was paid
out of moneys that were to be drawn to this country, and were replaced
here by funds from the domestic resources originally appropriated for
that object, and that the dead letter of the law, if any part of it, had
alone been violated. He contended there had been an essential violation.

The sums drawn for and appropriated to reduce the public debt, were not
applied to that purpose; the domestic resources appropriated to that
object, never were exhausted. If this is the case, conclusions surely
unfavorable to that officer must naturally follow.

He proceeded to make some remarks on the question, whether the Secretary
had acted under instructions from the PRESIDENT. It was disagreeable, he
premised, to criminate the character of any officer. He bore a great
respect for the PRESIDENT, for his virtues, talents, and services, but
however grating to his feelings it might be to find fault with any part
of his conduct in this matter, he was unable to discharge his duty under
his present impressions, unless he avowed that he conceived that officer
had violated the law, though he allowed, without intention, by not
inquiring into the subject, while transacting, as it was his duty to do.
He must declare that he saw no proof that the Secretary had acted under
the PRESIDENT's instructions. On the contrary, he saw the reverse,
there was even no presumptive proof of the fact. The House has called
for information as to the extent of the authority delegated by the
PRESIDENT to the Secretary. Either the Secretary has produced the proof
of this authority, or he has not complied with the order of the House;
it does appear that he has gone beyond it in making the drafts
complained of. The PRESIDENT directed that the proceeds of the loan be
immediately applied to pay the French; yet a great portion of that money
was brought over here. It was said that he might have brought the whole
here if he chose and paid it to the French here. This argument goes on
the presumption that the PRESIDENT might do wrong without incurring
blame. But the PRESIDENT expressly directed it to be paid immediately to
France; and the House had no right to presume that he did direct the
money to be drawn here, when proof to the contrary appears. Upon the
whole, he concluded that the law had been broken in letter and
substance, and that the Secretary had acted without proper instructions
from the PRESIDENT.

Mr. LIVERMORE observed, that the charge against the Treasury Department
was at first well calculated to beget serious alarm. When
misapplications of the public money are sounded in the public ear, all
feel interested, knowing, that what affects the public purse, must in a
degree affect the purses of each private individual. In the present
stage of the subject, he was happy in being able to felicitate himself
and his fellow-citizens, that even should the whole of the charges
contained in the resolutions be proved, it would not appear that they
had lost a farthing by the conduct so loudly complained of. What is the
charge? That the Secretary has paid an interest that was justly due; why
then, he presumed we should not have it again to pay. If the Secretary
has paid what was due, what then is the complaint? It was surely not
intended that it should not have been paid. This was not the intention
of Congress; for they passed an act providing funds for its payment. The
Secretary was then right to pay it. But, it is said, he paid with the
wrong money. He saw no harm in not paying it with the very dollars
appropriated, and approved of the operation, which saved drawing with
the one hand and remitting with the other; in this there was no crime
committed, no loss incurred. It appears, on the contrary, that something
was gained by it. So far, then, he was clear, no law had been violated,
nor was any rule of propriety departed from. He then touched upon the
Secretary's disputed right to draw. He contended, that he had that
right. The loans were obtained under the joint authority of the two
acts. It was said that more than two millions, the amount appropriated
for the Sinking Fund, were drawn over; but, he insisted, he might have
drawn the other twelve millions, if it had been for the public interest
so to do. The French wished to be paid here, and it being no loss, but
rather a profit, to comply with their wish, where was the harm in so
doing? If any public loss had been incurred owing to these drafts, then
blame would lie. He concluded, by expressing his hearty approbation of
the conduct of the officer who is criminated by the resolutions, and
declared it as his firm intention to give them his negative.

Mr. HILLHOUSE argued, that the interest paid, was not paid out of the
$2,000,000 loan, and that the drafts were made agreeably to the
directions of the PRESIDENT. He showed this by the documents which had
been already referred to. He put in a clear point of view the propriety
of avoiding the expense and risk of drafts and correspondent
remittances, and concluded by giving his approbation to the conduct of
the Secretary in the transactions complained of, and by expressing it as
his firm belief that a majority of the committee, from the evidence
before them, would undoubtedly be of opinion that the charges brought
forward are unfounded.

Mr. SEDGWICK rose to correct a mistake of Mr. MERCER's. The gentleman
had asserted, that the Secretary had drawn on Europe, before the loan,
obtained by the commissioners under the old Government, was ratified.
This was not the case. The loan had been ratified in pursuance of the
provisions of the act authorizing it. The PRESIDENT in his Speech,
December 8, 1790, says, "that agreeably to the powers vested in him at
the last session, the loans in Holland had been completed."

By existing acts of the Legislature, and from express communications
from the Secretary of the Treasury, it appears, that all the moneys
borrowed were deemed borrowed under the joint authority of both acts,
and not to be solely appropriated for the payment of the foreign debt.

Mr. MERCER explained, that he had said, that the Secretary had drawn
from the loan obtained under the authority of the old Government, before
said loan was legalized by law. If the Legislature had the right to
legalize it, they had the right to reject it.

Mr. LEE next rose. He observed that as he found himself under the
necessity of differing from his friend who had moved the resolution,
with whom he generally agreed in opinion, and was accustomed to act, he
begged the attention of the committee for a few minutes. To determine
whether the Secretary of the Treasury had acted legally, it was
necessary to examine whether the authority from the PRESIDENT and his
subsequent instructions authorized him to consolidate the loans under
the acts of the 4th and 12th August, 1790.

On this question Mr. L. observed, that there seemed to be no objection
to such a construction, except that which arose from the difference of
interest allowed by those acts; that the first loan was commenced
without any regular authority by a company in Amsterdam; that it
received its authenticity from the acceptance of the Secretary of the
Treasury. The interest and douceurs on this loan amounted to more than
an interest of five per cent., which was the only premium contemplated
by the act of the 12th of August. It could consequently be accepted only
under the act of the 4th of August, which gave no limitation to the
interest which was to be allowed. The money seemed therefore solely
applicable to the payment of the foreign debt. From his report of the
24th of February, 1791, the Secretary himself seemed to have had this
impression; Congress seemed also to have this impression as on the 3d of
March following they passed an act authorizing the application of this
loan to the object of the act of the 12th of August, 1790. After the 3d
of March, 1791, therefore, the Secretary of the Treasury had a right to
bring this money to America for the purposes of the Sinking Fund. The
interest of the foreign debt becoming due, for which domestic revenues
were pledged, he thought it prudent to pay that interest out of this
loan, relying on the domestic revenues to replace it for the purposes of
the Sinking Fund. This was a mode of bringing the money here, and he was
not limited in his discretion as to the mode; and therefore had a right
to follow that which appeared to him most advantageous. The paying of
the foreign interest out of this loan was made after the 3d of March,
1791.

Mr. L. had no doubt as to the legality of all the proceedings relative
to moneys drawn to this country subsequent to the third of March, 1791;
even the moneys borrowed for the foreign debt, because a higher interest
than five per cent. was stipulated for, on any of the subsequent loans,
and because the PRESIDENT, in his instructions to the Secretary, leaves
the mode of paying the foreign debt to his discretion. If he judged it
for the advantage of the United States to bring this money, in the first
place, to America, the legality of such a measure cannot be questioned,
though the economy and wisdom of it may not be admitted. On this point,
Mr. L. acknowledged, that he had not time to examine minutely all the
statements and reports of the Secretary to judge of those exigencies
which induced the drawing of all the money which had been drawn to
America.

Whether it had been consistent or not with the interest of the United
States, Mr. L. was of opinion, that the Secretary had legally a right to
bring all the money he had drawn for to America, except what was drawn
prior to the third of March, 1791. This money was drawn out of the first
loan; it was drawn, as declared, for the Sinking Fund; the first loan,
for the reasons before stated, could not be applied, and consequently,
till the act of the 3d of March, 1791, this money could not be legally
drawn for the Sinking Fund. Perhaps this act caused the irregularity of
this proceeding.

But is not the Secretary of the Treasury subject to blame? Mr. L.
observed, he thought he was not altogether free from it. At the meeting
of Congress on the 8th day of December, 1790, the PRESIDENT in his
Speech informed both Houses, that the first loan had been accepted, and
that the Secretary of the Treasury had directions to lay the particulars
before them. But what did he do? On the 15th of December following, he
began to draw money on account of this loan to America, for the Sinking
Fund; though from his report on the 24th of February, 1791, he appears
to have had a doubt as to the legality of this proceeding. He delayed
giving information, in conformity to the PRESIDENT's Speech, till a few
days before the dissolution of Congress. This conduct, Mr. L. said,
seemed to argue a distrust of the Legislative Councils. Mr. L. dilated
on the necessity of the purest and most confidential communication
between the Secretary of the Treasury and the Legislature, and said,
though he could not agree to the resolution then under consideration,
there was one, subsequent to it, relating to this point, which he was
sorry to find himself under the necessity of voting for.

Mr. BOUDINOT considered it as the duty of the committee in the
discussion of the charges brought forward to confine themselves strictly
to the points in question. The present examination differed from
ordinary Legislative business. Specific charges are brought forward
against a highly responsible officer; the facts brought forward to
support those charges should be understood and considered, to form a
right judgment on them. The Secretary is charged with having violated a
law, by paying the interest due on a loan out of the principal of that
loan. He went into some statements and calculations to show that the
money paid on account of foreign loans, as stated in official documents,
could not have been paid on account of interest of the late loans, from
the disproportion of the sums.

He need say nothing more, he conceived, to show that the first charge in
the resolution immediately before the committee is unfounded. If what he
said was not sufficient to disprove it, he asked where is the evidence
to support it?

He next turned to the second charge in the resolution, viz: that the
Secretary had made the drafts complained of without the PRESIDENT's
instructions. Here he noticed a mistake some gentlemen had fallen into,
when speaking of the call of the House for information. This was a
request to the PRESIDENT, and not an order to the Secretary. From the
information communicated in consequence of this call, it did not appear
that the Secretary had acted without, or contrary to instructions, and
he insisted, that he ought to be presumed innocent till he was proved
guilty.

He argued that the authority given to the PRESIDENT in the subject put
it in his power to draw the whole fourteen millions to this country, if
he thought fit; it could not, therefore, he contended, be insisted, that
the amount of the drafts had passed the limits of the authority given.
It is not denied, he proceeded, that there was a right to draw for the
two millions appropriated for the reduction of the public debt. Well, it
has appeared, on a certain occasion to the House, that our Minister in
France negotiated a contract with the National Assembly, or their
officers, for the payment of $800,000 of the debt due them, here; then
certainly, the exigency of the case required that this sum should be
drawn here for the purchase of provisions for St. Domingo, in which this
payment was to be made. Here then was a positive necessity of drawing
for $2,800,000 and as a discretionary power in the subject had been left
to the Executive, they might have found it advisable, perhaps, under an
expectation of additional payments in the same manner to have drawn over
as much more as they might have thought prudent.

He adverted to the application of the Secretary to the Legislature to
declare whether the loan obtained, for an interest of five per cent.,
exclusive of douceurs, might be considered as borrowed under authority
of the $2,000,000 act. It was his (Mr. BOUDINOT's) opinion at the time,
that no explanatory law was necessary; and that the Executive had power
to construe the act in that sense. This was also the Secretary's
opinion, and in consequence of that opinion he had drawn bills. He
thought it however right to apply to the House and have every doubt
removed, and the Legislature sanctioned his construction of the law.

It had been said, that if the Legislature had a right to confirm, they
also had a right to reject the construction put upon the law by the
Executive. This, he conceived, they would not have been warranted in
doing, after a contract agreeably to that construction had been made;
such a proceeding must have involved a breach of contract.

It had been repeatedly asserted and strenuously insisted on, that the
Legislature were totally in the dark, as to the drafts from Europe. To
disprove this assertion, he read several items from sundry reports of
the Secretary, where sums received on account of loans are specified. It
had also been said, that there was no evidence that any part of the loan
was applied to or intended for the purchase of the public debt.

This also appears unfounded, from a note dated 25th of August, 1790,
laid before the Trustees for purchasing the public debt, which expressly
mentions, that a loan had been negotiated, part of which was destined
for the purchase of the public debt, and that some points relative
thereto were before the PRESIDENT for his approbation. This also showed
that the PRESIDENT had knowledge of such intentions. His Speech, and the
Report of the Secretary, in consequence of part of that Speech, which
had been so repeatedly referred to, also unequivocally prove this point.

He recapitulated the heads of his arguments, and concluded, that if
nothing further could be brought in support of the charges now before
the committee, they should have his decided negative.

Mr. MADISON.--He wished not, he said, to waste a moment of the small
portion of time left, by regretting its insufficiency for a full
discussion of the subject before the committee. But he thought it due to
truth, and to the honorable and independent motives of his colleague
(Mr. GILES) in proposing the resolutions, to remark, that the lateness
of the day to which they had been postponed did not justify the
strictures which had been made on it. If the delay was not to be
considered as unavoidable, some blame, at least, would fall elsewhere.
The inquiries in which the whole matter originated, had been moved by
his colleague, and passed the House some weeks ago. The reports in
answer to these inquiries had not been finally made and printed a single
day before the present resolutions were submitted to the House. He
admitted that it might have been impracticable to report the information
called for, as early as was desired by the House. He was sensible of the
anxiety that would be naturally felt by the officer called upon, to
present every consideration that might place his conduct in the most
favorable point of view; yet, with all these allowances, it was
impossible to deny that the reports contained things which did not
belong to them, and therefore consumed time which, belonged to the
period for discussion. He would mention one instance on which there
could not possibly be a difference of opinion, viz: the vindication,
formally undertaken by the Secretary, of the policy of borrowing money
abroad. Whether his policy was right or wrong, the Legislature had
themselves decided in favor of it; and it was the duty of the Secretary,
in complying with the orders of the House, to inform the House how the
law had been executed--not why it had been made; to explain his own
conduct,--not to justify that of the Legislature.

It had been asked why the call for information had not been sooner made?
The answer was obvious and simple. It was not sooner perceived by the
House, that there was such a necessity for it. The want of information
was first suggested by the bill for paying $2,000,000 to the Bank,
although $200,000 only were immediately due, and for authorizing another
foreign loan to the amount of $2,000,000. From the dawn of light thrown
by some circumstances incident to the occasion on the darkness in which
the House had remained, proceeded those doubts and inquiries which had
led to the information now possessed. His colleague had great merit in
having brought about this development. He had rendered a service highly
valuable to the Legislature, and no less important and acceptable to the
public. One good effect of the information had been, that it prevented
the passage of the bill for borrowing $2,000,000 as an anticipated
payment to the Bank. The bill had dropped from the hand of its patron
with the first light that broke in upon the House. What other measures
would have been prevented or varied, if a like knowledge of our funds
and finances had been sooner obtained, was matter of serious
consideration.

Another consequence of the reports, taken together, was, that the face
of them presented to his colleague an evidence of the charges contained
in the resolutions. Whether, at so late a day, it was best to leave the
subject as exhibited by the various documents in print, for the
examination and opinion of the public, or to press it on the
consideration of the House, was a point which every member had a right
to decide for himself. His colleague had viewed the positions stated in
his motion as too important to be suspended, and as supported by such
clear and authentic proofs, that a small portion of time would suffice
for the subject. Under this impression, what was his right became his
duty; and he had discharged it by offering his resolutions to the House.

As the House had refused to commit the two introductory resolutions,
which established the rule of judgment to be applied to the case, and
the last also, which declared the inference to be drawn, the task of the
committee was limited to a simple inquiry into the facts stated. They
were to make out and report a special verdict of these, and leave it to
the House to pronounce the proper judgment arising from them.

The resolution immediately before the committee imported, "that the
Secretary of the Treasury had violated the law passed on the 4th of
August, 1790, making appropriations of certain moneys," first, "by
applying a certain portion of the principal borrowed to the payment of
interest on that principal;" secondly, "by drawing part of the same
moneys into the United States, without the instruction of the
PRESIDENT."

The questions here are questions of fact; and whatever quality may be
attached by different gentlemen to the several facts, it would seem as
if the facts themselves are too clearly supported by the Reports of the
Secretary, and the documents attending them, to be denied or
controverted.

The law of August 4, 1790, authorized the PRESIDENT to cause to be
borrowed $12,000,000, to be applied to the Foreign Debt of the United
States. A subsequent law of August 12, 1790, authorized another loan of
$2,000,000, to be applied to the Domestic Debt of the United States. A
power to make these loans was delegated, on the 28th of August, 1790, to
the Secretary, by a general commission, in the usual form, referring to
the several acts above mentioned, but without any further discrimination
of the loans to be made. As the law, however, for applying loans to the
foreign object was prior in date, the presumption would rather be that
it was to have a priority of execution; that the first money borrowed
was to belong to the first object provided for. It was unnecessary,
however, to dwell on this consideration, because the PRESIDENT had
removed all uncertainty by the precise explanations and instructions
which accompanied the power to the Secretary, and which ought, in truth,
to be deemed a part of the commission. The instruction having been more
than once read to the committee, he would content himself with referring
to it.

The part referred to is in the following words:

      "I do hereby make known to you on the execution of the said
      trust, you are to observe and follow the orders and
      directions following, viz: Except where otherwise
      especially directed by me, you shall employ in the
      negotiation of any loan or loans which may be made in any
      foreign country, William Short, Esq.; you shall borrow, or
      cause to be borrowed, on the best terms which shall be
      found practicable, and within the limitations prescribed by
      law as to time of repayment and rate of interest, such sum
      or sums as shall be sufficient to discharge, as well all
      instalments or parts of the principal of the foreign debt,
      which are now due, or shall become payable to the end of
      the year 1791, as all interest and arrears of interest
      which now are, or shall become due, in respect to the said
      debt, to the same end of the year 1791. And you shall
      apply, or cause to be applied, the moneys which shall be so
      borrowed, with all convenient despatch, to the payment of
      the said instalments, and parts of the principal and
      interest, and arrears of interest of the said debt. You
      shall not extend the amount of the loan which you shall
      make, or cause to be made, beyond the sum which shall be
      necessary for completing such payment, unless it can be
      done upon terms more advantageous to the United States,
      than those upon which the residue of the said debt shall
      stand or be. But if the said residue, or any part of the
      same, can be paid off by new loans, upon terms of advantage
      to the United States, you shall cause such further loans as
      may be requisite to be made, and the proceeds thereof to be
      applied accordingly. And for carrying into effect the
      objects and purposes aforesaid, I do hereby further empower
      you to make, or cause to be made, with whomsoever it may
      concern, such contract or contracts, being of a nature
      relative thereto, as shall be found needful and conducive
      to the interest of the United States."

By this formal act, issued along with the commission to the Secretary,
the PRESIDENT designated the object to which the loans to be made were
to be applied; and by declaring the object to be that provided for by
the act of August 4, 1790, he expressly placed the loan under the
authority and provision of that act; so that the moment the money should
be borrowed, it was to stand legally appropriated to its specified
object--as much as if another law authorizing another loan for another
purpose, had not existed.

This arrangement of the PRESIDENT was the more proper, not only because
provision for the payment of the foreign debt had been the primary
object of the Legislature, and the payment of the French debt the
anxious wish of their constituents, but because payments to France were
no longer matter of option, but of strict and positive obligation on the
United States. In proof of this, he stated that the debt of France,
calculated to the end of 1791, and computing the livre at 5 4-10 to a
dollar, amounted to $4,814,814, whilst the payments actually made,
computing the florin at 2-1/2 to a dollar, amounted to more than
$3,372,717, leaving, as a balance, at the end of 1791, $1,442,097.
Adding to this balance the instalments due for 1792, amounting to
$638,888, there were to be paid within that year $2,080,985. The entire
payments, however, composed of $656,500 in Europe, and $726,000 put to
the account of St. Domingo, (although $444,263, 83 were actually paid,)
amounted to $1,382,500, leaving due at the end of 1792, a balance of
$698,485.

Here Mr. M. adverted to and read a paragraph in the Report of the
Secretary, page 16, where in allusion to the measure of drawing bills in
the latter part of 1792, he says: "I feel myself the more at liberty to
do it, because it did not interfere with a complete fulfilment of the
public engagements in regard to the foreign debt. It could be done
consistently with a full reimbursement of all arrears and instalments
which had accrued on account of that debt."

Mr. M. observed, that, as he could not reconcile this paragraph with the
calculations which he had stated, and which were drawn from official
documents, he must regard it as an unquestionable error, produced by
some hasty view of the subject.

Returning to the commission, Mr. M. repeated that all the money which
that instrument, defined and qualified by the instruction annexed to it,
authorized the Secretary to borrow, was actually and specifically
appropriated to the payment of the foreign debt, and under circumstances
particularly urgent, in relation to a part of it.

In what manner had this trust been carried into execution? It was to be
observed, with regret, that, on the very day on which the commission and
instruction issued from the President, the Secretary commenced his
arrangement for diverting part of the loan, accepted and ratified by
virtue of his commission, to a purpose different from that specified and
required by his instruction. That a fact of so extraordinary a
complexion might be grounded on the most unexceptionable proof, Mr. M.
said he should take the liberty of supporting it by the authority of the
Secretary himself. Here he read from the Secretary's letter, dated
August 28, 1790, to the Dutch houses from whom the loan had been
accepted, the following passages, viz:

      "I should also wish, for particular reasons, that the
      business may be so regulated as to give it the form of two
      loans--one for two millions under the first act, and the
      other for one million under the second. But neither about
      this am I so solicitous as to be willing that it should
      constitute an embarrassment."

      "I destine a million and a half of this sum as a payment to
      France, under the direction of Mr. Short, our Charge
      d'Affaires at that Court, whose orders for that purpose you
      will please to follow."

The aspect here presented by a comparison of the several documents, was
singular and remarkable. The subordinate officer appeared in direct
opposition to the Chief Magistrate. The agent was seen overruling, by
his own orders, the orders of his principal. The language of the
President was, "By virtue of the power vested in me by law, I destine
the money to be borrowed to the discharge of the instalments and
interest of the foreign debt." The language of the Secretary was: "I
destine a part of the money only to that purpose, and a part to be
brought to the United States for other purposes." He left every member
to make his own reflections on the subject. He would only observe, in
general, that it demonstrated the truth asserted in the proposition,
that the Secretary had violated both the law of August 4, 1790, and the
instruction of the President relating to it.

He then proceeded to a more distinct view of the two points particularly
stated in the resolution. The first was, "That a certain portion of the
principal borrowed under the act of August 4, 1790, had been applied to
the payment of the interest falling due on that principal." As the fact
would not, he presumed, be denied, he forebore to quote that part of the
documents which admitted and authenticated it. He would, however,
premise to any observations on it, a cursory view of the nature of
appropriations.

It was unnecessary to repeat the emphatic remarks on this subject, which
had fallen from the member from Pennsylvania, (Mr. FINDLAY.) It was
sufficiently understood. He concluded that appropriations of money were
of a high and sacred character; that they were the great bulwark which
our constitution had carefully and jealously established against
Executive usurpations. He meant only to take notice of the different
plans into which appropriations might be moulded, and of the particular
operation which ought to be given to them.

One of the plans was that of appropriating specified funds to specified
objects, in which the supposed certainty of the funds was adjusted to
the supposed importance of the objects.

The other plan formed all the branches of revenue into an aggregate
fund, on which the several objects should have a priority of claim
according to their superiority of importance. It was evident that in
both these cases, the Legislature alone possessed the competent
authority. The exclusive right of that department of the Government to
make the proper regulations, was the basis of the utility and efficacy
of appropriations.

There was a third question incident to the doctrine of appropriations,
viz: Whether, under specific appropriations, such as had been adopted by
Congress, the Executive authority could, without special permission of
the law, apply the excess of one fund to the aid of a deficient one, or
borrow from one fund for the object of another. On this question, there
might perhaps be a difference of opinion. He would only remark, that,
admitting such a discretion to be implied in the trust of executing the
laws, it would still be requisite that the due sanction of the Executive
should be given, that a regular account should be kept between the
different funds, and that all advances from one to the other should be
replaced as soon as possible. This was equally necessary to the
preservation of order in the public finances, and to a proper respect
for the authority of the laws.

In the present case, it did not appear that the moneys taken at
different times from the loans designated by the President, and thereby
placed under the appropriation of the act of August 4, 1790, to the
foreign debt, had ever been replaced. It did not appear that any such
replacement was regularly planned or provided for. It was particularly
worthy of observation, moreover, that the only use within the United
States for which any loan in Europe could be assigned, was that of the
Sinking Fund; that the Trustees of this fund had never been even
informed of the drafts; that if the moneys drawn had been carried to the
Sinking Fund, the limited sum of $2,000,000 would have been exceeded;
and that the statements and accounts had, in fact, been so wound up, as
mentioned by the Secretary, that not a single dollar of the money laid
out in purchasing the public debt had been charged on loans drawn into
the United States, although such was the only purpose to which they were
legally applicable, and such the principal reason assigned for making
the drafts.

He did not go into a particular proof that the sum drawn into the United
States, after subtracting the whole sum placed to a foreign account,
exceeded the sum of $2,000,000, because the fact had been conceded on
the other side, particularly by the statement of the member from
Connecticut, (Mr. HILLHOUSE.)

Thus it appeared clearly, in confirmation of the first point, that the
application of a certain portion of the principal borrowed in Europe, to
payment of the interest, was not a mere transposition of moneys, to
prevent the sending them backwards or forwards, nor an advance of money
from an overflowing fund in favor of a deficient one; but an absolute
diversion of appropriated money, and consequently a violation of the law
making the appropriation.

The second point in the resolution related to the drawing of moneys into
the United States without the instruction of the President. This point
had been fully established by the documents and explanations applied to
the first. They had done more: they had demonstrated that the
instructions of the President, which dedicated the loans to be made
under his commission to a foreign object, were an express prohibition of
drafts for any domestic object. It was sufficient, therefore, to refer
to the instructions of the President, and to the contradictory steps
taken by the Secretary. Two attempts had been made to elude the force of
these official proofs. The first appealed to the President's Speech at
the opening of the session in 1790; to the Report of the Secretary, made
in consequence of it, to the House; and to the supplementary act of
Congress passed in conformity to the Report.

Had the circumstances involved in this transaction been attended to by
those who seemed to rely on it, Mr. M. was persuaded that a reference to
it would never have been made by gentlemen on that side. As they had
thought fit, however, to draw arguments from that source, it was proper
to give an answer to them; and the best answer would be a naked
statement of facts.

The instruction of the President to the Secretary was given, as has been
seen, on the 28th of August, 1790. The letter of the Secretary
contravening this instruction, was dated, as has also been seen, on the
same 28th day of August, 1790. The actual drawing of bills by the
Secretary commenced the 15th of December, 1790. The law now pleaded in
justification of the conduct of the Secretary, passed on the 3d of
March, 1791.

There are other facts material to a correct and full view of the
subject. The Speech of the President was delivered on the 8th of
December, 1790. It briefly informed the two Houses that "a loan of
3,000,000 of florins, towards which some provisional measures had
previously taken place, had been completed in Holland," and "that the
Secretary of the Treasury had discretion to communicate such further
particulars as might be requisite for more precise information." The
consequent Report of the Secretary, recommending the provision in the
supplementary act, was not received till the 25th of February, 1791--six
days only before the constitutional dissolution of the House. In the
interval between the Speech of the President and the Secretary's Report,
he had proceeded to draw bills to the amount of 793,392 florins. His
report, notwithstanding what had been said of it, contained not a word
from which it could be known that a single florin had been actually
drawn over to the United States.

The other attempt to elude the evidence before the committee, recoiled
with equal force on the gentlemen who had hazarded it. In the report
lately made by the trustees of the Sinking Fund, is a statement laid
before them by the Secretary, in which it is noted "that the acceptance
of the loan of 3,000,000 of florins, and the application of one-third of
it to the purpose of that fund, was under the consideration of the
President." From this fact, it had been inferred, not only that the
Secretary had withheld no proper information from the Trustees, but that
the result of the President's deliberations on the subject had varied
the purpose signified by his first instructions to the Secretary.

It happened, however, most unfortunately for the gentlemen who exulted
in this argument, that they had entirely overlooked the dates of the two
papers. The paper laid before the Trustees, and alleged to have
explained the final purpose of the President, was dated on the 25th of
August, 1790. The paper relied on by the other side, as the final, as
well as the most formal, designation of the will of the President, was
dated the 28th of August, 1790. The gentlemen, therefore, instead of
the inference they had made, should have reversed their premises, and
joined with their opponents in concluding that the President was led by
a consideration of the subject, not to do what the Secretary, in his
note to the Trustees, seemed to anticipate, but what had been evinced by
the President's own act of posterior date.

The second point, then, as well as the first, rests on the most solid
proofs, taken from a collective view of authentic documents.

Much has been said on the necessity of sometimes departing from the
strictness of legal appropriations, as a plea for any freedoms that may
have been taken with them by the Secretary. He would not deny that there
might be emergencies, in the course of human affairs, of so
extraordinary and pressing a nature, as to absolve the Executive from an
inflexible conformity to the injunctions of the law. It was,
nevertheless, as essential to remember, as it was obvious to remark,
that in all such cases, the necessity should be palpable; that the
Executive sanction should flow from the supreme source; and that the
first opportunity should be seized for communicating to the Legislature
the measures pursued, with the reasons explaining the necessity of them.
This early communication was equally enforced by prudence and by duty.
It was the best evidence of the motives for assuming the extraordinary
power; it was a respect manifestly due to the Legislative authority; and
it was more particularly indispensable, as that alone would enable the
Legislature, by a provident amendment of the law, to accommodate it to
like emergencies in future.

In the proceedings falling under the present inquiry, no necessity
appeared for the liberties which had been taken, the money appropriated
in Europe being more wanted there than at home. It appeared that the
instructions of the Supreme Executive, instead of warranting those
liberties, had precluded them; nor had the proper explanations been
disclosed in due time to the Legislature. To place the subject in a more
distinct point of view, it was proper to advert to the precise
authorities and duties of the Secretary, as his office is defined by the
act establishing the Treasury Department. For this purpose, Mr. M. read
the second section of that act, which is in the words following:

      "That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury
      to digest and prepare plans for the improvement and
      management of the revenue, and for the support of public
      credit; to prepare and report estimates of the public
      revenue and the public expenditures; to superintend the
      collection of the revenue, to decide on the forms of
      keeping and stating accounts and making returns, and to
      grant, under the limitations herein established, or to be
      hereafter provided, all warrants for moneys to be issued
      from the Treasury, in pursuance of appropriations by law;
      to execute such services relative to the sale of the lands
      belonging to the United States as may be by law required of
      him; to make report and give information to either branch
      of the Legislature, in person or in writing, (as he may be
      required,) respecting all matters referred to him by the
      Senate or House of Representatives, or which shall
      appertain to his office; and generally to perform all such
      services relative to the finances as he shall be directed
      to perform."

This establishment of the office evidently had no reference beyond the
case of superintending the regular and ordinary collection of the
revenue, and granting warrants for moneys issued from the Treasury, in
pursuance of appropriations by law. The case of loans, as an occasional
and extraordinary resource, was left to be provided for by particular
laws for the purpose. The authority, with respect to the loans in
question, was accordingly committed to the PRESIDENT, in order to secure
for so special a trust, the highest responsibility to be found in the
Government. And when it was considered that the whole sum contemplated
was no less than fourteen millions of dollars, and when the latitude as
to the terms and contracts was combined with the vastness of the sum, it
might well be questioned whether so great a power would have been
delegated to any man in whom the Legislature and the people of America
had less confidence than they so justly reposed in the existing Chief
Magistrate, and whether an equal power will ever be committed to a
successor. This distinction between the case of ordinary revenue and
that of loans is not only consonant to the actual policy of our laws,
but is founded in obvious and solid considerations. In the collection
and disbursement of the ordinary revenues arising from taxation, the
business flows in official channels, is subject in every stage to
official checks, and the money, being in constant influx and efflux,
nowhere accumulates in immense sums. The case of loans is, in all these
respects, different. In settling the terms and arranging the
negotiations, there is always an important discretion involved. When the
loans are foreign, as well as great, regulations concerning the bills of
exchange form another occasion where great latitude is implied in the
trust; whilst the magnitude of the sums, falling under the same
direction at the same moment, present a further and material variance
between the two cases. The tendency of these observations is to show
that, as the permanent law establishing the Treasury Department does not
extend the authority of the Secretary to the case of loans and as the
law authorizing loans exacts, for special reasons, a responsibility from
the PRESIDENT himself, the authority of the Secretary, in executing the
loans, and the appropriation of them, must be derived from the
PRESIDENT; and, consequently, where that authority fails, there can be
no resort to the law establishing the department, much less to any
general discretion incident to his official character. It is evident
that the PRESIDENT, although no doubt guided by the most proper
considerations in employing the agency of the Secretary of the Treasury
in the business of the loans, might, if he had judged fit, have
substituted the agency of another; and that, whatever agency he might
prefer, his own instructions would always regulate the extent and
exercise of the power conferred. The want of any apparent authority from
the PRESIDENT had led several gentlemen to insist on presumed
authorities, superseding the instructions joined with the commission to
the Secretary. But here, again, the fair inference was to be reversed. A
communication of the authorities given by the PRESIDENT to the
Secretary, as to the application of the foreign loans, had been
expressly requested by the vote of the House. It was not to be supposed
that the Secretary, if he had received further authorities or
instructions, would have failed to produce them, or to refer to them, in
the justification of his conduct. Far less could it be presumed that the
PRESIDENT, if he had given any superseding authorities or instructions,
would not have caused them to be communicated to the House, or that he
would have suffered a partial communication to mislead the House into an
error as to so important a fact. The PRESIDENT was the last man in the
world to whom any measure whatever of a deceptive tendency could be
credibly attributed.

Thus far (said Mr. M.) his observations had departed as little as
possible from the question in its strictest sense. He should now avail
himself of the opportunity afforded by the terms of the last clause,
which spoke of drafts generally, to take a more particular notice of
those recently made; in doing which, he considered himself safe within
the Rules of the House, which were so rigorously enforced against the
affirmative side of the question. The whole amount of foreign loans
transferred directly or indirectly to the United States appeared from
the several statements to be about $3,000,000. The amount of the direct
drafts was $2,304,769 13. Of the drafts made since the 16th of April,
1792, and sold by the bank, the proceeds now in the bank, or payable
into it, before the 1st of April next, amount to $1,220,476 01. Of this
sum $510,000 have been drawn in the course of the present session in
Congress. With respect to the times and the amount of these drafts,
hitherto absolutely unknown to the Legislature, because the account of
them had remained in the books of the bank without ever appearing in the
books of the Treasurer, Mr. M. confessed that he had found no
explanations that were satisfactory to him. He had looked through all
the reports and all the communications before the House, without
discovering either that they had been made by the authority or with the
knowledge of the PRESIDENT, or had been required for, or applied to the
purchase of, the public debt, or had been ever communicated to the
Trustees of the Sinking Fund, who had the direction of such purchases,
or that they were the effect of any necessity that could justify them.
And if there was no evident necessity for the proceeding, it was the
more to be lamented that, whilst we were every where sympathizing with
our allies in their arduous struggles for liberty, and echoing, from
every part of the Union, our congratulations and good wishes, the
pecuniary succors so critically necessary to their cause, and the most
substantial proof of the sincerity of our professions, should be
silently withdrawn across the Atlantic from the object for which they
were intended--succors, too, which were not merely a tribute of
gratitude, of generosity, or of benevolent zeal for the triumph of
liberty, but a debt moreover of strict and positive obligation, for
value acknowledged and received. In contemplating the subject in this
point of view, he felt a pain which he could not easily express, and to
which, he persuaded himself, the breast of no other member could be a
stranger. Laying aside, however, all these unfavorable considerations,
the important question still remained, why the Legislature had been
uninformed of the moneys so unexpectedly drawn into the bank, and to so
very great an amount? If the drafts had received every requisite
sanction, if they had been produced by the most justifiable causes, the
existence of $1,220,476, in a situation so different from what had been
contemplated, was a fact which the Representatives of the people had a
right to know, which it was important to them and their constituents
that they should know, and which it was the indispensable duty of the
officer charged with it to have made known. This omission was the more
remarkable when considered in relation to the measure above mentioned,
of paying off at once the whole sum of $2,000,000, payable to the bank
by instalments in ten years. A bill for this purpose had been
introduced, and was on its passage; the object of it had been patronized
by a report of the Secretary not long since made. In one of his last
reports he expressly states, among the inducements to such extensive
drafts of money from Europe, that they were made "with an eye to placing
within the reach of the Legislature" the means necessary for this
object. Was it not extraordinary, was it not unaccountable, that so
important a measure should be recommended, and be actually introduced,
and that money otherwise appropriated in Europe should be transferred to
this country and deposited in the bank, in order that it might be within
the reach of being applied by the Legislature to that measure, and yet
that no disclosure should be made to the Legislature of that fact that
the money was so drawn and lay at the bank, within their reach, to be so
applied? If any thing could heighten astonishment on this occasion, it
must be the reason assigned by the Secretary for any obscurity that
might have hung over our finances--"that, till the last resolutions, no
call had been made on the department which rendered it proper to exhibit
a general view of the public moneys and funds, or to show the amount and
situation of such as were unapplied." Mr. M. would not decide that the
Legislature was free from blame in not using more full and efficacious
means of obtaining such information as would have removed all obscurity.
But, whatever degree of blame might fall on them, it never could be
admitted that their calls on the department had furnished no proper
occasion for exhibiting a full view of the public finances. He referred
generally to the various resolutions, which, without the least force of
construction, would have extended to every proper article of
information. He reminded the committee of the latitude of reports under
certain other orders of the House, and asked whether less freedom of
construction was to be allowed when information was to be given, than
when power or discretion was to be exercised? But independently of this
view of the matter, Mr. M. held it to be clear and palpable that the
very situation of the money afforded an occasion which rendered it
proper that the House should be informed of it. If a liberty could be
taken of removing money from Europe, where it stood appropriated by law,
to this country, where there was no legal object that required it, and
with an eye, as was stated, to an object to which no money was
applicable, without the authority of the Legislature, how could it
possibly be supposed improper to take the further liberty of
communicating what was done to the Legislature? He concluded with
recurring to the particular form in which the subject presented itself
to the committee, and repeating that, whatever quality might be attached
to the facts charged, or however improper it might be thought by some to
proceed in haste to any affirmative decision on them, it appeared
irreconcilable with the evidence which had been produced, to decide, by
a negative vote, against the truth of the facts.

Mr. AMES prefaced his remarks on the subject before the committee by
some observations on the nature of the charges brought forward. He was
happy that they were determinate, and conceived that the defence could
be crowded in a nutshell. As to the first charge in the resolution
immediately before the committee, he had seen no proof in support of it
brought forward. It is founded only on assertion, and he conceived that
contra-assertion was sufficient to meet it. No authority, it was said,
was given to the Secretary to obtain the loan under the blended
authority of both acts. This is not one of the charges included in the
resolutions before the committee, and therefore this is not the time to
answer it. However, if this were fact, nothing criminal could in
consequence be imputed; and, since the purposes of both laws were
carried into execution, there could be no ground for saying that either
was violated. He said much on the impracticability of the line of
conduct which some gentlemen appeared to think ought to have been
followed by the Secretary. It was impossible to keep different funds,
differently appropriated, so inviolably separate as that one might not
be used for the object of the other; all was right, he conceived,
provided what was taken was to be replaced. He was also of opinion that
the overflowing of one fund could be applied to make up the deficiency
of another; and that all that is necessary is to give priority to the
appropriation. The money paid in Europe for interest on the loan was
said to have been improperly applied, because the fund appropriated for
the purpose was here. He insisted that that money was absolutely
represented here by an equal sum: and he contended that, though the
interest was not paid in the identical coin appropriated, yet, by
allowing a very reasonable latitude of expression, it could be said that
the interest was paid with the money appropriated, for the applicability
of the sums there depended on the existence of the fund here. He next
turned to the second charge in the resolution; and, after showing that
the natural presumption was, that the Secretary either was instructed or
had a discretionary power, he then vindicated his conduct in respect to
the drafts of money to this country. He did honor to the motives of the
gentlemen who had instituted the inquiry, and concluded an elegant
speech, by a contrasted picture of our former and present situation as a
country, dwelling upon the importance of preserving harmony, and
insisting on the danger of giving rise to suspicions against a highly
responsible officer, and of bringing forward charges not to be supported
by proof.

Mr. FINDLAY.--If my hopes respecting the Government have not been
equally elevated with those of the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr.
AMES,) neither are my apprehensions so much depressed with fears. But I
hope I am equally anxious for the stability and prosperity of the
Government; and though we differ in opinion on this question, yet I am
firmly persuaded that the part I take is the best calculated to promote
the necessary confidence in Government, and secure the virtue of its
administration. As the gentleman, in an elegant discourse, has explained
no difficulties, nor adduced any proofs in support of his opinions, I
will only add, that I believe the Government to be so well established,
and so much beloved by the citizens, as not to be endangered by the
House of Representatives' examining how the laws have been obeyed in the
application of public money, and giving their opinions upon the result
of that examination.

That the Secretary has not reported fully to this House, in due time, is
so much within the knowledge of every member, that it is impossible to
doubt of the truth of the fact, however we may differ about the
propriety of the conduct. To go no further back than last
session--besides the references to the Secretary to report upon the Ways
and Means, and inform the House what revenues were necessary, on the
20th of February, 1791, a standing order was resolved, directing that he
should report to the House, within a few days after the meeting of the
next session, "an accurate statement and account of the receipts and
expenditures of all the public moneys, in which shall be distinguished
the expenditures which fall under each head of appropriation, and that
it shall be shown the sums, if any, which remain unexpended," &c. Were
not the moneys drawn upon loan, _public moneys_, and were not those
loans appropriated? Undoubtedly, they were strictly so. It is a strange
evasion to say, that by these expressions only the current revenue is
intended. Arguments must be scarce when this becomes necessary. It
requires no refutation.

On the 19th of January last, he was called upon to "lay before the House
such information with respect to the finances of the United States, as
will enable the Legislature to judge whether any or what additional
revenues will be necessary." In consequence of the recommendations of
the PRESIDENT, and the wishes of this House, to commence the discharge
of the redeemable part of the Funded Debt, a reference was made to the
Secretary, requiring him to report a mode for the application of the
public money for that purpose; the House being assured, by the gentleman
who moved the resolution, that no new tax was intended or necessary. But
the Secretary, so far from informing the House how much money he had
subject to his discretion, in the bank, in notes, &c., proposed a new
and partial tax, as the foundation of a new system of loans. When the
memorable bill to authorize another loan of $2,000,000, was before the
House, a few weeks ago, we were told by gentlemen on this floor, that
there was not time for argument; that the bill must be passed in three
or four days, &c.; and when we wanted information, we were told by some
of the friends of the bill that it was not convenient to give
information there--that we might procure information elsewhere, as they
had done. I confess I did not comprehend this method of legislating; but
the Secretary has since explained it, in one of his reports, by
complaining of the House, because the members did not go to his office
and ask information, instead of requiring it to be publicly reported.

Even when this favorite bill for a new loan was before the House, the
Secretary did not condescend to inform us that he had, without
authority, provided near a million and a half of dollars for that
purpose; he did not inform us how obligingly he had drawn bills upon our
bankers in Holland, to have the money put in our way. Thus, in order to
anticipate the payments due to the bank, he did what he could to induce
Congress to break the public faith, by repealing the existing
appropriation made for securing the discharge of a debt of justice and
gratitude to the French nation. From this and other instances, it
appears, that however high the Secretary's regard for public credit may
be, there are other considerations which have obtained a higher degree
of his attention than obedience to the laws. The gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. MADISON) has so clearly explained the nature of that discretion
with which the Secretary is vested, and so fully proved that there was
no necessity to justify a departure from the appropriations made by law,
that it is not necessary for me to explain further on this head.
However, I cannot help remarking, that the discretionary powers were
pretty freely exercised. The drawing of bills began early indeed, and
was continued to a recent period. The times of drawing fortunately
corresponded with the necessities of the bank, and the power of
employing agents was pretty freely used. The same agents were frequently
both the sellers and the purchasers of the bills. Perhaps this was
necessary: no doubt it was convenient. Probably it was safe; but who can
say it will be always so.

I have not said so much to prove the truth of the facts expressed in the
resolution, for of this there can be no doubt--it is as clear as the
sun, shining in daylight,--but, in order to prove the propriety of this
committee expressing its disapprobation of a conduct so unjustifiable.
That information was withheld unduly, is evident, from the lateness of
this discussion; that it was obtained with difficulty, is evident, from
the numerous applications we were obliged to make in order to obtain it.

The House then adjourned until seven o'clock post meridian.

EVENING SESSION--7 P.M.

An engrossed bill making certain appropriations therein mentioned was
read the third time, and passed.

The bill sent from the Senate entitled "An act providing for the
compensation of Ebenezer Storer," was read twice and committed.

_Official Conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth resolutions
contained in the motion of Thursday last, respecting the official
conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury. The third resolution being
still under consideration, in the words following, viz:

      "_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has
      violated the law passed the 4th of August, 1790, making
      appropriations of certain moneys authorized to be borrowed
      by the said law, in the following particulars, viz: First,
      by applying a certain portion of the principal borrowed to
      the payment of interest falling due upon that principal,
      which was not authorized by that or any other law.
      Secondly, by drawing a part of the said moneys into the
      United States, without the instructions of the President of
      the United States."

A motion was made, and the question being put, that the House do agree
with the Committee of the whole House in their disagreement to the
resolution, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 40, nays 12, as
follows:

      YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Elias
      Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Jonathan
      Dayton, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman,
      Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Christopher Greenup, Samuel
      Griffin, William Barry Grove, Thomas Hartley, James
      Hillhouse, William Hindman, Philip Key, Aaron Kitchell,
      John Laurance, Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee, George
      Leonard, Samuel Livermore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg,
      William Vans Murray, Nathaniel Niles, Theodore Sedgwick,
      Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, William Smith, John Steele,
      Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan Sturges, George Thatcher, Thomas
      Tudor Tucker, Artemas Ward, Hugh Williamson, and Francis
      Willis.

      NAYS.--John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, William Findlay,
      William B. Giles, Andrew Gregg, Nathaniel Macon, James
      Madison, John Francis Mercer, Andrew Moore, Alexander D.
      Orr, John Page, and Josiah Parker.

A motion was then made, and the question put, that the House do agree
with the Committee of the whole House in their disagreement to the
fourth resolution, in the words following:

      "_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has
      deviated from the instructions given him by the PRESIDENT
      OF THE UNITED STATES, in executing the authorities for
      making loans, under the acts of the fourth and twelfth of
      August, one thousand seven hundred and ninety."

It was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 39, nays 12, as follows:

      [The same as above.]

Another motion was then made, and the question being put, that the House
do agree with the Committee of the whole House in their disagreement to
the fifth resolution, in the words following:

      "_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has omitted
      to discharge an essential duty of his office, in failing to
      give Congress official information, in due time, of the
      moneys drawn by him from Europe into the United States;
      which drawing commenced December, one thousand seven
      hundred and ninety, and continued until January, one
      thousand seven hundred and ninety-three; and of the cause
      of making such drafts:"

It was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 33, nays 15, as follows:

      YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Elias
      Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Jonathan
      Dayton, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman,
      Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Thomas Hartley, James
      Hillhouse, William Hindman, Philip Key, Aaron Kitchell,
      John Laurance, Amasa Learned, George Leonard, Samuel
      Livermore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, William Vans
      Murray, Theodore Sedgwick, Jeremiah Smith, William Smith,
      John Steele, Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan Sturges, George
      Thatcher, Thomas Tudor Tucker, Artemas Ward, and Hugh
      Williamson.

      NAYS.--John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, William Findlay,
      William B. Giles, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove,
      Richard Bland Lee, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, John
      Francis Mercer, Andrew Moore, Nathaniel Niles, John Page,
      Josiah Parker, and Israel Smith.

Another motion was then made, and the question being put, that the House
do agree with the Committee of the whole House in their disagreement to
the sixth resolution, in the words following:

      "_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has without
      the instruction of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
      drawn more moneys, borrowed in Holland, into the United
      States, than the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES was
      authorized to draw, under the act of the twelfth of
      August, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, which act
      appropriated two millions of dollars only, when borrowed,
      to the purchase of the public debt; and that he has omitted
      to discharge an essential duty of his office, in failing to
      give official information to the commissioners for
      purchasing the public debt, of the various sums drawn from
      time to time, suggested by him to have been intended for
      the purchase of the public debt:"

It was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 33, nays 8, as follows:

      [Yeas as above.]

      NAYS.--John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, William Findlay,
      William B. Giles, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, John
      Francis Mercer, and Josiah Parker.

Another motion was then made, and the question being put, that the House
do agree with the Committee of the whole House in their disagreement to
the seventh resolution, in the words following:

      "_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury did not
      consult the public interest, in negotiating a loan with the
      Bank of the United States, and drawing therefrom four
      hundred thousand dollars, at five per centum per annum,
      when a greater sum of public money was deposited in various
      banks, at the respective periods of making the respective
      drafts:"

It was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 33, nays 8, as follows:

      [Same as above.]

Another motion was then made, and the question being put, that the House
do agree with the Committee of the whole House in their disagreement to
the eighth resolution, in the words following:

      "_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has been
      guilty of an indecorum to this House, in undertaking to
      judge of its motives in calling for information, which was
      demandable of him, from the constitution of his office, and
      in failing to give all the necessary information within his
      knowledge relatively to the subjects of reference made to
      him of the nineteenth of January, one thousand seven
      hundred and ninety-two, and of the twenty-second of
      November, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-two, during
      the present session;"

Mr. WILLIAM SMITH said, that, after the vote which had just prevailed by
so considerable a majority on the preceding resolutions, the committee
could not, with any propriety, criminate the Secretary of the Treasury
for failing to give the information alluded to, because by that vote it
had been established that the Secretary had only acted under the
authority of the PRESIDENT, and conformably to his instructions. If
there had been any omission to communicate information to Congress, that
omission was surely not chargeable to the Secretary. But it had been
already clearly shown, by documents in the possession of the House, that
the necessary information had been communicated. The Treasurer's
accounts, which had been from time to time laid before the House,
exhibited the amount of moneys proceeding from the sale of bills, and
the Secretary's report of February, 1791, conveyed full information of
the drawing. It was true, there was a sum of about $600,000, the
proceeds of bills which, as had been remarked by a gentleman, (Mr.
MADISON,) did not appear in the Treasurer's account, but this was owing
to the sales of the bills by the bank not having been closed at the time
the last quarterly account was rendered, and consequently that sum could
not appear in the Treasurer's account.

[Mr. MADISON said, he had not meant to blame the Treasurer.]

Mr. SMITH proceeded. The gentleman, however, had attributed misconduct
to the Secretary, for withholding information of the amount of moneys in
the Treasury accruing from foreign loans, when directed by the House,
January 19th, 1792, to report whether the existing revenues were
adequate to face the additional expense of the Indian war. Mr. S. could
not forbear expressing great surprise at this remark of the gentleman
from Virginia, (Mr. MADISON,) when he recollected what had been just
before said by the same gentleman in support of the former resolution.
The gentleman, on that occasion, in his attempt to disprove the right of
the Secretary, _ex officio_, to superintend the moneys derived from the
foreign loans, had endeavored to establish a nice distinction between
the ordinary internal revenues of the country, and the resources
resulting from foreign loans. The law constituting the Treasury
Department, he had said, gave the Secretary power only over the
revenues, which embraced only the ordinary resources, whereas loans were
distinct things, the management of which was specially intrusted by law
to the Supreme Magistrate, and in relation to which the Secretary could
exercise no authority whatever that was not derived from the PRESIDENT.
The gentleman now argued that the Secretary was blameable in not giving
information of the state of these extraordinary resources, which were
not within his department, when only called upon to state the amount of
the ordinary revenues, which were within his department. He left it to
the gentleman to reconcile this contradiction, for certainly his
doctrine was erroneous on the former occasion, or it must be so now. If
the moneys obtained from foreign loans were to be deemed the revenues of
the country, then they fell of course under the management of the Head
of the Treasury Department, and it was wrong in the gentleman to impute
misconduct to the Secretary for exercising a legal authority; if, on the
contrary, those moneys were viewed as an extra resource, and not within
the purview of the Secretary's functions, then it was wrong to censure
him for not communicating the state of those moneys, when required only
to report the ordinary revenues.

But though the Secretary would not have been censurable for omitting to
give the information, the truth was, that the PRESIDENT's Speech of 8th
December, 1790, the Secretary's Report of 25th February, and the act of
the 3d of March, 1791, were conclusive proofs that the Legislature knew
that the proceeds of the loans were in a train of being brought to the
United States and the accounts of receipts and expenditures presented in
the first week of the session, informed the House that a large sum had
been drawn for, and the Treasurer's quarterly account contained further
information on the subject, all which was prior to any call of the House
for such information. Hence, Mr. S. deduced, that it was not a fact that
the Secretary had failed to give the information, as stated in the
resolution, and that had he even so failed, he would not have been
censurable for a breach of an essential duty of his office. It had been
said, by a member from Pennsylvania, (Mr. FINDLAY,) that the lateness of
the information from the Secretary made it inconvenient to go into an
inquiry of his official conduct so near the close of the session. To
this, Mr. S. replied, that he did not expect such a remark from that
quarter of the House. If the gentleman had not been prepared for the
inquiry, or thought it an improper season to enter upon it, why did he
second the motion for bringing forward the charges? If suspicion had so
long existed against the integrity of the Secretary, why was not
information called for at the beginning of the session? Why was the call
delayed till the session was within a few weeks of its termination? It
was admitted that the Secretary had obeyed the order of the House with
wonderful alacrity and promptitude. It was indeed strange that the
gentleman who brought forward the charges, should be the first to
complain that there was not time for their consideration.

Mr. S. concluded by noticing the observation of Mr. MERCER and Mr.
MADISON, that the opinion of the House on the preceding resolutions
would not change the truth of facts, and that the public would
ultimately decide whether the Secretary's conduct was criminal or not.
This, said Mr. S., was like the conduct of a prosecutor, who, having
chosen his jurisdiction, and being nonsuited, wished to appeal to
another tribunal. Why were the resolutions brought before the House? Was
it not to substantiate the truth of them by a vote? And had the
prosecution succeeded, would the Secretary have had an appeal to the
public? No, the resolutions would have been sent to the PRESIDENT, and
the Secretary would have been removed, disgraced, and ruined for ever,
without appeal.

The question was then taken, and it was resolved in the
affirmative--yeas 34, nays 7, as follows:

      YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Elias
      Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Jonathan
      Dayton, William Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry,
      Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Thomas
      Hartley, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Aaron Kitchell,
      John Laurance, Amasa Learned, George Leonard, Samuel
      Livermore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Nathaniel Niles,
      Josiah Parker, Theodore Sedgwick, Jeremiah Smith, William
      Smith, John Steele, Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan Sturges,
      George Thatcher, Thomas Tudor Tucker, Artemas Ward, and
      Hugh Williamson.

      NAYS.--John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, William B.
      Giles, William Barry Grove, Richard Bland Lee, Nathaniel
      Macon, and James Madison.


SATURDAY EVENING, March 2.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate having
completed the Legislative business before them, are now about to
adjourn.

_Resolved._ That Mr. BOUDINOT, Mr. SEDGWICK, and Mr. HINDMAN, be
appointed a committee jointly, with a committee on the part of the
Senate, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and inform him
that Congress is ready to adjourn without day, unless he may have any
farther communications to make to them.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have agreed
to the resolution of this House for the appointment of a joint
committee, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and inform him
of the intended recess of Congress, and have appointed a committee for
that purpose, on their part.

On a motion made and seconded,

"That the thanks of the House of Representatives be presented to
JONATHAN TRUMBULL, in testimony of their approbation of his conduct in
the chair, and in the execution of the difficult and important trust
reposed in him, as SPEAKER of the said House,"

It was resolved unanimously: Whereupon,

Mr. SPEAKER made his acknowledgments to the House, in manner following:

      "GENTLEMEN: You have made me very happy by this testimony
      of your approbation of my conduct in the chair. I feel, at
      the same time, an additional pleasure in the opportunity of
      rendering to you my sincere acknowledgments for the kind
      candor and indulgence, as well as the constant aid and
      support, which I have experienced in the performance of the
      duty which you were pleased to assign me. Be assured,
      gentlemen, I shall ever retain a grateful sense of your
      goodness; and you will suffer me to add, that my best
      wishes for your welfare and happiness, in public and
      private life, will attend each member of this honorable
      body."

Mr. BOUDINOT, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and inform him of the intended recess of
Congress, reported that the committee had performed that duty, and that
the PRESIDENT was pleased to say he had no farther communication to make
during the present session: Whereupon,

Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House _sine die_.




THIRD CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION.

BEGUN AT THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, DECEMBER 2, 1793.


LIST OF MEMBERS.

SENATORS.

_New Hampshire._--S. Livermore, John Langdon.

_Vermont._--S. R. Bradley, Moses Robinson.

_Massachusetts._--George Cabot, Caleb Strong.

_Rhode Island._--William Bradford, Theodore Foster.

_Connecticut._--Oliver Ellsworth, S. M. Mitchell.

_New York._--Aaron Burr, John S. Hobart.

_New Jersey._--Philemon Dickinson, F. Frelinghuysen.

_Pennsylvania._--Albert Gallatin, Robert Morris, James Ross.

_Delaware._--John Vining, Kensey Johns.

_Maryland._--John Henry, Richard Potts.

_Virginia._--James Monroe, John Taylor, Stevens T. Mason.

_North Carolina._--Benjamin Hawkins, Alexander Martin.

_South Carolina._--Pierce Butler, Ralph Izard.

_Georgia._--William Few, James Jackson.

_Kentucky._--John Browne, John Edwards.

REPRESENTATIVES.

_New Hampshire._--Nicholas Gilman, J. S. Sherburne, Jeremiah Smith,
Paine Wingate.

_Vermont._--Nathaniel Niles, Israel Smith.

_Massachusetts._--Fisher Ames, S. Bourne, David Cobb, Peleg Coffin,
Henry Dearborn, Samuel Dexter, Dwight Foster, Benjamin Goodhue, Samuel
Holten, William Lyman, T. Sedgwick, George Thatcher, P. Wadsworth,
Artemas Ward.

_Rhode Island._--Benjamin Bourne, Francis Malbone.

_Connecticut._--Joshua Coit, James Hillhouse, Amasa Learned, Zephaniah
Swift, Uriah Tracy, J. Trumbull, Jeremiah Wadsworth.

_New York._--Theodorus Bailey, Ezekiel Gilbert, Henry Glenn, James
Gordon, Silas Talbot, T. Tredwell, John E. Van Allen, Philip Van
Cortlandt, Peter Van Gaasbeck, John Watts.

_New Jersey._--John Beatty, Elias Boudinot, Lambert Cadwalader, Jonathan
Dayton, Aaron Kitchell.

_Pennsylvania._--James Armstrong, William Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons,
Andrew Gregg, Thomas Hartley, Daniel Heister, William Irvine, William
Montgomery, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, Peter Muhlenberg, Thomas Scott,
John Smilie, John Wilkes Kittera.

_Delaware._--Henry Latimer.

_Maryland._--Gabriel Christie, George Dent, Uriah Forrest, William
Hindman, John F. Mercer, Samuel Smith, Thomas Sprigg, William Vans
Murray.

_Virginia._--Thomas Claiborne, Isaac Coles, William B. Giles, Samuel
Griffin, George Hancock, Carter B. Harrison, John Heath, Richard Bland
Lee, Andrew Moore, Joseph Neville, Anthony New, John Nicholas, John
Page, Francis Preston, Robert Rutherford, A. B. Venable, Francis Walker.

_North Carolina._--Thomas Blount, William J. Dawson, James Gillespie,
William B. Grove, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Joseph McDowell,
Alexander Mebane, Benjamin Williams, Joseph Winston.

_South Carolina._--Lemuel Benton, Alexander Gillon, John Hunter, Andrew
Pickens, William Smith, Richard Winn.

_Georgia._--A. Baldwin, Thomas P. Carnes.

_Kentucky._--Christopher Greenup, Alexander D. Orr.

_Tennessee._--James White.


PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.


MONDAY, December 2, 1793.

This being the day fixed by the constitution for the annual meeting of
Congress, the following members of the Senate appeared, produced their
credentials, and took their seats.

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

JOHN LANGDON and SAMUEL LIVERMORE, from New Hampshire.

GEORGE CABOT, from Massachusetts.

OLIVER ELLSWORTH, from Connecticut.

MOSES ROBINSON, from Vermont.

AARON BURR, from New York.

JOHN RUTHERFORD, from New Jersey.

ROBERT MORRIS and ALBERT GALLATIN, from Pennsylvania.

JAMES MONROE, from Virginia.

JOHN EDWARDS, from Kentucky.

BENJAMIN HAWKINS, from North Carolina.

RALPH IZARD, from South Carolina.

Mr. LANGDON, the President of the Senate _pro tempore_, administered the
oath required by law to the VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

The Secretary read the credentials of the following Senators appointed
for the terms respectively mentioned therein.

PIERCE BUTLER, from South Carolina.

ALEXANDER MARTIN, from North Carolina.

JOHN VINING, from Delaware.

The VICE PRESIDENT administered the oath required by law to Mr. BUTLER,
Mr. GALLATIN, and Mr. MARTIN, respectively, and they took their seats.

STEPHEN MIX MITCHELL, appointed by the State of Connecticut a Senator
for two years, in the place of ROGER SHERMAN, deceased, produced his
credentials, which being read, the VICE PRESIDENT administered to him
the oath required by law, and he took his seat.

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the petition of Conrad Laub
and others, relative to the appointment of Mr. GALLATIN, a Senator of
the United States; which was read and ordered to lie on the table.

The VICE PRESIDENT also communicated a letter from GEORGE READ, of
Delaware, resigning his seat in the Senate; which was read, and ordered
to lie on the table.

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

_Ordered_, that Messrs. IZARD and LANGDON be a joint committee on the
part of the Senate, together with such committee as the House of
Representatives may appoint, on their part, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, and notify him that a quorum of the two Houses is
assembled, and ready to receive any communications that he may be
pleased to make to them.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the
House had elected FREDERICK A. MUHLENBERG their Speaker, and that they
have concurred with the Senate in appointing a joint committee to wait
on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Mr. IZARD, from the joint committee who had waited on the PRESIDENT,
reported that the PRESIDENT would meet the two Houses to-morrow, at 12
o'clock, in the Senate Chamber.


TUESDAY, December 3.

The two Houses being assembled in the Senate Chamber, the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES entered, and addressed the two Houses of Congress as
follows:

      _Fellow-Citizens of the Senate, and of the House of
      Representatives:_

      Since the commencement of the term for which I have been
      again called into office, no fit occasion has arisen for
      expressing to my fellow-citizens at large the deep and
      respectful sense which I feel of the renewed testimony of
      public approbation. While, on the one hand, it awakened my
      gratitude for all those instances of affectionate
      partiality with which I have been honored by my country, on
      the other, it could not prevent an earnest wish for that
      retirement from which no private consideration should ever
      have torn me. But, influenced by the belief that my conduct
      would be estimated according to its real motives, and that
      the people, and the authorities derived from them, would
      support exertions having nothing personal for their object,
      I have obeyed the suffrage which commanded me to resume the
      Executive power, and I humbly implore that Being on whose
      will the fate of nations depends, to crown with success our
      mutual endeavors for the general happiness.

      As soon as the war in Europe had embraced those Powers with
      whom the United States have the most extensive relations,
      there was reason to apprehend that our intercourse with
      them might be interrupted, and our disposition for peace
      drawn into question by the suspicions too often entertained
      by belligerent nations. It seemed, therefore, to be my duty
      to admonish our citizens of the consequences of a
      contraband trade, and of hostile acts to any of the
      parties, and to obtain, by a declaration of the existing
      legal state of things, an easier admission of our right to
      the immunities belonging to our situation. Under these
      impressions the Proclamation which will be laid before you
      was issued.

      In this posture of affairs, both new and delicate, I
      resolved to adopt general rules, which should conform to
      the treaties and assert the privileges of the United
      States. These were reduced into a system, which will be
      communicated to you. Although I have not thought myself at
      liberty to forbid the sale of the prizes permitted by our
      treaty of commerce with France to be brought into our
      ports, I have not refused to cause them to be restored when
      they were taken within the protection of our territory, or
      by vessels commissioned or equipped in a warlike form
      within the limits of the United States.

      It rests with the wisdom of Congress to correct, improve,
      or enforce this plan of procedure; and it will probably be
      found expedient to extend the legal code and the
      jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States to many
      cases which, though dependent on principles already
      recognized, demand some further provisions.

      Where individuals shall, within the United States, array
      themselves in hostility against any of the Powers at war,
      or enter upon military expeditions or enterprises within
      the jurisdiction of the United States; or usurp and
      exercise judicial authority within the United States; or
      where the penalties on violations of the law of nations may
      have been indistinctly marked, or are inadequate--these
      offences cannot receive too early and close an attention,
      and require prompt and decisive remedies.

      Whatsoever those remedies may be, they will be well
      administered by the Judiciary, who possess a
      long-established course of investigation, effectual
      process, and officers in the habit of executing it.

      In like manner, as several of the courts have doubted,
      under particular circumstances, their power to liberate the
      vessels of a nation at peace, and even of a citizen of the
      United States, although seized under a false color of being
      hostile property, and have denied their power to liberate
      certain captures within the protection of our territory, it
      would seem proper to regulate their jurisdiction in these
      points; but, if the Executive is to be the resort in either
      of the two last-mentioned cases, it is hoped that he will
      be authorized by law to have facts ascertained by the
      courts, when, for his own information, he shall request it.

      The connection of the United States with Europe has become
      extremely interesting. The occurrences which relate to it
      and have passed under the knowledge of the Executive, will
      be exhibited to Congress in a subsequent communication.

      When we contemplate the war on our frontiers, it may be
      truly affirmed that every reasonable effort has been made
      to adjust the causes of dissension with the Indians north
      of the Ohio. The instructions given to the Commissioners
      evince a moderation and equity proceeding from a sincere
      love of peace and a liberality having no restriction but
      the essential interests and dignity of the United States.
      The attempt, however, of an amicable negotiation having
      been frustrated, the troops have marched to act
      offensively. Although the proposed treaty did not arrest
      the progress of military preparation, it is doubtful how
      far the advance of the season, before good faith justified
      active movements, may <DW44> them, during the remainder of
      the year. From the papers and intelligence which relate to
      this important subject, you will determine whether the
      deficiency in the number of troops granted by law shall be
      compensated by succors of militia, or additional
      encouragements shall be proposed to recruits.

      An anxiety has been also demonstrated by the Executive for
      peace with the Creeks and the Cherokees. The former have
      been relieved with corn and with clothing, and offensive
      measures against them prohibited during the recess of
      Congress. To satisfy the complaints of the latter,
      prosecutions have been instituted for the violence
      committed upon them. But the papers which will be delivered
      to you, disclose the critical footing on which we stand in
      regard to both those tribes, and it is with Congress to
      pronounce what shall be done.

      _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_

      The productiveness of the public revenues hitherto has
      continued to equal the anticipations which were formed of
      it, but it is not expected to prove commensurate with all
      the objects which have been suggested. Some auxiliary
      provisions will, therefore, it is presumed, be requisite;
      and it is hoped that these may be made consistently with a
      due regard to the convenience of our citizens, who cannot
      but be sensible of the true wisdom of encountering a small
      present addition to their contributions, to obviate a
      future accumulation of burdens.

      But here I cannot forbear to recommend a repeal of the tax
      on the transportation of public prints. There is no
      resource so firm for the Government of the United States as
      the affections of the people, guided by an enlightened
      policy; and to this primary good nothing can conduce more
      than a faithful representation of public proceedings,
      diffused without restraint, throughout the United States.

      An estimate of the appropriations necessary for the current
      service of the ensuing year, and a statement of a purchase
      of arms and military stores, made during the recess, will
      be presented to Congress.

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of
      Representatives:_

      The several subjects to which I have now referred open a
      wide range to your deliberations, and involve some of the
      choicest interests of our common country. Permit me to
      bring to your remembrance the magnitude of your task.
      Without an unprejudiced coolness, the welfare of the
      Government may be hazarded; without harmony, as far as
      consists with freedom of sentiment, its dignity may be
      lost. But, as the Legislative proceedings of the United
      States will never, I trust, be reproached for the want of
      temper or of candor, so shall not the public happiness
      languish from the want of my strenuous and warmest
      co-operation.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.

      PHILADELPHIA, _December_ 3, 1793.

The PRESIDENT having retired, the two Houses separated.

On motion, a committee of five was appointed to report the draft of an
Address to the PRESIDENT, in answer to his Speech to both Houses.

Messrs. ELLSWORTH, BUTLER, IZARD, LANGDON, and RUTHERFORD, were named.


THURSDAY, December 5.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of
      Representatives:_

      As the present situation of the several nations of Europe,
      and especially of those with which the United States have
      important relations, cannot but render the state of things
      between them and us matter of interesting inquiry to the
      Legislature, and may indeed give rise to deliberations to
      which they alone are competent, I have thought it my duty
      to communicate to them certain correspondences which, have
      taken place.

      The Representative and Executive bodies of France have
      manifested generally a friendly attachment to this country,
      have given advantages to our commerce and navigation, and
      have made overtures for placing these advantages on
      permanent ground. A decree, however, of the National
      Assembly, subjecting vessels laden with provisions to be
      carried into their ports, and making enemy goods lawful
      prize in the vessel of a friend, contrary to our Treaty,
      though revoked at one time as to the United States, has
      been since extended to their vessels also, as has been
      recently stated to us. Representations on this subject will
      be immediately given in charge to our Minister there, and
      the result shall be communicated to the Legislature.

      It is with extreme concern I have to inform you that the
      proceedings of the person whom they have unfortunately
      appointed their Minister Plenipotentiary here have breathed
      nothing of the friendly spirit of the nation which sent
      him; their tendency, on the contrary, has been to involve
      us in war abroad and discord and anarchy at home. So far as
      his acts, or those of his agents, have threatened our
      immediate commitment in the war, or flagrant insult to the
      authority of the laws, their effect has been counteracted
      by the ordinary cognizance of the laws, and by an exertion
      of the powers confided to me. Where their danger was not
      imminent, they have been borne with, from sentiments of
      regard to his nation, from a sense of their friendship
      towards us, from a conviction that they would not suffer us
      to remain long exposed to the action of a person who has so
      little respected our mutual dispositions, and, I will add,
      from a reliance on the firmness of my fellow-citizens in
      their principles of peace and order. In the mean time, I
      have respected and pursued the stipulations of our
      treaties, according to what I judged their true sense, and
      have withheld no act of friendship which their affairs have
      called for from us, and which justice to others left us
      free to perform. I have gone further: rather than employ
      force for the restitution of certain vessels which I deemed
      the United States bound to restore, I thought it more
      advisable to satisfy the parties by avowing it to be my
      opinion that, if restitution were not made, it would be
      incumbent on the United States to make compensation. The
      papers now communicated will more particularly apprise you
      of these transactions.

      The vexations and spoliation understood to have been
      committed on our vessels and commerce by the cruisers and
      officers of some of the belligerent Powers, appeared to
      require attention. The proofs of these, however, not having
      been brought forward, the descriptions of citizens supposed
      to have suffered were notified that, on furnishing them to
      the Executive, due measures would be taken to obtain
      redress of the past, and more effectual provisions against
      the future. Should such documents be furnished, proper
      representations will be made thereon, with a just reliance
      on a redress proportioned to the exigency of the case.

      The British Government having undertaken, by orders to the
      commanders of their armed vessels, to restrain generally
      our commerce in corn and other provisions to their own
      ports, and those of their friends, the instructions now
      communicated were immediately forwarded to our Minister at
      that Court. In the mean time, some discussions on the
      subject took place between him and them. These are also
      laid before you, and I may expect to learn the result of
      his special instructions in time to make it known to the
      Legislature during their present session.

      Very early after the arrival of a British Minister here
      mutual explanations on the inexecution of the Treaty of
      Peace were entered into with that Minister. These are now
      laid before you for your information.

      On the subjects of mutual interest between this country and
      Spain, negotiations and conferences are now depending. The
      public good requiring that the present state of these
      should be made known to the Legislature _in confidence
      only_, they shall be the subject of a separate and
      subsequent communication.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.

      UNITED STATES, _December 5, 1793._


FRIDAY, December 6.

Mr. ELLSWORTH, from the committee appointed to report the draft of an
Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, made a report; which was
read, and ordered for consideration on Monday next.


MONDAY, December 9.

Messrs. STEPHEN R. BRADLEY, from Vermont, THEODORE FOSTER, from Rhode
Island, and RUFUS KING, from New York, appeared and took their seats.

Agreeably to the order of the day, the Senate took into consideration
the draft of an Address reported by the committee in answer to the
Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to Congress at the opening
of the session; which, being amended, and the several paragraphs of the
report agreed to, it was adopted, as follows:

      "_To the President of the United States:_

      "Accept, sir, the thanks of the Senate for your Speech
      delivered to both Houses of Congress at the opening of the
      session. Your re-election to the Chief Magistracy of the
      United States gives us sincere pleasure. We consider it as
      an event every way propitious to the happiness of our
      country; and your compliance with the call, as a fresh
      instance of the patriotism which has so repeatedly led you
      to sacrifice private inclination to the public good. In the
      unanimity which a second time marks this important national
      act, we trace, with particular satisfaction, besides the
      distinguished tribute paid to the virtues and abilities
      which it recognizes, another proof of that just discernment
      and constancy of sentiments and views which have hitherto
      characterized the citizens of the United States.

      "As the European Powers with whom the United States have
      the most extensive relations were involved in war, in which
      we had taken no part, it seemed necessary that the
      disposition of the nation for peace should be promulgated
      to the world, as well for the purpose of admonishing our
      citizens of the consequences of a contraband trade and of
      acts hostile to any of the belligerent parties, as to
      obtain, by a declaration of the existing legal state of
      things, an easier admission of our right to the immunities
      of our situation; we, therefore, contemplate with pleasure
      the Proclamation, by you issued, and give it our hearty
      approbation. We deem it a measure well-timed and wise,
      manifesting a watchful solicitude for the welfare of the
      nation, and calculated to promote it.

      "The several important matters presented to our
      consideration will, in the course of the session, engage
      all the attention to which they are respectively entitled;
      and, as the public happiness will be the sole guide of our
      deliberations, we are perfectly assured of receiving your
      strenuous and most zealous co-operation.

                                  "JOHN ADAMS,

         "_Vice President of the United States,
            and President of the Senate._"

_Ordered_, That Messrs. ELLSWORTH and BUTLER wait on the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, and desire him to acquaint the Senate at what time
and place it will be most convenient for him that the foregoing Address
should be presented.


TUESDAY, December 10.

JOHN BROWN, from the State of Kentucky, attended to-day.

Mr. ELLSWORTH reported, from the committee appointed yesterday to wait
on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, that the PRESIDENT proposed to
receive the Address of the Senate this day, at 12 o'clock, at his own
house. Whereupon, the Senate waited on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, and the VICE PRESIDENT, in their name, presented the Address
agreed to on the ninth instant. To this Address the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES was pleased to make the following Reply:

      "GENTLEMEN: The pleasure expressed by the Senate on my
      re-election to the station which I fill, commands my
      sincere and warmest acknowledgments. If this be an event
      which promises the smallest addition to the happiness of
      our country, as it is my duty, so shall it be my study, to
      realize the expectation.

      "The decided approbation which, the Proclamation now
      receives from your House, by completing the proofs that
      this measure is considered as manifesting a vigilant
      attention to the welfare of the United States, brings with
      it a peculiar gratification to my mind.

      "The other important subjects which have been communicated
      to you will, I am confident, receive a due discussion; and
      the result will, I trust, prove fortunate to the United
      States.

                                  "G. WASHINGTON."

The Senate then returned to their Chamber, and resumed the reading of
the papers communicated in the message of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES of the 5th instant, but adjourned before they were got through.


WEDNESDAY, December 11.

CALEB STRONG, from Massachusetts, attended to-day.

The credentials of Mr. BROWN and Mr. STRONG were read, the usual oath
administered to them, and they took their seats.


FRIDAY, December 13.

WILLIAM BRADFORD, from Rhode Island, and JOHN TAYLOR, from Virginia,
attended, produced their credentials, and took the usual oath and their
seats.


MONDAY, December 16.

JAMES JACKSON, from Georgia, attended, produced his credentials, and,
the oath required by law being administered to him, he took his seat in
the Senate.


TUESDAY, December 17.

JOHN VINING, from Delaware, appeared, and, the oath required by law
being, by the VICE PRESIDENT, administered to him, he took his seat in
the Senate.


TUESDAY, December 24.

_Exclusion of Bank Officers and Stockholders from Congress._

The following motion was made and seconded, to wit: That the
constitution be amended by adding, at the end of the ninth section of
the first article, the following clause:

      "Nor shall any person holding any office or stock in any
      institution in the nature of a bank for issuing or
      discounting bills or notes payable to bearer or order,
      under the authority of the United States, be a member of
      either House whilst he holds such office or stock, but no
      power to grant any charter of incorporation, or any
      commercial or other monopoly, shall be herein implied."

And it was agreed that this motion should lie for consideration.


TUESDAY, December 31.

Mr. RUTHERFORD reported, from the committee to whom was referred the
petition of Conrad Laub and others, stating that the Hon. ALBERT
GALLATIN, at the time he was elected a Senator of the United States, had
not been nine years a citizen of the said United States as is required
by the constitution; which report was read, and ordered to lie for
consideration.


WEDNESDAY, January 1, 1794.

The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the report of the committee
to whom was referred the petition of Conrad Laub and others.

On motion to postpone the consideration of the report until to-morrow,
it was agreed to amend this motion, by striking out the words
"to-morrow," and to insert, in lieu thereof, "Thursday, the 9th
instant."


THURSDAY, January 2.

A motion was made that it be--

      "_Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of
      the United States of America in Congress assembled,
      two-thirds of both Houses concurring_, That the following
      article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several
      States, as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
      States; which, when ratified by three-fourths of the said
      Legislatures, shall be valid as part of the said
      constitution, to wit:

      "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be
      construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced
      or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens
      of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign
      State."


MONDAY, January 13.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the petition of Conrad Laub and
others, respecting the appointment of Mr. GALLATIN to be a Senator of
the United States.

On motion,

_Ordered_, That a Committee of Elections, to consist of seven, be
appointed, and that the petition of Conrad Laub and others be referred,
without prejudice as to any questions which may, upon the hearing, be
raised by the sitting member, as to the sufficiency of the parties and
the matter charged in the petition, to the same committee, to state the
facts, and that they be authorized to send for persons, and papers;
also, that Messrs. BRADLEY, ELLSWORTH, MITCHELL, RUTHERFORD, BROWN,
LIVERMORE, and TAYLOR, be this committee.


TUESDAY, January 14.

Agreeably to the order of the day, the Senate took into consideration
the motion made yesterday for an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, respecting the Judicial power thereof.

And, on the question to agree to the resolution as follows:

      "_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of
      the United States of America in Congress assembled,
      two-thirds of both Houses concurring_, That the following
      article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several
      States, as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
      States; which, when ratified by three-fourths of the said
      Legislatures, shall be valid as part of the said
      constitution, to wit;

      "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be
      construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced
      or prosecuted against one of the United States, by citizens
      of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign
      State:"

It passed in the affirmative--yeas 23, nays 2, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bradford, Bradley, Brown, Burr, Butler,
      Cabot, Edwards, Ellsworth, Foster, Frelinghuysen, Hawkins,
      Jackson, Izard, King, Langdon, Livermore, Martin, Mitchell,
      Monroe, Robinson, Strong, Taylor, and Vining.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Gallatin and Rutherford.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary desire the concurrence of the House of
Representatives in this resolution.


WEDNESDAY, January 15.

_Exclusion of Bank Officers from a seat in Congress._

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made yesterday for an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, inhibiting the
holders of any office or stock in the Bank of the United States from a
seat in either House of Congress.

On motion to amend the motion, to be read as follows:

      "Nor shall any person holding any office in any institution
      in the nature of a bank, under the authority of the United
      States be a member of either House whilst he holds such
      office; but no power to grant any charter of incorporation,
      or any commercial or other monopoly, shall be hereby
      implied."

And, after debate, the further consideration thereof was postponed until
to-morrow.


THURSDAY, January 16.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made yesterday, to
amend the motion under consideration the 14th instant, for an amendment
to the Constitution of the United States, inhibiting the holders of any
office or stock in the Bank of the United States from a seat in either
House of Congress.

On motion to amend the amendment, so that it be read as follows:

      "Nor shall any person holding any office in the Bank of the
      United States be a member of either House whilst he holds
      such office; but no power to grant any charter of
      incorporation, or any commercial or other monopoly shall be
      hereby implied:"

It passed in the affirmative--yeas 13, nays 12, as follows

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, Burr, Butler, Edwards,
      Gallatin, Hawkins, Jackson, Izard, Martin, Monroe,
      Robinson, and Taylor.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bradford, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster,
      Frelinghuysen, King, Langdon, Livermore, Mitchell, Morris,
      Strong, and Vining.

On motion it was agreed to expunge the following clause of the motion
last adopted:

      "But no power to grant any charter of incorporation, or any
      commercial or other monopoly, shall be hereby implied:"
      and,

On the question, to agree to the motion, amended as follows:

      "Nor shall any person holding any office in the Bank of the
      United States be a member of either House, whilst he holds
      such office:"

It passed in the negative--yeas 12, nays 13, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, Burr, Butler, Edwards,
      Gallatin, Hawkins, Jackson, Martin, Monroe, Robinson, and
      Taylor.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bradford, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster,
      Frelinghuysen, Izard, King, Langdon, Livermore, Mitchell,
      Morris, Strong, and Vining.

Agreeably to notice given, Mr. BUTLER obtained leave to bring in a bill
to amend the act, entitled "An act to incorporate the subscribers to the
Bank of the United States;" which was read the first time.

On motion that this bill have a second reading, in the words following,
to wit:

      "Whereas it is inexpedient that the Government of the
      United States should continue to hold any stock in the Bank
      of the United States, or have any political connection with
      the said bank, or any other connection with it, otherwise
      than in common with other banks within the United States:"

      [The bill directs the sale of the United States stock in
      the bank, and repeals all the clauses in the charter
      establishing any connection with it:]

It passed in the negative--yeas 12, nays 13, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, Burr, Butler, Edwards,
      Gallatin, Hawkins, Jackson, Martin, Monroe, Robinson, and
      Taylor.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bradford, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster,
      Frelinghuysen, Izard, King, Langdon, Livermore, Mitchell,
      Morris, Strong, and Vining.


TUESDAY, January 21.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of
      Representatives:_

      Having already laid before you a letter of the 16th of
      August, 1793, from the Secretary of State to our Minister
      at Paris, stating the conduct and urging the recall, of the
      Minister Plenipotentiary of the Republic of France, I now
      communicate to you, that his conduct has been unequivocally
      disapproved; and that the strongest assurances have been
      given, that his recall should be expedited without delay.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.

      UNITED STATES, _January 20, 1794._

The Message was read, and ordered to lie on file.

The memorial of the people called Quakers, from the yearly meeting held
at Rhode Island for New England, in the year 1793, was presented and
read, praying Congress to exercise the authority vested in them by the
constitution for the suppression of the slave trade.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. BRADLEY, LIVERMORE, and BROWN, be a committee to
take into consideration the laws passed in the territory of the United
States north-west of the river Ohio, from July to December, 1792,
inclusive, and report thereon to the Senate.


THURSDAY, January 30.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of
      Representatives:_

      Communications have been made to Congress during the
      present session, with the intention of affording a full
      view of the posture of affairs on the south-western
      frontiers. By the information which has lately been laid
      before Congress, it appeared that the difficulties with the
      Creeks had been amicably and happily terminated. But it
      will be perceived with regret, by the papers herewith
      transmitted, that the tranquillity has unfortunately been
      of short duration, owing to the murder of several friendly
      Indians, by some lawless white men.

      The condition of things in that quarter requires the
      serious and immediate consideration of Congress, and the
      adoption of such wise and vigorous laws as will be
      competent to the preservation of the national character and
      of the peace made under the authority of the United States
      with the several Indian tribes. Experience demonstrates
      that the existing legal provisions are entirely inadequate
      to those great objects.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.

      UNITED STATES, _January 30, 1794._


TUESDAY, February 4.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the
House have passed a bill entitled "An act providing for the relief of
such of the inhabitants of Saint Domingo resident within the United
States as may be found in want of support," in which they desire the
concurrence of the Senate.

This bill was read the first time, and ordered to a second reading.


WEDNESDAY, February 5.

The bill, sent from the House of Representatives for concurrence,
entitled "An act providing for the relief of such of the inhabitants of
Saint Domingo, resident within the United States, as may be found in
want of support," was read the second time; and, after debate, the
further consideration thereof was postponed until to-morrow.


THURSDAY, February 6.

Mr. POTTS, from Maryland, attended.

The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill sent from the House of
Representatives for concurrence, entitled "An act providing for the
relief of such of the inhabitants of Saint Domingo, resident within the
United States, as may be found in want of support."

On motion, that it be recommitted, for the purpose of further inquiry,
it passed in the negative.

And after agreeing to an amendment, the bill was ordered to a third
reading.


FRIDAY, February 7.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:_

      I transmit to you an Act and three Ordinances, passed by
      the Government of the territory of the United States south
      of the river Ohio, on the 13th and 21st of March, and the
      7th of May, 1793; and also certain letters from the
      Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republic, to the
      Secretary of State, enclosing despatches from the General
      and Extraordinary Commission of Guadaloupe.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.

                                  UNITED STATES, _February 7, 1794._

The Message and papers therein referred to were read.

_Ordered_, That the act and three ordinances, mentioned in the Message,
be referred to the committee appointed 21st of January last, to whom
were referred the laws passed in the territory north-west of the Ohio,
to consider and report thereon to the Senate.

_Ordered_, That the other papers referred to in the Message lie for
consideration.

The Senate proceeded to the third reading of the bill, sent from the
House of Representatives for concurrence, entitled "An act providing for
the relief of such of the inhabitants of Saint Domingo, resident within
the United States, as may be found in want of support." Whereupon,

_Resolved_, That this bill pass as amended.


MONDAY, February 10.

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a letter from the Secretary of
the Department of the Treasury, in reference to the orders of Senate of
the 20th January last, for a return of sundry statements from that
department; which letter was read.

Mr. BRADLEY reported from the committee to whom was referred the
petition of Conrad Laub and others, respecting the appointment of Mr.
GALLATIN to be a Senator of the United States; and the report was read.

_Ordered_, That Wednesday next be assigned to take this report into
consideration, and that, in the mean time, it be printed for the use of
the Senate.

On motion, that the Senate adopt the following resolution:

      "_Resolved_, That the doors of the Senate be opened, and
      continue open, during the discussion upon the contested
      election of ALBERT GALLATIN:"

_Ordered_, That this motion lie on the table until to-morrow.


TUESDAY, February 11.

Agreeably to the order of the day, the Senate took into consideration
the motion made yesterday that the doors of the Senate be opened during
the discussion of the contested election of Mr. GALLATIN. Whereupon,

_Resolved_, That the doors of the Senate be opened, and continue open,
during the discussion upon the contested election of ALBERT GALLATIN.

Mr. BRADLEY reported from the committee to whom was referred the act and
three ordinances mentioned in the Message from the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES of the 7th instant, enacted and ordained by the Governor
and judges of the territory south of the river Ohio, "that Congress do
not disapprove the same," and the report was agreed to.


THURSDAY, February 13.

Mr. BURR, from the committee to whom was referred the Message from the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of the 30th of December last, reported a
bill authorizing and directing the settlement of the accounts of Major
General LAFAYETTE; which was read the first time, and ordered to a
second reading.


FRIDAY, February 14.

The bill authorizing and directing the settlement of the accounts of
Major General LAFAYETTE was read the second time, and, after debate, it
was ordered to lie for consideration and inquiry.


MONDAY, February 17.

The petition of Michael Schmyser, agent for Conrad Laub and others,
petitioners against the election of ALBERT GALLATIN to be a Senator of
the United States, was presented and read, praying to be heard by
counsel.

_Ordered_, That the prayer of the petition be granted.

The consideration of the report of the committee on the petition of
Conrad Laub and others, respecting the election of Mr. GALLATIN to be a
Senator of the United States, was resumed, and after progress, it was
ordered that the consideration thereof be postponed until Wednesday
next.


WEDNESDAY, February 19.

JAMES GUNN, from Georgia, took his seat in the Senate.


THURSDAY, February 20.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made yesterday, to
amend the motion then reconsidered, respecting the opening the doors of
the Senate Chamber whilst sitting in a Legislative capacity.

On motion to commit the motion for amendment, it passed in the negative.

On motion, that the amendment be agreed to, it passed in the
affirmative--yeas 18, nays 9, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, Burr, Butler, Edwards,
      Ellsworth, Foster, Gunn, Hawkins, Jackson, King, Langdon,
      Livermore, Martin, Monroe, Potts, Taylor, and Vining.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bradford, Cabot, Frelinghuysen, Gallatin,
      Izard, Mitchell, Morris, Rutherford, and Strong.

On motion to adopt the resolution, amended as follows:

      "_Resolved_, That, after the end of the present session of
      Congress, and so soon as suitable galleries shall be
      provided for the Senate Chamber, the said galleries shall
      be permitted to be opened every morning, so long as the
      Senate shall be engaged in their Legislative capacity,
      unless in such cases as may, in the opinion of the Senate,
      require secrecy, after which the said galleries shall be
      closed:"

It passed in the affirmative--yeas 19, nays 8, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, Burr, Butler, Edwards,
      Ellsworth, Foster, Gallatin, Gunn, Hawkins, Jackson, King,
      Langdon, Livermore, Martin, Monroe, Potts, Taylor, and
      Vining.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bradford, Cabot, Frelinghuysen, Izard,
      Mitchell, Morris, Rutherford, and Strong.

_Contested Election._

Agreeably to the order of the day, the Senate resumed the consideration
of the report of the committee on the petition of Conrad Laub, and
others, respecting the election of Mr. GALLATIN to be a Senator of the
United States.

The report of the committee states the evidence, and concludes with an
opinion, that to controvert the allegations set forth in the petition
against Mr. G., it lays with him to prove his citizenship.

Accordingly, Mr. G. presented a written statement of facts which the
PRESIDENT of the Senate read. It contained a narrative of several
transactions from the time of Mr. G.'s arrival in the province of Maine,
or Massachusetts, about thirteen years ago. Of his having contributed by
money and his own services as a volunteer, in the cause of the
revolution. Of his having taken oaths of allegiance and purchased lands
in that State, and also in the State of Virginia. In the back parts of
the last-mentioned State, he had formed an interesting settlement, and
had been extremely useful in bringing settlers from Europe. The dates of
those transactions and times of his arrival in Pennsylvania, and of
being sent to the State Convention, are also recited, up to the time of
his being chosen one of their Representatives in the Senate of the
United States.

After the PRESIDENT had done reading the statement of facts, Mr. G.
addressed the Senate, by observing, that he felt himself rather in an
awkward predicament, not knowing whether the counsel for the prosecutors
or himself were the proper person to speak the first, as this
preliminary was not yet laid down by the Senate, neither had he provided
any counsel. He should have supposed himself in the situation of
defendant, were it not that the weight of proving the affirmative in
regard to citizenship had been laid on him, under which predicament it
might perhaps be necessary for him to begin, and after the counsel for
the petitioners had spoken, that he should then be allowed to close the
arguments.

Mr. LIVERMORE was of opinion, that the sitting member should begin to
debate, as the _onus probandi_ lay with him.

The counsel for the petitioners, Mr. LEWIS, rose. He was attended by Mr.
Schmyser, one of the members of the Senate of Pennsylvania, who, we
understand, manages the prosecution on the part of the petitioners. Mr.
L. hoped he would be permitted to say a few words in the early stage of
the business, in regard to the manner of conducting it. He recapitulated
sundry offices and posts of honor that had been conferred on him, from
which he humbly presumed he had gathered much experience, and
particularly in cases of contested elections. He would, therefore, beg
leave of the honorable Senate, to offer an observation before they
should determine on the mode of conducting the trial. When the question
for postponement, which was debated the other day, was before them, the
sitting member did then consider himself as defendant, and for an hour
had fought phantoms of his own imagination, but now he has changed his
ground, and desires to have the privileges which belong to the
petitioners only, namely, the right of opening the prosecution, and
afterwards concluding the arguments.

Mr. GALLATIN submitted to the decision of the Senate, and said he did
not wish to contend for mere matters of form.

Mr. MARTIN (from N. Carolina) thought it immaterial who began or
concluded, if in the end the Senate should be enabled to arrive at a
just degree of information.

Mr. JACKSON (from Georgia) made some observations on the manner of
conducting the business. He thought it would be incumbent on the counsel
for the petitioners to prove that Mr. GALLATIN was not a citizen, &c.

Mr. KING (from New York) and some other gentleman of the Senate, said a
few more words on the motion; it was agreed that the sitting member
should begin.

Mr. GALLATIN accordingly rose and recapitulated the facts stated in the
written paper which he had presented to the PRESIDENT, commenting on
each of them as he proceeded. He proved that he had been an inhabitant
of the United States for thirteen years, and was one before the peace of
1783, and before the Confederation. He quoted the laws previous thereto
respecting aliens, and also the British statutes, and he maintained that
they were all done away by the Revolution. He conceived himself a
citizen in common with the other citizens of the United States, from the
time of his first qualifying after his arrival and attachment to the
country. He concluded by saying, he would reserve the remainder of his
defence until after he should hear the counsel on behalf of the
petitioners.

Mr. Lewis commenced his speech by observing, that he appeared there on
behalf of Conrad Laub, and other respectable men, who complained of the
unconstitutionality of admitting Mr. GALLATIN to a seat in the Senate.
He was glad to find, by the gentleman's expressions, that the ground of
debate had been narrowed into so small a compass, and he would therefore
take him up from the argument where he had left off speaking, that of
his being a citizen in common of the United States, from the time of his
qualifying in Massachusetts or Virginia. But in Virginia two oaths are
required, and they must be taken in a court, not before a magistrate, to
entitle a man to citizenship. He must also be possessed of a certain
quantity of property and be a resident for two years. It appears Mr. G.
did not remain in Virginia more than two months. (Here Mr. Lewis read
the law of Virginia of the 20th October, 1783.) On this law Mr. L.
argued that Mr. G. had not gone through the necessary qualifications to
entitle him to citizenship there; and he observed, that he admired the
gentleman's candor in not insisting on it here. In this State he had
certainly not qualified himself agreeably to the law. Under these
circumstances, Mr. L. for his part could never admit of the gentleman's
right to citizenship so far back as to entitle him to the suffrage of a
vote for a seat in the Senate, &c.

The mischievous consequences of permitting such innovations, he
represented in strong terms; and he called to the recollection of the
Senate, the conduct of ancient and modern governments on this question.
One of the ancient republics made it death for an alien to intermeddle
in their politics. The sentiments of antiquity, and those of men in
modern days, proved the justice of these conclusions.

With regard to the arguments of the gentleman respecting his being
entitled to be a citizen of the Union, or any individual State of it,
because he had qualified himself to be citizen of one of them, Mr. L.
said, was a mere bubble, for surely the gentleman was not one of the
mass of citizens at the accomplishment of independence.

The doctrine of the old law, which the gentleman says was done away by
the Revolution, in respect to aliens, may have been so with regard to
the British King; it was still, however, virtually in force against the
gentleman. But supposing it to be done away, how do the constitutions of
the different States stand on this head? Is it not implied by all of
them, that certain oaths, residence, and property, make the requisites
to form citizenship? In Massachusetts a foreigner is not a citizen,
without he complies with those terms. [Here he quoted p. 70 of the small
volume of the Laws of Massachusetts. He also cited the act in favor of
John Jarvis and others; also, p. 104 of the same book, and p. 191 and
192.] From these he maintained, that no such wild idea was ever
contemplated by either the law of Massachusetts or Virginia, as to admit
foreigners or persons from other States to citizenship, immediately on
their entrance within their limits.

The situation of the sitting member, with respect to the constitution
and laws of Pennsylvania, he had little doubt was similar to what he had
mentioned in regard to the other States, although he would not assert it
as a fact. [He read the 42d section, and also in p. 43 of the Law of
Pennsylvania, 13th March, 1789, a proviso which contains some
precautions requiring records to be kept by the master of the rolls of
the persons admitted to citizenship.] The same principle pervades all
the States as well as it does the Constitution of the United States. The
absurdity of applying it in any other sense, was severely pictured by
Mr. L., and to admit the idea advanced by the sitting member, was as
inadmissible as it was novel. In support of what he wished to impress on
the minds of the Senate, Mr. L. quoted the 1st vol. of the Journals of
Congress in 1774 and 1775, pp. 28 and 29. He then recurred to
_Blackstone_, vol. I, pp. 63, 64, and 69; also 73 and 79.

It was not his intention to quote the Parliamentary Laws of England in
support of any thing, but such parts of their Common Law as could be got
over--that Common Law of England which was imported by our ancestors,
and handed down to them by the people, not the Parliament. The people
had made the Common Law, from time to time. The Saxons, Normans, &c,
were all concerned in making and improving it, until it had finally
reached that degree of perfection in which it was given to us by our
ancestors, and it was founded in wisdom and justice.

Mr. L. next quoted, first _Blackstone_, 402, which was one of the
British laws that had never been admitted in this country, and which, he
hoped, never would, viz: that wherein the distinction is drawn between
the Commoner and the Peer, an oath being required of the Commoner, upon
all occasions, and no more than "_upon my honor_" from a Peer, except in
giving evidence in civil or criminal trials.

Mr. L. concluded, by saying that the difficulties which stood between
Mr. GALLATIN and his seat, were insurmountable and could not be removed
without showing a law of Massachusetts, Virginia, &c., repealing those
laws in regard to the qualification of citizens, which he had mentioned,
but which repeal he was certain did not exist. He therefore stated, that
to insist upon the gentleman's right to a seat, was both novel and
absurd. These were his opinions, which he had given in a perfectly
extempore way, not having been allowed time nor expecting to meet the
subject on the new ground which it had this day taken in the Senate.

Mr. GALLATIN said, he would pledge himself to the Senate, to prove that
the grounds of his arguments and his construction of the Confederation
and laws of the States, were neither novel nor absurd, except in Mr.
L.'s construction of them, but had been admitted in many instances.
However, as the Common Law of England was now introduced by Mr. L.,
which was new ground to him, and as the hour of adjournment was nearly
approaching, he would beg leave to make his reply to-morrow.

On motion, the further consideration of this subject was postponed until
to-morrow.


FRIDAY, February 21.

_Contested Election._

Agreeably to the order of the day the Senate resumed the consideration
of the report of the committee on the petition of Conrad Laub, and
others, respecting the election of Mr. GALLATIN to be a Senator of the
United States.

Mr. GALLATIN commenced his defence by laying down the principles on
which he intended to argue. His was a very serious situation for a
person to be placed in, who had been so long in America, and who had
mingled with the inhabitants in the common cause, that he should
afterwards be called before so solemn a tribunal, with an intention to
wrest from him his right of citizenship. He confessed, that on this
occasion his feelings were deeply interested, particularly as the manner
of the counsel for the prosecutors was so personal, and went not only to
deny him a seat in the Senate of the United States, but even to contest
his citizenship, and denounce him as being yet an alien.

This was a matter of consequence to many thousands as well as himself,
who have long considered themselves in possession of all the privileges
of denizens, and yet may be deprived of their rights, if the doctrines
of the counsel for the prosecutors should obtain any sanction from the
body who were now to judge of its merits.

Mr. G. entered into a series of observations on the various points of
law, &c., which had been adduced by Mr. LEWIS, and he particularly
remarked, that the Common Law of England was entirely inapplicable to
the subject under consideration. He read the laws of Virginia respecting
naturalization, &c., from which he insisted that he had long since
become a citizen of the United States. He also quoted 1st _Blackstone_,
p. 374, and _Viner's Abridgment_, vol. ii. p. 266, respecting the
different acceptations of denizen and citizen, and he went back so far
as the British statutes in 1740, to show the intention of the old
Government was to naturalize all persons who would go and reside in the
Colonies. He next mentioned the act of Pennsylvania, of the 31st of
August, 1778, and commented on the principles generally entertained by
most writers on the subjects of allegiance and citizenship.
_Blackstone_, 266, &c.

An alien is a man born out of the allegiance of the King. But allegiance
in England is not an allegiance to the country or to society, as it is
understood in this country.

In order to explain the principle of reciprocity, he observed, that when
the two crowns of England and Scotland were united under James, the
inhabitants of Scotland became naturalized in England, as if they had
been natural-born subjects of that country. The allegiance in Britain
was personal to the King, and it has there this remarkable quality, that
by the British laws allegiance can never be shaken off.

This country, before the Revolution, owed allegiance to the King, but
that was destroyed by the Declaration of Independence, and then the
inhabitants of the States became mutually citizens of every State
reciprocally; and they continued so until such time as the States made
laws of their own afterwards respecting naturalization.

As soon as separate governments existed, allegiance was due to each, and
here the allegiance was a reality, it was to the Government and to
society, whereas in Britain it is merely fictitious, being only to one
man.

Every man who took an active part in the American Revolution, was a
citizen according to the great laws of reason and of nature, and when
afterwards positive laws were made, they were retrospective in regard to
persons under this predicament, nor did those posterior laws invalidate
the rights which they enjoy under the Confederation.

Mr. G. here mentioned his having been an inhabitant of Massachusetts
before October, 1780, and he also observed, that the law passed in that
State was decisive against the Common Law of England.

In quoting the laws of Massachusetts, which were passed in 1785, and
afterwards, for naturalizing John Gardner, and James Martin, he remarked
that they clearly implied that even a natural born subject, who had not
acted in the Revolution, and an absentee, was not entitled to
citizenship. He likewise took notice of the case of Mr. WILLIAM SMITH,
of South Carolina, against whose election as a Representative in
Congress, a petition was presented by Doctor Ramsay, although the
decision of South Carolina on that subject was exactly the reverse of
Massachusetts.

In speaking of the difficulties that occurred in explaining the terms
citizen and alien, he ran over a number of cases, and asked whether if a
person had arrived in the United States during the war, from
Nova-Scotia, or elsewhere, and had taken an active part against the
enemy, would he not be better entitled to the right of a citizen, than
even those who afterwards subscribed to the acts? The counsel for the
prosecutors had admitted that a person who had been one of the mass of
the people, at the Declaration of Independence, was a citizen. On the
same principle, until a law passes to disprove that a man who was active
in the Revolution previous to the treaty of peace, was a citizen, he
must be one _ipse facto_.

Mr. G. next read a quotation from the 1st vol. of _Woodison_, p. 382, an
English writer, who acknowledged that all persons were aliens at the
recognition of independence, and that is a more liberal construction
than the council for the petitioners would admit of, for by this
construction, our sailors, &c., ought to be naturalized, lest they be
alarmed by the British.

The new Constitution of the United States requires certain
qualifications for members of Congress, &c., but it does not deprive
persons of their rights who were actually citizens before the
constitution was ratified that made the States the United States. They
were united by consent before, and consequently he was one of the people
before the United States existed.

He went on to read from the Constitution of Massachusetts, and several
other States, sundry clauses in support of his reasoning, and
recapitulated the several heads of Mr. L.'s arguments, to each of which
he replied.

Mr. G. said, that Mr. Lewis was unfortunate in producing the law of
Pennsylvania, for, by proving too much, he had proved nothing, for the
42d sec. of the constitution is retrospective, and by acknowledging the
Articles of Confederation to be the supreme law of the land, persons who
were reciprocally citizens before, are still left in full possession of
the right.

So far from any dangerous consequences arising on my construction of
citizenship, said he, I think it must be evident, that there is more
danger and absurdity in the counsel's own constructions. For, in
remarking on the policy of nations, we find even slaves have been
enfranchised by the great republics in times of common danger. The
policy of America should be to make citizenship as easy as possible, for
the purpose of encouraging population; even during the British dominion
that was a principle laid down, and afterwards it was attempted to be
varied; it is made one of the principal subjects of complaint in the
Declaration of Independence, where it is expressly said, that the king
endeavored to prevent the population of these States, by having laws
made to obstruct the naturalization of foreigners.

If there were any dangerous consequences to be apprehended from the
former regulations on this subject, they are all remedied by the new
constitution.

Therefore, no ill consequence or absurdity can follow. The author of the
Federalist supports this principle in vol. ii. p. 54, for he says, that
it is a construction scarcely avoidable, that citizens of each of the
States are mutually so in all of them.

The first words in the constitution, "We the People," furnished another
argument in support of Mr. G's principles, which he turned to great
advantage, still drawing an inference to show that Mr. L.'s construction
of the subject was most liable to difficulties and to mischievous
consequences.

He concluded by observing, that if there was any disfranchising clauses
in the Constitution of the United States, tending to deprive citizens of
antecedent rights, all such clauses must be construed favorably, and
were evidently on his side. With regard to a sentence that had been
added, by the advice of counsel, to the affidavit of Pelatiah Webster,
he made some remarks which tended to establish his own personal
character, which he trusted would be found, when traced back to his
nativity, to stand the test; and that his right to a seat in the Senate
would also stand upon an equally just foundation.

Mr. Lewis denied having ever seen the affidavit of Mr. Webster, until it
was shown him at the time the examination before the committee was going
forward.

Mr. GALLATIN recriminated, that the clause of which he took notice, was
not in the affidavit when Mr. Webster brought it to the committee, and
that he had permitted it to be added with great reluctance. It was only
the recital of a few words which passed between Mr. G. and Mr. W. in
jest, some years since, wherein Mr. G. had ironically said his name was
Sidney, probably alluding to some essays that had appeared in the
newspapers under that signature, which had been generally attributed to
the pen of another gentleman in the State.

Mr. JACKSON, in order to bring the merits of the subject directly before
the Senate, said he would move a resolution, that would have that
effect; but upon Mr. Lewis's observing, that he had not yet closed his
arguments, and at the instance of Mr. BUTLER, from South Carolina, who
said he would second Mr. JACKSON's motion hereafter, it was withdrawn
for the present.

_Ordered_, That the further consideration thereof be postponed until
to-morrow.


SATURDAY, February 22.

_Contested Election._

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee on
the petition of Conrad Laub, and others, respecting the election of Mr.
GALLATIN to be a Senator of the United States.

The greater part of the day was taken up by Mr. Lewis's pleadings,
wherein he entered into a very extensive field of reasoning, and quoted
a great number of authorities, in support of the principles on which he
had set out last Thursday, and to prove that in the true sense of the
Constitution of the United States, as well as of that of the State of
Pennsylvania, Mr. GALLATIN was not duly qualified for the office of a
Senator, and therefore, he trusted that the honorable Senate, upon
mature reflection, would vacate his seat.

Mr. GALLATIN closed his defence in a short speech, wherein he quoted
_Vattel_, p. 167, and explained the 42d section of the Constitution of
Pennsylvania, the liberal construction of which, he said, was in his
favor, and the construction contended for by the counsel, absurd. He
finished by reading a passage from _Lord Bacon's_ works, to show that
where there is any doubt in the laws, it should operate in favor of the
defendant, and he accordingly made no doubt but that the Senate would
validate his election.

_Ordered_, That the further consideration of the subject be postponed
until Monday next.

A motion was made as follows:

      "_Resolved_, That ALBERT GALLATIN, returned to this House
      as a member for the State of Pennsylvania, is duly
      qualified for, and elected to, a seat in the Senate of the
      United States."

_Ordered_, That the consideration of this motion be postponed until
Monday next, and that a number of copies of the fourth article of the
First Confederation of the United States be printed for the use of the
Senate.


MONDAY, February 24.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made the
twenty-second instant, on the report of the committee on the petition of
Conrad Laub, and others, respecting the election of Mr. GALLATIN to be a
Senator of the United States; and, after progress,

_Ordered_, That the further consideration thereof be postponed until
to-morrow.


FRIDAY, February 28.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the 22d instant, on the report
of the committee on the petition of Conrad Laub, and others, respecting
the election of Mr. GALLATIN to be a Senator of the United States.

And, on the question to agree to the motion, as follows:

      "_Resolved_, That ALBERT GALLATIN, returned to this House
      as a member for the State of Pennsylvania, is duly
      qualified for, and elected to, a seat in the Senate of the
      United States:"

It passed in the negative--yeas 12, nays 14, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, Burr, Butler, Edwards, Gunn,
      Jackson, Langdon, Martin, Monroe, Robinson, and Taylor.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bradford, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster,
      Frelinghuysen, Hawkins, Izard, King, Livermore, Mitchell,
      Morris, Potts, Strong, and Vining.

On motion that it be

      "_Resolved_, That the election of ALBERT GALLATIN to be a
      Senator of the United States was void, he not having been a
      citizen of the United States the term of years required as
      a qualification to be a Senator of the United States:"

A motion was made to divide the question at the word "void;" and,

On motion to agree to the first paragraph of the motion so divided, it
passed in the affirmative--yeas 14, nays 12, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bradford, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster,
      Frelinghuysen, Hawkins, Izard, King, Livermore, Mitchell,
      Morris, Potts, Strong, and Vining.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, Burr, Butler, Edwards, Gunn,
      Jackson, Langdon, Martin, Monroe, Robinson, and Taylor.

On motion to adopt the resolution as follows:

      "_Resolved_, That the election of ALBERT GALLATIN to be a
      Senator of the United States was void, he not having been
      a citizen of the United States the term of years required
      as a qualification to be a Senator of the United States:"

It passed in the affirmative--yeas 14, nays 12.

_Resolved_, That an attested copy of the resolution of the Senate,
declaring the election of ALBERT GALLATIN to be void, be transmitted by
the PRESIDENT of the Senate to the Executive of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.


FRIDAY, March 7.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that
the House of Representatives have passed a bill, entitled "An act to
prohibit the carrying on the slave trade from the United States to any
foreign place or country;" also, a bill, entitled "An act limiting the
time for presenting claims for destroyed certificates of certain
descriptions;" in which bills, severally, they desire the concurrence of
the Senate.


THURSDAY, March 13.

The bill authorizing and directing the settlement of the accounts of
Major General LAFAYETTE was read the third time.

_Resolved_, That this bill pass, that it be engrossed, and that the
title thereof be "An act allowing to Major General LAFAYETTE his pay and
emoluments while in the service of the United States."


WEDNESDAY, March 19.

The bill sent from the House of Representatives for concurrence,
entitled "An act to prohibit the carrying on the slave trade from the
United States to any foreign place or country," was read the third time
and passed.


THURSDAY, March 20.

The bill to authorize the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in certain
cases, to alter the place for holding a session of Congress, was read
the second time.


MONDAY, March 24.

KENSEY JOHNS appeared and produced his credentials of an appointment by
the Governor of the State of Delaware as a Senator for the United
States, which were read.

Whereupon, it was moved that they be referred to the consideration of
the Committee of Elections before the said KENSEY JOHNS should be
permitted to qualify, who are directed to report thereon; and it passed
in the affirmative--yeas 13, nays 12, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, Burr, Edwards, Gunn,
      Hawkins, Jackson, Langdon, Livermore, Martin, Monroe,
      Robinson, and Taylor.

      NAYS.--Messrs Bradford, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster,
      Frelinghuysen, Izard, Mitchell, Morris, Potts, Rutherford,
      Strong, and Vining.

The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill to authorize the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in certain cases, to alter the place
for holding a session of Congress.


TUESDAY, March 25.

The bill to authorize the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in certain
cases, to alter the place for holding a session of Congress, was read
the third time; and, being amended,

_Resolved_, That this bill pass, that it be engrossed, and that the
title thereof be, "An act to authorize the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, in certain cases, to alter the place of holding a session of
Congress."


WEDNESDAY, March 26.

The bill, sent from the House of Representatives for concurrence,
entitled "An act limiting the time for presenting claims for destroyed
certificates of certain descriptions," was read the third time.

_Resolved_, That this bill pass with amendments.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that
the House have passed "A resolution laying an embargo on the vessels in
the ports of the United States;" in which they desire the concurrence of
the Senate.


FRIDAY, March 28.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of
Elections, to whom was referred the credentials of Kensey Johns,
appointed by the Executive of the State of Delaware to be a Senator of
the United States; which report is as follows:

      "The Committee of Elections, to whom were referred the
      credentials of an appointment by the Governor of the State
      of Delaware, of Kensey Johns, as a Senator of the United
      States, having had the same under consideration, report--

      "That George Read, a Senator for the State of Delaware,
      resigned his seat upon the 18th day of December, 1793, and
      during the recess of the Legislature of said State.

      "That the Legislature of the said State met in January, and
      adjourned in February, 1794.

      "That, upon the 19th day of March, and subsequent to the
      adjournment of the said Legislature, Kensey Johns was
      appointed, by the Governor of said State, to fill the
      vacancy occasioned by the resignation aforesaid.

      "Whereupon, the committee submit the following resolution:

      "_Resolved_, That Kensey Johns, appointed by the Governor
      of the State of Delaware, as a Senator of the United
      States, for said State, is not entitled to a seat in the
      Senate of the United States; a session of the Legislature
      of the said State having intervened between the resignation
      of the said George Read and the appointment of the said
      Kensey Johns."

On the question to agree to this report, it passed in the
affirmative--yeas 20, nays 7, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bradford, Bradley, Brown, Burr, Butler,
      Cabot, Edwards, Ellsworth, Frelinghuysen, Gunn, Hawkins,
      Jackson, King, Langdon, Livermore, Martin, Mitchell,
      Monroe, Robinson, and Taylor.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Foster, Izard, Morris, Potts, Rutherford,
      Strong, and Vining.

_Resolved_, That an attested copy of the resolution of the Senate, on
the appointment of Kensey Johns to be a Senator of the United States, be
transmitted, by the PRESIDENT of the Senate, to the Executive of the
State of Delaware.


TUESDAY, May 20.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:_

      In the communications which I have made to Congress during
      the present session relative to foreign nations, I have
      omitted no opportunity of testifying my anxiety to preserve
      the United States in peace. It is peculiarly, therefore, my
      duty, at this time to lay before you the present state of
      certain hostile threats against the territories of Spain in
      our neighborhood.

      The documents which accompany this message develope the
      measures which I have taken to suppress them, and the
      intelligence which has been lately received.

      It will be seen from thence that the subject has not been
      neglected; that every power vested in the Executive on such
      occasions has been exerted; and that there was reason to
      believe that the enterprise projected against the Spanish
      dominions was relinquished.

      But it appears to have been revived upon principles which
      set public order at defiance, and place the peace of the
      United States in the discretion of unauthorized
      individuals. The means already deposited in the different
      departments of Government are shown, by experience, not to
      be adequate to these high exigencies, although such of them
      as are lodged in the hands of the Executive shall continue
      to be used with promptness, energy, and decision,
      proportioned to the case. But I am impelled, by the
      position of our public affairs, to recommend that provision
      be made for a stronger and more vigorous opposition than
      can be given to such hostile movements under the laws as
      they now stand.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.
                                  UNITED STATES, _May_ 20, 1794.

The Message and papers therein referred to were read, and ordered to lie
for consideration.


WEDNESDAY, May 21.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

       _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:_

      I lay before you, in confidence, sundry papers by which you
      will perceive the state of affairs between us and the Six
      Nations, and the probable cause to which it is owing; and
      also certain information, whereby it would appear that some
      encroachment was about to be made on our territory by an
      officer and party of British troops. Proceeding upon a
      supposition of the authenticity of this information,
      although of a private nature, I have caused the
      representation to be made to the British Minister, a copy
      of which accompanies this Message.

      It cannot be necessary to comment upon the very serious
      nature of such an encroachment, nor to urge that this new
      state of things suggests the propriety of placing the
      United States in a posture of effectual preparation for an
      event which, notwithstanding the endeavors making to avert
      it, may, by circumstances beyond our control, be forced
      upon us.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.

                                  UNITED STATES, _May 21, 1794._

The Message and papers therein referred to were read, and ordered to lie
for consideration.


MONDAY, June 9.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that
the House, having finished the business of the session, are about to
adjourn.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary notify the House of Representatives, that
the Senate likewise, having finished the business of the session, are
about to adjourn; and, he having reported that he had delivered the
message, the PRESIDENT of the Senate, conformably to the resolution of
the 5th instant, adjourned the Senate to the day appointed by law for
the next meeting of Congress.




THIRD CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION.

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES

IN

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.


MONDAY, December 2, 1793.

This being the day appointed by the constitution for the meeting of the
present Congress, the following members appeared and took their seats:

_From New Hampshire._--NICHOLAS GILMAN, JOHN S. SHERBURNE, JEREMIAH
SMITH, and PAINE WINGATE.

_From Massachusetts._--SHEARJASHUB BOURNE, DAVID COBB, HENRY DEARBORN,
BENJAMIN GOODHUE, SAMUEL HOLTEN, WILLIAM LYMAN, THEODORE SEDGWICK,
GEORGE THATCHER, and ARTEMAS WARD.

_From Connecticut._--AMASA LEARNED, URIAH TRACEY, JONATHAN TRUMBULL, and
JEREMIAH WADSWORTH.

_From Vermont._--ISRAEL SMITH.

_From New York._--THEODORUS BAILEY, EZEKIEL GILBERT, HENRY GLENN, JAMES
GORDON, SILAS TALBOT, JOHN E. VAN ALLEN, PHILIP VAN CORTLANDT, PETER VAN
GAASBECK, and JOHN WATTS.

_From New Jersey._--JOHN BEATTY, ELIAS BOUDINOT, LAMBERT CADWALADER,
ABRAHAM CLARK, and JONATHAN DAYTON.

_From Pennsylvania._--JAMES ARMSTRONG, WILLIAM FINDLAY, THOMAS
FITZSIMONS, ANDREW GREGG, THOMAS HARTLEY, WILLIAM IRVINE, JOHN WILKES
KITTERA, FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG, PETER MUHLENBERG, THOMAS SCOTT,
and JOHN SMILIE.

_From Maryland._--GEORGE DENT and SAMUEL SMITH.

_From Virginia._--WILLIAM B. GILES, CARTER B. HARRISON, JOHN HEATH,
RICHARD BLAND LEE, JAMES MADISON, ANDREW MOORE, ANTHONY NEW, JOHN
NICHOLAS, FRANCIS PRESTON, ROBERT RUTHERFORD, ABRAHAM VENABLE, and
FRANCIS WALKER.

_From Kentucky._--CHRISTOPHER GREENUP.

_From North Carolina._--THOMAS BLOUNT, WILLIAM JOHNSON DAWSON, MATTHEW
LOOKE, NATHANIEL MACON, and ALEXANDER MEBANE.

_From South Carolina._--WILLIAM SMITH.

_From Georgia._--ABRAHAM BALDWIN and THOMAS P. CARNES.

A quorum of the members being present, the House proceeded to ballot for
a Speaker, when it appeared that FREDERICK A. MUHLENBERG, one of the
members from Pennsylvania, was elected; whereupon he was conducted to
the chair; and made his acknowledgments to the House.[47]

The House then proceeded, in the same manner, to the appointment of a
Clerk, when JOHN BECKLEY was appointed.

The usual oath was then administered to the members.

Messages were interchanged between the two Houses, announcing their
formation and readiness to proceed to business.

Joseph Wheaton was appointed Sergeant-at-Arms, Gifford Dally as
Doorkeeper, and Thomas Claxton as Assistant Doorkeeper.

A joint committee was appointed by the two Houses to wait on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, to inform him that a quorum of the two
Houses is assembled, and ready to receive any communication that he may
think proper to make to them.

_Resolved_, That two Chaplains, of different denominations, be
appointed, one by each House, to interchange weekly.

_Resolved_, That a standing Committee of Elections be appointed; also a
committee to report rules and orders of proceeding.


TUESDAY, December 3.

JOSEPH MCDOWELL and BENJAMIN WILLIAMS, from North Carolina, appeared,
and took their seats.

A message from the Senate announced their readiness to receive the
communication from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. The SPEAKER and
members withdrew to the Senate Chamber, where the PRESIDENT attended,
and delivered his Speech to the two Houses, which will be found in the
proceedings of the Senate.

On the return of the members, the Speech was committed to a Committee of
the Whole.


WEDNESDAY, December 4.

PELEG COFFIN, Jr., from Massachusetts, WILLIAM MONTGOMERY, from
Pennsylvania, and WILLIAM VANS MURRAY, from Maryland, appeared, produced
their credentials, and took their seats in the House; the oath to
support the Constitution of the United States being first administered
to them by the SPEAKER, according to law.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to both Houses of Congress;
and, after some time spent therein, the Chairman reported that the
committee had had the said Speech under consideration, and come to a
resolution thereupon; which was twice read, and agreed to by the House,
as follows:

_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this committee that a respectful
Address ought to be presented by the House of Representatives to the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in answer to his Speech to both Houses
of Congress, at the commencement of this session, containing assurances
that this House will take into consideration the various and important
matters recommended to their attention.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. MADISON, SEDGWICK, WATTS, HARTLEY, and SAMUEL
SMITH, be appointed a committee to prepare an Address pursuant to the
said resolution.


THURSDAY, December 5.

Mr. MADISON, from the committee appointed, presented an Address to the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in answer to his Speech to both Houses
of Congress; which was read, and ordered to be committed to a Committee
of the whole House to-morrow.


FRIDAY, December 6.

JAMES HILLHOUSE, from Connecticut, and JOSIAH PARKER, from Virginia,
appeared, and took their seats.

Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, from the Standing Committee of Elections, reported
that the committee had, in part, examined the certificates and other
credentials of the members returned to serve in this House, and had
agreed upon a report; which was read, and is as follows:

      "It appears to your committee, that the credentials of the
      following members are sufficient to entitle them to take
      their seats in the House, to wit:"

[After enumerating the names of the members whose credentials were
examined, the report concludes:]

      "Your committee further report that, in the case of JOHN
      PATTON, returned as a member for the State of Delaware, the
      Executive of the said State have, together with the return,
      transmitted a protest, made to them by Henry Latimer, of
      the said State, against the return of the said JOHN
      PATTON."

_Ordered_, That the said report do lie on the table.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in answer to his Speech
to both Houses of Congress; and, after some time spent therein, the
Chairman reported that the committee had had the said Address under
consideration, and made no amendment thereto.

_Resolved, unanimously_, That this House doth agree to the said Address,
in the words following:

      SIR: The Representatives of the people of the United
      States, in meeting you for the first time since you have
      been again called, by a unanimous suffrage, to your present
      station, find an occasion, which they embrace with no less
      sincerity than promptitude, for expressing to you their
      congratulations on so distinguished a testimony of public
      approbation, and their entire confidence in the purity and
      patriotism of the motives which have produced this
      obedience to the voice of your country. It is to virtues
      which have commanded long and universal reverence, and
      services from which have flowed great and lasting benefits,
      that the tribute of praise may be paid without the reproach
      of flattery; and it is from the same sources that the
      fairest anticipations may be derived in favor of the public
      happiness.

      The United States having taken no part in the war which had
      embraced in Europe the Powers with whom they have the most
      extensive relations, the maintenance of peace was justly to
      be regarded as one of the most important duties of the
      Magistrate charged with the faithful execution of the laws.
      We accordingly witness, with approbation and pleasure, the
      vigilance with which you have guarded against an
      interruption of that blessing, by your Proclamation,
      admonishing our citizens of the consequences of illicit or
      hostile acts towards the belligerent parties; and
      promoting, by a declaration of the existing legal state of
      things, an easier admission of our right to the immunities
      belonging to our situation.

      The connection of the United States with Europe has
      evidently become extremely interesting. The communications
      which remain to be exhibited to us will, no doubt, assist
      in giving us a fuller view of the subject, and in guiding
      our deliberations to such results as may comport with the
      rights and true interests of our country.

      We learn, with deep regret, that the measures, dictated by
      a love of peace, for obtaining an amicable termination of
      the afflicting war on our frontiers, have been frustrated,
      and that a resort to offensive measures should have again
      become necessary. As the latter, however, must be rendered
      more satisfactory, in proportion to the solicitude for
      peace, manifested by the former, it is to be hoped they
      will be pursued under the better auspices, on that account,
      and be finally crowned with more happy success.

      In relation to the particular tribe of Indians against whom
      offensive measures have been prohibited, as well as on all
      the other important subjects which you have presented to
      our view, we shall bestow the attention which they claim.
      We cannot, however, refrain, at this time, from
      particularly expressing our concurrence in your anxiety for
      the regular discharge of the public debts, as fast as
      circumstances and events will permit, and, in the policy of
      removing any impediments that may be found in the way of a
      faithful representation of public proceedings throughout
      the United States, being persuaded, with you, that on no
      subject more than the former can delay be more injurious,
      or an economy of time more valuable; and that, with respect
      to the latter, no resource is so firm for the Government of
      the United States as the affections of the people, guided
      by an enlightened policy.

      Throughout our deliberations we shall endeavor to cherish
      every sentiment which may contribute to render them
      conducive to the dignity as well as to the welfare of the
      United States. And we join with you in imploring that
      Being, on whose will the fate of nations depends, to crown
      with success our mutual endeavors.

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

Mr. MADISON, from the committee appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, to know when and where it will be convenient for him
to receive the Address of this House, in answer to his Speech to both
Houses of Congress, reported that the committee had waited on the
PRESIDENT, who signified to them that it would be convenient to him to
receive the said Address at 12 o'clock, to-morrow, at his own house.


SATURDAY, December 7.

PELEG WADSWORTH, from Massachusetts, and JOSEPH NEVILLE, from Virginia,
appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats.

The SPEAKER, attended by the House, then withdrew to the house of the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and there presented to him the Address
of this House, in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress; to
which the PRESIDENT made the following reply:

      GENTLEMEN: I shall not affect to conceal the cordial
      satisfaction which I derive from the Address of the House
      of Representatives. Whatsoever those services may be which
      you have sanctioned by your favor, it is a sufficient
      reward that they have been accepted as they were meant. For
      the fulfilment of your anticipations of the future, I can
      give no other assurance than that the motives which you
      approve shall continue unchanged.

      It is truly gratifying to me to learn that the Proclamation
      has been considered as a seasonable guard against the
      interruption of the public peace. Nor can I doubt that the
      subjects which I have recommended to your attention as
      depending on Legislative provisions, will receive a
      discussion suited to their importance. With every reason,
      then, it may be expected that your deliberations, under the
      Divine blessing, will be matured to the honor and happiness
      of the United States.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.


MONDAY, December 9.

GABRIEL CHRISTIE, from Maryland, THOMAS CLAIBORNE and GEORGE HANCOCK,
from Virginia, JOSEPH WINSTON, from North Carolina, JOHN HUNTER and
ANDREW PICKENS, from South Carolina, appeared, produced their
credentials, and took their seats in the House.


TUESDAY, December 10.

The House resumed the reading of the communications received from the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, on Thursday last, and made a further
progress therein.


WEDNESDAY, December 11.

BENJAMIN BOURNE and FRANCIS MALBONE, from Rhode Island, appeared,
produced their credentials, and took their seats in the House.


FRIDAY, December 13.

THOMAS TREDWELL, from New York, and JOHN PATTON, from Delaware,
appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats.

_Ordered_, That a committee be appointed to prepare and bring in a bill
to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United
States; and that Mr. GILES, Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, Mr. AMES, Mr. HARTLEY,
Mr. HILLHOUSE, Mr. FITZSIMONS, and Mr. BOUDINOT, be the said committee.


MONDAY, December 16.

SAMUEL DEXTER, Junior, from Massachusetts, JOSHUA COIT and ZEPHANIAH
SWIFT, from Connecticut, and RICHARD WINN, from South Carolina,
appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats.


THURSDAY, December 19.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of State,
accompanying a report on the privileges and restrictions on the commerce
of the United States in foreign countries, made pursuant to a resolution
of the House of the twenty-third of February, one thousand seven hundred
and ninety-one; which was read, and ordered to be committed to the
Committee of the whole House, to whom are committed the confidential
communications from the PRESIDENT respecting the measures which have
been pursued for obtaining a recognition of the treaty between the
United States and Morocco, and for the ransom of prisoners and
establishment of peace with the Algerines.


FRIDAY, December 20.

WILLIAM HINDMAN, from Maryland, and SAMUEL GRIFFIN, from Virginia,
appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats.


MONDAY, December 23.

ALEXANDER D. ORR, from Kentucky, appeared, produced his credentials, and
took his seat in the House.


THURSDAY, December 26.

A petition of Abram Trigg, of the State of Virginia, was presented to
the House and read, complaining of an undue election and return of
Francis Preston, to serve as a member of this House for the said State.

_Ordered_, That the said petition be referred to the Committee of
Elections; that they do examine the matter thereof, and report the same,
with their opinion thereon, to the House.


FRIDAY, December 27.

DANIEL HEISTER, from Pennsylvania, appeared, produced his credentials,
and took his seat in the House.


WEDNESDAY, January 1, 1794.

URIAH FORREST and THOMAS SPRIGG, from Maryland, appeared, produced their
credentials, and took their seats in the House.


THURSDAY, January 2.

ISAAC COLES, from Virginia, and WILLIAM BARRY GROVE, from North
Carolina, appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats in
the House.


FRIDAY, January 3.

_Commerce of the United States._[48]

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
Report of the Secretary of State on the privileges and restrictions on
the commerce of the United States in foreign countries.

Mr. MADISON, after some general observations on the report, entered into
a more particular consideration of the subject. He remarked, that the
commerce of the United States is not, at this day, on that respectable
footing to which, from its nature and importance, it is entitled. He
recurred to its situation previous to the adoption of the constitution,
when conflicting systems prevailed in the different States. The then
existing state of things gave rise to that Convention of Delegates from
the different parts of the Union, who met to deliberate on some general
principles for the regulation of commerce, which might be conducive, in
their operation, to the general welfare, and that such measures should
be adopted as would conciliate the friendship and good faith of those
countries who were disposed to enter into the nearest commercial
connections with us. But what has been the result of the system which
has been pursued ever since? What is the present situation of our
commerce? From the situation in which we find ourselves after four
years' experiment, he observed, that it appeared incumbent on the United
States to see whether they could not now take measures promotive of
those objects for which the Government was in a great degree instituted.
Measures of moderation, firmness, and decision, he was persuaded, were
now necessary to be adopted, in order to narrow the sphere of our
commerce with those nations who see proper not to meet us on terms of
reciprocity.

Mr. M. then read the following resolutions:

      [The principle of these resolutions will be best seen in
      the debates upon them.]

Mr. M. took a general view of the probable effects which the adoption of
something like the resolutions he had proposed, would produce. They
would produce, respecting many articles imported, a competition which
would enable countries who do not now supply us with those articles, to
do it, and would increase the encouragement on such as we can produce
within ourselves. We should also obtain an equitable share in carrying
our own produce; we should enter into the field of competition on equal
terms, and enjoy the actual benefit of advantages which nature and the
spirit of our people entitle us to.

He adverted to the advantageous situation this country is entitled to
stand in, considering the nature of our exports and returns. Our exports
are bulky, and therefore must employ much shipping, which might be
nearly all our own: our exports are chiefly necessaries of life, or raw
materials, the food for the manufacturers of other nations. On the
contrary, the chief of what we receive from other countries, we can
either do without, or produce substitutes.

It is in the power of the United States, he conceived, by exerting her
natural rights, without violating the rights, or even the equitable
pretensions of other nations--by doing no more than most nations do for
the protection of their interests, and much less than some, to make her
interests respected; for, what we receive from other nations are but
luxuries to us, which, if we choose to throw aside, we could deprive
part of the manufacturers of those luxuries, of even bread, if we are
forced to the contest of self-denial. This being the case, our country
may make her enemies feel the extent of her power. We stand, with
respect to the nation exporting those luxuries, in the relation of an
opulent individual to the laborer, in producing the superfluities for
his accommodation; the former can do without those luxuries, the
consumption of which gives bread to the latter.

He did not propose, or wish that the United States should at present go
so far in the line which his resolutions point to, as they might go. The
extent to which the principles involved in those resolutions should be
carried, will depend upon filling up the blanks. To go to the very
extent of the principle immediately, might be inconvenient. He wished,
only, that the Legislature should mark out the ground on which we think
we can stand; perhaps it may produce the effect wished for, without
unnecessary irritation; we need not at first go every length.

Another consideration would induce him, he said, to be moderate in
filling up the blanks--not to wound public credit. He did not wish to
risk any sensible diminution of the public revenue. He believed that if
the blanks were filled with judgment, the diminution of the revenue,
from a diminution in the quantity of imports, would be counterbalanced
by the increase in the duties.

The last resolution he had proposed, he said, is, in a manner, distinct
from the rest. The nation is bound by the most sacred obligation, he
conceived, to protect the rights of its citizens against a violation of
them from any quarter; or, if they cannot protect, they are bound to
repay the damage.

It is a fact authenticated to this House by communications from the
Executive, that there are regulations established by some European
nations; contrary to the Law of Nations, by which our property is
seized and disposed of in such a way that damages have accrued. We are
bound either to obtain reparation for the injustice, or compensate the
damage. It is only in the first instance, no doubt, that the burden is
to be thrown upon the United States. The proper department of Government
will, no doubt, take proper steps to obtain redress. The justice of
foreign nations will certainly not permit them to deny reparation when
the breach of the Law of Nations appears evidently; at any rate, it is
just that the individual should not suffer. He believed the amount of
the damages that would come within the meaning of this resolution, would
not be very considerable.

Mr. M.'s resolutions being seconded, were presented and read by the
Clerk.

Mr. W. SMITH rose to make some remarks on the observations of Mr.
MADISON, when a motion was made by Mr. FITZSIMONS, that the committee
should rise, and report progress, and that the House should give order
for printing the resolutions.

After some further remarks by two or three members, Mr. MADISON said he
had no wish to precipitate the discussion; he was content that the
committee should now rise, and that a future early day should be
assigned.


MONDAY, January 6.

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

_Pay of Soldiers._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
bill for completing and better supporting the Military Establishment of
the United States. The bill being read,

On the clause of the bill for augmenting the pay of the soldiers from
three to four dollars per month, Mr. IRVINE proposed an addition of a
fifth dollar, which seemed to meet the unanimous sense of the members;
but Mr. CLARK thought this last augmentation too great. They might, in
this way of proceeding, raise the pay in time to ten dollars a month.

Mr. SCOTT was of opinion that there was no just proportion between the
wages of ordinary labor and that of military service. He could not hire
a workman, who was to sleep at peace in his bed, and to dine at a good
table, for the pay that was given to a soldier for enduring the
hardships of his dangerous profession. An augmentation of their pay
would flatter the troops. It would put them in good humor; and therefore
he hoped that the five dollars would be carried through the House.

Mr. SMILIE said, that the expense of living had been considerably raised
in every part of the United States. The pay of the soldiers ought, in
common justice, to be advanced in an equal degree with that of the other
persons employed in the service of the State. Congress had lately
received a petition from some gentlemen employed in the public offices
of Philadelphia. The officers of the army had been talking of a similar
necessity of an advance in their pay. The United States ought to pay
well, that they might obtain good men. Many recruits had, upon late
occasions, enlisted, and several of them in Philadelphia, who never
should have been admitted into the Military Establishment of any nation
whatever.

Mr. WADSWORTH did not see any reason for the proposed additional dollar
per month. If he had thought it necessary, he should have been very
ready to mention it. In the States north of Pennsylvania, the wages of a
common laborer were not, upon the whole, superior to those of a common
soldier. It had been alleged that, by augmenting the pay of the troops,
we should get better men. This was a doctrine which he, for one, did not
understand. The present Western Army were as good troops as ever went
into the field, and much better than the late Continental Army. Men of a
sober character did not and would not enlist. Recruits might have very
good morals, and it was certain that many honest men did not love labor.
Curiosity, levity, the heat of youth, and other very excusable motives,
sent people to the army; but it never was, nor never will be, the place
where a thoughtful and industrious private man would be ambitious to
exert his talents. For this reason, he was convinced that to enlarge the
pay would answer no good purpose. As to the militia, who were, many of
them, substantial people, it was in vain to imagine that they would
fulfil the end of an army in the Indian war. They had been tried, and
the experiment had failed. He again adverted to the impossibility of
supplying the ranks with recruits above the most ordinary classes of
life. He never had seen an army, such as it was believed that the
additional dollar would assemble, and he despaired ever to see such an
army. There was, however, an act of bounty, which might be of infinite
service to the troops, and which he should take a future opportunity of
moving. He referred to a provision for the widows and children of such
soldiers as should happen to lose their lives in the service.

Mr. BOUDINOT said, that he should be very sorry to recommend the
augmentation, if he thought that it would induce farmers, and sober,
industrious people to quit their families and professions in exchange
for a military life. This, he thought, would indeed be a very alarming
consequence, and, did he apprehend it, he should undoubtedly oppose the
intended increase. He had no apprehensions of that kind. America would
be in a very bad situation, indeed, if an additional pay of twelve
dollars a year could bribe a farmer or manufacturer to enlist. He should
look very strange at any of his neighbors who should tell him that they
had embraced such an offer. Instead of augmenting the pay, perhaps it
was better to add something to the rations; those, for example, of salt
and flour. He thought it safest to agree to the four dollars, because
if they voted for five, the bill would probably be thrown out of the
other House; and thus, by grasping at too much, the movers of the
amendment would lose the bill altogether. Originally, troops had been
raised for less than two dollars per month. The pay had since been
augmented to three, and was now on the way of being raised to four. He
wished to make its advances gradual. If we looked at the situations of
other countries, and contemplated the state of their finances, we should
be convinced that America paid her troops as well in proportion to her
ability as any other people in the world, and that her soldiers had no
right to complain.

Mr. MONTGOMERY spoke a few words in favor of an advance to five dollars.

Mr. SCOTT said, that Pennsylvania had some time ago raised a few
companies of soldiers for her frontier service, and given them two
pounds ten shillings currency per month, which was equal to six dollars
and two-thirds. In consequence of this, the companies had been filled
with some of the most respectable kind of people in the country. They
were quite of a different class from the recruits raised for the Western
Army. He wished to try the five dollars. This superior pay was reported
to have hurt the Continental recruiting service. He thought it very
possible that such had been the case. If Government give the proposed
five dollars, the Continental Army might, perhaps, get all the levies
which it wanted from these very companies.

Mr. HUNTER would have voted for six dollars.

Mr. BEATTY said, that he was for giving five dollars, from a conviction
that it was requisite for the service.

Mr. SMILIE was decidedly for the additional augmentation. The recruits,
he said, who had been raised in this city were sad fellows, and not fit
to be trusted. Better pay would bring forward better men.

Mr. SMITH said that, as to the rate of labor, good men were hired to
work in Vermont for eighteen pounds a year, which is equal to four
dollars per month, and out of that they find their own clothes. He
thought it a very dangerous plan to raise the wages of soldiers at this
time, when every article was above its natural price; because, when
things return to their old level, it would be impossible to reduce their
wages. The people of Europe had, by their wars, increased the demand for
the produce of our farms, and this had raised the wages of labor. The
members of Congress had six dollars per day, and it would be no easy
matter to alter that, which he seemed to hint might not be quite
improper. He thought that high pay would only serve to make the soldiers
get drunk. It would be much better to give them some substantial
gratification at the end of the service.

Mr. WADSWORTH said that the army, in getting four dollars, got plenty,
and he despaired of seeing five dollars pass through that House; but,
were they to vote twenty dollars, they never would be able to enlist
that class of men whom it was expected five dollars would collect. A
member had mentioned, as a proof of the possibility of enlisting the
sons of farmers, the instance of a party in one of the New England
States, who had formed themselves into a military body, and had gone
westward in quest of a settlement, but were cut to pieces by the
Indians. He knew this; and he had likewise heard of others who had since
gone from the same quarter, and upon the same errand. He had inquired
about their characters, and had found, just as he had expected, that
they were very honest, good sort of people, but somewhat of a rambling
disposition, and not remarkably industrious. As to the notion of
enlisting men, and attaching them to their country, by five dollars a
month, it would not do. The old Continental Army were very good
soldiers, but certainly some of them did not fight for the sake of their
country, since they deserted by scores. They were, however, brought
back, and fought very well. Their reasons for deserting, he did not
pretend to know; but this he knew, that they were very idle and very
worthless fellows, which did not hinder them from doing their duty. Mr.
W. added, that it was a mistake to propose giving five dollars a month
for fear that we should not be able to get recruits. In a short time our
communication by sea would be cut off. We would likewise be prevented
from emigrations into the back country. Recruits would then be had in
the greatest abundance for four dollars a month, as great numbers of
people would then be thrown out of employment, and enlist for want of
it.

The amendment to the bill, of adding two dollars instead of one, was
rejected.

Mr. CLARK then moved, as an amendment of the bill, that there should be
an addition of four ounces of bread or flour, and four ounces of meat to
each ration.

Mr. HARTLEY was for augmenting the rations. He knew that they were too
small. In cultivated countries they might do, but not in the backwoods,
where vegetables were not to be had.

Mr. WADSWORTH was convinced that the rations were sufficient unless on a
march. He spoke, he said, from experience.

Mr. GILES had been frequently informed by officers in the army, that the
rations were all defective. In the backwoods, the soldiers had been
often reduced to such distress for want of vegetables, as to go in
search of acorns to supply their place.

Mr. FITZSIMONS said, that he had been informed that the principal
objection to the rations was the inferior quality of the meat, and that
this arose from the leanness of the cattle, as being exhausted by hard
driving. Instead, therefore, of a regular increase, it might perhaps be
better to provide for accidental contingencies.

Mr. MURRAY moved, and his motion was seconded, to amend the amendment by
striking out the words, and "four ounces of meat."

Mr. SMITH said, that an aide-de-camp, who was his relation, and now
serving in the army, had wrote him that they were just now well fed,
well clothed, in good health, and as good spirits as an army had ever
enjoyed. The reason of the common rations of provisions failing in a
march, was owing to the waste in cooking. The amendment of Mr. CLARK,
and the additional amendment of Mr. MURRAY, were both withdrawn.

The committee now rose and reported the amendment, and the bill and
amendment were ordered to lie on the table.

_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to report whether any, and
what, alteration ought to be made in the ration now allowed to the
troops of the United States; and that Mr. IRVINE, Mr. DEARBORN, and Mr.
HEISTER, be the said committee.


TUESDAY, January 7.

_Flag of the United States._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act making an alteration in the
Flag of the United States."

Mr. GOODHUE thought it a trifling business, which ought not to engross
the attention of the House, when it was their duty to discuss matters of
infinitely greater consequence. If we are to alter the flag from
thirteen to fifteen stripes, with two additional stars, because Vermont
and Kentucky have been added, we may go on adding and altering at this
rate for one hundred years to come. It is very likely, before fifteen
years elapse, we shall consist of twenty States. The flag ought to be
permanent.

Mr. LYMAN was of a different opinion. He thought it of the greatest
consequence not to offend the new States.

Mr. THATCHER ridiculed the idea of being at so much trouble, as a
consummate specimen of frivolity. At this rate, every State should alter
its public seal when an additional county or township was formed. He was
sorry to see the House take up their time with such trifles.

Mr. GREENUP considered it of very great consequence to inform the rest
of the world that we had now two additional States.

Mr. NILES was very sorry that such a matter should even for a moment
have hindered the House from going into more important affairs. He did
not think the alteration either worth the trouble of adopting or
rejecting; but he supposed that the shortest way to get rid of it was to
agree to it, and for that reason, and no other, he advised to pass it as
soon as possible.

The committee agreed to it, and the Chairman reported the bill. The
House then took it up.

Mr. BOUDINOT thought it of consequence to keep the citizens of Vermont
and Kentucky in good humor. They might be affronted at our rejecting the
bill.

Mr. GOODHUE said, he felt for the honor of the House, when spending
their time on such sort of business. But, since it must be passed, he
had only to beg this favor, that it might not appear upon the journals,
and go into the world as the first of the bills passed this session.

Mr. MADISON was for the bill passing.

Mr. GILES thought it very proper that the idea should be preserved of
the number of our States, and the number of stripes corresponding. The
expense was but trifling, compared with that of forming the Government
of a new State.

Mr. SMITH said, that this alteration would cost him five hundred
dollars, and every vessel in the Union sixty. He could not conceive what
the Senate meant by sending them such bills. He supposed that it must be
for want of something better to do. He should indulge them, but let us
have no more alterations of this sort. Let the flag be permanent.

It was ordered that the bill be read a third time to-morrow.


FRIDAY, January 10.

_French Emigrants from St. Domingo._

Mr. SAMUEL SMITH, from the committee to whom was referred the petition
of William Patterson, Samuel Sterrett, and Gustavus Scott, the committee
appointed by the Legislature of Maryland to draw and distribute the
moneys granted by that State for the relief of the French emigrants from
the Island of St. Domingo, made a report:

Mr. S. SMITH said, that there never was a more noble and prompt display
of the most exalted feelings, than had been exhibited on this occasion.
He believed that such a scene of distress had never before been seen in
America. Three thousand fugitives had been at once landed, without the
least previous expectation of their arrival. The whole inhabitants
instantly assembled, and deputed a committee, of which he was one, to go
on board the vessels, and examine their situation. Thirteen thousand
dollars were instantly subscribed. Fifteen hundred of these people were
quite helpless; three hundred and fifty of them were old men, or women
without their husbands, or children without their parents. Some had
credit, and some had not. Five hundred of them had been sent to France
by the Minister, at the expense of the Republic; the rest remain in this
country.

Mr. MADISON wished to relieve the sufferers, but was afraid of
establishing a dangerous precedent, which might hereafter be perverted
to the countenance of purposes very different from those of charity. He
acknowledged, for his own part, that he could not undertake to lay his
finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right
to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their
constituents. And if once they broke the line laid down before them, for
the direction of their conduct, it was impossible to say to what
lengths they might go, or to what extremities this practice might be
carried. He did not agree with the member who spoke last, that nothing
like the generosity of America had ever been heard of before. As one
example in contradiction to this assertion, he mentioned, that when the
city of Lisbon had, in 1755, been overwhelmed by an earthquake, the
Parliament of England instantly voted one hundred thousand pounds for
the support of the sufferers. In doing this, they had, he believed,
acted in unison with the feelings of the British nation, and such
feelings did that nation the utmost honor. He likewise imagined, that
the Parliament had acted agreeably to the British Constitution, which
allowed them an indefinite and absolute right in disposing of the money
of their constituents. But as to the American Congress, the case was
widely different. He was satisfied that the citizens of the United
States possessed an equal degree of magnanimity, generosity, and
benevolence, with the people of Britain, but this House certainly did
not possess an undefined authority correspondent with that of a British
Parliament. He wished that some other mode could be devised for
assisting the French sufferers than by an act of Congress. He was in
hopes that some other mode, equally effectual, and less exceptionable,
might be devised. As to what our Executive Government had already done,
as quoted from the official despatches by the gentleman who spoke last,
the inference did not apply; for in that emergency, a delay would have
been equivalent to a total denial. It had been said, that we owed the
French every sentiment of gratitude. It was true; but it was likewise
true that we owed them something else than sentiments, for we were
indebted to them a very large sum of money. One of the instalments of
that debt would be due in a short time, and perhaps it might be safest
for Congress to advance the sums now wanted for the French refugees, in
part of that debt, and leave it to the decision of the French Ministry
whether they would accept of such a payment or not. He did not wish to
press this expedient upon the House, but he begged leave to submit it to
their consideration; and as he had not yet been able to resolve in his
own mind what line of conduct the House ought to pursue, he requested
that the discussion of the question might for a short time be deferred.

Mr. CLARK wished that the gentleman who spoke last would be careful of
preserving consistency. It was only a few days ago that he had laid
before the House a resolution, by which Congress were to indemnify all
such citizens of the United States as had suffered losses by the British
pirates. He supposed that for this, there would be found as little
authority in the articles of the constitution, as for relieving the
fugitives from Cape Francois.

Mr. MADISON, in explanation, replied, that the two cases were widely
different. The vessels of America sailed under our flag, and were under
our protection, by the law of nations, which the French sufferers
unquestionably were not. As to the resolution he had proposed, it was
not then before the House, and hence he could not speak to it with
propriety. It was very possible that the House might find it wrong, and
reject it. He wished not to be misunderstood, for he was sure that every
member in that House felt the warmest sympathy with the situation of the
sufferers. He would be very glad to find a proper way for their relief.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, that he had not been able to discover upon what
authority the House were to grant the proposed donation. If the question
should that day come to a vote, which he trusted it would not, he had
resolved to give his voice in favor of the sufferers: but, when he
returned to his constituents, he would honestly tell them that he
considered himself as having exceeded his powers, and so cast himself on
their mercy. He felt many obstacles to voting away this money without
further deliberation.

Mr. BOUDINOT declared, that he had never been able to discover any
difficulty in the matter. By the law of nature, by the law of
nations--in a word, by every moral obligation that could influence
mankind, we were bound to relieve the citizens of a Republic who were at
present our allies, and who had formerly been our benefactors. He could
not for a moment endure the idea of a hesitation on such a question.
When a number of our fellow-creatures had been cast upon our sympathy,
in a situation of such unexampled wretchedness, was it possible that
gentlemen could make a doubt whether it was our duty to relieve them? It
had been said that the House was not, by the constitution, authorized to
give away money for such purposes. He was satisfied, that to refuse the
assistance requested, would be to act in direct opposition both to the
theory and practice of the constitution. In the first place, as to the
practice, it had been said that nothing of this kind had ever occurred
before under the Federal Constitution. He was astonished at such an
affirmation. Did not the Indians frequently come down to this city, on
embassies respecting the regulating of trade, and other business--and
did not the Executive, without consulting Congress at all, pay their
lodgings for weeks, nay, for whole months together? and was not this
merely because the Indians were unable to pay for themselves? Nobody
ever questioned the propriety of that act of charity. Again; when
prisoners of war were taken, there was no clause in the constitution
authorizing Congress to provide for their subsistence: yet it was well
known that they would not be suffered to starve. Provision was instantly
made for them, before we could tell whether the nation to whom they
belonged would pay such expenses, or would not pay them. It was very
true that an instalment would soon be due to France, nor did he object
to reimbursement in that way, if it could be so obtained. But, in the
mean time, relief must be given, for he was convinced that he had still
stronger obligations to support the citizens of our allies than either
Indians or prisoners of war. In the second place, as to the theory of
the constitution, he referred gentlemen to the first clause of the
eighth section of it. By that clause Congress were warranted to provide
for exigencies regarding _the general welfare_, and he was sure this
case came under that description.

Mr. FITZSIMONS thought that it would be expedient to lose as little time
as possible in going into the committee. It was hard on the State of
Maryland to support of itself such an immense number of people. Besides,
the period for which that State had engaged to furnish them with
subsistence was expiring; so that it was absolutely necessary to come to
an early decision whether the House would assist them or not. Mr. Genet
had made a discrimination among the sufferers; some of them he had
promised to assist, and others, as _aristocrats_, he had disowned
altogether.

Mr. DEXTER read the clause referred to by Mr. BOUDINOT, but could not
draw from it any such inference. He was very unwilling to vote against
the proposition, and therefore solicited a delay, that he might have
leisure to find proper reasons for voting in its favor.

Mr. GILES was averse to precipitation in an affair of such magnitude.
The report had been read for a first time to-day; it had then been read
for a second time to-day. As if all this had not been sufficient, the
House must likewise go into a committee this day. Like the gentleman who
had just sat down, he felt many doubts as to the legality of such an act
of bounty; and he wished, before he gave a vote on either side of the
question, to free himself from these doubts. He considered duty to his
constituents as a very solemn trust. Some personal insinuations had been
cast out, as if gentlemen who professed constitutional scruples had
wished to embarrass the subject. Reflections of this kind could answer
no good purpose. Gentlemen (said Mr. G.) appeal to our humanity. The
appeal is out of place. That is not the question; but whether, organized
as we are, under the constitution, we have a right to make such a grant?
He did not understand why an application was made to Congress in
particular. It would have been made with greater propriety to the
Provincial Assemblies, as their power over the purses of their
constituents was more extensive than that of this House over the
revenues of the United States.

[The motion for the House resolving itself into a committee immediately
was then withdrawn, and the report was committed to a Committee of the
Whole on the state of the Union.]


MONDAY, January 13.

_Commerce of the United States._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the Report of the Secretary of State on the privileges and restrictions
on the commerce of the United States, in foreign countries, when

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) rose and addressed the Chair as follows:

Mr. Chairman: Among the various duties which are assigned by the
constitution to the Legislature of the United States, there is, perhaps,
none of a more important nature than the regulation of commerce, none
more generally interesting to our fellow-citizens, none which more
seriously claims our diligent and accurate investigation.

It so essentially involves our navigating, agricultural, commercial, and
manufacturing interest, that an apology for the prolixity of the
observations which I am about to submit to the committee, will scarcely
be requisite.

In the view which I shall take of the question, disengaging the inquiry
from all topics of a political nature, I shall strictly confine myself
to those which are commercial, and which alone are, in my judgment,
properly connected with the subject.

Called upon to decide on propositions, merely commercial, and springing
from a report, in its nature limited to commercial regulations, it would
be as ill-timed, as it would be irregular, to mingle with the discussion
considerations of a political nature. I shall, accordingly, reject from
the inquiry every idea which has reference to the Indians, the
Algerines, or the Western posts. Whenever those subjects require our
deliberations, I shall not yield to any member in readiness to vindicate
the honor of our country, and to concur in such measures as our best
interests may demand.

This line of procedure will, I trust, be deemed by those gentlemen who
follow me, the only proper one, and that the debate will be altogether
confined to commercial views; these will of themselves open a field of
discussion sufficiently spacious, without the intervention of arguments
derived from other sources. It would indeed argue a weakness of ground
in the friends of the propositions, and imply a distrust of the merits
of their cause, were they compelled to bolster it up with such
auxiliaries, and to resort for support to arguments, not resulting from
the nature of the subject, but from irrelative and extraneous
considerations.

The propositions, as well as the report, being predicated upon facts and
principles having relation to our commerce and navigation with foreign
countries, by those facts and principles, and those alone, ought the
propositions to stand or fall.

It will not be denied that this country is at present in a very delicate
crisis, and one requiring dispassionate reflection, cool and mature
deliberation. It will be much to be regretted then, if passion should
usurp the place of reason, if superficial, narrow, and prejudiced views
should mislead the public councils from the true path of national
interest.

The report of the Secretary of State, on the privileges and restrictions
on the commerce of the United States in foreign countries is now before
the committee. The tendency of that report (whatever may have been the
design of the reporter) appears to be to induce a false estimate of the
comparative condition of our commerce with certain foreign nations, and
to urge the Legislature to adopt a scheme of retaliating, regulations,
restrictions, and exclusions.

The most striking contrast which the performance evidently aims at, is
between Great Britain and France. For this reason, and as these are the
two Powers with whom we have the most extensive relations in trade, I
shall, by a particular investigation of the subject, endeavor to lay
before the committee an accurate and an impartial comparison of the
commercial systems of the two countries in reference to the United
States, as a test of the solidity of the inferences which are attempted
to be established by the report. A fair comparison can only be made with
an eye to what may be deemed the permanent system of the countries in
question. The proper epoch for it, therefore, will precede the
commencement of the pending French Revolution.

The commercial regulations of France during the period of the Revolution
have been too fluctuating, too much influenced by momentary impulses,
and, as far as they have looked towards this country with a favorable
eye, too much manifesting an object of the moment, which cannot be
mistaken to consider them as a part of a system. But though the
comparison will be made with principal reference to the condition of our
trade with France and Great Britain, antecedent to the existing
revolution, the regulations of the subsequent period will perhaps not be
passed over altogether unnoticed.

The table which I have before me comprises the principal features of the
subject within a short compass. It is the work of a gentleman of
considerable commercial knowledge, and I believe may be relied on for
its correctness. An attentive reference to it will, with some
supplementary remarks, convey a just conception of the object; a view to
conciseness and simplicity has excluded from it all articles (the
production and manufactures of the United States) which are not of
considerable importance.

Accustomed as our ears have been to a constant panegyric on the generous
policy of France towards this country in commercial relations, and to as
constant a philippic on the unfriendly, illiberal, and persecuting
policy of Great Britain towards us in the same relations, we naturally
expect to find in a table which exhibits their respective systems,
numerous discriminations in that of France in our favor, and many
valuable privileges granted to us, which are refused to other foreign
countries; in that of Great Britain frequent discriminations to our
prejudice, and a variety of privileges refused to us which are granted
to other foreign nations. But an inspection of the table will satisfy
every candid mind, that the reverse of what has been supposed is truly
the case--that neither in France nor the French West Indies, is there
more than one solitary and important distinction in our favor, (I mean
the article of fish oil,) either with regard to our exports thither, our
imports from thence, or our shipping; that both in Great Britain and the
British West Indies, there are several material distinctions in our
favor, with regard both to our exports thither and to our imports from
thence, and, as it respects Great Britain, with regard also to our
shipping; that in the market of Great Britain, a preference is secured
to six of our most valuable staples, by considerably higher duties on
the rival articles of other foreign countries; that our navigation
thither is favored by our ships, when carrying our own productions,
being put upon as good a footing as their own ships, and by the
exemption of several of our productions, when carried in our ships, from
duties which are paid on the like articles of other foreign countries
carried in the ships of those countries; and that several of our
productions may be carried from the United States to the British West
Indies, while the like productions cannot be carried thither from any
other foreign country; and that several of the productions of those
countries may be brought from thence to the United States, which cannot
be carried from thence to any other foreign country.


TUESDAY, January 14.

_Commerce of the United States._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the Report of the Secretary of State on the privileges and restrictions
on the commerce of the United States in foreign countries; when Mr.
MADISON rose in reply to Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina.

Mr. M. began by observing that he had expected, from what was intimated
yesterday, the sequel of what was then said against the resolutions
before the committee; but, as there was a silence in that quarter, and
no other member has risen on either side of the question, he himself
would request the attention of the committee.

It had been much pressed that, in the discussion of this subject, it
should be viewed in its commercial relations only. He was perfectly
willing to meet every objection that could be urged on that ground; but,
as he conceived it impossible to do full justice to the interests of the
United States without taking some collateral considerations into view,
he should be obliged, in the course of his remarks, to point at the
political disposition and conduct of some of the nations of Europe
towards this country.

The propositions immediately before the committee turned on the
question, whether any thing ought to be done at this time, in the way of
commercial regulations, towards vindicating and advancing our national
interests. Perhaps it might be made a question with some, whether, in
any case, legislative regulations of commerce were consistent with its
nature and prosperity.

He professed himself to be a friend to the theory which gives to
industry a free course, under the impulse of individual interest and the
guidance of individual sagacity. He was persuaded that it would be happy
for all nations, if the barriers erected by prejudice, by avarice, and
by despotism, were broken down, and a free intercourse established among
them. Yet to this, as to all other general rules, there might be
exceptions; and the rule itself required what did not exist--that it
should be general.

To illustrate this observation, he referred to the Navigation Act of
Great Britain, which, not being counterbalanced by any similar acts on
the part of rival nations, had secured to Great Britain no less than
eleven-twelfths of the shipping and seamen employed in her trade. It is
stated that, in 1660, when the British act passed, the foreign tonnage
was to the British, as one to four; in 1700, less than one to six; in
1725, as one to nineteen; in 1750, as one to twelve; in 1774, nearly the
same. At the commencement of the period, the tonnage was but 95,266
tons; at the end of it, 1,136,162.

As another illustration, he mentioned the case where two countries
happened to be in such a relation to each other, that the one, by
discouraging the manufactures of the other, might not only invigorate
its own, but transplant the manufacturers themselves. Here the gain
would be a clear one, and the effect evidently consistent with the
principle of the theory.

To allow trade to regulate itself is not, therefore, to be admitted as a
maxim universally sound. Our own experience has taught us that, in
certain cases, it is the same thing with allowing one nation to regulate
it for another. Were the United States, in fact, in commercial
intercourse with one nation only, and to oppose no restrictions whatever
to a system of foreign restrictions, they would, of necessity, be
deprived of all share in the carriage, although their vessels might be
able to do it cheapest, as well as of the only resources for defence on
that side where they must always be most exposed to attack. A small
burden only in foreign ports on American vessels, and a perfect equality
of foreign vessels with our own in our own ports, would gradually banish
the latter altogether.

The subject, as had been remarked on a former occasion, was not a novel
one; it was coeval with our political birth, and has at all times
exercised the thoughts of reflecting citizens. As early as the year
succeeding the peace, the effect of the foreign policy, which began to
be felt in our trade and navigation, excited universal attention and
inquietude. The first effort thought of was an application of Congress
to the States for a grant of power, for a limited time, to regulate our
foreign commerce, with a view to control the influence of unfavorable
regulations in some cases, and to conciliate an extension of favorable
ones in others. From some circumstances then incident to our situation,
and particularly from a radical vice in the then political system of the
United States, the experiment did not take effect.

The States next endeavored to effect their purpose by separate but
concurrent regulations. Massachusetts opened a correspondence with
Virginia and other States, in order to bring about the plan. Here,
again, the effort was abortive.

Out of this experience grew the measures which terminated in the
establishment of a Government competent to the regulation of our
commercial interests and the vindication of our commercial rights.

As these were the first objects of the people in the steps taken for
establishing the present Government, they were universally expected to
be among the first fruits of its operation. In this expectation, the
public were disappointed. An attempt was made in different forms, and
received the repeated sanction of this branch of the Legislature, but
they expired in the Senate--not, indeed, as was alleged, from a dislike
to the attempt altogether, but the modifications given to it. It has not
appeared, however, that it was ever renewed in a different form in that
House, and for some time it has been allowed to sleep in both.

If the reasons which originally prevailed against measures such as those
now proposed had weight in them, they can no longer furnish a pretext
for opposition.

When the subject was discussed in the first Congress, at New York, it
was said that we ought to try the effect of a generous policy towards
Great Britain; that we ought to give time for negotiating a treaty of
commerce; that we ought to await the close of negotiations for
explaining and executing the treaty of peace. We have now waited a term
of more than four years. The treaty of peace remains unexecuted on her
part, though all pretext for delay has been removed by the steps taken
on ours; no treaty of commerce is either in train or in prospect;
instead of relaxations in former articles complained of, we suffer new
and aggravated violations of our rights.

In the view which he took of the subject, he called the attention of the
committee particularly to the subject of navigation, of manufactures,
and of the discrimination proposed in the motion between some nations
and others.

On the subject of navigation, he observed that we were prohibited by the
British laws from carrying to Great Britain the produce of other
countries from their ports, or our own produce from the ports of other
countries, or the produce of other countries from our own ports, or to
send our own produce from our own or other ports in the vessels of other
countries. This last restriction was, he observed, felt by the United
States at the present moment. It was, indeed, the practice of Great
Britain, sometimes to relax her Navigation Act so far, in time of war,
as to permit to neutral vessels a circuitous carriage; but, as yet, the
act was in full force against the use of them for transporting the
produce of the United States.

On the other hand, the laws of the United States allowed Great Britain
to bring into their ports any thing she might please, from her own or
from other ports, and in her own or in other vessels.

In the trade between the United States and the British West Indies, the
vessels of the former were under an absolute prohibition, whilst British
vessels in that trade enjoyed all the privileges granted to others, even
the most favored nations, in their trade with us. The inequality in this
case was the more striking, as it was evident that the West Indies were
dependent on the United States for the supplies essential to them, and
that the circumstances which secured to the United States this
advantage, enabled their vessels to transport the supplies on far better
terms than could be done by British vessels.

It might be regarded (he observed) as a general rule, that, where one
nation consumed the necessaries of life produced by another, the
consuming nation was dependent on the producing one. On the other hand,
where the consumption consisted of superfluities, the producing nation
was dependent on the consuming one. The United States were in the
fortunate situation of enjoying both these advantages over Great
Britain. They supply a part of her dominions with the necessaries of
life; they consume superfluities which give bread to her people in
another part. Great Britain, therefore, is under a double dependence on
the commerce of the United States. She depends on them for what she
herself consumes; she depends on them for what they consume. In
proportion as a nation manufactures luxuries must be its disadvantages
in contests of every sort with its customers. The reason is obvious.
What is a luxury to the consumer is a necessary to the manufacturer. By
changing a fashion or disappointing a fancy only, bread may be taken
from the mouths of thousands whose industry is devoted to the
gratification of artificial wants. He mentioned the case of a petition
from a great body of buckle makers, presented a few years ago to the
Prince of Wales, complaining of the use of strings instead of buckles in
the shoes, and supplicating his Royal Highness, as giving the law to
fashions, to save them from want and misery by discontinuing the new
one. It was not (he observed) the Prince who petitioned the
manufacturers to continue to make the buckles, but the manufacturers
who petitioned their customer to buy them. The relation was similar
between the American customers and the British manufacturers; and if a
law were to pass for putting a stop to the use of their superfluities,
or a stop were otherwise to be put to it, it would quickly be seen from
which the distress and supplications would flow. Suppose that Great
Britain received from us alone the whole of the necessaries she
consumes, and that our market alone took off the luxuries with which she
paid for them: here the dependence would be complete, and we might
impose whatever terms we please on the exchange. This, to be sure, is
not absolutely the case; but, in proportion as it is the case, her
dependence is on us. The West Indies, however, are an example of
complete dependence. They cannot subsist without our food. They cannot
flourish without our lumber and our use of their rum. On the other hand,
we depend on them for not a single necessary, and can supply ourselves
with their luxuries from other sources. Sugar is the only article about
which there was ever a question; and he was authorized to say that there
was not, at the most, one-sixth of our consumption supplied from the
British islands. In time of war or famine the dependence of the West
Indies is felt in all its energy. It is sometimes such as to appeal to
our humanity as well as our interest for relief. At this moment the
Governor of Jamaica is making proclamation of their distresses. If ever,
therefore, there was a case where one country could dictate to another
the regulations of trade between them, it is the case of the United
States and the British West Indies. And yet the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. SMITH) had considered it as a favor that we were allowed
to send our provisions in British bottoms, and in these only, to the
West Indies.


WEDNESDAY, January 15.

_Commerce of the United States._

A proposition being made to go into a Committee of the Whole on Mr.
MADISON's resolutions,

The House then went into committee.

Mr. FORREST, after a long pause, observed, that, as no other person
appeared disposed to rise on the occasion, although he felt himself
unequal to doing that justice to the subject which many others were, yet
he considered it his duty to offer a few remarks which had occurred to
him in the course of the debate.

In all our discussions of commercial affairs, the principal point to be
kept in view was the promotion of the essential and permanent interests
of our country, keeping in mind this maxim, (as true in respect to
nations as individuals,) that there is no friendship in trade. He then
entered into a consideration of our commercial connection with Great
Britain, and observed that we should avoid letting our former
prejudices, or those arising from recent transactions, influence our
judgments. We should not regard the favoring of the French or British
nation, but study to do that which would tend to the promotion of our
own commerce and the interest of our own navigation. In this pursuit, we
must keep in view our relative situation with European nations,
particularly those of France and Great Britain, and more particularly
the latter, with whom the proposed resolutions contemplate a change. Of
all possible times, (said he,) I believe this the most improper to try
the experiment.

If the British Government have been instrumental in letting the
Algerines loose upon us; if their privateers commit acts of piracy upon
our neutral flag, let it at least, in the first instance, be made matter
of negotiation. Neutral nations must suffer some inconvenience; and it
will be much better policy to come forward at once and say we are at
war. We will not submit to vexatious insults, when they are too much to
suffer, rather than make this commercial warfare, by which it is
impossible, in the course of human events, but that we must be much the
greatest sufferers; and how humiliating would it be, after trial, even
to propose to make it a drawn battle!

Let us examine the subject. Of the whole fair trade of Great Britain,
taking their imports and exports into view, their trade with the United
States will be found to be one-sixth, or thereabouts. Take the imports
and exports of the United States, and you will find that full one-half
the value of our whole trade is with Great Britain and her dependencies.
Who will suffer most? She, by the interruption of one-sixth, with the
means of getting most of the articles we supply, on as good terms, from
other nations, with great internal sources of revenue, and a people used
to bear any taxes asked of them; or we, with an interruption of one-half
our trade and commerce, not so well off with respect to internal
resources, and the complaints of our citizens, not accustomed to heavy
taxation? Let those who rely upon the effect it will have on the English
manufacturers and artisans, look back to 1773 and 1774, and recollect
the effect it then had.

But there is one circumstance that should have weight with every mind.
It will be found that three-fourths of all the impost revenue of this
country are derived from our commerce with the British. Shall we hazard
an entire loss of this revenue? And if lost or greatly interrupted, from
whence shall we supply its deficiency, without, at least, in their
minds, oppressing the people of this country? I am not a stockholder or
a bankholder. I am too poor to be either, and therefore can have no
separate interest in view, and, where I am known, I shall not be charged
with partiality to Great Britain; but I hope I am free from such
unwarrantable prejudices as to lead me into measures to the injury of my
country.

I lay it down as a principle not to be controverted, that our
intercourse with Great Britain, in a commercial point, (I mean, putting
the mode of carriage out of account, and confining it to the importation
and exportation, and restrictions and bounties thereon,) is as favorable
as we can expect, and, taken in the aggregate, full as favorable as with
France, their Navigation Act excepted.

With respect to navigation, I have long thought it ought not to be
submitted to; but are we to expect, at a moment like this, acting (as
they will certainly believe we shall) under the impulse of resentment,
they will waive an atom of their Navigation Act to the result of our
resolutions? It is vain. Let us not hazard that which is certain, which
the safeguard of experience has proved, for that we know not of.

It has been mentioned as a grievance that our produce is sent to France,
Holland, Spain, Portugal, &c., and that our imports are, in a great
degree, confined to Great Britain. Our merchants must pay their debts,
and surely it is for their interest to sell their articles for the
highest price they will bring, and purchase where they can obtain
cheapest. Our produce is sent to those countries to pay our debts in
Great Britain.

There has been nothing to lead me to a judgment how the blanks are to be
filled. If, with such high duties as to prohibit the articles, our chief
source of revenue will be wiped off, and the consequence may, nay, must
be, direct taxation. If low, it will only exhibit, without gratifying, a
resentment, and the consumers of these articles, the yeomanry of this
country, will have to pay the tax. If it is said that it is intended to
encourage our own factories, let us select those which we can
manufacture, and lay prohibitory duties on the foreign articles.

Mr. F. reprobated the idea of suffering partial or merely political
motives to influence in the discussion of the subject. Commercial
subjects ought to be considered in an independent point of view. He
hoped, therefore, that the committee would endeavor to divest themselves
of every incidental impression, originating in impulses from particular
events, and contemplate the question simply on its own merits.

Mr. FITZSIMONS declared that, in the course of this discussion, he had
not heard one single argument advanced which, admitting the premises to
be true, could persuade him to give his consent to the first of the
resolutions. It was possible that he might agree to some of those that
followed. He was perfectly convinced that a judicious system of
regulations would be of infinite advantage to the maritime interest of
America. He was of opinion that the first resolution was by far too
indefinite. The substance of the whole arguments advanced on both sides
tended only to establish a fact, which was already perfectly well known,
that the Governments of Europe act, in regard to the commerce of the
United States, just as they think proper. The lesson was a very good
one, and he trusted that, with a proper attention to temporary
circumstances, this country would improve by it.

Mr. MADISON regarded the objection of the gentleman as entirely of a
new kind. He had refused his consent to the first of the resolutions,
because it was indefinite. But the propositions laid before the House a
few days ago with respect to the Algerines were fully as indefinite, and
yet the gentleman who spoke last had recommended them. The order of
procedings in the present question is perfectly candid and regular,
consonant to the practice of the House, and the practice of the
gentleman himself.

Mr. AMES wished, that gentlemen, instead of indefinite declamation,
would lay their finger on each particular wrong that Britain had done to
us. He did not know of any particular advantage that we had derived in
our commerce with France. He wished to discountenance a spirit of
revenge, and to ascertain on what side the benefits of our commerce lay,
and wherein they consisted. He did not like unfair comparisons,

Mr. NICHOLAS said, that he would not, at this time of day, attempt to
detain the House any further than by just observing that the practice of
_comparisons_ had originated among the gentlemen who opposed the
resolutions.

At this stage, the committee rose, and had leave to sit again.


THURSDAY, January 16.

_Commerce of the United States._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the Report of the Secretary of State on the privileges and restrictions
on the commerce of the United States in foreign countries, when

Mr. NICHOLAS rose and spoke as follows:

Mr. Chairman: I feel a great embarrassment in speaking on this subject,
from a distrust of my ability to treat properly its acknowledged
importance, and from the apparent expectation of the audience. I feel
too, as the member from Maryland who spoke yesterday did, from the
imputation of motives, well knowing that the Representatives of my
country are industriously reported to be enemies of the Government, and
promoters of anarchy, and that the present measure is imputed to these
principles. It is somewhat remarkable, that farther north we are charged
with selfishness, and want of attachment to the general welfare, for a
supposed opposition to measures of the import of the present. I mention
this contradictory inference, to show that the shameful designs charged
upon us, are not proved by the fact, and to place the guilt where it
only exists, in the malignity of the accuser.

It is a commonly received opinion, that trade should be intrusted to the
direction of those immediately interested in it, and that the actual
course of it is the best which it could take; this principle is by no
means a safe one, and, as applied to the trade of America, is extremely
fallacious. It can never be just, where the beginning and growth of a
commerce have not been free from all possible constraint, as to its
direction; as that can never be called a business of election which has
been created under foreign influence. The manner in which America was
first peopled, and the nurture she received from Great Britain, afford
the most striking contrast to the requisite before mentioned. The first
inhabitants of America were educated in Great Britain, and brought with
them all the wants of their own country, to be gratified chiefly by the
productions of that country. Aided by British capital, in the settlement
of the wilderness, and depending on the same means for the conveyance of
its produce to a place of consumption, it was inevitable, that the
demand for British commodities should keep pace with the improvement of
the country. In the commencement of American population and its early
stages, there does not appear to have been a chance of comparing the
advantages of commercial connection with different countries, and it
will be found that in its progress, it was still more restrained. In the
last years of the dependence of America on Great Britain, the principal
part of America was occupied by large trading companies, composed of
people in Great Britain, and conducted by factors, who sunk large sums
in the hands of the farmers, to attach them to their respective stores,
by which means competition was precluded, and a dependence on the
supplies of those stores completely established. Since the Revolution,
the business has been conducted by persons in the habit of dependence on
Great Britain, and who had no other capital than the manufactures of
that country furnished on credit. The business is still almost wholly
conducted by the same means. In no stage of its growth then, does there
appear to have been a power in the consumer to have compared the
productions of Great Britain with those of any other country, as to
their quality or price, and therefore there is no propriety in calling
the course of trade, the course of its choice.

The subject before the committee naturally divides itself into
navigation and manufactures, in speaking of which, I shall offer some
other considerations, to show that the same effects are by no means to
be expected from the greatest commercial wisdom in individuals, which
are in the power of the general concert of the community; the one having
in view profit on each separate transaction, the other, promoting an
advantageous result to the whole commerce of the country.

In considering the importance of navigation to all countries, but
especially to such as have so extensive a production of bulky articles
as America, I think I shall show that the last observation is accurately
right, and that the interest of the whole community, not those only who
are the carriers, but those also who furnish the object of carriage,
positively demands a domestic marine, equal to its whole business; and
that, even if it is to exist under rates higher than those of foreign
navigation, it is to be preferred. In circumstances of tolerable
equality, that can never however entirely be the case; for, in the
carriage of the produce of one country, by the shipping of another, to
any other place than the country to which the shipping belongs, there is
considerably more labor employed than would have been by domestic
shipping, as the return to their own country is to be included. On this
ground, it may be confidently asserted, that where the materials of
navigation are equally attainable, they will always be more
advantageously employed by the country for whose use they are intended;
and that if, under such circumstances, another country is employed as
the carrier, it must be under the influence of some other cause than
interest, as it respects that particular business. A dependence on the
shipping of another country tends to establish a place of deposit in
that country of those exports which are for the use of others, if it is
at a convenient distance from them. The superintendence of property
makes short voyages desirable for the owner, and the connection that
soon takes place between the money capital of a country and its shipping
interests, greatly strengthens the vortex. The attainment of wealth
beyond the demands of navigation, leads to an interest in the cargo
itself, and then the agency in selling to the consumer becomes
important. It is apparent that, as the final sale depends on the wants
of the purchaser, all intermediate expenses of care and agency must be
taken from the price to which the maker would be entitled. Our own
commerce has involved this loss, in a remarkable degree, and it has gone
to an enormous extent, from a necessity of submitting to the perfidy of
agents, arising from a dependence established by means of the so much
boasted credit.

That there is this tendency in the employment of foreign shipping, is
not only proved by the commercial importance of Holland, which became
thus, from her naval resources, the storehouse of Europe, without
furnishing any thing from her own productions, but also from the varied
experience of America. Before the Revolution, every thing for European
consumption was carried to Great Britain, but, since America has
possessed shipping of her own, and in the Northern States, there has
been an accession of capital, the export to England is reduced one-half.
It is true, indeed, that there is still nearly one-half of what she
receives, that is re-exported, but it will be found that she still
retains a proportioned share of those influences which formerly carried
the whole. Great Britain, under all the discouragements of our laws,
which, we are told by the mercantile members of the committee, amount to
a prohibition where they have any rivals, did, until the European war,
possess one-third of the foreign tonnage employed in America. This has
been supported by the dependence into which the Southern States were
placed by credit, and here, as in every other step of the connection,
this engine extorts advantages from us, beyond the compensation which is
always secured in the first advance. If there wanted other proof of the
British interest in the American navigation being supported in direct
opposition to our interests, it may be found in the comparative state of
the tonnage employed, where it appears that, after the protecting duties
once had their effect, the additional tonnage, to a considerable amount,
has been entirely American, and that the British tonnage has remained
very nearly stationary, and in proportion to their undue influence.

In time of war, in addition to the inconveniences before stated, which
are enhanced by throwing the trade from its accustomed channel, there
are great and important losses brought on a country by this kind of
dependence. If your carriers are parties to the war, you are subjected
to the war freight and war insurance on your cargo, and you are cut off
from all the markets to which they are hostile; and, indeed, from our
experience in the present war, I may say you are cut off from the market
of your carriers themselves, as it would have been impossible for
British vessels to have escaped in our seas last summer. To what extent
this loss goes may be seen from a calculation in the Secretary of
State's report on the fisheries, making the proportion of war to that of
peace in the one hundred years, as forty-two to one hundred; and on that
calculation there can be no hesitation in determining that the interest
of the farmers requires that this foreign dependence should end here.

But the European war, by making a temporary exclusion of British
shipping, has already brought on us the greatest mischief of such a
regulation: and, by the encouragement it has afforded to our shipping,
almost completed the remedy; so that we have reason to consider this as
a fortunate period. But, it is not merely the advancement of our marine
that is contemplated by the present resolutions; the security of that
which we have is also dependent on them. The danger from the Algerines
has been estimated in this House at five per cent. on the vessel and
cargo, but the whole encouragement to our own shipping in our existing
laws consists in the one-tenth additional duty on goods imported in
foreign vessels. Whenever there shall be a European peace, which cannot
be far distant, the whole difference between the two sums will be a
direct encouragement on British ships, and will probably be equal to two
freights. Do gentlemen rely on the precarious prospect of building
frigates, and the more precarious service to be rendered by them when
built, so much as to neglect any other regulations for the safety of our
shipping when they are so much in their power?

Having shown that the actual state of our commerce is by no means the
most beneficial, as far as navigation is concerned, I will proceed to
consider the benefits derived from the consumption of those European
manufactures which form the principal part of the stores of America. And
here it may safely be said, that national policy by no means justifies
the almost exclusive preference given to those of Great Britain. It is
not always true that the commodity which is bought for least money is
the best bargain, for the means of payment form an important
consideration in all traffic, and accommodations in it may more than
counterbalance an inequality of price. If one man will receive an
article in exchange which you can sell to no other, it will certainly be
a saving to deal with him at a high advance on his property. If there
are countries which would become great consumers of American produce, on
the terms of reciprocal consumption, and we find a difficulty, as is
often the case, in vending that produce, is it not of great national
importance to excite those acts which are to become the foundation of
the connection, even if, in the first instance, it is to be attended
with inconvenience and loss? France may be made a connection of this
sort. She is at this time almost, if not quite, on a footing with Great
Britain in the consumption of American products, and every hand which
shall receive employment from us will add to her wants. We are told that
it is of no less importance to us to find a country which can supply us
advantageously than one which will consume our productions; and that, as
commerce is no longer carried on by barter, it is no less beneficial to
sell in one country and buy in another, than if we could complete the
exchange in the same country. This might be true, if your production was
limited, and the demand for it certain; but, with a greatly improving
agriculture, and some risk in our markets, the object is important.
Great Britain being the factory of those things which would make her
most dependent on the agricultural interest, and the national wealth
being probably at the greatest height, there is no expectation that her
consumption will increase. On the other hand, as labor is now to receive
its direction in France to the manufacturing arts, so far as concerns
America, you will take from the agricultural strength a large class of
people, and by that means create a dependence on you, at least to the
amount of their own consumption, and the wealth you will diffuse will
give ability to thousands who are now too poor to bid for your
commodities. Nor is it probable that you will purchase this important
benefit on very disadvantageous terms; for it is agreed on all hands
that many important arts are well understood there, and that labor,
which forms the principal part of the cost of most articles, is
considerably cheaper in France than in England.

Another very important operation of a discrimination in favor of France
will be that, by encouraging liberal industry, you may put an end to
some practices which, in the existing state of consumption, greatly
depreciate our commodities. I mean the public provision made in
granaries, and the supply from them in times of scarcity, which destroys
the competition that raises every thing to its just value. Different
consequences have been foretold as likely to result from those
measures, to which I shall give a short examination. We are told that
the preference long since given by our laws has been equal to a
prohibition of British vessels, and that, to the extent to which it has
gone, the best effects have been produced. To secure this operation from
a recent attack, and at the same time to extend it to some branches of
trade, to which its principles would equally extend, is the object of
the marine resolutions. We have no reason to apprehend bad consequences
from an action which has hitherto had good consequences. As to the
increased duties on manufactures, I think the prospect in no way
threatening; for, if there should be found no country to supply our
wants on better terms, the diminution of consumption will be only in
proportion to the duty. This can be by no means alarming, considered as
the worst consequence of the measure to men with whom the impost is the
favorite mode of collecting the revenue, at a time when the public wants
are equal to any possible produce. If there shall be found a competitor
with Great Britain for our consumption, the great object will be
attained, as it must be accompanied by a corresponding consumption of
American productions. But we are told that there will be a conflict of
commercial regulations between this country and Great Britain, and that
the consequence will be, the loss of the market she affords us. The
probable consequences of such a conflict will best determine whether it
is to be expected, as it will commence, on her part as well as ours,
with a view to consequences. The danger which she can alone apprehend is
the loss of the market for her manufactures; and to obviate this, it
would be absurd to widen the breach between us, as that would tend, in a
direct proportion, to the establishment of unfriendly habits and
manufactures, either here or in other countries, which would rival her
own. If, however, the ultimate advantage would justify such measures,
the immediate distress of her people would forbid it. The American trade
must be the means of distributing bread to several hundred thousand
persons, whose occupations would be wholly ended with the trade, and the
Government is by no means in a situation to bear their discontent. Their
navigation and manufactures draw many important ingredients from America
which would be lost to them. The creditors of the people of America, to
an immense amount, would be deprived of the remittances which depend on
a friendly intercourse. On the whole, it would add to the disorders of
the Government among those who, perhaps, have heretofore contributed to
its support, without gratifying any thing but an arrogant resentment.
But we are told that our own citizens would be equal sufferers, and are
more to be injured by being stopped in a career of rapid improvement. It
will be hard to anticipate any real misfortune to America in such a
contest, unless the temporary loss of indulgencies, which are by no
means necessary, can be so called. The consumption of Great Britain is,
according to the most friendly calculation, not more than one-third of
our purchases from her, and, therefore, the national wealth, independent
of the gratification of our appetites, will receive an immense addition,
and a vast fund will be procured to make lasting and valuable
improvements, which would be degraded by comparison with the gewgaws of
a day. It is to be remarked that the diminution of our exports would be
divided among large classes of people, and in all cases forms a
deduction from the annual income, rather than a total loss. This will
result from the various objects of American industry and the division of
the markets of its produce. This forms an important difference between
America and Great Britain, in an estimate of the effects of a rupture
between the two countries. In my opinion, the habits of the Southern
States are such as to require the control which is said to be the
consequence of these measures. Under the facility offered by the modes
of trade before spoken of, and the credit which is said to be so
beneficial, they have not only involved themselves in debt, but have
contracted habits which, with the power of gratification, must always
keep them so. We did hope that the administration of justice would have
corrected the evil, but we now find that it cannot be corrected but by
entire changes. It is founded in the policy of the merchant himself, and
this circumstance is enough to present to the minds of the committee a
long train of dependent mischiefs. It is a fact, supported by the best
evidence, that our merchants who get their goods from the manufacturer
pay as much for them as the shopkeeper who buys at Baltimore or
Philadelphia. This is one of the consequences of the want of credit
which always will follow a reliance on collection from farmers; and
there can be no doubt that the merchant is indemnified for his disgrace
as well as his advance. The result of the whole train of indulgence is,
that our goods are bought at an advance from a half to one-fourth of
what they could be afforded for in cash sales. Nor does the mischief
stop here. It brings a subjection which materially affects the sale of
our produce. I do believe, myself, that the war with Great Britain did
not bring half the mischief on us that their credit has; and I very much
suspect a credit for consumption will always be found equally
mischievous. It by no means resembles money loans, as is insinuated by
the gentleman from South Carolina, by freeing a man's own resources for
any other use. It is certain that there is no other safe regulation of a
farmer's expenses than his income; and experience every day proves that,
when so regulated, they always fall short of the income, and that, when
they depend on credit, they always exceed it, and thereby subject future
revenue. Lessening the importation of foreign manufactures will increase
our household fabrics, which experience has proved to be highly
profitable, as the labor is done by a part of the community of little
power in any other application. Regular efforts in this way have been,
in my country, certainly productive of independence.

Mr. GOODHUE.--Mr. Chairman: The propositions now before us having been
considered by several gentlemen, who have already spoken, and who have
given such a particular detail of calculations, I shall confine myself
to some general observations on the subject.

The gentleman from Maryland has made an observation which struck me very
forcibly as applied to the subject before us, because it is a maxim to
which all mankind have assented, and upon which all mankind continually
practise--it was this: "there is no friendship in trade;" and it maybe
added, as a necessary consequence, there ought to be no hatred in trade.
By following a path founded upon so obvious a maxim as the foregoing, we
may be sure of a right guide, but if we deviate from it, we are in
danger of being led into unforeseen error and mischief. It is
unquestionably our duty to attend to the navigation and commerce of our
country, and give it every proper encouragement which time and
circumstances admit; this has ever been my wish and my conduct.

This object, so important and desirable, must be effected by fixed
principles and regulations, such as giving our vessels a decided
preference in our own ports above the ships of every other nation
whatever, by paying less tonnage and other duties; by suffering no
foreign ships to bring into the United States the productions of any
other country than the one to which they belong; and by prohibiting
foreign ships from coming to the United States from those places where
our own ships are prohibited.

These are the fixed principles and regulations by one or all of which
our navigation and commerce can only be promoted, and must never be
deviated from, when adopted in favor of any one nation whatever--unless
it be in return for some special advantage granted to us by any
particular nation as an equivalent. Hitherto, our Government has
proceeded to distinguish foreign ships, only by making them pay greater
tonnage and duties than our own. If circumstances required it, and the
time is judged a seasonable one, I shall be willing to proceed further.

Let us examine what advantages we enjoy in consequence of any commercial
treaties we have already formed, for the propositions before us are
proposed to affect only those nations with whom we have no treaties. We
have commercial treaties with Prussia, Sweden, France, and Holland, and
in the dominions of neither of those powers have our ships or the
produce of this country (except in the single article of our oil in
France) been admitted on any more favorable terms than the ships or
produce of any other nation; and for this obvious reason, because our
treaties only ensure the advantages they may grant to the most favored
nation; and, being circumstanced in such a manner as not judging it for
their interest to distinguish any one by its favors, we are left only in
the enjoyment of a trade with them on the terms common to all other
nations. This being the case, I would not give one farthing to have like
treaties formed with every other nation, for they have not been, and
never can be, of any service to us; if we expect to derive any advantage
from commercial treaties, we must stipulate for some certain good, for
some other good which we may grant them in return.

Mr. CLARK differed from many members who had spoken before him, in the
view they took of the subject; he conceived it ought to be considered in
a political light. We had many wrongs to complain of, and we should
endeavor to obtain redress. The English have violated our treaty, just
after it was ratified, by taking away our <DW64>s, and since by holding
our posts; they have also set the savages on our backs, and have not
they let loose the Algerines upon us? Shall we sit still and bear it?
How can we help it? it is asked. They will retaliate, we are told. How
retaliate? Will they refuse to sell us their manufactures? He remembered
that, even in old times, a non-importation agreement made them repeal
their stamp act. We have surely as well now as we had then a right not
to buy their goods; we don't want to cram our provisions down their
throats, or to force them to buy our lumber. During the non-importation
agreement, we did not perish with cold; we found, even then, that among
ourselves we could make wherewith to clothe ourselves; we are surely as
able to do it now. We then gained our point; we should now be much more
powerful with the same weapon: many of her manufacturers are already
starving for want of employment. We should add greatly to their
distress, and soon bring the Government to their senses, and they will
be glad to enter into a commercial treaty with us.

The balance of trade with Great Britain is much against us; and by
carrying to Portugal and Spain what we send to them, we should receive
cash in return. France will not always be in a storm, and a supply of
the manufactured articles we want may soon be received from that
quarter.

He did not see to what purpose calculations three hours long had been
brought forward. It was very well for merchants to calculate in their
counting houses; but he conceived the Legislature should determine the
question upon political considerations. He concluded by remarking, that
he believed by this time the committee must pretty clearly see that he
was in favor of the resolutions.

Mr. PARKER considered the resolutions on the table as indefinite and
unintelligible. If revenue is the object, we should remember the remark
of _Dr. Swift_, that in the arithmetic of taxation, two and two do not
always make four, but sometimes only _one_. He thought there was a
jarring in the third resolution, which contradicted the first. The
leading clause of the first resolution, which has occasioned so long a
debate, is in these words: "That the interest of the United States would
be promoted by further restrictions and higher duties, in certain cases,
on the manufactures and navigation of foreign nations employed in the
commerce of the United States, than those now imposed." The third
resolution which Mr. P. referred to, is in these words: "That the duty
on vessels belonging to the nations having commercial treaties with the
United States, ought to be reduced to ---- per ton." The resolutions
meant either too much, or nothing. He would move to amend the first
resolution, but that he hoped it would be altogether cast aside.

Mr. S. SMITH (of Maryland) rose and apologized to the committee for
presuming to intrude upon them a second time by the delivery of his
sentiments. He said that a personal attack had been made yesterday upon
him in that House. It had met him out of doors, and had gone into the
world. After he had done speaking yesterday, a member had risen, and
held forth as a fundamental observation, that "gentlemen possessing
capitals of their own were in favor of the propositions; but that
dealers upon credit were against them." When this remark was made, as he
had but just sat down from delivering his negative to the resolutions,
he could not help thinking himself aimed at as one of those dealers upon
credit. [Here the member referred to rose, and solemnly declared that a
personal allusion to Mr. SMITH had never entered his mind.] Mr. S. went
on to observe, that the whole assertion was erroneous. The merchants of
America are men of liberal sentiments--more so, he believed, than
merchants of any other part of the world. They are not to be biased by
the petty motives of interest, in prejudice to the public interest of
their country. The gentleman whom he referred to had spoke of an
alarming British influence in some of the commercial cities of America.
He had alleged that merchants, by their connection with Britain, would
be under its influence; but there was no such thing. In this country,
merchants studied the constitution, and were attached to it. In other
countries, they minded only profit. As a reflection had been thrown on
merchants who dealt upon credit, he should take leave to observe that
credit was a very good thing. As to himself, he had before the war
began, acquired, by his industry, as much property as placed him beyond
the necessity of credit. By the war he was reduced to nothing. After the
peace, he again began as he set out at first. By the same industry and
the same talents, he had once more acquired independence. By the British
buccaneers, he had lost as much, since the present war began, as the
gentleman to whom he rose in reply, would think a tolerable fortune for
dividing among his sons; yet he could still spare time from his business
for the service of his country.

The question was then taken to postpone the subject to the first Monday
in March next; and it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 51, nays 47,
as follows:

YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, Thomas Blount, Thomas P.
Carnes, Gabriel Christie, Abraham Clark, Isaac Coles, Henry Dearborn,
George Dent, William Findlay, William B. Giles, James Gillespie,
Nicholas Gilman, Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg, William B. Grove,
George Hancock, Carter B. Harrison, John Heath, Daniel Heister, John
Hunter, William Irvine, Matthew Locke, William Lyman, Nathaniel Macon,
James Madison, Alexander Mebane, William Montgomery, Andrew Moore, Peter
Muhlenberg, Joseph Neville, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Nathaniel Niles,
Alexander D. Orr, Josiah Parker, John Patton, Andrew Pickens, Francis
Preston, Robert Rutherford, Thomas Scott, John S. Sherburne, John
Smilie, Israel Smith, Thomas Spring, Thomas Tredwell, Philip Van
Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, Francis Walker, Benjamin Williams, and
Joseph Winston.

NAYS.--Fisher Ames, James Armstrong, John Beatty, Elias Boudinot,
Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Lambert Cadwalader, Thomas
Claiborne, David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Joshua Coit, Jonathan Dayton,
Samuel Dexter, Thomas Fitzsimons, Uriah Forrest, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel
Gilbert, Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Samuel Griffin,
Thomas Hartley, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Samuel Holten, John
Wilkes Kittera, Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee, Francis Malbone,
Joseph McDowell, William Vans Murray, Jeremiah Smith, Samuel Smith,
William Smith, Zephaniah Swift, Silas Talbot, George Thatcher, Uriah
Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, John E. Van Allen, Peter Van Gaasbeck, Peleg
Wadsworth, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Artemas Ward, John Watts, Paine Wingate,
and Richard Winn.


Monday, January 20.

_Algerine Affairs._

The Committee of Ways and Means, appointed, pursuant to the resolutions
of the House, on the communications from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES relative to Algiers, brought in a report, which was twice read,
and referred to the Committee of the whole House on the state of the
Union.

_Ordered_, That it be printed for the use of the members.

The report states that the naval force for the protection of the trade
of the United States, shall consist of four ships of forty-four guns
each, 18 and 9 pounders, and two of twenty guns each. The aggregate sum
wanted for this purpose is estimated at six hundred thousand dollars; to
raise which, one per cent. additional duty is proposed to be laid on
imported goods now paying seven and one-half per cent.; five per cent.
additional on stone, marble, &c.; and on all stone and earthenware,
three cents additional; on salt, per bushel, six cents additional, per
ton, on all vessels of the United States employed in foreign trade; and
twenty-five cents additional, per ton, on all other vessels.

On motion of Mr. FITZSIMONS, an addition was made to the Committee of
Ways and Means; so that it now consists of a member from every State,
who are to make another report respecting the fortifying the ports and
harbors of the United States.

_Ordered_, That Mr. GILMAN, Mr. WATTS, Mr. ORR, Mr. PATTON, Mr. BALDWIN,
and Mr. ISRAEL SMITH, be added to the committee appointed to report to
this House the naval force adequate to the protection of the commerce of
the United States against the Algerine corsairs, together with an
estimate of the expense, and the ways and means of defraying the same.


TUESDAY, January 28.

_French Refugees._

A petition of Peter Gauvain and Louis Dubourg, in behalf of the French
refugees of Cape Francois, now at Baltimore, was presented to the House
and read, praying that Congress will speedily decide on the memorial of
the committee appointed by the Legislature of Maryland, to draw for, and
distribute, the moneys granted by that State for the relief of the
French emigrants from the Island of St. Domingo.

Mr. MURRAY moved that it should be referred to the Committee of the
Whole on the state of the Union, along with the report of the select
committee upon it. He thought it would be an act of humanity to relieve
the persons mentioned in the petition. And if that was improper, he
thought that the next greatest act of humanity which could be done, was
to relieve them from suspense.

Mr. CLARK was of opinion that the matter should be instantly taken up,
as the fund for their relief expired on the 2d of February next.

Mr. HUNTER, from South Carolina, mentioned a remarkable exertion of
benevolence respecting persons of this kind which had taken place in
that State. The motion was agreed to, and the House directly resolved
itself into a committee on the question.

It was then moved and seconded, that the PRESIDENT be authorized to pay
$10,000 of the public money for the use of the refugees, and to
negotiate the payment of it, with the Ministry of France.

Mr. BOUDINOT was convinced, that, by the constitution, the House had a
right to give it in the first instance. He considered the committee as
too confined, and thought that it should have comprehended all the
people of this sort in North America. Many of these people since winter
set in, must have perished of cold and want in the streets of
Philadelphia, but for the benevolence of some well-disposed people. He
urged the committee, in the most pathetic language, to extend immediate
and effectual relief.

Mr. S. SMITH was confident that Congress would be repaid with thanks by
the Republic of France. He said that a supply of powder and ball had
been sent from one of the Southern States to St. Domingo, and that the
price had been punctually and thankfully repaid. Santhonax and Polverel
had been recalled, who were the authors of all the mischief that had
happened. The refugees expected to return to their settlements before
the first of May, and they would then be very able and very willing to
repay the money themselves.

Mr. SMILIE recommended the entering into a negotiation with the French
Ambassador, for securing payment of what sum should be voted.

Mr. CLARK hoped that the motion would instantly pass. In a case of this
kind, we were not to be tied up by the constitution. Were Algerines cast
upon the mercy of America, in such a situation, he would pay them the
same tribute of humanity. The French Ambassador had restricted his
services to a particular class of people. It was not the business of the
House, whether the refugees at Baltimore were democrats or aristocrats.
They were men; and, as such were entitled to compassion and to relief.

Mr. S. SMITH, in reply to Mr. SMILIE, said, that Mr. Genet, when
solicited on behalf of these people, made answer that he was not
authorized on the part of the Republic to give them any thing, but sent
them $2,000 from himself.

Mr. SMILIE replied that Mr. SMITH had mistaken him; he did not wish to
seek money from Mr. Genet. But he thought it would be singular to give
away so large a sum, without endeavoring to secure the approbation of
the French Minister, as a step towards repayment.

Mr. DEXTER had formerly entertained scruples, but he now approved the
motion.

Mr. NICHOLAS did not approve the motion in its original shape, nor did
he like it better for its being now altered into a motion for
authorizing the PRESIDENT to pay the money. Mr. N. expressed, in the
strongest and most unequivocal language, his compassion for the
sufferers; but, as he had not seen a way pointed out of relieving them,
agreeably to the constitution, he recommended a shorter one. Out of the
liberal compensation which the members of that House received from the
country, he thought that the sum wanted might easily be subscribed. He
did not know whether the Republic would thank us for helping them;
perhaps they might be accounted rebels.

Mr. FITZSIMONS proposed a second amendment of the original motion.

Mr. NICHOLAS replied: If this thing goes down at all, it should be as an
act of charity, and marked in giving, that it is going beyond our power,
but that, from a knowledge of the universal wish of our constituents,
and a sense of our general obligations to France, we have granted the
money.

Mr. SCOTT pressed for the relief in reference to the citizens of
Baltimore. If they were invaded by an army, we certainly would assist
them; and where is the difference, (added Mr. S.,) whether they be an
army of fighters, or an army of eaters. We must relieve them, to be
sure.

Mr. S. SMITH said that these distressed people were all women and
children, except three old men. The boys who were old enough, had been
bound apprentices. The men had been enlisted by the advice of Mr. Genet,
who said the Republic wanted recruits. He had likewise obtained two
ships for five hundred of the refugees who wanted to go to France. Genet
was able to do nothing more for them, as the $2,000 that he gave, were
out of his own pocket. It had been alleged that there was no precedent
for relieving these people. He mentioned two: The Americans in captivity
at Algiers had been assisted by the British Consul. Some years ago, the
crew of an American vessel had been shipwrecked on the coast of
Portugal. They were assisted with the utmost generosity by a private
gentleman. In both cases, Congress thankfully repaid the money advanced.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. NICHOLAS) had offered his salary, but
the idea had not been supported, so that it went for nothing. And are we
(said Mr. S.) to stand up here, and tell the world that we dare not
perform an act of benevolence? Is this to be the style of an American
Congress? The gentleman from Virginia had said that perhaps these people
would be considered as traitors by the Republic. Were women and
fatherless children to be regarded as traitors? Mr. S. was extremely
affected, and apologized more than once to the House for the warmth with
which he spoke. He said that himself and several others who had
witnessed the scene of distress, were surprised; the gentleman did not
feel as they did.

Mr. MADISON possessed constitutional scruples. He thought that the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. S. SMITH) would not have injured his cause
by a greater moderation of language, nor his credit for benevolence by
not saying that his sympathy arose chiefly from being an eye-witness.

At last, the SPEAKER proposed to the committee an amendment, which met
the ideas of the members, and the resolution passed, as follows:

_Resolved_, That a sum not exceeding ---- dollars be appropriated for
the support of such of the inhabitants of St. Domingo, resident within
the United States, as shall be found in want of such support.

That a regular account of the moneys so expended be kept; and that the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES be requested to obtain a credit therefor,
in the accounts between the French Republic and the United States.

_Ordered_, That a committee be appointed to bring in a bill in
conformity with the foregoing resolution, and providing for the due
application of the moneys aforesaid; and that Mr. AMES, Mr. TRACY, and
Mr. DENT, be the said committee.


THURSDAY, February 6.

_War with Algiers._

The resolution being read for building four ships of 44 guns and two
ships of 20 guns--

Mr. MADISON rose to inquire whether there was in the public stores of
the United States, a sufficient quantity of cedar and live oak for
building the proposed six vessels? He was answered that there was not.
Mr. M. then observed, that it was evident this fleet could not be ready
for effective service in the course of the present year. He imagined
that there was another resolution, precedent as to the time of voting
it, which ought to be before the committee. The resolution to which he
alluded, was that assigning a sum of money to buy a cessation of
hostilities from the Regency of Algiers. He was of opinion that the
project of fitting out an armed squadron was liable to many solid
objections. There were two points of light in which this subject might
be surveyed. The first of these was, whether the Algerines acted from
their own impulse in this matter? In that case, they were known to be in
the habit of selling a peace; and, if they are willing to do so, he
fancied that it might be purchased for less money than the armament
would cost. On the other hand, if they do not act from their own
impulse, but upon the instigation of Britain, we may depend upon it that
they cannot be bought. Britain will keep them hostile. There is
infinitely more danger of a British war from the fitting out of ships
than from the resolution on the report of the Secretary of State. The
distance which the ships would have to sail is not less than three
thousand miles, and their number is too small for a decisive advantage.
The combined powers would embrace the equipment of these ships as an
excellent opportunity to pick a quarrel with the United States. Mr. M.
expressed his doubts with regard to the propriety of this measure,
because the expense would be immense, and there was no certainty of
reaping any benefit from it.

Mr. CLARK was anxious to state his doubts on this subject, that
gentlemen, who, by their habits of life, had met with opportunities of
better information than he possessed, might correct him where he was
wrong. In the first place, the ships would be too small in point of
number to be of any kind of importance, amidst the numerous navies of
Europe. The distance from any friendly port, where, in case of
accidents, they might repair, was likewise very great. It was to be
expected that, when they fell in with British ships of war, that the
latter would endeavor to search them for prohibited cargoes, and for
seamen, because they were in the practice of impressing their own
countrymen wherever they could find them. This would produce a quarrel.
There was a scheme which occurred to him, and which he judged would be
less expensive and more effectual. This was, to hire the Portuguese to
cruise against the Algerines. He understood that the Court of Lisbon
desired to keep her ships of war in actual service. The British have
been in the habit of building frigates for the service of the Algerines,
and, as he was informed, mariners, at a distance upon sea could
distinguish in what country vessels were built by their construction.
Hence it would be difficult for the captain of an American frigate to
ascertain at sea a British ship of war from an Algerine. He had an
objection to the establishment of a fleet, because, when once it had
been commenced, there would be no end of it. We must then have a
Secretary of the Navy, and a swarm of other people in office, at a
monstrous expense. If we build six ships this year, we should next year
find it necessary to build six more, and so on. The combined powers
would find a much better pretence for a war by this armament than from
the resolutions on the Report of the Secretary. Mr. C. closed his
speech, which was heard with great attention, by observing that he rose
principally to submit his opinions on this question as hints for those
who were better qualified to form a judgment on the subject than
himself.

Mr. BALDWIN expressed his doubts as to every part of this subject. He
had not been able to gain any information that was satisfactory. To
block up the Mediterranean was, he believed, impracticable. Bribery
alone could purchase security from the Algerines. Spain and Britain had
always found this method the cheapest. He had much confidence in the
gentleman who had been employed to go as an Envoy to Algiers from this
country. He was a thorough man. Mr. B. had yet formed no decided
opinion, and could wish to suspend his judgment till he learned the
issue of the present application to the Dey. If bribery would not do, he
should certainly vote for equipping a fleet.

Mr. NICHOLAS feared that we were not a match for the Algerines. A small
number of sailors were sufficient to navigate one of their ships, and
they had a militia to man them who were innumerable. He had not been
able to form an exact opinion, but he was afraid that we were not a
match for them by sea.

Mr. S. SMITH rose chiefly to answer the interrogatories proposed by Mr.
CLARK, as to what harbors in Europe American ships could retire to for
shelter? In an early part of his life, Mr. S. said that he had been in
that part of the world, and could assure the House that there was no
want of proper harbors to refit or obtain provisions in. The first he
mentioned was Toulon; Marseilles, likewise, had a most excellent harbor,
and there was no doubt that our vessels would be received there in the
most friendly way, as the Algerines had lately declared war against the
Republic of France. Spain had, likewise, several excellent
ports--Malaga, Cadiz, Barcelona, and Ferrol. In all these the American
squadron would be heartily welcome, and meet with all kinds of naval
stores in the greatest abundance. Lisbon, also, was a fine harbor, and
Oporto would be proper for the same purpose. So that, in case of
accident, the armament had nothing to fear from wanting a place of
retreat. He had no doubt that our vessels and our sailors would both be
much superior to those of the Algerines. Their ships were old and
crazy, and were presents made them by the powers with whom they are not
at war. The American bottoms must be better; and our fleet will most
likely have its station between Oran and Malaga, and, stretching across
between those two ports, block up the mouth of the Straits. He adverted
to the mistake of Mr. BALDWIN, who had said that Spain never attempted
to block up the Straits; the proper answer to which was, that Spain had
an extensive coast, not less than four or five hundred miles, within the
Mediterranean; so that she was quite differently situated, with regard
to them, from America. Mr. S. mentioned, as a consolatory circumstance,
that our profit was twice as great at present, in commerce, as it was
before the war, in spite of all the spoliations committed by Britain,
and by Spain; and, if the war continues, the profits will continue to
multiply twice as fast as they would otherwise do. As an evidence of
this fact, he mentioned the high price of wheat at present in this
market, and asked whether any gentleman had heard of a price so high at
this season of the year before? A gentleman (Mr. NICHOLAS) had spoken of
an Algerine militia. Why, sir, (said Mr. S.,) I shall set down against
them the American militia, and so that account is settled. He estimated
that the whole American exports and imports, in round numbers, was
twenty millions of dollars each; and that the extra insurance on account
of the Algerines, from one end of the year to the other, would not be
less than five per cent. to the whole, which was altogether two millions
of dollars. From this Mr. S. inferred that it must be the very worst
kind of economy to hazard an expense of two millions of dollars of
insurance, for the sake of saving the charges of this armament. He did
not see it improbable that the Algerines might very soon be on our
coast, under the command of British or American renegadoes. It was
nothing uncommon, among seamen, for two captains to be in the greatest
friendship to-day, and plundering each other's vessels to-morrow. As an
example of what Americans, in particular, are capable of doing, he
repeated the history of a Mr. Cooper, of Virginia, who, some years ago,
fitted out a ship for the express purpose of cruising against American
vessels bound from or to the East Indies. He sent a person into the
harbor of Algiers to solicit a commission from the Dey, and this envoy
had very near been taken prisoner, as the Dey wanted to have made a
slave of him. Mr. S. said that Mr. Cooper was known to be a man of
courage, of perseverance, and as possessing that species of intellectual
resources which qualify an adventurer for bold undertakings. He
inferred, from this anecdote, that, if Mr. Cooper, a man of respectable
birth and connections, could form such a scheme, what was not to be
feared from the common set of seamen? He could not tell where the danger
might end; nor did he know whether Philadelphia itself would be in
safety. They might speak of their forts as much as they pleased; he knew
their force, and did not much value it. The British had gone past them,
and what was to hinder the Algerines, or such a man as Mr. Cooper, from
getting past them? Were he on the coast of an enemy, he should not have
the least scruple of engaging to run a ship by such forts, when there
was in view so great a prospect as the plunder of Philadelphia. He
strongly pressed the necessity of sending out the proposed fleet as
quickly as possible.

Mr. AMES attacked the mover of the resolutions on the Report of the
Secretary (Mr. MADISON) for not displaying in the affair of the
Algerines some part of the spirit which he had exerted on the other
occasion. He thought it shameful to buy a peace, and that there could be
no security, if we did. He recommended an armament. Portugal had shown
herself friendly; and, referring to what Mr. CLARK had stated, he was of
opinion she would give our ships shelter in her ports. He thought that
six stout frigates at the mouth of the Straits would do the business. He
went at considerable length into Mr. MADISON's resolutions, and
condemned, upon various grounds, the arguments and conduct of the
gentlemen who supported them. Yesterday, we were told that Britain durst
not quarrel with America, and to-day she is represented as ready to do
it. Our commerce is on the point of being annihilated, and, unless an
armament is fitted out, we may very soon expect the Algerines on the
coast of America.

Mr. GILES, in reply, said that Mr. AMES drew inconsistent pictures. One
day he represented the American commerce at the summit of prosperity;
the next, it was reduced to nothing. In defence of the commercial
regulations, he reminded the House that Britain, and not Algiers, was
the real object of alarm, and the real source of hostility. It was,
therefore, proper to provide remedies against both of these illustrious
confederates. Algiers was but the instrument, Britain was the cause. The
reliance of Britain upon this instrument plainly showed that she was not
equal to a war and a commercial contest. She had, therefore, turned
loose the Algerines upon us--a fact which is pretty generally
acknowledged on both sides of the House. It is, therefore, in the power
of Britain to prevent the progress of these pirates. The commercial
restrictions will reduce Britain to difficulty, and she will then, for
the sake of friendship with America, be glad to put a stop to the
Algerine ravages. Until some measure of this kind has been adopted,
Britain, as she has raised up Algiers, will keep her up. The cheapest
mode of getting peace will certainly be by embracing the commercial
regulations. Mr. G. was averse to the proposal of a fleet. He agreed
very much with the gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. CLARK,) that it would
be a better expedient to hire the fleet of Portugal. He considered the
establishment of a maritime force as having a direct tendency to war;
whereas, the commercial restrictions had the same tendency to peace. The
sending of American armed ships into the midst of the fleets of Europe
would certainly produce a quarrel. It had been well remarked, (by Mr.
CLARK,) that, if an attempt was made to search our ships of war, like
our merchantmen, it would infallibly produce a public affront, and
consequent hostilities.

Mr. MADISON, in reply to some remarks which had fallen from Mr. SMITH,
respecting the present high price of wheat in the American market, said,
that he had been informed of a place where wheat sold for four shillings
and sixpence per bushel only, where the dollar passes for six shillings.
Mr. M. supposed that Britain could render very essential service to the
Algerines, without embarking in a war. She has not embarked in a war to
the north-west of the Ohio, but she has done the same thing, in
substance, by supplying the Indians with arms, ammunition, and, perhaps,
with subsistence. He did not assert that Britain directed the plan of
the Indian expeditions, for he had no explicit evidence that they
actually did so. In the same way that they gave underhand assistance to
the Indians, they would give it to the Algerines, rather than hazard an
open war.

The committee now rose, without coming to the question.


FRIDAY, February 7.

JOHN PAGE, from Virginia, appeared, produced his credentials, and took
his seat in the House.

_Algerine War._

THE NAVAL FORCE.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
state of the Union. The Chairman read the resolution before the House
for equipping a Naval force.

Mr. MADISON thought this expedient unlikely to answer the purpose, and
liable to many objections. Before the American squadron can be equipped,
the truce between Algiers and Portugal must expire. When that expiration
shall take place, she either will not renew the truce at all, or she
will stipulate that the United States shall be comprehended in it. He
would save the money intended for the fleet, and hire the Portuguese
ships of war with it, as soon as the truce ends. He wished that the
committee might reject the present motion, and when they did so, he
would move a resolution, a copy of which he read to the committee. It
was in substance:

      "That the sum of ---- dollars be provided to be employed in
      such a manner as should be found most effectual for
      obtaining a peace with the Regency of Algiers; and failing
      of this, that the sum should be applied to the end of
      obtaining protection from some of the European Powers."

Mr. M. considered the armament at present proposed, as quite too small
to answer any efficient purpose.

A member here observed, that it would be hazardous to rely on Portugal;
because, though the truce might expire in about six months, it would
possibly be renewed at the end of that time, or converted into a peace.

Mr. FITZSIMONS wished that gentlemen would pay some attention to
attested facts, before they so abruptly declare that the six ships
proposed by the committee to be built and put into commission, were
incompetent to the end for which they were designed. The committee had
bestowed considerable time in deliberating upon the best information
which could be obtained, before they specified the force requisite to be
employed, and they had been satisfied, that what was now proposed would
be equal to the end. Here Mr. F. read a different statement of the ships
of war in the service of the Regency of Algiers, at different times. One
of these shows that in the year 1789, there were nine xebecs, from
thirty-six to ten guns, and one ship of forty guns upon the stocks; but
that several of the xebecs were laid up or unfit for service. A second
estimate of the Algerine maritime force, had been transmitted by Mr.
Humphries. He specified four frigates, two xebecs, and one brig. By
advices still more recent, the fleet consisted of one vessel of
forty-four guns, one of thirty-six, one of twenty-eight, three xebecs,
and a brig. Mr. F. observed, that gentlemen had objected to the sending
out an American fleet; that they could not always keep together. He
reminded them, that from November to March or April, the corsairs of
Barbary never go out to sea. There were two months during that time,
when they were restrained by their religion from piratical excursions.
The committee had been told, that the Portuguese are ready to assist us.
There is ground to expect this assistance, but not to depend upon it.
Two American frigates, along with the Portuguese vessels, would be fully
equal to the task of curbing the Algerines. As to militia, he could not
see of what consequence they could be in a naval contest. With regard to
expense, he stated a very important fact. The United States import,
annually, two millions of bushels of salt from these countries, which
the Algerines will cut off from our commerce. The rise on that article
must then be at least one dollar per bushel; which is a tax of two
millions of dollars at once, or three times the expense of the armament.
Probably, however, the loss may extend to four millions of dollars on
this single article of salt, in one year only; a sum which would keep up
the fleet a long time. We have been trying to buy a peace, but without
success; and if we are not able to enforce it, the price of buying it
must be so much the higher. As soon as Portugal is left to herself, she
will certainly protect us, because it is much for her interest to do so.
At present, she cannot, perhaps, from the influence of the combined
powers. Mr. F., therefore, recommended an armament in the mean time.

Mr. SMILIE objected to this measure, because it was unequal to the task.
Britain would assist the Algerines underhandedly, as she did an enemy in
another quarter, and would continue to do so. He did not think she was
shameless enough to own it, but she would do it.[49]

Mr. NICHOLAS went on the same ground. He said that Britain had not been
content with striking up a truce for Portugal, that the Algerines might
be let loose on American commerce, but her Minister at the Court of
Lisbon had endeavored to prevent our vessels from obtaining a Portuguese
convoy. Not content with insuring a loss to America, she had striven to
make that loss immediate. As to the duration of the truce, it could not
last long, for the Queen of Portugal had, in fact, broken it already.
She had declared that the trade to that country should pass unmolested;
to which condition it was not likely that the Algerines would consent.
The Portuguese nobility had clamored at the acceptance of a truce. So
that, on the whole, it could hardly last long. A naval force was a very
expensive affair. The greater part of the immense debt of England had
been lavished on her navy. He was against building a navy.

Mr. SWIFT had been always sensible that the situation of this country
was not fit for war. We have a very heavy debt; but still it is better
to bear debts than depredations. A gentleman of extensive information
(Mr. S. SMITH, in yesterday's debate) had stated the rise of insurance
as much less than the armament would cost. Britain had always more
dependence on her navy, than on the immense sums that she pays to these
barbarians. Mr. S. had no doubt that the proposed fleet would have its
intended effect. He despaired of either buying a truce or buying an
ally. As to the militia of Algiers, they could not be brought into
action against frigates. He considered the charge of hiring the
Algerines, as an unfounded accusation on the honor of Britain. He could
not bring himself to believe that she was capable of a conduct so
exceedingly disgraceful. He had no direct evidence to convince. It might
be objected to this armament, that it would augment the national debt,
and throw too much influence into the hands of the Executive Government.
But the same objection might be started against every armament whatever.

Mr. MURRAY said, the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. MADISON,) yesterday,
observed that he was not a little surprised that those who a few days
since had appeared so alarmed at the phantom of war, should on this
question appear so willing to meet it. He would remark that those
gentlemen were alarmed at a shadow which appeared followed by the
substance of war, and were unwilling to do any thing that might lead to
a war that did not yet exist. But we were now at war with Algiers, and
had no choice. They had been at war with the United States ever since
the end of the Revolutionary war. The Spaniards and Portuguese kept them
within the Mediterranean. Gentlemen who are averse to the report, hold
up two substitute measures: one, which was suggested, and has been
argued by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. MADISON,) is, that we ought
to grant a sum to Portugal for her protection of our trade. The other
is, that commercial regulations will accomplish our protection. He liked
neither. The last, if permanent, will withdraw all temptation from Great
Britain to interpose her good offices. The first is worse; it is
subsidizing Portugal at the expense of our own people, and that too
without security. Gentlemen would make it the interest of Portugal to
make such breaches of truce as would occasionally withdraw protection,
and oblige us to subsidize her higher. It would create a disgraceful
dependence on a foreign power, and weaken the spirit of our marine;
whereas, if you fit out frigates, you employ your money in nourishing
the roots of your own industry; you encourage your own ship-building,
lumber, and victualling business. He believed, that however true might
be the suspicion of British interference in Indian affairs, and he
feared it was too true, he did not believe the evidence as to Algerine
interference strong enough to induce an argument against the report,
under a supposition that as Great Britain had effected the truce, so she
would aid Algiers against us. He thought so, because it was not now as
much her interest as it was in times of peace. In times of peace, had
she let loose the Algerines, her own navigation would have been enabled
to carry for us, but now it would be molested by the French. He did not
believe nations, more than persons, would do wrong purely out of evil
designs, devoid of interest; the greatest villain would not. At present,
their ships are liable to attack from the French, and he had it from
good authority, that so far were the British from having advantaged
themselves if they had been so base, that scarcely a British ship had
appeared since in our ports. The ship frigates would be able to blockade
the Gut of Gibraltar; the Algerines did not sail in fleets; they wanted
plunder, not glory; when they discovered they had to get the first by
hard fighting, they would listen to peace, accompanied by money. Spain,
it was true, had purchased a peace, but there was an hereditary
inveteracy against Spain, and a facility of attacking her shores which
we need not fear; so it was her interest to buy a peace when war could
bring her nothing but a glory that almost disgraced her armies; as to
jealousy of power in the Executive, he hoped to see a proper equipoise
in the powers of this Government; but, when proper occasions occurred,
he hoped Congress would never refuse the adequate means to enable the
Executive to discharge its constitutional duties.

Mr. GOODHUE observed, that the committee had carefully looked over the
statement of the marine force of Algiers for several years back, and had
no reason to doubt that the six vessels would be equal to the purpose
intended. There was no ground to suppose Algiers would have more force
at present than she had during her war with Portugal. He had no doubt
that the Algerines were let loose on the American commerce to prevent
supplies going to France, and while the war lasts, we shall not be able
to buy a peace. It is said, that the truce was but for a year, and in
six months it will expire. He did not wish to depend on that, when the
evil is so great. And why depend on Portugal? She is more under the
influence of Britain than any other nation in Europe. When Britain has
been at the trouble of stipulating a peace for Portugal, will she suffer
that nation to assist us? Certainly not. Or is it wise to stand by and
depend upon such a resource?

Mr. MADISON said, that gentlemen thought so differently on this subject,
and advanced arguments against his side of the question of such a
different nature, that it was difficult or impossible to give them an
answer. He then proceeded to quote the speech of Mr. GOODHUE; when that
gentleman rose to explain. Mr. M. then proceeded to notice the speeches
of Mr. FITZSIMONS and Mr. S. SMITH. Both of these gentlemen were up more
than once to explain, as having been misquoted. In a speech of
considerable length, he was not suffered long to proceed without
interruptions of explanations. This produced a scene of altercation. One
circumstance, however, was mentioned by Mr. FITZSIMONS that deserves
particular notice. From April to December next, he said, the insurance
on American ships from England and the rest of Europe, will not be less
than twenty-five per cent. of their value on account of the Algerines.

The House now adjourned, without taking any question.


TUESDAY, March 4.

_Estimate of Appropriations._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury of the sums necessary to be
appropriated for the service of the year one thousand seven hundred and
ninety-four; and after some time spent therein, the Chairman reported
that the committee had again had the said report under consideration,
and come to a resolution thereupon; which he delivered in at the Clerk's
table, where the same was twice read, and agreed to by the House, as
follows:

_Resolved_, That, for the support of the Military Establishment of the
United States, for the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-four,
there be appropriated a sum of money, not exceeding one million four
hundred and fifty-seven thousand nine hundred and thirty-six dollars
and one cent; that is to say:

For the pay of the Legion of the United States,    $303,684 00
For subsistence,                                    312,567 75
For forage,                                          31,632 00
For clothing,                                       112,000 00
For equipments for the cavalry,                       7,314 05
For horses for the cavalry,                          16,000 00
For bounty,                                           5,000 00
For the Hospital Department,                         20,000 00
For the Ordnance Department,                          6,715 32
For repairs and articles directed to be made
  and purchased by the PRESIDENT OF THE
  UNITED STATES,                                    202,783 34
For defensive protection of the frontiers,          130,000 00
For the Indian Department,                           50,000 00
For the Quartermaster's Department,                 150,000 00
For contingencies of the War Department,             30,000 00
And for Invalid Pensions,                            80,239 55
                                                  ------------
                                                 $1,457,936 01

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the said
resolution; and that Mr. BOUDINOT, Mr. TRUMBULL, and Mr. GILLESPIE, do
prepare and bring in the same.


THURSDAY, March 6.

_Slave Trade._

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the bill to prohibit the
carrying on the slave trade from the ports of the United States, Mr.
BOUDINOT in the chair.

The two first sections of the bill were agreed to, with one alteration
moved by Mr. TRUMBULL, which was to give the District Court as well as
the Circuit Courts cognizance of the offence.

The third section which relates to the penalty &c., it was moved should
be struck out. This motion was negatived. It was then moved to insert
the word _foreign_ before "ship or vessel;" which was agreed to.

The committee proceeded through the bill, which was reported to the
House with sundry amendments; these were agreed to by the House, and the
bill ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.


MONDAY, March 10.

_Algerine War._

NAVAL ARMAMENT.

Mr. GILES observed, that, from the sense of the House several times
manifested on this subject, there remained no doubt but that the bill
would pass. In that event, he most earnestly hoped that the success of
the measure would, at least, equal the expectations of its advocates.
Indeed, he hoped that their expectations would be disappointed and
exceeded; for it did not seem to him that even they were very positive
as to its full competency to the end proposed. He even wished that
every ship could be furnished with the cap of Fortunatus and the shield
of Hercules; for he was persuaded that, in the present state of things,
some magical influence would be found essential to enable them to effect
their undertaking. He observed, that, at present, the wisdom or folly of
the proposed measure was mere matter of opinion; that the passage of the
bill will furnish futurity with a complete experiment of its true
character.

He intended to offer his reasons against the passage of the bill, not
with a hope of making proselytes, but as a testimony of the real motives
which influenced his opposition. With this view, he should only mention
some of the general impressions produced on his mind by this subject,
without fatiguing the House with minute exemplifications of them.

The subject had presented itself to him in two points of view--1st, as
affording a protection to our commerce against the Algerine
depredations; 2d, as the foundation of a permanent naval establishment.

He could not help premising that, in the course of discussion, the
advocates of the bill had censured its opponents with a want of
disposition for the protection of commerce, whilst they claimed a
monopoly of all good intention towards this object. He did not mean to
derogate from the good intention of the favorers of the bill, but he
believed its opponents possessed as pure a zeal for the protection and
due encouragement of commerce as its advocates. It is not a question
whether commerce is, or is not, to be protected; but whether the plan
proposed be the most effectual and the least exceptionable that can be
devised for that purpose? The difference of opinion does not consist in
the end to be produced, but in the means proposed to effect the end.

The first objection he should make to the bill would be, the obvious
inadequacy of the means contemplated to effect the end proposed by them.
The object proposed is an effectual resistance, not only to the whole
present naval force of Algiers, but to their whole naval ability. The
bill contains, in itself, essentially a declaration of war. Our
calculations, therefore, should be extended to the utmost limit of the
naval ability of the hostile nation. The means to be employed consist of
four frigates of forty-four guns each, and two ships of thirty-six guns
each. To decide with propriety upon the objection, this force should be
compared with the naval ability of Algiers. He did not mean to go into a
minute history of Algiers. He should only observe, in general, that it
was a populous country; that it had furnished at one time one hundred
thousand fighting men; that its power at this day was as great as at any
preceding period; that they were a warlike people, accustomed to naval
enterprises and desperate in naval engagements; that, for some time
past, they had been subsidized for peace by almost every European
nation. He could not help concluding, from these circumstances, that
the naval ability of the nation either was or might, without any
uncommon exertions, he rendered superior to four forty-four gun frigates
and two thirty-six gun ships, the force contemplated by the bill; and,
if the conclusions were just, the bill is unwise.

Mr. G. proceeded to consider the bill as the foundation of a permanent
naval establishment. He said there was a clause in the bill authorizing
the PRESIDENT to suspend all proceedings in the equipment of the
armament, in case of a peace with Algiers, which gave him some
consolation; but it did not altogether relieve his apprehensions from
this operation of the measure, because he knew that a permanent naval
establishment was a favorite policy with some gentlemen, and because the
argument had been urged in favor of the present bill.

He observed that a permanent naval establishment could be recommended to
the United States but from one or both of the following considerations:
either upon the principle of entering into a competition for naval power
with the Powers of Europe; or as affording security to the collection of
our own revenue.

He thought the question of a permanent naval establishment was one of
the most important which could be presented to the consideration of the
House, and that the most serious consequences were necessarily connected
with it. In the first place, he viewed the establishment of a navy as a
complete dereliction of the policy of discharging the principal of the
public debt. History does not afford an instance of a nation which
continued to increase their navy and decrease their debt at the same
time. It is an operation exceeding the ability of any nation. The naval
competition of the Powers in Europe has produced oppression to their
subjects and ruin to themselves. The ruin of the French Monarchy, he
believed, might be ascribed very much to that cause. A navy is the most
expensive of all means of defence, and the tyranny of governments
consists in the expensiveness of their machinery. The expensiveness of
the French Monarchy is the true cause of its destruction. The navy of
France furnished the principal item of that expense. The navy produced
expense, the expense exceeded the revenue, new contributions became
necessary, the people saw the tyranny, and destroyed the tyrant. The
same effect, by the same policy, will probably be produced in great
Great Britain. The Government is not yet destroyed, but the people are
oppressed, liberty is banished. The extensiveness of the Government is
the true ground of the oppression of the people. The King, the Nobility,
the Priesthood, the Army, and, above all, the Navy.

All this machinery lessens the number of the productive and increases
the number of unproductive hands of the nation in Great Britain. The
operation has been extended so far that the poor rates alone probably
afforded a greater tax per _capita_ than the whole taxes paid in the
United States. He was astonished with these fatal examples before our
eyes, that there should be any gentlemen who would wish to enter into
this fashionable system of politics. He said the United States had
already progressed full far enough into this system; for, exclusively of
the ordinary expense of the Civil List, a debt had been funded upon
principles of duration. An army had been raised, at an immense expense,
and now there was a proposition for a navy. He observed that, for
several years past, the appropriations for the support of the Military
Establishment had exceeded a million of dollars per annum--from one
million to one million and a half annually. He believed that, if the
expense had been foreseen, there would have been more active efforts to
have avoided it. It was a policy, at this day, very generally condemned;
yet we are now to exhibit a counterpart of this policy upon the ocean,
with this aggravation--that it will commence with greater certain
expense, and with a more uncertain object. The system of governing by
debts he conceived the most refined system of tyranny. It seems to have
been a contrivance devised by politicians to succeed the old system of
feudal tenures. Both systems were tyrannical, but the objects of their
tyranny were different. The system of feuds operated upon the person of
the individual--the system of debts operates upon the pockets of the
individual. In the feudal system, the tenant often received some
indulgence and lenity from the martial generosity which generally
characterized the lord. The lord was gratified with the acknowledgment
of the tenant that he was a slave, and the rendition of a peppercorn as
an evidence of it. The product of the tenant's labor was left for his
own support. The system of debts affords no such indulgences. Its true
policy is to devise objects of expense, and to draw the greatest
possible sum from the people in the least visible mode. It boasts not of
economizing in calls upon the people for contributions. It boasts not of
economizing in the objects of expenditure. It consults the obedience,
and not the happiness of the people. There is no device which
facilitates the system of expense and debts so much as a navy. And he
declared, from that consideration, he should value his liberty at a
lower price than he now did, if the policy of a permanent Naval
Establishment should obtain in the United States.

Mr. W. SMITH remarked, that though it was not probable any proselytes
were to be expected at this late period of the business, and after so
ample a discussion as the question had received in its different stages,
yet he considered it necessary to make a reply to some of the various
objections which had just been made to the passing of the bill. Many of
those objections appeared to him totally inapplicable to the subject,
which he should pass over in silence. If it were the design of the House
to incur a vast expense in the establishment of a navy, merely for the
idle purposes of vain parade, there would be force in some of the
objections; but, as this was not the case, and as the measure was a
measure not of choice, but of necessity, extorted by the pressure of
unavoidable events, he did not feel their force in any respect. The
question was, simply, whether our commerce required protection against
the Algerine corsairs, and whether this was the best mode of protection.
The first part of the question was admitted on all sides. For himself,
he had always considered the second equally clear. But in the course of
the discussion, various difficulties had been started against the mode
of protection, and various substitutes had been proposed, as offering a
remedy more prompt, more effectual, and less expensive. He would first
consider the proposed substitutes for a naval armament, and then answer
the objections to it. The substitutes were: 1st. To purchase a peace of
the Algerines. 2d. To depend on Portugal breaking her truce with
Algiers, and shutting up their cruisers within the Straits. 3d. To pass
commercial regulations against Great Britain. 4th. To subsidize other
nations to protect our commerce.

To these several substitutes, he might, in a few words, object that the
first was impracticable, the second precarious, the third inoperative,
and the fourth dishonorable.

Mr. S. next reviewed the principal objections to the bill. These were,
he said, 1st. That the force contemplated was incompetent. 2d. That
sending an armed force on the ocean would be the means of involving us
in a war with some of the maritime powers. 3d. That we had no friendly
ports in Europe, which our frigates could resort to for supplies or
refitment. 4th. That the expense would exceed the object to be
protected. 5th. That our trade would be deprived of the seamen required
to man the frigates. 6th. That it was now so late in the season we could
not protect our vessels the ensuing summer, and that some favorable
events might occur before the frigates could be equipped, which would
render them unnecessary. 7th. That this was the beginning of a Naval
Establishment, which would hereafter involve this country in immense
debts and maritime wars.

      [To the arguments against a Naval Establishment, Mr. SMITH
      answered:]

The dangers resulting from a large Navy Establishment, and the immense
debts they have created in other countries, had been depicted, and the
House had been warned against such evils. How a bill providing six
frigates, which were to exist only during the war with Algiers, could
excite an apprehension of a large and permanent navy, and an enormous
debt, Mr. S. said he was at a loss to discover. The clause which
authorized the PRESIDENT, in the event of a peace with the Regency of
Algiers, to discontinue the armament, was a complete answer to all the
reasoning which had been indulged on the subject of navies and debts.
Admitting there had been no such clause, he did not feel the weight or
applicability of the reasoning.

This country is peculiarly fitted for a navy: abounding in all kinds of
naval resources, we have within ourselves those means which other
maritime nations were obliged to obtain from abroad. The nature of our
situation, and the navigating disposition of a considerable proportion
of our citizens, evince still more the propriety of some Naval
Establishment. Perhaps the country is not yet mature for such an
establishment, to any great extent; but he believed the period was not
far distant, when it would be. Sweden, with a population not greater
than that of the United States, and with more slender resources,
maintained a large navy. He saw no reason why the United States, with an
increasing population, much individual wealth, and considerable national
resources, might not, without ruin, do as much, or why the equipment of
a squadron, inferior to that of any of the petty nations of Italy,
should involve us in an insupportable expense.

The question was then taken on the passage of the bill, and it was
resolved in the affirmative--yeas 50, nays 39, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Fisher Ames, John Beatty, Elias Boudinot,
      Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Lambert Cadwalader,
      David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Joshua Coit, Henry Dearborn,
      George Dent, Samuel Dexter, Thomas Fitzsimons, Dwight
      Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas Gilman, Henry Glenn,
      Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Samuel Griffin, George
      Hancock, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Samuel Holten,
      John Wilkes Kittera, Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee,
      William Lyman, Francis Malbone, Peter Muhlenberg, William
      Vans Murray, Josiah Parker, Thomas Scott, Theodore
      Sedgwick, Jeremiah Smith, Samuel Smith, William Smith,
      Thomas Sprigg, Zephaniah Swift, Silas Talbot, George
      Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, John E. Van
      Allen, Peter Van Gaasbeck, Peleg Wadsworth, Jeremiah
      Wadsworth, Artemas Ward, John Watts, and Richard Winn.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, Thomas
      Blount, Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel Christie, Thomas
      Claiborne, Isaac Coles, William Findlay, William B. Giles,
      James Gillespie, Christopher Greenup, William Barry Grove,
      Carter B. Harrison, John Heath, Daniel Heister, John
      Hunter, William Irvine, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon,
      James Madison, Joseph McDowell, Alexander Mebane, William
      Montgomery, Andrew Moore, Joseph Neville, Anthony New, John
      Nichols, Nathaniel Niles, John Page, Francis Preston, John
      Smilie, Israel Smith, Thomas Tredwell, Philip Van
      Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, Francis Walker, Benjamin
      Williams, Paine Wingate, and Joseph Winston.


THURSDAY, March 27.

_Sequestration of British Debts._

Mr. DAYTON submitted the following resolutions:

      "_Resolved_, That provision ought to be made, by law, for
      the sequestration of all the debts due from the citizens of
      the United States to the subjects of the King of Great
      Britain.

      "_Resolved_, That provision ought, in like manner, to be
      made for securing the payment of all such debts into the
      Treasury of the United States, there to be held as a pledge
      for the indemnification of such of the citizens of the said
      States as shall have suffered from the ships of war,
      privateers, or from any person, or description of persons,
      acting under the commission of authority of the British
      King, in contravention of the law of nations, and in
      violation of the rights of neutrality."

_Ordered_, That the said resolutions be committed to a Committee of the
whole House immediately.

The House accordingly resolved itself into said committee.

Mr. DAYTON then rose in support of his propositions. When he brought
them forward he did not accompany them (he said) with many observations,
because he was then laboring under indisposition. The same cause would
render him very concise now.

The injuries and insults we have suffered from Great Britain, he
conceived, need not be dwelt upon. They are well known, and it is
universally acknowledged that we ought to adopt such measures as would
screen us from a repetition of them, and secure to us reparation. The
resolutions he had brought forward he intended as part of that system of
defence and preservation, other portions of which had already received
the sanction of the House. These resolutions, he conceived, would not be
the least efficient part of that system.

He believed that, when the conduct of Great Britain is reviewed, it
would be found that it is treating their subjects with great lenity to
speak of sequestration only; we should be warranted in confiscating, for
they have subjected our property to condemnation, without an appearance
of an intention to indemnify.

As to restitution of the property of which we have been plundered on the
high seas, it is impossible. It is condemned, sold, and scattered, and
no hope can be entertained that they intend to indemnify our suffering
citizens. If it had been their intention to indemnify, their Court, in
explanation of the instruction of the 6th of November, would not have
given orders to condemn vessels detained in suspense in the West Indies
until that elucidation was received.

Since, then, restitution is impossible, and not a shadow of hope exists
that indemnification will be granted; we have only to determine whether
we shall give up the property of which we have been plundered, or claim
it with effect--claim it, and enforce the claim, by showing that we have
the means of retaliation within our power.

After the proceedings of the British towards us, he believed, we should
have been warranted in confiscating the property now proposed to be
sequestered, without negotiation. This would have been meting to them as
they meted to us. If sequestration is hostility, as he had heard it
called, what, he asked, is condemnation? Besides, they have impressed
American citizens into their service. We have reason to believe, (he
concluded by remarking,) from the negotiation of our Minister with Lord
Grenville, from private information on the tables of Congress, and from
the conduct of some of their officers high in command, that to make war
on us is part of their system.

Mr. S. SMITH said he always had wished for peace, as the first
desideratum. With this view, agreeably to the wise recommendation of the
PRESIDENT, he agreed to those measures calculated to put the country in
a posture of defence. This was the best mode of securing peace. With the
same view, he proposed an embargo to be laid, which would have drawn to
our ports the remainder of our maritime possessions, and have left them
no longer within the grasp of a nation whose only rule of right is the
measure of her power. He still wished, as long as a shadow of hope
exists, to secure the blessings of peace. With the resolutions now
offered, he was of opinion that we might yet have peace; but, without
them, we shall certainly have war. They will arrest twenty millions of
dollars in our hands, as a fund to reimburse the three or four millions
which we have been stripped of by that piratical nation, Great Britain,
according to the instructions of that king of sea robbers--that
leviathan, which aims at swallowing all that floats on the ocean--that
monster, whose only law is power, and who neither respects the rights of
nations nor the property of individuals! This character the nation he
had mentioned had long deserved. Many proofs might be cited in support
of the assertion. He would only refer to their conduct at St. Eustatia,
when they robbed their allies, the Dutch, and their generals and
admirals turned vendue-masters, and conducted the plundering, to collect
rewards for their exploits. Is it from such a nation (he asked) that we
are to hope for justice? They know not what justice is. It is said that
they showed their love of justice when they so liberally compensated the
Tories after their war with us. Though they despise traitors, yet
self-interest will lead them to reward the treachery, to encourage a
principle which may again be useful to them. Self-interest, then, and
not justice, actuated them on that as on every other occasion.

Let us pass the resolutions, then send an envoy to Great Britain, and we
shall have peace. We shall then be able to speak to them of their
interest. But if war should be the inevitable issue, Americans, he was
sure, would meet it like men, rather than submit to insult and suffer
the honor of the country to be prostrated.

If we were able, while in infancy as a nation, to assert our rights,
will it be said, that, now we have arrived at a state of manhood, we
shall fear them? No! our young men burn for an opportunity to defend the
liberty, rights, and property of their country. They will step out as
one, and meet the event like men.

He read a quotation from _Vattel_, to show that a nation has a right to
pay her citizens for losses inflicted by another nation, contrary to
right, by confiscating the property belonging to the citizens of that
nation. The tie of interest, he concluded by remarking, is the strongest
tie we have upon Great Britain. Let us pass the resolutions, and that
nation will never again give us cause to pass similar ones. The people
out of doors will say that we have done right. The nations of Europe
will rejoice to see this power, which is committing depredations on all
nations, humbled. The resolutions, he observed, do not regard the
property in the funds. To touch this is not one of the means of
retaliation warranted by the law of nations. Public contracts should be
sacred.

Mr. BOUDINOT said, he had not intended to take part in the debate at
this early stage of it; but what had fallen from the member last up,
convinced him that the House should not go into a consideration of the
subject at this time. It should be considered with coolness, and all
passions put out of the question.

No doubt we have a right to make reprisals, as the Legislature has a
right to declare war; but he doubted whether the United States, in their
present situation, would find it their interest to go into such
measures. The authority read from _Vattel_ by the member last up, he
observed, made against that member's opinion. _Vattel_ expressly says
that reprisals should not be made on property intrusted to public faith.
The debts of British subjects here are in that predicament. He had heard
that gentleman, not long since, with pleasure, expatiate with warmth on
the advantages of credit, especially to this country. Should that credit
be destroyed (he asked) by destroying the confidence of foreigners in
our faith? But, even if this retaliation is lawful, will it be the
interest of the citizens, or rather of the Government, to take such a
step at the present time? We have no doubt been cruelly treated; but we
have made proper application for redress, and received an answer? We
should first send a special envoy and insist on an immediate answer.
This would be the mode of securing peace; at least, it offers the best
chance of securing it.

The aggressions on our commerce made by Great Britain are no doubt
enough to rouse any American's feelings; but the Legislature ought not
to be swayed by passions; they should discuss the subject calmly and
deliberately. He hoped the committee would rise and allow time, at
least, to take the necessary measures of defence; for, could the
Legislature justify to their constituents this step of retaliation,
should immediate hostilities, warlike hostilities, be the consequence?
To justify a measure of this kind time should be given for the defensive
system adopted to be carried into operation.

Mr. MERCER next spoke. He owned the measures proposed appeared to him
great and momentous, and, had he any powers of declamation, he should
think it improper to give loose to them on a question of this kind. We
should weigh well our interest, examine carefully the situation in
which we stand, and determine calmly where we shall place our next step.
The proposition is, to arrest, not to confiscate, the debts due to
British subjects. From his recollection of the positions established by
the best jurisprudence writers, no doubt remained in his mind that we
have a clear right to secure to ourselves reparation in that way, and,
in our predicament, confiscation even would be warranted, and by a point
as firmly established as any principle which has the general practice of
nations for a basis.

One of the latest writers on national law (_Binkershoek_) is of opinion
that debts are property, as well as any thing else, and sees no reason
why they should not, as well as other kinds of property, be seized to
secure indemnity for injuries. This is the opinion of _Wolfius_, of
_Vattel_, _Grotius_, and of his commentators. He could go on with a long
list of authorities, and refer to actual treaties to show that it has
been the practice of nations. Having established the right, he proceeded
to consider the expediency of the propositions. Gentlemen, he hoped, did
not wish that we should make a solemn declaration of war before we
acted. This is no longer the custom among nations. It would be a pompous
display of candor which no longer exists. Have any nations in the
present European war, premised their operations by a declaration? No;
their first step was to do all the injury in their power to their
enemies. Then, we having taken what steps will best tend to our
security, and give us the best hold of our enemy, let us not, however,
lose sight of a settlement by negotiation. Let us show mankind that
peace is our first wish. When we are thus prepared, let us step forward
to an amicable negotiation. Let us call on the Executive to send forward
some proper person to the Court of Great Britain, to assure them that we
have a high sense of the injury done us; that we have it in our power to
resent it, but wish to see the difference settled by receiving an
indemnification. We shall thus make it their interest as well as duty to
allow it. This he conceived to be the line of conduct we should adopt if
we wished to preserve the Western Hemisphere from the scourges that
desolate the Old World. By some such measure as that proposed, we should
make their motives for peace more weighty, and we should give assurances
of our amicable disposition, by showing that all we wish is a just
compensation.

In a matter of this kind he was sensible of the danger of precipitation.
The best mode of arresting the property proposed should be calmly
weighed. He believed that something like the proposition made by Mr.
SMITH, of South Carolina, before the House resolved itself into a
committee--a stop to all transfers of British property--would be proper
as a preliminary step.

He concluded with some observations on the respect which nations,
however weak, will command from their superiors in strength, by showing
that they will not suffer imposition, by joining heart and hand in
defence of their rights. This spirit, he was sure, animates Americans,
and now their power is better able to keep pace with that spirit than
when we humbled that nation. At that time we were in our infancy--an
infancy by no means thriving under the trammels of the mother
country--and, when they turned us adrift, and began their hostile
spoliations, they carried with them all our means of defence; but now,
thank Providence, we have spirit and power to defend ourselves. If the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SMITH) would modify his proposition,
and make the term thirty days, it should have his assent in preference
to that now before the committee.

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) said, that the proposition he had read
before the House went into committee was in the nature of an embargo on
debts, securing them from transfer until the necessity of sequestering
them more plainly appeared. The proposition did not then appear to meet
the wishes of the House. When the committee should rise he would again
bring it forward. The question now before the committee is, whether they
will agree to a sequestration of British debts. He wished this object
had not been coupled with the indemnification to our own citizens,
because it is fairer to decide each question upon its own merits. That
part of the resolutions which contemplates an indemnification may give a
weight to the first part which it might not intrinsically deserve.

He made some observations on the propriety of cool deliberation on the
present important subject. The passions should be banished, and calm
reason more than ever courted. It requires all the wisdom of the
Legislative body now to combine our national honor with our national
safety. He had doubts on the propriety of the resolutions proposed, but
acknowledged that the arguments used in their favor had great weight in
his mind. If the situation of this country be compared with that of
other commercial nations, the propriety of something like the present
resolutions would appear more evident. When other commercial nations
wish to quarrel with us, their navies enable them to seize our vessels,
and we cannot retaliate in the same way. Then we must fly to such means
of retaliation as are in our power. If they take our property of one
description, and we cannot lay our hands upon the same kind, we must
take any of theirs within our reach. This reasoning has, no doubt, great
force; but the sacredness with which the modern usages of nations has
shielded debts is a great bar to our proceeding in the present case.
Contracts between individuals are now considered as out of the reach of
governments, and it is the modern usage not to meddle with them. In the
beginning of our late war, debts were not confiscated. The State of
South Carolina, though certainly not wanting provocation, while
confiscating all other property, left debts untouched, under the idea
that private contracts are sacred. But this, in a case of war, and
urgent necessity, might be overlooked; but if we are not in a state of
war, perhaps meddling with private contracts might provoke it. Credit is
certainly important to this country. We should consider how far the
operation of the resolutions proposed would give a shock to it. Besides,
they might have a tendency to involve us in future wars. We shall yet
long be under the necessity of receiving certain supplies from Europe,
and shall have debtors among us for those supplies. These debtors may at
any time, when the burden weighs heavy, think of easing it by fomenting
dissensions with the foreign creditor nation, in expectation that a
confiscation of the debts may be an effect. It is true that, in such a
case, they will not be exonerated. But it cannot be supposed that the
government to whom the debts would be transferred could prosecute the
recovery of them with as much ardor as an individual.

The gentleman last up had relied on the authority of ancient and foreign
jurists. Some among this class of writers warrant putting prisoners to
death--a principle which modern custom has put a stop to. They also, it
is true, warrant the confiscation of debts; but _Burlamaqui_ says this
is not the practice of modern nations. None, or very few trifling
examples can be cited, he believed, of a departure from this principle,
in modern times, among nations where commerce is cherished. This country
depends on commerce, and credit is one of the means by which it
flourishes; we should, then, not endeavor to weaken it. If we are once
over the barrier, by trifling extensions of the principle we may be
carried to immoderate lengths, indeed. Some persons who are in favor of
sequestering private debts, speak with horror of touching the public
funds. For his part, he did not see much difference between confiscating
private and public debts. The object is the injury of an enemy, and to
retaliate for injuries. Again: if we go to war with Great Britain, it is
probable we shall be involved with her allies, then will it be said,
that we shall confiscate what the Dutch lent us at a time of distress or
since the peace. The Dutch have bought largely in our funds. The same
principle will lead us to lay our hands upon that property. It will be
difficult to draw a line, if we admit the principle.

Under these impressions, if called upon to give his vote, he should now
feel much embarrassment. It had been said that the adoption of the
present resolutions would be a means of obliging Great Britain to do us
justice; that it would strike a terror among the subjects of that
country, and make them clamorous for peace. It might, he feared, have a
very different effect exasperate them, and unite the people with the
Government against us. Some further forbearance on our part may separate
them. It will convince the people of Great Britain that we really wish
for peace, and then, if war is the issue, the impression will be
severely felt by that Government. We shall render the Administration
very unpopular, and hasten its dismission for one more friendly to this
country. He was of opinion this crisis was fast approaching.

He concluded by again adverting to his propositions for preventing the
transfer of British debts, which he hoped would be considered as a
sufficient provision in the present exigency, and would give time to
deliberate on further measures, and to watch the course of events in
Europe, which, he believed, would have great influence upon the conduct
of Great Britain towards us, and probably bring forward the change in
the Administration of Great Britain.

The committee now rose and reported progress.


FRIDAY, March 28.

_Sequestration of British Debts._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of
the Union, and took up Mr. DAYTON's resolutions for the sequestration of
debts due to British subjects.

Mr. GILES commenced his remarks by observing, that he had intended to
have given a silent vote upon this question before the committee, and
probably should not have altered that intention, if it had not been from
the solicitous requests expressed yesterday by several gentlemen in the
opposition, that the favorers of the proposed measure should furnish the
committee with the reasons upon which it was founded. Although it
appeared to him to be rather unreasonable that some gentlemen should be
expected, not only to possess reasons for their own opinions, but to
furnish reasons for others; and, although he did not conceive that the
favorers of the measure were under any obligation to disclose the
reasons inducing it, provided they thought proper to hazard its fate
upon a silent vote, yet he was willing to indulge the gentlemen with
presenting to them the general course of reflection which the subject
had produced in his mind, and which had strongly suggested its
propriety. He had, however, a more powerful inducement to disclosing his
opinion, since the subject has become matter of discussion and its
propriety doubted.

The measure is deemed a bold one, and pregnant with the most serious
consequences; in all such cases, he was desirous that his responsibility
to the United States in general, and to his immediate constituents in
particular, would at all times be tested by the real motives which
should influence his conduct.

Several gentlemen in the opposition had earnestly admonished the
committee against the indulgence of their passions upon this subject,
and recommended the exercise of cool and deliberate reasoning. He should
not pretend to say how far such an admonition was necessary, or
justified by the temper of the committee, but he believed it applied as
strongly to the gentlemen who suggested the caution, as to those to whom
it was addressed; and he hoped, in the course of the future discussion,
the gentlemen would show an example in themselves of the precepts they
had prescribed to others.

As to himself, Mr. G. declared that, impressed with the awfulness of the
present crisis, he had never reflected upon a subject with more
coolness; and, if he understood his own situation, his mind was never in
a state more susceptible of conviction.

The proposed measure is expected to eventuate in a final explanation of
the relative state of things between the United States and Great
Britain. It will probably result, therefore, in an open hostility, with
the usual appeal to arms, or in a peace, with all the rights of
neutrality attached to it. For this purpose, the resolution proposes a
sequestration of the debts due to the subjects of Great Britain, to be
held as a pledge for the indemnification of the losses sustained by
American citizens under the orders of the British King, in contravention
of the laws of nations, and violation of every rule of morality and
justice. In the course of debate, this subject seems to have resolved
itself into two questions. First, as it respects the right of one nation
to sequester the property of the individuals of another in any possible
case. Second, the policy of exercising this right at this time, under
the existing circumstances of the United States.

He presumed that a state of things might exist between two nations in
which reprisal would not only become the right but the duty to the
nation sustaining the wrong. This happens where one nation, without
cause, forcibly seizes upon the effects of another, or of its citizens,
and withholds them without restitution or compensation, and when the
nation, whose effects shall be so seized and detained, shall possess no
other means of indemnification. The right of reprisal in the injured
nation, in such a case, grows out of its injury sustained, and its
inability to redress itself in any other way.

The duty of the injured nation to make reprisals, is founded on
self-preservation; and in case of the losses of its citizens, upon the
promise of the protection of property sacredly made by the nation to its
individual members.

This he believed to be the doctrine of the laws of morality and reason,
and he knew it to be the doctrine of the laws of nations, which were, in
fact, nothing more than the laws of morality and reason systematized and
reduced to writing.

Believing this principle to be a just one, he would apply it to the
existing state of things between the United States and Great Britain.
Almost as soon as Great Britain had taken part in the iniquitous war
against France, the Executive of the United States manifested their
regard for peace, by proclaiming their existing state of neutrality, and
recommending to their citizens, not only the observance of neutrality,
but of impartial neutrality--although the partiality of the American
people for the cause of France was well known--although, at that moment,
their affections for the French nation were addressed by the most
honorable and powerful considerations that ever existed between two
nations. The peculiar similarity between the existing French cause and
that which had just given birth to American liberty and independence;
the material agency which the French nation had exerted in bringing
about that event; and the existing principles of Government here, the
product of the Revolution, which are the great object of attack by the
combination against France.

A pure and laudable regard for peace, and a detestation of war, however,
had overcome all these sensations, and produced a neutrality, which he
believed, on the part of the United States, had been rigidly observed;
at least, he was sure, that such was the intention of Government. In
this state of things, Great Britain commenced an attack upon this state
of neutrality, which it was certainly her interest to preserve, and
which she ought to have deemed a favor to obtain. Great Britain
continued to keep possession of posts upon the acknowledged territory of
the United States, to carry on a contraband trade with our savage enemy.
She, shortly after our proclaimed neutrality, proceeded to interrupt our
lawful trade with our allies. She seized, condemned, and sanctioned the
complete transfer of the property of American citizens to her own
subjects; and, as if there could be no limits to her iniquity and
resentment, she has contrived to open upon our Eastern frontiers a
barbarous enemy to aid in making depredations upon our commerce.

These acts constitute injuries which amount to war, and they are
infinitely aggravated, both by the perfidy which attended the execution
of some of them, and the total want of provocation for the commission of
any of them.

If, then, Great Britain shall have committed acts towards the United
States which furnish just cause of war, the United States possess the
right, consistently with the laws of nations, to exercise any act
towards Great Britain which would be justifiable in a state of war. The
United States having received the injuries, are authorized to select
such measures and means as they may deem the most expedient for
self-preservation and indemnification. Reprisal is within their power.
All other means of redress are without their power. In such a state of
things, reprisal is a right--reprisal is a duty. An objection, more
plausible than solid, has been made to this course of reasoning, that
the individuals who will be the immediate objects of the reprisal, have
not been the immediate agents of the aggression. The laws of nations
state, that the property of individuals is as much a subject of reprisal
as the property of the aggressing nation; but, as the nation is the
immediate agent in the wrong, the individual who sustains an injury
thereby, becomes entitled to recompense from his nation. The nation
which commits the wrong, by this process, will ultimately sustain the
loss. Hence, in the present case, the innocent and unsuspecting victims
of the United States, have received losses from the lawless aggressions
of Great Britain, and the question is, whether they shall finally
sustain those losses, without any clear claim of indemnification upon
the Government of the United States? or, whether the losses shall be
transferred to British subjects, who will thereby possess the clearest
claim for recompense from the British Government? He thought the laws of
God, the laws of morality, the laws of reason, the laws of nations,
would all pronounce that the British Government which had done the
wrong, should afford the recompense.

Mr. G. said, that if the losses were to be ultimately borne by the
individual subjects of Great Britain, the remedy would seem to be a
harsh one; but, even in that case, the only alternatives left to the
United States would be to say whether their own citizens, to whom they
have promised protection, should finally sustain the losses, or the
British subjects, to whom they have promised no protection. But the
situation of the individuals who may be the subjects of reprisal, is
greatly meliorated, by the consideration of their just claim to
recompense from their own Government, which he had no doubt but they
would ultimately obtain, if they were put into a situation to demand it;
but if they should ultimately be denied justice, it would be a
consolation to reflect, that it was the injustice of their own
Government, not of the United States.

He observed, that a reprisal in the way proposed, stood upon the same
ground as the invasion of the property in every other case did, and was
justified upon the same principle, to wit, self-preservation. He
presumed, if there existed an acknowledged state of war, letters of
marque and reprisal, commissions to privateers, &c., would be deemed
justifiable and expedient, and that no discrimination would be made
between the property of individuals and the property of the nation; yet
the invasion of the rights of property in that case would be as palpable
as in the case of the reprisal proposed, with this aggravation; that, in
that case, the individual sustaining the loss would not be entitled to
ultimate recompense from the Government--in the case proposed, he would
be entitled to recompense. He observed, that the British nation had not
discovered this delicate discrimination between national and individual
property, in their late instructions given to their privateers and ships
of war, although they had sustained no wrong; and he thought their
conduct an example in point for the United States, who had received the
injury and committed none.

A gentleman (Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina) yesterday attempted to make a
distinction between vessels at sea and other property; although he
acknowledged that, at the first blush, he could discern no distinction
in principle.

Mr. G. said, that every species of property stood on the same
principle--the promise made by the Government to afford protection to
all property--the same rights are attached to every species of property,
and the Government is bound to afford an equal security to all. A
sentence read yesterday, by a gentleman, (Mr. S. SMITH), from a writer
upon the laws of nations, clearly shows the right of a nation to make
reprisal upon all the effects of individuals of an aggressing nation
indiscriminately, except stock in the public funds; which has been
exempted, under the idea of its being a pledge in the hands of
Government; the withholding of which would be a breach of public faith.
He believed that the practice and policy of some nations might have
given rise to this distinction, but he doubted whether the practice had
been uniform and universal, and he was clear that there was no rational
distinction in principle. The idea that the public funds are a pledge in
the hands of Government, and ought not, therefore, to be touched, is
equally applicable to every other species of property. In the case of
contracts between individuals, the Government guarantees the performance
upon the refusal of one party to pay, or comply. In the case of lands or
personal chattels, the Government guarantees the exclusive enjoyment to
the proprietor; it would be equally a violation of faith for the
Government to deny its obligation in the one case as in the other, and
nothing could justify an invasion of the rights of property, in any
case, but self-preservation--the first of all rights, and the highest of
all duties.

He positively denied that any pre-eminence was due to one species of
property over another. He said, however, that this discussion was not
immediately necessary, as the resolution under consideration did not
embrace the stock in the funds of the United States.

Mr. G. observed, that it had been said, and repeated in the committee,
that the proposed measure was war. He denied that the measure in itself
was war, or that it furnished a just cause of war. He believed, however,
that it was problematical whether it would eventuate in peace or war;
indeed, he remarked, that the crisis of affairs is already such, that,
whether the measure be adopted or not, he viewed war as a probable
event, peace as a possible event; but the point he contended for was,
that if the aggressions towards the United States be sufficient to
justify reprisal, the exercise of the right does not furnish a just
cause of war. The exercise of a right by one nation can never involve
the absurd consequence of giving another nation the right to exercise a
wrong. He said, that gentlemen on one side of this question seemed to
act upon an imaginary, instead of the real, state of things. He was not,
therefore, astonished at hearing the committee cautioned against the
violation of neutrality. He did not conceive that the present state of
things between the United States and Great Britain would justify the use
of the term neutrality. Neutrality is a term used to signify the
relation in which two nations stand towards each other. Neutrality,
therefore, requires parties--either party may destroy the relation
between the parties. It therefore appeared absurd to him to say that
Great Britain was in a state of depredation and war towards the United
States, and the United States in a state of neutrality towards Great
Britain. It has been said, that the United States have not abandoned
their neutrality; this is true, but it is no evidence that neutrality
exists. Great Britain has abandoned it for them.

He said, however, that this was disregarding the substance and entering
into a mere cavil about names. It was not material, in his opinion, what
name ought to be given to the existing relation of things between the
United States and Great Britain--whether it was called a state of peace,
a state of war, a state of neutrality, a state of reprisal, a state of
retortion, or a state of very uncivil conduct on the part of Great
Britain. Nor did he conceive it material to ascertain whether there was
any intermediate stage between a state of peace and a state of war, or
in which state the depredations of Great Britain should technically be
classed; but one thing was certain and material--that the United States
had sustained substantial wrongs, which required a substantial remedy.
Gentlemen who have regarded names and disregarded substances have also
been extremely alarmed at the idea of a discrimination of conduct by the
United States towards foreign nations. A gentleman (Mr. BOUDINOT)
observed yesterday, that the United States had sustained injuries from
France and Spain as well as Great Britain, and asked why there should be
any discrimination in their favor? Mr. G. said he was extremely hurt
that the conduct of France should be so unnecessarily and inopportunely
arraigned in that House. He submitted it to the gentleman to say, if the
United States should be compelled to enter into the war, which was at
this moment not an improbable event, why then it would be wise to
irritate the only nation in the world who could afford them any
substantial assistance! He said that this conduct was the less
justifiable, from the recollection that the conduct of France was the
result of necessity, and there was every reason to conclude that the
conduct of that nation would be explained in a satisfactory manner. But
a consideration mentioned by a gentleman, (Mr. SMITH, of Maryland,)
yesterday, was a conclusive answer--the United States owe to France a
pecuniary obligation, as well as one of a more sacred nature. This is at
all times sufficient for their indemnification. With respect to Spain,
if the gentleman would show the injury sustained, and point out a fund
for indemnification, Mr. G. declared he would not hesitate a moment to
apply it to that object.

But will the gentleman conclude, that because one nation has injured us,
in a degree against which we have no redress, that therefore we shall
not indemnify ourselves from a nation which has injured us in the
extreme, and against which we have the most ample redress?

He believed the gentleman's coolness, his wisdom, and his deliberation,
could not possibly lead him to such a result. With respect to
discrimination in the conduct of the United States towards foreign
nations, it necessarily grew out of the character of the conduct of
other nations towards the United States. Some gentlemen appeared to him
to have carried their ideas upon this subject to the most fanciful
absurdities. To keep France out of the comparison, let this
indiscriminate conduct, so much applauded, be applied to Great Britain
and Holland. Great Britain destroys our trade, plunders our property,
and, to her injuries, adds insult and contempt. Holland, engaged in the
same cause, fosters our trade, and respects us as a nation. Under these
circumstances, do gentlemen contend that an indiscriminate conduct is
due to Great Britain and to Holland? Or do they mean to carry this
delicate indiscriminate conduct so far as to refuse to themselves all
redress from one nation, because they would wish to deal out the same
conduct to all others, whether they had offended or not? He said, that
discrimination was stamped in the front of the conduct of foreign
nations towards us, and to make an indiscriminate return would be the
worst and most unjust of all discriminations. He hoped gentlemen would
pardon him, but he could not help thinking that they had carried their
ideas upon this subject to the most fanciful absurdities. A gentleman
(Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina) yesterday remarked, that of late the
condition of war had been much ameliorated as it regards the rights of
property, and he thought the amelioration ought to be extended rather
than abridged. Mr. G. declared, that he heartily joined him in his
wishes that the condition of war would ere long be ameliorated, both as
it regards property and persons. He hoped that mankind would soon learn
more wisdom than to butcher each other for the amusement or security of
the privileged orders of the world. From that source he believed all
wars arose, and until the cause was banished from the earth, he feared
the fatal effects resulting from it would continue to exist. He
declared, that he should view the banishment of the privileged orders
from the world as the surest harbinger of the approach of the
millennium. But this is not the happy period of the world; for, although
the United States are free from this pest of the human species in their
internal organization, yet the evils they at this moment experience
arise from their external intercourse with that part of the world which
is less fortunate. The attack made on the United States at this moment,
is an attack upon property. If there should be a war between the United
States and Great Britain, it will be a war of property. Unless there
should be a species of madness in the nation not to be calculated upon,
they cannot think of invasion and subjugation. It is known that the
United States cannot make an attack upon Great Britain, and territory
and conquest with them are no objects. Hence the war will be confined to
depredations upon property. This is the most dishonorable species of
warfare, and therefore the more to be regretted. There is this obvious
distinction, however, between the United States and Great Britain. With
Great Britain, at least with the privileged orders, it is matter of
choice; with the United States, it is matter of compulsion. The United
States despise this mode of warfare; they covet not the property of any
nation upon earth, but self-preservation demands it. They are under the
strong hand of a powerful nation, despising their rights, and regardless
of justice. In this state of things, there is but little hope of
strengthening the sacred ties of property; for, in the example of Great
Britain, her late conduct can furnish no consolation for these theoretic
speculations; and however the United States might be inclined to
practise upon them, yet the British depredations will forbid them--for
submission will be an invitation to new acts of aggression. He most
ardently wished the state of things were otherwise; but, exposed to
these inconveniences, the most effectual means ought to be adopted for
their resistance.

Mr. G. proceeded to observe, that having shown the right of reprisal to
be conformable to the laws of nations, and clearly justified by the
existing relation of things between the United States and Great Britain,
he would now submit a few remarks upon the policy of exercising the
right at this time. Under the existing circumstances of the United
States, he thought the policy of the measure was recommended by the
clearest and most obvious principles. The relation of things between the
United States and Great Britain is such as to demand a final and
unequivocal explanation, whether the proposed measure be adopted or not.
In all parts of this committee, in all parts of the United States, a
definitive explanation is called for. The present state of things
between the two nations cannot long exist.

It is to be hoped that, the tone of language to be used by the United
States will be adjusted to the nature of the injuries they have
sustained. Acquiescence and submission are no longer recommended. Hence,
matters are already reduced to extremities, and all the irritations
already exist which can grow out of an extreme state of things. The
proposed measure can add nothing to these irritations. The question,
therefore, appears to be reduced to this--whether, in demanding an
explanation and attempting negotiation, we shall use all the means in
our power to compel a favorable issue? or whether we shall tamely
supplicate for justice, and suffer the most effectual means of
compulsion to elude our grasp? He did not mean here to recapitulate the
conduct of Great Britain towards us; he hoped it was sufficiently
impressed upon the mind of every gentleman in the committee; but, after
the recent experience of her conduct, it would be madness, it would be
folly, to address our complaints to her justice or moderation. He
thought it would be wise to lay hold of every thing in our power, and
hold it as a pledge for her good behavior. This measure would put us in
the best possible situation for negotiation. It would authorize an
appeal to her interest, which she could not resist. He begged the
committee to reflect upon the argument which had been used here, to
prevent a late measure which had been adopted, and which had been
renewed upon the present resolution, that a great value in property,
belonging to the citizens of the United States, was in the power of the
British, and that any counteracting measures would place it in extreme
hazard. This seemed to him to have been the most prevailing argument
which had been urged, and for some time was irresistible. If, then, the
argument shall have been applied with so much force here, with how much
more force will it be applied in Great Britain, when they find that the
property of the individuals of that nation is placed in jeopardy here,
and that it greatly exceeds in value the whole of the property which
they have infamously detained and condemned? Besides, if, in the event
of a war, it should be a war of property, as is every where
contemplated. Great Britain will find that the war will be commenced
upon very unequal terms. Viewing this measure, therefore, as to its
probable tendency to peace or war, he thought the probability greatly in
favor of its producing peace. When Great Britain shall find that she is
entering into a contest upon unequal terms, when she shall find that it
may terminate in a permanent loss of the advantages of her commerce with
the United States, when she shall see before her a precipice, into which
if she should once enter she never can return, she would pause before
she acted, she would take time to count the probable loss and gain, and
peace would be the infallible consequence of such deliberate
calculations. This measure will convince Great Britain that the United
States possess a knowledge of their rights, a confidence in their
ability, and a determination in their disposition to assert and support
them.

A gentleman (Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina) observed yesterday, that a
pacific system would probably attach the people of Great Britain to the
United States, and detach them from their own Government. The gentleman
ought to recollect, that a pusillanimous conduct will not. It is with
nations as it is with individuals--to be respected by others, they
should respect themselves. The same gentleman remarked, that a change of
Ministry might be expected, and advised waiting for the event. The idea
is as undignified as it is chimerical.

Mr. G. said, he knew nothing of the change of the Ministry--the
principle was unknown here. The people here were their own governors. It
was immaterial to them who the Minister was. Even in the country where
the people were less fortunate, where Ministers govern, a change of
Ministers never produced any solid advantage to the nation. It was
merely an expedient of the moment, to smother a popular clamor. But,
even proceeding upon the gentleman's hypothesis, which Mr. G. thought
wholly inadmissible, he submitted to the gentleman to determine, whether
a positive submission by foreigners to the avaricious regulations of a
Minister, be the most likely mean to render him unpopular at home? On
the other hand, whether it was not the most effectual mean of preserving
his popularity, and of keeping him in office? He presumed the people at
home would never complain of injuries abroad, if those who sustained
them refused to complain. It is but by resistance, and throwing the
burden upon the people of England, that they can be brought to complain.
But, in cases of such extremities as the present, all appeals to the
people of England are futile and degrading. Our only resource should be
in our own exertions. They would be abundantly sufficient, if we could
be brought to believe it.

Mr. G. remarked, that the people of Ireland had lately afforded an
instructing lesson upon this point. They had arms in their hands for the
purpose of asserting their rights; under the idea of acquiescence and
submission they had surrendered them to the Government; perhaps, under
the expectation of a change of Ministry. Did this act of submission
render them more respectable in the eyes of the people of England? Did
it encourage the hopes of those who wished the establishment of
Government upon the principle of equal rights? Did it not rivet the
chains upon the people of England? Did it render the people of Ireland
more respectable in the eyes of the people of the United States? To
these questions it was unnecessary to give an answer. The people of
Ireland reaped the usual merits of submission--imposition and insult.

There was another consideration strongly in favor of the policy of the
proposed measure. Applications have been already made from different
parts of the United States by the immediate sufferers from the British
depreciations, for an indemnification of their losses. These
applications will, probably, be increased, repeated, and continued; the
agricultural and other interests of the United States will, probably,
never consent to equalize this burden. The claims of the sufferers upon
the Government will gain additional weight, unless this fund should be
offered to them for their indemnification. This is the obvious, the
natural and the rightful fund for their indemnification; and he thought
it was, at least, the duty of the Government to hold it as a pledge for
their security. If this measure should not now be adopted, the refusal
will lay a foundation for further parties in the United States, which
may ultimately have a serious effect upon the Government.

An objection, of a very delicate and influential nature, has been made
to the proposed measure, which required some consideration--that it
would affect the character and credit of the Government. He had viewed
this objection with the most deliberate attention, and felt the whole
force of its imposing delicacy; but was at length perfectly satisfied
that it was unfounded. This objection relates rather to the right than
the policy of the United States to adopt the measure. If the United
States possesses the right of reprisal upon an honest and sound
interpretation of the laws of nations; if the conduct of Great Britain
towards the United States be sufficient to justify the excess of the
right, he believed the policy of exercising the right could never
tarnish the American character, nor lessen the credit of American
citizens hereafter. The world of nations, as well as individuals, will
easily see, that it was a measure of compulsion, not of choice; that,
although the United States believed, they regretted the necessity; that
they were not the authors of the original wrongs; that they had borne
them with patience, had used their endeavors to prevent the commission
of them; and that, when these wrongs were committed and repeated, the
United States possessed no other means of redress.

Under these circumstances, in the exercise of a substantial right, he
did not believe there could flow any consequential wrong.

The motive would be looked at, and it would furnish a complete
exoneration from blame, whilst the original aggressors would become
justly responsible for all the consequences.

Mr. G. said, he could not sit down without making some remarks upon the
fruits of the conduct heretofore observed by the United States. The most
pacific system has heretofore marked the character of the Government.
All America looked upon the late proclamation of neutrality as a
competent guarantee for peace. He had no doubt but that it was dictated
by the purest regard for peace. But what have been the fruits of it? He
did not mean to condemn the conduct of the Executive. Perhaps it was
suggested by the then existing state of things. He only intended to
show, that it had not met with the return it merited, and which was
reasonably expected from it.

It has not produced peace. A regard for peace has been construed into a
fear of war. A resistance of the feelings of the people for the cause of
France has been a palatable food for British arrogance and presumption.
Submission to aggression has invited new aggressions; appeals for
justice have been deemed testimonies of debility, till at length the
United States, after having been stripped of their citizens and
property, are upon the eve of a war, because they have not exerted their
rights at an earlier period. If this conduct should have been heretofore
wise and pacific, experience has taught us that it is no longer so;
nothing can be expected from the justice, the honor, or the moderation
of a court which has proved itself equally a stranger to them all; but,
before such a tribunal, acquiescence will beget injuries, injuries will
beget insults, and insults will beget contempt, degradation, and war.

Mr. SWIFT remarked that, on the first view of the subject, he had been
inclined to favor the proposition, not having attended minutely to the
distinction made by the laws of nations respecting the property of an
enemy liable to reprisal; but on a full investigation of the subject,
and mature deliberation, he was convinced that the proposition under
consideration would be a direct and manifest violation of the laws of
nations; he was, therefore, clearly and decidedly opposed to its
adoption. Gentlemen have said much respecting the insults and the
injuries which we have received from the British nation; but Mr. S.
conceived it to be unnecessary that gentlemen should describe their
insults and injuries in the highest colors to inflame our passions, and
to animate our resentment. He believed that every gentleman in the
committee deeply felt the indignity which had been offered to their
country, and was convinced that Great Britain had been guilty of a
violation of the laws of nations; but, under such circumstances, it was
our duty to conduct with coolness, candor, and moderation. He thought
that the heat and passion which had been manifested in the course of the
debate were inconsistent with that dignity and propriety which ought to
mark the deliberations of the Legislature.

Mr. S. observed, that the conduct of the British Court in regard to
their concealing in such a singular manner the Order of the 6th of
November, and the equivocal terms in which it was expressed, was greatly
to their dishonor. But he thought that the words _legal adjudication_,
would fairly admit of a construction that no American vessel that should
be taken pursuant to that order, could be liable to be condemned, unless
warranted by the laws of nations. There was reason to apprehend that
such was the intention of the British Cabinet; and that the Courts of
Admiralty in the West Indies, in their condemnations, had exceeded their
jurisdiction, and contradicted the design of the Court of London. Recent
intelligence confirmed the idea. No information of these illegal
transactions had yet been communicated to them. It was possible that
when that court were made acquainted with the injuries we had sustained
that they would award restitution or compensation. Mr. S. remarked that,
by the laws of nations, no nation had a right to make reprisal for any
injury till all other means of obtaining justice had failed; that it was
our duty in the first place to represent to the Court of Great Britain
the spoliations that had been made on our commerce by the illegal
condemnation of our vessels; that, till we had done this, the laws of
nations would not warrant us to make reprisals on the goods and effects
of the British nation. That there was a possibility of obtaining a
satisfactory explanation of their conduct and reparation for the
injuries we had suffered. It was, therefore, a proper subject of
negotiation. But, he said, if that nation will not do us justice, then
we are authorized to make reprisals.

Mr. S. then observed that, when we had taken such steps as would
authorize reprisal, we should be precluded by the laws of nations from
adopting the proposition under consideration. He said that a gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. MERCER) had yesterday asserted that _Burlamaqui_ was
the only authority among the writers on the laws of nations against the
measure; and that the opinion of _Vattel_ was in favor of it. Another
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. SMITH) had read a passage from _Vattel_,
which he considered as an authority in point, to justify the seizing of
private debts; but not debts due from the public. But if these gentlemen
had thoroughly examined _Vattel_, they would have found, instead of his
being an authority in their favor, he had in the most direct terms
maintained a contrary opinion. He then read a passage from _Vattel_,
that showed that the effects of an enemy in a country at the time of a
declaration of war cannot be seized, but that the owner is entitled to a
reasonable time to remove them; and another passage, which expressly
declared that, by the usage and custom of modern nations, public and
private debts are not the subject of reprisal. Mr. S. conceived that
these rules were founded in the highest wisdom; that all debts were
contracted under a sanction of public faith, and an understanding that a
war should not render them liable to seizure or confiscation; that a
moral obligation existed between the contracting parties for the payment
of the debts; and that no government could ever have a right to violate
a moral obligation. That, therefore, by the law of nations in all
instances where property comes into the possession of a nation by a
confidence reposed in their honor and faith, as in case of public or
private debts, such property can never be the subject of reprisal,
because this would be to authorize a breach of public faith; but
reprisals are always to be made on property in possession of the nation
who has done the injury, and which may be taken without any violation of
those principles, which ought to be held sacred in time of war.

Mr. S. remarked, that it had been suggested that the British nation had
been guilty of a violation of the laws of nations in their treatment of
us; and that, therefore, we were not bound to govern ourselves by that
law in our conduct towards them. This argument, however plausible, he
said, would not bear the test of examination; that all reprisals were
justified only on the principle that the nation on whom reprisal is made
has been guilty of a previous violation of the laws of nations. When a
nation disregards that general law by which the conduct of all
independent communities towards each other is to be regulated, the same
law points out the mode of redress. If there has been no violation of
that law, there can be no reprisal. If there has been a violation, then
the reprisal must be pursuant to the law, for it is the highest
absurdity to say, that because there has been an infraction of a law
which authorizes a certain mode of redress, that we may pursue a
different mode of redress in violation of the law which gives us the
right. This would be at once to renounce the whole system of the laws of
nations, and throw mankind back into a state of savage barbarity and
ferocity.

Mr. S. then adverted to the policy of the measure. He said, upon a fair
calculation, it would be found that the adoption of the proposition
would be productive of far greater injury to this country than the
amount of the losses sustained by our citizens in consequence of the
spoliations committed upon our commerce. It is evident that this
country, even admitting that a war should take place, would wish to
renew their commercial connection with Great Britain. But if, in
contempt of the law of nations, we seize on private debts, we shall for
ever forfeit all credit; no trust can be reposed in our citizens, and no
faith in our Government. No foreign merchants will ever deal on credit
with our citizens, from a well-guarded apprehension that, in case of a
war between the countries, the sacred nature of private contracts will
not protect them against the hand of a Government which has exhibited
the example of a deliberate violation of the laws of nations. When we
consider the immense advantages that can be derived from private credit
and national honor, it will be easy to imagine the infinite mischief
that must result from a disregard of those principles.

Mr. S. objected to the measure on the ground that he considered it to be
a declaration of war; and he did not think that the circumstances
required or justified our taking that step. He said that notwithstanding
the unwarrantable proceedings of the British nation; yet, no act had
been done by the British Court that clearly indicated an intention to
make war directly upon us, or that could be considered as direct and
intentional war, though we might consider many of their acts as just
causes of making war on our part.

The revocation of the Order of the 6th of November, the new instructions
of the 8th of January, and the explanation given to the merchants of
London, clearly evidenced that a war might be avoided with that nation.
While there was the remotest possibility of preserving our peace we
ought not to do an act which might endanger a war. While then the
conduct of the British Cabinet would admit of an explanation, while
there was a prospect that we might obtain by negotiation restitution of
the property of our citizens or compensation for the losses they had
sustained, we ought to pursue that mode; but if we proceeded to make
reprisals by adopting an illegal measure, it must certainly be deemed a
declaration of war.

The omission of the regular means of obtaining satisfaction by
negotiation, and an unwarrantable mode of reprisal, would certainly be
just causes of war. If we must be driven into a war, it would be of the
highest advantage to us to conduct it in such a manner as to convince
the people of Great Britain that we sincerely wished to avoid it, and
that the unjust and illegal proceedings of their own court have been the
sole cause of the war. In such a case we have reason to think, that so
great is the interest of that nation in preserving our commercial
connection, that a powerful party will be formed in our favor to oppose
the injustice of the Government. The sentiments of the people will be
against the war, and the court will find it extremely difficult to
maintain it under such circumstances.

But if, without demanding an explanation, we proceed to adopt rash,
violent, and unwarrantable measures, the spirit of the nation will rise
against us, and the people will join the court in prosecuting a war
which will be then deemed just and necessary.

Mr. S. then observed that we ought to take into consideration the
present situation of Europe; that the late successes of the French
nation had materially changed the political prospect. It was possible
that these successes had been the cause which had produced an alteration
in the views of the British Court. If events had happened which had
rendered the disposition of that nation less unfriendly and hostile, we
ought to take advantage of that circumstance, and not do any thing to
check the progress of that favorable disposition. He most sincerely
hoped that these successes would convince the combined powers of the
impossibility to conquer France, and produce a general pacification.

While such were the prospects, he ardently wished that a measure
repugnant to the principles of common honesty and common justice might
be rejected; and he hoped that no gentleman in the committee would vote
in favor of a proposition which would fix an indelible stigma on our
national character.

The committee now rose, and had leave to sit again.


THURSDAY, April 10.

_Non-Intercourse with Great Britain._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, on
the motion of the 7th instant, to prohibit all commercial intercourse
between the citizens of the United States and the subjects of the King
of Great Britain, so far as the same respects articles of the growth or
manufacture of Great Britain or Ireland.

Mr. SEDGWICK said he was sorry to rise, unprepared as he was, as he had
yesterday occupied as great a portion of the time of the committee as
perhaps he was entitled to. He had hoped some other gentleman would have
risen, who, having better arranged his ideas than himself, had a
preferable claim to the attention of the committee. Unprepared as he
was, he could not permit a question so important as that under
consideration to pass, without entering against it his solemn protest: a
question involving the dearest interests of our country, and threatening
to exchange the unexampled prosperity it had for some years enjoyed, for
all the horrors of war. He said he the more regretted the part he was
obliged to take on this occasion, because he feared he should, in his
vote, divide from many gentlemen whom he much respected; but as his
opinion had been formed on mature deliberation, neither his honor, his
conscience, nor the duty he owed to his country, would permit him to be
silent. If the evils he foresaw should result from the measure under
consideration, he wished it might be known that no part of them could
with justice be imputed to him as their author. If, therefore, he should
be so unfortunate as to stand single and alone, he would not fail to
oppose, as far as he could, the measure before the committee.

That injuries unprovoked and inexcusable had been inflicted by Great
Britain on this country, was acknowledged by all. No man felt stronger
indignation than himself at the insults which had been offered to our
country, and the wrongs which had been done to our citizens; no man was
less disposed tamely to bear the haughty and unprovoked aggressions of
any foreign nation; no man would go further to procure redress for our
wounded honor, and indemnification for our injured citizens. If, after
seeking reparation in the way dictated by prudence and humanity, happily
prescribed by the modern usages of civilized nations and commanded by
the principle of religion; if fair negotiation should be tried, and
justice not obtained, he would then seek redress by the means which God
and nature had given us. He remembered well the miseries and vices of
war, a war in which he had taken a part. It was a war of honor and
interest: he well remembered its circumstances and effects. He had lived
to see the wastes of that war repaired; to see a state of order and
security; to see his country progressing in all the means of happiness.
No man who loved his country, and rejoiced in its prosperity, would
consent, but from inevitable necessity, to see it again plunged in the
horrors of war.

Although all combined in opinion that our injuries were great, that they
must be redressed, yet no one had suggested that war should precede
negotiation. Respecting this, there was happily but one opinion. On
every side of the House, it was acknowledged a duty indispensable in our
present situation, to state our complaints of injuries to the authors of
them, and to demand redress. We were only divided as to the manner of
our application, and the circumstances under which our demand should be
made. He had already, on another occasion, taken the liberty to declare
his opinion of the line of conduct which was dictated by our present
situation; that we should manifest that we are averse to war; but,
should it become inevitable, we should encounter it with that undaunted
spirit which became freemen, insulted in their honor and injured in
their rights. He had the most perfect confidence in the bravery of our
citizens. At the same time that he knew they would never surrender their
rights, he was sensible that they would avoid, if possible, an
unnecessary and wanton effusion of blood.

Gentlemen had disclaimed any intention to adopt any measures tending to
war; they had said this measure had no tendency to such an event. This
assertion he could not believe, because this measure contained a threat
of inconvenience; and every threat of inconvenience was a cause of
irritation, and every irritation between nations who had already
differences to decide, undoubtedly tended to widen the breach, and of
course to produce war. If gentlemen were sincere in their declarations,
that all differences between America and Great Britain should be
terminated by peaceable negotiation, (and he would not call their
sincerity in question;) if Great Britain was proud, haughty, and
insolent, as she had been repeatedly denominated, was it probable, he
asked, that she would be more inclined to do us justice, by enlisting
her pride and insolence against us?

Mr. S. said, that the late violences by which the property of our
citizens had been plundered, were the immediate and avowed cause of the
present measure; that as yet no representation of these injuries--no
demand for compensation had been made; that such representation and
demand should precede hostility was conceded by all. It only then
remained to be considered, in what terms and manner such claim should be
exhibited. In terms, he said, doubtless firm and decided; but if it was
intended to produce the desired effect of peace, and to prevent
hostility, the language should be decent and conciliatory. He called on
gentlemen to show an instance, in modern times, where a nation
complaining of injuries, but desirous of peace, had accompanied their
demands of justice with threats of inconvenience? The opposite practice
was universally established, and on the known principles of human
nature. He appealed to the feelings of every honorable man in the
committee, whether demands for justice and reparation for injuries were
enforced by threats? whether repugnance to a compliance with such
demands was not created by such means? If every man felt the operation
of this principle, how much more powerful would it be on the minds of
the governors of a nation styled proud and insolent? He said he would
charge no man with an intention to involve this country in all the
horrors and desolating scenes of war. He could not, however, help
declaring, that war or amicable negotiation evidently must decide the
controversies between America and Great Britain, and that were his mind
determined on the former, he should recommend those measures which
gentlemen had brought forward to the consideration of the House, as the
most operative means of rendering the event certain, and of banishing
every prospect of accommodation. To seize on British property, to
confiscate or sequester British debts, to annihilate as far as in our
power her commerce, to starve her manufacturers, and to humble her
pride; these were infallible means of defeating negotiation, and of
uniting, as one man, that nation against us, in all the views of her
administration.

It had been said, that a principal benefit to be expected from the
institution of Republican Government was, that cool and temperate
reflection would direct the conduct of nations. How far our conduct on
this occasion had verified such an expectation, he wished gentlemen to
reflect. He had himself fondly hoped, in the Government of this country,
to have seen these principles exemplified, and all intemperance of
expression, and all the heat of passion, banished. It had been said,
that a statesman should be all intellect: never, surely, was a time or a
country, which more required than the present time, and by this country,
the exercise of cool temper, to the exclusion of passion, to conduct
with safety the political machine through surrounding dangers. He well
remembered a former non-importation agreement; he remembered, too, its
effects: they were such as might have been expected; they were such as
to convince every cool and considerate man, that the measure itself was
impolitic and unwise. It immediately raised the price of all articles of
importation to an exorbitant and extravagant height. Hence it was
immediately beneficial to importers and shopkeepers, and hence it may be
easy to understand why this measure was said to be so popular in
Philadelphia and other great towns. But as the Representatives of the
whole people of America, the Legislature ought to reflect, that in
proportion as this measure would operate beneficially to the dealers in
imported commodities, it would become burdensome and oppressive to those
who are best entitled to our regard--the substantial yeomanry of the
country--on whom we must principally depend for support, in the arduous
conflict which we had too much reason to apprehend. If we must
eventually support our claims by arms, the more property we could import
before the commencement of war, the more beneficial would it be. In that
case, the most wise and prudent policy would be, that which would give
the greatest extent to our credit; and, on the contrary, the most unwise
and wretched, that which would tend to deprive our people of the
ordinary means of supplies.

If this system should prevail, were we to receive British productions
through other countries? This would be injuring ourselves, without
affecting Great Britain. Was there any other country which could give us
the same supplies we wanted? There certainly was none. Were we to depend
on ourselves alone, the inconvenience would be great, if not
intolerable. What, he further asked, would become of our produce, in the
event contemplated? Without entering into a minute detail, he said, he
would venture to pronounce that a great part of it would perish on our
hands.

It was, he said, doubtful, how far at any time the proposed system might
go to distress Great Britain; but, at this time, it would afford
facility to her in recruiting her fleets and armies. Were manufacturers
and laborers thrown out of employment, and thereby deprived of bread,
they would be alike stimulated by want and despair to fight the battles
of their country against those who had reduced them to necessity. In
short, he saw nothing which should stimulate the Legislature to adopt
this measure, but passion without, and resentment within, these walls.
He saw nothing in the system itself, as it respected Great Britain, but
vain and ineffectual irritation; nothing in relation to our own country,
but defeat, wretchedness, and want.

He said he had taken the liberty to suggest to the committee certain
constitutional considerations. The answers which had been given had been
by no means satisfactory. It was incumbent on gentlemen who had so
frequently warned us of the danger of usurping power--who had so
frequently, and in language so animated, charged us to avoid grasping
power, by implication and construction; it was incumbent on those
gentlemen, would they preserve consistency of character, clearly to
demonstrate the authority which they assumed, that it might not be
supposed that their construction of the constitution was a convenient
accommodation to the existing circumstances. It was not now a question
whether the people had made a wise or prudent distribution of the powers
of their Government: they had declared their will, and that will we were
bound by every consideration of honor and duty to execute. In the
instrument under which we acted, they had declared that the PRESIDENT,
under certain modifications, should be their organ, to treat exclusively
with foreign powers. This authority, thus exclusively delegated,
includes all the terms on which a treaty could be formed. What was the
present measure? Prescribing the terms of treaty, and restraining the
constitutional power from treating on any other terms. If the
Legislature could prescribe those terms, in this instance, it may then
prescribe all the terms, in every instance; and of course control, in
all things, the exercise of that power.

To this reasoning two answers have been given; the one by a gentleman
from Pennsylvania, (Mr. SMILIE,) that the Legislature might make such a
law, because the Executive could repeal it. He really could not
comprehend the force of the reasoning; he was glad, however he could,
with perfect confidence, contradict the assertion, which he was sure
would be a very disgusting one to the people of America. There was, in
fact, in no instance, an authority given to the Executive to repeal a
constitutional act of the Legislature. The other answer was that given
by a gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. NICHOLAS,) that there could be no
objection to the exercise of this power, if it should be assented to by
the PRESIDENT and Senate. This was a still more extraordinary and
unsatisfactory answer than the other. It implied that the PRESIDENT and
Senate could make grants of power to this House not contained in the
constitution. To this he would answer, that all the powers which the
House could legally exercise, were expressed in the instrument under
which we acted; that those powers could be neither enlarged nor
abridged, by any man or body of men on earth, but in the way pointed out
by the instrument itself.

Mr. S. said these considerations he had expressed without any previous
preparation, as they occurred to his mind. Should gentlemen who viewed
the subject in the light he did remain silent, he would, in the further
progress of this measure, he pledged himself, with more orderly
arrangement, and he hoped with more perspicuity and force, address
himself to the consideration of this committee, or of the House. It
would avail little to tell him that his opposition would be unpopular;
no man more than himself wished the good opinion of his countrymen, but
no personal inconvenience, no loss of fame or popular affection, should
ever induce him to see his country threatened with evils incalculable in
number and duration, without warning her of her danger; a country which
he loved, and which he might, on this occasion, be permitted to say, he
had long served with honest fidelity, and without a single instance of
sinister or mere personal regard.

The committee now rose, and had leave to sit again.


FRIDAY, April 11.

_Non-Intercourse with Great Britain._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the motion of the 7th instant, to prohibit all commercial intercourse
between the citizens of the United States and the subjects of the King
of Great Britain, so far as the same respects articles of the growth or
manufacture of Great Britain or Ireland.

Mr. BOUDINOT first rose this day, and said: Mr. Chairman, in a question
of so much national importance, there needed no apology from any member
of the committee for claiming their attention, while he gave the reasons
for his vote. The impatience shown by his colleague, (Mr. CLARK,) or any
other gentleman, for the question, ought not to influence any member of
the committee. When the fate of a nation of as much consequence as the
United States, appeared to be suspended on a vote, the least to be
expected from gentlemen was, to act with freedom, deliberation and
independence. He supposed he should be among those who, at the taking of
the question, would probably be found in the minority. That this would
be his vote, if he was convinced that he should be single and alone. He
felt himself deeply and seriously affected with a view of the precipice
on which, in his apprehension, his country seemed to stand, and he
wished, for his own part, to take a full and deliberate view of it,
before he joined in precipitating a leap, that might not add to her
safety or happiness. Reasoning and not declamation should be expected
from gentlemen in favor of the measure under consideration.

He said, he would address himself to the judgments, and not to the
passions of the committee. He acknowledged it might fall to his lot to
mistake the true and essential interests of his country; but, if this
should be the case, he had the satisfaction of knowing that it would
arise from the most honest and upright intentions. It was, therefore, on
these principles, that he should proceed in giving his opinion on the
important resolution on the table.

But, before he went further, he could not forget the respectful
compliment paid yesterday by his honorable friend from Maryland (Mr.
SMITH) to his moderation and gray hairs; indeed, he should not have
taken it to himself, as he had the honor of having white, instead of
gray hairs, had not Mr. S.'s attention been immediately fixed on him. If
either age or moderation would command his worthy friend's close
consideration of this subject, he besought him, as well as the other
gentlemen of the committee, to join in attending to it calmly and
seriously for a few moments, before the die was cast. He said, he owed
much, on behalf of his country, to that gentleman for his services in
the field during the late war, when both his zeal and his passions were
rendered so eminently useful, that he could with pleasure apologize at
all times for his warmth and animation on any subject when their common
country was not to be affected. But would he permit him, earnestly, to
request that, with other members, he would call to mind, that they were
now the Representatives of four millions of people? That perhaps the
lives of thousands of their fellow-citizens were depending on a single
vote. That the welfare of a country dearer to them than life was at
stake. Gentlemen must, therefore, agree, that the question was a serious
one, and deserved to be treated with the most serious and deliberate
consideration. Judgment, and not resentment, should direct the final
determination, let it be what it may, and give a sanction to all their
measures.

He observed, that gentlemen against the question had been accused of
want of propriety, in looking calmly, and without the exercise of their
passions, on the sufferings of the unhappy prisoners at Algiers, and the
piratical spoliations of our fellow-citizens in the West Indies. Yes,
sir, said he, when he knew that it was neither passion nor declamation
that could afford effective relief to these suffering members of the
political body, he should continue to persist in that steady, serious,
and deliberate line of conduct, that, in his estimation, was only
calculated to produce that permanent and efficient aid and relief, which
their extreme distress so loudly called for; but, in his turn, he asked
gentlemen to give up their warmth on this occasion, that they might also
reflect, even without passion, on the number of their fellow-citizens
that must fall a sacrifice in the most successful war. Will not
gentlemen weigh well that vote, that may possibly increase the number of
mourning widows and helpless orphans?

These considerations had led him to consider the measure now proposed,
as of great moment and importance, and to wish it might be reasoned on
and considered in a manner becoming Legislators and Representatives of
United America, who have been sent here as her counsellors and trustees,
and to whom she has committed her best and most sacred interests. He
said, for argument's sake, and to simplify the debate, lest he should be
drawn into unnecessary disputation, he should concede for the present:
the constitutionality of the resolution proposed; the right of the
committee to originate and determine on the measure; the unprovoked
aggressions of Great Britain to warrant and justify the prohibition.

These arguments had been repeated and urged with great apparent force,
by gentlemen in favor of the affirmative side of the question; but, were
the principles arising from these facts sufficient to justify a
determination in favor of so harsh and unprecedented a proceeding,
without previously demanding an explanation and full indemnification,
agreeably to the customs and usages of other nations?

Would arguments of this kind satisfy our constituents, if they should
find themselves suddenly plunged into an expensive and ruinous war?
Would it not very naturally be asked, why were not the true interests of
the United States under these existing circumstances carefully inquired
into, and made the principal and leading object of attentive
consideration? In his opinion, this should peculiarly be the sum of
their present inquiry--was it not the duty of the committee critically
to examine into the preparation they were in for a step, that, in the
imagination of some gentlemen of character and reputation, at the last,
might precipitate our country into an immediate war? Were our ports and
harbors in any tolerable state of defence? Were our magazines and
arsenals properly supplied? Were our citizens in a state of organization
as militia? In short, did not the measure threaten a sudden transition
from a state of profound peace and happiness, unequalled by any nation,
into a state of war and bloodshed, without taking those previous and
prudent measures that might probably lead to an avoidance of this
national evil, or at all events enable us to meet it with decision and
effect?

Gentlemen had referred the committee to the conduct of America in 1776,
and the success of the late war has been urged for our encouragement.
The non-importation agreement has been recurred to as a precedent in
point. He said, he was well acquainted with most of the events of the
late Revolution. The first motions towards it, found him engaged in the
common cause, and his best endeavors to complete and secure it had never
since been wanting. He well remembered the consequences of the
non-importation agreement, and the sufferings of our brave
fellow-citizens from that imprudent measure. He had tracked them over
the frozen ground by their blood, from the want of shoes, and was
sensible that many had perished by the inclemency of the season, for
want of tents and clothing: that agreement was universally reprobated,
as a measure imprudently entered into on the principle of expecting to
be involved in a war, which had it been then contemplated, nothing could
have justified. Mr. B. appealed to the knowledge of many men who heard
him, that this agreement had often been urged to Great Britain, as a
conclusive evidence, that at the time of its adoption, America had not
the least intention of independence, or a separation from the mother
country; otherwise, she could never have been guilty of so impolitic a
resolution. He asked, then, if the committee would now repeat the
mistake with their eyes open, and expose our country to the same
misfortunes, and our fellow-citizens to a repetition of sufferings, by a
measure that promised not one important advantage to the Union that he
had heard of? In the late war, America had all the ports and harbors of
the other European nations open to her, but now circumstances would be
altered; in case of a war the very reverse would be our position,
excepting as to those of France.

Mr. B. confessed, that his arguments were founded on his conviction that
the resolution was a measure that would necessarily produce war,
immediate, inevitable war.

His reasons were drawn from the present state of Great Britain, being in
alliance with the principal powers of Europe, and under treaties to make
all wars, arising from the united opposition to France, a common cause.

The necessity she would have of employing her supernumerary hands, if
not in manufactures, in her armies and navies, to prevent trouble at
home, added to her old grudge against us on account of principles that
promise much trouble to all the monarchs of Europe: her late conduct
with regard to our trade, founded on the instructions of the 8th of
June, and 6th November last: her withholding the posts, contrary to
every principle of justice and good faith, and against the most positive
assurances: and lastly, from the anxiety to regain the territory between
the Lakes and the Mississippi;--he agreed that neither of these singly,
nor even the whole together, could justify her in her own opinion, in
making an open attack upon us, but might tempt her to construe the
measure before the committee into an act of hostility on our part, as
contrary to our professed neutrality. He said, it was a point conceded
in the laws of nations, that granting to one of the belligerent powers
advantages in your ports which were refused to another, was a breach of
neutrality.

The object with Great Britain would be, to convince her allies, that the
aggression arose on account of the war with France, to prevail on them
to make it a common cause; and in this they would not want plausible
evidence. It was not sufficient, he alleged, that we knew ourselves
innocent of the charge. We should be prudently careful not unnecessarily
to give reason to justify the construction. If the previous steps of
negotiation, used by all civilized nations, were neglected, they would
have the advantage of the argument, and we should injure ourselves. He
asked if any gentleman would say that a prohibition of commerce at the
eve of a war, or even the apprehension of it, was wisely calculated to
clothe an army, replenish our magazines, supply our arsenals, or provide
a revenue by which to support a war?

He wished every member had taken the trouble he had done, of looking
into their stores, inquiring what was on hand, calculating what would be
absolutely necessary, and reflecting seriously and dispassionately on
the sources of supply. If they had, he doubted not but that they would
find something more than passion and resentment necessary, to meet the
probable consequences of so premature a determination.

It was no uncommon thing for gentlemen to differ on important measures;
and he would not even insinuate, that he might not be found wrong in
these ideas, and wholly mistaken in his conjectures on this occasion,
but he begged members to consider the different ground on which the two
sides of the House stood. If the minority, of whom he expected to be
one, should in the end be found to have been alarmed with consequences
altogether unfounded, and that the issue proved successful to the peace
of our common country, they would have the happiness of rejoicing with
the majority in their superior wisdom and foresight; and though even
they should suffer in character, yet their country would be saved. But
if the minority should in the end be right, and our country should be
deluged in a destructive war, and her best interests be endangered by
the discovery of the mistake too late for redress, gentlemen in favor of
the resolution, would seriously regret that they had not at least used
more caution.

He said, as at present advised, he should give his vote against the
resolution. It would be from a thorough conviction, on the most careful
examination, that the resolution was against the interest and welfare of
the United States, all circumstances considered. And this he should do,
wholly regardless of the malevolent insinuations, that Britain had an
influence in that House. He felt a conscious dignity of mind, a virtuous
pride of heart, in believing that it was not all the wealth of that
opulent nation could purchase his influence to a single measure
injurious to his country; and under that conviction, he could not
believe there was a member of the committee in a different predicament.

He again repeated, that he should most sincerely rejoice, if this
measure should be adopted, to find, in the end, that his mind had viewed
it, as productive of consequences that were wholly unfounded; and,
although under his present view of the subject, considering it as
inimical to his country, he was bound in conscience to vote against it,
yet the councils of America were directed by superior wisdom, and that
this country had reaped the rich harvest of peace and happiness. But it
might now be asked, if it was meant passively to submit to the injuries
acknowledged on all hands to have been sustained by the imperious and
overbearing conduct of Great Britain? He answered no, by no means.

He would follow the examples and pursue the measures of other nations in
like circumstances--examples and measures founded in policy and sound
understanding. He would, by a special envoy, make known to that court
our sense of her unwarrantable aggressions; he would demand immediate
indemnification for the present, and security against future sufferings
of the like nature--insist on a categorical answer, after applying to
her justice and best interests; and if at last a war must be the only
means of obtaining justice, he would then (being previously prepared)
meet it as became a free and independent nation, trusting to the
righteousness of her cause.

By this means, the other nations of Europe would be made acquainted with
our complaints--become witnesses to our love of peace, and bear
testimony to the justice of our appeal to arms. He said, he had fully
considered the question--he had viewed it in every point of light--he
had endeavored to consider the consequences which most probably would
arise from it, and he could not convince his mind, that the measure
would be productive of any good to the United States, while it offered
many reasons to conclude, that it might be fraught with the greatest
evil. In case of the most successful war, America had nothing to gain,
while her loss of blood and treasure was sure and certain. He had once
flattered himself that this was the only country on the globe, whose
interest it was to be at peace with all the world, and at the same time
the interest of all the world to be at peace with us. But he feared we
had been so much actuated by a resentment of injuries received, as to
lose sight of our true interests under existing circumstances, and,
therefore, should be hurried into measures we might hereafter have
reason seriously to lament.

The committee now rose.


MONDAY, April 21.

_Non-Intercourse with Great Britain._

The House resumed the consideration of the resolution reported by the
Committee of the whole House on the fifteenth instant, to prohibit all
commercial intercourse between the citizens of the United States and the
subjects of the King of Great Britain, or the citizens or subjects of
any other nation, so far as the same respects articles of the growth or
manufacture of Great Britain or Ireland; and the amendment and
modification thereof, which was proposed on Friday last, being further
considered and debated, the said resolution was amended to read as
follows:

      "Whereas, the injuries which have been suffered, and may be
      suffered, by the United States, from violations committed
      by Great Britain on their neutral rights and commercial
      interests, as well as from her failure to execute the
      seventh[50] article of the Treaty of Peace, render it
      expedient for the interest of the United States, that the
      commercial intercourse between the two countries should not
      continue to be carried on in the extent at present allowed:

      "_Resolved_, That, from and after the first day of November
      next, all commercial intercourse between the citizens of
      the United States and the subjects of the King of Great
      Britain, or the citizens or subjects of any other nation,
      so far as the same respects articles of the growth or
      manufacture of Great Britain or Ireland shall be
      prohibited:"

And then the main question being put, that this House doth agree to the
said resolution, as amended, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas
58, nays 38, as follows:

      YEAS.--James Armstrong, Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin,
      John Beatty, Thomas Blount, Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel
      Christie, Thomas Claiborne, Abraham Clark, Isaac Coles,
      William J. Dawson, Henry Dearborn, George Dent, William
      Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, William B. Giles, James
      Gillespie, Nicholas Gilman, Christopher Greenup, Andrew
      Gregg, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, George Hancock,
      Carter B. Harrison, Thomas Hartley, John Heath, John
      Hunter, William Irvine, Matthew Locke, William Lyman,
      Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, Joseph McDowell, Alexander
      Mebane, William Montgomery, Andrew Moore, William Vans
      Murray, Joseph Neville, Anthony New, John Nicholas,
      Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Josiah Parker, Andrew Pickens,
      Francis Preston, Robert Rutherford, Thomas Scott, John S.
      Sherburne, John Smilie, Israel Smith, Samuel Smith, Thomas
      Sprigg, Thomas Tredwell, Abraham Venable, Francis Walker,
      Benjamin Williams, Richard Winn, and Joseph Winston.

      NAYS.--Fisher Ames, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne,
      Benjamin Bourne, Lambert Cadwalader, David Cobb, Peleg
      Coffin, Joshua Coit, Samuel Dexter, Uriah Forrest, Dwight
      Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue,
      James Gordon, Daniel Heister, James Hillhouse, William
      Hindman, John Wilkes Kittera, Henry Latimer, Amasa Learned,
      Richard Bland Lee, Francis Malbone, Theodore Sedgwick,
      Jeremiah Smith, William Smith, Zephaniah Swift, Silas
      Talbot, George Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull,
      John E. Van Allen, Peter Van Gaasbeck, Peleg Wadsworth,
      Jeremiah Wadsworth, Artemas Ward, John Watts, and Paine
      Wingate.


MONDAY, April 28.

ALEXANDER GILLON, from South Carolina, appeared, produced his
credentials, and took his seat.


MONDAY, May 12.

_The Embargo._

On a motion made and seconded, that the House do come to the following
resolution:

      "_Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of
      the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That
      the present Embargo be continued, and every regulation
      therein shall be in full force until the twentieth day of
      June next:"

Mr. PARKER observed, that, although he was much in favor of the Embargo
when it was first enacted, yet, at the present time, he thought it would
be improper to continue it.

At that time, a system was formed by a majority of the House, for
carrying into effect measures that might counteract the nefarious
practices of the British Government on our commerce; that the first
object which presented itself to him was to lay an embargo, in order
that the large fleets and armies of the British in the West Indies, who
were there on a design to conquer the islands of our friends, and had
committed robberies on neutral property, that would disgrace a banditti
of pirates; and, in order that they should be deprived of the supplies
which they might require, as well as to prevent the further capture of
our vessels, and treating the American flag and citizens with insult and
cruelty, I thought that would be the stepping-stone to other measures
which were concerted to oppose the insults of our enemies, and doing
justice to our citizens, whose property had been robbed and persons
abused by British armed vessels; that this was to be followed by a bill
which had passed the House of Representatives by a great majority for
breaking off all commerce with Great Britain after November next, and
this was to be followed by an arrestation of British property, to
reimburse our citizens for the losses we had sustained; that, as the
second measure was rejected by the voice of the VICE PRESIDENT in
Senate, which had broken the chain; and, as the PRESIDENT had appointed
a pacific Envoy Extraordinary to the British Court, and as the fleets
and armies of the British in the West Indies, under Sir John Jervis and
Sir Charles Grey, had captured most of the French islands, he thought it
would be improper to continue the Embargo, the more so as the PRESIDENT,
by slipping in and arresting the progress of the Representatives, no
doubt, with a certain hope of the continuance of peace, and being
responsible therefor, he deemed it best not to interfere, and to give up
every further prospect of hostility, until the event of the mission to
Britain shall be known.

Another reason that operated very forcibly with him, was, that our
French friends were much in want of provisions; and, as there was no
prospect of discriminations in their favor, which he had wished for, he
should give it as his opinion, that it would be improper to continue the
Embargo after the 25th instant.

From the commencement of the administration of this Government, certain
gentlemen, and particularly those of the Eastern States, had been
charged with regulating their political conduct by local considerations.
They had disregarded the interest of every part of the United States,
but the particular districts of country from which they came. The charge
was now reversed: those districts have suffered infinitely beyond their
neighbors, by the effects of those measures of which we complain; and,
notwithstanding all this, the Representatives of those districts have
all at once so totally changed, have become so tame, so torpid, as to be
regardless of the interests and sufferings of their immediate
constituents. Nor (said he) is this all; our kind Southern brethren
have, from pure disinterested benevolence and with a most acute
sensibility, determined to procure for our constituents that redress to
which we are indifferent.

It had been said, that the gentlemen who were in favor of
indemnification had opposed every measure of energy. They had, indeed,
opposed certain measures to which they would give a very different
appellation. They had not only favored, but had been the authors of
every measure of respectable efficiency, as well in respect to force, as
the means of defraying the expenses which our situation had rendered it
necessary should be incurred. He need not say who had opposed those
measures.

Mr. FITZSIMONS hoped that the House would not agree to the resolution.
He stated the numerous inconveniences which had arisen from the measure
already. The system of British conduct was now altered. There were at
present many ships detained in the harbors of the United States, that
were cleared out before the Embargo was laid. Their detention, as far as
he could learn, was contrary to the common practice of nations, in cases
of that nature.

Mr. W. SMITH said, that the reason why the Embargo had been laid on was,
the piracies of Britain. The second orders of the 8th of January last
had produced no alteration for the better in the conduct of her
privateers. We had yet heard nothing from the agents despatched to the
West Indies; and we ought not to revoke the Embargo till some change of
system, on the part of Britain, should warrant the measure; we knew
nothing about the actual state of matters in the West Indies. The
newspapers were filled with stories of releasing American vessels in one
island, and of capturing them in another. One captain had come to this
port, and told a story to the editor of a newspaper. He then went to
another publisher of a paper, and told a story _quite opposite_! The
House could make nothing of such a farrago--such a jumble of
contradictory reports. The public sentiment was against taking off the
Embargo.

Mr. WADSWORTH was against the motion. It had been said that American
ships did not arrive from the West Indies. They did arrive in great
numbers, and as quickly as could be expected. From this he inferred that
the ravages of British privateers had, in a great measure, ceased.
Insurance at present is not higher than ten per cent. A million of
bushels of salt will be wanted this season in the American States; and
they will be a million of dollars dearer, if the Embargo is kept on,
than if it is taken off. Mr. W. said, that he had got home all his
importations for this year. He had nothing, therefore, to apprehend on
his own account, from the continuance of the Embargo. It was his firm
opinion, and he could declare it upon his honor to be so, that, if the
Embargo continued, the value of his own imports would rise one hundred
per cent. He believed that salt would rise to three dollars a bushel.

Mr. NICHOLAS had approved of the Embargo when imposed; and he now hoped
that it would be repealed by as great a majority as that which voted for
laying it on.

Mr. GILES recommended a discontinuance of the Embargo. The gentleman
from South Carolina had urged the public sentiment as a reason for
keeping it on. He was glad to hear that the public sentiment was an
argument in that House for the adoption of measures; and he was
particularly highly pleased that this respect for the public sentiment
had now come from the quarter from which it was at present announced. He
hinted that the gentleman (Mr. W. SMITH) had not always paid an equal
deference to public sentiment. He was for the Embargo being taken off,
because he understood that France would suffer considerably by its
continuance; because it would materially affect the American farmers;
and because, as the danger was now more fully known, merchants would
beware of the danger, and provide more or less for their individual
security. Farmers in the United States had entered into contracts of
various kinds. For the discharge of these, they depended on the sale of
their crops. He was originally for the measure, which had answered many
good purposes, by preventing American vessels from falling into the
hands of British privateers. He was likewise for it, as connected with a
system of other measures. [Mr. G. alluded to the sequestration of
British property, &c.] These measures had been laid aside; and
therefore, he would now likewise be for laying this aside.

Mr. DAYTON said, that he had been in favor of laying the Embargo, both
in the first month and in the second month of its continuance; but he
should now be opposed to the proposition on the table, and against
extending the Embargo beyond the 25th of this month, when the present
one would expire. He would not be understood to found any part of his
conduct upon a belief that there was a returning sense of justice in the
Government of Great Britain, or that there had been any material change
in the predatory system. He lamented that any of those who were on the
same side should have entertained such a belief, and especially that
they should have mentioned it as an argument against the motion. Where,
he asked, was the proof that the instructions of the 8th of January had
effected a change favorable to this country in the conduct of that
nation? If there was such a change, as some gentlemen asserted, where
were the two or three hundred American vessels that have been captured
and carried into the British West India Islands? If we look for them in
our ports they are not to be found. It is true, that now and then a
solitary vessel enters into our harbors, escaped from British
depredation; but you would hear the seamen who arrived felicitating one
another almost as much as if they had escaped from the clutches of
pirates. He said that those instructions might make them more complacent
highwaymen, but still they would be highwaymen. They might practice a
little more of the solemn mockery of judicial process; they might be a
little more observant of forms; but they had since continued, and would
probably continue to rob us. He mentioned those things to show that
there were other considerations which influenced him. These were, that
an embargo would operate hereafter most unfavorably for ourselves,
particularly our farmers, and for our allies, the French. Produce, he
said, would certainly fall much lower, if we continued the Embargo
longer than the 25th. Our farmers and planters depend upon the sale of
that produce to pay their debts, or to purchase necessaries for their
families; and the resolution on the table would operate doubly hard for
them, not only in lowering the value of the product of their farms, but
by increasing the price of every foreign article which they would need
to purchase from the merchants. The injury which its further continuance
would occasion to our allies, the French, had great weight with him in
opposing it. It could not be denied, that France was much more dependent
upon this country for supplies of provisions, in her present arduous
struggle, than any other nation, or than all others; and he inferred
from thence, that there could not be a disposition in that House to
extend a prohibition which should add to the sufferings of those who are
fighting in the cause of liberty against the most powerful combination
that was ever formed to crush it.

Mr. DEXTER was likewise for taking off the Embargo. It was become pretty
evident that the United States are not in immediate danger of
hostilities. It was difficult to continue the Embargo till we could hear
from Mr. Jay, which might require six months. Farmers suffer as much by
the present restraint upon commerce as they would suffer by war.

Mr. CLARK was for letting the Embargo die of itself. He did not think it
quite fair for gentlemen all to speak upon one side of a question. There
was another embargo that Mr. C. wished to see taken off as soon as it
could be done with propriety. We have been embargoed in this House, said
he, for six months, and if we persist in this habit of making fine
speeches upon every occasion, it will be a long time before this second
Embargo can be taken off.

Mr. GILLON desired that the matter might have a full discussion. He and
his colleague from Charleston supported the motion by order of their
constituents.

Mr. HUNTER then laid on the table a letter subscribed by forty-eight of
the merchants and other citizens of Charleston, who had suffered by the
piracies of Britain, with a list of the ships thus taken, and an
estimate of their value. The letter was read by the Clerk.

Mr. GILLON then proceeded to make a variety of remarks in support of the
motion before the House. He apologized, if any part of what he had to
say, should seem a digression, as the subject was of so great an extent.
Mr. G. said, that he remembered, in that Assembly, in 1777, they had
used to flatter themselves, that the Eastern States would build ships,
and the Southern would supply them with cargoes; and they would mutually
support the interest of each other. He regretted that this cordiality
was not, on the present occasion, so ardent as could have been wished.
As to Britain relaxing her outrages in the West Indies, the sole object
of that nation is gain, no matter by what means it could be obtained.
Mr. G., to show the infamy of Britain in its proper light, quoted some
passages from the letter of a captain in the West Indies, who had
received the most unprovoked and the most horrible treatment from these
miscreants.

Mr. G. hoped that the Embargo would continue for a longer period than to
the 25th of June, the term specified in the resolution. He recommended
that the House should adjourn but for a short time, and continue the
restriction till they sat again. It had been said, that this step would
injure our allies; that the price of imports would rise, while that of
exports would fall. He would be one of the last men willing to distress
our allies. He hoped that the Embargo might be restricted, so as to let
the French import from this country whatever they wanted in American
bottoms. This would promote our commerce, if gentlemen acquainted with
that business considered the measure as practicable. Reverting to the
remarks of Mr. WADSWORTH, Mr. G. observed, that salt is at present only
three shillings and sixpence or four shillings a bushel in Charleston.
The price has fallen there, and it has not even risen at Philadelphia.
He did not see much danger of a rise in the price of foreign articles
here; merchant ships came at present frequently to this country. They
encourage one another, as sure of a high market; and as to the Embargo,
they say that it cannot hold long. If the British depredations have
ceased, it certainly is not owing to any change of principle in them.
But our ships are kept safe at home in our harbors; their British system
changes with the course of events in Europe. No nation is more insolent
in prosperity; none more humiliated in adversity. Mr. G. concluded by
expressing a hope that some way might be contributed for keeping on an
embargo, without injury to the farmers. If this could not be done, it
must be taken off.

Mr. MURRAY hoped that the resolution would not succeed. Indeed he
thought, that a total refusal of its terms would consist of our true
policy. He said, he was among those who supported the first unsuccessful
vote for an embargo, and had in each following vote been for it. There
were two reasons that had led him to think the Embargo a good measure,
when it was laid, and continued: the risk the American trade and seamen
were exposed to from that infamous course of depredation which followed
the Order of the 6th of November, and the evidence that flowed from that
order of an intention to involve this country in war. The depredation on
our trade had been immense; and the Embargo was not only defensible as a
good cautionary measure, to secure the seamen and vessels of this
country from violence, but by shutting out our vessels from the
opportunity of being longer exposed to British depredation, the
occasions would be diminished that would bring up the irksome question,
how far Government is bound to indemnify citizens for losses sustained
under a violation of the laws of nations? The same act under which the
depredations had been committed, manifested a spirit of hostility that
betrayed the probability of war. He had believed when he voted for the
Embargo, that there was something of system in the November 6th Order.
He thought that order was the first movement of a system of hostile
operations, which some intermediate events had set aside: of this, the
Order of the 8th January, and the subsequent dismissal of the captured
vessels, was evidenced. If the depredations have ceased, and the vessels
captured have been released, and if the probability of war be
diminished, the leading motives that justified so strong a measure had
ceased to operate. There can be no doubt that vessels that have been
taken have been released: the daily arrivals in various parts of the
Union prove this. Had the chance of war continued in full force, the
continuance of the Embargo, as is designed by this resolution, though it
stood on a prodigious sacrifice of present interest, would have been not
only defensible, but perhaps essential. It would not only prove
negatively a benefit in the preservation of our shipping and seamen, but
would operate, in the most sensible manner, as a withdrawal of supplies
from the power with whom hostilities might be expected. This great
sacrifice to policy he could not now believe to be necessary longer than
the term assigned by law--the 25th of this month.

The reason why he had voted for the continuance of the Embargo, though
we had received intelligence of the revocation of the obnoxious and
shameful Order of 6th November, was, because he had lost all confidence
in the justice or wisdom of those who issued it; as he thought the first
unjust by premeditation, he had suspected the last as insidious;
however, this we know, that they have released our vessels. So very
extensive was the influence of embargoes in this country, that nothing
but dire necessity could justify them; a country with small capital and
yet of immense export, and a great part of that export of a quality that
could not endure the summer's heat. In such a moment as the present,
where evidence of the opinions of the public was so contradictory, he
would endeavor to do what appeared to be the broad and general interest.
There was, he believed, a field open to speculation by the doubt
entertained of this day's decision: a variety of opposite interests of
course was thus created, and opinions and wishes might be expected out
of doors from the different views of self-interest. Those who had to
purchase grain, for instance, calculating on the almost certain
termination of the Embargo some time this summer, and foreseeing great
prices in foreign markets, might, if they were actuated by selfish
principles, wish to see this resolution succeed. As the aspect of
affairs had certainly considerably altered, and the reasons that led to
the Embargo had so diminished as no longer to warrant either a dread of
the capture of our vessels or the apprehension of war, (at least
speedily,) he hoped the resolution would fail of success.

Mr. BOUDINOT asked what assurance we have that Britain will not play the
same game over again that she has done already? Does not that new order
prohibit, as much as ever, American vessels from carrying provisions to
the West India Islands? As to the Republic of France, he could make
great allowances for their situation; but, after all, what apology could
there be made for the starving of American sailors in French harbors! Is
this proper! These men, as Mr. B. had been well informed, were at this
moment actually starving, and in want of the common necessaries of life.
If the Embargo is taken off, this must be done upon the principle that
it ought never to have been laid on. We must expect, that if our ships
go back again to the West Indies, they will be taken as formerly. He
could wish to stand by the measure, since it had once been adopted, and
let the West Indies see that we can starve them out; let them see that
we can make them feel the effects of our measures. He did not wish to
continue the Embargo one moment longer than public necessity requires;
but to have made the merchants and farmers suffer as they have done for
two months, and then to have the business end in nothing, was rather
vexatious.

Mr. W. SMITH defended his resolution. It had been alleged, that
emigrants wanting to get back to the West Indies, were prevented by this
Embargo. Government had provided for that. The point, it is said, has
been determined, that the West Indies depend on America for subsistence.
He asserted, on the contrary, that this point was not determined; and
this revocation will prove to the world, that we are as eager to sell,
as they are to buy. He hoped that there was a spirit in this country to
stand the consequences of the measures. He next replied to the ironical
applause bestowed upon him in a former part of this debate, by Mr.
GILES, for his recently assumed respect to the public sentiment. He said
that it is often very difficult to say what public sentiment is. The
member himself had often opposed the public sentiment: he had opposed
the arming of frigates, and yet that was surely a popular measure. At
the same time, he hoped that no member would vote for a measure that his
judgment condemns, because it is said to be a popular one; as this would
reduce him to a mere puppet--a machine. It had been said, that this
Embargo should be taken off on account of France; but our vessels, if
that obstacle is removed, will not go to France: they will go to the
West Indies, where they can get thirty dollars a barrel for their flour,
which they cannot get in France.

Mr. S. next adverted to the other Embargo, upon the members of the
House, referred to by Mr. CLARK. He hoped that public business would not
be treated with levity, and that they would rise, when they found it
convenient; but if the gentleman was so very impatient to get home, he
could be very well spared by the House.

Mr. CLARK rose, and said a few words in reply.

Mr. GILES approved of the idea of Mr. GILLON, as to the limiting the
Embargo to the sailing of vessels for the West Indies: and a resolution
to this effect was laid by the member on the table. Mr. G. thought this
a proper discrimination, and, if it could be effected, the true ground
that the House ought to take. As to what the farmers of America had
suffered by the Embargo, Mr. G. believed that there was not a single
planter in the district which he represented, who would not rather burn
his wheat, and dance round the bonfire, than sell it to the West Indies
to feed the British army. He would have brought forward a motion of this
nature sooner, but he had not thought that it would succeed, nor did he
think yet that it would. It would, however, show his sentiments, and he
hoped the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. W. SMITH,) if he was
anxious to support his reputation for consistency, would give his vote
for the resolution.

And then the main question being taken, that the House do agree to the
said resolution, it passed in the negative--yeas 13, nays 73, as
follows:

      YEAS.--John Beatty, Elias Boudinot, Lambert Cadwalader,
      George Dent, Alexander Gillon, Benjamin Goodhue, John
      Hunter, Francis Malbone, Joseph Neville, John Page, William
      Smith, Artemas Ward, and Richard Winn.

      NAYS.--Fisher Ames, Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin,
      Thomas Blount, Benjamin Bourne, Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel
      Christie, Thomas Claiborne, Abraham Clark, David Cobb,
      Peleg Coffin, Joshua Coit, Isaac Coles, William J. Dawson,
      Jonathan Dayton, Henry Dearborn, Samuel Dexter, William
      Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert,
      William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Nicholas Gilman, Henry
      Glenn, James Gordon, Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg,
      Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, George Hancock, Daniel
      Heister, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Amasa Learned,
      Richard Bland Lee, Matthew Locke, William Lyman, Nathaniel
      Macon, James Madison, Joseph McDowell, Alexander Mebane,
      William Montgomery, Andrew Moore, Peter Muhlenberg, William
      Vans Murray, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr,
      Josiah Parker, Andrew Pickens, Francis Preston, Thomas
      Scott, Theodore Sedgwick, John S. Sherburne, John Smilie,
      Israel Smith, Zephaniah Swift, Silas Talbot, George
      Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, Thomas Tredwell, Jonathan Trumbull,
      John E. Van Allen, Philip Van Cortlandt, Peter Van
      Gaasbeck, Abraham Venable, Peleg Wadsworth, Jeremiah
      Wadsworth, Francis Walker, John Watts, Benjamin Williams,
      and Joseph Winston.


THURSDAY, May 15.

_Indemnity for Spoliations._

Mr. GOODHUE moved the following resolution:

      "Whereas it is a primary object in the establishment of
      Civil Government, to protect the persons and property of
      its citizens from the violence of nations as well as
      individuals; and whereas many of the citizens of the United
      States have suffered great losses, by spoliation made on
      their commerce, under the authority of Great Britain, in
      violation of the law of nations and the rights of
      neutrality,

      "_Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of
      the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That
      the United States will guarantee an indemnification to all
      such citizens of the United States, whose property may have
      been captured and confiscated, under the authority of Great
      Britain, in violation of the law of nations, and the rights
      of neutrality."

Mr. GOODHUE moved that the resolution might be referred to a Committee
of the whole House, which was seconded by Mr. DEXTER. It was then moved,
by way of amendment to the motion, by Mr. DAYTON, to add these words,
"to whom was referred the resolution, for the sequestration of British
debts:" to which Mr. GOODHUE objected, because, he said, the subjects
were distinct and separate in their nature and ought not to be combined.
His resolution went only to establish the principle of indemnification,
by guaranteeing it to the sufferers, leaving the fund from which it
should be made (in case Great Britain should refuse to do us justice) to
a future consideration. That whether British debts were sequestered or
not, he said, the United States were bound to see that indemnity was
made to the merchants whose property had been kidnapped in a secret,
clandestine manner, while pursuing a lawful trade, under the authority
of this Government and law of nations, or to give them an opportunity of
indemnifying themselves by making reprisals. That it was well known
there was great opposition to the sequestration of British debts, and it
was very doubtful whether such a measure would ever be adopted; and if
this resolution was to be referred to the same committee, and become
connected with that, he should very much despair of ever getting any
indemnification. That British debts were a very precarious and uncertain
fund; and the idea of ever getting indemnification from that source,
would operate as a delusion. That if sequestration, under any
circumstances, could be proper, it was highly improper at this time,
when an Envoy Extraordinary had just been despatched to Great Britain;
and more so, as we had discontinued the Embargo, which would put all our
remaining vessels in the power of that nation. He should, therefore,
consider an agreement to the amendment as amounting to a determination
not to consider the subject, at least for the present session.

In support of the amendment, it was argued, that the two subjects had an
intimate connection with each other, and never ought to be separated;
that British debts and British property were the natural and only funds
for paying British depredations, and if indemnity was not given this
way, it ought not to be given at all; that, as it was probable the
resolution for sequestration would lie dormant for some time, it was
best to refer this to the same committee, that they might sleep
together. The amendment was supported by Messrs. LYMAN, NICHOLAS,
SMILIE, DEARBORN, and MADISON.

Mr. DAYTON made a number of pointed remarks on what he considered as the
total futility of such a resolution. He looked on it as nothing better
than an awkward attempt to gain popularity. He complained bitterly of
the injustice of bringing up this motion alone; because when he voted
against it, it might be surmised that he was unfavorable to the redress
of the injuries of a certain class of citizens. He was for redressing
their wrongs, and he had marked out to the House the only effectual way
in which these wrongs should ever be redressed, viz: the sequestration
of British property. He adverted to an expression made use of, some days
ago, by Mr. SEDGWICK, who had called this a _mad_ project. Mr. D. was of
opinion that the _mad-cap_ might with propriety be transferred to a
different situation, which he specified to the House. He said, that we
were frequently told of the justice due to the British subjects. Be it
so. But was there no justice also due to the people of the United
States? And what justice could there be in attempting to make the
American citizens pay for depredations committed by British privateers,
when we had in our hands British property? Were we not bound to take as
much care of our own interest, as of that of other people? It had been
said, that as a negotiation was to commence under an Ambassador
Extraordinary, that this measure would impede its success. He was, on
the contrary, convinced that this was the only step that could be likely
to insure the success of Mr. Jay's mission. It would teach Britain to
give up her infamous conduct. It would convert, in the literal sense of
the word, every English manufacturing house, that had debts due to it in
this country, into an American negotiator; and they would, for their own
sakes, compel their Government to do justice to the American merchants.

Mr. D. scouted the idea of taxing America, to pay for the depredations
committed in the West Indies. Supposing, what every gentleman in the
House knew to be impossible, that if Congress actually were to pass such
an act, the people would not submit to pay their money for any such
purpose.

Mr. SEDGWICK said, it certainly had not been his wish that the question
should be brought forward at the present time. As it was, however,
before the House, as he approved the motives of his colleague, who made
the motion, and as he perfectly concurred with him in opinion on the
subject, he would make a few concise observations. He believed, that in
a Government such as that of this country it was the peculiar duty of
those to whom the administration has been committed, to extend security
and protection to all the interests, and redress for all the injuries of
the citizens. That inexcusable and unexampled injuries had been
perpetrated, and an immense value in property unjustly spoiled, and that
the honor of our country had been insulted, without provocation, were
facts admitted by all. Those whose property had been the sport of wanton
violation, which, in many instances, had reduced the sufferers from ease
and affluence to want and misery, came forward and demanded redress and
indemnification. That they were entitled to such indemnification, from
the nature of our social compact, he understood to be agreed by every
gentleman.

[Here Mr. S. was interrupted by several members; and Mr. NICHOLAS and
Mr. SMILIE declared that in their opinion, there was no obligation to
indemnify the sufferers, except it were done out of a fund to be formed
by the sequestration of British property.]

Mr. S. said he was obliged to the gentlemen for setting him right; till
now he had believed that the right of the sufferers to indemnification
was denied by none. If this, however, was really a question yet to be
decided, it was due to the sufferers, it was due to our own honor, to
decide it without delay. It was asked, by what means is the Government
to administer redress? They were first to apply to the Governments which
had inflicted the injuries, to state their nature and extent, and to
demand, in unequivocal terms, redress. This business, notwithstanding
all the opposition which had been made, was happily in a proper train.
He hoped and believed that the application would be effectual. It might,
however, fail; and in that case, he was free to declare that we owed it
to our honor and to our injured citizens, to attempt redress by means of
the last resort. In that unhappy event, the interests of the sufferers
must be involved with the general interests of the nation, and must
abide the ultimate result of war. But if satisfaction should not be
obtained by negotiation, and should the Government, from any political
considerations, not seek redress by force, in such events the sufferers
would have a just claim on their country for indemnification. The
question now immediately before the House was, to refer the motion for
indemnification to the Committee of the Whole on the subject of
sequestration. This was not fair, as it respected that part of the House
who approved an engagement to indemnify, and who would never consent to
sequestration. It was not fair as respected the sufferers, because he
believed there was not a gentleman in the House who supposed that the
measure of sequestration would prevail. He was astonished that any
should believe that it ought to be adopted. He, himself, without
hesitation, approved of engaging to indemnify the sufferers; but at the
same time, with all his heart, he abhorred sequestration and
confiscation of debts, as the measures which all civilized nations had
for more than a century abandoned as immoral and unjust. He would not
now enter into a discussion of the question of sequestration. Whenever
it came directly under consideration, he pledged himself to undertake to
prove that it was against the law of nations, that it was immoral,
unjust, and impolitic. He had been sorry to perceive that the feelings
of the mover of that proposition (Mr. DAYTON) were wounded, by the terms
in which gentlemen had spoken of his motion. He himself, in his
conscience, believed it to be immoral and unjust; and, as such, he felt
himself bound as a man of honor to give it his strenuous opposition. The
gentleman surely could not reasonably expect that independent men would
sacrifice opinion to politeness or to friendship. All he could do, and
that he did with pleasure, was to declare that he believed the
gentleman's motives were pure and upright, and that he had a perfect
confidence in the correctness of his moral sentiments. Viewing the
subject in the light he had expressed, he appealed to the candor and
fairness of gentlemen, to what tended the combining of those irritative
questions of indemnification and sequestration, but to wound the
feelings and evade the just application of the sufferers? Gentlemen had
charged his colleague, and those who had supported his motion, with
attempting, by these means, meanly to court popularity. To refute this
charge would, in his opinion, be unnecessary, because no well-informed
man in America could believe it. He did not know that the opinions which
were held by his friends and himself on this subject, were popular; it
was sufficient that they were believed to be just. Was he, however,
disposed to recriminate, by disclosing motives which were not avowed,
but concealed, he could tell a tale, which, he believed, could be heard
with effect.

Mr. GOODHUE spoke a few words, in direct opposition to what had been
advanced by Mr. DAYTON. The two propositions ought to be discussed
separately. We had sent a negotiator to Britain, and a sequestration
would put an end to his business. The citizens of the United States
ought to be taxed, in the mean time, to pay these losses; and it was
possible that a sequestration might, hereafter, be thought advisable. He
very strongly pressed the idea of a tax to this end. It would be a
proceeding of the most superlative impropriety, to lay on such a
sequestration at this particular juncture, when we had just agreed to
take off the Embargo, because our ships would go to England, and be all
seized, by way of reprisal.

Mr. CLARK recommended that both propositions should be laid aside for
the present, and be suffered to take a sweet nap together, till a more
convenient time. He spoke with much contempt of the notion of taxing the
people of this country to pay for the ravages of Britain. The Court of
London would say to the world: "You see that we acted right: you see
the United States think so likewise; for they themselves pay their
merchants."

Mr. GILES agreed with Mr. CLARK: but as there is a necessary sameness in
the arguments on this question, and as they have already been detailed
in so many different forms, it seems needless to repeat them over again
so frequently. He said that when this tax came to be levied, every
farmer would say, every man in America would say, "We shall have nothing
to do with this business. Why don't you indemnify British depredations
out of the British property that is within your grasp?" He had heard
that Congress ought to decide an abstract proposition, viz: that this
Government was, in any event, bound to pay the recent losses of its
merchants by sea; and then proceed to assign funds for the payment. He
thought that before Congress undertook any such engagement, they ought
at least to be possessed of the money requisite to discharge it. He
hoped that the House would never proceed to a vote in support of any
abstract axiom, especially where taxes and public money were concerned,
till they had carefully digested the collateral circumstances.

Mr. DEXTER spoke against the amendment. He said, that very strong
reasons existed both for taking into consideration a proposition for
indemnity to the sufferers, and also against connecting it with
sequestration or any other subject. Each ought to stand or fall on its
own merits. The sufferers were numerous, and deserving citizens; they
had waited a long time, and had a right to know, before the close of the
session, what protection they were to expect from the Government of
their own country. Sequestration, without a change of political
circumstances, would never pass both Houses of the Legislature; to
connect them, then, would be to deny relief, without even examining the
principles on which they claim it. He said, British debts had been
called the only proper and natural funds: in his opinion, they would be
no fund at all, even if sequestration could be adopted. The debts would
never be collected; and not only so, but sequestration would be the
beginning of hostilities, and war must ensue; this, at the same moment,
would prevent all hope of obtaining justice from Britain, and also
discharge our own Government from every obligation to indemnify. Mr. D.
said he would state what, in his opinion, was the proper and natural
fund--the money to be demanded of Britain by our Envoy Extraordinary.
Should this fail, the Government of America would either pay the
sufferers, or grant them letters of marque and reprisal. This, he said,
is the constant course of nations, and this the sufferers have a right
to demand, as a counterpart of their allegiance. Mr. D. said, it had
been objected that the British Government would be encouraged by it to
refuse a recompense. This, if true, would be a serious objection, for he
had always viewed negotiation as affording the only probable chance for
indemnity to the sufferers. If a recompense be refused by Britain, war
will be the consequence. The objection, however, he thought, would be
entirely removed, by attending to the resolution itself. It is not, he
said, a provision for taking the debt on ourselves, but merely to
_guarantee_ a recompense to the sufferers. The very word itself implies
that the Government of America is not the principal debtor, but is to
compel another to make indemnity, or become the debtor. Mr. D. closed
with saying that he had attended only to the reasoning of the gentlemen,
and not to their personalities. It was not his practice to leave the
question, to impute to others motives either corrupt or paltry: if they
chose to glean imaginary laurels on this ground, he was not anxious to
share them; they could best judge whether, in this way, they were likely
to increase their reputation or benefit the public.

Messrs. AMES, MURRAY, SMITH, (of South Carolina,) and HILLHOUSE, also
spoke against the amendment, and said the merits of neither proposition
were now before the House, but only the mode in which the subject should
be considered; that they were in themselves separate and independent,
and ought to have a separate and independent consideration; they were
questions of very great national concern, and that blending them
together would give an undue bias, and neither would be fairly and
impartially decided. It was doubtful whether the resolution for
sequestration ever ought to be adopted, and that to connect the two
subjects, would be to hang a millstone about the necks of the sufferers;
that, as they were a numerous and very meritorious class of citizens,
their claim merited a candid and full examination, unembarrassed with
any other matter.

A warm dispute arose about the form in which the question on this
resolution should be taken. The point actually contested seemed to be,
whether the resolution was to be referred to the committee on Mr.
DAYTON'S motion for the sequestration of British property, or to a
separate committee, which was insisted on by the mover, Mr. GOODHUE.

A division took place upon the question of agreeing to Mr. DAYTON's
amendment, to add, after the words "be referred to a Committee of the
Whole," the following words, viz: "to whom were referred the resolutions
for sequestering the British debts;" and the yeas and nays being called
for, were taken--yeas 57, nays 31, as follows:

      YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, John Beatty,
      Thomas Blount, Elias Boudinot, Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel
      Christie, Thomas Claiborne, Abraham Clark, Isaac Coles,
      William J. Dawson, Jonathan Dayton, Henry Dearborn, George
      Dent, William Findlay, William B. Giles, James Gillespie,
      Alexander Gillon, Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg, Samuel
      Griffin, William B. Grove, George Hancock, John Heath,
      Daniel Heister, William Hindman, John Hunter, Matthew
      Locke, William Lyman, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison,
      Joseph McDowell, Alexander Mebane, William Montgomery,
      Andrew Moore, Peter Muhlenberg, Joseph Neville, Anthony
      New, John Nicholas, Nathaniel Niles, Alexander D. Orr, John
      Page, Josiah Parker, Andrew Pickens, Francis Preston,
      Robert Rutherford, Thomas Scott, John S. Sherburne, John
      Smilie, Israel Smith, Silas Talbot, Philip Van Cortlandt,
      Abraham Venable, Francis Walker, Benjamin Williams, Richard
      Winn, and Joseph Winston.

      NAYS.--Fisher Ames, James Armstrong, Benjamin Bourne, David
      Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Joshua Coit, Samuel Dexter, Thomas
      Fitzsimons, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas
      Gilman, Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, James
      Hillhouse, Henry Latimer, Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee,
      Francis Malbone, William Vans Murray, Theodore Sedgwick,
      Jeremiah Smith, William Smith, Zephaniah Swift, George
      Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, John E. Van
      Allen, Peter Van Gaasbeck, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Watts.

And then the main question being put, that the House do agree to the
said motion for commitment, as amended, it was resolved in the
affirmative.


FRIDAY, May 16.

_Revenue Bill: Salt and Coal Tax._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
bill laying additional duties on goods, wares, and merchandise imported
into the United States, and on the tonnage of ships or vessels.

The three cents per bushel of additional duty on salt was objected to by
Mr. FINDLAY, as oppressive to his constituents.

Mr. AMES was convinced, that this was much better than a land-tax. It
was beyond all comparison, more cheap, more certain, and more equal in
the collection than a land-tax. He would rather tax salt, at even half a
dollar per bushel, than agree to a land-tax.

Mr. CLARK would be very glad to hear the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. FINDLAY) specify, upon what subject he was willing to pay a tax? It
was beyond the comprehension of Mr. C., for what sort of a tax the
gentleman was prepared to vote, or, indeed, what sort of taxes the
Western settlers of Pennsylvania pay. We lay a duty on sugar. They make
sugar for themselves. We lay a tax on tobacco. They are to manufacture
for themselves. We lay an excise on distilleries. They refuse to pay
this tax, and, in fact, they do not pay it. We tax wines; but we are
told that these people are poor. They cannot, therefore, afford to drink
wine, on which the duty is very heavy, for that duty is paid only by the
rich. We tax the importation of foreign fineries, such as silk, but silk
also is not the dress of poor people, so that here again the
constituents of the gentleman get off. We are going to tax the
importation of foreign coals, but they have plenty of their own, and so
far from paying a tax on them, are cutting a canal to bring them down to
Philadelphia; which will drive out the importation of foreign coals, and
so destroy the tax altogether. Under these circumstances, Mr. C. was
solicitous to learn what taxes the back settlers paid, for, as far as
he could understand, they paid none; and their Representative would do
well to inform the House on what they were willing to pay a tax. Was
Government to be burdened with them, and derive no compensation? Was it
a sufficient reason for exempting a district from public burdens to say
that the people are poor? Are taxes to be paid exclusively by the rich?

Mr. RUTHERFORD objected to this duty on salt. It was often to be carried
from one to three hundred and fifty miles inland, and in fact, it
frequently costs twenty shillings per bushel. No tax could be so
universally unpopular as this would be.

Mr. FINDLAY replied to Mr. CLARK. As to sugar, though some of his
neighbors made theirs, Mr. F. bought his own in Philadelphia. As to
silks and other female fineries, his constituents did just like other
people. They spent, in that way, as much as they could possibly afford,
and had among them ladies very well dressed. As to other matters, his
constituents purchased their manufactures in Philadelphia, and paid for
them as other people did. Salt, he said, was known to be necessary for
cattle in the back country. He was strongly against the tax.

Mr. GILLON likewise opposed the tax on salt. It had been proposed, in
the State which he represented, but never could be carried through.

On a division, it was rejected--ayes 32, noes 47.

A motion was made for striking out twenty-five cents per ton of
additional tonnage, on foreign vessels, in order to insert fifty.

It was passed in the negative--ayes 39, noes 41.

After going through the bill, the committee rose, and the House went
into consideration of the amendments made in Committee of the Whole.

On the subject of an additional duty on coal imported, Mr. GILES said,
that the rise was very moderate, from four and a half to six cents per
ton. A Boston company was about, as he understood, to embark in this
business, but waited to see the steps taken by Congress. There was as
much coal in Virginia as would serve all America and Europe besides.

Mr. WADSWORTH would have the additional duty restricted to all coal
imported in foreign vessels.

Mr. HEISTER wanted to know, whether the price of coal had not been
already doubled within these few years. He was informed that coal
imported had of late risen from six dollars per ton, to twelve dollars
and a half.

Mr. FITZSIMONS said, that a few years would put an end to importation
altogether. He defended the tax. He saw no danger to any of the
manufactures in America, that make use of foreign coal arising from this
tax. Nothing but a capital was wanting to make America supply herself.

Mr. SHERBURNE recommended the amendment of Mr. WADSWORTH, as to the
restriction of this duty to foreign bottoms.

Mr. MADISON worded this amendment, "on all vessels not belonging to
citizens of the United States;" because foreign bottoms might belong to
people of this country. He was not solicitous about the fate of the
motion. The amendment was lost; but the original motion was carried.


SATURDAY, May 17.

_Tobacco and Sugar Duties._

The bill laying a duty on tobacco manufactured, and sugar refined, in
the United States, was read a second time.

Mr. LYMAN opposed its passing to a third reading, on the ground that
those articles deserve yet the fostering care of Government, and are
entirely incapable of bearing such a burden; for, even now,
notwithstanding the present protecting duties, they, especially the
article of manufactured snuff, are yet imported. He also objected to the
bill from the exceptionable nature of an excise.

Some objections were made to the propriety of opposing the bill in its
present stage.

Mr. CLARK thought the bill unnecessary, because the two and a half per
cent. of additional impost would supply all the wants of the public. He
thought that the bill had an _immoral_ tendency, because it tempted men
to perjure themselves. It was oppressive, as making every man's house
liable to be searched at midnight. He thought it also would produce an
expensive mode of collection. He, therefore, objected against it, as
unnecessary, of an immoral tendency, as oppressive, and expensive. He
had always voted against it, and he always should persist in voting
against it.

Mr. AMES pressed the necessity for money, and the want of other funds to
discharge the services of the current year. He said, that to impose
taxes was an unpopular office, and exposed members to dislike. Perhaps
they might be _persecuted_; but it was still requisite for members to
perform their duty. He had a great repugnance to the excise as
established in Europe; but in America it was of a different nature. To
reject the present bill would place the finances of this country in a
very alarming point of view. If this bill was thrown out, we might bid
farewell to firm and determined measures. We must go home when we are to
lay a tax, and ask the people whether or not they like it.

Mr. NICHOLAS went into the old arguments against excise. He was severe
on the general character of excise officers, whom he represented as the
dregs of society. Very few persons in America would accept of such an
office at all, and those who accepted of it, were by no means of a
respectable rank in life.

Mr. FITZSIMONS.--There are as good men employed in the collection of the
revenue as any others in the country, not excepting the gentleman
himself; and men who are as well liked by their neighbors.

Mr. W. SMITH.--The rejection of the bill at this time will not decide
the principle of excise; if rejected, it will not be owing to the
arguments against it, but to the absence of a great many members, who
never dreamed that the question would have been brought on to-day, and
who do not even know that the bill has been so much as reported. The
practice is uncandid, and unprecedented, to endeavor to reject a bill at
this stage, before it has been printed, and the members know its
contents. Was it fair and consistent, in a thin House, to reject the
bill without any further consideration than one reading, for the sake of
form, a reading, to which _nobody had listened_? How was this to settle
the principle of excise? Was it not already settled in the constitution
and by existing laws? But a new argument had been this day resorted to;
there was a surplus of revenue in the Treasury, without new taxes, and
this had been discovered since this tax had been agreed to. If this
argument was founded in fact, it would put an end to all debates on all
the new taxes; but what was this notable discovery? an additional two
and a half per cent. on impost. This was no discovery which could change
the question, for it was agreed to before the duty on manufactured
tobacco and sugar; and the latter had been therefore established by the
House, with a knowledge that the former was laid. He asked if, in the
present situation of the country, all dependence was to be placed on
commerce? How could certain members reconcile this proceeding with their
former votes and language? But the other day we were to prohibit all
commercial intercourse, to sequester debts, and to prepare for war. Now,
we are to derive the whole of the revenues from trade; the same
gentlemen who urged these measures were now defeating every kind of
revenue which might be productive. There was something so extraordinary
in this, that he could not account for it. It was said, that the
Committee of Ways and Means ought not to have reckoned on a defalcation,
in the impost of $1,300,000, but the gentlemen assign no reasons for
their assertion, whereas the committee founded their report on the best
information. Admit, however, that it is doubtful; was it safe, in the
present critical state of the country, to place all dependence on
_external_ resources, which were every moment in danger of being cut
off? Did not duty require a provision for the defence and safety of the
United States by _internal_ resources? This was certain, that the extra
appropriations of this year exceeded those of any former year by two
millions and a half of dollars. Where was the money to come from? The
members in opposition to this tax, voted out land and salt; they
endeavored to vote out stamps and carriages. They will agree to nothing
but impost. Are the merchants to be saddled with the whole burden,
because, like friends to order and tranquillity, they have not called
_town-meetings, or published inflammatory resolves_? It is said, war is
no longer expected; this country is willing to submit to every thing.
Was this insinuation pointed at Congress or the Executive? It was
unfounded in either case; because negotiation was tried, it did not
follow that either the one or the other branch of the Government were
disposed tamely to submit to injury; for himself, he was ready to aver
that, if proper reparation were not obtained, he should be for war. The
balance now being trembling on its beam, and no one could say whether it
would settle for peace or war, he was for preparing seriously for the
latter, while he strove to preserve the former. Pecuniary exertions were
indispensable; it might be a pleasant thing to oppose taxes, and the
advocates of new taxes might be obnoxious, but this would not draw him
from his duty. The increase of excise officers had been mentioned; the
bill did not propose a single one; the bad character of the excise
officers had been mentioned; the supervisors were among the most
respectable men in the United States, and the inspectors were as
virtuous as the officers of the customs. The embarrassments, the taking
of oaths, &c., were not more applicable to manufacturers than to
merchants and captains, who could not enter, or unlade, or clear out,
without difficulties, embarrassments, and oaths; but this was
disregarded, as if they had less feeling than other people. As to the
injury to morals, the necessary oaths required by all revenue laws were
not injurious to the morals of the honest, and those who swore to the
truth; and, as to those who were disposed to commit frauds and
perjuries, no injury could be done to the morals of those who had none.
Mr. S. wished that less had been said in the way of general reflection
on the collectors of the revenue. Some years ago, a member of that
House, when they were at New York, attacked the tide-waiters. There
happened to be a tide-waiter in the gallery, who wrote, next day, a
pretty smart letter to the member who had spoken so freely of his
profession.

Mr. NILES hoped that no gentleman would say, that he wished to see the
Treasury empty. He would, for his own part, be glad to know whether
there was a deficiency or not, clearly stated. He did not see so much as
some others did, in the objections to an excise. It was _called_ an
excise, it was true, but we do not know yet the way in which it is to be
levied; so, we cannot tell whether there will be any hardship in it or
not. He went over some of the statements of different gentlemen, but on
the whole, there was so much contradiction in the assertions of
different members, that Mr. N. knew not what to make of them.

Mr. BOUDINOT moved that the House adjourn, which they did immediately,
at three o'clock.


MONDAY, May 19.

_Impressment of American Seamen._

Mr. MURRAY moved, that a committee be appointed to report a bill to
provide such regulations as may enable American seamen to obtain and
carry evidence of citizenship, for the purpose of protecting them from
impressment into foreign service. He said, that it was a reasonable
expectation that the subject of this resolution should be seriously
attended to, at any time; but there were the most urgent reasons for an
attention to the situation of our fellow-citizens of this description at
the present period. That the evil of impressment into foreign service
existed, no gentleman could doubt, and it was equally doubtless, that it
was the duty of Congress, as far as they could, to provide a remedy for
the evil. A few years since, when Britain armed her navy against Spain,
on the Nootka-Sound question, it had been the fate of several hundreds
of the American seamen to be impressed into a service which they
abhorred. For a proof of this fact, he would recall the remembrance of
the House to the claim made by Mr. Cutting for repayment of money
actually expended by him, in the liberation of seamen in this
humiliating situation. Congress repaid Mr. Cutting two thousand dollars.
That they had thus attended to this claim was proof that the fact
complained of existed. The evil arose, not more from the extreme
insolence of disposition of the pressgangs, than from a real difficulty
of discriminating American citizens from British subjects. The
difficulty was in similarity of language, dress, and manners; and from
the deficiency of evidence of citizenship, which, in a foreign port,
could not always be obtained. For, though the Lords of the Admiralty of
England had laid down certain rules, in the case that he had mentioned,
the rules laid down had exacted so rigid and pointed an oath, from
personal knowledge, that they scarcely could, in any case, be complied
with. A captain might, in many instances, _believe_ his sailor to be an
American, and yet not think himself warranted in making oath to this
fact. The object of his resolution was, that seamen, who are American
citizens, might all pursue a uniform line of evidence in proof of
citizenship, and that, by an entry of such evidence solemnly obtained in
the clearances or other authentic papers of the ship, the same weight
and authority should be given to their part of a ship's papers as were,
in all cases, given to all sea letters and other papers. He believed
that, if the subject went to a select committee, a particular regulation
on this subject might be digested, which would, in many cases, if not in
all, afford such good evidence of citizenship, as would save American
seamen from the injustice and cruelty that many, he believed, now
actually suffered under; for he had heard that a number of them had been
impressed in the West Indies on board of the British fleet. He was not
so sanguine as to imagine, that any law could give full protection to
our seamen; for he was convinced that, in order to give complete
protection, certain rules of evidence must first be recognized, by
convention between this country and Britain, stipulating the extent of
certain political principles relative to alienage and allegiance. Till,
however, that is done, he thought it the duty of Congress, and
particularly at this disturbed period, to afford every aid in its power
to this class of citizens. To bring the subject before the House, he had
moved the resolution, which he gave notice that he would call up
to-morrow.

_Tobacco and Sugar Duties._

The House then resumed the consideration of the bill for laying a duty
on manufactured tobacco and refined sugar, which had been debated and
postponed on Saturday.

Mr. GOODHUE wished for a delay. He had seen a gentleman from
Pennsylvania, last night, whom he did not now see in his place in the
House, and who was making out an estimate, whether the money proposed to
be raised by these taxes would be wanted or not. If they could really do
without the money, it would be better to reject the bill.

Mr. SHERBURNE thought that the question might be delayed, till it was
seen whether the sums to be produced by this bill, would be actually
required or not.

Mr. DAYTON believed that the money was wanted. He would therefore vote
for the bill. It was incumbent on gentlemen who objected to the bill, to
show that the money would not be wanted.

Mr. SMILIE and Mr. LEE rose at the same time.

The SPEAKER observed, that Mr. SMILIE had risen first.

Mr. LEE said, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania had already spoken
twice on this subject and he _insisted for order_. [Mr. L. referred to
the proceedings of Saturday, for Mr. SMILIE had not spoke any before,
this day.] Our time, said Mr. L., is too precious to be wasted in
talking, when every gentleman is competent to give his vote already. I
call for the question. His opinion was, that the money was not yet
wanted; and that it was being too provident to vote for taxes, before
they were required by necessity.

Mr. W. SMITH contended, that there would be a very considerable
deficiency. He asked, who would lend us money, if there was such a
difficulty in establishing funds to pay the interest of it?

Mr. WADSWORTH hoped that the bill would not be altogether thrown aside.
There was part of it that he approved, and part of it that he did not
perfectly approve. In discussing this question, much stress has been
laid upon the two and a half per cent. of additional impost on
importations, as if _that_ would be a fund for the increase of revenue,
and supersede the necessity for some other taxes. Mr. W. assigned his
reasons for believing that this supposition was perfectly chimerical.
Within the last six months, American vessels and property had been
captured by the British privateers in the West Indies, to the extent of
_one million of dollars_. This will make the importations less, by at
least five hundred thousand dollars, and, of consequence, destroy a
great part both of the old and new impost. Property to the extent of
one-fourth of a million of dollars, perhaps, had likewise been seized by
the Spaniards, and other nations had most likely taken as much more. The
total loss to American commerce could not, therefore, be less than
_fifteen hundred thousand dollars_. The imposts on importations must,
therefore, be very much reduced; as from Britain, for example, there
would not, in his judgment, be one-fourth part of the imports, from this
time to the first of December, that had been formerly. And no man could
imagine that, at the most, they would exceed one-half of their former
amount. The British merchants would be afraid, on account of the matters
that had been proposed. These people, they would say, have been laying
embargoes, and speaking of sequestration, and indemnification. We must
be cautious. Mr. W. added, that it was possible enough, that America
might, in the fall, be at war with Britain; and then impost and
importation will fall together. These were his motives for believing
that the two and a half per cent. would be of no great consequence. It
had been said, that the ten per cent. would produce a large
augmentation. He did not, from the diminished quantity of imports,
believe that it would be _so much_, by twenty or thirty per cent. as the
old seven and half duty had produced. Mr. W. next reverted to the bill
before the House. One part of it (the duty on snuff) he could not agree
to. The other part, refined sugars, would fall on those who could afford
to pay it, and after all that had been said against this bill, he was
firmly convinced, that, so far from injuring the manufacture, it would
thrive the better for this tax. He, on this account, hoped that the bill
would pass, in spite of his objection to some things that might,
perhaps, be corrected. He then replied to the complaints of some
gentlemen, who, as an excuse for repeating over and over again their
former arguments and opinions, observed, that they had not received an
answer. It was very likely that they might think so, and he, for his
part, did not think that he had been _answered_. This kind of reasoning
had no end. Perhaps it was impossible for him, or gentlemen of his
sentiments, to answer the opposite side of the question. And, again,
perhaps the gentlemen of the opposite opinion could not answer them. The
matter must rest there, and the question come to a vote.

Mr. FITZSIMONS was convinced that there was a deficiency, and a great
one. But he was not fully prepared to speak upon the subject; though he
was sure of the fact. He did not wish to hurry the subject. The bill
might be printed.

Mr. NICHOLAS was sorry to have learned that he had, on Saturday, made a
general reflection on a profession of men. With some gentlemen, in the
line referred to, he had as strict a friendship as with any persons on
earth. He said, that ten lines of figures, which he had in his hand,
would satisfy the House, that the taxes in the present bill are not
wanted. He then began a detail of considerable length, to which Mr.
FITZSIMONS replied.

Mr. TRACY.--One gentleman says that we have a surplus of three millions;
another, that we have a surplus of one million. It is very strange for
gentlemen to be coming forward in this stage of the debate, and to say
that money is not wanted, after the want of money has been so frequently
advanced, and admitted, in the House. It is unaccountable, that there
should be a contradiction on a point of this nature. He next went into a
long series of calculations.

He objected to the estimate of the impost of 1793, that was reckoned
upon for the current expenses of 1794. A great part of this impost was
still due, by bonds. The persons who had given these bonds were, many of
them, broke by the British depredations in the West Indies; and, in
fact, a large proportion of that impost never would be paid in to the
collectors of the revenue.

He was displeased with the way in which some gentlemen had spoken of the
national debt. He had no share, for his own part, as a creditor; but a
part of his property must go to the discharge of it, and he should
cheerfully pay it. He did not agree with those gentlemen who, in the
event of a peace, would not wish to replenish the Treasury. It was
curious, that the House had now been assembled for nearly six months;
and that their chief object had been to discover ways and means for
raising public money. A bill for that purpose had been brought in; and
just when it was on the point of being passed, we make a sudden and
wonderful discovery, that no money is wanted; but that we have an
overplus of three millions of dollars. The thing cannot be. The
calculations are not founded on truth. He did not believe that members
understood the bill. He could demonstrate that there was occasion for a
supply of money.

Mr. MADISON thought that the arguments on each side of this question
might be reduced to a narrow compass. If peace continues, he supposed it
likely that the revenue would not fall so far short, as the committee
had apprehended. But if there was a war, the expense would much exceed
any thing yet thought of. He was for laying aside the subject at
present, and if a rupture with England should ensue, he would then
recommend, at once, a _direct_ tax, and that these excise acts should be
entirely thrown aside. If there was no war, he believed that no new
taxes were required; let the matter therefore die, as to the present. He
disapproved the principle of the tax, and should, on that account, think
himself justified in voting against it.

Mr. GILLON rose, and replied to several gentlemen, who were for the
excise on tobacco, snuff, and loaf and lump sugar; and observed, that he
had partly obtained his object, by drawing gentlemen forward, with the
calculations which had been kept back. But as the gentlemen, after
having, by their own account, been three months on this subject, avowed
that his request of detailing those large sums came rather unexpected,
and that they wished to have more time to make their calculations, he
had not much objection to let this bill have a second reading; but he
hoped they would be accurate, in proportion to the time taken to preface
them. As to the idea of our general taxes not taking place until the
first of next March, that had no weight with him; because he knew the
Civil List for the year was not all then due, nor would all the sum for
military and naval preparations be to be paid down, the day the ore was
dug for the guns, nor on the day that the first tree was cut to begin
the frigates.

He agreed that a deficiency might arise on the supplies now due, for the
terms which the gentlemen had assigned by the plunder of our merchants'
property. He was happy to find that gentlemen had not lost sight of the
serious applications they had received from that respectable and utile
body (the merchants) for redress; and he should take care to remind
gentlemen of their own observations, when the requests of the merchants
were brought forward, as he was clear something must be done, either by
restitution on the debts to be sequestered, a loan for them under the
guarantee of the Union, or by prolonging the time to a remote period, of
paying the duties that they owed. He was accused of making _wonderful
discoveries_, of making calculations not founded in truth. The latter he
denied, for, if there is any untruth in them, it cannot be on his side,
but must have arisen from the committee; therefore, to them be the
untruth applicable, as he did not make use of a figure but what they
placed in their report.

He still retained his opinion, that surplus revenue was dangerous in the
hands of any Government. What did they want to do with it? He hoped
nothing else but to buy up the national funded debt as cheap as they
could, which act was pardonable, only by the intent, he presumed, they
must feel of at last doing justice to our late armies. His meaning was,
that the profits arising from this speculation should be kept as a
sacred deposit out at interest, and that interest to be employed towards
paying off the interest due on the principal losses which our brave
officers and soldiers had met with, by being obliged to part with their
shares of pay at a very inferior value. This you may better pay to
patriotism and misfortune than pay to speculators.

Mr. TRACY.--If I have said what is alleged, the language is too
indecorous to be used by me to any gentleman on this floor. If any thing
of that kind has escaped from me, I am ready to ask the gentleman's
pardon. I have the highest respect for his character.

And the question was then put, Shall this bill be rejected? It passed in
the negative--yeas 31, nays 56, as follows:

      YEAS.--Thomas Blount, Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel Christie,
      Thomas Claiborne, Abraham Clark, Isaac Coles, William
      Findlay, William B. Giles, Alexander Gillon, Andrew Gregg,
      Daniel Heister, William Lyman, Nathaniel Macon, James
      Madison, Joseph McDowell, William Montgomery, Andrew Moore,
      Peter Muhlenberg, Joseph Neville, Anthony New, John
      Nicholas, Josiah Parker, Francis Preston, Robert
      Rutherford, Thomas Scott, John Smilie, Thomas Tredwell,
      Abraham Venable, Francis Walker, Richard Winn, and Joseph
      Winston.

      NAYS.--Fisher Ames, James Armstrong, Theodorus Bailey,
      Abraham Baldwin, John Beatty, Elias Boudinot, Benjamin
      Bourne, Lambert Cadwalader, David Cobb, Peleg Coffin,
      Joshua Coit, William J. Dawson, Jonathan Dayton, Henry
      Dearborn, George Dent, Samuel Dexter, Thomas Fitzsimons,
      Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, James Gillespie, Nicholas
      Gilman, Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Samuel
      Griffin, William Barry Grove, Thomas Hartley, James
      Hillhouse, William Hindman, John Hunter, Henry Latimer,
      Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee, Matthew Locke, Francis
      Malbone, Alexander Mebane, William Vans Murray, Alexander
      D. Orr, Andrew Pickens, Theodore Sedgwick, John S.
      Sherburne, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, William Smith,
      Zephaniah Swift, Silas Talbot, George Thatcher, Uriah
      Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, John E. Van Allen, Peter Van
      Gaasbeck, Peleg Wadsworth, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Artemas
      Ward, John Watts, and Benjamin Williams.

The said bill was then read the second time, and ordered to be committed
to a Committee of the whole House on Wednesday next.

_Augmentation of the Army._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
bill to augment the military force of the United States; and after some
time spent therein, the Chairman reported that the committee had had the
said bill under consideration, and made amendment thereto; which was
read, as follows:

Strike out the first section of the bill, in the words following, to
wit:

      "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
      of the United States of America in Congress assembled_,
      That there shall be raised, for the term of ---- years, or
      during a war which may break out between the United States
      and any European Power, an additional military force,
      consisting of twenty-five thousand non-commissioned
      officers, privates, and musicians, together with a proper
      proportion of commissioned officers of all grades,
      respectively, according to the present Military
      Establishment of the United States:"

And on the question that the House do agree with the Committee of the
whole House in the said amendment, it was resolved in the affirmative.

A motion was then made and seconded to amend the said bill, by
inserting, in lieu of the section stricken out, the following section,
to wit:

      "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
      of the United States of America in Congress assembled_,
      That there shall be raised, upon the terms and conditions
      hereafter mentioned, an additional provisional military
      force, to consist of ---- non-commissioned officers,
      privates, and musicians, together with a proper proportion
      of commissioned officers."

It passed in the negative--yeas 30, nays 50, as follows:

      YEAS.--Fisher Ames, John Beatty, Benjamin Bourne, David
      Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Jonathan Dayton, George Dent, Samuel
      Dexter, Thomas Fitzsimons, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert,
      Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, James Hillhouse, William
      Hindman, Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee, Francis Malbone,
      William Vans Murray, Theodore Sedgwick, William Smith,
      Zephaniah Swift, Silas Talbot, George Thatcher, Uriah
      Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, John E. Van Allen, Peter Van
      Gaasbeck, Jeremiah Wadsworth, and John Watts.

      NAYS.--James Armstrong, Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin,
      Thomas Blount, Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel Christie, Thomas
      Claiborne, Abraham Clark, Joshua Coit, Isaac Coles, William
      J. Dawson, Henry Dearborn, William Findlay, William B.
      Giles, James Gillespie, Alexander Gillon, Nicholas Gilman,
      Henry Glenn, Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg, William
      Barry Grove, Daniel Heister, John Hunter, Matthew Locke,
      William Lyman, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, Joseph
      McDowell, Alexander Mebane, William Montgomery, Andrew
      Moore, Peter Muhlenberg, Joseph Neville, Anthony New, John
      Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, Josiah Parker, Francis Preston,
      Robert Rutherford, Thomas Scott, John S. Sherburne, John
      Smilie, Israel Smith, Thomas Tredwell, Philip Van
      Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, Francis Walker, Richard Winn,
      Benjamin Williams, and Joseph Winston.

And then the question being put that the said bill, as amended, be
engrossed and read the third time, it passed in the negative. And so the
said bill was rejected.


FRIDAY, May 23.

_Tobacco and Sugar Duties._

The House went into a committee, Mr. TRUMBULL in the chair, on the bill
for an excise on tobacco, snuff, and refined sugar.

In the first section, it was agreed to strike out the words, "tobacco
and." This proposed that the word tobacco be struck out in every
subsequent part of the bill, so that the duty be confined to the
manufacture of snuff.

Mr. MUHLENBERG (The SPEAKER) moved to strikeout the second section,
"that from and after the ---- day of ---- there be levied, collected,
and paid, upon all sugar which shall be refined within the United
States, a duty of two cents per pound."

He would not trouble the committee with any comments on the excise,
enough having already been said on that subject; although he could not
forbear mentioning, that in England, where almost every thing was
subject to an excise, and where the Minister is ever on the watch to
discover new articles for that purpose, loaf sugar had never yet been
taxed, the Committee on Ways and Means had all the credit of the
seasonable discovery. The reason for not attempting an excise on this
article was obvious, because the manufacture employed a greater quantity
of shipping than any other, they therefore rather wished to encourage
than to depress it; the former of which they effectually do, by allowing
a generous drawback on exportation of refined sugar, for which the
different ports of the Continent afford them a constant and ready
market. The case was widely different here. The manufacture is yet in
its infant state--it has to contend with the old established ones in
Europe, who have larger capitals and can afford longer credits, whereas
we have not only no market to export it to, but even now already, can
annually make a quantity more than sufficient for the consumption of the
United States. It is true, it appears from the last returns, that
upwards of 200,000 lbs. of refined sugars were imported last year, which
is about the same quantity which two houses might furnish in one year,
but it is to be observed, that owing to the high price of raw sugars,
some establishments were not worked at all, whilst others did not work
above eight or nine months in the year, and I will here, said Mr. M.,
venture to assert, that if this duty of two cents actually takes place,
some of those who are now engaged in this difficult and expensive
business will abandon it and turn their capitals into other channels. I
do not stand alone in this opinion; others, of more experience, join me,
and it is founded on the following incontrovertible facts. Raw sugars
have for several years past been so high, that refined sugars naturally
bore an equally high price. This has already lessened the consumption,
to a considerable degree, in the United States, and from the present
prospect before us, when the French islands are in the hands of the
British, the probability is, that they will rather be higher than lower;
and if the two cents be added to the present high price of refined
sugars, the consumption will still be lessened in the same proportion as
the price of the article increases. This observation is founded on
facts, which every person concerned in the business has felt, and daily
experiences; nay, it can be proved, however strange it may appear, that
a less quantity of refined sugar is consumed at present in the United
States, than a year or two before the Revolution. Again, owing to the
high price of refined sugars, and which must be still higher when this
duty takes place, many even of our opulent families have, in a great
degree, abandoned the use of it, and substituted the white Havana, or
the white East India sugar. I well remember a remarkable instance of
this kind which took place not many months ago in this city. A gentleman
having imported a considerable quantity of white East India sugar, sold
it to the refiners of this place. Before the sale was concluded, he
reserved a quantity for himself and an opulent friend of his. The
consequence was that neither himself nor his friend used half the
quantity of refined sugar they had used the year before.

Permit me to add another circumstance. Sugars are higher at present, and
from a variety of circumstances must continue to be higher here than in
England, and although an additional duty on imported loaf and lump sugar
may take place, unless it exceeds what I have yet heard mentioned, they
will be able to undersell the manufacturers here, and this from the
single circumstance of their being allowed a drawback of 26_s._ sterling
per cwt., for if even a drawback of the same sum was allowed us here,
which is not to be expected, it cannot operate, because we have no
market for this article. In the West Indies, it is well known to be
contraband, and to transport it to Europe, would be carrying water into
the ocean, and even then it could not be accomplished on as low terms as
the Europeans can afford to do it.

One fact more, equally incontrovertible, suffer me to add. By the
additional duty on coal, which I am far from disapproving, because I
wish to encourage the consumption of our home productions, you have, in
fact, laid an additional tax on sugar. Every work of this kind consumes
annually from 2,000 to 4,000 bushels. This article was heretofore at the
rate of eleven pence or one shilling per bushel; owing to the duty on
imported coal, it has now risen to 2_s._ to 2_s._ 4_d._ This naturally
enhances the price of the article made in this manufacture, which is
already burdened to a considerable degree with taxes or duties. Thus,
there is a duty on the raw material, a duty on the paper they use, a
duty on the twine, a duty on the coal, and, to crown all, a duty is
intended on the article produced in this devoted manufacture. If it is
thus my friend from Connecticut means to do us good, or if this is the
decided encouragement and protection my colleague means to yield us, it
is such a one as I am sure the manufacturer will not thank him for.

Sir, I could add that this bill partakes strongly of the nature of a
sumptuary law; that in case of a war it will not produce you any
revenue, because the supplies of the raw material are too irregular, and
no other but imported sugar is refined, which already pays a duty; and
that by this duty you not only lessen the consumption, but also increase
the number of those who cannot pay for it; but I forbear to trespass any
longer on the patience of the committee on this subject.

But, Mr. Chairman, we want money to build our frigates and arsenals, to
fortify our ports and harbors, and to release our unfortunate brethren
in captivity. We want revenues. If this really be the intention of the
committee, and not merely to establish the principle of excise on home
manufactures, no one will join more cheerfully in such measures as shall
appear most prudent and most likely to obtain the object, and which, in
my opinion, will neither injure the commerce of this country, nor in an
equal degree the manufactures, nor indeed the poorer sort of the
community who consume the article of sugar.

By the last returns which I could lay my hands on, it appears that there
are annually imported into the United States upwards of twenty-five
millions of pounds of sugar, and from the same returns it appears that
about four or four and a half millions are exported, which are allowed a
drawback of the duty on exportation; thus then there are upwards of
twenty millions of pounds annually consumed in the United States.

You have, in the late impost bill, imposed an additional duty of one
cent per pound on coffee; half that sum additional duty on raw sugar
will yield you upwards of 100,000 dollars. This then will at once yield
you the sum which the committee expected from an excise both on sugar
and manufactured tobacco, and will neither injure the merchant, nor in
an equal degree the manufacturer, nor indeed the poor; the latter, and
in my opinion none but the idle can be so, as well as many others, have
long since substituted molasses for all the purposes for which they
heretofore used sugar; besides which the American sugar is daily getting
more into use, and bids fair to become general, at least at and near the
frontiers.

When, therefore, it is considered that this manufacture is yet in its
infancy in the United States; that it has to contend with the old
established ones of Europe; that there is no excise on this article in
England; that this manufacture employs a great quantity of tonnage; that
raw sugars are high here, and comparatively low in Europe; that there is
a drawback in England, which operates as a bounty, and which from local
situations cannot operate, if even granted, with the same advantage
here; when it is reduced to a certainty that the duty will operate
injuriously on the manufactures here; and when it appears that double
the sum can be raised by a trifling additional duty on raw sugar,
without any additional expense or inconvenience, and which will
effectually remove the evils complained of, I flatter myself the motion
will prevail.

Mr. FITZSIMONS objected to the proposal of the SPEAKER, for a tax of
half a cent per pound on common sugar imported. The unrefined sugar
formed a considerable portion of the subsistence of the poor. Formerly,
the price of it was not more than sixpence, (currency,) but it is now
twelve pence per pound. The coffee duty was another, to which Mr. F. had
felt reluctance, because coffee is an article of universal consumption,
and the tax upon it falls where taxes ought not to fall, that is upon
the poor; but there is no help for it. He would, if possible, have
avoided this tax, for coffee, formerly eleven pence or a shilling per
pound, has risen to one shilling and ten pence. Mr. F. said, that we are
able to lay a heavy enough tax on imported sugar effectually to protect
our own sugar refiners. It had been said that the two cents per pound
duty would make it requisite for the refiners to augment their
capitals. This he could not believe, because the Executive gives credit
to the manufacturers for the payment of the duty. Mr. F. said, that the
time was perhaps not distant, when we shall be obliged to seek sugar in
the East Indies. Britain has acquired the West Indies, which will
increase the difficulties of this country in obtaining it from that part
of the world.

Mr. MCDOWELL hoped that the section would be struck out. He objected to
the principle of the bill. He considered it as highly impolitic to tax
the infant manufactures of America. He would rather, if the Public
Treasury could afford it, give a premium for the encouragement of our
manufactures, to dissolve the dependence of the United States upon
Europe. This dependence of ours has repeatedly been urged as a reason
why the House ought not to adopt certain commercial regulations and
restrictions. Some gentlemen had undertaken to prove that the
manufacturers would be benefited by such laws, an assertion which he
considered as very extraordinary. The manufacturers themselves
understood their business best, and thought quite otherwise. This tax
will not only alarm those already engaged, but will prevent other men of
enterprise and capital from engaging in manufactures, when they find
that the moment their business becomes profitable, they are to be taxed.

He could not help remarking upon some observations that fell from his
friend, (Mr. BALDWIN, from Georgia,) when this subject was before the
committee some days ago. It had been objected that the bill was not well
founded, as it established a new principle; and the member (Mr. BALDWIN)
replied, that it was not new, as there was already an excise fixed on
ardent spirits. He had opposed that law, but since it was passed, he
could not object to the present bill. Had the gentleman reflected, he
would have seen that there was equal reason for resisting this bill,
because it fixed that obnoxious principle more strongly, by giving a
further sanction to an American excise. Mr. McD. also considered the tax
to be unnecessary. The tax was contemplated on the prospect of a war
which has now become less likely, the British having, since the Orders
of the 8th of January, relaxed their depredations. Further, the tax was
unnecessary, because, it was asserted by several very well informed
merchants, that the amount of the impost this year would exceed that of
the last.

On dividing, the motion for striking out the clause was rejected--ayes
31, nays 45.


WEDNESDAY, May 28.

_Advance of Money to France._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the report of the committee to whom was referred the Message of the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of the 18th of March last, relative to
an advance of money requested by the Minister of the French Republic.

Mr. GILES offered the following motion:

      "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
      authorized and requested to apply the proceeds of the loan
      of three millions of florins, lately obtained in Holland,
      towards the discharge of the debt remaining due to France;
      or to the protection and defence of the United States, if,
      in his opinion, the same should be found necessary for that
      purpose, any appropriation to the contrary
      notwithstanding."

Mr. HILLHOUSE was of opinion that, before any payments in advance should
be made to the French Minister, it was proper to secure the
indemnification of our own citizens, who had sustained such immense
losses by the detention of their vessels in the ports of the Republic,
both in Europe and the West Indies. Mr. H. here made a distinction, that
if the term stipulated for payment of an instalment to France had
actually arrived, he would have made that payment, though they had burnt
our ships, and have sought redress in the ordinary way. But when they
come forward before the money is due, and make such a requisition, he
thought it a fair opportunity to secure the claims of American citizens.

Mr. NICHOLAS was in favor of the motion. He felt, as an American, that
the cause of this country and of France were inseparably connected; and
that giving the money to the Republic was equivalent to expending it in
the service of the United States. He reminded the House of the indelible
obligations of America to France. That Republic is now reduced to
distress, as this country was when supported by the French arms. Every
principle of humanity, of honor, of gratitude, and of justice, calls
upon us to give that nation the most effectual support in our power.

Mr. FITZSIMONS.--The Americans have applied to M. Fauchet, for payment
in this country. He has assured them that he cannot give it, but that he
will inform the French Government of their application. They are
satisfied to wait for the reply to the Minister, which is expected from
Europe.

Mr. AMES remarked, that, as the three millions of florins had been
loaned in Holland for the defence of this country, it would be something
worse than imprudence to give it away for any other purpose. The cause
of France does not depend on her receiving a million of dollars. She is
in a much better situation to give us that sum, than we are to advance
it for her. He did not think that, to keep our money to ourselves, and
to bestow it upon France, were the same thing, nor did he believe that
it would be so considered by the citizens of the United States. He could
not approve the motion.

Mr. GILLON thought that, as to the claims of American citizens, a
complete answer had been given by the member from Pennsylvania. If the
merchants themselves are willing to wait for an answer from France,
nobody else has any concern with the matter. He rejected the idea of
not paying the money to the French until it was due, unless with a
restriction in favor of the American claimants. The money due to France
had been advanced by her in the time of our utmost distress. It was at
present wanted for her own defence. To indulge us, indeed, she had
formerly granted a longer time than she was obliged to grant for the
repayment. But if necessity compelled her to solicit an abridgment of
that indulgence, is it inconsistent with the feelings of honor and
generosity, to refuse her such a request?

Mr. WADSWORTH was too ill-informed upon this question, to know upon what
side he ought to vote. Much had been said about the gratitude due from
this country to France. We had been grateful, indeed, since we had
suffered them for a long time past to plunder our vessels without making
a complaint. He stated that the American property seized in the ports of
France amounted to one million of dollars, and that taken by her in the
West India Colonies, to four millions of dollars. Much of this property
had been paid for in such a way, that the owners did not realize more
than twenty-five per cent. of its value. The present application had
been made a long time ago, and Mr. W. did not suppose that the French
Minister could, at present, be in any want of the money. Since the time
when he first sought for it, something had happened which altered the
case. The greatest portion of specie in America is now at the command of
M. Fauchet. There can be, therefore, no pretence for giving away this
million of dollars on the plea of necessity. The Republic herself
possesses, if we are to believe common fame, more cash than all the
kings in Europe; and, though the story may be very greatly exaggerated,
yet make allowance for exaggeration, and still her treasures are very
great. No part of her misfortunes can be ascribed to the want of money.
Matters so standing, he thought that it was our duty to make a halt, and
begin to take some care of the interests of our fellow-citizens. As for
gratitude towards the Republic, he felt as much of that sentiment as
those who talked more about it than he did. But he had not learned any
good reason why this money should be disposed of in this way; and he
could not agree to vote so great a sum where he could not see the need.

Mr. BOURNE said, that the purposes for which it had been first asked,
had been long since accomplished without it. The transportation of the
emigrants of St. Domingo to France had been given as a reason for this
request, but they were all gone already.

Mr. SEDGWICK and Mr. GOODHUE also spoke. The resolution was carried in
the committee, and reported to the House, where it was likewise carried;
and it was

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the said
resolution, and that Mr. MADISON, Mr. BEATTY, and Mr. HEISTER, do
prepare and bring in the same.


FRIDAY, May 30.

_Military Establishment._

The bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act to increase the Military
Force of the United States, and to encourage the recruiting service,"
was read the first time.

Mr. SMILIE objected that there must be some other purpose for these
troops than any that had been acknowledged; for he could see none. The
principle of the bill was wrong.

Mr. GILES said, that the bill ought to be named "A bill authorizing the
PRESIDENT _to pass a law_ for raising ten thousand men." In point of
principle, it was infinitely worse than the former one, which the House
had already rejected, (the one supported by Mr. SEDGWICK.) He hoped that
they would not suffer it to go to a second reading. We had made
estimates of the expenses of this year, and have been told that the ways
and means are not sufficient. Yet, in the face of this, to come upon us
all at once with the expense of a standing army of ten thousand men was
too hard. He trusted that gentlemen who would vote for a second reading
would explain the reasons that could induce them to such a measure. The
time spent upon such a bill would be perfectly cast away. He was at a
loss to discover against whom these ten thousand men were to be
employed.

Mr. HILLHOUSE could not, at this moment, decide whether he ought to vote
for this bill or not. He would recommend a Committee of the Whole to
examine its merits. He should think it ungenerous for any gentleman in
that House to call for his vote till it had been fully discussed.

Mr. FITZSIMONS.--If we were to debate for a week upon it, I am sure that
there cannot be one new idea started. The whole argument lies in so
narrow a compass that every member may decide on a first hearing. The
question is, whether, on account of the particular state of the country
at this time, it is proper to intrust the PRESIDENT with a discretionary
power of raising an army of ten thousand men? For my own part, I am as
ready to decide just now as I ever can be.

Mr. AMES.--If we are to go to war, will it not be a prodigious saving of
expense to have all matters ready beforehand? By being prepared two
months before the war breaks out, the advantages in economy would be
immense, as the price of enlisting men would rise fourfold when it was
once known that war was certain. He knew many weak parts in the Union
that might be attacked and in danger before a body of militia could be
ready for effectual service. He was not qualified for details of this
sort; but he knew that Rhode Island, for example, might be taken, and,
in a short time, so strongly fortified, that it would be difficult or
impossible to retake it. Why were we afraid to intrust the PRESIDENT
with the power of raising ten thousand men? Can any body of men to be
raised in this country tread down the substantial yeomanry? This is
quite a Utopian dread. It is infinitely cheaper to raise and embody an
army at leisure, when the storm is seen to be approaching, than all at
once, when twenty things must be done at the same time. There is,
besides, a material distinction between this bill and the former. The
force may be discontinued whenever the Legislature thinks proper; nor is
it to be raised at all unless the PRESIDENT sees or thinks it necessary.
The principle of the bill is, therefore, much less exceptionable than
that of the other. To reject a bill on the first reading is a bad
practice. Mr. A. hoped that the House would guard against it, unless
where any thing was grossly improper, and depended on a single
principle. But he trusted that the House would, in every common case,
set their faces against it.

Mr. SMILIE controverted every thing said by Mr. AMES. He thought that
the measure would involve this country in a very useless expense. Did we
intend to rival the military establishments in Europe? The British might
be expected to increase their forces in Canada in proportion to those of
the United States.

Mr. DAYTON followed Mr. SMILIE, and said, that the arguments of the
member who spoke last, although intended to make a different impression,
had convinced him of the impropriety of rejecting this bill upon its
first reading. That gentleman had thought proper to enter into the
intrinsic merits at this stage of it, when those who favored its
principles could have no opportunity of defending or amending the
particular parts of it. He had heard the objects of it grossly
misrepresented. It had been asserted that the bill contemplated the
increase of our military peace establishment to sixteen thousand men.

[Mr. SMILIE interrupted Mr. DAYTON by declaring that he had never said
or meant any such thing. But the defence of the Western Territory was to
require six thousand men; and these, with the ten thousand to be raised
by this bill, would amount, in the whole, to sixteen thousand men.]

No such thing (said Mr. D.) was to be found in it, and he called upon
gentlemen to show upon what such an assertion was founded. He, for one,
was of opinion that the interests and safety of the United States might
be materially promoted by our vesting the PRESIDENT with the power to
raise these men, if war should break out in the recess of Congress. Who
did not believe that such an event was not only possible, but in some
degree probable? Who would say that, if war should be forced upon us,
this would not be considered as a most valuable provision, because we
might have this respectable body of troops engaged, equipped, and
prepared to act the moment that hostilities should be declared by the
constituted authority? He would address himself to the feelings and
interests of the member who spoke last, and those similarly
circumstanced. They resided in the interior parts of the country, and
hence it was that they did not seem to experience such lively sensations
at the approach of danger on the eastern frontiers--the sea. What (he
asked) was their situation, and what had they to fear in case of an open
rupture with Great Britain? It was easy to foresee that they would be
vigorously pressed, not only by those Indians which are at present
hostile, and by the regular troops in that quarter, but by all the
neighboring nations of savages over whom British threats or bribes could
have influence. A part of the Six Nations, too, would probably join the
confederacy, and the frontier settlers of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and
New York, would certainly be driven in. With such a corps as the one
proposed, an early check might be given to their irruptions, and the war
be carried to their towns.

On the other hand, what would be the consequence, if, after the
PRESIDENT perceives a war inevitable, he is not permitted to make the
smallest preparation until he can convene Congress? Two months must be
lost in convening them, owing to the extreme distances of their
residence, all which time would be employed by our enemies in increasing
their forces, in strengthening their posts, and establishing new ones,
and in invading our country. Let this discretionary power be given to
the PRESIDENT, (with whom much greater had repeatedly been lodged, and
had never in any instance been improperly exercised,) and the men might
be engaged while the members were collecting, and a small army in
readiness to act as Congress should by law direct and authorize. No
danger could arise from it, because the enlistments of those who might
be engaged would be void, unless the Legislature, immediately upon their
meeting, should confirm them. It had been said, that our reliance should
be upon the militia. He had, Mr. D. said, as high an opinion of militia
as any member in that House, for he had witnessed their exertions and
importance in the late war; but could it be said that it would be very
convenient or agreeable to them, to be drawn a distance from their own
homes, to be employed in taking and garrisoning posts, if it should be
deemed advisable to direct operations of that kind? He concluded, with
wishing that the bill might be allowed to have a second reading, as
constructions had been imputed to it which it certainly would not bear.

Mr. MADISON did not accede to the principle of the bill. He did not see
any such immediate prospect of a war, as could induce the House to
violate the constitution. He thought that it was a wise principle in the
constitution, to make one branch of Government raise an army, and
another conduct it. If the Legislature had the power to conduct an army,
they might embody it for that end. On the other hand, if the PRESIDENT
was empowered to raise an army, as he is to direct its motions when
raised, he might wish to assemble it for the sake of the influence to be
acquired by the command. The constitution had wisely guarded against
that danger on either side. He could not, in the present case, consent
to the breaking down of this barrier of public safety. He saw no
necessity for it; nor any violent probability, that this country will be
speedily invaded by any force, to which the present military
establishment cannot make an adequate resistance. Let us hear from the
Minister whom we have just sent to Britain, before we take such abrupt
and expensive measures. We shall certainly hear from him, at least,
before we are invaded. Now, if we enter into a calculation of the time
requisite for his arrival in Britain, for commencing his business, and
for sending back an account of what kind of reception he has met with,
we shall find that by this period, Congress will have met again; or at
least, the interval will be so small as to make it not worth while to
embrace any measure of this kind.

Upon the whole, he could not venture to give his consent for violating
so salutary a principle of the constitution as that upon which this bill
encroached.

Mr. SEDGWICK differed from Mr. MADISON. He did not think that, in
certain contingencies, war was so distant a prospect. Simcoe is going to
erect a fort in our territories, and the PRESIDENT has declared that he
will repel the attempt. We all know the waste of time and property in
the last war, at its commencement, by trying to do the business with
militia. The proposal met his approbation, as did the resolution of the
PRESIDENT to repel force by force.

Mr. FINDLAY spoke against the bill.

The question was then stated, to wit: "Shall the said bill be rejected?"
and, after debate thereon, the question being taken, it was resolved in
the affirmative--yeas 50, nays 32.

_Advance of Money to France._

Mr. PARKER then moved that the House take into consideration the bill
for the payment of a certain sum of money to the French Republic.

The House resolved itself into a committee on this bill, Mr. PARKER in
the chair.

Several amendments were proposed, and several members spoke.

Mr. GILES knew that Mr. Fauchet was anxious for this money, and spoke of
it as necessary for his operations. He did not know whether to-day,
to-morrow, or at what time in particular; but in fact the money was
needed. He had another remark to make. This loan of three millions of
florins had come upon all parts of the House alike unexpectedly. Before
it was known, we heard of no particular complaints from the Treasury,
for want of money to raise the fortifications. But now, when the loan
was come, the tone was altered, and there was a loud cry of emptiness in
the Treasury.

Mr. GILLON said, that gentlemen talked of giving this money, as if we
were doing a favor to France. Is this so? We are sending a new
ambassador to that country. A very pretty introduction truly he would
have at Paris, with our credentials in one hand, and a refusal to pay
the debts due to the Republic in the other. We have been in need of her
assistance before, and we may want it again.

The committee made some amendments; the Chairman reported them, and the
bill finally passed the House.


FRIDAY, June 5.

_Protection of South-western Frontier._

The House proceeded to consider the amendments proposed by the Senate to
the bill, entitled "An act for the more effectual protection of the
South-western frontier settlers."

Mr. GILES expressed the utmost surprise at such a proposal. First, it
had been projected to raise a standing army of fifteen thousand men,
then twenty-five thousand, then ten thousand; and now, when all these
schemes had been put to an end, this regiment of eleven hundred and
forty men has appeared. Proteus never assumed a greater number of shapes
than this attempt has done. His jealousy was highly excited by such a
steady adherence to an idea so extremely offensive. The people of the
United States did not wish to be trodden down by a Continental army. How
this amendment might sit on the stomachs of some people, he could not
say; but, if he were one of the gentlemen who represented the people
from whom the requisition for defence had come, the amendment of the
Senate would sit very badly indeed upon his stomach.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, that a bill had been wanted to _protect_ the
frontiers, but, by this amendment, the bill would _scourge_ them. He
wondered at the pertinacity of some people, in adhering to the idea of a
standing army. Mr. N. enlarged considerably on the question before the
House.

Mr. MCDOWELL had lived long on the frontiers, and he believed that he
understood, from personal experience, what was the proper mode of
defending them, as well as perhaps any gentleman on that floor. He was
against the amendment, because he knew, from repeated experiments, that
regular troops were, in this kind of service, altogether useless. The
militia of the frontiers, who knew the country, and whose habits of life
made them perfectly acquainted with the character of the enemy whom they
had to encounter, were the only proper forces to oppose the Indians with
success. But why Government should burden itself with a useless expense,
or the people with a kind of defence which they disliked, Mr. McD. did
not know. Perhaps there was no part of the Union that had behaved so
prudently and so pacifically as the citizens on the South-western
frontiers. Yet Indian treaties were constantly broken by the savages
themselves. Gentlemen who had never been witnesses to the scene, did not
feel it, with adequate comprehension or sensibility. A man went to his
corn-field, along with his son, who was shot dead by his side. He came
home, and found his wife and the rest of his family murdered.
Circumstances of this kind, and of which Mr. McD. drew an affecting
picture, were too dreadful for human patience to support.

Mr. BOUDINOT thought that the militia could not be kept together for six
months, and that it was better to have regular troops.

Mr. AMES replied to Mr. GILES. It was wrong to say that this was part of
a system, and that the twenty-five thousand men had been part of it. He
saw no such thing. We have one Indian war already, which is enough at a
time. Those whom we are now to quarrel with, are three times more
numerous than those to the North-west. The Creeks, Cherokees, Choctaws,
and Chickasaws, were, as Mr. A. had been informed, fifteen thousand
fighting men. He did not think that there were too many Indians on the
frontier, any more than too many wild beasts. The one might, by skilful
management, be rendered as harmless as the other. Even the success of an
Indian war, by extending our frontier, augments the number of our
enemies; so that the task is hopeless, and has no end. Distance from the
seat of Government would increase, and with it the charges of defence.
He was not one of those who wished to exterminate these poor creatures.
He recommended a system of restraint on both sides. He could wish for
something as strong as the Chinese wall to separate them. When an
exasperated militia went out, what were we to expect, but that the first
man with a red skin whom they met would be shot? Presently you discover
that you have been shooting an Indian of the wrong nation, while, in the
mean time, this whole nation rises and attacks you. The Continental
troops, as being less exasperated, were less apt to fall into mistakes
of this kind. He did not wish the militia to be called out in such
numbers as were proposed by the bill when sent up to the Senate. He
wished, if possible, for a restraint on both parties. He was for the
amendment.

Mr. MURRAY was of the same opinion. It was not once in ten times that,
when an Indian was killed by a white man, the murderer could be
convicted. As to the standing army being an object of alarm, he
ridiculed that idea. But, at any rate, it was possible to limit the
operations of this regiment of eleven hundred and forty men to the
South-western frontier, if gentlemen were afraid of their being marched
up and down the country.

Mr. GILLON said, that there was something in this question, just like
that some days since, about the galleys. If you do not want them, they
shall not be forced upon you. He could not see their use in South
Carolina. It was a body of militia that was wanted. There are no tumults
in South Carolina to be repressed by a standing army. The expedition
against Spain is knocked up. What occasion, then, can there be for them?
He feared that this corps was only a part of the old leaven, the gilding
of a bad pill He liked this proposal better than the others of the same
sort, only because, as the numbers are inferior, the evils are less. Mr.
G. had no idea of hiring other people to do for us what we can do for
ourselves. He had voted against the twenty-five thousand men, and the
ten thousand, and he should also vote against the present number.

Mr. MADISON said, that he would not enter at large into this subject,
but there was one circumstance in the business which struck him as very
strange. It was proposed to raise a new corps, at a bounty of twenty
dollars. The present army wanted more than the whole number of this
corps to fill up its deficiencies, and yet the proposal for completing
them had been rejected. Thus are we to be at the expense of supporting
the skeleton of an army. Was it not better to fill up the old corps,
than to put ourselves to the inconvenience of raising a new one?

Mr. MCDOWELL rose to correct what had fallen from Mr. AMES, as to the
strength of the Indian nations on the South-western frontier. The
Choctaws and Chickasaws are, and always have been, friends to the white
people, and ready to fight for them. The Creeks and Cherokees do not, at
the most, extend to more than seven or eight thousand men.

Mr. CARNES.--The only use that Continental troops can be of is to defend
posts; and it has been found, by the experience of several years, that
posts do more mischief than service. They are established at a distance
of fifteen or twenty miles from each other. The Indian parties slip in
between them; and the frontier settlers, depending on the protection of
the regulars, are not, as they otherwise would be, upon their guard
against the savages. The consequence is, that they are frequently
murdered; while the only service performed by the Continentals is, that
when the militia pursue the Indians, they are prevented by the former
from crossing what is called the line. That is the whole service which
they have performed in Georgia. In short, against the Creeks, they are
good for nothing. Mr. C. wished that gentlemen would frankly say, once
for all, that the Georgians did not deserve protection, and then the
State would know what was to be done. He insisted on it, that, in
Georgia, there were improper leanings in favor of the Indians. He
referred to some persons in office, whom he specified. He believed
sincerely that the Senate imagined themselves to be acting for the best;
but they could not be such competent judges as persons on the spot.
Within the last seven years, there has not been a single instance of an
Indian killed by a white man, unless when the Indians themselves began
the quarrel. During the last ten or twelve years, there had been stolen
from Georgia, horses to the amount of a hundred thousand dollars. These
were often the chief property of poor people, who had nothing else to
depend on for supporting their families. Gentlemen say that we have one
Indian war already. But if you have two hands, both in the fire at
once, will you pull out one before the other? The Creeks are a savage
and faithless tribe. Some years ago, a treaty was made with them at New
York; and this treaty cost, in presents, sixty-one thousand dollars.
Well, before the chiefs got home, a fresh set of murders were committed.
A set of commissioners were next sent, and this embassy cost perhaps a
hundred and fifty thousand dollars more. Gentlemen might talk as they
thought fit about Indians; for his own part, he would not give the life
of one white man for those of fifty Indians. The militia had been always
successful against them, and the regulars had always been beaten; this
showed the futility of the present amendment from the Senate. Of the
successes of the militia, he gave some striking instances, where they
had defeated three or four times their own number. As an evidence of the
improper leaning on behalf of the Indians, Mr. C. adverted to what had
just happened in Georgia. A gang of savages stole some horses.
Lieutenant Hay, with a party of dragoons, pursued them, and fell into an
ambuscade, where Mr. Hay and two men were killed. This was the way that
the Creeks kept a peace. Soon after, an Indian, being found in the
State, was wounded; and in the correspondence read the other day to the
House, it was so stated, as if the white people were to blame. It made
every drop of blood in his heart boil, to hear what he heard in this
city as to the character and conduct of his constituents. As a
Representative of Georgia, he _demanded_ effectual aid for that State.
If the House did not choose to grant it, he warned them that the
Georgians would take measures for themselves. It was needless to speak
of economy, after squandering such vast sums as he had mentioned, in the
purchase of treaties that were never kept. He was against the amendment
of the Senate.

Mr. DAYTON rose to contradict one assertion, which had fallen from the
gentleman, viz: that the regulars were always beaten by the Indians. If
gentlemen exercised their memories, or attended to historical facts,
they would see the contrary. General Sullivan had entered the country of
the Six Nations, had defeated them, and destroyed their towns, and since
that time they had been looked upon as a subdued people. Mr. D. was
himself in the army on that expedition, and a witness to the success of
the regulars. He was for the amendment.

The question was put that the House do concur with the Senate in the
said amendment, and passed in the negative--yeas 26, nays 42, as
follows:

      YEAS.--Fisher Ames, David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Joshua Coit,
      Jonathan Dayton, George Dent, Thomas Fitzsimons, Dwight
      Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Henry Glenn, James Gordon, William
      Hindman, Henry Latimer, Amasa Learned, Francis Malbone,
      William Vans Murray, Theodore Sedgwick, William Smith,
      Zephaniah Swift, Uriah Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, John E.
      Van Allen, Peter Van Gaasbeck, Peleg Wadsworth, Jeremiah
      Wadsworth, and John Watts.

      NAYS.--Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, John Beatty,
      Thomas Blount, Thomas P. Carnes, Thomas Claiborne, Isaac
      Coles, William J. Dawson, Henry Dearborn, William Findlay,
      William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Alexander Gillon,
      Nicholas Gilman, Andrew Gregg, Samuel Griffin, William
      Barry Grove, Daniel Heister, William Lyman, Nathaniel
      Macon, James Madison, Joseph McDowell, Alexander Mebane,
      William Montgomery, Andrew Moore, Joseph Neville, John
      Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, Josiah Parker, Francis Preston,
      Robert Rutherford, Thomas Scott, John Smilie, Jeremiah
      Smith, Thomas Sprigg, Thomas Tredwell, Philip Van
      Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, Francis Walker, Benjamin
      Williams, Richard Winn, and Joseph Winston.

_Ordered_, That the further consideration of the said amendments be put
off till to-morrow.


SATURDAY, June 7.

Mr. THATCHER moved that such members as had received their pay up to
Monday next, and then absented themselves, should be ordered next
session to return as much as they had received for the days when absent.
The motion was ordered to lie on the table.


MONDAY, June 9.

LEMUEL BENTON (from South Carolina) appeared, produced his credentials,
and took his seat in the House; the oath to support the Constitution of
the United States being first administered to him by Mr. SPEAKER,
according to law.

Mr. BENTON (from South Carolina) informed the SPEAKER, that he had been
prevented by indisposition in his family, and a long voyage, from
attending his duty sooner in that House. This was the day of
adjournment, and he wished to inform the House, that he should decline
receiving pay for his travelling expenses, or attendance. He was not
willing to qualify himself this day, unless it could be noted on the
journals that he had refused any compensation. He took the oath.

A message from the Senate informed the House, that the Senate having
completed the Legislative business before them, are now about to adjourn
until the first Monday in November next: Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER
adjourned the House until the first Monday in November next.[51]




THIRD CONGRESS.--SECOND SESSION.

HELD IN THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, NOVEMBER 3, 1794.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.


MONDAY, November 3, 1794.

The following Senators appeared, and took their seats:

RALPH IZARD, President _pro tem._, from South Carolina.

JOHN LANGDON and SAMUEL LIVERMORE, from New Hampshire.

GEORGE CABOT, from Massachusetts.

OLIVER ELLSWORTH, from Connecticut.

THEODORE FOSTER, from Rhode Island.

MOSES ROBINSON, from Vermont.

RUFUS KING, from New York.

ROBERT MORRIS, from Pennsylvania.

JOHN BROWN, from Kentucky.

BENJAMIN HAWKINS, from North Carolina.

The number assembled not being sufficient to constitute a quorum to do
business, the Senate adjourned to 11 o'clock to-morrow morning.


TUESDAY, November 4.

The Senate assembled: present as yesterday. JOHN VINING, from the State
of Delaware, attended.


MONDAY, November 10.

The Senate assembled: present as on the 7th; and

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

ALEXANDER MARTIN, from the State of North Carolina, and JAMES JACKSON,
from the State of Georgia, severally attended.

The number assembled not being sufficient to constitute a quorum to do
business, the Senate adjourned to 11 o'clock to-morrow morning.


TUESDAY, November 11.

The Senate assembled: present as yesterday; and WILLIAM BRADFORD, from
the State of Rhode Island, attended.


MONDAY, November 17.

The Senate assembled: present as on Friday.

The number assembled not being sufficient to form a quorum, the VICE
PRESIDENT was requested by the Senators present, to write a letter to
each of the absent Senators, stating that a fortnight has already
elapsed without the formation of a Senate, and urging their immediate
attendance as necessary to enable Congress to commence the business of
the session.

The Senate adjourned to 11 o'clock to-morrow morning.


TUESDAY, November 18.

AARON BURR, from New York, appeared to-day, which formed a quorum, and
enabled the Senate to proceed to business.

Messages were accordingly exchanged between the two Houses, and a joint
committee was appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
to inform him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled, and are
ready to receive any communications that he may be pleased to make to
them.

Mr. IZARD, from the joint committee appointed for the purpose, reported
that the PRESIDENT would meet the two Houses in the Representatives'
Chamber at 12 o'clock to-morrow.


WEDNESDAY, November 19.

JOHN EDWARDS, from Kentucky, this day attended.

The Senate agreeably to appointment attended in the House of
Representatives, in order to receive the PRESIDENT's communications;
and, on their return, the PRESIDENT's Speech was read, as follows:

      _Fellow-Citizens of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:_

      When we call to mind the gracious indulgence of Heaven, by
      which the American people became a nation; when we survey
      the general prosperity of our country, and look forward to
      the riches, power, and happiness, to which it seems
      destined; with the deepest regret do I announce to you,
      that, during your recess, some of the citizens of the
      United States have been found capable of an insurrection.
      It is due, however, to the character of our Government, and
      to its stability, which cannot be shaken by the enemies of
      order, freely to unfold the course of this event.

      During the session of the year one thousand seven hundred
      and ninety, it was expedient to exercise the Legislative
      power, granted by the Constitution of the United States,
      "to lay and collect excises." In a majority of the States,
      scarcely an objection was heard to this mode of taxation.
      In some, indeed, alarms were at first conceived, until they
      were banished by reason and patriotism. In the four western
      counties of Pennsylvania, a prejudice, fostered and
      embittered by the artifice of men, who labored for an
      ascendency over the will of others, by the guidance of
      their passions, produced symptoms of riot and violence. It
      is well known, that Congress did not hesitate to examine
      the complaints which were presented; and to relieve them,
      as far as justice dictated, or general convenience would
      permit. But the impression which this moderation made on
      the discontented, did not correspond with what it deserved.
      The arts of delusion were no longer confined to the efforts
      of designing individuals. The very forbearance to press
      prosecutions was misinterpreted into a fear of urging the
      execution of the laws; and associations of men began to
      denounce threats against the officers employed. From a
      belief, that, by a more formal concert, their operation
      might be defeated, certain self-created societies assumed
      the tone of condemnation. Hence, while the greater part of
      Pennsylvania itself were conforming themselves to the acts
      of excise, a few counties were resolved to frustrate them.
      It was now perceived, that every expectation from the
      tenderness which had been hitherto pursued was unavailing,
      and that further delay could only create an opinion of
      impotency or irresolution in the Government. Legal process
      was therefore delivered to the Marshal against the rioters
      and delinquent distillers.

      No sooner was he understood to be engaged in this duty,
      than the vengeance of armed men was aimed at _his_ person,
      and the person and property of the Inspector of the
      Revenue. They fired upon the Marshal, arrested him, and
      detained him, for some time as a prisoner. He was obliged,
      by the jeopardy of his life, to renounce the service of
      other process, on the west side of the Alleghany Mountain;
      and a deputation was afterwards sent to him to demand a
      surrender of that which he _had_ served. A numerous body
      repeatedly attacked the house of the Inspector, seized his
      papers of office, and finally destroyed by fire his
      buildings and whatsoever they contained. Both of these
      officers, from a just regard to their safety, fled to the
      seat of Government; it being avowed, that the motives to
      such outrages were to compel the resignation of the
      Inspector; to withstand by force of arms the authority of
      the United States; and thereby to extort a repeal of the
      laws of excise, and an alteration in the conduct of
      Government.

      Upon the testimony of these facts, an Associate Justice of
      the Supreme Court of the United States notified to me that
      "in the counties of Washington and Alleghany, in
      Pennsylvania, laws of the United States were opposed, and
      the execution thereof obstructed, by combinations too
      powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of
      judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the
      Marshal of that district." On this call, momentous in the
      extreme, I sought and weighed what might best subdue the
      crisis. On the one hand, the Judiciary was pronounced to be
      stripped of its capacity to enforce the laws; crimes, which
      reached the very existence of social order, were
      perpetrated without control; the friends of government were
      insulted, abused, and overawed into silence, or an
      apparent acquiescence; and, to yield to the treasonable
      fury of so small a portion of the United States would be to
      violate the fundamental principle of our constitution,
      which enjoins that the will of the majority shall prevail.
      On the other, to array citizen against citizen, to publish
      the dishonor of such excesses, to encounter the expense,
      and other embarrassments, of so distant an expedition, were
      steps too delicate, too closely interwoven with many
      affecting considerations, to be lightly adopted. I
      postponed, therefore, the summoning the militia immediately
      into the field; but, I required them to be held in
      readiness, that, if my anxious endeavors to reclaim the
      deluded, and to convince the malignant of their danger,
      should be fruitless, military force might be prepared to
      act, before the season should be too far advanced.

      My Proclamation of the 7th of August last was accordingly
      issued, and accompanied by the appointment of
      commissioners, who were charged to repair to the scene of
      insurrection. They were authorized to confer with any
      bodies of men or individuals. They were instructed to be
      candid and explicit in stating the sensations which had
      been excited in the Executive, and his earnest wish to
      avoid a resort to coercion; to represent, however, that,
      without submission, coercion _must_ be the resort; but to
      invite them, at the same time, to return to the demeanor of
      faithful citizens, by such accommodations as lay within the
      sphere of Executive power. Pardon, too, was tendered to
      them by the Government of the United States, and that of
      Pennsylvania, upon no other condition than a satisfactory
      assurance of obedience to the laws.

      Although the report of the commissioners marks their
      firmness and abilities, and must unite all virtuous men, by
      showing that the means of conciliation have been exhausted,
      all of those who had committed or abetted the tumults did
      not subscribe the mild form which was proposed as the
      atonement; and the indications of a peaceable temper were
      neither sufficiently general nor conclusive to recommend or
      warrant the further suspension of the march of the militia.

      Thus, the painful alternative could not be discarded. I
      ordered the militia to march--after once more admonishing
      the insurgents, in my Proclamation of the 25th of September
      last.

      It was a task too difficult to ascertain with precision the
      lowest degree of force competent to the quelling of the
      insurrection. From a respect, indeed, to economy, and the
      ease of my fellow-citizens belonging to the militia, it
      would have gratified me to accomplish such an estimate. My
      very reluctance to ascribe too much importance to the
      opposition, had its extent been accurately seen, would have
      been a decided inducement to the smallest efficient
      numbers. In this uncertainty, therefore, I put into motion
      fifteen thousand men, as being an army which, according to
      all human calculation, would be prompt and adequate in
      every view, and might, perhaps, by rendering resistance
      desperate, prevent the effusion of blood. Quotas had been
      assigned to the States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
      Maryland, and Virginia; the Governor of Pennsylvania having
      declared, on this occasion, an opinion which justified a
      requisition to the other States.

      Among the discussions which may arise from this aspect of
      our affairs, and from the documents which will be submitted
      to Congress, it will not escape their observation, that not
      only the Inspector of the Revenue, but other officers of
      the United States in Pennsylvania, have, from their
      fidelity in the discharge of their functions, sustained
      material injuries to their property. The obligation and
      policy of indemnifying them are strong and obvious. It may
      also merit attention, whether policy will not enlarge this
      provision to the retribution of other citizens, who, though
      not under the ties of office, may have suffered damage by
      their generous exertions for upholding the constitution and
      the laws. The amount, even if all the injured were
      included, would not be great; and, on future emergencies,
      the Government would be amply repaid by the influence of an
      example, that he who incurs a loss in its defence, shall
      find a recompense in its liberality.

      While there is cause to lament that occurrences of this
      nature should have disgraced the name, or interrupted the
      tranquillity of any part of our community, or should have
      diverted, to a new application, any portion of the public
      resources, there are not wanting in real and substantial
      consolations for the misfortune. It has demonstrated, that
      our prosperity rests on solid foundations; by furnishing an
      additional proof, that my fellow-citizens understand the
      true principles of government and liberty; that they feel
      their inseparable union; that notwithstanding all the
      devices which have been used to sway them from their
      interest and duty, they are now as ready to maintain the
      authority of the laws against licentious invasions, as they
      were to defend their rights against usurpation. It has been
      a spectacle, displaying to the highest advantage the value
      of Republican government, to behold the most and the least
      wealthy of our citizens standing in the same ranks, as
      private soldiers, pre-eminently distinguished by being the
      army of the constitution; undeterred by a march of three
      hundred miles over rugged mountains, by the approach of an
      inclement season, or by any other discouragement. Nor ought
      I to omit to acknowledge the efficacious and patriotic
      co-operation which I have experienced from the Chief
      Magistrates of the States to which my requisitions have
      been addressed.

      To every description of citizens, indeed, let praise be
      given. But let them persevere in their affectionate
      vigilance over that precious depository of American
      happiness, the Constitution of the United States. Let them
      cherish it, too, for the sake of those who, from every
      clime are daily seeking a dwelling in our land. And when,
      in the calm moments of reflection, they shall have retraced
      the origin and progress of the insurrection, let them
      determine whether it has not been fomented by combinations
      of men, who, careless of consequences, and disregarding the
      unerring truth that those who rouse cannot always appease a
      civil convulsion, have disseminated, from an ignorance or
      perversion of facts, suspicions, jealousies, and
      accusations, of the whole Government.

      The intelligence from the army under the command of General
      Wayne is a happy presage to our military operations against
      the hostile Indians north of the Ohio. From the advices
      which have been forwarded, the advance which he has made
      must have damped the ardor of the savages, and weakened
      their obstinacy in waging war against the United States.
      And yet, even at this late hour, when our power to punish
      them cannot be questioned, we shall not be unwilling to
      cement a lasting peace, upon terms of candor, equity, and
      good neighborhood.

      Towards none of the Indian tribes have overtures of
      friendship been spared. The Creeks, in particular, are
      covered from encroachment by the interposition of the
      General Government, and that of Georgia. From a desire,
      also, to remove the discontents of the Six Nations, a
      settlement meditated at Presqu'isle, on Lake Erie, has been
      suspended; and an agent is now endeavoring to rectify any
      misconception into which they may have fallen. But I cannot
      refrain from again pressing upon your deliberations the
      plan which I recommended at the last session, for the
      improvement of harmony with all the Indians within our
      limits, by the fixing and conducting of trading houses upon
      the principles then expressed.

      _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_

      The time which has elapsed since the commencement of our
      fiscal measures has developed our pecuniary resources, so
      as to open the way for a definitive plan for the redemption
      of the public debt. It is believed that the result is such
      as to encourage Congress to consummate this work without
      delay. Nothing can more promote the permanent welfare of
      the nation, and nothing would be more grateful to our
      constituents. Indeed, whatsoever is unfinished of our
      system of public credit, cannot be benefited by
      procrastination; and, as far as may be practicable, we
      ought to place that credit on grounds which cannot be
      disturbed, and to prevent that progressive accumulation of
      debt, which must ultimately endanger all governments.

      An estimate of the necessary appropriations, including the
      expenditures into which we have been driven by the
      insurrection, will be submitted to Congress.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.

      UNITED STATES, _November_ 19, 1794.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. KING, ELLSWORTH, and IZARD, be a committee to
report the draft of an Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in
answer to his Speech this day to both Houses of Congress.


THURSDAY, November 20.

Mr. KING, from the committee, reported an Address to the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, in reply to his Speech of the 19th to both Houses of
Congress, which was read.

_Ordered_, That to-morrow be assigned to take this report into
consideration.


FRIDAY, November 21.

The Senate took into consideration the report of the committee, in reply
to the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to both Houses of
Congress at the opening of the session; and it was agreed to consider
the report in paragraphs.

On motion of Mr. BURR, seconded by Mr. JACKSON, to expunge these words:

      "Our anxiety, arising from the licentious and open
      resistance to the laws in the western counties of
      Pennsylvania, has been increased by the proceedings of
      certain self-created societies, relative to the laws and
      administration of the Government; proceedings, in our
      apprehension, founded in political error, calculated, if
      not intended, to disorganize our Government, and which, by
      inspiring delusive hopes of support, have been influential
      in misleading our fellow-citizens in the scene of
      insurrection:"

It passed in the negative.

On motion to amend the paragraph respecting the army, under the command
of General Wayne, to be read as follows:

      "The pleasure with which we learn the success of the
      Western Army under the command of General Wayne, is
      enhanced by the hope, that their victories will lay the
      foundation of a just and durable peace with the _Indian_
      tribes:"

It passed in the negative.

On motion to strike out of the paragraph respecting the Western Army,
the words, "General and," it passed in the negative.

And the several paragraphs reported by the committee being agreed to,
the report was adopted, as follows:

      SIR: We receive with pleasure your Speech to the two Houses
      of Congress. In it we perceive renewed proofs of that
      vigilant and paternal concern for the prosperity, honor,
      and happiness of our country, which has uniformly
      distinguished your past administration.

      Our anxiety arising from the licentious and open resistance
      to the laws in the western counties of Pennsylvania, has
      been increased by the proceedings of certain self-created
      societies, relative to the laws and administration of the
      Government; proceedings, in our apprehension, founded in
      political error, calculated, if not intended, to
      disorganize our Government, and which, by inspiring
      delusive hopes of support, have been influential in
      misleading our fellow-citizens in the scene of
      insurrection.

      In a situation so delicate and important, the lenient and
      persuasive measures which you adopted merit and receive our
      affectionate approbation. These failing to produce their
      proper effect, and coercion having become inevitable, we
      have derived the highest satisfaction from the enlightened
      patriotism and animating zeal with which the citizens of
      New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, have
      rallied around the standard of Government, in opposition to
      anarchy and insurrection.

      Our warm and cordial acknowledgments are due to you, sir,
      for the wisdom and decision with which you arrayed the
      militia, to execute the public will; and to them, for the
      disinterestedness and alacrity with which they obeyed your
      summons.

      The example is precious to the theory of our Government,
      and confers the brightest honor upon the patriots who have
      given it.

      We shall readily concur in such farther provisions for the
      security of internal peace and a due obedience to the laws,
      as the occasion manifestly requires.

      The effectual organization of the militia, and a prudent
      attention to the fortifications of our ports and harbors,
      are subjects of great national importance, and together
      with the other measures you have been pleased to recommend,
      will receive our deliberate consideration.

      The success of the troops under the command of General
      Wayne cannot fail to produce essential advantages. The
      pleasure with which we acknowledge the merits of that
      gallant General and army, is enhanced by the hope that
      their victories will lay the foundation of a just and
      durable peace with the Indian tribes.

      At a period so momentous in the affairs of nations, the
      temperate, just, and firm policy that you have pursued, in
      respect to foreign powers, has been eminently calculated to
      promote the great and essential interest of our country,
      and has created the fairest title to the public gratitude
      and thanks.

                                  JOHN ADAMS,

         _Vice President of the United States,
                 and President of the Senate_.

_Ordered_, That the committee who prepared the Address wait on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and desire him to acquaint the Senate at
what time and place it will be most convenient for him that it should be
presented.

Mr. KING reported, from the committee, that they had waited on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and that he would receive the Address of
the Senate to-morrow at 12 o'clock, at his own house.


SATURDAY, November 22.

The Senate waited on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and the VICE
PRESIDENT, in their name, presented the Address agreed to on the 21st
instant.

To which the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES was pleased to make the
following reply:

      _Gentlemen:_

      Among the occasions which have been afforded for expressing
      my sense of the zealous and steadfast co-operation of the
      Senate, in the maintenance of Government, none has yet
      occurred more forcibly demanding my unqualified
      acknowledgments than the present.

      Next to the consciousness of upright intentions, it is the
      highest pleasure to be approved by the enlightened
      Representatives of a free nation. With the satisfaction,
      therefore, which arises from an unalterable attachment to
      public order, do I learn, that the Senate discountenance
      those proceedings, which would arrogate the direction of
      our affairs, without any degree of authority derived from
      the people.

      It has been more than once the lot of our Government to be
      thrown into new and delicate situations; and of these, the
      insurrection has not been the least important. Having been
      compelled at length to lay aside my repugnance to resort to
      arms, I derive much happiness from being confirmed by your
      judgment in the necessity of decisive measures, and from
      the support of my fellow-citizens of the militia, who were
      the patriotic instruments of that necessity.

      With such demonstrations of affection for our constitution;
      with an adequate organization of the militia; with the
      establishment of necessary fortifications; with a
      continuance of those judicious and spirited exertions which
      have brought victory to our Western Army; with a due
      attention to public credit and an unsullied honor towards
      all nations; we may meet, under every assurance of success,
      our enemies from within and from without.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.




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


MONDAY, November 24.

JOHN RUTHERFORD, from New Jersey, attended.


WEDNESDAY, November 26.

JOHN HENRY, from Maryland, and JAMES ROSS, from Pennsylvania, severally
attended.


FRIDAY, November 28.

STEPHEN R. BRADLEY, from Vermont, and CALEB STRONG, from Massachusetts,
severally attended.


TUESDAY, December 9.

RICHARD POTTS, from Maryland, attended to-day.


THURSDAY, December 11.

FREDERICK FRELINGHUYSEN, from New Jersey, attended.


MONDAY, December 15.

STEPHEN MIX MITCHELL, from Connecticut, attended to-day.


MONDAY, December 29.

HENRY TAZEWELL, appointed a Senator by the State of Virginia, in the
place of JOHN TAYLOR, resigned, produced his credentials, which were
read, and the VICE PRESIDENT administered to him the oath required by
law, and he took his seat in the Senate.


FRIDAY, February 20.

The VICE PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceeded to the election of
a PRESIDENT _pro tempore_, as the constitution provides, and SAMUEL
LIVERMORE was duly elected; who, declining the appointment,

The Senate proceeded to the election of HENRY TAZEWELL to that office.

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


SATURDAY, February 28.

HENRY LATIMER, from the State of Delaware, in place of GEORGE READ,
resigned, attended, and produced his credentials, which were read; and,
the oath prescribed by law being administered, he took his seat in the
Senate.

JAMES GUNN, from Georgia, attended.


TUESDAY, March 3.

Mr. BURR laid before the Senate a motion, as follows:

      "_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of
      the United States of America in Congress assembled,
      two-thirds of both Houses concurring_, That the following
      article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several
      States, as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
      States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of the said
      Legislatures, shall be valid as part of the said
      constitution, to wit:

      "That the term for which the members of the Senate and
      House of Representatives of the next Congress are or shall
      be chosen shall expire on the first day of June next
      following the third day of March, on which it would have
      expired if this amendment to the constitution had not been
      adopted."

_Ordered_, That this motion lie for consideration.


TUESDAY EVENING, March 3.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the
House, having finished the business of the session, are about to
adjourn.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. IZARD and MORRIS be a committee, jointly, with
such committee as the House of Representatives may appoint on their
part, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and inform him that
Congress is ready to adjourn without day, unless he may have any further
communications to make.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives
therewith, and desire the appointment of a committee on their part.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the
House have appointed a joint committee on their part to wait on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and inform him that Congress is ready to
adjourn.

Mr. IZARD reported, from the joint committee, that they had waited on
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, who informed them that he had no
further communications to make to Congress during this session.
Whereupon, it was

_Resolved_, That the Senate adjourn without day.




EXECUTIVE JOURNAL.

THE TENTH SESSION OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, CONVENED ON

MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1795.


MONDAY, June 8, 1795.

Pursuant to a call from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in a
circular addressed to the several Senators, informing each that "certain
matters touching the public good required that the Senate should be
convened on the above day, at the Senate Chamber, in Philadelphia, then
and there to receive and deliberate on such communications as he shall
then make to them:" the Senate assembled accordingly.

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

_From New Hampshire._--JOHN LANGDON and SAMUEL LIVERMORE.

_From Massachusetts._--CALEB STRONG and GEORGE CABOT.

_From Vermont._--MOSES ROBINSON.

From _Connecticut_.--OLIVER ELLSWORTH and JONATHAN TRUMBULL.

_From Rhode Island._--THEODORE FOSTER and WILLIAM BRADFORD.

_From New York._--RUFUS KING and ARRON BURR.

_From New Jersey._--JOHN RUTHERFORD.

_From Pennsylvania._--JAMES ROSS and WILLIAM BINGHAM.

_From Delaware._--HENRY LATIMER.

_From Maryland._--RICHARD POTTS.

_From Virginia._--HENRY TAZEWELL and STEVENS THOMSON MASON.

_From Kentucky._--JOHN BROWN and HUMPHREY MARSHALL.

_From North Carolina._--ALEXANDER MARTIN and TIMOTHY BLOODWORTH.

_From South Carolina._--JACOB READ.

_From Georgia._--JAMES JACKSON.

_Ordered_, That Mr. STRONG and Mr. LANGDON be a committee to wait on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and notify him that a quorum of the
Senate is assembled, and ready to receive any communications he may be
pleased to make.

Mr. STRONG reported, from the committee, that they had waited on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and that he informed them he would make
some communications to the Senate immediately.


TUESDAY, June 9.

PIERCE BUTLER, from the State of South Carolina, and FREDERICK
FRELINGHUYSEN, from the State of New Jersey, severally attended.

JAMES GUNN, from the State of Georgia, produced his credentials, and,
the usual oath being administered, took his seat in the Senate.


FRIDAY, June 12.

JOHN HENRY, from the State of Maryland, produced his credentials, and,
the usual oath being administered, he took his seat in the Senate.


SATURDAY, June 13.

ELIJAH PAINE, from the State of Vermont, produced his credentials, and
the usual oath being administered, he took his seat in the Senate.


MONDAY, June 15.

JOHN VINING, from the State of Delaware, attended.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the Treaty, communicated by the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, with his Message of the 8th instant:
and, after progress, the Senate adjourned.


WEDNESDAY, June 17.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the Treaty, communicated with
the Message of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of the 8th instant,
and after discussion on the remaining articles, a motion was made and
seconded, that it he

      "_Resolved_, (two-thirds of the Senate concurring therein,)
      That they do consent to, and advise the President of the
      United States, to ratify the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and
      Navigation, between His Britannic Majesty and the United
      States of America, concluded at London, the 19th day of
      November, 1794, on condition that there be added to the
      said Treaty an article whereby it shall be agreed to
      suspend the operation of so much of the 12th article as
      respects the trade which his said Majesty thereby consents
      may be carried on between the United States and his Islands
      in the West Indies, in the manner, and on the terms and
      conditions therein specified.

      "And the Senate recommend to the President, to proceed,
      without delay, to further friendly negotiations with His
      Majesty, on the subject of the said trade, and of the terms
      and conditions in question."

On motion, it was agreed, that this motion lie for consideration until
to-morrow.[52]


MONDAY, June 22.

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a letter from the Secretary
for the Department of State, with a "list of the <DW64>s, to which the
correspondence between the Commander-in-chief of the American Army and
Sir Guy Carleton relates;" which was read, and, with the document
referred to, ordered to lie on the table.


WEDNESDAY, June 24.

_Deported Slaves of the Revolution._

A motion was made by Mr. GUNN, seconded by Mr. READ, as follows:

      "Whereas it is alleged by divers American citizens, that
      <DW64>s, and other property, to a considerable amount, were
      carried away, in contravention of the seventh article of
      the Treaty of Peace between the United States and His
      Britannic Majesty:

      "_Resolved_, That the Senate recommend to the President of
      the United States, to renew, by friendly negotiation with
      his said Majesty, the claims of the American citizens, to
      compensation for the <DW64>s and other property, so alleged
      to have been carried away; and in case the disagreement
      that has hitherto existed, relative to the construction in
      this behalf of the said article, cannot be removed by
      candid and amicable discussions, that it be proposed, as a
      measure calculated to cherish and confirm the good
      understanding and friendship which it is desired may
      prevail between the two countries, that commissioners be
      appointed, in the manner directed by the sixth article of
      the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, lately
      concluded between the United States and his said Majesty,
      with authority to ascertain and decide, as well the
      interpretation of the said seventh article in this respect,
      as likewise the amount of the losses sustained by the
      alleged violation of the same.

      "But the Senate are of opinion that the negotiation on this
      subject should be distinct from, and subsequent to that
      recommended by their act of the 24th instant, respecting
      the trade and intercourse between the United States and his
      said Majesty's islands in the West Indies."

And, after debate, it was agreed that this motion lie until to-morrow
for consideration.


THURSDAY, June 25.

The motion made by Mr. GUNN, as last recited, and yesterday referred to
this day for consideration, was resumed.

On motion to divide this motion, and to agree to all that is contained
from the word "_whereas_," to the word "_same_," at the end of the first
paragraph of the resolution inclusive, it passed in the
affirmative--yeas 27, nay 1, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bloodworth, Bradford, Brown, Burr,
      Butler, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster, Frelinghuysen, Gunn,
      Jackson, King, Langdon, Latimer, Livermore, Marshall,
      Martin, Paine, Potts, Read, Robinson, Boss, Rutherford,
      Strong, Trumbull, and Vining.

      Mr. Tazewell voted in the negative.[53]

The yeas and nays were required by one-fifth of the Senators present.

      Those who voted in the affirmative, are--Messrs. Bingham,
      Bradford, Butler, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster, Frelinghuysen,
      Gunn, King, Latimer, Livermore, Paine, Potts, Read, Ross,
      Rutherford, Strong, Trumbull, and Vining.

      These who voted in the negative, are--Messrs. Bloodworth,
      Brown, Burr, Jackson, Langdon, Marshall, Martin, Mason,
      Robinson, and Tazewell.

Yeas 19, nays 10. So the question of reconsideration was lost, there
not being two-thirds of the Senators present in the affirmative.

On motion, by Mr. RUTHERFORD, for the question on the resolution as
amended, to wit:

      "Whereas, it is alleged by divers American citizens, that
      <DW64>s and other property, to a considerable amount, were
      carried away in contravention of the 7th article of the
      Treaty of Peace between the United States and His Britannic
      Majesty:

      "_Resolved_, That the Senate recommend to the PRESIDENT OF
      THE UNITED STATES to renew, by friendly negotiation with
      his said Majesty, the claims of the American citizens to
      compensation for the <DW64>s and other property so alleged
      to have been carried away; and in case the disagreement,
      that has hitherto existed relative to the construction in
      this behalf of the said article, cannot be removed by
      candid and amicable discussions, that it be proposed, as a
      measure calculated to cherish and confirm the good
      understanding and friendship which it is desired may
      prevail between the two countries, that commissioners be
      appointed in the manner directed by the 6th article of the
      Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation lately concluded
      between the United States and his said Majesty, with
      authority to ascertain and decide, as well the
      interpretation of the said 7th article, in this respect, as
      likewise the amount of the losses sustained by the alleged
      violation of the same."

It passed in the negative--yeas 14, nays 15, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Butler, Burr, Gunn,
      Jackson, Langdon, Marshall, Martin, Mason, Paine, Read,
      Robinson, and Tazewell.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster,
      Frelinghuysen, King, Latimer, Livermore, Potts, Ross,
      Rutherford, Strong, Trumbull, and Vining.


FRIDAY, June 26.

Mr. CABOT reported that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES had no
further communications to make to the Senate, than his hearty wishes
that, in a speedy meeting with their friends, they may enjoy every
felicity.

On motion,

_Ordered_, That there be paid by the Secretary of the Senate, out of the
moneys appropriated for the contingent expenses of the Senate, to James
Mathers, Doorkeeper, three dollars per day, and to Cornelius Maxwell,
assistant Doorkeeper, two dollars per day, as compensation for their
respective attendance during this special session of the Senate, over
and above their stated allowance.

On motion, the Senate adjourned without day.

Attest:

                                  SAM. A. OTIS, _Secretary_.




THIRD CONGRESS.--SECOND SESSION.

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES

IN

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.


MONDAY, November 3, 1794.

The following members appeared, and took their seats, to wit:

_From New Hampshire._--NICHOLAS GILMAN, JEREMIAH SMITH, and PAINE
WINGATE.

_From Massachusetts._--FISHER AMES, DAVID COBB, HENRY DEARBORN, DWIGHT
FOSTER, BENJAMIN GOODHUE, SAMUEL HOLTEN, GEORGE THATCHER, PELEG
WADSWORTH, and ARTEMAS WARD.

_From Connecticut._--JOSHUA COIT, AMASA LEARNED, ZEPHANIAH SWIFT, URIAH
TRACY, and JONATHAN TRUMBULL.

_From Vermont._--ISRAEL SMITH.

_From New York._--THEODORUS BAILEY, PHILIP VAN CORTLANDT, and JOHN
WATTS.

_From New Jersey._--JOHN BEATTY and ELIAS BOUDINOT.

_From Pennsylvania._--THOMAS HARTLEY, JOHN WILKES KITTERA, FREDERICK A.
MUHLENBERG, (Speaker,) and PETER MUHLENBERG.

_From Maryland._--GABRIEL CHRISTIE and GEORGE DENT.

_From Virginia._--ISAAC COLES, SAMUEL GRIFFIN, JOHN HEATH, JOSEPH
NEVILLE, ANTHONY NEW, JOSIAH PARKER, and ROBERT RUTHERFORD.

_From Kentucky._--CHRISTOPHER GREENUP.

_From North Carolina._--THOMAS BLOUNT, WILLIAM JOHNSTON DAWSON,
NATHANIEL MACON, and ALEXANDER MEBANE.

_From South Carolina._--WILLIAM SMITH.

_From Georgia._--ABRAHAM BALDWIN.

A quorum of the whole number not being present, the House adjourned
until to-morrow.


TUESDAY, November 4.

Several other members, to wit: from Rhode Island, FRANCIS MALBONE; from
New York, HENRY GLENN, JAMES GORDON, and JOHN E. VAN ALLEN; from New
Jersey, JONATHAN DAYTON; from Pennsylvania, THOMAS FITZSIMONS; from
Delaware, HENRY LATIMER; from Maryland, WILLIAM VANS MURRAY; from
Virginia, GEORGE HANCOCK, RICHARD BLAND LEE, JAMES MADISON, ANDREW
MOORE, FRANCIS PRESTON, and FRANCIS WALKER; and from North Carolina,
MATTHEW LOCKE, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

And a quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole number, being
present,

_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate, to inform them that a
quorum of this House is assembled, and ready to proceed to business; and
that the Clerk of this House do go with said message.


WEDNESDAY, November 5.

Several other members, to wit: from New Hampshire, JOHN S. SHERBURNE;
from Massachusetts, WILLIAM LYMAN; from Connecticut, JAMES HILLHOUSE;
from Vermont, NATHANIEL NILES; from New York, EZEKIEL GILBERT; from
Maryland, WILLIAM HINDMAN; from Virginia, THOMAS CLAIBORNE; and from
Georgia, THOMAS P. CARNES, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

Notice was received that the Senate had not yet been able to form a
quorum.

Upon this, Mr. DAYTON moved that a committee shall be appointed to
examine the business left unfinished last session, and report to the
House. He saw no reason for losing time by waiting for the Senate.

Mr. GOODHUE objected to the motion as improper.

Mr. DAYTON challenged the gentleman to point out wherein the impropriety
consisted. For two or three weeks the House of Representatives would
have full employment, while the Senate, in reality, had none. He was
positive as to the legality and expediency of proceeding.

The SPEAKER put the question, and the ayes and noes were equal, each
being twenty-five.

The SPEAKER then informed the House that, as a quorum of their number
was not present, it would be requisite to adjourn.

The House rose immediately, after adjourning till to-morrow.


THURSDAY, November 6.

Two other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, PELEG COFFIN, and from
Virginia, JOHN NICHOLAS, appeared, and took their seats in the House.


FRIDAY, November 7.

Several other members, to wit: from Pennsylvania, JAMES ARMSTRONG and
WILLIAM MONTGOMERY; from Virginia, WILLIAM B. GILES; from North
Carolina, JOSEPH WINSTON; and from South Carolina, JOHN HUNTER,
appeared, and took their seats in the House.

On motion,

_Resolved_, That a Standing Committee of Elections be appointed, whose
duty it shall be to examine and report upon the certificates of
election, or other credentials of the members returned to serve in this
House, and to take into their consideration all such matters as shall or
may come in question, and be referred to them by the House, touching
returns and elections, and to report their proceedings with their
opinion thereupon, to the House.

And a committee was appointed of Mr. DAYTON, Mr. HILLHOUSE, Mr.
SHERBURNE, Mr. DENT, Mr. LEE, Mr. MACON, and Mr. HUNTER.

_Ordered_, That the letter from the Governor of Maryland, together with
the return of the election of Gabriel Duvall, to serve as one of the
members of this House for the said State, in the room of JOHN FRANCIS
MERCER, who has resigned his seat, which was laid before the House at
the last session, be referred to the said Committee of Elections.


MONDAY, November 10.

Several other members, to wit: from New York, THOMAS TREDWELL; from New
Jersey, LAMBERT CADWALADER; from Pennsylvania, JOHN SMILIE; from North
Carolina, WILLIAM BARRY GROVE and JOSEPH MCDOWELL; and from South
Carolina, RICHARD WINN, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

The SPEAKER informed the House that the Senate had not yet been able to
make a quorum. Fifteen members only appeared. One more was necessary.


TUESDAY, November 11.

Two other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, SHEARJASHUB BOURNE, and
from New York, PETER VAN GAASBECK, appeared, and took their seats in the
House.

The SPEAKER informed the House that one Senator was yet wanting to the
making of a quorum. [The Senate consists of thirty members, of whom only
fifteen have yet (Tuesday) made their appearance; of consequence, a
majority is wanting. The VICE PRESIDENT has, it is true, arrived, but
he is not, strictly speaking, a Senator. He does not give a vote in
questions that come before the Senate, unless the voices on a division
are equal.]

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from James White, enclosing
the credentials of his appointment as a Representative of the territory
of the United States, south of the river Ohio, in the Congress of the
United States, according to the ordinance of Congress of the thirteenth
of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven; which were read,
and ordered to be referred to Mr. BALDWIN, Mr. GILBERT, Mr. WALKER, Mr.
SWIFT, and Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH, with instructions to examine the matter
thereof, and report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the
House.


WEDNESDAY, November 12.

Another member, to wit, CARTER B. HARRISON, from Virginia, appeared, and
took his seat in the House.


THURSDAY, November 13.

Two other members, to wit: ANDREW GREGG and DANIEL HEISTER, from
Pennsylvania, appeared, and took their seats in the House.


FRIDAY, November 14.

Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, SAMUEL DEXTER; from
Virginia, ABRAHAM VENABLE; and from Kentucky, ALEXANDER D. ORR,
appeared, and took their seats in the House.


MONDAY, November 17.

Two other members, to wit: from Rhode Island, BENJAMIN BOURNE, and from
South Carolina, ANDREW PICKENS, appeared, and took their seats in the
House.

_Delegate south of the Ohio._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
report of the committee to whom was referred the letter from JAMES
WHITE, together with the credentials of his appointment as a
Representative of the territory of the United States south of the river
Ohio.

Mr. SWIFT objected to complying with the report of the committee. He
thought that it could not be carried into execution, because it involved
inconsistencies. If the object of the law referred to, was to admit this
person to debate, and not to vote, that was unconstitutional. He was, by
that law, to be a member of Congress; but the House of Representatives
are not Congress, and, therefore, this person may equally vote in the
House of Representatives and in the Senate; while, at the same time, he
may interrupt the PRESIDENT consenting to a bill, by giving his advice.
The constitution has made no provision for such a member as this person
is intended to be. If we can admit a delegate to Congress or a member of
the House of Representatives, we may with equal propriety admit a
stranger from any quarter of the world. We may as well admit the
gallery, or a foreign Minister, as this person from the territory
south-west of the Ohio. At this rate, we may very soon overturn the
constitution. If this person has any proper title to a seat, it must be
in the Senate; it could not be in the House of Representatives, who were
not delegates. The Senate, perhaps, might be called such. His election
was nearer the mode of theirs, than that of this House.

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) had no difficulty in declaring that the
gentleman was fully qualified to take a seat in that House, by the terms
of an express compact with the people. He was convinced that the
Representatives have a right to admit those whom they regard as lawfully
entitled to a seat in the House, for the purpose of debating. They may
admit the Secretary of State, if they consider it as expedient. If this
gentleman had applied to the Senate, that body also were authorized to
admit him, if they thought it lawful. Under the old constitution, he
would have been a member _sui generis_. He does not claim a right of
voting, but of speaking only; and when the affairs of the South-western
Territory were agitated in the Senate, he had a right, in his (Mr. S.'s)
judgment, to speak and debate in that House also. Mr. S. wished that
there had been previously settled another part of this business, viz: by
whom the delegate was to be paid for his attendance. It may be a future
question, also, whether he is to be dismissed when the galleries are
cleared?

Mr. GILES was not prepared to speak on the subject. On the score of
expediency, his present opinion was, that the delegate from the
south-west of the Ohio should be admitted. He had no objection to the
motion of the member from Maryland, (Mr. MURRAY,) for the committee
rising, but he would never consent to it for the sake of consulting the
Senate. He would agree to it, for the sake of further deliberation among
themselves. If the House chose to consult the _gallery_--a resource for
information that he should never wish to see adopted--they had a right
to consult it, or to ask advice from any other quarter, notwithstanding
the assertion of the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. DEXTER said, he thought the obstacle should be got over by a formal
act of the Legislature. He was clear that the House had a right to
consult or admit to the privilege of debating, any individual whom they
thought proper. They might, for instance, admit an advocate to plead; in
a particular case; but that was entirely a different matter from
allowing him to give a vote on the question before the House. Mr. D.
declared that he would vote against the report, as it now stands, not
because he thought the gentleman from the South-western Territory
unentitled to a seat, but because he regarded an act of the whole
Legislature as a requisite for his introduction.

It was now moved that the committee should rise, and report the
resolution of the select committee.

Mr. W. SMITH differed from Mr. DEXTER. He thought the House of
Representatives was, in itself, perfectly competent to settle the point.
He was determined that they ought not to consult the Senate upon the
matter. It would be extremely improper to let the Senate interfere. He
again adverted to his former position, that the House may, if it sees
proper, introduce the Secretary of State to a privilege of being
consulted, or any other person who may be thought suitable. But he would
never submit to yield the privileges of the House to the Executive. They
ought to decide their elections on their own authority, and on no
occasion send to inquire of the Senate if such an amendment ought to be
admitted. Mr. S. considered the gentleman (Mr. WHITE) as expressly
within the present constitution. He trusted that the committee would not
rise, under any such idea as consulting the Senate; but, if they at
present rise, that it would be merely for the sake of obtaining further
information.

Mr. MURRAY.--If we could have foreseen this case, I am sure that we
should have had a joint committee of privileges from both Houses, as
judges. The situation of the gentleman refers to both, and therefore the
Senate ought to be consulted on this head. Perhaps he is entitled to a
seat in both Houses.

Mr. MCDOWELL objected, that an act of the Legislature would never,
practically, answer the purpose. The session would be next to ending,
before such a law would be passed. In the mean time, the interest of the
people south-west of the Ohio is agitated in a question, and their
delegate is condemned to silence. The members generally admit, in
substance, that he ought to be received into this House. He wished,
therefore, that they would take a vote on the resolution of the select
committee. He would object altogether to the proposal of the member from
Maryland, for an act of the Legislature, or any consultation with, the
Senate. Mr. MCD. was for admitting the member to his seat.

Mr. BOUDINOT observed, that it was universally agreed that the old law
for accepting such a member as a delegate of Congress, cannot be
executed in its full sense. The gentleman ought, in his opinion, to go
where members elected by Legislatures went, that is to say, to the
Senate. There was no pretence for his admission among the
Representatives of the people. If he had any right, it must be in the
other House. He thought this a very important question, and that it
deserved more consideration than it had yet received. Mr. B. was not
prepared to vote; but, if he was forced to give his voice at present, he
should be for remitting the gentleman to the Senate. He thought that
there should be an act of the whole Legislature. He should vote for the
committee rising.

Mr. DAYTON said, that he should vote against the motion of the Maryland
member, for the rising of the committee. He was against the object of
this motion. He agreed entirely with the report of the select committee
for receiving the south-western member immediately, as he had a right to
a seat, founded on an original compact, which gave it to him. He
objected to any concurrence of the Senate being asked. As to consulting
persons out of doors, the House had a right to call Heads of Departments
to give their opinions on any particular subject, if they thought
proper. Mr. D. mentioned some cases of this nature, where such an
expedient had been used.

Mr. GILES mentioned one reason against the committee rising, which was,
that the House had no other business before it. He then read an
amendment to the resolution of the select committee, as a middle course,
that would embrace the ideas of all parties.

Mr. DEXTER repeated some of his former reasons for preferring an act of
the Legislature.

The question was called for, and put by the Chairman, Shall the
committee now rise, and report progress? It was decided in the
negative--yeas 38, nays 39.

The question was then put on the resolution, as given by the committee.
Mr. GILES again proposed his amendment. This was, that after the word
"debating," in the resolution, there should be added, "upon any question
touching the rights and interests of people in the territory of the
United States south-west of the Ohio." The object was to narrow the
power of the delegate.

Mr. SMILIE was for his being admitted to deliberate on every subject, or
none at all.

Mr. GILES declared that he was very well pleased with the resolution, as
it originally stood. He had only suggested this amendment that he might
get the resolution through the House. He therefore withdrew his motion.

Mr. BALDWIN did not see that the question was of much importance. When a
member was permitted to speak, but forbidden to vote, his situation was,
no doubt, infinitely higher than that of strangers in the gallery, that
of an advocate allowed to plead at the bar of the House, or that of a
printer who came only to take notes; but still it was extremely short of
the situation of a member of Congress. This would be more especially the
case, if his right of debating was restricted to the affairs of the
North-west and South-west Territory. Mr. B. could see nothing in the new
constitution that made an exclusion of the delegate from the south-west
of the Ohio. This privilege had been solemnly promised to those people,
upon three different occasions. When they belonged to the State of South
Carolina, they sent a Representative, Mr. SEVIER, to Congress; and they
separated into a new State, under the promise of this privilege. But
now, we have made a discovery, that these laws cannot be put into
execution. It is a great pity that we had not made this discovery
sooner. Mr. B. rejected all idea of referring this matter to the Senate.
When the latter had any question of that kind, that concerned
themselves, they would, no doubt, judge for themselves, and that just as
properly as the House of Representatives. As to the pay of this
gentleman, that might be an after question. He was clear that there at
present existed no law which could make out that. The House may
hereafter, if they see fit, pass a law respecting it. But, in the mean
time, Mr. B. was satisfied that these people had a claim for a delegate,
which could not be got rid of by the House.

Mr. SWIFT thought that it would be better to erect these people into a
new State, and then the privilege would be of some real use to them. He
was still of opinion that the constitution admits of no such delegate as
this person is intended to be. He is a new kind of character, unknown to
it. This person is _sui generis_. If the constitution knows any thing
about him, then take him; if not, reject him. As to taking advice from
the gallery, Mr. S. seemed to think he had been misunderstood. To admit
a person within the bar for the purpose of consulting him, was a quite
different thing from permitting the gallery, like this person, to come
and take a permanent seat among the members, for the purpose of
regularly debating. Mr. S. never meant to debar the House from taking
information wherever they could find it.

Mr. MURRAY was concerned that he found himself obliged to vote against
the resolution of the Committee of the Whole. He still hoped that the
gentleman would have a seat, but that the Senate would first be
consulted.

Mr. WINGATE moved an amendment to take the resolution, by adopting these
words, "to a seat in Congress, as a delegate to Congress."

Mr. MADISON said, that the resolution, as passed by the select
committee, was so properly expressed, that he did not believe it could
admit of any amendment or alteration whatever.

The Committee of the whole House then divided on the resolution, when
there appeared a very large majority in favor of reporting it as it
first stood, and consequently for admitting Mr. WHITE as a delegate. The
committee then rose.


TUESDAY, November 18.

Another member, to wit, THEODORE SEDGWICK, from Massachusetts, appeared,
and took his seat in the House.

_Delegate south of the Ohio._

The House proceeded to consider the report of the committee on the
letter from JAMES WHITE, enclosing the credentials of his appointment as
a Representative of the territory of the United States south of the
river Ohio; to which the Committee of the whole House reported no
amendment. Whereupon, the said report being again read at the Clerk's
table, was, on the question put thereupon, agreed to by the House, as
follows:

      "That, by the ordinance for the government of the territory
      of the United States north-west of the river Ohio, section
      nine, it is provided, "that, so soon as there shall be five
      thousand free male inhabitants of full age in the district,
      upon giving proof thereof to the Governor, they shall
      receive authority to elect Representatives to represent
      them in a General Assembly;" and by the 12th section of the
      Ordinance, "as soon as a Legislature shall be formed in the
      District, the Council and House, assembled in one room,
      shall have authority, by joint ballot, to elect a delegate
      to Congress, who shall have a seat in Congress, with a
      right of debating but not of voting, during this temporary
      government." Full effect is given to this Ordinance by act
      of Congress, August 7, 1789.

      "That, by the Deed of Cession of the territory south of the
      river Ohio, to the United States, in the fourth article, it
      is also provided 'that the inhabitants of the said
      territory shall enjoy all the privileges, benefits, and
      advantages, set forth in the Ordinance of the late Congress
      for the government of the Western Territory; that is to
      say, Congress shall assume the government of the said
      territory, which they shall execute in a manner similar to
      that which they support in the territory west of the Ohio,
      and shall never bar or deprive them of any privilege which
      the people in the territory west of the Ohio enjoy.'

      "The cession, on these conditions, was accepted by act of
      Congress, on the 2d of April, 1790.

      "By an act passed the 26th of May, 1790, for the government
      of the territory of the United States south of the river
      Ohio, it is enacted, 'that the inhabitants shall enjoy all
      the privileges, benefits, and advantages, set forth in the
      Ordinance of the late Congress for the government of the
      territory of the United States north-west of the river
      Ohio. And the government of the said territory south of the
      river Ohio, shall be similar to that which is now exercised
      in the territory north-west of the river Ohio; except so
      far as is otherwise provided in the conditions expressed in
      an act of Congress of the present session, entitled 'An act
      to accept a cession of the claim of the State of North
      Carolina to a certain district of Western Territory.' The
      committee are of opinion that James White has been duly
      elected as delegate from the territory of the United States
      south of the Ohio, on the terms of the foregoing acts; they
      therefore submit the following resolution:

      "_Resolved_, that James White be admitted to a seat in this
      House as a delegate from the territory of the United States
      south of the river Ohio, with a right of debating but not
      of voting."

Mr. MADISON said, that in new cases there often arose a difficulty by
applying old names to new things. The proper definition of Mr. WHITE is
to be found in the laws and rules of the constitution. He is not a
member of Congress, therefore, and so cannot be directed to take an
oath, unless he chooses to do it voluntarily.

Mr. MURRAY moved that Mr. WHITE should be required to take the oath.

Mr. W. SMITH observed, that the constitution only required members and
the Clerk to take the oath. The gentleman was not a member. It does not
even appear for what number of years he is elected. In fact he is no
more than an envoy to Congress. Instead of being called delegate to
Congress, had he been plainly called an envoy, the difficulty would have
vanished. He is not a Representative from, but an officer deputed by
the people of the Western Territory. It is very improper to call on this
gentleman to take such an oath, any more than any civil officer in the
State of Pennsylvania. Mr. S. did not consider him as coming even within
the Post Office law, (viz: for franking letters.) He is not entitled to
pay, unless a law shall be passed for that end.

Mr. GILES agreed with the gentleman who spoke last as to the impropriety
of demanding an oath.

Mr. LYMAN was for it.

Mr. DAYTON was against the oath. Call him what you will, a member, a
delegate, or, if you please, a _nondescript_. It would be wrong to
accept his oath, even if he should offer it. He is not a member. He
cannot vote, which is the essential part. It is said that he can argue,
and by that means influence the votes of the House. But so also a
printer may be said to argue and influence, when he comes to this House,
takes notes, and prints them in the newspapers.

Mr. BOUDINOT.--As the House had set out on a wrong principle, it was
natural that, in their subsequent progress they should wander further
and further from the point. But, as the House had now given their
decision, he acquiesced in it. It was, however, a strange kind of thing
to have a gentleman here arguing, who was not bound by an oath. He never
could reconcile it.

Several other members spoke.

The House divided on the question, "Shall the delegate take an oath as a
member?" Ayes 32, noes 42--majority against the motion, 10.

_Ordered_, That a committee be appointed to bring in a bill extending
the privilege of franking to JAMES WHITE, the delegate from the
South-western Territory, and making provision for his compensation; and
that Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, Mr. THATCHER, and Mr. MACON, be the said
committee.


WEDNESDAY, November 19.

Another member, to wit, THOMAS SCOTT, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and
took his seat in the House.

_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that this
House is now ready to attend them in receiving the communication from
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, agreeably to his notification to
both Houses yesterday; and that the Clerk of this House do go with the
said message.

The Senate attended and took seats in the House; when, both Houses being
assembled, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES came into the
Representatives' Chamber, and delivered his Address to them. (For which
see Proceedings of the Senate.)

The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES then withdrew and the two Houses
separated.

_Ordered_, that the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to both
Houses be committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.


THURSDAY, November 20.

Another member, to wit, WILLIAM FINDLAY, from Pennsylvania, appeared,
and took his seat in the House.


MONDAY, November 24.

_Answer to the President's Speech._[54]

Mr. NICHOLAS then rose in defence of Mr. MADISON's amendment. He thought
the House should not bow so much to the Executive as to approve of his
proceedings without knowing what they are. Gentlemen say that they do
not mean an implicit approbation. Why, then, hazard words that infer it?
He would go as far in thanking the PRESIDENT as any person with
propriety could go.

Mr. SEDGWICK insisted that the amendment of the member from Connecticut
(Mr. HILLHOUSE) was preferable to the other. The PRESIDENT has said that
his policy in regard to foreign nations is founded on justice. We
approve of that. He recites his motives. They are also approved. Where,
then, is the danger of expressing a general approbation? Would it be
proper to give an approbation that cannot be appropriate, and that has
no definite meaning? Mr. S. was far from designing to approve,
explicitly or implicitly, what the House were not acquainted with. He
only intended to convey a general sentiment of approbation; and he saw
nothing more than this in the amendment of the gentleman from
Connecticut.

Mr. HILLHOUSE never designed indiscriminate approbation; nor had he any
secret meaning couched under the words of his amendment. When he had any
thing to say to the House, he came honestly and told them in plain words
what he would be at. He meant to express his applause of pacific and
equitable measures. As to the question so often referred to, (the
embassy of Mr. Jay,) he solemnly declared that it never was in his mind
to express any thing about it. It would come before another body.

Mr. MADISON imagined that, in his motion as now worded, every person
might see substantial approbation.

Mr. AMES.--Jealousy may become habitual as well as confidence. Nothing
but a habit of jealousy could have found any thing of a secret in this
verbal distinction of _your_ policy instead of _a_ policy. The
distinction was trifling, but, if there must be one, he preferred the
amendment of Mr. HILLHOUSE. His reasons for this preference were so
minute that they, perhaps, had little more value than what his
imagination chose to give them. In the mean time, nobody will suppose
that we do not approve of the policy of the PRESIDENT in preferring
pacific measures, because the system of peace is now preferred all over
the Continent of America.

Mr. DAYTON rose to make a reply to "remarks so illiberal."

Mr. AMES here rose again and said that the gentleman certainly could not
mean him.

I mean _that_ gentleman, Mr. SPEAKER, said Mr. DAYTON, pointing to Mr.
AMES. He has accused me of "habits of jealousy." To this charge Mr. D.
rejoined with some warmth. He again declared that he never would pledge
himself to approve of the mission of Mr. Jay, till he should learn what
were that gentleman's instructions. He meant to draw this line of
distinction, to give approbation of general principles, but not of
particular measures. The former he considered as implied in the
amendment of Mr. MADISON, the latter in that of Mr. HILLHOUSE.

Mr. VANS MURRAY considered the dispute as resting on the words _a_
policy and _your_ policy. He would not give explicit approbation to
particular measures, but he approved the general principles on which the
PRESIDENT preferred a pacific system.

Mr. GILES.--It is admitted on all sides of the House, that we approve
the general principles, but will not pledge ourselves to approve the
particular means. It is best, then, to adopt the least equivocal words.
Mr. G. allowed that there was but little difference, yet he should vote
for the amendment of Mr. MADISON as it stood.

Mr. DEXTER, in opposition to the sentiments of the gentleman who had
last sat down, would vote for "_your_ policy," instead of "_a_ policy."
The latter made the sentence an abstract proposition. The words "_your_
policy," made it a personal application. The omission of the word _your_
tended to an implication of censure. If an abstract proposition was the
whole meaning intended to be expressed, that meaning might as well be
put into any other place as into an Address to the PRESIDENT. He did not
see the use of it. Praise (said Mr. D.) is the only reward which a
person receives in a Republican Government; or at least, it is the
greatest reward; and if withheld where due, the effect must be
pernicious. Here it would be of more particular impropriety to withhold
praise, when all our constituents approve the pacific policy of the
PRESIDENT. It would have been a matter of little consequence at first,
whether "_a_ policy" or "_your_ policy" had been adopted, for every
reader would have understood it as an approbation of the PRESIDENT. But
now, after such a debate, if we scruple at the word _your_, all the
world will conclude that we mean an implied censure.

Mr. BOUDINOT said that he adopted the word _your_ as unequivocal. He had
no meaning but what was open and candid. By adopting the amendment the
House would make that language explicit, which was at present, at least
in some degree, ambiguous.

Mr. TRACY pronounced an elegant panegyric on the character and conduct
of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, whom no man admired more
sincerely than he did, though he could not speak thus from the honor of
enjoying a personal acquaintance. He recommended to Mr. MADISON rather
to withdraw his motion of amendment altogether than bring it forward at
such an expense of the good temper of the House. The present session had
commenced with good auspices, and much cordiality, and he would be
extremely sorry to disturb its tranquillity.

Mr. MADISON said that he felt sensibly the force of the remarks made by
the gentleman who was last up. In consequence of these remarks, he
should be happy to withdraw his amendment. This was accordingly done.

It was then proposed that the Committee of the whole House should rise,
and report the draft of the Address as originally given in by the
special committee, with the additional amendment that had been proposed
by Mr. DAYTON, and adopted.

Mr. FITZSIMONS then rose and said, that it would seem somewhat
incongruous for the House to present an Address to the PRESIDENT which
omitted all notice of so very important an article in his Speech as that
referring to the self-created societies. Mr. F. then read an amendment,
which gave rise to a very interesting debate. The amendment was in these
words:

      "As part of this subject, we cannot withhold our
      reprobation of the self-created societies, which have risen
      up in some parts of the Union, misrepresenting the conduct
      of the Government, and disturbing the operation of the
      laws, and which, by deceiving and inflaming the ignorant
      and the weak, may naturally be supposed to have stimulated
      and urged the insurrection."

These are "institutions, not strictly unlawful, yet not less fatal to
good order and true liberty; and reprehensible in the degree that our
system of government approaches to perfect political freedom."

Mr. GILES stated at large his sentiments as to this expression in the
Speech of the PRESIDENT about self-created societies. The tone of that
passage in the Speech had made a great deal of noise without doors, and
it was likely to produce a considerable agitation within doors. [Here a
motion was made for the rising of the committee.] Mr. G. did not wish to
press himself upon the attention of the committee, but if they were
disposed to hear him, he was prepared to proceed.

Mr. SEDGWICK objected to the rising of the committee. The House had been
often entertained and informed by the ingenuity of that gentleman, who
was now prepared to address them.

Mr. W. SMITH considered it as opposite to the practice of the House for
a member to move that a committee should rise, at the very time when
gentlemen had declared themselves ready to deliver their sentiments.

[It was repeatedly inquired from the Chair, by whom this motion was
made. No answer was given and it seemed to be the unanimous wish of the
House that Mr. GILES should proceed, which he did.] Mr. G. began by
declaring that, when he saw, or thought he saw, the House of
Representatives about to erect itself into an office of censorship, he
could not sit silent. He did not rise with the hope of making
proselytes, but he trusted that the fiat of no person in America should
ever be taken for truth, implicitly, and without evidence.

Mr. GILES next entered into an encomium of some length on the public
services and personal character of the PRESIDENT. He vindicated himself
from any want of respect or esteem towards him. He then entered into an
examination of the propriety of the expression employed by the
PRESIDENT, with regard to self-created societies. Mr. G. said, that
there was not an individual in America, who might not come under the
charge of being a member of some one or other self-created society.
Associations of this kind, religious, political, and philosophical, were
to be found in every quarter of the Continent. The Baptists and
Methodists, for example, might be termed self-created societies. The
people called the Friends, were of the same kind. Every pulpit in the
United States might be included in this vote of censure, since, from
every one of them, upon occasion, instructions had been delivered, not
only for the eternal welfare, but likewise for the temporal happiness of
the people. There had been other societies in Pennsylvania for several
purposes. The venerable Franklin had been at the head of one, entitled a
society for political information. They had criminated the conduct of
the Governor of this State and of the Governors of other States, yet
they were not prosecuted or disturbed. There was, if he mistook not,
once a society in this State, for the purpose of opposing or subverting
the existing constitution. They also were unmolested. If the House are
to censure the Democratic societies, they might do the same by the
Cincinnati Society. It is out of the way of the Legislature to attempt
checking or restraining public opinion. If the self-created societies
act contrary to law, they are unprotected, and let the law pursue them.
That a man is a member of one of these societies will not protect him
from an accusation for treason, if the charge is well founded. If the
charge is not well founded, if the societies, in their proceedings, keep
within the verge of the law, Mr. G. would be glad to learn what was to
be the sequel? If the House undertake to censure particular classes of
men, who can tell where they will stop? Perhaps it may be advisable to
commence moral philosophers, and compose a new system of ethics for the
citizens of America. In that case, there would be many other subjects
for censure, as well as the self-created societies. Land-jobbing, for
example, has been in various instances brought to such a pass that it
might be defined swindling on a broad scale. Paper money, also, would be
a subject of very tolerable fertility for the censure of a moralist. Mr.
G. proceeded to enumerate other particulars on this head, and again
insisted on the sufficiency of the existing laws for the punishment of
every existing abuse. He observed, that gentlemen were sent to this
House, not for the purpose of passing indiscriminate votes of censure,
but to legislate only. By adopting the amendment of Mr. FITZSIMONS, the
House would only produce recrimination on the part of the societies, and
raise them into much more importance than they possibly could have
acquired if they had not been distinguished by a vote of censure from
that House. Gentlemen were interfering with a delicate right, and they
would be much wiser to let the Democratic societies alone. Did the House
imagine that their censure, like the wand of a magician, would lay a
spell on these people? It would be quite the contrary, and the
recrimination of the societies would develope the propriety of having
meddled with them at all. One thing ought never to be forgotten, that if
these people acted wrong, the law was open to punish them; and if they
did not, they would care very little for a vote of that House. Why all
this particular deviation from the common line of business to pass
random votes of censure? The American mind was too enlightened to bear
the interposition of this House, to assist either in their
contemplations or conclusions on this subject. Members are not sent here
to deal out applauses or censures in this way. Mr. G. rejected all
aiming at a restraint on the opinions of private persons. As to the
societies themselves, Mr. G. personally had nothing to do with them, nor
was he acquainted with any of the persons concerned in their original
organization.

Mr. LYMAN hoped that the member from Pennsylvania would, upon
reflection, withdraw his amendment. Mr. L. considered it to be as
improper to pass a vote of censure, as it would be to pass a vote of
approbation. He did not wish to give printers an opportunity of
publishing debates that had better be suppressed. Besides, where will
this business of censorship end? It would be much better not to meddle
with the Democratic societies at all. Some of them were perfectly
sensible that they had gone too far. He should, therefore, move that
this committee do now rise, and that the Chairman report the Address as
it now stands.

Mr. THATCHER hoped that his colleague would not insist on taking that
question just now, before other gentlemen had an opportunity of
delivering their sentiments.

Mr. LYMAN, in reply, said that gentlemen were at liberty, in discussing
his motion, to tell their minds as to the self-created societies.

Mr. SEDGWICK requested that Mr. LYMAN would take this motion out of the
way. Mr. L. withdrew it.

Mr. W. SMITH then rose, and entered at large into the subject. He said,
that if the committee withheld an expression of their sentiments in
regard to the societies pointed out by the PRESIDENT, their silence
would be an avowed desertion of the Executive. He had no scruple to
declare that the conduct of these people had tended to blow up the
insurrection. Adverting to Mr. GILES, he thought the assertion of that
gentleman too broad, when he spoke of not meddling with the opinions of
other than political societies.

He considered the dissemination of improper sentiments as a suitable
object for the public reprobation of that House. Suppose an agricultural
society were to establish itself, and under that title to disseminate
opinions subversive of good order; the difference of a name should not
make Mr. S. think them exempted from becoming objects of justice. Would
any man say that the sole object of self-created societies has been the
publication of political doctrines? The whole of their proceedings has
been a chain of censures on the conduct of Government. If we do not
support the PRESIDENT, the silence of the House will be interpreted into
an implied disapprobation of that part of his Speech. He will be left in
a dilemma. It will be said that he has committed himself.

Mr. S. declared that he was a friend to the freedom of the press; but
would any one compare a regular town-meeting where deliberations were
cool and unruffled, to these societies, to the nocturnal meetings of
individuals, after they have dined, where they shut their doors, pass
votes in secret, and admit no members into their societies, but those of
their own choosing? Mr. S., by way of illustration, observed, that this
House had never done much business after dinner. In objection to this
amendment it had been stated, that the self-created societies would
acquire importance from a vote of censure passed on them. They were, for
his part, welcome to the whole importance that such a vote could give
them. He complained, in strong terms, of the calumnies and slanders
which they had propagated against Government. Every gentleman who
thought that these clubs had done mischief, was by this amendment called
upon to avow his opinion. This was the whole. Mr. S. begged the House to
take notice, and he repeated his words once or twice, that he did not
mean to go into the constitution of these societies, or to say that they
were illegal. The question before the House was not whether these
societies were illegal or not, but whether they have been mischievous in
their consequences.

Mr. MCDOWELL was of opinion that the term self-created societies, was
too indefinite. He professed the highest respect for the character of
the PRESIDENT; but he did not think that the proposed vote of censure
would be any eligible proof of it. The House of Representatives were
assembled not to volunteer in passing votes of reprobation on societies,
or individuals, but to legislate. He wished that gentlemen, instead of
losing their time on such frivolous and inflammatory amendments, would
proceed to the proper business of the House. The gentleman from South
Carolina seemed to be well acquainted with Democratic societies. It was
very true that they had published resolutions reprobating the assumption
business, and the system of funding; but the rest of the people, as well
as Democratic societies, had very generally censured the assumption and
the funding transactions. He thought that some laws had been passed
which answered no good purpose, nor indeed any purpose, but that of
irritating the public. The present amendment he considered as
destructive not only to the intercourse of domestic society, but that it
involved a prospect of throwing restraint upon the conduct of gentlemen
in the House of Representatives. With the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr.
GILES,) he was satisfied that the amendment, if adopted, would have no
weight whatever with the citizens of the United States; as they were too
enlightened to accept of opinions from their Representatives.

Mr. TRACY had imagined that no man would have the hardihood to come
forward in that House and vindicate these societies. He quoted from the
remarks of Mr. MCDOWELL, the words, "your wanton laws, begotten in
darkness, first raised insurrection;" and likewise some other words
about the enormous expense of millions for the Western expedition. Mr.
T., after reading these expressions from a memorandum, which he held in
his hand, declared his surprise, that a gentleman, whom he knew to
possess the candor and good sense of the member from North Carolina,
could suffer such language to escape him. He was certain that the
gentleman, if he had not been somewhat in a hurry, never would have
permitted those words to pass from his lips.

Quitting this topic, Mr. T. said, that he would, for his own part, be
disposed to let these societies alone, and leave them to the
chastisement of their own consciences. If they were to say, "Gentlemen,
you, as tyrants, make laws, and slaves obey them," I would answer, said
Mr. T., "It is very rash. Think again before you say this again. We
believe that, from inadvertency, some things have escaped from
Democratic societies, which they had not well weighed, and which had a
bad effect on weak and ignorant people in the western counties of
Pennsylvania. You have seen the bad effects of your temerity. Take care
before you publish any such thing again." Mr. T. said, this is all the
length which we mean to go, and can any body object to this? The
Democratic societies form but a very small portion of the people of
America. Where is the harm in saying that one-hundredth, or, I believe I
might say, not more than one-thousandth part of the citizens of the
United States have been mistaken, and that they have been imprudent in
printing certain indiscreet resolutions? Mr. T. declared that if the
PRESIDENT had not spoke of the matter, he should have been willing to
let it alone, because whenever a subject of that kind was touched, there
were certain gentlemen in that House who shook their backs, like a
sore-backed horse, and cried out, The Liberties of the people! Mr. T.
wished only that the House, if their opinion of these societies
corresponded with that of the PRESIDENT, should declare that they had
such an opinion. This was quite different from attempting to legislate
on the subject. Has not the Legislature done so before? Is there any
impropriety in paying this mark of respect to a man to whom all America
owes such indelible obligations? He thought that this declaration from
the House of Representatives would tend to discourage Democratic
societies, by uniting all men of sense against them. Mr. T. said, that
perhaps the member who spoke last might be connected with some of these
societies, of which he entertained so favorable an impression.

Mr. MCDOWELL said, that he wanted the House to avoid quarrels, and to
mind their proper business of legislation. He declared that he was not a
member of any such society. He did not know that he had ever been in the
company of any person who was a member of any of them. He was even, he
declared upon his honor, ignorant whether there were, or ever had been,
any such societies in North Carolina. He adverted to the simile of the
sore-backed horse, and said that he believed his back to have been
rubbed harder in the last war, than that of the gentleman. He imagined
that these societies had done both good and harm, and again declared,
that he could not consent to a vote of indiscriminate reprobation.

Mr. DAYTON was heartily for the amendment. He observed that he wanted no
evidence to satisfy him, as to the gentleman not being a member of any
of these societies. If he had been connected with them, he would have
known their principles better than he seems to do. Mr. D. said that many
persons in New Jersey, who had been the most violent against the excise
law were equally so against the insurgents; and though their opinion of
the law itself was unaltered, which they made no scruple of openly
declaring, yet they did not, on that account, hesitate about marching
against the insurgents. They did not suppose that one obnoxious statute
was any reason for overturning the Federal Constitution. The murmurs
against the excise law in New Jersey had been converted into universal
silence, because no man would venture to express his discontent, at the
hazard of being suspected of being a friend to the insurgents. That the
Democratic societies had produced the most mischievous effects in the
western counties there could be no question. Letters had been received
from officers in the army, who were the most respectable characters, and
who, from authentic information, had affirmed the fact. It had been
stated that these people would recriminate upon the House, and it had
even been hinted that their recriminations might affect the PRESIDENT.
_That man_, said Mr. D., is above their censure. He believed that if
their censures had any effect at all, it would be to do the PRESIDENT
honor.

Mr. NICHOLAS.--When we see an attempt made in this House to reprobate
whole societies, on account of the conduct of individuals, it may truly
be suspected that some of the members of this House have sore backs. The
PRESIDENT has been apprised of the absurdity of making this a
Legislative business. Here Mr. N. read a passage from the PRESIDENT's
Speech, to show, that the notice taken of self-created societies was not
intended for a topic of discussion in that House. The passage was
expressly addressed to every description of citizens:

      "And when in the calm moments of reflection, they shall
      have retraced the origin and progress of the insurrection,
      let them determine, whether it has been fomented by
      combinations of men, who, careless of consequences," &c.

Was this an address to the two Houses? Did this passage show that the
PRESIDENT wanted them to intermeddle? Were they called upon to give an
opinion? Where could be the pretence for any thing of this sort? The
House have made acts. The Democratic societies reprobate them, and then
the House reprobate the Democratic societies. When you first cut a man's
throat, and thereafter call him a rascal, do you suppose that your
accusation will affect the man's reputation? The House, by passing this
vote of censure, would make themselves a party, and lose a title to
unsuspected confidence. Mr. N. declared, that, for his own part, he
never had any concern with these societies, nor ever to his knowledge
had spent an hour with any person who was a member of them. He rather,
if any thing, despised them. He had always thought them the very worst
advocates for the cause which they espoused; but he had come two hundred
miles to legislate, and not to reprobate private societies. He was not
paid by his constituents for doing business of that sort. The PRESIDENT
knew the business of the House better than to call for any such votes of
censure. It was wrong to condemn societies for particular acts. That
there never should be a Democratical society in America, said Mr. N., I
would give my most hearty consent; but I cannot agree to persecution for
the sake of opinions. With respect either to the propriety or the power
of suppressing them, Mr. N. was in both cases equally of opinion that it
was much better to let them alone. They must stand or fall by the
general sentiments of the people of America. Is it possible that these
societies can exist, for any length of time, when they are of no real
use to the country? No. But this amendment will make the people at large
imagine that they are of consequence.

Mr. DAYTON said, that these societies had produced the Western
insurrection, and, therefore, the committee were just as well entitled
to institute an inquiry in this case, as formerly regarding the failure
of the expedition of General St. Clair.

The committee now rose, and reported progress, and had leave to sit
again.


TUESDAY, November 25.

Another member, to wit, JAMES GILLESPIE, from North Carolina, appeared,
and took his seat in the House.

_The President's Speech._

The House again went into Committee of the Whole on the Address of the
PRESIDENT and the amendment of Mr. FITZSIMONS, Mr. COBB in the chair.

Mr. MURRAY said, that he did not altogether like the wording of the
amendment now before the House. He had hoped that some modification of
it would have been prepared by some of its friends; but as none was
offered, and there was a call for the question, he would vote for it
rather than against it. He said, that he had not been personally
attacked by any of the tribunals in question, and no further injured by
their machinations than as he was a citizen of a free Republic in whose
prosperity he felt the closest possible union, and in whose calamities
he of course felt great sympathy. Among the various sources of the late
calamity, the PRESIDENT had traced and designated certain self-created
societies, who had arrogated the management of public opinions and
affairs, and whom he had declared to have been, in his opinion,
instrumental in fomenting the late insurrection. Mr. M. confessed that
he had feared, last winter, lest the disorganizing spirit which had gone
abroad in the shape of resolutions from these societies, would have
produced the effect ascribed to them by the PRESIDENT. The conduct of
the Democratic clubs, or those of them with which he had most
acquaintance, appeared to him to have been instrumental to an event
which threatened destruction to legitimate government. If we believe
this to be the case, Mr. M. knew no motive, duty, or policy, which ought
to restrain us at this period from saying that we believe it, and from
lamenting it. Our declaration will rather hold out a caution to the
thoughtless, than inflict legal penalties upon their follies. It will
present to our fellow-citizens a memorable example of one source of
error and political misfortune, by showing them the danger, which has
already cost above twelve hundred thousand dollars. He could not see any
evil that was to result from an expression of the opinion of the House,
by the proposed amendment. It had not the quality of law; for, if a law
were proposed for the abolition of these societies, he would oppose it.
This amendment to the Address would operate as an advice. It curtails
not the right of a free press, which Mr. M. held to be the luminary of
the public mind. It would tend to excite a judicious and salutary
inquiry among many respecting the just and true limits within which a
virtuous and enlightened well-wisher to our country would think it safe
to exercise this right. Of the inutility and danger of such societies in
this country, he had little doubt. The scene of their birthplace was
well adapted to the wholesome display of their powers. In France, where
a despotism, impregnable to public opinion, had reigned--where no
channel opened a sympathy by representation with the great body of the
nation--those societies were admirably adapted to break down and subvert
the old bulwark of habitual authority. But in America the case was
widely different. Look at the immense body of public functionaries, who
in this country are elected immediately by the people, or by their
electors, in a constitutional mode, and say whether they are not
adequate as functionaries to the public purposes of the country.
Including every description of Legislators, Councils, Governors, Courts,
Jurors, and Sheriffs, there are above twelve thousand. Of these, more
than eleven hundred are actual Legislators, besides the hundred in this
House, and those above stairs. These all act in the States, counties,
townships, and hundreds, in separate but relative circles, so as to
preclude a partial attention to any one scene, to the exclusion of
another. The whole country is full of well-constituted organs of the
people's will. Many of these Legislatures are in session twice a year,
and all of them annually. We might be confused by their immense number,
were they not so admirably dispersed over the Continent, and did they
not move under the guidance of the laws, with the harmony of the
spheres. It would not be easy to organize the nation into a more
multifarious shape.

The case maintained by Mr. DAYTON yesterday appeared to be strong. He
said that we had inquired into the defeat of St. Clair's army, and so we
might into the causes of the insurrection. To point it out to a people
so enlightened, will be to prevent it in future. If the House agree in
opinion with the PRESIDENT, they will speak their opinion, and do their
duty. This declaration goes to the constituent body, through the
Executive; and, while it gratifies their inquiries in a point of so much
solicitude, it erects a warning beacon. It shows to them the stormy
breakers which lately threatened the public peace with shipwreck, and
invites them to adhere to pilots of their own choosing, and to charts
with which they are acquainted.

If the PRESIDENT had not thought some of the societies instrumental in
producing the late calamity, they would not have attracted his notice,
nor that of the House. It is because they are believed to have assisted
and fomented the insurrection, that our constituents ought to be warned
against them; and that another necessity for exerting their patriotism
may be saved to those brave men who are at present encountering every
difficulty in the West. These societies are not attended to, because,
however offensive some of their proceedings and doctrines may have
been, yet the rights of the press ought not to be freely handled.

Mr. FITZSIMONS had no violent predilection for any performance of his
own. He had, therefore, to prevent so much disputing, prepared to
withdraw his motion, provided the committee be willing that he should do
so, and, in the room of this motion, he would read another, for which he
was indebted to a gentleman at his right hand, (Mr. B. BOURNE.)

The committee consented. The former motion was withdrawn, and the other
was read. This was an echo of that part of the speech of the PRESIDENT
which mentions self-created societies.

Mr. CHRISTIE then rose. He was sorry to differ from his worthy colleague
(Mr. MURRAY) on the question then before the committee; and he was
doubly sorry to hear that gentleman labor so strenuously to saddle a
public odium on some of the best citizens of the State which he
represented. Mr. C. should not have risen on the present occasion,
although he thought it an important one, had it not been to endeavor to
rescue from public censure a society of gentlemen, who were described in
the present amendment before the committee, as objects of public
opprobrium. Mr. C. alluded to the Republican Society of the town of
Baltimore. If the present amendment took place, that society would be
involved in general and undeserved censure. He would, therefore, inform
the House of what description of men the Republican Society of Baltimore
consisted; and then the committee would be the best judges whether they
ought to be rewarded in the manner in which the present amendment
proposes. They are a society of gentlemen associated together for the
purpose of diffusing political knowledge throughout the State of
Maryland, and to instruct their Representatives in Congress, and the
Legislature of the State, in any point that they think necessary, and
not for the purpose of sowing dissension among the citizens of America,
or of cultivating dislike to the Union, or to the laws. This society
consists of men whose characters are superior to any censure that might
be thrown against them, by the mover of the amendment. But when Congress
are about to cast an odium on a particular society, the members of which
have every respect for that body, and have always inculcated obedience
to the laws of the United States, Mr. C. left it to the committee to
determine whether, if they were themselves in the place of the Baltimore
Society, they would not feel their sensibility materially wounded? Was
not this returning good for evil? He again reminded the committee that
the Republican Society at Baltimore was composed of a band of patriots,
not the fair-weather patriots of the present day, but the patriots of
seventy-five, the men who were not afraid to rally around the American
standard, when that station was almost concluded to be a forlorn hope.
They were men who, with their persons and properties, had assisted to
drive from the soil of America the present lawless disturbers of the
world. Are these the men, asked Mr. C., who ought to have all this mass
of Congressional odium cast upon them? I trust not, sir. I trust, that
if particular gentlemen are illiberal enough to censure them, yet that
this House will never agree to such iniquitous measures. What was the
conduct of this society when the first news of the late insurrection
reached them? Did they not, in the most pointed manner, discountenance
any such proceeding? Did they not refuse to correspond with any society
that aided, or in any manner abetted, the insurrection? They did more.
They offered their personal services to go and help to crush this
commotion in the bud. Mr. C. subjoined that he would venture to say, and
at the same time he spoke within bounds, that nine-tenths of this
society actually took up their muskets and marched into the field for
the above laudable purpose, and that numbers of them still continue
there, and are the friends of peace and order, and not the disorganizers
that the present amendment would make them. Mr. C. appealed to the
candor of the committee to say, whether the Baltimore self-created
Republican Society were the description of men whom the PRESIDENT, in
his Speech, meant to describe. He was sure it was not. Therefore, why
involve in this indiscriminate censure men who have deserved so well of
their country? men who, instead of having odium cast upon them, merit
every praise which the Federal Government can bestow. For these, and
some other reasons, Mr. C. declared that he should vote against the
amendment, and he trusted that he should vote in the majority.

Mr. MURRAY rose to explain. He did not mean this society. It was the
Philadelphia and Pittsburg societies. Mr. M. was acquainted with this
society, and had the greatest respect for them. As for the members of
the other societies, he was for gibbeting their principles only.

Mr. RUTHERFORD.--This alarm is owing to an overgrown moneyed system,
with which the people are not entirely satisfied. But the moneyholders
need not be afraid. The people will pay the public debt. Then why
disturb the tranquillity of the people? The PRESIDENT, in his Speech,
points only at combinations over the mountains. As to the character of
the PRESIDENT himself, to praise him was like holding up a rush candle
to let us see the sun. I have known that man, said Mr. R., for these
forty years. I have had the honor of serving under him in the last war,
and of frequently executing his wise and noble orders. The member
declared that this amendment could answer no purpose but that of
disturbing the public peace. He himself represented as respectable a
district as any in Virginia, and he had as good opportunities as any
gentleman in that House to know the temper of Americans. They were
firmly attached to the present Government, and the holders of paper need
not be so much afraid of Democratic societies, for the people, to
preserve the tranquillity, were determined to discharge the public debt,
no matter how it was contracted, and, therefore, it would be much better
not to harass the public mind with amendments like that on the table.

Mr. GILES said, that he had an amendment to propose that would, he
hoped, meet with the approbation of a certain description of gentlemen
in that committee. His amendment was to strike out the words
"self-created societies," from the amendment of Mr. FITZSIMONS, and
insert "the Democratic societies of Philadelphia, New York, and
Pittsburg." Gentlemen could then have some specific object at which they
could say that their vote of censure was levelled; for the general
expression of self-created, comprehended every society of any kind in
the Union. For his own part, he was very far from wanting to censure any
set of men for their political opinions.

Mr. PARKER seconded the motion for striking out, but he would not
consent to the insertion proposed by Mr. GILES.

Mr. SEDGWICK thought that the amendment stands better as it is at
present.

Mr. VENABLE said, that there was a paper on that table (he referred to
the letter from Mr. HAMILTON to the PRESIDENT) which showed that the
combinations in the western counties began their existence at the very
same time with the Excise law itself. It was, therefore, entirely
improper to ascribe them to Democratic societies. Should Government,
said Mr. V., come forward and show their imbecility by censuring what we
cannot punish? The people have a right to think and a right to speak. I
am not afraid to speak my sentiments. I am not afraid of being called a
disorganizer. I am, as much as any gentleman in this committee, a friend
to regular government.

Mr. DEXTER believed that such societies were, in themselves, wrong, but
he was still not for making laws against them. He had, however, numerous
objections to their conduct. One of these was, that they erected
themselves into a model for the rest of their fellow-citizens to copy.
The great principle of Republicanism was, that the minority should
submit to the will of the majority. But these people have elevated
themselves into tyrants. Such societies are proper in a country where
government is despotic, but it is improper that such societies should
exist in a free country like the United States, and hence, Mr. D. was a
friend to the amendment proposed by Mr. FITZSIMONS. It had been said,
that it was unusual to give opinions of this kind, but, in reality, the
House were in the practice of expressing their sentiments on matters of
that sort, in such addresses as the one now before them. Mr. D. was
decidedly against the amendment of the amendment proposed by Mr. GILES.

Mr. NICHOLAS.--Gentlemen have brought us into a discussion, and then say
we must decide as they please, in deference to the PRESIDENT. This is
the real ground and foundation of their arguments. But who started this
question? If the gentlemen have brought themselves into a difficulty
with regard to the PRESIDENT, by their participation in proposing votes
of censure which they cannot carry through, they have only to blame
themselves. Is it expected, said Mr. N., that I am to abandon my
independence for the sake of the PRESIDENT? He never intended that we
should take any such notice of his reference to these societies; but if
the popularity of the PRESIDENT has, in the present case, been
committed, let those who have hatched this thing, and who have brought
it forward, answer for the consequences. This whole question turns upon
a matter of fact, which ought to be proved, viz: Have the Democratic
societies been one of the principal causes of the Western insurrection?
This is a matter of fact, or otherwise, and it depends upon direct
evidence. But how do gentlemen handle this question? They digress into
abstract propositions, a thing never heard of before, where a matter of
fact was to be proved. I say, where direct proof is wanted, we see
gentlemen standing on the floor for half an hour together, without
attempting to advance a single fact in support of their assertions; yet
this is the only admissible kind of evidence that the societies are from
their nature unfriendly to the Federal Government.

Mr. N. then adverted to a remark which had been made, that libels were
daily prosecuted in this country, from which it was inferred that
calumnious attacks on Government were the just objects of reprehension.
Mr. N. said, that the comparison was not fair, because in a case of
libel, the parties accused have a proper opportunity to defend
themselves. Have these people here (the Democratic societies) any such
opportunity? It has been alleged, as a crime against them, that they
have never once published any approbation of any measure of Government.
Mr. N. argued that this arose from the very nature of their institution,
which was to watch the errors of the Legislature and Executive, and
point out to the public what they considered to be mistakes. Faults were
the only kind of facts which they were in quest of. Here Mr. N. drew a
material distinction. If these societies had censured every proceeding
of Government, there would have been the greatest reason for taking some
measures. But what was the case? As to an immense number of the
proceedings of the Executive and Legislature, they had taken no notice
whatever.

Mr. SEDGWICK thought that the PRESIDENT would have been defective in his
duty, had he omitted to mention what he religiously believed to be true,
viz: that the Democratic societies had in a great measure originated the
late disturbances. It was the indispensable duty of the PRESIDENT to
speak as he had spoken. The present amendment (of Mr. FITZSIMONS) would
have a tendency to plunge these societies into contempt, and to sink
them still farther into abhorrence and detestation. He pronounced them
to be illicit combinations. One gentleman (Mr. NICHOLAS) tells you, that
he despises them most heartily. Another (Mr. LYMAN) says that they begin
to repent. Will the American people perversely propose to shoulder and
bolster up these despised and repenting societies, which are now
tumbling into dust and contempt? Their conduct differed as far from a
fair and honorable investigation, as Christ and Belial. They were men
prowling in the dark. God is my judge, said Mr. S., that I would not
wish to check a fair discussion.

One gentleman (Mr. MCDOWELL) had told the committee, that the Assumption
and Funding transactions were a cause of public discontent. It has been
the trick of these people to make this assertion. They have said that
the Funding System is a mass of favoritism, for the purpose of erecting
an oppressive aristocracy, and a paper nobility. There is not a man
among them, who is able to write, and who does not know that these
assertions are false. As to the assumption of the debts of individual
States, it has been said that this measure was undertaken for the
purpose of making up a large debt. There was no such thing. Before the
adoption of the new constitution, of which Mr. S. considered the Funding
and Assumption Systems to be essential preliminaries, the credit and
commerce of America were declining or gone. The States were disagreeing
at home, and the American name was disgraced abroad. It was not to be
supposed that every one of the measures of the new Government could
please every body. Among the rest, excise was objected to in both Houses
of Congress; but at last the good sense of the people acquiesced. At
this crisis, a foreign agent (_Genet_) landed at Charleston. On his way
to this city, he was attended by the hosannas of all the disaffected. He
did the utmost mischief that was in his power; and in consequence of his
efforts, Democratic societies sprung up. Mr. S. here gave a particular
account of some proceedings of a society in Virginia, of more than usual
boldness. He quoted some of their expressions relative to a very
illustrious character, the PRESIDENT, and added that perhaps the
individuals who composed this society were in themselves too despicable
to deserve any notice in this place. He did not know whether they were
or not. [Mr. S. was here interrupted by a member from Virginia, and an
explanation ensued.]

Mr. MCDOWELL rose to make an apology for some words which had escaped
him the day before. He did not expect to have been so smartly handled.
He had been forcibly struck at the time, and had spoken from a momentary
impulse. In substance, however, he adhered to all his former
allegations. He still persisted in believing that the excise laws were
shapen in darkness. He apologized for some part of his heat, from having
seen and suffered so much by despotic government during the last war in
which this gentleman supported the character of a brave and able
officer.

Mr. HILLHOUSE approved of the amendment; as proposed by Mr. FITZSIMONS.
Constituents made no scruple to tell Representatives of their faults,
and he saw no reason why Representatives might not tell constituents of
theirs? The resolutions of Democratic societies printed in newspapers,
had spirited up the people in the Western counties to resistance. They
had weakly fancied that the American nation would not stand by their
constitution and their PRESIDENT. But for the publication of these
resolutions, there would have been no insurrection. This was a piece of
information which the people of the United States had a right to know.
It was the duty of that House to let them know it. The PRESIDENT had
done his duty. Mr. H. did not consider the amendment of Mr. FITZSIMONS
as an indiscriminate censure levelled at these societies; he thought it
only a suitable answer to a part of the PRESIDENT's Speech.

Mr. PARKER concluded this long debate by the following remarks. He did
not think that Democratic societies were so far to blame as had been
imagined. He suspected that the PRESIDENT himself, for whose character
and services he felt as much respect and gratitude as any man in
America, had been misinformed on this point. It would be absurd to say,
that the Western disturbances originated from the publications of
Democratic societies, if it could be proved to the satisfaction of the
committee, that such disturbances had begun long before any of the
associations alluded to had a being. To prove this position, Mr. P.
desired that the Clerk might read a passage from the letter on that
affair, written by Mr. Hamilton, and which has already been published in
all the newspapers. The Clerk accordingly read a part of the letter,
from which Mr. P. inferred that his inference was incontestable, and he
then stated the absurdity of making the Democratic publications the
origin of a discontent, which existed before them. He was satisfied that
the PRESIDENT did not wish this thing echoed; and that he would entirely
disapprove of the proposed persecution. Mr. P. said, that he had the
honor of being an honorary member of a Democratic society. Personally he
knew nothing of the gentlemen, but he understood that they were
respectable characters; and that they were friends to good order and the
Federal Government, there could be no question, for when the Embargo was
laid last spring, and some vessels had been attempting to get off, these
vigilant citizens armed and embodied themselves, and prevented the
execution of the design. With all his respect for the PRESIDENT, he was
not to give up his opinions for the sake of any man. He was convinced
that all this violent declamation and irritation in the House would do a
great deal of mischief, and would have an effect exactly the reverse of
what was designed by the amendment as it first stood. A gentleman (Mr.
DEXTER) had spoken of town meetings, as the proper vehicles for the
communication of political ideas, and had drawn a comparison between
these and Democratic societies. Mr. P. requested that it might be
noticed, that in the Southern States there neither were nor could be
such things as town meetings, because the population was too thin and
too widely scattered. They were therefore to make the best of it which
they could, and meet and deliberate, no matter where, whenever they
found a convenient opportunity. Mr. P. expressed, in strong terms the
aversion that his constituents would feel to this species of censorship.
He concluded with these words: "They love your Government much, but they
love their independence more."

The question was then called for on striking out the word "self-created"
from the new amendment of Mr. FITZSIMONS. For the amendment of Mr.
GILES, ayes 47, noes 45. This amendment was therefore adopted.

Mr. GILES then proposed an amendment, after the words "combination of
men," by adding, "in the four Western counties of Pennsylvania."

Mr. HARTLEY said, that the gentleman should have added, "and a county in
Virginia." This amendment of Mr. GILES was rejected.

The committee now rose, and reported the amendments to the House.


WEDNESDAY, November 26.

      [The committee having risen, and the question having been
      taken in the House, the yeas and nays on the motion to
      reinstate the obnoxious words, were:]

      YEAS.--Fisher Ames, James Armstrong, John Beatty, Elias
      Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Lambert
      Cadwalader, David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Joshua Coit, William
      J. Dawson, Jonathan Dayton, Samuel Baxter, Thomas
      Fitzsimons, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas
      Gilman, Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Samuel
      Griffin, William Barry Grove, Thomas Hartley, James
      Hillhouse, William Hindman, Samuel Holten, John Wilkes
      Kittera, Henry Latimer, Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee,
      Francis Malbone, William Vans Murray, Thomas Scott,
      Theodore Sedgwick, John S. Sherburne, Jeremiah Smith,
      William Smith, Zephaniah Swift, George Thatcher, Uriah
      Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, John E. Van Allen, Peter Van
      Gaasbeck, Peleg Wadsworth, Artemas Ward, John Watts, and
      Paine Wingate.

      NAYS.--Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, Thomas Blount,
      Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel Christie, Thomas Claiborne, Isaac
      Coles, Henry Dearborn, George Dent, Gabriel Duvall, William
      Findlay, William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Christopher
      Greenup, Andrew Gregg, George Hancock, Carter B. Harrison,
      John Heath, Daniel Heister, John Hunter, Matthew Locke,
      William Lyman, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, Joseph
      McDowell, Alexander Mebane, William Montgomery, Andrew
      Moore, Peter Muhlenberg, Joseph Neville, Anthony New, John
      Nicholas, Nathaniel Niles, Alexander D. Orr, Josiah Parker,
      Andrew Pickens, Francis Preston, Robert Rutherford, John
      Smilie, Israel Smith, Thomas Tredwell, Philip Van
      Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, Francis Walker, and Joseph
      Winston.

And then the main question being put, that the House do agree to the
said clause, amended to read as followeth:

      "In tracing the origin and progress of the insurrection, we
      can entertain no doubt that certain self-created societies
      and combinations of men in the four Western counties of
      Pennsylvania, and parts adjacent, careless of consequences,
      and disregarding the truth, by disseminating suspicions,
      jealousies, and accusations of the Government, have had all
      the agency you ascribe to them, in fomenting this daring
      outrage against social order and the authority of the
      laws:"

It passed in the negative, nineteen members only rising in the
affirmative.


FRIDAY, November 28.

_Answer to the Address._

The Answer, as amended, was then read throughout at the Clerk's table as
follows:

      SIR: The House of Representatives, calling to mind the
      blessings enjoyed by the people of the United States, and
      especially the happiness of living under constitutions and
      laws which rest on their authority alone, could not learn,
      with other emotions than those you have expressed, that any
      part of our fellow-citizens should have shown themselves
      capable of an insurrection. And we learn, with the greatest
      concern, that any misrepresentations whatever, of the
      Government and its proceedings, either by individuals or
      combinations of men, should have been made, and so far
      credited as to foment the flagrant outrage which has been
      committed on the laws. We feel, with you, the deepest
      regret at so painful an occurrence in the annals of our
      country. As men regardful of the tender interests of
      humanity, we look with grief at scenes which might have
      stained our land with civil blood. As lovers of public
      order, we lament that it has suffered so flagrant a
      violation: as zealous friends of Republican Government, we
      deplore every occasion which, in the hands of its enemies,
      may be turned into a calumny against it.

      This aspect of the crisis, however, is happily not the only
      one which it presents. There is another, which yields all
      the consolations which you have drawn from it. It has
      demonstrated to the candid world, as well as to the
      American people themselves, that the great body of them,
      every where, are equally attached to the luminous and vital
      principle of our constitution, which enjoins that the will
      of the majority shall prevail; that they understand the
      indissoluble union between true liberty and regular
      government; that they feel their duties no less than they
      are watchful over their rights; that they will be as ready,
      at all times, to crush licentiousness, as they have been to
      defeat usurpation: in a word, that they are capable of
      carrying into execution that noble plan of self-government
      which they have chosen as the guarantee of their own
      happiness, and the asylum for that of all, from every
      clime, who may wish to unite their destiny with ours.

      These are the just inferences flowing from the promptitude
      with which the summons to the standard of the laws has been
      obeyed; and from the sentiments which have been witnessed,
      in every description of citizens, in every quarter of the
      Union. The spectacle, therefore, when viewed in its true
      light, may well be affirmed to display, in equal lustre,
      the virtues of the American character, and the value of
      Republican Government. All must particularly acknowledge
      and applaud the patriotism of that portion of citizens who
      have freely sacrificed every thing less dear than the love
      of their country, to the meritorious task of defending its
      happiness.

      In the part which you have yourself borne through this
      delicate and distressing period, we trace the additional
      proofs it has afforded of your solicitude for the public
      good. Your laudable and successful endeavors to render
      lenity in executing the laws conducive to their real
      energy, and to convert tumult into order, without the
      effusion of blood, form a particular title to the
      confidence and praise of your constituents. In all that may
      be found necessary, on our part, to complete this
      benevolent purpose, and to secure the ministers and friends
      of the laws against the remains of danger, our due
      co-operation will be afforded.

      The other subjects which you have recommended, or
      communicated, and of which several are peculiarly
      interesting, will all receive the attention which they
      demand. We are deeply impressed with the importance of an
      effectual organization of the militia. We rejoice at the
      intelligence of the advance and success of the army under
      the command of General Wayne, whether we regard it as a
      proof of the perseverance, prowess, and superiority of our
      troops, or as a happy presage to our military operations
      against the hostile Indians, and as a probable prelude to
      the establishment of a lasting peace, upon terms of candor,
      equity, and good neighborhood. We receive it with the
      greater pleasure, as it increases the probability of sooner
      restoring a part of the public resources to the desirable
      object of reducing the public debt.

      We shall, on this, as on all occasions, be disposed to
      adopt any measure which may advance the safety and
      prosperity of our country. In nothing can we more cordially
      unite with you, than in imploring the Supreme Ruler of
      Nations to multiply His blessings on these United States;
      to guard our free and happy constitution against every
      machination and danger; and to make it the best source of
      public happiness, by verifying its character of being the
      best safeguard of human rights.

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

Mr. GILES, from the committee appointed, presented a bill to regulate
the pay of the non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates, of
the militia of the United States, when called into actual service, and
for other purposes; which was read twice and committed.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Treasurer of the
United States, accompanying his account of receipts and expenditures of
public moneys, from the 1st of April to the 30th of June, 1794; also,
his account of payments and receipts for the War Department, from the
1st of July to the 30th of September, 1794, inclusive; which were read,
and ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. MADISON, from the committee appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, to know when and where it will be convenient for him
to receive the Address of this House, in answer to his Speech to both
Houses of Congress, reported that the committee had waited on the
PRESIDENT, who signified to them that it would be convenient to him to
receive the said Address at twelve o'clock to-morrow, at his own house.


SATURDAY, November 29.

The SPEAKER, attended by the House, then withdrew to the house of the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and there presented to him the Address
of this House, in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress; to
which the PRESIDENT made the following reply:

      _Gentlemen:_ I anticipated, with confidence, the
      concurrence of the House of Representatives in the regret
      produced by the insurrection. Every effort ought to be used
      to discountenance what has contributed to foment it; and
      thus discourage a repetition of like attempts. For,
      notwithstanding the consolations which may be drawn from
      the issue of this event, it is far better that the artful
      approaches to such a situation of things should be checked
      by the vigilant and duly admonished patriotism of our
      fellow-citizens, than that the evil should increase until
      it becomes necessary to crush it by the strength of their
      arms.

      I am happy that the part which I have myself borne on this
      occasion receives the approbation of your House. For the
      discharge of a constitutional duty, it is a sufficient
      reward to me to be assured that you will unite in
      consummating what remains to be done.

      I feel, also, great satisfaction in learning that the other
      subjects which I have communicated or recommended, will
      meet with due attention; that you are deeply impressed with
      the importance of an effectual organization of the militia;
      and that the advance and success of the army under the
      command of General Wayne is regarded by you, no less than
      myself, as a proof of the perseverance, prowess, and
      superiority of our troops. G. WASHINGTON.


TUESDAY, December 2.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the
Treasury, stating his intention of resigning his office on the last day
of January next, and which he now communicates, in order that an
opportunity may be given, previous to that event, to institute any
further proceedings which may be contemplated, if any there be, in
consequence of the inquiry during the last session, into the state of
the Treasury Department; which was read, and ordered to lie on the
table.[55]


THURSDAY, December 4.

_Thanks to General Wayne._

Mr. W. SMITH wished to make his promised motion, which he prefaced by
observing that he had varied it at the request of several gentlemen. In
the original motion, he had particularly noticed the diligence of the
General in disciplining his army to the nature of the service in which
they were engaged, and his fortitude and perseverance in encountering
the difficulties which opposed his march through a wilderness.

Though he and many others were ready to acknowledge in the fullest
manner the merits of the General in those important particulars, yet as
they were not matters of general notoriety, and as unanimity on an
occasion like the present was extremely desirable, he had now confined
the motion to the brilliant action of the 20th August.

Mr. SMITH concluded with saying, that as he had no doubt the services of
the army had made the same impression on the House as they had on him,
he trusted the motion he was about to make would be honored with a
unanimous vote. He then moved the three resolutions, as follow:

      _Resolved_, That the thanks of this House he given to Major
      General Wayne for the good conduct and bravery displayed by
      him in the action of the 20th August last with the Indians.

      _Resolved, unanimously_, That the thanks of this House be
      given to the brave officers and soldiers of the legion
      under the orders of Major General Wayne, for their
      patience, fortitude, and bravery.

      _Resolved_, That the thanks of this House be given to Major
      General Scott, and to the gallant mounted volunteers from
      the State of Kentucky, who have served their country in the
      field during the late campaign, under the orders of Major
      General Wayne, for their zeal, bravery, and good conduct.

Mr. GILES foresaw many bad consequences that might ensue from the
practice of giving opinions of men. One part of the House might be for a
vote of thanks, and the other against it. He should vote for the
proposition, but wished that some mode might be adopted for expressing
the general opinion of the House against the practice.

Mr. KITTERA was for restoring the clause respecting the vigilance of
General Wayne in attending to the discipline of his troops.

Mr. HILLHOUSE hoped that the resolutions would not be adopted. He should
go farther than the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. GILES) and vote against
them. The House in their answer to the PRESIDENT, had expressed their
approbation, and that was enough. It was not the business of that House,
but of the Executive, to express such things. Mr. H. had voted most
cordially for that part of the Address respecting the Western army. The
Answer to the Speech of the PRESIDENT would always afford a good
opportunity of conveying these kind of matters. It would immediately
become necessary to give thanks in every case; and not to give them will
be regarded as an implied censure. He trusted that the gentleman would
withdraw his motion, and that the House in this way would get rid of
it. He had, and he repeated it again, a high sense of the merit of the
officers and soldiers of the army under General Wayne, but he had said
so already in the Address to the PRESIDENT. It had been urged, as a
precedent for this measure, that it was usual to thank the Speaker. This
was a mere ceremony. He wished that it had never come into practice, but
since it had been so, he should always agree to the vote of thanks.

Mr. MURRAY thought that we might trust that the House would always have
too much prudence to abuse their thanks, by giving them improperly. By
way of precedent Mr. M. read a vote of the State of Virginia, thanking
Governor Lee for his conduct in the Western insurrection.

Mr. NICHOLAS approved highly of the conduct of the troops, but it was
only an act of duty. If we send soldiers against the Indians, it is
supposed that they will stand to their posts, otherwise the Government
cannot be supported even for a month.

Mr. HILLHOUSE saw no business which the House had with the proceedings
in the State of Virginia. It had been hinted that the army under General
Wayne might feel disagreeably, if the resolution should be rejected.
With that Mr. H. had no business. He acted on principles without
regarding the feelings of individuals.

Mr. W. SMITH agreed with gentlemen that the principal object of the
House was to legislate; but it did not follow that they were to be
confined merely to legislation. Every Legislative body exercised the
right of opinion in cases where no act was to follow. This House has
frequently exercised it: the answers to the PRESIDENT's Speech; the
answer to the King of the French on his acceptance of the Constitution
of ninety-one; the opinion of the House on the merits of that
constitution; the vote respecting Benjamin Franklin; the vote of last
session in reply to a letter from the Committee of Public Safety of
France; the votes of thanks to the Speakers, were precedents on the
journals which refuted a contrary doctrine. It had been said that the
latter case was a mere matter of form. Mr. S. thought differently, and
if ever he was in that House when a vote of thanks should be proposed to
a Speaker who had no claim to it, he should feel it his duty to oppose
it. Gentlemen apprehended that this practice might lead to innumerable
difficulties hereafter. But every House would exercise its judgment and
discretion. Members would not be so rash as to propose the thanks of the
House where serious opposition was expected, nor would the thanks be
voted unless well merited. He was unwilling as any member to make the
thanks of the House too cheap; but all must confess that if ever there
was an occasion where they were properly called for, this was one. To
deny the right or expediency of the practice was in fact to strip the
House of one of its most agreeable functions, that of expressing its
gratitude.

It had been advanced as an objection, that the two Houses might differ;
one might vote thanks and the other censure, in the same case; but that
might happen in other cases where the propriety of expressing an opinion
was admitted; in answering the PRESIDENT's Speech in the State
Legislatures, where thanks were frequently voted, the two branches might
differ; that was never deemed an objection to the practice; each House
expressed its individual opinion.

Mr. SMITH said, if the House had been sitting in September last when the
account arrived of this victory, would the members have then felt as
coldly as they now do? No: he was convinced that in the moment of joy
and gratitude, they would have unanimously voted thanks to the army
without the least hesitation; but they have since had time to cool, and
the impression is worn away.

Gentlemen should consider the hard services of that army; how badly paid
they were; the nature of the country they were in; and then determine
whether the brilliant action of the 20th August is to go unrewarded? To
appreciate truly the merits of that army in obtaining so signal a
victory, let the House reflect on the consequences of a defeat: the army
disbanded and broken up; the frontiers exposed to the ferocious savages;
the combination of the tribes more cemented and formidable; an
expensive, long, and bloody war. What is now our prospect? The frontiers
protected; the combination of the tribes dissolved, and peace with them
all a probable event.

Before, therefore, the motion which he had made could be got rid of, it
was incumbent on the gentlemen on the other side to show, either that it
was improper in any case whatever to pass a vote of thanks, or that this
was not a case entitled to them; to do the first they must establish, in
the face of precedents innumerable, a doctrine destructive of one of the
most amiable privileges of the House; to do the last, they must express
a sentiment which would, he was persuaded, be repugnant to the
sentiments of all their constituents, for throughout the United States
there was but one opinion on this subject, and that was in unison with
the motion. Having made the motion after due deliberation, he certainly
should not withdraw it; but would submit it to the good sense of the
House.

Mr. COIT moved the previous question. He thought the practice of
dangerous consequence. It might produce much uncomfortable proceeding in
that House. He was seconded by a number of members.

Mr. PARKER felt the highest esteem for the services of the Western army.
He was intimate both with General Wayne and General Scott; but he
disapproved of the practice upon principle. It was wrong in Mr. MURRAY
to quote the proceedings in the Legislature of Virginia, where the
Governor was in authority a mere cipher, because the two cases did not
apply. The Federal Government was on a quite different footing, a
mixture of monarchy, of aristocracy, and of democracy. The PRESIDENT
represented the monarchical part. It was his business to give thanks, if
requisite. If he himself was an officer in that army, Mr. P. said that
he should be satisfied by the first thanks, those in the answer to the
PRESIDENT. He would be hurt by the second as unconstitutional. What if,
in the mean time, General Wayne and his army may have committed some
error that requires an inquiry, and the House are to go into it with
this vote of thanks staring them in their face! It had been said by Mr.
SMITH, that if we had been sitting in September, when this news arrived,
a vote of thanks would have been passed immediately and unanimously. I
believe no such thing (said Mr. P.) We should have recommended such a
step to the PRESIDENT.

Mr. GILES said, that if there ever could have been any doubt as to the
impropriety of the resolution, that was now removed, (alluding to the
speech of Mr. PARKER.) He thought that the gentleman (Mr. COIT) who
moved the previous question had acted from the best motives. Two
gentlemen (Mr. GILES referred to Mr. SEDGWICK and Mr. AMES) had
recommended an appeal to _feeling_. We are sent here to reason. A
gentleman (Mr. SEDGWICK) says that he has feelings which he cannot
express. Let him strive to express them. It is not expected that a
member is to express all that he may feel on every subject.

Mr. MURRAY said he thought the present resolution proper,
unexceptionable, and as the fate of this question would have an effect
on the motion for thanks to the militia, which he brought forward
yesterday, he hoped it would succeed, and that its mover (Mr. SMITH, of
South Carolina) would not withdraw it. Gentlemen who are against the
vote have talked of precedent. If example would serve their feelings
with a stimulus, he would take the liberty of calling their attention to
a page he had in his hand, in which they would find that some of our
constituents have got the start of us, for the House of Delegates of
Virginia had very properly considered the conduct of their Governor (Mr.
LEE) in a light which merited their thanks for his acceptance of the
command of his fellow-citizens against the insurgents. Mr. M. read the
vote from a newspaper, which was a unanimous one. He said he considered
this circumstance as extremely auspicious to both votes.

He said he had no objection to consider the practice as founded in
principles which would bear examination. He thought it more necessary in
the administration of our Government--the great basis of which was
public opinion--than in that of any other which he had read or heard of.
Here our theories have made a bold appeal to the reason and feelings of
our fellow-citizens. Neither titles, nor hereditary honors, nor crosses,
nor ribbons, nor stars, nor garters, are permitted or endurable. Neither
would they be accepted here were they offered. We had but two ways, as
far as his knowledge then served him, of rewarding or acknowledging
great displays of public virtue. One way is by pay in money; the other
by thanks expressed by vote, or presented and perpetuated in some
memorial, as in a medal. The first is unequal; as the fortunes of men
differ, so would such reward not be equally valuable to all its objects;
and were it practicable to apportion this reward agreeably to the
fortunes of men, there is a something ill-assorted in it with the idea
of honorable ambition; nor did he think there was any good man who had a
spark of what is called sentiment in his bosom, who would not say the
reward was not only lame for want of uniformity, but defective in point
of taste in its species. He believed much in the sense of duty as a
motive to good and reasonable services, and that an enlightened mind
would feel the close alliance between interest and duty; but he held
reward to be essential, politically considered, to the practice of great
virtue, taking men as you find them. Not that money can be an adequate
reward; it was therefore that he wished to see a style of acknowledgment
derived both from the genius of the Government and congenial with the
passions which work on the side of virtue--a mode as far removed from
mere avarice as it was nearly associated to the movements of the most
elevated minds. He readily yielded his belief that the gentlemen who
were unwilling to adopt the practice fully admitted the merits to which
they did not think it expedient to give a vote of thanks; but the
precedent, founded expressly on the principle, that in no case of the
greatest events are we to give thanks to the agents in them, will
absolutely strip the Government of the only power its constitution
admits of conferring deserved distinction. He thought that public
gratitude was a great fund, which if judiciously and delicately
economized, might be rendered a source of great and good actions. It is
an honor both to the nation that can feel and express it, and to those
who receive it. He did not think it ought to be lightly drawn on, and
hoped a line which it was more easy to conceive than draw, would be
adopted by the House to save the Legislature from those perilous
occasions which would lessen its value, and that no member would ever
move a vote of thanks but upon the happening of some event so strikingly
great and useful as to carry but one opinion. The two events designated
at present (for he saw both votes were to have one fate) were great,
highly interesting, and carried but one opinion. The army under General
Wayne had gained a brilliant victory. It was, he believed, the first
great victory that had attended the arms of the United States since the
adoption of the constitution. That army merited the thanks of their
country, and we may say so. They had not only gained victory and fame,
but had earned them in a solitude where the voice of fame could not be
heard; in a profound wilderness, where neither the soothings of just
ambition can reach them, nor the smiles of social and civilized life can
comfort them after their severe labors.

The militia, both officers and men, in "quelling the insurrection," had
displayed the wisdom and virtue which the constitution had anticipated;
had eminently deserved the most public testimony to their good conduct.
Shall we, as we certainly feel this to be true, be deterred from
expressing what we feel, because the folly of a future moment may
possibly betray us into an undue multiplication of thanks, or because we
may be harassed by a fatiguing succession of calls upon our gratitude?
There could be little fear that great events would crowd too fast upon
our feelings, and take up our time by applause, and he believed his
constituents would readily admit the importance of two such events as
some excuse for the time we consume in celebrating them.

In favor of the principle, we are supported by the example of the old
Congress, by the practice of all nations, and by the known character of
human nature in all cases and everywhere. The ancients and the moderns,
by a variety of inventions and of policy, analogous to our object,
endeavored to enlist all the passions in the public service. The old
Congress understood the springs that work in great events, and though
there was in the glorious revolution which they guided, an ardor in the
public mind that needed little aid, they did not disdain an appeal to
the just pride and ambition of the individual; that the motives to
public virtue might be multiplied, they in many instances took care that
great events and services should be attended by some small but
inestimable memorial.

Mr. AMES.--The apprehensions of the House have been attempted to be
alarmed, as if they were pushed to adopt hastily and unguardedly some
dangerous new principle. The practice of all public bodies, without
exception, has been to express their approbation of distinguished public
services. Instead of establishing a new principle, the attempt is now
made to induce us to depart from an old one. Nay, the objection taken
altogether is still more inconsistent and singular, for it is urged, the
answer of the House to the PRESIDENT's Speech has already expressed our
approbation of the conduct of General Wayne and his army. It is, say
they, superfluous to express it again. The argument opposed to the vote
of thanks stands thus: It is a dangerous new principle, without a
precedent, and without any just authority from the constitution, to
thank the army; for, the objectors add, we have in the answer to the
Speech expressed all that is contained in the motion. It is unusual to
quote precedent, and our own recent conduct, to prove a motion
unprecedented, and to prove a measure new and dangerous because it has
been adopted without question or apprehension heretofore.

It is simply a question of mere propriety; and is it a novelty, is it
any thing to alarm the caution of the House, that such questions are
always to be decided by feeling? What but the sense of propriety induces
me to perform to others the nameless and arbitrary duties, and to
receive from others the rights which the civilities and refinements of
life have erected into laws? In cases of a more serious kind, is not
sentiment the only prompt and enlightened guide of our conduct? If I
receive a favor, what but the sentiment of gratitude ought to direct me
in my acknowledgments? Shall I go to my benefactor and say, Sir, I act
coolly and carefully; I will examine all the circumstances of this
transaction, and if upon the whole I find some cause of gratitude, I
will thank you. Is this gratitude or insult? The man who affects to hold
his feelings, and his best feelings back for this cold-blooded process
of reasoning, has none. He deceives himself, and attempts to deceive
others, if he pretends to reason up or to reason down the impressions
which actions worthy of gratitude and admiration make upon his heart.
Was it necessary to wait for the joy and exultation which the news of
the victory of General Wayne instantly inspired, till we could proceed
with all due phlegm and caution to analyze it? The gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. NICHOLAS) has not even yet received the impressions which
are so natural and so nearly universal; for he has insisted that the
army has only done its duty, and therefore it is improper to express our
thanks. Indeed, it has done its duty, but in a manner the most splendid,
the most worthy of admiration and thanks. That gentleman has also
expressed his doubts of the very important nature of the victory, and
one would suppose it was thought by many a very trivial advantage that
is gained. It is such an one, however, as has humbled a victorious foe;
as has avenged the slaughter of two armies; as gives us the reasonable
prospect of a speedy peace. Can we desire any thing more ardently than a
termination of the Indian war?

A soldier, of all men, looks to this kind of recompense for his
services; and surely, to look to the approbation and applause of his
country is one means of keeping alive the sentiments of citizenship,
which ought not to be suffered to expire even in a camp. Shall we make
it an excuse for refusing to pass this vote, that we establish the
principle of thanking nobody? Is not this, as a principle, as novel, as
improper, as that which alarms our opponents? And shall we establish it
as a principle against the known practice of other assemblies and of
this, and against the intrinsic propriety of the case, merely because we
think our discretion will not be firm enough in future to prevent the
abuse of the practice? Scarcely any abuse could have a worse influence
than the refusal to adopt this vote, because, should the negative
prevail, what would the army believe? Would they not say, a vote of
thanks has been rejected? It is said we have not done much, and what we
have done is merely our duty, for which we receive wages?

The debate has taken such a turn, that I confess I could have wished the
motion had not been made. For the most awkward and ridiculous thing in
the world is to express our gratitude lothly. But at least it offers to
those who fear that votes of thanks will be too frequent, some security
against their apprehensions. Would any man risk the feelings and
character of his friend by an attempt to force a vote of thanks by a
bare majority through the House? No, an ingenuous mind will shrink from
this gross reward. If there is any force in the precedent it is feared
we are now making, it will operate more to deter from than to invite the
repetition.

Mr. DEARBORN was in favor of the original motion. In addition to some
remarks relative to the Republicanism of the idea of the Representatives
of the people thanking the armies of the people for their prowess and
victories, he compared the argument against the resolutions on the score
of abuse to a miser's excusing himself from the practice of charity,
lest he should bestow it on unworthy objects.

Mr. RUTHERFORD was opposed to the previous question. He hoped the
resolution of thanks would pass without a dissenting voice.

The previous question was now called for, by five members, viz: "Shall
the main question to agree to the said resolution, be now put?" And

On the previous question, "Shall the said main question be now put?" it
was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 52, nays 36.

And then the main question being put, that the House do agree to the
said resolution, it was

_Resolved, unanimously_, That the thanks of this House be given to the
brave officers and soldiers of the legion under the orders of Major
General Wayne, for their patience, fortitude, and bravery.

_Resolved, unanimously_, That the thanks of this House be given to Major
General Scott, and to the gallant mounted volunteers from the State of
Kentucky, who have served their country in the field, during the late
campaign, under the orders of Major General Wayne, for their zeal,
bravery, and good conduct.

_Resolved_, That the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES be requested to
transmit the foregoing resolutions; and that Mr. WILLIAM SMITH and Mr.
MURRAY be appointed a committee to wait on the PRESIDENT therewith.

On motion of Mr. MURRAY,

_Resolved, unanimously_, That the thanks of this House be given to the
gallant officers and privates of the militia of the States of New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, who, on the late call of
the PRESIDENT, rallied round the standard of the laws, and, in the
prompt and severe services which they encountered, bore the most
illustrious testimony to the value of the constitution, and the
blessings of internal peace and order; and that the PRESIDENT be
requested to communicate the above vote of thanks in such manner as he
may judge most acceptable to the patriotic citizens who are its objects.

_Ordered_, That Mr. WILLIAM SMITH and Mr. MURRAY be appointed a
committee to wait on the PRESIDENT with the foregoing resolution.


TUESDAY, December 9.

_The Mint._

The House then took up the motion of Mr. COIT, relative to the Mint. The
letter of Mr. Rittenhouse, referred to yesterday, was again read.

Mr. BOUDINOT drew the attention of the House for some time, by a series
of the most interesting observations. He went to the Bank of the United
States to inquire for cents. He was told that there were none to be had,
because the Bank could not get them from the Mint. He then went to the
Mint, where he was informed that cents were not coined faster because
the officers of the Mint did not know where to get them vented! He said
that this Mint cost twenty-four thousand dollars per annum, and every
cent coined there cost the public several cents, though he could not
exactly tell how many. In New Jersey far more cents had been coined in a
few months than had ever been coined altogether at the Mint of the
United States, and this had been done at one-fortieth part of the
expense which the Mint of the United States has cost.

Several other members adverted to the prodigious inconvenience which is
felt all over the Union for want of copper coin; and it appeared to
excite some curiosity, on what foundation the officers of the Mint said
that they could not get their cents vented. It was remarked by Mr. W.
SMITH that, except as to Philadelphia, the Mint is of little or no use
whatever. The cents given out never go farther than the city.

A committee of three members were appointed to examine and report on the
state of the Mint, and what means may be used to render the institution
more beneficial to the United States.


WEDNESDAY, December 10.

An engrossed bill making appropriations for the support of Government,
for the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, was read the
third time, and passed.


MONDAY, December 15.

Two other members, to wit: from Virginia, JOHN PAGE; and from North
Carolina, BENJAMIN WILLIAMS, appeared, and took their seats in the
House.


TUESDAY, December 16.

_Pennsylvania Insurgents._

It was then moved and seconded that the House should go into a
committee, on the report of the select committee, on that part of the
PRESIDENT's Speech which recommended compensation to the sufferers by
the insurgents in the Western counties. The House accordingly went into
a committee, Mr. COBB in the chair, and the report was read.

In the clause for making compensation to officers of Government, and
other citizens, Mr. NICHOLAS was for striking out the three last words,
and restricting indemnification to the officers of Government, as the
additional words would make room for a set of claims which never could
be satisfied or put to an end. It is now ascertained that the majority
of the people of the four western counties have always been in favor of
Government; but, since it is so, they ought to have suppressed the
insurrection, and saved the expense of sending an army into that
country. But as they did not do so, Mr. N. did not see what claim they
had for compensation any more than the sufferers in the war with
Britain.

Mr. FINDLAY thought that sound policy required an indemnification to the
sufferers.

Mr. HILLHOUSE was in favor of the report of the committee as it stood.
The whole affair was but a trifle. He understood that the damages done
by the rioters did not altogether exceed twenty thousand dollars; and
that three-fourths of this sum was for losses sustained by officers of
the revenue. The rest of the account was for persons who had fought in
defence of the officers or who had lodged and protected them. He
observed that the whole of the select committee were of one mind upon
the subject, and agreed in considering the other citizens as equally
entitled to indemnification with the officers themselves.

Mr. NICHOLAS was still against the resolutions as originally worded. He
did not see any proof of extraordinary attachment on the part of the
claimants, nor any peculiar call on the justice of the House in this
particular case.

Mr. W. SMITH said, that one man had his whole property burned for
having, at the hazard of his life, assisted in attempting to defend the
house of the Inspector General. A second received the same treatment for
having lodged an excise officer; and a third, because he had
antecedently been one himself, though he had quitted his employment
before the riots began. Mr. S. urged that these were certainly peculiar
and pressing cases, and that it would be highly impolitic not to protect
such people.

Mr. GILBERT hoped that there would be no discrimination, but that all
the sufferers would be alike reimbursed.

Mr. BOUDINOT proposed a kind of compromise between the original
resolution and the amendment by Mr. NICHOLAS. He proposed that the
clause should read thus: "officers of the revenue, and other citizens
aiding and assisting them." He was willing to indemnify persons who had
actually suffered in defence of Government, but not other persons who
might accidentally have been injured by the rioters.

Mr. DAYTON was of opinion that some restriction of this sort was
necessary. Citizens were in duty bound to support Government, but the
latter was not in all cases bound to indemnify their losses. Let any
person go through any part of the country wherever British soldiers had
marched, and he would find thousands and tens of thousands of people
whose property had been utterly destroyed by the wanton barbarity of
these troops. Go to another part of the country and you will find people
who suffered very considerably by the American soldiers, when Government
did not give them an ounce of bread for pounds that they should have
had. It was not possible to make satisfaction to all these people.

Mr. SEDGWICK said it was extremely disagreeable to attempt detaining the
committee with this subject, to which they discovered such general
inattention, that he did not know if it had ever been equalled in any
popular assembly before. He again adverted to an argument which he had
used on a former day, viz: that when a private person, at the risk of
his property and his life, comes forward to support the execution of the
laws, his service was much more meritorious, and demonstrated a much
greater degree of patriotism than that of a revenue officer who was paid
for his share of the business. He inferred that the sufferers by the
Western rioters should all be equally indemnified.

Mr. HILLHOUSE repeated some of his former reasons for wishing to
discharge the whole claims. He was therefore against the qualified
amendment of Mr. BOUDINOT.

Mr. SWIFT was against the amendment of Mr. BOUDINOT, because he was
against giving, at present, any thing at all. He would suffer the
persons who have sustained injury from these rioters and trespassers to
prosecute them at law. If they cannot get any retribution in that way,
then, and not sooner, you may begin to consider upon the propriety of
giving any compensation; but till the parties aggrieved have done their
utmost in that way, he would have no steps whatever taken of the nature
proposed. It had been alleged that the House might advance money in the
mean time to the sufferers, and leave them to their actions against the
rioters. But if you pay a man for his damages, what security is there
that he will follow up his suit; or, is it not evident that such
previous compensation will greatly damp his ardor? Mr. S. said, that if
previous notice were given of Government being ready to pay the damages,
in case they could not be recovered before a court of law, there
certainly never would be found a jury to bring a verdict against a
private person. For this reason Mr. S. was entirely against the
resolution at this time. What he might do hereafter, he would not say.
There was only one case wherein he could be induced to advance money. If
any of these persons could prove that they had been reduced by the
rioters to such poverty that they were unable to prosecute their claims
in a court of law, it might then perhaps be expedient to advance for
them the expenses of the suit. But the interposition of the House at
this period would affect the claims very greatly, and thus confer on the
rioters themselves a favor which Mr. S. was very unwilling to bestow, as
he would wish them prosecuted to the utmost. Before the meeting of next
Congress, it might be ascertained what could be made of these
prosecutions, and then, and not till then, Mr. S. would think it proper
to enter on the discussion suggested by the report of the select
committee.

Mr. DEXTER drew a distinction between persons suffering by an open
enemy, whose approaches they could not avoid, and those who suffer
voluntarily. The claim for compensation was complete, and we should do
the parties injustice if they did not receive full satisfaction.

Mr. BOUDINOT withdrew his amendment, under the idea that the particular
cases would hereafter come before the House. The question therefore
reverted to its former shape, shall the words "and other citizens" be
struck out.

Mr. DAYTON, in opposition to Mr. DEXTER, considered the Government of
the United States as more justly bound to make reparation to the people
who suffered by the robberies and conflagrations perpetrated by British
soldiers than to compensate the sufferers in the four Western counties;
for those whose houses were burned, and whose property was destroyed by
the British, had no quarter to which they could look for relief except
to their own Government. The people to the Westward, on the contrary,
had it in their power to prosecute the rioters, who were well able to
pay them. Mr. DEXTER had said that the losses of the persons ruined by
the British were upon record. Perhaps, said Mr. DAYTON, they will always
be on record; but nobody supposes that we shall ever indemnify these
losses. He thought it prudent for the present to restrict relief to the
officers of Government alone.

The question was about to be put, on the amendment proposed by Mr.
NICHOLAS to the first resolution in the report of the select committee,
when Mr. SCOTT rose. He said, that if there had been a proposal devised
to weaken the hands of Government in the four Western counties, there
was no one thing which could have effected that point so completely as
the striking out of these three words, "and other citizens." If
gentlemen would only reflect for a moment, he would ask them how they
thought it possible that any civil officer, after the adoption of such
an amendment, would ever be able to raise a posse in that part of the
country? Who would hereafter venture to defend the life of an excise
officer, when the world has been told, that individuals do it at their
own hazard, and cannot look to Government for any compensation? Who will
hereafter admit an excise officer into his house, if that house may,
with impunity, be burned about his ears? As soon as this amendment has
gone abroad, every body, instead of assisting the officers of the
revenue, will strive to keep out of their way, and have nothing to do
with them. If there never had been any thing said about making a
compensation to other citizens, perhaps there might have been little
harm, or at least there would have been much less harm by forbearing to
give them relief. But when the subject has been fairly brought forward
by the PRESIDENT in his Speech, and when it had been debated at full
length in this House, when so much notice had been attracted, and so
many hopes have been thrown out, to give, in the face of all this, a
direct negative, would be the most impolitic step that could possibly be
thought of.

The committee then agreed to reject the amendment, and divided on the
first resolution as it originally stood in the report of the select
committee--yeas 46, nays 37.

The second resolution was then put for enabling the PRESIDENT to draw
the sum of ---- dollars for the relief of the sufferers--yeas 41, nays
37.

Mr. SMITH then said, that seventeen thousand dollars had been mentioned
in the committee as sufficient to pay the whole damages. He proposed to
fill up the blank with eight or ten thousand dollars, on account, till
they should see what was to be the final amount of the claims.

Mr. HILLHOUSE and Mr. KITTERA both objected to this proposal. The
committee rose. The Chairman reported that the committee had agreed to
the report of the select committee without any amendment. The House were
about to take up the report, when Mr. SEDGWICK said, that he was really
concerned at thinking that there could have been any division at all
about such a thing. He still hoped that a measure might be adopted which
would produce unanimity on the subject, and would have a much better
effect than such a division.

The bill appropriating one million one hundred and twenty-two thousand
five hundred and sixty-nine dollars and one cent for the expenses of the
militia in the Western expedition, was read a first and second time, and
referred to a Committee of the Whole to-morrow.


WEDNESDAY, December 17.

_Pennsylvania Insurgents._

The House resumed the consideration of the report of the select
committee on that part of the PRESIDENT's Speech respecting compensation
to the sufferers by insurgents in the Western counties in Pennsylvania.
When the first of the two resolutions in the report was read, Mr. SWIFT
objected to the granting of immediate indemnification, on much the same
ground as he adopted yesterday in the Committee of the Whole. He
inquired how a person, with a compensation from that House in his
pocket, could appear in a Court of Justice to prosecute a rioter for
damages, when the Judge, the jurors, and every one in Court knew he had
been indemnified? He enlarged, at some length, on the great pity that it
would be to let those rioters and rebels escape so; and, after they had
cost Government above a million of dollars, that they should not be
obliged to pay these sixteen or twenty thousand.

Mr. LYMAN hoped that the House would give the money, and have done with
the business.

Mr. NICHOLAS.--The more he considered this question, he was the more
convinced that the House are involving themselves in embarrassment. Are
you not told (said he, alluding to what had been urged by Mr. SWIFT)
that, by paying these claims in the first instance, you are cutting the
sinews of civil process? In any future commotion of this kind a person
who has lodged an exciseman may have his house burnt from private spite
against him, and not because he interfered in favor of a revenue
officer. Then you are bound, by this precedent, to indemnify him; and
how can you distinguish what was the real motive to that outrage? He
believed it impossible ever to bring Government to such a state of
perfection as that all losses suffered in defence of it should be
indemnified at its charge. Where is the difference between this case and
that of indemnifying the losses at sea by the British? Yet that proposal
was rejected. Where is the gentleman who will say that he believes
people will put themselves to the trouble of prosecuting, when they know
that the money, if recovered, must go into your pockets again? Let us
put the case, that a jury in the Western counties, where these points
must be tried, shall find any of these people entitled to less than what
you have bestowed upon them? Can you then recover the money back again?
It is said that this resolution embraces but a few instances, and these
of the most meritorious kind; but, in reality, it includes all citizens
who have suffered. What will this comprehend, or, rather, what will it
not comprehend? He supposed that the design was that the commissioners
appointed by the PRESIDENT for that effect should be sent into the
Western counties to ascertain the damages. Mr. N. concluded by declaring
that nothing which he had heard could induce him to go to the extent
proposed; and, by giving money at present, the prosecutions would all
come to nothing.

Mr. MURRAY hoped the first resolution would succeed. He really thought
that the reasoning of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. NICHOLAS) would
extend to the exclusion of General Neville.

Mr. MADISON remarked, that great respect was due to this proposition,
both on account of the interesting occasion that produced it, and of the
quarter from whence it came. But the more he revolved the subject in his
mind, the more he was convinced that great circumspection was requisite,
and that the House, for many reasons, ought to take as much time in
deliberating upon what they ought to do as the nature of the subject
will admit. He recommended the proposal of some gentlemen to let the
affair lie over to next session.

It is no doubt proper to encourage a spirit for suppressing
insurrections, and this measure is certainly calculated to promote that
spirit. But, in his judgment, Mr. M. feared that it would likewise
encourage insurrections. A great body of people were commonly engaged in
such disturbances who were not worth hanging, and to whom an established
Government usually held out an amnesty. By this means great multitudes
came in, and received pardon before the operations of chastisement
began. The mob, therefore, would in this case reason thus: As a crowd,
we have a good chance to escape the gallows. Let us then plunder as fast
as possible, because Government will disburse the loss, and we shall not
be forced to disgorge our booty. Mr. M. thought that speculations of
this kind might be entertained by future insurgents, if the House were
instantly to vote a complete indemnification to the sufferers. Mr. M.
held the highest respect for the arguments and feelings of gentlemen who
espoused the other side of the question. What he himself had just now
suggested, he did not regard as decisive considerations, but yet as
considerations of weight. His own impression was to let the matter lie
over till the next session, and then those who had done their best in
prosecuting would come forward to that House to claim compensation under
the most auspicious circumstances, and all which they shall have
recovered will be saved to the State.

Mr. BOUDINOT differed in some degree from the gentleman who spoke last.
He was for doing something at present, though not so much as was implied
in the first resolution. He recapitulated the danger that would arise
from slackening the efforts of people to prosecute the rioters. He
entirely dissented from the principle laid down by some gentlemen, that
Government was in all cases bound to indemnify the losses sustained by
its citizens from foreign or domestic outrage. In the war with Britain
there were great numbers of people who chose rather to fight it out to
the last, and permit their houses to be burnt by the British troops,
than accept of terms which they might have obtained. Mr. B. again
proposed the amendment which he laid yesterday before the committee,
viz: that after the words "and other citizens," there should be
inserted, "personally aiding and assisting them." This he thought
sufficient in the mean time.

Mr. HEATH declared himself against the resolution as unsound policy. He
feared that it may be an encouragement to future mischief. When an
officer of the revenue finds that he is to be so easily paid--to be paid
a double value for the burning of his house--will not this slacken his
ardor in defence of it? Who has not heard of the rebellion of _Shays_,
where a great deal of property was destroyed? People there began at the
right end of the business. Lawsuits were commenced against the rebels,
and damages were recovered. Pray, would it not be a proper bar to the
recovery of damages in a court of law to say Government has paid you?
Will not these people who suffered by the Tories in the last war come
next, with open mouths, and demand indemnity? We shall next have those
citizens who lately suffered by the pirates of Britain hastening to
demand compensation. Mr. H. considered this as the most important
question which had come before Congress during the present session. He
concluded by saying that he would bear his testimony against this
resolution.

Mr. CARNES was of the same opinion. Mr. MURRAY had said that it would be
impossible to find a jury in the Western counties who would give honest
damages against the rioters, because almost every body was on their
side, and there would be no possibility of finding a jury who would pass
an equitable verdict, unless recourse was had to the odious and
execrable practice of packing juries. This remedy was worse than the
disease; and from this Mr. MURRAY inferred the futility of compelling
the sufferers to wait for the result of hopeless prosecutions, and the
propriety of immediately paying the damages. Mr. CARNES asked the
gentleman whether his knowledge as a lawyer did not inform him that an
upright jury might be selected without having recourse to the infamous
expedient of packing? When a jury were chosen, the prosecutors would be
at liberty to except against them; and if they were either men of bad
characters, or in any shape connected with the rioters, these exceptions
would be admitted, and this process would go on till a respectable jury
could be chosen. This was quite distinct from any thing like packing. He
considered this explanation as a satisfactory answer to the arguments
advanced by the member from Maryland; and he entertained a better
opinion than that gentleman seemed to possess of the jurymen in the
Western counties. Mr. C. foresaw many bad consequences that might
possibly flow from this alacrity in discharging damages. What if there
should be a collusive insurrection between two parties, and then,
instead of twenty thousand dollars, we shall have to discharge a bill of
perhaps an hundred thousand, or twice that sum? He considered it as good
a plea in bar of prosecutions to say, Government has paid you. But if we
are so fond of indemnifying people who suffer losses, the House may
begin by satisfying the settlers in the back part of Georgia, where the
Creeks within the last ten months only have done mischief to the extent
of five or six hundred thousand dollars. He should be glad to hear the
House disposed to indemnify these people, but it was what he did not
expect. He could not see why these sufferers were not as much entitled
to compensation as the others in the four Western counties. As to the
Creeks, the State of Georgia was neither at war nor peace with them.
Peace it was called, but in the mean time the savages were committing
incessant murders. Reverting to the question before the House, Mr. C.
said, that it would be most impolitic to proceed at present in the
payment of these losses; and he was convinced that the PRESIDENT
himself, when he made the reference in his Speech, did not intend that
the thing should be acted on immediately. Mr. C. hoped that there would
be a delay for the present session. The best way to ascertain the real
extent of the damages was to leave the matter to the decision of a jury.
When juries have determined this point, then, if the rebels cannot pay,
give satisfaction to the sufferers in terms of the verdicts. The member
from Maryland had said, that damages could not be accurately specified
by a jury. Yes. If you pay nothing at present, but, if you pay at
present, the action is barred. Mr. C. had not entirely formed his
opinion on the question of compensation, but he was satisfied that it
was better to make a delay.

Mr. DEXTER, in reply to the supposition that this compensation would
encourage future insurrections, gave it as his opinion that it would be
the means of preventing them. An insurgent would say to himself, "I
might escape from the prosecution of my neighbor, but, when the United
States assist him, I cannot stand against both." Mr. D. conceived that
the meaning of the resolution had been mistaken, and he placed the
question in a light entirely new and unnoticed by any former speaker.
Gentlemen had spoken as if the resolution went to the immediate and
complete discharge of the whole damages, and upon this many arguments
had been founded. This idea was an entire mistake, for the first
resolution went only to ascertain the real extent of the damages, and
did not pledge the House to pay the total amount of them. He considered
this as a very material distinction, and which, in a great measure,
obviated many arguments on the opposite side of the question. Mr. D. did
not think, with the member from Georgia, that the same rule applied to
the south-western settlers of that State and to parties in the present
resolution. The people on the frontiers have "placed themselves in a
place of danger knowingly." The Creeks were an open enemy, but the
insurgents were an unexpected one. Mr. D. proceeded at great length to
make a distinction between the two cases, and concluded by saying that
the second resolution, which, as well as the first, he hoped would pass,
went only to a temporary relief.

Mr. HARTLEY also placed a part of the question in quite a different
light from any former gentleman. Since he had been a member of that
House he had found occasion to read a good deal of law, and, from that
knowledge of law, he had, yesterday, in the committee, informed the
House that neither General Neville nor any body else could obtain
damages against the rioters in a civil action. All the arguments,
therefore, which had been advanced as to whether equitable damages could
be recovered before a jury, proceeded upon an error, because no civil
process whatever would lie in the case. If the House were disposed to
doubt his own opinion, Mr. H. could now give them that of the first law
officer in Pennsylvania. Since yesterday Mr. H. had consulted that
gentleman, who gave it as his express opinion that the greater crime
absorbs the lesser; that a case of this kind is only a criminal action,
and that no penal damages can be recovered. The crime is liable to a
capital punishment; he did not mean to death; but to such a degree of
punishment as the offence should be found to deserve. Mr. H. added,
that if people had known that they were to be indemnified for their
losses by the United States, a much greater number would have stood by
the law than did so. It was not the fear of personal danger which
prevented people from resisting the insurgents; it was apprehension of
having their barns burned down in the night time.

Mr. DEXTER interrupted Mr. HARTLEY to inquire whether, by the laws of
this State, the property of an insurgent is forfeited for his crime? Mr.
HARTLEY replied that it was not. Mr. DEXTER then remarked, that it was
very absurd to say to a man, "You are an insurgent; you have committed a
great deal of mischief, but you are so very deep an offender that I
cannot recover damages." Mr. HARTLEY rose again to give some further
explanation, when the SPEAKER announced that he had something to
communicate to the House. Mr. HARTLEY sat down, and the SPEAKER said,
that he had received from the PRESIDENT some important and confidential
communications, which it was requisite to read in the House this day. It
did not appear that they would decide on the first resolution at
present, and there was not now more time left before the common hour of
rising than would be necessary for reading the communications from the
PRESIDENT. The debate was instantly deferred, and the galleries cleared.


FRIDAY, December 19.

WILLIAM IRVINE, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and took his seat in the
House.

_Pennsylvania Insurgents._

The House resumed the consideration of the resolutions reported on
Wednesday last, from the Committee of the whole House, on the report of
the committee to whom was referred that part of the Speech of the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES which relates to the policy of
indemnifying the sufferers by the depredations of the insurgents in the
Western counties of Pennsylvania. Whereupon,

The first resolution being under consideration, in the following words,
to wit:

      "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
      requested to cause an ascertainment to be made of the
      losses sustained by the officers of Government and other
      citizens, in their property, (in consequence of their
      exertions in support of the laws,) by the insurgents in the
      Western counties of Pennsylvania."

The amendment of Mr. BOUDINOT, on which the House had been debating on
Wednesday, was read. It was for the insertion, after the words "and
other citizens," of the following addition: "personally aiding and
assisting them."

Mr. HARTLEY then rose, and spoke as follows: I have no great
encouragement to speak, when I find that my expressions and language
have been totally mistaken, both by gentlemen in this House and by the
person who frequently reports the debates. On Tuesday, I had ventured to
say, that I thought no great reliance could be had upon the individuals
injured obtaining satisfaction by personal actions against the
insurgents; that I imagined the civil remedy was merged in the offence
of arson against the State, or perhaps a higher offence; that, from the
state of things, we could not promise ourselves that the sufferers would
be compensated by civil suits.

On Wednesday, I mentioned to the House, that, though there had been much
discussion, yet, as I considered part of the House to labor under what I
held to be a mistake with respect to the _lex loci_, or law of the
State, which we were obliged to take into view, I held it my duty to
observe, that, the day before, I had said that I thought the smaller
offence, that is, the civil injury, had been merged in the greater
against society; that the offence, so far as related to the State, would
be arson, which had been a capital offence, punishable with death, that
the punishment had been mitigated by the alteration of the penal code,
but still it was a felony. I noticed that I had formerly read law a good
deal with considerable attention, but since I had been in Congress, I
had not been able to bestow much time upon it. I said that formerly
certain principles or maxims had made impression upon my mind; that,
among others, was the one under consideration, that, in arson, the
injury to the individual was merged in that against society, or, at
least, must give way to the other; and public justice must be done in
the first place. I mentioned that I had consulted one of the first law
officers of the State, which is true, and he agreed with me in opinion.
Indeed, he added, that no reliance should be had upon the personal
remedy, but that compensation ought to be made to the sufferers.

I have no reason to change my former opinion. Really, when I consider
the conduct of the commissioners to those who made their submissions, I
should imagine it was the intention of the parties that there was to be
an oblivion as well of the civil as the criminal offences to those who
submitted; and, as the Legislature has the power to construe the
agreement, it becomes her rather to do it with magnanimity than
otherwise.

Your officers, and those aiding and assisting them, ought to be
protected and supported. I will now say, as I did the other day, that
the fear of having their houses or barns burned, terrified many a man in
the Western country from joining the standard of the law, and forced him
to temporize with rebellion. When the officers know that they are to be
protected in their persons and property--when the _posse comitatus_ are
informed that they are to be regarded in like manner--we may expect
energy in the execution of the laws. The law of Pennsylvania is
defective, or at least doubtful; and, if the present punishment for
arson continues, the Legislature of that State will, I dare say, point
out a decided remedy for the party injured against the offender. It
becomes the honor and justice of the Legislature to protect and support
the officers, and those aiding them. I shall, therefore, vote for the
amendment.

Mr. VENABLE differed entirely from the gentleman who spoke last. He
understood that pardons extended only to the offences against
Government. It would, for that reason, be no hardship against the people
who had received pardons to prosecute them for civil damages; and, by
the statement of the member himself, actions would lie where no public
prosecutions had been made.

Mr. SWIFT was of opinion that the member from Pennsylvania (Mr. HARTLEY)
was most certainly mistaken in point of law, when he imagined that the
pardon granted by the commissioners extended, or might be construed to a
remission of civil offences. He did not believe it to be in the power of
Government to pardon these rioters and trespassers to that length. He
did not expect that the gentleman from Pennsylvania would have stood up
in the House to recommend an unqualified pardon. When a million of
dollars had been expended, were the House to give them fifteen or twenty
thousand dollars more? He did not come there prepared to hear of a
premium for insurrection. He rejected all idea of so much tenderness for
rioters and rebels.

Mr. BOUDINOT rejected all idea of the rioters being exempted from civil
suits. There was but one exception, where they were executed for their
crimes. He had no other view of the matter, but as a question of
policy--whether it was expedient, or the contrary, to prosecute these
people. He believed that, before the new constitution, the law stood as
the member from Pennsylvania represented it. But all this was much from
the purpose. By far the greater number of the rioters have accepted the
amnesty. Nobody imagines them exempted from prosecution. To prevent any
misconception of this nature, the commissioners, in the terms of pardon
which they held out, expressly warned the people that they were to be
liable to civil actions for the damages committed. It was needless,
then, to embarrass the question with more difficulties than naturally
belonged to it. He was satisfied that this was a mere question of
policy, whether it was better to pay off these people at once, or let
them first try the effects of civil actions.

Mr. DAYTON rose and asked, "Who shall decide, when doctors disagree?"
Who shall declare what is the law, when the learned gentlemen of the bar
are so directly opposed to each other? The House (Mr. D. observed) had,
by some means, imperceptibly, and, he thought, unnecessarily, been drawn
into the discussion of a common law question. Law had been aptly
compared to a bottomless pit, and the sooner, therefore, that they
extricated themselves from it, the better. Very fortunately, (he said,)
there existed no necessity for determining, in the present cases, upon
any intricate point of law, as the proposals of amnesty, in their very
terms, as well as in their nature, left each individual trespasser
liable to suits at law on the part of the friends of good order, for the
damages sustained by the one and done by the other. Mr. D. was for
allowing those prosecutions to go forward, and was well informed, not
only that there was far more than sufficient of the property of the
insurgents to make compensation, but that it was probable they would
agree together, and make up the whole among themselves, rather than be
vexed by lawsuits. He could not agree with those gentlemen who expressed
a wish to vote for the whole amount of damages, immediately to be paid
from the Treasury. He did not believe with them, that such a measure
would promote the dignity, or manifest the justice, of the Government.
This would be to enter into an improper compromise with guilt. It would
be to make peace with sedition, in a way that might tend to encourage
rather than, to discourage it in future. We were obligated, upon
principle and precedent, to ensure indemnity to those officers of
Government, who, in consequence of a prompt and steady discharge of
their duty, had suffered in their property from the resentment of the
insurgents. But he wished not to do more, until the result of actions at
law could be ascertained. Although the Government may offer a pardon for
offences against the public, yet nothing was more clear than that the
general amnesty did not, and could not, exempt the seditious offenders
from answering to private persons for injuries done to them in their
property.

Mr. HARTLEY rose to explain. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. SWIFT)
had mistaken his meaning. He was going on, when

Mr. DAYTON rose, and declared that he had never put any such
construction on the words of the gentleman, who certainly must have
misapprehended him.

I did not mean you, sir, (said Mr. HARTLEY,) I said the gentleman from
_Connecticut_. You made a mistake of the same kind with me last session.

The amendment of Mr. BOUDINOT was, on a division, lost--only twenty-six
gentlemen rising when the question was called for.

The question on the first resolution was then called for; when it was
moved to take the previous question, that is to say, "Shall the main
question be now put?"

Mr. FITZSIMONS rose. He thought that this discussion comprehended a
principle of the most important nature. He trusted that it would not be
got rid of in this way. He was not of opinion with those gentlemen who
were disposed to waive the question just now, under the notion that they
should have an opportunity of voting for it at another time. He believed
that the true design of moving the previous question was to lay it aside
altogether. This expedient should not answer the end; for, if he had
only one other gentleman in the House to second him, he would stand by
the matter until he obtained an explicit answer.

Mr. MCDOWELL vindicated the propriety of taking the previous question.

Mr. SEDGWICK said, that when the British carried on a most unjust war
against this country, the Ministry who began it were in time turned
out. Their successors had always reprobated the war, but, after the
peace, they, notwithstanding, had expended several millions to support
the loyalists. While the British had acted with so much liberality, did
it become Americans to stick at the paltry sum of seventeen thousand
dollars? The House had wrangled so long about this matter, that the very
wages which they received for the time spent in this discussion would
about have discharged the whole sum in dispute. When a wild,
unprincipled, mad attempt had been made to destroy this noble
constitution, were the Representatives of this people to make it a doubt
whether those who saved it from, perhaps, destruction, were to be
indemnified? Mr. S. declared that he felt more unpleasant sensations
than he remembered ever to have experienced since he became a member of
this House. Gentlemen might argue and argue about this drop in the
bucket compared with the ocean. They might go into metaphysical
deductions about whether the men who saved this constitution were, some
of them, to be reduced to beggary and misery, as the price of having
done so. He would bring up the question again and again, until he had
the sense of the House again. Mr. S. repeated the following argument,
which he, on a former day, had pressed. He asked whether persons who,
from the pure, conscious dignity of the republican character, stepped
forward to support the Government, did not deserve better of it than
excise officers, who were bound to and paid for their services? He was
even of opinion that the conduct of the private soldiers in this case
was more meritorious than that of the officers. He might be mistaken,
but his opinion was so. From this language it is not to be inferred that
Mr. S. undervalued the exertions of the officers of the army, or of the
excise. He only meant that the less interest or emolument which an
individual has at stake in the success of an affair, the greater is his
merit in performing it. He asked what better time there was than the
present for settling the amount of these claims?

Mr. HEATH was for the previous question. He thought the resolution
unseasonable at this time. However little the gentleman chose to think
of seventeen thousand dollars, they might grow into a precedent for
seventeen hundred thousand dollars.

Mr. BOUDINOT thought that the seventeen thousand dollars were not the
whole of the damages that might be claimed. When commissioners were sent
to the Westward, the demand might rise to seventy thousand. Numerous
other requisitions might start up. He was for taking the previous
question.

Mr. DEXTER regretted his necessity to differ from a gentleman (Mr.
BOUDINOT) for whose opinions he was in the habit of entertaining the
highest respect. He was against the previous question, because he
disliked obliquity. Whether he was against or for the first resolution
in the report of the select committee, he would give the resolution
itself a fair meeting. He then inquired what better time there could be
for learning the number and extent of the losses than the present? He
again explained, as on Wednesday, that the House appeared to mistake the
extent of the resolution, which did not imply any complete
indemnification, nor even assure any relief at all. The whole amounted
only to the taking of measures for obtaining information. He would not
have voted for it, if he had thought that it promised complete
indemnification. He thought that no future time could be so proper as
the present for deciding.

Mr. SWIFT, Mr. KITTERA, and Mr. GILBERT, also spoke.

Mr. HILLHOUSE went on the same ground with Mr. DEXTER. He was one of the
committee who drew up the resolutions. They never understood that the
resolution implied an assurance of complete indemnity to the sufferers.

The previous question was called for by five members, to wit: "Shall the
main question, to agree to the said resolution, be now put?"

And on the previous question, "Shall the said main question be now put?"
it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 52, nays 31, as follows:

      YEAS.--Fisher Ames, James Armstrong, John Beatty, Elias
      Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Lambert
      Cadwalader, David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Jonathan Dayton,
      Henry Dearborn, Samuel Dexter, Gabriel Duvall, William
      Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert,
      Nicholas Gilman, Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, James
      Gordon, Andrew Gregg, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove,
      Thomas Hartley, Daniel Heister, James Hillhouse, William
      Hindman, Samuel Holten, John Wilkes Kittera, Henry Latimer,
      Amasa Learned, William Lyman, Francis Malbone, William
      Montgomery, Peter Muhlenberg, Alexander D. Orr, John Page,
      Josiah Parker, Andrew Pickens, Thomas Scott, Theodore
      Sedgwick, William Smith, George Thatcher, Uriah Tracy,
      Jonathan Trumbull, Philip Van Cortlandt, Peter Van
      Gaasbeck, Peleg Wadsworth, John Watts, Benjamin Williams,
      and Richard Winn.

      NAYS.--Theodorus Bailey, Thomas Blount, Thomas P. Carnes,
      Gabriel Christie, Joshua Coit, George Dent, William B.
      Giles, James Gillespie, George Hancock, Carter B. Harrison,
      John Heath, John Hunter, Richard Bland Lee, Matthew Locke,
      James Madison, Joseph McDowell, Alexander Mebane, Andrew
      Moore, Anthony New, John Nichols, Nathaniel Niles, Robert
      Rutherford, John S. Sherburne, Jeremiah Smith, Israel
      Smith, Zephaniah Swift, Thomas Tredwell, Abraham Venable,
      Francis Walker, Paine Wingate, and Joseph Winston.

Mr. GILBERT then moved a resolution, the substance of which was
understood to be to ascertain whether the losses in the Western counties
were incurred in defence of Government, and how far the sufferers were
capable to carry on the lawsuits themselves against the rioters.

Mr. GILES, was against the amendment, the resolution itself, and the
whole mode of conducting the business. He had listened to many long
speeches, and been surprised that no gentleman had made the observation
which he was now going to submit to the House.

[The noise had by this time become so intense, that the SPEAKER rose and
reminded the members of a rule that there must be no private
conversation while a member addresses the Chair.]

Mr. G. then proceeded to declare that he disliked the form rather than
the substance of the resolution. If people in the Western counties had
suffered injuries, why should not they, as well as every other class of
citizens, come to the bar of that House and petition? An inquest was, he
imagined, intended, which would unite all the back country in one common
interest against the Treasury of the United States. The mode proposed by
the report of the select committee was the most exceptionable of all
that could have been devised. It was said that this was only an affair
of seventeen thousand dollars. What evidence have we that the demand
will stop there? Sir, there is none. The mode is, besides, totally
wrong. Let persons who have suffered come here in the usual manner. It
is said that a gentleman has had his house burned. Let him come here and
tell us so. Mr. G. entirely scouted the idea advanced by Mr. DEXTER,
that we might inquire into the extent of the losses, without a design to
discharge them. If you do not mean to indemnify, why inquire at all? He
did not object to relieving the sufferers, but, to erect a board of
inquest, under Presidential direction, was what he never would consent
to. He again repeated, that he did not mean to dissent from the
principle, but from this most exceptionable of all modes for putting it
into practice. Let people lay memorials of their losses before the
House, which would then see distinctly what it was doing, and examine
the evidence on which the claim was founded. He wondered that none of
all the speakers in the debate had adverted to this distinction.

Mr. HILLHOUSE differed in every particular from the gentleman who spoke
last. If petitioners come from the Westward, they are referred to a
select committee. They bring all the evidence which they can muster to
swell their bill. The committee have no counter-evidence, as we in this
House almost never hear more than one of the parties. It is much better
to send persons to the spot who can examine the subject on both sides,
which we cannot possibly do, and who will be responsible to this House
for their conduct. The whole arguments and ideas of Mr. H. were in
direct contradiction to every thing advanced by Mr. GILES. He (Mr. H.)
was satisfied that, before we undertook to pay the losses of the Western
people, it was better, in the first place, to know the extent of them.
The resolution amounted to nothing more than the ascertaining of this
loss, and Mr. H. could see many good reasons for deferring the payment
of a bill until he knew the sum to which it amounted. He could also see
reasons why the mode recommended in the resolution was much preferable
to that of bringing people so far to the House. Commissioners going to
the spot could make themselves perfectly masters of the subject;
whereas, if the parties come here, the matter will be decided on _ex
parte_ evidence, as it always is.

Mr. BOUDINOT considered the resolution as too loosely worded. A
gentleman who had been on the expedition, and who had heard or read the
report, observed to him (Mr. B.) that he himself came within the
resolution, as he had suffered considerably in his business by his
absence.

Mr. HILLHOUSE explained, that the resolution extended only to actual
destruction. The committee never meant to compensate people for the loss
which they had suffered by being banished. He was ready, if the House
liked it better, to insert in the first resolution the words "property
actually destroyed." This would prevent the misapprehension of the
gentleman mentioned by Mr. BOUDINOT.

The House divided on the amendment of Mr. GILBERT--ayes 39, noes 33.

Mr. HILLHOUSE then moved to strike out the word "in" from the first
resolution, and put into its place, "by the actual destruction of" their
property.

Mr. MADISON apprehended that this amendment left the resolution as bad
as it was before, if not worse. A person in the Western counties had his
horse stolen by the insurgents. But this did not imply the actual
destruction or annihilation of the horse. The amendment meant either too
much or too little. It certainly could be no improvement on the
resolution.

After some further discussion, the amendment was agreed to.

And the main question being put, that the House do agree to the said
resolution, amended to read as follows:

      "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
      requested to cause an ascertainment to be made of the
      losses sustained by the officers of Government, and other
      citizens, by the actual destruction of their property (in
      consequence of their exertions in support of the laws) by
      insurgents in the Western counties of Pennsylvania;
      together with a report of the particular condition of the
      respective sufferers, in relation to their ability to
      prosecute their several claims, and recover, at law,
      satisfaction from the insurgent aggressors."

It was resolved in the affirmative.

The second resolution on the subject of indemnification was then taken
up in the House.

Mr. BOUDINOT moved the following amendatory addition:

      "To aid such of the sufferers as, in his (the President's)
      opinion, stand in need of immediate assistance, to be
      accounted for by them in such manner as may hereafter be
      directed by law."

The amendment was carried, forty-four gentlemen rising.

The resolution, as amended, is as follows:

      "_Resolved_, That the President be authorized to draw out
      of the Treasury of the United States the sum of ----
      dollars, to be applied by him to aid such of the said
      sufferers as, in his opinion, stand in need of immediate
      assistance, to be accounted for by them in such manner as
      may hereafter be directed by law."

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the said
resolutions; and that Mr. HILLHOUSE, Mr. FINDLAY, Mr. LYMAN, Mr. WATTS,
and Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, do prepare and bring in the same.


FRIDAY, December 26.

Two other members, to wit: JEREMIAH WADSWORTH, from Connecticut; and
SAMUEL SMITH, from Maryland, appeared, and took their seats in the
House.

_Naturalization Bill._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, on
the bill to amend the act, entitled "An act to establish a uniform rule
of naturalization."

Mr. GILES proposed to amend the intended test of a citizen, by adding,
after "two witnesses giving evidence as to his moral character," these
words: "attached to a Republican form of Government." He thought this
test proper, to prevent those poisonous communications from Europe, of
which gentlemen were so much afraid.

Mr. DEXTER preferred saying, "attached to the Constitution of the United
States."

To this amendment Mr. GILES had little or no objection.

Mr. BOUDINOT did not see the use of either amendment. It was only giving
unnecessary trouble. The oath which the person himself must take, was
sufficient for expressing his fidelity to the Government of this
country.

Mr. NICHOLAS considered both the amendment, and the clause to which it
was annexed, as unnecessary; and even if in themselves proper, they were
misplaced. He thought both equally superfluous. They should have been
inserted in the oath of allegiance of the man himself.

Mr. DAYTON hoped that the whole clause would be rejected. He should be
against it, unless the nature of the evidence was referred to a Court of
Justice. He foresaw many difficulties arising to poor men in attempting
to get two such witnesses. It might suit extremely well with merchants
and men of large capital, who had, he supposed, been alluded to the
other day, under the title of meritorious emigrants. He was not so
anxious for them as for useful laboring people, who, as he thought,
would be more likely to do good. This class, however, had never, it was
likely, troubled their heads about forms of Government. He further
objected to the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia, that the word
Republican was entirely equivocal. This title was assumed by many
Governments in Europe, which were upon principles entirely different
from ours. Some of them, such as Poland, had been Aristocracies of the
most hideous form.

Mr. DEXTER hoped that the amendment of Mr. GILES would not pass, [Mr.
GILES had, as before noticed, consented to withdraw it;] not so much for
the sake of the principle, as of the language in which it was
expressed. The word Republican implied so much, that nobody could tell
where to limit it. Why use so hackneyed a word? Many call themselves
Republicans, who, by this word, mean pulling down every establishment:
they were mere Anarchists.

Mr. HILLHOUSE was equally against the clause and amendment. Mr. DEXTER
and Mr. GILES previously declared themselves extremely doubtful whether
they should even vote for the clause, when amended in their own way.

Mr. GILES felt himself extremely surprised to hear it asserted on the
floor of Congress, that the words "Republican form of Government" meant
any thing or nothing. He read a passage from the constitution, whereby a
Republican form of Government is guaranteed to each of the United States
composing the Union. He should, therefore, have imagined that the words
were well understood from one end of the Continent to the other. He did
not expect such criticism. He was not sure if he should vote for the
clause at all; but if he did so, he should wish the best to be made of
it. He then altered his amendment to these words: "attached to the
principles of the Government of the United States."

Mr. DAYTON.--With all the ambition of that gentleman (Mr. GILES) to be
called a Democrat, both he and Mr. D. would more properly be called
Republicans. He again vindicated his assertion as to the equivocal
meaning of the word. A Venetian or Genoese might come to this country,
and take the oath as proposed, and then excuse himself by saying, "it
was the Republican form of my own country which I had in view." One of
the best writers on the British Constitution had called that also a
Republic.

Mr. MADISON was of opinion that the word was well enough understood to
signify a free Representative Government, deriving its authority from
the people, and calculated for their benefit; and thus far the amendment
of his colleague was sufficiently proper. Mr. M. doubted whether he
himself should, however, vote for the clause, thus amended. It would,
perhaps, be very difficult for many citizens to find two reputable
witnesses, who could swear to the purity of their principles for three
years back. Many useful and virtuous members of the community may be
thrown into the greatest difficulties, by such a procedure. In three
years time, a person may have shifted his residence from one end of the
Continent to the other. How then was he to find evidence of his behavior
during such a length of time? But he objected to both amendments on a
different ground. It was hard to make a man swear that he preferred the
Constitution of the United States, or to give any general opinion,
because he may, in his own private judgment, think Monarchy or
Aristocracy better, and yet be honestly determined to support this
Government as he finds it.

Mr. HILLHOUSE then proposed as an amendment, to insert, that "evidence
should be produced to the satisfaction of the Court."

Mr. DEXTER mentioned the abuses that have happened in the present form
of admitting citizens. He did not comprehend the argument of Mr. DAYTON,
that it would be more easy for a rich than for a poor man to get
evidences to swear to his having resided in the country. If he had not,
the fact was of a notorious nature. It would likewise be as easy for a
poor man, as for a rich one, to get an attestation of his character. The
point of residence was, in itself, but little. A man may have resided
here for a long time, and defrauded the citizens, which would be no
recommendation.

Several other gentlemen spoke. The resolution finally passed.

The second resolution produced a long conversation, in the course of
which Mr. MURRAY declared that he was quite indifferent if not fifty
emigrants came into this Continent in a year's time. It would be unjust
to hinder them, but impolitic to encourage them. He was afraid that,
coming from a quarter of the world so full of disorder and corruption,
they might contaminate the purity and simplicity of the American
character.

The committee now rose, and had leave to sit again.


MONDAY, December 29.

_Naturalization Bill._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, on
the bill to amend the act entitled, "An act to establish a uniform rule
of naturalization."

The motion before the committee, made by Mr. VENABLE, when they broke
off the last discussion, had been to strike the word "moral" out of this
amendment: "good moral character." These three words, altogether, were
an addition of what was to be attested by the witnesses for a candidate
to admission as a citizen.

Mr. DEXTER opened the debate on the amendment of Mr. VENABLE to the
amendment by saying, that he wished to hear the reasons for it.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, that he did not make the motion, but his colleague,
who had made it, thought that the insertion of the word "moral" gave too
strict an air to the sentence. This word might be hereafter implied to
mean something relative to religious opinions.

Mr. SEDGWICK remarked, that if no better reason than that advanced by
Mr. NICHOLAS could be given for striking out the word "moral," he could
not agree to it. Moral is opposed to immoral, but has no particular
reference whatever to religion, or whether a man believes any thing or
nothing. It has no reference to religious opinions. We can every where
tell, by the common voice of the world, whether a man is moral or not in
his life, without difficulty. In some States of the Union, adultery is
not punishable by law, yet it is every where said to be an immoral
action. It is too nice to make a distinction between a good character
and a good moral character. The word good itself is very equivocal in
its meaning. It signifies any thing, every thing, or nothing. A good
companion is one thing; a good man, as applied to wealth, conveys a
different sense; and so on.

Mr. B. BOURNE considered the amendment itself and the motion of Mr.
VENABLE to strike out the word "moral," as equally useless.

Mr. MURRAY hoped that the word would not be struck out. This would be
the greatest slander ever cast upon the American character. It would
excite the surprise of foreign nations.

Mr. VENABLE had thought the wording of the phrase too strict; but rather
than have any further dispute, he withdrew his motion for striking out
the word "moral."

The clause was then read as amended.

Mr. GILBERT thought that the term of residence, before admitting aliens,
ought to be very much longer than mentioned in the bill. The Chairman
informed him that the term in the bill was left blank.

Mr. SEDGWICK agreed to the idea of Mr. GILBERT. He wished that a method
could be found of permitting aliens to possess and transmit property,
without, at the same time, giving them a right to vote. He did not know
if the constitution authorized such a thing.

After some further conversation, the clause passed. The third resolution
in the report was then read; which was, that if an American citizen
chose to expatriate himself, he should not be allowed to enter into the
list of citizens again without a special act of Congress, and of the
State from which he had gone.

Mr. MADISON did not think that Congress, by the constitution, had any
authority to readmit American citizens at all. It was only granted to
them to admit aliens.

Mr. SEDGWICK was very willing, for his part, that citizens who had once
expatriated themselves should never be readmitted again.

The committee, on two successive motions to that effect, from Mr.
Madison and Mr. GILES, rose. The Chairman reported progress, and asked
leave to sit again, which was granted.


WEDNESDAY, December 31.

LEMUEL BENTON, from South Carolina, appeared, and took his seat in the
House.


THURSDAY, January 1, 1795.

_Naturalization Bill._

The House proceeded to consider the amendments reported yesterday from
the Committee of the whole House, to the bill to amend the act entitled,
"An act to establish a uniform rule of naturalization."

The House went through the report of the committee, and agreed to the
amendments.

Mr. GILES then rose to make his promised motion as to the exclusion of
any foreign emigrant from citizenship who had borne a title of nobility
in Europe till he had formally renounced it. He proceeded to observe
that, agreeably to the spirit of the constitution, we ought to have the
strongest possible evidence that people of this description have
renounced all pretence to a right of this nature, before we admit them
into the bosom of society. Moderation had been recommended. He requested
gentlemen to observe that he conducted his motion on the strictest
principles of moderation. He had, in a former part of this bill, voted
for some clauses which were intended to guard the Government against any
disturbance from the people called Jacobins, when their principles
should run to a dangerous and seditious extreme. The same spirit of
candor and moderation which had induced him to vote for a precaution
against the attempts of the one party, now led him to propose a
precaution against the prejudices of the aristocrats, which were, upon
the whole, more hostile to the spirit of the American constitution than
those of their antagonists. He also requested gentlemen to observe that
his present motion went not to the invasion of any positive right. It
left the individual exactly where it found him, unless he aspired to be
an American citizen. Otherwise, he might retain his titles undisturbed
as long as he pleased. But if he wanted any promotion of a civil nature
in this country, he must rise to it by conforming exactly to the rules
laid down by the constitution itself. That code had declared no titled
character admissible to any civil rank. It was not to be supposed that
people born and nurtured in the lap of aristocracy would heartily
renounce their titles, and become all at once sincere Republicans. It
was, therefore, highly improper that such people should be admitted. If
we are allowed to anticipate probabilities, it seems highly probable
that we shall soon have a great number of this kind of persons here. A
revolution is now going onward, to which there is nothing similar in
history. A large portion of Europe has already declared against titles,
and where the innovations are to stop, no man can presume to guess.
There is at present no law in the United States by which a foreigner can
be hindered from voting at elections, or even from coming into this
House; and if a great number of these fugitive nobility come over, they
may soon acquire considerable influence. The tone of thinking may
insensibly change in the course of a few years, and no person can say
how far such a matter may spread. After these, and other prefatory
remarks, Mr. G. read a resolution, which was in effect as follows:

      "And in case any alien applying for admission to
      citizenship of the United States, shall have borne any
      title or order of nobility in any Kingdom or State from
      whence he may come, he must renounce all pretensions to his
      title before the court in which such application shall be
      made; and this renunciation must be registered in the said
      court."

Mr. G. observed, that previous to the late revolution, the French
nobility were, by the lowest calculation, rated at twenty thousand; and
as we may conclude on France being successful, a great proportion of
these people may be finally expected here.

Mr. DEXTER declared that he was not very anxious against the resolution.
He, however, opposed it. He imagined that, by the same mode of
reasoning, we might hinder his Holiness the Pope from coming into this
country. He entered at some length into the ridicule of certain tenets
in the Roman Catholic religion, and said that priestcraft had done more
mischief than aristocracy.

Mr. MADISON said that the question was not perhaps so important as some
gentlemen supposed; nor of so little consequence as others seem to think
it. It is very probable that the spirit of Republicanism will pervade a
great part of Europe. It is hard to guess what numbers of titled
characters may, by such an event, be thrown out of that part of the
world. What can be more reasonable than that when crowds of them come
here, they should be forced to renounce every thing contrary to the
spirit of the constitution. He did not approve the ridicule attempted to
be thrown out on the Roman Catholics. In their religion there was
nothing inconsistent with the purest republicanism. In Switzerland,
about one-half of the Cantons were of the Roman Catholic persuasion.
Some of the most democratical Cantons were so; Cantons where every man
gave his vote for a representative. Americans had no right to ridicule
Catholics. They had, many of them, proved good citizens during the
Revolution. As to hereditary titles, they were proscribed by the
constitution. He would not wish to have a citizen, who refused such an
oath.

Mr. PAGE was for the motion of his colleague. It did not become that
House to be afraid of introducing democratical principles. Titles only
gave a particular class of men a right to be insolent, and another class
a pretence to be mean and cringing. The principle will come in by
degrees, and produce mischievous effects here as well as elsewhere. If
such men do come here, nothing can be more grateful to a Republican than
to see them renounce their titles. This does not amount to any demand of
making them renounce their principles. If they do not aspire to be
citizens, they may assume as many titles as they think fit. Equality is
the basis of good order and society, whereas titles turn every thing
wrong. Mr. P. said that a scavenger was as necessary to the health of a
city as any one of its magistrates. It was proper, therefore, not to
lose sight of equality, and to prevent, as far as possible, any
opportunities of being insolent. He did not want to see a duke come here
and contest an election for Congress with a citizen.

Mr. SEDGWICK was really at a loss to see what end this motion could
answer. He agreed with the arguments of Mr. GILES. But the point in view
was explicitly provided for already. By taking an oath of citizenship,
the individual not only renounces but solemnly abjures nobility. The
title is destroyed when the allegiance is broken by his oath being taken
to this Government. This abjuration has destroyed all connection with
the old Government. Why then provide for it a second time?

Mr. GILES said, that by admitting a thing to have been once done, it was
admitted that it might be done again. If it had been right to do it
once, there could be no harm in repeating it. The member then quoted Mr.
DEXTER, who rose and declared that the gentleman had misunderstood him.
He spoke for some time, and when he sat down--

Mr. GILES declared himself incapable of comprehending whether Mr. DEXTER
was for his motion or against it. He therefore proceeded to reply to Mr.
SEDGWICK, whose chief argument had been that the thing was provided for
already. He did not suppose that this gentleman would allege the matter
to be explicitly provided for. It only could be so by implication; which
was a very bad way of making a law, because it gave room for endless
disputes. If the thing is in itself right, why refuse to vote directly
for it? Why leave it only to be implied? He wished to let foreigners
know expressly the ground upon which they stood. Why not tell them at
once, and in plain English, you must renounce your titles before you can
have the privileges of an American citizen? Mr. G. pressed home this
idea more than once. He meant no act of inhospitality to these
emigrants. He would deprive them of no right, nor do any thing unkind to
them. But he was entitled, by the spirit of the constitution, to
withhold this right from them till they renounced all hereditary titles.
This was no incivility. He concluded by declaring that he would, if
supported, call for the yeas and nays on this question. A number of
members rose to support this proposal.

Mr. NICHOLAS had no objection to the motion, but that it did not go far
enough. The emigrants ought to be obliged to swear not only that they
abjured all titles hitherto received, but that they would never accept
of any in future. He believed that this would hurt their feelings, and,
sympathizing with them, he would not urge a proposal that might add to
their distress, but should vote for the motion as it stood.

Mr. SCOTT was sorry that so much time had been spent on the motion. We
are not by the constitution authorized to make titles; and he
apprehended that if it was unlawful to manufacture a commodity at home,
it was unlawful to import it from abroad. On this account he was for the
resolution. If once we allow the thing to be manufactured at all, he had
no doubt but titles would be as prevalent here as in Britain. He should
think it very odd to see a man sitting opposite to him in that House,
with a star and garter on his breast. The emigrant was as welcome to
wear them as to wear his hat. Only let him wear them out of doors.

Mr. TRACY thought that more time had been spent upon the subject than it
was worth. He mentioned the proceedings of the French Convention, who,
some time before they cut off the head of the Duke of Orleans, debated
four days upon what name they should give him, and at last called him
_Egalite_. He feared that calling for the yeas and nays thus early would
look like party, as if intended to cast an odium on gentlemen who should
vote against the motion.

Mr. DEXTER would vote for the resolution, if the gentleman would agree
to an amendment; which was, that he renounced all possession of slaves.

Mr. THATCHER moved as a second amendment, "and that he never will
possess them."

The words of Mr. DEXTER's amendment were nearly these: "And also, in
case any such alien shall hold any person in slavery, he shall renounce
it, and declare that he holds all men free and equal."

Mr. GILES said, that he should begin to think his motion of very
peculiar importance, if such extraordinary resources were adopted to
disappoint it. He was sorry to see slavery made a jest of in that House.
He understood this to be intended as a hint against members from the
Southern States. It had no proper connection with the subject before the
House. He had therefore no scruple in voting against it. It was
calculated to injure the property of gentlemen. As to slavery, he
lamented and detested it; but, from the existing state of the country,
it was impossible at present to help it. He himself owned slaves. He
regretted that he did so, and if any member could point out a way in
which he could be properly freed from that situation, he should rejoice
in it. The thing was reducing as fast as could prudently be done. He
believed that slavery was infinitely more deprecated in countries where
it actually existed, and consequently where its evils were known, than
in other countries where it was only an object of conversation.
Gentlemen had objected to calling for the yeas and nays. Have not the
public a right to know the sentiments of the House on every question?
Was it any unusual thing to call for the yeas and nays? Or was there any
use for it but that the sentiments of every member might be known?

Mr. MADISON mentioned regulations adopted in Virginia for gradually
reducing the number of slaves. None were allowed to be imported into the
State. The operation of reducing the number of slaves was going on as
quickly as possible. The mention of such a thing in the House had in the
mean time a very bad effect on that species of property, otherwise he
did not know but what he should have voted for the amendment of Mr.
DEXTER. It had a dangerous tendency on the minds of these unfortunate
people.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, that Mr. DEXTER had more than on one occasion hinted
his opinion that possessors of slaves were unfit to hold any Legislative
trust in a Republican Government. He was solicitous that before Mr. D.
spoke on a subject, he would make himself in some degree acquainted with
it. He ought to acquire some information as to the state of the country,
otherwise his opinion would fall into contempt with those who knew it.
Mr. N. said, that gentlemen who possessed a thousand slaves in Virginia
had no more influence on their neighbor who had not one than that
neighbor had on them.

Mr. DEXTER complained of the attempt to take the yeas and nays, as a
design to hold up certain people to public odium. He would withdraw his
amendment if the gentleman would withdraw his motion.

Mr. SEDGWICK rose in some warmth. He said that there was no design in
calling for the yeas and nays but to fix a stigma upon gentlemen in that
House as friends to a nobility, when they were no such thing, and to
raise a popular odium against them. To propose an abolition of slavery
in this country would be the height of madness. Here the slaves are, and
here they must remain.

A question of adjournment was now carried by 43 against 29. So the
motion of Mr. GILES stands over till to-morrow.


FRIDAY, January 2.

_Naturalization Bill._

The House resumed the consideration of the amendments reported on
Wednesday last from the Committee of the whole House to the bill to
amend the act entitled "An act to establish a uniform rule of
naturalization." Whereupon,

The amendment moved yesterday to the said bill being under
consideration, in the words following, to wit:

      "And in case any such alien applying for admission to
      become a citizen of the United States, shall have borne any
      hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility
      in the kingdom or state from which he came, in addition to
      the requisites of this, and the before recited act, he
      shall make an express renunciation of his title, or order
      of nobility, in the Court to which his application shall be
      made, before he shall be entitled to such admission; which
      renunciation shall be recorded in the said Court."

A motion was made and seconded to amend the said amendment, by adding to
the end thereof the words following, to wit:

      "And, also, in case such alien shall, at the time of his
      application, hold any person in slavery, he shall in the
      same manner renounce all right and claim to hold such
      person in slavery."

On the question that the House do agree to the said amendment to the
amendment,

Mr. BOURNE said he was against both amendments. He saw no use either for
the one or the other. He recapitulated the numerous checks which the
constitution had framed against nobility getting into it. He, therefore,
with all these checks, could see no danger from it. So much for the
expediency of the proposal. He next considered it in a different point
of view. A foreigner comes, perhaps with a title, which he has derived
from a long train of ancestors, and, with a very pardonable infirmity,
he is fond, he is perhaps proud, of his badge of nobility. Is it polite,
is it generous, to force him to renounce it? If it is an hereditary
title, he can renounce only for himself. His children shall inherit the
right. Mr. B. wished both amendments withdrawn.

Mr. RUTHERFORD said, the people of America had an exceeding aversion to
the bubble of nobility. He had so much confidence in the wisdom, good
sense, and public spirit, of the gentlemen in this House, that he was
sure the amendment would be carried by a very great majority. He was
equally certain that the amendment of the other gentleman (Mr. DEXTER)
would be rejected. It went to wound the feelings and alienate the
affections of six or eight States in the Union. He was against the yeas
and nays. He wished for a silent vote.

Mr. MCDOWELL.--When the gentleman from Massachusetts first brought
forward the motion on the table, Mr. McD. could not think he was
sincere, from the idea which he had formed of the candor and good sense
of that gentleman. But, much to his surprise, Mr. D. persisted in
supporting the propriety of his motion, which is not only an indirect
attack on the State Governments, but even on the constitution of the
United States, and on the members of this House who represent the
Southern States. This amendment not only tends to irritate the minds of
members, but of thousands of the good citizens in the Southern States,
as it affects the property which they have acquired by their industry.
Thus it cools their affections towards the Government, as they will find
that one part of the Government is about to operate on their property in
an indirect way. The gentleman dare not come directly forward, and tell
the House, that men who possess slaves are unfit for holding an office
under a Republican Government. Mr. McD. recalled to the mind of the
House the conduct of the people that compose the Southern States, during
the late war, and their struggle for American Independence. He then bade
the House review the behavior of their Representatives, under the
present Government, and say whether they do not partake more of the
Republican spirit than the members from the Eastern States. The latter,
also, no doubt had members who did honor to the States which they
represented, and to the United States. He thought the amendment of Mr.
DEXTER partook more of monarchical or despotic principles than any thing
which he had seen for some time. What right had the House to say to a
particular class of people, you shall not have that kind of property
which other people have? This was the language of the motion, and he
considered it as highly unjust. Mr. McD. wished the gentleman to
consider what might be the consequence of his motion, at this time, when
the West Indies are transformed into an immense scene of slaughter.
When thousands of people had been massacred, and thousands had fled for
refuge to this country, when the proprietors of slaves in this country
could only keep them in peace with the utmost difficulty, was this a
time for such inflammatory motions? He was amazed that a gentleman of
whom he had so high an opinion, could, for a moment, embrace an idea
which was, in all points of view, so extremely improper and dangerous.

Mr. DEXTER chiefly excused his motion because the other gentlemen had
been for taking the yeas and nays. The tenor of his argument seemed to
be this: You want to hold us up to the public as aristocrats. I, as a
retaliation, will hold you up to the same public as dealers in slaves.
Mr. D., however, did not wish to irritate. He, for that reason, withdrew
his motion, under the hope that the yeas and nays would not be taken.

Mr. GILES said, that no person could be more anxious than himself to
conciliate. But he could not submit to purchase conciliation by
sacrificing his opinion, or betraying his duty. He should, on that
account, stand by his amendment. It had been said that he called for the
yeas and nays for the purpose of holding up to popular detestation a
certain party in that House. Such an idea had never entered into his
mind. He then commenced a vindication of the propriety of his amendment
against the observations of Mr. BOURNE, who had, among other things,
alleged that it had no proper relation to the spirit of the
Naturalization Bill. After defending it, on this quarter, Mr. G.
proceeded to answer something that had been alleged yesterday against
his amendment. This was that it had been calculated to hold up an idea
to the world, that there was a party in that House in favor of
Aristocracy. If there is no such party, a general vote for the amendment
will prove that this report is without foundation. In reality there is
no connection between the amendment and any such scheme. The idea must
have been in the head of the member himself. It is not the amendment,
but the use which the gentleman makes of it, that can have any tendency
that way. Mr. G. never could have thought of such a way of holding up a
party. As to the amendment of Mr. DEXTER, he, Mr. G., held property
sacred, and never could have consented to prohibit the emigrant nobility
from having slaves any more than other people. But as for titles of
nobility, they were quite a different thing. They were but a name, and
people were not obliged even to give them up, unless they wanted to
become American citizens. As the call of yeas and nays had given such
uncommon uneasiness, he, for his own part, should give it up. He was
careless how the vote was taken. The other gentlemen who supported his
call might act for themselves.

Mr. LEE said, he hoped that to-day the question would have been taken
without further debate; he had no disposition to say any thing more on
it, and should have remained silent if his colleague (Mr. GILES) had not
made some strictures on the observations which fell from him on the
preceding day.

Mr. L. always thought the Eastern and Southern States were well situated
to unite on terms of the greatest reciprocal benefit. That, for the good
of his own country, he valued such a union above all things. He knew, in
particular, that it was highly important to the interests of the people
whom he represented, to conciliate the cordial and affectionate esteem
of their Eastern brethren. That this was not only important to his
constituents, but to the whole State, and all the Southern country; as
on it must materially depend the preservation of our Union, which Mr. L.
feared was more necessary to our safety and prosperity than to theirs.
Mr. L. said, he never saw any reason to suspect the Eastern people of
anti-Republican principles; that there was no just ground to accuse them
of such principles in any manner. Mr. L. had always thought that the
Southern country had no right to claim a superiority over their Eastern
brethren in Republican virtue. Mr. L. always lamented that his country
was not, in some points, so fortunately situated as the Eastern States;
but still, he rejoiced to find just ideas of liberty, and a proper
respect to the rights of men, animating all the citizens of it; and in
public virtue they had a right to rank with their brethren to the North
and East of them. Mr. L. thought that his colleague's strongest argument
was the corrupting relation which existed in Europe between noblemen and
their dependants. Mr. L. feared that this argument might too readily be
extended to the situation of this country, and conclusions very
disparaging to their Republican virtue drawn from it, from which he had
felt it his duty to vindicate them.

Mr. L. believed that the people throughout America were all animated by
an equal zeal for the liberty and happiness of their country. As a
person, therefore, anxious to preserve our harmony and union, he always
felt pain at any question, which was, in any degree, calculated to
excite suspicions of each other, and produce enmity, when concord was so
much the interest of all. This proposition had, to his mind, a very
denunciating aspect; and, as such, he felt it his duty to discountenance
it, and every thing of the same sort, without presuming to ascertain or
question the motives or designs of the mover. Mr. L. could not help
viewing the motion as capable of guarding us from no one danger, but as
well fitted to produce unnecessary alarm and irritation.

Mr. L. was indifferent how the question was decided; but, being a friend
to harmony and union, he could by no means countenance by his vote any
thing that might be construed to denounce a most respectable and
patriotic part of this House.

Mr. HILLHOUSE observed, that when the amendment was first introduced, he
considered it as altogether harmless and unnecessary; but, being
friendly to what appeared to be the object of the mover, that is,
keeping out privileged orders from among us, he was inclined to vote for
it. Yet, upon more mature reflection, he was of opinion that if the
provision contained in the amendment had any effect at all, it would be
a directly contrary one from what was intended, and would indirectly
establish the principle that privileged orders might be introduced and
exist among us, a principle which he wholly rejected and reprobated;
and, as he did not doubt that the views of the gentleman who moved the
amendment were similar to his own on that subject, he hoped that, upon
further consideration, he (Mr. GILES) would withdraw it. It was his
opinion that the ground upon which foreigners should be admitted to a
share in the administration of our Government ought to be narrowed in
every possible way, and if the gentleman would so modify the amendment
as wholly to exclude that class of foreigners, or any other, from ever
becoming citizens, so far as to elect or to be elected to any office, he
would most heartily join in giving his vote for it. In those nations
where privileged orders are admitted, the benefits and advantages
arising from it have been considered as merely local, so that, if a
nobleman removes from one nation to another, he is not considered as
carrying with him the privileges of his order; as, for instance, if a
nobleman from any other nation removes to England, where an hereditary
nobility is established by law, and even becomes naturalized, he is not
a peer of England; he is no more than a private subject, and can claim
nothing on account of his former rank. The Convention who formed our
constitution undoubtedly viewed the subject in that light, or they would
have been equally anxious to have provided against the importation as of
the creation of nobility; but, passing this amendment will, as far as
the influence of a law and the opinion of Congress can go, be putting a
different and wrong construction upon the constitution, and will be
admitting that there may be some other mode of introducing a privileged
order or a nobility among us, than the one guarded against in the
constitution; for, if a law is passed requiring a person, before he
shall be admitted to a certain privilege, to renounce some other
privilege, it is clearly admitting that such person does or may possess
such privilege, otherwise the law is futile, requiring a person to
renounce what he does not or cannot possess.

Mr. J. WADSWORTH rose next. He had been up four times before, but, other
gentlemen always rising along with him, he had sat down again. Mr. W.
said, that a rage against nobility and privileged orders now pervades
the whole world. He really did not see the use of this amendment. It put
him in mind of an old law which, within his memory, had been in use.
When a man had shot himself, his neighbors were not contented with the
certainty of his being dead in this world, and damned in the next, but,
besides all this, they drove a stake through his body. Mr. W. regarded
nobility as in a similar situation with such a man, for nobility
appeared to him in the certain road to instant destruction; and this
amendment of Mr. GILES, he thought, was like driving in the stake. The
latter practice had been laid aside, and he thought that the amendment
deserved the same fate. He reminded the House that the time had been
when America was very much indebted to nobility, and very glad to see
them fight her battles. We might now be taxed with ingratitude on that
head, for some of those identical French noblemen, who, during the late
war, had rendered us essential service, were now in this country in a
state of beggary, subsisting on the charity of their friends. Others of
the same noblemen were in dungeons, and some again had got their heads
chopped off. He was warranted to say that many of those noblemen, when
here, during the war, and long before a French revolution had been
talked of, were, in their hearts, as good Republicans as any Americans
whatever. We had seen, some time ago, a party spirit rising in the
United States. He had observed that the thing was dying away, but the
present amendment would afford a new theme. The newspapers are extremely
numerous, and he doubted not that the writers in them would embrace so
notable an opportunity for exercising their talents. As to the notion
that there was a danger of nobility being introduced into this country,
the thing was held in such detestation in America, that he had no more
apprehension of its obtaining a footing here than he had that there
would arise a new race of men without heads, or with their heads placed
below their shoulders, or any other unnatural production. In short, he
did not know a thing so impossible as the establishment of an American
nobility. Knowing this, he regarded the amendment as entirely useless.
As to the call for the yeas and nays having an impression on his vote,
that was out of the question. He knew his constituents, and they knew
him; and they were both too well acquainted with each other for a trifle
of this nature to have any influence. To him the call was a matter of
the utmost indifference, and he took this opportunity to declare frankly
that he should vote against the amendment, whether the yeas and nays
were called or not.

Mr. NICHOLAS could not consent to abandon the proposition. It might be
said that he did so in terror of the amendment of Mr. DEXTER, which he
thoroughly despised.

Mr. BOUDINOT had not designed to speak on this question, but there was
one objection to the amendment, which occurred to him, and which had not
been noticed by any gentleman. This was, that it would be an act of
injustice to make a man do an act in this country which might affect his
own interest, and that of his family in another. This case might very
possibly happen. A person, by renouncing nobility here, might he
debarred from claiming its privileges in another place, when it would,
perhaps, be for his advantage.

Mr. AMES observed, that too much attention had been given to the
amendment as an abstract question. Nothing tended more to bewilder and
confuse a debate than such a departure from the subject into
abstractions and refinements; for, although by this means we found that
plain principles were rendered obscure, and reasonable doctrines carried
to excess, yet we did not seem to reflect that nothing is more opposite
to just principles than the extremes of those principles. For instance,
it would not be safe or proper indiscriminately to admit aliens to
become citizens, yet a scrutiny into their political orthodoxy might be
carried to a very absurd extreme. The merit of the amendment depends on
its adaptedness to the end proposed by the bill, and what is that? To
make a rule of naturalization for the admission of aliens to become
citizens, on such terms as may consist with our tranquillity and safety.
Now, said he, do we think of refusing this privilege to all heretics in
respect to political doctrines? Even that strictness would not hasten
the millennium. For our own citizens freely propagate a great variety of
opinions hostile to each other, and therefore, many of them deviate
widely from the intended standard of right thinking; good and bad, fools
and wise men, the philosopher and the dupes of prejudice, we find could
live very peaceably together, because there was a sufficient coincidence
of common interest. If we depend on this strong tie, if we oblige
foreigners to wait seven years, till they have formed it, till their
habits as well as interests become assimilated with our own, we may
leave them to cherish or to renounce their imported prejudices and
follies as they may choose. The danger of their diffusing them among our
own citizens, is to be prevented by public opinion, if we may leave
error and prejudice to stand or fall before truth and freedom of
inquiry.

Can the advocates of the amendment even affect apprehensions that there
is any intention to introduce a foreign nobility as a privileged order?
If they can, such diseases of the brain were not bred by reasoning and
cannot be cured by it. Still less should we give effect by law to
chimerical whimsies. For what is the tendency of this counterfeit alarm?
Is it to rouse again the sleeping apparitions which have disturbed the
back country? Is it to show that the mock dangers which they have
pretended to dread are real? Or, is it to mark a line of separation
between those who have the merit of maintaining the extremes of
political opinions, and those whom this vote would denounce as stopping
at what they deem a wise moderation? If that is the case, it seems that
the amendment is intended rather to publish a creed than to settle a
rule of naturalization. Yet it should be noticed that those who would go
to extremes are less entitled to the praise of Republicanism than those
who would not.

Mr. SAMUEL SMITH was sorry for the turn which the debate had taken;
though at first it bore a trifling appearance, it had since called up
all the warmth of the House. The gentlemen from the Eastern States, who
knew the Republican character of their constituents, and how independent
every man there was, both in his temper and his circumstances, had
slighted the amendment as unnecessary. Gentlemen from the Southern
States, on the other hand, say that they have some reason to be
apprehensive. Why, said Mr. S., will not the Eastern members indulge us
in this trifle? It is owned by the one party, that it can have no bad
tendency; and the other imagine that it must have a good one. Then why
not, for the sake of conciliation, grant it?

Mr. MURRAY was sorry that the House had begun the new year with such a
discussion. He had seen with much pleasure the appearances of
conciliation and unanimity at the outset of the session. He should vote
for the amendment, and he hoped that those members who were against it
would come round and vote for it. They would thus put an end to this
motion, so wasteful of time. Of nobility, however, the gentleman had no
alarming apprehensions. There had once been in this House a baronet. He
was there for two years before it was known, and it was then discovered
that a baronet was a thing perfectly harmless. As for titles of
nobility, he believed that all the wholesome and sensible part of the
community looked upon the whole as stuff. When Mr. M. contemplated this
subject, it reminded him of Holbein's Dance of Death.[56] He saw nothing
in this country but the ghosts of nobility. In Europe, indeed, it was a
matter of importance. It established the etiquette of precedence among
the ladies in leading down a country dance. The amendment was not worth
much either one way or the other. But he wished it to be granted for the
reasons assigned by his colleague from Maryland, who had spoke just
before him.


Mr. MADISON. When the amendment was first suggested, he had considered
it as highly proper, and naturally connected with the subject. No man
can say how far the Republican revolution that is now proceeding in
Europe will go. If a revolution was to take place in Britain, which for
his part he expected and believed would be the case, the peerage of that
country would be thronging to the United States. He should be ready to
receive them with all that hospitality, tenderness, and respect to which
misfortune is entitled. He should sympathize with them, and be as ready
to afford them whatever friendly offices lay in his power as any man.
But this was entirely distinct from admitting them as citizens of
America before they were constitutionally qualified to become so. In
reply to the remark of Mr. BOUDINOT, that a renunciation of their titles
might injure their families, Mr. M. observed, that if a British
revolution took place, these fugitives would, as aliens, be
incapacitated from holding real estates. In discussing this question, we
had been reminded of the Marquis de Lafayette. He had the greatest
respect for that character; but if he were to come to this country, this
very gentleman would be the first to recommend and acquiesce in the
amendment on the table. He had urged the necessity of utterly abolishing
nobility in France, even at a time when he thought it necessary for the
safety of the state that the king should possess a considerable portion
of power; and Mr. M. believed, that if he were now at freedom, he was as
completely stripped of every thing relative to nobility, as it was
possible he could be. It had been said, that it was needless to make
emigrants renounce their rank, and that oaths were no security. He was
ready to allow, that oaths were, in any case, but a very poor security,
but they had been adopted in other parts of the bill, and the same
reason which recommended them on former occasions might recommend them
now.

Mr. W. SMITH was convinced that the amendment was wholly incompetent to
the end which it professed to have in view. You may force a man to
renounce his title, but what does that signify, when you cannot hinder
his neighbors from calling both him, his wife, and family by the title?
He replied to the argument of Mr. S. SMITH, as to the Eastern members
giving up the point for the sake of conciliation with the Southern
members.

He did not understand that his own constituents had any such panic about
them, or that they would thank the Eastern members very ardently for
such a concession. They were not afraid of aristocracy. You cannot
abolish the practice; and even supposing a nobleman had made his
renunciation, perhaps the very person who administered the oath, may,
the next moment, say, "My Lord, I wish you a good morning!" and you
cannot punish the individual who says so. As to not allowing of titles
to wives and daughters, this renunciation will not prevent their being
given. But in some parts of the country we have titles already. Mr. S.
had often heard an old lady called "the Duchess." He could see no good
consequence from the motion. There was indeed one obvious effect. The
ignorant part of the American citizens--who, he hoped, were but
few--would imagine that those who voted for the amendment were against
the introduction of nobility into America, and that those against the
amendment were for that introduction. This frivolous kind of legislation
had disgraced the proceedings of another nation. They had begun to
change the names of their towns and harbors, such as Conde, Dunkirk,
Toulon, Havre de Grace, and Lyons. One of these they had named _Havre de
Marat_, and so on. But now they were coming back to their sober
judgment, and were repealing these edicts. Lyons was restored to its
old name. The pillar erected to announce its rebellion and annihilation
had been taken down. The Convention had formerly passed a law for
demolishing houses inhabited by aristocrats, but now they began to think
it was better to let the houses stand. Would any body say that French
liberty was better secured by naming a harbor _Havre de Marat_? Had this
done any good to the cause? But if people who were so much afraid of the
introduction of nobility would look around them, they might already find
in this country alarming marks of attachment to royalty. When Mr. SMITH
was lately at New Haven, in Connecticut, he had observed on the top of
the State House the figure of a _Crown_, which had stood there
undisturbed since long before the beginning of the Revolution. He went
into the State House, and found the people as good Republicans as could
be, notwithstanding this crown. Again, at Middletown, in the same State,
he went into a church, and on the top of the organ there was another
_Crown_, which might also be interpreted as a proof of monarchical
principles. Reverting to the subject of changing names, Mr. S. said,
that the people in the State of New York had for a long time enjoyed as
much liberty as the other States. At last, however, it was recollected
that one of the streets of the city of New York was called King's
street; but this was changed to _Liberty_ street, which was, to be sure,
a very momentous alteration. If Congress descend to legislate in such
littlenesses, they may forbid the title of Worshipful. They may abolish
the order of Freemasons, which he thought that they had just as much
right to do as to make the foreign nobility renounce their titles before
they should be accepted as American citizens. The Congress may, among
other objects of legislation, forbid any member to come into that House
with an aristocratical cloak--one with gold lace, for example. He asked
more than once this question: What peculiar privileges has a foreign
nobleman, coming into this country, which he possessed more than all
other citizens? He considered the whole amendment as totally trifling.
He was content that the yeas and nays should be taken. His sentiments
were known already. His name should stand among the noes.

Mr. GILES said, that there had been an echo from one end to the other of
the House that his amendment was trifling. Was it consistent for the
gentleman, who had been up for half an hour, to spend so much time upon
a question, and then conclude by telling the House that it was nothing;
that he had been talking for so long a time upon a subject that did not
merit their attention? What kind of reasoning was this, or how did the
gentleman propose to reconcile it? Was it consistent with the warmth
which had been discovered, to say that all this discussion, all this
length of time, had been consumed upon nothing? But this kind of
language had something more serious in it, for this prohibition of
nobility formed one of the pillars of the constitution; so that to call
a principle recognized and affirmed by the constitution a trifle, or
nothing, and so on, was a very unguarded proceeding. Another notable
argument against agreeing to his amendment had been, that the people
already detested nobility so thoroughly that it was not worth while to
pass this amendment, as their hatred of it would put an end to it
without a law. It was enough that the two principal reasons against his
amendment, were, first, that it was authorized by the constitution, and
secondly, that it would be agreeable to the people. It is strange, that
the will of the people, who send us here, is to have no influence in
this House, but is to be turned into an argument against passing a law!
Mr. G. would adhere to his amendment, because, as the law now stands,
there is nothing to hinder a foreigner with a title to become an
American citizen, and obtain a seat in this House, and hold both his
office and his title. Mr. G. next answered a part of the argument of Mr.
W. SMITH, that making people renounce their titles would only rivet
their attachment to them, and make them, perhaps, think of these things,
when otherwise they would have been forgotten. Mr. G. said, it was quite
a new kind of argument, that to renounce a thing, was the way to give it
existence. If this rule were to hold, he believed that some members of
the House would renounce things which they very much wanted. For
example, he himself should possibly renounce a hundred thousand dollars.
As to the call for yeas and nays, he had some time ago informed the
House that he gave up this point. The thing could not affect him, either
one way or another, because his sentiments were already known.

Mr. TRACY regretted that so much time should be lost on trifling
subjects. We had seen the National Convention of France diminish their
dignity, by spending three or four days on the business of giving a name
to the late Duke of Orleans, and hardly had they finished, by giving him
the _name_ of Egalite, before in _substance_ he became so bad that they
cut his head off. What good did his renunciation of title do, excepting
that it afforded him a short opportunity of deceiving his
fellow-citizens? Mr. T. said he was fully convinced, and had been so
from the beginning of the debate on the Naturalization bill, that a
length of time was the only valuable probation of an alien, and the only
successful mode of discerning his principles, and the justice and
propriety of his claim to be naturalized. He thought the sentiments of
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. _Giles_) were highly commendable, when
he said we ought to avoid extremes in politics, and adopt a sober medium
of political reasoning, suited to the steady and rational temper of
Americans, equally removed, on the one hand, from tyranny, and on the
other from anarchy. And he would ask, whether a solemn abjuration of all
foreign allegiance, with proofs of a good moral character, and
attachment to the principles of our Government, would not secure us, as
to the principles of the heart, as thoroughly, without the farce of
renouncing his title, as with it? He considered titles, in this country,
as very empty, unmeaning things; and they would go into disuse of
themselves, having no solid support, either in the habits or
constitution of this country. But, by the Constitution of the United
States, any citizen might receive and enjoy a title from a foreign
prince or sovereignty, and Congress could not prevent it. The words of
the constitution are:

      "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United
      States; and no person holding any office of profit or
      trust, under them, shall, without the consent of Congress,
      accept any present, emolument, office, or title, of any
      kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

Mr. T. supposed it was clear that Congress had no power respecting this
matter, but what was expressly delegated by the constitution, and that
had given them a check only on officers of their own appointment,
leaving every other citizen, not an officer of Government, at liberty to
retain a foreign title if he pleased. And an alien might, even if this
amendment should pass, renounce his title, become naturalized, and in an
hour accept of the same title, or another, from any foreign Prince, and
Congress can make no laws to prevent it. If it be a fault that our
citizens can receive and enjoy titles, it is a constitutional one;
Congress are not blamable for it, but they would be blamable were they
to arrogate powers not given them, upon this or any other subject. Mr.
T. repeated, that there could be no danger in this country from titles;
they were universally considered as trifles, and it would be dignifying
them too much to legislate about them. He asked the gentleman who
brought forward this motion, whether it was not, in a measure, a
departure from his former declaration, of sober, rational temper, in
politics, to insist so much upon its importance as he did? He was sorry
the yeas and nays were insisted upon with so much spirit; it looked like
party, in a very unimportant matter: he did not mean to accuse any man,
or men, and mentioned it with diffidence, but it really struck his mind
in this way. Much had been said about adhering to the constitution
strictly, on former occasions; but, from many things said now, it seemed
as though there was no safety for the people, unless the House of
Representatives absorbed the whole governmental power. Mr. T. said, if
that House should become political cannibals, and attempt to devour both
the other branches of the Legislature, he would oppose it, whether it
was popular or not, for he considered the constitutional checks of the
branches of this Government, upon one another, as containing the most
complete security for liberty that any people could enjoy. If his
construction was a just one, Mr. T. thought the amendment could do no
good; it formed a test which might make hypocrites, but not proselytes:
it stripped an alien for a moment of a trifle, which in the next he
might resume and wear for ever.

Mr. SEDGWICK.--Has it not been said that there was a party in the United
States, not only for aristocracy, but even for monarchy? Is not the
present a most favorable opportunity for holding up these people to
popular resentment? He was convinced that the gentleman who moved this
amendment had no design of doing any such thing, but that did not lessen
the reality. He said that Mr. GILES had brought gentlemen into a
dilemma, which he did not, or would not see. They had at first opposed
the motion, as trifling, and this they had a right to do. The member
(Mr. GILES) then moved his call for the yeas and nays; and if gentlemen
who had already spoken against the amendment, were now to draw back, and
vote for it, they would betray a disgraceful poverty of spirit. Their
constituents would say that their votes had been given _in terrorem_ of
the yeas and nays. The motives for pushing this call could be nothing
else but to stigmatize members of that House, as wanting to introduce a
nobility, whereas they opposed the amendment on no such account, but
merely because it was not worth their taking up. As to himself, he did
not care. He could not wish to stand better with his constituents than
he actually did. He was well known to them. But, in other quarters of
the continent, it might be said that the Eastern States were represented
by aristocrats. If this be a desirable object, said Mr. S., in God's
name, let gentlemen persist in calling for the yeas and nays. It will be
said, "There go the Eastern aristocrats! They want to import nobility
here, when it can no longer exist in Europe!" Mr. S. said, that, at
first, he gave but little opposition to the amendment, thinking it
frivolous. He repeatedly declared, upon his honor, that he firmly
believed it to be so, and that he had no other reason for opposing it.
If he had been, upon this occasion, warmer than usual, he was sorry for
it; but the mischievous and unconciliating consequences of this call for
the yeas and nays, had hurt him exceedingly.

Mr. MADISON denied the assertion of Mr. SEDGWICK, that the amendment was
trifling; and the member himself seemed to betray, by his behavior, a
consciousness that he had not promoted conciliation. An abolition of
titles was essential to a Republican revolution, and therefore such an
abolition had been highly proper in France. The sons of the Cincinnati
could not have inherited their honors, and yet the minds of the
Americans were universally disgusted with the institution, and in
particular, in South Carolina; yet a member from that State (Mr. W.
SMITH) has told the House that his constituents were under no fears of
aristocracy, and that they could hear titles without emotion. Even the
Chief Magistrate of South Carolina had told the Cincinnati that these
distinctions ought to be laid aside.

Mr. HILLHOUSE thought it quite frivolous to spend time upon the motion.
That was all his objection. It had been said that, allowing the
amendment to be trifling, yet it was no harm to make an idle law, and
that therefore it should be agreed to for the sake of conciliation.
Supposing a man to make a will, bequeathing a hundred thousand guineas,
when he was not worth a shilling, there would be one serious effect at
least, for it would make the testator ridiculous. To legislate for the
sake of expressing a sentiment, was very silly, and what he never should
agree to. If Mr. GILES would make an amendment incapacitating all
foreigners whatever from holding, upon any account, a civil office in
America, Mr. H. would agree with him, because he did not want to see any
of them in such offices, and conceived that Americans could legislate
for themselves much better without any such assistance.

Mr. LYMAN said, that whenever a member of that House called for the yeas
and nays, it was a rule with him to rise and second the motion, because
the people had, upon all occasions, a right to know their votes; and
even if only one member desires the yeas and nays to be taken, Mr. L.
conceived that it ought to be done, as the thing was in itself so highly
proper. Since he had the honor of a seat in that House, therefore, he
had always seconded every call for yeas and nays, that the public might
understand, as fully as possible, what they were about, and how their
votes went. He said that it was extremely improper to ascribe wrong
motives, when gentlemen supported a call for yeas and nays. It was
sacrificing the dignity of the House to cast out such insinuations. When
the call had once been made and agreed to, it would be very mean to
retract it, to gratify any member. The public had always, and without
any exception, a right to know what their Representatives were doing,
and how they were voting, and he, for one, should adhere to the call.

Mr. W. SMITH said, that he had already put a question which nobody had
answered, and on that account he should now rise and put it again. What
are the emigrant nobility to renounce? When they come into this country,
they possess not one privilege which is not possessed by every body
else. He had expected that the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. GILES,)
when last up, would have explained this matter, but he had not done it.
The great bugbear was, lest a _ci-devant_ Lord may get a seat here, and
that somebody may call him My Lord. But, even after you have got his
renunciation of nobility, if other people choose to give him his titles,
you can neither hinder nor punish them; so that the amendment is, to all
practical intents and purposes, absolutely useless and nugatory. Some
members of this House belong to the order of Cincinnati. If they come
here with badges at their button-holes, can you forbid them? He wished
that gentlemen would show what was to be renounced. There was nothing at
all to renounce. The whole amendment is totally futile.

Mr. DEXTER then rose, but the House had become so impatient for the
question, that he was heard with difficulty. He only wanted to ask
whether the call for yeas and nays was withdrawn or not?

Mr. MCDOWELL said that he had already informed the House that he should
insist on the call.

Mr. AMES then asked, whether it was not competent to put the previous
question, viz: Shall this call be now taken?

The SPEAKER, in reply, said, that according to his judgment, the
previous question could have been regularly taken upon any topic
whatever, which produced a debate; but the House, by a recent decision,
had determined that the previous question could not be regularly taken
upon an amendment.

He was then asked, whether the call of yesterday was valid to-day, or if
it was necessary for the members to rise over again? Mr. SEDGWICK was
clearly of this opinion; in which the SPEAKER, after some consideration,
concurred, as some gentlemen had deserted the call, and he, in reality,
did not know whether a fifth part of the members would support a call or
not.

It was then suggested, that there could not be a second call, if the
first was disappointed; and some gentleman said, that he hoped no member
would insist on a thing so extremely distressing to the feelings of many
members. Several gentlemen had now attempted to speak at the same time,
and the mischievous and unconciliating effects of the call were
enumerated with much emphasis.

Mr. NEW at last came forward, and declared that he moved for a call. Mr.
MCDOWELL said the same.

Mr. SEDGWICK then rose again. He appealed to the House, that, since he
had a seat in Congress, he had never troubled them with a call more than
a very few times; and he affirmed, upon his honor, that he never had
moved for the yeas and nays at all, unless he was uncertain how the
votes of the House would go. But the gentlemen who now moved for the
call had not this excuse. They knew very well that they would carry
their point, and that by a large majority; so that the insisting for the
yeas and nays could arise only from a design that gentlemen who voted
against the amendment should be held out to the public as wanting to
introduce a nobility. He owed little to Mr. GILES for having withdrawn
his motion, when others were so ready to renew it.

Mr. NEW, on hearing these remarks, declared that he should withdraw his
motion, since so much had been said about it.

Mr. BLOUNT then rose, and said that it was needless to waste time, for
the yeas and nays must and should be taken.

Twenty-three members seconded his motion, and the SPEAKER declared that
the point was now determined.

Mr. DEXTER next rose, and observed that he had withdrawn his amendment,
under a hope of conciliation, and that the yeas and nays would not be
taken. But since this request had been refused, he should move it again,
and have the yeas and nays upon that likewise, and before the other. He
went over the beaten ground of the bad consequences of holding members
up to popular resentment.

Mr. VENABLE said, that if the gentleman were so disposed, he should
willingly try the question at once on this motion, without farther
investigation about it.

On calling over the names, there were, on the amendment of Mr.
DEXTER--yeas 28, nays 63.

The amendment of Mr. GILES was then taken up, and determined in the
affirmative--yeas 59, nays 32.

_Ordered_, That the said bill, with the amendments agreed to, be
recommitted to Mr. MADISON, Mr. DEXTER, and Mr. CARNES.


MONDAY, January 5,

THOMAS SPRIGG, from Maryland, appeared, and took his seat in the House.


MONDAY, January 12.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, on the
bill from the Senate, entitled "An act to authorize the settlement of
the claim of Samuel Prioleau;" and, after some time spent therein, the
committee rose and reported progress.

_Defence of the Frontiers._

A Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, laying
before Congress, for their consideration, the copy of a letter from the
Secretary of War,[57] accompanied by an extract from a memorandum of
James Seagrove, Agent of Indian Affairs. The Message and papers were
read:

Mr. MURRAY then moved that the Message should be referred to the same
Committee of the whole House, to which had been referred the memorial
from the inhabitants of the South-western Territory.

Mr. NICHOLAS objected strongly to this motion, as showing too much
deference to the Heads of the Departments. The paper in question ought
not to have been sent to the House at all.

Mr. MURRAY defended his motion. He inquired how the gentleman proposed
to get information? Was he to manufacture it himself, or in what way
could he better obtain it than from the Heads of the Departments? He had
not, for his own part, that species of jealousy of them which the
gentleman last up had.

Mr. NICHOLAS repeated his arguments with some warmth. He said that the
letter from the late Secretary at War was not official, but officious.
It had a particular aspect which should forbid its getting any such mark
of attention. It was neither more nor less than a commentary on some of
the proceedings of the last session of Congress. If this was received,
we might expect the table to be heaped with such things.

Mr. SEDGWICK could really see no reason to reject the motion. The
PRESIDENT had undoubtedly a right to send the communication. The subject
was confessedly of the utmost importance. The member asked, if the House
were to close their understandings, and refuse all information from that
quarter? He repeated that he could see no ground of any sort for
refusing consent to the motion.

Mr. GILES was equally dissatisfied with the matter of this letter, and
with the manner in which it had been introduced into the House. They
were both equally exceptionable. The letter had come without any call.
It was an Executive comment on a Legislative proceeding. It was a
defence of a measure adopted by the Senate, and it condemned by
implication another of that House. To Mr. G. it was a very extraordinary
paper. The PRESIDENT was not to be supposed, however, answerable for the
propriety of its contents. He should be very unwilling to take any
notice of this paper at all. It had been justly remarked that it was a
comment on transactions of the last session. A section of a bill passed
in the Senate last session, and rejected by the House of
Representatives, was inserted in it, and recommended. This paper might
operate very materially on the deliberations of the House. This was a
very bad precedent. The Executive had nothing to do with any question
depending before the Legislature, and consequently had no occasion to
send such a thing.

Mr. HOLTEN imagined that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. MURRAY) had
extended his motion too far. It ought to have comprehended only the
taking into consideration the Message of the PRESIDENT.

Mr. MURRAY complained of the asperity of expression employed by a
gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. NICHOLAS.) Not official but officious, and
the intelligence artificial, were phrases to which he objected. The
gentleman might have higher sources of information than he had. Mr. M.
was willing to take up with information wherever he could get it, and he
could have it nowhere with more propriety than from the national
servants. It was no good reason to reject information merely because we
had not asked for it. Mr. GILES had given a piece of intelligence which
Mr. M. said was to him entirely new, viz.: that when the House wanted
information, it was one of their rules not to refer for it to the Heads
of Departments. The topic was great and important, and the House, before
they rise, must examine in general into the situation of the
South-western frontier, and our terms with the Indians. Mr. M. said,
that the delegate from the South-western territory (Mr. WHITE) would
certainly be glad to obtain the information conveyed in this paper. If
any gentleman would point out any other way by which the House could,
without absurdity, get from the PRESIDENT the information contained in
this letter, Mr. M. should be willing to adopt it.

Mr. BOUDINOT was entirely satisfied both as to the propriety of the
matter contained in the letter of the Secretary, and as to the manner in
which it had been introduced into that House. That the PRESIDENT had a
right to consult the Heads of Departments, there could be no kind of
doubt. Mr. BOUDINOT then read the following passage from the
constitution: "The PRESIDENT shall be Commander-in-chief of the Army and
Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States. He
may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of
the Executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of
their respective offices." Mr. B. defended the Message in all its
circumstances, and in the most pointed terms. It was perfectly proper,
and peculiarly so at this time. By the constitution, and by the rules
and practice of the House, the PRESIDENT had a right to offer his advice
regarding Legislative acts.

Mr. W. SMITH had seen much needless jealousy in the House towards Heads
of Departments; and the present he thought a refinement on that side.
There had been two objections to the communication from the Secretary of
War, the one as to the matter, and the other as to the manner in which
it was introduced to the House; as to the latter, it was said to have
been obtruded unasked. In this last objection Mr. S. saw nothing. He
read a precedent from the Journals, which he insisted to be exactly
similar, and where Mr. NICHOLAS himself had been one of a committee
appointed to examine and report. As to the matter, we might as
reasonably object to the Speeches of the PRESIDENT, reminding the House
of business which had been before them, or recommending subjects to
their notice. He considered the objections of both sorts as entirely
unfounded.

Mr. MADISON recommended the alteration suggested by Mr. HOLTEN, for
restricting the motion of commitment to the Message of the PRESIDENT,
and not to take any notice of the letter from the Secretary, which he
considered as, in itself, extremely improper. It could not be meant as
information, and the House had no occasion to take advice from the
Secretary. The letter itself looked more like a forced thing, than any
which he recollected to have seen since the establishment of the
constitution. The subject, however, was delicate. The PRESIDENT had an
undoubted right to give advice or information in any way which he
thought best. It was totally ill-judged in the Secretary to have
conveyed his opinion in the very words of a clause in a bill that had
passed through the Senate last session, and been rejected in that House.
The communication translated into plain language amounted to this: "The
Senate last session had more wisdom than this House, and it is proper
for this House to reconsider its proceedings, and improve by the
superior wisdom of the Senate." Due respect should, however, be paid to
the Message of the PRESIDENT. It ought to be taken into consideration,
and Mr. M. was not willing to cast obstructions in its way, or to make
needless objections.

Mr. DAYTON said, that he was for referring the Report of the Secretary
at War, with the PRESIDENT's Message, to the Committee of the Whole, and
that consequently he was against striking out the words which expressed
that intention. If, by omitting to take any notice of the Report of the
Secretary, it was meant to reject the information on account of the
source from which it came, it argued such a degree of jealousy and
distrust as appeared both unreasonable and unconstitutional. If, on the
contrary, the object was not so much to reject it, as, by the manner of
referring the Message, to convey any reproof or disrespect towards the
late Secretary of War, Mr. D. should be still more decidedly averse to
the modification proposed. He lamented it as an unhappy circumstance for
this country, that the gentleman who was lately the Head of the War
Department had thought proper to resign. That gentleman had executed the
complicated and important duties of his office with zeal, fidelity, and
ability, and ought to be protected from any proposition or remark which
glanced unfavorably at him, or might wound his feelings at the moment of
his leaving us. Mr. D. then adduced the Report of the Secretary of War
in 1790, to the PRESIDENT, on the subject of the militia system, as a
striking precedent. The Secretary there informed the PRESIDENT, that he
had submitted to him a plan for the arrangement of the militia. The
PRESIDENT sent a Message with the plan to the House of Representatives.
What were the steps then taken in that parallel case? Was the Message
then alone referred as it is now proposed by some gentlemen? The
journals, on the contrary, prove, that the Message and plan were
referred to the Committee of the Whole. It was possible, Mr. D. added,
that the present Congress might deem themselves wiser than their
predecessors. It was possible that many might think it safest to shut
their ears against all kinds of information from the Heads of
Departments, or even from the PRESIDENT himself. There might be some who
would be willing to free the House of Representatives from certain
obligations, or shackles under which the constitution placed them, by
tearing out a leaf from that instrument, but he ventured to say that it
was too soon yet to attempt it.

Mr. SMILIE complained of the style of the memorial from the Secretary of
War, and, as a specimen, he read the following passage:

      "It is a melancholy reflection that our modes of population
      have been more destructive to the Indian natives than the
      conduct of the conquerors of Mexico and Peru. The evidence
      of this is the utter extirpation of nearly all the Indians
      in the most populous parts of the Union. A future historian
      may mark the causes of this destruction of the human race
      in sable colors. Although the present Government of the
      United States cannot with propriety be involved in the
      opprobrium, yet it seems necessary however, in order to
      render their attention upon this subject strongly
      characteristic of their justice, that some powerful
      attempts should be made to tranquillize the frontiers,
      particularly those south of the Ohio."

In reading the above extract, Mr. M. went no farther than to the words
_sable colors_. Mr. S. SMITH desired that he should read on, that the
House might hear that no insinuation was intended, as if the present
Government of the United States had countenanced such ravages. Mr.
SMILIE said, that he knew what came after, but who would compare the
first settlers of North America to the Spaniards, who destroyed in their
mines thousands and millions of the Indians, and whose memory had been
consigned to the execration of centuries?

Mr. AMES rose. Just when he had begun speaking, there came in a message
from the PRESIDENT by his Secretary. On this, Mr. A. observed, that,
perhaps, while gentlemen were now speaking there might have arisen a new
subject of dispute. Perhaps by the new doctrine, we should reject all
communications from that quarter. The message having been delivered, Mr.
A. went on to remark, that turning loose the American militia to guard
the South-western frontier, was a system of slaughter, of desolation. It
was to make a Potter's field a hundred thousand miles in extent! It was
a system to waste the blood of the white man, and to extirpate the
Indians. The militia were not the people to prevent those kind of
injuries against the Indians which were the cause of hostilities. But
gentlemen who were now so delicate as to the style of memorials, would
do well, if they extended that delicacy to other memorials which had
been presented to that House, and referred by the consent of those very
members to select committees. Papers had been offered to that House,
wherein its conduct had been criminated and reprobated in the most
unqualified language of detestation. Yet gentlemen, on some of these
occasions, showed no resentment. Mr. A. ridiculed the idea of the
present motion as introducing a new and dangerous precedent. The
opposition to it came exactly under that description, for it was a
direct attack upon the principles of the constitution.

Mr. FITZSIMONS approved of the motion. It had been asked if the
PRESIDENT was responsible for the contents of this Report from the
Secretary of War? Mr. F. did not think so; but if he had not
communicated it, the member would have thought him responsible for the
omission. The PRESIDENT had a right to ask advice from the Heads of the
Departments. Mr. F. never knew a message from the PRESIDENT which
required a reference, that had been refused it. As a matter of course,
as a matter of right, it ought to be referred.

Mr. MURRAY rose and read that passage in the Report of the Secretary,
which Mr. S. Smith had desired Mr. SMILIE to read, and which he had not
read. [They are inserted both together at full length as above.]

Mr. NICHOLAS moved an amendment, and which was seconded, for striking
out the latter part of the resolution proposed by Mr. MURRAY. This made
it merely a reference of the Message from the PRESIDENT to the Committee
of the Whole, and omitted all notice whatever of the Report from the
Secretary of War.

Mr. SEDGWICK really thought this a squeamishness for which he saw no
manner of foundation.

Mr. GILES arose. He said that a gentleman from Massachusetts had
asserted that some members considered the whole constitution as entirely
in this House. This imputation was a thing of so serious a nature, that
Mr. G. wished the gentleman to point out the person to whom he alluded.
If it respected Mr. G. himself, the assertion was unfounded. It was not
true. He had the highest respect for every branch of the constitution.
This was a charge frequently made by one side of the House. Gentlemen
had called the contents of this paper information. He saw in it nothing
but what the House knew without the assistance of the Secretary. He
considered the report as an effort upon the opinion of this House, as an
attack upon its independence, and that in a very indelicate way. He
thought the report in all respects unworthy of the notice of the House.
He hoped that this paper would not be committed, but that the Message of
the PRESIDENT would be so.

[The passage in the report repeatedly referred to as having been
borrowed from a bill passed in the Senate, last session, is in these
words:

      "That all persons who shall be assembled, or embodied in
      arms, on any lands belonging to Indians, out of the
      ordinary jurisdiction of any State, or of the territory
      south of the Ohio, for the purpose of warring against the
      Indians, or committing depredations upon any Indian town,
      or persons, or property, shall thereby become liable and
      subject to the rules and articles of war, which are or
      shall be established for the government of the troops of
      the United States."

This was a section of a bill which the Senate passed the last session,
entitled "An act for the more effectual protection of the South-western
frontiers," but it was disagreed to by the House.]

Mr. KITTERA considered this as entirely a dispute about words, or
plainly about nothing at all. Gentlemen from Virginia were more jealous
of the Executive than even the constitution itself. Mr. K. was satisfied
that the PRESIDENT had a right to interfere in the Legislative
proceedings with his opinion and advice. There was neither principle nor
precedent for the amendment of Mr. NICHOLAS. The dispute was merely
about words, because if the Message of the PRESIDENT was referred to a
Committee of the Whole, the report in question would, in any case, be
referred along with it.

Mr. AMES rose again to make some remarks on the danger of extending too
far the privileges of the House of Representatives over the other House.
The moment that this House is turned into a Convention, there is an end
of liberty. As to impropriety and indelicacy of style, he could wish
that the cognizance of members might extend to memorials addressed to
the House, that we may not have addresses disrespectful to it. He
entirely vindicated the conduct of the PRESIDENT as to this matter, and
saw a peculiar propriety in his having made the communication at present
on the table.

The question was loudly called for; but Mr. NICHOLAS rose in reply to
Mr. AMES. Would any man call this a communication from the Executive?
Mr. AMES spoke a few words in a low tone of voice. Mr. N. proceeded,
"The gentleman prevaricates." "I prevaricate, sir!" rejoined Mr. A. Mr.
N said, that at best he went off from the point. As to the precedent
produced by Mr. W. SMITH, it was quite inapplicable. It bore no
resemblance or connection to the one before the House. The other adduced
by Mr. DAYTON was, he admitted, in point. But that gentleman would admit
that it occurred in the infancy of the constitution, which was an excuse
for it. He hoped that the amendment would go through.

Mr. TRACY quoted something which Mr. NICHOLAS had said. That gentleman
immediately answered, that he had been misquoted. I know, said Mr.
TRACY, as well as that gentleman, what he said. Mr. NICHOLAS got up a
second time, and repeated what he affirmed were the words which he had
really spoken. He did not say so before, said Mr. TRACY, but I am
content that he should say so now. I only beg that he may not interrupt
me. As to the motion for striking out one-half of the resolution, Mr.
TRACY looked upon it as out of all propriety. The PRESIDENT had sent a
letter of two lines, enclosing a report from the Secretary of War. To
refer the former without the latter, would be like referring to any
person the superscription of a letter, but adding, at the same time, you
must not look at the inside of it. Mr. T. did not care from whom the
report came. If it contained useful information, that was all he wanted
to know. And, supposing it had been sent from a Democratic society, that
of itself would with Mr. T. be no reason to refuse it a reference. He
then observed how much more deference had been paid by that House to
Democratic societies than was now paid by some gentlemen to the
PRESIDENT. Much care had been taken that a vote of censure should not be
passed on them. It looked as if gentlemen wanted to grasp all power
within this body. The amendment was wrong in point both of principle and
practice. To refer a mere superscription, (for the letter of the
PRESIDENT was nothing more,) would look strange enough. The resolution,
as amended, was in a state of hostility with common sense.

Mr. LYMAN was in favor of the amendment for striking out the words in
the latter part of the motion. He thought it improper to refer to a
Committee of the whole House the report of the late Secretary of War,
because it was of an amphibious nature. It was not a mere official
statement of supposed facts, but the reasoning on these facts. He was
sensible that precedents could be found on the journals, which
sanctioned a commitment of similar reports; but, for his part, he had
ever thought the practice improper, and he must meet the question as it
appeared to him. He said, that the constitution authorized the PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES, nay, it made it a duty incumbent on him, to give
information, from time to time, of the state of the Union. He was also
equally required to suggest, for the consideration of the House,
whatever he thought expedient; but there was a most material difference
between communicating information, and argument or inferences deduced
from it. The official information would always, without doubt, be
reports from the different departments, and, therefore, would have the
credit and weight which was due to it; but whenever plans or arguments
were communicated, they should have the responsibility attached to the
signature of the PRESIDENT. What was the case in the present instance?
Had the Executive avowed the plan of the Secretary of War, or his
reasoning? He was persuaded, from the communication itself, that the
PRESIDENT did not at all espouse the report as his own wishes or
opinion; for there was nothing in the Message implying that the report
had been officially required, or that any one sentiment was from the
high authority of the Executive. As to the Secretary of War, Mr. L. had
a respect for him, and believed that he had discharged the duties of his
office with ability and fidelity, but it implied no censure to decline
hearing his arguments. All that the House wanted was facts and
information. They were fully competent to the suitable deductions. As to
the observation of his colleague, that the House were abridging the
powers of the Executive, it was so far from being the case, they were
only reclaiming what had been remitted and disused; and he had no fears
that they would abuse it.

Mr. HILLHOUSE thought that gentlemen were spending time in a very
trifling way. It is the duty of the House to hear information from every
quarter. He was against the amendment.

Mr. J. WADSWORTH said, that some gentlemen had been offended at the
comparison in the report between the North American settlers and the
Spaniards. Mr. W. remarked, that if gentlemen would look into two
historians, the one of Virginia and the other of New England, they would
see bad enough work. If the Spaniards, or any other nation in history,
had acted worse, he was much at a loss to comprehend what their
proceedings could have been. As to Pennsylvania, much had been said of
the purchases from the Indians of their lands; but where was the
difference between shooting an Indian and catching him in a trap? And,
as to the conduct of the Pennsylvanians, when they drove the Indians
back to Pittsburg, that was sufficiently cruel. We have murdered them
from the beginning, said Mr. W. As to the question on the amendment, he
knew perfectly well that the PRESIDENT had acted exactly conformable
both to the constitution and the practice of the House. To refuse
committing the report of the Secretary along with the Message, would be
an affront, not to the Secretary, but to the PRESIDENT.

Mr. MADISON looked upon the expression, as to the Spaniards, as being
extremely exceptionable. It had escaped, perhaps, inadvertently. The
Secretary would not have used it in a report to the House, nor would the
PRESIDENT have employed it, as from himself, in any Message to the
House. Mr. M. was for the amendment. It was natural enough that the
Secretary, when communicating his sentiments in a private manner, should
make use of illustrations for enforcing his opinion that he would not
have adopted in an official paper.

Mr. PAGE was persuaded that the Report from the Secretary of War
contained nothing new, or, if new, nothing which may not as well be used
when in the hands of members, as when in those of a Committee of the
Whole. If the amendment had been to throw the Message under the table,
more warmth could not have been shown, in charging the opposers of the
motion for reference to a Committee of the Whole with indecency to the
PRESIDENT, and with a design at usurpation of his power, &c. It is said,
that a jealousy has been betrayed by some members of an encroachment on
the privileges of this House. Surely, a most unnecessary and
unreasonable suspicion has also been betrayed by others, of a design in
the gentlemen who supported the motion of Mr. NICHOLAS, to encroach on
the powers of the Executive. Expressions have been used not consistent
with decency and order. Gentlemen have been charged with a factious
spirit, favoring indecent remonstrances, and with slighting and treating
contemptuously the Message from the PRESIDENT. Some members have, at
another time, been charged with speaking, not to the House, but to their
constituents, in order to gain their votes at an approaching election.
Mr. P. said, that his respect for the Government, and for the PRESIDENT,
was equal to that of any man in the House. He was far from wishing to
reflect on the late Secretary of War. Mr. P. had never, by any vote,
censured his conduct, and he entertained no wish for his resignation.
But he was at liberty to think the report given to the PRESIDENT wrong,
the communication of it to the House as unnecessary, and even if
necessary, as sufficiently acted upon when printed and put into the
hands of the members. He might have no doubt respecting the
constitutionality of the Message from the PRESIDENT, or of the report of
the Secretary to him. He might require no precedents from the Journals
to prove that the motion for referring that Message was perfectly in
order. But he might doubt whether the substance of the report was of
such a nature as to require the consideration of the Committee of the
Whole. He might also doubt whether the report was of sufficient
importance to require the most mature consideration. There might be
circumstances attending the manner of its introduction, as some members
allege that there were, which render the report improper to be referred
to a Committee of the Whole. It would be a precedent for referring every
Message, and that would be attended with unnecessary delay. It will be
paying a superfluous compliment. If the information came from the
poorest citizen, and was sufficiently important, he would refer it, but
though it came from the PRESIDENT or Senate, and contained nothing
which, in his opinion, required a commitment, he should vote against it.
Mr. P. was for the amendment of Mr. NICHOLAS.

Mr. S. SMITH remarked, that the principal objection made by the
gentleman who spoke last, (Mr. PAGE,) to the commitment of the report
was, that it contains nothing new. The observation will apply with equal
justness to a great part of what has been said on the subject before the
House. He wished, therefore, that the question might be immediately
taken.

The amendment was negatived without a division, but by a very great
majority. The motion, as it originally stood, was then put and carried.


TUESDAY, January 27.

_Reduction of Salaries._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
motion of the twenty-third instant, "that a committee be appointed to
bring in a bill or bills to amend the act entitled 'An act for
establishing the salaries of the Executive Officers of Government, with
their assistants and clerks;' and an act 'for allowing compensation to
the members of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States, and to the officers of both Houses;' and to reduce all such
salaries as, in the opinion of the said committee, after having made due
inquiry, ought to be reduced."

Mr. CLAIBORNE said: A worthy gentleman from Maryland, the other day,
suggested an amendment to the proposition now before you, which I
understood to contemplate the increase of some salaries; and, if that
gentleman can reconcile it to himself and his constituents, let him move
and carry it, if he can. For my part, I am pleased with the proposition
as it is, and yet it may have great imperfections. It is very common for
fond parents to be blind to the imperfections of their own offspring;
and, as this is a production of my own, it is probable that I may be
under the same delusive prejudices, but I hope that cheerful
acquiescence which I have always shown to the majority, has sufficiently
evinced that I am no bigot to my own opinions. I said, the other day,
that I was determined, if the proposition must die, it should be by
assassination; but as, in this, a degree of guilt is implied, and might
be attended with serious consequences to those concerned in it, I
should be satisfied to give it a fair trial, and, if it must die, that
it may be by legal and fair adjudication, or, in other words, after full
and fair discussion of its merits.

We now have fairly before us a proposition that contemplates a redress
of these grievances, which, since the adoption of the present form of
Government, have been a subject of grievous complaint and heartburning
amongst citizens of the United States. Many of them, and, I believe, a
very great majority, conceive that the exorbitant salaries established
to the Legislative, Executive, Judiciary, and their assistants, are not
consistent with, or can possibly contribute to the existence or
well-being of a Republican Government, which, in its nature, holds out
the idea of equality and justice, but which, in the present mode of
administration, cannot fail to have a direct opposite tendency, inasmuch
as the very profuse salaries that all who have the good fortune to get
places under the pay and influence of the present Administration, if
they make a prudent use of them, must ultimately enrich and place them
in a situation so far above the vast bulk of the citizens, whose
industrious fingers are not permitted a single dip into those very
coffers which have been swelled by filching a little from that
hard-gotten pittance already far inadequate to the necessary but very
ordinary subsistence of their families, as at last to endanger the very
existence or shadow of this glorious and dear-bought Government, that
has already raised the drooping and once-dejected heads of the poor
American citizens, who now glory more in having thrown off that
subordination that was assumed and exercised over them under the late
detestable Monarchical Government, by their rulers, or public officers,
than even in their lives and fortunes. Men begin to know the inherent
rights of human nature. They have dipped into and tasted a little of the
sweets of political regeneration, and, amongst all classes of your
citizens, you may discover a zeal that amounts to enthusiasm, that lives
and burns and grows almost to a prodigy. Instances are not wanting, sir,
to evince that thousands of those who were not fond of this Government
at its adoption, are now, on all occasions, ready to step forth in its
support, and the laws that are passed consistent therewith. But this
does, by no means, argue that they will submit for ever to repeated
abuses of the Government, which may ultimately tend to its overthrow;
and exorbitant salaries, with other profuse appropriations of the public
money, at a time when the nation is groaning under an immense weight of
foreign and domestic debt, which (calculating upon the blessings of
peace, and of course, a very increasing revenue, not reasonably to be
calculated on so long a time,) it is agreed on all hands will take a
term not less than thirty-two years to extinguish. Here I shall again be
told, that the price of house-rent, and every other necessary of life,
has increased, and may continue to increase, so as to drive all your
officers out of your service. To this I beg leave to answer, that, if
you continue such high salaries, or increase them, as in some instances
it is asked, and because of the present enhanced price of the
necessaries of life, I think the evil will increase in proportion to the
immense sum of money that you throw into circulation, for a redundancy
of that, or any thing else, will always diminish the value; and, if the
present custom of disbursing the public money is persisted in, the whole
wealth of the United States must shortly centre in and about
Philadelphia! But, sir, by the adoption of public economy, we may
shortly become able to obviate this great evil, and make our
disbursements more diffusive, by paying out money to those who have
demands upon your justice, distributed over the United States, if any
but those who reside around the seat of Government have any demand upon
your justice or goodness. I am apprised that the proposition is a very
unpopular one here, and that many will perhaps knit their brows at me;
but, sir, when I entered into public life, it was without any cringing
views. I meant not to court smiles, or fear frowns, and I had no doubt
but I should meet my share of both. When I gain the former by proper
conduct, I have pleasure in it; when the latter by improper conduct, I
am sorry for it. But it will be much to be lamented if ever we see the
day when the people shall be suffered to complain from year to year of
any grievance, and their Representatives shall be ashamed, or afraid, to
make those grievances known, or ask redress, lest they be laughed out of
countenance, or lose favor at Court. But so hardy am I, if you prefer
that expression, that, while I have the honor of a seat in this House,
none of those considerations shall ever deter me from stepping forth in
their behalf; but, be the result of this proposition what it may, I now
warn you against evils that _may_ come, as you have been heretofore
warned of evils that _have_ come, for the obligations of power and
submission are reciprocal. It is as much your duty to pass wholesome
laws, as it is the duty of the people to obey them. And now, having done
my duty, I shall take my seat, content to abide the result, but hope a
committee will be appointed.

Mr. NICHOLAS declared that he would be very willing to vote for the
appointment of such a committee, if he could see any good purpose to be
derived from it, or if the gentleman who laid the resolution on the
table could give him any information that tended to prove its
expediency. For his own part he had but a small family, and of that he
had left one-half behind him in Virginia, yet he found that his
allowance as a member of the Legislature was barely sufficient for
supporting this half of his family, though he lived with as much economy
as he ever had done in his life. He was certain that he should not take
one shilling of public money home with him to Virginia. He requested
gentlemen to remember that it was not the present Congress who had given
six dollars per day to themselves, but that it had been fixed by their
predecessors, and fixed at a time when living was fifty per cent.
cheaper than it is now.

Mr. BOUDINOT observed, that he should not have troubled the committee on
this question, had it not been for several considerations particularly
applicable to himself. He was as impartial on the present debate as any
member on the floor. After the close of this session of Congress, he
never expected to receive a farthing of public money again, and
therefore no interest of his own could sway his judgment improperly to
object against the resolution on the table. He had been among the number
of those members who originally were for fixing the compensation of
members of Congress at a less sum than six dollars; not because he
thought it beyond the amount of their expenses, but, from an idea of the
then deranged state of the finances, and that, if sacrifices were to be
made, they should begin with this House. He appealed to his uniform
conduct for six years past, to prove that he had always opposed an
increase of salaries or other public expenses, when the interest of the
Union did not require it. He did not doubt that the gentleman who
brought forward this resolution thought he was doing his duty in
advocating it; and Mr. B. thought it was equally the duty of the
committee to be convinced that they were not wasting their time in
unnecessarily proceeding in business, without having some foundation for
rational inquiry.

Mr. B. did not doubt but there were uninformed individuals, who might
object to six dollars per day; but he was confident that the
well-informed among the citizens of the United States, and those who
reflected on the subject, would think (at the present day at least) it
was not more than would barely pay the reasonable expenses of gentlemen
who attended to their duty here in a proper manner. Almost every article
of consumption was from twenty to thirty per cent. higher now than it
was at the commencement of the Government.

The Constitution of the United States, as the act of the people and the
public voice, contemplated a compensation to the members of Congress.
Did not this mean something more than the bare discharge of their
expenses? Yet Congress had not gone beyond it.

When Congress sat at New York, Mr. B. said that he was in a situation
more favorable in point of expense than any gentleman on the floor, who
did not reside in that city. He boarded with a near relation, and was in
a manner in his own family; and, although he paid the usual price of
boarding as at other places, yet there were a thousand nameless small
articles which saved him many advances. He was within sixteen miles of
his own family, from whence he received many things that prevented his
laying out money. During three sessions, he kept an exact and faithful
account of his expenditures, and, at the end of that time, the balance
was but 43s. 4d.; but on which side of the question his memory did not
allow him to say. At present, he was also under very peculiar
advantages, yet he was confident that, at the end of the session, he
should not have any balance in his favor from his compensation as a
member. Mr. B. appealed to every gentleman's own knowledge, and
particularly to the gentleman who made the motion, if he thought that
what he received would more than pay his expenses.

Gentlemen were often crying out against an Aristocracy in this country;
yet measures of this kind tended to establish one, by reducing the
compensation of members, so that no citizen but the rich and affluent
could attend as a Representative in Congress. This certainly was the
most effectual way of bringing about a dangerous Aristocracy in the
United States. Should not men of abilities, though in the middle walks
of life, be encouraged to come forward and yield their services to their
country, without being dependent on any person or set of men whatever?
Is it not sufficient that their time and talents are given to the
public? Must they pay their expenses too?

Mr. B. was aware that the resolution proposed related to the officers of
Government as well as members of Congress, but he had confined his
remarks to the last, as the part of the subject he was best acquainted
with. He begged gentlemen to look around and point out the public
officer who received more than a reasonable reward for his services.
Professional men, of the first abilities, were absolutely necessary to
carry on the public business; and could any one, fit for his office, be
shown who could not do full as well, if not much better, in the exercise
of his profession in private life than he did in the public service, if
pecuniary matters were his only object? In short, (Mr. B. said,) this
House was placed between Scylla and Charybdis. The public officers were
complaining, and even resigning, for want of sufficient compensation for
their services; on the other hand, an attempt was now made to reduce
their salaries still lower, on the supposed clamors of the people. Mr.
B. did not believe they could be denominated those of the people;
neither did he see any evidence of the fact. He did not consider the
complaints of a few individuals as the public voice. Ought not the
gentlemen to come forward with some kind of calculations or estimates to
have shown that certain salaries were too high, or more than the
services performed were entitled to? This had not been done; but the
committee were urged, at this important moment, to proceed to an
inquiry, which every gentleman on the floor already knew as well as he
could do by the most labored investigation. He therefore concluded that,
to agree to the resolution, would be a waste of the short time that yet
remained of the session, and an unwise measure. Mr. B. would have
contented himself with joining the committee in a silent vote on this
subject, but he thought the observations made in support of the measure
ought to receive some answer, if not to convince the committee, yet to
satisfy their constituents that there could exist no necessity for a
present inquiry of this nature.

Mr. W. SMITH said, that the resolution was, in its present shape, so
extremely vague, that one did not know how to give it a definition or a
vote. Different objects were lumped together. If, by an inquiry, the
gentleman meant to examine into the wages of members of this House, it
was quite needless to appoint a committee, because every member can at
this moment speak for himself. But Mr. S. did not consider the present
time as the most proper for beginning to reduce salaries, when, within
the last twelve months, there had been three resignations, viz: the
Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, and the Secretary of the
Treasury, and all chiefly for one reason, the smallness of the salary. I
have no doubt (said Mr. S.) of there being complaints, and, if the
salary was reduced to three dollars per day, there would be still
complaints, as we see is the case with the members of the Legislature of
Pennsylvania. He only wished that the committee would rise, and he
should then vote in the House that they might not have leave to sit
again. The mover of this resolution had mentioned the danger of meeting
with reproaches from the people, who thought their salaries too high.
Mr. S. saw very little in this matter, because the people who railed at
the salary of six dollars per day, were only anxious to get in
themselves, and embraced this topic as an expedient of ousting those
members whom they wanted to succeed.

Mr. GOODHUE wished to ask Mr. CLAIBORNE one question, "Whether he found
himself growing rich?"

Mr. SEDGWICK saw no occasion for rising, because the committee were
perfectly competent at this moment to determine the question.

Mr. RUTHERFORD was for reducing the salaries by one dollar per day, and
one dollar every twenty-five miles that the members had to travel. This
would be a reduction of one hundred dollars per day, which would be much
better bestowed upon the innocent widow of the veteran, who had fallen
in the service of his country.

Mr. PAGE said, that he did not think the resolution, as it was worded,
was a proper subject for discussion in that place; for the House, and
not a committee, could properly resolve that committees should be
appointed. However, as the resolution had been submitted by the House to
the consideration of the Committee of the Whole, it must be examined;
but, as to the object of it, that he thought was more properly before
the committee, as proposed by the resolution; for, as I have remarked on
other occasions, if, instead of discussing a question fully, and
collecting the sense of all the members in a Committee of the Whole, it
be referred to a committee of one member from each State, that committee
might be unanimous in favor of a resolution, against which, eighteen
members for Virginia, and a proportionate number from other States,
might vote; or, by the weight of that committee, the resolution might be
carried, which could not have passed had it been fully and freely
discussed in the House. Here, then, my colleague's question should be
examined, as I cannot say (as has been said by one of them) that I had
no hand in fixing the salaries and pay of the officers of Government and
members of Congress, having actually voted at New York for them as they
now stand. I think I may, with propriety, give my opinion respecting it.
And I am clearly of opinion, sir, that the question arises from a
misapprehension of the subject to which it is applied; for there cannot
be a greater mistake than to suppose that parsimony in a Republic is
necessary to its support. A certain degree of economy is so; but
parsimony, applied to the salaries of public officers, and the
Representatives in particular, may be ruinous to the interests of a
Republic. Should the salaries be so low that men of small fortunes
cannot afford to serve their country, it must be deprived of their
assistance, and we must accept of the services of the rich, who, to have
their wills, though low, will serve even without pay; or, the State will
be served by artful demagogues, by ready, designing men, who may, in
pursuit of profit as well as popularity, cut out places for themselves
and friends, producing at length confusion and anarchy, or, at least,
such a bungling system of legislation as will cost more time and money
to rectify their blunders than the most extravagant salaries could
amount to. What true Republican could wish to exclude from a seat in
Congress a physician, lawyer, merchant, farmer, or any other person
possessed of such well-known abilities and virtues as to attract the
attention and respect of a district which might wish to intrust its
interests to him as a Representative? Or, rather, who ought not to
desire that, as all offices are open to all, that the son of the poorest
citizen might be enabled, if qualified to fill a seat here or elsewhere,
to do it without sacrificing his private interest? Is it reasonable to
expect that men should sacrifice domestic ease and the interests of
their families to serve their country? It is not just to require it.
Human nature, except on great and trying occasions, cannot obey such a
requisition. My colleague says that he is not a man of fortune; but, has
he not a profession by which he can make more than by his attendance on
this House? If not, he has not a right to require such a sacrifice of
any other person's time and talents. The constitution, far from
requiring any thing like it, demands that compensation shall be made for
all services; and who will desire less for services than a mere
subsistence for a person whilst actually employed in such service? I am
sure that less than the present pay of members of Congress would not, in
their present situation, be a subsistence. I recollect that, when the
House of Representatives were debating, in the first session, at New
York, whether their daily pay should be four, five, or six dollars, I
affirmed that the expenses of the members where I boarded required that
it should be six, that the State of Virginia having once allowed her
delegates to Congress eight dollars, and never less than six, when she
bore the whole expense, could not object to her Representatives
receiving that sum, when divided, as it was, amongst the States, and
spread out over the various duties and taxes of the United States. I
asked those, as I might ask my colleague now, who of our constituents
could calculate what he would save by any proposed reduction of our pay?
I have long suspected, sir, that Republics have lost more by parsimony
than they were aware of, and that a misapprehension of some practices in
ancient Republics has been artfully kept up, so as to favor Aristocracy
and Monarchy. The British Parliament has now no pay; but have they been
as independent as their countrymen wished them under the British
Government?

In reply to the member who had objected to the pay of the SPEAKER, and
the difference between the pay of members of the two Houses, Mr. P.
said, that whoever would consider the duty of the SPEAKER; his long
confinement to the chair; his painful attention to every word spoken in
the House, and his responsibility for the correctness of the
journals--an examination of which must take up much of his time--would
surely not think his pay too great. As to the difference between the pay
of a Senator and Representative, he had voted for it, from a belief that
a Senator having more services to perform than a Representative, had a
right to more pay. The Senate not only have to originate bills as this
House has, and to revise and amend bills sent from hence, and often to
correct the careless errors they contain, but to make themselves
acquainted with the law of nations, and to be prepared to judge of
treaties; and also of offences brought before them by impeachments. When
the Senators may have gone through the labors of a long session, and the
Representatives are returning home, they may be called upon to consider
certain nominations to offices, or certain treaties; and at another time
to try certain impeachments. Besides all this, the age of a Senator must
be such, by the constitution, that it is probable that his family is
larger, and his pursuits in life more fixed and profitable than those of
a Representative, who may be elected when only twenty-five, and
therefore his services must require higher compensation. As to the
PRESIDENT and VICE-PRESIDENT's salaries, I voted for a larger sum than
was allowed to either, and thought that the disproportion between them
was too great. With respect to the judges, I still think their salaries
too small, and so should every one think who will consider the vast
importance of their office; the labor of both mind and body which it
requires; the laborious course of study through which a man must have
gone to be qualified for it, and the lucrative employment such a one
must have given up to undertake it. In short, I do not recollect a
salary which I think too high. And I must repeat it, that I do not think
that large salaries in a Republic can injure it; but that small,
inadequate salaries may overturn a Republic.

I am sorry that the question has been brought before us respecting our
own pay this session, because the elections in Virginia are not over; it
would become us much better another session, if re-elected, to reduce
it, than to do so when we may be left out. Besides, if I vote for a
reduction, I may be suspected of courting popularity; and, if against
it, of despising the opinions of my constituents, if they have adopted
those which some members tell us prevail amongst their constituents. I
do not like to be in such a dilemma, nor to have my independence
unnecessarily tried. I wish, as the question is before us, that it may
be fully debated here, and even referred to the further consideration of
a select committee; because I think the opinions even of a single member
and his district should be treated with respect; and that when they have
been fairly proved to be founded in error, there will be an end of
complaints, and an acquiescence in the decision of this House.

Mr. GILLESPIE proposed an amendment, the scope of which was, that a
committee should be appointed to examine and report whether any and what
alterations were necessary in the act fixing salaries to the officers
under Government. He suggested this amendment from no motive whatever
but what was fair. There had been, and there still was, a degree of
clamor upon the subject, and it was the duty of the House to pay
attention to the voice of the public, whether right or wrong. If, upon
investigation, it should appear that the salaries were not higher than
they ought to be, then the report of the committee would be the best
method for stopping the public clamor.

Mr. CLAIBORNE hoped that the committee would not rise, but decide the
point. He trusted that no gentleman would again point at him, and say
that the motion came out of his brain. There was not one officer under
Government whom he would point out and say, that such an officer had too
high a salary. He had expectations that this discussion, by bringing
forward the observations of several gentlemen, would in some degree
satisfy the people, and that there would be no more pointing out with a
finger and saying, "_There goes a six-dollars-a-day man_."

Another member observed, that it was the duty of the House to attend to
the voice of their constituents, and for this reason, he should vote for
a committee. He would mention what he had always considered as a most
odious distinction, the additional dollar per day, which is to be paid
to the Senate from and after the 4th of March next. [The reader will
observe, that by the act, members of the Senate were to have seven
dollars per day, but the additional dollar was not to commence till the
lapse of six years,[58] when all the Senators of the first Congress had
gone out.] There was another thing for which he never could see any
reason, and that was the giving of the twelve dollars per day to the
SPEAKER.

Mr. GILES was perfectly convinced that the allowance to the members is
small enough already. The saving of a dollar per day suggested by Mr.
RUTHERFORD, would be but little, and it was beginning at the worst of
resources. The pay ought to be such as would bring persons of middling
circumstances into the House; persons neither too high in life nor too
low. If the pay was greatly reduced, none but very rich people could
afford to give their attendance, and if too high, a seat in the House
might be an object to persons of an opposite description. Formerly the
State of Virginia allowed eight dollars per day to the members of its
Legislature. This sum had since been reduced to six dollars. Mr. G.
mentioned this to show that in the practice of individual States, there
might be found a precedent for the allowance to members of Congress. He
was for voting directly. Mr. G. said, that there was a country from
which America had copied a great deal, and very often too much; a
country which still had a very pernicious influence in the United
States. The members of the British House of Commons received no wages,
while the officers of State had immense salaries. It was however
understood, that the British House of Commons were very well paid for
the trouble of their attendance. Mr. G. did not wish to see scenes of
that kind in this country.

Mr. HILLHOUSE hoped that the House would have done with this thing
immediately, as it had now answered all the purposes expected from it,
and he trusted that all motions of that sort which had an eye to certain
operations out of the House, would meet with the same fate.

The motion was negatived by a very great majority.

[Before the adjournment, the SPEAKER suggested to the House a
considerable inconvenience, occasioned by gentlemen being introduced,
and occupying such parts of the House without the bar as were
particularly allotted for the use of the House, and of which several
members complained. There was often so great a crowd that members could
scarce walk round when they had papers to present to the Chair. The
passage was often obstructed when messages were to be delivered, and
frequently there was no room left for the members when they wished to
confer privately with each other. As he did not conceive himself
authorized to give special directions without orders from the House, he
would take the liberty to suggest to the members of the House, when
introducing their friends, the propriety of placing them under the
galleries to the left of the Chair, and reserving the space to the
right of the Chair for the members of both branches of the Legislature,
the diplomatic gentlemen, judges, and other officers of Government;
which was generally acquiesced in.]


THURSDAY, January 29.

AARON KITCHELL, returned to serve in this House, as a member for the
State of New Jersey, in the room of Abraham Clark, deceased, appeared,
produced his credentials, and took his seat in the House; the oath to
support the Constitution of the United States being first administered
to him by Mr. SPEAKER, according to law.

_Thomas Person and others._[59]

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. COBB
in the chair, to resume the consideration of the claims of Thomas Person
and others, to certain lands lying on the frontier of the State of North
Carolina, and ceded by the Commissioners of the United States to the
Indians.

Mr. GILLESPIE took up the subject in the same stage in which it stood
before he spoke the preceding day. He said, let us examine the conduct
of other States. Did not New York dispose of lands within her chartered
limits, and from the sales become wealthy, as she has large sums in the
funds? The State of Virginia took advantage of the purchase of Henderson
and Company, for that part now called Kentucky, although they now
exclaim that the purchase was unlawful; yet, unlawful as it was, it has
extinguished the Indian title to those lands. Now, if the purchase of
Henderson and Company had this effect on the north-east side of Walker's
line, which divides Kentucky from the South-west Territory, is it not
just that it should have the same effect on the south-west side, when
made by the same persons, on the self-same day? And surely the rights of
North Carolina must be at least equal to those of Kentucky, in every
thing except that of power. But is Congress going to legislate by
strength of arm? I hope not. It has been admitted, by some who have
spoken on the subject, that the citizens of North Carolina have a right
of redress by law, and by others, against her own Legislature. To the
first of these I ask, against whom is the suit to commence? Are our
citizens, thus bereft of their property, to be compelled to litigate
suits at law for property taken for public use, and for which they have
a just claim against the United States; or have they not an equal right
to compensation for that which the United States, by their agent, took
from them, as other citizens are entitled to, for property piratically
taken on the high seas, by the robbers of Britain? And do we, in the
last case, say to these unfortunate sufferers, commence suits against
those who have injured you? No. Government has taken the litigation in
hand, at her own cost. Let her do so with the citizens of North
Carolina. Or, will the Government of the United States support the claim
of the injured against her own Executive? Will they do it against the
State of North Carolina? They cannot; and from what has been said in
this matter, it is plain that, as the Government of the United States
has converted the property of the citizens of North Carolina to the uses
of her Government, compensation ought to be made out of the public
purse, as the contrary would, on her part, destroy that bond of union
between her, as the sovereign power of the United States, and her
citizens, and as not only bound to govern with justice, but also to
protect them from all manner of injury, as well domestic as foreign. Mr.
G. apologized, that he was without authority in the House, but would
pledge his reputation that what he should advance, if not verbatim,
should be in substance with the author quoted:

      "It is admitted by many, that the sovereign authority
      possesses a power, under the laws of eminent domain, to
      alienate the property of the subject, for the benefit of
      the Commonwealth, by impending public necessity against
      private injury." But, without doubt, they "that have lost
      or sacrificed their property to the public safety in such
      extremity, ought to have satisfaction made, as far as
      possible, by the Commonwealth. Any thing short of this
      would destroy the reciprocity between the sovereign and
      subject."--_Puffendorf_, _b._ 8, _c._ 5, Sec. 7.

But can public necessity be urged in the present case to justify this
kind of political robbery? I answer, no. If the Indians are to be kept
in peace by bribes, why not, in this, as in other similar cases, by
presents and pecuniary rewards? Is it not an indignity to the United
States to purchase peace from an Indian nation, at the expense of a part
of her citizens, whose resources at best were scanty, and are, by this
and other speculations, almost annihilated? Surely it is. And, let me
add, is it not an invariable axiom with all authors on Government,

      "That all sacrifices of property made by individuals for
      the public benefit or accommodation, should or ought to be
      paid out of the public revenue, and that one should not
      bear more of the burden than another."--_Burlamaqui_, _b._
      8, _c._ 5, Sec. 27, 28.

Is it not, then, obvious to all, who will reflect on this subject, that
compensation is due to these individuals, whose property has been
wrested from them for Government purposes? The same author observes, in
the 38th section of the same chapter:

      "That as no subject can assume any part of the sovereign
      power without the consent of the whole, neither can any
      sovereign authority deprive the subject of his right and
      property, nor substitute another sovereign over him without
      his consent."

The public is in nothing more essentially interested than in the
protection of every individual's private rights, as modelled by the
municipal law in this and similar cases. The Legislature can, and
frequently does interpose, and compel the individual to acquiesce. But
how does it interpose and compel? Not by stripping the individual of his
property in an arbitrary manner. No. But by giving him full and ample
indemnification for the injury sustained; for there must be an end of
all social commerce between man and man, unless private possessions be
secured from unjust invasions. Thus, the protection of a State, in every
precedent to be found in books that treat of the fundamental laws of
civil society, or in the resolutions and acts of the British Parliament,
means restitution, indemnity, or compensation. _Grotius_, when treating
of the right of the sovereign authority to give up or take the property
of the subject, calls it "restitution, satisfaction;" _Burlamaqui_,
"indemnity, and indemnifying the subject for the injury sustained;" and
_Vattel_, "recompense out of the public money." It is farther observed,
that cases of this kind operate, like property thrown into the sea to
save the ship, by making an estimate of the loss, and causing an equal
average on the property saved, which each owner is bound to pay. So
that, from the fullest conviction, I am of opinion the citizens of North
Carolina are entitled to the relief reported by the select committee,
and that strict justice requires we should comply with it; for, as I
have said, in nothing is the Government of the United States more
concerned, in a superlative degree, than in doing strict justice to her
citizens, as of the last importance in preserving the affections of the
people to the Government. Vacancies in our departments, civil, judicial,
or military, may be supplied as well, but to restore the confidence of a
people borne down with oppression, exceeds comprehension. It is like
attempting to return from the grave--is without precedent, and is vain
labor indeed. At different epochs it has shook the foundations of
monarchies, and caused tyrants to tremble and atone for their crimes
with their lives; and, as I said at an early stage of the debate, if
usurpers, tyrants, and despots have been compelled to do justice by this
undeniable law of nature, shall the Government of the United States,
founded on the pure principles of Democracy, be less just? Surely not.
Have we received a power to exercise in wantonly oppressing those who
gave it? God forbid! Therefore, let it ever be impressed on our minds,
that justice exalteth a nation. The House, I hope, will pardon my
detaining them, at a time when every moment is precious. But the duty I
owe to my injured constituents forbids silence, and will, I hope, be a
sufficient apology. I shall, therefore, submit to the judgment of the
House, not doubting but justice will be done.

Mr. NICHOLAS was satisfied that the purchasers of the lands had a claim
either against the United States or the State of North Carolina. Much
had been said about the Indian right; but the Indians never had been fit
to occupy these lands. It could never have been the design of nature
that these people should be termed the possessors of land which they
were incapable to enjoy. He was, upon the whole, on the side of the
claimants, though he enumerated some of the difficulties that would
attend an attempt to please all parties.

Mr. W. SMITH had found much difficulty in forming his opinion upon this
question. He had at first been somewhat disposed against the claimants,
but at last, after full deliberation, he was convinced of the justice of
giving them redress. He requested the particular attention and candor of
the House. The United States were, in this case, made a judge in their
own cause, and therefore it became more their duty to examine every part
of the subject with the more accuracy. Mr. S. then began a distinct
detail of the circumstances in the present dispute. Previous to the year
1776, North Carolina was a British Colony, and the British Crown
considered itself as entitled to bestow grants of territory. In that
year, North Carolina became a sovereign State, and consequently she
conceived herself as succeeding to the right of the British Crown, and
as having a right to bestow grants in the same way as the Kings of Great
Britain had done. This claim was asserted in her general Declaration of
Rights, and it was incorporated into her constitution. When North
Carolina entered into the Union, all the Legislative rights of the State
were preserved, and, by a necessary inference, her title to the lands
comprehended in her original charter. In 1783, the State opened an
office to sell the absolute right of such lands as had not been disposed
of. In 1789, North Carolina ceded the right of jurisdiction to the
United States, but she reserved her own Legislative rights, and
consequently her right to sell the lands within her own territory; and
in disposing of the lands in question, the State did not intend merely
to sell the right of pre-emption from the Indians, but the absolute
title to the lands. Mr. S. read a part of the constitution of North
Carolina, in order to explain what degree of legislation the State had
conceded to the Federal Government, and what part she reserved to
herself; and he was clearly of opinion, that the disposal of the lands
had been reserved. In 1783 the State offered these lands for sale. In
1786, the Commissioners of the United States assigned a great part of
them to the Indians. In 1788, the Legislature of North Carolina declared
that they would support the purchasers. The grand question now is, did
the State, by acceding to the confederation, give up her right of
legislation? She gave up her right to make Indian treaties, but reserved
that of legislation, because, as above observed, it formed a part of her
constitution, which was understood to continue unviolated. These lands
were bought with certificates, which it was alleged, on the other side,
would purchase nothing else. If the certificates would purchase nothing
else, it was proper at least that they should have been restored to
their first owners, who might have subscribed them to a part of the
public debt of the United States. They were certainly entitled either to
their land or their certificates. These certificates, which were paid
into the Treasury of North Carolina, were those of the United States. If
the owners had only a pre-emption right, Mr. S. insisted that the
certificates should be returned.

Mr. SEDGWICK said, that this was quite a new fact to him, and if it was
as stated, there was no necessity for Legislative interference at all.
The State of North Carolina had only to come forward and subscribe them
to the Treasury.

Mr. W. SMITH explained, that when delivered into the Treasury of North
Carolina, they had been cancelled. After this they were again ordered to
be made current by the subscriptions of the officers of the State, and
in that shape they were offered to the Commissioners of Loans, who
refused to accept them. The exact amount of the certificates could still
be ascertained, as well as the names of the persons to whom they
belonged. They had been cancelled, but not destroyed.

Mr. BOUDINOT imagined that Mr. SMITH had furnished a new and forcible
argument against his own cause. This claim of North Carolina to sell the
lands was wrong, and this doctrine had been the cause of all the
disputes in which the Federal Government has been engaged. The Crown of
Britain had never pretended to any right of this kind, nor ever thought
it had a title to any lands till they were first purchased from the
Indians. The question before the committee was, have the United States
taken away any claim which the purchasers of these lands had? And the
answer is, that the United States have not. The State of North Carolina
only had a right to sell the privilege of pre-emption. This was the only
right which the purchasers obtained, and this right they still possess.
As to the certificates, they were not those of the United States, but
those of North Carolina. They were not Continental certificates, and for
that reason Continental officers would not accept them; but North
Carolina has since brought these certificates into her account against
the General Government. The commissioners, in 1786, had done a very
great service to North Carolina, by settling a line of boundary, and
putting an end to the Indian war. He thought that the best way would be
for the claimants to apply to the Executive, and agree among themselves
to extinguish, by an interference of that kind, the Indian right. This
would be much better than for the House to involve itself in the
purchase of an immense tract of land, at an expense of seven or eight
hundred thousand dollars, (or how much more, Mr. B. could not tell,)
when there was so much occasion for the money to pay the national debt.
He again declared that he should think it the best way to obtain the
good offices of the Executive in extinguishing the Indian right. The Six
Nations possessed part of the territory of Pennsylvania. This State also
may apply to the General Government for redress, if North Carolina were
to get payment for these lands. The State of New York may do so, for the
same reasons as North Carolina. This would be involving the Government
in an endless labyrinth. He was as unwilling as any gentleman in the
House to interfere with the rights of the Legislature of North Carolina.
But he did not wish to see the House going blindfold into the business.
The United States have too much land already.

Mr. KITTERA.--The certificates must have been given in by North Carolina
to the United States. She denied the right of the commissioners, in
1786, to make Indian treaties, but now that right is given up. He agreed
with Mr. BOUDINOT as to his observations on Pennsylvania. Georgia also,
he said, had about sixty millions of acres within her chartered limits.
The business would never have an end, if the General Government was to
interfere in all these cases.

Mr. SCOTT.--Has not this Government a right to restrain every wild-goose
excursion into the woods? If it has not, the Union must fall prostrate
at the feet of every wild speculator. Pennsylvania, at a great expense,
made preparations for an establishment at Presqu'Isle. The ground had
been bought at a great expense from the United States. Yet for the sake
of general peace, the settlement had been stopped.

Mr. MCDOWELL denied that the two cases corresponded, for the lands at
Presqu'Isle had not been given to the Six Nations.

Mr. BOUDINOT differed from the last speaker. He did not think that any
thing farther had been done against the interest of North Carolina than
against that of Pennsylvania.

Mr. BLOUNT denied that the Indians ever occupied the lands in question,
or were fit to occupy them, in any proper sense of the word. To walk
across a country, and to shoot in it, was different from an occupation.
But, besides, the Creeks and Cherokees were not the only tribes who had
hunted there. It had been said yesterday that these lands gave rise to
speculation. Mr. B. wished that it had done so, for in that case the
certificates would all have been paid by this time. There was no
difficulty in funding Southern certificates, when once they got into the
hands of Northern speculators. Mr. B. thought himself entitled to
receive back from the United States the money which he had paid into the
Treasury of North Carolina for these lands.

Mr. MURRAY requested the favor of any gentleman to inform him, whether
the lands in question were possessed and occupied, in the more civilized
sense of the terms, by the white people? He believed they were not. Had
they been in peaceable possession, living on, and cultivating the lands,
that circumstance would form a very interesting motive in his mind in
favor of the indemnity that was asked. But, in fact, they never were
possessed of any right but that which North Carolina could give
them--the pre-emption right; that right they now possessed as fully as
they did at the time of the cession to the United States. [Mr. CARNES
rose, and informed him, that many white people who had begun farms were
driven off their lands, and reduced to great distress by the
proceedings of the commissioners.] Mr. M. said, an argument struck him
of some weight--that if the claim be gratified, the claimants will be in
a better situation now than they would have been if the cession had not
been made; for North Carolina could not have given them absolute
possession but by force of arms. This she would not have a right to do,
under this Confederation, nor under the constitution, as no one State
can make war. But the claimants can ask nothing more of the United
States than they could have had accomplished for them by the State of
North Carolina. A new doctrine, resulting from the Revolution, must be
admitted as a ground of reasoning, when Indian, unconquered territory,
is before us. The Provinces had power, as individual bodies--which
States, as such, have not--the right of making war, and gaining
possession of Indian territory by conquest. So it was, that a province
could, from its own separate resources, make war on Indians, and pay
individually the expense. But when the great contest for independence
came on, all the States were, in fact, principal confederated bodies,
long before they signed the paper of confederation. The doctrine, which
suited such a body of States, was, that whatever might be gained by the
joint efforts and expense of all, should be the property of all,
jointly; and he thought that every principle of sound justice warranted
him in applying the doctrine, so far as to say, that whatever might be
the chartered limits of each province, while dependent, yet the moment
of the joint contest was that in which the true limits of a State were,
as far as property in land went, confined to that boundary which was
really located, occupied, and peaceably holden within the limits. To say
that the State had a right more positive than the pre-emptive one, to
lands actually occupied and defended by hostile tribes of Indians within
the chartered limits, admits a principle, that, if put into action,
tended necessarily to violate the great principle of the Confederation,
and of the present constitution, which divests the individual States of
the right to make war; as the State to make good any sales she might
make within the hostile territory, would be obliged to make war on the
tribes to dispossess them. The lands in question were in this situation.
They were occupied by Indian tribes, and were never in possession of
North Carolina. The gentleman from that State seems to doubt the
occupancy of the tribes. Mr. M. believed we would violate principles of
justice were we to borrow the principle of occupancy from books, and
apply it to Indian society. The Indian tribes held certain tracts of
land. As to the mode in which they thought it most rational to use the
land, it was nothing against their right to say its exercise differed
from our mode. He understood they made a hunting ground of the land in
dispute. They had a right to use it as such, and their mode of use was
no argument against their right. All that could be, or was proved to
belong to North Carolina, was the colonial right to qualified
sovereignty, called the pre-emption right. This was all she could grant,
and this was all that the claimants could take from her. They had that
now; and as he could not see the propriety of making their situation
better than if the cession had not been made, so he could not agree to
the resolution for giving them indemnity. Perhaps his ideas on the
subject might be fashioned by local circumstances, belonging as he did
to a State which had no share in those rich funds which the large
frontier States possessed, he thought, very unjustly, in immense tracts
of back lands. He felt it a duty to narrow all claims like the present
as much as possible. Connecticut, Rhode Island, Jersey, Delaware,
Maryland, were all in the same situation. They had no back lands, and
were divested of the share they were justly entitled to in the back
lands, which now bring immense funds of wealth into the land offices of
those States which possess them.

Mr. HEISTER wished to have that part of the law read which relates to
the species of certificates referred to in the debate; this was
accordingly done. Mr. H. said that he had not enough of evidence before
him to give a vote. He therefore wished that the committee might rise.

Mr. MACON said, that, according to Mr. BOUDINOT, it was the doctrine of
North Carolina in 1783, that the State possessed aright to the
unappropriated lands. If that was their doctrine then, nothing had since
happened which could make it cease to be so now. The Crown of Britain
had transferred the absolute property of lands, without inquiring for
permission from the Indians. This evidence went strongly to prove that
North Carolina had the same title. The case of Presqu'Isle did not
apply, for Pennsylvania was raising troops to make that settlement, and
no State can, by the constitution, raise troops of itself. He wished the
committee not to rise till they had determined the question.

Mr. CARNES had foreseen that the claim before the committee would be
opposed upon various grounds: but he considered none of them as well
founded. Grants were first made by North Carolina to individuals, of
lands within her chartered boundary. The cession made to, and accepted
by the United States, conditioned to secure the interest of individuals.
A treaty was thereafter ordered to be held by the United States with the
Indians, and by that treaty, lands formerly granted, were relinquished
to them. The commissioners of North Carolina protested in form. The
people turned out, had paid ten pounds the hundred acres, for their
lands, and they were entitled to compensation from North Carolina, or
from the United States. It had been said that North Carolina had no
right but that of pre-emption. This Mr. C. denied. North Carolina had a
right to all the lands within her boundary; and there was an express
agreement reserving those lands to individuals. Why did the United
States contract with the State, if she had no right? The Indians never
could have been considered an independent nation, else there would be
compensation _in imperio_. He mentioned the case of the Tallissee
Country containing four million of acres. By a treaty made in 1785,
between the State of Georgia and the Creeks, this land was ceded to
Georgia. By a second treaty at New York, this very country was
relinquished to the Indians, and of course the _bona fide_ right of the
State wrested from them. If a decision could be had on this case before
a judicial tribunal, it would not require a moment's hesitation to
determine in favor of the State, and that the treaty was a nullity. It
had been alleged that the right of pre-emption was the only right in
possession of the States, that is, a title to purchase of the holders of
the property, in exclusion of all other States, or individuals thereof
or the particular State. Mr. C. contended that the fee-simple of all the
soil within the chartered limits belonged to the State. As to the
boundaries, the definitive treaty of peace settles them beyond
contradiction. As to the proprietors of these lands being in no worse
condition now than before the cession back to the Indians, the people
were ploughing the lands, when driven from them, and will any gentleman
say that this is not injuring people? As to the State of North Carolina
having no particular claim to the land now beyond the Indian line, he
would put a case within the chapter of possibilities. Suppose that all
the Indians were driven over the Mississippi to-morrow, to whom would
the lands which they now possess belong? The particular States to be
sure, within whose range they lay. The gentlemen who advocate for
morality, and who talk of treating the Indians with humanity, are the
very men who have uniformly countenanced the raising of troops, and
augmenting the force on our north-western frontiers. How can they
reconcile their conduct? The Indians to the South are to be treated with
humanity, and those to the North are to be butchered, that the United
States may enjoy their property.

Mr. BOUDINOT said, that the charter from Britain extended to the South
Sea, but such a stretch of territory was not really claimed by Britain.
He read several of the old laws of North Carolina, to prove that the
Indian right of soil had always been acknowledged.

Mr. BLOUNT had never thought of quoting this book, which he now did, to
show that the British Government had authorized conquest. He did not
know of one purchase made in Carolina. It was all conquest, and so were
nine-tenths of all the lands held by the white people in America.

Mr. MCDOWELL.--Those lands which are the subject of debate, and which a
number of gentlemen have contended, that North Carolina had not a right
to grant to her citizens, have been proved to be within the chartered
limits as granted by Charles II., and which limits, sovereignty and
jurisdiction were guaranteed to the State by the Articles of
Confederation.

After this, and within the year 1783, the Legislature passed a law for
opening an office to receive entries of lands in the district of country
now called the territory south of the Ohio, for the redemption of
special and other certificates; and after a number of the surveys were
made, and the grants issued, the Government of the United States ordered
a treaty to be held with the Cherokee Indians at Holston, in the year
1785, and the commissioners agreed to give up a large quantity of lands
before stated to the Indians; but, previous to articles being signed,
Colonel Blount, who was the agent for North Carolina, entered his
protest in behalf of the State, that some of the articles about to be
entered into between the commissioners, on the part of the United
States, and the Cherokee Indians, would infringe on the Legislative
rights of the State of North Carolina, and the Legislature of the State
also protested against the proceedings.

I must here remark, that the then Government of the United States,
agreeably to the Articles of Confederation, could not legally make use
of the property of the State for any purpose without their consent.

This continued to be the situation of this business, till after Congress
requested a cession of those lands, with the sovereignty thereof, which
now form the territory south of the Ohio, which was complied with under
certain reservations, to continue claims, and the situations of the
claimants as good as though this cession had not been made, which was a
complete acknowledgment of the right of North Carolina, on the part of
the United States, but in my opinion placed them in the same situation
that the State would have been in, had the cession not taken place.

Since the adoption of the present Government, another treaty was ordered
to be held with the Indians, and the lands were given up to the Indians.
Here the Executive right to make such treaty may be questioned, and I
believe rightly too; for it would be an extraordinary power for them to
make use of the property of individuals, without their consent, or
making any compensation, and apply it to national purposes. Great
difficulties would be involved were a remedy to be attempted in a
judicial way against the Government. I do therefore think either that
policy or interest, on the part of the United States, would point out a
compliance, in part, with the report on the table, for it will not place
the United States in any worse situation than they would have been in,
had the lands not been entered. Had that been the case, those
certificates would have been in the hands of individuals, a debt against
the Government, but on their being subscribed now, to the amount
actually paid on their relinquishing their claim, you would then have
the land, which will be valuable at a period far distant.

Some gentlemen appear to be alarmed at the sum; but if the principle is
a just or fair one, the sum ought not to be an objection. I will here
state further, to remove the alarms of those gentlemen, that the sum
will fall far short of the statement made by Mr. Jefferson, as a great
deduction is to be taken from that; but I can further assert, that a
great number of the claimants would not relinquish their claim to said
lands to subscribe; it would generally be such as are in indigent
circumstances. And here I cannot help making some reply to the
objections stated by several members, who have alleged that North
Carolina had acted wrong in selling these lands before they had
extinguished the Indian claim, and that the claimants were in no worse
situation than they would have been had the cession not have taken
place. I am not a little surprised to find, that gentlemen cannot see
the distinction, for had the cession and treaty at Holston taken place,
they were at liberty to settle the lands, and North Carolina was bound
to protect them; but since the treaty had been made, the land is not
only given up as stated, but it is made criminal to cross the boundary.
Mr. DEXTER has stated that North Carolina has acted unjustly and wrong
in making sale of those lands before she had extinguished the Indian
claims.

Here I shall repeat what I stated before in answer to what the gentleman
has said: That the Indian claims to said lands were, in part,
extinguished by Henderson's purchase, and part by conquest, and that a
considerable part of the lands, that no nation of Indians could
establish a claim to, had been claimed by different tribes as territory
grounds, but had not been inhabited by any tribe within the memory, or
any account that can be traced, and for as great a length of time the
different tribes had been at war with each other about the right of
hunting on said land. But so far as it relates to the right of North
Carolina, I believe no member has a right to call it in question at this
time. The gentleman's arguments would have been more applicable at the
time the cession act was under consideration; and as to what the member
said about the principle and precedent it would fix, I will only call
the attention of that gentleman and the committee, to the conduct of the
Government of the United States. Have they not pushed conquests into the
Indian country north-west of the Ohio? Are they not continuing to do so,
and is it not in contemplation to sell large quantities of lands in that
country, that have never been purchased? If so, the precedent which the
gentleman fears so much is already established. But here I beg leave to
call the attention of the committee, in the most serious manner, to the
number of citizens concerned, perhaps near twenty thousand. A great
number of them are men who turned out in support of the American
Independence, who fought, who bled, and furnished their property freely
to the support of the cause. For this service they received
certificates, which they wished to realize by entering said lands, and
flattered themselves with sitting down on those lands, and in the latter
part of life making themselves and families happy. Their hopes were soon
blasted. After the act of last session, the Treaty of Holston took
place, which gave their property to a savage and cruel enemy, to quiet
the minds of an enemy who not only were opposed to us through the war
with Britain, but ever since have been imbruing their hands in the blood
of innocent women and children. What will be the feelings of the
claimants, who have acted as I have stated, when they find that their
request, which to be sure is a modest one, and which is only to be
reimbursed for sums actually paid, is refused? Should this be the
decision, I leave you to draw the conclusion. Should they proceed to
settle those lands in opposition to the treaty, I should not be much
surprised. But the report on your table goes too far, as to damage and a
future preference, which I am not in favor of; therefore the resolutions
in the latter part of the report I hope will be stricken out.

On the same question, Mr. GILLESPIE made the subsequent remarks: he
observed a disposition in the House to call the question; he then said
that the situation in which he stood required that he should say
something in support of the resolution under consideration, as it had
been stated as a new and singular case, from which he took the liberty
to dissent, as every writer on the law and usage of nations, held it as
an invariable axiom, that all sacrifices of property made by individuals
for public uses, ought to be paid out of the public purse. He stated the
treaty between England, France, and Spain, in 1763, and the case of the
loyalists in 1783, and as the hour of adjournment had arrived, concluded
with a motion for the committee to rise and report progress.

The question was then put, Shall the committee now rise and report
progress? This was negatived. The resolutions in the report were
successively put, and lost.

The committee then rose; the Chairman reported progress, and the House
adjourned.


FRIDAY, January 30.

The House proceeded to consider the report of the committee to whom was
referred the Message from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of the
thirtieth of January, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-four,
enclosing the copy of a letter from the Governor of North Carolina,
covering a resolution of the Legislature of that State; as, also, the
petitions of Thomas Person and others, proprietors of lands in the
territory of the United States south of the river Ohio, and of the
Trustees of the University of North Carolina, to which the Committee of
the whole House had, yesterday, reported their disagreement: Whereupon,

The first resolution reported by the committee, being again read, in the
words following, to wit:

      "_Resolved_, That it shall be lawful for the Executive of
      the State of North Carolina to subscribe, by way of loan to
      the United States, the amount of all such certificates as
      have been deposited in payment for any lands, (reserved by
      the act of cession aforesaid,) in payment for any lands
      which may have been relinquished to the Indians by the
      treaty aforesaid, in trust for the persons by whom they
      were so deposited, according to their respective rights and
      interests:"

The question was taken, that the House do agree with the Committee of
the whole House in their disagreement to the said first resolution, and
it was resolved in the affirmative.

The second resolution reported by the committee, being again read, in
the words following, to wit:

      "_Resolved_, That the United States ought to reimburse the
      said persons the money which they have expended in having
      entries and surveys made, and in obtaining grants, and any
      other incidental charges which they have necessarily
      incurred, with interest; and that they should moreover make
      a reasonable allowance for the loss and damage which the
      petitioners have sustained, by having possession of the
      said land withheld from them:"

The question was taken, that the House do agree with the Committee of
the whole House in their disagreement to the said second resolution, and
resolved in the affirmative.

The third resolution reported by the committee, being again read, in the
words following, to wit:

      "And whereas, the grants to the aforesaid lands, made by
      virtue of an act of the Legislature of North Carolina, are
      valid to all intents and purposes, as coming fully within
      the purview of a condition contained in the act of session
      from the said State to the United States: therefore,

      "_Resolved_, That, whenever the United States shall think
      proper to extinguish the Indian claim to the said lands, by
      purchase or otherwise, it will be just and reasonable that
      the several persons who have obtained grants or made
      surveys or entries, should have such rights confirmed and
      established, and their titles perfected, in preference to
      any other persons, on repaying to the Treasury of the
      United States, the amount of what they may now receive, as
      a compensation for their disbursements and losses, in case
      such persons shall think proper to make such repayment
      within a certain time, to be limited by Congress for that
      purpose:"

The question was taken that the House do agree with the Committee of the
whole House, in their disagreement to the said third resolution, and
resolved in the affirmative.

A motion was then made, and the question being put, that the House do
agree to the following resolution:

      "_Resolved_, That such persons as have entered lands
      agreeably to the laws of North Carolina, in the territory
      ceded by that State to the United States, and on the Indian
      side of the line established by the Treaty of Holston,
      ought to be reimbursed by the United States the amount of
      the purchase-money actually paid for the same, and the
      necessary expense of locating and surveying, where the
      survey has been made; such persons first relinquishing
      their right thereto, to the United States:"

It passed in the negative--yeas 14, nays 56, as follows:

      YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, Thomas Blount, William B. Grove,
      George Hancock, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Joseph
      McDowell, Alexander Mebane, John Page, Robert Rutherford,
      William Smith, Benjamin Wiliams, Richard Winn, and Joseph
      Winston.

      NAYS.--Fisher Ames, John Beatty, Elias Boudinot,
      Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Lambert Cadwalader,
      Thomas Claiborne, David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Joshua Coit,
      Jonathan Dayton, Henry Dearborn, George Dent, Gabriel
      Duvall, Benjamin Edwards, Thomas Fitzsimons, Dwight Foster,
      Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas Gilman, Henry Glenn, Benjamin
      Goodhue, Andrew Gregg, Thomas Hartley, John Heath, James
      Hillhouse, William Hindman, Samuel Holten, John Hunter,
      William Irvine, Aaron Kitchell; Amasa Learned, William
      Lyman, James Madison, William Montgomery, Andrew Moore,
      Peter Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, Anthony New, John
      Nicholas, Nathaniel Niles, Alexander D. Orr, Josiah Parker,
      Andrew Pickens, Francis Preston, Thomas Scott, John S.
      Sherburne, Jeremiah Smith, Samuel Smith, Zephaniah Swift,
      George Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, John E.
      Van Allen, Peter Van Gaasbeck, Artemas Ward, and Paine
      Wingate.

Another motion was then made and seconded, that the House do come to the
following resolution:

      "RESOLVED, That the President of the United States be
      requested to cause a treaty to be entered into with any
      Indian tribes who may claim, hold, possess, or be entitled,
      to any lands within the territory ceded by the State of
      North Carolina to the United States; and to endeavor to
      obtain, by such treaty, an extinguishment of the Indian
      claims to all lands, the pre-emptive right to which has
      been sold by the said State, in pursuance of the act of one
      thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, opening an office
      for the sale of the said lands."

_Ordered_, That the said motion be committed to Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, Mr.
DAYTON, Mr. SWIFT, Mr. MCDOWELL, and Mr. PAGE.


MONDAY, February 9.

ROBERT GOODLOE HARPER, returned to serve in this House as a member for
the State of South Carolina, in the room of ALEXANDER GILLON, deceased,
appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in
the House.


FRIDAY, February 13.

_Heirs of Count de Grasse._

A memorial of Amelie, Adelaide, Melanie, and Silvie de Grasse, four
daughters of the late Count de Grasse, now residing at Salem in the
State of Massachusetts, was presented to the House and read, praying a
loan of money for their present subsistence; the effects which they
brought from France being exhausted, and having no other means of
support, but in property in the Island of St. Domingo, from which, under
present circumstances, no supplies can be drawn.

_Ordered_, That the said memorial be referred to Mr. AMES, Mr. MADISON,
and Mr. GILMAN, with instruction to examine the matter thereof, and
report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the House.


WEDNESDAY, February 18.

_Count de Grasses Heirs._

The House then went into a committee on a memorial from the four
daughters of the late Admiral Count de Grasse. It was read with the
report from a select committee, which proposed to give each of these
ladies, who are now residing in Boston, and in indigent circumstances, a
thousand dollars, in consideration of the important services rendered by
their father to the United States. To this proposal the committee
agreed, and the Chairman reported the resolution.

The House then took up the report.

Mr. MACON objected that though the claims of the petitioners were
strong, yet they were not more so than those of multitudes of others. On
the very day when we have come to a resolution to receive no more
petitions from our fellow-citizens, we are going to give so large a sum
at once to foreigners. He was aware that the Count de Grasse had done
eminent services to America, and he felt them as much as any person, but
he still saw no reason for preferring these petitioners, when there were
likely a hundred of the officers of De Grasse, or of Rochambeau's army,
that were in this country, and in want.

Mr. DEXTER said, that if ever there was a case where it would be proper
to act first, and thereafter try to find reasons for what had been done,
this was such a case.

The report was, on a division, agreed to by a great majority--sixty-one
gentlemen rising in the affirmative. The resolution is in the following
words:

_Resolved_, That, in consideration of the extraordinary services
rendered the United States by the late Count de Grasse in the year one
thousand seven hundred and eighty-one, on the urgent request of the
Commander-in-chief of the American forces, beyond the term limited for
his co-operation with the troops of the United States, there be allowed
and paid to Amelie, Adelaide, Melanie, and Silvie de Grasse, daughters
of the late Count de Grasse, respectively the sum of one thousand
dollars each.

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the said
resolution, and that Mr. AMES, Mr. MADISON, and Mr. GILMAN, do prepare
and bring in the same.


SATURDAY, February 21.

An engrossed bill authorizing the payment of four thousand dollars for
the use of the daughters of the late Count de Grasse, was read the third
time and passed.


TUESDAY, February 24.

_Case of Thomas Person and others._

It was moved that the House should go into consideration of the report
of the select committee to whom had been referred a resolution of the
House in relation to the back lands of North Carolina. The following is
the resolution of the select committee:

      "_Resolved_, That in case the President of the United
      States shall think proper to enter into a treaty or
      treaties with all or any of the Indian tribes claiming
      lands within the territory south of the river Ohio, for the
      extinguishment of their claims to all or any of the said
      lands, the sum of ---- dollars be, and the same is hereby,
      appropriated to the purpose of defraying the expenses of
      any such treaty or treaties."

Mr. GOODHUE did not see that the United States had any concern to
interfere in such a purchase: it was private property.

Mr. DAYTON explained that the petition of Thomas Person and others
comprehended only two millions of acres. The resolution contemplated
twenty millions. It will, when completed, enable the United States to
protect the Choctaws and Chickasaws from the Creeks and Cherokees, if
the latter should happen to attack them; and that they will attack the
Chickasaws is not improbable, from assistance which the latter have
given to the white people. Besides, the frontier will be capable of
defence, at a much cheaper rate, in this way than at present it can be.
It is now an irregular line. A peculiar circumstance, besides, will make
the lands easy to be purchased. No Indian tribes reside on them. When
the gentleman from Massachusetts considers these things, he will not
object, since the United States will gain eighteen millions of acres by
the transaction.

Mr. GOODHUE admitted the reasoning as to the eighteen millions, but
still scrupled as to the rest.

Mr. SWIFT recommended that the Indian claim should in the mean time be
extinguished.

Mr. MCDOWELL, in reply to Mr. GOODHUE, said that if the gentleman had
attended to the reasonings formerly used on this subject, and which had
occupied considerable time of the House during the present session, he
could have been at no loss for understanding the propriety of this
purchase being made by the United States.

A committee were named to bring in a bill, in terms of the resolution
recommended by the select committee.


WEDNESDAY, February 25.

_Indian Lands in Georgia._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the report of the committee to whom was referred so much of the message
from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of the seventeenth instant, as
relates to the disposition of Indian lands by the Legislature of the
State of Georgia.

Mr. AMES said, that during the time when the National Debt bill was
under discussion, he had attempted to get something introduced in favor
of the new emission money creditors, but gentlemen always rose _en
masse_ against any proposal that would tend to obstruct the progress of
the bill. He now again urged that this affair might be taken into
consideration. He knew he should be told of a standing rule of the House
that the unfinished business must first be taken up. These creditors had
waited for four years without redress, and the rules of the House ought
to give way to common feeling and common sense. He therefore moved that
the rule in question should be suspended.

The motion was negatived, and the House then went into a committee upon
the second and remaining resolutions in the report of the select
committee on the Message of the PRESIDENT.

The following is a copy of the third and fourth resolutions in this
report:

      "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
      authorized, whenever claims under prior contracts may cease
      to exist, to obtain a cession of the State of Georgia, of
      their claim to the whole or any part of the land within the
      present Indian boundaries; and that ---- dollars ought to
      be appropriated to enable him to effect the same.

      "_Resolved_, That all persons who shall be assembled, or
      embodied in arms, on any lands belonging to Indians, out of
      the ordinary jurisdiction of any State, or of the territory
      south of the river Ohio, for the purpose of warring against
      the Indians, or committing depredations upon any Indian
      town, or persons, or property, shall thereby become liable
      and subject to the rules and articles of war, which are, or
      shall be established for the government of the troops of
      the United States."

After some discussion, the committee rose; the Chairman reported
progress, and asked leave to sit again. This was negatived--yeas 33,
nays 35.

The House then took up the resolutions. Various amendments were
proposed; and the last resolution, in particular, was objected to, as
subjecting people to martial law.

Mr. WADSWORTH said, that from a trial by jury he had no hopes. There
never had been one instance of a white man condemned and hanged by white
men, on the frontier, for the murder of an Indian, since the first
landing in America. There might be such a thing for the murder of an
Indian, when they lived among the whites. That there ever had been such
a thing he did not know. He had been told by judges, upon the frontier,
that it was no matter what evidence of a murder of an Indian was
brought. No jury would bring the criminal in guilty. It was but very
lately that a cool and unprovoked murder had been committed on the
borders of this State upon an Indian. The evidence was clear. Nobody
pretended to doubt it. The judge gave an earnest charge to the jury; but
all to no purpose; they found "not guilty."

Mr. SEDGWICK proposed an amendment to the last resolution, as follows:

      "_Resolved_, That all persons who shall be assembled, or
      embodied in arms, on any lands belonging to Indians, out of
      the ordinary jurisdiction of any State, or of the territory
      south of the river Ohio, for the purpose of warring against
      the Indians, or of committing depredations against any
      Indian town, or persons, or property, shall thereby become
      liable and subject to be taken and confined by the military
      force of the United States, in such manner as to be made
      amenable to, and triable by law."

_Ordered_, That the said motion be committed to Mr. SEDGWICK, Mr.
MADISON, and Mr. HILLHOUSE.


FRIDAY, February 27.

_Indian Lands in Georgia._

The House then went into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. SHERBURNE in the
chair, on the report of the select committee to whom had been referred
the motion of the 25th instant, respecting such persons as shall be
assembled, or embodied in arms, on any lands belonging to Indians, out
of the ordinary jurisdiction of any State, or of the territory of the
United States south of the river Ohio. The resolutions are as follow:

      "_Resolved_, That all persons who, unauthorized by law, may
      be found in arms on any lands westward of the lines
      established by treaties with the Indian tribes, shall, on
      conviction thereof, forfeit a sum not exceeding ----
      dollars, and be imprisoned not exceeding ---- months.

      "_Resolved_, That it shall be lawful for the military force
      of the United States to apprehend every person or persons
      found in arms, as aforesaid, and him or them to convey to
      the civil authority of the United States, within some of
      the States, who shall, by such authority, be secured, to be
      tried in manner hereafter expressed.

      "_Resolved_, That every person apprehended, as aforesaid,
      shall be tried in manner and form as is expressed in and by
      the act, entitled, 'An act to regulate trade and
      intercourse with the Indian tribes.'"

Several amendments were proposed and agreed to. At last Mr. VENABLE
proposed one, which was, in substance, that persons should not be liable
to the operation of the law who were in pursuit of Indians that had
committed actual hostilities on the frontier.

Mr. SEDGWICK paid many compliments to Mr. VENABLE, as a sound lawyer,
who certainly knew that, by the inherent rights of nature, every man was
to pursue and punish those who had robbed him. This was implied in the
bill, and was a part of the law of nature, so that there could be no use
for its insertion.

Mr. VENABLE, in reply, declared that he was not so sound a lawyer as the
gentleman supposed him to be. He was not so sound a lawyer as to
discover that there was any such implication in the bill as the
gentleman stated. Neither was he a sound enough lawyer to see, that, if
his amendment was really implied in the bill, there could be any harm in
having it expressed. At present he could discover no such implication.
On the contrary, he saw very plainly, that, by the resolution as it now
stood, a man whose family had been murdered or carried off by the
savages, might, while pursuing them, be stopped and sent to jail. Mr.
V., from the admission of Mr. SEDGWICK himself, insisted on the
propriety of adopting his amendment.

Mr. HILLHOUSE objected to the permission of armed individuals crossing
the line, upon any pretence whatever. What use was there for expending
millions every year in defence of the frontier people, if they were to
be at liberty to cross the Indian line as often as they pleased, and to
do what was to all intents and purposes carrying on war? If they will
fight, let us recall our forces and leave them to fight for themselves.
Are they, for the stealing of a horse, or some such thing, to cross the
line in armed bodies, and act just as they please? Mr. H. utterly denied
the doctrine admitted by Mr. SEDGWICK, that a man was authorized to
chastise by his own hand those who had injured him. Was he to be both
judge and executioner in his own case? No such thing.

Mr. GREENUP said, that, in coming to Congress every year, he was obliged
to pass over territories belonging to Indians, and he always thought it
necessary to carry a gun. He did not see, by the resolution as it stood,
why the military officers of the United States might not stop him, as
well as other people.

Mr. MOORE objected to the clause altogether. It is usual for people on
the frontiers to send out parties over the line to watch the Indians,
and when they are coming to give notice, that the country may be
prepared for their reception. Now, these people may be seized by your
officers.

Mr. FINDLAY imagined it would be the best way to declare that there
shall be no frontier. It had been said by Mr. HILLHOUSE that the United
States might withdraw their forces, and leave the frontier settlers to
defend themselves. Did he imagine that, as it is, they are not kept in a
perpetual state of alarm, of exertion, and of danger? There has not been
a harvest for many years past where the people have not been called off
from their labors, and, to their very great loss, to protect the
frontier. This resolution not to allow pursuit, would be inviting the
Indians with a witness.

Mr. SEDGWICK said, that this amendment, in reality, destroyed all that
had been done or intended. No military officer, after such an amendment,
will run the risk of taking a man up. The prisoner has only to say, "I
am in pursuit of Indians," and then he must be set at liberty; for, in
the wilderness, no evidence can be had to contradict him. The amendment,
therefore, was a _coup de grace_ to the whole affair. Mr. S. said he was
personally extremely hurt at the constant complaints of the inefficiency
of the defence afforded on the frontier, which cost annually so much to
Government.

Mr. BLOUNT thought that the best way would be, to let it be known that
the whites were authorized to pursue the Indians into their own country,
and then they would stand more in awe. He mentioned a circumstance that
happened within memory, to prove how much the Indians feared a serious
attack, and how well they remembered a serious chastisement. Mr. B.
stated that some Indians had made an incursion, and were stealing cattle
belonging to the army, at a block-house. One of them was most deservedly
shot, and the soldier had his pay stopped.

Mr. HILLHOUSE said, the more that he thought of this amendment, the more
he saw its mischievous consequences. It went to invert all the laws that
had been made for the protection of the Indians; and, instead of being a
bill to protect them from the whites, the resolutions would produce a
bill to protect the whites from them.

Mr. SMILIE objected to Mr. SEDGWICK's having threatened that the army of
the United States should be withdrawn from the frontiers. [He had made
some other advances against that gentleman, to which Mr. SEDGWICK
answered not loud enough to be heard; but at this last, he arose, and
said that he would not sit still to hear himself thus quoted for
affirmations of which he had never uttered a single word.]

Mr. FITZSIMONS really hoped that the House would not agree to this
amendment. It would totally defeat all the effects proposed by the bill.
It had been said, that if a man had his family murdered, and he was in
pursuit of the murderers, he might be stopped by a military officer, and
sent to jail. The answer was, that if the officer refused to join him in
the pursuit, he would lose his commission. He should be sorry if those
resolutions, which had cost so much time and labor to the House, were
thus to be thrown away.

The amendment was, on a division, carried--yeas 36, nays 28. The
committee then rose.


SATURDAY, February 28.

_Indian Trading Houses._

It was moved that the House should resolve itself into a committee on
the bill for establishing trading houses for the purpose of supplying
the Indian nations within the territory of the United States. This was
done accordingly, Mr. SHERBURNE in the chair.

Mr. GILES then moved to strike out the first section.

Mr. GOODHUE wished to move that the committee rise; to which Mr. GILES
agreed. Mr. GOODHUE then said, that his reason for this motion was, the
inattention of members to the business before them. To attempt going
through the bill at present was a perfect farce. He was satisfied that
the bill would never go through this session. He did not, for his own
part, yet know whether it was proper or not.

Mr. PARKER said, that the bill had been long enough before the House for
the gentleman from Massachusetts to have made himself acquainted with
its contents and its merits. He vindicated the principle of the bill, as
tending to conciliate the affections of a distressed and unhappy people,
and as it might likewise prevent the expenses of a war with them.
France, Britain, and Spain, had adopted this policy, and found the good
effects of it. He considered the bill as of the utmost consequence, and,
thinking so, he should use his utmost influence to get it passed. The
expense proposed was not great, as the affair was only experimental.

Mr. MONTGOMERY was of the same opinion with the gentleman who spoke
last. He thought that the Indians had common sense enough not to quit
allies who supplied them with articles which they wanted, till we also
made some effectual establishment of that kind. The member went on the
same ground with the gentleman who spoke last.

Mr. BOUDINOT thought that the reason given by Mr. GOODHUE for moving
that the committee should rise, viz: that gentlemen would not attend to
their duty, was the worst imaginable. What did the House meet for at
all? It was the duty of the Chair to compel them to mind their business.
Mr. B. then referred to something which had been said by Mr. SWIFT, who
had been up just before Mr. BOUDINOT. Mr. B. in reply to this gentleman,
said, that he would not wish to press the bill this session if members
did not think it proper. He was willing, if agreeable, to refer the
matter for one year to the PRESIDENT. But there never would nor could be
a complete peace till something of this kind was done. The PRESIDENT
himself had told us as much.

Mr. GILES said, that the bill could not be got through this session. He
was willing to take the question either in the first way that he had
moved it, or in any other. This was a most improper time of the session
to bring it in.

Mr. MURRAY hoped that the committee would seriously attend to the first
clause in the bill, and would not rise. He felt the shortness of the
time, but he was willing to devote to-morrow (Sunday) to this subject,
and he trusted that the importance of it would give the employment a
solemnity not inconsistent with the day. Without a bill to establish a
well-guarded intercourse with the Indians, the frontier policy will be
unsystematic and despicable. To complete the system, it appeared to him
that three great objects are to be embraced: 1st. Force to protect the
frontier from Indian invasion--for this the Military Establishment is
made. 2d. A regulation, by law, that shall restrain the frontier people
from predatory invasion into the Indian country, carrying law and
settlement hand in hand. 3d. The establishment of trading houses under
the influence of the two first parts of the system, for the purpose of
conciliating the Indians by supplying their wants, and detaching their
habits of trade and their affections from a foreign nation. With these
three points embraced in one system, he had no doubt but their
co-operation would produce the great object, peace on the frontier.
Without the last, the other parts of the system would be totally
inefficient.

Mr. HILLHOUSE said, that the House ought to begin at the right end of
the subject, by reversing the vote which the committee passed
yesterday, authorizing the frontier people to pass the line in pursuit
of the Indians as often as they pleased. If this was allowed, it would
be impossible ever to keep peace.

On a division, shall the committee now rise? it was determined in the
affirmative--yeas 35, nays 31.

The question was then put by the SPEAKER, Shall the committee have leave
to sit again? It passed in the affirmative--yeas 34, nays 33.

But it was presently remarked, that some gentlemen had risen both in the
yeas and nays; others had been without the bar. The question was,
therefore, taken over again, and determined in the negative--yeas 36,
nays 41. The bill is, therefore, thrown out.

_Indian Lands in Georgia._

The House proceeded to consider the resolution and amendments thereto,
reported yesterday from the Committee of the whole House on the report
of the committee to whom was referred a motion of the 25th instant,
respecting such persons as shall be assembled or embodied in arms on any
lands belonging to Indians out of the ordinary jurisdiction of any
State, or of the territory of the United States south of the river Ohio:
Whereupon,

The first resolution being read, in the words following, to wit:

      "_Resolved_, That all persons who, unauthorized by law, and
      with hostile intent, may be found in arms on any lands
      allotted or secured to the Indians by treaties between the
      United States and any Indian tribes, shall, on conviction
      thereof, forfeit a sum not exceeding ---- dollars, and be
      imprisoned not exceeding ---- months."

And the amendment thereto, reported by the Committee of the whole House,
to add to the end thereof the words, "unless it shall be in immediate
pursuit of Indians, who shall have recently committed hostilities."

When the question was about to be taken on it, Mr. VENABLE rose and
pointed out the difference of opinion between two gentlemen who were
both opposed to his amendment. One of them (Mr. SEDGWICK) had maintained
that, when individual Indians, unauthorized by the rest of their tribe,
crossed the line and committed depredations, a settler was, by the law
of nations, authorized to pursue them across the line and to retaliate,
and that this was implied in the bill. Mr. HILLHOUSE had materially
differed from him, and agreed with Mr. VENABLE, in supposing that the
person so pursuing across the line was punishable by the resolution as
it stood, without the amendment. He then reminded the House that this
frontier line was, perhaps, fifteen hundred miles long. The Indians may
come over any part of it, while the citizens of the United States are
not to be allowed to cross it one mile in pursuit. Even a man in pursuit
of savages who may have carried off his wife and children, may be
stopped. The amendment he regarded as essential. Military officers may
judge on the spot whether such persons whom they meet beyond the line,
in pursuit of Indians, are within the sense of the act or not.

Mr. AMES denied that the resolution as it first stood took away the
right of a man to pursue the Indians, in order to recover his wife and
children. But the amendment of Mr. VENABLE went to legalize all those
acts of violence and revenge, that, for a century past, have deluged the
frontier with blood.

Mr. LYMAN vindicated the inhabitants of the frontier. If the Indians are
so unfortunate as to be the dupes of other nations, (viz: the Spaniards
and British,) that is not our fault. The frontier people, from time to
time, have done every thing in their power to keep them in peace.

Mr. HILLHOUSE opposed the amendment.

Mr. MCDOWELL said, that weekly and daily murders were committed by the
Creeks in the district of Mero and in the South-western Territory. Do
the United States avenge these murders? No. Do they demand back the
property carried off? No. Instead of any satisfaction to the people,
their characters are abused on this floor. The frontier people know that
their happiness consists in peace, and, therefore, cultivate it as much
as they can. He took a general view of the subject, and explained the
insignificance of the posts as at present held by the troops of the
United States for any purpose of protection. He noticed the inveterate
hatred of the Indians against the whites, and their innate thirst of
blood.

Mr. MOORE went on the same grounds.

Mr. GILES did not like the harsh style assumed by some gentlemen in
speaking of the frontier settlers. A hundred years hence these people
would preponderate over this part of the Continent. He represented an
Atlantic part of the Union, but, at the same time, he would carefully
avoid any thing that might offend the Western people. The first settlers
in this country were, when they first landed, frontier settlers. For his
own part, he believed that the war between the whites and the Indians
would be eternal. He said, that, from some intelligence received this
day, there was reason to believe that a war with the Creeks might soon
be expected.

Mr. WADSWORTH.--Gentlemen have a great disposition to husband our little
time, and I need not mention their manner of doing it. He said that he
was willing to grant protection to the frontiers, but not to give leave,
as by the amendment proposed, for an eternal war. He thought it
calculated to drive the gentlemen on each side of this question into
such opposite extremes, that they would never meet again upon the
subject. He was willing to grant any degree of protection, but nothing
for conquest. He said that the ancestors of the people now in the
Atlantic part of the country were once frontier people, and he believed
them to have been neither worse nor better than the present settlers,
who are in the same situation. We are told of murders and robberies
committed by the Indians; but the accounts of some of the officers
employed by Government vary a little from this, and give room to suspect
that there may be some error on both sides. He did not believe that this
amendment would pass; but, if it should do so, it would widen the
difference of opinion in the House.

Mr. PAGE was for the amendment.

Mr. CARNES could not conceive the reason why all regulations made in
this House were for Indians only, as if the whites were constantly the
aggressors. He asked if the Creeks performed a single tittle of the
treaty of New York, about which there had been so much parade? No. The
only design of Indians in making a peace is to get presents, for these
they always get. As soon as these are spent they commit a new set of
murders, in the hopes of another treaty. Thus they always have gone on,
and always will go on, from murders to treaties, and from treaties to
murders. Mr. C. complained that a gentleman from Maryland (Mr. MURRAY)
had some days ago called the frontier people semi-savages. He hoped that
such an expression would never again be used in that House. As to the
treaty of New York, he might be told that the Creeks restored a number
of women and children. He knew that; but he also knew that, before they
did so, the relations of those people were obliged to put their hands in
their pockets and pay large sums for their redemption, as the prisoners
would not have been delivered up in consequence of the treaty of New
York. This bill, without the amendment of Mr. VENABLE, would be an
encouragement to the savages to come over the line and murder with
impunity.

Mr. SCOTT was entirely in favor of the amendment. If the resolution
passes without the amendment houses will soon be smoking and blood
running. He believed that the subject in question was beyond the reach
of human wisdom to regulate. He thought that striking out the amendment
would only encourage the Indians to come in a body across the line. This
they were never afraid of doing. The only thing which they feared was a
pursuit, and this was to be effectually prevented by striking out the
amendment. Was there ever such a thing heard of before as that, when the
savages have carried off a man's wife and children, he must not be at
liberty to pursue them? It would be the most frightful thing imaginable
for the House to pass a law declaring such a pursuit criminal. Mr. S.
could figure a case where the farm of a settler might come close to the
Indian line, and the Indian might stand on the other side of the line
and shoot him, and his neighbors would not be at liberty to pursue the
murderer. Mr. S. said, that in that part of the country where he resided
(Washington county) nothing of this kind was to be feared, as the line
was at a sufficient distance from the cultivated lands, but there were
other places on the frontier of the United States where this might
happen. He said that no Christian nation had a right to ask better terms
than this amendment offered to the savages. Stay upon your own side of
the line and you are safe, but, if you cross over to us, we shall cross
over in pursuit of you. This was fair play. If the resolution passed
without the amendment, Mr. S. said that the Indians would immediately
encamp close on their side of the line, and lie in watch there for whole
months together, till they found a safe opportunity of crossing.

Mr. MURRAY said, he would make a remark or two on the criticism of the
gentleman from Georgia, who had felt affected by an expression of his a
few days since, when he called some of the people of the frontier
"semi-savages." He did so, and he felt the expression not inapplicable.
He confined the import of this expression exclusively to those upon the
frontier who lead an unstationary life--who press forward into the
deeper wilderness, by the new waves of advancing population, and live
the life of savages without their virtues. He begged leave to call the
gentleman's attention to a declaration of his own, last session, to
justify this expression, which he used more to designate a peculiar than
a general character of the people in the region to which he applied it.
The gentleman said, he did not value the lives of one hundred Indians as
much as the life of one white man, or words to that extent. [This was in
a debate just before the close of the last session. The words of Mr.
CARNES were, "I would not give the life of one white man for that of
fifty Indians."] Mr. MURRAY said, he had two points always in his view
when the frontier was a subject in that House--protection to the
frontier against the hostility of the Indians, and restraint upon the
whites to prevent the occasions of war against the savages. He had given
every testimony to the first by supporting every measure for their
defence; that he represented a district perfectly beyond the danger of
the Indians, was proof that he was actuated in his votes for
appropriation and force by no other motive than that which belonged to
every man there who supported the great principle of Government, that
the whole must protect the parts. He wished to see such a system
established, combining these two points, as would give complete
protection against the Indians, and yet restrain the whites from
violating peace. He wished to see the day when the arms of the
Government might, without a crime, strike a whole tribe, if that tribe
or its members waged war on the frontiers. But, to do this, it was
necessary to place our relative situation so as that justice might be
secured. He wished to adopt a regulation like the present, to prevent
our fellow-citizens from the gratification of private revenge, the
source from whence so much blood is shed. In order to justify exemplary
punishment on Indian tribes, you must first be in a situation to
restrain the whites from doing injustice to them. You must do what all
nations have done, when, from the general or local state of
civilization, private war disturbs public tranquillity--you must
restrain the right of private war, by placing the power of vengeance out
of the reach of individuals, and in the hands of Government. Nor did
this idea go at all to restrain that inalienable right of resistance
against imminent danger, which was sanctioned by the law of nature. The
picture drawn by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. SCOTT,) with his
accustomed ability and force, was certainly an interesting one--were an
encampment of Indians to be heard in the woods near a settlement, after
any evidence of hostility, he did not doubt but the neighbors would be
perfectly justifiable in changing the scene of blood from the cottage to
the camp--if the amendment which actually arms all the passions of
revenge with the rights of law, be rejected, you will attain one of the
great objects of frontier policy--the ability to restrain the right of
private war, from which public war arises as a consequence. The
Government will, when this ability to restrain is complete, become
responsible for the protection of the whites against the savages. Until
that is accomplished, he did not believe Government could, either in
justice or policy, expend treasure or use force, when uncertain of the
justice of the cause. He therefore hoped that the amendment would be
rejected.

Mr. FINDLAY was for the amendment, and mentioned several examples to
prove the cruelty and perfidy of the Indians.

The amendment itself was in these words: "Unless it shall be in
immediate pursuit of the Indians who have recently committed
hostilities."

Mr. MADISON did not think the question explicit; he therefore proposed
another, which was to prevent the pursuers from coming within a certain
number of miles of an Indian town. He was extremely doubtful whether his
amendment or any other would effectually answer the end proposed. He was
convinced that no law of any kind would be able to hinder people from
crossing the line in pursuit of Indians, who might have carried off
their families.

Mr. HARPER said, that however little time the House had to spare, and
however long the discussion might have been, he could not help
trespassing on their patience for a short time to deliver his
sentiments, as he thought himself tolerably acquainted with the subject.
He expressly denied that the Indians ever committed any murder without
previous provocation. The process is shortly this: An Indian crosses the
line and steals a horse. And as long as Indians exist they will always
steal horses. The man to whom the horse belonged collects as many of his
neighbors as he thinks sufficient, pursues the Indian, and, not
contented with recovering his horse, he kills the thief. The Indians,
who have no such sacred ideas of property, immediately come over the
line, and in revenge murder a number of innocent people. Indian murders
are not unprovoked. They are not of that stamp. Mr. H. considered the
amendment of Mr. VENABLE as a source of endless confusion. Any man, if
it passed, might cross the Indian line as often as he thought proper,
and say that he was in pursuit of Indians with prisoners. I undertake,
(said he,) if you will give me a hundred dollars, to go to the frontier
and get a witness who will come into a Court of Justice and swear that
on such a day ten Indians came over the line in arms. Mr. H. said he was
personally acquainted with the frontiers. He had a high respect for the
inhabitants, there were many very worthy people among them; but likewise
many others of a very different kind. This amendment will set open a
door to all sorts of fraud and mischief. Mr. H. honored the sentiments
of patriotism that gave rise to it, but he could not possibly agree to
the propriety of its insertion.

Mr. WHITE, the member from the South-western Territory, said, that he
had to complain of the slaughter of near four hundred citizens under the
auspices of your Government. He felt himself much affected, and as to
the doctrine of Indian killing, only in retaliation, he denied it
altogether. The love of blood was hereditary in them. When the gentleman
says that with a hundred dollars in his pocket, he can find ten men on
the frontiers--[Mr. HARPER explained, that he only said he could find a
witness.] Well, (said Mr. W.) if the gentleman did not mean a reflection
on the frontiers, he meant nothing at all. I know not how well the
gentleman may be practised in the arts of subornation, but I myself know
of no such man. [Mr. HARPER.--I expected the gentleman would confine
himself to a decent answer.] Mr. W. proceeded to observe that no man
acquainted with the frontiers would have made any such assertion as the
gentleman had done. He was likewise extremely surprised at the gentleman
from Maryland, for having persisted in affirming that many of the
frontier people were semi-savages.

The yeas and nays were now taken on the amendment, which was lost by a
majority of 7--yeas 39, nays 46, as follows:

      YEAS.--James Armstrong, Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin,
      Thomas Blount, Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel Christie, Thomas
      Claiborne, William J. Dawson, George Dent, Samuel Dexter,
      Gabriel Duvall, Benjamin Edwards, William Findlay,
      Christopher Greenup, William B. Grove, George Hancock,
      Carter B. Harrison, John Heath, William Irvine, Matthew
      Locke, William Lyman, Nathaniel Macon, Joseph Mcdowell,
      Alexander Mebane, William Montgomery, Andrew Moore, Peter
      Muhlenberg, Joseph Neville, Anthony New, Alexander D. Orr,
      John Page, Thomas Scott, John Smilie, Thomas Sprigg, Thos.
      Tredwell, Philip Van Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, Francis
      Walker, Richard Winn, and Joseph Winston.

      NAYS.--Fisher Ames, John Beatty, Elias Boudinot,
      Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Lambert Cadwalader,
      David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Joshua Coit, Henry Dearborn,
      Thomas Fitzsimons, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas
      Gilman, Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Robert
      Goodloe Harper, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Samuel
      Holten, John Hunter, Aaron Kitchell, John Wilkes Kittera,
      Amasa Learned, James Madison, Francis Malbone, William Vans
      Murray, Nathaniel Niles, Andrew Pickens, Theodore Sedgwick,
      John S. Sherburne, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, Wm. Smith,
      Zephaniah Swift, George Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, Jonathan
      Trumbull, John E. Van Allen, Peter Van Gaasbeck, Peleg
      Wadsworth, Jeremiah Wadsworth, John Watts, Benjamin
      Williams, and Paine Wingate.

Mr. GILES, who had been in the House during the whole debate, had gone
out just before the question was put, and returning immediately after
the names had been called, asked leave to vote. The rule of the House
was read by the SPEAKER, which is that no member shall vote who was not
present at putting of the question. Mr. G., on this account, was not
allowed a vote.

Mr. CARNES then moved to amend the said resolution by adding to the end
thereof the following words:

      "Unless it shall be in continuation of a pursuit to a
      distance not exceeding ---- miles beyond the line of the
      particular Indians who shall have recently committed
      murder, or may be carrying off captives or plunder."

It was resolved in the affirmative.

The said resolution, as amended, was then again read, and agreed to by
the House, as follows:

_Resolved_, That all persons who, unauthorized by law, and with hostile
intent, may be found in arms on any lands allotted or secured to the
Indians by treaties between the United States and any Indian tribes,
shall, on conviction thereof, forfeit a sum not exceeding ---- dollars,
and be imprisoned not exceeding ---- months, unless it shall be in
continuation of a pursuit to a distance not exceeding ---- miles beyond
the line of the particular Indians who shall have recently committed
murder, or may be carrying off captives or plunder.

The second resolution being again read, and amended, was, on the
question put thereupon, agreed to by the House, as follows:

_Resolved_, That it shall be lawful for the military force of the United
States to apprehend every person or persons found in arms as aforesaid,
and him or them to convey to the civil authority of the United States,
within some one of the States, who shall, by such authority, be secured
to be tried in manner and form as is provided in and by the act
entitled, "An act to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian
tribes:" _Provided_, that no person shall be confined after his arrest,
and before his removal, more than ---- days.

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the said
resolutions, and that Mr. SEDGWICK, Mr. MADISON, and Mr. HILLHOUSE, do
prepare, and bring in the same.


TUESDAY, March 3.

_Adjournment._

_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that this
House, having completed the business before them, are now about to
adjourn without day; and that the Clerk of this House do go with the
said message.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have
appointed a committee, on their part, jointly, with such committee as
may be appointed on the part of this House, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, and inform him that Congress is ready to adjourn
without day, unless he may have any further communications to make to
them.

The House proceeded to consider the said message: Whereupon,

_Resolved_, That this House doth agree to the resolution of the Senate
for the appointment of a joint committee of the two Houses, to wait on
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and inform him of the intended
recess of Congress; and that Mr. BOUDINOT, Mr. SEDGWICK, and Mr.
TRUMBULL, be of the committee appointed on the part of this House.

On a motion made and seconded,

      "That the thanks of this House be presented to Frederick
      Augustus Muhlenberg, in testimony of their approbation of
      his conduct in discharging the arduous and important duties
      assigned him while in the chair:"

It was resolved unanimously: Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER made his
acknowledgments to the House in manner following:

      "GENTLEMEN: I feel myself highly honored by this
      distinguished mark of your approbation of my conduct in the
      station you were pleased to assign unto me; and although I
      am conscious that my feeble efforts do not merit so
      precious a reward, yet permit me to assure you that it has
      made a lasting impression on my mind, and I shall ever
      esteem it with the most unfeigned satisfaction.

      "Gentlemen, I sincerely thank you; may every happiness
      attend you; may you long continue to enjoy the confidence
      of your fellow-citizens; and may you meet with their just
      applause of having deserved well of your country."

Mr. BOUDINOT, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and inform him of the intended recess of
Congress, reported that the committee had performed that service, and
that the PRESIDENT signified to them that he had no further
communication to make during the present session: Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER
adjourned the House _sine die_.




FOURTH CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION.

HELD IN THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, DECEMBER 7, 1795.

LIST OF MEMBERS.


SENATORS.

_New Hampshire._--John Langdon, S. Livermore.

_Vermont._--Elijah Paine, Moses Robinson.

_Massachusetts._--George Cabot, Caleb Strong.

_Rhode Island._--William Bradford, Theodore Foster.

_Connecticut._--Oliver Ellsworth, Jonathan Trumbull.

_New York._--Aaron Burr, Rufus King.

_New Jersey._--F. Frelinghuysen, John Rutherford.

_Pennsylvania._--William Bingham, James Ross.

_Delaware._--Henry Latimer, John Vining.

_Maryland._--John Henry, Richard Potts.

_Virginia._--Stevens T. Mason, Henry Tazewell.

_North Carolina._--Timothy Bloodworth, Alexander Martin.

_South Carolina._--Pierce Butler, Jacob Read.

_Georgia._--James Gunn, George Walton.

_Kentucky._--John Brown, Humphrey Marshall.

REPRESENTATIVES.

_New Hampshire._--Abiel Foster, Nicholas Gilman, J. S. Sherburne,
Jeremiah Smith, Paine Wingate.

_Vermont._--Daniel Buck, Israel Smith.

_Massachusetts._--Fisher Ames, Theop. Bradbury, Henry Dearborn, Dwight
Foster, Nathaniel Freeman, Benjamin Goodhue, George Leonard, Samuel
Lyman, William Lyman, John Read, T. Sedgwick, George Thatcher, Joseph B.
Varnum, P. Wadsworth.

_Rhode Island._--Benjamin Bourne, Francis Malbone.

_Connecticut._--Joshua Coit, C. Goodrich, Roger Griswold, James
Hillhouse, Nathaniel Smith, Zephaniah Swift, Uriah Tracy.

_New York._--Theodorus Bailey, William Cooper, Ezekiel Gilbert, Henry
Glenn, John Hathorn, J. N. Havens, E. Livingston, John E. Van Allen,
Philip Van Cortlandt, John Williams.

_New Jersey._--Jonathan Dayton, Thomas Henderson, Aaron Kitchell, Isaac
Smith, Mark Thompson.

_Pennsylvania._--David Bard, George Ege, William Findlay, Albert
Gallatin, Andrew Gregg, Thomas Hartley, Daniel Heister, John W. Kittera,
Samuel Maclay, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, John Richards, Samuel
Sitgreaves, John Swanwick, Richard Thomas.

_Delaware._--John Paton.

_Maryland._--Gabriel Christie, Jeremiah Crabb, George Dent, Gabriel
Duvall, William Hindman, Samuel Smith, Thomas Sprigg, William Vans
Murray.

_Virginia._--Richard Brent, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, John
Clopton, Isaac Coles, William B. Giles, George Hancock, Carter B.
Harrison, John Heath, John George Jackson, Andrew Moore, Anthony New,
John Nicholas, John Page, Josiah Parker, Francis Preston, Robert
Rutherford, A. B. Venable.

_North Carolina._--Thomas Blount, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Jesse
Franklin, James Gillespie, William B. Grove, James Holland, Matthew
Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Absalom Tatom.

_South Carolina._--Lemuel Benton, Samuel Earle, Wade Hampton, R. G.
Harper, William Smith, Richard Winn.

_Georgia._--A. Baldwin, John Milledge.

_Tennessee._--Andrew Jackson.

_Kentucky._--Christopher Greenup.


PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.


MONDAY, December 7, 1795.

The following Senators appeared, and took their seats:

JOHN LANGDON and SAMUEL LIVERMORE, from New Hampshire.

CALEB STRONG and GEORGE CABOT, from Massachusetts.

THEODORE FOSTER, from Rhode Island.

OLIVER ELLSWORTH and JONATHAN TRUMBULL, from Connecticut.

MOSES ROBINSON, from Vermont.

RUFUS KING, from New York.

JAMES ROSS and WILLIAM BINGHAM, from Pennsylvania.

HENRY LATIMER, from Delaware.

HENRY TAZEWELL and STEVENS T. MASON, from Virginia.

ALEXANDER MARTIN and TIMOTHY BLOODWORTH, from North Carolina.

PIERCE BUTLER and JACOB READ, from South Carolina.

The VICE PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceeded to the election of
a PRESIDENT _pro tempore_, as the constitution provides, and HENRY
TAZEWELL was duly elected.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, and acquaint him that a quorum of the Senate is assembled, and
that, in the absence of the VICE PRESIDENT, they have elected HENRY
TAZEWELL President _pro tempore_.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives that
a quorum of the Senate is assembled, and ready to proceed to business;
and that, in the absence of the VICE PRESIDENT, they have elected HENRY
TAZEWELL President _pro tempore_.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. READ and CABOT be a joint committee on the part
of the Senate, together with such committee as the House of
Representatives may appoint on their part, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, and notify him that a quorum of the two Houses is
assembled, and ready to receive any communications that he may be
pleased to make to them.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that a
quorum of the House is assembled; that they have elected JONATHAN DAYTON
their Speaker; and that they have concurred in the appointment of a
joint committee to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and
acquaint him that the two Houses of Congress are assembled, and are
ready to receive any communications that he may be pleased to lay before
them.

Mr. READ, from the joint committee appointed for that purpose, reported
that they had waited on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and had
notified him that a quorum of the two Houses of Congress were assembled;
and the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES acquainted the committee that he
would meet the two Houses in the Representatives' Chamber at 12 o'clock
to-morrow.


TUESDAY, December 8.

HUMPHREY MARSHALL, from the State of Kentucky, attended.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the
House are now ready to meet the Senate in the Chamber of that House, to
receive such communications as the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES shall
be pleased to make to them.

Whereupon, the Senate repaired to the Chamber of the House of
Representatives for the purpose above expressed.

The Senate then returned to their own Chamber, and a copy of the Speech
of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to both Houses of Congress was
read, as follows:

      _Fellow-Citizens of the Senate, and of the House of
      Representatives:_

      I trust I do not deceive myself, while I indulge the
      persuasion that I have never met you at any period, when,
      more than at the present, the situation of our public
      affairs has afforded just cause for mutual congratulation,
      and for inviting you to join with me in profound gratitude
      to the Author of all good for the numerous and
      extraordinary blessings we enjoy.

      The termination of the long, expensive, and distressing war
      in which we have been engaged with certain Indians
      north-west of the Ohio, is placed in the option of the
      United States, by a treaty which the commander of our army
      has concluded, provisionally, with the hostile tribes in
      that region.

      In the adjustment of the terms, the satisfaction of the
      Indians was deemed an object worthy no less of the policy
      than of the liberality of the United States, as the
      necessary basis of durable tranquillity. The object, it is
      believed, has been fully attained. The articles agreed upon
      will immediately be laid before the Senate, for their
      consideration.

      Contemplating the internal situation, as well as the
      external relations, of the United States, we discover equal
      cause for contentment and satisfaction. While many of the
      nations of Europe, with their American dependencies, have
      been involved in a contest unusually bloody, exhausting,
      and calamitous; in which the evils of foreign war have been
      aggravated by domestic convulsions and insurrection; in
      which many of the arts most useful to society have been
      exposed to discouragement and decay; in which scarcity of
      subsistence has embittered other sufferings; while even the
      anticipations of a return of the blessings of peace and
      repose are alloyed by the sense of heavy and accumulating
      burdens which press upon all the departments of industry,
      and threaten to clog the future springs of Government; our
      favored country, happy in a striking contrast, has enjoyed
      general tranquillity--a tranquillity the more satisfactory,
      because maintained at the expense of no duty. Faithful to
      ourselves, we have violated no obligation to others. Our
      agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, prosper beyond
      former example; the molestations of our trade (to prevent a
      continuance of which, however, very pointed remonstrances
      have been made) being overbalanced by the aggregate
      benefits which it derives from a neutral position. Our
      population advances with a celerity which, exceeding the
      most sanguine calculations, proportionally augments our
      strength and resources, and guarantees our future security.
      Every part of the Union displays indications of rapid and
      various improvement; and with burdens so light as scarcely
      to be perceived; with resources fully adequate to our
      present exigencies; with Governments founded on the genuine
      principles of rational liberty; and with mild and wholesome
      laws--is it too much to say, that our country exhibits a
      spectacle of national happiness never surpassed, if ever
      before equalled?

      _Gentlemen:_

      Among the objects which will claim your attention in the
      course of the session, a review of our Military
      Establishment is not the least important. It is called for
      by the events which have changed, and may be expected still
      further to change, the relative situation of our frontiers.
      In this review, you will doubtless allow due weight to the
      considerations that the questions between us and certain
      foreign powers are not yet finally adjusted; that the war
      in Europe is not yet terminated; and that our Western
      posts, when recovered, will demand provision for
      garrisoning and securing them. A statement of our present
      military force will be laid before you by the Department
      of War.

      With the review of our army establishment is naturally
      connected that of the militia. It will merit inquiry, what
      imperfections in the existing plan further experience may
      have unfolded. The subject is of so much moment, in my
      estimation, as to excite a constant solicitude that the
      consideration of it may be renewed until the greatest
      attainable perfection shall be accomplished. Time is
      wearing away some advantages for forwarding the object,
      while none better deserves the persevering attention of the
      public councils.

      While we indulge the satisfaction which the actual
      condition of our Western borders so well authorizes, it is
      necessary that we should not lose sight of an important
      truth, which continually receives new confirmations,
      namely: that the provisions heretofore made with a view to
      the protection of the Indians from the violences of the
      lawless part of our frontier inhabitants are insufficient.
      It is demonstrated that these violences can now be
      perpetrated with impunity; and it can need no argument to
      prove, that, unless the murdering of Indians can be
      restrained by bringing the murderers to condign punishment,
      all the exertions of the Government to prevent destructive
      retaliations by the Indians will prove fruitless, and all
      our present agreeable prospects illusory. The frequent
      destruction of innocent women and children, who are chiefly
      the victims of retaliation, must continue to shock
      humanity, and an enormous expense to drain the Treasury of
      the Union.

      To enforce upon the Indians the observance of justice, it
      is indispensable that there shall be competent means of
      rendering justice to them. If these means can be devised by
      the wisdom of Congress, and especially if there can be
      added an adequate provision for supplying the necessities
      of the Indians, on reasonable terms--a measure, the mention
      of which I the more readily repeat, as in all the
      conferences with them they urge it with solicitude--I
      should not hesitate to entertain a strong hope of rendering
      our tranquillity permanent. I add, with pleasure, that the
      probability even of their civilization is not diminished by
      the experiments which have been thus far made under the
      auspices of Government. The accomplishment of this work, if
      practicable, will reflect undecaying lustre on our national
      character, and administer the most grateful consolations
      that virtuous minds can know.

      _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_

      The state of our revenue, with the sums which have been
      borrowed and reimbursed pursuant to different acts of
      Congress, will be submitted from the proper Department,
      together with an estimate of the appropriations necessary
      to be made for the service of the ensuing year.

      Whether measures may not be advisable to re-enforce the
      provision for the redemption of the public debt, will
      naturally engage your examination. Congress have
      demonstrated their sense to be, and it were superfluous to
      repeat mine, that whatsoever will tend to accelerate the
      honorable extinction of our public debt, accords as much
      with the true interest of our country as with the general
      sense of our constituents.

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of
      Representatives:_

      The statements which will be laid before you relative to
      the Mint will show the situation of that institution, and
      the necessity of some further Legislative provisions for
      carrying the business of it more completely into effect,
      and for checking abuses which appear to be arising in
      particular quarters.

      The progress of providing materials for the frigates, and
      in building them; the state of the fortifications of our
      harbors; the measures which have been pursued for obtaining
      proper sites for arsenals, and for replenishing our
      magazines with military stores; and the steps which have
      been taken towards the execution of the law for opening a
      trade with the Indians--will likewise be presented for the
      information of Congress.

      Temperate discussion of the important subjects which may
      arise in the course of the session, and mutual forbearance
      where there is a difference of opinion, are too obvious and
      necessary for the peace, happiness, and welfare of our
      country, to need any recommendation of mine.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.

      UNITED STATES, _December_ 8, 1795.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. KING, ELLSWORTH, and CABOT, be a committee to
report the draft of an Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in
answer to his Speech this day to both Houses of Congress.


WEDNESDAY, December 9.

The VICE PRESIDENT of the United States attended.

The following motion was made by Mr. MARTIN:

      "_Resolved_, That, in conformity to a resolution of the
      Senate of the United States, passed the 20th day of
      February, 1794, the gallery of the Senate Chamber be
      permitted to be opened every morning, subject to the
      restrictions therein mentioned, a suitable gallery having
      been erected and provided in the Senate Chamber, in the
      late recess of Congress, for that purpose."

And, the motion being amended, it was

_Resolved_, That, in conformity to a resolution of the Senate of the
United States, passed the 20th day of February, 1794, the gallery of the
Senate Chamber be permitted to be opened every morning, subject to the
restrictions in said resolution mentioned.


THURSDAY, December 10.

JOHN BROWN, from the State of Kentucky, and FREDERICK FRELINGHUYSEN,
from the State of New Jersey, severally attended.

Mr. KING, from the committee appointed for that purpose, reported the
draft of an Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in answer to
his Speech to both Houses of Congress, at the opening of the session,
which was read, and ordered to lie for consideration until to-morrow.


FRIDAY, December 11.

ELIJAH PAINE, from the State of Vermont, attended.

_Address to the President._

The Senate took into consideration the report made by the committee, of
an Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in answer to his
Speech to both Houses of Congress, at the opening of the session, which
is as follows:

      SIR: It is with peculiar satisfaction that we are informed
      by your Speech to the two Houses of Congress, that the long
      and expensive war in which we have been engaged with the
      Indians north-west of the Ohio is in a situation to be
      finally terminated; and, though we view with concern the
      danger of an interruption of the peace so recently
      confirmed with the Creeks, we indulge the hope, that the
      measures that you have adopted to prevent the same, if
      followed by those Legislative provisions that justice and
      humanity equally demand, will succeed in laying the
      foundation of a lasting peace with the Indian tribes on the
      Southern as well as on the Western frontiers.

      The confirmation of our Treaty with Morocco, and the
      adjustment of a Treaty of Peace with Algiers, in
      consequence of which our captive fellow-citizens shall be
      delivered from slavery, are events that will prove no less
      interesting to the public humanity than they will be
      important in extending and securing the navigation and
      commerce of our country.

      As a just and equitable conclusion of our depending
      negotiations with Spain will essentially advance the
      interest of both nations, and thereby cherish and confirm
      the good understanding and friendship which we have at all
      times desired to maintain, it will afford us real pleasure
      to receive an early confirmation of our expectations on
      this subject.

      The interesting prospect of our affairs, with regard to the
      foreign powers between whom and the United States
      controversies have subsisted, is not more satisfactory than
      the review of our internal situation: if from the former we
      derive an expectation of the extinguishment of all the
      causes of external discord that have heretofore endangered
      our tranquillity, and on terms consistent with our national
      honor and safety, in the latter we discover those numerous
      and wide-spread tokens of prosperity which, in so peculiar
      a manner, distinguish our happy country.

      Circumstances thus every way auspicious demand our
      gratitude, and sincere acknowledgments to Almighty God, and
      require that we should unite our efforts in imitation of
      your enlightened, firm, and persevering example, to
      establish and preserve the peace, freedom, and prosperity
      of our country.

      The objects which you have recommended to the notice of the
      Legislature will, in the course of the session, receive our
      careful attention, and, with a true zeal for the public
      welfare, we shall cheerfully co-operate in every measure
      that shall appear to us best calculated to promote the
      same.

                                  JOHN ADAMS,

        _Vice President of the United States,
                 and President of the Senate._

The Address was taken up by paragraphs.

The fourth and fifth paragraphs were moved to be struck out by Mr.
MASON.[60]

Mr. MASON observed, that he had hoped nothing contained in the Address
reported as an answer to the PRESIDENT's Speech, would have been such as
to force the Senate to precipitate decisions. The two clauses he
objected to disappointed him in that hope. They were calculated to bring
again into view the important subject which occupied the Senate during
their June session. This he conceived could answer no good purpose; the
minority on that occasion were not now to be expected to recede from the
opinions they then held, and they could not therefore join in the
indirect self-approbation which the majority appeared to wish for, and
which was most certainly involved in the two clauses which he should
hope would be struck out. If his motion were agreed to, the remainder of
the Address would, in his opinion, stand unexceptionable. He did not
see, for his part, that our situation was every way auspicious.
Notwithstanding the treaty, our trade is grievously molested.

Mr. KING observed, that the principal features observable in the answer
reported to the PRESIDENT's Address, were to keep up that harmony of
intercourse which ought to subsist between the Legislature and the
PRESIDENT, and to express confidence in the undiminished firmness and
love of country which always characterize our chief Executive
Magistrate. He objected to striking out especially the first clause,
because founded on undeniable truth. It only declares that our
prospects, as to our external relations, are not more satisfactory than
a review of our internal situation would prove. Was not this
representation true, he asked; could it be controverted? This clause, he
contended, contained nothing reasonably objectionable; it did not say as
much as the second, to which only most of the objections of the member
up before him applied, an answer to which he should defer, expecting
that a question would be put on each in order.

The Chair requested that the motion should be reduced to writing. Mr.
MASON accordingly reduced it to writing, and it went to striking out
both clauses at once.

Mr. MASON agreed most cordially that the situation of our external
relations were not more a cause of joy than our situation at home. But
the obvious meaning of the clause, he conceived, was an indirect
approval of our situation relative to external concerns; and to this he
could not give his assent, as he did not consider their aspect as
prosperous or auspicious.

Mr. BUTLER said, that when the committee was appointed to draft an
answer, he hoped they would have used such general terms as to have
secured a unanimous vote. He was willing to give the Chief Magistrate
such an answer as respect to his station entitled him to, but not such a
one as would do violence to his regard for the constitution and his duty
to his constituents. He could not approve of long and detailed answers,
however unexceptionable the Speech might be in matter, and however
respectable the character might be from whom it came. He had hoped, from
the peculiar situation of the country, and of the Senate, that nothing
would have been brought forward in the answer, on the subject which
agitated the June Executive session, calculated to wound the feelings of
members. He had been disappointed; it was evident that some members of
the Senate could not give their voice in favor of the Address in its
present shape, without involving themselves in the most palpable
inconsistency.

He had long since, for his own part, declared himself against every
article of the treaty, because in no instance is it bottomed on
reciprocity, the only honorable basis. After this declaration, how could
he, or those who coincided in opinion with him, agree to the present
Address without involving themselves in the most palpable inconsistency?

The sentence objected to, notwithstanding the explanation of the
gentleman from New York, appeared to him so worded as to lead the
citizens at large to believe that the spoliations on our commerce were
drawing to a fortunate close. This was not, he conceived, warranted by
the existing state of things. Indeed, he protested, he knew no more of
the actual situation of the treaty negotiation than the remotest farmer
in the Union; could he then declare, he asked, that it was drawing to a
happy close? Indeed, from the latest information received, far from our
situation having been ameliorated by the negotiations of our Executive,
he conceived our trade as much in jeopardy as ever.

As to the internal prosperity, he owned there was some cause for
congratulation; but even in this his conviction could not carry him as
far as the clauses in the Address seemed to go. In a pecuniary point of
view, the country had made a visible progress; but he saw in it no basis
of permanent prosperity. There were no circumstances attendant on it
that gave a fair hope that the prosperity would be permanent. The chief
cause of our temporary pecuniary prosperity is the war in Europe, which
occasions the high prices our produce at present commands; when that is
terminated, those advantageous prices will of course fall.

Mr. B. now came to speak of the second objectional clause. He regretted
whenever a question was brought forward that involved personality in the
most indirect manner. He wished always to speak to subjects unconnected
with men; but the wording of the clause was unfortunately such as to
render allusion to official character unavoidable. He objected
principally to the epithet _firm_, introduced into the latter clause, as
applied to the Supreme Executive. Why _firmness_? he asked. To what? or
to whom? Is it the _manly_ demand of restitution made of Great Britain
for her accumulated injuries that called forth the praise? for his own
part he could discern no firmness there. Is it for the _undaunted_ and
_energetic_ countenance of the cause of France, in her struggle for
freeing herself from despotic shackles? He saw no _firmness_ displayed
on that occasion. Where then is it to be found? Was it in the opposition
to the minority of the Senate and the general voice of the people
against the treaty that that _firmness_ was displayed? If it is that
_firmness_ in opposing the will of the people, which is intended to be
extolled, the vote shall never, said Mr. B., leave the walls of the
Senate with _my_ approbation.

Mr. READ said, he was not in the habit of giving a silent vote, and, as
many of his constituents were adverse to the instrument to which he had
given his assent, he thought this a fit opportunity to say something on
the subject.

Gentlemen on the other side had spoken of their feelings; did they
suppose, he asked, that those who were in the majority had not feelings?
Also, gentlemen declared they would not recede from their former
determinations; did they expect that the majority would recede?

He had, he said, taken the question of the treaty in all its aspects,
and considered it maturely, and though he lamented that he differed in
opinion on that subject with his colleague, and a portion of the people
of his State, he nevertheless remained convinced that the ratification
of it was advisable: it rescued the country from war and its desolating
horrors.

After reading that part of the PRESIDENT's Speech to which the clauses
objected to were an echo, he asked, whether any one could say, under the
conviction that the measures of Government had prevented a war, that our
view of foreign relations was not consolatory? On all hands, he
observed, the idea of a war was deprecated; both sides of the House
wished to avoid it; then is it not a consolatory reflection to all that
its horrors have been averted? Is there a man who does not believe that,
had the treaty not been ratified, we should have had war? If the country
had been plunged into a war, would it be as flourishing as it is?

The trifling vexations our commerce has sustained are not to compare to
the evils of hostility. What good end could have been answered by a war?
The Address, in the part under discussion, says no more than that we
rejoice at the prospect that the blessings of peace will be preserved;
and does not this expectation exist?

Great Britain, in the plenitude of her power, had availed herself of the
right she had under the law of nations, of seizing enemies' goods in
neutral vessels; but has allowed compensation to some Americans, and a
system of mild measures on our part is the best security for further.

But the Senate and the PRESIDENT are the constitutional treaty-making
powers. If mistaken in their decisions, they cannot be accused of having
been misled by sudden and immatured impressions. He should conceive
himself unfit to fill a chair in the Senate, if he suffered himself to
be carried away by such impressions. The people could not, in their town
meetings, deprived of proper information, possibly form an opinion that
deserved weight, and it was the duty of the Executive not to be shaken
in their determination by tumultuous proceedings from without. Upon this
ground he much approved the PRESIDENT's conduct, and thought it entitled
to the epithet, firm.

In local questions, affecting none but the interest of his constituents,
he should attend to their voice, but on great national points, he did
not consider himself as a Representative from South Carolina, but as a
Senator for the Union. In questions of this last kind, even if the
wishes of his constituents were unequivocally made known to him, he
should not conceive himself bound to sacrifice his opinions to theirs.
He viewed the PRESIDENT as standing in this situation, and though he
might hear the opinions of the people from every part of the United
States, he should not sacrifice to them his own conviction; in this line
of conduct he has shown his firmness, and deserves to be complimented
for it by the Senate.

Mr. ELLSWORTH was opposed to striking out. The clause records a fact,
and if struck out, the Senate deny it. The PRESIDENT asserts it; in the
Address reported, the Senate assent; a motion is made to strike out; is
it because the truth of it is doubted? It cannot be called an
unimportant fact, therefore its omission will not be imputed to
oversight. The latter part of the clause expresses our gratitude to
Almighty God. Will the Senate refuse to make an acknowledgment of that
kind? Do they not admit that He is the source of all good, and can they
refuse to acknowledge it? And if so, is it possible that, in admitting
the fact and expressing the sentiment, which so naturally flows from it,
the Senate should wound the feelings of any friend to his country?

The truth of the fact is as clear as that the sun now shines; the
sentiment is unexceptionable; he, therefore, recommended to his friend
the mover, not to insist upon striking out merely, but that he should
vary the motion, and propose a substitute.

To bring the mind to the point with precision, it was necessary to
attend to the wording of the clause. He read it. As to the signification
of that part which relates to our foreign concerns, he did not consider
it as hypothetical, but a positive declaration of a conviction that
their situation is satisfactory, and on that ground he wished to meet
the question.

The clause objected to expresses an expectation that the causes of
external disagreement which have unhappily existed, will be peaceably
done away. He said he had that expectation; many have it not. Those who
have it not will negative the clause; those who have it will vote in its
favor; the result will be the sense of a majority; the Senate could not
be expected, more than on other occasions, to be unanimous; if the
declarations contained in those clauses are supported, they will be
considered as the sense of the majority of the Senate; others may
dissent; but because unanimity could not be obtained, it was no reason
why the majority should give a virtual negative to the declaration which
they conceived founded on truth.

Mr. TAZEWELL said, the discussion had taken a turn different from that
which he expected when he heard the motion. He understood the motion at
the time it was made, and still so understood it, as not intending to
question the propriety of any thing which was contained in the
PRESIDENT's communication to both Houses of Congress. But from what had
been said, (by Mr. READ, of South Carolina,) that part of the answer to
the PRESIDENT's communication which had given rise to the motion, was
intended to have a further operation than he originally believed. He
asked what had given rise to the practice of returning an answer of any
kind to the PRESIDENT's communication to Congress in the form of an
Address? There was nothing, he said, in the constitution, or in any of
the fundamental rules of the Federal Government, which required that
ceremony from either branch of the Congress. The practice was but an
imitation of the ceremonies used upon like occasions in other countries,
and was neither required by the constitution, nor authorized by the
principles upon which our Government was erected. But having obtained,
he did not intend now to disturb it. To allow the utmost latitude to the
principle which had begotten the practice, it could only tolerate the
ceremony as a compliment to the Chief Magistrate. It could not be
permitted to arrest all opinions previous to regular discussions, nor to
operate as a means of pledging members to the pursuit of a particular
course, which subsequent and more full inquiries might show to be
extremely improper. Every answer, therefore, to the PRESIDENT's
communication ought to be drawn in terms extremely general, neither
seducing the PRESIDENT into a belief that this House would pursue a
general recommendation into points not at first contemplated by them,
nor pledge themselves to the world that that state of things was just,
which time had not permitted them thoroughly to examine. The clauses now
under consideration had, at least in one instance, deviated from this
principle. They declare to the world, "That the interesting prospect of
our affairs with regard to the foreign powers, between whom and the
United States controversies have subsisted, is not more satisfactory
than the review of our internal situation." The communications from the
PRESIDENT have not uttered so bold a sentiment, nor is there any thing
in those communications that justifies the assertion of this fact.
Placing the treaty with Great Britain out of the question, which seems
to have been the uppermost consideration when this sentence was penned,
the seizure of our provision vessels since the signature of that treaty,
and the unwarrantable imprisonment of our seamen, are acts which cloud
our prosperity and happiness. The minds of the Americans must be brought
to consider these things as trivial incidents in our political affairs,
before the sentence under consideration can be approved. He said he
must, therefore, vote for the motion to strike out the two clauses of
the answer, in order that some more fit expressions might then be
introduced to succeed them. He hoped the answer might be couched in
terms just and delicate towards the PRESIDENT, without wounding the
feelings of any Senator; and he believed both might be done without any
difficulty, after the two clauses were expunged.

After some further observations from Messrs. MASON, BUTLER, and
BLOODWORTH, in which the latter expressed the opinion that he did
conceive the terms of our peace with Great Britain consistent with the
dignity and honor of the United States, the question was put, and
decided for striking out--ayes 8, noes 14.

On a further attempt to amend one of the clauses some conversation took
place more remarkable for ingenuity than interesting for solidity, being
chiefly a debate upon words. The Senate divided on it--7 to 15.

On the question, of agreeing to the Address, it was carried--14 to 8, as
follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster,
      Frelinghuysen, King, Latimer, Livermore, Marshall, Paine,
      Read, Ross, Strong, and Trumbull.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Butler, Langdon, Martin,
      Mason, Robinson, and Tazewell.

_Ordered_, That the committee who prepared the Address wait on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and desire him to acquaint the Senate at
what time and place it will be most convenient for him that it should be
presented.

Mr. KING reported, from the committee, that they had waited on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and that he would receive the Address of
the Senate to-morrow at 12 o'clock. Whereupon, resolved, that the Senate
will, to-morrow at 12 o'clock, wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES accordingly.


SATURDAY, December 12.

Agreeably to the resolution of yesterday, the Senate waited on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and the VICE PRESIDENT, in their name,
presented the Address then agreed to.

To which the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES was pleased to make the
following reply:

      GENTLEMEN: With real pleasure I receive your Address,
      recognizing the prosperous situation of our public affairs,
      and giving assurances of your careful attention to the
      objects demanding Legislative consideration; and that, with
      a true zeal for the public welfare, you will cheerfully
      co-operate in every measure which shall appear to you best
      calculated to promote the same.

      But I derive peculiar satisfaction from your concurrence
      with me in the expressions of gratitude to Almighty God,
      which a review of the auspicious circumstances that
      distinguish our happy country have excited; and I trust the
      sincerity of our acknowledgments will be evinced by a union
      of efforts to establish and preserve its peace, freedom,
      and prosperity.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.

The Senate returned to their own Chamber, and soon after adjourned.


MONDAY, December 14.

JOHN RUTHERFORD, from New Jersey, attended.


TUESDAY, December 15.

AARON BURR, from New York, and JOHN VINING, from Delaware, severally
attended.


WEDNESDAY, December 16.

WILLIAM BRADFORD, from Rhode Island, attended.


FRIDAY, December 18.

GEORGE WALTON, appointed a Senator of the United States by the Executive
of the State of Georgia, in place of JAMES JACKSON, resigned, produced
his credentials, and, the oath required by law being administered, he
took his seat in the Senate.


MONDAY, January 4.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, by Mr. Dandridge, his Secretary. Captain Sedam, of the first
Sub-legion, bearing the colors mentioned in the Message:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of
      Representatives:_

      A Letter from the Minister Plenipotentiary of the French
      Republic, received on the 22d of the last month, covered an
      Address, dated the 21st of October, 1794, from the
      Committee of Public Safety to the Representatives of the
      United States in Congress; and also informed me that he was
      instructed by the Committee to present to the United States
      the Colors of France. I therefore proposed to receive them
      last Friday, the first day of the new year, a day of
      general joy and congratulation. On that day the Minister of
      the French Republic delivered the Colors with an Address,
      to which I returned an answer. By the latter, the Senate
      will see that I have informed the Minister that the Colors
      will be deposited with the archives of the United States.
      But it seemed to me proper previously to exhibit to the two
      Houses of Congress these evidences of the continued
      friendship of the French Republic, together with the
      sentiments expressed by me on the occasion in behalf of the
      United States. They are herewith communicated.

                                  G. WASHINGTON

      UNITED STATES, _January_ 4, 1796.

The Message and papers were read; after which the colors were withdrawn,
and the Message and papers ordered to lie for consideration.


TUESDAY, January 5.

_Presentation of French Flag._

A motion was made by Mr. TAZEWELL, seconded by Mr. LANGDON, that it be--

      "_Resolved by the Senate of the United States in Congress
      assembled_, That the President be informed the Senate have
      received, with the purest pleasure, the evidences of the
      continued friendship of the French Republic, which
      accompanied his Message of yesterday.

      "That he be requested to assure that magnanimous nation,
      through the proper organ, that the Senate unite with him in
      all the feelings expressed to the Minister of France, on
      the presentation of the Colors of his nation, and devoutly
      wish that this symbol of the triumphs and enfranchisement
      of that great people, given as a pledge of faithful
      friendship, and placed among the evidences and memorials of
      the freedom and independence of the United States, may
      contribute to cherish and perpetuate the sincere affection
      by which the two Republics are so happily united."

Mr. ELLSWORTH moved that these resolutions should lie on the table until
to-morrow, that members should have an opportunity of perusing
attentively the papers accompanying the Message of the PRESIDENT.

Mr. BUTLER said, that he should very reluctantly, in general cases,
oppose a motion of the kind now made; but, on the present occasion, he
could not give it his assent. If the resolutions were intricate, or by
the question the judgment of the Senate could be committed, he should
accord in the wish expressed by the mover; but, as the resolutions go
merely to an expression of the sentiments of the House respecting the
French Republic, their feelings and judgment must be as ripe for such
expression now as they can be at any future period. It was not like a
law that was to affect the Senate hereafter; it had nothing to do with
the internal situation of the country or municipal regulations; but they
only went to express a sympathetic feeling for the French Republic, and
a wish to see them enjoy every happiness under the form of government
they have lately chosen.

This cannot commit the Senate, he conceived. If the motion for
postponement prevailed, it might convey a distrust of the sense of the
Senate respecting that Republic. He felt a lively sense towards that
nation on account of the glorious cause in which they had embarked; of
their gallantry and spirit in their arduous struggle to place men upon a
footing they were entitled to, raising them from a state of the most
abject and debasing slavery.

He declared himself always ready to express his feelings on the
magnanimity of such a people. If other members of the Senate possessed
not those feelings, they could now give the resolutions their negative.
He did not wish for a postponement, as it might be viewed as in a manner
slighting the Republic.

Mr. ELLSWORTH believed there was no real difference of opinion on the
subject. All felt an ardent friendship for the French; but one mode of
expressing it might be more proper than another. Besides, it might be a
doubt whether an expression of the feelings of the Senate on this
occasion was necessary--the Representatives had already spoken. He was
not, as the member who spoke before him, ready on all occasions to
express his sentiments; but only on fit occasions, and then he wished to
do it in the most proper manner. The operations of his mind, he
confessed, were slow. He wished more time for the perusal of the
documents laid before the Senate by the President.

Mr. LIVERMORE was also in favor of postponement.

Mr. LANGDON observed, that since members did so earnestly require time,
he should not urge an immediate decision; he should no longer object to
a postponement till to-morrow. He was happy to hear gentlemen say there
was no difference of sentiment upon the present occasion; he hoped that,
upon subjects relative to France, this might always be the case, and
that the Senate would not confine itself to empty professions of
attachment, but would evince it by substantial deeds.

Mr. TAZEWELL did not wish to press the business to an immediate
decision, since members desired time. He confessed he did not expect a
motion for a postponement would be made, as the resolutions he offered
contained nothing more than the PRESIDENT had expressed on the occasion.
However, if it was wished that the Senate should express their
sentiments in still stronger language than the PRESIDENT, he should not
object.

The opposition to the motion for postponement being withdrawn, it was
agreed to.


WEDNESDAY, January 6.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made yesterday on the
Message of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of the 4th instant, and
the presentation of the flag of the French Republic; and,

On motion of Mr. CABOT, seconded by Mr. ELLSWORTH, to expunge these
words from the second paragraph of the motion: "that he be requested to
assure that magnanimous nation, through the proper organ"--

Mr. STRONG was in favor of striking out. He observed that the
communication made to the Senate by the PRESIDENT consisted of two
distinct parts, the letter from the French Committee of Safety and the
address accompanying the flag. In the letter not one word was said about
the flag; it was written in October, '94, and there was probably then no
idea of sending one. The letter and the flag only happened to be
delivered at the same time; there was no other connection between them.
The letter, he said, was in answer to one from this country, and was
meant to close a complimentary correspondence. It required no answer; it
would puzzle any one to make an answer to it. An attempt was made by the
resolution offered, which proved it impossible to answer it. The
resolution forsook the contents of the letter, which, he repeated,
closed the correspondence. The United States had presented to the
National Convention our flag; or rather our Minister (and he was
unwilling to question the propriety of his so doing) presented it on
behalf of this Government; a French flag was sent in return; then the
propriety of an answer on this ground became the sole question. This
flag had been delivered to the PRESIDENT, who made an answer on the
presentation of it--a complete and perfect answer. He communicated his
answer to the Senate. Then was it proper, he asked, that the Executive
should be requested to make a second answer, and nearly in the same
words? The PRESIDENT, in his answer, expressly says, that he speaks not
only his own sentiments, but those of the citizens at large, including,
no doubt, the Senate. In this situation of the transaction nothing can
be proper to be done by the Senate but to express their opinion of the
propriety of his answer; and this would be accomplished by adopting the
substance of the resolution, after striking out the words proposed.

There could be (he concluded by observing) no difference of feeling in
the Senate on the occasion. The only difference was in the mode of
expressing it, and he inclined, for the reasons given, to that which was
the object of the motion for striking out.

Mr. ELLSWORTH was also of opinion that the subject divided itself into
two distinct parts. The first object was an expression of the pleasure
of the Senate at this new evidence of the friendship of France, and
joining with the PRESIDENT in all the feelings he had expressed on the
occasion. This would be effectually done by entering on the journals the
resolution as proposed to be amended. The PRESIDENT received the flag
and answered, then communicated the transaction to the Senate.

It appeared, by the papers communicated, he contended, that there was no
connection between the letter of the Committee of Public Safety and the
flag. He would not say that both were not very important transactions,
but they were disconnected. The letter was written much antecedent to
the sending of the flag--it was written in '94, and was intended to
close a correspondence. The correspondence began by an address from the
Convention, while Robespierre was an active member of it. This address
was to Congress: the PRESIDENT transmitted it to each House, and they
sent it back to the Executive, requesting he would answer it, with
expressions of the friendly dispositions of the United States towards
France. The resolutions of the Houses and the letter of the Executive
were transmitted through Mr. Monroe. The letter now in the view of the
Senate is an answer to that, and closes the complimentary
correspondence, if it ever can close. Propriety did not require another
word from the Senate; indeed, decency did not admit it, for it could not
be contended that the correspondence should be kept up _ad infinitum_.

As to the flag, how can it require an answer from the Senate? It was not
presented to them by the French Minister, but to the PRESIDENT, who had
answered, not only for himself, but for the citizens of the United
States; and he imagined it would not be contended that the members of
the Senate were not citizens.

It is not advanced, he said, that the PRESIDENT did not express the
sentiments of the Senate in the answer to the Minister; on the contrary,
his words are borrowed in this resolution. But it is wished he should
answer again in the same strain, and this was, in his opinion, neither
necessary nor even proper.

Mr. ELLSWORTH next combated the resolution as originally offered as
unconstitutional. Nothing, he contended, could be found in the
constitution to authorize either branch of the Legislature to keep up
any kind of correspondence with a foreign nation. To Congress were
given the powers of legislation and the right of declaring war. If
authority beyond this is assumed, however trifling the encroachment at
first, where will it stop? It might be said, that this was a mere matter
of ceremony and form, and, therefore, could do no harm. A correspondence
with foreign nations was a business of difficulty and delicacy--the
peace and tranquillity of a country may hinge on it. Shall the Senate,
because they may think it in one case trifling, or conceive the power
ought to be placed in them, assume it? If it was not specially delegated
by the constitution, the Senate might, perhaps, but it is positively
placed in the hands of the Executive. The people who sent us here, (said
Mr. E.) placed their confidence in the PRESIDENT in matters of this
nature, and it does not belong to the Senate to assume it.

So forcibly, he said, were both Houses impressed with the impropriety of
the Legislature corresponding with any foreign power, that, when it was
announced to them that the unfortunate Louis XVI. had accepted the
constitution of '89, the communication was sent back to the PRESIDENT,
with a request that he would answer it on their behalf, with
congratulations and best wishes.

But even this, he considered, they had not strictly a right to do. It
was only saving appearances. Neither branch had a right to dictate to
the PRESIDENT what he should answer. The constitution left the whole
business in his breast. It was wrong to place him in the dilemma of
disobliging the Legislature or sacrificing his own discretion. But if
such practices had inadvertently been followed, it was full time to
secede from them.

He recapitulated, in a few words, and concluded, by observing, that
should the motion for striking out prevail, members would still be in
order to amend the resolution, if they chose, by adding to the warmth of
expression it already contained.

Mr. BUTLER considered the situation into which the member up before him
seemed desirous that the Senate should be placed, as highly degrading;
they were to be deprived of the right of expressing their own
sentiments, they were to have no voice, no will, no opinion of their
own, but such as it would please the Executive to express for them.

The only fault he found in the resolve was, that it was not full and
expressive enough. He observed, that it appeared the studied desire of
one part of the House to cut off all communication between the people of
the United States and the people of the French Republic. Their
representatives are now told, that they can have no will, no voice, but
through the Executive. Their constituents never intended that they
should be placed in this ridiculous point of view, and he declared he
never could sit under it silently.

He turned to the journals of the Senate to show that in the proceedings
in the case of the answer to the communication from Robespierre and
others, there was a considerable division in the Senate, and the mode
adopted was by a majority only; but did not meet the sense of the Senate
very generally.

Upon the presentation of the flag to the PRESIDENT, the Minister
particularly observes, that it is for the people of the United States.
The PRESIDENT in his answer, speaks of himself and his own feelings. He
read part of his answer--"Born in a land of Liberty," &c. He does
intimate, he observed, in a cursory manner, that he trusts he speaks the
sentiments of his fellow-citizens: but does not attempt to make any
professions of either branch of the Legislature, thinking, no doubt,
that when the subject came before them, they would speak for themselves.

Suppose, he asked, that the expression of friendship contained in the
PRESIDENT's Address on the occasion, fell short of the feelings of the
Senate, would they, he asked, adopt the expressions for their own? For
his own part, he declared, he could not leave it to others to speak his
sentiments, but chose to reserve that right to himself. Even if no
communication had been received from the French Republic, no token of
attachment, the present period in their affairs, the establishment of a
new government, would warrant an address of congratulation. There could
be no impropriety in it, unless there were objections to drawing nigher
to the Republic. Besides, the address of the Committee of Safety was
certainly intended for the Legislature, being directed to the
Representatives, unless it could be denied that the Senate were
Representatives of the people of the United States.

There was nothing in the constitution, he contended, that could prevent
the Legislature from expressing their sentiments: it was not an
Executive act, but a mere complimentary answer to a complimentary
presentation. If this right was denied them, where would the principle
stop? The Senate might be made in time mere automata. It was as proper,
he contended, for the Senate to express an opinion on the occasion as
for the PRESIDENT or the House of Representatives.

He concluded by observing, that the resolution as offered, said as
little as could be said on the occasion, and he never could consent to
the striking out, which would cause it to be entered only on the
journal, and would be an indirect slight of the French Republic, as the
sentiments of the Senate would not be communicated to them.

Mr. TAZEWELL was happy to find no difference in the Senate as to the
substance of the resolution. As the form, however, had been made matter
of debate, some importance had been given to it which its intrinsic
consequence perhaps did not deserve, and it became the Senate to weigh
well their decision. It certainly, he said, could not be unknown to the
Senate, that unfavorable impressions have travelled abroad respecting
their feelings and sentiments towards the French, and he suggested to
their consideration whether if the present motion for striking out
prevailed, even in the face of their own precedents, it would not give
countenance to the surmise. On a former occasion, he stated, a
communication was made to the Senate through the PRESIDENT, informing
that the King of France had accepted the Crown under the constitution of
1789. The Senate were not content on that occasion with barely approving
what the PRESIDENT had done, but requested the PRESIDENT to say in their
behalf, that they were happy at the event, and to assure the king of
their good will for the prosperity of the French nation and his own.
What difference, he asked, was there on that occasion and the present,
when the French just adopted and organized a new government? Will it not
be said, he asked, that the robes of royalty have charms with the
Senate, which the humble habiliments of Democracy do not possess in
their eyes, if on the present occasion they should deviate from a
precedent established before royalty was abolished? This would be
naturally implied, and the Senate, he conceived, should avoid the
imputation. There was no necessity pleaded in favor of striking out; if
the motion was not insisted on, it would remove impressions which it was
useful should be removed, and which he trusted would be removed.

He dwelt on the impropriety of the Senate's rejecting a form of
proceeding in this case, not only sanctioned by their own precedent, but
by the practice of both the PRESIDENT and Senate. Why, especially, he
asked, should they give rise to invidious comparisons between themselves
and the other branch? He hoped the motion for striking out would not
prevail.

Mr. ELLSWORTH conceived there existed a material difference between the
present case and that cited by the member last up. The communication was
then to Congress, now to the PRESIDENT, who had only given an account of
the transaction to the Senate. He added, however, that the line of
conduct pursued by the Senate on the former occasion did not meet his
approbation; they expressed hopes which he never thought could be
realized, and in the event it proved so; for before the sentiments of
the Senate could cross the Atlantic, the unfortunate king and
constitution were both over-thrown. This, he argued, should make the
Senate wary in their proceedings in analogous cases. Upon the
communication from Robespierre, Barrere, and others, the Senate were
more cautious, they said nothing about the constitution, but only
requested the PRESIDENT to express in their behalf the sentiments of
friendship, &c., which the Senate entertained for France. The Senate
gave the PRESIDENT a short text on that occasion; and he wrote according
to his own discretion, and perhaps expressed more than the Senate would
have said. If a short text was given, this objection occurred; if the
Senate amplified, then they dictated improperly to the PRESIDENT what he
should write.

The example of the House of Representatives had been mentioned; he
conceived it was no rule of proceeding for the Senate. The fact was,
that the resolve carried in that House was upon a very slight view
indeed of the papers communicated. Indeed, it would appear upon the face
of it, that it was penned before the papers were read. This was, in his
opinion, no example for imitation; the Senate ought to proceed with
their usual deliberation.

It had been said that doubts had gone abroad, whether the Senate were
friendly to France. Those doubts had been raised by writers among us,
the same who also endeavor to convince the Americans that the friendship
of France towards them was not cordial. This must appear unfounded from
the proceeding now the object of debate, and the former suspicion must
be removed by an insertion of the substance of the resolution now before
the Senate on their journals.

Mr. TAZEWELL said a few words to show that there was no difference
between the case he had already cited, the proceeding of the Senate,
when they expressed their satisfaction at the manner in which the
National Convention had honored the memory of BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, and the
present case.

Mr. Ross differed. In the former instances, the PRESIDENT made the
original communications to the Senate before he had answered them; now
he has answered and only communicates an account of the transaction.

Mr. BURR was against striking out. The National Convention, he observed,
might, when they received the answer to their first communication, have
said, as is now said on the floor of the Senate, that the correspondence
there ended, and that it was not necessary to make us a reply; but they
acted differently, and he hoped the Senate would acknowledge the receipt
of their pledge of friendship. Indeed he said, he could not see that any
great harm would arise in the two branches of the Legislature
interchanging even once a year a letter of friendship and good will with
the Republic. It was objected that the present resolution was no answer
to the letter. A few lines would make it so, and they might easily be
added. The omission did not prove, as had been asserted by one member,
that it was impossible to answer it. That it was not impossible was
testified by the proceedings of the other branch. He did not intend to
slight the dignity of the Senate, however, he said, by quoting the
proceedings of the other House as a binding rule of proceeding for this;
but their proceedings certainly proved the possibility of making an
answer; and besides, there was full as much propriety in looking for
precedents in their conduct, as in the proceedings of a British
Parliament. Each, however, in their place might deserve weight, though
not implicit reliance.

He advocated the rights of the Senate to answer for themselves, and the
propriety of acknowledging the receipt of the Colors, which were not
sent to the Executive exclusively.

He concluded by citing the Senate's own precedents in analogous cases,
and he hoped that it would not be insisted that the practice of two or
three successive years deserved to be laid to the charge of
inadvertency.

After a few words more from Messrs. STRONG, BURR, READ, and BUTLER, the
yeas and nays were called upon striking out, which were taken and
stood--yeas 16, nays 8, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster,
      Gunn, Latimer, Livermore, Marshall, Paine, Read, Ross,
      Rutherford, Strong, Trumbull, and Walton.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Burr, Butler, Langdon,
      Martin, Robinson, and Tazewell.

Whereupon it was

_Resolved_, unanimously, that the PRESIDENT be informed the Senate have
received, with the purest pleasure, the evidences of the continued
friendship of the French Republic, which accompanied his Message of the
4th inst.

That the Senate unite with him in all the feelings expressed to the
Minister of France on the presentation of the Colors of his nation, and
devoutly wish that this symbol of the triumphs and enfranchisement of
that great people, given as a pledge of faithful friendship, and placed
among the evidences and memorials of the freedom and independence of the
United States, may contribute to cherish and perpetuate the sincere
affection by which the two Republics are so happily united.

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


MONDAY, May 9.

On motion, that a paper purporting to be the appointment of WILLIAM
BLOUNT and WILLIAM COCKE, respectively, to seats in the Senate, should
be read, it was agreed that the motion be postponed until to-morrow.


TUESDAY, May 10.

_New State of Tennessee._

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee to
whom was referred the Message of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of
the 8th of April last, respecting a new State south of the river Ohio;
together with the motion for amendment, made on the 11th; and on the
question to agree to the proposed amendment, it passed in the negative.


WEDNESDAY, May 23.

_The Proposed State of Tennessee._

The Senate resumed the consideration, in paragraphs, of the bill laying
out into one State the territory ceded by the State of North Carolina to
the United States, and providing for an enumeration of the inhabitants
thereof.

A letter, signed William Blount and William Cocke, was read, stating
that they have been duly and legally elected Senators to represent the
State of Tennessee in the Senate.

On motion,

      "That Mr. Blount and Mr. Cocke, who claim to be Senators of
      the United States, be received as spectators, and that
      chairs be provided for that purpose until the final
      decision of the Senate shall be given on the bill proposing
      to admit the South-western Territory into the Union:"

A motion was made to refer the consideration thereof to a committee; and
it passed in the negative.

On motion to agree to the original motion, it passed in the
affirmative--yeas 12, nays 11, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Burr, Butler, Foster,
      Henry, Langdon, Martin, Potts, Robinson, Tattnall, and
      Tazewell.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Gunn, Latimer, Livermore,
      Marshall, Read, Ross, Rutherford, Strong, and Trumbull.

After debate, the further consideration of the bill last mentioned was
postponed until to-morrow.

A letter from RUFUS KING was read, stating that he had accepted the
appointment of Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of London, and
resigning his seat in the Senate.


THURSDAY, May 26.

_New State of Tennessee._

The bill laying out into one State the territory ceded by the State of
North Carolina to the United States, and providing for an enumeration of
the inhabitants thereof, was read the third time.

On motion, that the bill be amended, so that the State be called and
known by the name of Tennessee, it passed in the negative.

And, after agreeing to sundry amendments, on motion, that the following
be an additional section to the bill:

      "_And be it further enacted_, That if on the returns by the
      Supervisor of the Revenue for the District of Tennessee, as
      directed by this act, it shall appear to the PRESIDENT OF
      THE UNITED STATES that the territory by this act laid out,
      and formed into a State, doth contain sixty thousand free
      inhabitants, that then it shall be lawful for the
      President, by his Proclamation, to declare the same; and
      that, in that event, and on their forming a constitution
      consistent with the ordinance of Congress of the thirteenth
      day of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven,
      the said State, by the name and style of 'The State of
      Tennessee,' shall be received and admitted into the Union
      as a new and entire member of the United States of America.
      And, until an enumeration shall be made, under the
      authority of Congress, for the purpose of apportioning
      Representatives, the said State of Tennessee shall be
      entitled to choose one Representative:"

A motion was made to amend this motion, by striking out the following
words:

      "And on their forming a constitution consistent with the
      ordinance of Congress of the thirteenth day of July, one
      thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven:"

      It passed in the negative--yeas 11, nays 12, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Burr, Butler, Henry,
      Langdon, Livermore, Martin, Robinson, Tattnall, and
      Tazewell.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Foster, Gunn, Latimer,
      Marshall, Potts, Read, Ross, Rutherford, Strong, and
      Trumbull.

And, on the question to agree to the motion without amendment, it passed
in the negative--yeas 10, nays 12, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Burr, Foster, Gunn, Henry, Latimer,
      Livermore, Martin, Potts, Tattnall, and Trumbull.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bloodworth, Bradford, Brown,
      Langdon, Marshall, Read, Robinson, Ross, Rutherford,
      Strong, and Tazewell.

On the question, that the bill pass, it was determined in the
affirmative--yeas 15, nays 8, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Brown, Foster, Gunn,
      Latimer, Martin, Potts, Read, Ross, Rutherford, Strong,
      Tattnall, Tazewell, and Trumbull.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Burr, Butler, Henry, Langdon,
      Livermore, Marshall, and Robinson.

So it was resolved, that this bill pass; that it be engrossed; and that
the title thereof be "An act laying out into one State the territory
ceded by the State of North Carolina to the United States, and providing
for an enumeration of the inhabitants thereof."


TUESDAY, May 31.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the
House have passed a bill, entitled "An act to alter the time of the next
annual meeting of Congress;" in which they desire the concurrence of the
Senate. They insist on their amendment, disagreed to by the Senate, to
the bill, entitled "An act laying out into one State the territory ceded
by the State of North Carolina to the United States, and providing for
the enumeration of the inhabitants thereof;" ask a conference thereon,
and have appointed managers at the same, on their part. They agree to
all the amendments of the Senate to the bill, entitled, "An act
regulating the grants of land appropriated for military services, and
for the Society of United Brethren, for propagating the Gospel among the
Heathen;" except to the last, to which they disagree.

_New State of Tennessee._

The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution of the House of
Representatives, desiring a conference on the bill, entitled, "An act
laying out into one State the territory ceded by the State of North
Carolina to the United States, and providing for an enumeration of the
inhabitants thereof."

On motion, to postpone the further consideration thereof until the next
session of Congress, it passed in the negative--yeas 10, nays 13, as
follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Foster, Latimer, Potts,
      Read, Ross, Rutherford, Strong, and Trumbull.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Burr, Butler, Gunn,
      Henry, Langdon, Livermore, Marshall, Martin, Robinson,
      Tattnall, and Tazewell.

_Resolved_, That the Senate agree to the proposed conference, and that
Messrs. BURR and STRONG be managers at the same on their part.

Mr. BURR, from the joint committee of conference on the bill, entitled
"An act laying out into one State the territory ceded by the State of
North Carolina to the United States, and providing for an enumeration of
the inhabitants thereof," reported, as the opinion of the majority of
the joint committee, that the Senate recede from their disagreement to
the amendment of the House of Representatives. Whereupon,

_Resolved_, That the Senate recede from their disagreement to the said
amendment.

A motion was made by Mr. Burr, as follows:

      "_Resolved_, That any enumeration of the inhabitants of any
      district under the temporary Government of the United
      States, for the purpose of furnishing evidence to Congress
      that such district contains the number which may entitle it
      to admission into the Union, shall have been taken and
      made, under a law to be made by the Legislature of the said
      district, of the free inhabitants only, and, in all other
      respects, pursuant to the provisions contained in the act,
      entitled "An act providing for the enumeration of the
      inhabitants of the United States:""

Which motion was read and ordered to lie until to-morrow for
consideration.


WEDNESDAY EVENING, 5 o'clock, June 1.

_New State of Tennessee._

On motion, by Mr. MARTIN, that it be

      "_Resolved_, That the Honorable William Blount, and William
      Cocke, Esquires, who have produced credentials of being
      duly elected Senators for the State of Tennessee, be
      admitted to take the oath necessary for their
      qualification, and their seats accordingly;"

_Ordered_, That a paper, purporting to be the credentials of Mr. BLOUNT
and Mr. COCKE, be read.

And, on the question to agree to the resolution, it passed in the
negative--yeas 10, nays 11, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Burr, Butler, Gunn,
      Langdon, Martin, Robinson, Tattnall, and Tazewell.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Foster, Latimer,
      Livermore, Marshall, Potts, Read, Ross, Rutherford, and
      Trumbull.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that
the House, having finished the business before them, are about to
adjourn to the first Monday in December next.

Mr. BUTLER, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES, and notify him that, unless he had any further
communications to make to them, they were ready to adjourn, reported,
that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES had no further communication to
make, except the nomination of certain persons to execute the laws
passed the present session.

After the consideration of the Executive business, the PRESIDENT
adjourned the Senate to the first Monday in December next.




FOURTH CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION.

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES

IN

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.


MONDAY, December 7, 1795.

The following members appeared, and took their seats:

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

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

_From Rhode Island._--BENJAMIN BOURNE, and FRANCIS MALBONE.

_From Connecticut._--JOSHUA COIT, CHAUNCEY GOODRICH, ROGER GRISWOLD,
ZEPHANIAH SWIFT, and URIAH TRACY.

_From Vermont._--ISRAEL SMITH.

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

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

_From Pennsylvania._--DAVID BAIRD, ALBERT GALLATIN, DANIEL HEISTER, JOHN
WILKES KITTERA, SAMUEL MACLAY, FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG, SAMUEL
SITGREAVES, JOHN SWANWICK, and RICHARD THOMAS.

_From Delaware._--JOHN PATTEN.

_From Maryland._--GABRIEL CHRISTIE, GEORGE DENT, GABRIEL DUVALL, WILLIAM
HINDMAN, and WILLIAM VANS MURRAY.

_From Virginia._--SAMUEL J. CABELL, JOHN CLOPTON, ISAAC COLES, WILLIAM
B. GILES, GEORGE HANCOCK, CARTER B. HARRISON, JOHN HEATH, GEORGE
JACKSON, JAMES MADISON, ANDREW MOORE, JOSIAH PARKER, ROBERT RUTHERFORD,
and ABRAHAM VENABLE.

_From North Carolina._--THOMAS BLOUNT, NATHAN BRYAN, DEMPSEY BURGES,
JESSE FRANKLIN, WILLIAM B. GROVE, JAMES HOLLAND, MATTHEW LOCKE,
NATHANIEL MACON, and ABSALOM TATOM.

_From South Carolina._--SAMUEL EARLE, ROBERT GOODLOE HARPER, and WILLIAM
SMITH.

_From Georgia._--ABRAHAM BALDWIN.

And a quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole number being
present,

The House proceeded by ballot, to the choice of a SPEAKER; and, upon
examining the ballots, a majority of the votes of the whole House was
found in favor of JONATHAN DAYTON, one of the Representatives for the
State of New Jersey. Whereupon,

The said JONATHAN DAYTON was conducted to the chair, from whence he made
his acknowledgments to the House, as follows:

      GENTLEMEN: It is with real diffidence that I undertake the
      execution of the duties which you have done me the honor to
      assign to me.

      In discharging them to the best of my abilities, I
      anticipate, on your part, a liberal and indulgent temper
      towards those decisions which may be required from the
      Chair, and flatter myself that I shall experience, upon all
      occasions, your co-operation and support.

The House proceeded, in the same manner, to the appointment of a Clerk;
and, upon examining the ballots, a majority of the votes of the whole
House was found in favor of JOHN BECKLEY.

The oath to support the Constitution of the United States, as prescribed
by the act, entitled "An act to regulate the time and manner of
administering certain oaths," was then administered by ISAAC SMITH, one
of the Representatives from the State of New Jersey, to the SPEAKER, and
then by Mr. SPEAKER to all the members present.

The same oath, together with the oath of office prescribed by the said
recited act, were also administered by Mr. SPEAKER to the Clerk.

A message was received from the Senate, informing the House that a
quorum of members of that body is assembled, and the VICE PRESIDENT
being absent, they have proceeded to the choice of a PRESIDENT _pro
tempore_, and that HENRY TAZEWELL has been duly elected.

_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform that body
that a quorum of this House is assembled, and have elected JONATHAN
DAYTON their SPEAKER; and that the Clerk of this House do go with the
message.

Another message from the Senate was received, informing this House that
they have appointed a committee on their part, to act jointly with such
committee as may be appointed by this House, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, to inform him that a quorum of the two Houses is
assembled, and ready to receive any communication he may think proper to
make to them.

_Ordered_, That Mr. MADISON, Mr. SEDGWICK, and Mr. SITGREAVES, be
appointed a committee on the part of this House, for the purpose
expressed in the message of the Senate.

Petitions from sundry persons, praying to be appointed to the offices of
Sergeant-at-Arms and Doorkeeper, were presented to the House and read:
Whereupon,

The House proceeded, by ballot, to the choice of a Sergeant-at-Arms,
Doorkeeper, and Assistant Doorkeeper; and, upon examining the ballots, a
majority of the votes of the whole House was found in favor of JOSEPH
WHEATON, as Sergeant-at-Arms, THOMAS CLAXTON, as Doorkeeper, and THOMAS
DUNN, as Assistant Doorkeeper.

_Ordered_, That the said JOSEPH WHEATON, THOMAS CLAXTON, and THOMAS
DUNN, do severally give their attendance accordingly.

Mr. MADISON, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES, and notify him that a quorum of the two Houses is
assembled, and ready to receive any communication he may think proper to
make to them, reported that the committee had, according to order,
performed that service, and that the PRESIDENT signified to them that he
would make a communication to both Houses of Congress to-morrow, at 12
o'clock, in the Representatives' Chamber.


TUESDAY, December 8.

Several other members, to wit: from Maryland, SAMUEL SMITH; from
Virginia, RICHARD BRENT; and from Georgia, JOHN MILLEDGE, appeared,
produced their credentials, and took their seats in the House; the oath
to support the Constitution of the United States being first
administered to them by Mr. SPEAKER, according to law.

_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that this
House is now ready to attend them in receiving the communication from
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, agreeably to his notification to
both Houses yesterday; and that the Clerk of this House do go with the
said message.

The Clerk accordingly went with the said message; and, being returned,

The Senate attended and took seats in the House; when, both Houses being
assembled, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES came into the
Representatives' Chamber, and delivered his Speech to the two Houses.
[For a copy of this Speech, see the Proceedings of the Senate.]

The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES then withdrew, and the two Houses
separated.

_Ordered_, That the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to both
Houses be committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.


WEDNESDAY, December 9.

JAMES HILLHOUSE, from Connecticut, appeared, produced his credentials,
was qualified, and took his seat.

_Address to the President._

The House, according to the order of the day, resolved itself into a
Committee of the Whole on the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES to both Houses of Congress, Mr. MUHLENBERG in the chair; when,
the Speech being read,

Mr. VANS MURRAY moved the following resolution:

      "_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of the committee, that
      a respectful Address ought to be presented by the House of
      Representatives to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in
      answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress, at the
      commencement of this session, containing assurances that
      this House will take into consideration the various and
      important matters recommended to their attention:"

Mr. SEDGWICK seconded the motion.

Mr. PARKER offered an amendment, which was seconded by Mr. MACON.

The substance of this amendment was, to strike out all that part of the
resolution which goes before the word _assurances_; in place of which,
Mr. PARKER proposed to appoint a committee, who should personally wait
on the PRESIDENT, and assure him of the attention of the House, &c., and
concluding as above. Mr. P. had the highest respect for the PRESIDENT,
but he had always disapproved of this practice of making out Addresses
in answer to these Speeches, and of the House leaving their business to
go in a body to present them. Last session, the framing of this Address
had cost very long debates, and produced very great irritation. Some of
the most disagreeable things that happened during the session occurred
in these debates. He wished unanimity and the despatch of business, and
so, could not consent that any Address should be drawn up, as he
preferred ending the affair at once by sending a committee with a verbal
answer.

Mr. MURRAY replied, that the practice of drawing up such an Address was
coeval with the constitution. It was consistent with good sense; and he
did not see that any argument had been employed by the gentleman who
spoke last against it. It was true that the House might send a verbal
answer, and it was likewise true that the PRESIDENT might have sent them
his Speech by his Secretary, without coming near them at all. He had
come to Congress, and Mr. M. could perceive no impropriety in Congress
returning the compliment by waiting on him.

The committee divided on the amendment proposed by Mr. PARKER. Eighteen
members rose in support of it: so it was lost. The committee then agreed
to the resolution as offered by Mr. MURRAY. They rose, and the Chairman
reported progress. The resolution was agreed to by the House. The next
question was, of how many members the select committee should consist
that were to be employed in framing a draft of the Address. The
different numbers of five and three were proposed. A division took place
on the former motion, when only thirty-one gentlemen rose in its favor.
The motion for a committee of three members to report an Address was of
course carried. Mr. MADISON, Mr. SEDGWICK, and Mr. SITGREAVES, were
appointed.[61]

It was then moved that two Chaplains should be named, as usual; which
was agreed to.


THURSDAY, December 10.

FRANCIS PRESTON, from Virginia, appeared, was qualified, and took his
seat.


FRIDAY, December 11.

Several other members, to wit: from Vermont, DANIEL BUCK; from New
Jersey, THOMAS HENDERSON; from Pennsylvania, WILLIAM FINDLAY; and from
Virginia, JOHN NICHOLAS, appeared, produced their credentials, were
qualified, and took their seats.


MONDAY, December 14.

Two other members, to wit: from Pennsylvania, THOMAS HARTLEY, and from
Virginia, ANTHONY NEW, appeared, produced their credentials, and took
their seats.

_Address to the President._

Mr. MADISON, from the select committee appointed to draft an Address in
answer to the Speech of the PRESIDENT, made a report, which was read by
the Clerk.

Mr. GILES moved that the usual number of copies of the Address should be
printed for the use of the members.


TUESDAY, December 15.

_Address to the President._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
MUHLENBERG in the chair, on the draft of an answer to the PRESIDENT's
Speech. The following sentence being under consideration:

      "Contemplating that probably unequalled spectacle of
      national happiness, which our country exhibits, to the
      interesting summary which you, sir, have been pleased to
      make, in justice to our own feelings, permit us to add the
      benefits which are derived from your presiding in our
      councils, resulting as well from the undiminished
      confidence of your fellow-citizens, as from your zealous
      and successful labors in their service."

Mr. PARKER moved to strike out the words "probably unequalled," and from
the word "councils," to the end. He owned that the United States owe
much to the PRESIDENT for his services on most occasions; but he had
sometimes erred as other men. He could not for his own part subscribe to
the expressions contained in the words which he had moved to strike out;
his confidence in the PRESIDENT was diminished in consequence of a late
transaction.

Mr. SHERBURNE called for a division of the question; that a question
should first be put upon the words "probably unequalled," and afterwards
upon striking out the latter part of the clause.

The question was accordingly put upon the words "probably unequalled,"
and they were struck out, 43 to 39.

Mr. MURRAY rose to make a few observations on the motion for striking
out from the word "councils." As a Representative from Maryland, he
said, he could not on this occasion be contented to give a silent vote.
The Legislature of that State had not long since declared, that their
confidence in the PRESIDENT remains undiminished; and though his single
sentiment might be deemed unimportant when viewed in connection with the
unanimous vote of his State, yet he was free to declare, that his
confidence in the Chief Magistrate had experienced no diminution. The
Legislature of Maryland, he observed, had foreseen that attempts would
be made, and saw that unjustifiable attempts were actually making to
diminish the confidence of the people in the PRESIDENT; they therefore
resolved to give the sanction of their unanimous vote to his character,
declaring that the PRESIDENT retained their confidence, and that he had
merited it. Though not bound by the opinion of the Legislature of that
State, he conceived it his duty not to give a silent vote on the present
occasion.

Mr. GILES had hoped that nothing would have been brought before the
House calculated to disturb the harmony that ought to subsist, by
involving the discussion of delicate points. He had as much zeal as any
man for the preservation of the PRESIDENT's fame and reputation; but he
could not go the length of the expressions in the clause objected to. He
could not agree to it in its present shape, because the assertion in it
does not correspond with the fact. After this remark, there could not,
he conceived, be any inconsistency in voting against the word and still
feeling a regard for the PRESIDENT. He hoped his fame and reputation
might never receive a stain, but pass unimpaired to posterity. He should
vote for striking out.

Mr. FREEMAN wished the motion might be so modified as to involve the
striking out of the word "undiminished" only. Though he for himself, he
observed, might say that his confidence in the PRESIDENT was
undiminished, he could not utter the same sentiment in behalf of the
people at large. In his opinion the confidence of a part (a very small
one perhaps) of the people was diminished; though that of a majority
might be unshaken.

Mr. HARPER said he had no difficulty in declaring, that his own
confidence in the PRESIDENT was undiminished, but he could not go so far
as to pledge himself that that of all the people was so. He never, he
said, had been in the habit of worshiping the PRESIDENT. He considered
him as a man, not infallible, but as a wise, honest, and faithful public
servant, and he was prepared in all places and situations to declare
this opinion; but he was not ready to pronounce concerning the opinion
of the people of the United States. Some time hence they may become
unanimous in their confidence; but he could not say that it was not
diminished. He was ready to declare for himself but not for others. If
called upon to declare whether a majority, whether four-fifths of the
people retained their confidence in the PRESIDENT, he could declare it
as his opinion in the affirmative; but the clause as it stands includes
the whole, and he declared as it stood could not command his vote. He
concluded by expressing his intention, when it would be in order, to
introduce a modification of the clause, so as to express the
undiminished confidence of the House in the PRESIDENT.

Mr. PARKER, in coincidence with the wish of Mr. FREEMAN, agreed to
confine his motion to striking out the word "undiminished."

Mr. SEDGWICK doubted whether, after a division of the question, and a
question being taken on the first part, a modification of the second
part would be in order.

The Chairman declared it in order.

Mr. SEDGWICK viewed the present motion as even more objectionable than
the first; it went directly to a denial of undiminished confidence for
the PRESIDENT on the part of the House and the public. There was a time,
he said, when no man could have supposed that the period would have
arrived, that in the popular branch of the GOVERNMENT, the confidence of
the people and their Representatives in that man could have been
questioned.

Having been on the committee that framed the answer, and maturely
considered the subject in every part, he would mention some of the
observations that occurred to his mind particularly in favor of the part
now objected to. Lest in the course of them his sensibility on this
subject should betray him into some warmth of expression, he begged
leave to premise that he wished to wound the feelings of no man.

It was proper, he said, to inquire into facts on which the expression
now objected to was grounded. Is the confidence of the people in the
services, and patriotism, and wisdom of the Chief Magistrate diminished?
His experience led him to say no; then, in the existing circumstances,
is it not right for the Representatives to make the declaration to their
constituents and the world? To suppose the people, who, at the present
moment, enjoyed so many blessings under the PRESIDENT's administration,
could feel their confidence in him impaired, would suppose a baseness of
disposition unworthy of them and of the services he has rendered. Who
could review the glorious conduct of our Chief during the conflict of
the Revolution, his unwearied labors for the public good, his bravery,
moderation, and humanity; who could observe him in his happy retirement,
covered with glory, and accompanied by the blessings of his country;
then forsaking his retirement, putting at hazard the mighty mass of his
reputation, and be insensible of his services? Who could review the
critical situation in which he preserved our peace and prosperity during
a glorious administration of six years; who could review these things
and not have his heart filled with gratitude and esteem? He expressed
his belief, that, a late measure of the Executive was less the object of
the dislike of some, than affording the opportunity for the vent of
passions and feelings deep-rooted before.

As to the sense of the people of the PRESIDENT, he believed it
unaltered, as to his immediate constituents, he was sure it was; and if
so, it was the duty of the House to make the declaration to the world--a
duty the House owed to themselves and their constituents, and the more
binding from the nature of the Government the people had chosen.

Though the PRESIDENT had twice been called to the PRESIDENCY by the
unanimous and unsolicited voice of his fellow-citizens; though in
obedience to that voice he had made a sacrifice no other man would have
made; though the only reward he has received for his services has been
the approbation of his country, yet, nevertheless, licentious presses
had lately teemed with infamous and scandalous abuse of him. Is this, he
asked, consonant to the feelings of the House, and shall they not
attempt to counteract its effects in the only constitutional manner?
Shall they not declare their own and their constituents' confidence
undiminished in that officer of the Government?

He has told the Legislature that he wishes to co-operate, to preserve
unimpaired the blessings we enjoy. Does the House believe this? then is
it wrong to express their confidence?

He believed, he said, that the efforts made to destroy the character of
this first of men, instead of producing the mischief intended, would
effect the contrary; and he also expressed his belief that the tide of
his popularity at the present moment flowed with unusual strength.

It has been intimated, he observed, that sanctioning the vote of
confidence, contemplated in the clause of the Address under
consideration, would implicate an approbation of a late measure of the
Executive, and would preclude the possibility of a free opinion when
that measure might come under the consideration of the House. He
declared, upon his honor, that he had no intention that the vote now
contemplated should have that effect. He did not conceive, that the vote
of undiminished confidence, which he now pressed, involved an
approbation of all the measures of the Executive; it did not exclude the
idea of fallibility; for what man is infallible? It is only implied,
according to his conception, an approbation of the general tenor of the
conduct of the Executive. When the House express their confidence in a
public officer, they cannot mean that they believe him infallible, but
only that his character, grounded on his general conduct, receives their
approbation.

If, when the Chief Magistrate is attacked in the manner the PRESIDENT
has been attacked, he is left to be overwhelmed with unmerited abuse;
what man with talents to be useful, a reputation to be injured, or
feelings to be wounded--what man will hazard all to serve an ungrateful
country? It will render the station of Chief Magistrate sought only by
mercenaries. If confidence is denied to the Executive, it will only
create vacancies in the high offices of Government to be filled by those
harpies who prey upon the vitals of the State.

Another consideration, he said, should have an influence on this
occasion. The fame of the Chief Magistrate's character has filled the
whole world; the Americans are particularly distinguished as a people
for their uniform attachment towards him. If, at this time of day, they
indirectly declare their want of confidence in that man, they will
justify the malignant predictions which have been uttered against our
system of Government.

These considerations, he said, had weighed on his mind. If the motion
for striking out prevailed, he declared it would distress him beyond any
circumstance that had occurred to him during his public life, especially
at this period, and under the present circumstances of affairs. He
should consider the prevalence of this motion as tantamount to a
declaration, that the House and their constituents did not feel their
confidence in the PRESIDENT unimpaired.

Mr. LIVINGSTON lamented the situation which the drafted Address reduced
the House to; but he could not give his assent to it as it stood; he
should vote for striking out the word "undiminished," if a question on
it should be urged. He did not conceive himself called to a seat in the
House to express opinions, much less the opinions of others, but to make
laws. He felt so much the delicacy of the situation which the wording of
the Address had placed the House in, that he wished the dilemma of a
vote might be avoided. The gentleman last up also lamented the
situation, and justly observed, that striking out the word was
tantamount to a declaration that the confidence reposed in the
PRESIDENT was diminished. But he begged to remind him that it was the
framers of the Address, and he was one of them, that involved the House
in this disagreeable situation.

He declared himself so young in the parliamentary proceedings, as not
exactly to know how to avoid a question on the present motion. He
declared he was not prepared to say what the opinion of his constituents
concerning the PRESIDENT was. The confidence of many of them he knew was
shaken; that of others was increased.

He moved, if in order, that the committee should rise, and the Address
be recommitted.

This was carried, and Messrs. FREEMAN and BALDWIN added to the
committee.

Adjourned.


WEDNESDAY, December 16.

THOMAS CLAIBORNE, from Virginia, appeared, produced his credentials, was
qualified, and took his seat.

_Address to the President._

Mr. MADISON, from the committee to whom had been recommitted the draft
of the Address in answer to the PRESIDENT's Speech, brought in a report.
The clause now added consisted of a modification of the clause objected
to yesterday. On motion, the House went into a Committee of the Whole,
Mr. MUHLENBERG in the chair. The amendment was unanimously agreed to.
Mr. GILES then moved an amendment in the third line of the last
paragraph. It was thus: for "the several interesting subjects which you
recommended to our consideration will receive every degree of _it_,"
read of _attention_. The committee then rose, and the House agreed to
the report.

It was then moved and agreed to, that the SPEAKER, attended by the
House, do present the address, as amended, to the PRESIDENT, and that a
committee should be appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT, to know where
and when he will be ready to receive the Address of the House.

The same gentlemen, viz: Mr. MADISON, Mr. SEDGWICK, and Mr. SITGREAVES,
who had been first appointed to draft the Address, were named for
waiting on the PRESIDENT.

The committee that had been appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT, returned
with notice that he would be ready to receive their Address, at his own
house to-morrow at 12 o'clock.

The House then adjourned.


THURSDAY, December 17.

WADE HAMPTON, from South Carolina, and JOHN HATHORN, from New York,
appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their
seats.

_Address to the President._

At twelve o'clock, the SPEAKER, attended by the House, waited upon the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and delivered to him the following
Address, in answer to his Speech to both Houses at the opening of the
session:

      SIR: As the Representatives of the people of the United
      States, we cannot but participate in the strongest
      sensibility to every blessing which they enjoy, and
      cheerfully join with you in profound gratitude to the
      Author of all Good for the numerous and extraordinary
      blessings which He has conferred on our favored country.

      A final and formal termination of the distressing war which
      has ravaged our North-western frontier, will be an event
      which must afford satisfaction proportioned to the anxiety
      with which it has long been sought; and in the adjustment
      of the terms, we perceive the true policy of making them
      satisfactory to the Indians as well as to the United
      States, as the best basis of a durable tranquillity. The
      disposition of such of the Southern tribes as had also
      heretofore annoyed our frontier, is another prospect in our
      situation so important to the interest and happiness of the
      United States, that it is much to be lamented that any
      clouds should be thrown over it, more especially by
      excesses on the part of our own citizens.

      While our population is advancing with a celerity which
      exceeds the most sanguine calculations--while every part of
      the United States displays indications of rapid and various
      improvement--while we are in the enjoyment of protection
      and security, by mild and wholesome laws, administered by
      Governments founded on the genuine principles of rational
      liberty, a secure foundation will be laid for accelerating,
      maturing, and establishing the prosperity of our country,
      if by treaty and amicable negotiation, all those causes of
      external discord which heretofore menaced our tranquillity
      shall be extinguished, on terms compatible with our
      national rights and honor, with our constitution and great
      commercial interests.

      Among the various circumstances in our internal situation,
      none can be viewed with more satisfaction and exultation,
      than that the late scene of disorder and insurrection has
      been completely restored to the enjoyment of order and
      repose. Such a triumph of reason and of law is worthy of
      the free Government under which it happened, and was justly
      to be hoped from the enlightened and patriotic spirit which
      pervades and actuates the people of the United States.

      In contemplating that spectacle of national happiness which
      our country exhibits, and of which you, sir, have been
      pleased to make an interesting summary, permit us to
      acknowledge and declare the very great share which your
      zealous and faithful services have contributed to it, and
      to express the affectionate attachment which we feel for
      your character.

      The several interesting subjects which you recommend to our
      consideration, will receive every degree of attention which
      is due to them. And whilst we feel the obligation of
      temperance and mutual indulgence in all our discussions, we
      trust and pray that the result to the happiness and welfare
      of our country may correspond with the pure affection we
      bear to it.

To the foregoing Address, the PRESIDENT was pleased to make the
following reply:

      GENTLEMEN: Coming as you do from all parts of the United
      States, I receive great satisfaction from the concurrence
      of your testimony in the justness of the interesting
      summary of our national happiness, which, as the result of
      my inquiries, I presented to your view. The sentiments we
      have mutually expressed of profound gratitude to the source
      of these numerous blessings--the Author of all Good--are
      pledges of our obligations to unite our sincere and zealous
      endeavors, as the instruments of Divine Providence, to
      preserve and perpetuate them.

      Accept, gentlemen, my thanks for your declaration, that to
      my agency you ascribe the enjoyment of a great share of
      these benefits. So far as my services contribute to the
      happiness of my country, the acknowledgment of my
      fellow-citizens, and their affectionate attachment, will
      ever prove an abundant reward. G. WASHINGTON.


TUESDAY, December 22.

NATHANIEL SMITH, from Connecticut, appeared, was qualified, and took his
seat in the House.


THURSDAY, December 24.

CHRISTOPHER GREENUP, from Kentucky, appeared, was qualified, and took
his seat.


MONDAY, December 28.

ANDREW GREGG, from Pennsylvania, appeared, produced his credentials, was
qualified, and took his seat.

_Robert Randall--Case of Bribery._

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, requested the attention of the House, for
a moment, to a subject of a very delicate nature. He understood that a
memorial was, this morning, to be presented from some individuals,
applying for a grant of a large tract of Western territory, and as the
House had referred all such applications to the committee for bringing
in the Land Office Bill, of which he was Chairman; and, as it was
probable that the memorial, about to be presented, would be disposed of
in the same manner, he conceived it a duty incumbent upon him to
disclose to the House, at this time, some circumstances which had come
to his knowledge. Mr. SMITH then said that, on Tuesday evening last, a
person of the name of Randall called on him, requesting an hour of
confidential conversation. In the interview which took place, Randall
made a communication to the following effect: He intended to present a
memorial, on the Monday following, to Congress, for a grant of all the
Western lands lying between Lakes Michigan, Erie, and Huron, to the
amount of about twenty millions of acres. He, and his associates, some
of whom were Canada merchants, who had great influence over the Indians,
proposed to form a company, and to undertake the extinction of the
Indian title, provided Congress would cede to them the fee-simple of the
land. The property would be divided into forty shares, twenty-four of
which should be reserved for such members of Congress as might favor the
scheme, and might be inclined to come into it, after the adjournment of
Congress, on the same terms as the original associates. Randall himself
had the disposal of twelve shares, for members from the Southern
States, and a colleague of his, a like number for those of the Eastern
States. A certain number of shares were to be the property of those
Canada merchants, who had an unbounded influence over the Indians
occupying those lands, and who would, if this plan succeeded, pacify
those Indians, who were the most hostile to the United States; that Gen.
Wayne's treaty was a mere delusion, and that, without the co-operation
of those influential persons, the United States would never have peace
in that quarter. Mr. SMITH said that he communicated this overture, the
next morning, to Mr. MURRAY, one of the members from Maryland,
requesting his advice how to proceed on so delicate an occasion; that
Mr. MURRAY recommended a disclosure to Mr. HENRY, of the Senate, and
that, on a consultation with those gentlemen, it was resolved that it
was Mr. SMITH's duty to make an immediate communication of the matter to
the PRESIDENT, which was accordingly done.

Mr. MURRAY rose next. He had received an application of the same nature,
but having already heard of the proposal, "I was," said he, "in a state
of preparation, and my virtue had not such a shock to encounter, as that
of the gentleman last up." Mr. M. corroborated what Mr. SMITH had said
as to the communication of this affair to himself. He added, that he had
advised Mr. SMITH to give Randall another meeting, for the purpose of
developing his schemes and expectations more fully. Mr. M. said that Mr.
SMITH informed him on Wednesday morning; next day, in the morning, he
informed Mr. HENRY, of the Senate. Mr. SMITH, on that day, informed the
PRESIDENT. On that day (Thursday,) Mr. RANDALL was introduced to him,
and asked an interview at his lodging; he gave him an appointment, at
five in the afternoon. Mr. HENRY and he were together when Randall came
in. Randall talked about the policy of extinguishing the Indian title to
the Peninsula formed by Lakes Erie, Huron, and Michigan, containing
about eighteen or twenty millions of acres of very good land; and talked
in terms that he might have employed from a pulpit. He did not make any
corrupt overtures, till Mr. M. had carried him into his own apartment.
There Randall opened his proposals, as had been before mentioned by Mr.
SMITH, observing that if Congress would sell this land to him and his
company, they intended to divide it into forty or forty-one shares.
Twenty-four shares were to be appropriated to such members of Congress
as chose to support the memorial, which would be presented on Monday.
The members were to have their shares upon the same terms on which his
company should obtain the land. The Company would give five hundred
thousand, or perhaps a million of dollars: but on Mr. M.'s apparent
acquiescence in his views, he said that the shares would be given to the
members who advocated the measure, if they pleased to accept them, after
they returned to their homes. Mr. M. started a difficulty about the
embarrassment of land speculations, for which he, personally, had no
genius; and then Randall instantly turned out the cat, and told him that
if _he_ did not choose the share of land, he should have cash in hand
for his share. Mr. SMITH and Mr. MURRAY had resolved to disclose this to
the House, lest some innocent member might offer a memorial and become
liable to suspicion. Randall had hinted that larger proportions would be
assigned to the more active members, and lesser ones for the small fish.

The SPEAKER then rose, and expressed a wish that some gentleman would
move for an order to apprehend Randall. Upon this, Mr. SMITH again rose,
and said that a warrant to this effect had yesterday been issued by the
PRESIDENT, and to support which Mr. S. had made oath before a magistrate
to the particulars above mentioned. He hoped that by this time the
person was taken.

Mr. GILES next rose, and observed that an application from the same Mr.
Randall had been made to himself. Besides a repetition of some
particulars already stated, he told Mr. G. that he had already secured
thirty or forty members of this House, but he wanted to secure three
other members, if Mr. G. recollected right. He added, that he had
already secured a majority of the Senate. When this proposal was first
made, which Mr. G. thought was about ten days ago, a member from
New-York (Mr. LIVINGSTON) was present. Randall had even gone so far as
to say, that a written agreement was drawn out, and subscribed by a
number of Eastern members, and he wished Mr. G. to extend another
obligation of the same kind for the Southern members; the purport of
which paper was understood to be, that the members who voted in support
of the disposal of the lands, were to be secured in a stipulated share
of them, without having their names mentioned in the deed. Mr. G. was
solicitous to learn the names of the members who had already entered
into the negotiation, but Randall assured him, that, from motives of
delicacy, he durst not communicate any of the names. Mr. G. then desired
a sight of the agreement, that he might be able to comprehend its
meaning, before he should attempt to draw any similar paper. The man
called a second time, and, as Mr. G. conceived, about four days ago, but
had never produced the deed or any draft of it. Mr. G. had already
communicated the proposal to several members, and, in particular, to the
SPEAKER.

The SPEAKER (Mr. DAYTON) mentioned, that Mr. GILES had, some time ago,
informed him of the proposal. He replied, that if an opportunity
offered, he would take care to select a committee consisting of members
sure to detect the guilty, if any such could exist; adding that he
expected the House to believe that he would not have used such words,
but on so extraordinary an occasion.

Mr. CHRISTIE said, that he was the person who had introduced Randall to
Mr. SMITH and Mr. MURRAY. He had long known him, as a respectable man.
Randall had mentioned to Mr. C. in general, that it was a landed
speculation, and hinted that he, Mr. C., might accept of a share. In
reply, Mr. C. had assured him that he could not possibly have a concern
in any such transaction. Randall had not, to Mr. C., insinuated that any
undue advantage would accrue to members supporting the intended
purchase.

Mr. BUCK, a member from Vermont, mentioned that a person of the name of
Whitney, who appears to have been an associate with Randall, had called
upon him in the country with a proposal of this kind.

Mr. MADISON said, that the person referred to had also called upon him,
and told him of his having waited upon many members, and, among the
rest, upon the SPEAKER. Mr. MADISON said, that the conversation was
rather short, owing, perhaps, to the coldness with which the advances of
Mr. Randall were received. Mr. MADISON had already learned, through his
friend from Virginia (Mr. GILES,) the state in which the business was.
He did not wish to alarm the person by too much abruptness, and, at the
same time, he did not wish to give himself any unnecessary trouble about
it, as he understood that it would be properly managed without his
interference.


TUESDAY, December 29.

_Case of Randall and Whitney._

A return was made by Mr. JOSEPH WHEATON, Sergeant-at-Arms to the House
of Representatives. Mr. WHEATON stated that, agreeably to the order from
the SPEAKER, he had taken into custody the bodies of Robert Randall and
Charles Whitney, and kept them at the disposal of the House.

Mr. W. SMITH moved, that a Committee of Privileges, consisting of seven
members, should be appointed, and instructed to consider and report with
respect to the proper mode of proceeding in this case as to Robert
Randall, and that the said committee shall have leave to sit
immediately.

It was likewise moved that the name of Charles Whitney should be
comprehended in the resolution, because he also was taken into custody.
The resolution, as amended, was agreed to. Mr. BALDWIN, Mr. W. SMITH,
Mr. MURRAY, Mr. COIT, Mr. GILES, Mr. LIVINGSTON, and Mr. GOODHUE, were
named for a committee.

Randall was now brought in, by Mr. WHEATON, Sergeant-at-Arms, and the
City Marshal. That part of the journals which refers to his conduct was
read to him.

The SPEAKER then interrogated the prisoner, whether these charges were
true or false? Randall replied that he was not prepared to answer. He
hoped that time would be given him. The SPEAKER asked what time he
wanted? He could not positively tell; perhaps till the day after
to-morrow.

Mr. W. SMITH was disposed to give him the time required.

Mr. BLOUNT said, that he felt for his own dignity as a member of the
House, and for the dignity of the House. To suffer the prisoner to go
away from the bar till he had said guilty, or not guilty, when thirty or
forty members are positively charged with such conduct, and we suffer
the culprit to withdraw, without obliging him to explain, will excite
public suspicion that guilt is here.

Randall was then ordered to withdraw, till the discussion should be
over.

Mr. RUTHERFORD was for making him say yes or no, directly, as to the
guilt. If he wants to have time for pleading any thing in mitigation of
his punishment, that is a quite different affair. But the honor of the
House was concerned in making him give an immediate answer to the
queries now put.

Mr. HILLHOUSE was for bringing Randall forward directly. He ought not to
be allowed time to think of an answer.

Mr. HARPER felt as much as any man for the dignity of the House, but
this would not induce him to proceed in a hurry. Mr. H. enlarged on the
danger of indulging passion on this subject. It would be wrong to force
the prisoner to answer unprepared. What if he refuses to answer at all?
Confession amounts, in this case, to conviction. He was for granting
indulgence.

Mr. VENABLE felt as much as any man for the dignity of the House. At the
same time, he felt himself above suspicion, and the House above it. He
would not wish to trample on the rights of an individual. He saw no
danger that could arise to the House from a short delay. He referred to
what Mr. HARPER had said about the hardship of making any man convict
himself.

Mr. CLAIBORNE was also against hurrying the prisoner. He recommended
that coolness and moderation should distinguish the proceedings of the
House.

The question was then put, whether the prisoner should be obliged to
answer immediately. Ayes 42, noes 48.

It was then moved, by Mr. W. SMITH, that he should be allowed till
twelve o'clock, to-morrow.

Mr. BLOUNT proposed the yeas and nays on the latter question. A member
observed that they should rather have been put on the one immediately
preceding. The motion was supported only by four or five members. A
fifth part of the House are requisite for calling the yeas and nays.

Mr. BLOUNT then laid on the table a long resolution. It was, in
substance, that before Randall was recommitted, he should be
interrogated as to who were the thirty or forty members that had been
gained to the scheme.

Mr. HARPER thought it extraordinary to bring a culprit before the House
for contempt of it, and then encourage him to criminate members. He
should ever protest against persons being brought to the bar for that
purpose. He therefore moved to strike out from the resolution proposed
by Mr. BLOUNT, the words: "And if you did, who are the members whom you
considered as so secured; and what were your reasons for thinking them
so secured?" This was the last clause of an interrogatory which Mr.
BLOUNT proposed putting to Randall.

Mr. BLOUNT declared that he had never meant bringing an accuser to the
bar, or propounding a question that should bring forth an accusation.

Mr. HARPER replied.

Mr. BLOUNT then modified his resolution, by striking out the
exceptionable words; to which Mr. HARPER then agreed.

Mr. MURRAY called upon gentlemen by their sensibility to personal
dignity, and the character of the House, to arrest the motion. Its
tendency certainly was to place the honor of the House, or of a very
great part of it, in the power of a man of whose profligacy of principle
there could now be no doubt. Will you, he observed, permit, nay, invite
him, whom you arraign at the bar of this House, to be a public accuser?
Will you adopt a charge against him, which is in its nature an
imputation that however lightly and wickedly made, will implicate
perhaps innocent men? These men, to rescue their own reputations, will
be obliged to risk their characters, on the weight of their veracity, by
denying this man's charge in the face of a world but too prone to
suspect. By this motion, Randall's assertion to the gentleman from
Virginia, (Mr. GILES,) the only member who has mentioned it, is to be
alleged against Randall as an offence. That Randall said to the
gentleman that there were thirty or forty members secured, he had no
doubt; but he believed the fact to be that Randall was both deceived
himself and attempted to deceive the gentleman. Why, said Mr. M., the
fellow told me that those thirty members were secured. Mr. M. had not
thought proper to state that circumstance, because he did not so much
consider it as a fact material to the detection of Randall's guilt, as
it was one which, if mentioned, might possibly afford to malice an
opportunity of affixing a stigma to any thirty or forty names at which
personal enmity might point. No public good could result from such a
disclosure; for the assertion of such a man as Randall could not, among
men of honor, be deemed a sufficient ground of suspicion; and yet the
malice of the world, or the rancor of personal enemies, might attach
suspicion and infamy to almost the whole House, from the indefiniteness
of the charge. When Randall informed him, on Thursday night, that there
were thirty members who would support his measures, he had felt in the
very conduct which he then was himself pursuing to detect Randall, to
arrest his scheme, a principle of candor towards others, which taught
him that other gentlemen to whom Randall had communicated his scheme
confidentially, were probably determined as honestly as himself to crush
the infamous plot against the honor of the House. He knew that he who
would be wicked enough to attempt seduction, might be weak enough to use
this intelligence artfully, for the purpose of leading him the more
readily to accept terms of infamy; because the object was painted as
easily attainable, and that Randall might wish to diminish all qualms,
by exhibiting a pretended group of accomplices whose company would at
least diminish the appearance of singularity. I entertained, said Mr.
M., no suspicion of any man--I knew Randall to be a corrupt man from his
offers to myself--I therefore placed all his intelligence to the score
of flimsy art: I knew that such a man was not to be fully believed,
where his interest was to magnify his success. I drew favorable auspices
with respect to the corps to which I belong, from another piece of
intelligence of his, which was, that he communicated to some members,
one of whom he had named, and whom I knew to be a man of honor, in what
he called the _general way_. This general way was a display of the
sounder part of his scheme merely, and not the corrupt; consisting in
developing the advantages which would result to the Union in the
disposal of their lands, provided the harmony of the Indians could be
secured. In this view of his plan he gave the subject an attitude far
from unimposing; and I conceived that, as in proportion to the numbers
engaged confidentially he must know that the hazard of detection
increased, he would not communicate the corrupt view as long as he found
the more honest part of the policy might appear to strike any gentleman
as a measure useful to his country; I therefore did not believe Randall,
in the sense he evidently intended; therefore, sir, I did not feel
myself at liberty to mention the assertion which I conceived to be
unavailing as a circumstance necessary to the example I wished to make,
but which, if communicated, I thought might cast a stain, by the mystery
that enveloped it, upon a body whose character ought to be held sacred
to the confidence of the country. My duty was to bring Randall's attempt
to corrupt unequivocally into light, not by repeating all the arts which
he excited to corrupt; nor by exhibiting them in a way that might wound
the feelings of men of honor, who, if charged even personally by
Randall, would have no refuge from odium but in their characters and
counter-assertion: this, though always conclusive with those who
personally know them, is not a protection to minds of sensibility
against the stings of calumny. The voice of fame is not composed from
the voice of men of honor.

Mr. HILLHOUSE was convinced that there was not a gentleman in the House,
whose character rested on so slender a foundation, as to be affected by
any thing that this man could say. He felt no anxiety for the reputation
of the House, for he knew that it was not in the smallest danger. The
resolution went merely to make Randall confess that he had said so and
so. It implied nothing to affect members. A man covered with infamy
making such charges could not expect credit, or obtain it from any body.
Mr. HILLHOUSE was, for these reasons, in favor of the resolution for
interrogating Randall.

The resolution was now read, as follows:

      "_Resolved_, That it be made a charge against the said
      Robert Randall, that he declared to a member of this House,
      that a number consisting of not less than thirty members of
      this House had engaged to support his memorial."

Randall was then brought to the bar. The resolution was read to him, and
he was informed that he must answer it to-morrow, at 12 o'clock.

A motion for adjourning was then made. Ayes, 26; so it was lost.

It was next moved and agreed, that Whitney should be brought to the bar.
The SPEAKER then said, Is this the prisoner? Answered, Yes. What is your
name? Charles Whitney. What is your usual place of residence? Vermont.
What are you? I was bred to the farming business. Do you know one Robert
Randall? Yes. The Clerk will read to you the charge that has occasioned
your being brought here. The charge, as stated in the journal of the
House, was then read to the prisoner. He was next interrogated by the
SPEAKER, as follows: Are you guilty, or not guilty? Not guilty. Are you
ready to speak in your defence? I am ready to tell every thing. Are you
prepared to do so just now? Yes. Whitney then stated that he was
connected with Randall in a plan for the purchase of eighteen or twenty
millions of acres of land, lying between the Lakes Erie, Huron, and
Michigan. He had come to town on the design of presenting a petition to
Congress, but had no knowledge of any improper kind of applications.
Randall had several times called upon him at his lodgings, at the Green
Tree, in North Fourth street. He considered the scheme to be of probable
advantage, and a handsome thing to the United States as well as to the
prisoner himself, who repeatedly observed that he would not have engaged
in it, but with a view partly to his own interest. He had wished to
engage influential characters in the business. He was then asked what
associates he had. He answered, Colonel Pepune and Mr. Jones, of the
State of Massachusetts; and Mr. Ebenezer Allen, of Vermont. He also,
upon a query from the SPEAKER, mentioned the name of another person,
which was not distinctly heard. He was asked if the partners meant to
divide the land into forty shares. He answered forty-one; but this was
only in speculation. They had only a rough idea of the extent of the
land, which was inhabited by the Wyandots, and was of a very good soil.
The land was to be divided among the proprietors. The prisoner knew, in
general, from Randall, that he called on Mr. SMITH, and other members;
but was not privy to, nor suspected any unbecoming overtures. He was
then asked the names of the associates at Detroit. He mentioned Mr.
Erskine, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Innes, Mr. Pattison, and Mr. Erskine,
junior. He said that some of them were Indian traders, to a
considerable extent. He had called at Mr. BUCK's, of Vermont, (a member
of the House,) as he was riding by his house. He knew him to be a
gentleman of character whose name would add credit to the business. He
had told him that there were several other persons intending to be
concerned, and that, if it was consistent with his situation as a member
of Congress, he would be glad to have him engaged, but at the same time
carefully noticed that this proposal was conditionally made, and only if
it was proper. He was asked what Mr. Erskine was. He is called Judge
Erskine, but whether he is now a judge, or only was one in some other
part of the country, at a former period, the prisoner cannot tell. You
say that you came to Philadelphia about a month ago. Why were you so
long in presenting your petition? He had a bad cold, and had been sick,
and wanted to make a personal explanation to the members before bringing
the affair before the House. Have you got any new associates in this
city? None. Mr. LIVINGSTON then proposed a question, Whether any of the
shares had been left unappropriated by your associates and you? Answer:
It was at his own option to dispose of shares as he pleased. He was
asked if he could produce any written agreement between himself and his
associates. He believed that he could, and that it would do him no harm
to do so. It was at the Green Tree. But, as a matter of candor, he
requested time to consider whether the production of it could hurt him
or not. This ended the examination.

Mr. W. SMITH then made a motion, consisting of three points, that
Whitney should be ordered to re-appear at the bar, at twelve o'clock,
to-morrow; that he should be ordered to produce the bond; and that, till
to-morrow, he should be remanded to the custody of the City Marshal. It
was likewise recommended that, till to-morrow, the two prisoners be kept
in separate apartments.

Mr. GOODHUE requested that Whitney might be ordered to withdraw; which
was done. He then related that the prisoner had made an application to
him at different times. Mr. GOODHUE told him that he knew very little of
the Western country; he had always lived on the sea-coast, and land
jobbing was quite out of his line. Whitney did not make any corrupt
proposals to him. He believed that it was because he was very averse to
wasting time in speaking at all on the matter.

Mr. SEDGWICK said that, as no direct charge of corruption had been made
against Whitney, he apprehended it would be improper to detain him as a
prisoner. It might be considered as a wanton act of arbitrary power.

Mr. BUCK then rose, and said that he had not yesterday told the whole of
what passed between him and Whitney. Mr. BUCK had received offers plain
enough to be understood. He might either have land, or money in lieu of
it.

Mr. SEDGWICK said, that he had now no opposition to the resolutions;
which were carried.


WEDNESDAY, December 30.

JOHN PAGE, from Virginia, appeared, was qualified, and took his seat.

_Case of Randall and Whitney._

Mr. W. SMITH moved an amendment of the journal to this effect, that the
said Charles Whitney had made overtures to Mr. BUCK, to this purpose,
that he should have a share in the lands to be purchased, or in money.

Mr. NICHOLAS objected to the motion. The reading of the journal was
called for. It was read.

Mr. SEDGWICK said, that the original charge against the man was complete
and full. He thought the amendment unnecessary.

A petition was then presented from Randall requesting that he might be
indulged with a reasonable time to make his defence, and with counsel.

Mr. W. SMITH was very ready to allow the prisoner counsel for his
defence, but, in so doing, he wished it to be understood, not as a
matter of right but of favor. He was apprehensive that gentlemen in
proceeding from one step to another, would at last reason away the
privileges of the House altogether. His friend from Massachusetts (Mr.
SEDGWICK) had quoted the clause of the constitution which gave a right
to have counsel in all trials for crimes; but it did not apply to this
case, any more than the clause which immediately followed it, declaring
that all trials for crimes should be by a jury of the vicinage, and
after presentment by a grand jury. The present inquiry was of a special
and peculiar nature, resulting from the rights and privileges which
belonged to every Legislative institution, and without which such
institution could not exist. As every jurisdiction had certain powers
necessary for its preservation, so the Legislature possessed certain
privileges incident to its nature, and essential for its very existence.
This is called in England the parliamentary law; and as from that law
are derived the usages and proceedings of the several State
Legislatures, so will the proceedings of this House be generally guided
by the long-established usages of the State Legislatures. There would be
a manifest absurdity in conforming the proceedings in this case to the
ordinary proceedings at law in jury trials, for the House, instead of
being able to protect itself, would be altogether dependent on the other
branches of the Government, and in every case of aggression be obliged
to send the offenders to the civil magistrate. If there was any weight
in such reasoning as had been heard, then the House would have to tread
back all the unconstitutional steps they had been taking, and to
discharge, without delay, both the prisoners; for the arrest by the
Sergeant-at-Arms, under the SPEAKER's warrant, was only justifiable on
the ground he had mentioned, namely, the inherent and indispensable
power of self-preservation. That the House possessed power to arrest had
not been denied; but the power of commitment was incident to that of
arrest, and if it possessed both these high powers, it must of
consequence possess the necessary incident of trial or inquiry, in
regulating which the House was only to be governed by its own wisdom and
discretion. On this occasion Mr. S. said he felt, as he trusted every
member did, a proper respect for the rights of individuals brought to
the bar, as well as for those of the House, and he hoped that their
conduct would be marked with discretion and temper; but, willing as he
was to grant the prayer of the petitioner, he could not suffer the
argument which had been relied on, to pass unanswered. This was the
first instance, since the organization of this Government, in which it
had been found necessary to resort to this high prerogative; it was
right, therefore, that the principles on which it was founded should be
well understood, and that the privileges of the House should stand
unimpaired.

Mr. SEDGWICK moved that the prayer of the petition should be granted,
and that Randall be allowed till to-morrow, to be heard at the bar.

The petition was again read.

Mr. CHRISTIE had known Randall for many years, and had never heard of
any thing against him before. He had lately been at Detroit, and Mr. C.
believed that he had been injured by keeping bad company. He was not the
first man in the country who had been corrupted by British influence and
British company. He moved that Randall should be allowed till to-morrow
at twelve o'clock. This was negatived.

The SPEAKER then said, that, if agreeable to the House, he would send
for Randall, and inquire what time he wanted. This was done; Randall
came in, and asked till Saturday, but as the House does not sit on
Saturday, Friday was appointed.

The bond or agreement between the intended purchasers of the land was
then read. It was dated at Detroit, the 26th of September last. Allen,
Whitney, and Randall, were to have the disposal of 36 shares out of 41.


THURSDAY, December 31.

RICHARD WINN, from South Carolina, appeared, was qualified, and took his
seat.

_Case of Randall and Whitney._

Mr. BALDWIN, the chairman of the Committee of Privileges, reported, in
part, on the subject of the further proceedings to be had in the case of
R. Randall and C. Whitney, in substance as follows:

1. That a further hearing of R. Randall should be held at the bar; that
the information given by members against the said Randall be reduced to
writing, signed by the informants respectively, and entered at large on
the journals; that the said information should be read to the prisoner,
and he be asked by the SPEAKER what he had to say in his defence. If the
prisoner should desire to produce any parole evidence to exculpate
himself, the same shall be heard at the bar, and the Judge of the
District of Pennsylvania be requested to attend to administer an oath or
affirmation to the witnesses on the part of the prisoner; that the
SPEAKER shall put all questions to the witnesses. When any debate should
arise, that the prisoner and his counsel be directed to withdraw; and,
when he has concluded his defence and withdrawn, that the sense of the
House be taken on the guilt or innocence of the prisoners, respectively.

Mr. MADISON was of opinion that no citizen can be punished without the
solemnity of an oath to the fact. Of consequence, it is needful to the
information of members, if the punishment of a fellow-citizen is
implicated. Perhaps it may be urged that members, having taken an oath
to support the constitution, this supersedes the necessity of an oath in
the present case.

Mr. GALLATIN thought it reasonable that members should be liable to be
questioned upon oath. That there was no precedent for it, had little
weight. There are many absurdities in the law of nations which gentlemen
would not wish to introduce here.

Mr. SWIFT was against the members being subject to this regulation. The
case was quite novel to him. But this was, at first view, his way of
thinking. Suppose that some person in the gallery were to commit an
insult on the House, before the whole members, would it be necessary
that they should all swear to the offence before proceeding to punish
it? This Mr. S. regarded as a parallel case.

Mr. THATCHER made a distinction when an offence had been committed in
presence of the whole House, and when committed out of their view. In
the former case, there could not be any use for evidence being sworn,
because the whole House had the testimony of their senses. It was
different when the circumstances occurred in another place; and Mr. T.
was convinced that the charge ought to be sworn to. The passage under
amendment was in these words: "That it should be reduced to writing;"
and the dispute was about adding the words, "and sworn to." Mr. T.,
though for examining the members on oath as to the charge against
Randall, was opposed to the amendment as useless, because the members
must, in his opinion, be sworn when Randall is brought to the bar. The
mere declaration of a prosecutor, not under oath, and of a defendant in
the same situation, is equally exceptionable. A phrase had been
repeatedly used which Mr. T. did not understand. It was said that a
member was entitled "to stand up in his place" and give information so
and so. With the meaning of this expression Mr. T. was unacquainted, nor
did he know any law which authorized the imprisonment of a
fellow-citizen on a mere charge unsupported by oath. He did not see the
use of the amendment, but he was clearly satisfied that members ought
to be examined and sworn touching their accusations, as well as any
other persons.

Mr. NICHOLAS was not, in this instance, for departing from the
principles of common law. Instead of supporting the dignity of the
House, about which so much has been spoken, he was afraid that, by
arrogating too much on the side of privilege, they might lessen their
dignity. He declared, upon his honor, that he thought the gentlemen
concerned should, for their own sakes, insist on being cross-examined by
the prisoner and his counsel. To be cross-examined implies no reflection
on a witness. The imperfection of human nature requires such a
precaution, and were Mr. N. a party, he would insist on being
cross-examined. The proposed amendment would narrow the business too
much. It would be better to lay it aside, and let the members be, as
above proposed, subject to cross-examination from the prisoner.

Mr. MADISON said, that when Randall came to the bar he would possibly
save all this trouble, by confessing his guilt, and casting himself on
the mercy of the House. He mentioned an anecdote of a judge who had been
publicly insulted. He informed his brethren of the bench, and, on his
complaint, the offender was apprehended. When he was brought before the
court the oath was administered to the judge. Mr. M. related this story
to show the propriety of every accusation being sworn to, whatever may
be the rank or situation of the accuser.


MONDAY, January 4.

_Presentation of the Flag of France._

The SPEAKER informed the House, that a Message was ready to be delivered
to the House, of a nature calculated to give the most pleasing
satisfaction to every American breast. He suggested to the House, and
the citizens in the galleries, the propriety of not suffering the fervor
of enthusiasm to infringe on the dignity of the Representative Councils
of the United States. He recommended that a respectful silence should be
observed, as most compatible with the true dignity of the House, and the
honor of the magnanimous Republic that was the subject of the Message.

The PRESIDENT's Secretary was then introduced, with an American officer
bearing the Standard of the French Republic,[62] sent by the Committee
of Public Safety, Organ of the National Convention, as a token of
friendship to the United States. The Secretary presented a Message in
writing from the PRESIDENT, with sundry papers accompanying it, to the
SPEAKER, by whom they were read as follows:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of
      Representatives:_

      A letter from the Minister Plenipotentiary of the French
      Republic, received on the 22d of the last month, covered an
      Address, dated the 21st of October, 1794, from the
      Committee of Public Safety to the Representatives of the
      United States in Congress; and also informed me that he was
      instructed by the committee to present to the United States
      the Colors of France. I therefore proposed to receive them
      last Friday, the first day of the new year, a day of
      general joy and congratulation. On that day the Minister of
      the French Republic delivered the Colors, with an Address,
      to which I returned an answer. By the latter, the House
      will see that I have informed the Minister that the Colors
      will be deposited with the archives of the United States.
      But it seemed to me proper previously to exhibit to the two
      Houses of Congress these evidences of the continued
      friendship of the French Republic, together with the
      sentiments expressed by me on the occasion in behalf of the
      United States. They are herewith communicated.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.

      UNITED STATES, _January 4, 1796_.

[TRANSLATION.]

      The Representatives of the French People, composing the
      Committee of Public Safety of the National Convention,
      charged by the laws of the 7th Fructidor, with the
      direction of Foreign Relations, to the Representatives of
      the United States of America in Congress assembled:

      _Citizens Representatives:_ The connections which nature,
      reciprocal events, and a happy concurrence of
      circumstances, have formed between two free nations, cannot
      but be indissoluble. You have strengthened those sacred
      ties by the declarations, which the Minister
      Plenipotentiary of the United States has made, in your
      name, to the National Convention, and to the French people.
      They have been received with rapture by a nation who know
      how to appreciate every testimony which the United States
      have given to them of their affection. The Colors of both
      nations, united in the centre of the National Convention,
      will be an everlasting evidence of the part which the
      United States have taken in the success of the French
      Republic.

      You were the first defenders of the rights of man in
      another hemisphere. Strengthened by your example, and
      endowed with an invincible energy, the French people have
      vanquished that tyranny, which, during so many centuries of
      ignorance, superstition, and baseness, had enchained a
      generous nation.

      Soon did the people of the United States perceive that
      every victory of ours strengthened their independence and
      happiness. They were deeply affected at our momentary
      misfortunes, occasioned by treasons purchased by English
      gold. They have celebrated with rapture the successes of
      our brave armies.

      None of these sympathetic emotions have escaped the
      sensibility of the French nation. They have all served to
      cement the most intimate and solid union that has ever
      existed between two nations.

      The citizen ADET, who will reside near your Government in
      quality of Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republic,
      is specially instructed to tighten these bands of
      fraternity and mutual benevolence. We hope that he may
      fulfil this principal object of his mission, by a conduct
      worthy of the confidence of both nations, and of the
      reputation which his patriotism and virtues have acquired
      him.

      An analogy of political principles; the natural relations
      of commerce and industry; the efforts and immense
      sacrifices of both nations in the defence of liberty and
      equality; the blood which they have spilled together; their
      avowed hatred for despots; the moderation of their
      political views; the disinterestedness of their councils;
      and especially, the success of the vows which they have
      made in presence of the Supreme Being, to be free or die;
      all combine to render indestructible the connections which
      they have formed.

      Doubt it not, citizens, we shall finally destroy the
      combination of tyrants. You, by the picture of prosperity,
      which, in your vast countries, has succeeded to a bloody
      struggle of eight years; we, by the enthusiasm which glows
      in the breast of every Frenchman. Astonished nations, too
      long the dupes of perfidious Kings, Nobles, and Priests,
      will eventually recover their rights, and the human race
      will owe to the American and French nations their
      regeneration and a lasting peace.

      Paris, 30th Vindemaire, 3d year of the French Republic, one
      and indivisible.

      The Members of the Committee of Public Safety.

                                  J. S. B. DELMAS,
                                  MERLIN (of Douai) &c.

      OCTOBER 21, 1794.

       *       *       *       *       *

[TRANSLATION.]

      _Mr. President:_ I come to acquit myself of a duty very
      dear to my heart; I come to deposit in your hands and in
      the midst of a people justly renowned for their courage and
      their love of liberty, the symbol of the triumphs and of
      the enfranchisement of my nation.

      When she broke her chains; when she proclaimed the
      imprescriptible rights of man; when, in a terrible war, she
      sealed with her blood the covenant she had made with
      Liberty, her own happiness was not alone the object of her
      glorious efforts; her views extended also to all free
      people. She saw their interests blended with her own, and
      doubly rejoiced in her victories, which, in assuring to her
      the enjoyment of her rights, became to them new guarantees
      of their independence.

      These sentiments which animated the French nation from the
      dawn of their revolution, have acquired new strength since
      the foundation of the Republic. France, at that time, by
      the form of its Government, assimilated to, or rather
      identified with, free people, saw in them only friends and
      brothers. Long accustomed to regard the American people as
      her most faithful allies, she has sought to draw closer the
      ties already formed in the fields of America, under the
      auspices of victory, over the ruins of tyranny.

      The National Convention, the organ of the will of the
      French nation, have more than once expressed their
      sentiments to the American people; but above all, these
      burst forth on that august day, when the Minister of the
      United States presented to the National Representation the
      Colors of his country. Desiring never to lose recollections
      as dear to Frenchmen as they must be to Americans, the
      Convention ordered that these Colors should be placed in
      the hall of their sittings. They had experienced sensations
      too agreeable not to cause them to be partaken of by their
      allies, and decreed that, to them, the National Colors
      should be presented.

      Mr. President, I do not doubt their expectations will be
      fulfilled; and I am convinced that every citizen will
      receive, with a pleasing emotion, this flag, elsewhere the
      terror of the enemies of liberty, here the certain pledge
      of faithful friendship; especially when they recollect that
      it guides to combat, men who have shared their toils, and
      who were prepared for liberty by aiding them to acquire
      their own.

                                  P. A. ADET.

             *       *       *       *       *

      The Answer of the President of the United States to the
      Address of the Minister Plenipotentiary of the French
      Republic, on his presenting the Colors of France to the
      United States:

      Born, sir, in a land of liberty; having early learned its
      value; having engaged in a perilous conflict to defend it;
      having, in a word, devoted the best years of my life to
      secure its permanent establishment in my own country; my
      anxious recollections, my sympathetic feelings, and my best
      wishes, are irresistibly excited, whensoever, in any
      country, I see an oppressed nation unfurl the banner of
      freedom. But, above all, the events of the French
      Revolution have produced the deepest solicitude, as well as
      the highest admiration. To call your nation brave, were to
      pronounce but common praise. Wonderful people! Ages to come
      will read with astonishment the history of your brilliant
      exploits! I rejoice that the period of your toils and of
      your immense sacrifices is approaching. I rejoice that the
      interesting revolutionary movements of so many years have
      issued in the formation of a constitution designed to give
      permanency to the great object for which you have
      contended. I rejoice that liberty, which you have so long
      embraced with enthusiasm; liberty, of which you have been
      the invincible defenders, now finds an asylum in the bosom
      of a regularly organized Government; a Government, which
      being formed to secure the happiness of the French people,
      corresponds with the ardent wishes of my heart, while it
      gratifies the pride of every citizen of the United States
      by its resemblance to their own. On these glorious events,
      accept, sir, my sincere congratulations.

      In delivering to you these sentiments, I express not my own
      feelings only, but those of my fellow-citizens, in relation
      to the commencement, the progress, and the issue of the
      French Revolution; and they will cordially join with me in
      purest wishes to the Supreme Being, that the citizens of
      our sister Republic, our magnanimous allies, may soon enjoy
      in peace, that liberty which they have purchased at so
      great a price, and all the happiness which liberty can
      bestow.

      I receive, sir, with lively sensibility, the symbol of the
      triumphs and of the enfranchisement of your nation--the
      Colors of France--which you have now presented to the
      United States. The transaction will be announced to
      Congress, and the Colors will be deposited with those
      archives of the United States, which are at once the
      evidences and the memorials of their freedom and
      independence. May these be perpetual, and may the
      friendship of the two Republics be commensurate with their
      existence.

                                  GEORGE WASHINGTON.

      UNITED STATES, _January 1, 1796_.

When the reading of the Message and papers had been concluded--

Mr. GILES informed the House that, having been aware that the flag would
be presented to the House this day, considering it as an additional
testimony of the affection of France, and it having been the practice on
analogous occasions for the House to express their sentiments
independent of the other branch, he had prepared a resolution expressive
of what he conceived would be their sense on the occasion. It was nearly
in the words following:

      "_Resolved_, That the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES be
      requested to make known to the Representatives of the
      French people, that this House has received, with the most
      lively sensibility, the communication of the Committee of
      Public Safety, of the 21st of October, 1794, accompanied
      with the Colors of the French Republic, and to assure them
      that the presentation of the Colors of France to the
      Congress of the United States is deemed a most honorable
      testimony of the existing sympathy and affections of the
      two Republics, founded upon their solid and reciprocal
      interests; that the House rejoices in the opportunity of
      congratulating the French Republic on the brilliant and
      glorious achievements accomplished under it during the
      present afflictive war, and that they hope those
      achievements will be attended with a perfect attainment of
      their object, the permanent establishment of the liberty
      and happiness of that great and magnanimous people."

Mr. PARKER moved an amendment as follows: "That this House has received
with the most _sincere and_ lively sensibility," &c. The amendment was
for inserting the two words in italics, to which the House consented.
The Message was then voted unanimously, and a thousand copies of the
communications and resolution were ordered to be printed. A committee of
two members was appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT, and inform him of
the resolution agreed to by the House.


_Case of Randall and Whitney._

Pursuant to the proceedings of the House on Friday last, Mr. SMITH, of
South Carolina, Mr. MURRAY, of Maryland, Mr. GILES, of Virginia, and Mr.
BUCK, of Vermont, delivered in at the Clerk's table their several
informations in writing, subscribed with their names, respectively, in
the cases of Robert Randall and Charles Whitney; which are as follow:

      Mr. MURRAY declares, that, on Wednesday last, the
      twenty-third instant, Mr. Smith, member of Congress, of
      South Carolina, informed him that a man of the name of
      Randall, of Maryland, had, the evening before, attempted to
      bribe him in Western lands, on condition of his supporting
      an application which Randall told him he should soon make
      to Congress; the object of which application was, a grant
      from Congress of from eighteen to twenty millions of acres
      of land, between Erie, Huron, and Michigan. That Mr. Smith
      was extremely solicitous that some other gentleman should
      immediately be informed of the infamous proposal, and that
      he said he would mention it to Mr. Henry, of the Senate,
      and advise with him upon proper measures for the detecting
      of the full extent of the scheme, and crushing it: That he
      had no opportunity of talking to Mr. Henry on that day;
      but early on the morning of the twenty-fourth instant,
      communicated the intelligence to Mr. Henry, who recommended
      that Mr. Smith should immediately inform the President:
      that on the said day, Mr. Randall, of Maryland, was
      introduced to him, the informant, and requested a
      confidential interview at his, the informant's lodgings,
      which the informant readily promised him, to be at five,
      for the purpose of developing his scheme. That Randall came
      at or near five, that day last named, to wit: on Thursday,
      and communicated to Mr. Henry and himself, in general
      terms, the outline of a plan by which he, Randall, and his
      Canada friends, would extinguish the Indian title to all
      the lands between Lakes Erie, Huron, and Michigan, as
      marked on a map which Randall then showed, containing from
      eighteen to twenty millions of acres. That he, the
      informant, then asked Randall into his apartment, where
      they were alone. That Randall expatiated at first upon the
      public utility of his scheme, which was that Congress
      should grant to him and his company all the lands aforesaid
      mentioned, for five hundred thousand, or, at most one
      million of dollars; and that he would undertake, in four
      months, that the harmony of the Indians should be secured
      to the Union: or, if Congress thought proper, that the
      Indian tribes now on said land should be removed to the
      British side, or down Lake Michigan, reserving to some aged
      chiefs a few miles square; that his company and himself had
      determined to divide the lands aforesaid into forty (or
      forty-one) shares. That of these shares twenty-four were to
      be reserved for the disposal of himself and his partner,
      now in town, for such members of Congress as assisted them,
      by their abilities and votes, in obtaining the grant
      aforesaid. That of these twenty-four shares, his partner
      had twelve under his management for the Eastern members of
      Congress, and that he, Randall, had the other twelve shares
      under his management for the Southern members of Congress.
      That these shares were to be so divided as to accomplish
      the object by securing a majority of Congress. That the
      informant started an objection to land speculation as
      troublesome, and that he, Randall, said, if you (meaning
      the informant) do not choose to accept your share of the
      land, you shall have cash in hand for your share. That the
      informant appointed Randall to meet him in the lobby of the
      House, on Monday, the twenty-eighth instant. That Randall
      told him a memorial was to be handed in upon this subject
      on said Monday; but refused to inform the informant what
      member was to present it. That Randall told him, that he,
      Randall, mentioned his plan to some members in the _general
      way_ only--meaning thereby, as he understood him, a view of
      the sounder part of the plan, as being conducive to public
      utility. That, in the early part of the confidential and
      secret conversation, Randall said, that the members of
      Congress who would behave handsomely, should come into
      their shares on the same terms upon which the company
      obtained the grant; but soon after, made proposals more
      openly seductive and corrupt; closing them with the offer
      of cash in hand as aforesaid. That the informant, on that
      evening, when Randall went away, told Mr. Henry of the
      whole of Randall's offers as aforesaid; then called on the
      Secretary of State, and communicated the same to him; and
      the next morning, early, informed the President of the
      transaction.

                                  W. V. MURRAY.

      DECEMBER 29, 1795.

      [Mr. William Smith, of S. Carolina, Mr. William B. Giles,
      of Virginia, Mr. Buck, of Vermont, and afterwards, Mr.
      Sedgwick, of Massachusetts, severally gave in statements
      corroborating that of Mr. Vans Murray.]

It was then moved that Robert Randall should be brought to the bar of
the House. He was brought in accordingly. Seats were placed for the
Judge of the District of Pennsylvania, and the two counsellors for
Randall, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Tilghman, jr. The informations given in by
Mr. W. SMITH, Mr. MURRAY, and Mr. GILES, were read over, and the SPEAKER
asked the prisoner, what he had to say in his defence? I am not guilty.
You declare yourself not guilty? Yes. Have you any proof to cite that
you are not guilty? No. Are you ready to answer?

Mr. Lewis[63] then rose. He observed, that these declarations had been
made in the absence of the prisoner, who, as he conceived, was entitled
to have been present. His request was, that the informants might now be
placed in a situation to be examined by the prisoner and his counsel,
and that the information may now be given in the prisoner's hearing. The
prisoner and his counsel were ordered to withdraw.

Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH made the following motion:

      "That the prisoner be informed, that if he has any
      questions to propose to the informants, or other members of
      the House, he is at liberty to put them, (in the mode
      already prescribed,) and that they be sworn to answer such
      questions as shall be asked, and that the informants be
      sworn to the declarations just read."

The words in parenthesis were an amendment suggested by Mr. GILES. The
resolution and amendment were adopted by the House, and the prisoner
with his counsel were again brought to the bar. The resolution above
stated was read to Randall.

Mr. W. SMITH, Mr. MURRAY, and Mr. GILES, were then sworn, standing up in
their places: the oath being administered by the Judge.

Mr. Tilghman[63] then observed on the delicate situation in which the
counsel stood, with which they were strongly impressed. The high
character of the gentlemen who stood forth in support of the accusation,
gentlemen whom Mr. T. had known personally for many years, with the
odious nature of the crime charged on the prisoner, embarrassed them
considerably; as they had, however, been permitted by the House to
appear in this business, they were bound in duty to do every thing
consistent with a fair and honorable defence. If Mr. T. were to declare
his own opinion of the conduct of the prisoner, it would be thus, that
his behavior was highly improper and indelicate; but Mr. Randall denied
having made any offer either of lands or money, as in fact he had none
to give. The disposal of the lands depended entirely on the subsequent
vote of Congress.

Mr. Lewis spoke a few words. The prisoner's defence was, that he denied
any proposal of a corrupt nature. The members who favored the sale of
the lands, were only to have their shares on the same terms, and on
paying an equal share of the expenses, as the other partners.

Mr. W. SMITH was then examined upon that part of his information where
he says, that those members who should be concerned with Randall, were
to have shares of the lands. Mr. SMITH was asked whether the offer was
that they were to be granted at an inferior rate? In reply, he
understood it was to be on the same terms as other partners were to have
them. Mr. GOODHUE proposed a query, whether the offer made by Mr.
Randall was in order that Mr. SMITH might use his influence to forward
the scheme in Congress? Mr. SMITH replied, that he certainly understood
it so. The prisoner had all along referred to members of Congress,
though he did not expressly name them. His phrase was, "for persons who
would favor the scheme."

Mr. Tilghman then, through the SPEAKER, asked Mr. MURRAY whether he
understood he was to pay for his share of land as the other associates
or not?

Mr. MURRAY.--I understood him as is explained in the declaration. At
first I understood, that the members who should assist in getting the
thing through, might then retire to their homes, and when the scheme was
in activity they might come in on the same terms as the original
associates. But afterwards, I understood from Randall that I might have
a share if I would accept of it, and this I understood from the whole
tenor of the latter part of his conversation. The shares set apart were
to be for acceptance as donations. I so understood him.

Mr. Tilghman.--Did he expressly say, that they were intended as
donations, or did Mr. MURRAY collect this to be the man's meaning from a
variety of circumstances?

Mr. MURRAY.--He did not say, if you will do so and so, I will give you
so and so; his proposal, though more delicate, was as unequivocal as a
direct offer. I so understood him.

Mr. HARPER asked Mr. MURRAY, whether Randall did not tell him, that if
he did not like land, he should have money, and whether the money was
not to be more than the value of the share of land?

Mr. MURRAY said, that from this part, and indeed the general tenor of
the conversation, he did infer, that a donation was intended, and when
he objected to land, the prisoner then said, if he did not choose to
accept of a share in land, he might have cash in hand.

Mr. Lewis, counsel for the prisoner, asked Mr. MURRAY, whether he did
not state to Randall his aversion to dealing in land, and whether
Randall did not say that this need not be an objection, since the share
might be sold, and then that he would have cash instead of land?

Mr. MURRAY.--I did not so understand it.

Mr. HARPER wished Mr. MURRAY to relate, as nearly as possible, the words
of the prisoner in this important part of the conversation.

Mr. MURRAY said, that immediately after it took place, and he had
communicated it to his friends, he took notes of it. It stood in this
manner: "I stated objections to land speculations as troublesome:
Randall then said, if I did not choose land, I might have cash in hand."

Mr. Tilghman asked, whether Mr. MURRAY did not, to get the man's whole
secret from him, go beyond his views to draw him on?

Mr. MURRAY said, he affected to think well of the more sound part of the
plan.

Mr. Tilghman asked what Mr. MURRAY expressed to Randall when it was
proposed to him to engage in the land scheme?

Mr. MURRAY.--A strong repugnance to land speculations.

Mr. Lewis.--Then it was, he said, that if it was not convenient for Mr.
MURRAY to be concerned in a share in land, he might have it in money?

Mr. MURRAY.--Yes.

Mr. S. SMITH was next sworn. There was here a motion made for
adjourning.

Mr. Lewis stated that Mr. Tilghman and himself had never seen the
prisoner until yesterday in the evening. They had been in Court until
late on Saturday evening. They went yesterday to prison, and back again
this morning. They had received a long written state of the case from
Mr. Randall, but, from absolute want of time, they had not been able to
read one third part of it. The motion to adjourn was negatived.

Mr. S. SMITH was then proceeding with his evidence, when Mr. SEDGWICK
rose. He considered it as unfair to examine Mr. SMITH in order to prove
the information given by other gentlemen. It was totally inapplicable.
The offences were as distinct as any two things could be.

Mr. BLOUNT moved to put this question, whether any conversation passed
between Mr. S. SMITH and Randall, which had an appearance of intending
to corrupt the integrity of members of this House.

Mr. SEDGWICK objected, that this was deviating from the original
specific motion. Mr. GILES was of an opposite opinion. Mr. MADISON
thought the motion proper, in the strictest sense. The charge was
general; and the answer to the question might be of a nature to
corroborate that general charge. After a few words from some other
members, the motion was carried.

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, then on oath stated in substance as follows:

That on the 9th or 10th, Randall, whom he had known in Maryland, called
on him and asked half an hour's conversation with him. He said he had a
plan in view, that would be to the advantage of the United States, and
turn to his own private emolument.

Randall informed Mr. S., that he was last year at New York, that he
thence went to Detroit to explore the country on Lakes Erie, &c., that
he contracted an acquaintance with certain influential characters with
whom he had formed an association to procure the lands in question. He
mentioned the outlines of the plan and dwelt on the public advantages
that would arise from it. He indirectly insinuated that gentlemen in
Congress who chose to be interested in the plan might have a portion of
the land in contemplation. He asked Mr. S. to fix a day when he should
enter more particularly into a detail of the business. Mr. S. fixed
Saturday following, and then retired into the room where his
fellow-lodger was, and told him that some great land-business was on
foot and that he believed he might make his fortune. On Sunday Randall
came with a map on which he explained the position of the land and
expatiated on the richness of the soil. He detailed the particulars of
the project which Mr. S. related as has been heretofore stated with some
little variations. He enlarged upon the public advantages to the United
States if the purchase was allowed. He said, he would be glad if Mr. S.
would embark in the undertaking, and give the plan his countenance; but,
that, if he did not choose to so do, it could be accomplished without
his assistance, as a decided majority of both Houses were agreed to
support it. Mr. S. asked him, whether in the Senate? he said, yes. He
asked him for names; he objected to mentioning any. Randall explained,
that members who were most active were to have larger shares, and such
as only gave their assent, smaller; Mr. S. understood that he might have
one of the larger. No money was offered as a temptation to engage, but
he fully understood that every gentleman was to pay his full proportion
of the price. He stated to Mr. S., that it would save the United States
much in men and money to have the scheme accomplished, and added, that
if Congress desired it, he could remove the Miami Indians to the other
side of the lakes. Mr. S. asked him what he proposed should be offered
for the lands. He said, that would remain in the breasts of the
gentlemen in Congress. Mr. S. asked whether one dollar an acre could be
afforded, he objected to that as by far too much. Mr. S. mentioned
twenty-five cents, that was too much. Mr. S. then suggested that he
supposed two and a half cents were contemplated. Randall answered, that
if Congress fixed this price it would be well so. He offered no direct
bribe to Mr. S., but proposed to take such members into the scheme at
first cost as chose to embark in it. Mr. S. asked him who was to offer
his memorial. He mentioned a gentleman of great weight in the House.

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, asked the date of this conversation.

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, answered, on the Sunday following the 10th,
which must have been the 13th.

Mr. Lewis, through the SPEAKER, asked Mr. S., of Maryland, whether
Randall had not said, that he had actually a majority in favor of his
scheme; or, that he expected to get a majority?

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, understood that he had a majority, and on this
ground, he said to Mr. S. that his co-operation was not absolutely
necessary.

The prisoner was remanded, and the House adjourned.


TUESDAY, January 5.

_Case of Robert Randall._

After disposing of the morning business--

Robert Randall was then brought to the bar, attended by his two counsel;
the Judge of the District of Pennsylvania likewise took his seat, as
yesterday, at the Clerk's table. The SPEAKER then addressed the prisoner
as follows: "Robert Randall, this is the day and hour, to which your
farther examination was postponed; you are now at liberty to proceed
with your defence."

Mr. GILES then moved that Mr. CHRISTIE should be sworn. This was done.
The member then stated that he had been at Philadelphia, about the month
of October last. He met with Mr. Randall, who made up to him, and
observed that he had this summer been in Canada. He had missed the
object for which he went; but he had met with another which he thought
would prove advantageous. He at first advised Mr. Randall to apply to
the Secretary of State. Mr. Randolph had just then resigned his office;
and no other person was appointed in his stead. Mr. C. then advised him
to lay the affair before the PRESIDENT. When he came back to town at the
sitting down of Congress, Randall came again to him, and said that by
good advice he had altered his plan. He complained that Mr. C. was the
only member who had not been ready to assist him. A considerable
majority of the House of Representatives were secured to the scheme. Mr.
C. said, that he never would advise Congress to sell their lands under a
dollar per acre; and as Mr. Randall wanted the lands so much cheaper, he
must in the course of his duty oppose the plan. Mr. C. inquired who were
his advisers. He answered, that Mr. Whitney had told him that Mr.
SEDGWICK recommended this way of proceeding, and was to draw up a
memorial to be laid before the House upon the subject.

Mr. SEDGWICK finding his name thus unexpectedly introduced, wished to be
allowed to give oath in order that he should tell all he knew.

The oath was administered to Mr. SEDGWICK, who gave information to the
following effect: He had never in his life seen Randall, till he was
produced at the bar. Whitney he had seen two or three times. The Mr.
Jones mentioned by Whitney, in his declaration lives within about
thirty-four miles of Mr. SEDGWICK's house. Whitney, with Mr. Jones,
came, a considerable time ago, to him one morning, while he was at
breakfast. They asked his opinion; which was, that Government would not
sell any lands, till the Indian claim was first extinguished. Mr. Jones
endeavored to convince Mr. SEDGWICK of the benefits which would result
to the United States from this sale. Mr. SEDGWICK accompanied them to
the door of his house, where Mr. Jones asked him whether there would be
any thing improper in a member of the Legislature being concerned in
such a purchase? Mr. SEDGWICK said, that this would depend entirely on
the mode of application. If it was to the Land Office, there would be
nothing wrong in it; if to Congress, then it would be a man making a
bargain with himself. Whitney, since Mr. SEDGWICK came to town, had
called two or three times on him. He got his servant for more than once
to deny him, as he was busy. Once, however, he did see him; the first
question of Mr. SEDGWICK was, from what State did he come? He said he
resided in Vermont. He then spoke of the matter in a general way; and
Mr. SEDGWICK, whose object it was to shake him off, advised his calling
on Mr. BUCK, a member from that State, as it would be more proper to
call on him. Mr. SEDGWICK believed that he was more teazed with
applications of this private kind than any member in the House. During
the conference with Whitney, he did not remember that Randall's name was
ever introduced. Mr. SEDGWICK heard, with astonishment, the name of
Colonel Pepune mentioned. He lived opposite to Mr. SEDGWICK's house, in
the town of Stockbridge. He rode down from that place to New York, along
with Mr. SEDGWICK, and never spoke one word of the matter to him.

Randall had, among other stories, told Mr. SAMUEL SMITH that Mr. WM.
SMITH _should_ bring forward this land business, in the House. He
positively said so to Mr. S. SMITH on the 13th of December, and it would
be proved that he had never exchanged a word with Mr. W. SMITH, nor ever
seen him till the 22d of that month, viz: _about nine days after_. This
is the substance of a short explanation which took place between some of
the members, after Mr. SEDGWICK had ended his declaration. Mr. W. SMITH
then asked Randall, whether it was not true, that he spoke to Mr. SAMUEL
SMITH before he spoke to himself? Mr. Tilghman, in reply, said that he
was authorized to answer in the affirmative. This puts to rest the story
related by Randall to the member from Baltimore.


WEDNESDAY, January 6.

_Case of Robert Randall._

Mr. SEDGWICK laid before the House some additions to his evidence,
delivered yesterday. He gave in a written copy of the whole, and wished
that it might be added to the declaration already made. The paper was
read, and, on motion, ordered to be inserted in the journals. Mr.
SEDGWICK said he had yesterday mentioned Col. Pepune being in
Philadelphia, but he had not seen him. He has since done so. The
Colonel lodges at the sign of the Drover, in Third street, and is
ready, when called upon by the House, to tell every circumstance which
he knows about the transaction of Randall or Whitney.

Mr. W. SMITH submitted, whether it would be proper to proceed any
farther in the case of Randall, till some hearing had been given to
Whitney.

It was then moved by a member that the case of Randall should be
postponed. After some conversation as to the point of order, the motion
was negatived.

Mr. HARPER then read two resolutions. Of the first, the following is the
substance:

      "_Resolved_, That any attempt to influence the conduct of
      this House, or its members, on subjects appertaining to
      their Legislative functions, by motives other than the
      public advantage, is a high contempt of this House, and a
      breach of its privileges."

The second resolution was, in substance, that Randall having committed
such an offence, was guilty of such a contempt, &c.

Mr. HARPER thought it proper, before deciding as to Randall, to lay down
certain principles, and decide whether the offence was in itself
criminal or not, before determining the conduct of the prisoner.

Mr. KITCHELL thought these resolutions unnecessary. The only thing
before the House was to call on the prisoner, and pronounce him either
innocent or guilty.

Mr. HARPER, in defence of his resolutions, said, that one misfortune
attending privileges was, that they could not be exactly defined; but,
as far as they could be ascertained, it was the business of the House to
do so. If this offence is a breach of privilege, we are entitled to
declare it such, that the people of the United States may be informed
that it is so.

Mr. W. SMITH could not conceive how any member would vote against this
first resolution. If we refuse to say that the act itself is a crime,
how can we condemn Randall as criminal? We are, in every sense of the
word, bound to vote for the proposition. We have declared the attempt of
Randall to be a high offence and contempt. If any member thinks it not
so, then, to be sure, he will vote against it. Mr. SMITH said that
Legislative bodies had frequently, while a prisoner was on trial before
them, laid down rules to guide them, previous to their pronouncing
sentence. A former member had suggested that it was better to make the
resolution a preamble to the sentence, and introduce it with a
_whereas_. As it stands at present, it is agreeable to what had been
done already.

Mr. NICHOLAS hoped that members were not to be bound by any thing yet
done. At the first embarking of the House in this affair, he had felt
doubts. His scruples had gradually augmented, and he was now of opinion
that Randall should not have been meddled with at all, in the present
way. The right of privilege had been given up, unless in cases of
absolute necessity. He did not think that any resolution had yet passed
the House, upon due consideration, whether they had a right to proceed
or not. Mr. NICHOLAS recommended lenity, rather than a parade of
integrity, where there was no ground of suspicion--a parade which would
not have been made if there had been any real danger.

Mr. WILLIAMS thought the resolutions altogether unnecessary. The
principle is already entered on the journals. All that the House have to
do is to declare Randall guilty or not.

Mr. HILLHOUSE agreed with Mr. WILLIAMS, but he was astonished at the
doctrine held up by the gentleman from Virginia. We had been told
yesterday, at the bar, that the offence is not punishable by the common
law. We are not to do so by privilege. The consequence is, that an
attempt to corrupt members cannot be punished at all. It would not be
proper to tell this to the public. Any body may then come here and bid
for votes.

Mr. HILLHOUSE thought that the counsel yesterday had fairly given up the
point, for they admitted that improper violence without doors was a
breach of privilege. Mr. H. argued that this was as great a violence as
could be. He was for inflicting a punishment.

Mr. LIVINGSTON thought the wording of the first clause too broad. Any
member spoken to without doors might come into the House and complain of
a breach of privilege on trifling grounds.

Mr. GILES would not at present enter into the question whether there had
been a breach of privilege or not. From any thing yet seen, he was
doubtful. He was against the preamble. Privilege was of an insinuating
nature. Mr. LIVINGSTON had taken up a thought which occurred to Mr.
GILES. Any man meeting on the street a member of this House, may say to
him, "Sir, by voting for such a thing in the House, you will destroy
your popularity in your district." This argument was not on motives of
public good, and a member might by this resolution be warranted to come
into the House and complain of it as a breach of privilege. He wished
for the previous question, which was taken, and by a great majority the
resolution was negatived.

Mr. LIVINGSTON then read two resolutions. Their tenor was, that it
appears to this House that Robert Randall has been guilty of a contempt
and a breach of the privileges of this House, by attempting to corrupt
the integrity of its members, in the manner laid to his charge, and that
Randall should be called up to the bar, reprimanded by the SPEAKER, and
recommitted to custody, till further orders from this House.

On the first resolution the yeas and nays were called for--yeas 78, nays
17.

After some conversation, the second resolution was likewise agreed to.

Randall was then brought to the bar, and in a few words reprimanded by
the SPEAKER. To call his offence indiscretion, impropriety, or
indelicacy, was too mild a name. His conduct was _crime_. His apparent
ignorance of the nature and extent of his guilt had induced the House to
be more indulgent than they otherwise would have been. The SPEAKER
informed him that he was recommitted to custody till further orders from
the House.


THURSDAY, January 7.

_Case of Charles Whitney._

Mr. WHITNEY was now brought in. The SPEAKER addressed him as follows:
"Charles Whitney, the information lodged against you on the journals of
the House will now be read to you by the Clerk." This was accordingly
done.

Mr. WHITNEY was next asked at what time he would be ready to proceed
with his defence? He replied that he thought he could be ready to go on
just now, if he had counsel. If he could get them to-morrow, he should
be glad to go on then, in order to get the thing over. If counsel could
not be got, he would request a delay till Monday. He was sure Mr. BUCK
had mistaken his meaning. He was told that he would be called on again
to-morrow, and if he had not been able to obtain counsel then, there was
a probability of his being allowed a delay till Monday.

Mr. BOURNE stated the hardship of obliging the prisoner to fee counsel;
no probability existing of any thing farther being brought against him.
There was but little in the charge, admitting it to be true. Mr. B. made
a distinction of the conversation having passed in Vermont, not in
Philadelphia. It was before Mr. BUCK came to Congress at all.

Mr. GILES had yesterday expressed but little satisfaction at the mode of
conducting this business, nor had his satisfaction been since augmented
by further reflection. He read a motion, which was seconded, for
dismissing Whitney immediately. Admitting all which stood charged, Mr.
GILES did not consider it as containing any breach of privilege.

Mr. W. SMITH regarded this resolution as premature; he wished to have
the regular forms of trial gone through, as in the other case. When the
trial was finished, the House could then decide on the guilt or
innocence of the prisoner. He thought that Mr. BUCK ought to be sworn.
When the offer was made in Vermont, he was looked upon as a member of
Congress, and the temptation which had been held out to him was a
contempt of the House. There was not yet a sufficient explanation to
justify his discharge.

Mr. HILLHOUSE supposed corruption to be equally criminal in Vermont as
in Philadelphia. It would commit the dignity of the House to say that we
have kept a man in jail for a week, and then have dismissed him without
a trial. It implies that we never had any right to arrest him. Mr. H.
had not formed his ultimate opinion on the subject. He wished the trial
to be gone through, and then, if the prisoner proved innocent, dismiss
him. He had made application to a member in this town, besides Mr. BUCK
in Vermont. [Mr. GOODHUE, on whom Mr. Whitney called, after he came to
Philadelphia.]

Mr. BUCK objected to the immediate dismission of Whitney. It struck him
as an impropriety to dismiss the prisoner by an unqualified resolution.
It would be better to state, as a reason, that the attempt to corrupt
the integrity of a member had happened in Vermont, before the sitting
down of Congress. Then let the question come forward and be tried.

Mr. SEDGWICK had, more than was usual with him, avoided speaking on this
question. He early entertained an idea that an application to a member
of Congress, before it sat, was not a breach of privilege. It was an
unfortunate circumstance when the same persons were to be both judges
and parties. People were apt to get into a passion when one came to them
and said, "I consider you as rascals, and I want to purchase a portion
of your rascality."

Mr. MADISON said, it appeared to him that the House could have no
privileges, unless what arises from the necessity of the case. He
differed from the opinion formed by the House, but he wished them to act
in conformity to their own principle. The object at present before the
House is, to keep its members free from corruption. Whether a proposal
is made in town or country, if we dismiss names and circumstances, and
look only to the substance of the thing, there is no distinction between
the two cases.

Mr. PAGE said, that if the motion for dismissing had come on a week ago,
he would have voted for it. He wished to get rid of the matter as fast
as possible. He alluded, though not in direct terms, to the idea of Mr.
Lewis, that it would have been better to have kicked some people down
stairs, than to have made them objects of prosecution.

Mr. HARPER considered it as a material distinction between a member
being attacked and beaten, for example, in Philadelphia, during his
attendance on Congress, and the same accident occurring during the
recess, in a distant part of the country. It was admitted that the
doctrine of privilege violated the rights of the people, and could be
justified only upon the plea of necessity: it being so liable to
misapprehension and misconstruction, he wished to see as little of it as
possible. He gave his hearty concurrence to the resolution of Mr. GILES.
He had been desirous of seeing such a thing brought forward. He adverted
to the delicate situation of the House, at once accusers, judges, and
witnesses.

Mr. GALLATIN spoke a few words in favor of the motion.

Mr. ISAAC SMITH was persuaded that the House possesses privileges, and
has a right to exert them. They are pointed out by the constitution. Mr.
S. wished to dismiss the prisoner. It had been said that dismissing him
without a trial, after having apprehended and confined him, would be
casting a reflection on the House. No such thing! There existed probable
grounds of suspicion. We have waited full time, and no proof has come
forward. Then let him go, and the sooner that we do it the better.

When Mr. ISAAC SMITH sat down, Mr. GILES rose to offer a resolution, in
place of his former one:

      "_Resolved_, That it appears to this House that the
      information lodged against Charles Whitney does not amount
      to a breach of the privileges of this House, and that he
      therefore be discharged from custody."

Mr. FREEMAN voted yesterday in a minority for dismissing Randall. He
would this day vote for discharging Whitney. As to the dignity of the
House, even an outrage upon it could be as well punished by a Justice of
the Peace as by ourselves. He stated the extreme difficulty of adopting,
in practice, the doctrine laid down, that an improper offer made to a
member when in the country, was to be punished as a breach of privilege.
A member, suppose from Georgia, comes here, and tells a story of
somebody in that State who has made him an unsuitable proposal: the
Sergeant-at-Arms is instantly despatched a thousand miles to bring this
person to the bar for contempt of the House. What kind of a business
would this be?

Mr. HARTLEY thought the resolution last offered by Mr. GILES had too
much narrowed the ground of dismissing Whitney. He had been taken up as
an associate with Randall. The charge had not been properly supported by
evidence. Dismiss him, and let the want of proof be your reason for it.
Mr. H. cordially agreed with the substance of the resolution, but he
objected to the wording of it.

Mr. KITCHELL pointed out the wide distinction between the cases of
Randall and Whitney. It had been said that the latter must be criminal,
for he was an associate with Randall. Mr. K. saw no such thing. There
was no criminality in the bond. Keep a man in jail week after week upon
idle suspicion! Injustice, Whitney ought to have been tried at first,
when he declared himself ready for trial. Mr. K. was for discharging him
this day.

Mr. HARPER now moved an amendment to the resolution before the House: it
was in these words:

      "Inasmuch as the proposals made by the said Whitney took
      place before the member to whom they were addressed had
      taken his seat in the House."

Mr. GILES.--If the amendment succeeded, he would vote against the whole
proposition. This was a renewal of the attempt to define privilege. It
was not practicable. Every case of the kind must stand upon its own
merits. Mr. G. would vote against the amendment.

Mr. MACON read a resolution, that Charles Whitney be discharged from the
custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. This was, in fact, reducing the second
resolution offered by Mr. GILES back into his first one.

Mr. SEDGWICK thought it an awkward thing to attempt giving any reasons.
If gentlemen are willing to agree to discharge Mr. Whitney, they ought
to discharge him. They assign different reasons for the same
proceedings, and will not consent to it, but each in his own particular
mode.

Mr. HARPER was astonished to hear so many invincible objections to
telling the motives why we agree in a measure. It had been complained
that privilege was undefined; that it was an assuming, creeping monster.
An attempt had been made to define it, in part, and this also had been
objected to.

Mr. MACON said, that he would vote to discharge Whitney, for a
particular reason alleged by Mr. GILES.

Now, replied Mr. GILES, if the gentleman is to vote for the dismission
because that is my reason, I desire him to vote against the dismission.
My reason for discharging Whitney is totally different. I argue, that
all which we have entered on the journals, admitting it proved, does not
amount to any breach of our privileges. That is my motive for dismissing
the prisoner.

An amendment was proposed to strike out of the resolution of Mr. GILES
the following words: "That it appears to this House, that the
information lodged against Charles Whitney, does not amount to a breach
of the privileges of this House; and." The amendment was agreed to--ayes
43, noes 41.

It was then moved to alter the remainder of the resolution, by striking
out the word "he," and inserting "Charles Whitney." The amendment was
adopted; and the resolution so amended, stood thus:

      _Resolved_, That Charles Whitney be discharged from the
      custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.

This, also, was agreed to.


FRIDAY, January 8.

JEREMIAH CRABB, from Maryland, appeared, was qualified, and took his
seat.

_Indian Trading Houses._

The House went into Committee of the Whole, Mr. MUHLENBERG in the chair,
on the bill to establish trading houses for the Indian tribes.

Mr. DAYTON objected to the bill, so far as it empowers those who are to
sell the goods to the Indians, to procure or purchase the goods. He
considered the uniting these powers in the same persons as highly
exceptionable and liable to great abuse. He moved to strike out the
words "procure or."

Mr. PARKER said that the objection was misapplied, for subsequent
clauses placed the business under the special direction of the PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES. He should not, however, object to striking out the
words. His view in rising was merely to justify the committee who
reported the bill, as they had supposed that sufficient guards were
provided.

Mr. GILES did not think the reason given for retaining the words
sufficient. The PRESIDENT cannot be supposed to have such cognizance of
every part of this business as will enable him to secure the public, or
Indians, from imposition. He was for increasing the checks against
abuse.

The motion for striking out was agreed to.

In the third section, Mr. SEDGWICK objected to the words "laying aside
all view of gain by the trade." They might operate disadvantageously to
the people of the United States, if Government should enter into this
trade on a principle that would preclude all private adventures in the
same line by citizens. The words were expunged.

Mr. PARKER presented a substitute. It relates to compensation of agents
and clerks to be employed. The sum of ---- dollars was to be
appropriated. The substitute was adopted by the committee.

In the seventh section, Mr. SEDGWICK moved an amendment, providing for
the forfeiture of licenses in case of contravening the provisions of the
law. This motion was withdrawn in order to introduce the provision
elsewhere.

Mr. MILLEDGE moved to strike out the whole of this seventh section. It
appeared to him to involve provisions which would be proper in another
law, but in this bill blended two different subjects.

Mr. SEDGWICK considered the provisions in this section referring to
certain rules for regulating the public trade with the Indians, as
proper, since similar rules would be made in regulating the trade of
individuals with Indians. On this ground he was for retaining the
section.

It was moved to modify the section by confining the provisions to "the
agents or clerks," specially employed by the United States. This
amendment was agreed to.

On the motion of Mr. SEDGWICK, the last clause of the seventh section,
relative to the oath or affirmation, was expunged.

The committee then rose; the Chairman reported the bill with the
amendments, which were taken up, and agreed to by the House, with one
verbal amendment.

Mr. SWIFT expressed his disapprobation of the bill. He thought the
object unattainable to any important extent. He disapproved of public
bodies being concerned in trade. It is always managed better by
individuals. Great loss and dilapidation are the consequence; nor is it
possible to guard against frauds and abuses. The public have no money to
spare. It is the opinion of the Committee of Ways and Means, that
additional taxes will be necessary for the public service. We must not
tax our constituents for the sake of trading with the Indians. He hoped
not. Mr. S. concluded by a motion for striking out the first section.

Mr. PARKER supported the principle of the bill; he wished a fair
experiment to be made. The plan is founded on humanity and benevolence.
It has been recommended by the PRESIDENT from year to year. Mr. P., on
this subject, had been in sentiment with him. It was well-known he had
never lightly advocated a disbursement of public money; on this
occasion, it would be a saving of public money. It will cost much less
to conciliate the good opinion of the Indians than to pay men for
destroying them.

Mr. HILLHOUSE was in favor of an experiment. Much had been anticipated
from the plan; a beginning had been made, and he thought it best to try
it for such a length of time as would afford a fair experiment of what
could be done.

Mr. SWANWICK said he was in favor of the principles of the bill, were it
merely as a change from our usual system of Indian affairs. We have
hitherto pursued war at an expense of a million and a half of dollars
nearly annually; let us now try the fruits of commerce, that beneficent
power which cements and civilizes so many nations; barbarous till they
became acquainted with its influence. To encourage us, indeed, a fact
has come to our knowledge on the investigation of the case of Randall.
Gentlemen will remember his assertions to them, and the deed read in the
House, in which so much was stated of the influence of the Canada
traders over the Indians: well, let us try to balance or countervail
this influence; but it has been observed, our private citizens will do
this sufficiently in the way of their private trade. In general I am
friendly to let commerce take its own level without Governmental
interference; but the little influence our traders have yet obtained,
shows plainly enough defective capital or a defective extent of trade;
both are to be apprehended. So many objects of speculation offer in this
country, that individuals may not pay sufficient attention to this
branch, in which they have so powerful a British interest to contend
with. Government, alone, can do this in the infancy of the commerce. Let
the experiment be made; we can lose little by it; we may gain a great
deal. It has been observed, that this act has been rejected in three
different sessions of Congress already; and this is argued as a proof of
its want of merit; but this has been the fate in England of the
navigation act; it was hundreds of years struggling to get into
existence, but was not the less acceptable when at last it succeeded.
Perhaps we may find this bill, on experience, none the worse for the
difficulties, which, as an untried step, it has hitherto had to
encounter: it is recommended by general reasoning; let us try it; we can
only repeal it if we find it does not answer the sanguine expectations
entertained of it.

Mr. MACON[64] was opposed to the bill. He thought the circumstance of
the business having been so long in agitation, was a reason why it
should be longer considered. The reason for delay was certainly not
weakened by that. The business was highly improper for Government to
embark in.

Mr. MURRAY had but one idea to suggest, as it was unnecessary to go over
the general policy, which had been amply stated by other gentlemen.
There appeared to him two objects; first, the securing the Indian
friendship by a supply of their wants; second, the supplanting the
British traders in their influence over the tribes whose hostilities
might embarrass us. To the last object, therefore, the meditated mode of
supply by public agency was peculiarly well adapted. The Indians are now
supplied by a great company long established, very wealthy, and
possessing this influence, in which we must supplant them. We are to
consider whether, if private individuals are left to be the only
competitors with the Canada company, this influence and this trade will
be transferred agreeably to sound policy. He thought they would not.
Small capitalists, and adventurers young in this trade, would certainly
prove unequal to a competition with so well established and rich a
company as the Canada company. It was no uncommon thing for great
companies, when they were apprehensive of what they would call
interlopers, to crush all competition by making a voluntary sacrifice of
a few thousand pounds sterling. By underselling, on a large scale, for a
time, and even a certain loss, they secured themselves in future from
competition. This great company can afford to pay this price for the
perpetuity of this trade and influence. In order to meet the capital of
this company, we must not trust to individual small capitalists. By a
sum appropriated by Government to the object, however large the capital
in competition in Canada, the Government will be able to beat down the
trade of this company and place it in American hands; and in a few years
after the competition has ceased, the Government may then withdraw its
agency, and leave it to private capitals, to which the field will then
have been rendered easy.

The motion of Mr. SWIFT was negatived; and the bill was ordered to be
engrossed for a third reading.


WEDNESDAY, January 19.

_Appropriations for 1796._

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the bill making
appropriations for the support of Government in the year 1796.

Mr. WILLIAMS, agreeably to notice given on a former day, moved to strike
out all that gross sum appropriated for the officers of the Mint.[65]

Mr. W. SMITH said that a great proportion of the sum was for salaries
established by law. They must be paid, till the law is repealed. If the
gentleman means to suspend the whole appropriation bill till an inquiry
is gone through with respect to the Mint, the bill may be delayed for
two months, and the consequence be the greatest embarrassment in
Government.

Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH had never been much in favor of the Mint, nor had
experience increased his good opinion of it. But passing this
appropriation bill would not prevent a full investigation of this
subject hereafter. He was for deferring any proceeding about the Mint
till the select committee made their report. He opposed the motion.

Mr. SEDGWICK thought that the course which the gentleman is pursuing had
never been adopted before. It is incorrect to discuss the merits of the
Mint in passing this bill. We might as well take up the salary of the
Chief Justice, or any other article in the bill, as the Mint. We never
should have done, at this rate. We are now only to vote for the bill, as
agreeable to the laws already made. Mr. SEDGWICK said that if the
gentleman from New York (Mr. WILLIAMS) would bring forward any
proposition for the regulation, or even the abolition of the
establishment of the Mint, if it could be proved productive of public
benefit, he, with every other gentleman, would give him their aid to
effect the object; but that now, he conceived, it could not regularly be
brought forward. He thought an appropriation bill should be conformed
exactly to the state of the public engagements, and that where
establishments had been formed and salaries provided, the amount of them
should be the principle of calculating the amount of appropriations; and
that the House ought not, by withholding appropriations, to break in
upon and destroy establishments formed by the whole Legislature. That
these observations had hitherto been sanctioned by the practice on this
subject. He observed, that if the House was to investigate, in the
discussion of an appropriation bill, the amount of salaries and the
legal establishments of Government, the public service would be
dangerously destroyed. He remarked, that it was to be observed that no
appropriation was made, for any purpose, since the commencement of the
year.

Mr. GALLATIN felt alarmed at the principle advanced by Mr. SEDGWICK,
for, if admitted, it might be applied in future on some other and
important occasion. The motion made by the member from New York ought
not, perhaps, to be adopted; but there was certainly a discretionary
power in the House to appropriate or not to appropriate for any object
whatever, whether that object was authorized by law or not. It was a
power which, however inexpedient on the present occasion, was vested in
this House for the purpose of checking the other branches of Government
whenever necessary. That such a right was reserved by this body,
appeared from their making only yearly appropriations for the support of
the Civil List and of the Military Establishment. Had they meant to give
up the right, they would have such appropriations _permanent_. There was
one instance in which this House had thought it proper to abandon the
right. In order to strengthen public credit, they had consented that
the payment of interest on the debt should not depend on their sole
will, and they had rendered the appropriation for that object not a
yearly, but a permanent one. Whenever that was not the case, and the
right had been reserved, it was contradictory to suppose that the House
were bound to do a certain act, at the same time that they were
exercising the discretionary power of voting upon it.

Mr. SEDGWICK said that he certainly had no intention to have given
occasion to the observations which had been made; but, as the general
principle which he had laid down had been denied, and as it had some
relation, either intimate or remote, to the subject before the
committee, he would take the liberty to repeat the principle, and say a
few words in support of it.

The principle, then, which he had assumed, was, that when legal
establishments were made, it was the duty of the Legislature to make
appropriations conformably to the public engagements; and that neither
branch had a right to withhold its assent. He observed that the whole
Legislature, and not a part, were competent to form contracts, and to
establish and alter compensations and salaries. The Legislature, and not
either branch of it, had the power of expressing the public will, and
pledging the public faith; that when a salary is ascertained, the public
faith is pledged that it shall be paid, according to the stipulation;
and that, therefore, the public credit is involved in making the
necessary appropriations, without which it could not be paid. He asked,
if, in such a case, it was competent to the House rightfully to withhold
the means necessary for the performance of the public engagement?

He said he had always supposed that the power of the House, in the case
of appropriations, did not give a power to yield or withhold assent on
such a subject. He believed, in every such instance, the exercise of
discretion was restrained. To illustrate his ideas, he could mention a
similar instance. The constitution had declared that the PRESIDENT
should receive a stated compensation for his services, to be ascertained
by law, which could neither be diminished nor enlarged during the term
for which he should have been elected. Here was a duty imposed on the
Legislature, with the performance of which they could not, they had no
power to dispense. Yet, after the compensation was stated, no payment
could be made in consequence of appropriating. He asked, if, in this
case, when the public will was expressed, the engagement and the
national faith pledged, the Legislature could of right withhold the
necessary appropriation? The same observations might, he said, be
applied to every instance where public contracts were formed. The public
faith was pledged, the necessary appropriation must be made to prevent a
violation of it; and if withheld, such violation might justly be charged
on the Legislature.

Mr. NICHOLAS was for the resolution. It had been urged that the House
were to pass the appropriation bill as a matter of course. He thought
otherwise. The House, in enacting a law, were entitled to consider all
its consequences.

Mr. GILES adverted to a fact stated by Mr. WILLIAMS, viz: that the cents
are issued from the Mint at a cheaper rate than the price of the copper
itself; so that, if a person chooses to melt down a pound weight of
cents into a lump of copper, and takes this lump back again to the Mint,
he will receive more money for it than what it was worth in cents. Thus
the whole expense of workmanship is cast away. Mr. GILES described the
ridiculous and wasteful effects to be looked for from such a way of
coining money.

The amendment of Mr. WILLIAMS was agreed to by a very large majority.

Mr. NICHOLAS moved to strike out some of the subsequent clauses, for
payments to mechanics, for stationery, &c.

Mr. ISAAC SMITH wanted to know if it was meant to stop the whole
operations of the Mint.

Mr. PAGE objected to dispersing the workmen, who could not easily be
collected again; at least it would require an immense expense to
re-assemble them. It has been stated, in the course of this discussion,
that _every cent coined in the Mint_ has cost the public TEN; but if the
workmen are to be dispersed, and if at any future time assembled again,
the cents may come to cost _A HUNDRED CENTS_ apiece. Mr. P. recited
various reasons for hoping that the business of the Mint will in future
be conducted with more expedition, economy, and success. He stated the
immense benefit arising to the country from the plenty of copper money,
and especially to the poorer classes of people. A Mint was of more
consequence than gentlemen seemed to think it was. He said that private
mints were reported to be setting up. He wished to refer the amendment
of his colleague from Virginia to the third reading of the bill. By that
time the House would be better informed.

Mr. NICHOLAS did not wish to abolish, but merely to suspend the
operations of the Mint till nearer the end of the session. This
amendment was negatived.

The committee rose, the Chairman reported, and the House took up the
bill as reported.

The House adhered to the amendment of the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. LIVINGSTON next moved that the whole appropriation for the Mint
should be struck out.

Mr. MURRAY said, that had the gentleman from New York moved for delay,
for the purpose of introducing a motion to repeal the law which rendered
this appropriation necessary, he would not have troubled the House with
a single remark; but his motion to strike out an appropriation for the
purpose of bringing the policy of the law itself into discussion,
contained a principle in his mind so repugnant to the great Legislative
duties of the House that he would oppose it. The object of the
appropriation is not a temporary one, but a part of the machinery of
our Government, under the express authority of the constitution by law.
The doctrine now contended for by the gentlemen from New York and
Pennsylvania (Mr. LIVINGSTON and Mr. GALLATIN) was that this House have
a discretionary power of appropriating or not. To this doctrine, taken
in the extent which he conceived they contended for, he could not give
his support. On the contrary, he thought that in all cases where an
appropriation flowed from a law to make good a contract, or to erect a
permanent organ in the Government, and from any law whose object was
permanent, the true doctrine was, that it was the duty of the House to
vote an appropriation. A law is the will of a nation. The same powers
only that formed it can repeal it. If it be a constitutional act, no
power can lawfully obstruct its operation or its existence. But
attending to the doctrine maintained to-day, it would follow, that
though this House had not the power of repealing a law made by all the
branches of Government, it may obstruct its operations and render it a
dead letter; though it cannot repeal, it may do what shall amount to a
repeal, which is the assumption of a power almost equal to that of
exclusive legislation. He thought he saw in this an evil of great
extent, and an anarchy of theoretic principles. It appeared to him that
though we originate money bills, we had no right to refuse an
appropriation to existing laws that either secured a debt or any
contract, or that related to objects permanent by the law that created
or acknowledged them, as long as the law itself remained unrepealed. We
had but a share of Legislative power. Where a law relative to such
objects as he had alluded to existed, from which an appropriation
followed, till the law ceased by repeal or by other constitutional
means, it was obligatory upon us as well as upon our constituents, and
the only powers we could exercise of a discretionary sort resolved
themselves either into this mode of making good the appropriation, or of
voting for its repeal. The other branches would then judge of the
propriety of our proceeding; but till they who assisted in its enacting,
judged with us the necessity of doing it away, a duty resulted that we
should give it the energy intended by its enaction.

Mr. DAYTON conceived the question brought under discussion of too
delicate a nature to be decided at the present time. He, however,
expressed it as his opinion that the power of making appropriations was
intended and ought to be a check on establishments.

Mr. NICHOLAS conceived the House bound to weigh the merits of every law
when an appropriation was to be passed to carry it into effect, and no
appropriations should obtain the sanction of the House, unless they were
convinced of the propriety of the law.

Mr. GILES said he did not expect to hear a doctrine so novel broached in
the House as that advanced by the member from Massachusetts, (Mr.
SEDGWICK.) He had declared that he conceived the House could exercise
no discretionary power when about to pass an appropriation bill.

Mr. SEDGWICK rose to explain. The principle he advocated was, that when
a law was made pledging the public faith, the House had no discretion to
withhold, or not, an appropriation; at least as long as common honesty
was more than a name.

Mr. GILES said that if this doctrine was admitted in its full latitude,
the House would become a mere office for the registering of edicts. He
contended that the House had a right, by withholding appropriations, to
put an end to an institution without the concurrence of the Senate. He
would not say that the present was a case that called for the exercise
of that right, but they had in all cases of this nature a right to
exercise their discretion.

Mr. MURRAY considered the laws of the land as depending upon two other
branches of the Government besides this House, and conceived it highly
improper in the House to attempt to obstruct them by withholding
necessary appropriations. What would be the effect of a contrary
doctrine? It must contain the seeds of governmental anarchy. While a law
remained in force it was the duty of the House to do what was needful to
carry it into operation. He made some allusion to the British House of
Commons, who, by privilege, contend for the right of withholding
supplies to be a check on the patronage of the Crown. But such a
principle, he contended, could not apply here; our Government could not
proceed if it were admitted. As long as a law exists, it is the duty of
the House to make the needful appropriations. The whole wisdom of the
Government is not in this House. The same power is required to repeal
laws as to make them. It is true the constitution has given to the House
the more immediate command of the purse-strings; but they were under an
obligation to open them when necessity required. There is a
constitutional way of repealing laws; but the House has no right to
obstruct their operation while in force. A member from Pennsylvania,
(Mr. GALLATIN,) he observed, appeared on a former occasion to coincide
with his opinions on this subject; for he argued that the House was
bound to pass such an appropriation, as a law existed giving the salary
to the officer which it was meant to provide for.

Mr. GALLATIN said, in answer, that his observation had simply been, that
the Committee of Ways and Means, and not the House, conceived itself
bound to report an appropriation for an item established by law; but he
never doubted the power of the House to pass, or not, an appropriation.
In such cases the line of duty must remain to be drawn by opinion. With
what degree of consistency can the House be called on for a vote if, as
some members contend, they cannot have an opinion? Why are they called
upon to say, yea or nay, if they are obliged to say yea?

Mr. MURRAY conceded that a member might say yea or nay, but his duty
must in cases of this nature clearly point to one of the two; for he
could not mistake the black and white marks in the court of conscience.
He has the physical power to say yea or nay; but if he does his duty he
must say yea. The contrary principle would go to this, that the House
had a right to refuse an appropriation to pay a just debt.

Mr. GALLATIN observed, in reply, that each member will be the sole judge
whether it was or was not his duty to say yea, or the contrary. The
constitution, he said, declared that no money should be drawn from the
Treasury but by appropriations made by law: this did not look as if the
voting of appropriations was intended to be merely a matter of form. In
the second place, the constitution declares, that no appropriation for
the support of an armed force shall be made for more than two years.
Thus, though a Military Establishment may be formed by enlistments for
three or more years, yet the constitution provides that the question
shall be submitted to the House every two years; and this surely is not
as a matter of form; but in order, at such short periods, by voting on
an appropriation bill, to determine whether such an establishment should
exist longer or not. He conceived the power which he advocated as
residing in the House of great consequence, and to be used on important
occasions only.

Mr. NICHOLAS, who had risen at the same time with Mr. GALLATIN, and had
given way to him, observed, that when he first rose, he was going to
read the clause of the constitution which the member last up had
referred to. As to the black and white marks the member from Maryland
spoke of, they were differently placed in different persons; in matters
of opinion men will differ; but the constitution is a guide not to be
departed from. The power of appropriation was vested by that instrument
chiefly in the House, and no power on earth would prevent his exercising
his discretion when that power was to be put in activity.

Mr. GILES observed, that the member from Maryland had got into the
doctrine of checks, and seemed to think that if the House exercised its
constitutional check it would produce governmental anarchy.

Mr. MURRAY explained. He had alluded to the mode of getting rid of an
establishment by refusing appropriations to carry it into effect. The
constitutional mode of procuring the repeal of the law should always be
had recourse to; but he insisted that the House could not, as they were
bound by their duty, obstruct a law in force by refusing an
appropriation.

Mr. GILES conceived that the checks provided by the constitution might
be used by each of the powers of government to their full extent,
limited in every particular case only by their own discretion. If the
harmony of the branches was to be made an argument to prevent the
exercise of checks, what, he asked, became of the checks provided by the
constitution? Each branch of the government (if he understood what was
meant by constitutional checks) was to exercise its own opinions and
use its discretions within constitutional limits, without a reference to
the opinions of other branches. He next adverted to the powers of
appropriation, which he contended were in a greater degree vested in the
immediate representatives of the people, to be a wholesome check. In
case of an army establishment, for example, suppose the PRESIDENT or
Senate were to refuse their assent to the repeal of a law establishing
it? Will it be said that the clause of the constitution empowering the
House to make a biennial appropriation for the object, does not vest in
them a discretionary power in such instances of overturning the
establishment by its own will? for it cannot be kept up without an
appropriation. Is the House to be told that, for the sake of harmony,
they must give up their own powers and opinions? He maintained that, in
cases of appropriations, they had a discretionary power, to be
exercised, as in all cases, discretionarily. Was one branch to be judges
of discretion for another? No; each should judge for itself.

Mr. MURRAY said, it was known to every one that an appropriation for the
support of a military establishment could not be made for a longer term
than two years; but that case was widely different from the present. It
was known that, by the constitution, a military appropriation cannot
exist more than two years; but the doctrine he supported was in cases of
debt or obligation under a law; and, in such cases, he still contended
that, though the House had the physical power to refuse an appropriation
to satisfy a claim thus founded, they had not the right.

Here the debate was interrupted by a motion for adjournment; which was
carried, and the House adjourned.


WEDNESDAY, January 20.

_Appropriations for 1796._

The amendments from the committee being thus gone through, the bill was
ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.[66]


SATURDAY, January 30.

_Stenographer to the House._

The House then went into a Committee of the Whole on the report from the
stenographical committee. The report was read.

Mr. SWANWICK: then rose for the sake of asking information. He inquired
whether the House were to sanction and authorize the reports of the
proposed stenographer? He had very considerable apprehensions about the
propriety of entering into the subject in any mode.

Mr. W. SMITH replied, that the gentleman engaged by the committee had
undertaken to have his reports ready for Mr. Brown, printer of the
Philadelphia Gazette, in the morning of the succeeding day.

Mr. SWANWICK rose again. He observed, that to give universal
satisfaction was impracticable. So many gentlemen were to be satisfied,
that it never could be accomplished. He observed that one of the
principal causes of complaint against reporters was of a nature that did
not admit a remedy. Gentlemen rose, in the ardor of discussion, and
suffered many remarks to escape from them, which, neither in thought nor
expression, were perfectly correct. If the reporter, as was his duty,
took them down, and stated them exactly, gentlemen were irritated by
seeing themselves exhibited in this shape, and then blame was cast on
the reporter. Every degree of praise was due to the editor of a
Philadelphia daily newspaper, whom Mr. S. named, and who had not only
done every thing in his power to obtain the debates of the House at full
length, but had frequently advertised, that if errors were committed by
his reporter, they should, on application, be instantly rectified. More
than this it was impossible to desire, for no mode of conduct could be
more liberal or candid. But Mr. S. did not see the propriety of blending
the House of Representatives and the editor of a newspaper in this
business. The stenographer is to be called an officer of the House,
while he receives eleven hundred dollars from the printer of a
Philadelphia newspaper. He is thus also the officer of the printer, as
well as ours. If we give the gentleman the proposed salary, we are to
depend on him alone, whereas at present we have different reporters, and
two or three of them frequently and mutually both corroborate and
correct each other. What has escaped one reporter, or what he has
misunderstood, is often observed by his competitor. The error is
amended, or the defect supplied. Mr. S. farther observed, that as far as
he had read or heard of, such an institution as the one now proposed,
was never known under any Government, or in any country, that had
hitherto existed. [It was observed, in some part of the debate, that an
attempt of this kind was once made by the National Assembly of France.]
Mr. S. expressed himself warmly against Government making any
composition of the nature now proposed with a printer, and against any
attempt for giving one newspaper an advantage over another, by any
preference as to the copy. If Mr. S. wanted any person to be sure of
dismission and disgrace, he could not name any other situation where
that dismission and disgrace were so absolutely certain, as to a person
accepting the proposed office of stenographer. If he did his duty,
gentlemen would frequently not like to see their speeches exactly as
delivered. If he altered them, his utility was at an end. It would
therefore be much better to let the gentleman stay at his own business.

Mr. GILES objected particularly to the opposition made in this late
stage of the business. He admitted that it was a delicate step, but he
complained in strong terms of the inaccuracy of the reports now given.
He observed that the object was not merely to find a stenographer who
would satisfy the members of that House, but who would also give
satisfactory information to the public at large.

Mr. SHERBURNE agreed with the gentleman last up, that the object of the
resolution could not be merely to give satisfaction to members, but
information to the public; though if it was important that the public
should be informed of what was said in that House, the proposed
resolution would be inadequate to its objects. But he conceived it more
important for the public to be informed of what was done, and that, he
observed, was not always to be inferred from what was said; as (the mind
being always open to conviction) it had not been unusual in a former--he
would not say the present--House, for gentlemen to argue one way, and
vote another. As therefore, no certain inferences of the conduct of
members would be drawn from their speeches, and as the public were more
interested in their actions than their sayings, (a knowledge of which
the present resolution was not, in his opinion, calculated to promote,)
it would not meet his concurrence. But, Mr. S. further observed, that if
the speech was to be considered as the infallible _inditium_ of the
subsequent conduct, as the avowed object of the resolution was to
diffuse, through the various parts of the States a knowledge of that
conduct, he should oppose it from a conviction that the means were not
competent to the end. The resolution proposed a publication of the
debates in a daily Philadelphia paper. These debates would necessarily
be so voluminous as to engross the greater part of such a publication.
Except in Philadelphia, New York, and one or two other large cities,
there were no daily papers; in all other places, they were not published
oftener than once, or, at most, twice, a week. The daily papers, in
comparison with others, were few. If, therefore, a daily paper was
engrossed by a detail of the debates, when would the public arrive at a
knowledge of them through the more common medium of a weekly paper? The
inhabitants of this, and a few other large towns, might be gratified,
perhaps benefited, by a speedy perusal of them; but when would the
citizens of more distant parts of the Union, through their usual weekly
channels, be indulged with the like opportunities? The difference would
be as one to six; and what the inhabitants of Philadelphia might become
acquainted with in one year, the people of New England and Georgia would
not be informed of in six years, unless they relinquished their own
weekly publications for a Philadelphia paper.

Mr. SEDGWICK said, that he would candidly confess that the House had put
itself in a delicate situation on this subject; yet if, on the whole,
gentlemen be of opinion that the measure was improper, it ought not, by
reason of any antecedent conduct, to be now further pursued to the
public detriment. It was also but just to say, that if the measure was
proper, a more competent and more impartial agent than the one proposed
could not be obtained. He said that the printers had much merit from
their endeavors to communicate to the public the debates of the House,
yet it must be allowed that their endeavors had been too unsuccessful;
that, in consequence, much injury had been done, not only to the
characters of gentlemen as men of talents, but also in some instances,
to the motives which had produced public measures. These were evils to
which a remedy should be applied, if it did not involve those which
would be more injurious. It ought to be remembered that the man
appointed would be an officer of the House, responsible to it for his
fidelity and accuracy. The debates would then be published under
authority of the House, and it of consequence was responsible for his
precise execution of the trust. It was impossible to conceive that at
some times, with the best intention, he should not mistake, and of
course misrepresent. The member in such a situation, would feel the
injury, but redress would be obtained only by the interposition of the
House. This would afford ground for numerous appeals, and endless
litigation; and, in the end, might be ruinous to many valuable and
respectable characters. It was of importance that no constraint should
exist which would prevent gentlemen from expressing freely and without
fear their own feelings and opinions and those of their constituents.
How far the fear of misrepresentation, and the difficulty of correcting
it, under such a system, would produce such an effect, gentlemen he
hoped would consider before they assented to this proposition.

There was one other consideration, which had great weight on the mind.
Whatever opinion we might entertain on the subject at present, all would
remember the powerful influence of party and faction, and their intimate
connection with free governments. From hence it might be easy to
conceive, that hereafter this might be rendered the most powerful engine
of an unprincipled majority, to overawe and to prostrate and destroy a
virtuous minority. For no character was so established as to withstand
for any length of time constant misrepresentation supported by the
authority of the House of Representatives.

Mr. HARPER rose in reply to Mr. SEDGWICK, who, immediately after he
began speaking, observed that the gentleman had mistaken his meaning.
Mr. H. said that he perfectly understood the member, and proceeded to
recommend the object of the report. He gave credit to the present
reporters for diligence and good intention, but thought them far
inferior to what might be done. Great attainments had been made, he
admitted, but more might be done. He thought it of the highest
consequence that the speeches of members should be correctly published
and disseminated among the people. As to the sum now proposed, a London
newspaper would give, he had no doubt, five thousand dollars a year for
such a reporter. He questioned not that Woodfall would receive ten
thousand pounds a year from the printer for his reports. It had been
objected that daily papers alone could hold such debates; but weekly and
semi-weekly papers could select the most interesting passages of them
from the daily papers. Mr. H. recommended either that this report or a
similar one should be adopted, or that the business of reporting should
at once be put to an end. He spoke of _atrocious_ mistakes. The debates,
as now published, held up the House to the scorn of the world. He would
rather have the doors shut up altogether. He would, if the present
resolution was rejected, make a motion to that effect. He was sorry to
learn that the debates had been collected into a book, entitled "The
Political Register," of which he doubted not that immense numbers would
be sent to Europe, and this book he reprobated in the strongest terms.

Mr. SEDGWICK observed, if gentlemen were misrepresented, in one of the
newspapers, where debates were reported, the editor of that paper had
advertised that he was ready to publish any corrections which might be
offered. This notice had been long and frequently given, and gentlemen
had it in their power to do themselves justice.

The first resolution in the report was then read, and the question going
to be put, when

Mr. BALDWIN said, that the more the House advanced into this affair, the
greater was the number of difficulties which occurred. The resolutions
had the less weight with him because they were hurried through at the
close of last session. The institution was unprecedented in any other
Government. He knew that members might be misrepresented, but this
scheme would not cure the evil. He repeatedly declared, that on all
great questions, where talents found an object worth exertion, the
debates in that House were very well represented. He had seen many
speeches, sketched by printers in this city, that he would not wish to
see better done. He did not know of any recent or particular complaints
about inaccuracy. We have now been in session for seven or eight weeks,
and there has not occurred much interesting matter, to make any
remarkable debate out of He said that the debates, if taken at full
length, would far exceed the limits of any newspaper. As to the expense
of printing, that of the laws of this session would cost twenty thousand
dollars, and he conjectured that to print the speeches, would require a
hundred thousand dollars; and even after they were printed, it would be
necessary to pay people for being at the trouble to read them, for
otherwise nobody would go through a perusal of every word spoken in the
House.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, that the reports at present published were full of
notorious falsehoods, and the characters of members with their
constituents would have been sunk, if it had not been known that this
kind of things deserved no credit. He was in favor of the report. He
complained that even when pieces were sent to the printers, they were
embodied in the sketch, by Which means the reporter got the full credit
of them, which had pernicious consequences. One of his objections to the
present mode of reporting was, that the speeches of members were often
much improved. He mentioned an instance from his own experience. A
speech was once made for him by a person who reports in this House, and
who has a very good style of writing. The style, said Mr. N., was above
mine. There was not a sentiment in it which I would have disavowed. It
was a better speech than mine; but, in an entire column, there was
nothing that I said. As for sending corrections to the printers, Mr. N.
was above it.

Mr. HILLHOUSE was against the report. The loss of four thousand dollars
would be a much greater harm to the public than any injury arising from
inaccurate reports. He did not see that the characters of members with
their constituents depended on these publications.

Mr. SWANWICK.--The gentleman from Virginia last up has suggested that
the House have somehow committed themselves to appoint a stenographer,
by their previous resolution on this subject; but that resolution goes
only to the committee receiving proposals. It therefore remains with
this House whether to accept them or not when made. As to the gentleman
who is the subject of the resolution, if I have more strenuously than
usual opposed the motion, it is from a desire to keep him from quitting
the lucrative situation he is said to find himself in, to embark on the
stormy sea he is contemplating. To be the organ of the members of this
House to their constituents is indeed a very delicate task; one for
which, considering the danger he might be in of an Orpheus's fate--that
of being torn to pieces--the salary is but a poor compensation. He is to
do justice to the eloquence of some members; he is to clothe in an
elegant dress the uncouth, yet well-meaning expressions of others; but
what will he do with the silent members, who never speak at all? What
will their constituents think of them? Indeed, sir, if he has the idea I
have formed of his danger, he will not undertake it at all. Faction and
party have been mentioned: happy stenographer, if he can keep clear of
these! If he fall into their power, insensibly he will represent one
side in clouds and darkness, the other as ornamented with the brightest
beams of light. How will he please both? Misrepresentation is complained
of: alas, sir, how quick is error--how slow is the progress of truth in
almost all things! Our stenographer must indeed be a wonder-working man,
if he can revert this tide, and make every where light and correct
reasoning prevail. The best mode of informing our constituents is, by
the yeas and nays on our acts; this truly shows, as a gentleman from new
Hampshire has observed, our doings, which are much more interesting to
them than our abstract reasonings; these our constituents will easily
form to themselves ideas of, when they know our votes; as the celebrated
Dr. Johnson is said to have written speeches for members of Parliament
whose general political sentiments he knew; by knowing these he applied
arguments pretty accurately, as he supposed them to bear on every
question offered. But, it has been observed, if we do not agree to have
an official stenographer, a motion will be made to clear the House of
those who now take down debates. These persons are tolerated only on the
principle that our galleries are open. Woodfall, a celebrated printer,
took down debates from memory: could we prevent this being done here? Or
should we drive all printers from us who take notes, for the
inaccuracies of some? I hope not. The liberty of the press has great
title to respect. How can we agree by a miscellaneous union, the most
strange, to commute with Mr. Brown, the printer, the salary of four
thousand dollars, so as to possess him first of the proof-sheets,
without supposing other printers will become rivals of this business,
and complain if they are thwarted in an equal pursuit of their own
livelihood? The best way is, to leave this business, like others, to
regulate itself. Mr. Brown, by his labor in this way, has already widely
extended the circulation of his paper--evident in his present
overture--and, by the by, this is no mean proof of correctness on the
whole in his success; he or others will still go on to improve the
business, if left to themselves. If he or they fall into errors, they
are their own. Members may correct them, or write their own speeches
out, if they please. But what has the House to do with this; or why
should it become the censor and promulgator of the speeches of its own
members? Our time is wasted often, already, by too many long discussions
on unimportant objects; but what would it be if we were to be every
morning saluted with motions to correct the performances of the
stenographers of the preceding day? All the advantage of the motion is
to obtain more accuracy; but, it is said, the House means not to pledge
itself for this accuracy: if so, why employ an officer under its
authority for this purpose? On the whole, sir, we shall in vain seek to
escape abuse and misrepresentation; these are by far too much in vogue.
All the consolation left is, what I usually apply in such cases--that
is, the consciousness of not deserving them.

Mr. GILBERT was against the report. He thought the publication of the
laws and the yeas and nays, a sufficient means to communicate the
proceedings of the House.

Mr. WM. LYMAN said that the debates in one of the newspapers (he either
named or plainly alluded to the Philadelphia Gazette) had, for the two
last sessions, been altogether exceptionable. He was sorry to learn,
that these debates had been collected by a person who comes here, so
that they would now, perhaps, descend to posterity. If they were as
incorrect in the volume (the Political Register) as they were in the
newspaper, they were a libel on that House, and would disgrace it with
the world. If this resolution was rejected, it would be advisable to
send all the printers to the gallery.

Mr. KITCHELL was entirely against the object of the report.

Mr. GILES said, that he might have taken up wrong impressions, but he
thought the matter worth trying. It was a thing of experiment, by which
he believed that the printer would make money. He acknowledged that, for
some time past, several of the reports had been pretty correct. It is
better to let them go out as they are, than to stop them altogether. He
would not wish to press the motion, if it was to meet with opposition
from several gentlemen who had this day spoken against it. He moved that
the committee should rise, and the further consideration of the report
be deferred till Monday.

Mr. W. SMITH said, it was admitted on all sides, that it was highly
important for the people to receive the most accurate information of the
proceedings of the House, and that the debates were, in general,
extremely misrepresented. Was it not, then, the duty of the House to
remedy this evil, and to adopt such measures as would transmit to the
people in every part of the United States the most accurate information
of the conduct of their Representatives? The House had now an
opportunity of obtaining the services of a gentleman peculiarly
distinguished for the rare talent of reporting with accuracy public
debates; the compensation which would be adequate to such useful and
laborious service, was beyond the ability of any printer; the House
ought therefore to contribute towards it; the sum required was a trifle,
when compared with the advantages; it was no object. The only question,
then, was, whether the stenographer ought to be an officer of the House;
in that capacity he certainly would be more easily restrained from the
commission of any wilful misrepresentation. Mr. S. did not feel the
force of the objections against the report. It had been said that,
although the members were now misrepresented, yet, they had it in their
power to publish corrections; but these corrections were often
overlooked, while the misrepresentation was operating very injuriously
to the character of the member; this was generally the case in places
remote from the seat of Government; the mangled account of a debate was
republished in a distant paper, and the correction, if it reached the
distant printer, was generally disregarded. Among the opponents to this
report, Mr. S. said he was surprised to find the gentleman who
represented this city, (Mr. SWANWICK,) who, more than any other member,
should have withdrawn his opposition to the measure proposed; that
gentleman's constituents had it in their power, at any time, to hear the
debates of Congress; they were on the spot; ought he not, then, in
candor, to assist in facilitating to the remote citizens the means of
obtaining the best knowledge of the proceedings, and the most correct
statement of the discussions of the House? Ought they, from their
remoteness, to be kept in the dark, or to be furnished with such light
as would only mislead? Had they not a claim on the House to adopt such
means as would enable the citizens in every State to judge of the
propriety of public measures? The member from this city had another
exclusive advantage; if misrepresented, he could correct the error, and
the correction would be read; that was not the case with the members
from the remoter States, whose reputation might be injured by
misrepresentation, without a similar advantage: the member from this
city was in the midst of his constituents; he had daily opportunities of
setting right any misstatement by personal explanation.

Mr. SMITH said, he did not agree with some gentlemen, that it was
sufficient for the people to know what laws were passed, without knowing
the previous discussions; he thought, on the contrary, the favorable or
unfavorable impression of a law on the public mind, would depend, in a
great degree, on the reasons assigned for and against it in debate, and
the people ought to know those reasons. When a law passes, imposing a
tax, would not the people be reconciled if they saw, from the
discussions of the House, that such tax was unavoidable, and that the
particular mode of taxation was the best which could be devised? And
ought this information to depend entirely on the caprice or convenience
of the reporters, who attended when it pleased them, and who published
just as much of the debate as they found leisure or patience to
accomplish? Mr. S. said he was convinced that the errors which had
excited so much complaint, were not the effect of design, but merely of
inadequacy to the task. Very few were competent to such a business,
which required peculiar skill in stenography, very laborious
application, and a clear comprehension of the subject-matter of debate.
It could not be expected that persons thus qualified would devote their
whole time to this business, without an ample reward. The report was
objected to because there was novelty in the plan; it was true the House
of Commons of England had no such officer, but their practice was not a
fit precedent for us on this occasion, for they admitted no person to
write down, in the House, their proceedings; their debates were taken
from memory. This House, on the contrary, had, from its first
institution, facilitated, by every accommodation, the reporting their
proceedings. The thing was not altogether, however, without precedent.
During the existence of the National Assembly of France, there were
officers of the House who composed a daily work called the Logography,
which was an exact account of the debates of that body. It had been
asked, what control the House were to have over this officer? He
answered that the stenographer would be liable to be censured or
displaced, if he should be guilty of wilful misrepresentation. It would
be always easy to discriminate between a casual inadvertence and a
criminal misstatement; the officer's character and talents, his
responsibility to the House, and his oath to report with impartiality,
would be a sufficient pledge of his accuracy. Mr. S. seriously believed
that the character of the House had suffered from the erroneous
statements which had gone abroad. He wished to guard against this evil
in future; he was willing, for himself, that every syllable he uttered
within those walls should be carried to every part of the Union, but he
deprecated misrepresentation. He was anxious that the truth should be
known in relation to every act of the Government; for he was as
satisfied that the affection and confidence of the people in this
Government would increase with the promulgation of truth, as that
whatever it had lost of that affection and confidence, was owing
altogether to the propagation of detraction and calumny. It was under
these impressions that he had originally brought forward the proposition
and that he now recommended the report, and having heard no reasons to
change his sentiments of the expediency of the measure, he should
persist in supporting it.

The motion by Mr. GILES was agreed to. The committee rose, and, a few
minutes after, the House adjourned to Monday.


MONDAY, February 1.

_Indian Trading Houses._

The engrossed bill for establishing trading houses for the Indian tribes
was taken into consideration. The first blank was for the gross sum to
be appropriated for the general objects of the bill. It was moved to
fill this blank with $150,000.

Mr. WILLIAMS spoke in favor of the bill.

Mr. PARKER supported the general provision of the bill, and urged the
necessity of an immediate attention to the subject. He calculated on a
surplus in the appropriation for the War Department to provide for this
object.

Mr. HARPER moved that the bill should be recommitted. He then entered
into a general consideration of the principles of the bill, which he
reprobated altogether. Alluding to the general objects of commerce, he
said that public bodies never manage these matters without loss. He
adverted to the repairs of roads, construction of canals, &c.; all these
objects prosper under private individual direction, but when entered
into by public bodies nothing is ever brought to perfection, and the
public money is lost. He applied these ideas to the plan of the bill.
Persons at fifteen hundred or two thousand miles distance, are to be
intrusted with public property to a large amount. It is not in human
wisdom to guard against frauds and impositions; no check or control can
be devised which will be found adequate to repressing private rapacity.
Mr. H., therefore, wished the bill recommitted, for the purpose of an
entire new modification. If the motion should obtain, he should then
move a resolution providing for a loan to individuals for the purpose.

Mr. SWANWICK supported the general principle of the bill, and reprobated
the idea of loans to individuals; he considered such a plan as one of
the worst kind of sinking funds. The plan is an experiment; it is not,
perhaps, possible to predict what will be the result; but the object is
worth the trial and worthy the attention of the Legislature. He
considered the objections against the plan of the bill as applying with
greater force against the proposed substitute.

Mr. S. SMITH said, when the gentleman from South Carolina made his
motion for a recommitment, he had supposed he would have accompanied the
motion with some reasons; but since he had heard what he offered as
reasons, he found himself confirmed in his opinion of the inexpediency
of his motion. Mr. S. said, the only reason for the commitment was, that
the principle of the bill might be changed, by individuals being
substituted for the Government, that is, by loaning the money to private
persons for the purposes of the trade. He was entirely opposed to this
principle. Public debtors are the worst kind of citizens. These persons,
after having expended or lost the money, will be coming forward with
their petitions to be released from their bonds. He did not wish to
increase the business of the Committee of Claims.

Mr. SWIFT enlarged on the idea suggested by Mr. HARPER. He thought it
infinitely preferable to leave the business to the enterprise and
resources of individuals.

Mr. HARPER rose in reply to Mr. SMITH. He entered into a further
consideration and defence of the plan he had proposed as a substitute.

Mr. DEARBORN objected to Mr. HARPER's idea; he saw no sufficient reason
to support the preference that gentleman gave to a loan to individuals.
He was in favor of the general principle of the bill; he thought it
economical to appropriate money for the object of cultivating good
understanding and harmony with the Indians, but should vote for the bill
only on the condition of a reduction of the Military Establishment.

Mr. GILES entered more largely into a consideration of the principle of
the bill. He had no opinion of governmental bargains--he believed they
always turned out losing bargains.[67] The clause which provides that
the original stock shall not be diminished, he conceived, would operate
against the general object of the bill, if adhered to; but this he did
not contemplate; he supposed that it would terminate in an annual
provision. Mr. G. alluded to the PRESIDENT's Speech, a clause of which
had been recited; he did not consider that, or a former recommendation
of this matter, as binding on the House. If the PRESIDENT's Speech is
considered as the political Bible of the Government, the case is
different; but he presumed no person was disposed to assert this. He
considered the House as perfectly free to adopt or reject the
proposition. With respect to the effects of the measure, gentlemen had
differed in their predictions. Predictions which were the nearest to the
effects produced, may be considered as the result of the greater
political sagacity. He would venture to predict that the whole sum
proposed to be appropriated would be sunk in three years. With respect
to the fund contemplated from the surplus of the War Department
appropriation, he considered it as altogether illusory; there is no such
surplus, none had heretofore been found, and he presumed none ever
would. For though the number of troops voted had never been raised, yet
the whole of the money appropriated was always expended.

Some further remarks were made by several members, and then the motion
for recommitting the bill being put, was lost--52 to 34.

Mr. SWIFT then renewed his motion for a postponement. This, after a few
remarks from that gentleman, and a short reply from Mr. GILBERT, in
support of the bill, was negatived.

The motion for filling the blank with $150,000, was then put and agreed
to, fifty-six members rising in the affirmative.

On reading the section in which the blank for the penalty is included,
Mr. VENABLE moved for a partial recommitment of the bill, for the
purpose of new-modifying the section. This motion gave rise to a variety
of observations, in the course of which the motion was extended to a
general commitment. This motion being put, was lost.

The motion then was, to recommit the second, fourth, and sixth sections.
The second section was recommitted. The fourth section provides that the
capital stock of the United States embarked in this business shall not
be diminished. Mr. VENABLE's object was to have the section so modified
as to blend the interest of the individual who is to conduct the
business with that of the public. Mr. S. SMITH said the motion went to
destroy the bill, for no person would engage in the business on such a
plan. The motion for committing the fourth section was lost. The sixth
section assigns the sum of $150,000 to be appropriated for the general
objects of the bill. The motion to recommit this section was negatived.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
second section, Mr. MUHLENBERG in the chair.

Mr. VENABLE moved that the section should be altered to read, that the
agent should give bonds to the amount in value of the goods committed to
his charge.

Mr. J. SMITH supposed that the sum should be sufficient to cover the
amount of the goods which may at any time be found in the hands of the
agents; from ten to fifteen or twenty thousand dollars, he supposed,
might be sufficient for this purpose.

Mr. DEARBORN suggested the idea of leaving this part of the business to
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. He moved to amend the clause
accordingly.

Mr. VENABLE's motion was lost. Mr. DEARBORN's motion was agreed to.

The committee then rose, and the Chairman reported the amendment, which
was adopted by the House. It was then ordered that the bill be again
engrossed and read the third time to-day.

[The bill was subsequently read a third time and passed--58 members
rising in the affirmative.]


TUESDAY, February 2.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of
      Representatives:_

      I transmit herewith the copy of a letter, dated the 19th of
      December last, from Governor Blount to the Secretary of
      War, stating the avowed and daring designs of certain
      persons to take possession of lands belonging to the
      Cherokees, and which the United States have, by treaty,
      solemnly guaranteed to that nation. The injustice of such
      intrusions, and the mischievous consequences which must
      necessarily result therefrom, demand that effectual
      provision be made to prevent them.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.

      UNITED STATES, _February_ 2, 1796.

The said Message and letter were read, and ordered to be referred to the
Committee of the whole House, to whom is committed the bill to regulate
trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and to preserve peace on
the frontiers.


WEDNESDAY, February 3.

LEMUEL BENTON, from South Carolina, appeared, was qualified, and took
his seat.


MONDAY, February 8.

_Compensation of Members._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill for
allowing a compensation to the members of both Houses, which proposes an
annual salary of one thousand dollars to each member, instead of six
dollars per day.

Mr. GILES moved that the word "annually" be expunged from the bill. He
thought the present mode of compensating the members of the Legislature
a good one, and could not conceive why an alteration should be made.
Such a mode of payment as was now proposed ought to be sanctioned only
upon the maturest deliberation.

Mr. GOODHUE explained the reasons which induced the committee to propose
an annual instead of a daily payment to members, which was, that members
might be induced to greater despatch in business, and to do away an idea
which had gone abroad amongst many people, that, being paid by the day,
the members of that House protracted their session to an unreasonable
length.

Mr. GILES thought there ought to be no pecuniary inducement to members
to push forward business in too rapid a manner, or to shorten their
sessions. An annual salary would doubtless have this effect, and
business, in consequence, would most certainly be neglected. It would be
an evil of the greatest importance; it would be a constant temptation to
members to neglect their duty; it would tend to embarrass all their
deliberations. Indeed, it was a perfectly new mode of requiting
Representatives, and would be supposed to be introduced for the purpose
of advancing their pay--an idea which he did not wish to prevail, as he
thought the present allowance sufficient. He therefore hoped the
principle would not be agreed to.

Mr. SWANWICK was against the bill, and said, that to pay members in the
way proposed would be to offer them a bounty to neglect the business of
the Legislature.

Mr. HILLHOUSE was in favor of the bill. He said, that the constitution
had provided that Congress should meet once a year, and that more time
was spent during their sitting than was taken up by the Circuits of the
Judges. Yet the Judges had a salary allowed them, and it was not found
to have any bad effect. Complaints are now made out of doors that their
sessions are protracted for the sake of the daily allowance paid to
them. Persons who said this, said he, do not know that we are all the
time deeply engaged in business, which is much lengthened by clashing
interests of different States. A yearly salary would do away this idea,
without making any real difference in the amount paid by the Treasury
for their services. If he thought the mode of payment would cause
members to neglect their duty, as has been observed, he too would be
against the adoption of it; but surely it cannot be supposed that
members would not sit as long as business should require them. He
observed, they had now been in session two months, and but very little
important business had been done. He thought the mode proposed would
tend to remedy this evil: it was an experiment at least worth trying.

Mr. FINDLAY did not object to the bill merely as a novelty, but because
it offered no advantage. Many persons, no doubt, would think one
thousand dollars a year too much; but he believed it best for members to
do their duty, without regarding the misapprehensions and prejudices of
they know not whom. He did not think the pay of members influenced their
sittings. The greatest difficulty, towards the close of the session, was
to keep members together. If, indeed, members would attend better at the
beginning of a session, and take up less time in speaking, sessions
might be shorter; but there must, however, be full liberty given to
every member to express his sentiments in his own way. No law can
regulate people's conceptions. He thought it best that the members
should be paid by the day. He should never boast of passing laws in a
short time, but of passing good laws.

Mr. NICHOLAS was in favor of the present mode of compensating members,
as the period of their sessions was uncertain, and wherever salaries
were paid, they were for certain business. Give members one thousand
dollars, and he did not doubt but some of them would wish to return home
sooner than if they had been paid in proportion to the time spent in
business. Water, though insensibly, wears away stones; and such an
influence, he feared, would have a tendency to undermine the integrity
of members. It was better to be slow than too hasty in business. He
hoped this bill would not pass as an experiment, for the effect must be
corruption; and when once this enemy of all governments is suffered to
take root, it is difficult to eradicate it. Indeed, this bill would be
supposed by many as a cover to advance the pay of members. If there were
any such view, he wished members to propose the measure openly. He
thought the present pay too much, and if the people thought it
influenced the length of their sittings, they were of the same opinion.

Mr. WILLIAMS was against the bill, though he believed it to be brought
in by the committee from the best of motives. It was their opinion it
would shorten the sessions, and, if carried into effect, it might do so.
If our wages were lowered, the measure would shorten our sessions. Every
penny beyond expenses is too much: a medium salary was desirable. If the
pay of members was increased, officers of Government will do the same.
At present, it was true, all the necessaries of life were at a high
price; but when the war in Europe ceases, the case will be different.
Whenever we adjourn our sessions, (said he,) much business is
necessarily left unfinished; and if members were paid by the year
instead of by the day, all those whose business was not completed would
be ready to say that members were hastened away to enjoy their salary at
home.

Mr. SEDGWICK did not think the business before the House important. He
was inclined, however, to favor the bill, not that he would grant a
larger amount in that way than the amount of the present allowance per
day. The argument of novelty, he said, would not apply: we are in the
business of experiment. He would observe a fact well known, that every
member in the House was deprived of the opportunity of pursuing his
occupations at home, and of the emoluments arising therefrom, by his
attendance to public business. He did not believe a yearly allowance
would shorten the sessions, but it would remove the charge brought
against members of protracting the sessions for the sake of their pay.
Whether it is necessary to increase or diminish the present pay is not
the question.

Mr. LIVINGSTON expected stronger motives for the bill than he had heard.
It is acknowledged a perfect novelty. This, though by no means decisive,
is an objection against the measure, and there is nothing else to
recommend it. It has, indeed, been said, it will shorten our sessions;
but would this be a benefit? If to continue in session be an evil, why
are we here? If it could have been proved that expense would have been
saved by the measure, that would have been a real advantage; but this
has not been hinted at. It has, indeed, been said, it will remove from
our constituents a suspicion that we are living here too long. It has
been said, that an idea has gone abroad that we receive six dollars a
day through the year. Few, he believed, were so ill informed; but this
bill, if passed, will cause much more discontent than the present pay
occasions. Deliberation in a Legislative body is necessary. The dearest
interests of the people, he said, were committed to their charge, and he
trusted they would watch over them, and never suffer them to be injured;
and then, it was his opinion their constituents would not think much of
their pay.

Mr. BALDWIN said, that it was a disagreeable business to be employed in
discussing the subject of paying themselves for their services: it would
be a desirable thing to supersede the necessity of doing so. The
committee doubtless thought one thousand per annum would be an
improvement upon the present mode of paying members, but he could not
think so. He thought it best that the allowance should be paid in the
old way.

Mr. GILBERT was willing to try the experiment of the bill proposed. He
did not believe that either the present daily allowance lengthened, or
that an annual salary would shorten, the sessions. He thought to say the
contrary was a base insinuation.

Mr. BOURNE never heard it was the wish of their constituents that their
payment should be annual instead of per day. He had heard it complained
that their pay was too high; but now, since the price of living is so
much advanced, he believed the people were satisfied. He saw no
advantages from the proposed change. It cannot be thought that the pay
is an inducement to members to prolong their sessions: he had not heard
such a complaint. He was in favor of striking out the word "annually,"
and for recommitting the bill.

Mr. MADISON observed, that the present bill proposed no alteration with
respect to the amount of money to be drawn from the Treasury, and it can
make but little difference to members. What had been mentioned as the
advantages of this bill, in his opinion, would operate against it. A
novelty, he said, always called for hesitation.

Mr. SWANWICK thought, if they enacted good laws--laws that should
encourage agriculture and commerce--their constituents would not trouble
themselves about their salary.

Mr. GILES rose to remark upon an expression which fell from Mr. GILBERT,
viz: that, to say members were likely to be influenced by the proposed
salary, was a vile insinuation. He declared that it was a recommendation
of the bill in the committee, that it would tend to shorten their
sessions.

Mr. GILBERT explained, and justified the expression.

The motion for striking out the word "annually" was called for, and
passed.[68]


TUESDAY, February 9.

FISHER AMES, of Massachusetts, appeared, was qualified, and took his
seat.


THURSDAY, February 11.

_Post Roads from Maine to Georgia._

Mr. MADISON moved that the resolution laid upon the table some days ago
be taken up, relative to the survey of the post roads between the
province of Maine and Georgia; which, being read, he observed that two
good effects would arise from carrying this resolution into effect; the
shortest route from one place to another would be determined upon, and
persons, having a certainty of the stability of the roads, would not
hesitate to make improvements upon them.

Mr. BALDWIN was glad to see this business brought forward; the sooner it
could be carried into effect, the better. In many parts of the country,
he said, there were no improved roads, nothing better than the original
Indian track. Bridges and other improvements are always made with
reluctance whilst roads remain in this state, because it is known as the
country increases in population and wealth, better and shorter roads
will be made. All expense of this sort, indeed, is lost. It was properly
the business of the General Government, he said, to undertake the
improvement of the roads, for the different States are incompetent to
the business, their different designs clashing with each other. It is
enough for them to make good roads to the different seaports; the cross
roads should be left to the government of the whole. The expense, he
thought, would not be very great. Let a surveyor point out the shortest
and best track, and the money will soon be raised. There was nothing in
this country, he said, of which we ought to be more ashamed than our
public roads.

Mr. BOURNE thought very valuable effects would arise from the carrying
of this resolution into effect. The present roads may be much shortened.
The Eastern States had made great improvements in their roads, and he
trusted the best effects would arise from having regular mails from one
end of the Union to the other.

Mr. WILLIAMS did not think it right for the revenues of the Post Office
to be applied to this end. He acknowledged the propriety of extending
the post roads to every part of the Union; he thought the House had
better wait for the report of the committee to which business relative
to the Post Office had been referred, which was preparing to be laid
before the House.

Mr. MADISON explained the nature and object of the resolution. He said
it was the commencement of an extensive work. He wished not to extend it
at present. The expense of the survey would be great. The Post Officer,
he believed, would have no objection to the intended regulation.

After some observations from Mr. THATCHER, on the obtaining of the
shortest distance from one place to another, and the comparing old with
new roads, so as to come at the shortest and best, the resolution was
agreed to, as follows:

_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to report a bill authorizing
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to cause to be examined, and, where
necessary, to be surveyed, the general route most proper for the
transportation of the mail between ----, in Maine, and ----, in the
State of Georgia, and to cause to be laid before Congress the result of
such examination and survey, with an estimate of the expense of
rendering such route fit, in all its parts, to be the established route
of the post; the expense of such examination and survey to be defrayed
out of the surplus revenues of the Post Office.[69]

_Ordered_, That Mr. MADISON, Mr. THATCHER, Mr. BALDWIN, Mr. HENDERSON,
and Mr. SHERBURNE, be appointed a committee pursuant to the said
resolution.


MONDAY, February 22.

_Washington's Birth-Day._

Mr. W. SMITH moved that the House adjourn for half an hour.

This motion occasioned a good deal of conversation upon its propriety.
In favor of it, it was said, that it had been a practice ever since the
commencement of the Government, for that House to make a short
adjournment on that day in order to pay their compliments to the
PRESIDENT, and that several members were absent, from an idea that the
House would adjourn at 12 o'clock as usual. On the other hand, it was
objected that it was the business of the members of that House first to
do their duty, and then attend to the paying of compliments; that just
at that time the house of the PRESIDENT was filled with militia and
others; and that, therefore, it would be better, upon the whole, to wait
upon the PRESIDENT after the business of the day was finished.

Mr. GALLATIN moved that the words "half an hour" be struck out.

The sense of the House was first taken on the amendment, which was lost,
without a division. The motion was then put and negatived, being 38 for
it, and 50 against it.


FRIDAY, February 26.

_Compensation to Members._

Mr. GILES moved that the bill for allowing compensation to the members
of the Senate and House of Representatives, and certain officers of both
Houses, be taken up, which being agreed to, the House resolved itself
into a Committee of the Whole; and the bill being read,

Mr. SWIFT wished to strike out the words making the Speaker a greater
allowance than other members.

Mr. GILES thought a larger allowance ought to be made to the Speaker
than to other members, as his duty was double that of any other member;
but if gentlemen wished to do away the incidental expenses of the
office, he had no objection.

Mr. SWIFT consented to vary his motion according to the ideas of the
member from Virginia. If the Speaker had more duty to perform than other
members, he should be willing to make him a greater allowance, but he
doubted it.

Mr. W. SMITH hoped no alteration would be made in the allowance
heretofore made; he saw no reason for it.

Mr. GOODHUE said, he voted against the additional pay allowed the
Speaker when the act first passed, as he saw no necessity for the
Speaker to give dinners to the members of that House; but though he
objected to this, he was willing to allow him recompense for his
additional services. He hoped, however, the gentleman who now so ably
filled the office, would not consider any thing said on this subject as
alluding personally to him.

Mr. SEDGWICK was willing to give the money to the Speaker which had
heretofore been paid him, and for the same purpose, although he and his
colleague were both against the measure when it originally passed.

Mr. DAYTON wished the business might be discussed without reference to
him personally. Indeed he believed he should not be materially affected
by any regulations which might be agreed to, as, if he might judge by
his present feelings, his health would not permit him to remain in the
chair after this session.

Mr. GILES was confident that no one meant to hurt the feelings of the
gentleman who now filled the chair. The member from Massachusetts had
said, when the measure passed, he was against it, but now he was in
favor of it. He could see no ground for this change of sentiment. Mr. G.
said, he was against the money being paid for incidental expenses, but
not against making the Speaker ample allowance for his services.

Mr. KITCHELL was also for striking out the words, but for making ample
compensation to the Speaker.

Mr. BOURNE did not suppose that the incidental expenses of the Speaker
were confined to the dinners which he gave them; he was put to more
expense in receiving company than other members. He did not think six
dollars a day too much for this.

Mr. MADISON said, it was customary in all the State Governments to make
the Speaker a greater allowance than other members: his services were
far greater; they were uninterrupted. Besides, it was necessary to do so
to invite men of talents to accept of the office; and every one knew the
advantages arising from having a man of talents as Speaker. Without
inquiring whether the compensation was too large or too small, he
doubted whether it was constitutional to make any alteration in it which
might affect the present Speaker. To support his opinions he read a
clause of the constitution.

Mr. HILLHOUSE was of opinion that nothing in the constitution extended
to the present question. He hoped they should agree to strike out the
words alluded to, as the sooner the practice of feasting was abolished,
the better. If members wished to form social acquaintances, it was far
preferable to visit each other at their lodgings. He said, this was the
first time the law had come under review since it had passed, and it was
proper to have the matter settled. He wished to allow a reasonable sum
for the services of the Speaker, but no more. He did not think there was
any weight in the observation, that a large compensation was necessary
to induce men of talents to accept of the chair--he thought the honor
was a sufficient inducement.

Mr. WILLIAMS said there was no office appertaining to the Speaker which
included expense; the words ought therefore to be struck out.

Mr. PAGE was in favor of striking out the words, as he did not
understand their meaning, but in favor of keeping the allowance of the
Speaker the same as usual. The Speaker, he said, ought to be placed in
an independent situation, by a handsome salary. His duties were fourfold
to those of any other member. Indeed, said he, nothing but a sense of
duty could induce a man to undertake such an office.

Mr. GILES said, if it was agreed to strike out the words _for the
incidental expenses of his office_, he should move to introduce in their
place, "_on account of extra services annexed to his office_."

Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH liked the words proposed better than those in the
bill, but did not think it of the importance it was made.

The motion for striking out was put and carried.

Mr. GILES then proposed his motion.

Mr. HILLHOUSE was against the introduction of these words.

Mr. VARNUM hoped the motion would prevail. The services of the Speaker
are extraordinary and laborious. The State Legislatures, he said, always
allowed their Speaker double the pay of other members.

Mr. MURRAY hoped the words would not obtain. He considered the
Speakership of that House as a very elevated situation. In certain
contingencies he believed he was the Chief Executive of the United
States. He thought the calculation of pay too mechanical. The dignity of
the office was sufficient, without extraordinary compensation; the
duties of it were well known.

The question was put, and negatived.

Mr. GILES moved to fill up the blank for the daily allowance of members
of the Senate with six dollars.

Mr. PAGE proposed seven; when, after a few observations from Mr.
WILLIAMS in favor of six, the sense of the House was taken, which was in
favor of six dollars--only twenty-one members rising in favor of seven.

The allowance of the Speaker again coming into consideration, Mr. SWIFT
wished an inquiry might be made into the duties of the office. It was
his opinion that many members upon committees performed greater services
than he; and if the Speaker had an extra allowance, they ought to have
an extra allowance also. Some gentlemen thought, on the score of
dignity, a high salary ought to be paid. He thought differently. Can it
be supposed it would be necessary, said he, to give any member of this
House double pay to accept of the office? No such thing. Being now
discharged from any obligation to treat members, he could not agree to
allow him the usual sum. He should not object to two or three dollars a
day extra, but no more.

Mr. GILES thought the duty of the Speaker three times as arduous as that
of any other member of the House.

Mr. CRABB voted for striking out the words, but he was not for
diminishing the salary of the Speaker.

The motion for the usual allowance was put and carried, and the other
blanks of the bill were filled up with the same sums as heretofore
allowed to the different officers. The committee rose; the bill then
went through the House, and was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time on Monday.


MONDAY, March 7.

_The Treaty with Great Britain._

[The debate on the subject of the Treaty with Great Britain, and of the
constitutional powers of the House with respect to treaties, having
occupied the time of the House nearly every day for a month, (commencing
the 7th of March and ending on the 7th of April,) it is deemed
preferable, and as being more acceptable to the reader, to present the
whole in one body consecutively, rather than to spread it in detached
parts intermixed with other subjects, through the general proceedings of
each day. This debate, as here given, possesses a character for
authenticity and correctness which does not belong to the newspaper
reports of the day, it having undergone the careful revision of the
Speakers themselves. The debate which took place on making the provision
for carrying the Treaty into effect, will be found subsequently, in the
proceedings of each day as the subject came up before the House.][70]

On the second of March, Mr. LIVINGSTON, after stating that the late
British Treaty must give rise in the House to some very important and
constitutional questions, to throw light upon which every information
would be required, laid the following resolution upon the table.

      "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
      requested to lay before this House a copy of the
      instructions to the Minister of the United States, who
      negotiated the Treaty with the King of Great Britain,
      communicated by his Message of the first of March, together
      with the correspondence and other documents relative to the
      said Treaty."

MARCH 7.--Mr. LIVINGSTON said he wished to modify the resolution he had
laid on the table, requesting the PRESIDENT to lay before the House
sundry documents respecting the Treaty. It was calculated to meet the
suggestions of gentlemen to whose opinions he paid the highest respect,
and was founded in the reflection that the negotiations on the twelfth
article were probably unfinished; and therefore, he said, a disclosure
of papers relative to that or any other pending negotiation, might
embarrass the Executive. He wished, therefore, to add, at the end of his
former motion, the following words: "Excepting such of said papers as
any existing negotiation may render improper to be disclosed."

The motion of Mr. LIVINGSTON was then taken up.

Mr. TRACY requested gentlemen in favor of the resolution to give their
reasons why the application for papers was to be made.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said, he had no wish to conceal his intentions. The
motives that impelled him to make the motion, were not such as to make
him wish to conceal them, or such as he ought to blush at when
discovered. The gentleman from Connecticut wished to know why he had
brought this resolution before the House? He did it for the sake of
information. That gentleman wished to know to what point this
information was to apply? Possibly to all the points he had enumerated.
It was impossible, however, to say to which or how many of these points
without a recurrence to those very papers. He could not determine now,
he said, that an impeachment would be deemed advisable; yet, when the
papers are obtained, they may make such a step advisable. It was
impossible to declare an impeachment advisable, without having the
necessary lights as to the conduct of officers. The House were, on every
occasion, the guardians of their country's rights. They are, by the
constitution, the accusing organ of the officers employed. The
information called for they ought to possess, as it would tend to
elucidate the conduct of the officers. His principal reason, however,
for proposing the measure, was a firm conviction that the House were
vested with a discretionary power of carrying the Treaty into effect, or
refusing it their sanction.

Mr. MURRAY said, that he was against the resolution for two reasons,
which then struck his mind forcibly. The first was the want of a
declared object within the acknowledged cognizance of the House; the
other was because he believed it was designed as the groundwork of a
very dangerous doctrine, that the House had a right to adjudge, to
adopt, or to reject Treaties generally. Had the gentlemen stated the
object for which they called for the papers to be an impeachment, or any
inquiry into fraud, as a circumstance attending the making of the
Treaty, the subject would be presented under an aspect very different
from that which it has assumed. He considered a Treaty, constitutionally
made, to be the supreme law of the land. The Treaty in view has been
negotiated and ratified, he thought, agreeably to the constitution. It
has been issued, by the PRESIDENT's proclamation, as an act obligatory
upon the United States. If the House mean to go into the merits of that
instrument, and the information be called for with that view, he should
feel himself bound by the constitution to give it every opposition.

Mr. BALDWIN thought the resolution so unexceptionable that he had
expected it would have been agreed to without debate. The PRESIDENT has
sent the House the Treaty; petitions have come forward on the subject;
the House must act in the business. It is yet unaccompanied with any
documents to throw light upon it. No person concerned in the negotiation
has a seat on the floor of the House; so that no oral information can be
expected. Implicit faith was not to be reposed, he imagined, in public
officers. It would be unfair to take up the subject naked and
unexplained.

Mr. GALLATIN said, he should not now enter into the merits of the
question, but merely state that pertain powers are delegated by the
constitution to Congress. They possess the authority of regulating
trade. The Treaty-making power delegated to the Executive may be
considered as clashing with that. The question may arise, whether a
Treaty made by the PRESIDENT and Senate, containing regulations touching
objects delegated to Congress, can be considered binding, without
Congress passing laws to carry it into effect. A difference of opinion
may exist as to the proper construction of the several articles of the
constitution, so as to reconcile those apparently contradictory
provisions. But all those questions would occur in future discussions.
What is now wanted is information on the subject, to elucidate the
different views which may be taken of the Treaty. It must do good to
obtain it, and could do no harm to ask for it. If it would be improper
to communicate any part of the information on the subject, the PRESIDENT
will say so. He had hoped, he said, that the resolution would have
passed without objection. He concluded by observing, that the House were
the grand inquest of the nation, and that they had the right to call for
papers on which to ground an impeachment; but he believed, that if this
was intended, it would be proper that the resolution should be
predicated upon a declaration of that intention. At present, he did not
contemplate the exercise of that right.

Mr. MADISON admitted that every proposition, however distantly related
to a question on the Treaty, drew from the importance of that subject
considerable importance to itself. In a discussion of this subject, he
felt strongly the obligation of proceeding with the utmost respect to
the decorum and dignity of the House, with a proper delicacy to the
other departments of Government, and, at the same time, with fidelity
and responsibility for our constituents. The proposition now before the
House, he conceived, might be considered as closely connected with this
important question. It was to be decided whether the general power of
making Treaties supersedes the powers of the House of Representatives,
particularly specified in the constitution, so as to take to the
Executive all deliberative will, and leave the House only an Executive
and ministerial instrumental agency?

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) said, that he had listened attentively to
the reasons advanced in favor of this resolution, and that he had heard
nothing to convince him of its propriety. The PRESIDENT and Senate have,
by the constitution, the power of making Treaties, and the House have no
agency in them, except to make laws necessary to carry them into
operation; he considered the House as bound, in common with their
fellow-citizens, to do every thing in their power to carry them into
full execution. He recognized but one exception to this rule, and that
was, when the instrument was clearly unconstitutional. In this case, he
remarked, it had not been said that the Treaty was unconstitutional.
When the resolution was first brought forward, it had indeed been
observed, that the discussion might involve certain constitutional
points, and, therefore, the papers called for by the resolution were
necessary; but it was obvious, the question of constitutionality should
be determined from the face of the instrument, and that a knowledge of
the preparatory steps which led to its adoption, could throw no light
upon it; that ground was therefore abandoned even by the friends of the
resolution, and others were resorted to.

He was surprised that gentlemen who displayed such zeal for the
constitution should support a proposition, the tendency of which went
indirectly to break down the constitutional limits between the Executive
and Legislative Departments. The constitution had assigned to the
Executive the business of negotiation with foreign powers; this House
can claim no right by the constitution to interfere in such
negotiations; every movement of the kind must be considered as an
attempt to usurp powers not delegated, and will be resisted by the
Executive; for a concession would be a surrender of the powers specially
delegated to him, and a violation of his trust. The proposition calls
upon the PRESIDENT to lay before the House the instructions given to Mr.
Jay, and the correspondence between him and Lord Grenville; and for what
purpose? Is this House to negotiate the Treaty over again? Has the
constitution made this House a diplomatic body, invested with the powers
of negotiation? Is not this House excluded? for, if the maxim that "the
expression of one is the exclusion of another," applies to this case,
the assignment of the Treaty-making power to the PRESIDENT and Senate,
is a manifest exclusion of this House. This call, then, on the
PRESIDENT, is an attempt to obtain indirectly what the constitution has
expressly assigned to others.

After Mr. S. had sat down, it was moved by Mr. GILES, to take the
resolution up in Committee of the Whole for the purpose of more ample
discussion.

This motion was agreed to; sixty-one members rising in the affirmative.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on
the resolution.

Mr. NICHOLAS remarked, that the member from Connecticut, first up, when
inquiring for the reason of a call for papers, had suggested two. The
one, relating to the merits of the instrument; the other, an inquiry
into the conduct of officers concerned. On the latter ground, gentlemen
conceded that the House had a right to require the papers, and yet
seemed willing to adhere to that, on which they conceived a call could
not be, with propriety, grounded, as the one that influenced the conduct
of the friends to the resolution. All gentlemen admitted, that the House
had the superintendence over the officers of Government, as the grand
inquest of the nation; but persisted that the resolution calling for
papers, if intended for the purpose of exercising that authority, must
be predicated on an expression of the intention.

He took a view of the prominent features of the arguments of the members
up before him. It had been said that, if the power of the PRESIDENT and
Senate, as to Treaties, was complete, then the House had no right to
claim a participation; this could not be denied; but the question was,
whether the Executive had that right unqualifiedly, in all cases. In the
present case, he contended, the House had a voice. To elucidate: Suppose
that, in the constitution of the United States, which has been so
guarded about the expenditure of money, a clause had been inserted,
positively declaring that the House have a control over the money
matters stipulated in a Treaty; would not this constitute a
qualification of the powers of the PRESIDENT and Senate with respect to
Treaties? The constitution, on this head, he contended, though less
explicit than his supposed case would make it, was not the less
positive, if tested by all the fair rules of construction; and if
compared with the practice of the government from which we had borrowed,
with many other matters, this part of our constitution. In England, the
country alluded to, their House of Parliament had exercised a control
over the moneyed articles of Treaties; and he contended, the House of
Representatives had an equal authority here, as chief guardians of the
purse-strings. It was unnecessary, at this time, he said, to touch on
the other parts of the Treaty which clashed with the constitutional
powers of the House.

He again adverted to the power of control that the House of Commons have
over Treaties; and contended, that that provision of the British
constitution had been accurately copied in our own with this deviation
only, that the Senate have the power of making amendments to money bills
here, which the House of Lords there have not. He could show, from the
best authority, the acknowledgment of the British Crown officers
themselves, that the Parliament has a right to discuss and decide on
Treaties which involved moneyed stipulations.

The same power, he argued, resided in the House here; for shall it be
said, that we have borrowed only the form from Great Britain, and not
touched the substance? Shall it be said, that the House have a
discretion as to appropriations, and yet they must make them as directed
by a Treaty? If the House have no discretion to use in the business,
they are the most unfit body to regulate money-matters; for complete
regularity in so large a body must be one of the least of their valuable
properties. But, with the power of appropriating money, the House have
certainly the right to judge of the propriety of the appropriation. The
constitution explains itself fully on this head. He instanced the
specific power in the constitution, with respect to appropriations for
the army, to explain from that instrument its meaning in other parts.

The constitution says, that no appropriations for the support of armies
shall be for more than two years; this is, no doubt, that the House may
periodically have before them the question of the propriety of
supporting an armed force, with all its consequences, and that they may,
by refusing or granting an appropriation, determine on its existence.
The power thus cautiously lodged must have been for some purpose, and
that he had suggested could alone explain this clause of the
constitution. This will show what was expected of this House in
appropriating money; that they should judge of the usefulness of the
expenditure. In the case of the army, the constitution does not say that
we may disband an army by withholding money; but for the purpose of
investing us with the same power, only requires that the appropriation
should recur every two years; taking it for granted, that in this as
well as in every other Legislative act, we will duly weigh every
consequence.

Having thus explained from the constitution itself the true meaning of
this power of appropriation, he proceeded to elucidate it by a reference
to the practice of the Government. He found an instance in the permanent
appropriations made for the payment of the public debt. If the House in
this and analogous cases, could exercise no discretion as to
appropriations, why this permanent provision, in preference to an annual
appropriation? The permanency of the provision took its rise from the
idea, that the House possessed a discretionary power as to
appropriations. Thus, he had shown that the practice of the Government,
the provisions of the constitution, and the example of the British, from
whom we had exactly copied the control over money transactions, all
proved a discretion in the House as to appropriations. This must be
considered as a sufficient answer to the gentleman from South Carolina,
when he said, that the PRESIDENT and Senate possessed the Treaty-making
power; for they possessed it with qualification, in matters of money;
and unless the House chose to grant that money, it was so far no Treaty.

It was said, that if the Treaty was not the law of the land, the
PRESIDENT should be impeached for declaring it as such. Parts of the
Treaty the PRESIDENT and Senate had, no doubt, a right to make without
any control of the House--those parts he might be considered as
proclaiming; he proclaims it, limited as his authority, and under the
qualifications provided by the constitution. It was said, that no
instance of such a call as that now contemplated could be produced. No;
nor of such a Treaty, he answered.

Mr. SWANWICK expressed his sense of the importance of the subject before
the House, and the pleasure which he experienced at observing the
calmness and temper with which the discussion had been carried on. He
had not conceived, however, that the decision of the present question
involved the sense of the House as to the merits of the Treaty; the
object of the resolution was only to obtain that knowledge necessary for
an enlightened decision; it had been observed, that the Treaty had been
censured by assemblages of people with precipitancy, and without proper
information. They did this on the best information that could by them be
obtained. But if the House should go into a Committee of the Whole, to
take into consideration the Treaty, without obtaining all the
information in their power, they would be justly to blame.

He adverted to the constitution; according to that instrument, the
Legislative power is completely vested in Congress. By the 8th section
of the 1st article, not only a certain specification of powers are
granted to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, regulate commerce, &c.,
but the very extensive further power, not only to make all laws which
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing
powers, but, also, all other powers vested by this constitution in the
Government of the United States, or in any department or officer
thereof. If, then, Congress have the power to pass laws to carry into
execution all powers vested by the constitution in the Government of the
United States, or in any department or officer thereof, how is it
possible that there can be any authority out of the purview of this
general and extensive Legislative control? Is the Treaty-making power
not a power vested by the constitution in the Government of the United
States, or in a department or officer thereof? If it is, is the
conclusion not obvious, that Congress have power to pass laws for
carrying these powers into effect? But in the power to pass laws,
discretion is necessarily implied; of course, this House must judge when
it is to act; whether it will, or will not, carry into effect the object
in question. It is a power, it is true, of great delicacy and
responsibility, but it is not less a power constitutionally given.

The member from South Carolina construed this part of the constitution
in a different way, and insisted that, as the PRESIDENT and Senate had
the power of making Treaties, the House were divested of the right of
exercising their judgment upon the subject. If this doctrine prevails,
to what a situation would the Representatives of a free people be
reduced? The constitution especially gives them the power of originating
money bills; but to what purpose would this power be granted, if another
authority may make a contract, compelling the House to raise money?
Suppose that authority were in this way to grant millions upon millions,
must the House, at all events, be compelled to provide for their
payment? In this case the House become mere automatons, mere mandarine
members, like those who nod on a chimney-piece, as directed by a power
foreign to themselves.

Great stress is laid upon the constitution declaring Treaties laws of
the land. This article has often been quoted partially, but not at
large. It is in these words: "This constitution, and the laws of the
United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme law of the land." Had the clause stopped
here, there might have been some plea for the gentlemen's doctrine; but,
unfortunately for them, the article goes on to say: "And the Judges in
every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or
laws of any State, to the contrary notwithstanding." Hence, it is
obvious that the supremacy of the law is over the constitution and laws
of the separate States, which was necessary to prevent these interfering
with those. But it does not affect the powers of this House, as a
component part of the General Legislature, and authority of the United
States. It is also worth while to notice the gradation in the article.

First. This constitution.

Secondly. The laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof, clothed
with the highest sanction of the nation, the consent of the three
branches.

Thirdly. Treaties. How absurd the doctrine, then, that these last, third
in order, can repeal the second: at that rate, all power whatever would
remain vested in two branches only of the Government; the third, with
all its powers of originating bills for raising revenue, would be
dwindled into a mere board of assessors.

The gentleman from Vermont said, yesterday, that if the PRESIDENT and
Senate were to make a Treaty, and that House were to refuse to make due
appropriations for carrying it into effect, it would become a nullity,
and no foreign nation would in future treat with such an uncertain
Government. Mr. S. observed, that that gentleman would probably be
surprised, when he was told, that the British House of Commons possesses
the same power which he reprobates in the Legislative Assembly of the
United States. This, Mr. S. proved, by reading the King's Speech to both
Houses of Parliament, in which he informs them of this Treaty, and
promises to lay it before them when ratified, in order that they might
judge of the propriety of making provision to carry it into effect.
What, judge of the propriety of passing laws to carry into effect a
Treaty ratified! And shall it be said, exclaimed he, that the
Representative Assembly of the United States does not possess a
privilege enjoyed by an English House of Commons! He hoped not.

Mr. HARPER said, that it had not been his intention to trouble the
committee, in this stage of the debate at least; nor should he now
depart from his resolution on that head, had he not observed that the
discussion was turning more and more on points, which it appeared to him
unnecessary to decide. He did not conceive that the powers of the House
respecting Treaties were necessary to be considered; the question
appeared capable of a satisfactory decision on different grounds.

When the motion was first proposed, he thought it innocent at least, and
was in doubt whether it might not be proper, because he was in doubt how
far these papers might be necessary for enabling the House to exercise
that discretion on the subject of Treaties, which he admitted it to
possess; but on a more accurate and extensive view of the subject, and
after carefully attending to the discussion which had already taken
place, he was thoroughly persuaded that these papers were no way
necessary, and, that being unnecessary, to call for them was an improper
and unconstitutional interference with the Executive department. Could
it be made to appear that these papers are necessary for directing or
informing the House on any of those Legislative questions respecting the
Treaty which came within its powers, he should propose to change the
milk-and-water style of the present resolution. The House, in that case,
would have a right to the papers; and he had no idea of requesting as a
favor what should be demanded as a right. He would demand them, and
insist on the demand. But, being persuaded that no discretion hitherto
contended for, even by the supporters of the resolution themselves, made
these papers necessary to the House, to call for them would be an
unconstitutional intermeddling with the proper business of the
Executive.

It had been said, that this motion was of little consequence; that it
was only a request which might be refused, and that the privileges of
that House were narrow indeed, if it could not request information from
the Executive department. But it would be observed, he said, that
requests from bodies like that, carry the force of demands, and imply a
right to receive. Legislative bodies often make the most formidable
expressions of their will in the shape of requests. It would be further
observed, that an honorable member from Pennsylvania, (Mr. GALLATIN,)
after declaring that this indeed was only a request which might be
refused, had added, that in case it were refused, it would then be
proper to consider how far we ought to make the demand, and insist on
receiving these papers as a matter of right. After this avowal of the
system, after this notice that the present request is no more than a
preliminary measure, a preparatory step, and in case of a refusal, is to
be followed up by a demand, could it be wondered that they who think the
measure improper, should oppose it in the threshold?

Mr. GALLATIN conceived that, whether the House had a discretionary power
with respect to Treaties, or whether they were absolutely bound by those
instruments, and were obliged to pass laws to carry them fully into
effect, still there was no impropriety in calling for the papers. Under
the first view of the subject, if the House has a discretionary power,
then no doubt could exist that the information called for is proper;
and, under the second, if bound to pass laws, they must have a complete
knowledge of the subject, to learn what laws ought to be passed. This
latter view of the subject, even, must introduce a discussion of the
Treaty, to know whether any law ought to be repealed, or to see what
laws ought to be passed. If any article in the instrument should be
found of doubtful import, the House would most naturally search for an
explanation, in the documents which related to the steps which led to
the Treaty. If one article of the Treaty only be doubtful, the House
would not know how to legislate without the doubt being removed, and its
explanation could certainly be found nowhere with so much propriety as
in the correspondence between the negotiating parties.

Gentlemen had gone into an examination of an important constitutional
question upon this motion. He hoped this would have been avoided in the
present stage of the business; but as they had come forward on that
ground, he had no objection to follow them in it, _and to rest the
decision of the constitutional powers of Congress on the fate of the
present question_. He would, therefore, state his opinion, that the
House had a _right_ to ask for the papers proposed to be called for,
because their co-operation and sanction was necessary to carry the
Treaty into full effect, to render it a binding instrument, and to make
it, properly speaking, a law of the land; because they had a full
discretion either to give or to refuse that co-operation; because they
must be guided, in the exercise of that discretion, by the merits and
expediency of the Treaty itself, and therefore had a _right_ to ask for
every information which could assist them in deciding that question.

One argument repeatedly used by every gentleman opposed to the present
motion was, "That the Treaty was unconstitutional or not; if not, the
House had no agency in the business, but must carry it into full effect;
and if unconstitutional, the question could only be decided from the
face of the instrument, and no papers could throw light upon the
question." He wished gentlemen had defined what they understood by a
constitutional Treaty; for, if the scope of their arguments was referred
to, it would not be found possible to make an unconstitutional treaty.
He would say what he conceived constituted the unconstitutionality of a
treaty. A treaty is unconstitutional if it provides for doing such
things, the doing of which is forbidden by the constitution; but if a
treaty embraces objects within the sphere of the general powers
delegated to the Federal Government, but which have been exclusively and
specially granted to a particular branch of Government, say to the
Legislative department, such a Treaty, though not unconstitutional, does
not become the law of the land until it has obtained the sanction of
that branch. In this case, and to this end, the Legislature have a right
to demand the documents relative to the negotiation of the Treaty,
because that Treaty operates on objects specially delegated to the
Legislature. He turned to the constitution. It says that the PRESIDENT
shall have the power to make Treaties, by and with the advice and
consent of two-thirds of the Senate. It does not say what Treaties. If
the clause be taken by itself, then it grants an authority altogether
undefined. But the gentlemen quote another clause of the constitution,
where it is said that the constitution, and the laws made in pursuance
thereof, and all Treaties, are the supreme law of the land; and thence,
they insist that Treaties made by the PRESIDENT and Senate are the
supreme law of the land, and that the power of making Treaties is
undefined and unlimited. He proceeded to controvert this opinion, and
contended that it was limited by other parts of the constitution.

The power of making Treaties is contended to be undefined, then it might
extend to all subjects which may properly become the subjects of
national compacts. But, he contended, if any other specific powers were
given to a different branch of the Government, they must limit the
general powers; and, to make the compact valid, it was necessary that,
as far as those powers clashed with the general, that the branch holding
the specific should concur and give its sanction. If still it is
insisted that Treaties are the supreme law of the land, the constitution
and laws are also; and it may be asked, which shall have the preference?
Shall a Treaty repeal a law or a law a Treaty? Neither can a law repeal
a Treaty, because a Treaty is made with the concurrence of another
party--a foreign nation--that has no participation in framing the law:
nor can a Treaty made by the PRESIDENT and Senate repeal a law, for the
same reason, because the House of Representatives have a participation
in making the law. It is a sound maxim in Government, that it requires
the same power to repeal a law that enacted it. If so, then it follows
that laws and Treaties are not of the same nature; that both operate as
the law of the land, but under certain limitations; both are subject to
the control of the constitution; they are made not only by different
powers, but those powers are distributed, under different modifications,
among the several branches of the Government. Thus no law could be made
by the Legislature giving themselves power to execute it; and no Treaty,
by the Executive, embracing objects specifically assigned to the
Legislature without their assent.

To what, he asked, would a contrary doctrine lead? If the power of
making Treaties is to reside in the PRESIDENT and Senate unlimitedly: in
other words, if, in the exercise of this power, the PRESIDENT and Senate
are to be restrained by no other branch of the Government, the PRESIDENT
and Senate may absorb all Legislative power--the Executive has, then,
nothing to do but to substitute a foreign nation for the House of
Representatives, and they may legislate to any extent. If the
Treaty-making power is unlimited and undefined, it may extend to every
object of legislation. Under it money may be borrowed, as well as
commerce regulated; and why not money appropriated? For, arguing as the
gentlemen do, they might say the constitution says that no money shall
be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by
law. But Treaties, whatever provision they may contain, are law;
appropriations, therefore, may be made by Treaties. Then it would have
been the shortest way to have carried the late Treaty into effect by the
instrument itself, by adding to it another article, appropriating the
necessary sums. By what provision of the constitution is the
Treaty-making power, agreeably to the construction of the gentlemen,
limited? Is it limited by the provisions with respect to appropriations?
Not more so than by the other specific powers granted to the
Legislature. Is it limited by any law past? If not, it must embrace
every thing, and all the objects of legislation. If not limited by
existing laws, or if it repeals the laws that clash with it, or if the
Legislature is obliged to repeal the laws so clashing, then the
Legislative power in fact resides in the PRESIDENT and Senate, and they
can, by employing an Indian tribe, pass any law under the color of
Treaty. Unless it is allowed that either the power of the House over the
purse-strings is a check, or the existing laws cannot be repealed by a
Treaty, or that the special powers granted to Congress limit the general
power of Treaty-making, there are no bounds to it, it must absorb all
others, repeal all laws in contravention to it, and act without control.

To the construction he had given to this part of the constitution, no
such formidable objections could be raised. He did not claim for the
House a power of making Treaties, but a check upon the Treaty-making
power--a mere negative power; whilst those who are in favor of a
different construction advocate a positive and unlimited power.

He read a quotation from _Blackstone_, page 257, vol. i., to show that
the power of Treaty-making in England is as extensively vested in the
King, as it can possibly be said to be here in our Executive.

The following is the passage alluded to:

      "II. It is also the King's prerogative to make Treaties,
      leagues, and alliances with foreign States and Princes. For
      it is, by the law of nations, essential to the goodness of
      a league, that it be made by the sovereign power, and then
      it is binding upon the whole community; and, in England,
      the sovereign power, _quo ad hoc_, is vested in the person
      of the King. Whatever contracts, therefore, he engages in,
      no other power in the kingdom can legally delay, resist, or
      annul."

After such a latitude as this clause gives, it would be supposed that
there could be no check reserved upon this power; yet it will be found
that Parliament have a participation in it. And the apparent
inconsistency is easily reconciled, by observing that the power given
generally to the Executive of making contracts with other nations, does
not imply that of making Legislative regulations, but that when the
contract happens to embrace Legislative objects, the assistance of the
Legislature becomes necessary to give it effect.

He proceeded to show the operation of this limitation of the
Treaty-making power in England by the practice of Parliament. It was
always considered as discretionary with Parliament to grant money to
carry Treaties into effect or not, and to repeal or not to repeal laws
that interfere with them. In citing instances of the exercise of this
power, he should not go further back than their Revolution.

He then read several extracts from _Anderson's_ History of Commerce,
vol. iii. pages 269, '70, '71, '72. They are so much in point that we
transcribe the most material passages:

      "But we could not omit our animadversions on the eighth and
      ninth articles, as they were so extraordinary in
      themselves, and as they occasioned so great a stir and
      uneasiness at that time, as to have brought the whole
      Treaty of Commerce to miscarry then and ever since.

      "ART. IX. That within the space of two months after a law
      shall be made in Great Britain, whereby it shall be
      sufficiently provided that not more customs or duties be
      paid for goods and merchandise brought from France into
      Great Britain than what are payable for goods and
      merchandise of the like nature, imported into Great Britain
      from any other country in Europe; and that all laws made in
      Great Britain since the year 1664 for prohibiting the
      importation of any goods or merchandise coming from France,
      which were not prohibited before that time, be repealed,
      the general tariff in France, on the 18th of September, in
      the said year 1664, shall take place there again, and the
      duties payable in France by the subjects of Great Britain
      for goods imported and exported, shall be paid according to
      the tenor of the tariff above mentioned.

      "When the said two articles came to be known by the
      merchants of Great Britain, they were received with the
      utmost surprise and indignation, and the clamor was loud
      and universal.

      "That the complying with those two articles would
      effectually ruin the commerce we carried on to
      Portugal--the very best branch of all our European
      commerce. That the said eight articles did, in general
      terms, put France on an equal footing with Portugal or any
      other of our best allies, in point of commerce."

      "This is, in brief, the sum of this mercantile controversy,
      which when brought into Parliament, it was so apparent that
      our trade to France had ever been a ruinous one, and that
      if, in consequence of accepting the said eighth and ninth
      articles, the British Parliament should consent to reduce
      the high duties and take off the prohibitions so prudently
      laid on French commodities, it would effectually ruin the
      very best branches of our commerce, and would thereby
      deprive many hundred thousand manufacturers of their
      subsistence; which was also supported by petitions from
      many parts of the kingdom: that, although a great majority
      of that House of Commons was in other respects closely
      attached to the ministry, _the bill for agreeing to the
      purport of the said two articles was rejected by a majority
      of nine voices_, after the most eminent merchants had been
      heard at the bar of that House, to the great joy of the
      whole trading part of the nation, and of all other
      impartial people."

Thus it must be clearly seen, that the consent of Parliament was not
only deemed necessary to the completion of the Treaty, but that that
consent was refused, and that in consequence the Treaty fell to the
ground, and was not revived for a period of near eighty years, and all
notwithstanding the plenitude of the Treaty-making power, said by the
best English authority, _Blackstone_, to be vested in the King; which
was, however, he repeated, necessarily checked by the special powers
vested in Parliament; for none but they could grant money, or repeal the
laws clashing with the provisions of Treaties.

He cited another instance of the exercise of this controlling power in
Parliament of even a later date, viz: in the year 1739, in the case of a
Treaty between Spain and Great Britain, which was sanctioned by a very
small majority indeed in Parliament. He cited a third example from
_Anderson_, vol. vi., page 828, in the case of the Treaty of Commerce
between France and Great Britain, to show that the practice of the
Parliament's interfering in Treaties is not obsolete.

The following is an article of the said Treaty, which Mr. GALLATIN read:

      "XIV. The advantages granted by the present Treaty to the
      subjects of His Britannic Majesty shall take effect, as far
      as relates to the kingdom of Great Britain, as soon as laws
      shall be passed there, for securing to the subjects of His
      Most Christian Majesty the reciprocal enjoyment of the
      advantages which are granted to them by the Treaty.

      "And the advantages by all these articles, except the
      tariff, shall take effect with regard to the kingdom of
      Ireland, as soon as laws shall be passed there, for
      securing to the subjects of His Most Christian Majesty the
      reciprocal enjoyment of the advantages which are granted
      to them by this Treaty: and, in like manner, the advantages
      granted by the tariff shall take effect in what relates to
      the said kingdom, as soon as laws shall be passed there for
      giving effect to the said tariff."

Upon this principle, founded on almost immemorial practice in Great
Britain, did the Minister of that kingdom, when introducing the late
Treaty with Prussia into Parliament, tell the House that they will have
to consider the Treaty and make provision for carrying it into effect.
On the same principle, when the debate took place on that instrument, it
was moved to strike out the sum proposed to be voted, which would have
defeated it, and afterwards to strike out the appropriation clause,
which would have rendered the bill a mere vote of credit, and would also
have caused the Treaty to fall to the ground. On the same principle, the
King of Great Britain, when he mentioned the American Treaty, promised
to lay it before them in proper season, that they might _judge of the
propriety_ of enacting the necessary provisions to carry it into effect.

It remains to be examined, said Mr. G., whether we are to be in a worse
situation than Great Britain; whether the House of Representatives of
the United States, the substantial and immediate Representatives of the
American people, shall be ranked below the British House of Commons;
whether the Legislative power shall be swallowed up by the Treaty-making
authority, as contended for here, though never claimed even in Great
Britain?

In Great Britain, he remarked, the Treaty-making power is as undefined
as in America. The constitution here, declares that the PRESIDENT and
Senate shall make Treaties; there, custom says as loudly, that the King
shall make them. In Great Britain, however, the power is limited, by
immemorial custom, by the exercise of the Legislative authority by a
branch distinct from the regal; in the same manner is it limited here,
not however merely by custom and tradition, but by the words of the
constitution, which gives specifically the Legislative power to
Congress; and he hoped this authority would be exercised by the House
with as much spirit and independence as any where.

If this doctrine is sanctioned, if it is allowed, that Treaties may
regulate appropriations and repeal existing laws, and the House, by
rejecting the present resolution declare, that they give up all control,
all right to the exercise of discretion, it is tantamount to saying,
that they abandon their share in legislation, and that they consent the
whole power should be concentred in the other branches. He did not
believe such a doctrine could be countenanced by the House. If gentlemen
should insist upon maintaining this doctrine, should deny the free
agency of the House, and their right to judge of the expediency of
carrying the Treaty into effect, the friends to the independence of the
House will be driven to the necessity to reject the Treaty, whether good
or bad, to assert the contested right. If the gentlemen abandoned this
ground, then the policy of the measure could be weighed on fair ground,
and the Treaty carried into affect, if reconcilable to the interests of
the United States.

MARCH 10.--In Committee of the Whole, on Mr. LIVINGSTON's resolution,
Mr. HARTLEY delivered his sentiments as follows:

As I was not present when this subject was first introduced, it cannot
be expected that I should take any great share in the debate; but some
observations I have heard, chiefly from the gentleman last up yesterday
from Pennsylvania, have induced me to show a few grounds for my vote.

That gentleman has strongly combined this resolution with the Treaty,
and wishes that every one who holds that there should be a co-operation
of this House respecting that instrument, should vote for the
resolution. I think differently.

The gentlemen who contend for the mighty power of the Executive and
Senate, as well as those who argue for the great authority of this
House, perhaps are on extremes; but the Treaty ought not now to be so
largely under consideration. I am willing, if it is thought proper, to
take it up at an early day, and, after a full hearing, will vote as I
hold right.

The gentleman I referred to, from Pennsylvania, argued most strenuously
that the laws and customs of Great Britain and the Constitution of the
United States were analogous--nay, that the powers were precisely the
same.

The gentlemen who hold this doctrine have made researches, and have
quoted several authorities; but why have not those ingenious gentlemen
discovered a single instance where the British House of Commons have had
the instructions given by the Executive to the negotiating Minister laid
before them. If there was such a power, no doubt that body would at some
period have exercised it; for no men on earth have extended the power of
privileges which they had further than the members of the House of
Commons of Britain.

As those gentlemen who contend for the likeness--indeed, sameness of the
Treaty-making powers of both countries--can show no precedent, it may be
fairly contended, that no such right exists as is contemplated by the
resolution.

Treaties are made under the Executive in almost all countries, and when
the Ministers have gone through their part of the business, the Treaty
is commonly laid before the nation. If any national act is further
necessary, it would pass in conformity to the principles of good faith;
if any thing is necessary (consistent with the constitution) on the part
of the House, it will be the discussion of another day.

Mr. GRISWOLD said, that the resolution on the table appeared at first
view to be perfectly innocent, and, he might add, of very little
importance. It amounted to no more than a request to the PRESIDENT to
furnish the House with papers relating to the negotiation with Great
Britain, which he might either satisfy or reject. But the discussion
which had taken place in the committee, had given the subject a very
serious aspect, and involved a question of the first importance; and
although some gentlemen had thought that the committee had prematurely
involved itself in the examination of the question, he could not see how
the discussion could have been avoided. For gentlemen would not say that
any resolution--more particularly a resolution calling on the PRESIDENT
for documents belonging to the Executive Department--was to pass the
House without a conclusive reason, much less without any reason for its
passing. On this principle gentlemen had been called on at an early
period for the reasons on which they grounded the resolution. They had
attempted to assign reasons, but those reasons had been generally
abandoned; and it could not at that time be seriously contended that the
objects of general information or publicity, which had been first
mentioned, could justify the House in calling on the PRESIDENT for
papers relating to the British Treaty, or that those papers were
necessary to enable the House to judge of the constitutionality of the
Treaty. The friends of the resolution, aware of this, had at last come
forward and assigned a new and a very important reason. It had been now
said, that the House of Representatives have a right to judge over the
heads of the PRESIDENT and Senate on the subject of Treaties; that no
Treaty can become a law until sanctioned by the House; and, in fine,
that the House of Representatives is a constitutional part of the
Treaty-making power.

If these facts and the principles which grow out of them are true, he
could not say that the resolution was improper; and although he did not
know to what part of the Treaty the papers would particularly apply,
yet, if the House were to take this extensive view of the Treaty, and
ultimately to sanction or reject it, it would seem that the papers
relating to the negotiation ought to be laid before them. But if these
facts are not true, and the House is not a constitutional part of the
Treaty-making power, and the Treaty is already a law without its
sanction, then the reason falls to the ground, and the resolution ought
to be rejected.

This inquiry into the powers of the House of Representatives must be
confined, and the question arising out of it must be decided by a fair
construction of the constitution. The powers of each branch of the
Government are there limited and defined, and an accurate understanding
of that instrument would enable gentlemen to decide the question.

In comparing these questions with the constitution, gentlemen were not,
however, to inquire whether that constitution was a good or a bad one;
whether too much power had been given to this or to that branch of the
Government. The question will only be, what powers has the constitution
given, and to what departments have the same been distributed?

To render the subject as clear and distinct as possible, he thought it
would not be improper to take an abstract view of those two powers in
all governments having foreign relations which are immediately connected
with the inquiry, viz: the Legislative and the Treaty-making power. And
if gentlemen can clearly fix in their minds the limits of each, they
will become better enabled to see their operation, and to decide on the
powers of the House in the exercise of them.

The Legislative power in all governments is extremely broad; it occupies
the most extensive ground; it extends to every object which relates to
the internal concerns of the nation; it regulates the life, the liberty,
and the property of every individual living within its jurisdiction; it
can control commerce within its jurisdiction; govern the conduct of the
nation towards aliens, in whatever capacity they may appear; and, in
short, as certain English writers have said of the British Government,
its power is almost omnipotent. Thus broad and extensive are the general
powers of legislation, subject, however, to such particular restrictions
as are prescribed by forms of government, or which occasionally arise
from the nature of government itself, and limit the objects of its
operation.

It is easy to see, that in the exercise of these Legislative powers, it
will frequently happen that laws are enacted, which, in their operation,
will embarrass the intercourse of two nations. Such are always the
effect of retaliating laws, and aliens within the limits of a foreign
jurisdiction are frequently, by those regulations, subjected to great
and unreasonable embarrassments.

The Treaty-making power operates in a very different manner; its power
is limited and confined to the forming of Treaties with foreign nations;
its objects are to facilitate the intercourse between nations; to remove
by contract, those impediments which embarrass that intercourse, and to
place the same on a fair and just foundation. In the exercise of this
power, it will unavoidably happen that the laws of the Legislature are
sometimes infracted. The Legislature, for certain causes,--perhaps to
compel a foreign nation to form a treaty on terms of reciprocity,--may
prohibit all intercourse, or embarrass that intercourse with regulations
so burdensome as to produce the same effect; the foreign nation finally
becomes willing to treat, and to establish an intercourse on equitable
terms. If, in this case, the Treaty power cannot touch the laws of the
Legislature, the object which gave rise to those very laws can never be
attained; no Treaty can be formed, because it will oppose existing laws;
those laws cannot be repealed, because the object for which they were
enacted has not been attained. Such a construction of the Treaty power
would defeat every object for which that power was established; and
instead of possessing an authority to remove embarrassments in a foreign
intercourse, it cannot touch them; and, although expressly created for
the attainment of a single object, it can never attain it.

From these considerations, he contended that, in the exercise of that
power which related to the intercourse with foreign nations, the
Treaty-making was paramount to the Legislative power; and that the
positive institutions of the Legislature must give place to compact.

On this construction, a perfect harmony is introduced into the
departments of Government. Both the Legislative and the Treaty power are
necessary, on many occasions, to accomplish the same objects. The
Legislative power to establish regulations, or declare war, for the
purpose of compelling a nation to agree to a reasonable compact; and the
Treaty power, when that nation is compelled to agree to such reasonable
compact, to remove by Treaty those very regulations, and the war itself,
on fair and equitable terms.

Mr. MADISON said, that the direct proposition before the House, had been
so absorbed by the incidental question which had grown out of it,
concerning the constitutional authority of Congress in the case of
Treaties, that he should confine his present observations to the latter.

The true question, therefore, before the committee, was, not whether the
will of the people expressed in the constitution was to be obeyed, but
how that will was to be understood; in what manner it had actually
divided the powers delegated to the Government; and what construction
would best reconcile the several parts of the instrument with each
other, and be most consistent with its general spirit and object.

On comparing the several passages in the constitution, which had been
already cited to the committee, it appeared, that if taken literally,
and without limit, they must necessarily clash with each other. Certain
powers to regulate commerce, to declare war, to raise armies, to borrow
money, &c., are first specially vested in Congress. The power of making
Treaties, which may relate to the same subjects, is afterwards vested in
the PRESIDENT and two-thirds of the Senate; and it is declared in
another place, that the constitution and the Laws of the United States,
made in pursuance thereof, and Treaties made, or to be made under the
authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.
And the judges, in every State, shall be bound thereby, any thing in the
constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The term _supreme_, as applied to Treaties, evidently meant a supremacy
over the State constitutions and laws, and not over the Constitution and
Laws of the United States. And it was observable, that the judicial
authority, and the existing laws, alone of the States, fell within the
supremacy expressly enjoined. The injunction was not extended to the
Legislative authority of the States, or to laws requisite to be passed
by the States for giving effect to Treaties; and it might be a problem
worthy of the consideration, though not needing the decision of the
committee, in what manner the requisite provisions were to be obtained
from the States.

It was to be regretted, he observed, that on a question of such
magnitude as the present, there should be any apparent inconsistency or
inexplicitness in the constitution, that could leave room for different
constructions. As the case, however, had happened, all that could be
done was to examine the different constructions with accuracy and
fairness, according to the rules established therefor, and to adhere to
that which should be found most rational, consistent, and satisfactory.

He stated the five following, as all the constructions, worthy of
notice, that had either been contended for, or were likely to occur:

I. The Treaty power, and the Congressional power, might be regarded as
moving in such separate orbits, and operating on such separate objects,
as to be incapable of interfering with, or touching each other.

II. As concurrent powers relating to the same objects; and operating
like the power of Congress, and the power of the State Legislatures, in
relation to taxes, on the same articles.

III. As each of them supreme over the other as it may be the last
exercised; like the different assemblies of the people, under the Roman
Government, in the form of centuries, and in the form of tribes.

IV. The Treaty power may be viewed, according to the doctrine maintained
by the opponents of the proposition before the committee, as both
unlimited in its objects, and completely paramount in its authority.

V. The Congressional power may be viewed as co-operative with the Treaty
power, on the Legislative subjects submitted to Congress by the
constitution, in the manner explained by the member from Pennsylvania
(Mr. GALLATIN) and exemplified in the British Government.

The objection to the first construction is, that it would narrow too
much the Treaty power, to exclude from Treaties altogether the
enumerated subjects submitted to the power of Congress; some or other of
this class of regulations being generally comprised in the important
compacts which take place between nations.

The objection to the second is, that a concurrent exercise of the Treaty
and Legislative powers, on the same objects, would be evidently
impracticable. In the case of taxes laid both by Congress and by the
State Legislatures on the same articles, the constitution presumed, that
the concurrent authorities might be exercised with such prudence and
moderation as would avoid an interference between their respective
regulations. But it was manifest that such an interference would be
unavoidable between the Treaty power and the power of Congress. A Treaty
of Commerce, for example, would rarely be made, that would not trench on
existing legal regulations, as well as be a bar to future ones.

To the third, the objection was equally fatal. That it involved the
absurdity of an _imperium in imperio_, of two powers, both of them
supreme, yet each of them liable to be superseded by the other. There
was, indeed, an instance of this kind found in the government of ancient
Rome, where the two authorities of the _comitia curiata_, or meetings by
centuries, and the _comitia tributa_, or meetings by tribes, were each
possessed of the supreme Legislative power, and could each annul the
proceedings of the other. For, although the people composed the body of
the meetings in both cases, yet, as they voted in one, according to
wealth, and in the other, according to numbers, the organizations were
so distinct as to create, in fact, two distinct authorities. But it was
not necessary to dwell on this political phenomenon, which had been
celebrated as a subject of curious speculation only, and not as a model
for the institutions of any other country.

The fourth construction, is that which is contended for by the opponents
of the proposition depending; and which gives to the Treaty power all
the latitude which is not necessarily prohibited by a regard to the
general form and fundamental principles of the constitution.

In order to smooth the way for this doctrine, it had been said that the
power to make Treaties was laid down in the most indefinite terms; and
that the power to make laws, was no limitation to it, because the two
powers were essentially different in their nature. If there was
ingenuity in this distinction, it was all the merit it could have; for
it must be obvious that it could neither be reduced to practice, nor be
reconciled to principles. Treaties and laws, whatever the nature of them
may be, must, in their operation, be often the same. Regulations by
Treaty, if carried into effect, are laws. If Congress pass acts relating
to provisions in a Treaty, so as to become incorporated with the Treaty,
they are not the less laws on that account. A Legislative act is the
same whether performed by this or that body, or whether it be grounded
on the consideration, that a foreign nation agrees to pass a like act,
or on any other consideration.

It must be objected to this construction, therefore, that it extends the
power of the PRESIDENT and Senate too far, and cramps the powers of
Congress too much.

He did not admit that the term "Treaty" had the extensive and unlimited
meaning which some seemed to claim for it. It was to be considered as a
technical term, and its meaning was to be sought for in the use of it,
particularly in governments which bore most analogy to our own. In
absolute governments, where the whole power of the nation is usurped by
the governments, and all the departments of power are united in the same
person, the Treaty power has no bounds; because the power of the
sovereign to execute it has none. In limited governments, the case is
different; the Treaty power, if undefined, is not understood to be
unlimited. In Great Britain, it is positively restrained on the subjects
of money and dismembering the empire. Nor could the Executive there, if
his recollection was right, make an alien a subject by means of a
Treaty.

But the question immediately under consideration, and which the context
and spirit of the constitution must decide, turned on the extent of the
Treaty power in relation to the objects; specifically and expressly
submitted to the Legislative power of Congress.

It was an important, and appeared to him to be a decisive, view of the
subject, that if the Treaty power alone could perform any one act for
which the authority of Congress is required by the constitution, it may
perform every act for which the authority of that part of the Government
is required. Congress have power to regulate trade, to declare war, to
raise armies, to levy, to borrow, and to appropriate money, &c. If, by
Treaty, therefore, as paramount to the Legislative power, the PRESIDENT
and Senate can regulate trade, they can also declare war, they can raise
armies to carry on war, and they can procure money to support armies.
These powers, however different in their nature or importance, are on
the same footing in the constitution, and must share the same fate. A
member from Connecticut (Mr. GRISWOLD) had admitted that the power of
war was exclusively vested in Congress; but he had not attempted, nor
did it seem possible, to draw any line between that and the other
enumerated powers. If any line could be drawn, it ought to be presented
to the committee; and he should, for one, be ready to give it the most
impartial consideration. He had not, however, any expectation that such
an attempt could succeed; and, therefore, should submit to the serious
consideration of the committee, that, although the constitution had
carefully and jealously lodged the power of war, of armies, of the
purse, &c. in Congress, of which the immediate Representatives of the
people formed an integral part, yet, according to the construction
maintained on the other side, the PRESIDENT and Senate, by means of a
Treaty of Alliance with a nation at war, might make the United States
parties in the war. They might stipulate subsidies, and even borrow
money to pay them; they might furnish troops to be carried to Europe,
Asia, or Africa; they might even attempt to keep up a standing army in
time of peace, for the purpose of co-operating, on given contingencies,
with an ally, for mutual safety or other common objects. Under this
aspect the Treaty power would be tremendous indeed.

The force of this reasoning is not obviated by saying, that the
PRESIDENT and Senate would only pledge the public faith, and that the
agency of Congress would be necessary to carry it into operation. For,
what difference does this make, if the obligation imposed be, as is
alleged, a constitutional one; if Congress have no will but to obey, and
if to disobey be treason and rebellion against the constituted
authorities? Under a constitutional obligation with such sanctions to
it, Congress, in case the PRESIDENT and Senate should enter into an
alliance for war, would be nothing more than the mere heralds for
proclaiming it. In fact, it had been said that they must obey the
injunctions of a Treaty, as implicitly as a subordinate officer in the
Executive line was bound to obey the Chief Magistrate, or as the Judges
are bound to decide according to the laws.

As a further objection to the doctrine contended for, he called the
attention of the committee to another very serious consequence from it.
The specific powers, as vested in Congress by the constitution, are
qualified by sundry exceptions, deemed of great importance to the safe
exercise of them. These restrictions are contained in section 9 of the
constitution, and in the articles of amendment which have been added to
it. Thus, the "migration or importation of such persons as any of the
States shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by
Congress." He referred to several of the other restrictive paragraphs
which followed, particularly the 5th, which says, that no tax shall be
laid on exports, no preference given to ports of one State over those of
another, &c. It was Congress, also, he observed, which was to make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, &c. Now, if the
Legislative powers, specifically vested in Congress, are to be no
limitation or check to the Treaty power, it was evident that the
exceptions to those powers could be no limitation or check to the Treaty
power.

Returning to the powers particularly lodged in Congress, he took notice
of those relating to war, and money, or the sword and the purse, as
requiring a few additional observations, in order to show that the
Treaty power could not be paramount over them.

It was well known that, with respect to the regulation of commerce, it
had long remained under the jurisdiction of the States; and that in the
establishment of the present Government the question was, whether, and
how far, it should be transferred to the general jurisdiction. But with
respect to the power of making war, it had, from the commencement of the
Revolution, been judged and exercised as a branch of the general
authority, essential to the public safety. The only question, therefore,
that could arise, was whether the power should be lodged in this or that
department of the Federal Government. And we find it expressly vested in
the Legislative, and not in the Executive department; with a view, no
doubt, to guard it against the abuses which might be apprehended, from
placing the power of declaring war in those hands which would conduct it
when declared; and which, therefore, in the ordinary course of things,
would be most tempted to go into war. But, according to the doctrine now
maintained, the United States, by means of an alliance with a foreign
power, might be driven into a state of war by the PRESIDENT and Senate,
contrary both to a sense of the Legislature, and to the letter and
spirit of the constitution.

On the subject, also, of appropriating money, particularly to a military
establishment, the provision of the constitution demanded the most
severe attention. To prevent the continuance of a military force for a
longer term than might be indispensable, it is expressly declared, that
no appropriation for the support of armies shall be made for more than
two years. So that, at the end of every two years, the question, whether
a military force ought to be continued or not, must be open for
consideration; and can be decided in the negative, by either the House
of Representatives or the Senate's refusing to concur in the requisite
appropriations. This is a most important check and security against the
danger of standing armies, and against the prosecution of a war beyond
its rational objects; and the efficacy of the precaution is the greater,
as, at the end of every two years a re-election of the House of
Representatives gives the people an opportunity of judging on the
occasion for themselves. But if, as is contended, the House of
Representatives have no right to deliberate on appropriations pledged by
the PRESIDENT and Senate, and cannot refuse them, without a breach of
the constitution and of their oaths, the case is precisely the same, and
the same effects would follow, as if the appropriation were not limited
to two years, but made for the whole period contemplated, at once. Where
would be the check of a biennial appropriation for a military
establishment raised for four years, if, at the end of two years, the
appropriation was to be continued by a constitutional necessity for two
years more? It is evident that no real difference can exist between an
appropriation for four years at once, and two appropriations for two
years each, the second of which, the two Houses would be
constitutionally obliged to make.

It had been said that, in all cases, a law must either be repealed, or
its execution provided for. Whatever respect might be due to this
principle in general, he denied that it could be applicable to the case
in question. By the provision of the constitution, limiting
appropriations to two years, it was clearly intended to enable either
branch of the Legislature to discontinue a military force at the end of
every two years. If the law establishing it must be necessarily repealed
before an appropriation could be withheld, it would be in the power of
either branch to keep up an establishment by refusing to concur in
repeal. The construction and reasoning, therefore, opposed to the rights
of the House, would evidently defeat an essential provision of the
constitution.

The constitution of the United States is a constitution of limitations
and checks. The powers given up by the people for the purposes of
Government, had been divided into two great classes. One of these formed
the State Governments; the other, the Federal Government. The powers of
the Government had been further divided into three great departments;
and the Legislative department again subdivided into two independent
branches. Around each of these portions of power were seen also
exceptions and qualifications, as additional guards against the abuses
to which power is liable. With a view to this policy of the
constitution, it could not be unreasonable, if the clauses under
discussion were thought doubtful, to lean towards a construction that
would limit and control the Treaty-making power, rather than towards one
that would make it omnipotent.

He came next to the fifth construction, which left with the PRESIDENT
and Senate the power of making Treaties, but required at the same time
the Legislative sanction and co-operation, in those cases where the
constitution had given express and specific powers to the Legislature.
It was to be presumed, that in all such cases the Legislature would
exercise its authority with discretion, allowing due weight to the
reasons which led to the Treaty, and to the circumstances of the
existence of the Treaty. Still, however, this House, in its Legislative
capacity, must exercise its reason: it must deliberate; for deliberation
is implied in legislation. If it must carry all Treaties into effect, it
would no longer exercise a Legislative power; it would be the mere
instrument of the will of another department, and would have no will of
its own. Where the constitution contains a specific and peremptory
injunction on Congress to do a particular act, Congress must, of course,
do the act, because the constitution, which is paramount over all the
departments, has expressly taken away the Legislative discretion of
Congress. The case is essentially different where the act of one
department of Government interferes with a power expressly vested in
another, and nowhere expressly taken away: here the latter power must be
exercised according to its nature; and if it be a Legislative power, it
must be exercised with that deliberation and discretion which is
essential to the nature of Legislative power.

Mr. W. SMITH (of South Carolina) said, he would not at that time go into
an extensive review of the arguments of the gentleman from Virginia,
(Mr. MADISON,) but would only notice some points which he had dwelt on.
Before he went into a consideration of the subject, he would call the
attention of the committee to the true question now before them; for
though it was originally only a call for papers, it had now assumed a
very important shape, and was nothing less than this, Whether that House
had a concurrent power with the PRESIDENT and Senate in making Treaties?
The gentleman last up had followed others in referring to the practice
under the British constitution; but had concluded his remarks on that
argument with allowing, that, after all, our own constitution must be
our sole guide. He heartily joined in that sentiment, and was satisfied
that the merits of the question should be tested by that alone. In order
to show that the Treaty power was solely delegated to the PRESIDENT and
Senate by the constitution, Mr. S. said, he should not confine himself
to a mere recital of the words, but he should appeal to the general
sense of the whole nation at the time the constitution was formed,
before any Treaty was made under it, which could, by exciting passion
and discontent, warp the mind from a just and natural construction of
the constitution. By referring to the contemporaneous expositions of
that instrument, when the subject was viewed only in relation to the
abstract power, and not to a particular Treaty, we should come at the
truth. He would then confidently appeal to the opinions of those who,
when the constitution was promulgated, were alarmed at the Treaty power,
because it was by the constitution vested in the PRESIDENT and Senate,
and to its advocates, who vindicated it by proving that the power was
safely deposited with these branches of the Government. The discussions
which took place at the time of its adoption by the Convention of the
several States, proved, beyond a doubt, that the full extent of the
power was then well understood, and thought, by those who approved of
the constitution, to be sufficiently guarded. He would further appeal to
the amendments which had been proposed by the discontented. The
Convention of Virginia had proposed an amendment, which of itself
overturned all the reasonings of the gentleman. It was, "that no
commercial Treaty should be valid, unless ratified by two-thirds of all
the Senators." This was the only check which that State required, and
was a conclusive evidence of their opinions: had that State conceived
that the check which is now contended for existed in the constitution,
they could not have been guilty of such an absurdity as the amendment
would involve. All the possible dangers which might ensue from the
unlimited nature of the Treaty power were well considered before the
constitution was adopted, and Virginia required no further check than
the one above recited. All, therefore, that they required had, in the
present case, been done, for the Treaty was ratified by two-thirds of
all the Senators.

Mr. S. said, he could refer to many further proofs derived from a
similar source. He would not, however, fatigue the committee at this
time with reading them. He would only recall the recollection of some
gentlemen present to the protest of the Pennsylvania minority, where the
same ideas and amendments were contained, and to the proceedings of a
meeting at Harrisburg, which the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
GALLATIN) must well remember, (having been one of the meeting,) where,
after stating objections to the extensive powers delegated by the
constitution, the following amendment was proposed, as necessary to
limit and restrain the powers: "Provided always, that no Treaty which
shall hereafter be made, shall be deemed or construed to alter or affect
any law of the United States, or of any particular State, until such
Treaty shall have been laid before and assented to by the House of
Representatives in Congress." This amendment was the most satisfactory
evidence that the proposers of it did then believe that, without that
amendment, such Treaty would be valid and binding, although not assented
to by this House, and that they had, at that day, no idea that there
existed in the constitution the check which is now discovered by this
_ex post facto_ construction.

Having stated the general opinion of the public, as manifested by the
friends as well as the enemies of the constitution, Mr. S. said he would
proceed to show that the practice of Congress had, from the commencement
of its existence, been conformable to that opinion. Several treaties had
been concluded with Indian tribes under the present constitution. These
Treaties embraced all the points which were now made a subject of
contest--settlement of boundaries, grants of money, &c.; when ratified
by the PRESIDENT and Senate, they had been proclaimed by the Executive
as the law of the land; they had not even been communicated to the
House; but the House, considering them as laws, had made the
appropriations as matters of course, and as they did in respect to other
laws. The Treaties were never discussed, but the requisite sums, as
reported in the annual estimates, were included, as matters of course,
in the general mass of moneys voted for the War Establishment in the
item of Indian Department. It was not pretended that the constitution
made any distinction between Treaties with foreign nations and Indian
tribes; and the clause of the constitution which gives to Congress the
power of regulating commerce with foreign nations, and on which the
modern doctrine is founded, includes as well Indian tribes as foreign
nations.

That this House considered a Treaty, when ratified by the PRESIDENT and
Senate, as the law of the land, was further evident from a resolve of
the House, of the 4th of June, 1790, in these words;

      "_Resolved_, That all Treaties made, or which shall be made
      and promulged under the authority of the United States,
      shall from time to time be published and annexed to their
      code of laws, by the Secretary of State."

In consequence of this resolution, the several Secretaries of State had
annexed the Treaties which had been made to the code of laws, as soon as
they were ratified by the PRESIDENT and Senate, and promulged by the
PRESIDENT.

Mr. S. repeated his former assertion, that there were cases where that
House had not the right of withholding appropriations; if they had the
power, indeed, they might stop the proceedings of Government altogether;
and so, individuals had the power of resisting the laws. Gentlemen had
said, that if this doctrine prevailed, the House would lose its capacity
of judging. He denied it; they would still retain, in such cases, a
discretion, guided by morality, good faith, and the constitution; the
members were as much bound by the laws in their Legislative, as in their
individual capacity; if an existing law (or Treaty, which was a law of
the highest nature) prescribed a certain duty, they were bound to
perform it, and their discretion could only be called in to regulate the
mode and circumstances of discharging that duty; it could not be a
matter of discretion whether or not they should perform that duty. Thus,
unless they intended to arrest the operations of Government, their
discretion could not be requisite to determine whether they should
appropriate the moneys necessary for its support; but out of what fund,
and when the moneys shall be paid, and other matters of detail. So, when
a Treaty was concluded, and became a compact binding the nation, the
discretion of the House (unless it was intended to violate our faith)
could not determine whether the moneys contracted for should be paid,
but the mode, the fund, and such questions of detail, would alone be
considered. The distinction, which was an obvious one, between power and
right, had not been attended to. The House had certainly the power to do
many things which they had not the right to do; they had the power to do
wrong, but they certainly had not the right to do wrong; and whether the
wrong was committed by acting where they ought not to act, or refusing
to act where they ought, was immaterial; both were equally
reprehensible. It had been boldly said, that there was no case which
could possibly come before them, where they would not be at liberty to
answer aye or no: he would produce a case--by the constitution, on the
application of a certain number of States, wishing for amendments,
Congress must call a Convention; where is this boasted discretion, of
which so much has been said? Could the House, in this case, exercise its
discretion, whether or no a Convention should be called? Why not?
Because the constitution says it must call a Convention: and does not
the constitution say, "Treaties made by the PRESIDENT and Senate are
laws, and that laws must be obeyed?" The same injunctions of the
constitution are imposed in both cases; and as in the first, all this
House could do, would be to regulate the time and place of holding the
Convention; so, in the latter, their discretion would be limited to the
mode, and fund, and other details. The gentleman had mentioned the
article in the constitution respecting appropriations for military
services--they were to be limited to two years; this article proved
itself that appropriations might be unlimited in every other case. When
a Military Establishment was instituted, it was known that an
appropriation law for that purpose could not be in force more than two
years; no inconvenience, then, could result. But there was no such
limitation in respect to any other branch of expenditure; from custom,
appropriations for the support of Government were annual; appropriations
even for pensions were annual, and yet no one doubted that, as the
pension was a contract, the appropriation for it was always a thing of
course; no discretion could be exercised, in respect to the payment,
without a breach of faith.

MARCH 11.--In Committee of the Whole, on Mr. LIVINGSTON's resolution.

Mr. GILES said, he expected, when the present motion was made, that it
would not be opposed. The expected agency of the House respecting the
Treaty, or some subjects relating to it, made him imagine that the
propriety of having the papers called for could not be denied. The
Treaty has been referred to a Committee of the Whole, surely in order to
act on it in some shape or other. Indeed, the PRESIDENT, in his Speech,
at the opening of the session, expressly says, that he will lay the
subject before them. This he considered as full evidence, that the
PRESIDENT conceived it must come under the notice of the House. If the
papers could serve to explain any point relative to that instrument,
surely the possession of them was desirable.

The right of the House to consider of the expediency of Treaties, so far
as the provisions of them clash with their specific powers, had been
indirectly brought in in considering the present motion. He regretted
that this important constitutional question should be about to be
decided indirectly; but, this being the situation of the debate, he
should state his reasons why he conceived the argument on this ground
ought not to be considered as of sufficient strength to cause a negative
of the motion before the committee.

The question is, whether there be any provisions in the constitution by
which this House can in any case check the Treaty-making power; and, of
consequence, whether it can question the merits of Treaties under any
circumstances?

Various considerations had been advanced to show that the House cannot
question the merits of a Treaty. Some of these considerations had grown
out of the subject extrinsically, others from the provisions of the
constitution. Though at first he had intended to have stated simply his
own opinion of the constitution on the important question now in view,
yet, as gentlemen had gone fully into the question in that shape, and
others had stated a variety of objections to the construction the
friends of the motion contended for, he should proceed to answer them,
and suffer his opinion of the meaning of the constitution to be
incidental.

The gentleman from South Carolina had referred to the opinions of the
Conventions of the States at the time of adopting the constitution. As
to Virginia, the gentleman had stated that that State had considered the
checks as provided by the constitution as inadequate, and proposed an
amendment, purporting to require two-thirds of the whole number of
Senators, instead of two-thirds of the number present. This was true, he
believed; but how would it apply in the sense the gentleman wished? The
objection of that State was, that the check in the Senate, provided in
the Treaty-making power, was not sufficient, and they proposed a
greater: from which he would argue that they conceived the Treaty-making
power to be a subject of extreme delicacy, and that they wished
additional checks consequently added. How this was to prove that the
Convention of Virginia did not construe the present clauses of the
constitution under debate as the friends of the present motion did, he
was at a loss to determine. The gentleman who cited this instance had
not quoted any part of the proceeding on the subject, or of the reasons
that led to the amendment. He had merely mentioned the result to the
House.

The practice of the House had been referred to yesterday by the member
last up, (Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina.) He had remarked that the House
had passed a general resolution directing the Clerk to place in the code
of laws of the United States Treaties made under the authority of the
United States. Was this, he asked, an exposition of the meaning of the
constitution? He believed the resolution a very proper one, and would
vote now for its adoption, if it was yet to be passed. It is certainly
proper, when a Treaty is concluded under the authority of the United
States, that it should be annexed to their code of laws; but this could
not weigh against the exercise of discretion in the House on important
Legislative subjects.

The practice of the House, with respect to appropriation laws, in the
cases of Indian Treaties, had been mentioned by the member from South
Carolina. In the first place, observing upon this, he would remark, that
he always conceived there was a distinction between an Indian Treaty and
a Treaty with a foreign nation. The English had always made a
distinction when we were Colonies. The constitution establishes an
express difference. He should not, however, found his objections to the
inference of the gentleman upon this, but would examine it unconnected
with this distinction. Provisions had been made by this House to carry
Indian Treaties into effect; but why? No doubt because the House
conceived it wise so to do, not because they had not a right to use
their discretion in the business. Suppose, on any of those occasions, a
motion had been made to strike out the sum proposed to be appropriated,
would it have been said that the motion was out of order? A similar
motion was made lately with respect to the Mint, and it was not
considered as out of order. If, on that occasion, it had been the
opinion of the House that the Mint was an improper establishment, by
refusing the appropriation they could have defeated the law. It was
certainly the opinion of the House that they could exercise their
discretion in the business, for it was not even hinted that the motion
for striking out was out of order.

On another head the gentleman appeared to plume himself much. He had
asked, why, since the PRESIDENT had proclaimed a Treaty as the law of
the land, which was not the law of the land, why he was not impeached?
This question, the member exultingly remarked, had not been answered,
because, he imagined, it could not be answered.

Suppose I should tell the gentleman, said Mr. G., that I could not now
give him an answer, would it show that the House had not the authority
contended for by the friends of the present motion? Why was the subject
mentioned? Not with a view, I believe, to the discovery of the truth. I
fear it is calculated to produce an opposite effect--to check
investigation. It is too often the case that the names of persons are
brought into view, not to promote the development of principles, but as
having a tendency to destroy freedom of inquiry. I will go further with
the gentleman, and admit for a moment (a position, however, I shall by
and by controvert) that the PRESIDENT conceived that he had a right,
after the exchange of ratifications, to promulgate the Treaty as the
supreme law of the land; what would this amount to? Why, only that this
was his opinion; but is that authority here? In any other case rather
than the present, I should be inclined to pay a greater respect to
opinions from that source; but now, when the question is about the
division of powers between two departments, are we to be told of the
opinions of one of those departments, to show that the other has no
right to the exercise of power in the case. Such appeals are not
calculated to convince, but to alarm.

Having examined the objections to the construction contended for by the
friends of the motion, drawn from collateral sources, he should turn his
attention next, he said, to the intrinsic meaning of the constitution.
He would attempt to interpret the constitution from the words of it. It
was a misfortune the clauses were not more clear and explicit, so far as
to force the same meaning upon every mind, however they might differ in
opinion in other respects. However, from the imperfection of language,
it was no wonder, he observed, that on an instrument providing for so
many different objects, and providing such a variety of checks, various
opinions as to construction should arise; but he considered the present
clauses of as plain import as any part of the instrument. The
construction contended for by the opposers of the motion is, beyond
denial, the most dangerous in its effects, and the least probable, as he
thought, in its meaning. It is contended by them that the Treaty-making
power is undefined in its nature, unlimited as to its objects, and
supreme in its operation; that the Treaty-making power embraces all the
Legislative powers; operates by controlling all other authorities, and
that it is unchecked. When he had asserted this power, as contended by
the gentlemen to be unlimited in its objects, he meant, however, that
they had confined it only within the limits of the constitution; but
even admitting it in that extent, is certainly a doctrine sufficiently
alarming. When the gentlemen contend for its supremacy, they also admit
in this point some qualifications; according to their doctrine, it is
not to be supreme over the head of the constitution, but in every other
respect they contend that it shall be unlimited, supreme, undefined.
Gentlemen who insist that Treaties are supreme, next to the
constitution, must also grant that there is no necessity for the House
to trouble themselves with making laws.

The construction contended for by the friends of the resolution is
derived from two sources--from the constitution, and the nature of
things. The constitution says, the PRESIDENT, with the advice and
consent of two-thirds of the Senators present, shall make Treaties.
Perhaps, if there was no other clause, the Treaty-making power might be
considered as unlimited. Another clause declares that the constitution,
the laws made under it, and Treaties, shall be the supreme law of the
land. Here the gentlemen, when they quote this clause, stop, as if there
were no other words in it; and from all this it would appear that the
people had, in fact, delegated an unchecked power. But, if we go on, it
will be found that the last-mentioned clause adds that the judges in the
respective States shall cause them to be executed, any thing in the
constitution or laws of the individual States to the contrary
notwithstanding. From the jealousy which individual States showed under
the Old Confederation for the preservation of their powers, and the
inconveniences which were experienced in consequence, it was found
necessary, when organizing a new Government, to declare, explicitly,
that their constitutions and laws must yield to the _Constitution_,
_laws_ and _Treaties_ of the United States, and for this purpose this
clause was introduced.

The checks on the Treaty-making power he considered as divisible into
two classes; the first, consists in the necessary concurrence of the
House to give efficacy to Treaties; which concurrent power they derive
from the enumeration of the Legislative powers of the House. Where the
Treaty-making power is exercised, it must be under the reservation, that
its provisions, so far as they interfere with the specified powers
delegated to Congress, must be so far submitted to the discretion of
that department of the Government. The PRESIDENT and Senate, by the
constitution, have the power of making Treaties, Congress the power of
regulating commerce, raising armies, &c.; and these, he contended, must
form so many exceptions to the general power. Gentlemen had said that
the constitution was the exposition of the will of the people, and, as
such, that they would obey its injunctions. There could be no difference
of opinion on this ground; for his own part, he confessed if he adored
any thing on earth, it is that will. But the question is, what is that
will, as expressed in the constitution? That instrument, to his mind,
explained this question very clearly. It enumerates certain powers which
it declares specifically vested in Congress; and where is the danger to
be apprehended from the doctrine laid down by the friends of the
resolution? The contrary construction must produce the most pernicious
consequences; agreeably to that, there would remain no check over the
most unlimited power in the Government. The gentlemen contend, that the
House must remain silent spectators in the business of a Treaty, and
that they have no right to the exercise of an opinion in the matter;
they must then abandon their constitutional right of legislation; they
must abandon the constitution and cling to Treaties as supreme.

The other check over the Treaty-making power, he noticed, was the power
of making appropriations, the exercise of which is specifically vested
in Congress. He begged leave to call the particular attention of the
committee to this part of the subject. The constitution says, that no
money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of
appropriations made by law. This is no doubt intended as a check in
addition to those possessed by the House. It is meant to enable the
House, without the concurrence of the other branches, to check, by
refusing money, any mischief in the operations carrying on in any
department of the Government. But what is a law? It is a rule prescribed
by competent authority. The word law in the clause of the constitution
he had last noticed, was not meant in reference to the Treaty-making
power; but in reference to Congress. A law prescribes a rule of conduct;
it is the expression of the will of the proper authority; it is the
result of discretion. Legislation implies deliberation. If a law is the
expression of the will, must not an appropriation law be equally so? But
gentlemen had found out a new-fashioned exposition of the word
discretion, and, according to their definition in fact, it was no
discretion at all. They had mentioned a part of the constitution which
provides that the salaries of the Judicial Department shall be fixed;
and asked, whether the House should conceive itself at liberty to use a
discretion in appropriations for that department? Before he could
consider this case, and that before the House, now parallel, he must beg
gentlemen would point out any part of the constitution that declared the
House should not exercise their discretion when called upon to make
appropriations to carry into effect a Treaty. He could find nowhere,
that, in this case, the right of opinion of the House is constrained.

The uniform practice of the British Government had been cited to have
been, in the case of Treaties, the same as that contended for by the
friends of the present motion. The greatest security for the liberties
of the people established in that Government, depends on the control
which their Parliament has over the purse-strings. In England, this
power rests merely on custom; here, the House are expressly intrusted
with it; what is custom in England, is reduced to writing in our
constitution. Then, if this power is in England a ground for Parliament
to judge of Treaties, it is a fair inference that it ought to be
exercised here. The practice of the British Government, he observed, had
often been quoted here, in support of doctrines very different from
those in aid of which it is now cited; it has been deemed orthodox when
it favored Executive prerogative. He confessed, he never did expect
that, as early as 1796, a reference would be made to practices, under
the British Government, in support of the rights of the popular branch
of our Government. It was painful to be obliged to have resort to that
Government on such an occasion; but the authority of that Government
should not be rejected for once, because its practice could be quoted in
favor of the popular branch. The ground of the practice in England, and
of the right claimed here, rests upon the sound maxim, that all public
money is from the pockets of the people, and that it should be expended
by none but their Representatives. No maxim had been more instrumental
than this, in preserving the remnants of British freedom; and thus early
is the House called upon to abandon it here.

Treaties are contended to be paramount to the laws; the PRESIDENT and
Senate make these Treaties, and when made and proclaimed as the supreme
law, there is a predestinated necessity in the House to make the
requisite provisions for carrying them into effect. The danger of this
doctrine, he said, could not be better exemplified, than by a reference
to the circumstances that attended the late Treaty in its progress.
Three years ago, a difference took place between the different branches
of Government, as to the policy that should obtain in reference to the
conduct of one foreign nation. The House were unwilling to trust solely
to the magnanimity of the King, and wished to make some exertions
themselves for self-protection. With this view several measures were
proposed, viz: commercial restrictions, non-importation, embargo,
sequestration, or rather arrestation upon the ground of the _status
quo_. One of the measures passed the House by a respectable majority,
but was rejected in the Senate by the casting vote of the VICE
PRESIDENT. The PRESIDENT appointed an Envoy Extraordinary, who entered
into certain stipulations, which, being sanctioned by two-thirds of the
Senate, it is now contended, are to operate the destruction of the
powers specifically vested in the House.

If the above was a true statement, he said, and he did not see in what
particular it could be contradicted, then the Executive had been exerted
as a check upon the Legislative power, for the negotiation necessarily
foreclosed any further Legislative proceedings. It did more than this;
the Executive legislated against legislation, and overruled them on the
subject in contest. He should not advert at this time, he said, to the
collateral circumstances which attended this business, nor go further in
detail; he wished only to remark generally on the dangerous operation of
the doctrines contended for. Now, it is said, the House have nothing to
do but to obey, to appropriate the necessary money, leaving all
deliberation aside.

If the PRESIDENT, said Mr. GILES, can, by the assistance of a foreign
power, legislate against the rights of the House to legislate, and his
proceedings are to be binding on the House, it necessarily destroys
their right to the exercise of discretion. If he can by Treaty declare,
that commerce shall not be regulated, that property shall not be
sequestrated, and that piracies shall be judged and punished as he
thinks fit; if he is to exercise the unlimited Treaty-making power
contended for, what security have we that he may not go further when the
negotiations are renewed with Great Britain, agreeably to the
stipulations of the present Treaty? What security have we that he will
not agree with Great Britain, that if she will keep up an army of ten
thousand men in Canada, he will do the same here? How could such a
stipulation be got over by the House, when they are told that in matters
of Treaty they must not pretend to exercise their will, but must obey?
How will this doctrine operate upon the power of appropriation? A
military establishment may be instituted for twenty years, and as their
moral sense is to prevent their withholding appropriations, they can
have no power over its existence.

Gentlemen had gone so far as to declare, that an attempt to examine the
merits of the Treaty was rebellion, was treason against the
constitution. What justifies these harsh epithets? Such assertions could
only create ill-will, and could not tend to the investigation of truth.
Another argument of the same nature had been used. It was said, that the
attempt at exercising a control over the Treaty-making power was
disorganizing the Government. He believed the contrary would be found to
be the case. The doctrine advocated by the friends to the motion, only
goes to claim a negative voice in the business of Treaty-making; whereas
the doctrine of its opposers claims the exercise of a power, that would
supersede the specific authority delegated to the Legislature in all
cases whatever.

Mr. SEDGWICK said, that, after the length of time which had been
consumed, and the talents which had been so ably exerted in the
discussion of this subject, he should not think himself authorized to
call the attention of the committee to any observations of his; but,
that he considered it in principle, and in its consequences, as the most
important question which had ever been debated in this House. It was no
less than whether this House should, by construction and implication,
extend its controlling influence to subjects which were expressly, and
he thought exclusively, delegated by the people to another department of
the Government. We had heretofore been warned emphatically against
seizing on power by construction and implication. He had known no
instance in which the caution that warning enforced, deserved more
attention than on the present occasion.

It would be taken for granted, and it would be conceded on all hands,
that we were to resort to the constitution, to know the extent and
limits of our power, and if we found not there a clear evidence of its
existence, we ought to abandon the exercise. It was certain we had not
any express delegation to make or to control the public will in any of
our relations with foreign nations. On the other hand, we found it
declared, that the PRESIDENT should have power to make Treaties by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the
Senators present concurred. Treaties, to attain the ends for which they
were designed, were, from their nature, supreme laws; but the
constitution had, in another place, declared, Treaties made under the
authority of the United States should be supreme laws. Gentlemen had
said, that it was not declared that Treaties made by the PRESIDENT and
Senate should have this effect; but those made under the authority of
the United States. The question then recurred, what Treaties were made
under the authority of the United States? The true answer undoubtedly
was, Treaties made by those to whom the people, by their constitution,
had delegated the power. The PRESIDENT, qualified as had been mentioned,
had expressly, and none else had such power. If we were to rest the
subject here, it would seem to follow irresistibly, and to be incapable
almost of higher proof, that whenever a compact was formed by the
PRESIDENT with a foreign nation, and had received the advice and consent
of the Senate, if it was of such a nature as to be properly denominated
a Treaty, all its stipulations would thereby, and from that moment,
become "supreme laws."

The power of treating between independent nations might be classed under
the following heads: 1. To compose and adjust differences, whether to
terminate or to prevent war. 2. To form contracts for mutual security or
defence; or to make Treaties, offensive or defensive. 3. To regulate an
intercourse for mutual benefit, or to form Treaties of commerce. Without
the first, war and contention could only be terminated by the
destruction of one of the parties; without the second, there could be no
defence, by means of union and concert, against superior force; and
without the last, a profitable and beneficial intercourse could not be
arranged on terms of reciprocity. Hence, then, it must be evident to
every unprejudiced mind, that by a grant of power to make Treaties,
authority was given to bind the nation by stipulations; to preserve
peace or terminate war; to enter into alliances, offensive and
defensive, and to form commercial Treaties.

This power, he held, unlimited by the constitution, and he held, too,
that in its nature, to the extent he had mentioned, it was illimitable.
Did a serious difference exist with a foreign nation, in determining on
the nature and extent of the stipulations which might be necessary to
adjust it, the cause of injury, national rights and honor, the evils of
war, and all circumstances of relation between the two countries, must
be taken into account. In forming alliances, the threatened pressure,
your own and your enemy's relative strength, the objects of acquisition
or defence, must be considered. And, in adjusting an equitable
intercourse for commercial purposes, a thousand circumstances present
themselves for nice calculations. A thousand circumstances of foreign
relations would occur in the history of every country, under which
nothing short of unlimited powers of negotiation would be adequate to a
prevention of enormous, perhaps ruinous evils.

But it might be objected that a power so enormous, and comprehending
such essential interests, might be abused, and thence asked, where is
the remedy? To this he answered, that a national association required,
for the great purpose of preservation, an unlimited confidence on many
subjects. Hence, not only this, but perhaps every other national
government, had delegated to it an unlimited control over the persons
and property of the nation.

It might, by the express power given to it of raising armies, convert
every citizen into a soldier, and, by a single assessment of a tax, it
might command the use of all the property in the country.

The power to raise armies and taxes was limited in its exercise by
nothing but the discretion of the Legislature, under the direction of
its prudence, wisdom, and virtue. Was there no security against a wanton
abuse of these enormous powers? Yes, it was to be hoped that the people,
in electing the members of this House, and the States in choosing those
of the other, would not select characters, who, regardless of the public
good, would wantonly impose on their constituents unnecessary burdens.
It would be an additional security, that the interests of the rulers
were inseparably connected with those of the people; that they could
impose no burdens in which themselves did not equally participate. But,
should all these guards be insufficient, was there no dependence to be
placed in the PRESIDENT?--the man elected by a refined process,
pre-eminent in fame and virtue as in rank! Was there no security in the
watchful guardianship of such a character? Responsible by every thing
dear and valuable to man--his reputation, his own and his
fellow-citizens' happiness--was there no well-founded reliance on all
these considerations, for security against oppression? If not, we had
not the requisite materials by which to administer a republican
government, and the project might be abandoned. After all, however,
should the unlimited powers he had mentioned (and such powers must
always be unlimited) be wantonly abused, was there no remedy? Yes, in
the good sense and manly independent spirit of the people. If
intolerable burdens were wantonly imposed; if necessary to defeat the
oppression, opposition and insurrection would not only be authorized,
but become a duty. And if any man could honestly lay his hand on his
heart, and in sincerity declare, that a compliance with any existing
Treaty was worth more than our Government, our constitution, our Union,
and the liberty protected by them; to that man he was ready to declare,
that opposition had become a duty. But, in every instance of opposition,
whether in defeat of a Legislative act, or of a Treaty, the right of
resistance resulted not from the constitution itself, for it had
declared no such right; no constitution could declare it. It existed in
original principles, and never could be exercised but by resorting to
them.

The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) had stated five different
constructions which possibly might be given to the constitution on this
subject; three of which, (and for none of them to Mr. S.'s knowledge had
any man ever contended,) the gentleman had proved to be unfounded. The
fourth, that which he had given to the constitution, if admitted, and it
should be abused, might produce mischievous effects. Was not this true
of all the great and essential powers of government? If the controlling
influence of this House was added, would the power be less? And if,
under these circumstances, abused, would the injury be more tolerable?
In short, was not this a kind of argument infinitely more tending to the
production of prejudice than to the discovery of truth?

The gentleman has really given no decisive opinion what was the true
construction. He had, however, seemed to incline to a belief that to the
stipulations of a Treaty relative to any subject committed to the
control of the Legislature, to give them validity, Legislative
co-operation was necessary. Of consequence, if this was withheld, the
operation of the Treaty would be defeated. That it was at the will, and
within the discretion, of the Legislature to withhold such co-operation,
and of course the House might control and defeat the solemn engagements
of the PRESIDENT and Senate.

The gentleman who had suggested this opinion was well known to the
committee, and throughout America. Mr. S. could not but observe that it
was perfectly unaccountable to his mind, that that gentleman had yet to
form an opinion to whom was delegated that power, the nature, extent,
and effects of which he had so strongly and perspicuously detailed. The
capacity of that gentleman's mind, long exercised on political subjects,
his known caution and prudence, would authorize a request that he or his
friends would explain how it was possible, if such as he states should
have been the intention of those who framed the constitution, that the
true meaning should not have been expressed in the instrument? That when
the gentleman went from the Assembly which framed the constitution,
immediately afterwards, to one of those which ratified it, he should
have admitted an opposite construction? As Mr. S. would undertake, by
and by, to prove that, in the Convention of Virginia, he did admit the
very construction for which we now contended, he would take the liberty
further to inquire, how it happened, that, if such was really the
intention of the instrument, that such was the meaning of the people,
no man had heard of it until the discovery was produced by the British
Treaty? Strange national intention, unknown for years to every
individual!

As the gentleman had been pleased to dwell on the idea of a co-operation
between the powers of the Government, he would take the liberty to
state, what had been ably explained by other gentlemen, that the power
of making Treaties was wholly different from that of making ordinary
laws; originating from different motives; producing different effects,
and operating to a different extent. In all those particulars, the
difference had been perfectly understood. For instance, the ordinary
legal protection of property, and the punishment of its violation, could
never be extended beyond your own jurisdiction; but, by Treaty, the same
protection could be extended within the jurisdiction of a foreign
government. You could not legislate an adjustment of disputes, nor a
peace with another country; but, by Treaty, both might be effected. Your
laws, in no instance, could operate except in your own jurisdiction, and
on your own citizens. By Treaty, an operation was given to stipulations
within the jurisdiction of both the contracting parties.

It had been said that Treaties could not operate on those subjects which
were consigned to Legislative control. If this be true, said he, how
impotent in this respect is the power of the Government! What, then,
permit me to inquire, can the power of treating effect? I will tell you
what it cannot do; it can make no alliances, because any stipulations
for offensive or defensive operations, will infringe on the Legislative
power of declaring war, laying taxes, or raising armies, or all of them.
No Treaty of peace can probably be made, which will not either ascertain
boundaries, stipulate privileges to aliens, the payment of money, or a
cession of a territory, and certainly no Treaty of commerce can be made.

Was it not strange, that, to this late hour, it should have been
delayed, and that now, all at once, it should have been discovered, that
no power was delegated to any person to regulate our foreign relations?
That, although a power was granted to the PRESIDENT and Senate to form
Treaties, that yet there were such reservations and restrictions, that
there remained nothing on which this power could operate? Or was it
true, that this power was competent to treat with every government on
earth but that of Great Britain? Might he not be permitted further to
inquire, if this Treaty had been formed with any other power, with the
precise stipulations it now contained, whether there ever would have
existed this doubt of constitutionality.

MARCH 14.--In Committee of the Whole on Mr. LIVINGSTON's resolution:

Mr. SAMUEL LYMAN said he rose only to make a few observations. He was
against the resolution now on the table, as involving a doctrine, in his
opinion, not only inconsistent with the principles of the constitution,
but also inconsistent with the laws of nations. In debating the merits
of this resolution, an exceedingly important abstract constitutional
question had arisen, viz: How far that House had a right to exercise
their Legislative discretion and judgment relative to carrying a Treaty
into effect. In order to answer this question, he would raise two
premises. And, first, by the constitution, the Legislative powers of
that House, in co-operation with the other branches of the Legislature,
extend to all objects within the reach of their sovereignty, excepting
the reservations to the distinct sovereignties of the several States
which compose the Union; but beyond those boundaries their powers could
not extend. Secondly, there is, by the constitution, attached to the
Legislature a subordinate kind of power, of a limited and ministerial,
or Executive nature. At present, it did not occur to him that this
subordinate power was to be exercised in its simplicity, excepting in
two instances, viz: 1st, for calling a Convention under certain
circumstances to amend the constitution; and, 2dly, for carrying into
effect Treaties which are constitutionally made; for these two purposes,
the people, who are the source of power, had stripped that House of all
Legislative authority, and made them only the executors of their will;
therefore, upon these premises he answered, if a Treaty was
unconstitutional, they had an undoubted right to exercise a Legislative
discretion and judgment relative to carrying it into operation, for they
were sent there as the guardians of the rights of their fellow-citizens,
and, for that purpose, are sworn to support the constitution; but if the
Treaty was constitutional, they had not a right to exercise that
discretion; for, without their intervention, it becomes the supreme law
of the land, and virtually repeals all laws which are repugnant to it;
and in that case that House is bound to obey it, and to carry it into
complete execution; for, by the constitution, the power of making
Treaties is vested solely and exclusively in the Executive Department.
In the former case, they have a right to exercise a deliberative or
Legislative power, but not in the latter case; they could there only
exercise a ministerial or Executive power. So that herein, said he, lies
the true distinction, and it arises from the nature and principles of
the constitution.

He had not the least doubt of the constitutionality of a treaty, when
the stipulations in it were of such a nature as not to respect objects
of legislation, but only objects which lay beyond the bounds of their
sovereignty; for beyond those limits their laws could not extend as
rules to regulate the conduct of subjects of foreign Powers; and
although some stipulations in a Treaty may respect objects which were
within the reach of their sovereignty, yet it may be in such manner as
to be strictly constitutional; for such stipulations may be not only
pertinent, but absolutely necessary in forming the Treaty. This
conclusion, he thought, was the natural and necessary result of a fair
and liberal construction of the principles of the constitution, and
especially of that paragraph which vests the power of making Treaties in
the Supreme Executive, with the advice of the Senate.

Mr. L. said he was sensible he had been delivering an unpopular
doctrine, but that he was deeply impressed with its truth, its reality,
and its importance; and that the obligations of an oath had prevented
his silence on the occasion.

Mr. BALDWIN said he had before expressed his opinion, in general terms,
in favor of this question. It must have been observed that he had been
for several days noting the debates, and preparing to take part in them.
He had intended to have introduced the debate on Friday morning last,
but a singular incident prevented him, which he felt it to be his duty
to take this earliest opportunity to state to the House. Mr. B. then
said: about five minutes before I expected to rise on the question, I
was called out of the House by a person then unknown to me, who said his
name was FRELINGHUYSEN, and whom I found to be a Senator of the United
States. After a number of interviews, he observed, with great
expressions of pain and regret, that he was at last obliged to the
unwelcome office of delivering me that letter, which I opened and found
to be a challenge directed to me from JAMES GUNN, who is also a Senator
of the United States. The pretext for this transaction was, to extort
from me some private letters which I had received early in the session
from a number of my constituents, expressing their wish that I would
endeavor to prevent any thing being done in Congress to validate the
Mississippi Yazoo Land Speculation before the meeting of the State
Legislature. There was no complaint of any personal indecorum or
disrespect at all; whether they were actuated in their conduct solely by
interest in Yazoo speculations, I will not pretend to judge. The revival
of a transaction of so old a date at that particular moment, was to me
surprising. Not knowing their degree of relation to this question
between the two Houses, and not knowing the cast of character but of one
of them, I am left only to conjecture. It was so peculiarly timed, and
the professed object also of so peculiar a nature, to interrupt the
channels of confidence for free communication between me and my
constituents, that I have thought it my duty not to let the treatment of
it depend on my own individual discretion. I consider it as in the
discretion of the House. Mr. B. also observed that he felt himself under
the necessity of using this as an apology for the apparent neglects of
Friday, after the particular attention he had before appeared to pay to
the discussion; and for his not being able to notice any of the
proceedings in the debate of Friday, he had supposed he had lost the
opportunity of offering his opinion, but was glad to find the question
had not been taken, as he was unwilling to suffer this, or even a
greater interruption, to prevent him from declaring his opinion, as he
had before intended.

He said, it was remarkable that several gentlemen rose with very
different expressions which had been said to contain the subject in
discussion. It was certainly important to agree exactly on that point.
The least variation in the point of departure would soon diverge till
they were out of sight of each other, and yet each one keep a straight
direction. One gentleman had stated, that the question was, whether this
House should feel itself at liberty to judge over the heads of PRESIDENT
and Senate on the subject of Treaties without restraint: his reasoning
seemed to be built on that proposition. Another gentleman had said that
the question was, whether the power of making Treaties was given by the
constitution to the PRESIDENT and two-thirds of the Senate, or to the
PRESIDENT and both branches of the Legislature. He might mention several
others, but he called the attention of the House to the fact, to settle
the point, that they might at least agree what they were talking about.
The question, said he, on the table is, to request of the PRESIDENT
papers respecting the Treaty: the objection is, you ought not to ask for
the papers, because you have no right to touch the subject. He begged
leave then to ask, with the utmost candor and respect, whether the real
question now depending and brought into dispute by this motion, is not
whether all questions relating to this subject are not so definitely and
perfectly settled by the constitution, that there was nothing for that
House to deliberate upon on the occasion, but only punctually to provide
the funds to carry the Treaty into effect. If it were allowed that there
might be any possible or extraordinary cases on the subject of
Treaty-making, in which it might ever be proper for that House to
deliberate--as, for instance, offensive Treaties which might bring the
country into a war--subsidies and support of foreign
armies--introduction of an established religion from a foreign country,
or any other of those acts which are by the constitution prohibited to
Congress, but not prohibited to the makers of Treaties; if it were
allowed that there might possibly exist any such case, in which it might
ever be proper for Congress to deliberate, it would seem to be giving up
the ground on which the discussion of the present question has been
placed; what agency the House should take, and when, would be other
questions. Whether a case would probably occur once in a hundred years
that would warrant the House in touching the subject, is of no
consequence to the debate. The right is denied in the largest sense. The
assertion is, that the House has no right to deliberate or to look into
any papers on the subject; that the people have, by the constitution,
reposed the whole of their confidence on this subject elsewhere; that,
to attempt to deliberate upon it, or to ask for any papers respecting
it, is treason and anarchy.

If this ground were once given up, he should be infinitely less anxious
what the House might do in any particular case: these would rest on
their individual merits. For his own part, he was by no means disposed
to carry the interference of the House to any extreme; but he could not
express his abhorrence of the doctrine in the extent to which some
gentlemen have carried it in this discussion. He begged leave to entreat
gentlemen again candidly to review the few words in the constitution on
which they rested so much, and to ask whether they appeared to be such
labored expressions as they supposed--so apt and definite as to mean
exactly what they contend for, and nothing else; and whether all the
words may not well be satisfied without, and stand more harmoniously
connected with the other parts of the constitution.

How much they intended to incorporate with this power of Treaty-making,
under cover of contract with foreign nations, he had not heard any one
attempt to explain; it seemed designed to stand distinguished as an
indefinite, uncontrolled branch of the Government, the extent of whose
powers was to be known only by its own acts. Its definition was to be,
that it was indefinite--like what is said of some branches of the powers
of Parliament; that no one has pretended or ought to pretend to know
their extent; that they are not to be submitted to the judgment of any
one but themselves; and that they never develope them but by the
particular exercise of them; that they were to be left in this state,
because, if they were defined, they might be eluded. However this might
be found respecting a foreign constitution, it is making a monster of
our own. There was not another part or lineament in it which appeared to
be in the same mould or proportion.

Mr. B. then undertook to state his own view of the subject, and what he
thought ought to be done. Much, he said, depended on the words "make
Treaties and supreme law of the land;" as to the words supreme law of
the land, he had not much doubt for what purpose solely they were
introduced. The words were satisfied, and he thought most naturally, by
not suffering them to disturb the balance of the Federal Constitution,
for that is not the subject which the section where these words are used
is speaking of; but to consider them as giving to the Treaty-making
power the same paramount authority over the laws and constitutions of
the several States, that they give at the same time to the Constitution
and laws of the United States. The words appear to be introduced for the
express purpose of making the Constitution, laws, and Treaties of the
United States, paramount to the constitutions and laws of the several
States, and for no other purpose; this is all that the section appears
to be speaking of; it satisfies the words, is the most obvious and
natural meaning, and leaves the other parts of the constitution
harmonious and undisturbed. As to the words "power to make Treaties," it
was more difficult to ascertain precisely what the constitution meant to
give by them. It had been argued that from the nature of governmental
powers, the Treaty-making power must be paramount, and from the nature
of contract it must be paramount. The truth is, the Treaty-making power
must be what the constitution has made it. He did not hesitate to say,
that the most natural meaning to give these words, was to consider them
as borrowed from former use, and to give them the meaning which they had
always before given them. Gentlemen had said that nothing useful could
be derived from English books and explanations on these terms. This
seemed to him an unreasonable assertion. It might as well be said that
they could not use an English Dictionary to ascertain the meaning of
words. In many sciences, said he, there are definite and appropriate
phrases as well as definite and appropriate words; and, in fact, books
which are dictionaries of phrases, ascertain the meaning of phrases with
as much precision as dictionaries ascertain the meaning of words. It is
exceedingly useful that it should be so. When such a precise meaning is
fixed to a phrase, and publicly known, it is apt to remain a long time
exact, as it is frequently employed, and is very useful as a medium of
certainty. Many instances of this kind might be quoted, particularly
from English books on law and government. He would observe further,
these appropriate phrases had been for their certainty in many instances
transferred into our constitution, and their meaning must be manifestly
sought in those sources as in a dictionary. One remarkable instance
occurred to him, and which, from the singularity of its garb, would be
very discernible in the constitution--he meant the definition of treason
in the third section of the third article of the constitution. The
phrase is levying war, adhering to enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
These are the very words of the English books, which have been so
critically judged that they are not capable of the least variation in
their meaning on that tremendous subject; but this meaning is to be
sought from those sources; he might mention several instances, but it
was unnecessary. He thought the phrase, power to make Treaties, should
be ascertained in the same manner; and the English meaning, as it would
naturally be understood at the time of making the constitution, should
be affixed to it; that it should be considered as giving to the
PRESIDENT and two-thirds of the Senate the same kind of power as the
King of England possesses on the subject of Treaties, which it is known
is in several cases subject to the control of Parliament. Here it is
qualified by the powers specifically given to Congress.

Mr. HOLLAND said: It is with great diffidence I rise on this important
subject, to submit some considerations to this committee. As it has now
become a constitutional question, not with respect to the merits of the
Treaty, but with respect to the constitutional right of this House to
request the Executive to furnish us with papers that related to the
Treaty antecedent to its ratification.

To this it is objected that this House has no discretionary power over
the Treaty, and, on that account, has nothing to do with the papers.

The question is not whether the Treaty is a good or bad Treaty, but it
is whether we have a right to exercise our judgments upon it. Then,
without any regard to the Treaty, we must be governed by the rational
construction of the fundamental principles of government.

To illustrate which, it may be necessary to examine what has been
incident to the different kinds of government, according to the
histories of those nations governed by despotism, monarchs, or
republics; and from the Constitution of the United States as the
fundamental maxims of the Republic, draw that construction that is most
rational and natural.

It will also be proper to examine which of those governments preserves
the most power in the people.

First, then, of monarchy. Where has that power been placed? According to
the theory of the English Government it has been lodged in the
Sovereign, for it is there expressly said (nor has it been denied on
this floor) that the King is the source of all power; and it is also
expressly declared that the King of Great Britain has sovereign and
exclusive right to make Treaties. That, when they are made, they cannot
be impeded or annulled by any existing power in the kingdom. This is the
theory of that Government. But what has been the practice? I answer, the
contrary; for it ever has been that, when a Treaty was made, the same
has been submitted to the Parliament for concurrence; and Parliament, if
they thought proper, admitted and sometimes annulled them, as in the
Treaty of Utrecht, and sundry instances that the history of that nation
affords us. The English Government, therefore, is in practice what it is
not in theory. By the construction of the constitution, as contended
for, by giving uncontrollable power to twenty Senators and the
PRESIDENT, our Government will be in practice what the English
Government is in theory. If this doctrine had been believed, that this
was the true construction of the constitution, previous and at the time
of its adoption, would the people of the United States have adopted it?
If they had been informed that, by this instrument, they were ceding
more power to two-thirds of the Senators and PRESIDENT, than even could
be practised by the King of England, with his lords spiritual and
temporal, under that impression would they have ceded that power? Or, if
they had been told that the House of Representatives, under this
constitution, had less power than was exercised by the House of Commons
in England; that they would be less able to secure their liberties in
this country against the approaches of prerogative, would they have,
under that belief, accepted of this constitution? I think, Mr. Chairman,
I may venture to say they would not.

With respect to the more absolute government of France, where has this
power been lodged? In this, as in the monarchy of England, it was, in
theory, lodged in a prince; but the theory, even in that despotic
government, never could be carried into practice. According to
_Vattel_, in the Treaty made by Francis I., in the Treaty of Madrid, on
account of that Treaty encroaching on the fundamentals of their
government, it was set aside. How was this done? It was not done by
Parliament, for they had none; but the principal people of the kingdom
met together at Cogniac and annulled it. I ask again, Mr. Chairman, if
the people of this country possess less power than the people of that
despotic Government? Or do they possess less power to withstand the
usurpations of the Executive, on the subject of Treaties, in their
Representatives in Congress, than has ever been maintained in the
cramped situation of the people of England by the House of Commons?

Why were these rights ever maintained and so scrupulously attended to by
the people of those countries? It was because they considered them as
the palladium of their remaining liberty,--they therefore, would not let
them go.

Then, with respect to a Republic, the sovereign power is in the people.
It therefore follows that whatever can be effected by the people in
those countries can be done here--they being the source of power.

Then, with regard to the constitution, it must be construed naturally
and liberally in behalf of the people. Not as giving all power that can
be given, but as retaining all power and natural right that ought to be
retained. It would have been extremely improper to have wantonly
discarded natural privilege, or ceded more power than was essential to
government; nor was any more intended to be given.

The constitution, upon the face of it, shows that this is the
case--limits are prescribed to governmental power. Not so in the
countries spoken of, yet the people exercise it. But it is said our
constitution has not retained this privilege, and it is the law and the
testimony, sacred volume, &c. The sacredness depends upon the attention
to the principles that procured its adoption; when that is contravened a
violence is made upon the rights of the people. If, by any construction
that can be given, these rights can be preserved, it is wise to consider
it as the better opinion. But it is said to be impossible that this
power has been ceded, subject to no control, to the PRESIDENT and
two-thirds of the Senators present; that, whatever may be the practice
in other countries, it will not apply to this; that those countries have
no constitution, and that we have, and must be governed by it.
Unfortunate circumstance! why adopted? Was it wantonly to throw away a
privilege and natural right? Certainly not, but the contrary. It was to
secure natural right, and to establish a Republican form of Government.

I considered that the Executive had absolute power to make peace; as by
the constitution he is declared Commander-in-chief of all the armies,
his situation enabled him to be the best judge of the forces and of the
force he had to contend with, and as secrecy was necessary to effecting
a Treaty of Peace, that power was properly vested in him, guarded by
two-thirds of the Senate. But a Treaty of Commerce presupposes an
existing peace, and in those Treaties secrecy is not essential; but a
competent knowledge of the produce of the respective States in all their
remote situations was necessary; which would be best obtained by an
association of the three branches of Government.

This is a Treaty of Commerce, and therefore has involved Legislative
objects. It consequently requires Legislative sanction; a contrary
construction would be a violation of the constitution and of the
principles upon which it was adopted, and therefore a violation of the
rights of the people.

I confess, on viewing the exception and force of the argument, that I
had some doubt, that when the government became old and corrupt, that
this perversion might be attempted; but had no idea that in the course
of six years it would be contended for.

Mr. BRADBURY observed, that the most plausible reason that he had heard
in support of the resolution under the consideration of the committee
resulted from a principle advanced by a member from Pennsylvania, who
spoke upon the subject last week. The principle was this; that where any
articles of a Treaty were repugnant to prior existing acts of Congress,
those acts must first be repealed by Congress before such Treaty can
become the law of the land; and it was said some of the articles of the
British Treaty were of this nature. He would not stay to examine the
truth of the fact, for admitting it to be true, he altogether denied the
principle; but yet he acknowledged that if it could be made out, it
would afford the best reason yet given for calling for the papers. If
their concurrence was necessary to give existence or legality to the
Treaty, he saw not why they ought not to be favored with the papers as
well as the Senate. But he asserted and would endeavor to prove, that
the Treaty has already a legal existence; that it is now the law of the
land; and that, therefore, no act of Congress is, or can be, necessary
to make it so; and, therefore, that House could have no need of the
papers, nor any right to call for them on that ground.

That the Treaty had already become the law of the land, and that no
Legislative act of Congress was necessary to make it so, he argued
wholly from the constitution itself, by which alone the question must at
last be determined.

That instrument expressly declares, that all Treaties made under the
authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. He
laid no stress upon the word supreme, admitting for argument's sake,
that the supremacy ascribed to the constitution and laws, and Treaties
made under it, meant a supremacy over the constitution and laws of
individual States. All he asked to be granted him, and which he thought
could not be denied, was that a Treaty made under the authority of the
United States was the law of the land. If so, then all that needed to be
proved was, that a Treaty made by the PRESIDENT, with the advice and
consent of two-thirds of the Senate, was a Treaty made under the
authority of the United States. And to prove that, he needed only to
mention another clause in the constitution, which expressly declares
that the PRESIDENT, with such advice and consent, shall have power to
make Treaties.

He nowhere read in the constitution that any act of Congress, in any
possible case, was necessary to make a Treaty, so as that without it
such Treaty could not be the law of the land. He nowhere read that prior
acts of Congress repugnant to a Treaty must first be repealed before a
Treaty could be a law.

But, says the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the same Treaty power is
given to the King by the Constitution and laws of England, that is given
to the PRESIDENT by our constitution, and yet the Parliament have the
power there which he contends for in favor of Congress here; that is,
they must repeal prior laws repugnant to a new Treaty, before it can be
the law of the land; and why is not an act of Congress, it is asked,
necessary for the same purpose, in a similar case here? He would answer,
because our constitution is different from the British in this respect:
it declares that a Treaty made under the authority of the United States,
(and he had shown that a Treaty made by the PRESIDENT, as aforesaid, was
made under such authority,) is the law of the land, and if it is a law,
nothing further can be requisite to make it so. There was no such
declaration in the Constitution and laws of England.

There was no arguing from the power of Parliament to the power of
Congress. The Parliament must have controlled this Treaty power of the
King, and stripped him of his prerogative, by use and custom. There had
been in England a constant struggle between power and privilege; the
prerogatives of the King were not founded in the grant of the people;
they were founded on force, on the right of conquest; whatever,
therefore, was gained from the King by the Commons, was considered as so
much gained by the people from an adverse power.

If the PRESIDENT were an hereditary monarch, deriving his power from his
predecessors by descent, a power originally founded in conquest,
Congress would do well to get as much of it out of his hands as they
could. It would here be, as it was there, a struggle between prerogative
and privilege; it would be the people against the King. But as this was
not the case, and as Congress never had in fact assumed and exercised
the power of confirming, by an act of theirs, Treaties made by the
PRESIDENT, this argument from analogy wholly failed.

Suppose the Parliament of Great Britain should pass a law expressly
delegating the Treaty-making power to the King, with the advice and
consent of two-thirds of his Privy Council, and should declare in the
act, that a Treaty made under such authority should be the supreme law
of the land. They claim a right to make such a law, for Judge
_Blackstone_ affirms, that the denial of a power in every government,
even to alter every part of its constitution, is the height of political
absurdity; and in England, he expressly ascribes this power to
Parliament.

What would be the effect of such an act of Parliament? Would not a
Treaty made under it be clearly the law of England? and would not all
acts of Parliament, prior and repugnant to it, be repealed by it? He was
clearly of opinion they would; and this clause, he said, was inserted in
the American Constitution, probably to guard against that very
construction which is now endeavored to be put upon the Treaty power; on
purpose to cut off all pretence of a power in Congress to control a
Treaty, by refusing to repeal any prior laws that might stand in the way
of it.

But, said the same gentleman, shall a British House of Commons have this
right of controlling the Treaty-making power, and shall it be denied to
the Representatives of a free people? He answered, the PRESIDENT and
Senate of the United States were as much the Representatives of a free
people as that House was; they were as truly, though not so immediately,
chosen by the people as they were. The people distributed their powers
as they pleased. The PRESIDENT, said he, represents the people as their
Executive agent, and is possessed of all Executive power, and the power
of making Treaties. The true question, then, was, shall one constituted
representative authority usurp the power and control the acts assigned
by the constitution to another representative authority of the same free
people? They certainly ought not. If they should attempt it, it would be
opposing one authority of the people to another. It would be dividing a
free people against itself. But he hoped he had said enough to show the
unsoundness of that principle, and fully to establish what he first
undertook to prove, that the Treaty was already completed; that it was
already the law of the land; and that it did, by its own force, repeal
all prior laws, if there were any standing in the way of it; and if so,
they could have no need of the papers to assist them in making it a law.
It had also been laid by the King before his Parliament, and he supposed
the necessary appropriations had been made to carry it into effect. He
did not know that any other Parliamentary provision was necessary.

But it may be said, that it is fit and proper that they should call for
the papers mentioned in the resolution, even if the Treaty were law,
because appropriations by act of Congress would be necessary to carry it
into effect, and they ought to have the papers to judge whether it be
fit for them to make those appropriations.

He answered, whether that be fit or not, in his opinion, must depend
wholly upon the Treaty or law itself, and upon nothing out of it. It
was like all other laws requiring appropriations, in making which they
must be governed by a sound and legal discretion, and that discretion
must be governed by the instrument itself.

Even if a question should arise and be proper for the discussion of that
House, on the constitutionality of the Treaty, yet that question must be
decided by the Treaty itself, and by nothing else; and there could be no
need of any papers for that purpose. If general information were the
object, to allay the public sensibility, he should think the better way
would be to request the PRESIDENT to publish the papers in all the
newspapers throughout the United States. But he believed he must be
considered as the best judge in that matter. He would only add, that the
correspondence between their Envoy and the British Minister was, in its
nature, secret and confidential. It was communicated to the Senate
because they were a part of the Treaty-making power, which the House was
not; but even to them it was communicated in confidence. A request to
the PRESIDENT, said he, to communicate these papers, amounts to a
requirement; but there can be no right to require where there is no
obligation to obey.

Mr. PAGE spoke as follows: I confess, sir, that I had wished that this
House, instead of asking the PRESIDENT for information respecting the
negotiation and ratification of the Treaty, at this late day of its
session, had given him, as soon as possible after its meeting, fully
their opinions, and that of their constituents, respecting the Treaty
itself. But, as time has been afforded for deliberation, and the House
has waited most patiently and respectfully till the PRESIDENT could
"place the subject before them," according to his promise in his Address
to Congress, I think they have shown a spirit of moderation which
deserves credit. The friends of the Treaty cannot complain that it has
been hastily and rudely attacked, and should not object to the request
which is proposed to be made to the PRESIDENT, to furnish a statement of
facts which, from what has been said elsewhere, may be supposed
sufficient to silence the most clamorous opposers of the Treaty.

I think that the Treaty is constitutional, as far as relates to the
powers of the contracting parties to make Treaties; and is
constitutional and valid, also, as far as relates to that part of it
which gives it the name of a Treaty of Amity, and which might be in a
separate and distinct Treaty by itself; for the PRESIDENT, by and with
the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senators present, has an
undoubted authority, under the express words in the first article of the
constitution, to make Treaties. And I have no doubt that the Treaties
which were in the view of the framers of that article, must have been
principally Treaties of Peace, of Amity, of Neutrality, or of Alliance.
This is the more probable, as the first and principal Treaties in which
nations were concerned, were Treaties of Peace, or Treaties to secure
the blessings of peace; and it is certain that the Treaty of Peace with
Great Britain was the very Treaty which gave rise to the declaration of
the constitution, that all Treaties made and to be made by the authority
of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land: for the
Treaty of Peace with Great Britain was said to be in a state of
inexecution on account of an obstruction thrown in the way by the laws
of certain States. This article, therefore, was intended to remove all
obstacles, which had arisen or might arise from State Legislatures, and
might, I will here remark, as easily have been extended to remove all
obstructions from the General Legislature by adding to the words "any
Constitution or law of the States," these words, "or the Constitution or
laws of the United States notwithstanding." The power to make Treaties
of Commerce and Navigation, I humbly conceive, could scarcely be within
the view and design of the Convention, at least not as a primary object,
when they formed the article respecting Treaties; because they knew,
that the extent, situation, population, and productions of the United
States, were such as would command them a sufficient share of the
commerce of the world, without the aid of Commercial Treaties. They knew
that almost all Europe stood in need of their productions, and that
Great Britain and her islands could scarcely exist without them; they
knew more, they knew this, sir, that the almost universal belief of
their constituents, that giving a power to Congress to regulate
commerce, which would answer every purpose of Commercial Treaties, gave
existence to the very powers under which they were acting at the moment
they framed that article. This mode of regulating commerce was favored
by the opinion of the people, who celebrated the adoption of the
constitution with so much exultation and expensive parade in the great
commercial cities of the United States. They had no doubt that the new
Congress would use the power with which it was invested, so as to oblige
Great Britain to open her ports to them in the West Indies, and to put
their trade with them upon a more equitable and stable footing. Indeed,
sir, the people thought, as associations not to import certain articles
from Great Britain, entered into by them when they were poor helpless
Colonists, with halters about their necks, repealed the Stamp act, that
acts of Congress regulating commerce, so as to retaliate on Great
Britain, would at least prevent the enacting of the law by which the
British King was authorized to regulate the commerce of the United
States with Great Britain and her Islands.

I acknowledge, sir, that whenever a Treaty is to be made, the PRESIDENT
and Senate are the proper agents to make it. I think it an excellence in
our constitution that the PRESIDENT and Senate, though not allowed to
declare war, have authority to put a stop to its horrors. This is a
wise provision against the injury which the pride and ambition of the
larger States might do to the smaller, by continuing a war. But I cannot
conceive that when Congress is authorized to make all laws necessary and
proper to carry into effect all the powers granted by the constitution,
the Treaty-making power as well as others, and are to provide for the
general welfare, which is not confided to the PRESIDENT and Senate, nor
can be intrusted to them alone by the people upon any principle which
has ever had weight in the formation of a Republican Government,--I
cannot conceive, I say, that as this is the case, and the House of
Representatives is composed of members proportioned to a certain ratio
of the number of persons to be represented, and has the sole right to
originate money bills, how it can possibly be supposed that the
PRESIDENT and Senate, without their concurrence, can make regulations of
commerce, which may be injurious to the general welfare, ruinous to the
commerce of certain, and even the largest, States; and by a Treaty, too,
which may, moreover, deprive that House, which, by the supposition of
those who have defended the Treaty is at least a Committee of Ways and
Means, (and, indeed, nothing more,) of the resources of revenue to
which, by the constitution, they might have recourse.

But we are told, sir, that the power given to Congress by the
constitution to regulate commerce cannot extend to that regulation which
depends upon the will of a foreign nation or government, and which can
only be regulated by compact, or by the Treaty-making or pactitious
powers. Granting that this assertion be true, which, however, may be
denied, as the general belief which I have alluded to, and on which the
existence of the present Government was founded, seemed to contradict
it; for it was almost universally believed that an act of Congress
regulating the commerce of the United States with Great Britain, as had
been proposed to the former Congress, or Congress under the
Confederation, or as proposed to this House on the 3d of January, 1794,
and well known by the name of MADISON's propositions, or as proposed by
Mr. CLARK, 7th April, 1794, would have brought about a more advantageous
commercial intercourse with Great Britain than any direct negotiation
with the British Minister. It was thought highly probable that the
Parliament of Great Britain would (if any of these propositions had been
adopted by Congress) have refused to have renewed their act, by which
the trade with these United States (as if they were more degraded than
Colonies) was regulated by the King's Proclamation. I say, granting,
however, that assertion to be true, how does it prove, or what other
assertion can prove, that Congress has not a right, under the express
words of the constitution, which declares that it shall have power to
regulate commerce with foreign nations, to be a party to that compact,
or to have some share, either previously or subsequently, in the
Treaty-making business, when it regulates the commerce of the United
States with foreign powers?

I may agree that a Treaty is necessary to establish a commercial
intercourse between two nations, to their mutual advantage and
satisfaction, but I must affirm, that as that Treaty would be a
commercial regulation, and as Congress is expressly empowered by the
constitution to regulate commerce, whenever such Treaty shall be made
between the United States and any other nation, Congress must either
direct that the negotiation be commenced upon conditions approved, or
sanction the ratification of such Treaty by some act showing that the
regulation of commerce, by the Treaty, was made by the authority of
Congress, in conformity to the constitution.

Besides, sir, if the PRESIDENT and Senate can regulate the commerce of
the United States with one nation, they can with all nations, and if
they can with all, what nation can there be with whom Congress can
regulate commerce? This argument, therefore, must fall to the ground. We
are told, however, that the Treaty-making power, from its nature, is
competent to all the objects at least of the Treaty under consideration,
and is not to be controlled or checked by this House. Let me examine
this assertion. If this be true, sir, we find that although the British
King, from whose tyranny we revolted, cannot force upon his subjects,
against the will of their Representatives, a Treaty, which it is
acknowledged, too, he has a right to make, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES can, by his Proclamation, force upon the people who are his
constituents a Treaty which their direct Representatives wish to
suspend, alter, or annul. Can this possibly be a true construction of
the Treaty-making power? Surely it cannot. If it be true, then, can the
PRESIDENT repeal, as he has by the Treaty, the laws of Congress,
although by the constitution he cannot negative them? He can oblige
Congress to levy taxes; can withdraw impost and tonnage from their
reach; prohibit the exportation of sundry articles, the produce of the
United States, although the constitution forbids, the Senate and
Representatives concurring, to lay the smallest duty on the exportation
of any article; he can create offices and annex salaries thereto;
destroy the rights of this House; provoke war; in short, he can do any
thing; but this we are sworn to deny. The absurdity of that
construction, then, must be evident, and the recollection of our oaths
to support the constitution, of which we have been reminded, must force
us to revolt at the thoughts of adopting such a monstrous construction
of the constitution. We are reminded also of the PRESIDENT's
Proclamation. I will attend to it. I look upon it as a proper
notification of the ratification of the Treaty of Amity with Great
Britain, but it can have no effect on the Treaty of Commerce and
Navigation, till sanctioned by the votes of Congress. The evacuation of
the posts on our frontiers held by the British, if intended in
consequence of the Treaty of Amity, ought to take place, or if in
conformity to the Treaty of Peace; but, if intended as a compliance with
conditions annexed to the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, good faith
requires that they ought not to be evacuated until the final adjustment
of the differences which may arise in the course of the discussion of
the merits of that Treaty, and this with me is one reason why I wish for
information from the PRESIDENT respecting the Treaty. I confess too,
sir, that I wish for a full and free conference with the Senate on the
important subject of the Treaty.

Mr. BOURNE said he would have given a silent vote on this question, had
it not have been for some strange doctrines which had been asserted, for
he did not consider the question in itself as necessarily involving any
constitutional question. The doctrine, that the formal assent of the
House of Representatives was essential to the legal existence of a
Treaty, struck him as a perfect novelty. That the PRESIDENT and Senate
had power under the constitution to make Treaties, and that these
Treaties were the laws of the land, he had never heard denied until this
debate. It was true he had heard it said, that the House might control
the PRESIDENT and Senate in the exercise of this power, by refusing to
carry Treaties into effect by withholding appropriations of money; but
he did not expect to hear the assertion, that the ratification of the
House was necessary to a Treaty, before it became the law of the land.

As a Representative of a small State, he felt himself much interested in
opposing the doctrine contended for. Under the former Confederation
Rhode Island had an equal vote with any State in the making of Treaties.
This right was thought to have been fully preserved under the present
constitution. But, if the sentiments he was combating prevailed, the
small States would be deprived of one of their most essential rights;
for the power of making Treaties, as one of the principal rights of
sovereignty, was vested in all the States separately when they became
independent, was afterwards, and in the old Confederation, vested in
Congress, each State having an equal vote. It was now, in his opinion,
exclusively vested in the PRESIDENT and Senate, in which body the great
and small States had the same equality of suffrage. The opinion which he
advanced was not merely the opinion of Rhode Island when the
constitution was adopted. A gentleman from Massachusetts had already
shown from the debates of the Virginia Convention, that that Assembly
entertained the same opinion. He was sure the opinion prevailed in the
Convention of Massachusetts--he had attended their debates when this
part of the constitution was the subject of discussion. Objections were
raised against it, from the indefiniteness of the power vested in the
PRESIDENT and Senate of making Treaties. No one suggested that the House
of Representatives had any control over, much less a participation in
this power. It was urged, from the nature of the power, that it ought
to be placed where it was--in the PRESIDENT and Senate. The Senate
represented the sovereignty of the States; besides, from their small
numbers, they were better adapted to the exercise of this power in
respect to secrecy and despatch, necessary in negotiations. Objections
were raised on the ground of the possible abuses to which the power of
making Treaties, unlimited and undefined as it was, might be carried. No
one said the PRESIDENT and Senate did not possess the power, nor was it
pretended that Congress had any power to control it.

He then called the attention of the committee to the debates of the
Convention of North Carolina. He had been a little surprised to hear a
member from that State yesterday say he was a member of the Convention,
and that it was understood that Congress could control the PRESIDENT and
Senate in making Treaties, so far as respected commerce; the power of
legislating on commercial regulations being given to Congress. What
created his surprise was, that he had read the debates of the first
Convention, and found no such sentiment. The gentleman had explained
himself by saying, there was a second Convention called in that State,
of which he was a member, and there the doctrine alluded to had been
advanced. The debates of this Convention Mr. B. had not seen.

Mr. BRENT said he should not in the present debate touch on the merits
of the Treaty, which he conceived foreign to this question. On a motion
to ask for papers with respect to the Treaty, he did not conceive with
what propriety the fitness of the instrument could be brought into view.

The turn which the debate had taken had given rise, he said, to an
important constitutional question; he did not believe its decision of
consequence to the decision on the present motion; but as the debate had
taken that turn, he should pursue the same road in answer to the
arguments of gentlemen. He laid this down as a sound inference from the
provisions of the constitution on the subject of the Treaty power: that
the PRESIDENT and Senate possess the right of forming Treaties, and of
carrying on the necessary negotiations with foreign countries; but when
these contain stipulations bearing a relation to the specific power
vested in the Legislature, the House had a right to take cognizance of
it, and such a Treaty could not become the supreme law of the land until
sanctioned by the Legislature. To show the justness of this position, he
should examine this subject, he said, in a threefold light. He should
examine it by a recurrence to the words of the constitution; then to the
opinions which prevailed as to its meaning at the time it was framed and
adopted; and, lastly, he should examine what construction was best
calculated to preserve the liberties of this country.

The constitution contains two clauses in reference to the Treaty-making
power. The first declares that the PRESIDENT, with two-thirds of the
Senate, shall have power to make Treaties. He proceeded to inquire
whether this clause gives them the right to make Treaties the supreme
law of the land? To determine this it was necessary to examine the
import of the word in those countries where the Treaty power had been
frequently exercised, and to consult the opinions of the best civilians.
The general power of making Treaties is under the control of the
constitution. In despotic countries, where all power, Legislative,
judicial, and Executive, is in the hands of one person, there the
Treaty-making power is without control, and a Treaty as soon as made
becomes, _ipso facto_, the supreme law of the land; but in all limited
governments, the Treaty power is subject to the limitations in the
constitution. The practice of this principle may be found even in the
British Government. There, though the King originates Treaties, as the
PRESIDENT and Senate do here, they do not become the supreme law of the
land, respecting Legislative subjects, until the co-operation of
Parliament is obtained. Thus the power of making Treaties does not imply
the power of making those Treaties in all cases the supreme law of the
land. If the Executive make a Treaty involving none but Executive powers
strictly, then it becomes immediately the supreme law; but if they
contain provisions, which involve the Legislative authority, the
Executive can make them but conditionally, and they do not become
supreme until the Legislature choose to make them so. The British
Government furnishes an example where this doctrine has been practised,
and it is by a reference to the practice of despotic Governments, that
the mistaken idea is taken up that all Treaties, as soon as made, become
the supreme law of the land. The clause in our constitution, he
concluded, does not give authority to the PRESIDENT and Senate to make a
supreme law of the land.

When this clause of the constitution is compared with the other parts of
it, it will be found, he said, that the above interpretation is just;
for the Treaty-making power is delegated as a general power, while to
Congress specific powers are granted. The rational and admitted rule of
construction in these cases is, that specific power restrains general
powers; and here, then, the general Treaty power must be restrained by
the specific powers of Congress. He admitted that the Executive had full
power, under the general authority vested in them by the constitution,
to originate Treaties and to carry on negotiations with foreign powers;
but that if the provisions of a Treaty so negotiated clashed with
specific powers granted, the authority exercising those specific powers
must give it their sanction before it becomes the supreme law of the
land.

He next turned to the second clause of the constitution respecting
Treaties, which had been noticed in the debate. It says, that the
constitution, laws, and Treaties, shall be the supreme law of the land;
and gentlemen contend, he remarked, that though the first clause does
not make the Treaties entered into by the Executive the supreme law of
the land, yet that this does; but its obvious and only meaning, when the
whole of it is taken into view, is, that the Constitution, laws, and
Treaties of the United States, are only meant to be declared supreme to
constitutions and laws of the individual States. It is admitted, as a
sound rule of construction, that to discover the true meaning of any
instrument, it is fair to have recourse to the existing circumstances
that produced it. When the constitution was formed, it was under a
strong impression of the inconveniences experienced under the
Confederation, when great obstruction was thrown in the way of the
Treaty power, by the States refusing to carry into execution those
agreed to by the constitutional authority. This was the evil the framers
of the constitution had in view when they inserted this clause, and it
has no relation to the powers of the General Government, which stand
precisely in the same situation with or without it. It does not declare
that Treaties shall abrogate laws, but that the States shall not have it
in their power to throw impediments in the way of their execution. The
words of the constitution cannot be understood otherwise than that the
constitution, laws, and Treaties, shall exist together; it does not say
that a Treaty shall repeal a law, or a law repeal a treaty. Then the
constitution certainly contemplated that they never should be in
opposition, for contradictory and opposing laws cannot exist at the same
time; if they exist at the same time, they cannot be in opposition to
each other. If it can be supposed that the PRESIDENT and Senate can make
a Treaty in opposition to a law of the Legislature, and yet both the
Treaty and the law be at the same time the supreme law of the land, an
absurdity is supposed. But if it be admitted that the House shall have a
participation in the business of Treaties, in cases which involve the
Legislative authority, then the words of the constitution become
intelligible, and both Treaties and laws may be at the same time the
supreme law of the land.

Gentlemen say, that Treaties, _ipso facto_, repeal anterior laws
clashing with their provisions: they say, that the constitution, laws,
and Treaties, stand upon the same footing in the constitution, being all
declared the supreme law of the land. If Treaties can repeal laws, then
laws can repeal the constitution, for the second (laws) are to the first
(constitution) what the third (Treaties) are to the second (laws); then,
also, by parity of reasoning, Treaties may repeal the constitution. If
all stand on the same footing, and the precedence is according to the
point of time, the last always prevailing, then Treaties may change the
fundamental principles of our Government; then the PRESIDENT and Senate,
by entering into stipulations with a foreign government, may give us a
monarchy, may convert our PRESIDENT into a king, and our Senate into a
nobility; for, say the gentlemen, Treaties are the law of the land as
well as the constitution, and a subsequent law repeals those which are
anterior. But these positions are false in all their parts; a law or a
Treaty cannot repeal the constitution, nor can a Treaty repeal a law. If
the manner in which the three words are placed in the constitution is to
have any force, it would not favor the construction of the gentlemen;
they contend for the supremacy of Treaties, whereas Treaties are last
named, and the true construction from this source would be the reverse,
when there was clashing. He next adverted to the lengths to which the
mode of interpretation contended for by the gentlemen would carry them.
It was never intended, he asserted, by the people, when they instituted
this Government, that the Treaty power should possess this omnipotence.
It was never intended that the PRESIDENT and Senate should have it in
their power to effect a radical change in our Government, and stipulate
with a foreign nation for a guarantee of the change. Laws contrary to
the constitution are nugatory, and Treaties contrary to existing laws,
the same; because, when in that stage, they are not concluded under the
authority of the United States, but are only so (and then there is no
longer any clashing) when once they have received the sanction of the
Legislature. From the above, he concluded that the PRESIDENT and Senate
originate Treaties, and that the Legislature to a certain extent should
exercise a check upon this power. And upon these principles the British
Treaty is not the supreme law of the land until a decision on it was had
in the Legislature.

Mr. FINDLAY.--It seems to be agreed by both parties that the express
words of the constitution will not support either position without a
liberty of construction. The difference of opinion is now confined to
what construction is most agreeable to the general principles of the
constitution.

That the construction which gives the fullest scope to all the powers
vested in the different departments of the Government, and which, by
combining their operation, is the best calculated for the preservation
of the Government itself, offers fairest to be the true one, cannot
reasonably be doubted.

The Legislative powers, to regulate commerce with foreign nations, to
levy taxes, appropriate money, &c., are specifically vested in Congress,
and as deposited in the Legislature, are secured by numerous negative
checks, declaring what things Congress shall not do, and guards
regulating the manner in which it shall exercise its powers on the
proper subjects.

The Treaty-making power is not vested in Congress; the negotiating part
of making Treaties is partly of an Executive nature, and can be most
conveniently exercised by that department, and is, therefore, vested in
the PRESIDENT and Senate. The PRESIDENT shall have the power to make
Treaties, two-thirds of the Senate agreeing therewith.

Even the power of negotiating, which includes the timing of Treaties,
the appointment of Envoys, and instructing them, and approving of
Treaties, so far as to present them for ratification, are powers of
great importance, and may put the Government in such circumstances as to
render it expedient to ratify a Treaty, which, if it had not been agreed
to by the negotiating agents, it would have rejected--are powers of
great importance of themselves; but it is acknowledged that more than
this is vested by the constitution in the Treaty-making powers.

The power of making treaties is admitted to be so extensive as to
embrace all subjects arising under the law of nations, for securing
amity and friendship betwixt nations, and for the mutual protection of
the citizens in their correspondence with each other. Authority for this
purpose is not vested in Congress among the enumerated powers, but
expressly given to the PRESIDENT and Senate; therefore, Treaties to this
extent, ratified under their authority, are the laws of the land,
according to the constitution.

The powers specifically vested in Congress are so explicitly checked and
guarded as to form an unequivocal limitation to the Treaty-making power,
when it extends to powers specifically vested in the Legislature,
consisting of the Senate and House of Representatives, with the
approbation of the PRESIDENT.

The Legislature cannot transfer its essential powers, nor evade them;
the exercise of its privileges it may dispense with, but if it may
dispense with or transfer any one Legislative power, it may, on the same
principle, dispense with or transfer every power with which it is
vested, and for the exercise of which the Legislature only are
responsible.

The Executive cannot assume or exercise any power expressly vested in
the Legislature. If the Executive may, by an extension of the
Treaty-making power, regulate commerce, make laws to raise and
appropriate money, &c., or, which is the same thing, command laws to be
made for carrying Treaties, which interfere with the Legislative powers,
into effect; or if, as is contended, the Legislature has no moral power
of discretion, no power to refuse to make laws to carry Treaties into
effect, or even to form an opinion on the goodness or badness of
Treaties, when they relate to powers explicitly intrusted to its
deliberation: on the same principle all Legislative discretion may be
exercised by the Treaty-making power without regard to the
constitutional guards provided to prevent the abuses of those powers.
For there is no Legislative power vested in Congress but what may be
either directly or indirectly exercised by the Treaty-making power.

If the Treaty-making power is admitted to the extent pleaded for, and
the specific powers vested in Congress are admitted in the extent in
which they are unequivocally expressed, we are reduced to a dilemma, and
the constitution is necessarily admitted to have instituted two
interfering Legislative authorities, acting in direct competition with
each other on the same subjects, and both making supreme laws of the
land; which though they may be nominally distinct, have the same effect
on the citizens, with this difference only, that we may be relieved from
the oppression of laws by a repeal of them, but cannot be relieved from
the hardships resulting from a Treaty, without the consent of another
nation.

In advocating the resolution before the committee, we admit a reasonable
latitude to both the Legislative and Treaty-making powers. Where the
Treaty-making power extends itself to express Legislative objects, and
where Legislative aid is absolutely necessary to carry the Treaty into
effect, we contend that the Legislature in making such laws, exercise
that moral power that is necessary for legislating in all other cases,
and are not reduced to the situation of an executive officer, or mere
treasurers of the United States. In this case, we say, that the powers
are not intended to make war with each other; that the departments ought
to concur in the exercise of them. This method preserves the exercise of
both powers in their proper places; the other destroys the Legislative
authority which is, by the constitution, the most explicitly vested, and
precisely guarded.

Mr. SMITH, of New Hampshire, said, he had not intended to have delivered
his sentiments on the question before the committee, but as he did not
fully agree in opinion with any gentleman who had spoken, it became
necessary for him to express the grounds of his opinion. This he would
do as briefly as possible.

As this question involved the constitutional powers of the House, he
viewed it as important; it was a delicate question. We were called upon
to decide as to our own powers. For these reasons he thought that the
discussion should be conducted with moderation, coolness, and candor;
that such a temper was most favorable to truth. However gentlemen might
differ, he observed, on other subjects, in this we are all agreed, that,
in forming our judgments on all such questions, the constitution must be
our sole guide. It was this instrument, he said, which defines the
powers given to the General Government, and which distributes these
powers among the several departments. If the constitution had not
assigned to each its peculiar portion of power, these departments, like
the original elements, would be engaged in a perpetual war for power.
All would be confusion, disorder, and anarchy. He proposed, in the first
place, to give what he conceived to be the true exposition of the
constitution, on the subject of Treaties in general. He should then, he
said, state as correctly as possible the exposition or construction of
the constitution contended for by the gentleman opposed to him. He
lamented that he could not do this with greater accuracy. The gentlemen
had not agreed among themselves. He could only state what seemed to be
the general current of opinion. The construction which he advocated was,
that, by the Constitution of the United States, the power of making
Treaties is exclusively vested in the PRESIDENT and two-thirds of the
Senate. That this power extends to all kinds of Treaties--of Peace, of
Alliance, of Amity, of Commerce and Navigation, and embraces all those
subjects, and comprehends all those objects, which can with propriety be
the subject of convention or compact between nations; that is, every
thing in which they have a mutual or common interest. That a compact so
made which does not change the constitution, and which does not palpably
and manifestly betray or sacrifice the private interests of the State,
(which is invalid on natural principles,) is binding on the nation
without any sanction on the part of the House of Representatives. That
such a Treaty is by the constitution paramount to the constitution and
laws of the several States; that the Judges in the several States are
bound to obey it. That it is by the reason and nature of the thing
paramount to a law of the United States, and abrogates and annuls all
pre-existing laws contrary to it, and, as long as it remains in force,
limits and restricts the power of the Legislature of the United States
to pass any laws in contravention of it. That, when such a Treaty
requires money to be provided, or rather Legislative acts to be
performed, it is the duty of the Legislature to provide and appropriate
the money in the same manner as it is their duty to provide and
appropriate money for the payment of our debts. That the nation must
judge whether it be constitutionally formed or not; whether the
stipulations contained in it be such as in good faith they are bound to
execute, and whether any circumstances have happened which would justify
a non-observance of it. That on these subjects they must exercise a
sound discretion. That neither the nation, nor any departments of the
Government, are at liberty to reject a Treaty merely because it is a
hard bargain.

The doctrine on the other side is--

That the power to make Treaties is limited to such objects as are not
comprehended and included in the specified powers given to Congress by
the constitution; or, that a Treaty which comprehends or embraces any
such object is not valid; that is, not the supreme law of the land,
until the House of Representatives have added their sanction to it; or,
if this be not admitted, that the House of Representatives, by the
theory of our constitution, have check on the Treaty-making power, in
providing and appropriating money necessary to carry a Treaty into
effect; which power, it is admitted on all hands, they possess; and thus
in this way control the doings of the PRESIDENT and Senate, and can
reject a Treaty, or at least certain parts of it. That they can and
ought to do this if they believe the Treaty to be a bad one, though not
injurious in an extreme, such as manifestly betraying or sacrificing the
private interest of the State, (which by the Law of Nations nullifies
such a compact,) and which on all hands would readily be admitted as a
sufficient cause for refusing to carry it into execution.

Mr. WILLIAM LYMAN began with remarking, that the gentlemen opposed to
the resolution had at first contended, that the House had not a
constitutional right to require papers of the Executive, relative to any
subject whatever; and that if a requisition was made, it would be
discretionary with the Executive, whether it should be complied with or
not.

To this he replied, that the House possessed the power of impeachment
solely, and that this authority certainly implied the right to inspect
every paper and transaction in any department, otherwise the power of
impeachment could never be exercised with any effect. But not to rely
solely on this, he recollected one case, he said, perfectly in point,
which was in the correspondence of the former Secretary of State (Mr.
JEFFERSON) with the British Minister, communicated to the House. From
dates and references, there appeared in that correspondence a chasm. The
House, therefore, passed a resolution requesting the Executive to lay
before them what had been omitted; and further, the resolution in that
case was offered by the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. SMITH,) who
was now so vehemently opposed to the present. The right of calling for
papers was sanctioned, he said, by the uniform and undeniable practice
of the House ever since the organization of the Government; they had
called for papers and information whenever it was judged expedient; and
he asserted, that the House had the fullest right to the possession of
any papers in the Executive department; they were constituted the
especial guardians of the people for that purpose; and he would
undertake to say, that this was the first time it had ever been
controverted.

In order to ascertain the powers of the House, he would advert to the
constitution. In the first article and first section, it was declared,
"that all Legislative powers therein granted, were vested in a Congress,
to consist of a Senate and House of Representatives;" and in the eighth
section of the same article, the powers granted were defined and
specified, such as to lay and collect taxes, borrow money, regulate
commerce, and to exercise other important powers enumerated in the
several clauses of that important section. He said it was unnecessary to
read them, as they had been so frequently referred to in the course of
the debate; but he would request gentlemen to pause and reflect whether
it could be supposed that this section was not to be efficacious and
operative; was it possibly conceivable that a section so definite and so
important had been introduced in the constitution merely for the purpose
of being nullified and rendered nugatory by a subsequent article or
section? The very supposition, he said, appeared to him the height of
absurdity, and an affront to common sense; and yet this would be the
case, if the doctrines advanced were true, viz: that Treaties, when made
and ratified by the PRESIDENT and Senate, were supreme law, and that
they controlled and repealed all laws that stood in their way. Congress
could neither regulate commerce, borrow money, prescribe rules of
naturalization, nor legislate on any other subject, because the
PRESIDENT and Senate, by Treaty, would abrogate them all. It was in vain
to consult the House of Representatives in the formation of laws, if
they thus were liable to be annulled at the pleasure of the PRESIDENT
and Senate. The present question, he said, was not, whether the House
should make Treaties, but whether the PRESIDENT and Senate should make
laws; all the power contended for on the part of the House was the power
of self-preservation; it was a repelling power, a power to prevent the
PRESIDENT and Senate, under the color of making Treaties, from making
all the laws. A gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. GRISWOLD) had said, that
the Legislative power occupied all ground, and was vested in Congress;
and that the Treaty-making power occupied all ground, and was vested in
the PRESIDENT and Senate; and that although Congress, who were the
agents for the people, should make laws, yet, that the PRESIDENT and
Senate, who were also their agents, might, by Treaty, repeal them. This,
Mr. L. said, contradicted a sound axiom, and one he had never before
heard controverted, viz: that it required the same power to repeal as to
make a law. Such incongruities as the gentleman had advanced, Mr. L.
said, could never be reduced to practice; two persons could not be
possessed fully and completely of the same thing and at the same time.
The gentleman could never reconcile his positions, the one would
certainly defeat the other; upon his construction, the Treaty-making
power must absorb the Legislative power, or the Legislative power would
absorb the Treaty-making power.

It appeared, therefore, to him, that constitutions, laws, and all
writings, ought to receive such interpretation and construction as to
render them consistent with themselves; and that it was highly
presumptive a construction was erroneous when it produced an absurd
conclusion. If the several parts of the constitution were compared and
critically examined, the determination must be, that, although the
PRESIDENT and Senate could make Treaties, yet it could not be intended,
those Treaties that entrenched on the specific Legislative powers of
Congress, unless with their concurrence and consent; otherwise, it
followed, that, although the three branches were consulted in the
enacting laws, two might repeal them. But it had been asserted that this
power, insisted upon on the part of the House, was a novel doctrine,
introduced merely upon the spur of the present occasion; notwithstanding
which, it had been proved by several gentlemen who had spoken upon the
question, that this interpretation was given to the constitution in most
of the State Conventions at the time of its adoption; that the same
interpretation had also been given, at that time, by the writers both
for and against its adoption. It had appeared, from the extracts of
publications at that period, that whatever might have been the diversity
of opinion in other respects relative to the constitution, that, in this
construction, at least, both its friends and opposers perfectly agreed.
This principle, then, being thus settled and understood, it remained
only to show that it had been invariably admitted and recognized from
the first organization of the Government until this time. The first
Treaty that had been made under this constitution, he said, was that
with the Creek Indians, in the year 1789; previously to the making of
which, the PRESIDENT communicated the subject to Congress; an extract
from which communication he would read, viz: "If it should be the
judgment of Congress, that it would be most expedient to terminate all
differences in the Southern district, and to lay the foundation for
future confidence by an amicable Treaty with the Indian tribes in that
quarter, I think proper to suggest," &c. Here, Mr. L. said, he wished it
might be particularly noticed, that this subject was expressly referred
to the judgment of Congress to determine on its expediency or
inexpediency, and for what purpose, he would ask, was it referred? If
the Senate and PRESIDENT possessed the full power of making Treaties,
there could be no occasion for consulting the House of Representatives;
and yet, in this case, the first that presented itself, it had been
conceived necessary. In consequence of this communication, Congress had
judged it expedient to hold the Treaty; and on the 20th of August, the
same year, enacted a law in which the sum of twenty thousand dollars was
appropriated for that purpose; and, in conformity thereto, the PRESIDENT
appointed Commissioners and gave them instructions, which instructions
had been also communicated to Congress, from which he would also read
one paragraph; it was as follows: "You will observe that the whole sum
that can be constitutionally expended for the proposed Treaty shall not
exceed twenty thousand dollars." On this, he said, any commentary was
unnecessary, as the principle that the Legislative power operated to
restrain the power of making Treaties, was so fully and explicitly
recognized and admitted by the PRESIDENT himself. By pushing inquiry
further, it would be found that, in January, 1790, in consequence of
communications from the Executive which were referred to a select
committee, and a report made thereon, the House came to the following
resolution, to wit: "That provision ought to be made by law for holding
a Treaty with the Wabash, Miami, and other Indian tribes north-west of
the river Ohio." In March following, a law was made, the title of which
was "An act entitled an act providing for holding a Treaty to establish
peace with certain Indian tribes."

In March, 1791, the sum of twenty thousand dollars was appropriated for
obtaining a recognition of the Treaty with the Emperor of Morocco. In
March, 1793, one hundred thousand dollars were appropriated to defray
the expense of a Treaty with the Indian tribes north-west of the river
Ohio.

Thus it was apparent that laws had always been deemed necessary to
provide for holding Treaties and for defraying the expenses thereof.[71]

MARCH 17.--In Committee of the Whole, on Mr. LIVINGSTON's resolution.

Mr. REED said, he saw no necessity for the papers referred to in the
resolution. If the constitutionality of the Treaty should be questioned,
or the propriety of making appropriations, these questions, he
conceived, must be determined by comparing the Treaty with the
constitution, and by attending to those stipulations contained in the
Treaty itself.

It was not his intention to have troubled the committee by speaking on
this occasion; but perceiving that some gentlemen, in the course of the
debate, had gone further into the opposite extremes than he was prepared
at present to follow them, he felt as if he ought to express his own
sentiments with regard to the constitutional rights of that House
relative to the Treaty in question. The Treaty was undoubtedly
negotiated, ratified, and promulgated by constitutional authority. The
PRESIDENT, with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate, was,
in his opinion, unquestionably that authority which the United States
had authorized to make Treaties. But still it seemed taken for granted
that some agency of that House, in its Legislative capacity, would be
needed in order to carry the aforesaid Treaty into effect. A question,
therefore, arose, viz: Was that House, in all such cases, bound and
obliged to put so implicit and absolute a confidence in the Executive or
in Treaties as would render it entirely unnecessary to have any opinion
of their own about them, or the probable consequences of their
operation? For his part, if he had never seen the Treaty in
contemplation, and were perfectly ignorant of its contents, or, if he
fully believed, as a citizen, that it was unconstitutional, or
calculated to ruin, or very materially injure the country, he should not
think himself justifiable in voting to appropriate money for the purpose
of carrying it into effect. It had been conceded by gentlemen that if a
Treaty were evidently unconstitutional, it would not be wrong to
withhold appropriations; and he conceived that a Treaty might possibly
be so injurious in its effects as to justify such a measure. Supposing
such a possible event should ever actually happen, did not the right of
refusing to legislate in support of the said Treaty involve the right of
previously examining all Treaties which need the aid of the Legislature,
and of judging for themselves whether it would be proper or improper to
make laws for the purpose of carrying them into effect?

In making Treaties the Executive would use his own discretion, keeping
within the limits prescribed for him by the constitution. In making laws
the Legislature must use their own discretion, always keeping within
those limits and bounds which the constitution had fixed for them. He
said, the discretionary right here contended for was not the right of
doing wrong; it was not the right of violating the constitution; it was
not the right of supporting a Treaty which ought to be defeated, nor of
defeating a Treaty which ought to be supported; but, simply the right of
judging for themselves, whether they ought, by their own act and deed,
in the character of Legislators, to appropriate by law such sums of
money as would be needed in order to support an existing Treaty, all
things and circumstances relating thereto being suitably examined and
properly considered. Perhaps it would be objected, that the constitution
nowhere expressly gave the Legislators that right. He answered, the
right was not precluded, but implied, and, in some respects, evidently
one of the original and essential rights of man; a law of nature, prior
and superior to all other laws; a law never to be transgressed in any
station whatsoever. Individuals, in many cases at least, had a right to
exercise their own discretion with respect to the propriety of
submitting to a civil law or of risking the penalty, the consequence of
disobedience; and, as a branch of the Legislature, he believed they had
a right to deliberate and consult, among other things, the expediency
and duty of making or of refusing to make appropriations, even in the
case of a Treaty. It appeared to him that, in legislating, the
Legislature should have this right of judging for themselves with
respect to the propriety of making or refusing to make any law
whatsoever. In most cases their duty would perhaps appear plain and
obvious, particularly in the case of appropriating money where a law or
Treaty actually existed. However, the obligation did not arise wholly
from the circumstance of an existing law, but partly from the nature,
reasonableness, and tendency of the thing itself.

A Treaty negotiated by constitutional authority was, he contended, a
solemn compact between two nations. It was an important consideration;
but he thought they might, with propriety, attend to other
considerations, for and against it, especially when their own aid was
required, in order to carry it fully into effect. This he conceived was
the right of the House, and no encroachment upon the prerogative of the
other branches. An appropriation was a specific sum, appropriated by a
particular law to a particular purpose.

The right of appropriating the public money was not a natural right, but
a right derived from the constitution; and the Legislature were to
exercise that right according to the honest dictates of their own best
discretion; excepting those instances in which they were expressly
restricted by the constitution itself, as in the cases of compensation
for the services of the President of the United States, and for the
services of the Judges. Congress might deliberate and act discretionally
in stating at first their salaries.

Mr. TRACY said, he felt a diffidence in giving his sentiments in that
House, which was much increased when he considered the ability with
which the question had already been discussed, and the length of time it
had consumed; but the magnitude of the question would justify him, in
his own opinion, for asking of the committee to indulge him with a small
portion of their time and attention.

This was the first time, since the adoption of the present Government,
that a discussion of the important constitutional question of the extent
of the Treaty-making power could have taken place, as it respected a
foreign nation; and, of course, would probably form a precedent for all
future inquiries of a similar nature.

The constitutional rights of the House of Representatives to interfere
with Treaties, might properly be considered in two points of view:

1. Had they a right to assist in the formation of Treaties in such a
manner as that a Treaty would be incomplete without their sanction
officially given? And,

2. Had they a right to refuse appropriations of moneys, (if necessary to
carry into effect some provisions in a Treaty,) and in that way defeat
its operation?

He acknowledged, if the first position could be supported, the right to
call for the papers would be conclusive; but, he contended, they could
not be wanted on the latter ground.

If the constitution was examined, it would be found the Treaty-making
power was given to the PRESIDENT; and no interference, or right given to
any other men or body of men but to two-thirds of the Senate, and that
by way of consent or advice. Could it be pretended there was a shadow of
authority given to the House of Representatives?

In the constitution it is said, "all Legislative powers herein granted
shall be vested in a Congress," &c. Would it be pretended, had the
constitution gone no further, that the then thirteen independent
sovereign States, by that part of it, had parted with the Treaty-making
power? No! they reserved a great share of Legislative power to
themselves, and delegated it to Congress only in certain cases, best
calculated, in their opinions, to advance their own happiness; and
unquestionably reserved every right, power, and sovereignty, which they
did not expressly give away by the constitution itself. The powers of
legislation are the powers of making statutes in all cases respecting
men and things within the jurisdiction of the Legislature; but it could
by no means in its nature comprehend the Treaty-making power, which is
the power of contracting or making bargains in the name of a nation, as
a moral person, with another nation or moral person, for their mutual
benefit, and to be binding and operative on them, as parties to the
contract or bargain. And although this had binding force on the nation,
when once formed and completed, yet it was not a Legislative act. But
the constitution went further: it had actually designated the PRESIDENT,
with the advice of the Senate, to be a Plenipotentiary for the formation
of Treaties. _Vattel_, page 179, speaking of the various customs of
nations, in the deposit of this power, says:

      "All conductors of States (meaning the Executives) have not
      the powers, of themselves, of making public Treaties: some
      are obliged to take the advice of a Senate, or of the
      Representatives of a nation. In the fundamental laws of
      each State we must see what is the power of contracting,
      with validity, in the name of a State."

He supposed, by "fundamental laws," _Vattel_ must mean the constitution
of a State; if so, it will not follow that the supreme Legislative or
Executive power of a State, as such, have necessarily the power of
making Treaties; it might be, and in most countries was, an object of
precise delegation, and probably always, or certainly more commonly,
given to the Executive. This constitution had precisely given it to the
Executive, subjoining the advice and consent of the Senate; and in this
particular, and in no other, had the individual sovereignties delegated
all their power without limitation. It was necessary and proper this
power should be lodged somewhere, and equally necessary it should be
entire and unlimited, to meet every exigency that the welfare of the
nation might require. It had been said, that general expressions of
power would be limited by specific: this was a general truth, but he
denied the application which had been attempted. It was said, the
Treaty-making power is a general power; the Congress has a specific
power to regulate commerce, &c. Of course, the specific power to
regulate commerce will check the operation of a Treaty of a commercial
nature. He said this part of the subject had been so ably and
conclusively managed by a gentleman from New Hampshire, yesterday, (Mr.
SMITH,) that he would not exhaust the patience of the committee by going
over the same ground. He would however observe, that by the common rule
of construction, all the powers given to the PRESIDENT which could, and
in their nature would, check or operate on legislation, must be
considered as a specific portion of power carved out of the general
power given in the former part of the instrument. The general powers of
legislation first given to Congress, and in the next place specific
powers given to the PRESIDENT, could not fail to lead the mind directly
to such a construction. "All Legislative powers, &c., are vested in a
Congress," but the PRESIDENT has a qualified and specific check. Power
to regulate commerce with foreign nations is vested in Congress, yet the
specific power of contracting, bargaining, or making a Treaty, is, so
far forth as it may touch Legislative points, a specific check upon it.
Yet he acknowledged this was not his chief reliance. The nature of the
case was such, that whatever internal regulations, or those relating to
external and foreign commercial subjects, which may have become objects
of Legislative attention, oppose or come in competition with a contract
or bargain about the same things, must give way. It does not exclude
legislation from the object of foreign commerce, but establishes certain
points within which it shall operate, and which it cannot violate. The
thirteen sovereignties possessing all the power, gave to Congress a
certain portion of Legislative authority; but they certainly could give
to the Executive, or any other body, the power to make Treaties. This he
contended they had done, by the words of the constitution, in an
unlimited manner.

It had been said, that the constitution was similar to that of Great
Britain in the part respecting Treaties. This, he contended, was an
incorrect statement: in his opinion they were very different. The
constitution of Great Britain was formed almost entirely of usages. It
had been, for a great length of time, the usage for the King to lay
before Parliament, for their approbation, Treaties--especially those of
a commercial nature. If this was a usage, all that could be said of it
was, that it was a part of their constitution. He supposed this right
had been given by the Crown, at some time, to obtain a grant of money;
but he could not recollect that the Parliament, with all their
pretensions to a right of rejecting Treaties, had ever exercised it.
They generally made a pretext of dislike to a Treaty to change the
Administration. This had been often done; it was on the Treaty of Peace
of 1783. The Treaty of Utrecht, which was concluded in 1713, had been
cited as an instance of rejection by the British Parliament. It was a
fact, in that instance, that nothing was rejected but a conditional
Treaty. In forming the Treaty, there were many distinct parts: one part
of it was a Commercial Treaty between England and France, separately
signed and conditional--that is, "within the space of two months after a
law shall pass in Great Britain, whereby it shall be sufficiently
provided, &c., the general tariff made in France, &c., shall take place
there again, &c." The law did not pass in Great Britain, and of course
the Commercial Treaty failed. Mr. T. said he had searched all the
Treaties made by Great Britain since the Treaty of Munster, which, if
his memory was accurate, was concluded in 1648, and could not find an
instance of the Parliament's refusing their assent to a Treaty made
unconditionally; and he really believed, if they practised fully on the
right they claimed, it would very soon destroy their Government. It had
been said, _Blackstone_ in his Commentaries had defined the powers of
the King of Great Britain to be unlimited in the making of Treaties. He
observed, that, let _Blackstone_ or any other Crown lawyer say what he
would in favor of prerogative, it was well known the usage had been to
submit to Parliament the consideration of Treaties, and that usage was a
part of their constitution; and he rejoiced, that in that particular the
constitution of his country was different. Gentlemen had said, Shall
this House not have as much power respecting Treaties as the House of
Commons in Great Britain? This question was both improper in itself, and
calculated to mislead. Were we in convention, and forming a
constitution, it might have weight; but in a cool discussion of a
constitution already formed and adopted, and the question is, What
powers are given? it could not be proper. And it ought to be remembered
that Parliament, and not the Commons alone, had this right in Great
Britain. In defining the relative powers given by the Constitution,
there was danger of the popular branch making encroachments on the other
branches, under pretence of favoring the liberties of the people. This
pretence, however grateful it might sound in debate, he thought was but
a pretence. It was the duty of the House to make a stand against all
encroachments on their own rights, if any were attempted, but it must
equally be their duty to exercise great caution not to encroach on
others. He said, he considered the responsibility which was so very
necessary on those in the exercise of the Treaty-making power could not
exist if it was extended to the House of Representatives.

He acknowledged if a Treaty was unconstitutional, it was not then a
contract of binding force, and of course contained no obligation of any
kind whatever; if a Treaty was so terrible in itself, and manifested
consequences ruinous to the nation, no argument could be drawn from such
a statement to establish general rules. The moral law had said, we shall
not kill, and yet a man may be placed in such a situation, as that he
not only may, but it becomes his duty to kill; could it be said a
general right to kill is proved by this concession? But could gentlemen
seriously say, we now wanted these papers, mentioned in the resolution,
to assist us in determining upon the question of appropriation? He
thought not. He supposed the first extensive and unlimited right of
interfering in the making of a Commercial Treaty could alone justify the
call, and he believed that ground must be given up. He said his
colleagues (Messrs. SMITH and GRISWOLD) had asserted no other doctrines
than such as he now advocated, and yet they had been accused of saying
that this House had no will of their own, but must in all cases
implicitly obey the PRESIDENT and Senate. The construction he had given
to the constitution he believed to be just, and trusted he could be
under no necessity of declaring the purity of his intentions, as he did
not doubt but every member of the House was guided in the investigation
by the purest motives.

Mr. S. SMITH said, that at the present state of the discussion, little
was left but gleanings, and to bear testimony against a doctrine that
appeared to him big with consequences fatal to the true interests of the
country. He would not pursue the sophistry of the gentleman last up (Mr.
TRACY) through all its windings and turnings; he would only observe that
the gentleman had read some, and quoted much to prove that Treaties were
the supreme law--a doctrine that was admitted by all, that is, when
under the authority of the United States.

He said the resolution requested certain papers to be laid before the
House. What had been the custom of the House heretofore? Invariably to
ask for all and every paper that might lead to information. He well
recollected that, in 1793, a great ferment had arisen in the public mind
in consequence of the Proclamation of Neutrality, (which had always
appeared to him to be a wise measure,) that on the meeting of Congress a
great number of useful papers relative to our situation with respect to
foreign nations were submitted, some of them of a most confidential
nature, relating to Treaties then depending, particularly that with
Spain. The PRESIDENT was not afraid to place his confidence in that
House, and he was right; the public mind was restored to quiet, and the
people of Kentucky (then restless) were satisfied that the Executive
were doing every thing in their power to obtain the free navigation of
the Mississippi. The PRESIDENT went further; he sent a special agent to
Kentucky to communicate to that Government the line of conduct then
pursuing for their welfare. Had the public mind been less disturbed on
the late Treaty than in 1793? He thought not; and that every paper which
would tend to satisfy that the Treaty was expedient, or to give
information on a subject that must be discussed before that House, might
with propriety be asked for.

A gentleman from Vermont (Mr. BUCK) repeated by another from South
Carolina (Mr. SMITH) said, to vote for this resolution would be treason
against the laws and constitution. Why this harsh language? Did it lead
to a discovery of truth? Where did these gentlemen find that definition
of treason? Not in the constitution, for there it was properly defined.

Mr. S. said, gentlemen had taken a ground that appeared alarming, viz:

That the PRESIDENT and two-thirds of the Senate may, by the aid of a
Treaty, do any thing, and every thing, not morally impossible, (provided
they do not infringe on the constitution,) and that the immediate
Representatives forming this House, have only to be informed thereof,
and to obey.

Let us pause for a moment, and ask, Was this possible? Could this be the
fair construction of our so much boasted constitution? If it should be,
he would not regret the services rendered his country during the late
glorious Revolution, nor the part he had taken to promote the adoption
of the constitution; nor would he, by inflammatory speeches within, nor
his actions without doors, do any thing that should tend to destroy the
harmony then subsisting, or to disunite a people whom nature and
relative wants seemed to have connected together; but he would endeavor,
in a constitutional manner, to obtain amendments to the constitution,
which would prevent the evil in future. But is there occasion for
amendments to the Treaty-making power? He thought not. There were checks
and balances sufficient in the constitution to prevent the evils that
might arise out of it. He said, he could offer nothing new, but would
pursue the train of reasoning began by a gentleman from Virginia, (Mr.
MADISON.)

In the eighth section of the first article of the constitution, Congress
have power to lay duties, &c., &c., but all duties shall be uniform
throughout the United States:

Can regulate trade with foreign nations:

Can establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

Congress, then, although they have the power to lay taxes and duties,
and to make laws of naturalization, are bound to make them uniform; and
in another article, are prevented from giving a preference by any
regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those
of another. But the Treaty-making power is not so confined; it may
relieve one of our ports from this uniformity of duties, or one of the
States from the uniformity of naturalization; that is, it may relieve
goods imported in British bottoms into New York, from the one-tenth
extra duty, and let it remain on all the other ports of the Union. But,
say gentlemen, it is unfair to reason against the use of power by its
probable abuses. He thought it advisable to guard against abuses; but
has this abuse not already taken place? He thought it had. Not with
respect to a port of the consequence of New York; that would have been
too palpable; but on the Lakes, by the third article of the Treaty,
goods imported to the territory in that quarter, in British bottoms, are
subjected to no higher duty than goods imported in American vessels to
the Atlantic ports. Here appeared a departure from that uniformity
required by the constitution; here appeared a preference given to the
ports of one State over those of another; and yet gentlemen contend,
that the House have no right to inquire into the business. Indeed, so
delicate was one gentleman (Mr. BUCK) on the subject, that he opposed
committing the Algerine Treaty, lest it should establish a claim to
investigation! It was true, the trade on the Lakes was small, but it
would increase. Thus, although Congress were very wisely restricted,
when laying duties, to make them uniform, yet the PRESIDENT and Senate
would be capable, by the assistance of a foreign power, to destroy that
uniformity.

Mr. S. then stated, that he did not mean, and he hoped he should not be
understood to preclude himself from voting to carry the Treaty into
effect. He held himself entirely open to conviction; and if he should
find that the same was expedient, whatever might be his opinion at
present on the instrument, (and in truth he did not think it good,) yet
he would keep himself at full liberty to act as he might think most to
the interest of this country, when that subject should come before the
House.

MARCH 18.--In Committee of the Whole, on Mr. LIVINGSTON's resolution:

Mr. ISAAC SMITH did not pretend to prescribe limits to other men's
faith, but he never could believe that men, as wise as those who compose
the convention, would have left so important a regulation, as was now
contended for by some gentlemen, to mere uncertain construction. He
believed, if they intended that House should have had an agency in the
making of Treaties, they would have said so in express terms. Had they
done so? Nothing like it. So far from it, that they had unequivocally
appropriated the Treaty-making power to the PRESIDENT and two-thirds of
the Senate, in terms as express and positive as words could form: and
the gentleman in opposition could not, did not deny it. But, say they,
this power may be abused, shamefully abused, and, therefore, we will
construe it out of the hands the people have placed it in. We will
assume and declare ourselves the sole guardians of the people, and we
will cry out liberty, liberty; and, as the people love the sound, (he
hoped they would always love the substance,) perhaps they will believe
us. Here rests the fallacy. The people knew, whether they knew or not,
that they chose the PRESIDENT, and they firmly believe, as well they
may, that he is their guardian. The people knew, also, that they chose
the Senators, and they likewise think they are their guardians. How we,
said he, became sole guardians, will require a modesty superior to that
of New England to explain. The people have declared that the PRESIDENT
and Senate shall make Treaties, without a single exception, and, lest
there should be any mistake or cavilling about it, they have put it in
written words, as they thought, too plain to be doubted, too positive to
be contradicted. It appeared to him that it was a sufficient answer,
though a short one, to all the laborious arguments had in favor of their
interference, to say, that the people wills it otherwise: _sic volo, sic
jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas_. If they had under consideration
alterations or amendments to the constitution, those arguments might,
perhaps, be proper; but, as matters now stand, they are mere
inapplicable declamation.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said, that the very able support this resolution had
received, might seem to release him from any obligation of speaking in
its defence; nor would he now trouble the committee with any
observations on the subject, if those he made on the introduction of the
business had not been misstated, and his subsequent explanation partly
suppressed. He had stated, when he had laid the resolution on the table,
as a reason for requesting the papers, that important and
constitutional questions would probably arise on the discussion of the
Treaty. It had been represented, (certainly from misapprehension, not
design,) that he confined the use of the papers to the elucidation of a
constitutional question only; and it had been asked, with an air of
great triumph, how the instructions and correspondence could throw any
light on the question of constitutionality, to decide which nothing was
necessary but a comparison of the Treaty with the constitution? Mr. L.
said he had not confined the utility of the papers to that point, but
that, if he had, it would not be difficult to suppose a case in which
they were necessary to determine the constitutionality of the Treaty.
The constitution, he said, gave to the PRESIDENT the power to make
Treaties, "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." Men,
respectable for their talents and patriotism, had supposed that, by the
true construction of this clause, the PRESIDENT could make no Treaty
unless by the previous advice and consent of the Senate; in other words,
that the Senate should advise the making of a Treaty, which they could
only do before it was commenced; and should consent to it by a
ratification after it was concluded. He would give no positive opinion
on this subject, but supposed it a point worthy the attention of the
House. The construction, he said, appeared reasonable, and had been
heretofore sanctioned by practice. Two instances he could recollect; one
was in the Treaty of Holston, where Governor Blount was "vested with
full powers and specially empowered by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate." The other instance was found in the answer of the
PRESIDENT to the French Minister, who offered to enter into negotiations
for a Treaty of Commerce, which the PRESIDENT declined, by referring him
to the meeting of the Senate, which was not then in session. If the
PRESIDENT supposed he could not commence a negotiation without the
concurrence of the Senate, it gave force to this construction; and, if
it was a true one, nothing was more demonstrable than that the papers
were necessary to determine whether the Treaty in this point had been
constitutionally made.

Two positions had been assumed, differing not materially in the power
ascribed to Treaties, but distinguished chiefly by the mode of applying
this power.

By some it was contended, that the interference of the Legislature was
necessary in some instances, but that the Treaty operated by way of
moral obligation, to enforce the necessary steps to give it validity;
and that though there is a physical power of refusal, yet it ought in no
case to operate against the superior obligation.

Others had asserted, that Treaties being the supreme law, might operate
directly, without the intervention of any other body. That where
existing Legislative acts opposed their execution, the Treaty was
paramount, and could repeal them.

These positions were in fact the same, because, if a Treaty was, at all
events, to have effect, it was perfectly immaterial, whether it operated
directly by its own power, or indirectly by the instrumentality of
another body; both, he thought, equally subversive of the principles of
the Government; but the first was most degrading to the Legislative
dignity. Nor could he discover from what part of the constitution it was
inferred. Wherever, in that instrument, a duty was imposed, it was
clearly and explicitly assigned, as in case of the PRESIDENT's
compensation, that of the judges, and many other instances. It is not,
then, to be conceived, that so important an obligation as this should
have been left to implication. If it had been intended so to annihilate
this discretion, the same language would have been used, "Congress shall
pass laws to carry every Treaty into effect," but nothing of this kind
appears. Again, if it had been intended to make Treaties paramount over
laws, it would seem to have been the more simple mode, to have dispensed
with their interference. Why leave a phantom of discretion, an unreal
mockery of power, in the hands of the Legislature? In order to get rid
of this difficulty, some gentlemen seem willing to allow a species of
volition, but it was a pittance that would be scarcely worth accepting.
In cases of extreme necessity, and in others, where, from corruption or
other good cause, the compact is void, this House, they say, may refuse
to carry it into effect. In the first case, where it is impossible to
give efficacy to a Treaty, the power of refusing it was surely of little
value. And where the compact is void in itself, the liberty of not being
bound by it, would scarcely be contended for. If the subject were less
serious, Mr. L. said, one would be tempted to smile at the efforts that
are made to reconcile the constitutional predestination contended for,
with the free agency of discretion. It was as difficult to be
understood, as the most entangled theological controversy, and, like
most disputants in that science, they concluded with anathemas against
all who could not comprehend, or would not believe them. We have a
discretion, whether to act or not, say they; but we are under an
obligation to act, and if we do not, we are guilty of treason and
rebellion. This was the same kind of discretion a man has, whether he
will commit murder or let it alone; he may do it, but if he does, he
will be hanged. This was a worse alternative than that generally called
Hobson's choice--that was, "this or nothing;" but here we are told, "do
this, or be hanged for a traitor." So that hereafter, when any one
intended to express an inevitable necessity, he would call it
Congressional discretion.

If, then, the Treaty does not operate by way of obligation on the
Legislative power, let us, said Mr. L., examine, whether, as is
contended, "a Treaty is paramount to a law, and can repeal it, though
it, itself, cannot be acted on by the Legislative power;" this, he said,
was the most important question that had ever been agitated within
these walls. It evidently tended to the substitution of a foreign power,
in lieu of the popular branch; it was replete with the most serious
evils. He could never suppose so great and pernicious an absurdity was
contemplated by the constitution; but, if such was the true
construction, great as the evil was, we must submit, until it could be
legally amended.

The constitution gave all Legislative power to the Congress of the
United States; vested the power of making Treaties in the PRESIDENT and
Senate, and declared that the constitution, the laws made in pursuance
thereof, and Treaties made under the authority of the United States,
should be the supreme law of the land. He had always considered the
order in which this enumeration was made as descriptive of the relative
authority of each. 1st. The constitution, which no other act could
operate on. 2d. The laws made in pursuance thereof. 3d. Treaties, when
they contradicted neither; for, if no weight was given to this argument,
Treaties would be superior, both to the constitution and the laws, as
there is no restriction with respect to them, as in the case of laws,
that they be made pursuant to the constitution. He did not believe
gentlemen would contend for this absurdity; they must therefore refer to
the order of the enumeration, to measure the relative effect of the
constitution, laws, and Treaties. If the objects of Legislation and of
Treaty compact could be kept distinct, no question would arise, there
would be no pretext for interference; but they could not; almost every
object of legislation might also become that of compact with a foreign
power.

But it was probable, Mr. L. said, that the Treaty power was intended to
be placed in the PRESIDENT and Senate to the same extent only in which
it existed in the Executive of Great Britain. The words of our
constitution on this point were the same made use of by British writers
in defining the corresponding power in their Government, and it seemed
evident that some of its features (and this was none of the least
prominent) were drawn from that original. He was happy that the parallel
was not perfect in other instances. He thought it completely so in this;
and that the practice therefore of that Government would, in some
measure, lead to the true construction of this. Aware of the weight of
precedents drawn from English history, gentlemen endeavored to weaken
them by a very ingenious argument: "The British Constitution," say they,
"is not written, it is formed of usages; if you prove, therefore, that
it is the usage for British Parliaments to sanction Treaties, you prove
it to be their constitution, but you do not prove it to be ours." It was
true, Mr. L. observed, that the English Constitution was formed partly
of immemorial usages; but it was also true, that those usages were
collected in books of authority, and that the different powers of
Government were generally designated, so that the leading points in
their constitution were as well known and defined as they were in that
of America. It had been shown by a reference to writers of the best
authority, that, by the Constitution of England, the power of making all
Treaties was in the King; but as the power of making all laws was in the
Parliament, this latter, as the greater power, controlled the former,
whenever it affected objects of legislation. Thus, in the Constitution
of the United States, he contended, the power of making Treaties, that
is, all Treaties, vested in the PRESIDENT and Senate; but, as all
Legislative power is vested in Congress, no Treaty operating upon any
object of legislation can take effect until it receives the sanction of
Congress. The practice, too, was the same. The King asserted his right
of making and completing Treaties, by not only concluding, but ratifying
them, before they were submitted to Parliament, but he believed no
Commercial Treaty was proclaimed as the law of the land before it had
received the sanction of Parliament. Indeed, it was impossible, in any
country, and under any constitution, where the Legislative and
Treaty-making powers are lodged in different hands, that any other
construction can be given without running into the absurdity he had
before hinted at, of making two different powers supreme over the same
object at the same time. Our ideas had been confounded by referring to
the practice of Governments where the two powers were united, and where
a ratification gave the consent of both.

If, then, there was a perfect analogy between the power vested in the
Crown in England, and that delegated to the PRESIDENT and Senate in
America, on the subject of Treaties; and if the Parliament, by virtue of
its general Legislative authority, was in the practice of giving or
withholding its sanction to Treaties concluded by the King, it was but a
fair inference to say, that the same discretion existed in Congress.

Some instances of the exercise of this power by Parliament, had been
before quoted by others. The inexecution of the Treaty of Utrecht, in
consequence of Parliamentary opposition, and the difficulties with which
the Commercial Treaty with France was carried through the House of
Commons, in 1787, had been already noticed. He would mention two other
precedents drawn from the same source equally striking, or perhaps more
so, as the course of proceeding there followed was precisely that which
was proposed by the resolution in debate. The first was the proceeding
on the Barrier Treaty, taken from the 5th vol. Parl. Debates, p. 43,
where the House of Commons began, by a resolution to address the Queen,
"that all instruction and orders given to the Plenipotentiaries that
transacted the Barrier Treaty, and also all Treaties mentioned and
referred to in the said Treaty, might be laid before the House, except
such Treaties as they already had." We are told in the subsequent page,
that on the 13th, that is, only two days after the request, "Mr.
Secretary St. John presented to the House, by Her Majesty's command, a
copy of the instructions to the Duke of Marlborough and Lord Townsend,
about the Barrier Treaty, extracts of letters from Mr. Boyle to Lord
Townsend, concerning the said Treaty; also a copy of the Preliminary
Articles, signed at the Hague; the titles of which copies and extracts
of letters were referred to the Committee of the whole House. After
this, it was resolved to present an address to Her Majesty, that the
letters written by Lord Townsend to Mr. Boyle, the Secretary of State,
dated the 1st and 26th of November, 1709, might be laid before the
House, which Mr. Secretary St. John accordingly did on the 14th of
February." After having obtained the papers, Mr. L. said, the House of
Commons proceeded to the consideration of the Treaty in Committee of the
Whole, and voted, 1st. That the Treaty contained articles destructive to
the trade and interest of Great Britain. 2d. That the negotiator had
acted without authority. 3d. That the advisers and negotiators were
enemies to the Queen and Kingdom.

The Treaty being thus obstructed, the States General remonstrated to the
Queen on the subject; but, conscious that the Parliament were only
exercising a constitutional power, they make no complaints in their
memorial of any breach of faith, though the Treaty had been ratified.
They enter into the merits of the Treaty, offer to negotiate on the
obnoxious articles, and conclude with "entreating the continuance of Her
Majesty's friendship."

This instance, then, said Mr. L., is complete to show the propriety of a
call for papers by the House of Commons; a ready compliance on the part
of the Crown, a deliberation on a ratified Treaty, a rejection of it,
and an acquiescence on the part of the foreign nation, without
remonstrance.

The other instance was an address in the year 1714, requesting "the
Treaties of Peace and Commerce between Her Majesty and the King of
Spain, and the instructions given to Her Majesty's Ambassadors
thereupon, together with the copies of the King of Spain's ratifications
of the said Treaties, and the preliminaries signed by the Lord Lexington
and the Marquis of Bedmar, at Madrid, and all other agreements and
stipulations which had been made concerning the commerce between Great
Britain and Spain. 2dly. An account of what engagements of guaranty Her
Majesty had entered into by virtue of any Treaty with any foreign Prince
or State, from the year 1710. And 3dly. An account of what instances had
been used by Her Majesty for restoring to the Catalans their ancient
privileges, and all letters relating thereto. And then it was resolved,
to take into further consideration the Message that day sent from the
Lords upon Thursday next following."

Objections had been raised to this construction, drawn from three
different sources.

1. From the prevalent construction at the time of establishing the
constitution.

2. From the practice of the Government since that period.

3. From the present ideas entertained by the people of the United
States.

1st. As to the construction generally received when the constitution was
adopted, Mr. L. did not conceive it to be conclusive, even if admitted
to be contrary to that now contended for; because he believed we were
now as capable at least of determining the true meaning of that
instrument, as the Conventions were; they were called in haste, they
were heated by party, and many adopted it from expediency, without
having fully debated the different articles. But he did not believe the
general construction at that time differed from the one he had adopted.
A member from Virginia (Mr. BRENT) had shown, by recurring to the
debates in the Convention of that State, and to other contemporaneous
productions, that the framers and friends to the constitution construed
it in the manner that we do; whilst its enemies endeavored to render it
odious and unpopular, by endeavoring to fix on it the contrary
construction. And as the friends to the constitution were the most
numerous, we ought rather to take the explanation under which a majority
accepted the constitution, as the true one, than to look for it in the
bugbears by which anti-Federalism endeavored to prevent its adoption.

2d. The second argument that had been used to deprive the Legislature of
any right of interference, in cases of this kind, was drawn from the
uniform practice of the Government ever since its formation. The
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SMITH) who made this objection, had
cited one instance of this practice in the resolution directing Treaties
to be published with the laws, and had adverted to the appropriations
for the Indian Treaties, (under the general head of the Military
Establishment,) as favoring his principle. As to the resolution, Mr. L.
said, there was no doubt that Treaties, when properly sanctioned, ought
to be observed, and therefore the resolution was proper, that they ought
to be promulgated. On the subject of appropriation, it had been well
observed by a gentleman from Virginia (Mr. GILES) that the House
exercised as much discretion in granting the supply, by way of addition
to the military appropriations, as if it had been given specially for
the purposes of the Treaty. But the truth is, said Mr. L., that an
accurate examination into the communications of the Executive in
analogous cases, and the proceedings of this House, will form a strong,
I think an irresistible, argument in favor of the resolution. It would
appear, he said, from the view he was about to take, that from the first
establishment of the constitution until the negotiation of this Treaty
was begun, the Executive had been in habits of free communication with
the Legislature as to our external relations; that their authority in
questions of commerce, navigation, boundary, and intercourse with the
Indian tribes, had been expressly recognized, even when difficulties on
these questions were to be adjusted by Treaty.

The first case related to a provision for an Indian Treaty, and was
suggested by the PRESIDENT, in a Message of the 7th of August, 1789, in
which he says: "If it should be the judgment of Congress that it would
be most expedient to terminate all differences in the Southern District,
and to lay the foundation for future confidence by an amicable Treaty
with the Indian tribes in that quarter, I think proper to suggest the
consideration of the expediency of instituting a temporary commission
for that purpose, to consist of three persons, whose authority should
expire with the occasion." In consequence of this Message, Congress took
into consideration the expediency of the measure recommended to them,
and passed the act of the 26th of August, in the same year,
appropriating twenty thousand dollars for defraying the expense of
negotiating and treating with the Indian tribes, and authorizing the
appointment of commissioners. The PRESIDENT having appointed
commissioners to treat under the direction of the act, gave them
instructions, which were communicated to the House, and from which this
is an extract: "You will please to observe, that the whole sum that can
be constitutionally expended is twenty thousand dollars, and that the
same cannot be extended." Nothing having been effected by the
commissioners, the PRESIDENT mentions the subject again in his Address
to both Houses, on the 1st of January, 1792. In the month of March, in
the same year, the House of Representatives adopted the following
resolution, recommended by a select committee: "That provision ought to
be made by law for holding a Treaty to establish peace between the
United States and the Wabash, Miami, and other nations of Indians,
north-west of the river Ohio; also, for regulating trade and intercourse
with the Indian tribes, and the mode of extinguishing their claims to
lands within the limits of the United States." On the 29th March,
following, a bill passed the House of Representatives, the title of
which was amended in the Senate and passed, appropriating twenty
thousand dollars for purposes expressed in the preceding resolution.

Mr. L. said this case was important, as it was the first communication
relative to a Treaty made under the constitution. An attentive
examination of its different parts would show that very different ideas
were then entertained from those which were now enforced. He would first
observe, that the discretion of the House of Representatives as to
commerce with foreign nations, stood precisely on the same footing with
that which they ought to exercise in regulating intercourse with the
Indian tribes; that if one could be done without their concurrence, by
Treaty, the other might also; and that, therefore, when the PRESIDENT
recognized their right to deliberate in one case, he virtually did it in
the other. Let us then attend to the language of the Message, said Mr.
L., and we shall find that right of deliberation most expressly
referred to. "If it should be the judgment of Congress that it would be
most expedient"--what can be more explicit than this language? And
again, "I think proper to suggest the consideration of the expediency of
instituting a temporary commission." Here the same discretion is not
only applied to, but the PRESIDENT, at that time supposing that no
implicated power could deprive Congress of the right to regulate trade
and intercourse with the Indian tribes, submitted to their consideration
the expediency of appointing commissioners. They passed the necessary
laws, and he instructed the commissioners, not in the language that is
now held, that they might stipulate for the payment of any sum, and that
Congress would be obliged to find the means; but he tells them, "the
only sum that can be constitutionally expended is twenty thousand
dollars, and that the same cannot be extended." Why, (if the doctrine is
true that we are under an obligation to comply with the terms of every
Treaty made by the PRESIDENT and Senate,) why did he say no further sum
could constitutionally be expended? If that doctrine were indeed true,
his language would have been, Use what money may be necessary, contract
for the payment of it in your Treaty, and Congress are constitutionally
obliged to carry your stipulations into effect.

The resolution above quoted, Mr. L. said, was important, as it proved
that Congress then supposed that they ought not only to provide by law
for holding a Treaty with the Indians, but that they also had the power,
and ought to exercise it, of regulating trade and intercourse with the
same people, and of prescribing the mode of extinguishing their claims
to lands within the United States; but all this, said he, it is now
discovered may be done without their aid, by Treaty.

The second instance of the exercise of this dreaded discretion, was in
the law of March 3d, 1791, appropriating twenty thousand dollars to
enable the PRESIDENT to effect a negotiation of the Treaty with Morocco.
This originated in the Senate, and is a decided proof that neither the
PRESIDENT nor Senate had at that period any idea of the moral obligation
that is now discovered, or they would, without the formality of a law,
have at once stipulated with the new Emperor for the payment of the
necessary sum, which must have been provided by the House.

In a third case, the PRESIDENT had thought proper to take the sense of
that House in a matter that of all others demanded secrecy, and under
circumstances that would have prevented his making the application, if
he had conceived himself at liberty to act without their concurrence. He
adverted to the Message of 30th December, 1790, where the PRESIDENT
says: "I lay before you a Report of the Secretary of State, on the
subject of the citizens of the United States in captivity at Algiers,
that you may provide in their behalf what to you shall seem expedient."

No act having been passed by Congress in consequence of this Message,
the PRESIDENT did not conceive himself authorized to bind the United
States by Treaty, for the necessary ransom of their citizens; and
therefore nothing was concluded until after a subsequent Message and
previous appropriation, in the year 1793, when another Message was sent
relative to the negotiations with Morocco and Algiers, then pending:
"While it is proper (he says) that our citizens should know that
subjects which so much concern their interests and their feelings, have
duly engaged the attention of their Legislature and Executive, it would
still be improper that some part of this communication should be made
known." Part of this Message, therefore, was confidentially
communicated, which shows, Mr. L. said, on some occasions, it was not
deemed imprudent to trust this House with the secrets of the Cabinet;
and in consequence of this Message, a law was passed, appropriating one
hundred thousand dollars for the purchase of a peace with the Algerines.
It was ostensibly appropriated to a more general purpose, but the intent
was well understood.

The next transaction that he should quote, Mr. L. said, as favorable to
his doctrine, was the Message of the PRESIDENT of the 5th December,
1793, and the measure to which it gave rise. The PRESIDENT says: "As the
present situation of the several nations of Europe, and especially those
with which the United States have important relations, cannot but render
the state of things between them and us matter of interesting inquiry to
the Legislature, and may, indeed, give rise to deliberations to which
they alone are competent, I have thought it my duty to communicate to
them certain correspondence which has taken place."

This Message, Mr. L. said, accompanied the papers relative to France, to
Great Britain, and to Spain; and a question would immediately occur,
what were the deliberations to which the PRESIDENT then thought the
Legislature alone was competent, and which he therefore thought it his
duty to communicate. All our disputes with the nations referred to in
the Message, were such as on the new construction of the Treaty power he
could have adjusted by compact, without any reference to the House of
Representatives; but it is plain, by the express words of the Message,
that he did not believe that construction. It was no answer, Mr. L.
said, to the argument drawn from this transaction, to say that the
PRESIDENT only submitted the question of War or Peace to the Legislature
by this Message.

1. Because the Message related to the three principal nations in Europe,
and he never could have imagined that Congress would have deliberated on
going to war with them all.

2. This was evidently not his intention, because as soon as measures
were proposed in that House, which he supposed would lead to a rupture
with one of those nations, all these measures were palsied by the
appointment of an Envoy, and the commencement of negotiation.

It was clear, then, that the PRESIDENT thought the matters communicated
by his Message, which related to commerce and boundary, were
constitutionally vested in the discretion of Congress. The idea was
corroborated by the words of a Message relative to the negotiation with
Spain:

      "And, therefore, by and with the advice and consent of the
      Senate, I appointed Commissioners Plenipotentiary for
      negotiating and concluding a Treaty with that country, on
      the several subjects of boundary, navigation, and commerce,
      and gave them the instructions now communicated."

Why, said Mr. L., communicate the instructions to the Ministers? Because
they related to commerce, to navigation, to boundary, on all which
subjects the PRESIDENT must have thought the Legislature had a right of
decision. He must have thought so at that period; but, unfortunately,
all precedent of free communication ended here; Mr. Jay's negotiation
began, and a different construction was assumed.

From this view of the acts of Government, Mr. L. said, he trusted that a
far different impression would be made, than that the doctrine he
contended for was a new one, originating in opposition to the English
Treaty, and a desire to disorganize the Government. That, on the
contrary, it had been declared by the PRESIDENT, acquiesced in by the
Senate, and acted upon by the House of Representatives.

MARCH 21.--In Committee of the Whole on Mr. LIVINGSTON's resolution:

Mr. WILLIAMS observed much had been said upon the subject of the present
resolution, and so much time consumed, that he should confine his
observations within a narrower compass than he at first intended.

It was contended that in a Republican Government there ought to be no
secrets; but he would ask whether it was not specified in the
constitution that secrecy should be observed on particular occasions?
and, had not his colleague (Mr. LIVINGSTON) quoted the secret Journals
of the House? He believed if the constitution of France were examined,
it would be found that their system admitted of secrets. He had the
honor, he said, to be upon a committee, before whom many papers were
laid, which it would be improper to publish. With respect to the present
papers, he did not think there were any secrets in them. He believed he
had seen them all. For the space of ten weeks any member of that House
might have seen them. It was not merely with respect to the present
papers that he opposed the motion, but because it would be establishing
a bad precedent; and, as they were a young Government, they ought to be
cautious how they established bad precedents. It was well known that in
the negotiations in time of war, confidential communications were
necessary; but if no papers were allowed to be kept secret, what person
would ever venture to make any such communication? Hence this country,
when in the greatest danger, may be much injured by improper
precedents.

He quoted authorities to prove that there never was but one precedent in
Great Britain of a negotiator's papers being given up; that was in the
last year of the reign of Queen Anne when the Ministry were soon
afterwards obliged to fly their country. He was sorry that a gentleman
returned by the Republican interest of one of the first cities of the
Union should have had recourse to a desperate Tory faction for a
precedent.

Some gentlemen had observed that the papers ought to be obtained,
because the PRESIDENT had intimated, in his Speech, that he would lay
the papers before the House with the Treaty; but they were mistaken in
their observations, because the papers had not been laid before us.

A gentleman from Pennsylvania said, because the King of England laid the
papers relative to a negotiation before Parliament along with the Treaty
to which they related, they had also a right to papers, the Governments
being similar; but when the King did this, he informed them that he had
concluded such a Treaty; and after a thing was concluded, he did not
know what could remain for Parliament to do. He would refer to a recent
authority, and not go back to 1714; it was to the case of the Treaty
with Great Britain respecting American loyalists, when papers were
refused to be given up, and it was deemed a most inconsistent thing to
require them. This business caused great debates in Parliament, and the
motion for papers was lost, there being only sixty-three for it, and one
hundred and four against it. Mr. W. read the observations of different
members of Parliament on the occasion, and observed, that although he
was unwilling to quote precedents from a Government not similar to ours,
yet this was a case in point, and this Treaty was negotiated between Mr.
JAY, on the part of the United States, and Mr. OSWALD, on the part of
Great Britain.

The resolution before them called for all papers, whether public or
private, except such as related to any existing negotiation; but as the
Treaty was completed, the resolution included all papers. He should have
had less objection to the motion, if the amendment proposed by the
gentleman from Virginia had been adopted. He did not see the use the
papers would be of if they were got. The House was not vested with
either the power to alter or amend the Treaty. But, say gentlemen, they
are wanted for information. But he believed they ought to form their
judgments of the Treaty from the instrument itself. Suppose I were to
employ an agent, and give him instructions to make a contract for me, on
condition that it should not be binding until I had approved it; and my
agent return and I approve of the contract, what light can be thrown
upon it by the instructions which were given to the agent? The
instrument alone was what must be had recourse to; because he had it in
his power to have withheld his sanction.

If his information was right, when certain resolutions were brought
forward in the year 1793, a gentleman from Virginia said that Great
Britain would refuse to negotiate with this country; but immediately
upon the Treaty being made known, it was every thing that was bad.

He would endeavor to answer some observations which had fallen from a
gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. GILES.) It was asked if the Treaty power
could receive any check? He conceived the will of the people ought to be
obeyed. They had given power to the PRESIDENT and Senate to make
Treaties, which if not complied with, would be to oppose their will. In
speaking of the amendments proposed to the constitution by the
Legislature of Virginia, it was said they were only intended to make the
check more certain than at present; but he read the resolution, viz:
"That no Treaty containing any stipulations upon the subject of the
powers vested in Congress by the eighth section of the first article,
shall become the supreme law of the land, until it shall have been
approved in those particulars by a majority in the House of
Representatives. That the PRESIDENT, before he shall ratify any Treaty,
shall submit the same to the House of Representatives; and insisted that
it might be clearly deduced from them, that they did not conceive the
Treaty power to have any check in that House. That State had kept
uniformly the same ground in all their actions; but the different State
Legislatures to which their amendments had been proposed, had determined
the Treaty power rightly placed where it is at present. But because the
people will not agree that they should have a check upon the Treaty
power, gentlemen seem disposed to usurp it by their present doctrines."

The same gentleman (Mr. GILES) observed, that the checks in the
Government of the United States had been completely routed for these six
years. He was exceedingly sorry that the PRESIDENT could bind that
House, but he said that was a sword that cut two ways. It was too late
in the day to assert this doctrine, when the people were become so
enlightened as to be better acquainted with the nature of Government,
and better educated, than the people of any other nation in the world.
They would, therefore, take care of themselves.

He said that a gentleman from South Carolina had observed that the
Treaty was put into operation by the Proclamation of the PRESIDENT, and
made a part of the laws of the land. An honorable gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. GILES) granted that, when completed, the Treaty ought to
be annexed to the laws. Mr. W. asked, was this not done? It had been
promulgated in the way in which Treaties are directed to be promulgated;
and he would ask, if a case were to come before the Judges upon it,
whether they would not be bound to consider it as the law of the land?
If the member from Virginia (Mr. GILES) had been opposed to the Treaty
going into operation, why did he not take the proper mode to prevent it?
He knew of the resolution which directed how Treaties are to be
promulgated and annexed to our code of laws, he knew the Treaty had
arrived, and he might have had the subject discussed. If a majority were
for preventing the Treaty from being promulgated in the ordinary way,
then the resolution might have been done away, and some other mode
adopted which was thought most prudent.

The same gentleman next contended that law can annul Treaties. But he
believed that the constitution decided that there was no other way of
repealing Treaties but by mutual agreement of the parties, or by war. To
break one article of a Treaty was to break the whole, and war, or a new
Treaty must be the consequence. The reason he gave why laws could repeal
Treaties, was, because laws were the will of the people. Treaties, Mr.
W. said, were as much the will of the people as laws. The people had
fixed barriers to the different branches of the constitution, which
could not be overleaped without endangering the whole fabric.

In speaking of power, gentlemen say it is more likely to be abused in
the Executive than in that House. But, in the year 1789, when amendments
were first proposed to the States, a gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
MADISON) asserted "that it was less necessary to guard against abuse in
the Executive Department than any other, because it was not the stronger
branch of the system, but the weaker; it therefore must be levelled
against the Legislative, for it is the most powerful, and the most
likely to be abused, because it is under the least control;" and Mr. W.
quoted several laws which had originated in that House, by which very
large sums of money had been expended to little purpose, which he would
explain when they were in a Committee of the Whole on the report from
the Committee of Ways and Means.

But gentlemen say, "Have we not as much power as the House of Commons in
Great Britain?" He answered, their powers were limited; the constitution
was their guide. He thought gentlemen proceeded as if they were about to
form a constitution rather than discuss a constitutional question. Some
gentlemen had said, Treaties of Amity ought to be vested in the
PRESIDENT and Senate; others, that Treaties for a cessation of arms
ought to be vested in the Executive; thus they wander, well knowing the
ground they had taken was not tenable. It brought to his mind an
observation made by an Indian Chief, in a Treaty at Albany, since the
late war, who, after thanking the Great Spirit for directing them back
in the good old path, which made them happy, lamented, that ever since
they had wandered from that path, they had been miserable. So it would
be with them if they left the constitution; they would wander from the
right path, and involve themselves in difficulties. Appropriations for
the army and navy in Great Britain must be made annually, without which
they must be discharged. By our constitution we may appropriate for two
years for the army, and no mention as to what time for the navy; so that
we can make appropriations for a longer time for our army and navy than
in Great Britain.

The gentleman (Mr. GILES) further observed, that the opinions
entertained in that House three years ago, were not to influence them
now; it was necessary however, in Mr. W.'s opinion, that whenever
nations changed their customs, some notice ought to be given of the
change, that it might be known by nations with whom they may have any
transactions. To prove this, he quoted _Marten's_ Law of Nations. The
Treaty had been laid before them, that they might appropriate money for
carrying it into effect. On the first of June, the British were to give
up the Western posts; if money was not appropriated, would they not be
deceived?

Before he proceeded to remark on what had fallen from his colleague (Mr.
LIVINGSTON) he would mention, that they had, for some years, in general
concurred in their political opinions, and during the present session
they had varied very little; in the question before the House, however,
they should differ very considerably. Soon after the constitution was
framed, a Convention was held in the State of New York, in which he had
the honor to be a member. He was fully of opinion at that time, as he
was now, that the Treaty power was a dangerous power, and, in
consequence, gave his dissent to it.

He would proceed to remark on what had fallen from his colleague. He had
said, how could they determine whether the Treaty was constitutional or
not, or whether an impeachment was necessary, without information? The
papers, as he had said before, were open for ten weeks, during which
time gentlemen might have had access to them. But that gentleman said,
they had denied him of late, and so they had been to him; but he
understood they were at the Secretary of State's office, and might be
seen there. He mentioned a case of a Treaty with a foreign country, in
which their Minister might have received presents; but declared, that he
did not believe there was any corruption in the negotiation of the
Treaty in question. It appeared to him, therefore, inconsistent still to
talk of impeachment.

Suppose, for instance, his colleague was Attorney General of the State
of New York, and a man were to charge another with being guilty of
burglary, whose character, reputation, and standing in life were
irreproachable, would he subpoena him to meet the charge? No, he would
not. And still the case is exactly similar to the present.

If, said Mr. W., his colleague or any member of the House wanted the
papers, they had only to rise in their place and declare there were
grounds of suspicion for an impeachment; would any member refuse the
call? But he presumed no such thing was thought of. Why, then, expend so
much precious time unnecessarily? The gentleman believed that the
Minister had deviated from the instructions originally given him; but
that he received new instructions. Whatever instructions were given to
him, it appears, by the Treaty being ratified, that he executed them to
the satisfaction of his employer.

It may be, said Mr. W., that this House may determine that it has a
check on the Treaty-making power; but the next Congress may say there is
no such thing. Whether there is, or there is not this check, it is
necessary for the stability of the Government to have it determined; and
he would join in sentiment with the gentleman from Maryland in a wish
that it might be settled. But he would have the amendment
constitutionally made; for, if we ourselves do not understand the
constitution, it is not likely that our constituents at large should
understand it. If I am wrong now in the true meaning of the
constitution, I have been wrong since its adoption. The people are the
sovereign; their will shall be my guide, from which I will not,
knowingly, depart. I live in the midst of a body of plain but
intelligent freemen, whose employment is the cultivation of the earth,
and who prize nothing beyond the freedom they enjoy. They are jealous of
their liberties, but they are obedient to, and willing to respect and
support the laws of the land. How will they know the laws, if we do not
understand the constitution after it has been in operation for nearly
eight years?

Gentlemen observed, that if the Treaty-making power was meant to be
vested solely in the PRESIDENT and Senate, it would have been said so
explicitly; but, he thought, if the constitution had intended that House
to have interfered in Treaties, that would have been expressed, as a few
words would have done it.

His colleague asserted, that that House had the power of carrying into
effect or not any Treaty; but he thought the House obliged to carry into
effect all Treaties constitutionally and completely made. To support his
doctrine, Mr. LIVINGSTON had referred to the practice of Great Britain,
and singled out the Treaty of Utrecht.

In England, said Mr. W., the Treaty-making power is in the King. A
Treaty, when made by him, pledges the public faith and binds the nation;
but the Courts of Law and the officers of the revenue do not consider
Treaties as the supreme law (when they change the regulations of
commerce or interfere with previous acts of Parliament) until Parliament
has passed acts conformably to such stipulations of a Treaty. The
propriety, and, indeed, necessity of this rule, results from the
monarchical form of that Government, the power of the King alone to
repeal existing laws being a just ground of apprehension. From a like
apprehension, a Treaty, though negotiated and made in all its parts by
the PRESIDENT, must be submitted to the Senate for their ratification.
The Senate is a popular assembly, and representing the States. The
concurrence of two-thirds is equal on every principle of combining the
public will with the acts of the constituted authorities to the sanction
of Parliament.

In England, Treaties of Peace, of Alliance, and, perhaps, many others,
are perfect and binding without co-operation of Parliament. The opinion
of some is understood to be, and _Blackstone_ seems to be of the number,
that every Treaty, when made by the King, is obligatory without the
concurrence of Parliament. The practice, however, is to lay Treaties
before Parliament when laws are necessary to carry them into effect, and
for Parliament to pass such laws. And, although a very broad discretion
has been claimed in Parliament to pass or reject such laws, the uniform
practice, except in one instance, has been to pass them. The faith of
the nation is considered as pledged. The case where laws to carry the
Treaty into effect have been refused, is the Treaty of Utrecht, in 1714.
The credit of the example is much abated by the circumstances of the
times when it happened. The Duke of Marlborough had been displaced, but
his friends were powerful; a Tory Minister was in power and much hated;
Queen Anne was decaying, and died that year, and the succession to the
Crown was doubtful. Parties were ready to draw the sword against each
other, and the most distinguished Ministers were soon proscribed and
fled the country. A civil war broke out in 1715, the next year. One only
example in such times, and the forerunner and cause of such events,
weighs little against the course of practice in numberless cases, all
issuing another way. It proves that the practice of Parliament
corresponds with our doctrine. If, however, their maxims are different,
so is their constitution in this particular. The act of the King should
be compared with the act of the PRESIDENT alone; and the ratification of
the Senate should be, and, by our constitution, it must be, considered
equal to the sanction of Parliament. The doctrine ascribed by Mr.
GALLATIN to the Parliament affords a reason for their calling for
papers; because, he says, they are to act upon them. Yet such call is
seldom made, and would probably be refused, if made without manifest
occasion for the papers. Our constitution has settled a different
doctrine; and, as the papers cannot be needed, they cannot properly be
asked for.

He doubted not that the Treaty lately concluded with Great Britain had
ere now been laid before Parliament, and a sum of money granted for
recompensing spoliations committed in this country. Should they then
attempt to refuse appropriations for carrying the Treaty into effect, on
their part, where would be their national honor, their national faith?
Suppose the Treaty were a bad bargain, that would not authorize them to
break it. No: if a bad bargain be made to-day, make a better to-morrow.
Neither should they determine the thing before it came before them.
Probably they may not find it so bad as it had been represented; for
though it might, in some respects, narrow our commercial intercourse,
yet, perhaps, by so doing, the agricultural interest would be
proportionally benefited. He was convinced that the agricultural
interest was the true interest of this country. If by the Treaty we find
that it tends to the welfare of the farmer, we may conclude our
negotiator had the true interest of his country in view; and it was his
(Mr. W.'s) opinion that a man taken from the plough and put on board a
vessel was a man lost to the true interest of this country. This country
is not like that of Great Britain: they are confined to small islands;
we have a country extensive and fertile, and it is our duty to encourage
settlers, increase our numbers, and, by so doing, we shall soon be in a
situation to bid defiance to all the world. He was willing to encourage
commerce to its full proportion, but not so as to injure the
agricultural interest. The third article in the Treaty had been quoted
by a gentleman from Maryland (Mr. S. SMITH) as having a tendency to
operate unequally in our impost duties; Mr. W. observed he did not think
that was very exceptionable, so far as it had been explained. He did not
think the third clause of the Treaty a bad one: it only went to this,
that when Great Britain carried goods through our country they were to
pay the same duty as American citizens. And would not this be a greater
advantage to the United States than if they went up the rivers St.
Lawrence or Mississippi, and paid no duty? All the duty received of them
would be so much gain to the country.

His colleague (Mr. LIVINGSTON) went on too contemporaneous a
construction, and said that the House were better able to judge of the
meaning of the constitution than the conventions which were held to
consider upon its adoption. He did not think so. He said, he had always
been called an anti-Federalist, and was so considered to this day. He
would willingly join to obtain an amendment to the constitution with
respect to the Treaty power; but, because he did not believe the
constitution contemplated an interference in that House in respect to
Treaties, he could not agree to the proposed doctrine.

Mr. W. said, it was not necessary for him to go into the argument which
induced the convention to fix the Treaty-making power: it need only be
mentioned that they knew how and where that power was exercised in Great
Britain; and, in order to avert the difficulties which had arisen there,
the convention vested the power with the PRESIDENT and Senate; and, to
guard against undue influence, directed that two-thirds of the Senators
present should concur with the PRESIDENT. The convention had many
difficulties to surmount in this article; they had to do away the equal
power the small States shared, under the Confederation, with the large
States. But, to do away the discordant interests of the different States
and to give the small States satisfaction, agreed that all the States
should be equally represented in the Senate. In the Treaty-making power
each State hath an equal voice. To extend it further, for another check,
without the consent of the smaller States, would be doing away, in part,
that power which the small States had retained.

He read the observations of one of the Judges of the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, when debating on the merits of the constitution
in the convention held in that State, to prove that Treaties were
considered to be paramount to any law. Among the several passages from
the debates of the Convention of New York, Mr. W. read the following
proposed amendment of Mr. Lansing, who was a member of the convention
that formed the constitution of the United States, whose abilities and
candor were not doubted by any who knew him:

      "_Resolved_, As the opinion of this committee, that no
      Treaty ought to operate so as to alter the constitution of
      any State; nor ought any commercial Treaty to operate so as
      to abrogate any law of the United States."

He believed that the amendments proposed in the Virginia Convention
arose from their considering that there was no check in that House: the
contrary supposition, he said, would be like rowing a boat one way and
looking another.

His colleagues read extracts from the journals to prove that the
PRESIDENT had laid before that House instructions which he had given his
Ministers employed on the Treaty business. He believed, when much money
was likely to be wanted, it was prudent and right to do so. It was as if
he asked that House whether it would agree to a proposed negotiation or
declare war--as if he had said, "I cannot unlock your Treasury; which
way would you have me act?" It was inconsistent to say that he had
diminished his power by asking advice. Books, he said, might be produced
without number; but nothing could be brought to justify the breaking of
a contract constitutionally made. It has become the law of the land. The
House has, indeed, the physical power to refuse to appropriate to carry
such a Treaty into effect; but the constitution meant that what was done
by one branch of the Legislature should be confirmed by the others,
except the act was unconstitutional. If a Treaty was constitutional,
they were therefore impliedly bound to carry it into effect.

His colleague denied that any danger lay in the popular part of the
Government; he thought differently. To say there was more danger to be
apprehended from the Executive than the Legislative branch of Government
was unsound doctrine. He should enlarge on this subject when the Treaty
came before the House, and he trusted he should clearly show that the
greatest danger of abuse lay in that House. Have there not bills
originated in this House which have caused the expenditure of much money
to very little purpose? Is there not more responsibility in one man than
in large bodies? and was not the member from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) of
this opinion, as I have before stated?

Where have (said Mr. W.) the acts originated that have cost so much
money to be expended, by reason of which the report of the Committee of
Ways and Means states the necessity of borrowing such large sums to meet
the necessary demands--the laying additional taxes and duties? Did
these acts originate with the Executive? No. Where then? In this House.
All money-bills must originate in this House, being so directed by the
constitution.

Though his colleague represented Great Britain as being in chains, yet
he was drawing precedents from their Government. At first, he thought he
had fallen in love with the Government, but he afterwards found his
mistake. In that Government, said Mr. W., one precedent creates another,
and they soon accumulate and form laws; but his friend was drawing
precedents from that nation to support the checks, which, Mr. GILES
said, had been for six years completely routed from the Government of
the United States. He feared, if the gentlemen were permitted to take
their course, we should soon have a curious sort of constitution.

But, to conclude, the ruin or prosperity of the nation depended much on
the present Government. He said, if the people flourish and are happy;
if they are industrious and at peace, they will not complain of their
Government. If this be the case, it will scarcely be admitted that the
checks in the Government have been completely routed for these six
years; if they were, however, he thought the nation could not be better
than happy.

Mr. MILLEDGE observed, that as the hour of adjournment was drawing near,
he would not detain the committee long. The length of the debates, on
both sides of the question, had left him little room for observation;
but as a constitutional question had been involved in the resolution
before the committee, and as all constitutional questions were important
in their nature, he could not think of giving a silent vote. He
perfectly agreed with the gentleman who had spoken last, from the State
of Connecticut, that we ought not to put our foot from off the
constitution, and on that, he said, he would stand. Nor did he think it
necessary to resort to this or that Government to know their usages, or
to know what was said in this or that State, or what was written by this
or that man--but, according to the common and most obvious meaning of
words contained in the constitution, to draw our conclusion. That part
of the constitution which had been often mentioned, he begged that he
might be permitted to read--that all Treaties made by the authority of
the United States should be the supreme law of the land. He asked, what
was the authority of the United States? Powers derived from the
constitution. What are these powers? Legislative, Executive, and
Judicial. The better to understand these, let us see, said he, in what
order they present themselves to us. In the constitution we find that in
the very first section all Legislative powers herein granted shall be
vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a
Senate and House of Representatives. This, then, is the Legislative
power, the statute making power, the ordaining power, the enacting
power, or any other name by which it may be called. Now, then, said he,
let us see the extent of this power. In the 8th section, Congress shall
have power to make _all_ laws. It would be necessary, he said, to attend
to the monosyllable _all_. If the PRESIDENT and two-thirds of the Senate
have a right to make a law, do Congress make all laws? Certainly not.

The constitution being his guide, he felt supported by a just confidence
in his opinion; but he would not say but he might be mistaken, and was
unwilling to commit himself. It was his opinion, then, that Treaties
ought to be bottomed on a law before they can have any binding
influence. To elucidate this, he said, it would be necessary to read the
whole of the clause: Congress shall have power to make all laws which
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing
powers, (which are, he said, seventeen in number, particularly
expressed,) and _all_ other powers vested by this constitution in the
Government of the United States, or in any _department_ or officer
thereof. Here, again, he observed, we find the monosyllable _all_. What
does it import? Every one--the whole. Of what? Of all other powers
vested by this constitution in the Government of the United States, or
in any _department_ or officer thereof. What is the PRESIDENT and
two-thirds of the Senate? The Treaty-making _department_. Therefore,
being a _department_, whatever powers are vested in them by the
constitution cannot be carried into execution but by a law, otherwise
the clause in the constitution means nothing. What is a law? The will of
the people made known. Where is that will to be found? In the Senate and
House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled. Are
the PRESIDENT and two-thirds of the Senate Congress? No; therefore they
cannot make a law.

The gentleman from New Hampshire asked, what do the PRESIDENT and
two-thirds of the Senate operate upon? I answer, with him, on Treaties;
but in their nature they are only a department, and whatever a
department does cannot, he repeated, be carried into execution but by a
law. The Treaty-making power is an intermediate department, and no
instrument they can make can operate the repeal of a law, the same force
being required for a repeal as to enact. The gentleman from Rhode Island
observed, that if the House of Representatives was to have a control
over Treaties, small States might be injured in their commerce, because
the representation on that floor was unequal. Mr. M. observed, that
though his State was not a small State, yet it was small in
representation, but he apprehended no danger. Under the Articles of
Confederation, it was a Government of States; under the present
Government, it was a Government of departments, of checks. He said, the
local interest of one State was so blended with another that the
security of the one became the security of the whole, founded on a
proportion of sovereignty surrendered by each to the whole, and each
drawing from the whole its proportion of security. Let us then, said
he, examine the compact made by each with the whole on the score of
commerce. Here he read part of the 9th section: No tax or duty shall be
laid on articles exported from any State; no preference shall be given
by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over
those of another. He said, the negotiators of the Treaty, in the 12th
article, had laid a prohibition on the exportation of cotton to any part
of the world, except in British vessels--cotton, the growth of our own
soil, an important staple in the two Southern States, particularly in
the one he had the honor to represent. But it is said, and so we find
it, that this article is suspended, and open to further negotiation. He
called on the committee for any member to deny that the principle did
not still exist. He said, then, if a principle still exists in that
Treaty which militates with a fundamental principle, a principle in the
constitution, he left to the committee, which ought to yield. Were this
principle to prevail, it would destroy a vital part of the constitution,
and injure the agriculture of the States. He called on that gentleman to
beware of admitting such a principle; for, if once allowed, it would
extend not only to the cotton of Georgia, but to the flaxseed of Rhode
Island, the flour of Pennsylvania, and the tobacco of Virginia.

Mr. M. concluded by observing, that, from all he had said, it was to be
understood that the powers of legislation were only with Congress, and
that the House of Representatives could not, on the subject before them,
legislate without information. Before he sat down, he could not help
observing that it was somewhat strange that the first Treaty negotiated
under the present Government with a European nation, should produce such
a contrariety of sentiment on the meaning of the constitution, and that
he was reminded by this circumstance of the pertinent words of a
celebrated writer:

"The works of human invention are progressive, and are not completed but
by degrees. At the last improvement we are apt to sit down satisfied,
and vainly imagine that we have accomplished the end we have proposed,
but time soon unravels the fine-spun system, and we find ourselves
obliged to interweave fresh materials to repair the disordered texture."

Mr. KITCHELL observed, that he could not think of giving a silent vote
on so important a question as this had become; but he should not go into
an argumentative discussion on the subject, nor should he inquire into
the opinions held in different conventions at the adoption of the
constitution, or refer to Great Britain for precedents. He would look at
the constitution alone, and see what were the powers given to the
different branches of Government. When it says that such and such powers
are vested in Congress, and such in the Executive, he would abide by
that decision. Where that instrument says Congress shall lay and collect
taxes, regulate commerce with foreign nations, establish a uniform rule
of naturalization, provide for the common defence, &c., and that the
Executive shall have power, by and with the consent of two-thirds of the
Senate, to make Treaties, appoint Ambassadors, &c., the directions of
the constitution must be abided by.

He would inquire what Treaties could be entered into by the PRESIDENT
and Senate, without infringing upon the powers placed in Congress? He
believed Treaties of Peace, of Amity, and Friendship, could be made by
them. If this could be done, he said, those were the powers meant to be
vested in the PRESIDENT and Senate, and not that Treaties should embrace
objects which are expressly appointed to the management of Congress. In
this view, the PRESIDENT and Senate would not have the power to
influence that House in their proceedings; but commercial or other
Treaties which embraced objects the regulation of which was placed in
Congress, must be laid before them for the purpose of their passing or
refusing to pass laws to carry them into effect, in the same way as
Treaties with the Indians had been laid before them.

He did not think the question of itself before the House important, as
it related to the production of papers, but only as it involved in it an
important principle, viz: that when Treaties were made by the PRESIDENT
and Senate, and presented to that House, they had nothing to do but
appropriate money to carry them into effect. It was true gentlemen had
seemed willing to allow them what they called discretion; but it was
such a sort of discretion as a criminal might be said to have, who was
told he might choose this or that posture of suffering, but that he must
die.

It had been said that the PRESIDENT and Senate were equally the
Representatives of the people with that House. He would inquire how they
became so? The constitution has appointed that Representatives shall be
chosen by the people in proportion to their population. Were the Senate
so chosen? No. The people have no vote at all in choosing them. Are they
amenable to the people for their conduct? No. Therefore, in no shape can
they be called the Representatives of the people. The Senate, he said,
represented the several State Legislatures, and that House the people at
large. He was sure, therefore, that every thing in which the interests
of the people at large were concerned should be submitted to their
consideration, before it was carried into effect.

A great deal, he observed, had been said upon this subject, some things
well said, and a good deal that might have been as well unsaid, for any
good effect it was likely to produce. He was sorry to hear what had
fallen from a gentleman from Rhode Island with respect to the interests
of small States. He said he was himself a Representative of a small
State, and he believed his constituents were well satisfied with the
present distribution of power, and did not wish that of the PRESIDENT or
Senate to be increased.

He did not think what fell from his colleague, when he said gentlemen
wished to amuse the people with the cry of liberty, liberty, and spoke
of the groans of three or four hundred thousand slaves assailing his
ears, was meant as a reflection upon any gentleman in that House who
might hold slaves; but an earnest wish that the people at large might
never bend their necks to slavery.

He did not think the subject of the Treaty at all before the House. He
should give his vote for the papers; not so much on account of their
being of great importance in themselves, but in order to repel the
doctrine, that they had no right to discuss the merits of any Treaty
whatever.

MARCH 22.--In Committee of the Whole on Mr. LIVINGSTON's resolution:

Mr. COIT said, the attention of the committee was doubtless fatigued
with the subject before it; to those gentlemen who had already delivered
their sentiments upon the occasion, he need not make any apology; and to
those who had not done so, he would assure them that he would not occupy
much of their time.

Most of the gentlemen who had gone before him, he observed, had
regretted that the debate had taken the turn it had, but he was happy it
had taken such a turn. It appeared to him, that the motion was intended
as a stepping-stone to a violation of the rights of the other branches
of the Government by that House. It became him when he made a
declaration of this kind to say, that he did not impute other than pure
motives to any member of that House. He believed the general wish was to
discover the true sense of the constitution; yet it was not
extraordinary if in doing this men were actuated by the sentiments which
they had long been in the habit of considering as well-founded, to lean
to that construction which most favored their favorite opinions. He had
no idea that any gentleman meant to make inroads on the constitution;
but it was his opinion that if the doctrines now insisted upon
prevailed, they would have that effect.

He was happy, for two reasons, that the true ground of the present
motion was made to appear. Because, if the resolution had passed without
discussion, the motives which led to it would not have been seen; and
because he wished the question of what were the powers of that House,
with respect to Treaty-making, to be discussed, independent of the
Treaty, which was likely soon to come before them. They stood now on the
pure ground of an abstract constitutional question.

Some obscurity, Mr. C. thought, had arisen from not distinguishing the
application of arguments to the different principles on which the
resolution had been advocated, which he should endeavor to avoid. He
considered the Treaty-making power as absolutely vested in the PRESIDENT
and Senate; still, that when Legislative acts were necessary to carry a
Treaty into effect, the Legislature were not without discretion in the
passing of them; if the Legislature had a hand in making Treaties, there
could be no question of the propriety of calling for papers; he should
then, in the first place, examine the propriety of calling for papers,
taking for granted that the Legislature had no hand in making Treaties.

If they were to consider the power by which a Treaty was made, there
would be found two nations concerned, whose consent would be also
necessary to repeal it. But were there no other ways of cancelling a
Treaty? There were certainly ways of breaking a Treaty. There were
circumstances in which the breaking of a Treaty would be justifiable.
For instance, if, before a Treaty was carried into effect, there was
such a change of circumstances as to make it necessary to declare war;
could they not discuss the subject, whether it were more advisable to
carry into effect the Treaty, and keep at peace, or break it and declare
war? If a question of this kind came up, there could be no impropriety
in looking into it; not with an idea of having any concern in making the
Treaty, but because such alterations had taken place in the state of
affairs, as to make it necessary to discuss the propriety of going to
war.

There was another point of view in which that House had a check on
Treaties. Granting that a Treaty is completely made, the subject of
appropriation must come before them. Gentlemen had been understood to
say, that no discretion could be exercised in appropriating the
necessary money for carrying a Treaty into effect. But he was of a
different opinion; he believed, that though they had nothing to do with
the making of Treaties, yet when they were called upon to appropriate,
they must exercise their discretion. It was true, that in general when
Treaties were made, it would be the duty of that House to carry them
into effect, in the same way as they found it their duty to carry into
effect existing laws; but he said, there were justifiable grounds of
refusing to appropriate money to carry into effect both laws and
Treaties.

Mr. C. referred to the case of appropriations for the army. Suppose,
said he, an army was raised for four years; at the end of two years a
fresh appropriation is requisite to support it; but the Legislature has
a discretion in doing this, or where was the use of the constitutional
regulation of confining appropriations to two years? He considered, that
there was some analogy between such cases of appropriation, and those
requisite for Treaties. When a Treaty is made, the nation is bound by
it, and its organ has an obligation upon it to carry it into effect. It
might, in general, be said that there was an absolute obligation; but
still there were particular cases in which that obligation did not hold.
It appeared to him that a Treaty might possibly be of so ruinous a
nature, as to justify the refusing to carry it into effect. Nay, he
would say, that if half the lies and calumnies which had been spread
throughout the

Union with respect to the late Treaty with Great Britain were true; if
the negotiator had been bribed; if he had given up the rights of his
country; if their liberty and independence had been sacrificed; if the
PRESIDENT and Senate had been bribed by British gold; if he had any idea
of that kind, he would not agree to carry the Treaty into effect; nor
should he conceive the national faith bound by such an instrument; no
matter what grounds were taken to justify the refusal, whether
constitutional or revolutionary.

If these principles were just, he said, it would be allowed that that
House had a discretionary power with respect to appropriating to carry a
Treaty into effect, though it had nothing to do with making it. No
cause, he said, had been shown for calling for papers. Why, then, call
for them? Gentlemen talked about impeachment? They might impeach without
papers. But did they want to bring forward an impeachment? No such
thing; it was only to cover the real drift of the motion that this was
mentioned.

Did any gentleman think there was sufficient evil in the late Treaty
with Great Britain to authorize them in refusing to carry it into
effect? It appeared to him, that that House had a right to call for any
papers which might throw light on their deliberations. But they must
also consider, that there was a discretion to be used by the Executive
in giving up papers in his hands. When there are papers in his hands
which that House had real occasion for, it was important that they
should be brought forward; but, he said, as long as a proper confidence
subsisted between the two branches of the Government, if that House
asked for papers which the PRESIDENT thought it improper to send them,
he would decline doing it. But it is not contended, that the papers
which are the object of the present resolution will be of any real use
to the House. The gentleman who brought forward the motion had read them
through, and the most that he said on the subject was, that the
negotiator had not complied with some of the first instructions which
were given to him. Another ground of calling for the papers, which was
to him a pleasing ground, was that of publicity; for he fully agreed
with the gentleman from Georgia, that the more public Governmental
proceedings could with propriety be made, the better; but that House had
not the right to direct the PRESIDENT on that head; they ought rather to
leave it to him to publish the papers, or not, as he pleased; for, if
they considered the PRESIDENT as attentive at all times to the duties of
his office, it would be arrogancy in that House to attempt to influence
him in that particular.

But the main point in dispute was the force and effect of the
Treaty-making power. What were the powers and privileges of the House on
the subject? In pursuing this inquiry, he was pleased with the remark of
the gentleman from Georgia, that in examining into the meaning of the
words and phrases, they must take the meaning that was generally given
to them, and if they could find out the true import of the phrase _make_
Treaties, it would remove all doubts on the subject. He hoped, for this
purpose, that gentleman would have examined the proceedings of his own
country; but, instead of doing this, they find him referring to the
practices of Great Britain.

The PRESIDENT and Senate, Mr. C. observed, were expressly authorized to
make Treaties. To what should they compare Treaties? Might they not say
that they were betwixt nations what bargains were betwixt individuals?
And, after he had employed an agent to make a contract, with full
discretion, and he had in pursuance of his authority made it, was it not
binding? Though in public as well as in private contracts he
acknowledged there might be circumstances which would justify a
non-compliance with the terms of the bargain; yet, in case all the
circumstances had been fair, the contract must be complied with.

It appeared to him not unimportant to consider whether, when Treaties
were made, they were not the laws of the land. A power to make, carried
in his mind a power to complete. But if this were doubtful, where should
they look for information? He expected the gentleman from
Georgia--knowing him to be well acquainted with the proceedings of
Government for a long time--would have referred them to the old
Confederation. It would certainly have been more natural to have
referred them to the old Congress than to the Parliament of Great
Britain. If they looked into the powers of the old Congress they would
find that they had the power to enter into Treaties and alliances, which
he apprehended to be the same power as that placed in the PRESIDENT and
Senate in the present Government; and it was natural to conclude that a
Treaty made by the present power was equally binding with those made
under the old government; for it will be recollected that the general
power was delegated to the General Government; and if they had the same
powers, he could not see that there should be any difference in the
exercise of them. If it had been intended otherwise, the convention at
the forming of the constitution, would have added a proviso that no
Treaty should be made by the PRESIDENT and Senate which included
commercial regulations.

It appeared to him that a subject of such recent date as their
constitution could not receive much elucidation from the opinions held
concerning it in the conventions, at or about the time of passing it. He
confessed he found little aid to assist his mind to form a judgment on
the matter from any other source than the constitution itself; indeed he
thought the light was there so clear that nothing more was wanted. There
were four members, he said, in that House who were members of the
convention who formed the constitution. The sentiments of two of those
gentlemen he was not acquainted with; but two of them had spoken on
this subject. If those gentlemen had come forward and declared that such
a power as the Treaty power was contended to be was not intended to be
placed in the hands of the PRESIDENT and Senate, but that that House was
meant to have certain powers with respect to Treaties, he would not say
but that such a declaration would have shook his faith on the subject;
for, though he should still have been guided by the instrument itself,
yet authority so respectable would have its weight on his mind. But what
did the gentlemen who have delivered their sentiments say? The gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. BALDWIN) mentioned the necessity of inquiring into the
true meaning of the phrase, "make Treaties;" and, instead of telling
them what had been the practice in the old government, he went over the
water to Great Britain. What did they get from the gentleman from
Virginia, (Mr. MADISON?) He produced five sets of doubts and one problem
upon the construction of the constitution. This had the same effect on
his mind as if they had declared that the meaning of the constitution
was well understood, in the convention which formed it, to vest the
Treaty-making power completely in the PRESIDENT and Senate. It was
certainly matter of great importance where the different powers of
Government were placed, and caused considerable debates in the
convention. Some thought the Treaty-making power should be placed in the
Legislature, but that was greatly objected to; it was urged by others
that the powers should be in the PRESIDENT and a majority of the Senate;
it was again proposed that two-thirds of the whole number of the
Senators should consent to a Treaty--but finally passed as it is found
in the constitution. He was far from accusing those gentlemen with
impropriety of conduct on the occasion. If they think it would be better
for the interests of the people that that House should have a share in
the making of certain Treaties, and believe the constitution will bear
that construction, it was not for him to impeach the purity of their
motives or propriety of their conduct; but it would require strong
arguments to convince his mind that the constitution placed any such
power in that House, contrary to the unanimous understanding of the
members of the convention who formed it.

The arguments which had been urged for placing certain powers in that
House with respect to Treaties were drawn from the practice of Great
Britain, and from the danger of the Treaty power being vested wholly in
the PRESIDENT and Senate. He did not think that the Government of Great
Britain had been introduced for any other purpose than illustration,
though other use had been made of it out of doors. With respect to the
principles of that government, let them inquire into its sovereign
power; for it was a just position that Treaties must be made by the
sovereign power of a nation. Where should they find that power in Great
Britain? The King and Parliament were allowed to be omnipotent.
Parliament have altered the continuation of their existence from three
to seven years. Where must they look in the United States for the
sovereign power? They must go to the people at large; for in them it lay
alone. Their constitution limited the powers of every branch of
government, and it was therefore improper to apply foreign ideas to
their constitution. But if a Treaty was made by the agents of a
sovereign power, authorized for the purpose, the end was answered: in
the United States, the sovereign power can act only by its agents.

The Legislature of Great Britain, he said, it was true, consisted of
three branches, and that was almost the only feature in that Government
resembling that of the United States. In Great Britain, their Executive
is an hereditary Monarch, whereas the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is
elected every four years. Their House of Lords consisted of bishops and
an hereditary nobility--the bishops appointed by the Crown, and the
nobility were increased at the King's pleasure; whilst the Senate of the
United States is elected every six years. Gentlemen say the Senators are
not elected by the people, but they are chosen by the Legislatures of
the different States, who are elected by the people. The House of
Commons in Britain, which is the only representation of the people their
Government contains, is elected by a very small part of the people; and
the Crown has such an influence in it as to be able to carry most
questions at its pleasure. How could it then bear a comparison with that
House, who were chosen by the whole people every two years? The
absurdity might be admitted, in that Government, that the King had the
power to make Treaties, and that the sanction of the Legislature was
still necessary to give them legal validity, because the influence of
the Crown was so great in both Houses as to carry any measure it pleased
through them. But it would not do in this country. The comparison,
therefore, betwixt the two Governments fails, and no arguments can be
drawn from it.

The other argument respecting the danger of the power being placed
solely in the Executive arose from the comparison with Great Britain. If
the powers of the PRESIDENT and Senate of this country could with any
tolerable degree of justice be compared to those of the King and House
of Lords in Great Britain, as little taste as he had for revolutions, he
would not say but he should be induced to join gentlemen, either by
fraud or force, to overturn the constitution. He looked on the
representation in the Senate to be as complete as in that House.
Gentlemen were very fond of calling that House the popular branch of
government. He agreed that a criticism on words was in general trifling.
That gentlemen from Virginia might assert this, he allowed, as they had
nineteen members out of the hundred and five in that House, and in the
Senate only a fifteenth part of the body; but gentlemen did not mean,
when they spoke on that subject, to have reference to particular
States, but to the whole. The Senators and Representatives were
regularly apportioned for the whole Union; and, though on different
principles, were as completely represented in the one House as in the
other.

Mr. C. concluded with saying, that he had no doubt the powers vested by
the constitution were well vested; and if the constitution was fairly
considered, little doubt could remain on the subject. But if the House
passed the resolution now before the committee, he should not consider
the question as decided; but if the construction was still insisted
upon, he was happy the constitution was not wholly in their hands--that
there were joined with them in the guardianship of it, the PRESIDENT,
the Senate, and the people of the United States.

Mr. HILLHOUSE said, it was with diffidence he rose to speak on a subject
which had been so copiously and ably handled by gentlemen who had
preceded him. It had been his intention to have given a silent vote on
the resolution on the table, but the turn which the debates had
taken--involving an important constitutional question, relative to the
powers vested in the different branches of Government--seemed to create
a necessity of expressing his sentiments, lest by his vote he might seem
to subscribe to certain doctrines in the latitude in which they had been
laid down. And as he should differ in some respects from most of the
gentlemen that had spoken, he asked the indulgence of the committee
whilst he made a few remarks on a subject which he conceived to be of
vast importance, as a wrong decision might give a direction to their
government which might be of serious consequence.

On the one hand, he did not think that Treaties could not, under any
circumstances, be the subject of Legislative consideration or
discussion, and that they were not to look into them. It appeared to
him, that they not only had the right, but that it was their
indispensable duty to look into every Treaty, when called upon to aid in
its operation; to see whether it had the constitutional forms; whether
it related to objects within the province of the Treaty-making power, a
power which is not unlimited. The objects upon which it can operate are
understood and well defined, and if the Treaty-making power were to
embrace other objects, their doings would have no more binding force
than if the Legislature were to assume and exercise judicial powers
under the name of legislation. It might be proper, also, to examine the
merits of a Treaty, so far as to see whether it be of such a ruinous
nature as, according to the law of nations, it would be null, and
whether they would be justified in withholding Legislative provision to
carry it into effect. He also considered Treaties as subject to
Legislative control, so that their operation, so far as related to the
people of the United States, might be suspended or annulled whenever, in
the opinion of the Legislature, there was sufficient cause. And
further, that the clause in the constitution which provides that no
money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but "in consequence of
appropriations made by law," as vesting in the different branches of
Government a check adequate to every purpose of security.

On the other hand, he did not consider the House of Representatives as
having a constitutional right to interfere in making Treaties, or that a
Treaty needed any concurrence of that House, or Legislative sanction, to
make it the law of the land. He had always supposed that Treaties were
exactly on the footing of laws in their operation on antecedent laws,
suspending and repealing such as were repugnant. Treaties may sometimes
require Legislative aid to carry them into effect; so may laws, and they
were constantly in the habit of making laws to carry into effect laws
heretofore made.

After these preliminary observations, Mr. H. proceeded to inquire, not
what ought to be, but what was the Constitution of the United States? We
were not, he said, in Convention, but in the discharge of Legislative
functions under the constitution; and to understand the extent of the
powers intended to be granted in the second article, section two, by
these words, "the PRESIDENT shall have power, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the
Senators present concur," we must advert to the general definition of
the Treaty-making power--what objects it may embrace, and how far it can
interfere with Legislative power. A Treaty is a compact entered into by
two independent nations, for mutual advantage or defence. Nothing can,
therefore, come within the Treaty-making power but what has a relation
to both nations, and in which they have a mutual interest. The object of
this power is to secure to our citizens advantages in foreign countries
which are without or beyond our Legislative jurisdiction, to enable the
Treaty-making power to obtain which, it must necessarily be authorized
to give some consideration or equivalent therefor. If the United States
authorize an agent to make a bargain or purchase, the power of binding
the United States for a reasonable consideration is necessarily given.
Whenever the Treaty-making power departs from these rules, it is without
its jurisdiction, and such a Treaty would be of no validity. Under this
view of the subject, if we look into our code of laws, we shall find few
of them that can be affected, to any great degree, by the Treaty-making
power. All laws regulating our own internal police, so far as the
citizens of the United States alone are concerned, are wholly beyond its
reach; no foreign nation having any interest or concern in that
business, every attempt to interfere would be a mere nullity, as much as
if two individuals were to enter into a contract to regulate the conduct
or actions of a third person, who was no party to such contract. He
could, he said, illustrate his idea more readily by adverting to a law,
mentioned as being affected by the present Treaty, which was the
revenue law; which provides that certain duties shall be paid on goods
imported into the United States, and on goods coming in foreign bottoms
ten per cent. advance on the amount of such duties. This is a law no
Treaty can repeal, admitting the repealing power in its fullest
latitude, because no foreign nation can have any interest or concern in
the duties payable by our own citizens into our own Treasury. All that a
Treaty could do, would be to suspend or arrest its operation, so far as
the citizens or subjects of the nations with whom we treated, were or
might be affected by it. The only operation which the British Treaty has
upon that law is, that in consideration of our being freely admitted to
the fur trade and the trade into Canada, which opens to the enterprise
of our citizens a vast source of wealth and advantage, we only give in
return to the subjects of the King of Great Britain the privilege of
bringing, by land or inland navigation, into the United States, goods
for which they pay no more duties than our citizens pay on goods
imported in American bottoms. British subjects have always been
permitted to reside and trade in the United States, and peltry is to be
duty free in the territories of each. According to this definition of
the Treaty-making power, and as far as he could judge, he said, it was
correct; it cannot have that unlimited extension which has been ascribed
to it. It cannot be that monster which has been described as about to
swallow up all the Legislative powers of Congress; nor can there be any
danger of the PRESIDENT and Senate having it in their power, by forming
Treaties with an Indian tribe or a foreign nation, to legislate over the
United States. The Treaty-making power cannot affect the Legislative
power of Congress but in a very small and limited degree. Because a
Treaty or an Executive act may, in some instances, arrest the operation
or progress of a law, it is no argument against the existence of the
power. In article first, section eighth, of the constitution, a specific
power is granted to Congress to provide for the punishment of the
counterfeiters of the securities or coins of the United States. In
another article, the PRESIDENT is authorized generally to grant
reprieves or pardons for offences against the United States, excepting
in cases of impeachment. Can any one seriously contend that the
PRESIDENT has not the power of granting a pardon to a counterfeiter of
securities or coins, because it would suspend and defeat the operation
of a law, on a subject, specially delegated to Congress? If this
doctrine be true, that all Legislative power may be exercised by the
Treaty-making power, Congress, under the old Confederation, had
unlimited Legislative power over the States. The old Confederation
vested in Congress an unlimited power to make Treaties, excepting only
that the States were to be at liberty to impose like duties on
foreigners as on their own people, and that the exportation or
importation of goods was not to be prohibited. Was it ever imagined
that, by this general power, Congress had a right, by forming a Treaty
with a foreign power, to legislate over the States to any extent?
Suppose Congress, instead of taking so much pains to persuade the States
to consent to their laying the five per cent. impost, and in obtaining
which they were finally defeated by the refusal of one State, after
every possible exertion, had undertaken to have it done by Treaty? Would
not the measures have been reprobated with one voice, and the Treaty
considered as a nullity?

In the first place, in Art. I., organizing a Legislative body, and
delegating to them, not all, but a part only of the Legislative power of
the States, in these words: "All Legislative powers herein granted shall
be vested in a Congress;" and among the specified powers, the right of
regulating commerce with foreign nations. How were they to regulate
commerce? Not by the exercise of the Treaty-making power. This article
of the constitution has not the least relation to that kind of power: it
was Legislative power only that was meant: it vested Congress with the
whole power, as far as the object could be accomplished by a Legislative
act; but this power would embrace but a small part of the objects which
come within the term of regulating commerce with foreign nations; it
could extend no further than the bounds of our own jurisdiction. There
is not a single expression that looks like authorizing them to act in
any other than their Legislative character.

The constitution then proceeds, in the second Article, to the
establishment of an Executive power, to be vested in a PRESIDENT, and in
the second section, says: "The PRESIDENT shall have power, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided
two-thirds of the Senators present concur." The most general terms are
used, and such as under the old Confederation had been understood to
embrace every kind of Treaty, commercial as well as others, and had been
exercised in the most ample and unlimited manner, and the Treaties thus
formed had been declared and adjudged to have the force and operation of
a law, and that they repealed all laws that were opposed to them; and
these Treaties were then in full force and operation, and were the
supreme law of the land. It cannot be presumed that the framers of our
constitution were ignorant of the laws of the land, or that they had not
well attended to and examined Treaties, which, by the constitution, they
were again about to declare to be the supreme law of the land under the
new Government. Now, if it really was intended that the Treaty-making
power should not be as broad, and have the same extension and operation
as had been exercised under the old Confederation, or that there was to
be a distinction between commercial Treaties and others, or that
Treaties generally should not so operate as to repeal pre-existing laws,
or that the concurrence of the House of Representatives, or sanction of
Congress, should, under any circumstances, be necessary to give
validity or force to a Treaty, how can we account for the total silence
of the constitution on this subject, and that there should not be a
single sentence in the whole instrument that even looks that way? If any
limitation was intended, the convention certainly knew that it was
necessary it should be inserted. When we examine the constitution, and
see with what accuracy and care it is drawn up, how wonderfully every
part of it is guarded, that there is not a single word but appears to
have been carefully examined, and when we call to mind the members of
that convention, and find them to have been the ablest and most accurate
men of our country, we cannot presume that we should have been left to
the sad alternative, for the purpose of explaining so important an
article of our constitution, which might have been so easily made
definite, to be obliged to resort to the British House of Commons for
precedents, and those too which were derived from the most turbulent
periods of the Government of that nation; when, it is a possible case,
that the change of a Ministry, or the rage of party, might have been
more immediately the object of pursuit than the true interest of the
nation; more especially as the practice of our own Government, and the
legal opinion of our own country, were directly opposed to such a
construction. But if all this might be supposed not to have had
sufficient weight to have induced the convention to have introduced such
a limitation, or some intimation that such limitation was intended, they
must have supposed it necessary when they handed out with the
constitution, which were declared by the ratification thereof to be the
supreme law of the land, Treaties of every description, commercial as
well as others. To me, the language of this transaction is, we have, by
one article of this constitution, granted the Treaty-making power, in
general terms, to the PRESIDENT and Senate.

      MARCH 24.--[The question was taken on Mr. LIVINGSTON's
      resolution, which is in the following words:]

      "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
      requested to lay before this House a copy of the
      instructions to the Minister of the United States, who
      negotiated the Treaty with the King of Great Britain,
      communicated by his Message of the first of March, together
      with the correspondence and other documents relative to the
      said Treaty; excepting such of said papers as any existing
      negotiation may render improper to be disclosed."

The division on this resolution, in Committee of the Whole, was--for the
resolution 61, against it 38--majority 23.

The resolution was then taken up in the House, and the yeas and nays
being called upon it, were taken, and stood yeas 62, nays 37, as
follows:

      YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, David Bard, Abraham Baldwin,
      Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan,
      Dempsey Burges, Samuel J. Cabell, Gabriel Christie, Thomas
      Claiborne, John Clopton, Isaac Coles, Henry Dearborn,
      George Dent, Gabriel Duvall, Samuel Earle, William Findlay,
      Jesse Franklin, Albert Gallatin, William B. Giles, James
      Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, Christopher Greenup, William B.
      Grove, Wade Hampton, George Hancock, Carter B. Harrison,
      John Hathorn, Jonathan N. Havens, John Heath, James
      Holland, George Jackson, Aaron Kitchell, Edward Livingston,
      Matthew Locke, William Lyman, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel
      Macon, James Madison, John Milledge, Andrew Moore,
      Frederick A. Muhlenberg, Anthony New, John Nicholas,
      Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Josiah Parker, John Patton,
      Francis Preston, John Richards, Robert Rutherford, John S.
      Sherburne, Israel Smith, Samuel Smith, Thomas Sprigg, John
      Swanwick, Absalom Tatom, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B.
      Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Richard Winn.

      NAYS.--Benjamin Bourne, Theophilus Bradbury, Daniel Buck,
      Joshua Coit, William Cooper, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster,
      Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas Gilman,
      Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, Chauncey Goodrich, Roger
      Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, James
      Hillhouse, William Hindman, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel
      Lyman, Francis Malbone, William Vans Murray, John Reed,
      Theodore Sedgwick, Samuel Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith,
      Nathaniel Smith, Isaac Smith, William Smith, Zephaniah
      Swift, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson,
      Uriah Tracy, John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, John
      Williams.

RECAPITULATION.--Yeas 62, nays 37, absent 5--104--the Speaker 1--whole
number of Representatives 105.[72]

Mr. DAYTON, the Speaker, in Committee of the Whole, voted against the
resolution.

MARCH 25.--The committee, (Messrs. LIVINGSTON and GALLATIN,) appointed
to present the resolution agreed to yesterday to the PRESIDENT,
reported, that the PRESIDENT answered, that he would take the resolution
into consideration.

MARCH 30.--The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT in
answer to the resolution of the House:

      _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_

      With the utmost attention I have considered your resolution
      of the 24th instant, requesting me to lay before your House
      a copy of the instructions to the Minister of the United
      States, who negotiated the Treaty with the King of Great
      Britain, together with the correspondence and other
      documents relative to that Treaty, excepting such of the
      said papers as any existing negotiation may render improper
      to be disclosed.

       In deliberating upon this subject, it was impossible for
      me to lose sight of the principle which some have avowed in
      its discussion, or to avoid extending my views to the
      consequences which must flow from the admission of that
      principle.

      I trust that no part of my conduct has ever indicated a
      disposition to withhold any information which the
      constitution has enjoined upon the President, as a duty, to
      give, or which could be required of him by either House of
      Congress as a right; and, with truth, I affirm, that it has
      been, as it will continue to be, while I have the honor to
      preside in the Government, my constant endeavor to
      harmonize with the other branches thereof, so far as the
      trust delegated to me by the people of the United States,
      and my sense of the obligation it imposes, to "preserve,
      protect, and defend the constitution," will permit.

      The nature of foreign negotiations requires caution; and
      their success must often depend on secrecy; and even, when
      brought to a conclusion, a full disclosure of all the
      measures, demands, or eventual concessions which may have
      been proposed or contemplated would be extremely impolitic;
      for this might have a pernicious influence on future
      negotiations; or produce immediate inconveniences, perhaps
      danger and mischief, in relation to other Powers. The
      necessity of such caution and secrecy was one cogent reason
      for vesting the power of making Treaties in the President
      with the advice and consent of the Senate; the principle on
      which the body was formed confining it to a small number of
      members. To admit, then, a right in the House of
      Representatives to demand, and to have, as a matter of
      course, all the papers respecting a negotiation with a
      foreign Power, would be to establish a dangerous precedent.

      It does not occur that the inspection of the papers asked
      for can be relative to any purpose under the cognizance of
      the House of Representatives, except that of an
      impeachment; which the resolution has not expressed. I
      repeat, that I have no disposition to withhold any
      information which the duty of my station will permit, or
      the public good shall require; to be disclosed; and, in
      fact, all the papers affecting the negotiation with Great
      Britain were laid before the Senate, when the Treaty itself
      was communicated for their consideration and advice.

      The course which the debate has taken on the resolution of
      the House, leads to some observations on the mode of making
      Treaties under the Constitution of the United States.

      Having been a member of the General Convention, and knowing
      the principles on which the constitution was formed, I have
      ever entertained but one opinion on this subject, and from
      the first establishment of the Government to this moment,
      my conduct has exemplified that opinion, that the power of
      making Treaties is exclusively vested in the President, by
      and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided
      two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and that every
      Treaty so made, and promulgated, thenceforward becomes the
      law of the land. It is thus that the Treaty-making power
      has been understood by foreign nations, and in all the
      Treaties made with them, _we_ have declared, and _they_
      have believed, that when ratified by the President, with
      the advice and consent of the Senate, they became
      obligatory. In this construction of the constitution every
      House of Representatives has heretofore acquiesced, and
      until the present time not a doubt or suspicion has
      appeared to my knowledge that this construction was not the
      true one. Nay, they have more than acquiesced; for until
      now, without controverting the obligation of such Treaties,
      they have made all the requisite provisions for carrying
      them into effect.

      There is also reason to believe that this construction
      agrees with the opinions entertained by the State
      Conventions, when they were deliberating on the
      constitution, especially by those who objected to it,
      because there was not required in Commercial Treaties the
      consent of two-thirds of the whole number of the members of
      the Senate, instead of two-thirds of the Senators present,
      and because, in Treaties respecting territorial and certain
      other rights and claims, the concurrence of three-fourths
      of the whole number of the members of both Houses
      respectively was not made necessary.

      It is a fact, declared by the General Convention, and
      universally understood, that the Constitution of the United
      States was the result of a spirit of amity and mutual
      concession. And it is well known that, under this
      influence, the smaller States were admitted to an equal
      representation in the Senate, with the larger States; and
      that this branch of the Government was invested with great
      powers; for, on the equal participation of those powers,
      the sovereignty and political safety of the smaller States
      were deemed essentially to depend.

      If other proofs than these, and the plain letter of the
      constitution itself, be necessary to ascertain the point
      under consideration, they may be found in the Journals of
      the General Convention, which I have deposited in the
      office of the Department of State. In those Journals it
      will appear, that a proposition was made, "that no Treaty
      should be binding on the United States which was not
      ratified by a law," and that the proposition was explicitly
      rejected.

      As, therefore, it is perfectly clear to my understanding,
      that the assent of the House of Representatives is not
      necessary to the validity of a Treaty; as the Treaty with
      Great Britain exhibits in itself all the objects requiring
      Legislative provision, and on these the papers called for
      can throw no light; and as it is essential to the due
      administration of the Government, that the boundaries fixed
      by the constitution between the different departments
      should be preserved--a just regard to the constitution and
      to the duty of my office, under all the circumstances of
      this case, forbid a compliance with your request.

                                  G. WASHINGTON.[73]

      UNITED STATES, _March 80, 1796_.


REFERENCE OF THE ANSWER TO A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

MARCH 31.--Mr. BLOUNT moved that the Message be referred to a Committee
of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. GILES was of opinion it had better be referred to a Committee of the
Whole simply.

Mr. SEDGWICK saw no reason for such a reference. He wished gentlemen
would point out the object of the motion.

Mr. THATCHER saw no good to be obtained by referring it. The House had
requested the PRESIDENT to lay certain papers before them; the
PRESIDENT answers, that he has none for them. Why a reference? The House
asked a question; the PRESIDENT answered in the negative--for what
purpose refer the answer? what would be gained by it?

Mr. BLOUNT observed, that the PRESIDENT's Message stands upon the
journals of the House; he wished, also, that the House should state upon
their journals the reasons which influenced them to make the request.
Perhaps, also, he said, a consideration of the Message might lead to
some further measure proper to be adopted. He was indifferent whether it
was referred to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, or a
Committee of the Whole, simply.

Mr. NICHOLAS remarked that it was prejudging the question to say that
nothing could arise out of a consideration of the Message. The present
is a crisis important in the affairs of the country, independently of
the Treaty. If the Message was a proper subject of discussion, it was
proper to refer it to a Committee of the Whole. He did not think a
reference to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union
proper; because the Message points to a subject differing from that
referred to that committee. The investigation at any rate could produce
nothing wrong.

Mr. GILES said, that the member from North Carolina (Mr. BLOUNT) had
explained the object he had in view by a reference. He preferred a
reference to a Committee of the Whole, independently; because the
Message itself would furnish matter enough for consideration by itself.
He should object to its being referred to the Committee of the Whole,
who are to take into consideration the British Treaty; because he never
would consent to act upon that subject till the papers deemed material
to the investigation were laid upon the table. He hoped the reference to
a Committee of the Whole, generally, would be agreed to. It certainly
would be proper for the House to state their reasons for the call. This
call had given rise to a great constitutional question; the PRESIDENT
had stated the reasons of his opinion; if the House were not convinced
by them, (and he owned that, for one, he was not,) then it would be
proper that they should present to the public their reasons for
differing with him.

Mr. THATCHER argued, that the reasons of the House were contained in the
speeches of members in favor of the motion; the papers had been filled
with them, and a pamphlet was going to be published containing them all.
If this was not sufficient, the gentlemen had better direct the pamphlet
to be copied on the journals.

Mr. WILLIAMS considered this a new question, and wished for time to
consider. The PRESIDENT's Message is only an answer to a request of the
House. It does not call for any thing to be done, then why a reference?
Such a reference would be unprecedented. Entering the reasons of the
House on the journals could produce no good. The House could not call
for the papers more than they had done. He reminded the House that
three weeks had already been spent in agreeing to the call; if they
agreed to the present motion, they would spend as much more in agreeing
to the reasons. The PRESIDENT, in his Message, had mentioned the
proceedings of the grand Convention; this was a new topic to him not
started in debate; when the Treaty is before the House, perhaps they
might wish to have the Message before them on that ground. He should
vote for the reference if gentlemen could assign (what they had not yet
done) a proper motive for it.

Mr. SEDGWICK urged that the reasons of the majority would make a large
book. Were the Committee of the Whole to turn authors and write a
dissertation on part of the constitution? The people did not send their
Representatives here for any such purpose, and he hoped it would not be
persisted in. If the reasons of the House were to be drafted, he
ventured to predict, that they would reach the end of their political
career before the discussion that must necessarily arise upon them would
be brought to a close. Such a measure would be unprecedented, and lead
to a great waste of time, and continually defeat the real objects of
their mission. The session had been long enough already, and it must be
lengthened to accomplish the necessary business of it. If the gentlemen
would write books, he was confident every body would buy them; but he
could not see the propriety of the present motion.

Mr. BLOUNT observed, that the PRESIDENT refers, in his Message, to the
debate in the House, and insinuates that the House contend for a right
not given them by the constitution. This was the first instance of any
importance of a difference between the House of Representatives and the
Executive respecting a great constitutional point; it was then proper to
make such a disposal of the Message as to enable the House to state
their reasons in support of their opinion, that the people may be
rightly informed, that they may see the House is attempting no
encroachment.

Mr. HEATH hoped the Message would not be passed over in silence. The
PRESIDENT surely is not infallible. A very important constitutional
question is involved; he hoped the reference would be agreed to.

Mr. SITGREAVES was against the motion. The House have made a demand on
the PRESIDENT; the PRESIDENT refused it; this must naturally put an end
to the correspondence on this subject. The difference of sentiment
between the two branches is not sufficient reason for converting the
journals of the House into a volume of debates. If the majority are to
place their reasons, the minority cannot be denied the same indulgence;
then for a rejoinder, rebutters, surrebutters, without end. From the
practice of the House, in a case analogous, a rule of conduct for the
present case may be drawn. When a bill is sent to the PRESIDENT, if he
dislikes it, he negatives and sends it to the House with his reasons.
Those reasons are put on the journals, as directed by the constitution;
but it contains nothing to direct or authorize the majority to register
their reasons, and thus to enter into a controversy. The return bill is
put to vote, and if two-thirds of each House agree to it, it passes; if
not, it falls to the ground, but no reasons are entered on the part of
the House.

Mr. GALLATIN said he did not expect the motion for a reference would
have met with any opposition. Some members are of opinion, that the
Message should be passed over in silence; others had resolved to ground
some act upon it. There exists a difference, then, on this first point.
The natural course is, then, a reference to a Committee of the Whole, to
determine whether the House would act further on the business.

In Committee of the Whole a discussion could be had concerning the
propriety of acting further on the Message. When the House made the call
for papers, they did not give their reasons in the resolution; it was
but a bare request. The PRESIDENT decided he could not comply with it.
If he had stopped here, perhaps there might be grounds for ending the
correspondence here; but he was not satisfied with this, but has entered
into his motives for refusing. Indeed, he had gone further; he had
adverted to the debates had in the House. He may be mistaken as to the
motives he ascribes to the House. In this delicate situation it is
certainly right to notice the Message, and to explain the real motives
of the House in support of the motion. If it is a novelty to reply to an
answer of the PRESIDENT's, it was equally a novelty, also, in making an
answer to notice a debate in support of a resolution. It is necessary to
refer the Message to a Committee of the Whole, to determine how to act.
He declared his mind was not made up upon this point, and therefore he
wished it referred to a Committee of the Whole. Not, however, to the
Committee on the state of the Union, because there exists no connection
with the subject referred to that committee. Referring to a Committee of
the Whole is deciding nothing, but only determining to examine; it could
not decide on the propriety of acting.

Mr. COOPER said, that the further the gentlemen travelled a wrong road,
the further they would get out of a true course, and the more difficult
it would be to return.

Mr. HARPER observed, that this was not the first attempt to get the
House to do something, to commit them to do something further. A motion
is now made to refer the Message to a Committee of the Whole, and the
House are told, that if the motion be carried, it is nothing, it is
deciding nothing, but will only lead to an inquiry whether the House
ought to act. He insisted that such a reference would in fact be
determining that they would act, and then, in committee, they would
determine how, and in that committee, he said they would be asked, why
did the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole if not to
act? So, when the Indian Treaty was ratified, a motion was made to
request the PRESIDENT to lay it before the House. When it was laid
before them, it was then contended that the House had a right to
interfere in the Treaty, or why ask for it? It could not be supposed
that gentlemen of any understanding could be imposed upon by such a
flimsy sophistry. It was now the proper time, and the House the proper
place, he contended, to settle the principle whether the House would
sanction any further proceedings on the Message. What reason could be
adduced for acting? It is said that the PRESIDENT has not only refused
the papers, but given his reasons for the refusal, and that his
reference to the debate, and the statement he made about the motives of
the House, might be found incorrect; that the PRESIDENT may have
attributed to the majority motives they were not willing to avow. The
motives had been avowed by the gentleman who led the business from
Pennsylvania.

Mr. HARPER was called to order. He concluded by declaring that he would
vote against the reference.

Mr. VARNUM observed, that a great constitutional question was to be
decided; two branches of the Government differed, and they had joined
issue. The PRESIDENT had given the reasons of his opinion; it was right,
also, that the people should know the sense of the House. Shall the
House take no further measures on the subject, and receive the answer of
the PRESIDENT as obligatory with regard to the question? He believed
every member of the House has, as well as the PRESIDENT, the right to
avow his principles, and to judge of the import of the different parts
of the constitution. The House he conceived under an obligation to
consider the question: if they found, upon consideration, reason to
recede from their opinions, he hoped they would. He wished the subject
examined with temper and candor.

Mr. KITTERA chiefly dwelt on the length of time, which, if the motion
was agreed to, would be consumed in the business. He also touched on the
impropriety of entering into a disquisition on the merits of this
question on the journals.

Mr. CRABB.--Mr. SPEAKER, I hope the Message received from the PRESIDENT,
in answer to the resolution of this House, calling for certain papers
relative to the British Treaty, will be referred to a Committee of the
whole House. My reasons for this wish are, because the PRESIDENT has
refused the papers on constitutional principles, and has thought proper
to go into a detail of the reasons which led to a formation of his
opinion; therefore I apprehend it proper to make the reference, in
order, that if the reasons urged by the PRESIDENT are such as to
convince this House that he is right as to the constitutional question,
that they may have an opportunity to acknowledge it, that it may be so
known and understood abroad, inasmuch as the contrary opinion has been
promulgated; and again, I wish the reference, that this House may, with
respect and calm deliberation, consider the PRESIDENT's Message, and the
reasons on which his refusal to send the papers is grounded, that if
those reasons are not such as to convince or change the opinion of this
House, they, in that case, may have an opportunity so to express
themselves, and to introduce resolutions to that effect, that the
opinion of this House, on this great constitutional question, after the
receipt and consideration of the PRESIDENT's Message, may be fully
known, clearly understood, and stamped on your journals. I think this a
necessary measure, inasmuch as sundry Treaties lately negotiated are now
before this House, and by a declaratory resolution, as before stated,
this House may save the constitutional principle, and feel themselves at
perfect liberty to pass the necessary laws to carry these Treaties into
complete effect, without conveying the implication, that they think they
are bound so to do, and have not a constitutional right to reject and
refuse, when even they shall judge the general prosperity of the Union,
and the interest of their constituents, may be promoted by that refusal.

Mr. GILES said, he had not expected the subject would have been treated
with ridicule, and that members in reply should advise others to go and
write pamphlets. The motives of a branch of Government must necessarily
differ from the motives of individuals expressed in their speeches. A
majority of the House, when their sentiments are collected, speak the
sense of the House. He adverted to the practice of the House when the
PRESIDENT returns a bill, which had been mentioned by the opposers of
the motion, and observed, that in cases of that kind the message of the
PRESIDENT was acted upon. He observed on the importance of the subject,
and insisted on the propriety of the House expressing their reasons for
their vote. They owe it to themselves, to the United States, to the
whole world, to exhibit their reasons for what the PRESIDENT has
declared to be an unconstitutional call. For this purpose, the Message
should be referred to a Committee of the Whole, where a proper motion
would be brought forward, and could be freely discussed. If it had been
proposed to refer the Message to a select committee, to place the
business into a few hands, there might have been an objection, but a
reference to a Committee of the Whole he considered quite
unexceptionable.

Mr. N. SMITH said the present was a most singular motion; and, after
noticing the several reasons which had been given for the measure,
thought none of them had any weight. He said the referring of the
Message could only have one effect; it would engage three weeks more of
their time; and yet, gentlemen who had been very economical with respect
to time, on the late great constitutional point, by calling for the
question from day to day, now proposed to consume it in the way
proposed. He should, however, now show that economy on account of time,
which had been so much insisted upon on a former occasion.

The yeas and nays were now taken on the question of a reference of the
PRESIDENT's Message to a Committee of the Whole; and the motion was
agreed to--yeas 55, nays 37.

DEBATE ON THE PRESIDENT'S ANSWER.

APRIL 6.--The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the
Whole on said Message.

Mr. BLOUNT brought forward the following resolutions:

      "_Resolved_, That, it being declared by the second section
      of the second article of the constitution, 'that the
      President shall have power, by and with the advice of the
      Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senate
      present concur,' the House of Representatives do not claim
      any agency in making Treaties; but, that when a Treaty
      stipulates regulations on any of the subjects submitted by
      the constitution to the power of Congress, it must depend,
      for its execution, as to such stipulations, on a law or
      laws to be passed by Congress. And it is the constitutional
      right and duty of the House of Representatives, in all such
      cases, to deliberate on the expediency or inexpediency of
      carrying such Treaty into effect, and to determine and act
      thereon, as, in their judgment, may be most conducive to
      the public good.[74]

      "_Resolved_, That it is not necessary to the propriety of
      any application from this House to the Executive, for
      information desired by them, and which may relate to any
      constitutional functions of the House, that the purpose for
      which such information may be wanted, or to which the same
      may be applied, should be stated in the application."

Mr. HARPER, Mr. DAYTON, and Mr. KITCHELL, offered a few remarks with
respect to the propriety of considering the resolutions now moved, or
those laid upon the table, by Mr. KITCHELL, a few days ago. After
which--

Mr. MADISON rose, and spoke as follows: When the Message was first
proposed to be committed, the proposition had been treated by some
gentlemen not only with levity, but with ridicule. He persuaded himself
that the subject would appear in a very different light to the
committee; and he hoped that it would be discussed on both sides without
either levity, intemperance, or illiberality.

If there were any question which could make a serious appeal to the
dispassionate judgment, it must be one which respected the meaning of
the constitution; and if any constitutional question could make the
appeal with peculiar solemnity, it must be in a case like the present,
where two of the constituted authorities interpreted differently the
extent of their respective powers.

It was a consolation, however, of which every member would be sensible,
to reflect on the happy difference of our situation, on such
occurrences, from that of governments in which the constituent members
possessed independent and hereditary prerogatives. In such governments,
the parties having a personal interest in their public stations, and not
being amenable to the national will, disputes concerning the limits of
their respective authorities might be productive of the most fatal
consequences. With us, on the contrary, although disputes of that kind
are always to be regretted, there were three most precious resources
against the evil tendency of them. In the first place, the
responsibility which every department feels to the public will, under
the forms of the constitution, may be expected to prevent the excesses
incident to conflicts between rival and irresponsible authorities. In
the next place, if the difference cannot be adjusted by friendly
conference and mutual concession, the sense of the constituent body,
brought into the Government through the ordinary elective channels, may
supply a remedy. And if this resource should fail, there remains, in the
third and last place, that provident article in the constitution itself,
by which an avenue is always open to the sovereignty of the people, for
explanations or amendments, as they might be found indispensable.

If, in the present instance, it was to be particularly regretted that
the existing difference of opinion had arisen, every motive to the
regret was a motive to calmness, to candor, and the most respectful
delicacy towards the other constituted authority. On the other hand, the
duty which the House of Representatives must feel to themselves and to
their constituents, required that they should examine the subject with
accuracy, as well as with candor, and decide on it with firmness, as
well as with moderation.

In this temper, he should proceed to make some observations on the
Message before the committee, and on the reasons contained in it.

The Message related to two points. First. The application made for the
papers. Secondly. The constitutional rights of Congress, and of the
House of Representatives, on the subject of Treaties.

On the first point, he observed, that the right of the House to apply
for any information they might want, had been admitted by a number in
the minority, who had opposed the exercise of the right in this
particular case. He thought it clear that the House must have a right,
in all cases, to ask for information which might assist their
deliberations on the subjects submitted to them by the constitution;
being responsible, nevertheless, for the propriety of the measure. He
was as ready to admit that the Executive had a right, under a due
responsibility, also, to withhold information, when of a nature that did
not permit a disclosure of it at the time. And if the refusal of the
PRESIDENT had been founded simply on a representation that the state of
the business within his department, and the contents of the papers asked
for, required it, although he might have regretted the refusal, he
should have been little disposed to criticise it. But the Message had
contested what appeared to him a clear and important right of the House;
and stated reasons for refusing the papers, which, with all the respect
he could feel for the Executive, he could not regard as satisfactory or
proper.

One of the reasons was, that it did not occur to the Executive that the
papers could be relative to any purpose under the cognizance, and in the
contemplation of the House. The other was, that the purpose for which
they were wanted was not expressed in the resolution of the House.

With respect to the first, it implied that the Executive was not only to
judge of the proper objects and functions of the Executive Department,
but, also, of the objects and functions of the House. He was not only to
decide how far the Executive trust would permit a disclosure of
information, but how far the Legislative trust could derive advantage
from it. It belonged, he said, to each department to judge for itself.
If the Executive conceived that, in relation to his own department,
papers could not be safely communicated, he might, on that ground,
refuse them, because he was the competent, though a responsible judge
within his own department. If the papers could be communicated without
injury to the objects of his department, he ought not to refuse them as
irrelative to the objects of the House of Representatives; because the
House was, in such cases, the only proper judge of its own objects.

The other reason of refusal was, that the use which the House meant to
make of the papers was not expressed in the resolution.

As far as he could recollect, no precedent could be found in the records
of the House, or elsewhere, in which the particular object in calling
for information was expressed in the call. It was not only contrary to
right to require this, but it would often be improper in the House to
express the object. In the particular case of an impeachment referred to
in the Message, it might be evidently improper to state that to be the
object of information which might possibly lead to it, because it would
involve the preposterous idea of first determining to impeach, and then
inquiring whether an impeachment ought to take place. Even the holding
out an impeachment as a contemplated or contingent result of the
information called for, might be extremely disagreeable in practice, as
it might inflict a temporary pain on an individual, whom an
investigation of facts might prove to be innocent, and perhaps
meritorious.

From this view of the subject he could not forbear wishing that, if the
papers were to be refused, other reasons had been assigned for it. He
thought the resolutions offered by the gentleman from North Carolina,
one of which related to this subject, ought to stand on the journal
along with the Message which had been entered there. Both the
resolutions were penned with moderation and propriety. They went no
farther than to assert the rights of the House; they courted no reply;
and it ought not to be supposed they could give any offence.

The second object to which the measure related was the constitutional
power of the House on the subject of Treaties.

Here, again, he hoped it may be allowable to wish that it had not been
deemed necessary to take up, in so solemn a manner, a great
constitutional question, which was not contained in the resolution
presented by the House, which had been incidental only to the discussion
of that resolution, and which could only have been brought into view
through the unauthentic medium of the newspapers. This, however, would
well account for the misconception which had taken place in the doctrine
maintained by the majority in the late question. It had been understood
by the Executive, that the House asserted its assent to be necessary to
the validity of Treaties. This was not the doctrine maintained by them.
It was, he believed, fairly laid down in the resolution proposed, which
limited the power of the House over Treaties, to cases where Treaties
embraced Legislative subjects, submitted by the constitution to the
power of the House.

Mr. M. did not mean to go into the general merits of this question, as
discussed when the former resolution was before the committee. The
Message did not request it, having drawn none of its reasoning from the
text of the constitution. It had merely affirmed that the power of
making Treaties is exclusively vested by the constitution in the
PRESIDENT, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Nothing
more was necessary on this point than to observe that the constitution
had as expressly and exclusively vested in Congress the power of making
laws, as it had vested in the PRESIDENT and Senate the power of making
Treaties.

He proceeded to review the several topics on which the Message relied.
First. The intention of the body which framed the constitution.
Secondly. The opinions of the State Conventions who adopted it. Thirdly.
The peculiar rights and interests of the smaller States. Fourthly. The
manner in which the constitution had been understood by the Executive
and the foreign nations, with which Treaties had been formed. Fifthly.
The acquiescence and acts of the House on former occasions.

1. When the members on the floor, who were members of the General
Convention, particularly a member from Georgia and himself, were called
on in a former debate for the sense of that body on the constitutional
question, it was a matter of some surprise, which was much increased by
the peculiar stress laid on the information expected. He acknowledged
his surprise, also, at seeing the Message of the Executive appealing to
the same proceedings in the General Convention, as a clue to the meaning
of the constitution.

It had been his purpose, during the late debate, to make some
observations on what had fallen from the gentlemen from Connecticut and
Maryland, if the sudden termination of the debate had not cut him off
from the opportunity. He should have reminded them that this was the
ninth year since the Convention executed their trust, and that he had
not a single note in this place to assist his memory. He should have
remarked, that neither himself nor the other members who had belonged to
the Federal Convention, could be under any particular obligation to rise
in answer to a few gentlemen, with information, not merely of their own
ideas at that period, but of the intention of the whole body; many
members of which, too, had probably never entered into the discussions
of the subject. He might have further remarked, that there would not be
much delicacy in the undertaking, as it appeared that a sense had been
put on the constitution by some who were members of the Convention,
different from that which must have been entertained by others, who had
concurred in ratifying the Treaty.

After taking notice of the doctrine of Judge Wilson, who was a member of
the Federal Convention, as quoted by Mr. GALLATIN from the Pennsylvania
debates, he proceeded to mention that three gentlemen, who had been
members of the convention, were parties to the proceedings in
Charleston, South Carolina, which, among other objections to the Treaty,
represented it as violating the constitution. That the very respectable
citizen, who presided at the meeting in Wilmington, whose resolutions
made a similar complaint, had also been a distinguished member of the
body that formed the constitution.

It would have been proper for him, also, to have recollected what had,
on a former occasion, happened to himself during a debate in the House
of Representatives. When the bill for establishing a National Bank was
under consideration, he had opposed it, as not warranted by the
constitution, and incidentally remarked, that his impression might be
stronger, as he remembered that, in the convention, a motion was made
and negatived, for giving Congress a power to grant charters of
incorporation. This slight reference to the convention, he said, was
animadverted on by several in the course of the debate, and particularly
by a gentleman from Massachusetts, who had himself been a member of the
convention, and whose remarks were not unworthy the attention of the
committee. Here Mr. M. read a paragraph from Mr. GERRY's speech, from
the Gazette of the United States, page 814, protesting, in strong terms,
against arguments drawn from that source.

Mr. M. said, he did not believe a single instance could be cited in
which the sense of the convention had been required or admitted as
material in any constitutional question. In the case of the Bank, the
committee had seen how a glance at that authority had been treated in
this House. When the question on the suability of the States was
depending in the Supreme Court, he asked, whether it had ever been
understood that the members of the bench, who had been members of the
convention, were called on for the meaning of the convention on that
very important point, although no constitutional question would be
presumed more susceptible of elucidation from that source?

He then adverted to that part of the Message which contained an extract
from the Journal of the convention, showing that a proposition "that no
Treaty should be binding on the United States, which was not ratified by
law," was explicitly rejected. He allowed this to be much more precise
than any evidence drawn from the debates in the convention, or resting
on the memory of individuals. But, admitting the case to be as stated,
of which he had no doubt, although he had no recollection of it, and
admitting the record of the convention to be the oracle that ought to
decide the true meaning of the constitution, what did this abstract vote
amount to? Did it condemn the doctrine of the majority? So far from it,
that, as he understood their doctrine, they must have voted as the
convention did; for they do not contend that no Treaty shall be
operative without a law to sanction it; on the contrary, they admit that
some Treaties will operate without this sanction; and that it is no
further applicable in any case than where Legislative objects are
embraced by Treaties. The term "ratify" also deserved some attention;
for, although of loose signification in general, it had a technical
meaning different from the agency claimed by the House on the subject of
Treaties.

But, after all, whatever veneration might be entertained for the body of
men who formed our constitution, the sense of that body could never be
regarded as the oracular guide in expounding the constitution. As the
instrument came from them it was nothing more than the draft of a plan,
nothing but a dead letter, until life and validity were breathed into it
by the voice of the people, speaking through the several State
Conventions. If we were to look, therefore, for the meaning of the
instrument beyond the face of the instrument, we must look for it, not
in the General Convention, which proposed, but in the State Convention,
which accepted and ratified the constitution. To these also the Message
had referred, and it would be proper to follow it.

2. The debates of the convention in three States (Pennsylvania,
Virginia, and North Carolina) had been before introduced into the
discussion of this subject, and were believed the only publications of
the sort which contained any lights with respect to it. He would not
fatigue the committee with a repetition of the passages then read to
them. He would only appeal to the committee to decide whether it did not
appear, from a candid and collected view of the debates in those
conventions, and particularly in that of Virginia, that the
Treaty-making power was a limited power; and that the powers in our
constitution, on this subject, bore an analogy to the powers on the
same subject in the Government of Great Britain. He wished, as little
as any member could, to extend the analogies between the two
Governments; but it was clear that the constituent parts of two
Governments might be perfectly heterogeneous, and yet the powers be
similar.

At once to illustrate his meaning, and give a brief reply to some
arguments on the other side, which had heretofore been urged with
ingenuity and learning, he would mention, as an example, the power of
pardoning offences. This power was vested in the PRESIDENT; it was a
prerogative also of the British King. And, in order to ascertain the
extent of the technical term "pardon," in our constitution, it would not
be irregular to search into the meaning and exercise of the power in
Great Britain. Yet, where is the general analogy between an hereditary
Sovereign, not accountable for his conduct, and a Magistrate like the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, elected for four years, with limited
powers, and liable to impeachment for the abuse of them?

In referring to the debates of the State Conventions as published, he
wished not to be understood as putting entire confidence in the accuracy
of them. Even those of Virginia, which had been probably taken down by
the most skilful hand, (whose merit he wished by no means to disparage,)
contained internal evidence in abundance of chasms and misconceptions of
what was said.

The amendments proposed by the several conventions were better
authority, and would be found, on a general view, to favor the sense of
the constitution which had prevailed in this House. But even here it
would not be reasonable to expect a perfect precision and system in all
their votes and proceedings. The agitations of the public mind on that
occasion, with the hurry and compromise which generally prevailed in
settling the amendments to be proposed, would at once explain and
apologize for the several apparent inconsistencies which might be
discovered.

He would not undertake to say that the particular amendment referred to
in the Message, by which two States require that "no Commercial Treaty
should be ratified without the consent of two-thirds of the whole number
of Senators, and that no Territorial right, &c. should be ceded without
the consent of three-fourths of the members of both Houses," was
digested with an accurate attention to the whole subject. On the other
hand, it was no proof that those particular conventions, in annexing
these guards to the Treaty power, understood it as different from that
espoused by the majority of the House. They might consider Congress as
having the power contended for over Treaties stipulating on Legislative
subjects, and still very consistently wish for the amendment they
proposed. They might not consider the Territorial rights and other
objects for which they required the concurrence of three-fourths of the
members of both Houses, as coming within any of the enumerated powers
of Congress, and, therefore, as not protected by that control over
Treaties. And although they might be sensible that Commercial Treaties
were under that control, yet, as they would always come before Congress
with great weight after they had passed through the regular forms and
sanctions of the Treaty department, it might be deemed of real
importance that the authority should be better guarded which was to give
that weight to them.

He asked, whether it might not happen, even in the progress of a Treaty
through the Treaty department, that each succeeding sanction might be
given, more on account of preceding sanctions than of any positive
approbation? And no one could doubt, therefore, that a Treaty which had
received all these sanctions would be controlled with great reluctance
by the Legislature, and, consequently, that it might be desirable to
strengthen the barriers against making improper Treaties, rather than
trust too much to the Legislative control over carrying them into
effect.

But, said Mr. M., it will be proper to attend to other amendments
proposed by the ratifying conventions, which may throw light on their
opinions and intentions on the subject in question. He then read from
the Declaration of Rights proposed by Virginia to be prefixed to the
constitution, the seventh article, which is as follows:

      "That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of
      laws, by any authority, without the consent of the
      Representatives of the people in the Legislature, is
      injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised."

The Convention of North Carolina, as he showed, had laid down the same
principle in the same words. And it was to be observed that, in both
conventions, the article was under the head of a Declaration of Rights,
"asserting and securing from encroachment the essential and inalienable
rights of the people," according to the language of the Virginia
Convention; and "asserting and securing from encroachment the great
principles of civil and religious liberty, and the inalienable rights of
the people," as expressed by the Convention of North Carolina. It must
follow that these two Conventions considered it as a fundamental,
inviolable, and universal principle in a free Government, that no power
could supersede a law without the consent of the Representatives of the
people in the Legislature.

In the Maryland Convention also, it was among the amendments proposed,
though he believed not decided on, "that no power of suspending laws, or
the execution of laws, unless derived from the Legislature, ought to be
exercised or allowed."

The Convention of North Carolina had further explained themselves on
this point, by their twenty-third amendment proposed to the constitution
in the following words: "That no Treaties shall be directly opposed to
the existing laws of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be
valid until such laws shall be repealed or made conformable to such
Treaty; nor shall any Treaty be valid which is contradictory to the
Constitution of the United States."

The latter part of the amendment was an evidence that the amendment was
intended to ascertain rather than to alter the meaning of the
constitution; as it could not be supposed to have been the real
intention of the constitution that a Treaty contrary to it should be
valid.

He proceeded to read the following amendments accompanying the
ratification of State Conventions:

The New York Convention had proposed "that no standing army or regular
troops shall be raised or kept up in time of peace without the consent
of two-thirds of the Senators and Representatives in each House."

"That no money be borrowed on the credit of the United States, without
the assent of two-thirds of the Senators and Representatives in each
House."

The New Hampshire Convention had proposed "that no standing army shall
be kept up in time of peace, unless with the consent of three quarters
of the members of each branch of Congress." In the Maryland Convention a
proposition was made in the same words.

The Virginia Convention had proposed "that no navigation law, or law
regulating commerce, shall be passed without the consent of two-thirds
of the members present in both Houses."

"That no standing army or regular troops shall be raised or kept up in
time of peace, without the consent of two-thirds of the members present
in both Houses."

"That no soldier shall be enlisted for any longer term than four years,
except in time of war, and then for no longer term than the continuance
of the war."

The Convention of North Carolina had proposed the same three amendments
in the same words.

On a review of these proceedings, may not, said he, the question be
fairly asked, whether it ought to be supposed that the several
Conventions who showed so much jealousy with respect to the powers of
commerce, of the sword, and of the purse, as to require, for the
exercise of them, in some cases two-thirds, in others three-fourths of
both branches of the Legislature, could have understood that, by the
Treaty clauses in constitution, they had given to the PRESIDENT and
Senate, without any control whatever from the House of Representatives,
an absolute and unlimited power over all those great objects?

3. It was with great reluctance, he said, that he should touch on the
third topic--the alleged interest of the smaller States in the present
question. He was the more unwilling to enter into this delicate part of
the discussion, as he happened to be from a State which was in one of
the extremes in point of size. He should limit himself, therefore, to
two observations. The first was, that if the spirit of amity and mutual
concession from which the constitution resulted was to be consulted on
expounding it, that construction ought to be favored which would
preserve the mutual control between the Senate and House of
Representatives, rather than that which gave power to the Senate not
controllable by, and paramount over those of the House of
Representatives, whilst the House of Representatives could in no
instance exercise their powers without the participation and control of
the Senate. The second observation was, that, whatever jealousy might
unhappily have prevailed between the smaller and larger States, as they
had most weight in one or the other branch of Government, it was a fact,
for which he appealed to the journals of the old Congress from its birth
to its dissolution, and to those of the Congress under the present
Government, that in no instance would it appear, from the yeas and nays,
that a question had been decided by a division of the votes according to
the size of the States. He considered this truth as affording the most
pleasing and consoling reflection, and as one that ought to have the
most conciliating and happy influence on the temper of all the States.

4. A fourth argument in the Message was drawn from the manner by which
the Treaty power had been understood by both parties in the negotiations
with foreign Powers. "In all the Treaties made _we_ have declared and
_they_ have believed," &c. By _we_, he remarked, was to be understood
the Executive alone, who had made the declaration, and in no respect the
House of Representatives. It was certainly to be regretted, as had often
been expressed, that different branches of the Government should
disagree in the construction of their powers; but when this could not be
avoided, each branch must judge for itself; and the judgment of the
Executive could in this case be no more an authority overruling the
judgment of the House than the judgment of the House could be an
authority overruling that of the Executive. It was also to be regretted
that any foreign nation should at any time proceed under a misconception
of the meaning of our constitution. But no principle was better
established in the laws of nations, as well as in common reason, than
that one nation is not to be the interpreter of the constitution of
another. Each nation must adjust the forms and operations of its own
government, and all others are bound to understand them accordingly. It
had before been remarked, and it would be proper to repeat it here, that
of all the nations Great Britain would be the least likely to object to
this principle, because the construction given to our Government was
particularly exemplified in her own.

5. In the fifth and last place, he had to take notice of the suggestion,
that every House of Representatives had concurred in the construction of
the Treaty power, now maintained by the Executive; from which it
followed that the House could not now consistently act under a
different construction. On this point, it might be sufficient to remark,
that this was the first instance in which a foreign Treaty had been made
since the establishment of the constitution; and that this was the first
time the Treaty-making power had come under formal and accurate
discussion. Precedents, therefore, would readily be perceived to lose
much of their weight. But whether the precedents found in the
proceedings preparatory to the Algerine Treaty, or in the provisions
relative to the Indian Treaties, were inconsistent with the right which
had been contended for in behalf of the House, he should leave to be
decided by the committee. A view of these precedents had been pretty
fully presented to them by a gentleman from New York, (Mr. LIVINGSTON,)
with all the observations which the subject seemed to require.

On the whole it appeared that the rights of the House on the two great
constitutional points had been denied by a high authority in the Message
before the committee. This Message was entered on the journals of the
House. If nothing was entered in opposition thereto, it would be
inferred that the reasons in the Message had changed the opinion of the
House, and that their claims on those great points were relinquished. It
was proper, therefore, that the questions, brought fairly before the
committee in the propositions of the gentleman (Mr. BLOUNT) from North
Carolina, should be examined and formally decided. If the reasoning of
the Message should be deemed satisfactory, it would be the duty of this
branch of the Government to reject the propositions and thus accede to
the doctrines asserted by the Executive. If, on the other hand, this
reasoning should not be satisfactory, it would be equally the duty of
the House, in some such firm, but very decent, terms as are proposed, to
enter their opinions on record. In either way the meaning of the
constitution would be established, as far as depends on the vote of the
House of Representatives.

APRIL 7.--The order of the day being called for on the consideration of
the PRESIDENT's Message, the House resolved itself into a Committee of
the Whole on that subject, and the resolutions of Mr. BLOUNT having been
read--

Mr. SWIFT and Mr. W. SMITH rose together, but Mr. SMITH giving way, Mr.
SWIFT proceeded to remark, that he did not rise for the purpose of going
into the subject, but to move that the question might be then taken. The
same principles which were involved in the present question, had already
undergone a discussion of three weeks, and no doubt could remain on the
mind of any gentleman in that House on the subject; nor did he think
that if three weeks more were to be consumed in the discussion, one
opinion would be changed. Therefore, as business of the utmost
consequence called for their attention, as it was of the last importance
that the Treaties lately formed with foreign nations should be carried
into effect, he hoped they would enter upon the question of the state of
the Union. If gentlemen wished to carry the Treaties into effect, he
entreated them to come forward and do so; or, if they meant to defeat
them, he wished them at once to say so. If they went into the present
discussion at length, there would not be time sufficient to determine
upon the Treaties. He was willing to let the matter rest upon the
representation of the gentleman from Virginia. He himself had taken no
share in the debate, though if it were to be again gone into, he should
desire to be heard as well as others. But he was fully satisfied that
gentlemen who had spoken on a former occasion would unite with him in
wishing the question to be then taken.

The resolutions were then severally put and carried--51 members rising
for each.

The House then took them up.

The previous question was called, viz: Shall the question now be
put?--on which the yeas and nays were taken, and stood--yeas 54, nays
37.

The yeas and nays were taken on the first resolution, and stood--yeas
57, nays 35, as follows:

      YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, David Bard,
      Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges,
      Samuel J. Cabell, Gabriel Christie, John Clopton, Isaac
      Coles, Jeremiah Crabb, Henry Dearborn, George Dent, Samuel
      Earle, William Findlay, Jesse Franklin, Albert Gallatin,
      William B. Giles, Nicholas Gilman, Andrew Gregg, William B.
      Grove, Wade Hampton, George Hancock, Carter B. Harrison,
      John Hathorn, Jonathan N. Havens, John Heath, Daniel
      Heister, George Jackson, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke,
      William Lyman, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel Macon, James
      Madison, John Milledge, Andrew Moore, Frederick A.
      Muhlenberg, John Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, John Page,
      Josiah Parker, John Patton, Francis Preston, John Richards,
      Robert Rutherford, John S. Sherburne, Israel Smith, Samuel
      Smith, Thomas Sprigg, John Swanwick, Absalom Tatom, Philip
      Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and
      Richard Winn.

      _Nays._--Fisher Ames, Benjamin Bourne, Theophilus Bradbury,
      Daniel Buck, Joshua Coit, William Cooper, Abiel Foster,
      Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Henry Glenn, Benjamin
      Goodhue, Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe
      Harper, Thomas Hartley, Thomas Henderson, James Hillhouse,
      William Hindman, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, Francis
      Malbone, William Vans Murray, John Reed, Theodore Sedgwick,
      Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, William Smith, Zephaniah
      Swift, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson,
      Uriah Tracy, John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John
      Williams.

The second resolution was then taken up, and the yeas and nays stood as
on the first.

The following members were absent when the yeas and nays were called on
the main questions:

Messrs. Brent, Claiborne, Gillespie, Greenup, Holland, New, and
Sitgreaves.

The following members were away upon leave of absence:

Messrs. Freeman, Kitchell, Leonard and Isaac Smith.

It was understood that the following members would have voted for the
resolutions had they been present:

Messrs. Brent, Claiborne, Gillespie, Greenup, Holland, and New.


RECAPITULATION.

Yeas in the House,               57

Yeas absent,                      6--63

Nays in the House,               35

Mr. Sitgreaves absent (probably
against the resolution)           1--36
                                     --
    Majority for the resolutions,    27[75]

Absent on leave,                  4

Mr. Duvall, resigned,             1

The Speaker,                      1
                               ----
    Whole number of members,    105


FRIDAY, April 15.

_The Treaty with Great Britain._

The House then resolved itself into a committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union, when, having read the resolution for carrying the
British Treaty into effect--

Mr. BUCK rose, and wished the question to be taken upon Mr. MACLAY's
resolution.[76] This was opposed by Mr. MADISON and Mr. HILLHOUSE, and
then Mr. MADISON addressed the Chair as follows:

Mr. M. said, on a subject of such extent and importance, he should not
attempt to go through all the observations that might be applicable to
it. A general view of the subject was all that he meant at present. His
omissions would be more than supplied by others who might enter into the
discussion.

The proposition immediately before the committee was, that the Treaty
with Great Britain ought to be carried into effect by such provisions as
depended on the House of Representatives. This was the point immediately
in question. But it would be proper in examining it to keep in view
also the proposition of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MACLAY)
which had been referred to the committee, and which would be taken up,
of course, if the immediate question should be decided in the negative.

If the proposition for carrying the Treaty into effect be agreed to, it
must be from one of three considerations: either that the Legislature is
bound by a constitutional necessity to pass the requisite laws without
examining the merits of the Treaty, or that, on such examination, the
Treaty is deemed in itself a good one, or that there are good extraneous
reasons for putting it into force, although it be in itself a good one,
or that there are good extraneous reasons for putting it into force,
although it be in itself a bad Treaty.

The first consideration being excluded by the decision of the House,
that they have a right to judge of the expediency or inexpediency of
passing laws relative to Treaties; the question first to be examined
must relate to the merits of the Treaty. He then proceeded to consider
the Treaty under three aspects: first, as it related to the execution of
the Treaty of Peace in 1783; secondly, as it determines the several
points in the law of nations; thirdly, as it respects the commerce
between the two nations.

First. He would not inquire on which side the blame lay, of having first
violated the Treaty of 1783, or of having most contributed to delay its
execution, although he did not shrink from the task under any
apprehension that the result could be disadvantageous to this country.
The Treaty itself had waived this inquiry, and professed to adjust all
controversies on this subject, without regard to the mutual complaints
or pretensions of the parties. It was, therefore, justly and naturally
to be expected, that the arrangements for carrying that Treaty into
effect would have been founded in the most exact and scrupulous
reciprocity. Was this the case? He was sorry, that on the contrary, the
arrangements were founded on the grossest violation of that principle.

There were two articles which had not been executed by Great Britain;
that which related to the <DW64>s and other property carried away, and
that which required a surrender of the posts. The article unexecuted by
the United States was, that which required payment of all _bona fide_
debts, according to the Treaty now in question: this article is now to
be carried into the most complete effect by the United States, and
damages to the last fraction are to be paid for the delay. Is there a
reciprocal stipulation by Great Britain with respect to the articles
unexecuted by her? Nothing like it. She is wholly absolved from the
obligation to fulfil one of the articles, viz: that relating to the
<DW64>s, &c., and she is to make no compensation whatever for delaying
to fulfil the other, viz: the surrender of the posts.

It has been urged in apology for those very unequal stipulations, that
the injury resulting from a forbearance to surrender the posts, was not
susceptible of any precise liquidation into pecuniary damages. However
plausible this might appear, it was by no means satisfactory.
Commissioners, such as were appointed, with full discretion for other
purposes, might have been charged with this subject, and if they could
not have done exact justice, might have mitigated the injustice of doing
nothing.

Apologies have been attempted also for the very extraordinary
abandonment of the compensation due for the <DW64>s, &c. It was said to
be at least doubtful whether this claim was authorized by the seventh
article of the Treaty of Peace, and that Great Britain had uniformly
denied the meaning put by the United States on that article. In reply he
made two remarks. First, that it was not true that Great Britain had
uniformly denied the American construction of that article; on the
contrary, he believed, it could be proved, that till of late, Great
Britain had uniformly admitted this construction, and had rejected the
claim on no other ground than the alleged violation of the fourth
article on the part of the United States.

But had it been true that Great Britain had uniformly asserted a
different construction of the article, and refused to accede to ours,
what ought to have been done? Ought we to have at once acceded to hers?
By no means. Each party had an equal right to interpret the compact; and
if they could not agree, they ought to have done in this what they did
in other cases where they could not agree; that is, have referred the
settlement of the meaning of the compact to an arbitration. To give up
the claim altogether, was to admit, either that Great Britain had a
better right than the United States to explain the controverted point,
or that the United States had done something which in justice called for
a sacrifice of their equal right.

It was evident, he thought, from this view of the subject, that the
arrangements with respect to the Treaty of Peace were frequently wanting
both in justice and reciprocity.

Besides the omissions in favor of Great Britain, already pointed out
with respect to the execution of the Treaty of Peace, he observed, that
conditions were annexed to the partial execution of it in the surrender
of the Western posts, which increased the general inequality of this
part of the Treaty, and essentially affected the value of those objects.

The value of the posts to the United States was to be estimated by their
influence, 1st. on the Indian trade; 2d. on the conduct and temper of
the Indians towards the United States.

Their influence on the Indian trade depended principally on the
exclusive command they gave to the several carrying places connected
with the posts. These places were understood to be of such importance in
this respect, that those who possessed them exclusively would have a
monopoly, or nearly a monopoly, of the lucrative intercourse with a
great part of the savage nations. Great Britain having hitherto
possessed these places exclusively, has possessed this advantage. It
was expected that the exclusive transfer of them would transfer the
advantage to the United States. By the Treaty now concluded, the
carrying places are to be enjoyed in common, and it will be determined
by the respective advantages under which British and American traders
will engage in the trade, which of them is to share most in it. In this
point of view he thought the regulation highly impolitic and injurious.
He would say little of the advantage which the British would have in
their superior capital: that must be encountered in all our commercial
rivalships. But there was another consideration which ought to have
great weight on this subject. The goods imported for the Indian trade
through Canada pay no duties. Those imported through the United States
for that trade, will have paid duties from seven to ten per cent., and
every one must see that a drawback is impracticable, or would be
attended with an expense which the business would not bear. So far,
then, as the importance of the posts is to be considered in a commercial
view, they are, in a very great measure, stripped of it by the condition
annexed to the surrender of them. Instead of a monopoly in our favor,
the carrying places are made common under circumstances which may leave
a monopoly in the hands of Great Britain. And this is done, too, by an
article which is to last for ever.

Second. The influence of the posts on the general conduct of the
Indians, is well known to depend chiefly on their influence on the
Indian trade. In proportion, therefore, as the condition annexed to the
surrender of posts affects the one, it must affect the other. If the
British should continue to enjoy the Indian trade, they would continue
to influence the Indian conduct; if not in the same degree as
heretofore, at least in so great a degree as to condemn the article in
question.

He took notice also of the inequality of the stipulation which opened
all the ports of the United States, as the condition of having those of
an unimportant province of Great Britain opened in return.

With respect to the Mississippi he could not but consider the clause
relating to it as being singularly reprehensible. Happily the adjustment
of our claims with Spain had been brought about before any evil
operation of the clause had been experienced. But the tendency of it, he
thought, could not be doubted. It was the more remarkable, that this
extension of the privileges of Great Britain on the Mississippi beyond
those in the Treaty of Peace, should have been admitted into the new
Treaty, because it is supposed by the Treaty itself, that Great Britain
may be deprived, by her real boundary, of all pretensions to a share in
the banks and waters of the Mississippi.

Secondly. With respect to the great points in the law of nations,
comprehended in the stipulations of the Treaty, the same want of real
reciprocity, and the same sacrifice of the interests of the United
States, were conspicuous.

It was well known to have been a great and favorite object with the
United States, "that free ships make free goods." They have established
this principle in all their other Treaties. They have witnessed with
anxiety the general effort, and the successful advances towards
incorporating this principle into the law of nations; a principle
friendly to all neutral nations, and particularly interesting to the
United States. He knew that at a former period it had been conceded on
the part of the United States that the law of nations stood as the
present Treaty regulates it. But it did not follow that more than
acquiescence in that doctrine was proper. There was an evident
distinction between silently acquiescing in it, and giving it the
support of a formal and positive stipulation. The former was all that
could have been required, and the latter was more than ought to have
been unnecessarily yielded.

The article prohibiting sequestration was next considered by Mr. M. He
said he should probably be among the last who would be disposed to
resort to such an expedient for redress. But he could not approve of a
perpetual and irrecoverable abandonment of a defensive weapon, the
existence of which might render the use of it unnecessary. The situation
of this country in relation to Great Britain was a peculiar one. As we
had not fleets and armies to command a respect for our rights, we ought
to keep in our hands all such means as our situation gave us. This
article was another instance in which no regard was paid to reciprocity.
British subjects, it was well known, had and were likely to have in this
country a great deal of the property of the King made sacred. American
citizens, it was as well known, had little, and were likely to have
little of the kind in Great Britain. If a real reciprocity had been
intended, why were not other kinds of private property, as vessels and
their cargoes, equally protected against violation? These, even within
the jurisdiction of Great Britain, are left open to seizure and
sequestration, if Great Britain finds it expedient. And why was not
property on the high seas under the protection of the law of nations,
which is said to be a part of the law of the land, made secure by a like
stipulation? This would have given a face of equality and reciprocity to
the bargain. But nothing of the sort makes a part of it; where Great
Britain had a particular interest at stake, the Treaty watchfully
provides for it; when the United States have an equal interest at stake
and equally entitled to protection, it is abandoned to all the dangers
which it has experienced.

After taking this brief notice of the positive evils in this part of the
Treaty, he might, he said, add the various omissions which were
chargeable on it. But as he should not pretend to exhaust the subject,
he would mention one only: the not providing for the respect due to the
exhibition of sea papers. He could not but regard this omission as truly
extraordinary, when he observed that in almost every modern Treaty, and
particularly all our other Treaties, an article on this subject was
regularly inserted. Indeed, it had become almost an article of course in
the Treaties of the present century.

Thirdly. The commercial articles of the Treaty presented the third
aspect under which he was to consider it. In the free intercourse
stipulated between the United States and Great Britain, it could not be
pretended that any advantage was gained by the former. A Treaty was
surely not necessary to induce Great Britain to receive our raw
materials and to sell us her manufactures. On the other hand, consider
what was given up by the United States.

When the Government came into operation, it is well known that the
American tonnage employed in the British trade bore the most
inconsiderable proportion to the British tonnage. There being nothing on
our side to contract the influence of capital and other circumstances on
the British side, that disproportion was the natural state of things. As
some balance to the British advantages, and particularly that of her
capital, our laws had made several regulations in favor of our shipping,
among which was the important encouragement resulting from the
difference of ten per cent. in the duties paid by American and foreign
vessels. Under this encouragement the American tonnage has increased in
a very respectable proportion to the British tonnage. Nor has Great
Britain ever deemed it prudent to attempt any countervailing measures
for her shipping, well knowing that we could easily keep up the
differences by further measures on our side. But by the Treaty, she has
reserved to herself the right to take such countervailing measures
against our existing regulations; and we have surrendered our rights to
pursue further defensive measures against the influence of her capital.
It is justly to be apprehended, therefore, that under such a restoration
of the former state of things, the American tonnage will relapse to its
former disproportion to the British tonnage.

When he turned his attention to the West India branch of the subject,
there was still greater cause for wonder and dissatisfaction. As the
Treaty now stood, Great Britain was left as free as she ever had been to
continue the entire monopoly of the intercourse to British vessels.
Recollecting, as he did, and as every member of the committee must do,
the whole history of this subject from the peace of 1783, through every
subsequent stage of our Independence down to the mission of the late
Envoy, it was impossible for him to express his astonishment that any
Treaty of Commerce should have ever been acceded to which abandoned the
very object for which such a Treaty was ever contemplated. He never
could have believed that the time was so near when all the principles,
claims, and calculations, which have heretofore prevailed among all
classes of people, in every part of the Union, on this interesting
point, were to be so completely renounced. A Treaty of Commerce with
Great Britain, excluding a reciprocity for our vessels in the West India
trade, is a phenomenon which had filled him with more surprise than he
knew how to express.

He then pointed to the clause which restrains the United States from
imposing prohibitions or duties in any case on Britain which did not
extend to all other nations; observing that the clause made it
impossible to operate on the unreasonable policy of that nation, without
suspending our commerce at the same time with all other nations whose
regulations with respect to us might be ever so favorable and
satisfactory.

The fifteenth article had another extraordinary feature, which must
strike every observer. In other Treaties, putting the parties on the
footing of the most favored nation, it was stipulated that where new
favors were granted to a particular nation in return for favors
received, the party claiming the new favor should pay the price of it.
This was just and proper where the footing of the most favored nation is
established at all. But this article gives to Great Britain the full
benefit of all privileges that may be granted to any other nation,
without requiring from her the same or equivalent privileges with those
granted by such nation. Hence it would happen that if Spain, Portugal,
or France, should open their Colonial ports to the United States in
consideration of certain privileges in our trade, the same privileges
would result gratis, and _ipso facto_, to Great Britain. He considered
this stipulation as peculiarly impolitic, and that it could not fail, in
the view of the committee, to form a very solid and weighty objection to
the Treaty.

He was not unaware of the stress that would be laid on the article
relating to the East Indies. He should leave to others better acquainted
than himself with this branch of the subject to explain it. He made two
observations, however: one was, that judicious and well informed
gentlemen, equally judicious and well informed with any who could be
consulted, considered the article as offering not a shadow of advantage
to the United States. The other was, that no privilege was stipulated
which had not been uniformly heretofore granted without stipulation; and
as the grant could have proceeded from no motive but a pure regard to
the British interest in that country, there was every reasonable
security that the trade would continue open as it had been, under the
influence of the same consideration.

Such being the character of the Treaty, with respect to the execution of
the Treaty of Peace, the great principles of the Law of Nations, and the
regulations of commerce, it never could be viewed as having any claim to
be carried into effect on its own account.

He should conclude, he said, with taking notice of two considerations
which had been much used as inducements to carrying the Treaty into
effect.

1. It was said that the greater part of the Treaty was to continue two
years only after the present war in Europe; and that no very great evils
could grow out of it within that period. To this he replied, in the
first place, that ten of the articles containing many very objectionable
stipulations were perpetual. In the next place, that it would be in the
power of Great Britain, at the expiration of the other articles, to
produce the same causes for a renewal of them, as are now urged in their
favor. If we are now to enforce the Treaty, lest Great Britain should
stir up the Indians, and refuse to pay the merchants for the property of
which she has plundered them, can she not at the end of two or three
years plunder them again to the same or a greater amount? cannot the
same apprehensions also be then revived with respect to the Indians, and
will not the arguments then be as strong as they are now, for renewing
the same Treaty, or making any other equal sacrifice that her purposes
may dictate?

2. It was asked, what would be the consequence of refusing to carry the
Treaty into effect? He answered, that the only supposable consequence
was, that the Executive, if governed by the prudence and patriotism
which he did not doubt would govern that department, would, of course,
pursue the measures most likely to obtain a reconsideration and
remodification of the offensive parts of the Treaty. The idea of war, as
a consequence of refusing to give effect to the Treaty, was too
visionary and incredible to be admitted into the question. No man would
say that the United States, if an independent people, had not a right to
judge of their own interests, and to decline any Treaty that did not
duly provide for them. A refusal, therefore, in such cases, could give
no cause, nor pretext, nor provocation, for war or for any just
resentment. But apart from this, was it conceivable that Great Britain,
with all the dangers and embarrassments which are thickening upon her,
would wantonly make war on a country which was the best market she had
in the world for her manufactures, which paid her an annual balance in
specie of ten or twelve millions of dollars, and whose supplies were
moreover essential to an important part of her dominions? Such a degree
of infatuation ought not to be ascribed to any nation. And at the
present crisis, for reasons well known, an unprovoked war with Great
Britain, on this country, would argue a degree of madness greater than
under any other circumstances that could well be imagined.

With all the objections therefore to the Treaty which he had stated, he
hoped that it would not now be carried into effect; and that an
opportunity would take place for reconsidering the subject on principles
more just and more favorable to the United States.

When Mr. MADISON had concluded,

Mr. S. LYMAN rose.--I do not rise, said Mr. L., with an intention to go
into a detail upon this subject, or to exhibit a comparative view of
the advantages and disadvantages which may attend the operation of this
Treaty, but only to make a few remarks, which may be considered as
preparatory to a more minute discussion.

Although I believe a discussion of this Treaty is not strictly in order,
because it does not come before us immediately as a subject of debate
and legislation, but as a piece of information from the Executive, yet I
have no doubt but that a thorough discussion of its principles may
produce a happy effect; for I believe the more it is understood, the
less various will be Our sentiments, the greater the degree of unanimity
among ourselves, so much the greater will be the unanimity among our
constituents. This unanimity is an object of the greatest magnitude, not
only as the source of national respectability and honor, but as the only
true source of national happiness and prosperity; it is therefore the
indispensable duty of Government to maintain internal peace and
tranquillity, and upon this ground alone it is I am willing the Treaty
should be thoroughly discussed. I am sensible this Treaty presents
itself with an unfavorable aspect, and what is the reason? Is it not
because we have entertained too exalted ideas of our own national
importance? A generous and noble pride we ought to entertain as a
nation, and without this pride we should be guilty of ingratitude to
Heaven, for Providence has placed within our reach all the resources of
national strength and greatness, but we are yet among the nations in a
state of minority--a minor must solicit favors, he cannot challenge
them. Did we go to the Emperor of Morocco, or to the Dey of Algiers, and
challenge a passage for our ships up the Mediterranean? No; but we
solicited, and pay dear for that passage; or did we go to the King of
Spain, and demand a free navigation of the Mississippi? No; but we
negotiated, and success has attended that negotiation; or could we have
gone to the King of England, and challenged a participation with his
subjects in the commerce of the East and West Indies? Certainly we could
not. What then should we have done? Would it have been best to have
traded with them upon sufferance, and so to have maintained a precarious
kind of commerce? Certainly this would not have done, for in that case
we should have been constantly dependent upon the caprice of a
capricious Court; this would be extremely mortifying indeed. Commerce,
like all other kind of business, ought to be carried on upon generous
and open principles, otherwise we establish a system of deceit that
would be favorable to pirates and freebooters.

Under those circumstances what could we have done? We could not have
carved for ourselves, for our strength and greatness were not
sufficient; we therefore had to go with the modesty of a minor, and to
solicit; and what was the natural consequence of this solicitation? Why,
at the first interview with the British Minister, he determined to exact
of us at least a complete fulfilment of all that a former Treaty
required; and what was that? It was a payment of our _bona fide_ debts;
what could we do? He produced our contract, and we said nothing; moral
rectitude required a fulfilment of this: it was in vain to say, you have
interrupted our commerce, you have carried off our <DW64>s, you have
retained the Western posts, and thereby occasioned an expensive and
bloody war with the Indians. Some of this language, perhaps, would have
had weight with the British Minister, if he had been acting in his
private capacity, but he felt and acted like the Minister of a great and
powerful nation; interest and glory are their objects, and moral
considerations are too apt to vanish before these. It is true, by the
law of nature, commerce ought to be free and uninterrupted, but by the
law of nations it is otherwise; and what nation shall gainsay this law?
We certainly cannot, our strength and greatness are not yet fully ripe;
and if they were, we should, in practice, deny this law of nature, and
should ratify and confirm this law of nations. Thus, Mr. Chairman, we
see that interest and force govern among the nations. I have made these
preliminary observations in order that we might contemplate the Treaty
upon its true ground, for a want of reciprocity has been a heavy charge
brought against it.

I have read this Treaty with care and attention, and I am free to own
that upon the first perusal of it I had a prejudice against it; it
appeared to me that some of its stipulations were too favorable for
Britain, and too disadvantageous to ourselves; but we certainly had an
able negotiator, and I verily believe he did his utmost to serve his
country; the more I have attended to the subject, the more I am
reconciled to it. I find the gentlemen who are interested in commerce
are almost universally satisfied with the commercial regulations; but
there is a more weighty charge brought against it than of a want of
reciprocity; it is even said by some to be unconstitutional. This is a
heavy charge indeed, and if it is well founded we ought to prevent its
operation, for we are sent here as the guardians of the rights of our
fellow-citizens, and for that purpose are sworn to support their
constitution; if it is unconstitutional, it is a nullity; it is not
binding upon the nation; we ought to reject it; but if it is
constitutional, and not extremely pernicious, it becomes the supreme law
of the land, and we are in that case bound to obey it.

When Mr. LYMAN had taken his seat,

Mr. SWANWICK addressed the Chair:--One of the most characteristic and
strong points of difference that exists between republican and despotic
forms of government, said Mr. S., consists in their greater or lesser
degree of haste in making or adopting laws. Where the will of a despot
is the only law, his simple volition is sufficient to call for the
prompt obedience of the subject; but in our happy government, the
numerous checks and balances it prescribes every where oppose
themselves to haste, to error, or inadvertency, in the formation of
laws. In acts of the smallest importance, we see daily that after they
have undergone every possible chance of fair and impartial discussion in
the House, they are transmitted to another, who equally proceed to
revise, correct, and amend them; and even this not being deemed
sufficient to secure, as it were, against all possibility of danger,
they are sent to the PRESIDENT, who has ten days to consider, and who
may return them with his objections. These we are bound respectfully to
inscribe on our journals; and if we disagree in opinion with the
PRESIDENT, the majority of two-thirds of both branches is requisite to
give validity to the law. Do not we discover in all this infinite
caution, and a wish rather not to act at all, by the difference of the
branches among each other, than to act imprudently or precipitantly; and
can we imagine that a constitution thus guarded with respect to laws of
little consequence, hath left without a check the immense power of
making Treaties, embracing, as in the instrument before us, all our
greatest interests, whether they may be of territory, of agriculture,
commerce, navigation, or manufacture, and this for an indefinite length
of time? No. By one of the guards of that constitution relative to
appropriations of money, this Treaty hath, in the last stage of its
progress, come before us; we have resolved according to our best
judgment of the constitution, and, as we have seen above, according to
the meaning and spirit of it, that we have a right to judge of the
expediency or inexpediency of carrying it into effect. This will depend
on its merits; and this is the discussion now before us. If, in the
event, we shall be found to differ in opinion with the other branches as
to this subject, it will involve no more animosity or crimination
against them than if we differed as to an ordinary law. To what purpose
then to sound the alarm, and to ring the tocsin from Georgia to New
Hampshire? Do we impeach the Executive? Do we charge bribery or
corruption? No, sir.

These preliminary remarks I have thought essential, previously to going
into a consideration of the merits of the Treaty itself, which hath
already been so ably considered by the gentleman last up from Virginia,
(Mr. MADISON,) whose mildness of manner and suavity of address were
certainly calculated to inspire any thing else than the angry passions
so greatly deprecated by the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. S.
LYMAN.) These, I hope, will be carefully avoided on all sides, and the
debate be concluded with the same good temper and moderation in which it
is begun.

I must confess, Mr. Chairman, that the first point of view in which this
Treaty struck me with surprise was, the attitude Great Britain assumes
in it of dictating laws and usages of reception and conduct different
towards us, in every different parcel of her empire, while the surface
of our country is entirely laid open to her in one general and
advantageous point of admission. In Europe, we are told we may freely
enter her ports. In the West Indies, we were to sail in canoes of
seventy tons burden. In the East Indies we are not to settle or reside
without leave of the local government. In the seaports of Canada and
Nova Scotia, we are not to be admitted at all; while all our rivers and
countries are opened without the least reserve; yet surely our all was
as dear to us as the all of any other nation, and not to have been
parted with but on equivalent terms.

But let us consider the articles distinctly:--first, as to the
Mississippi; Great Britain is admitted as freely to navigate on this
river, and to frequent the ports on its banks, as we are to go to those
on the Thames; yet, it is strange to remark, that, at the time we made
the stipulation, we had not ourselves obtained the right we gave. We
have since obtained it by Treaty with Spain, and on terms absolutely
contradictory to those contained in the British Treaty.

The next of the permanent articles I shall notice, is that which
respects British debts. It is somewhat remarkable, that the
commissioners, who are to judge of these, are permitted the power of
adjournment from place to place--a very favorable stipulation for the
creditors, whilst the Commissioners on Spoliations, by article 7, are to
act only in London, whereby the American claimant must pass with his
papers, or send them across the Atlantic, and engage lawyers in a
country where law is unusually dear; a circumstance which will deter
many from applying at all, and occasion great loss to the United States.
I observe, too, that the awards of the Commissioners of British debts
are to be paid out of the treasury as awarded by the commissioners. I am
surprised not to find in the Report of the Secretary of State, on
appropriations to carry this Treaty into effect, some calculation as to
the probable amount of these debts, or some provision for lodging, for
this purpose, money in the treasury. Gentlemen would then have known the
extent to which they were going; but, at present, they can form no
judgment on the subject of the money wanted, or of the funds from whence
that money is to come.

Much hath been said about the tenth article, relative to the
sequestration of debts. To be against the adoption of this article, hath
been supposed to imply an unwillingness to pay debts lawfully
contracted, and very copious abuse hath been thrown on the largest and
most populous State in this Union, as having for motive of its
opposition, this principle. To say nothing of the degrading nature of
such an admission, with respect to the honor of our own country, which
ought always to induce us to think the most favorably of it, is it true?
Is it true, that an unwillingness to pay debts hath been the principal
cause of opposition to this Treaty? Among the names opposed to it, are
to be found some as respectable for independence and fortune as any on
the Continent. To instance only one of a number, I may cite the
celebrated Pennsylvania farmer, John Dickenson, Esq., one of the richest
men in these parts of the country, attached to no party, living in great
retirement, with a name honorable for the most virtuous efforts in the
American Revolution. Can it be supposed that such a character as this is
influenced by such a motive? Surely not. Whence arises, then, the
opposition? It arises from a conviction that the admission of this
article is degrading to the national character. During a late session of
Congress an honorable member from New Jersey, (Mr. DAYTON, the present
Speaker) fired by a laudable indignation at the robberies committed on
our commerce by the British, moved for a provisional sequestration of
their property. No sooner was this done, than we saw a report from the
Secretary of the Treasury, dated the 16th of January, 1795, recommending
the United States to pass a permanent law against sequestration of
property in the funds. Congress not having acted on this part of the
report, though they adopted other parts, we now see the clause attempted
to be brought into a law by way of a Treaty. And it is more singular,
as, at the very time the article was agreed to in England, all the
European nations were actually sequestering the property of each other.

After having thus reviewed the first ten or permanent articles, I think
it must appear obvious that the result is, that we have ceded the right
to navigate the Mississippi on terms different to those on which we
received it from Spain; that we have consented to receive the Western
posts on terms that afford too much danger of disturbances by a mixed
intercourse of our people, British subjects and Indians; that we have
provided, certainly, for an indefinite amount of British debts: whilst
our claim for spoliations is left to be decided by commissioners at
London, who meet without power of adjournment, and under very extensive
latitude of judging according to what may appear to them to be the law
of nations, in a country where that law his been twisted so as always to
serve as a pretext for spoliations against us; and we have agreed never,
in future, to consent to sequestrations, or confiscations, in case, by
war or national difference, our property afloat should be confiscated or
sequestered by Great Britain to any amount. Let any impartial mind,
then, judge of the expediency, on our part, of voting efficacy to so
ruinous a contract.

I come now to consider the remaining articles of a more temporary
nature. The 12th article merits consideration, because, though not
included in the general arrangement as ratified, being only suspended,
its principles are not wholly abandoned, but left, like a cloud, still
to hang over us. This 12th article was intended to regulate our
intercourse with the British West Indies, and contemplated the singular
provision that we should only navigate thither in vessels of seventy
tons burden, whilst the British themselves might put in the employ
vessels of any size. How degrading such a stipulation, it is not
difficult to conceive! We supply these islands with what the inhabitants
have always acknowledged they could get so well nowhere else, and yet
our tonnage is to be thus restricted, while theirs is left open to
employ vessels of any description. But this is not all: for the sake of
getting admission into a few inconsiderable British ports in the West
Indies, we are to give up the carriage in our own shipping of cotton,
one of our own staple articles, and of sugar, coffee, and indigo, the
produce of the French, Spanish, Danish, Swedish, or Dutch islands. How
strange a mistake as to the geography of this Western Archipelago, in
which the carriage of the produce of St. Domingo alone is worth more
nearly than the entire admission to all the other islands put together!
The principle contained in this 12th article, thus suspended, ought to
have been utterly contradicted or annulled. While existing even in its
suspended form, it will prevent my voting for this Treaty, of whose
chains it is only an absent link.

But we are told whatever may be our fate in the West, all our losses are
to be balanced in the East Indies; and we are carried from our own
neighborhood, to be sure, to a great distance, in order to have repaid
all our sacrifices. Let us examine this 13th article respecting the East
India trade, and see if it does not bear a very strict analogy to the
West India article that has been exploded.

We are to be admitted, it is true, in vessels of any size, but not
suffered to settle or reside without leave of the local Government--that
is, of the British East India Company. Of all the despotisms in the
world that of a mercantile monopolizing company is the worst; yet into
such hands we are to fall, and from them to solicit leave to reside or
travel in the country. What security can there be for a commerce thus
precariously conducted, in which your rivals are your judge?

The consumption of India goods being in a great degree out of the
question in England, the Company, who have an annual revenue of a
million and a half sterling to receive from their possessions in India,
have hitherto sold them at vendue in Leadenhall street; and I believe,
considering the credit our merchants usually obtained in London on those
goods, and the low price the Company sold them at, they could afford to
supply us cheaper in England than we could get them from India in time
of peace. I find the East India Company themselves state, in 1788, that
seventeen-twentieths of the calicoes imported by them were exported, and
twelve-twentieths of the muslins also exported, thereby realizing, as
they term it, the tribute which India pays to Great Britain through the
medium of its commerce. In 1793 the Company state the internal
consumption of India calicoes and muslins to be reduced in Britain to
almost nothing. They add, every shop offers British muslins for sale,
equal in appearance, and of more elegant patterns than those of India,
for one-fourth, or perhaps more than one-third less in price. They say
nine-tenths of all muslins and calicoes are sold for exportation.

The 15th article is one of the most objectionable of the whole Treaty,
because it fundamentally contradicts all the provisions heretofore made
by our Government for the encouragement and protection of the navigation
of this country. By it it is settled that, so far as respects us, no
tonnage duties shall be laid on British vessels but what shall be laid
on those of all other nations; no duties on British articles but what
shall be laid on those of every other nation; no embargo to affect
Britain but what affects all other nations alike; American bottoms are
left exposed to be charged, in the European British ports, tonnage
duties equal to those laid on British bottoms here; countervailing
duties may be laid in England to equalize the difference of duties on
European or Asiatic goods imported here in British or American vessels;
and no additional difference in tonnage or duties of this kind is to be
made hereafter.

These principles deserve to be separately examined. They virtually
repeal all the laws heretofore made as to navigation and impost, by
indirectly equalizing the tonnage and duties on the British and American
vessels; and they restrain, in future, the powers of Congress on some of
the most important regulations of foreign commerce that could come
before them.

On a review, then, of the commercial articles, they may be summed up as
follows: West India trade left blank by the suspension of the 12th
article. East India trade subjected to a condition of residence,
rendering it precarious, and restricted to a landing of the goods
exported in the United States, not known to have ever been imposed in
any way similar, on any other nation trading to Bengal, while all
nations are constantly allowed an equal liberty of trading there with
ourselves. European, and both these trades, liable to an equalization of
tonnage and duties, that cannot but operate unfavorably to the American
navigation. Should the countervailing duties take place in the British
ports in Europe on American vessels, they will probably be shut out of
them altogether. In time of foreign war, our ships deprived of the
neutral rights of carrying allowed them by Treaty with France and Spain,
and exposed to be captured and detained on suspicion, as now daily
happens. Naval stores exposed to confiscation by England, when shipped,
at a time when she is at war, to the ports of her enemies.

In all these instances our navigation is materially endangered and
exposed, without any equivalent advantages. May it not now well be
asked, Whence it comes that this interest of navigation hath become less
an object of care to us than at the time we passed the laws of duty and
impost on foreign ships and goods imported into them? I stated the other
day my ideas of the immense importance of navigation. Mr. Burke gave
the following opinion of a branch of it in 1775:

      "As to the wealth which the Colonies have drawn from the
      sea by their fisheries, you had all that matter fully
      opened at your bar. You surely thought those acquisitions
      of value, for they seemed even to excite your envy; and yet
      the spirit with which that enterprising employment has been
      exercised, ought rather, in my opinion, to have raised your
      esteem and admiration. And pray, sir, what in the world is
      equal to it? Pass by the other parts, and look at the
      manner in which the people of New England have of late
      carried on the whale fishery. Whilst we follow them among
      the tumbling mountains of ice, and behold them penetrating
      into the deepest frozen recesses of Hudson's Bay and
      Davis's Straits; whilst we are looking for them beneath the
      Arctic Circle, we hear that they have pierced into the
      opposite region of Polar cold, that they are at the
      antipodes, and engaged under the frozen Serpent of South
      Falkland Island, which, seeming too remote and romantic an
      object for the grasp of national ambition, is but a stage
      and resting place in the progress of their victorious
      industry. Nor is the equinoctial heat more discouraging to
      them than the accumulated winter of both the poles. We know
      that whilst some of them draw the line and strike the
      harpoon on the coast of Africa, others run the longitude,
      and pursue their gigantic game along the coast of Brazil.
      No sea but what is vexed by their fisheries, no climate
      that is not witness to their toils. Neither the
      perseverance of Holland, nor the activity of France, nor
      the dexterous and firm sagacity of English enterprise, ever
      carried this most perilous mode of hardy industry to the
      extent to which it has been pushed by this recent people--a
      people who are still, as it were, but in the gristle, and
      not yet hardened into the bone of manhood. When I
      contemplate those things, when I know that the Colonies in
      general owe little or nothing to any care of ours, and that
      they are not squeezed into this happy form by the
      constraints of watchful and suspicious governments, but
      that through a wise and salutary neglect a generous nature
      has been suffered to take her own way to perfection--when I
      reflect upon these effects, when I see how profitable they
      have been to us, I feel all the pride of power sink, and
      all presumption in the wisdom of human contrivance melt and
      die away within me."

Since then our navigation has had the growth of a man arrived at full
age, (twenty-one,) and become extended to an immense size; yet was it so
unprotected that, in this year, the United States wanting to remit, out
of some cargoes of sugar and coffee shipped on private account, money to
pay the interest of their debts in Holland, they were under the
necessity of asking passports for these cargoes of the French and
British Ministers, to let this property pass in safety over the
Atlantic; and I have seen it boasted in some of our papers, that orders
were issued by the British Government to their Port Admirals to respect
these passports thus given by their minister or agent here; so the
United States left their own merchants to carry their sugar and coffee
as they might, but obtained passes for ships, in the proceeds of whose
sales they were interested. What a strange circumstance, this! The
American Government sailing secure under passes--the private merchant
exposed!

But it is asked, if this Treaty be so unfavorable to commerce, why are
the merchants so much in favor of it?

They explain the reason themselves. They are influenced by the present
rather than future interests. Five millions of spoliations they look to
the Treaty to repay; their property afloat, they fear to be taken, and
war they dread; but is there really weight in these arguments? I am as
largely interested as any individual among them in shipping, and have
suffered the loss of one of my cargoes at Bermuda, for which my
underwriters have made me only a partial allowance; but I neither dread
any war on the part of England, situated as she now is, nor expect any
payment of my loss from the Treaty. To a nation to whom she offers
bounties to carry her provisions, and who is so excellent a customer for
her manufactures, she will not be easily induced to offer hostilities
that shall go to the extent of war; and the Commissioners on Spoliations
are to act in London merely as arbitrators of the law of nations, on
whom our claim of spoliations is at best but a very uncertain
dependence. The merchants in sundry parts of the United States having
thought it so, have claimed the interference of Congress in advancing
them the money, they rather doubted getting any where else.

Considering, then, this Treaty as merely a bargain exhibiting little or
no profit and much to lose, I separate it from all considerations
foreign to itself. I judge it on its own merits, and these must lead me
to vote for the proposition to suspend appropriations, especially in a
moment when our seamen continue to be impressed and our ships to be
taken.


SATURDAY, April 16.

_Execution of British Treaty._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union, and took up the resolution for carrying into effect
the Treaty with Great Britain.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, he was sorry to find gentlemen unwilling to go into a
discussion of the merits of the Treaty, as he anticipated considerable
benefits to the community from a fair investigation. He did not know, as
had been said, that it could have no effect on the minds of members of
the House, but he thought it necessary that the people should be enabled
to form a just opinion of the merits of this compact, that neither
opposition nor their attachment, should go beyond just bounds; that fair
investigation was the most likely means of producing that calm in the
public mind which he wished to see produced whenever Government had
finally decided, and he would venture to say, there was no place which
could be resorted to for more sound information.

In considering the merits of the Treaty itself, Mr. N. said, he would
consider the subjects which pressed themselves on the negotiator and
demanded provision. These were chiefly the disputes arising under the
Treaty of 1783, late depredations on our trade, and the settlement of
contested principles to guard us against future misunderstandings.

The cases arising under the Treaty of 1783, as heretofore contested,
were <DW64>s and other property carried away contrary to its
stipulations; the territorial claim under it, and on the part of Great
Britain, an interference in the recovery of private debts.

Of the <DW64>s, nothing is said in the present Treaty. It is to be
expected in negotiations, that some concessions are to be made for the
sake of accommodation, and this sacrifice of private interests becomes
sometimes unavoidable. This claim was of considerable importance to a
class of the citizens of the United States, but it was of still greater
importance, as it justified the United States from the charge of
breaking the Treaty of Peace. In this respect it was highly incumbent on
the negotiator to procure satisfaction. It will not be contended that it
should have been a _sine qua non_ in the negotiation, and it would not
now be mentioned, if it was not necessary to a fair estimate of some of
the stipulations of the Treaty, and if there had not been so uniform a
surrender of the interests of the United States as to compel a
calculation. It is now said, indeed, that the meaning of the Treaty of
1783 was mistaken, and that the engagement was only to refrain from
carrying away <DW64>s, &c., which should be found in possession of the
inhabitants at the time peace should take place. It is not necessary now
to go into a construction of the words of the article, as its meaning
has certainly been fixed by the interpretation of the parties in the ten
years which elapsed after it. In all that time the United States have
asserted the claim, and it cannot be shown that Great Britain ever
contested the construction of the article. It is said, that one of the
Commissioners, (Mr. Adams,) who concluded the Treaty of 1783, in behalf
of the United States, informed the Senate, in their deliberations on
this Treaty, that it was the unquestionable meaning of the article, to
save all <DW64>s and other property then in the hands of the British;
that the article was inserted after all other points had been settled at
the instance of Mr. Laurens, who just then arrived from his confinement
in London, and the reason assigned by him was, that many of the people
of the United States would be disabled from complying with the part of
the Treaty which respects debts unless this provision was made; that the
same gentleman, who was afterwards Ambassador from the United States to
the Court of London, also informed the Senate that, during his embassy,
this construction of the article was never denied, and that it seemed to
be understood by the Ministry, that, on a settlement with the United
States, compensation must be made. This subject was fully investigated
by the negotiator of the Treaty (Mr. Jay) while he was Secretary of
Foreign Affairs; all the reasons which now arm the friends of the
Treaty against this claim were examined by him, and then his decision
was, that we were entitled to compensation. The reputed author of the
best defence of the Treaty, (Mr. Hamilton,) in the year 1783, introduced
a resolution into Congress, declaring that the <DW64>s, &c., had been
carried away by the British armies, contrary to the true intent and
meaning of the Treaty. Mr. N. thought it too late to extort a meaning
from a contract after it had existed more than ten years; and he did not
doubt every candid mind would be satisfied by the acquiescence of
Britain, and the evidence which he had produced of a perfect
understanding between the two countries on the subject. If the new
construction of the article could not be established, the first
infraction of the Treaty of 1783 remained indisputable. Before the
Treaty became binding, Great Britain, by carrying away the <DW64>s, put
it out of her power to execute the contract which she had made, while,
on the part of the United States, no act had been done which was
inconsistent with the Treaty, provided the acts of the States did not
continue to operate after the ratifications were exchanged.

Before he examined the cases provided for in this Treaty, it was
necessary to remark, that the Treaty declares its intention to be to
settle the disputes of the two countries without regard to former
criminations, and all the writers in favor of the Treaty, declare that
it was necessary to waive the first infraction of the former Treaty.
This was a proper principle, and he only asked that it should have been
pursued. This spirit of conciliation must have meant to put both parties
on the same footing, either by agreeing that neither party had been the
cause of the Treaty not being executed, or that both had been equally
guilty. He would examine whether either of these concessions had been
pursued.

To obtain a surrender of the posts, and the territory withheld from us,
we have sanctioned the subsequent alienations of land by the King of
Great Britain. We have confirmed the claims of the inhabitants and
dispensed with their allegiance, by permitting them to remain subjects
of Great Britain; we have opened our frontier to all their citizens, and
permitted them to retain a share of the Indian trade. Mr. N. did not
pretend to judge of the commercial effect of the intercourse between the
frontiers, but he apprehended that, in another respect, this concession
would destroy the whole value of the acquisition. The traders would be
enabled to maintain their accustomed influence over the Indians, and
would have more inducements than when they had a monopoly of the trade
to embroil them with the United States. Formerly, they were interested
in their continuing in peace, as war prevented the acquisition of skins
and furs; but when American traders shall embark in the trade, they will
have an obvious interest in war as the certain means of banishing their
rivals. It appears, then, that the Treaty of 1783, in this respect, is
not revived--that there is a new contract with respect to the posts,
and much less will be obtained than if that Treaty had been executed.

When the claims of Great Britain, under the Treaty of 1783, became the
subject of the present Treaty, the stipulations discover a different
principle. The United States give up the claim for <DW64>s, and agree to
receive the posts on terms which greatly diminish their value; but, when
the debts due from citizens of the United States to subjects of Great
Britain are to be provided for, there is not a stipulation that they may
now be pursued without hindrance, but there is an engagement, on the
part of the United States, to pay all losses which have arisen from the
infraction of the Treaty of Peace, so far as it respects them. On what
ground could this assumption have been made? Why is this penalty imposed
on the United States? There can be but one justification, and that is,
that they had been guilty of the first infraction of the Treaty of
Peace, and must make amends; but there was to be no concession of this
kind, so that if damages were to be given at all, they should be given
on both sides. It seems clear, then, whatever pretences are made by the
Treaty or its advocates, that the first infraction of the Treaty of
Peace is fixed on the United States, and that they are to make
compensation for an injury. Where does the conciliating temper of Great
Britain manifest itself? Had she a claim under the Treaty of 1783, which
is forgotten? Does she not receive every thing which she could have
demanded in relation to that Treaty? The United States are to indemnify
her citizens completely for the non-execution at the time, and are to
receive less than was promised them without the least compensation for
the delay. But it is somewhere said, that the damages could not be
demanded for withholding the posts, because they could not be computed.
It will be agreed by those who press the acceptance of this Treaty in
order to obtain the posts, that they are important to the United States.
If of the consequence which they are represented to be, twelve years
dispossession must have been a real injury, and the claim on Great
Britain will be indisputable, although the amount may not be certain.
This might be a good pretext for evading a payment to the United States,
if this claim stood unconnected with any other; but it must be
considered as a very shameless suggestion to enforce the payment of
damages incurred by them. It is certainly a sufficient justification for
retaining what is in their hands until Great Britain shall offer
something on this account; otherwise she will be screened by her cunning
in causing the subject of injury. Again, it has been said that this
inequality in the Treaty was proper, because the right to recover debts
returned with the peace, and did not depend merely on the Treaty. It is
to be remembered, that the United States justify it as a retaliation for
breach on the part of Great Britain, and that, in forming this Treaty,
it was agreed to waive the right to retaliate: or, rather, the
question, who first infringed the Treaty. It is only to be inquired,
then, whether this was a proper subject of retaliation? and if it was,
the United States ought to escape all penalty for using it, or Great
Britain must be equally subject to compensation for her infractions.
(For this, see _Marten's_ Law of Nations, page 268, where it is said
that it matters not, in this respect, whether rights are innate, or
whether they have been acquired by express or tacit covenant, or
otherwise.)

Another class of claims which may fall on the United States is still
more alarming--those for war-interest. The Treaty has explicitly
authorized the commissioners to judge of all claims of British subjects
lost by legal impediments, whether of principal or interest, and they
are to determine according to justice, equity, and the law of nations.
In the correspondence on this subject between the two Governments, the
right has been asserted and denied; and it will depend on the
commissioners to say whether war-interest is due or not; and it being to
be supposed that the commissioners will advocate the principles of their
respective Governments, the United States are to depend on the chance
election of the fifth commissioner for safety. If it shall be determined
that it is due, the mischief will be insufferable. It will not merely be
recovered in those cases where the principal is unpaid, nor will it be
confined to those cases where it has been lost by actual judgment of a
court, but will extend to all cases of private settlement, where the
decision of the Judiciary of the State had previously settled the
principle.

It appears, then, that on the subject of the disputes arising under the
Treaty of 1783, there is no cause for congratulation. The claims for
<DW64>s carried off are abandoned; the posts are to be delivered up, on
terms not unusual and dishonorable, but extremely dangerous to the
future peace of the United States, and to obtain them in this manner we
incur an obligation to pay a sum which probably will not fall short of
five millions of dollars, and which may possibly amount to fifteen
millions. When it is remembered that these claims commenced with our
independence, and that they were the concessions to our infant
struggles, what American is there who will not feel the disgrace to our
manhood in abandoning them? All must blush at a comparison of the Treaty
we obtained with our arms, with that which has been dictated by fear.

The next subject which claimed the attention of a negotiator was the
injury recently sustained in the commerce of the United States; and on
this subject it will be proper to review the circumstances in which the
negotiator left this country. The losses sustained had been considered
here as outrages of so serious a nature that all parties had concurred
in demanding reparation; some had attempted at once to use coercion, and
those who approved the mission declared that war must follow a failure.
In this situation, where the sense of Government and people was
decided, and where the injury was not only intolerable in itself but was
likely to be repeated, it seems astonishing that a man could be found
who would conclude a Treaty which gives to the United States no
compensation, but more astonishing that partisans could be found here
who approved his conduct. It may be asserted that no compensation is
secured by the Treaty, and that under its operation it is equally
probable that none will be received. See the article. It has been
doubted, and is, perhaps, very doubtful, whether the Courts of Great
Britain are not made the judges of irregular and illegal captures and
condemnations, and whether the orders of the King are not admitted as
good cause of seizure; but it never has been contended that compensation
is promised in any particular case, or that any principles are
established by the Treaty which are to govern the commissioners. In the
construction of their powers, insisted on by the advocates of the
Treaty, their guides are justice, equity, and the laws of nations.
Nobody can complain of these principles, if their fair operation was
secured; but a moment's attention will show that this was nothing but an
evasion of the subject.

It will not be understood that I suppose it was in Mr. Jay's power to
make his own terms, but I complain of his treating at all on the terms
he did. It is said that it was not in his power to extort what he
wished, but I complain that he yielded to the extortion of Great
Britain. What has he left her to ask, what has he not surrendered? While
professing, as the Treaty does, that there were important points of our
commerce left for future negotiation, why bind us to continue to Great
Britain the fullest share of our commercial privileges? If the Treaty
had been the most complete and satisfactory, would it not be necessary
to leave something to enforce its execution? What weapons have we which
can reach her? The Treaty makes war indispensable, as the only redress
of injuries, and how will war from the United States reach Great
Britain? It was certainly improper to give up all power of restricting
her commerce until the same instrument contained the fullest
satisfaction as to our own. It was improper to give up all the power of
seizing on the debts of her subjects, for this, when the power of
restricting her commerce was bartered for equal privileges, would be the
only means of maintaining respect. It is not necessary that weapons of
any sort should be used, but it is more dangerous to surrender them. I
am no friend to interference in private contracts, and I can truly say,
I never was willing to resort to this remedy till all others had been
tried; but if there was an impossibility of doing it, the want of the
power would immediately be felt. The impolicy and immorality of
sequestration have been dwelt on. Contrast it with war, for which it is
a substitute, and it will be found in both respects unequal to it. All
national remedies are attended with great mischiefs to those who use
them, and they must be adopted only on comparison in this respect, and
with regard to their effects on the enemy. In this last respect there
seems to be no choice to the United States; they have no other weapon
that can reach Great Britain, and I greatly fear that, when this is
lost, we are completely disarmed.


MONDAY, April 18.

_Treaty with Great Britain._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union; when the resolution for carrying the British Treaty
into effect being under consideration--

Mr. GILES said it was much to be regretted that all the information
which could throw light upon the subject of discussion should not be
before the committee. A sense of responsibility arising from the
peculiarly delicate nature of the question had induced the House to take
every step with more than a common degree of caution. Before they
proceeded to deliberate upon the expediency or inexpediency of providing
for carrying the Treaty into effect, they made a request to the
PRESIDENT for the papers which attended the negotiation. This request
has been refused; not because the call itself contained any thing
unconstitutional; not because the contents of the papers called for were
of such a nature as to render the disclosure thereof at this time
improper. Neither of these causes being intimated in the Message, but
because principles were advocated by individual gentlemen in the course
of the argument inducing the call which the PRESIDENT thought not
warranted by the constitution. Mr. G. said, he did not propose to
animadvert upon the conduct of the Executive in departing from the
resolution itself, and in noticing the arguments of individual members,
nor upon any other part of the proceedings of the Executive relative to
the call of the House and his refusal. He only meant to remark, that
being perfectly convinced of the propriety of the call itself, of the
utility of the information embraced by it, and not being satisfied by
the arguments of the PRESIDENT of the propriety of withholding the
papers called for, he should have been willing to have suspended all
further proceeding respecting the provision for the Treaty, until the
papers should be laid before the House. He would have firmly placed
himself on that ground, and in that position hazarded his
responsibility. The extreme sensibility excited on the public mind by
the agitation of the Treaty question, he had supposed, would have
furnished an irresistible argument in favor of complying with the
request of the House, provided no inconvenience would have attended the
disclosure; and in his opinion, under all the circumstances of the case,
the House would have been completely justified in suspending all further
proceeding upon the question of providing for the Treaty, until they
received that information which they deemed necessary to guide their
deliberations. But as the House had thought proper to take a different
course, and had proceeded to the consideration of the question, with
such lights as they possessed, he would explain the motives which would
probably finally influence his vote.

Mr. G. said he should discuss the subject in two points of view. He
would first examine the contents of the Treaty itself, and then the
probable consequences of refusing or of giving it efficacy.

In examining the contents of the instrument itself, he proposed to go
through it article by article, unless the task prescribed to himself
should exceed the bounds usually allowed to members for the delivery of
their sentiments. He should do this, because he wished to treat the
subject with the utmost candor, and to avoid any possible imputation of
intending to exhibit the bad and avoid the good parts of the Treaty, if
any such there were. He meant, however, to state merely the purport of
many of the articles, without any animadversion, and to dwell only upon
such as appeared to him the most material.

The first object of the negotiation respected the inexecution of the
Treaty of Peace.

On the part of Great Britain, two articles had been unexecuted: The
restoration of certain property in possession of the British at the
close of the war, and the surrender of the Western posts. On the part of
the United States, one article was suggested to remain unfulfilled; it
respected the promise that no legal impediment should be thrown in the
way to the recovery of debts due to British subjects.

The claim of compensation for the property carried away in contravention
of the Treaty of Peace is wholly abandoned, and the value of the
surrender of the posts very much lessened by the annexation of
conditions which made no part of the stipulations of surrender in the
Treaty of Peace. The United States are more than bound to fulfil the
article heretofore unfulfilled by them; for instead of continuing the
courts open for the recovery of debts in the usual way, as was the
promise in the Treaty of Peace, they are made to assume the payment of
all debts, interests, and damages in cases of insolvencies, and a mode
of adjustment is proposed for ascertaining the amount which furnishes
the greatest latitude for frauds against the United States which could
be devised. This will appear in the future examination of the subject.
Hence it is obvious that the stipulations of the Treaty abandoned the
very principle of adjustment assumed by a gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. SWIFT.)

Mr. G. would first premise, that if the article did not intend the
restoration of property mentioned in it, the insertion of it in the
Treaty was not only unnecessary, but mischievous, as it would
necessarily produce embarrassment to the parties to the instrument.

The British army, at the termination of the war, was at New York; the
<DW64>s, which constituted the species of property in question, were in
the Southern States; so that if the article did not include that species
of property taken in the course of the war, and in the possession of the
British at the end of it, it was worse than nonsense. It never could
have been supposed that, upon the first dawn of peace, the British
would have left New York and invaded the Southern country, for the
purpose of plundering the inhabitants of their <DW64>s. The peace
article itself was a sufficient security against this conduct, and of
course no specific provision could have been necessary for that purpose.
This was not only the uniform construction of the article by the United
States, but, as he always understood and believed, Great Britain had
acquiesced in the construction until the negotiation of the present
Treaty. As an evidence of these facts, Mr. G. observed, that American
commissioners were permitted to make a list of the <DW64>s in the
possession of the British at the close of the war by the British
commander; that the list was entered upon the files of Congress; that
there were resolutions of Congress claiming compensation for the
property carried away in contravention of that article in the Treaty of
Peace, perhaps without even the intimation of a doubt as to the
construction; that, during the administration of Lord Caermarthen, he
had always understood that the claim of compensation for property
carried away, was admitted, whenever British subjects were indemnified
for the debts due to them from citizens of the United States. But here
he had to regret the want of the papers called for by this House, as
they contained all the evidence upon which this important fact depends.
Hence it appears that Great Britain herself had yielded her assent to
this construction, and ought not to have been permitted to have
withdrawn it afterwards. These circumstances seemed to him to be
conclusive, and ingenuity itself would pause for arguments against facts
so stubborn and irresistible.

Mr. G. then proceeded to the examination of the articles of the Treaty.
The first article, he said, was declaratory of peace, &c., between the
two countries, which, he said, was a very desirable thing, provided it
could be established upon principles compatible with the national honor
and the national interests. The second and third articles contained the
stipulations for the surrender of the Western posts, and the conditions
accompanying the surrender.

The surrender of the Western posts, he said, would be an extremely
desirable object, if conformable with the Treaty of Peace, and it were
unattended with any conditions.

Here, he said, he was desirous of giving credit to every part of the
instrument which would admit of it, and was not disposed to exaggerate
its imperfections. He was willing to admit that the surrender of the
posts, even with the conditions annexed, was of some importance; but he
would assert that the surrender lost a great portion of its value to the
United States, in consequence of the conditions attached to it. He
observed, two objects of primary importance were to be effected by the
unqualified surrender of the posts. The one was to obtain the influence
over the Indians in their neighborhood, which the British now possessed.
The other, the participation, at least, in the fur trade carried on
with those Indians. The conditions accompanying the surrender, will, in
his opinion, very much impede the one, and completely defeat the other
object.

The stipulation in the second article, which authorizes British subjects
who are now living within the precincts or jurisdiction of the posts,
still to continue and to reside there, with the free use of their
property; and to elect either to remain British subjects or to become
American citizens at pleasure, will, in his opinion, very much impede,
if not wholly obstruct, the salutary influence of the United States over
the numerous tribes of Indians in that quarter; which is one great
object hoped for from the possession of those posts. The effects of the
stipulation will appear more obvious, when it is compared with the
stipulations in the next article, by which the trade with the Indians is
regulated. The second object, to wit, the participation in the fur
trade, he believed, would be completely defeated by the regulation of
that trade in the third article; that article stipulates an equality of
duties between American citizens and British subjects, a free
communication through that country, upon an equality of portages and
ferriages. These conditions, in his opinion, would secure a complete
monopoly of the fur trade to Great Britain; because the superiority of
the British capital employed in that trade, and the inferiority of
duties paid upon goods imported for that trade into Canada, would, in
his judgment, wholly exclude American citizens from a participation in
that trade, through any channel in the United States. The United States
had no mode left to counteract this monopoly but by a system of
drawbacks, which appeared to him, from the nature and trade of the
country, to be almost impracticable; or if not absolutely impracticable,
it would compel us to purchase the trade at a price greater than it was
worth. It appeared to him that Great Britain had foreseen these
consequences, and that these articles are as well calculated to produce
them, and to obstruct the views of the United States, as sagacity itself
could have devised. Hence it appears to him that the value of an
unqualified surrender of the posts is very much lessened by the
accompanying conditions. The gentleman from Connecticut observed, that
the surrender of the posts was absolute, and that no conditions were
annexed to it. It is a sufficient answer to say that his observation is
a mere criticism upon terms. If they be not conditions of the surrender,
they are accompanying engagements, and are to be executed with good
faith by the United States.

The sixth article was, in his judgment, highly objectionable. This
article assumes the payment of all debts, interests, and damages, due
from American citizens to British subjects, previous to the Revolution,
in all cases where insolvencies have ensued, and where legal impediments
to the recovery of the debts have existed. He would remark, that this
was an assumption of debt by the public, which they did not owe, and
never promised to pay, and that it is bettering the condition of the
British creditor under the Treaty of Peace, without any obligation on
the United States to do so. He said that, as, amongst the fashionable
calumnies of the day, this article had been a fertile source of
misrepresentation against the State he had the honor to represent, he
was anxious to place this subject in its true light; and, as he
professed to be well acquainted with it, he hoped to be indulged with
some minutiae of explanation. He said, this subject presented two aspects
to the public; the one, as it respected States, the other, as it
respected individuals of the United States. As to the first, he admitted
that if a greater proportion of debts of this description were due from
Virginia than from other States, which had not, however, been
ascertained, and which he doubted, in the same proportion, as a State,
Virginia would receive an advantage over the rest of the States, by a
common assumption of the debts; but as it respected the individuals in
that State who were not debtors, they stood precisely on the same
footing with individuals in other States, because they were, in common
with others, to contribute to the payment of debts which they never
owed. It is of very little consolation to them that they live in the
neighborhood of those whose debts they are to contribute to pay; for
propinquity or distance can make no difference in the state of interest
between the individuals who do not owe, but who are to contribute to
pay. As a very small proportion of the inhabitants of Virginia come
under this description of debtors, the phenomenon of an opposition of
that State, to this particular article, is thus explained.

It is to be remarked, that this article contains no limits as to the
amount of debts assumed by it, nor are there any precise data furnished
for calculation. But it has been said, that if the debts be due, they
ought to be paid, be the amount what it may. He said, that gentlemen
should reflect, that the amount would depend very much upon the mode of
adjustment, and that the mode adopted by the Treaty was the most
objectionable that could be devised.

He observed, that the principle established for the adjustment of the
debts, instead of preserving the conflicting interests of debtor and
creditor, would produce a complete union of interests; and of course
would furnish the greatest temptations to frauds against the United
States from both debtor and creditor. Hence the amount of debts assumed
by the United States would probably be greatly increased beyond what
would be the amount, if the debtor and creditor should be left to the
ordinary course of judicial proceedings to adjust their own differences,
under the principle of opposing interests. To entitle the creditor to a
claim upon the United States, it is necessary for him first to establish
his demand against his debtor, and then to show that his debtor was
solvent at the commencement of the late war, and has since become
insolvent; and that some legal impediment had intervened to prevent the
recovery of the debt. Hence it becomes the interest of both debtor and
creditor to establish these facts, because the debtor will be relieved
from his debt, by the assumption of the United States, and the claim of
the creditor will be transferred from the individual to the United
States, which he would, in all cases, prefer, particularly as the
assistance of the debtor will often become necessary to facilitate the
establishment of the debt. This, he said, was the natural operation of
the union of interest produced by the assumption of the debts by the
United States, and there was more danger to be apprehended from it, from
the impossibility of checking it, by any vigilance on the part of the
United States, and from the peculiar circumstances attending those
debts.

The greatest proportion of debts remaining unpaid, he believed, stood
upon open accounts. In many cases, when the debts were evidenced by
specialties, payments had been obtained, either by the usual course of
judicial process, or by compromise between the parties. There were two
circumstances attending the open accounts which would give great scope
to the fraudulent combinations between the debtor and creditor. The one
respected the evidence, the other the substantial causes of difference
in the accounts of the creditor and debtor. In the reign of George II.
an act was passed for the more easy recovery of debts due to His
Majesty's subjects from His Majesty's plantations in America. This act
authorized the merchant in Great Britain to establish his debt against a
colonist by affidavits taken before the commencement of the suit, and
authenticated in the usual mode. This deprived the defendant of all
opportunity of cross-examination, so essential to the discovery of
truth, and the jury of all knowledge of the character and credibility of
the deponent.

In Virginia, the affidavits taken in pursuance of this act, have been
deemed incompetent to the establishment of the debt, because the act
itself destroys the very nature and properties of evidence. Hence, in
all disputed claims founded upon this act, judgments have been rendered
for the defendants. If this should be deemed a legal impediment to the
recovery, this whole description of debts would probably come under the
description of debts assumed. He observed, that the words used in the
Treaty were calculated, in his opinion, with a view to this
construction, and must have been dictated by persons better informed of
the nature of this business than he presumed the Envoy Extraordinary of
the United States could have been.

The other circumstances arose from the nature of the remittances. These
were generally made in tobacco. The sales of this article were intrusted
solely to the merchant residing in Great Britain, and the American
shipper had no check whatever upon the merchant making the sale. Upon
tendering these accounts, the tobacco is often set down at a price very
inferior to the average price of that article in Europe, at the time of
making the sale. A great number of controversies have taken place upon
this ground, which remain unsettled; but, if the United States should
assume the debts of the individuals thus circumstanced, they would have
no inducement to contest these accounts in a course of judicial
proceedings, and the promise of exoneration from the creditor, will
often induce the debtor to facilitate the establishment of the claims
against the United States. He said he had not overlooked the clause in
this article of the Treaty, which compels an assignment of the claim
from the creditor to the United States, but that would have little or no
operation to check the practice invited by this article, because the
debtor is presumed to be insolvent before the assignment is made, and he
believed the United States would be but unsuccessful collectors from
insolvent debtors.

From these circumstances, he concluded, that this assumption of debt,
without any obligation for so doing, was extremely improper,
particularly when it is recollected that this article sweeps away all
acts of limitation, and relates to the whole extensive scene of business
carried on in the United States, from the extremes of New Hampshire to
the extremes of Georgia, for an unlimited time before the Revolution. He
observed, if he were to make a conjecture as to the amount, it would be
a loose one; but if he were to choose between indemnification to the
American merchants for recent spoliations committed upon their commerce,
or the payment of these debts, he should not hesitate to prefer the
first alternative; because, to that there were known limits; to the
other there were not, nor any data for calculation under the mode of
adjustment prescribed by the Treaty. He, therefore, cautioned gentlemen
against the assumption of this unascertained debt, for he believed it
would be attended with a responsibility which they could not answer to
their constituents, nor would the responsibility be alleviated by the
recollection of the merits of the individuals for whose benefit it is
made. The increase of the debt of the United States by these artificial
means, without any obligation to do so, he thought highly objectionable.

The 10th article, he said, was of a very extraordinary complexion. It
was remarkable, both as to the matter it contained, and the manner in
which it was expressed. It is in the following words:

      "Neither the debts due from individuals of the one nation
      to individuals of the other, nor shares, nor moneys which
      they may have in the public funds, or in the public or
      private banks, shall ever in any event of war, or national
      differences, be sequestered or confiscated, it being unjust
      and impolitic that debts and engagements contracted and
      made by individuals having confidence in each other and in
      their respective Governments, should ever be destroyed or
      impaired by national authority on account of the national
      differences and discontents."

Mr. G. remarked, that this article also had assumed the resemblance of
reciprocity; but no reciprocity in fact.

British subjects have great sums, both in public and private funds, in
the United States. American citizens have little or no property in
public or private funds in Great Britain. Hence the evident and
substantial inequality of this reciprocal stipulation. On the other
hand, American citizens have a great share of property on the water,
with very little naval protection, and of course subject to the naval
superiority of Great Britain.

If, therefore, Great Britain had stipulated, in case of war, that in
consideration of a refusal on the part of the United States, to
sequestrate property of British subjects upon land, she would not molest
the property of American citizens upon water, there would then have been
a substantial, instead of a nominal reciprocity; as the article now
stands there is an important right conceded, and no compensation
obtained.

This article, however, has been highly applauded by a particular
description of persons interested in it, in consequence of the
affectation of morality professed by it.

It has been said to be dishonest and immoral to take the property of
individuals for the purpose of compensating national wrongs. He
observed, that he could see no difference between the morality of taking
the property of individuals upon water, and the property of individuals
upon land. The difference of the element could make no difference in the
morality of the act. However strongly, therefore, this moral impulse was
operating upon the American Envoy whilst engaged in the construction of
this article, it had entirely dissipated before he had arrived at the
25th article; for, in that article, the principle of privateering is not
only admitted, but its operation facilitated; so that, unless the
interest of Great Britain is to be the criterion of the Envoy's
morality, what he has gained by the morality of the 10th article must be
at least balanced by the immorality of the 25th. But, Mr. G. remarked,
that sequestration was always admitted as part of the law of nations,
and hence he presumed it was not immoral under certain circumstances. He
said it appeared to be the opinion of some, that where the property of
an individual was sequestered on account of the act of his nation, that
the individual was to sustain the loss, but that was not the case. The
sequestration itself imposes upon the government, to which the
individual belongs, an obligation of reimbursement. Hence the
sequestration does not ultimately rest upon the individual, but upon the
Government, for whose wrong the property was taken. This is also
conformable to the laws of nations. It was the course pursued by Great
Britain for all sequestrations made during the American war, and is the
course which would be pursued by all nations.

Mr. G. said, that war itself was immoral in most cases; and justified,
in his opinion, only in the case of self-defence; but if a stipulation
had been inserted in this Treaty, which prohibited the United States
from declaring war, it would have been justly and universally
reprobated. The present article prohibits the United States from
resorting to the best means not only of preventing war, but the most
efficacious means of supporting it. Hence, the surrender of the right
was the most impolitic concession, and is infinitely aggravated by its
being a voluntary concession; no equivalent being received in return.
Mr. G. said, it was dishonorable to the United States because it
evidenced a want of confidence in the discretion of the constituted
authorities. The right of sequestration is admitted to be essential to
national sovereignty; but, lest it should be indiscreetly used by the
United States, its guardianship is transferred to Great Britain. Mr. G.
said, he viewed sequestration as an extraordinary remedy, to be resorted
to only on extraordinary occasions. And although he would admit that but
few cases would justify a resort to it, yet it was one of our best
instruments of defence, considering our relationship to Great Britain,
and ought not therefore to have been surrendered. He said, too, that
this restraint was imposed upon the United States for an unlimited time,
and was the more objectionable, as it was a species of legislation
against the discretion of legislation.

Upon the whole, he conscientiously believed the Treaty to be a bad one.
He believed it contained the most complete evidence of British
interference in our internal affairs, and had laid the foundation for
the further extension of British influence. It has restricted the
exercise of some of the important rights of national sovereignty. It has
voluntarily hazarded the neutrality of the United States in the present
European war, and destroyed all pretensions to its character of
impartiality. It has not afforded protection to our neutral rights,
which was amongst its great objects; and in the adjustment of the
differences resulting from the inexecution of the Treaty of Peace, it is
unequal and unjust. All these important circumstances considered, and
when it is also considered that the British persevere in impressing our
seamen and seizing our vessels, in violation of the clearest rights of
neutral nations, even since the signing of the Treaty, he could not
consent to be the instrument of giving it efficacy. He believed that it
was one of those extraordinary cases which justified strong and
extraordinary resistance.

When Mr. GILES had concluded his speech,

Mr. GOODHUE addressed the Chair as follows: Mr. Chairman: Much noise has
been made, and every art has been practised to prejudice the people
against the Treaty now under consideration. I mean to look at it and see
if it be the horrid thing it is represented to be, and particularly to
examine the commercial part, to know whether we have made a good bargain
or not, I will take notice of some objections that have been made, and
then touch on the great evils that may justly be apprehended, if we
refuse to carry it into effect. And here let me observe, the subject is
the most momentous that ever came before this House, and I mean to put
no false colors on it, or to paint any evils that will follow a
rejection, beyond what, in such an event, I most conscientiously believe
will be realized. I will now state what new sources of commerce are
opened to us by the Treaty that we had not before, and then see what we
have given for them. 1st. We have got by the Treaty a perfectly free
trade across the land, and by means of the lakes with Canada, that we
had not before, and on the same terms with British subjects, which I
estimate as a great advantage to this country; for it is evident, that
we can introduce into Canada--up the North river and across the
Lakes--almost any kind of goods, at less expense and on better terms
than the British can up the river St. Lawrence, which is very lengthy,
and frozen up six or seven months in the year. Having this advantage,
can it be doubted that we have not industry and enterprise to improve
it? No, sir, the enterprise of our people is such, that we shall
unquestionably carry on almost all the trade of Upper Canada, and that
great Western country which will be opened to us; by which means we
shall have at least an equal share in their fur trade also with them,
which we have so long wanted. But it is said, the portages or carrying
places being common to both, they will run away with the greater part of
the trade. Why so? I am not afraid but the citizens of the United
States, if they are put on an equal footing with others, will make their
way equal with any people on earth. But it is said, by way of lessening
the advantages of this trade, that goods imported into Canada pay little
or no duty, and the goods that we import are by our laws subject to high
duty, and that no drawback of the duty can be established upon their
being sent into Canada, and therefore, we cannot supply them on equal
terms. To this, I reply, that I do not know what duty they impose on
goods when imported into Canada, but I believe it is considerable; and I
do not believe but it is possible to devise a plan for a drawback of the
duty which may have been paid on our goods when they are sent into
Canada, and that at any rate the ease by which we can send them there up
the North river, compared with their being introduced by the St.
Lawrence, will more than compensate for any difference of duty, in case
a drawback should not be admitted.

2. We have got established by the Treaty, a right to trade with all
their settlements in India on the same terms with their own subjects,
and thus we have laid open to us a free trade with those vast
possessions of theirs in that quarter of the globe, which, it is said,
contains twenty or thirty millions of inhabitants. Let me inform the
committee, that our trade to India is already very great and profitable.
In the town of Salem only, in which I live, we have thirty sail of
Indiamen, and doubtless, in the United States, the whole amount must be
nearly a hundred; and the number will increase in such a manner, as by
our superior enterprise, industry and economy, that we shall not only
supply our own wants, but those of the West Indies and Europe, in a
great measure, with India articles; for though, by the Treaty which
gives us this free trade, we are not permitted to carry India goods from
their settlements directly to Europe, yet there is no doubt, in my mind,
but we can export from hence thither cheaper than they can get them any
other way, for this obvious reason, because their trade to India is
carried on by their companies, in which despatch and economy is by no
means so much attended to, as it is when managed by an individual. But
it is said we had this trade before the Treaty. I answer, it is true we
had, but it was only by way of indulgence, subject to be deprived of it
whenever they thought fit; and let me ask, is it not vastly better to
have it secured as a right, than to have it rest on the precarious
tenure of indulgence? Here, Mr. Chairman, let me remark, that they have
granted to us this free trade to India, which their own subjects (except
the India Company) are entirely shut out from. What must be the feelings
of British subjects when they see their Government has given to
strangers a perfect freedom of trade to their India settlements, and
shut them out from it altogether? And what must be their astonishment
when they hear that some people amongst us think that Great Britain has
conferred no favor upon us by doing it? Hear what the famous Mr.
Grattan, the great Irish patriot, said in the Irish Parliament, on the
subject:

      "This very America, which the British Minister insulted and
      then crouched to, had, by the late Treaty of Commerce, been
      admitted to all the British settlements in the East and
      West Indies, to the latter of which Ireland was only
      conditionally admitted, and from the former unconditionally
      excluded; yet Ireland was a loyal, attached nation, and
      America an alien."

These are the commercial acquisitions we have obtained by the Treaty;
and let me ask, what have we given to Britain in return for them? I
answer, nothing more than they have all along enjoyed in our ports, by
the laws of the United States, in common with other foreign nations. No
new commercial advantages have we given them; they can come here now on
no better terms than before. But, it is said, we have tied our hands by
the Treaty, that we will not lay any greater duties on their commerce
than we do on all other foreign nations. Pray, let me ask, if Great
Britain have not equally tied their hands? And can we be so unreasonable
as to suppose that they would ever consent to a Treaty that had not such
terms of reciprocity?

It is again said, by way of objection, that they have reserved to
themselves the right of countervailing the difference of duty, which we,
by our laws, have established between our own citizens and foreigners,
and that she will now exercise that right by imposing equal duties on
our vessels in the ports of Great Britain. Let me answer this objection
to the Treaty, by asking if she had not this same right, and even an
unlimited one, of imposing what duties she saw proper on our vessels in
her ports before the Treaty? She did not see fit to exercise it then,
neither is it probable she will now. And, lest it should be said she
will now do it, because we are restrained by the Treaty from increasing
the duty on her ships beyond what it now is, and, therefore, she has not
the same fear operating to prevent it that she had before, let me
remark, that if she was restrained by any such considerations, this same
restraint would be in force again in two years after the present war
ceased, being the period of the existence of those articles of the
Treaty--a time so short as to render it highly probable she will not
think it worth while to make the experiment.

A great cry has been made against the commercial part of the Treaty, and
I must confess I never could see on what ground, for it is a certain
fact we have given Great Britain no new privileges in our Atlantic ports
by the Treaty, and no other in their intercourse by the way of Canada,
than they have given us; and, therefore, it may fairly be said that, by
the Treaty, we have given them no new commercial privileges they were
not before enjoying in our ports; and they, on their part, have given us
considerable; and consequently, on our side, the bargain must be a good
one.

Let me ask, why there is for ever so much complaint against Great
Britain because she does not open all her colonies freely to us? Does
Portugal open the Brazils? No; she shuts out all foreigners. Did
Holland, before the present war, open to us all her rich possessions in
the East Indies? No. Does Spain open her rich islands in the East and
West Indies, and her immense possessions in South America? No. Does she,
in the Treaty lately made, open even Florida, as Great Britain has
Canada? No. Did France before this war give us free trade to her
colonies? No. And do not all those nations, as well as every other, come
into our ports on the same terms with the British? Why, then, make this
rant about the British? Let them fare as well in our ports as other
foreigners, inasmuch as they certainly grant as much to us as most
others do, is all I contend for. I do not wish they should fare better.

The impressment of our seamen by the British is made use of as an
objection to our carrying the Treaty into effect. It is, to be sure, a
mortifying circumstance, and must excite our utmost detestation of such
conduct. But let not our passions get the better of our judgment. We
have no kind of evidence that such conduct is countenanced by their
Admiralty, but the evidence we have is of a contrary nature, for, upon
our Minister's remonstrating to the British Ministry on this point, they
assured him that orders had been issued, and should be repeated to the
commanders of their ships, not to commit such violences on our rights,
at the same time observing, that, speaking the same language as we do,
it was difficult in all cases to distinguish their seamen from ours. In
this situation let us believe that a firm and spirited remonstrance will
be made by our Executive against such outrages; and let us hope that it
may have the desired effect. But, let me ask, if the Treaty should not
be carried into effect, will that relieve that deserving class of our
citizens? Will it not have probably a contrary effect, and be the means
of increasing the evil tenfold more than it exists at present?


TUESDAY, April 19.

_Execution of British Treaty._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union, on the motion for making provision for carrying into
effect the Treaty with Great Britain; when

Mr. HEATH rose and addressed the Chair as follows:

Mr. Chairman: In the discussion of this so momentous and important a
subject, and so big at the same time with the dearest interests of our
common country, I shall not attempt any critical analysis upon the good
and bad parts of the instrument, as the gentlemen preceding me in this
debate have already done, but only confine myself to a few remarks, to
justify my conduct to God and my country for the vote I shall give in
the ultimate decision of the question. Mr. Chairman, permit me here to
remark, that during the recess of the last Congress, when the American
mind was roused with so much irritation and sensibility through all
parts of the Union against this paper, after its first appearance in
public print, I was one of those who kept aloof from the storm,
suspended my opinion, became of no party, considering myself hereafter
bound to discharge the important duties of an American Representative on
the occasion. And now since the commencement of the present session,
though two-thirds of my time overwhelmed with disease, and daily
languishing in the bed of pain, even under such a dreadful personal
calamity, my reflections were not turned aside from the awfulness of the
subject before us; which before and during this discussion, I confess,
as often as I have revolved in my mind, with a review of the situation
of my country, I have frequently paused, not knowing the best expedient
to pursue to avoid impending evils.

Mr. Chairman, I have strange forebodings on this occasion. By the second
and third articles of the instrument before you, in the surrender of the
posts, British subjects have a right to reside with us; Indians have a
right to pass and repass from post to post from our district to their
portages and ferriages free, all in the vicinity within gun-shot. Will
not their traders continue their old acquaintanceship with them in
spite of us? Are not their capitals for trade larger than ours? Where,
then, are the real profits anticipated? All visionary, like the beggar's
dream, grasping mountains of gold, and when the morning sun shakes off
his slumber, it dissipates the delusion. But time will make more
converts than reason. Further, before I quit this subject of inequality,
I wish to remark, by way of reply to my much respected friend from
Connecticut, who was up a few days ago, in language nearly similar, and
the same sort of ingenuity of a celebrated champion, who has dedicated
much labor in favor of this instrument, under the signature of
_Camillus_, that Great Britain had never violated the seventh article of
the Treaty of Peace in not restoring the slaves and other property; that
they were taken in war, and their freedom offered to them by the British
commanders, and were not taken after a cessation of hostilities; and,
therefore, were not proper objects of surrender. Oh, the deceit, the
sophistry of this construction! I shall just answer it by reading from
the Journals of the old Congress what the real _Camillus_, or, in other
words, the learned Mr. HAMILTON, thought of that article at that time.
He read the Journals of 1783, where Mr. HAMILTON moved in Congress for
commissioners to be sent to New York to the British commander to request
an explanation respecting an infraction of that article. So was Mr.
HAMILTON's opinion at that time, so was the prevalent opinion of all
America at that time. My second point, the want of reciprocity in the
instrument, has been so well explained by my worthy colleague from
Virginia, that I confess I am curtailed in my sentiments a little here.
But, suffice it to say, that the local circumstances of this country
will make the suspension of the law of alienage more advantageous by
tenfold, than could be reaped by American citizens over the other side
of the water. Witness the great disproportion between American citizens
holding lands in Britain and British subjects in this country. I wish it
may not revive old proprietary rights, with its long train of tenure,
fealty, and vassalage. Perhaps my fears may ensue from residing in that
of Virginia, where this tenure once prevailed. I now come to the third
objection, and the most important. Other objections, though they have
their weight in my mind, yet perhaps they might yield their force, were
it not for this the more insurmountable. This might be said with
propriety to be the foundation of the call for papers from the Executive
respecting the Treaty.

By the various articles embracing this subject, the House of
Representatives of the United States, in the Treaty-making power, have
lived to see the day, which I am sure no human sagacity could have ever
divined, that they may be considered as a perfect collective cypherical
body of men in legislation, reduced to a mere Committee of Ways and
Means, subservient to Executive policy, just called together, for
voting the necessary supplies of money for foreign negotiation, or for
the current annual expenses of Government. America is here totally
disarmed of every alternative to resort to in the hour of distress--to
prevent the horrors of war, no sequestration, no embargo, no commercial
restriction, can be the subject of future legislation against the tender
and humane people of Britain.

Is this right, is this just, that all our rights should be thus bartered
away under a Treaty-making power? If it is so, and it must be borne,
dreadful, dreadful, indeed, must be the calamity of future generations
of America, under the operation of this Government; for any one of them,
or all together, I would resort to an awful national crisis, sooner than
sound the trumpet of war, and let the banners of blood loose upon the
earth.

Mr. WILLIAMS said, that various opinions had been delivered upon the
various subjects involved in the Treaty. He should take the liberty of
stating to the committee his sentiments on the occasion, and then
inquire into the policy or impolicy of carrying the Treaty into effect.
But, in the first place, he conceived it to be necessary to take a view
of its origin, the division, and party dissensions which then
prevailed--the critical posture of our affairs, the depredations
committed on our commerce, and the probability of a war.

Let us, said Mr. W., take a view of the debates of that House in the
year 1793 and 1794, and he believed it would be discovered that if the
business of negotiation had not taken place, this country must have been
involved in a war. It would be remembered, that a gentleman from
Virginia, (Mr. MADISON,) on the 3d of January, 1794, laid on the table
of this House seven resolutions. The object of which was to compel
Britain to come to some terms of accommodation, and to prevent further
depredations on our commerce.

After a discussion of several weeks, the first resolution, which was for
imposing an additional duty on the importation of a great variety of
manufactures from nations having no Commercial Treaty with the United
States was agreed to by a small majority. Britain had, said he, ever
since the end of the war, declined entering into any Commercial Treaty
with us. In the mean time, the danger from British depredations
augmented with such rapidity that those resolutions became insufficient,
by reason of the seizure of an immense number of our vessels, in
consequence of instructions that had been given by the British Ministry
on the 6th of November, 1793; and other resolutions were then moved for
the sequestration of British property, but the result was an embargo and
negotiation.

Was it not then urged by members of that House that the British nation
refused to negotiate with them? It was, indeed, supposed it would be
attended with considerable difficulties, and that a considerable class
of citizens, let the consequences be what they might, would not be
satisfied with the result. However, it was thought best to adopt the
measure.

But, said Mr. W., let us waive this subject, and inquire if negotiation
had failed, whether war would not have been the consequence? Can it be
supposed that, after the British had committed certain spoliations on
our commerce; after their Order of the 6th of November, 1793; after the
declaration of Lord Dorchester to the Indians, that war would not have
followed? The national pride of Great Britain could not have yielded to
compulsion without self-degradation; and it would be remembered, too,
that from the relation in which the two countries have stood to each
other, it must have cost more to the pride of Britain to have received
the law from us than from any other power. And if war had been the
consequence, how were we to have recovered the amount of the spoliations
committed on the property of our merchants? How were we to act? Were we
to demand satisfaction? We have no protection to our commerce, and
therefore the British can at any time arrest it without additional
expense to themselves, having near 500 vessels of war at command.

What had been our situation ever since the negotiation? Have we not,
said he, been one of the happiest nations upon earth? Yet we are about
to oppose the necessary appropriations to carry into effect that Treaty
which hath been the means of keeping us in a neutrality, and thereby
hazard a war which may be our ruin.

But, if we arrest the Treaty by refusing to make the necessary
appropriations, can we suppose Great Britain will carry the Treaty into
effect on her part? It would be inconsistent to think so. Great Britain
was certainly acquainted with what was going on within these walls, and
would refuse to give up the posts at the time specified. Who had been
the cause of the posts being so long kept from the United States? The
State of New York had been too long kept from its just due; that State
had not prevented the British from obtaining their debt, and the people
now looked with anxious expectation to the time when the posts were to
be given up. They were, at present, considerably alarmed, lest the
British Treaty should not be carried into effect. He had received
letters that morning, from some of his constituents, who were at New
York, endeavoring to sell their produce (for a number of the farmers in
that part of the country which he came from, did not sell their produce
to the merchants, but attended the market with it themselves.) They
write the price of flour had already fallen three dollars a barrel, and
wheat four shillings per bushel. Who were to be the losers, under these
circumstances? The farmers. Who had the most produce to sell? The
farmers in the State of New York. The other day a resolution was laid
upon our table, proposing to lay an embargo on the exportation of corn.
This, if it had been agreed to, would have had an immediate effect on
the State of New York.

What was the effect of the embargo in 1794? The farmers were obliged to
sell their produce for what they could get. Whatever loss was
experienced, fell upon the farmer; and so it will be with respect to
their present proceedings. If merchants cannot get insurance, will they
send their vessels out? No; and they will certainly give no more produce
than they can sell their articles for, with a trade profit.

The great objection against the Treaty was, that payment for the <DW64>s
which were carried away by the British, at the close of the war, was not
provided for. It appears that this, at best, was a doubtful point.
General Carlton, previous to his leaving New York at the close of the
war, and when the <DW64>s were demanded of him, said, that many slaves
had been declared free by his predecessors before his own arrival; over
these, he said, he neither possessed nor could assume any control. He
considered them as at liberty to go to any part of the world which they
thought proper. He was unwilling to suppose that the British Ministry
could stipulate, by any Treaty, to make themselves guilty of a notorious
breach of public faith to people of any color. He considered
restoration, where inseparable from a violation of that faith, as, in
itself, utterly impracticable.

It was acknowledged by every gentleman that the Treaty of 1783 was
broken by the United States; and, if so, what could their negotiator do?
The British Government would not come into the same terms as the Treaty
of 1783, in the sense and meaning of the gentleman from Virginia, nor
would they admit that that Treaty compelled them to give up or make
restitution for the <DW64>s. Their negotiator, thus situated, no doubt
concluded that the amount of the <DW64>s was not an object which ought
to prevent a negotiation so desirable at that time, and agreeable to the
law of nations. The Treaty of 1783 had been violated. Here Mr. W. quoted
several authorities, among which was _Marten's_ Law of Nations: "The
violation of one article only of a Treaty, by one party, may, at least
successively, give the other a right to violate the whole Treaty, unless
this right has been formally renounced."

The United States having violated that Treaty, there was no other way
than commencing a negotiation. And would gentlemen say that the
negotiation had not been attended with beneficial consequences to this
country? Was not peace the most to be desired, especially in our present
situation? Had not the managers of our Government kept a watchful eye on
our affairs? Had not our neutrality been the occasion of our wealth and
prosperity? And having now entered into a Treaty with Spain, Algiers,
and Natives, let us carry that with Great Britain into effect, and
secure to us peace with all the world.

When Mr. WILLIAMS had concluded--

Mr. HILLHOUSE rose and said, the subject now under consideration was one
of the first in magnitude he had ever been called to deliberate upon,
and that the circumstances under which it came up were peculiar, for
previous to the Treaty's being either promulgated or known, a
hue-and-cry had been raised, and the prejudices of the people as much as
possible excited against it, and he confessed it had not been without
its effect upon his own mind. When the Treaty came out, therefore, he
was led to examine it with attention, compare it with our Treaties with
other nations, and those between Great Britain and other nations; the
result of this inquiry was, that he found that no privilege or advantage
given by Great Britain to the other nations was withheld from us; that
advantages were secured to us which were enjoyed by no other nation, nor
even by her own subjects: that we gave her little that was not enjoyed
by every other nation; and, on the whole, that it was as good a Treaty
as we had a right to expect, and as he had ever expected to obtain. He
was sensible that prejudice, which, like a sentinel at the door of the
human mind to keep out truth and argument, had induced many good
citizens of the United States at first to be opposed to the Treaty, who,
upon being prevailed on to give it a more candid examination, had
declared in favor of it; but he hoped the Representatives of the people,
called to decide on a question which might affect the dearest interests
of millions, would, as much as possible, divest themselves of prejudice
and passion: to do it entirely, he believed, was impossible.

The first, and, if well-founded, the most important objection which he
had heard made against the Treaty was, that a claim for <DW64>s and
other property carried away from New York had been wholly overlooked or
given up by our Minister. Here, he said, he was sensible any argument he
might adduce would be opposed by the party opinions formed at the
time--when judging in our own case, and when we felt a great degree of
sensibility for the losses and injuries we had recently experienced. He
was not unapprised that Congress had claimed that the construction of
the 7th article of the Treaty was such as to require the delivering up
of the <DW64>s, and had passed the resolution read by the gentleman from
Virginia, (Mr. HEATH,) and that that opinion had, without examination,
been implicitly followed by many respectable characters; but he hoped at
this distance of time, he might expect a candid hearing, whilst he
examined their arguments and the law of nations, to which alone resort
can be had to decide differences between sovereign and independent
nations. To his mind they were conclusive that we had not a well-founded
claim; to every mind, he believed, they would render the claim at least
doubtful.

His first inquiry, he said, should be, whether <DW64>s were to be
considered as property? This, he believed, must be admitted: they were
thus recognized by the article itself, which says "<DW64>s or other
property." <DW64>s being mentioned amounts only to a specification of
one kind of property; as, in the constitution, it says "capitation or
other direct taxes," which is a conclusive recognition that a capitation
tax is a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution. Upon no
other ground than that of property could the United States claim them;
as men, they had a right to go where they pleased. Our commissioners, at
the time of the embarkation, had no hesitation in declaring that they
considered "<DW64>s, horses, and other property," as being precisely on
the same footing, and selected a claim for a horse as one of the
strongest that could be found to enforce a compliance with this
construction of the article. The claim was in these words:

      "Mr. Vanderburgh had a horse stolen from him, out of his
      stable in Beekman's Precinct, in Dutchess County, 26th
      February, 1780, and the horse was conveyed by the person
      who stole him to a then British post, in Westchester
      County, where he has since been detained; so that Mr.
      Vanderburgh could not recover him again. The horse is now
      in the possession of Col. James De Launcy, of this city,
      from whom Mr. Vanderburgh has demanded him, and who refuses
      to deliver him to Mr. Vanderburgh."

In the letter of the Commissioners to General WASHINGTON, on this
subject, they say:

      "In the interview between the 15th and 24th, numbers
      applied to us for a restitution of their <DW64>s and other
      property in the possession of others, but we supposed it
      most eligible to defer a requisition till a clear
      unequivocal case, similar to that of Mr. Vanderburgh's,
      where the proofs were at hand and not embarrassed with the
      circumstances of a capture in war or other pretences under
      which property is withheld here, should present itself;
      sensible that if restitution was denied in such an
      instance, it would inevitably be in every other."

It therefore appears clear that <DW64>s, horses, and other property,
were, by this article, placed upon the same footing, and that it was as
much a violation of the Treaty to carry away a horse as a <DW64>.

He next proceeded to inquire what was the situation of this property,
and in whom, according to the law of nations, it was vested at the time
of executing the Treaty? This point, he said, Mr. JEFFERSON had fully
settled to his hand, and read out of his collection the following
extracts:

      "We now come together (says Mr. Jefferson) to consider that
      instrument which was to heal our wounds, and begin a new
      chapter in our history. The state in which they found
      things is to be considered as rightful; so says the Law of
      Nations.--_Vattel._ The state in which things are found at
      the moment of the Treaty, should be considered as lawful,
      and if it is meant to make any change in it, the Treaty
      must expressly mention it. Consequently, all things about
      which the Treaty is silent, must remain in the state in
      which they are found at its conclusion.--_Bynk._ Since it
      is a condition of war that enemies may be deprived of all
      their rights, it is reasonable that every thing of an
      enemy's, found among his enemies, should change its owners,
      and go to the Treasury. It is moreover usually directed, in
      all declarations of war, that the goods of enemies, as well
      those found among us as those taken in war, shall be
      confiscated."

These authorities, he said, clearly proved that all <DW64>s and other
property which in the course of the war had been taken, or in any way
had fallen into the hands of the British, had shifted their owner, and
were no longer the property of the American inhabitants. In the case of
<DW64>s, the British Commander-in-Chief had exercised the highest act of
ownership, by manumitting such of them as should conform to certain
stipulations, pointed out in his proclamation. If any change was
intended to have been made by the Treaty in the circumstances of these
<DW64>s, and it had been intended they should be again returned into
bondage, there would have been some express stipulation to that effect
in the Treaty. The words are, "and without causing any destruction, or
carrying away any <DW64>s or other property of the American inhabitants,
withdraw all his armies," &c. There is nothing that indicates the least
intention that this article should have a retrospective operation. It
can only relate to property then belonging to the American inhabitants.
Wherever any article was intended to have a retrospective operation,
some expression is used that clearly shows such intention. In this same
article, speaking of delivering up records, deeds, &c., these words are
added, "which in the course of the war may have fallen into the hands of
his officers," &c. In the 4th article, "debts heretofore contracted."
Any other construction would have required the restoration of vessels
which had been taken from the Americans, and were then in New York,
under the term "other property," as well as <DW64>s and horses. If any
<DW64>s or other property, in the possession of the American inhabitants
at or after signing the preliminary articles, were carried off, it was
no doubt a violation of the Treaty, but he had not understood that they
refused to deliver up property of that description, or that such
property was carried off to any great amount.

But this matter does not rest only on there being no words in the Treaty
which can be construed to have a retrospective operation, but it is
fairly to be inferred from the papers contained in this same collection
of Mr. JEFFERSON, that it was so understood by the negotiators; for, in
the course of that negotiation; it appears to have been a primary object
with the British Minister to obtain restitution of the Tory estates, or
compensation for them. They almost made a _sine qua non_, and a refusal
to comply had well-nigh broken off the negotiation; and to induce the
British Minister to relinquish that article, our commissioners brought
in a claim for <DW64>s and other property which had been taken, and
towns and villages which had been destroyed during the war. He here read
the following letter from Mr. Oswald, the British Minister, to our
commissioners, viz:

      "You may remember, that from the very beginning of our
      negotiation for settling a peace between Great Britain and
      America, I insisted that you should positively stipulate
      for the restoration of the property of all those under the
      denomination of Loyalists or Refugees, who have taken part
      with Great Britain in the present war; or if the property
      had been resold, and passed into such variety of hands as
      to render the restoration impracticable, (which you assert
      to be the case in many instances,) you should stipulate for
      a compensation or indemnification to those persons adequate
      to their losses. To those propositions, you said, you could
      not accede. Mr. Stachey, since his arrival at Paris, has
      most strenuously joined me in insisting upon the said
      restitution, compensation, or indemnification, and in
      laying before you every argument in favor of the demands,
      founded on national honor, and upon the true principles of
      justice. Those demands you must have understood to extend,
      not only to all persons of the above-mentioned description
      who have fled to Europe, but likewise to all those who may
      now be in any part of North America, dwelling under the
      protection of His Majesty's arm, or otherwise. We have also
      insisted on a mutual stipulation for a general amnesty on
      both sides, comprehending thereby an enlargement of all
      persons who, on account of offences committed, or supposed
      to be committed, since the commencement of hostilities, may
      now be in confinement, and for an immediate repossession of
      their properties and peaceable enjoyment thereof, under the
      Government of the United States. To this you have not given
      a particular and direct answer. It is, however, incumbent
      on me, as Commissioner of the King of Great Britain, to
      repeat the several demands, and without going over those
      arguments upon paper, which we have so often urged in
      conversation, to press your immediate attention to these
      subjects, and to urge you to enter into proper stipulations
      for their restitution, compensation, and amnesty, before we
      proceed further in this negotiation."

To which our commissioners returned the following answer:

      "In answer to the letter you did us the honor to write on
      the 4th instant, we beg leave to repeat what we often said
      in conversation, viz: that the restoration of such of the
      estates of the refugees as have been confiscated, is
      impracticable, because they were confiscated by laws of
      particular States, and in many instances have passed by
      legal titles through several hands. Besides, sir, as this
      is a matter evidently appertaining to the internal policy
      of the separate States, the Congress, by the nature of our
      constitution, have no authority to interfere with it. As to
      your demand of compensation to those persons, we forbear
      enumerating our reasons for thinking it ill-founded. In the
      moment of conciliatory overtures, it would not be proper to
      call certain scenes into view, over which a variety of
      considerations should induce both parties at present to
      draw a veil. Permit us, therefore, only to repeat, that we
      cannot stipulate for such compensation, unless on your part
      it be agreed to make restitution to our citizens for the
      heavy losses they have sustained by the unnecessary
      destruction of private property. We have already agreed to
      an amnesty more extensive than justice required, and full
      as extensive as humanity would demand; we can therefore,
      only repeat, that it cannot be extended further. We should
      be sorry, if the absolute impossibility of our complying
      further with your propositions, should induce Great Britain
      to continue the war, for the sake of those who caused and
      prolonged it; but, if that should be the case, we hope that
      the utmost latitude will not be again given to its rigors.
      Whatever may be the issue of this negotiation, be assured,
      sir, that we shall always acknowledge the liberal, manly,
      and candid manner, in which you have conducted it."

In consequence of information from our commissioners that the claim was
made and pertinaciously insisted on by the British Minister, Congress
passed the following resolutions, viz:

      "_Resolved_, That the Secretary for Foreign Affairs be, and
      he is hereby, directed to obtain, as speedily as possible,
      authentic returns of the slaves and other property which
      have been carried off or destroyed in the course of the war
      by the enemy, and to transmit the same to the Ministers
      Plenipotentiary for negotiating peace.

      "_Resolved_, That, in the mean time, the Secretary for
      Foreign Affairs inform the said Minister, that many
      thousands of slaves, and other property to a very great
      amount, have been carried off or destroyed by the enemy,
      and that, in the opinion of Congress, the great loss of
      property which the citizens of the United States have
      sustained by the enemy, will be considered by the several
      States as an insuperable bar to their making restitution or
      indemnification to the former owners of property which has
      been or may be forfeited to, or confiscated by, any of the
      States."

Dr. FRANKLIN, in a letter to the British Minister, says:

      "I must repeat my opinion, that it is best for you to drop
      all mention of the refugees. We have proposed, indeed,
      nothing but what we think best for you as well as
      ourselves. But if you will have them mentioned, let it be
      in an article which may provide that they shall exhibit
      accounts of their losses to commissioners hereafter to be
      appointed, who shall examine the same, together with the
      accounts now preparing in America of the damages done by
      them, and state the account; and that if a balance appears
      in their favor, it shall be paid by us to you, and by you
      divided among them, as you shall think proper. And if the
      balance is found due to us, it shall be paid by you. Give
      me leave, however, to advise you to prevent so dreadful a
      discussion, by dropping the article, that we may write to
      America and stop the inquiry."

The following article was accordingly drawn up and proposed to be
inserted in the Treaty, viz:

      "It is agreed that His Britannic Majesty will earnestly
      recommend it to his Parliament to provide for and make
      compensation to the merchants and shopkeepers of Boston,
      whose goods and merchandise were seized and taken out of
      the stores, warehouses, and shops, by order of General
      Gage, and others of his commanders or officers there; and
      also the inhabitants of Philadelphia, for the goods taken
      away by his army there; and to make compensation also for
      the tobacco, rice, indigo, <DW64>s, &c., seized and carried
      off by his armies under Generals Arnold, Cornwallis, and
      others, from the States of Virginia, North and South
      Carolina, and Georgia: And also for all vessels and cargoes
      belonging to the inhabitants of the said United States,
      which were stopped, seized, or taken, either in the ports
      or on the seas, by his Governors, or by his ships of war,
      before the declaration of war against the said States. And
      it is further agreed that His Britannic Majesty will also
      earnestly recommend it to his Parliament to make
      compensation for all the towns, villages, and farms, burnt
      and destroyed by his troops or adherents in the said United
      States."

After pressing the matter to the utmost extent, we find, by Mr. ADAMS's
journal, that on the evening previous to signing the Treaty, Ministers
on both sides came to the following result:

      "Upon this I recounted the history of Gen. Gage's agreement
      with the inhabitants of Boston, that they should remove
      their effects, upon condition that they would surrender
      their arms; but as soon as the arms were secured, the goods
      were forbid to be carried out, and were finally carried off
      in large quantities to Halifax. Dr. Franklin mentioned the
      case of Philadelphia, and the carrying off effects there,
      even his own library. Mr. Jay mentioned several other
      things; and Mr. Laurens added the plunder in Carolina, of
      <DW64>s, plate, &c. After hearing all this, Mr.
      Fitzherbert, Mr. Oswald, and Mr. Stachey, retired for some
      time, and returning Mr. Fitzherbert said, that upon
      consulting together, and weighing every thing as maturely
      as possible, Mr. Stachey and himself had determined to
      advise Mr. Oswald to strike with us according to the terms
      we had proposed, as to our ultimatum respecting the
      fishery, and the loyalists. Accordingly we all sat down,
      read over the whole Treaty and corrected it, and agreed to
      meet to-morrow at O.'s house, to sign and seal the
      Treaties."

Will any candid man say, after reviewing these circumstances, that the
7th article was meant to secure the restitution of <DW64>s and other
property taken in the course of the war? If that had been meant, would
it not have been improper to have urged it as an argument against the
introduction of an article which would have subjected this country to
immense embarrassment and expense?

It is true that the United States did challenge <DW64>s and other
property, which had fallen into the hands of the British previous to
signing the Treaty. This circumstance, for the reason he had mentioned,
and others that might be suggested, ought to have very little weight,
for it is well known that recrimination of a violation of the Treaty
soon commenced on both sides, and each mustered up every tolerable
claim; many of which have since been admitted on both sides to be
groundless. A circumstance which strongly corroborated what he said was,
Sir Guy Carlton's letter on that subject had also been so grossly
misunderstood and misrepresented, from that time to this, and now
advanced by a gentleman on this floor, (Mr. GILES,) and even by Mr.
JEFFERSON--in this instance departing from that candor which is so
conspicuous in almost every other part of this excellent
performance--for, when speaking on this subject, he says, "here there
was a direct, unequivocal, and avowed violation of this part of the 7th
article, in the first moment of its being known." Mr. JEFFERSON has
given us a copy of Sir Guy Carlton's letter to General WASHINGTON, which
is relied on to support this assertion, which is so far from speaking
such a language, that in his opinion, it was directly the reverse, and
that in a very pointed manner. His words are:

      "I must confess, that the mere supposition that the King's
      Minister could deliberately stipulate in a Treaty an
      engagement to be guilty of a notorious breach of the public
      faith towards people of any complexion, seems to denote a
      less friendly disposition than I could wish, and I think
      less friendly than we might expect. After all, I only give
      my own opinion. Every <DW64>'s name is registered, the
      master he formerly belonged to, with such other
      circumstances as serve to denote his value, that it may be
      adjusted by compensation, if that was really the intention
      and meaning of the Treaty. Restoration was inseparable from
      a breach of public faith, and is, as I think all the world
      must allow, utterly impracticable."

Gen. WASHINGTON, at that time, seemed disinclined to give an opinion on
that subject, but intimated the propriety of leaving any doubtful clause
of the Treaty to be settled by future negotiation; for in a letter from
him to our commissioners in New York, dated June, 1783, who had written
to him for particular and pointed instructions on this very subject,
there is this passage:

      "It is exceeding difficult for me, not being a witness to
      the particular cases, or acquainted with the particular
      circumstances which must fall under your view in the course
      of the evacuation, to give you a precise definition of the
      acts which you are to represent as infractions of the
      Treaty; nor can I undertake to give an official
      construction of any particular expression or terms of the
      Treaty, which must, in cases of ambiguity or different
      interpretations, be explained by the Sovereignties of the
      two nations, or their commissioners appointed for that
      purpose."

A letter drawn up with great caution and extremely characteristic of
that great man, who has always been extremely careful never to commit
himself, but upon mature deliberation and upon sure ground. Here, Sir
Guy Carlton, as a public officer of Great Britain, had made an explicit
declaration on the subject, and that was directly against our claims;
for his directing an inventory of the <DW64>s, was only an evidence of
his being disposed to conduct candidly in the matter, and give us an
opportunity to recover a compensation, if we could afterwards make out
our construction of the Treaty to be right.

Both in the United States and Great Britain it is admitted, as a sound
rule of construction, that where any law or instrument is doubtful, and
the liberty of any one, even of a slave, to be affected by it, that
construction was to be preferred which was favorable to liberty. Under
this rule, ought this Treaty to be so construed as to reduce to slavery
three thousand persons who had obtained their liberty, by putting
themselves under the protection of the British arms, unless there was
some positive unequivocal stipulation in the Treaty which could admit of
no other construction, he hoped, for the honor of America, they would
make no such challenge. There was another circumstance which he had
never seen mentioned, which, in his opinion, greatly weakened our
claims, which was the doubts he entertained of our right to demand of a
foreign nation the restitution of a runaway slave. The United States are
now at peace with all the world; suppose a slave should escape into the
dominions of a foreign nation, and on demand they should refuse to
deliver him up? he very much doubted whether we should have just ground
of complaint. On the other hand, if any of our citizens may be so
unfortunate as to be reduced to slavery by any of the Barbary powers in
Africa, should make their escape into the dominions of any of the
European nations, and upon being claimed by such powers, should be
delivered up, he did believe we should have good ground of complaint
against such nation, as being unjust and inhumane. And, so far as
principle is concerned, what difference does it make whether the
citizens of the United States are carried into slavery in Africa, or the
inhabitants of Africa are brought into slavery in the United States? He
knew of no principle that made a difference between the natural rights
of a white or black man. The first principle that is laid down in the
rights of man, is, that all men are born free and equal; it does not say
all _white_ men. He did not believe, he said, that the House would ever
admit so absurd a doctrine, as that the different shades in a man's
complexion would increase or diminish his natural rights. He hoped no
gentleman would take any exception to what he had said on this point; he
did not mean to give offence, or to throw any reflection on any part of
the Union, on account of their having a larger proportion of slaves. It
was an evil which existed at the commencement of our Revolution, and he
trusted every part of the Union would get rid of the evil as soon as it
should be practicable and safe. What he had said, was only what he felt
himself bound to do in justification of our Minister for his having
given up that claim.

Mr. HILLHOUSE requested gentlemen to pause a moment, and reflect what
will be our situation if this Treaty is rejected. The peace of 1783 is
agreed on both sides to have been infracted, since that Great Britain
has committed depredations on our commerce to an immense amount. Is it
supposed that all this matter can go off without any noise or
combustion? As to treating again, no one can suppose that we could do it
to any advantage, after such rejection. What may Great Britain expect,
if we will not settle our differences by negotiation? Will she not
expect that we shall resort to more violent measures--such as reprisal,
sequestration, or stopping of intercourse? And to guard herself against
such measures, may we not expect she will lay her hand upon all our
property on the ocean? He said he looked upon such events as the natural
consequences of our rejecting the Treaty. What may we expect will be the
conduct of our own citizens? Will they tamely submit to be robbed of
their property, when they lose all hope of aid or protection from the
Government? They will not; they will defend it even to the shedding of
blood; and not only so, but they will also take every opportunity they
have to make reprisal for the property they have already lost upon those
who did them the injury, whether they belong to one nation or another.
What, he asked, could be the end of all these things but war?


WEDNESDAY, April 20.

_Treaty with Great Britain._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union, and the resolution for carrying the British Treaty
into effect, being under consideration,

Mr. PAGE said, that he had heard no arguments in favor of the resolution
before the committee, but such as might be used to influence a vote at
any other time, and upon almost any occasion; for we are told that war,
or popular discontent, and great inconvenience and distress to
merchants, underwriters, and others, will be the consequence of its
rejection. If such threats can influence this House upon the present
occasion, an unhappy and mortifying comparison may be made between the
Congress of 1776, and that of the present day. They despised and
encountered the dangers of war actually commenced. He wished, when
members were disposed to mention their fears of such dangers, they would
first clear the galleries; for such communications ought to be secret.
Did members really believe that Great Britain will declare war against
the United States, if this House should refuse to be accessary to the
violation of the constitution, the destruction of their own rights, of
the rights of neutral nations, and of the interests of their
constituents? If they do believe this, is their belief founded on
conjecture alone, or on the negotiator's declaration, that the British
Ministers threatened him with war, declaring that war should be the
consequence of a rejection of the Treaty? If the latter be the case, and
nothing less can justify such repeated assertion that war will be the
consequence of a refusal to carry the Treaty into effect, the Treaty
ought to be deemed null and void on account of that threat; and if the
former, they may be assured that they are mistaken, and that Britain is
not so frantic as to engage in a war with the United States upon such
slight grounds. The citizens of the United States wish not to be at war
with the British nation; nor can the people of Britain desire a war with
them. Both must wish for peace, and a full commercial intercourse upon
liberal terms; and as the Executive authority of both countries are well
disposed to each other, and have, as far as in their power, carried the
Treaty into execution, what reason can be assigned why we should be
involved in a war? It has been said that the United States will be
obliged to declare war, on account of the British refusal (which may be
expected) to deliver up the posts, and to make compensation for
spoliations of our commerce; but I see no necessity for such conduct.
For my part, should Britain never give up the posts, I would not vote
for war, nor be at the expense of a single regiment to take them; nor
would I go to war to recover losses sustained by spoliations. For, if we
reject the resolution before you, sir, we may be at liberty to pass such
a bill as we I passed in the year 1794, by a majority of twenty-four
members, and for which thirteen Senators then voted; and should the
Senate concur with us in passing it, we might use it more effectually
than a declaration of war for the recovery of the posts, and reparation
of wrongs. As to war, as my colleague yesterday said, I have reason to
deprecate it, for the sake of my constituents, and for my own sake; for
I have experienced enough of its evils; but I cannot think that I ought
to sacrifice their dearest interests merely from an apprehension of the
dangers of war. The arguments, therefore, which I have heard, cannot
induce me to vote for the resolution before you. Indeed, sir, I must
vote against it; because I think that the Treaty is unconstitutional and
pernicious; and even if it were constitutional in every respect, and as
advantageous to the United States as it has been represented, I should
think it impolitic and dishonorable in this House to lend its aid to
carry it into effect during the present war, and a continuance of the
British depredations on our commerce, and impressment of our seamen. The
Treaty appears to me unconstitutional, because it takes from Congress
that very power with which it was invested by the constitution, and to
invest them with which, the constitution itself was expressly formed; a
power which I think should be held as precious and unalienable. I mean
the power of regulating the commerce of the United States with Great
Britain; so as to induce her to fulfil all the conditions of the Treaty
of Peace, and to put the trade of the United States with her upon a
footing of reciprocity. It appears also unconstitutional, because it
violates a solemn act of Congress passed in conformity to the express
words, and I may say, in obedience to the injunction of the spirit of
the constitution: I mean the act for establishing a uniform rule of
naturalization, and this violation, too, operates partially, and in
favor of British subjects alone. It is moreover unconstitutional,
because it interferes with the authority of the Judiciary, by
establishing a Court of Commissioners, a kind of supreme court of
appeals, within the United States, with powers to proceed, unknown to
our laws; with temptations to defendants to make no defence; with a
right to bind the United States to pay debts which they owe not, and to
any extent or amount which that court may think fit to decree; and it is
unconstitutional, because it authorizes the PRESIDENT to create certain
offices, and annex salaries thereto. In these instances, at least, I
think the Treaty unconstitutional; for I think that Congress cannot
authorize the PRESIDENT to do away the power of Congress or to establish
a court of appeals superior to the Federal Supreme Court; that,
whatever would be unconstitutional, if done by Congress, cannot be
constitutional if done by the PRESIDENT and British King. But, sir, if
the Treaty were not unconstitutional, that is, if the PRESIDENT and
Senate had a right to deprive Congress of the power it claims, and to
interfere with the Judiciary, yet the exercise of that right in the
present case, ought to be viewed as so pernicious to the United States
as to render the Treaty null and void; or, at least, it ought to be
viewed as an argument of sufficient weight to induce this House to
refuse their aid towards carrying this Treaty into operation. And were
it even constitutional and advantageous to the United States in every
article, yet, as it acquiesces in a violation of the rights of neutral
nations in favor of Great Britain, and in some instances, to such a
degree as to be thought even by the PRESIDENT himself, to afford just
ground for discontent on the part of our allies, it will be dishonorable
and highly impolitic in this House to be in any manner instrumental in
carrying it into effect. As it has not been in the power of the United
States to assist their Republican allies, when fighting in fact their
battles, the least they can do, or the least that the world and those
allies can expect from them, must be, that they will not put the enemies
of those allies into a better condition than they were by making
Treaties with them during the present war.

Mr. FINDLAY said he should not think it necessary to resume any of the
arguments relative to a principle which had already been settled in that
House; yet, he observed, that every gentleman who spoke on the subject
seemed to argue what were the rights of that body upon the subject of
Treaties, as if no question had already been had on the occasion.

It had been insisted upon, notwithstanding the decision which had been
had, that a Treaty was a law when it came before that House, and they
had no power but to appropriate to carry it into effect. He said this
opinion was directly contrary to the opinion held on the constitution at
the time it was accepted in Pennsylvania. Moral discretion, he said, was
necessary to be exercised in every decision of that House, except the
constitution had prescribed to them some positive rule of action. In
ratifying the constitution in the State of Pennsylvania, this was the
understanding of it. The minority in the convention did not wish so much
power placed in the Executive, and he appealed to gentlemen in that
convention, if this was not the doctrine asserted by the majority in
answer to the objections of the minority. Indeed, if they were not to
have exercised a moral obligation upon the Treaties, the constitution
would have expressly said so, as in the case of the PRESIDENT's salary,
the pay of the Judges, Army appropriations, &c. If they had not been
limited in these articles by the constitution, they certainly would have
had the power to have changed them if they had thought proper.

But, passing over this consideration, there had been pretty large views
taken of the manner in which the Treaty came before them. The gentlemen
from New York and Virginia had entered into the subject. He must beg
leave to differ from the gentleman from New York as to the matter of
fact relative to that House in the concerns of Government two years ago.
He had no apprehensions at the time the Envoy was sent to Britain to
negotiate a Treaty, that Britain would have commenced a war if that
measure had not been adopted; so far from it, that a majority of that
House thought differently. He had no doubt that war, and the destruction
of liberty altogether, had been meditated by Great Britain; but before
the negotiation was commenced, circumstances occurred which caused her
to give up this extravagant design. Before the negotiator was appointed,
it is well known that the plundering Order of the 6th November was
revoked. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. GILES) had given a very good
narrative of events in Europe, which fully showed the cause of this
change of conduct. That gentleman had also gone through the Treaty,
article by article, in a manner so much to his satisfaction, that he
should not attempt to follow him. Before the negotiation took place, we
had suffered considerably by British spoliations, and that House thought
of various means to make it the interest of that power not to continue
their depredations. First one plan was proposed and then another. It
need not be mentioned that amongst these was the plan of sequestration,
the future power of doing which this Treaty proposed to deprive them of.
It was discussed in the House, but no question taken on it, to show that
negotiation was not thought necessary. He mentioned a conversation which
had taken place betwixt a gentleman then in the Cabinet (now no more)
and himself, which confirmed his opinion of the propriety of the
measures. A bill for regulating commerce in such a manner as to make it
the interest of Britain to refrain from injuring us, and redress the
wrongs we had suffered by spoliations, was agreed to by the House, but
negatived in the Senate. So far from being then afraid of war, they were
more and more convinced that it was in their power to make it the
interest of Britain to refrain from their acts of violence towards us.

Mr. MOORE.--Mr. Chairman, I rise with diffidence to give my sentiments
on so important a question as that now before you, especially as I have
been preceded by gentlemen whose superior abilities have enabled them to
investigate the subject with more accuracy than I am capable of. I
consider the object as important of itself. It is rendered more so by
the warmth with which it has been discussed--the irritation it has
produced, both in this House and on the public mind. I lament that
improper motives should be imputed to gentlemen on either side. I am
disposed to believe, that gentlemen aim at doing what will best promote
the public interest. I entertain no suspicion of designs against the
Government by any member of this House, or any branch of the Government.
Gentlemen have predicted a war and dissolution of the Government, if
provision is not made for carrying the Treaty into effect. I have no
apprehensions of either. It is highly improper to attempt to influence
the votes of members by such declarations. I hope gentlemen will believe
that members who differ from them in opinion, are equally zealous with
themselves in discharging their duty, and have firmness enough to repel
every attempt to intimidate. For myself, I have equal confidence in
every part of the Union, that they have no wish to dissolve it. The
suggestion is unfounded, and ought not to be made.

Mr. Chairman, the vote which I shall give on the question before us,
will, in some degree, be influenced by a constitutional principle, which
I consider as involved in the decision. On the resolution calling for
the instructions given to Mr. Jay, and other papers relative to the
Treaty, it was insisted on by members of this House, that the Executive
has a right, by Treaty, to supersede all Legislative powers vested in
Congress by the constitution. The Executive gives the same construction
to the constitution. If, under these circumstances, I vote for the
resolution before you, I consider myself as admitting, as recognizing
the principle contended for. This I cannot do. On the admission, or
rejection of this principle, I am of opinion, the future course, the
future operations of Government materially depend. By this it will be
decided, whether it is wholly Executive or not: whether this House
depends on the courtesy of the Executive for their right to interfere in
legislation.

It has been argued, that this extensive, unlimited power, was
necessarily vested in the Executive, subject only to the control of the
Senate. In order to support the sovereignty and independence of the
small States, I do conceive that a branch of the Legislature in which
the States are equally represented, was all that could be claimed. Can
it be conceived to be necessary, just, or proper, that the regulation of
all the important interests of the Union should be at the disposal of
the Executive? Can gentlemen seriously believe that the citizens of the
United States, who opposed, at so great an expense of blood and
treasure, the claim of Great Britain to tax us unrepresented, would
admit all their interest to be represented by so unequal a
representation as that contended for? It has been asked, Is not the
Senate as worthy of the confidence of the citizens of the United States
as this House? I will ask, are they more? This Legislative power is
restrained and checked by the constitution; particular modes and
restrictions are prescribed, but no checks are imposed on the Executive.
Were the people jealous of this House, and not of the other branches?
Did they suspect the Legislature of doing wrong? When this House was
connected with the other branches, were they to regulate their
interests; and have they reposed unlimited confidence in the other
branches when acting without this? Did they consider this House as the
only branch from which any danger was to be apprehended? It is
impossible, yet this must have been the fact, if the construction given
to the constitution is a just one.

A gentleman from Connecticut has said, that gentlemen had prejudged the
Treaty; they come forward with prejudices against it, determined to vote
against it. It is not so with me. I was strongly inclined to vote for
it; to make some degree of sacrifice rather than defeat it.

Gentlemen, on reflection, must be convinced that the question has not
been prejudged. The Envoy was appointed at the moment when this House
was deliberating on means for preventing further spoliations on our
commerce. Commercial regulations were proposed, and other means from
which they might have been forced to abandon their unjust and oppressive
system. I remember well the arguments then used were convincing to my
mind; that those were the only weapons of defence within our power; that
they would be effectual. But these were arrested by the despatch of an
Envoy Extraordinary. Some of the leading features of the Treaty were
then predicted; the event has corresponded with those predictions.
Principles were then discussed, which the Treaty contains, before the
negotiator was appointed.

This shows there was no prejudging in the manner gentlemen have stated.
By this Treaty all the measures then contemplated by the Legislature are
arrested; an eternal veto is imposed against our ever carrying the
measures then contemplated into effect. This shows that the Executive
claims not only the constitutional right of forcing this House to pass
what laws they please, but also, by Treaty, to declare what they shall
not do.

We have passed a resolution, which is now on your files, declarative of
the sense of this House as to their constitutional rights. The question
is, however, undecided. The Executive and Senate will proceed to act on
their own construction. They may, on their own construction, make a
Treaty, which will imply a still more imperious and commanding necessity
to provide for its execution, than even the present case. This necessity
may force a relinquishment of the right contended for by this House. It
may force an acquiescence in the Executive regulating all the interests
of the Union. I believe it was not the sense of the framers of the
constitution. It is not the sense of the people who adopted it. It never
can be mine.

The merits of the Treaty have been ably and accurately discussed. I will
make but a few remarks on it. I must disagree with the gentleman from
Connecticut, who mentioned, as a well-known principle in judging of
Treaties, that all property, (by fair construction, and by the
established law of nations,) if not excepted particularly in a Treaty,
remains in the same state in which it was found when the Treaty was
made. Those in possession retain the possession. From this he has
concluded, that <DW64>s, taken during the war, had become the property
of the captors, or rather, were emancipated. The words of the Treaty of
Peace are, "<DW64>s and other property."

This plainly shows, in his opinion, that, by <DW64>s, was not meant
those taken during the war; they were not American property. The
property was changed. It could only be intended, such <DW64>s as were
taken after the peace. I will ask, was it ever known in a Treaty, that a
stipulation was made to give up property plundered after the peace? Is
it not an established principle amongst all civilized nations, that
plundered property shall be given up? Is it necessary, or was it ever
thought so, to make it a stipulation by Treaty? I believe, if his
construction is a just one, it is a new case, the provision was at least
nugatory.

But if the principle he lays down is a just one, how does it happen that
debts due to British subjects, paid by the debtors into the Treasury
under the sanction of a law, and appropriated to the use of the State,
are now recoverable by the British creditor? An important case of this
kind has been decided in the Federal Court, and judgment given for the
British creditor. Was the property less changed by the law of a
sovereign and independent State, than by the proclamation of a British
commander? This cannot be. The fact is, however, that in two cases,
found in the same instrument, there are claims founded on the same
principle; the one, a British claim, is established, the other, a claim
of the United States, is rejected. This involves in it an absurdity. By
those opposed modes of construction, an important claim of the citizens
of the United States is given up by the Treaty, a claim against them to
a great amount is established.

The claim as against us is admitted; our claim is rejected, in cases
where the same principle fairly applies, and where, by gentlemen's own
showing, there is no dissimilarity which can justify such opposite
constructions. There is another provision of the Treaty, by which an
important interest has been sacrificed. British subjects held lands
within the United States before the war; many of those claims were
barred; the claimant being an alien could not recover; his being an
alien was the only bar. It was effectual--such has been the decision of
the Courts. But by the Treaty, being aliens shall not bar the claim of
British subjects--thus, many of the extensive claims are restored. In
some of the States more than half their territory will be revested in
proprietors. What could induce this grant? What equivalent do we receive
for this sacrifice? Sir, I am constrained to think the Treaty a bad one,
in those instances I have mentioned, more so than in any others. And
when I connect with the Treaty itself the important constitutional
question which has been discussed, I cannot vote for the resolution
before you.

Mr. KITTERA.--Since the 4th of July, 1776, the Councils of America have
not been agitated by so momentous a question as that at present before
the committee. At the period to which I allude, the question was,
whether we should tamely submit to an abject and disgraceful slavery,
with all its concomitant evils, or, by a Declaration of Independence, an
exertion of our internal strength, with the advantages of foreign aid,
make a bold and manly effort to obtain the blessings of freedom--the
solid rewards of well-earned liberty. The present question is, whether
we shall supply the means of carrying into execution a Treaty of
Commerce and Amity with a powerful nation, entered into by a Minister of
the United States, and solemnly ratified by the authorities constituted
by the people for such purposes; or, by refusing, perhaps
unconstitutionally refusing those means, hazard the peace, interrupt the
prosperity, and tarnish the honor of the country? In a question of such
magnitude, prudence calls me to pause, duty to reflect. My country's
faith is plighted, a solemn contract is made; it would therefore be
unwise and impolitic, as it concerns the interest, and dishonorable, as
it regards the character, of this nation, in the infancy of its
existence, to violate so solemn a contract.

Two causes have contributed much to prejudice the American mind against
the Treaty. 1st. An enthusiasm for France, struggling in the cause of
liberty, against the combined Monarchs of Europe, in which combination,
the very power with whom the Treaty was made, formed a prominent part.
2dly. Strong resentment against Britain, for injuries received during a
tedious and cruel war, and those injuries renewed by a detention of our
Western posts, exciting and aiding the savage Indian tribes in the
commission of hostilities on our frontiers, with strong indication of a
design to contract our boundaries, and their lawless depredations on our
commerce. I will not add, that there are amongst us some irreconcilable
enemies to this Government, who opposed its adoption, predicted its
downfall, and whose pride and political consequence are suspended on the
fulfilment of this prediction. For the honor of human nature, and for
the character of my country, I hope there are few to answer this
description; if, however, there are any, the poet's execration is to
them peculiarly applicable: "Cursed be the man who owes his greatness to
his country's ruin?"

There are some things in which the candid part of those who hear me will
not disagree. 1st. That our Envoy was a wise and honest man; he was a
tried patriot, skilled in diplomatic life, and rendered to his country
important services during the late war. The tale of his receiving
British gold was made for children and fools, and need only to be told,
to be disbelieved. 2dly. He made the best bargain he could. I will not
mention, in proof of this, the ratification of the contract, eight
months afterwards, by the PRESIDENT, (in whom this country has
certainly an unbounded confidence,) with the advice of two-thirds of the
Senate; but I have proof positive. The letter of Mr. Pinckney, our
Minister resident at London, and conversant with every part of the
negotiation, in strong and decided terms advises Mr. Jay to accept the
contract as the best that could be procured, and as one that would
promote the interests of this country. 3dly. If negotiations had been
unsuccessful; if the Treaty, on the terms offered, had been rejected,
war must have ensued. Our national honor would have forbidden a tame
submission under so many insults and injuries; such submission would
have invited new insults, and our own safety would have made resistance
and retaliation necessary.

The Treaty naturally presents itself under two general heads: 1st. Such
parts of it as are permanent, to wit, the first ten articles. 2dly. Such
parts of it as are temporary, to continue for two years after the
expiration of the war in which Great Britain is now engaged. Three great
points are embraced under the first arrangement: a surrender of our
Western posts, compensation for the spoliations committed on our
commerce, and the payment of British debts. However lightly my colleague
from the western part of Pennsylvania (Mr. FINDLAY) spoke yesterday of
the Western posts, I consider the acquisition as an important treasure
to this country. It will not only increase the value of our Western
lands, and open to us a new source of commerce, but it will relieve us
from the expense and horrors of an Indian war. Those were the sentiments
of the gentleman himself, on this floor, two years ago. The spoliation
on our commerce has generally been estimated at five millions of
dollars. On a rejection of the Treaty, I wish the gentlemen in the
opposition to point out how the American merchants are to be reimbursed
for their loss. Nothing can be expected from new negotiations. It would
be a solemn mockery of justice to the claim of those citizens. Payment
out of the Treasury has been talked of, and a resolution to that effect
is now on your table. This can never be done. It would be without a
precedent, and Congress has heretofore refused the claim. And how can
you discriminate such claims from those rising from savage depredations
on your frontier settlers? The protection of the Government was, at
least, as much due to the peaceable farmer as the speculating merchant;
and if losses have arisen for want of such protection, compensation is
as justly due in the one case as in the other. But why are we to subject
the Government to this payment, or our citizens to this loss, when
compensation is offered by the nation that has done the wrong? As to
British debts, the committee have had various calculations of their
amount.

I believe some of the estimates have been exceedingly exaggerated. If
they are even half the enormous sum that has been stated on the other
side, we have not much difficulty in accounting for the extraordinary
opposition to the administration of this Government that has appeared
in a certain quarter of the Union. Whatever may be the amount, the
nation is bound by the strongest ties of justice and national honor to
secure the payment.

Mr. HOLLAND said, he would submit some considerations to the committee,
that, together with those which had been given, would influence his vote
upon the resolution on the table; a subject, as had been said by all who
advocated the resolution, of the first importance--an issue on which
depended peace or war. He said, he considered the question of some
importance, particularly as it related to their constitutional powers;
but the conceptions of gentlemen had exaggerated the result of the
present question. It was nothing more or less than, would they or would
they not now appropriate moneys to carry the British Treaty into effect?
He said, he had ever felt a disposition to that purpose; not because the
faith of the nation, as had often been said, was pledged; not because
they were under moral obligations, as had been contended for--neither of
which he could admit; but because a respect was due to the negotiator,
to the Senate who advised, and to the PRESIDENT who ratified it; for, it
was to be presumed, until the contrary appeared, that they exercised
their judgments for the good of the nation. But it was possible the
means they have adopted may not produce the end intended; they may have
been mistaken.

When he first examined the instrument, he was in hopes that there was
something extrinsic existing, which, when communicated to him, would do
away the exceptions on the face of the instrument, and therefore he was
silent and suspended his judgment. It was for that purpose he had voted
for the papers relative to the negotiation to be laid on the table, in
hopes of obtaining further information, previous to his being called
upon to carry it into effect. But, unfortunately for him, no further
information was to be obtained. The useful papers, an innocent and
humble request, were not granted. He was not possessed of any other
information than could be drawn from the instrument, from the writers on
that subject, and the arguments that had been advanced by the gentlemen
who had advocated the resolution; to the whole of which he had with
candor attended, and with regret informed the committee, that nothing
had been advanced, that had convinced him of the reason, propriety,
necessity, or fitness, of the stipulations contained in the instrument.

Those gentlemen, instead of reasoning, have endeavored to alarm. They
have said that, if we do not carry this Treaty into effect, that we
shall be plunged in a war; that Britain is a proud and haughty nation;
that they will lay their hands upon all our property, &c. This was an
address to our fears and not our reason, and were our fears once on the
wreck, there is no knowing the result, or where we should land. But, in
this instance, we would not be governed by panic, or dread of the power
of that haughty nation, as they had been called; but as the
Representative of a free and independent nation, he felt himself
perfectly at liberty to exercise his reason in the most cool and
deliberate manner. Not apprehending any danger, the time has been, and
now is, that we are perfectly secure in asserting our equal and
reciprocal rights with that nation. We have done it in a state of
infancy and inexperience, at a time much more unfavorable, taking each
side of the question into view, than the present. And shall we now
hesitate, and tamely suffer them to dictate to us? And are we bound to
accept the Treaty, lest they should be offended and treat us with
contempt for not accepting, as it is said, a more favorable offer than
they have given to other nations? Are we not the sole judges; have we
not a right to determine for ourselves? And as this is a mere naked
stipulation, they can receive no damage, nor, on this early notice, can
they charge with deception, or have any right to complain. One thing is
certain; so long as Great Britain finds it for her interest to be
pacific, she will adopt measures calculated to preserve peace; but when
interest dictates the contrary, her invention will not seek a pretext
for a different conduct. The history of that nation gives abundant proof
of this.

Mr. SWANWICK objected that his colleague (Mr. KITTERA) had charged him
with a want of candor. He was liable to mistake, he said, equally with
any other man; but he trusted he should not be charged with knowingly
misstating any thing with respect to the East India trade; he had
reserved to himself a future opportunity of speaking on that subject,
which, however, the length of debate seemed likely to prevent. He had
said that the American vessels were permitted to trade to the East
Indies as all other nations were, but that they were obliged to land
their goods in the United States, whilst the Danes, Swedes, &c., could
go there and carry the goods which they purchased from thence to any
part of the world, except to the British dominions; and that was the
situation of America antecedent to the present Treaty. A ship of his,
some time ago, earned a good freight from Bengal to Ostend, and another
he knew had lately made one to Hamburg; but, by the Treaty before the
House, whatever advantages might be made by going to a foreign port
their vessels were deprived of, and must return direct to the ports of
the United States. These, he said, were stipulations which no other
nation lay under; and though, perhaps, no nation had special leave
stipulated by Treaty to go there, yet they all, nevertheless, did go,
and never met with any opposition.


FRIDAY, April 22.

_Execution of British Treaty._

After the presentation of several petitions on this subject, the House
resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union,
when the resolution for carrying into effect the British Treaty being
under consideration--

Mr. COIT said, that the importance of the resolution before the
committee would preclude all necessity of analogy for any member's
asking their attention to his observations. He should only add to it,
that he should endeavor not to repeat what had been already said.

He observed, that the discussion of the merits of the Treaty came before
the committee under peculiar disadvantages, for, besides the prejudices
against it that might be supposed to have been caused by extraneous
circumstances, the agitation of the important constitutional question
relative to the right of the Legislature to concur in giving validity to
this Treaty, which was claimed to be valid and complete without that
concurrence, and the refusal of a call for papers had very naturally a
tendency to give a bias to the minds of some gentlemen against the
Treaty; for himself, he was fully satisfied the Legislature had no
constitutional connection with the business of making Treaties.

Mr. C. said he should attempt to run through the objections which had
been made to the Treaty, and consider its merits independently of the
peculiar circumstances under which it was now presented to the
committee, and then give his own view of it as relative to those
peculiar circumstances.

The objects of the negotiation, he said, very naturally were divided
into three parts--the inexecution of the Treaty of 1783; mutual
complaints between the United States and Great Britain relative to
transactions independent of the Treaty; and arrangements for the
intercourse between the two nations, commercial and political. But as
gentlemen had made their objections generally in the order in which the
several articles of the Treaty had been arranged, he should follow the
same order in his observations in answer to them.

The first objection which had been made was, that no compensation had
been stipulated to the United States for the supposed breach of the
Treaty of 1783, in carrying off the <DW64>s. This objection, he had
supposed, was so completely answered by his colleague, (Mr. HILLHOUSE,)
who had been up the day before, that he should not have added on that
head, but that he had since found gentlemen still insisting on that
objection. He was particularly surprised to hear the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. FINDLAY) stating that he conceived the <DW64> article
to have been put into the Treaty expressly as a compensation or set-off
for the engagement to pay the British debts. This pretension, he
thought, had been fully refuted by the extract from Mr. Adams's journal,
quoted by Mr. Jefferson in his correspondence with Mr. Hamilton, and
which had been read by his colleague. From that extract, it appeared
that a claim for <DW64>s and other property which had been plundered,
carried off, and destroyed by the British, was made by our
commissioners, as a set-off against a claim made by the British
commissioners for restoration of confiscated estates; and that the one
of those claims was abandoned with the other. Had the gentleman from
Pennsylvania taken the pains to examine the journal of Mr. Adams, which
might be seen by any member of the committee at the office of the
Secretary of State, he would have found how the article came to be
inserted.

Before the _signing of the Treaties_ with which the extract made by Mr.
Jefferson is closed, stands in the original the history of this article
in these words:

      "Mr. Laurens said, there ought to be a stipulation that the
      British troops should carry off no <DW64>s or other
      property; we all agreed. Mr. Oswald consented, and _then
      the Treaties were signed_," _&c._

This, Mr. COIT said, was all the mention he could find respecting this
article, except in a subsequent part of the same letter, in which Mr.
Adams observes:

      "I was very happy that Mr. L. came in, although it was the
      last day of the conferences, and wish he could have been
      sooner. His apprehension, notwithstanding his deplorable
      affliction under the recent loss of so excellent a son, is
      as quick, his judgment as sound, and his heart as firm as
      ever. He had an opportunity of examining the whole, and
      judging and approving; and the article which he caused to
      be inserted at the very last, that no property should be
      carried off, which would most probably, in the multiplicity
      and hurry of affairs, have escaped us, was worth a longer
      journey, if that had been all, but his name and weight is
      added, which is of much greater consequence."

From these extracts, it appeared, the article was not a subject of
negotiation, but inserted at the close of the transaction, without
discussion, as a matter of course, and which Mr. Adams supposes might,
in the multiplicity and hurry of affairs, have been omitted, if Mr.
Laurens had not suggested it.

Mr. C. said, he would candidly acknowledge that it was very
extraordinary to him, that the construction which had been generally put
on the article in America, should have so universally prevailed, if it
was not the true one, that Congress should have adopted it; and that
such should have been the idea of the commissioners appointed to
superintend the embarkation at New York, in the year 1783. Still more
extraordinary was it to him, to find Mr. Jay himself, when Secretary for
Foreign Affairs, in the year 1786, in a report he then made to Congress
on the subject, considering the carrying off of those <DW64>s as a
violation of the Treaty, and saying further, that he understood from Mr.
Adams, then at the Court of London, that the British Minister had no
objections to making compensation for them. Still he believed, the true
construction of the article was, that it was designed only to prevent
plunder by the British troops, and carrying off of American property,
according to the ordinary agreements in Treaties, which stipulate for
the giving up of conquered countries. True, it might be asked, why say
<DW64>s or other property? The expression, he agreed, was not correct,
unless a doubt might have been entertained whether <DW64>s were
property; but the word <DW64>s must be qualified by other property, with
which it is connected, and could operate only as if it had said horses
or other property, which no person would contend amounted to a
stipulation not to carry off what had once been, but by the laws of war
and nations, before the close of the war, had ceased to be the property
of American inhabitants. Four gentlemen from Virginia had insisted on
this objection, and not one of them had deigned to remark on the
construction of the article itself. They had all relied upon the common
understanding of it. That this understanding could not change the sense
of the article, if it was not doubtful, could not be denied. Their
leaving the article and resorting to the common understanding of it, he
conceived to be a tacit acknowledgment of the gentlemen, that the
instrument itself would not bear the construction they wished to give
it.

Whether the negotiator had urged this construction of the article, and
found he could not obtain its admission, or even an arbitration upon it,
he did not know; from his opinion of the good sense and understanding of
Mr. Jay, however, he was for himself satisfied that, whatever might have
been his former opinions, on attending to the subject, he had found what
had been called the American construction was not the just one, and had
therefore abandoned it.

Mr. C. said, he was aware that the construction he contended for had
been called the British construction, and _Camillus's_ construction;
that he had himself, however, adopted more than two years ago, the first
time he had paid any attention to the article, upon no other impulse or
authority than his own judgment, on the perusal of it, and even before
he had ever heard of any other construction of it than that he contended
against, he was aware that there was a kind of patriotism which claimed
every thing for one's country, whether consistently with truth, justice,
and candor, or not; for himself, he had no pretensions to such
patriotism. He believed Mr. Jay had none, and if he was convinced that
the American construction of this article was unfounded, he thought it
for his honor, and the honor of this country, that he had abandoned it.

When Mr. COIT had concluded--

Mr. S. SMITH rose and said, the subject then before the committee
appeared to him to be of an importance at least equal to the great
constitutional question which agitated the House during the present
session; it has had, and he trusted would continue to have, the same
calm attention paid to its discussion. He hoped and expected that it
would ultimately be determined with a view to the real interest of the
nation, under the existing state of things.

When the Treaty was first published he had read it with attention, and
although he had not seen all those faults with which it has since been
charged, yet there was, to his view, so little good contained in it,
and so much of evil to be apprehended from it, that he had felt a hope
that the PRESIDENT would not have ratified it. He had been disappointed,
yet he had not a doubt but the PRESIDENT, after the most mature
consideration, had given his signature; being possessed, as he was, of
every information relative to a subject so very important, he could
better determine on the policy of its adoption than those who were less
informed. Still there were many articles, particularly the commercial,
which every man might judge of from the face of the instrument. On these
he did not hesitate to give an opinion: which was, that they promise not
one solitary advantage, and shackle our commerce in many important
points. He would not trouble the committee with going deeply into a
subject that has already been so ably discussed. He, however, could not
refrain from a few remarks on the right to countervail our extra duties
on tonnage of goods imported in foreign bottoms. He asked what would
this countervail be? Could any man tell? It was not specified in the
article; it was then discretionary with the British; discretionary with
a nation whose rule of right has always been the measure of its power,
whose conduct has invariably been to cramp and distress the commerce of
all other nations. To such a nation was it proper to trust a latitude of
that extent? Will she make her countervail oppressive and unjust? It is
more than probable she will, and if she should, what remedy have we?
None: for we are forbidden by the same article to legislate further on
the subject.

He said he would take leave to explain the 13th article which relates to
the East India trade, and which it has been said gives such solid
advantage as to counterbalance all the evils arising out of the Treaty.
He had taken some pains to inform himself on this subject, and he had
found that the Americans, in common with all other nations, traded to
the British and other ports of India, and were every where received with
that sort of kindness which grows out of the interest that the vender
has in selling his goods for ready money, and to a great profit; that
our trade is so much the interest of the India Company, and of all its
officers and factors, as well as of the private traders residing there;
that it was ridiculous to suppose the India Company would prevent it;
and, if they should, what would be the evil? Little or none; for there
were other ports, belonging either to other European powers or to the
natives, in the neighborhood of all the English ports, who would receive
us with open arms, and supply us for our silver, on terms equal, or
nearly so. He then stated that our ships could now carry from one port
in India to another, to China, or to Europe; an employment that had been
found very lucrative. Under the Treaty they must proceed with whatever
they purchase in an English port direct to America. The article says,
His Majesty consents to your trade to India, and this is called a boon.
It appeared to him just as ridiculous as if his Majesty had said, he
consented to our going to Great Britain to purchase its manufactures.

To enumerate the many faults he found with the Treaty, as well of
omission as commission, would take up too much of their precious time;
yet he trusted he should be excused for taking a short view of its
leading features.

When the envoy was sent to Great Britain, he was principally to demand
restitution for the cruel depredations committed on our commerce. We
find that object attended to so vaguely that our best-informed men seem
doubtful whether much will ever be recovered under the Treaty; they find
that in every instance the loser must first pursue his remedy through
their tedious and expensive Courts. We find, that by fair construction,
we have acknowledged ourselves to have been the infractors of the Treaty
of Peace; for what was the ground on which some of the States placed
legal impediments to the recovery of British debts? Why, that Lord
Dorchester had refused to deliver up or pay for the <DW64>s which, by
that Treaty, ought to have been restored, and which slaves would have
assisted their masters by their labor to pay those debts; yet we see no
mention of them in the Treaty; and we find, to our surprise, men, since
this Treaty, defending the construction lately put on the Treaty of
Peace by the British, and which had never before been heard of; thus
acquiescing in the charge of our being the first aggressors. But this
only relates to our honor, and of course can be of little consequence to
a nation whose rule of conduct is to submit to every thing, provided,
that on the whole account, there appears to be a balance of profit in
its favor.

After having thus formed his opinion relative to the Treaty, his next
inquiry was, is the Treaty constitutional? On that point he had held
himself open to conviction, and waited its discussion. He had not heard
any gentleman declare it unconstitutional, except one, (Mr. PAGE,) who
seemed to give his opinion as if he still doubted; and having carefully
considered the subject, he was now of opinion that there was nothing
directly repugnant to the constitution in the instrument. He then
inquired whether, under the existing state of things, the Treaty ought
to be rejected? whether it contained stipulations so extremely injurious
to the United States as ought to induce the House of Representatives to
reject a compact made by the other branches of the Government? In the
ten first articles, which are permanent, he found some objections. The
third article, which, like many others, cannot be well understood, seems
to say that goods imported in British bottoms to the ports of the Lakes,
shall pay extra duty. If this be a true construction, it will then be
necessary to repeal our restraining duties, to make the Treaty by law
consistent with the constitution, which requires that all duties shall
be equal. The tenth article ties our hands against sequestration, a
power which ought not to be exercised, except on some very extraordinary
occasions; yet it was a power which, considering our relative situation
to Great Britain, it was imprudent to part with; still, on fair
consideration, he did not find that there was sufficient cause, on the
account, to reject the Treaty, in the situation we are now placed. The
residue will expire in two or three years.


TUESDAY, April 26.

_Execution of British Treaty._

Mr. DWIGHT FOSTER observed, that as the subject before the committee had
been minutely discussed, it was not to be expected any new arguments,
either on the one side or the other, would be adduced. Hitherto, he had
been silent--though silent, he had not been inattentive--he had listened
with candor to every thing which had been offered; he had formed his
opinion upon serious deliberation, and was ready to give it whenever the
question should be taken.

When the resolution requesting the PRESIDENT to lay before the House a
copy of the instructions, correspondence, and other documents relative
to this Treaty, was under consideration, Mr. F. observed, that he had
intended to have expressed his sentiments on the subject; but the great
length of time which was spent in that discussion, and the extreme
impatience discovered by many members to have the question taken,
induced him, as it might several others, to be content with expressing a
silent vote, as he did with the minority, on that occasion. This he was
the more willing to do, as it was then well known that the Treaty itself
would be before the House; that some appropriations would be requisite,
on their part, to carry it into effect; and, it was not to be doubted
but every gentleman who wished to express his opinion would have an
opportunity. The time had now arrived, and several days had been spent
already, he believed not unprofitably, in deliberating on an instrument
which had been the cause of great agitation in the United States.

He was heretofore one of those who considered the negotiation as
advisable; it appeared to him the only means by which the horrors of war
were to be avoided. He therefore rejoiced when the PRESIDENT appointed
an Envoy for the purpose of negotiation; nor did he yet find any reason
to apprehend the measure was injudicious. Far otherwise. He believed it
was right, proper, and advisable; and that the result would prove highly
advantageous and fortunate for our country. He further said, that he had
critically examined the various articles of the Treaty; that he had
weighed the arguments for and against them, jointly and severally; that
he had considered them all with the attention their importance required;
and though, in some instances, we might have wished an extension of
advantages on our side, he was bound, in conscience, to declare that he
thought the Treaty as beneficial to us as we had a right to expect.

The right of the PRESIDENT, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, to make Treaties, is a principle clearly defined by the
constitution. Not a single power delegated by the constitution to any
one branch of the Government is defined in terms more explicit, or less
liable to be misunderstood, than those which define the Treaty-making
power of the United States; and, during the whole course of the former
and present debates, Mr. F. observed, he had not been able to raise a
doubt in his own mind on the subject. The Treaty under consideration had
been duly made and ratified by the proper authority, constituted for
this purpose by the people of the United States; as such it was now
before the committee and demanded their serious attention and respect.
The subject was allowed by all to be of importance. To him it appeared
more momentous than any other which, at any time since the establishment
of the Government, had engrossed the attention of Congress. He viewed it
not as a question of peace or war only, but as involving questions of
far greater magnitude. He meant the present unexampled prosperity of
this country, our political happiness, our excellent constitution, and
probably, in its consequences, the existence of the national Government.

Mr. KITCHELL said, he could throw no new light upon the subject under
discussion; he wished only to express a few ideas which would lead him
to support the resolution in its present form. He did not believe the
Treaty to be that box of Pandora, which was to scatter evils of every
kind upon the land. He believed there were stipulations in favor of the
United States, as well as in favor of Great Britain; and when the
Ministers of the two nations enter into contract, it must be expected
that stipulations will be agreed to on each side which will not appear
perfectly satisfactory to either, as certain concessions must be made on
both sides.

He would mention only the probable consequences of rejecting the Treaty.
The disposition of the two nations towards each other at the time of
entering into negotiation was well known. The spoliations and injuries
done to the American vessels had wound up American resentment to the
highest pitch. Happily for America, Britain saw cause to change her
system of aggression. He believed, with some other gentlemen, that
Britain had not only formed the plan of crushing the rising liberties of
France, but also of extending her views to America; but, from a reverse
of fortune, she found it necessary to employ all her resources against
France. There was another thing, the people of England were clamorous on
account of the injuries done to the vessels of America; they were seen
to be unjust, and were publicly reprobated. These circumstances were
favorable to our negotiation, and he believed they could at no time have
got a better Treaty, than at the time the present was agreed upon.

He said, they had only three alternatives. Either to give aid to the
Treaty, continue to bear the insults of Great Britain, or else to
determine resolutely on the dernier resort, war.

Mr. GRISWOLD said, that in his opinion, the extensive view which the
committee were taking of the merits of the Treaty with Great Britain was
unwarranted by the Constitution of the United States; that he did not
believe any part of the Treaty-making power had been delegated to the
House of Representatives; and that the committee might with as much
propriety examine the merits of the constitution itself, for the purpose
of deciding whether they would execute it or not, as to examine the
Treaty in the manner which had been adopted in the committee. He had, on
a former occasion, delivered his opinions on that subject, and he would
not attempt to repeat them; but since the committee had thought proper
to take an extensive view of the merits of the Treaty, he would follow
the example which had been set him, and submit a few observations upon
that subject--more particularly as he believed that no discussion would
prove injurious to that instrument. He should not, however, attempt to
take a very extensive view of the subject, as gentlemen who had preceded
him had exhausted almost every part of the subject and left little to be
said at that period of the debate.

Mr. G. said the Treaty embraced three great objects:

1. The execution of those parts of the Treaty of 1783, which remained
unexecuted.

2. The settlement of disputes.

3. Stipulations for regulating the commercial and other intercourse
between the two nations.

He said that it would be agreed on every side of the House that these
objects were important; and if they had been justly and fairly secured
by the stipulations of the Treaty, it would not be said that the
committee ought to feel dissatisfied with that instrument. He believed
that this was really the case, and that the United States had no just
cause to complain of the terms therein contained.

Several objections, however, had been made to that part of the Treaty
which provided for the execution of the Treaty of 1783. It had been said
that this Treaty did not provide for every part of the Treaty of Peace
which remained unexecuted; and that conditions were annexed to the
execution of those parts of that Treaty which had been provided for
highly injurious to the interest of the United States. He said, if those
objections were well founded, they formed a very serious objection to
the present Treaty: but he could not find them by comparing or examining
the two Treaties. The only article of the Treaty of Peace which it was
said had been violated by the British Government, and was not provided
for by the present Treaty, was that which respected the <DW64>s and
other property of the American inhabitants. He said he would not detain
the committee with many remarks on this part of the subject, as it had
been very fully and ably explained by gentlemen who had gone before him:
he only mentioned it for the purpose of reading that part of the journal
of Mr. Adams, one of the American negotiators of the peace, which
immediately related to this subject. The same journal had been already
read by different gentlemen, in detached parts, but he wished to bring
the whole journal at one view before the committee. He said, however,
that he ought to repeat what had been already said on the floor, that
the article in question did not want any exterior aid to assist the
committee with an explanation. The words of the article were certain and
explicit; they declared that the evacuation should be made "without
carrying away any <DW64>s or other property belonging to the American
inhabitants;" and as it was universally agreed that the <DW64>s who had
been carried away consisted either of those who had fled from their
masters during the war, on a promise of emancipation, or of those who
had been taken as plunder in the period of hostility, no doubt could
exist but that in all those cases the property in the <DW64>s was
changed; that they were no longer the property of American inhabitants,
and of course it was no violation of the Treaty to carry them away. And
whatever might have since been said on that subject, he was convinced
that the American Commissioners, at the close of the negotiation, had no
idea of including in the Treaty of Peace a stipulation to secure a
restoration of <DW64>s then in the possession of the British army. To
evince this fact, he said he would now read the journal he had before
alluded to. [He read some paragraphs from that journal.]

Mr. G. said that it appeared, from the journal he had read, on what
ground the negotiation respecting the <DW64>s stood. The British agent
claimed a restitution of confiscated estates. To rebut this demand, the
American Commissioners, among other things, claimed compensation for
<DW64>s and other property which had been taken as plunder in different
periods of the war. Finding, however, that no agreement could be
obtained on these contested points, they were all relinquished as
impracticable; and the claim for <DW64>s, which had been made for no
other purpose than to rebut the claim for confiscated estates, was given
up of course, and, at the moment of signing the Treaty, the article in
question was inserted--not to secure a restitution of property which had
been changed by the events of the war, but to secure by stipulation,
that the evacuations should be made without any destruction, or carrying
away property really belonging to the American inhabitants. He said that
it had always been a matter of surprise to him that any gentleman had
put a different construction on this article; and he thought the parties
had done wisely in excluding from the present Treaty a claim which did
not possess even the shadow of justice.

Mr. GALLATIN said he would not follow some of the gentlemen who had
preceded him, by dwelling upon the discretion of the Legislature--a
question which had already been the subject of their deliberation, and
been decided by a solemn vote. Gentlemen who had been in the minority
on that question might give any construction they pleased to the
declaratory resolution of the House; they might again repeat that, to
refuse to carry the Treaty into effect, was a breach of the public
faith, which they conceived as being pledged by the PRESIDENT and
Senate. This had been the ground on which a difference of opinion had
existed since the beginning of the discussion. It was because the House
thought the faith of the nation could not, on those subjects submitted
to the power of Congress, be pledged by any constituted authority other
than the Legislature, that they had resolved that, in all such cases, it
was their right and duty to consider the expediency of carrying a Treaty
into effect. If the House thought the faith of the nation already
pledged, they could not claim any discretion; there would be no room
left to deliberate upon the expediency of the thing. The resolution now
under consideration was merely "that it was expedient to carry the
British Treaty into effect," and not whether they were bound by national
faith to do it. He would, therefore, consider the question of expediency
alone; and, thinking as he did, that the House had full discretion on
the subject, he conceived that there was as much responsibility in
deciding in the affirmative as in rejecting the resolution; that they
would be equally answerable for the consequences that might follow from
either.

It was, however, true that there was a great difference between the
situation of this country in the year 1794, when a negotiator was
appointed, and that in which we were at present; and that consequences
would follow the refusal to carry into effect the Treaty in its present
stage, which would not have attended a refusal to negotiate, and enter
into such a Treaty. The question of expediency, therefore, assumed
before them a different and more complex shape than when before the
negotiator, the Senate, or the PRESIDENT. The Treaty, in itself, and
abstractedly considered, might be injurious; it might be such an
instrument as, in the opinion of the House, ought not to have been
adopted by the Executive; and yet, such as it was, they might think it
expedient, under the present circumstances, to carry it into effect. He
would, therefore, first take a view of the provisions of the Treaty
itself, and in the next place, supposing it injurious, consider, in case
it was not carried into effect, what would be the natural consequences
of such refusal.

The provisions of the Treaty relate either to the adjustment of past
differences or to the future intercourse of the two nations. The
differences now existing between Great Britain and this country arose
either from the non-execution of some articles of the Treaty of Peace,
or from the effects of the present European war. The complaints of
Britain in relation to the Treaty of 1783 were confined to the legal
impediments thrown by the several States in the way of the recovery of
British debts. The late Treaty had provided adequate remedy on that
subject; the United States were bound to make full and complete
compensation for any losses arising from that source, and every ground
of complaint on the part of Great Britain was removed.

Having thus done full justice to the other nation, America had a right
to expect that equal attention should be paid to her claims arising from
infractions of the Treaty of Peace, viz: compensation for the <DW64>s
carried away by the British; restoration of the Western posts, and
indemnification for their detention.

On the subject of the first claim, which had been objected to as
groundless, he would observe, that he was not satisfied that the
construction given by the British Government to that article of the
Treaty was justified even by the letter of the article. That
construction rested on the supposition that slaves came under the
general denomination of booty, and were alienated the moment they fell
in the possession of an enemy, so that all those who were in the hands
of the British when the Treaty of Peace was signed, must be considered
as British, and not American property, and were not included in the
article. It would however appear by recurring to _Vattel_, when speaking
of the right of _postliminium_, that slaves were not considered as part
of the booty which was alienated by the act of capture, and that they
were ranked rather with real property, to the profits of which only the
captors were entitled. Be that as it may, there was no doubt that the
construction given by America was that which had been understood by the
parties at the time of making the Treaty. The journals of Mr. Adams,
quoted by a gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. COIT) proved this fully;
for when he says that the insertion of this article was alone worth the
journey of Mr. Laurens from London, can it be supposed that he would
have laid so much stress on a clause which, according to the new
construction now attempted to be given, meant only that the British
would commit no new act of hostility? would not carry away slaves at
that time in possession of Americans? Congress had recognized that
construction by adopting the resolution which had been already quoted,
and which was introduced upon the motion of Mr. Alexander Hamilton; and
it had not been denied that the British Ministry, during Mr. Adams's
embassy, had also agreed to it.

But when our negotiator had, for the sake of peace, waived that claim;
when he had also abandoned the right which America had to demand an
indemnification for the detention of the posts, although he had conceded
the right of a similar nature, which Great Britain had for the detention
of debt; when he had thus given up every thing which might be supposed
to be of a doubtful nature, it might have been hoped that our last
claim--a claim on which there was not and there never had been any
dispute--the Western posts should have been restored according to the
terms of the Treaty of Peace. Upon what ground the British had
insisted, and our negotiator conceded, that this late restitution should
be saddled with new conditions, which made no part of the original
contract, Mr. G. was at a loss to know. British traders were all
allowed, by the new Treaty, to remain within the posts without becoming
citizens of the United States, and to carry on trade and commerce with
the Indians living within our boundaries, without being subject to any
control from our Government. In vain was it said, that if that clause
had not been inserted we would have found it our interest to effect it
by our own laws. Of this we were alone competent judges; if that
condition was harmless at present, it was not possible to foresee
whether, under future circumstances, it would not prove highly
injurious; and, whether harmless or not, it was not less a permanent and
new condition imposed upon us. But the fact was, that by the
introduction of that clause, by obliging us to keep within our
jurisdiction, as British subjects, the very men who had been the
instruments used by Great Britain to promote Indian wars on our
frontiers,--by obliging us to suffer those men to continue their
commerce with Indians living in our territory, uncontrolled by those
regulations, which we had thought necessary, in order to restrain our
own citizens in their intercourse with these tribes, Great Britain had
preserved her full influence with the Indian nations; by a restoration
of the posts under that condition, we had lost the greatest advantage
that was expected from their possession, viz: future security against
the Indians. In the same manner had the British preserved the commercial
advantages which resulted from the occupancy of these posts, by
stipulating as a permanent condition a free passage for their goods
across our portages, without paying any duty.

The remaining provisions of the Treaty had no connection with past
differences; they made no part of the Convention which had been the
avowed object of Mr. Jay's mission; they applied solely to the future
intercourse of the two nations as relating to commerce and navigation;
and had they been entirely omitted, our differences would have been
nevertheless adjusted. It was agreed on all hands, that so far as
related to our commerce with Great Britain, we wanted no Treaty. The
intercourse, although useful perhaps to both parties, was more
immediately necessary to England, and her own interest was a sufficient
pledge of her granting us at all times a perfect liberty of commerce to
her European ports. If we want to treat with her, it must be in order to
obtain some intercourse with her colonies, and some general security in
our navigation.

The twelfth and thirteenth articles had been obtained by our negotiator
with a view to the first object. The twelfth article, however, which
related to our intercourse with the West Indies, was found, upon
examination, to be accompanied by a restriction of such a nature, that
what had been granted by Great Britain as a favor, was rejected by the
Senate as highly injurious. The thirteenth article, which related to the
East Indies, and remained part of the Treaty, was, like the twelfth,
conferring a favor limited by restrictions, and so far as he could
depend upon the opinion of the best-informed judges on that subject,
those restrictions put the trade in a more disadvantageous situation
than it was before the Treaty. As the West India article had declared
that we should not re-export any produce of those islands to Europe, so
the East India article, at the same time it granted us the privilege,
which we enjoyed before, and which we enjoyed because it was the
interest of the East India Company to grant it to us, that of being
admitted in the British seaports there, had forbidden our carrying any
articles from thence to any place except to America; which regulation
amounted to a total prohibition to export East India articles to China,
or to obtain freights back to Europe; and, upon the whole, he could not
help thinking, from what had fallen on that floor, and what he had heard
elsewhere from gentlemen of great commercial knowledge, that if the East
India commerce had been as generally understood in America as the West
India trade, that so much boasted of article would have met the same
fate in the Senate with the twelfth article.

During the American war, in the year 1780, so fully convinced were the
neutral nations of the necessity of introducing that doctrine of free
bottom making free goods, that all of them, excepting Portugal, who was
in a state of vassalage to, and a mere appendage of Great Britain, had
united in order to establish the principle, and had formed for that
purpose the alliance known by the name of the Armed Neutrality. All the
belligerent powers, except England, had recognized and agreed to the
doctrine. England itself had been obliged, in some measure, to give for
a while a tacit acquiescence. America had completely, at the time,
admitted the principle, although they were then at war, [Mr. G. quoted
on this subject the Journals of Congress of the year 1780, page 210, and
of the year 1781, page 80,] and it had been introduced in every other
Treaty we had concluded since our existence as a nation. Since the year
1780, every nation, so far as his knowledge went, had refused to enter
into a Treaty of Commerce with England, unless that provision was
inserted. Russia, for that reason, would not renew their Treaty, which
had expired in 1786, although he believed that, during the present war,
and in order to answer the ends of the war, they had formed a temporary
convention, which he had not seen, but which, perhaps, did not include
that provision. England had consented to it in their Treaty with France
in 1788, and we were the first neutral nation who abandoned the common
cause, gave up the claim, and, by a positive declaration inserted in our
Treaty, had recognized the contrary doctrine. It had been said, that
under the present circumstances, it could not be expected that Great
Britain would give up the point: perhaps so; but the objection was not,
that our negotiator had not been able to obtain that doctrine, but that
he had consented to enter into a Treaty of Commerce (which we did not
want, and which had no connection with an adjustment of our differences
with Great Britain) without the principle contended for making part of
that Treaty. Unless we could obtain security for our navigation, we
wanted no Treaty; and the only provision which could give us that
security, should have been the _sine qua non_ of a Treaty. On the
contrary, we had disgusted all the other neutral nations of Europe,
without whose concert and assistance there was but little hope that we
should ever obtain that point, and we had taught Great Britain that we
were disposed to form the most intimate connections with her, even at
the expense of recognizing the principle the most fatal to the liberty
of commerce, and to the security of our navigation.

Mr. G. was not going to enter into a discussion of the immorality of
sequestering private property. What could be more immoral than war? or
the plundering of the high seas legalized under the name of
privateering? Yet self-defence justified the first, and the necessity of
the case might, at least in some instances, and where it was the only
practicable mode of warfare left to a nation, apologize even for the
last. In the same manner the power of sequestration might be resorted
to, as the last weapon of self-defence, rather than to seek redress by
an appeal to arms. It was the last peace-measure that could be taken by
a nation; but the Treaty, by declaring that in case of national
differences it should not be resorted to, had deprived us of the power
of judging of its propriety, had rendered it an act of hostility, and
had effectually taken off that restraint which a fear of its exercise
laid upon Great Britain.

Thus it appeared that, by the Treaty, we had promised full compensation
to England for every possible claim they might have against us, that we
had abandoned every claim of a doubtful nature, and that we had
consented to receive the posts, our claim to which was not disputed,
under new conditions and restrictions never before contemplated. That,
after having obtained, by those concessions, an adjustment of past
differences, we had entered into a new agreement, unconnected with those
objects, which had heretofore been subjects of discussion between the
two nations; and that, by that Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, we had
obtained no commercial advantage which we did not enjoy before; we had
obtained no security against future aggressions, no security in favor of
the freedom of our navigation, and we had parted with every pledge we
had in our hands, with every power of restriction, with every weapon of
self-defence, which was calculated to give us any security.

From the review he had taken of the Treaty, and the opinions he had
expressed, Mr. G. said, it was hardly necessary for him to add that he
looked upon the instrument as highly injurious to the interests of the
United States, and that he earnestly wished it never had been made; but
whether, in its present stage, the House ought to refuse to carry it
into effect, and what would be the probable consequences of a refusal,
was a question which required the most serious attention, and which he
would now attempt to investigate.

Should the Treaty be finally defeated, either new negotiations would be
more successful, or Great Britain would refuse to make a new
arrangement, and leave things in the situation in which they were, or
war would be the consequence. Mr. G. said that he would, in the course
of his observations, make some remarks on the last supposition; he did
not think that the first would be very probable at present, and he was
of opinion that, under the present circumstances, and until some change
took place in our own or in the relative political situation of the
European nations, it was to be apprehended that, in such a case, new
negotiations would either be rejected or prove unsuccessful. Such an
event would have perhaps followed a rejection of the Treaty even by the
Senate or by the PRESIDENT. After the negotiator employed by the United
States had once affixed his signature, it must have become very
problematical, unless he had exceeded his powers, whether a refusal to
sanction the contract he had made would not eventually defeat, at least
for a time, the prospect of a new Treaty. He conceived that the hopes of
obtaining better conditions, by a new negotiation, were much less in the
present stage of the business than they had been when the Treaty was in
its inchoate form before the Executive; and in order to have a just idea
of the consequences of a rejection at present, he would contemplate them
upon that supposition which appeared to him most probable, viz: that no
new Treaty would take place for a certain period of time.

As he was not sensible that a single commercial advantage had been
obtained by the Treaty, he could not mention the loss of any, as a
mischief that would attend its rejection. If, however, the East India
article was supposed to be beneficial, it must, on the other hand, be
conceded that we had enjoyed every benefit arising from it for a number
of years, without Treaty, and consequently, because it was the interest
of the East India Company that we should enjoy them; and that it was not
probable that circumstances would so far change there, during the short
period to which that article was limited, as to induce that Company to
adopt a different policy towards us.

But it was said that war must be the consequence of our delaying to
carry the Treaty into effect. Did the gentlemen mean that, if we
rejected the Treaty, if we did not accept the reparation there given to
us, in order to obtain redress, we had no alternative left but war? If
we must go to war in order to obtain reparation for insults and
spoliations on our trade, we must do it, even if we carry the present
Treaty into effect; for the Treaty gives us no reparation for the
aggressions committed since it was ratified, has not produced a
discontinuance of those acts of hostility, and gives us no security that
they shall be discontinued. But the argument of those gentlemen, who
supposed that America must go to war, applied to a final rejection of
the Treaty, and not to a delay. He did not propose to refuse the
reparation offered by the Treaty, and to put up with the aggressions
committed; he had agreed that that reparation, such as it was, was a
valuable article of the Treaty; he had agreed that, under the present
circumstances, a greater evil would follow a total rejection than an
acquiescence to the Treaty. The only measure which had been mentioned in
preference to the one now under discussion, was a suspension, a
postponement whilst the present spoliations continued, in hopes to
obtain for them a similar reparation, and assurances that they would
cease.

But, was it meant to insinuate that it was the final intention of those
who pretended to wish only for a postponement, to involve this country
in a war? There was no period of the present European war at which it
would not have been weak and wicked to adopt such measures as must
involve America in the contest, unless forced into it for the sake of
self-defence; but, at this time, to think of it, would fall but little
short of madness. The whole American nation would rise in opposition to
the idea; and it might, at least, have been recollected that war could
not be declared except by Congress, and that two of the branches of
Government were sufficient to check the other in any supposed attempt of
that kind.

But to the cry of war, the alarmists did not fail to add that of
confusion; and they had declared, even on this floor, that if the
resolution was not adopted, Government would be dissolved. Government
dissolved in case a postponement took place! This idea was too absurd to
deserve a direct answer. But he would ask those gentlemen, by whom the
Government was to be dissolved? Certainly not by those who would vote
against the resolution; for, although they were not, perhaps, fortunate
enough to have obtained the confidence of the gentleman who voted
against them, still, it must be agreed, that those who succeeded in
their wishes, who defeated a measure they disliked, would not wish to
destroy that Government, which they held, so far, in their hands, as to
be able to carry their own measures. For them to dissolve the Government
would be to dissolve their own power. By whom, then, he would ask again,
was the Government to be dissolved? The gentlemen must answer, by
themselves, or they must declare that they meant nothing but to alarm.
Was it really the language of those men, who professed to be, who
distinguished themselves by the self-assumed appellation of friends to
order, that if they did not succeed in all their measures, they would
overset the Government? And had all their professions been only a veil
to hide their love of power? a pretence to cover their ambition? Did
they mean, that the first event which would put an end to their own
authority should be the last act of Government? As to himself, he did
not believe that they had such an intention; he had too good an opinion
of their patriotism to permit himself to admit such an idea for a single
moment; but he thought himself justifiable in entertaining a belief,
that some amongst them, in order to carry a favorite, and what they
thought to be an advantageous measure, meant to spread an alarm, which
they did not feel; and he had no doubt that many had contracted such a
habit of carrying every measure of Government as they pleased, that they
really thought that every thing must be thrown into confusion the moment
they were thwarted in a matter of importance. He hoped that experience
would, in future, cure their fears. But, at all events, be the wishes
and intentions of the members of this House what they may, it was not in
their power to dissolve the Government. The people of the United States,
from one end of the continent to the other, were strongly attached to
their constitution; they would restrain and punish the excesses of any
party, of any set of men in the Government, who would be guilty of the
attempt; and on them he would rest as a full security against every
endeavor to destroy our Union, our constitution, or our Government.

But, although he was not afraid of a dissolution, he felt how highly
desirable a more general union of sentiment would be; he felt the
importance of an agreement of opinion between the different branches of
Government, and even between the members of the same branch. He would
sacrifice much to obtain that object; it had been one of the most urging
motives with him to be in favor, not of a rejection, but only of a
suspension, of a delay. But even as a matter of opinion, it was
difficult to say which mode of proceeding, in this House, would best
accord with the general sentiments of the people. So far as related to
the petitions before them, the number of signatures against the Treaty
exceeded, at the moment he was speaking, the number of those in favor of
the Treaty.

True it was, that an alarm which had produced a combination, had lately
taken place amongst the merchants of this and some other seaports. What
effect it would have, and how successful they would eventually be, in
spreading this alarm amongst the people at large, he could not tell; but
there were circumstances accompanying their petition, which, in his
opinion, much diminished the weight they otherwise might have had. They
had, undoubtedly, a right to petition upon every public measure, where
they thought themselves interested, and their petitions would deserve
equal regard, with those of their fellow-citizens throughout the United
States. But on this occasion, in order to create an alarm, in order to
induce the people to join them, in order to force the House to pass the
laws relative to the Treaty, they had formed a dangerous combination,
and affected to cease insuring vessels, purchasing produce, and
transacting any business. A gentleman from New York (Mr. WILLIAMS) had
been so much alarmed himself, that he had predicted a fall in the price
of every kind of produce, and seems, indeed, to have supposed, that the
clamors of a few individuals here would either put an end to, or satisfy
the wants of those nations which depended on us for supplies of
provisions. Yet, it had so happened, and it was a complete proof that
the whole was only an alarm, that whilst they were debating, the price
of flour, which was of very dull sale two weeks ago, had risen in equal
proportion with the supposed fears of the purchasers.

He could not help considering the cry of war, the threats of a
dissolution of Government, and the present alarm, as designed for the
same purpose, that of making an impression on the fears of this House.
It was through the fear of being involved in a war, that the negotiation
with Great Britain had originated; under the impression of fear, the
Treaty had been negotiated and signed; a fear of the same danger, that
of war, had promoted its ratification; and now, every imaginary mischief
which could alarm our fears, was conjured up, in order to deprive us of
that discretion, which this House thought they had a right to exercise,
and in order to force us to carry the Treaty into effect.

_The Son of the Marquis Lafayette._

Mr. LIVINGSTON, Chairman of the committee for carrying into effect a
resolution respecting the son of the Marquis LAFAYETTE, reported that he
had arrived in this country; that he had received the patronage of the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; that he was in New Jersey for education,
and to show that he had no occasion for pecuniary assistance, the
committee subjoin a well-written, affecting letter to the Chairman of
the committee, in answer to one from him, expressive of his gratitude
for the kind attention shown to him by the Legislature of the United
States, by the PRESIDENT, and to every person to whom he was made known;
that he had no wants; that he was as happy as he could be; that if he
should in future have occasion for assistance, he would apply to
Congress, who had been so kind and attentive to his welfare.[77]


THURSDAY, April 28.

_Execution of British Treaty._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union; when, the resolution for carrying the British Treaty
into effect being under consideration----

Mr. PRESTON rose and spoke as follows: Mr. Chairman, I voted for the
question yesterday, for the first time since this discussion began. I
was then prepared to give my opinion, but, since the House has thought
proper to devote another day to this important subject, I will take the
liberty to offer my sentiments, and claim the indulgence of the
committee for this purpose. I make this claim for their indulgence with
the more confidence, as I have heretofore occupied but little of the
time of the House on any occasion, and as I mean to be short on the
present--not intending to take that comprehensive view of the subject
which many gentlemen have done who have preceded me. With this apology I
will proceed, conceiving, however that no apology is necessary on this
or any other occasion where our duty impels us to come forward. But I
must confess it has been painful to me to hear the recriminations that
have taken place on this occasion. I had hoped, on a subject so
important, on which it is said the peace and happiness of this our
common country rests--whose welfare must be equally dear to all--that
temperance and calmness would have marked our deliberations; that all
our efforts would have been made to enlighten the minds and convince the
judgments of each other, instead of lessening one another in our
estimation, and that of our constituents, by dishonorable imputations,
and which, I trust, every member would spurn. As to myself, Mr.
Chairman, I stand here regardless of any imputations that ill-nature may
cast upon me in this House, or abuse which may be conferred without
doors. I shall not be deterred from pronouncing that opinion which my
best reflections have enabled me to form.

Sir, in considering this subject, I had hoped every information
possessed by any of the departments of Government would have been freely
afforded us; and I cannot but lament that the PRESIDENT, by a too
strict adherence to what he has supposed to be his constitutional duty,
refused the request of this House for certain papers, which request
seemed to me not only proper, but innocent--proper, because they might
have afforded information that would reconcile many of the objections
entertained of the Treaty, and finally produce its adoption; it was
innocent, because, if there was no unfair procedure respecting this
business, why not publish the transaction to the world--at all events to
the Representatives of the people, who, it is acknowledged by all, were
not only to act on the Treaty in some way, but were intrusted with the
management of some of the dearest rights of their fellow-countrymen? If,
then, the people confide in us such important concerns, might not the
Executive have reposed some degree of confidence, and complied with a
request so decorously and respectfully made? But he has told us his duty
forbids it. We are then reduced to the necessity to judge of the thing
from the face of it, without the wished-for information. And I must
confess it has always presented such a hideous and deformed aspect to my
mind, that I have ever disliked it--which, together with the unfriendly
sentiments of my constituents to it, has produced my prejudices. But I
had determined, as the PRESIDENT and Senate had ratified it, and many
approved it, to keep my mind open for every information the subject was
capable of. As, then, none has been offered to operate a change of my
opinion, and as the most likely source is shut against us, my
prejudices, instead of being lessened, have become firmly fixed in the
opposition.

But we are told the British committed no infraction of the Treaty of
1783, by withholding the posts; for we, having thrown legal impediments
in the way of the recovery of their debts, became the first infractors
thereof, whereby they were left free to comply or not. Let us, for a
moment, inquire into this fact. By the 4th article of that Treaty,
creditors on either side were to meet with no legal impediment to the
recovery of their debts. By the 7th article of the same Treaty, His
Majesty was, with all convenient speed, to withdraw his armies and
garrisons from every post and place. Now, sir, on comparing these
articles, can it be presumed by any one that the latter stipulation was
to remain unexecuted until the creditors recovered their debts? Was it
to remain as a pledge for the performance of the other? No one can
entertain the idea for a moment. Suppose the creditors had gone on in
the collection of their debts without interruption, would it be said
that the stipulations of the 7th article would be suspended until all
the creditors were wholly satisfied? It is absurd, particularly when we
reflect that the commissioners who negotiated that Treaty must have
contemplated the recovery of those debts by lawsuits; therefore, if the
latter clause was intended to coerce the former, we would certainly not
have had the insertion of the words "with all convenient speed," which
implies an early compliance. If the opposite construction was just, I
would venture to say, the British Government would never have agreed to
surrender the posts, but in consequence of such concessions as it now
gets; for it would have the advantages of the fur trade, and the faith
of this country pledged for the payment of the debts, which were
accumulating by interest. This was a pleasing situation; but what was
the situation of the British debtors? Deprived of their <DW64>s, which
were to be returned by the Treaty; deprived of the advantages of the
trade with the Indians, whereby they might be enabling themselves to
discharge those debts; harassed and worn down with taxation, to support
the Indian wars excited by their creditors. In this situation of things,
was it not natural for them to look around for security or indemnity
against these evils; and would any thing more naturally present itself,
than withholding the payment of the money to the very cause of these
evils? None, sir; and I cannot conceive it so dishonorable as some
gentlemen pretend to view it.

But, sir, I will endeavor to show that the laws which were enacted by
States for prohibiting the recovery of the British debts, were not an
infraction of the Treaty of 1783. By the little book, which the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. HILLHOUSE) says is so precious, and
which he hopes will be preserved for some time to come, we find that Mr.
JEFFERSON has, in consequence of complaints from the British Minister,
respecting the impediments to the recovery of British debts, inquired
into the facts, in those States where the complaints originated; the
result of these inquiries was, that though there were State laws
prohibiting, yet a number of gentlemen, of the first abilities and great
integrity,--generally professional characters, and who have been engaged
in proceedings of this kind,--certify, that wherever attempts were made
to recover these debts, they have met with no more obstruction than
other creditors. Besides, those gentlemen were generally of opinion
that, on the final ratification of the Treaty of 1783, it repealed all
laws at variance with it. If, then, it had such a powerful attribute as
to repeal former laws, it follows as a consequence, that subsequent laws
opposing it were mere nullities. These opinions were cited the other day
by a gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. SEDGWICK,) and relied on. I hope
they will have their due weight on the application now to be made of
them. So that, on the whole, it does appear to me the British creditor
had nothing more to struggle with than other creditors had, except the
well-founded prejudices imbibed by our countrymen against that nation,
which, though the laws might in some measure correct, they could never
eradicate. That these prejudices have produced irregularities in many
instances and delay of collections, I have no doubt; but from the nature
of things it is well known no foresight or protection could guard
against it. Indeed, they might have been expected, for can it be
supposed that men would stand calmly and see their families reduced to
penury and want by an unrelenting British creditor, who had aided to
impair the very means of his debtor to pay, and whose Government was by
their acts daily increasing the evils, by exciting the Indians to war
against us, whereby our citizens were borne down with burdens to defend
themselves? I say, would not such reflections, with ruin before our
eyes, produce a degree of irritation in the most calm amongst us? I owe
none of these debts, I never did, and I never will, if I can help it. I
spurn the idea of involving my country in a debt of an incalculable
amount, when millions of them never received any benefit thereby. It is
wrong, it is unjust. I again repeat, that it does appear to me, on an
impartial view of this subject, that the United States are not
chargeable with the first infraction of the Treaty of 1783, and that
therefore, we are not bound now to enter into a compact which appears to
me to be warranted neither by the principles of reciprocity nor justice.

But I undertake to say, and with some confidence too, that Great Britain
committed the first infraction of that Treaty, by withholding the posts,
and also carrying away the <DW64>s, which she had expressly stipulated
to give up; and, to my astonishment, it is now contended that the taking
away the <DW64>s was not a violation of the Treaty, as they came into
their possession by the rights of war, and being deemed property were
vested in the captors. Admit, for a moment, they were that kind of
property, and they became as much the property of their captors as any
they had possessed themselves of in the same way, what then? Certainly,
that it followed of course, they had a right to dispose of them in any
way they chose, either to emancipate them, retain them in slavery for
their own use, or return them to their original owners. Which of these
alternatives have they elected to do? [Here he read the following
sentence from the Treaty of 1783.] "And His Britannic Majesty shall,
with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction or
carrying away any <DW64>s or other property of the American inhabitants,
withdraw all his armies," &c., &c. Now, sir, was not the carrying away
the <DW64>s a violation of this article? All America once thought so. No
other construction ever entered the head of man till this Treaty
appeared; owners so construed it, and in virtue thereof made demands.
Congress, and even "_Camillus_," once thought so, and so they declared
it in the most solemn manner. And so it would be construed by all
descriptions of people, from the schoolboy to the Senator, to use the
expression of the gentleman from New York, (Mr. COOPER,) had our minds
remained in the same state they were in a dozen years ago. Sir, if there
be modern constructions of the constitution, I will venture to say there
is the same of Treaties. But another clause of the same article
justifies my construction, to wit: the leaving in all fortifications
the American artillery that may be therein. Gentlemen will hardly say
this means fortifications garrisoned by American soldiery; this would be
absurd, for it is pretty well known that American artillery guarded
itself better than British Treaties did. Was not this artillery, which
had fallen into the hands of the enemy, a vested property, till the
chances of war or the Treaty had made a disposal thereof? Unquestionably
it was. Were not the archives, records, deeds, &c., which had also
fallen into the hands of the enemy, their property? There can be no
doubt of it. Yet we find these things stipulated to be given up.

If, then, they chose to yield one species of property, might they not
another? But, it is said, the <DW64>s were not our property at the time
of signing the Treaty; so neither did the archives, records, &c., belong
to the States--they were the property of the enemy; but certainly the
British Minister had as much right to stipulate for the return of the
one as for the other, and he has in as explicit terms. This must have
been the understanding of the commissioners who negotiated that Treaty,
although one of them has been traced to his slumbers, the evening before
the sealing the Treaty, for a different construction. So that, in this
instance, the British have certainly committed the first infraction, by
carrying off the <DW64>s. And is it not extraordinary that,
notwithstanding this, no claim is made for them, and yet we are bound to
pay the British debts, when the very means of doing it are taken from
the debtor by the creditor? Sir, this is a serious oppression, and
though not of a very great magnitude, will nevertheless be felt in an
interesting manner, and if submitted to will be so under much
disquietude.

But the rejection of the Treaty is tremendously alarming, indeed. War,
and war's alarms, are echoed on all sides. We shall be attacked on one
side by savage barbarity; up the Mediterranean by Algerine cruelty; our
commerce prostrated, and our cities laid under contribution by the
British. In short, the dogs of war let loose on us, and America, once
happy America, will become the scene of bloodshed and desolation. Great
God! What man is there here that can be wicked enough to involve his
country in such incalculable miseries? Who has firmness enough to meet
so foul a deed? Particularly when we reflect on the dreadful act we are
about to do, that will produce such scenes of horror and devastation!
namely, refuse to accept a bargain derogatory to our national honor!
This, sir, is to produce the dreadful catastrophe. But the measure of
woe is not yet filled. There will be disunion; and American citizens
will become American enemies, imbruing their hands in each other's
blood. Civil wars will rend our happy country. Heavens! What a shock to
suffering humanity here will be! And all about some commercial
regulations and political differences with a foreign nation, who, I
believe, in principle, is our inveterate enemy.

Mr. Chairman, I am one who, though I have but little confidence in the
British Government, yet I cannot believe that she, or any other nation
on earth, is so arrogant, and lost to every principle of humanity, as to
go into such dreadful excesses, because we will not enter into a
contract that will suit her interest. I fear war as much as any man,
when a pretext is given; but can it be seriously said a rejection of
this Treaty is a cause of war? I cannot believe that such can possibly
be the event.

As to disunion, it is idle to talk of it; for I do believe if, instead
of a minority of this House, every man in it were to return home full of
spleen and disappointment, and were to use every exertion, every
artifice in their power, to bring about a disunion, they would fail in
so traitorous an attempt. The people, sir, would scoff them, would turn
them out of office, and place therein more deserving characters.

As then, Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe that war or disunion will be the
result of a rejection of the Treaty, and as I think it is one from which
we ought to withhold our assent, I must give it my negative. And if, in
this, time shall prove me wrong, I shall lament the error with the
greatest sincerity, but I shall have the pleasing consolation to know it
was an error of the head, and not of the heart.

When Mr. PRESTON had taken his seat--

Mr. AMES rose, and addressed the Chair as follows:

Mr. Chairman: I entertain the hope, perhaps a rash one, that my strength
will hold me out to speak a few minutes.

In my judgment, a right decision will depend more on the temper and
manner with which we may prevail on ourselves to contemplate the
subject, than upon the development of any profound political principles,
or any remarkable skill in the application of them. If we should succeed
to neutralize our inclinations, we should find less difficulty than we
have to apprehend in surmounting all our objections.

The suggestion, a few days ago, that the House manifested symptoms of
heat and irritation, was made and retorted as if the charge ought to
create surprise, and would convey reproach. Let us be more just to
ourselves, and to the occasion. Let us not affect to deny the existence
and the intrusion of some portion of prejudice and feeling into the
debate, when, from the very structure of our nature, we ought to
anticipate the circumstance as a probability, and when we are admonished
by the evidence of our senses that it is a fact.

How can we make professions for ourselves, and offer exhortations to the
House, that no influence should be felt but that of duty, and no guide
respected but that of the understanding, while the peal to rally every
passion of man is continually ringing in our ears.

Our understandings have been addressed, it is true, and with ability and
effect; but, I demand, has any corner of the heart been left unexplored?
It has been ransacked to find auxiliary arguments, and when that
attempt failed, to awaken the sensibilities that would require none.
Every prejudice and feeling have been summoned to listen to some
particular style of address; and yet we seem to believe, and to consider
a doubt as an affront, that we are strangers to any influence but that
of unbiased reason.

It would be strange that a subject which has roused in turn all the
passions of the country, should be discussed without the interference of
any of our own. We are men, and, therefore, not exempt from those
passions; as citizens and Representatives, we feel the interest that
must excite them. The hazard of great interests cannot fail to agitate
strong passions: we are not disinterested, it is impossible we should be
dispassionate. The warmth of such feelings may becloud the judgment,
and, for a time, pervert the understanding; but the public sensibility
and our own, has sharpened the spirit of inquiry, and given an animation
to the debate. The public attention has been quickened to mark the
progress of the discussion, and its judgment, often hasty and erroneous
on first impressions, has become solid and enlightened at last. Our
result will, I hope, on that account, be the safer and more mature, as
well as more accordant with that of the nation. The only constant agents
in political affairs are the passions of men--shall we complain of our
nature? Shall we say that man ought to have been made otherwise? It is
right already, because He, from whom we derive our nature, ordained it
so; and because thus made, and thus acting, the cause of truth and the
public good is the more surely promoted.

But an attempt has been made to produce an influence of a nature more
stubborn and more unfriendly to truth. It is very unfairly pretended
that the constitutional right of this House is at stake, and to be
asserted and preserved only by a vote in the negative. We hear it said
that this is a struggle for liberty, a manly resistance against the
design to nullify this assembly, and to make it a cypher in the
Government. That the PRESIDENT and Senate, the numerous meetings in the
cities, and the influence of the general alarm of the country, are the
agents and instruments of a scheme of coercion and terror, to force the
Treaty down our throats, though we loathe it, and in spite of the
clearest convictions of duty and conscience.

It is necessary to pause here and inquire, whether suggestions of this
kind be not unfair in their very texture and fabric, and pernicious in
all their influences? They oppose an obstacle in the path of inquiry,
not simply discouraging, but absolutely insurmountable. They will not
yield to argument; for, as they were not reasoned up, they cannot be
reasoned down. They are higher than a Chinese wall in truth's way, and
built of materials that are indestructible. While this remains, it is in
vain to argue; it is in vain to say to this mountain, be thou cast into
the sea. For, I ask of the men of knowledge of the world, whether they
would not hold him for a blockhead that should hope to prevail in an
argument whose scope and object it is to mortify the self-love of the
expected proselyte? I ask, further, when such attempts have been made,
have they not failed of success? The indignant heart repels a conviction
that is believed to debase it.

The self-love of an individual is not warmer in its sense, or more
constant in its action, than what is called in French, _l'esprit de
corps_, or the self-love of an assembly; that jealous affection which a
body of men is always found to bear towards its own prerogatives and
power. I will not condemn this passion. Why should we urge an unmeaning
censure, or yield to groundless fears that truth and duty will be
abandoned, because men in a public assembly are still men, and feel that
spirit of corps which is one of the laws of their nature? Still less
should we despond or complain, if we reflect that this very spirit is a
guardian instinct that watches over the life of this assembly. It
cherishes the principle of self-preservation; and, without its
existence, and its existence with all the strength we see it possess,
the privileges of the Representatives of the people, and immediately the
liberties of the people, would not be guarded, as they are, with a
vigilance that never sleeps, and an unrelaxing constancy and courage.

If the consequences, most unfairly attributed to the vote in the
affirmative, were not chimerical, and worse, for they are deceptive, I
should think it a reproach to be found even moderate in my zeal to
assert the constitutional powers of this assembly; and, whenever they
shall be in real danger, the present occasion affords proof that there
will be no want of advocates and champions.

Indeed, so prompt are these feelings, and when once roused, so difficult
to pacify, that, if we could prove the alarm was groundless, the
prejudice against the appropriations may remain on the mind, and it may
even pass for an act of prudence and duty to negative a measure which
was lately believed by ourselves, and may hereafter be misconceived by
others, to encroach upon the powers of the House. Principles that bear a
remote affinity with usurpation on those powers will be rejected, not
merely as errors, but as wrongs. Our sensibilities will shrink from a
post where it is possible they may be wounded, and be inflamed by the
slightest suspicion of an assault.

While these prepossessions remain, all argument is useless; it may be
heard with the ceremony of attention, and lavish its own resources, and
the patience it wearies, to no manner of purpose. The ears may be open,
but the mind will remain locked up, and every pass to the understanding
guarded.

Unless, therefore, this jealous and repulsive fear for the rights of the
House can be allayed, I will not ask a hearing.

I cannot press this topic too far--I cannot address myself with too much
emphasis to the magnanimity and candor of those who sit here, to
suspect their own feelings, and while they do, to examine the grounds of
their alarm. I repeat it, we must conquer our persuasion, that this body
has an interest in one side of the question more than the other, before
we attempt to surmount our objections. On most subjects, and solemn ones
too, perhaps in the most solemn of all, we form our creed more from
inclination than evidence.

Let me expostulate with gentlemen to admit, if it be only by way of
supposition and for a moment, that it is barely possible they have
yielded too suddenly to their alarms for the powers of this House; that
the addresses which have been made with such variety of forms, and with
so great dexterity in some of them, to all that is prejudice and passion
in the heart, are either the effects or the instruments of artifice and
deception, and then let them see the subject once more in its singleness
and simplicity.

It will be impossible, on taking a fair review of the subject, to
justify the passionate appeals that have been made to us to struggle for
our liberties and rights, and the solemn exhortation to reject the
proposition, said to be concealed in that on your table, to surrender
them for ever. In spite of this mock solemnity, I demand, if the House
will not concur in the measure to execute the Treaty, what other course
shall we take? How many ways of proceeding lie open before us?

In the nature of things there are but three--we are either to make the
Treaty--to observe it--or break it. It would be absurd to say we will do
neither. If I may repeat a phrase, already so much abused, we are under
coercion to do one of them, and we have no power, by the exercise of our
discretion, to prevent the consequences of a choice.

By refusing to act, we choose. The Treaty will be broken, and fall to
the ground. Where is the fitness, then, of replying to those who urge
upon this House the topics of duty and policy, that they attempt to
force the Treaty down, and to compel this assembly to renounce its
discretion, and to degrade itself to the rank of a blind and passive
instrument in the hands of the Treaty-making power? In case we reject
the appropriation, we do not secure any greater liberty of action, we
gain no safer shelter than before, from the consequences of the
decision. Indeed, they are not to be evaded. It is neither just nor
manly to complain that the Treaty-making power has produced this
coercion to act. It is not the art or the despotism of that power, it is
the nature of things that compels. Shall we, dreading to become the
blind instruments of power, yield ourselves the blinder dupes of mere
sounds of imposture? Yet that word, that empty word, coercion, has given
scope to an eloquence that, one would imagine, could not be tired, and
did not choose to be quieted.

Let us examine still more in detail the alternatives that are before us,
and we shall scarcely fail to see, in still stronger lights, the
futility of our apprehensions for the power and liberty of the House.

If, as some have suggested, the thing called a Treaty is incomplete, if
it has no binding force or obligation, the first question is, Will this
House complete the instrument, and by concurring, impart to it that
force which it wants?

The doctrine has been avowed, that the Treaty, though formally ratified
by the Executive power of both nations, though published as a law for
our own, by the PRESIDENT's Proclamation, is still a mere proposition
submitted to this assembly no way distinguishable in point of authority
or obligation from a motion for leave to bring in a bill, or any other
original act of ordinary legislation. This doctrine, so novel in our
country, yet so dear to many, precisely for the reason that, in the
contention of power, victory is always dear, is obviously repugnant to
the very terms, as well as the fair interpretation of our own
resolutions, (Mr. BLOUNT's.) We declare that the Treaty-making power is
exclusively vested in the PRESIDENT and Senate, and not in this House.
Need I say that we fly in the face of that resolution when we pretend
that the acts of that power are not valid until we have concurred in
them? It would be nonsense, or worse, to use the language of the most
glaring contradiction and to claim a share in a power which we, at the
same time, disclaim as exclusively vested in other departments.

What can be more strange than to say, that the compacts of the PRESIDENT
and Senate with foreign nations are Treaties, without our agency, and
yet those compacts want all power and obligation until they are
sanctioned by our concurrence? It is not my design in this place, if at
all, to go into the discussion of this part of the subject. I will, at
least for the present, take it for granted that this monstrous opinion
stands in little need of remark, and, if it does, lies almost out of the
reach of refutation.

But, say those who hide the absurdity under the cover of ambiguous
phrases, have we no discretion? And, if we have, are we not to make use
of it in judging of the expediency or inexpediency of the Treaty? Our
resolution claims that privilege, and we cannot surrender it without
equal inconsistency and breach of duty.

If there be any inconsistency in the case, it lies, not in making
appropriations for the Treaty, but in the resolution itself, (Mr.
BLOUNT's.) Let us examine it more nearly. A Treaty is a bargain between
nations binding in good faith; and what makes a bargain? The assent of
the contracting parties. We allow that the Treaty power is not in this
House; this House has no share in contracting, and is not a party; of
consequence, the PRESIDENT and Senate alone may make a Treaty that is
binding in good faith. We claim, however, say the gentlemen, a right to
judge of the expediency of Treaties--that is the constitutional province
of our discretion. Be it so--what follows? Treaties when adjudged by us
to be inexpedient, fall to the ground, and the public faith is not hurt.
This, incredible and extravagant as it may seem, is asserted. The amount
of it, in plainer language, is this--the PRESIDENT and Senate are to
make national bargains, and this House has nothing to do in making them.
But bad bargains do not bind this House, and, of inevitable consequence,
do not bind the nation. When a national bargain, called a Treaty, is
made, its binding force does not depend upon the making, but upon our
opinion that it is good. As our opinion on the matter can be known and
declared only by ourselves, when sitting in our Legislative capacity,
the Treaty, though ratified, and, as we choose to term it, made, is hung
up in suspense, till our sense is ascertained. We condemn the bargain,
and it falls, though, as we say, our faith does not. We approve a
bargain as expedient, and it stands firm, and binds the nation. Yet,
even in this latter case, its force is plainly not derived from the
ratification by the Treaty-making power, but from our approbation. Who
will trace these inferences, and pretend that we may have no share,
according to the argument, in the Treaty-making power? These opinions,
nevertheless, have been advocated with infinite zeal and perseverance.
Is it possible that any man can be hardy enough to avow them, and their
ridiculous consequences?

Let me hasten to suppose the Treaty is considered as already made, and
then the alternative is fairly presented to the mind, whether we will
observe the Treaty, or break it. This, in fact, is the naked question.

If we choose to observe it with good faith, our course is obvious.
Whatever is stipulated to be done by the nation, must be complied with.
Our agency, if it should be requisite, cannot be properly refused. And I
do not see why it is not as obligatory a rule of conduct for the
Legislature as for the Courts of Law.

I cannot lose this opportunity to remark, that the coercion, so much
dreaded and declaimed against, appears at length to be no more than the
authority of principles, the despotism of duty. Gentlemen complain that
we are forced to act in this way, we are forced to swallow the Treaty.
It is very true, unless we claim the liberty of abuse, the right to act
as we ought not. There is but one way open for us, the laws of morality
and good faith have fenced up every other. What sort of liberty is that
which we presume to exercise against the authority of those laws! It is
for tyrants to complain that principles are restraints, and that they
have no liberty so long as their despotism has limits.

The consequences of refusing to make provision for the Treaty are not
all to be foreseen. By rejecting, vast interests are committed to the
sport of the winds, chance becomes the arbiter of events, and it is
forbidden to human foresight to count their number, or measure their
extent. Before we resolve to leap into this abyss, so dark and so
profound, it becomes us to pause and reflect upon such of the dangers
as are obvious and inevitable. If this assembly should be wrought into a
temper to defy these consequences, it is vain, it is deceptive, to
pretend that we can escape them. It is worse than weakness to say, that
as to public faith our vote has already settled the question. Another
tribunal than our own is already erected. The public opinion, not merely
of our own country, but of the enlightened world, will pronounce
judgment that we cannot resist, that we dare not even affect to despise.

Well may I urge it to men who know the worth of character, that it is no
trivial calamity to have it contested. Refusing to do what the Treaty
stipulates shall be done, opens the controversy. Even if we should stand
justified at last, a character that is vindicated is something worse
than it stood before, unquestioned and unquestionable. Like the
plaintiff in an action of slander, we recover a reputation disfigured by
invective, and even tarnished by too much handling. In the combat for
the honor of the nation, it may receive some wounds, which, though they
should heal, will leave some scars. I need not say, for surely the
feelings of every bosom have anticipated, that we cannot guard this
sense of national honor, this ever-living fire, which alone keeps
patriotism warm in the heart, with a sensibility too vigilant and
jealous. If, by executing the Treaty, there is no possibility of
dishonor, and if by rejecting there is some foundation for doubt and for
reproach, it is not for me to measure, it is for your own feelings to
estimate the vast distance that divides the one side of the alternative
from the other. If, therefore, we should enter on the examination of the
question of duty and obligation with some feelings of prepossession, I
do not hesitate to say, they are such as we ought to have; it is an
after inquiry to determine whether they are such as ought finally to be
resisted.

To expatiate on the value of public faith, may pass with some men for
declamation; to such men I have nothing to say. To others I will urge,
can any circumstance mark upon a people more turpitude and debasement?
Can any thing tend more to make men think themselves mean, or degrade to
a lower point their estimation of virtue and their standard of action?
It would not merely demoralize mankind, it tends to break all the
ligaments of society, to dissolve that mysterious charm which attracts
individuals to the nation, and to inspire in its stead a repulsive sense
of shame and disgust.

What is patriotism? Is it a narrow affection for the spot where a man
was born? Are the very clods where we tread entitled to this ardent
preference because they are greener? No, sir; this is not the character
of the virtue, and it soars higher for its object. It is an extended
self-love, mingling with all the enjoyments of life, and twisting itself
with the minutest filaments of the heart. It is thus we obey the laws of
society, because they are the laws of virtue. In their authority we see
not the array of force and terror, but the venerable image of our
country's honor. Every good citizen makes that honor his own, and
cherishes it not only as precious but as sacred. He is willing to risk
his life in its defence, and is conscious that he gains protection while
he gives it. For what rights of a citizen will be deemed inviolable when
a State renounces the principles that constitute their security? Or, if
his life should not be invaded, what would its enjoyments be in a
country odious to the eyes of strangers and dishonored in his own? Could
he look with affection and veneration to such a country as his parent?
The sense of having one would die within him; he would blush for his
patriotism, if he retained any, and justly, for it would be a vice. He
would be a banished man in his native land.

I see no exception to the respect that is paid among nations to the law
of good faith. If there are cases in this enlightened period when it is
violated, there are none when it is decried. It is the philosophy of
politics--the religion of governments. It is observed by barbarians that
a whiff of tobacco-smoke or a string of beads gives not merely binding
force, but sanctity, to Treaties. Even in Algiers, a truce may be bought
for money, but when ratified, even Algiers is too wise or too just to
disown and annul its obligation. Thus, we see neither the ignorance of
savages, nor the principles of an association for piracy and rapine,
permit a nation to despise its engagements. If, sir, there could be a
resurrection from the foot of the gallows; if the victims of justice
could live again, collect together, and form a society, they would,
however loth, soon find themselves obliged to make justice--that justice
under which they fell--the fundamental law of their State. They would
perceive it was their interest to make others respect, and they would
therefore soon pay some respect themselves to the obligations of good
faith.

The refusal of the posts (inevitable, if we reject the Treaty) is a
measure too decisive in its nature to be neutral in its consequences.
From great causes we are to look for great effects. A plain and obvious
one will be, the price of the Western lands will fall. Settlers will not
choose to fix their habitation on a field of battle. Those who talk so
much of the interests of the United States, should calculate how deeply
it will be affected by rejecting the Treaty--how vast a tract of wild
land will almost cease to be property. This loss, let it be observed,
will fall upon a fund expressly devoted to sink the National Debt. What
then are we called upon to do? However the form of the vote and the
protestations of many may disguise the proceeding, our resolution is in
substance (and it deserves to wear the title of a resolution) to prevent
the sale of the Western lands and the discharge of the public debt.

Will the tendency to Indian hostilities be contrasted by any one?
Experience gives the answer. The frontiers were scourged with war till
the negotiation with Britain was far advanced, and then the state of
hostility ceased. Perhaps the public agents of both nations are innocent
of fomenting the Indian war, and perhaps they are not. We ought not,
however, to expect that neighboring nations, highly irritated against
each other, will neglect the friendship of the savages. The traders will
gain an influence, and will abuse it; and who is ignorant that their
passions are easily raised, and hardly restrained from violence. Their
situation will oblige them to choose between this country and Great
Britain, in case the Treaty should be rejected. They will not be our
friends, and at the same time the friends of our enemies.

But am I reduced to the necessity of proving this point? Certainly the
very men who charged the Indian war on the detention of the posts will
call for no other proof than the recital of their own speeches. It is
remembered with what emphasis--with what acrimony--they expatiated on
the burden of taxes, and the drain of blood and treasure into the
Western country, in consequence of Britain's holding the posts. "Until
the posts are restored," they exclaimed, "the Treasury and the frontiers
must bleed."

If any, against all these proofs, should maintain that the peace with
the Indians will be stable without the posts, to them I will urge
another reply. From arguments calculated to produce conviction, I will
appeal directly to the hearts of those who hear me, and ask whether it
is not already planted there? I resort especially to the convictions of
the Western gentlemen, whether, supposing no posts and no Treaty, the
settlers will remain in security? Can they take it upon them to say that
an Indian peace, under these circumstances, will prove firm. No, sir; it
will not be peace, but a sword; it will be no better than a lure to draw
victims within the reach of the tomahawk.

On this theme, my emotions are unutterable. If I could find words for
them--if my powers bore any proportion to my zeal--I would swell my
voice to such a note of remonstrance it should reach every log-house
beyond the mountains. I would say to the inhabitants, Wake from your
false security! Your cruel dangers--your more cruel apprehensions--are
soon to be renewed; the wounds, yet unhealed, are to be torn open again.
In the day-time, your path through the woods will be ambushed; the
darkness of midnight will glitter with the blaze of your dwellings. You
are a father: the blood of your sons shall fatten your corn-field! You
are a mother: the war-whoop shall wake the sleep of the cradle!

On this subject you need not suspect any deception on your feelings. It
is a spectacle of horror which cannot be overdrawn. If you have nature
in your hearts, it will speak a language compared with which all I have
said or can say will be poor and frigid.

Will it be whispered that the Treaty has made me a new champion for the
protection of the frontiers? It is known that my voice, as well as my
vote, have been uniformly given in conformity with the ideas I have
expressed. Protection is the right of the frontier: it is our duty to
give it.

Who will accuse me of wandering out of the subject? Who will say that I
exaggerate the tendencies of our measures? Will any one answer by a
sneer, that all this is idle preaching? Will any one deny that we are
bound--and I would hope to good purpose--by the most solemn sanctions of
duty for the vote we give? Are despots alone to be reproached for
unfeeling indifference to the tears and blood of their subjects? Are
Republicans irresponsible? Have the principles on which you ground the
reproach upon Cabinets and Kings no practical influence--no binding
force? Are they merely themes of idle declamation, introduced to
decorate the morality of a newspaper essay, or to furnish pretty topics
of harangue from the windows of that State-house? I trust it is neither
too presumptuous, nor too late to ask, can you put the dearest interest
of society at risk without guilt, and without remorse?

It is vain to offer as an excuse, that public men are not to be
reproached for the evils that may happen to ensue from their measures.
This is very true, where they are unforeseen or inevitable. Those I have
depicted are not unforeseen; they are so far from inevitable, we are
going to bring them into being by our vote. We choose the consequences,
and become as justly answerable for them as for the measure that we know
will produce them.

By rejecting the posts, we light the savage fires--we bind the victims.
This day we undertake to render account to the widows and orphans whom
our decision will make; to the wretches that will be roasted at the
stake; to our country; and I do not deem it too serious to say, to
conscience, and to God--we are answerable; and if duty be any thing more
than a word of imposture, if conscience be not a bugbear, we are
preparing to make ourselves as wretched as our country.

There is no mistake in this case; there can be none. Experience has
already been the prophet of events, and the cries of our future victims
have already reached us. The Western inhabitants are not a silent and
uncomplaining sacrifice. The voice of humanity issues from the shade of
their wilderness. It exclaims that while one hand is held up to reject
this Treaty, the other grasps a tomahawk. It summons our imagination to
the scenes that will open. It is no great effort of the imagination to
conceive, that events so near are already begun. I can fancy that I
listen to the yells of savage vengeance, and the shrieks of torture.
Already they seem to sigh in the west wind; already they mingle with
every echo from the mountains.

Are the posts to remain for ever in the possession of Great Britain? Let
those who reject them, when the Treaty offers them to our hands, say,
if they choose, they are of no importance. If they are, will they take
them by force? The argument I am urging would then come to a point. To
use force, is war. To talk of Treaty again, is too absurd. Posts and
redress must come from voluntary good will, Treaty, or war.

Such a state of things will exist, if we should long avoid war, as will
be worse than war. Peace without security, accumulation of injury
without redress, or the hope of it, resentment against the aggressor,
contempt for ourselves, intestine discord and anarchy. Worse than this
need not be apprehended, for if worse could happen, anarchy would bring
it. Is this the peace gentlemen undertake, with such fearless
confidence, to maintain? Is this the station of American dignity, which
the high-spirited champions of our national independence and honor could
endure; nay, which they are anxious and almost violent to seize for the
country? What is there in the Treaty that could humble us so low? Are
they the men to swallow their resentments, who so lately were choking
with them? If in the case contemplated by them, it should be peace, I do
not hesitate to declare it ought not to be peace.

Let me cheer the mind, weary no doubt and ready to respond on this
prospect, by presenting another, which it is yet in our power to
realize. Is it possible for a real American to look at the prosperity of
this country without some desire for its continuance, without some
respect for the measures which, many will say, produced, and all will
confess, have preserved it? Will he not feel some dread that a change of
system will reverse the scene? The well-grounded fears of our citizens
in 1794 were removed by the Treaty, but are not forgotten. Then they
deemed war nearly inevitable, and would not this adjustment have been
considered at that day as a happy escape from the calamity? The great
interest, and the general desire of our people, was, to enjoy the
advantages of neutrality. This instrument, however misrepresented,
affords America that inestimable security. The causes of our disputes
are either cut up by the roots, or referred to a new negotiation, after
the end of the European war. This was gaining every thing, because it
confirmed our neutrality, by which our citizens are gaining every thing.
This alone would justify the engagements of the Government. For, when
the fiery vapors of the war lowered in the skirts of our horizon, all
our wishes were concentered in this one, that we might escape the
desolation of the storm. This Treaty, like a rainbow on the edge of the
cloud, marked to our eyes the space where it was raging, and afforded at
the same time the sure prognostic of fair weather. If we reject it, the
vivid colors will grow pale; it will be a baleful meteor, portending
tempest and war.

Let us not hesitate, then, to agree to the appropriation to carry it
into faithful execution. Thus we shall save the faith of our nation,
secure its peace, and diffuse the spirit of confidence and enterprise
that will augment its prosperity. The progress of wealth and improvement
is wonderful, and, some will think, too rapid. The field for exertion is
fruitful and vast, and, if peace and good government should be
preserved, the acquisitions of our citizens are not so pleasing as the
proofs of their industry, as the instruments of their future success.
The rewards of exertion go to augment its power. Profit is every hour
becoming capital. The vast crop of our neutrality is all seed wheat, and
is sown again to swell, almost beyond calculation, the future harvest of
prosperity: and in this progress, what seems to be fiction, is found to
fall short of experience.


FRIDAY, April 29.

_Execution of British Treaty._

Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) declared that he did by no means intend to
follow the gentlemen who had conceived it advisable to enter into a
discussion of the merits of the Treaty, article by article.

To those, he said, who regarded this second Treaty with Great Britain
with disagreeable sensations--to those who believed that it did not
contain in it such terms as the United States had reason to expect, and
even a right to demand--to all those whose indignation had been excited
at the unwarrantable outrages committed by that nation upon the rights
of our neutral powers, who had seen their high-handed acts with
astonishment, and the whole conduct of their administration towards this
country with abhorrence--to those whose attachment for the French, nobly
struggling for their liberties, was sincere, and who ardently wished
that their revolution might terminate in the establishment of a good and
stable government:--to all of this description, he could, with
propriety, address himself, and say, that he harmonized with them in
opinion, and that his feelings were in perfect unison with theirs. But
if, he said, there should be found in that assembly one member, whose
affection for any other nation exceeded that which he entertained for
this, whose Representative he was--if there could even be found a single
man whose hatred to any other country was greater than his love for
America--him, he should consider as his enemy, hostile to the interests
of the people who sent him there, utterly unqualified to judge rightly
of their concerns, and a betrayer of the trust reposed in him. But, Mr.
D. said, he could not believe it possible, that there were any such
amongst them, and he was convinced that every one must see and feel the
necessity of divesting himself of all his hatred, all his prejudices,
and even all attachments that were in the least degree inconsistent with
an unbiased deliberation and decision. The good and the prosperity of
the people of the United States ought to be the primary object. It was
that alone which their Representatives were delegated and commissioned
more immediately to promote, and who would deny that it was intimately
connected with, and involved in the vote they were about to give?

That the defects of this instrument of compact with Britain greatly
exceeded its merits, was a truth which was strongly impressed upon his
mind, long before he had heard the reasoning of the gentleman from
Virginia, (Mr. MADISON,) who had opened the debate. Although that
gentleman had sketched its deformities in strong colors, and had in some
instances, perhaps, exaggerated them; yet, Mr. D. said, he should not
have contested the justice of the picture he had exhibited, if he had,
at the same time, presented to their view, in true and faithful
coloring, the other side of it also. Yet, this was surely necessary in
order to enable them to form a right judgment. That member had declared
that the House were now called upon to approve the Treaty, but Mr. D.
was far from believing such a declaration warranted by the language or
nature of the propositions on the table, to which all might assent,
without pledging themselves to be the approvers of the instrument
itself.

So firmly convinced was he of this, that, if he could subscribe to the
truth and force of every objection that had been urged by that
gentleman, he should, nevertheless, by no means conclude with him, that
the House ought to withhold the appropriations, but, on the contrary,
they ought to grant them. This would be his course of conduct, because
difficulties and inconveniences alone presented themselves to their view
and choice, and he thought he should act unfaithfully, if he endeavored
to shun those on the one side only, without regarding the wide scene of
dangers into which he might plunge his country on the other. What would
be thought of that man, who, because the road he was travelling proved
to be an uneven and rough one, should considerately betake himself to an
opposite path without exploring the precipice that awaited him there? In
the individual it would be deemed an evidence of madness, and such
heedless conduct in that House could not escape the imputation of
blindness. Under impressions of this sort, as to the importance of the
vote he was about to give, he conceived himself bound to extend his
views beyond the mere intrinsic merits of the Treaty, and to estimate
the evils which must flow from a rejection of it. What, he asked, were
these? Would a foreign war, and the dissolution of the Government be the
certain fruits of a rejection, as had been represented by some gentlemen
whose opinions he respected? These would certainly be amongst the most
dreadful calamities which could befall a country, and, especially, one
made up of Confederacies like this; and although he did not think them
probable, yet, they must be admitted to be possible, and as such,
justify those who allow them to influence their minds. But he appealed
to those gentlemen who seemed to treat such apprehensions as perfectly
chimerical, whether there might not be others, which, though less
alarming than a foreign war and dissolution of the Union, would yet
exceed--nay, very far exceed, those which are to follow the operation of
the Treaty. The first fruit of a rejection would be, Mr. D. said, a
claim from the merchants who had suffered by spoliations, to be fully
indemnified from the Treasury. He called upon the members who, like
himself, represented agricultural States; and he called, also, upon
those who represented the landed and agricultural interests in the
commercial States, to declare, whether they were prepared to burden
their constituents with a tax of five millions of dollars to be thus
applied?

He did not fear that he should be charged, as others had been, with
sounding a false alarm. A proposition to that effect had already been
laid on the table, and, what was not a little singular, it was founded
on a presumption that the Treaty was to be annulled by a vote of the
House, and was to derive its support from that very circumstance. Mr. D.
thought it his duty to remind gentlemen of the doctrine uttered by the
member from New York, (Mr. LIVINGSTON,) when he moved it, as well as of
the extent of the principle contained in it. It is an established
principle, said the mover, that protection is equally due to the person
and property of all citizens, and that where the Government fails to
protect, it is bound to indemnify for all the losses that may be
sustained by every individual in consequence of such failure. They were,
therefore, Mr. D. said, if they rejected the Treaty, to be immediately
called upon to recognize a principle which would not only pledge them to
tax their fellow-citizens for the five millions, at which the British
spoliations were estimated, but, also, to make compensation for every
depredation that might hereafter be made upon their trade; nay, more,
for every injury that any American citizen might suffer through want of
protection. He was aware that he might be told that the resolution
embraced only merchants who had suffered, but he contended that the
principle, when established, must extend to all; for he challenged any
gentleman to show what better title they who inhabited the frontier next
the sea, had to claim Governmental protection and indemnification, than
they who inhabited a frontier on the land side? If, therefore, they were
determined to compensate from the Treasury the merchant for his
plundered cargo, they were equally bound to pay the frontier settler for
his stolen horse; and there would be no bounds to such claims, or means
to satisfy them.

It had been asked what would be the conduct of Britain, when they should
learn that the House of Representatives had refused to make
appropriations for the Treaty. He was disposed to think that they would
not consider it a cause, or make it a pretext, for the war. Having in
their hands the fur trade, the Western posts, and about five millions of
dollars, of which they had despoiled the people of these States, they
might probably sit down contented with the spoils they had made, after
this Government had, by its own act, dissolved the stipulations they had
entered into to make restitution and compensation. But what, in this
state of things, would restrain their piratical cruisers in the West
Indies? They, whether hoping that a war would be the consequence of
annulling the Treaty, or that, as the two nations were no longer under
that tie, they might again rob with impunity; and would probably seize
on American vessels wherever they could meet them, and carry them into
those ports in which corrupt Judges stood ready to condemn them.

So far as this question respected a dissolution of the present
Government, it was certainly a very delicate one. Important as the
subject under debate unquestionably was, he was free to declare it to be
his opinion that no decision, however unfavorable it might seem, could
justify, or would produce a separation of the States. He lamented that
it had been conceived or mentioned by any one, for he should, whilst he
had strength, resist such an event as the most fatal that could befall
his country, and would cling to the Union as the rock of their political
salvation. But he would not say, nor would any one else seriously say,
that there was no room to apprehend that a rejection might produce
suspicions, jealousies, distrusts, and discord between the one part of
the Union and the other, and such a general fermentation in the public
mind as never before prevailed.

He could not here refrain from making a serious appeal to the candor and
good sense of the gentleman from Virginia. Having served with him many
years in public life--in the old Congress, under the Confederation, in
the Federal Convention, and for nearly six years under the present form
of Government, he had, upon many and various occasions, witnessed the
display of his superior talents, and the efforts of his patriotism, and
derived from thence a conviction that, as at no former moment, so
neither at the present, could he appeal to those qualities in that
gentleman in vain. Mr. D. requested him to turn his attention to the
last article of the British Treaty, and particularly that part of it
which is in the words following, viz:

      "This Treaty, when the same shall have been ratified by His
      Majesty and by the President of the United States, by and
      with the advice and consent of their Senate, and the
      respective ratifications mutually exchanged, shall be
      binding and obligatory on His Majesty and on the said
      States, and shall be by them respectively executed and
      observed with punctuality and the most sincere regard to
      good faith," &c.

He called upon the gentleman from Virginia to show in what line or word
of it the PRESIDENT had exceeded his authority, or, if that was not
pretended, and he believed it was not by any one, he wished that
gentleman to reflect for a moment how it was possible to refuse
appropriations, and yet preserve inviolate the faith of this country, so
solemnly pledged in that article.

Mr. D. concluded with observing that, although he was not pleased with
many parts of the Treaty--although he had never felt any strong
predilection for an intimate connection with Britain--although he had
never seen their encroachments on the rights, nor their depredations
upon the property of American citizens with an indulgent eye, or in the
temper of tame submission, and although he had long ceased to entertain
any respect for the negotiator, yet he should vote for the resolution,
because he loved his country, and to that love, would sacrifice every
resentment, every prejudice, every personal consideration. He should
vote to carry the Treaty into effect with good faith, because he
sincerely believed that the interests of his fellow-citizens would be
much more promoted by that, than by the opposite line of conduct.

The question was then put on the resolution, which is in substance as
follows:

_Resolved_, That it is expedient to make the necessary appropriations
for carrying the Treaty with Great Britain into effect.

The House divided, forty-nine for the resolution, forty-nine against it.

It remained for the Chairman, Mr. MUHLENBERG, to decide.

He said, he did not feel satisfied with the resolution as it now stood;
he should, however, vote for it, that it might go to the House, and
there be modified.

The resolution was consequently agreed to, and reported to the House.

[The following statement will show the true sense of the House as to the
expediency of carrying the British Treaty into effect:

Forty-nine voted for this expediency.

Forty-nine against it.

The Chairman, Mr. MUHLENBERG, to give an opportunity further to consider
the resolution, voted for it.

Mr. PATTON from Delaware was ill, and was necessarily absent. It is,
however, well understood, that he is opposed to the Treaty.

Mr. VARNUM was accidentally absent. He is no friend to the Treaty.

Messrs. FREEMAN, SHERBURNE, and VAN CORTLANDT are absent on leave.

Mr. DUVALL has resigned, and his successor has not yet taken his seat.

From which it is evident that there is an actual majority of the House
against the expediency of carrying the Treaty into execution.]


SATURDAY, April 30.

_Execution of British Treaty._

The House then took up the resolution yesterday passed in a Committee of
the Whole, for carrying into effect the Treaty lately negotiated with
Great Britain: when

Mr. DEARBORN said, as it appeared that a majority of that House was in
favor of carrying into effect the British Treaty, notwithstanding
several of those gentlemen who had declared their intention of voting
for it, had declared they thought it a bad Treaty, and as he wished to
see the opinion the House entertained of the Treaty entered upon their
journals, he took the liberty of proposing an amendment to the
resolution in the following words:

"_Resolved_, That, although in the opinion of this House the Treaty is
highly objectionable, and may prove injurious to the United States, yet,
considering all the circumstances relating thereto, and particularly,
that the last eighteen articles are to continue in force only during the
present war, and two years thereafter, and confiding also in the
efficacy of measures that may be taken for bringing about a
discontinuance of the violations committed on our neutral rights, in
regard to our vessels and seamen, therefore, &c."

Mr. COIT hoped the yeas and nays would be taken upon the question; which
was agreed to.

Mr. GOODHUE hoped the House would not agree to the resolution; he, for
one, would never agree to it.

Mr. SWANWICK hoped the amendment would be agreed to; for whatever some
gentlemen's opinion might be with respect to the propriety of carrying
the Treaty into effect, very few thought it a good Treaty. An amendment,
therefore, declaring the motives which actuated that House in passing
the resolution for carrying the Treaty into effect was very desirable;
it would induce some gentlemen to vote for it, who would otherwise vote
against it, and it ought not to excite objection. He appealed to the
recollection of gentlemen, the arguments which had been used to enforce
the necessity of the appropriations, which laid great stress upon the
shortness of time which the most objectionable part of the Treaty was to
be in force. He hoped, therefore, these arguments would not be objected
to in the form of a resolution.

Mr. HILLHOUSE said, when he prepared the resolution on the table, he
thought he had done it in such general terms that every gentleman might
vote for it, without expressing a sentiment contrary to what he
entertained respecting the Treaty. The amendment proposed, he thought
very objectionable. It appeared as if it was intended to force gentlemen
to vote against carrying the Treaty into effect rather than vote for the
Treaty. For his own part, he could not vote for it, as it would be in
direct contradiction to the sentiments which he had before expressed. He
thought candor itself could not expect gentlemen who approved of the
Treaty to vote for the amendment. It was also a rule to avoid expressing
particular sentiments in resolutions of this kind. One part of the
proposition, if it was brought forward separately, would be assented to
generally, respecting the confidence placed in the PRESIDENT, with
respect to future spoliations and impressments of men. In this
proposition, it was said, the Treaty was injurious; he did not believe
it was so. He believed it would be beneficial to the United States. It
would not only be agreeing to an opinion which was contrary to the
sentiments of gentlemen, but it would be passing a censure on the other
branches of Government. Gentlemen were not required to say it was a good
Treaty, and he hoped no one would be forced to say it was a bad one.

[The SPEAKER informed the House that it was then twelve o'clock, and as
they had yesterday ordered that there should be a call of the House
to-day at that hour, he should direct the Clerk to make the call. It was
accordingly done. Messrs. BRENT, HARPER, and PATTON were absent. The two
former came to the House soon after the call, and, on making apologies,
were excused. Mr. PATTON was indisposed.]

Mr. GREGG said he should vote for the resolution in its present state.
He did so, not because he thought the Treaty a good one, but because he
believed the interest of the United States would be promoted by making
the necessary appropriations, and because he was apprehensive worse
consequences might arise from defeating it than from carrying it into
effect.

Mr. MOORE considered himself as called upon to choose between two evils.
He considered the Treaty to be bad. On the other hand, he was
apprehensive that evils might arise, if it was not carried into effect,
out of the control of that House. He had resolved not to vote for the
resolution on the table; but he felt unwilling to take upon himself the
responsibility of rejecting the Treaty, which had been sanctioned by the
PRESIDENT and Senate. In deciding upon the amendment proposed, he wished
the sense of the House to be taken; and if he considered that a single
individual would be influenced to vote against the resolution who would
otherwise have voted for it, he should wish them to be separated. It was
his opinion the Treaty was a bad one, and he believed it was the opinion
of a decided majority of that House. He wished the resolution to be so
amended that the Treaty might go into effect by a considerable majority,
as it would tend to lessen the irritation which had been raised
respecting it.

Mr. DEARBORN said, in offering the amendment which he had proposed, he
had no intention of taking any thing like an unfair advantage, or of
producing what might be thought uncandid or unfair. His own sentiments
relative to the Treaty were such as would prevent his consenting to do
any thing to carry it into effect, unless with such a provision as he
had brought forward. It appeared to him of such a nature, that he was
not sure that he could bring his mind to vote to carry it into effect at
all. He had supposed there could be nothing improper in taking the
opinion of the House relative to the thing itself. If it might be
presumed that there were but few gentlemen in that House who thought the
Treaty a good one, he, indeed, thought there were none of that opinion,
until then, though some gentlemen had praised it in their speeches, but
which he had merely considered as adding weight to their arguments, he
believed such an amendment was desirable.

As he, therefore, took it for granted that a considerable majority of
the House were of the same opinion with himself, he saw no impropriety
in having that opinion expressed. The propositions would not interfere
with any bill which might be brought in, and gentlemen would have the
discretion to vote for it or not. If a majority of the House thought
differently from him, and chose to negative the amendment, he should be
satisfied. Until he heard something further on the business, to convince
him of the impropriety of doing so, he should wish to see a decision of
the House upon the proposition as he had offered it.

Mr. HARPER said he was of the number who thought the measure of passing
the resolution on the table a very expedient one; but whilst this was
his opinion, he knew there were many, both within and without their
walls, of a different opinion. He had no objection to gentlemen's
expressing their opinions, but he wished also to be at liberty to
express his. He should, therefore, propose that the mover should form
his resolution as a preamble. This would answer the purpose of the
gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. MOORE.)

He said, when it was so formed, every one would have an opportunity of
voting for it, and, if negatived, the resolution would stand as before.
He hoped, therefore, the proposal would be agreed to.

Mr. DEARBORN said he considered his motion in the nature of a preamble;
and he had no objection to any alteration that would make it more
properly so.

Mr. KITTERA appealed to the candor of the gentleman who brought forward
the amendment, with respect to the propriety of making his proposition a
distinct one. He thought it would be extremely improper to pass a
resolution which would say, "We pass this law, though we believe it to
be a very bad one." He thought it also directly charging another branch
of the Government with improper conduct.

Mr. NICHOLAS had no objection to the amendment being inserted by way of
preamble. He urged the propriety of the opinions of members being fairly
taken on this important business.

Mr. GREGG wished to offer an amendment, as a substitute to that before
the committee. It was, in substance, as follows: "_Resolved_, That under
a consideration of existing circumstances, without reference to the
merits or demerits of the Treaty, and in confidence that measures will
be taken by the Executive to maintain our neutral rights, it is
expedient," &c.

This was declared out of order until the amendment was decided on.

Mr. VENABLE had no objection to the propositions being taken separately,
as gentlemen would be then left at liberty to vote as they pleased. He
conceived there were gentlemen who would vote for the proposition with
the amendment, who would not vote for it without it. He did not know
that any amendment would reconcile the resolution to him; for, though he
should vote for the amendment, he would not bind himself to vote for
carrying into effect the Treaty.

Mr. MURRAY said he had not spoken on the subject before. He was stating
that the PRESIDENT was armed only with reason; he was stripped of all
the symbols of power, and if the Treaty before them was carried into
effect, with such a clog as the amendment proposed, he would be
debilitated indeed. Their Executive had, in his opinion, done great
things, and what would have covered any European Minister with
untarnished laurels, by means of reason and policy; for, however
wickedly courts act, they calculate upon the force of the powers with
whom they treat. When a Minister goes to negotiate, they inquire into
the naval and military force of his country, their appropriations for
the army and navy, &c., &c. The Envoy of the United States would be a
blank upon such an occasion. What was their interest, then? It was to
give energy to their Government. Should they then pass the law in such a
manner as almost to warrant the people in resisting it? The only thing
which remained for them to do, was, not only to carry the Treaty into
effect, but to carry it into effect with good faith. The object was not
merely the posts--it was a conciliation of the differences long existing
between the two nations; and it was their duty to execute it so as to
produce the greatest advantage; whereas, if they were to agree to the
amendment proposed, so covered with odium, it would weaken the power of
the Executive, already too feeble.

Mr. S. SMITH said he had never seen any cause of gloom. He never doubted
that the members of that House would come to right conclusions. They did
right yesterday, and he was not afraid of their doing wrong to-day. In
their decision yesterday, the Chairman had doubts. He decided in favor
of the resolution, in hopes of its undergoing some modification--that
modification was now brought forward. It did not entirely please him;
but he thought it might be so amended as to please every one. He moved
that the words "and may prove injurious to the United States," be struck
out. Consented to.

Mr. MUHLENBERG said, when he gave his vote yesterday, he did it in the
hope of a modification of the resolution taking place in the House. A
modification was now brought forward, and he was ready to vote for some
such modification. Whilst he made this declaration, he must add, that he
was willing also to vote for the original resolution. He wished the
sense of the House to be taken upon the two propositions separately.

Mr. DEARBORN consented to the propositions being taken separately.

Mr. S. SMITH moved to strike out the word "highly," so as to read
_objectionable_, instead of "highly objectionable."

The sense of the House was taken, when there were 48 for the striking
out, and 48 against it. The SPEAKER gave his vote in the affirmative.

Mr. KITCHELL said, he should vote against the proposition now brought
forward, because he thought it wrong to hold up an idea which would have
a tendency to weaken the Government. He looked upon it as injurious. The
people would judge upon the Treaty from the instrument itself, and what
had been said of it. They ought never to alarm the people unnecessarily.
It was not from any fear of going to war, or any other apprehension but
what he had mentioned, which caused this opposition in him.

Mr. GALLATIN said, if the propositions could be divided, no gentleman
could reasonably object to the sense of the House being taken upon them.

Mr. PARKER said, he had not yet spoken upon this business. He would now
say, he disapproved of the amendment, and should not vote for it. He
thought the Treaty a bad one, and would not agree to vote for it by
means of any modification.

Mr. HEISTER said, he should vote for the amendment, because, if the
Treaty went into operation, he should wish the reasons which induced the
House to agree to it to appear, on the Journals. When, however, the
resolution for carrying the Treaty into effect was put, he should vote
against it.

The motion was then put on the preamble, and decided in the negative, as
follows: yeas, 49, nays 50:

      YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, David Bard,
      Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Dempsey
      Burges, Samuel J. Cabell, Gabriel Christie, John Clopton,
      Isaac Coles, Henry Dearborn, Samuel Earle, Jesse Franklin,
      Albert Gallatin, William B. Giles, James Gillespie,
      Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg, William Barry Grove,
      Wade Hampton, Carter B. Harrison, John Hathorn, Jonathan N.
      Havens, Daniel Heister, James Holland, George Jackson,
      Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, William Lyman, Samuel
      Maclay, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, John Milledge,
      Andrew Moore, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, Anthony New, John
      Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Francis Preston,
      Robert Rutherford, Israel Smith, John Swanwick, Absalom
      Tatom, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham
      Venable, and Richard Winn.

      NAYS.--Fisher Ames, Benjamin Bourne, Theophilus Bradbury,
      Nathan Bryan, Daniel Buck, Thomas Claiborne, Joshua Coit,
      Wm. Cooper, Jeremiah Crabb, George Dent, Abiel Foster,
      Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas Gilman, Henry
      Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold,
      George Hancock, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, John
      Heath, Thomas Henderson, James Hillhouse, William Hindman,
      Aaron Kitchell, John Wilkes Kittera, George Leonard, Samuel
      Lyman, Francis Malbone, William Vans Murray, Josiah Parker,
      John Read, John Richards, Theodore Sedgwick, Samuel
      Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, Isaac Smith,
      Samuel Smith, William Smith, Thomas Sprigg, Zephaniah
      Swift, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson,
      Uriah Tracy, John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John
      Williams.

From this list it appears that the question was lost by one vote. The
clerk, however, through mistake, reported the votes to be equal, viz:
49 for and 49 against the question, and the SPEAKER gave his vote in the
negative, but the above was afterwards found to be the true statement.

Mr. W. SMITH was glad the motion was negatived. He did not wish either
blame or praise to be cast upon the Treaty by the resolution passed to
carry it into effect. He would, therefore, move to add the following
words to the original resolution: "Without reference to the merits of
the Treaty."

Mr. GILES opposed this amendment. He said, it would be an indirect mode
of passing a censure upon the House for having undertaken to judge of
the merits of the Treaty. He did not know whether it struck the
gentleman in the same way, but he would agree it was improper to pass a
censure upon the House. He hoped, therefore, the motion would either be
withdrawn or voted against.

The motion was withdrawn.

Mr. WINN said, as it was his opinion, and the opinion of the generality
of his constituents, that the Treaty was a bad one, he should vote
against it.

The question was then taken by yeas and nays, and determined in the
affirmative--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

      YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Theodorus Bailey, Benjamin Bourne,
      Theophilus Bradbury, Daniel Buck, Gabriel Christie, Joshua
      Coit, William Cooper, Jeremiah Crabb, George Dent, Abiel
      Foster, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas Gilman,
      Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, Chauncey Goodrich, Andrew
      Gregg, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, George Hancock,
      Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, Thomas Henderson,
      James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Aaron Kitchell, John
      Wilkes Kittera, George Leonard, Samuel Lyman, Francis
      Malbone, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, Wm. Vans Murray, John
      Read, John Richards, Theodore Sedgwick, Samuel Sitgreaves,
      Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, Isaac Smith, Samuel Smith,
      William Smith, Zephaniah Swift, George Thatcher, Richard
      Thomas, Mark Thompson, Uriah Tracy, John E. Van Allen,
      Philip Van Cortlandt, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams.

      NAYS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas
      Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Samuel
      J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, John Clopton, Isaac Coles,
      Henry Dearborn, Samuel Earle, Jesse Franklin, Albert
      Gallatin, William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Christopher
      Greenup, Wade Hampton, Carter B. Harrison, John Hathorn,
      Jonathan N. Havens, John Heath, Daniel Heister, James
      Holland, George Jackson, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke,
      William Lyman, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel Macon, James
      Madison, John Milledge, Andrew Moore, Anthony New, John
      Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Josiah Parker,
      Francis Preston, Robert Rutherford, Israel Smith, Thomas
      Sprigg, John Swanwick, Absalom Tatom, Joseph B. Varnum,
      Abraham Venable, and Richard Winn.

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the said
resolution, and that Mr. HILLHOUSE, Mr. SEDGWICK, and Mr. GALLATIN, do
prepare and bring in the same.

[RECAPITULATION.

For declaring the Treaty highly objectionable 48

Against this declaration 48

The SPEAKER decided in the negative.

For declaring the Treaty objectionable 49

Against the declaration; some because they did not consider it
objectionable; others because they feared making the declaration would
be injurious, and others because, so opposed to the Treaty, as to object
to all compromise 49

The SPEAKER decided in the negative.

For carrying into effect the Treaty; some because a good one, others
because best to execute it under existing circumstances 51

Against carrying it into effect, because bad in itself, and
notwithstanding existing circumstances 48

Absent on this question--Messrs. SHERBURNE and FREEMAN, on leave; Mr.
DUVALL, resigned; Mr. PATTON, by illness; Mr. FINDLAY,
accidentally.][78]


FRIDAY, MAY 6.

_Admission of Tennessee._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the report
of the committee to whom was referred the Message of the PRESIDENT,
relative to the Territory of the United States south of the river Ohio.

Mr. RUTHERFORD hoped the committee would concur in the report. He had no
idea of confining that Territory to the strict legal line. He did not
wish to cavil with this brave, generous people. He would have them taken
out of leading-strings, as they were now able to stand alone; it was
time to take them by the hand, and to say, we are glad to see you, stand
on your own feet. We should not, he said, be too nice about their
turning out their toes, or other trifles; they will soon march lustily
along. They had complied with every requisite for becoming a State of
the Union--they wished to form an additional star in the political
hemisphere of the United States--they have erected a State Government,
and wish to come into the Union, and to resist their claim would be out
of character. He hoped it would be agreed to.

Mr. DAYTON said, he disapproved of the report of the committee, and of
the terms in which the resolution they had recommended for the adoption
of the House was expressed. He could never give his assent to any
proposition which expressly or even impliedly admitted that the people
inhabiting either of the Territories of the United States could, at
their own mere will and pleasure, and without the declared consent of
Congress, erect themselves into a separate and independent State. Yet
this seemed to be the spirit of the report under consideration, and what
was still worse, it went, as he understood, to renounce any right in
Congress even to deliberate whether they should become a member of the
Union. He was by no means desirous of opposing the wishes of this
valuable and enterprising people who inhabit the South-western
Territory, nor of unnecessarily impeding the efforts they were making to
throw off the Territorial jurisdiction, and establish a system of
Government for themselves; but being aware that the steps now about to
be taken would be regarded and pursued hereafter as a precedent, he
conceived it important that they should, in this first instance of the
sort that had presented itself, proceed circumspectly and rightly. He
was willing to pass a law in the present session which should at the
same time provide for erecting and forming them into a State, and for
admitting them as such into the Union. They should thereby effectually
promote the views of the people of Tennessee, in a mode which, by
avoiding the violation of any just political principle, would entirely
reconciled and render consistent the interest of that district of
country and of the several United States.

Mr. D. acknowledged that he should have been much better satisfied if he
had found all the people comprehended within the Territorial line
petitioning for this measure, and if he had seen ingrafted in their
constitution the conditions and restrictions contained in the ordinance
upon which they found the right they were claiming; but he knew that
unanimity was in no instance to be expected amongst a people so numerous
and scattered; and he was convinced that they were bound by the
conditions and limitations he alluded to, without an acknowledgment and
repetition of them in their new charter.

Mr. DEARBORN said, as to the census relative to representation, it
appeared doubtful, that, because that Territory had now 66,000
inhabitants, they were entitled to two Representatives, as the other
States of the Union were represented according to the number of
inhabitants they contained in the year 1790. It might be doubtful
whether they should be entitled to an advantage which was not allowed to
other States. It had been his opinion (and he saw no reasons to change)
that if this Territory was admitted into the Union, it was not entitled
to more than one Representative; and therefore it was not necessary to
make another census. As to passing a previous law recognizing the
Territory as a State before it was admitted into the Union, he did not
think it necessary. They say they are now a State, and surely Congress
would not say to them, You shall not be a State, or dictate to them what
sort of a constitution they shall have, provided it be a Republican. The
method taken for ascertaining their number of inhabitants, he thought,
could not be objected to. He saw no reason to prevent them from
accepting the Territory as a State of the Union: what number of
Representatives they were entitled to, would turn upon another point.

Mr. BLOUNT said the House should have determined upon this question long
since, as the government of Tennessee had a month ago gone into
operation. The people there had chosen not only their State officers,
but their Senators, and perhaps their Representatives, to come to
Congress. The Governor had, from time to time, informed the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES of every step taken towards the proposed change of
government. In July, he sent him a copy of the law directing the census
to be taken; in November, when the census was completed, he sent him a
copy of it, and a copy of his Proclamation requiring the people to elect
members of Convention for the purpose of forming a constitution and
State Government; and on the 19th of February he sent him a copy of the
constitution, with notice that on the 28th of March, when the General
Assembly of the State of Tennessee would meet to act on the
constitution, the temporary government would cease; and this last
information was, to his knowledge, received on the 28th of
February--forty days before it was communicated by the PRESIDENT to
Congress, and eleven days after it must have been known to the Secretary
of State, if not to the PRESIDENT, that the State Government had gone
into operation.

What would be the consequence, said Mr. B., of refusing at this time,
and under these circumstances, to receive this State into the Union? Did
gentlemen wish to re-establish a temporary Territorial Government there?
If they did, he believed their wish would not easily be accomplished;
for the people there believed, that in changing their government, they
only exercised a right which had been secured to them by a sacred
compact; and under that belief, they will be disposed to defend it. That
right was, in his opinion, recognized by the Government of the United
States, when Mr. WHITE was permitted to take his seat in that House as
the Representative of the Territory; and from that circumstance they had
reason to expect that 67,000 inhabitants would have entitled them,
without scruple, to be a member of the Union. If the census was not a
just one, or if there had been any fraud used in taking it, an
impeachment would lie against the Governor, who, upon his responsibility
as an officer of the United States, sanctioned the law for taking it,
and acted under it after it was taken.

Mr. W. LYMAN said the subject presented itself in two points of view--as
it related to the Territory being admitted as a State into the Union, or
as giving them a right to send members to Congress. In his opinion,
according to the ordinance of Congress, they had a clear right to be
admitted as a State into the Union; for it was there said, that when
they had 60,000 inhabitants, they should be entitled. No mode is pointed
out how it shall be ascertained; but the Governor being expressly
mentioned in the case where 5,000 inhabitants were to entitle them to a
temporary Government, he thought there could be no doubt but the same
way was to be observed with respect to their qualification for becoming
one of the States of the Union. This fact, he said, came fully
ascertained, and being so, there could be no doubt the right was clear.
It was a right, indeed, which they could not deny, and, as a matter of
expediency, it was not worth while to oppose it. He saw no reason why
they should call in question the proceedings or the purity of the
government of that Territory, so as to doubt their return.

Mr. DAYTON said that he preferred the formation of the South-western
Territory into one State, to a division of it into two, and he therefore
did not agree with those gentlemen who had advocated the latter idea.
The people had requested to be united into one State, and he was for
complying with their request, and for taking them at their word, rather
than by subdividing to give them a double representation in the Senate.

Mr. SEDGWICK concurred in opinion with the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. DAYTON); and if any gentleman understood him to say that he did
not wish the State of Tennessee to be admitted into the Union, it must
have been an error, for he had no such desire. But he was still
persuaded that it was never intended that that Territory should have the
power of settling the way by which they were to become one of the
independent States.

What had been said by a gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) of their
being in a degraded situation, because controlled by laws which were
made by persons independent of them, would not only apply to 60,000, but
to six persons. The question was whether they were in a situation in
which they could claim to be a State? If they were, they ought to be
admitted; if not, they ought not to be admitted. If the idea of the
gentleman from New Jersey was adopted, they might be admitted at an
early period. He had no idea of charging Governor Blount with improper
conduct: he was entitled to his respect. If it was intended that these
people should decide upon their own situation, they ought to do it in
the way observed in cases directed by the constitution. Mr. S. proposed
two resolutions--one for laying out territory into a State or States,
and another for directing a census of the inhabitants to be taken.

It appeared to him that this was the way in which the subject should be
considered: they should determine whether the Territory should be in one
or two States, and before Representatives were sent to Congress, a
census would be taken by authority of Congress. Words could not, he
thought, have rendered more explicit the intention of the contracting
parties than the words of the compact; and all this might be done in
time for Representatives to be sent to the next session of Congress.

Mr. MACON said the chief differences in the opinions of gentlemen arose
upon a subject which was not before the committee, viz: the number of
Representatives to which this new State was entitled in that House. The
question before the committee was on admitting the Territory to be a
State of the Union. There appeared to him only two things as necessary
to be inquired into: First, Was the new Government Republican? It
appeared to him to be so. And, secondly, Were there 60,000 inhabitants
in the Territory? It appeared to him there were; and, if so, their
admission as a State should not be considered as a gift, but as a right.
Their temporary government (by whose authority the late census was
taken) had not only a Governor appointed by the Executive of the General
Government, but also a Legislative Council. To admit this Territory as a
member of the Union, appeared to him as a matter of course. It also
seemed as if the Executive was of that opinion. The PRESIDENT, having
been duly informed from time to time with the proceedings of that
Territory towards being admitted into the Union, if he had thought they
had been doing wrong, he would have set them right. It was also his
opinion, that if they had passed a law directing a census to be taken,
it would have been done exactly in the way the present had been taken.
He thought the subject of navigation was settled by the Constitution of
the United States; the waters in that country would be under the same
regulations with all other waters in the Union, nor did he think there
was any thing in the Constitution of Tennessee which had a contrary
tendency. It appeared clearly to him that every thing had been fairly
done, and that they had a right to claim an admission as a member of the
Union.

Mr. BALDWIN said, had he belonged to the Territory south of the Ohio, he
should probably have been for pursuing a different mode of conducting
this business, from that which it seems they have thought proper to
adopt. He should have thought it desirable, a year or two ago, to have
obtained from Congress an act pointing out the mode of taking the
census, and ascertaining the events on which they were entitled to
become a State. He said Congress ought also, of their own accord, to
have taken up that subject, and made those provisions, though not
requested by the Territory; and it had always been with surprise he had
observed that the first act for forming that Territory did not contain
those provisions. He thought, as to the principle in this case there
could be no doubt. Whenever the event happened of their having 60,000
inhabitants, as pointed out by law, their right to be a State took
place. It was to depend entirely on that contingency; when that was
proved to have taken place, they could not be debarred. There having
been no mode previously pointed out for ascertaining this fact, only
makes it more difficult for the Territory and for Congress to be
satisfied of the fact of their actually having so many inhabitants, but
does not affect their right. He thought it best for the House to proceed
to examine their census and the evidence which they had thought proper
to collect and bring forward in their own way. He was ready to allow
that, for himself, he should examine it more scrupulously than he should
have done, had it been taken under a law of Congress. But he had not
understood many objections had yet been made to it. Perhaps, on further
examination, it will be found fully satisfactory; if so, they must be
admitted to be a State as a matter of right. They might have waited
longer, and attempted to have formed two States; they have made their
election of the other alternative. He thought it wise for Congress to
avail itself of this opportunity of holding them to what they have
chosen, and thus prevent future difficulties and misunderstandings.

Mr. W. SMITH said he was glad to find the observations which he made
yesterday in some measure sanctioned to-day. He then recapitulated his
leading arguments. It was said yesterday by a gentleman from Virginia,
(Mr. MADISON,) that whilst the people of the Territory remained in their
colonial situation, they were in a state of degradation; but, he would
ask, at whose request they became so? Look at their request in the year
1790, as expressed in the cession act. And yet, in the course of a few
years, without consulting Congress, in consequence of a census taken by
their own authority, they proceed to erect themselves into a State,
create a new government, and claim to be admitted into the Union as
matter of right. Under their former government their member was admitted
to that House; yet, whilst he holds his seat under that government, they
have appointed other members to represent them under their new
Government. The most regular way would certainly have been to have
transmitted their request to Congress to be formed into a State.
Congress would then have passed a law for taking a census, have fixed
when the Territorial system should cease and the State Government
commence.

He thought the business was of considerable consequence, and he was
sorry it was taken up in so thin a House. There would certainly arise in
a few years other new States in the Western country yet uninhabited,
which might occasion considerable difficulties. They might make a census
and say they had 60,000 inhabitants, when they had not half that number.
He did not wish to keep the inhabitants of the South-western Territory
out of the Union, but he wished them to be admitted in a constitutional
mode.

Mr. GALLATIN was of opinion that the people of the South-western
Territory became _ipso facto_ a State the moment they amounted to 60,000
free inhabitants, and that it became the duty of Congress, as part of
the original compact, to recognize them as such, and to admit them into
the Union, whenever they had satisfactory proof of the fact.

It was objected that, previous to the proof of that fact being given, it
was necessary that Congress should have laid out and formed that
Territory into one or more States, and that the proof of their number
should have been given under direction and by order of Congress, the
people not being competent to give the proof themselves.

Both those objections suppose a construction of the original compact
between the people of that Territory and the United States, (of the act
of cession of North Carolina, and of the ordinance of Congress of 1787,)
which was inadmissible; for it rendered that compact binding upon one
party and not upon the other. It is supposed that that ordinance, whose
object it was to establish the principles of a free government, and to
ascertain a certainty of admission into the Union, had declared that the
time when those people were to enjoy that government, and were to be
admitted as a member of the Union, depended not on the contingency of
their having 60,000 free inhabitants, but on certain previous acts of
Congress--in other words, on the sole will of Congress. Either you must
acknowledge that their admission depends solely on the condition of the
compact being fulfilled, to wit: their having the number required; or
you declare that it rests upon another act, which may be done or refused
by the other party; that Congress have the power, by neglecting to lay
them out into one or more States, or by refusing to pass a law to take a
census, to keep them for ever in their colonial state. Nor did the
strictest interpretation of that contract justify the construction given
by the gentleman from South Carolina; for the only meaning that could
consistently be given to the words, "lay out and form into one or more
States," was, that Congress had power to fix the boundaries of the
Territory or Territories that were to become a State or States. They
could have declared that that Territory should be one or two States; but
if they had neglected to do it, their omission could not be plead
against the inhabitants of Tennessee. The power given by that clause to
Congress was merely to fix boundaries, and to choose whether there
should be more than one State; but if they had not made use of that
power, there must be one State, and its boundaries were fixed by the act
of cession, so that nothing remained now for Congress to operate upon.

Mr. BLOUNT said, there was an absolute necessity for the clause which
the gentleman last up objected to. Persons were daily coming to that
Territory in great numbers. If the census had been required to be taken
in one day all the people who had come into the Territory, with the
intention to reside permanently there, could by no means have been
numbered. It was not intended to give the officers power to take persons
in more places than one, nor did he believe it had been done. He
undertook to explain yesterday the reason why so long a time was given,
but he seemed not to have been understood, which was, the difficulties
attending the passage of the wilderness.

The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SMITH) had said, that his
arguments of yesterday had been to-day admitted. If the gentleman had
supposed that he had admitted them, he was mistaken. That he might not
continue under the mistake, he would inform him, that what he had called
arguments, were, in his opinion, mere quibbles, such as could only have
been expected from a County Court lawyer, at the bar of a County Court.

Mr. COIT said, that as he had not heard it suggested from any quarter
that it would be expedient to divide the Territory into two States, he
did not think it important to inquire into the powers of Congress in
that respect. It is declared by the ordinance for the government of the
Territory, that when there should be sixty thousand inhabitants in any
one of the States there they should be admitted into the Union. If,
then, it is not in contemplation to divide the Territory into two
States, he considered that the right to be admitted was complete as soon
as there was the requisite number within the whole Territory. But it
appeared to him, that on examining the census and the law under which
it was taken, they could not be considered as furnishing proof that
there was that number there. He did not pretend to say that any fraud
had been committed in the execution of the law, but the law itself was
wholly defective. The same man might have been counted in several
counties, nay, in every county in the Territory, and that without any
fraud, but in strict compliance with the law; two months having been
allowed for taking the enumeration, and it being enjoined on the
sheriffs of the several counties to include in their enumeration all
persons within their respective districts within that period.

The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. BLOUNT) seemed to imagine that it
would have been impracticable to have followed a mode similar to the one
pointed out in the enumeration law of the United States, but he could
not see the reason. [He read the law.]

Mr. SITGREAVES said, he felt every disposition favorable to meet the
wishes of the people of the South-western Territory, and for a reason
which had been given, viz: that, as they were our fellow-citizens, it
was desirable they should equally participate with us in all the
advantages of the General Government, and suffer no longer than was
necessary the comparative humiliation of a Colonial or Territorial
administration; but, from obvious considerations, he thought it highly
important that they should be admitted to the enjoyment of these
advantages only in conformity with the promise made to them, and on the
terms of the compact entered into jointly by the United States and by
them. Two constructions of this compact had been contended for; one,
that so soon as sixty thousand free inhabitants should be collected
within the Territory, they should be entitled to a place in the Union,
as an independent State; the other, that Congress should first lay off
the Territory into one or more States, according to a just discretion,
defining the same by bounds and limits; and that the admission of such
States thus defined, should take place as their population respectively
amounted to the number of free inhabitants mentioned; that is, that the
sixty thousand inhabitants could not claim admission into the Union,
unless their number was comprised within a State whose Territorial
limits had been previously ascertained by an act of the United States.
He inclined to this latter construction, because it was conformable to
the letter, and, as he understood it, to the spirit of the instrument.
By the act of cession of the State of North Carolina, accepted by
Congress, it is provided that the ceded territory should be laid off
into one or more States, and that the people of the Territory should be
entitled to all the privileges secured to the inhabitants of the
Territory north-west of the Ohio, by the ordinance of 1787. The extent
of their privileges, therefore, is to be determined by this ordinance,
which may be called their charter. They have no other or greater
privileges than the inhabitants of the North-western Territory; and it
cannot be pretended that these would be entitled to admission into the
Union as one State, so soon as their whole number shall amount to sixty
thousand, because the ordinance itself divides that country into three
separate and distinct States, each of which must contain sixty thousand
free inhabitants before it can claim to be received. The actual
circumstances and situation of the South-western Territory evinced the
reasonableness and propriety of the construction; it is composed of two
settlements, the Hoston and the Mero districts, separated from each
other by the Cumberland Mountains and a wilderness of two hundred miles
in width, which has always been inhabited by the Indians, and the soil
and jurisdiction of which have been actually ceded to them by the United
States, by late Treaties; and by an examination of the documents on the
table it would appear, that when, agreeably to the act of the
Territorial Legislature, the officers who took the census put to the
people of the Territory the question whether they were desirous of
admission into the Union; the inhabitants of the Western or Mero
district almost universally answered in the negative. He would not
undertake positively to pronounce on the inexpediency of forming the
whole country into one State; but under the circumstances which he had
stated, and until they should be satisfactorily explained to his mind,
it did appear to him that the interest and the wishes of that people
required a division of the Territory. It looked somewhat absurd to
connect under one permanent Government, people separated from each other
by natural barriers, by a distance of two hundred miles, and by a
foreign jurisdiction. They had been told, by gentlemen who knew the
fact, that during the period of Indian hostility, the people emigrating
to the Mero district were obliged to stop five or six weeks at the
eastern boundary of the wilderness, until they could collect in
companies or caravans of sufficient number and force to pass in safety;
the time of hostility may again return, and even a state of peace with
Indians is not a state of such tranquillity or security as to preclude
the necessity of caution and vigilance on the frontiers. The people of
the Western district seem sensible of the inconvenience of an
arrangement so unnatural as the one proposed, and so far as their wishes
can be collected from the documents before the committee, they desire as
yet to preserve their connection with us in its present mode, and to
remain under the Territorial Government.

Mr. MACON said, he should be as unwilling to agree to the doctrine of
the gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. DAYTON,) as he was unwilling to
agree to his. As to the people of this Territory attaching themselves to
any other nation, he should not have thought it could have been
suggested. There was no more likelihood of their going over to any other
government than there was of any other State doing the same thing.

Mr. GALLATIN said, how the resolution on the table, or the doctrine he
had asserted, supported the idea that that Territory would have a right
to separate from the Union, he could not see, and he should be glad to
be informed. So far from it, his opinion was that if they were a State,
they were at the same time a member of the Union; that they could not
exist as a State without being one of the United States. The only
difference of opinion was whether an act of Congress was necessary
previous to their being recognized as such; and if any doctrine could
lead to the conclusion of the SPEAKER, it was that of those gentlemen
who thought that Congress must form them into a State, several months
before they were admitted into the Union. In that intermediary
situation, whilst declared a State and not one of the United States,
they might, perhaps, claim, as an independent State, a right to reject
an admission in the Union. But those consequences could only flow from
the doctrine he was combating; the principle he was supporting was that
no previous act was necessary, that there could not be two acts upon the
subject; but that one and the same act must recognize them as a State
and admit them in the Union.

Mr. BLOUNT hoped the original resolution would not be rejected for the
sake of the gentleman from New Jersey. He did not wish to give up the
right to which these people were entitled; though perhaps the law might
not pass the Senate.

Mr. HARPER objected to the mention of the Senate, as to what was likely
to be done there. He hoped they should adopt the resolution of the
gentleman from New Jersey.

The question was then taken on the original resolution reported by the
select committee, and carried by 41 to 35.

The committee rose and the House took up the consideration, when Mr.
KITCHELL proposed a resolution in the place of that which had been
agreed to in a Committee of the Whole, as he thought some law should be
passed by Congress recognizing the Territory as a State, before they
were admitted into the Union. It was negatived; and the original
resolution was agreed to by 43 to 30, as follows:

      YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, David Bard,
      Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan,
      Dempsey Burges, Thomas Claiborne, John Clopton, Jeremiah
      Crabb, William Findlay, Jesse Franklin, Albert Gallatin,
      William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, Wade
      Hampton, Robert Goodloe Harper, Carter B. Harrison,
      Jonathan N. Havens, Daniel Heister, James Holland, George
      Jackson, Matthew Locke, William Lyman, Samuel Maclay,
      Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, Andrew Moore, Anthony New,
      John Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Francis
      Preston, John Read, Robert Rutherford, Israel Smith,
      Richard Sprigg, jr., Thomas Sprigg, Absalom Tatom, Philip
      Van Cortlandt, and Abraham Venable.

      NAYS.--Benjamin Bourne, Theophilus Bradbury, Gabriel
      Christie, Joshua Coit, George Dent, Abiel Foster, Dwight
      Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich,
      Roger Griswold, Thomas Hartley, Thomas Henderson, James
      Hillhouse, William Hindman, Aaron Kitchell, George Leonard,
      Samuel Lyman, Francis Malbone, Theodore Sedgwick, Samuel
      Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, Isaac Smith,
      William Smith, George Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, John E. Van
      Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams.


SATURDAY, May 21.

_Military Establishment._

The amendments of the Senate to the bill fixing the Military
Establishment were read. They went to the retaining the whole number of
light dragoons and the Major General, and directing that men should be
enlisted for five instead of three years. The amendment respecting the
dragoons being under consideration----

Mr. BALDWIN informed the House that the amount of the amendments of the
Senate was this, to keep up 320 dragoons instead of 52, and to retain
the Major General. It appeared to him that the House, having determined
upon these subjects already, would be at no loss to form an opinion upon
these amendments.

Mr. WILLIAMS hoped that the amendment from the Senate would not be
agreed to. This House had taken great pains to mature the bill, and he
was of opinion that the number of troops agreed to was sufficient for a
peace establishment. No gentleman had observed to the contrary; any
addition would not only be an augmentation to the great expenses already
accrued by the late war, but be a mean of retaining in the army useful
citizens, who would be otherwise employed in pursuits of much more
benefit to the United States.

Mr. W. LYMAN hoped the amendment would be disagreed to.

Mr. S. SMITH said, the Senate seemed to contemplate these light
dragoons, on account of the officers, who were to do duty on horse or
foot, as necessity required. From this idea, he would suggest the
propriety of agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. KITTERA said, the army would be placed so widely from each other,
that the horse would prove very useful.

Mr. GILES had no idea of keeping up the horse for the sake of the
officers.

Mr. GILBERT was in favor of retaining the whole number of horses.

On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, the yeas and nays were taken, and the
amendment was negatived, 58 to 22.

The consideration of the propriety of retaining the Major General was
next taken up.

Mr. NICHOLAS could not conceive any use for generals. He believed if the
Senate had struck out the General they sent them, the amendment would
have been a good one.

Mr. GILES hoped they should not agree to the amendment. It would be a
commencement of sinecures in the Military Department. There would be
generals without men to command. He believed the bill, as sent from
that House, contained its full proportion of officers.

Mr. S. SMITH was in favor of the amendment. He said the expense would be
no great things, and the present Major General would be very necessary
in taking possession of the posts. Perhaps, at this time, it was
essential to keep this man in command, as, if he were discharged, it
might create a derangement in our Army which might be fatal. The command
of three thousand men, it was true, was too trifling for a Major
General. But, perhaps, as this General had been the victorious means of
procuring us peace with the Indians, immediately to discharge him would
appear like ingratitude, if not injustice.

Mr. RUTHERFORD concurred in opinion with the gentleman last up.

Mr. W. LYMAN said, they were not now called upon to reward the services
of Major General Wayne, but to provide proper officers for their Army.
If the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. S. SMITH) were to bring forward a
measure of that kind, they should know how to decide upon it. Nor did he
think the argument for making the office of a Major General, because the
posts were to be received, had much weight. Any other officer would
receive them as well as a Major General.

Mr. GILES said, he had no personal objections to the present commander
of our Army; but he considered the present proposition such a breach of
principle as he could not agree to. It was the making of an office for a
man; as the gentleman from Maryland seemed to think the taking
possession of the posts the principal business to be performed by him.
If the services of this gentleman were necessary on that occasion, he
would much rather pass a bill to make him a commissioner for that
purpose. All the arguments in favor of a Major General were in favor of
the man, and not of the propriety of the office.

Mr. MURRAY said, the gentleman last up must know that the gentleman who
had so successfully commanded our Western Army, was now in the service
of the United States, yet he would insinuate that there was an intention
of creating a new office. There was no disposition in those who wished
to retain this meritorious man in service to create new offices. They
were now about to make a regular Military Establishment; heretofore it
had rather been a nominal one. There had been hitherto a Major General
at the head of our corps, and he thought it would be proper to continue
the command. There appeared to him a great deal of danger from the
instability of their proceedings, an instability often charged upon a
Government like ours. He would not attribute this to any other motive
than such as were too apt to enter into large deliberative bodies. Was
it right that when a man had led our armies to victory, and returned,
that he should be immediately stripped of his commission? He thought
not. It was said that this was done, because the Army was reduced; but
he believed it was now as large as when General Wayne obtained his
victory by it, for it was not then more than three thousand men; and
yet, because they wished to retain this man in the service of the United
States, they were told that they were creating new offices for which
there was no necessity.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, with respect to the instability of their measures, he
was ready to take his own share of it as well as that of the gentleman
last up, for he never found him vary from one point; he was always
desirous to keep up every office which had been once established. Mr. N.
thought the conduct of gentlemen extraordinary. At one time they were to
make our Establishment as large as possible, and when more favorable
circumstances appeared, they were not to reduce it. Where were the
benefits of peace, if they were still to keep up our War Establishments?
Gentlemen tell you that the Army would be as large now as before the
reduction, yet the same gentlemen were opposed to its being reduced to
the number now contemplated. This appeared something like inconsistency.
Mr. N. said, if they did not seize every favorable opportunity of
lessening the expenses of Government, he believed their constituents
would have good reason to complain of their want of attention to their
duty.

Mr. MACON said, they ought to legislate on this subject as if there were
no Army in existence. They had no permanent Establishment, as their men
were discharged at the end of every three years. He believed our present
commander was a very respectable officer, but he could not vote for a
Major General in the Establishment, which he thought unnecessary,
because he thought him a deserving man.

Mr. BOURNE believed it was not necessary to have any appropriate number
of men for a Major General to command. It had often been thought that a
Major General was necessary. He believed they had thought so on former
occasions. If any necessity should arise for the militia to be called
out to aid the Army, such an officer would be highly necessary. He did
not think it would be true economy to reject him.

Mr. GALLATIN said it was not pleasing to give a vote which was in some
degree of a personal nature like the present. He was unacquainted with
the gentleman who now held the office of Major General in our Army, and,
therefore, was under no personal influence, and his opinion on the
subject was formed upon the information of those in whose judgment on
military affairs, he must necessarily confide, as it was a subject he
did not understand. It was supposed that a Major General was necessary
for a War Establishment, but not for a Peace Establishment. He drew this
conclusion from that grade ceasing with the war in 1783, and being again
introduced in 1791, when the Indian war had commenced, and he understood
it was more connected with the nature of the service than the number of
men. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. SMITH) said that the nature of
the service of this summer, required the service of General Wayne; but
as the act they were about to pass would not take place till the 31st of
October, as it was the opinion of all gentlemen of military knowledge,
that there was no necessity for retaining a Major General in our reduced
Army Establishment after the posts had been taken possession of, and as
the whole summer appeared sufficient for that service, he would vote
against the amendment.

Mr. HARTLEY thought it best to have a Major General. The expense was but
small, and in case of the militia being called out (as was mentioned by
the gentleman from Rhode Island) a Major General would be necessary;
besides, to reject him, would have the appearance of forcing this man
out of office in an ungenerous manner.

On motion of Mr. BAILEY, the yeas and nays were then taken, and the
Senate's amendment was lost, 49 to 34.


MONDAY, May 23.

_Widow of General Greene._

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the petition of Catharine
Greene, widow of the late General Greene, for indemnity against the
demands of Harris and Blachford, of London, merchants, on account of a
certain bond which had been given to them by General Greene, as was said
on account of the United States. The following was the report of the
Committee of Claims:

      "That this petitioner prays for indemnity against the
      demands of Messrs. Harris and Blachford, merchants, who
      have obtained a judgment against the estate of the late
      General Greene, for a large sum, in consequence of his
      being security to the said Harris and Blachford, for the
      debt of John Banks & Co., which debt, she states, was
      incurred for, and in behalf of the United States; and that
      General Greene gave security for no other purpose than to
      forward the interests of the public.

      "On a strict investigation of this claim, the committee
      find, that in the fall of 1782, General Greene was
      authorized by the Department of War to obtain supplies of
      clothing for the Southern Army, then under his command;
      and, not long after, he contracted with John Banks, a
      partner in the house of Hunter, Banks & Co., for such
      supplies.

      "In February, 1783, General Greene, under authority of the
      Superintendent of Finance, contracted with the same John
      Banks, to furnish such provisions as the same army were in
      want of; both of which contracts met the approbation of his
      employers.

      "Both these contracts required greater funds than the
      contractors could command, and the last, which was to
      supply rations for the army, was near being defeated,
      because the creditors--for supplies on the former
      contract--were about to deprive the contractors of their
      means to fulfil the last. In this situation, Gen. Greene
      had before him the alternative of turning the army loose
      upon the inhabitants, to plunder for their necessary food,
      or support, by his own credit, that of the contractors. He
      preferred the latter, and gave, in addition to the security
      of John Banks & Co., his own bond to Harris and Blachford,
      to secure an eventual payment for articles which had gone
      to the use of the United States in clothing the army.

      "John Banks received of the United States the whole sum of
      the contract, but diverted the money from its proper
      channel, and left General Greene liable to pay the sum
      secured by the bond mentioned above, and another to Messrs.
      Newcomen and Collet. Banks & Co. became bankrupts, and,
      soon after, Banks died.

      "The committee find that General Greene, as soon as he was
      apprised of any possible danger which might accrue to him,
      took measures to procure some security; but his attempts
      were ineffectual as to a complete indemnity. It appears he
      effected some payments, and obtained partial indemnity, but
      was left finally exposed to a large claim of Messrs.
      Newcomen and Collet, and this bond about which the present
      petition is conversant.

      "Against the claim of Newcomen and Collet, Congress have
      indemnified the estate of General Greene, by an act passed
      April 27th, 1792.

      "This act has served as a precedent to the committee, in
      deciding on the present petition, as there are the same
      reasons existing for the interference of Government now as
      then; to which may now be added the weight of precedent.

      "For further particulars as to the merits of the claim, the
      committee ask leave to refer the House to a report of the
      Secretary of the Treasury, made to Congress on this
      subject, the 26th December, 1791, and which is herewith
      laid before them. The bond given by Gen. Greene to Harris
      and Blachford for J. Banks & Co., is dated 8th April, 1783,
      for the sum of L18,473, 13s. 7d. South Carolina currency.
      This sum, by a variety of negotiations and payments, has
      been considerably reduced; the committee have not been able
      to ascertain with precision the sum now due, but suppose it
      to be between eleven and twelve thousand pounds.

      "The committee are of opinion that General Greene gave this
      bond with the sole and honorable motive of serving, to his
      utmost ability, the then pressing interest of the United
      States: and that the salvation of the Southern Army, and
      success of our arms in that part of the Union, in a great
      measure depended upon this timely interference of his
      private credit.

      "They think the honor and justice of Government is pledged
      to indemnify the estate of General Greene, and by paying
      the sum due to Harris and Blachford, save a deserving
      family from indigence and ruin. They therefore report, for
      the consideration of the House, the following resolution,
      viz:

      "_Resolved_, That the United States ought to indemnify the
      estate of the late General Greene, for the sum due on a
      bond, given by the said General Greene to Harris and
      Blachford, bearing date April 8, 1783, for the sum of
      L18,473, 13s. 7d., South Carolina currency, as surety for
      John Banks & Co.: _Provided_, That it shall appear, upon
      due investigation, by the officers of the Treasury, that
      the said General Greene, in his lifetime, or his executors
      since his decease, have not already been indemnified, for
      the contents of the said bond: _And provided_, That the
      said executors shall make over to the Comptroller of the
      Treasury, and his successors, for the United States, all
      mortgages, bonds, covenants, or other counter securities
      whatsoever, if such there are, which were obtained by
      General Greene in his lifetime, from the said Banks & Co.,
      or either of them, on account of his being surety for
      them, as aforesaid; to be sued for in the name of the said
      executors, for the use of the United States: And the
      officers of the Treasury are hereby authorized to liquidate
      and settle the sum due to the estate of the said General
      Greene, to indemnify the same as aforesaid, according to
      the true intent and meaning of this resolution; and to pay
      such sum as may be found due on the said bond, out of the
      Treasury of the United States, to the said executors, to be
      accounted for by them, as part of the said estate."

After some debate on this subject, in the course of which the SPEAKER
read, in his place, a letter he had received from the Secretary of the
War Department, in consequence of a resolution passed on Saturday,
calling for a letter which had been written by the late Colonel Burnett
to the late Secretary of War, declaring that no such letter could be
found in the War Office; and Mr. COIT spoke at considerable length
against the claim--at length the question was put and carried in favor
of the report, there being 51 members in the affirmative. The committee
then rose, and the House took up the consideration, when, on motion of
Mr. BLOUNT, who said he had intended to have made some observations on
this subject, but finding the majority so large in favor of the report,
he could not believe what he should say would have any effect, the yeas
and nays were taken and stood, yeas 56, nays 26, as follows:

      YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel
      Benton, Benjamin Bourne, Theophilus Bradbury, Richard
      Brent, Dempsey Burges, Thomas Claiborne, William Cooper,
      Jeremiah Crabb, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel
      Gilbert, William B. Giles, Nicholas Gilman, Henry Glenn,
      Chauncey Goodrich, Christopher Greenup, Robert Goodloe
      Harper, Carter B. Harrison, John Hathorn, Jonathan N.
      Havens, John Heath, Daniel Heister, William Hindman, George
      Jackson, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, William Lyman,
      Francis Malbone, John Milledge, Frederick A. Muhlenberg,
      William Vans Murray, Anthony New, John Nicholas, John Read,
      Robert Rutherford, Samuel Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith,
      Israel Smith, Isaac Smith, Samuel Smith, William Smith,
      Richard Sprigg, jr., John Swanwick, Zephaniah Swift, George
      Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, Uriah Tracy, John
      E. Van Allen, Philip Van Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, Peleg
      Wadsworth, and John Williams.

      NAYS.--Thomas Blount, Nathan Bryan, Samuel J. Cabell,
      Gabriel Christie, Joshua Coit, Isaac Coles, George Dent,
      Samuel Earle, Jesse Franklin, Albert Gallatin, James
      Gillespie, Roger Griswold, William B. Grove, Wade Hampton,
      George Hancock, Thomas Henderson, James Holland, Aaron
      Kitchell, Matthew Locke, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel Macon,
      Andrew Moore, Nathaniel Smith, Thomas Sprigg, Absalom
      Tatom, and Richard Winn.

The resolution was referred to the Committee of Claims, to report a
bill.

[The facts, as stated in the course of debate, were as follows:

A little time before the evacuation of Charleston by the English, in the
fall of the year 1782, a number of merchants who had settled there,
under British authority, were under the necessity of leaving the city.
Thus situated, these merchants were willing to dispose of their goods in
a way that would secure their money, and enable them to leave the
country immediately. John Banks knowing of this, and being, it is said,
a man of a speculative disposition, determined to avail himself of this
offer. He therefore went into Charleston, at a time when General Greene
was lying not far from its walls, and there made a contract with Messrs.
Harris & Blachford for goods to the amount of L50,000, which were
delivered to him under the firm of Hunter, Banks & Co. After Banks had
made this purchase, he entered into contract with General Greene to
supply the Army with clothes. Some time after that contract had taken
place, the Army was in want of provisions, and the supplies were cut
off, and about to fail, when Banks came forward and made a contract to
supply the Army with provisions; but the funds which were to enable him
to fulfil this contract, were in the goods he had lately bought, and an
interference of his partners and creditors took place. The creditors
were afraid if these goods were disposed of for that purpose, their
security would be lessened, and his partners were not willing that he
should convert their joint property to his own particular benefit--for
they, it seems, were to have nothing to do with the provision contract.
To surmount these difficulties, security was required. The creditors of
Banks would be satisfied, if security was given. In this state of
things, General Greene became security for Banks, in his first purchase.
Banks afterwards received the whole sum of the contract, but diverted
the money from its proper channel, and left General Greene liable to pay
the sum secured by the bond to Harris & Blachford.

The question in the committee was, whether General Greene entered into
this security with the sole view of obtaining provisions for his Army in
a time of distress, or whether he had some concern or partnership in the
transaction. The following particulars were mentioned, to prove that the
security was given for no other purpose than that of obtaining food for
his men. The first purchase of Banks was made in September, 1782; the
evacuation of Charleston took place in December following. Banks's
clothing contract was made a few days previous to the evacuation; his
proposal for the provision contract was made about the same time, but
not actually entered into till the 18th of February, 1783, and not
completed till General Greene's security was given on the 8th of April.
On the 7th of May, General Greene got a counter security. It could not
be seen, as was observed, for what purpose General Greene entered into
this contract, if it were not for the relief of his army. Had General
Greene been a partner, would he have required security of Banks six
months after the contract, when business was going on extremely
well--when Banks was in good credit, and making money, and when no doubt
could be entertained of him? It was insisted he would not: but, having
no connection with him, he thought it prudent to obtain a counter
security.

On the other hand, various suggestions were thrown out which had
somewhat of a suspicious appearance--such as General Greene's forcing
his men to buy clothing, &c., of Banks, at an exorbitant price, reports
in the Army, a letter said to be written by the late Colonel Burnett,
who, it appears, was a partner of John Banks, intimating that General
Greene was a partner in the concern, though his name was never mentioned
in it; but nothing like proof appeared to the committee upon which to
ground any reliance. Indeed, if General Greene had any concern with
Banks, it seemed to be a matter which could not be proved, as, in
General Greene's lifetime, he brought an action against Mr. Ferry, one
of the partners with Banks, which was tried at Charleston, when every
thing in Mr. Ferry's cause depended on proving General Greene a partner;
but he failed in doing it, and having failed, it was said to be pretty
strong presumptive evidence that it could not be proved; because Mr.
Ferry might have brought a cross bill against General Greene, and oblige
him to declare on oath that he was in no way interested in the suit,
which he did not think it proper to do.

The report of the committee was at length agreed to, as before stated,
and a bill ordered to be brought in, which subsequently passed. By this
decision, between L11,000 and L12,000 sterling will be paid out of the
Treasury of the United States to the executors of General Greene. The
yeas and nays, on the passing of the bill, stood, 55 to 24.]


FRIDAY, May 27.

_Amy Dardin's Horse._[79]

On motion of Mr. CLAIBORNE, the House formed itself into a Committee of
the Whole on the report of the Committee of Claims on the petition of
Amy Dardin, who prayed for compensation for a very valuable horse which
had been impressed during the war. The report was against the
petitioner, on the ground of the act of limitation barring the claim.
The case appeared a hard one, as a widow and orphans were in want of the
money; and several members having suggested that application had been
made before the act of limitation took place, proof of which could be
substantiated, the committee rose, and the papers were recommitted to
the Committee of Claims.


MONDAY, May 30.

_Military and Naval Appropriations._[80]

The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill providing
appropriations for the Military and Naval Establishments; when,

On motion of Mr. W. SMITH, the blank for the sum for the payment of the
Army was filled with $273,666.

Mr. W. SMITH proposed to fill up the next blank, for the subsistence of
the officers of the Army, with $68,480.

Mr. GALLATIN said, he was not ready to vote for this object. It had been
usual to appropriate the subsistence of the officers and
non-commissioned officers and privates all in one sum. He did not know
what were the separate calculations.

Mr. W. SMITH believed that it had been usual to put the two subjects
together heretofore, but the Secretary of War had suggested the
propriety of placing them under different heads. It was therefore done.

Mr. GALLATIN said, when he objected to this plan of putting the two
objects together, it was not merely on account of the arrangement, but
because he did not know the amount calculated for the different
descriptions. He knew, however, the rations were calculated at 30 cents.
He would move to fill the blank with 20 cents, which would be two-thirds
of the amount proposed. He would give his reasons for thus filling the
blank. It would be found, by a communication from the Secretary of the
Treasury at the commencement of the session, that, in the estimate for
the Military Department, rations were charged 15 cents each, making the
whole subsistence for 6,000 men $367,061; notwithstanding the nominal
Army Establishment had been reduced one-half, the total amount of
expense was estimated as high as before. The items upon which an
increase had been made, were subsistence, hospital, ordnance, and
quartermaster's departments, and protection of frontiers. It would be
found that, in the second estimate of the Secretary, lately made,
rations were estimated at 30 cents each, which made the whole amount of
subsistence $437,762.

This difference in the estimate led the Committee of Ways and Means to
an inquiry into the business, because, as the nominal establishment was
decreased from 6,000 to 3,000 men, they had hoped there would have been
some decrease of expense also. They received for answer, that rations
could not be contracted at Detroit for less than 30 cents each; but
though this, by the contract, was the price of rations at that post,
they could not suppose they would cost the same at the other posts. It
also appeared, from the information received from the Secretary of the
Treasury, that the contract which had been made, was upon these
terms--to furnish rations either at Detroit at 30 cents, or at Pittsburg
at 11 cents, the place of delivery being at the option of Government. It
would be seen that there was a difference betwixt those two prices of
19 cents; and he would ask whether any gentleman in that House believed
that it would cost 19 cents per ration to transport them from Pittsburg
to Detroit? He did not think that transportation would, on an average,
cost 9 cents. The distance by land was not 200 miles; and water carriage
would reduce it to 20.

Mr. W. SMITH said, if agreeing to this motion would save the money, it
would deserve attention; but, if they were to make the appropriation so
small as to embarrass Government, it would be much worse than if they
were to vote for a little too much. There would be a certain number of
men who must be fed, and he thought they might rely upon the
Administration's not giving more for rations than was necessary. But, if
the sum voted was too small, what would be the consequence? The rations
must be got, be the prices what they may; the men must be fed.
Difficulties would arise if the fund appropriated should prove
inadequate. He did not see that there would be any real saving by
reducing the sum appropriated.

Mr. BOURNE hoped the blank would be filled up with the sum proposed by
the gentleman from South Carolina. It had been stated that rations might
be purchased at Pittsburg for 11 cents, but they could not be bought for
less than 30 at Detroit, and he thought they could not calculate upon
any other price than that, as it was uncertain whether or not the
contract would be fulfilled; and if it failed, and the Secretary of the
Treasury was obliged to purchase at Detroit, if they calculated the
rations at 20 cents only, he would not be able to purchase the necessary
provisions for their men; but if, on the contrary, 30 cents were agreed
to, there would be enough in any case, and if the ration could be bought
for 20 cents, he did not fear that the money would be expended
unnecessarily.

Mr. VENABLE said he should not feel himself justified in appropriating
more than was necessary for the object before them; for, if they were
not to be guided by a proper estimate, they might as well at once give
an unlimited power on the Treasury. All the expenses could not be
estimated to be made at Detroit. If one-third of our men were kept at
Detroit, he should think it a large number. Why, then fix the price as
if the whole Army was to be kept there? And, even in that case, 20 cents
would be a large appropriation. Why, then, embarrass themselves by
making a larger appropriation than was necessary? The Army would be
extended on the whole frontier, and at some places rations would be
bought cheaper than at Pittsburg.

Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) observed, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. GALLATIN) assumed as undeniable, and established as the foundation
of his arguments and objections, what he did not only not admit, but
absolutely denied, viz: that the rations of provisions would cost the
United States more when delivered at Detroit, than at any other post. He
believed there were two or three others at which the price would be
higher than at Detroit, and mentioned Michilimacinac in particular. The
gentlemen who were for reducing this item of appropriation, had referred
to the contract which had been made some time since, and had, at the
same time, acknowledged the extraordinary advance in the price of the
necessaries of life, even in the interior of the country. The latter
event, said Mr. D., was of a nature to excite much fear that the
contract would be thrown back upon the United States, owing to the
inability it would create in the individuals to fulfil it, and ought,
therefore, to prompt Congress to guard against such an exigency, by a
more ample provision than would otherwise have been requisite.

Mr. W. SMITH said there was one fact which he forgot to mention. The
Secretary of the Treasury informed the Committee of Ways and Means that
the contractor would lose money by the contract to deliver the rations
at 11 cents at Pittsburg, and it was possible, therefore, that it might
not be fulfilled. Gentlemen say--why provide the money if it be not
wanted? They seemed to mistake the business; the money was to be
borrowed, and if not wanted, it would not be taken. No more would be
expended because there was more than sufficient appropriated. There
would be no money lying unemployed in the Treasury.

Mr. GALLATIN believed the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SMITH)
would not deny that his information was correct. The contract was made
to deliver the rations either at Pittsburg or Detroit, at the option of
Government. To calculate the whole number of rations at 30 cents, was
considering the whole Army at Detroit; and, though it be true, that
there be one post more distant than Detroit, yet, the greater number
were far nearer, and consequently, where provisions would be got
cheaper. Therefore, considering the price at Detroit to be the general
price, was allowing too much. This, he believed, would not be
controverted.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, he should be glad to know what was the price of
rations in the Atlantic States. One half of the Establishment would be
upon the Eastern waters, and, therefore, the money necessary to be
appropriated would depend, in some degree, upon the price of rations
there. He thought 20 cents would be a full average price for the whole.

Mr. HAVENS said, that if they were to fix the price too high, it might
produce a combination amongst the contractors to advance the price--as
he believed there was a greater likelihood of combination than
competition amongst them. He knew this was no reason why they should fix
the price too low, but he thought it was a consideration which should
lead them to vote for the proposition of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.

The original motion was put, and negatived, 34 to 31; and then Mr.
GALLATIN's, to fill the blank with $45,606, was put, and carried.

Mr. W. SMITH moved to fill the next blank, for the subsistence of
non-commissioned officers and privates, with $369,282, which was
calculating the rations at 30 cents each.

The question was put, and negatived, 33 to 30.

Mr. GALLATIN then moved to have the blank filled with $246,188, which
was calculating the rations at 20 cents each.

Mr. DAYTON hoped that the sum named would not be agreed to; if it were,
he believed that the soldiers of the Army would not be subsisted. He was
satisfied that gentlemen who proposed and advocated so scanty and
inadequate sums had the same views as he had; but he was, nevertheless,
convinced, that so far from promoting economy, they would eventually
produce profusion.

Mr. DAYTON concluded with saying, that he did not wish to appropriate
lavishly, but his sole aim was to avoid any of those serious
consequences which would inevitably flow from an ill-judged parsimony;
and he should sit down and console himself under any event, with the
reflection, that he had discharged his duty.

Mr. W. SMITH moved to fill the blank with $360,000, which was carried,
34 to 31.

On motion of Mr. W. SMITH, the blank for forage was filled with $16,592,
and that for clothing was filled with $70,000, without debate. He
proposed to fill the blank for providing horses for cavalry, with
$7,500; when

Mr. BLOUNT observed, that he thought it unnecessary to provide for the
purchase of horses, when they had resolved upon reducing the number of
troops.

Mr. GALLATIN said he would just notice, that when the full number of
horses was kept up, the appropriations for clothing were the same as
now, and those for horses were less. The former estimate was $6,000 for
horses; now, $7,500; so that the more they reduce the Army, the greater
was the expense.

Mr. MACON believed, there were as many horses now in the service as
would complete two companies, and they could not, with any propriety,
calculate upon one-half dying. He moved to strike out the item
altogether.

The motion was put and negatived, 33 to 26.

Mr. HAVENS said, he did not vote for striking out the item altogether,
as he supposed some money would be wanted, but could not think so much
as had been mentioned was necessary.

The motion for $7,509 was put and carried, 34 to 31.

On motion of Mr. W. SMITH, the blank for bounty was filled with $10,000,
and that for Hospital Department with $30,000, without objection. He
also proposed to fill the blank for the Ordnance Department with
$48,907, when

Mr. GALLATIN said, that this sum was $11,000 more than the former
estimate; $1,000 of which was owing to an increase of rent. The other
additional item of $10,000 was for contingent expenses; but, as they had
a distinct head for contingent expenses he thought that the
contingencies would be best, all of them, placed under that head. He
therefore moved to have the blank filled with $38,907.

Mr. WILLIAMS proposed $40,000, which was carried.

Mr. W. SMITH proposed to fill the blank for the Indian Department with
$70,000.

Mr. GALLATIN said, it would be recollected that they had already made
two appropriations under this head; the one for establishing
trading-houses with the Indian tribes, the other for carrying into
effect several treaties. On inquiry what reason there was for this
appropriation, he could only find one, viz: that a treaty was expected
to be held in Georgia, at which 3,000 Indians were to be present. He had
supposed this expense was to have been borne by Georgia, but it was
alleged that a part of it would fall on the United States.

The motion was put and negatived, 33 to 26; when

Mr. W. SMITH proposed $60,000. He would mention, that the Secretary of
War had been called upon to give a reason why so large a sum should be
appropriated; when they were told of the treaty which the gentleman from
Pennsylvania had mentioned, and that it would be necessary to have a
large store for the purpose of feeding and clothing the Indians who
attended it. The motion was then put and carried, 31 to 28.

Mr. W. SMITH moved to fill the blank for the Quartermaster's Department
with $250,000.

Mr. GALLATIN said, it would be remembered that in the estimate at the
opening of the session, this item was calculated at $200,000. The reason
given for this advance, was, that the expense of removing stores,
ordnance, &c., to new posts, would be very considerable; but, it would
be recollected, that $200,000 only were appropriated for that purpose in
the time of war, when the Army was liable to be removed very often. The
present estimate was for a Peace Establishment, when their men, once
removed to the new posts, would be stationed; and the appropriation,
instead of for 6,000 men, was now only for 3,000. He moved to insert
$200,000, instead of $250,000.

Mr. BLOUNT said, he supposed the taking possession of the posts was
contemplated when the first estimate was made. It was then known the
British had stipulated to surrender them on the 1st of June.

Mr. W. SMITH said, it was not certain when the first estimate was made,
whether that House would have ratified the treaty; and, if not ratified,
the posts would not have been got. The increased calculation was owing
to the expense in transporting ordnance, stores, &c., to the posts.

Mr. ISAAC SMITH said, it would require more cannon for one of those
posts, than were required by all the Army.

Mr. BLOUNT said, they had had sufficient proof to lead them to believe,
that the PRESIDENT did not think that House had the power mentioned by
the gentleman from South Carolina, and, therefore, he doubted not but
the first estimate was made with reference to the expense of taking
possession of the posts.

The motion for $250,000 was put and negatived, 31 to 26; when $200,000
was put and carried.

Mr. W. SMITH, moved to fill the blank for contingencies of the War
Department with $30,000; which was carried without opposition. He then
proposed to fill the blank for the defence and protection of the
frontiers with $150,000.

Mr. GALLATIN said, he certainly wished the frontier to be protected, but
he could not think so large a sum necessary for that purpose. The sum
last year appropriated was $130,000; and now we had peace with the
Indians, which was secured not only by a treaty with them, but by
treaties with Great Britain and Spain, he could not account for an
increased expense.

The motion for $150,000 was put and negatived; $130,000 was then
proposed and carried, 34 to 33.

Mr. W. SMITH proposed to fill the next blank, for the completion of the
fortifications, &c., at West Point, with $20,000.

Mr. NICHOLAS inquired if there was any law on this head?

Mr. W. SMITH said, there was an act to authorize a provision for this
purpose, but that act had expired. He believed, however, it might
properly come in there. This expense, he was told, was necessary to make
the posts tenable, and that if no money was expended, the fortifications
would be lost. He believed this item might properly be considered as a
part of the Military Establishment.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, he did not object to the propriety of the expense,
but to the manner of introducing it. It would apply to New York as well
as West Point. He considered the admission of West Point as the
admission of a principle to which all the surplus appropriations might
be applied. All the fortifications, he said, were in the power of the
Executive; but, as they had had a committee appointed on the business,
whose report they had considered, he thought they should act
consistently. He therefore moved to strike out the clause.

Mr. WILLIAMS hoped this item would not be struck out, and that the
PRESIDENT would be enabled to extend aid to the fortifications at New
York; if not, the works would go to decay.

Mr. VAN CORTLANDT said, that fortifications ought to be attended to, and
that he should vote for them.

Mr. GILES hoped the motion would prevail. There had been a committee
most of the session, to consider the subject of fortifications. If these
fortifications stood in need of repair, the PRESIDENT should have given
the information to that committee. He thought the item improper in the
present bill.

Mr. GALLATIN believed the gentlemen from Virginia were mistaken. The
committee which had been appointed was to consider the fortifications of
our harbors only. The works at West Point were of a different
description, and the estimate included not only the completing of the
fortifications, but the building and repairs of barracks and stores
which had been destroyed. The present item could not extend to
fortifications in general, as had been apprehended; for, though the
Secretary of the department does not confine the money appropriated to
one object, to that particular purpose, yet, he cannot expend it on any
object which was not contained in the act of appropriation. He moved to
add, "magazines, store-houses, and barracks." Agreed to, and also the
sum.

Mr. W. SMITH then moved to fill the blank for the fortification of forts
and harbors with $50,000.

Mr. GALLATIN said, this item he should move to strike out. A committee
had been appointed, and had reported on this subject, and that it was
not necessary to attend to it at present, as there was a surplus of
$23,000 unexpended. If they were to agree to the present sum, it would
be appropriating an additional sum of $50,000 for the same object; he
hoped, therefore, that it would be struck out.

Mr. W. LYMAN was in favor of striking it out.

Mr. WILLIAMS hoped it would be agreed to, on the ground of the necessity
of some attention being paid to the works at New York.

Mr. DAYTON was in favor of striking out this item altogether, as there
really was not money to spare for objects not essential. If any
particular harbor had been, or could be mentioned, the committee might
better be enabled to judge whether it would be fit, at this time,
pressed as they were for resources, to make an appropriation for
fortifying it, and how much. But, as he knew of none, and believed there
were no such, he should certainly be opposed to appropriating a single
shilling for this purpose. He meant not to say, that there were not
ports in the United States which might be advantageously fortified, but
only, that this country was not yet in a situation to justify their
encountering such an expense, especially as it did not appear to be
immediately necessary.

The motion for striking out was put, and carried.

Mr. W. SMITH moved to fill the blank for the pay of officers, seamen,
and marines, with $113,025.

Mr. NICHOLAS hoped this item would be struck out. It was certainly an
expense for which there was no occasion. He did not wish to see men
raised when they could be of no service. The frigates, he said, could
not be fit for service before the next session. He hoped, therefore, no
opposition would be made to the striking out of the clause.

Mr. W. SMITH said, they had authorized by law the building of three
frigates, and it was wished that they should go into service the present
year. If the whole sum was not appropriated, there would certainly be a
necessity for a part of it.

Mr. NICHOLAS moved to strike out the item as it stood, and insert, "the
pay of the captains of three frigates."

Mr. MACON believed these were the only officers at present appointed.

Mr. HAVENS wished gentlemen to say why these captains should be paid at
all. He believed that building of ships was not their business, and that
these places were at present mere sinecures. He should therefore vote
against the amendment.

Mr. W. SMITH said, it would be necessary to add subsistence as well as
pay of three captains, and moved to fill the blank with five thousand
dollars; which, after a few observations, was agreed to.

On motion of Mr. W. SMITH, the blank for military pensions was filled,
without opposition, with $114,259.

The committee then rose and the House entered upon the consideration of
the amendments which had been made, when all were agreed to, except
that relative to the subsistence of the non-commissioned officers and
privates.[81]


WEDNESDAY EVENING, June 1.

Mr. J. SMITH, from the committee appointed to wait upon the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, to notify him of the intention of both Houses to
adjourn on this day, reported his approbation thereof.

The business before the House being finished, a message was sent to the
Senate, to inform them that the House was ready to adjourn. Whereupon,
after waiting some time to receive any answer that might be sent
thereto, without receiving any--

The SPEAKER adjourned the House until the first Monday in December next.





INDEX TO VOL. I


_Acts of Congress._--Propriety of limiting the period of their operation,
    note, 82;
  safe-keeping of, 129.

_Adams, John_, elected Vice President in 1789, 10;
  voted for as President in 1789, 10;
  in 1793, 385;
  addresses the Senate on taking the chair as Vice President, 11;
  Vice President U. S., 441, 520.

_Address, Inaugural._--Washington, 12.

_Address of the Friends in Pennsylvania, &c._, urging the discontinuance
    of the Slave Trade, 201.

_Address of House to President._--In committee, on answer to the
    President's Address;
  clause respecting the Western expedition against the Indians under
    consideration, 256;
  alarm occasioned by the Greek treaty, 256;
  secret articles thus early, 256;
  sufferings of the people of Georgia, 286.

  Encouraging navigation considered, 257;
  too early for the House to commit itself, 257;
  mode of expression might conduce to the exclusion of foreign bottoms, 257;
  expressions of the President, 257;
  amendment proposed, 257;
  exclusion ruinous to Southern States, 257;
  the words of the report and amendment, 257;
  not be hasty to declare all exports shall be in American bottoms, 257;
  tonnage duties paid in Georgia, 257;
  a substitute proposed, 258;
  no reason to think the House will be committed by adopting the Address, 258;
  two modes of answering the Address, 258;
  amendment lost, 258.

  _Answer to the Presidents Speech_, debated, 532;
  _note_, 532;
  the House should not bow so much to the President as to approve of his
    proceedings without knowing what they were, 532;
  he says his policy in regard to foreign nations is founded in justice; we
    intend to convey a general sentiment of approbation, 532;
  the amendment proposes substantial approbation, 532;
  the distinction is trifling, 532;
  the mission of Mr. Jay should not be approved till we know his instructions,
    532;
  better withdraw the motion than to bring it forward at such an expense of
    temper, 533;
  motion withdrawn, 533;
  amendment moved relating to self-created societies, 533;
  an excitable expression, 533;
  self-created societies of the country, 533;
  as improper to pass a vote of censure as one of approbation, 534;
  the conduct of these people had tended to blow the insurrection, 534;
  objected that these societies will acquire importance by a vote of censure,
    534;
  amendment of no weight, 535;
  leave the societies to their own conscience, 535;
  this declaration from the House will tend to discourage Democratic
    Societies, 535;
  persons most violent against the excise laws had been equally so against the
    insurgents, 535;
  the President did not want them to intermeddle with the societies, 536;
  the societies had produced Western insurrection, 536;
  the effects of the societies, 536;
  the societies composed of patriots, 537;
  amendment can answer no purpose but that of disturbing the public peace,
    538;
  the evils arose from the excise laws, not from Democratic Societies, 538;
  the Democratic Societies in a great measure originated the late
    disturbances, 539;
  misinformation existed, 540;
  amendment lost, 540.

  _Answer to President's Message to 1st Session of 4th Congress_,
    considered in the Senate, 594;
  nothing should be contained in it such as to force the Senate to precipitate
    decisions, 594;
  _note_, 594;
  two clauses objectionable; our situation is not in every way auspicious,
    594;
  nothing reasonably objectionable, 594;
  some members could not vote for the Address without palpable inconsistency,
    595;
  every article of the Treaty objectionable, 595;
  the term "firm" applied to the Executive improper, 595;
  the ratification of the Treaty in all its aspects is advisable, 595;
  the objections considered, 595;
  the clauses record a fact, 596;
  further consideration of the objections, 596.

  _Answer to President's Speech, 1st Session of 4th Congress_, considered
    in the House, 605;
  practice of addresses disapproved, 605;
  practice coeval with the constitution, 605;
  moved to strike out certain words, 606;
  clause goes too far, 606;
  the confidence of a part of the people was diminished, 607;
  motion denies confidence of the House and the public in the President, 607;
  such a thing was once supposed impossible, 607;
  what are the facts? 607;
  defence of the President, 608;
  recommitted, 608.

_African Slaves._--Motion to bring in a bill relative to their
    importation, 84.
  See _Duties on Imports and Slavery_.

_Algerine War_, report of the committee on, 475;
  resolution to build four ships of forty-four, and two of twenty guns
    considered, 475;
  cannot be done in a year, 475;
  two points to be considered--do the Algerines act from their own impulse in
    this matter? if so, they can be bought, 475;
  if excited by Britain, they cannot be bought, 475;
  there is danger of a British war from fitting out the ships, 475;
  the combined powers would regard their equipment as an opportunity to pick a
    quarrel, 475;
  the ships would be too small to be important in Europe, 475;
  British would attempt to search them, hence a quarrel, 475;
  bribery alone can purchase security from the Algerines, 476;
  not a match for the Algerines, 476;
  harbors for American ships in Europe, 476;
  views on the subject, 476;
  no security if we buy a peace, 477;
  an armament urged, 477;
  Britain is the cause, Algiers the instrument, 477;
  this expedient unlikely to answer the purpose, 477;
  competency of the ships examined, 478;
  the charge against Britain unfounded, 478;
  this country not in a state for war, 478;
  _note_, 478;
  six vessels sufficient, 479;
  the bill regarded as affording protection to commerce against the Algerines,
    and as the foundation of a permanent Naval Establishment, 480;
  various objections urged to this view, 480;
  the question is simply whether our commerce requires protection against the
    Algerines, and whether this is the best course to protect it, 482;
  these points considered, 482;
  objections to the bill reviewed, 482;
  argument against a Naval Establishment considered, 482;
  passage of the bill, 482.

_Allegiance, Foreign_.--See remarks of Madison and Jackson, 97 and 98.

_Amendments to the Constitution_.--Application of the Legislature of
    Virginia for a convention to consider defects, and report amendments, 47;
  debate, 47;
  this application should remain on the files until proper number of
    applicants come forward, 47;
  any subject can be referred to a committee, 47;
  the propriety of committing it doubtful, 47;
  Congress has no deliberative power on this occasion, 48;
  the application of a State should be respected and regarded, 48;
  it should be entered at large on the files of the journal, 48;
  so ordered, 48.

_Proper mode of amending considered_, 133;
  proposition to insert after the words "We the people," in the first
    paragraph, a brief clause, 133;
  not the proper mode of amending the constitution, 133;
  it should be done by supplement, 133;
  moved to amend by a resolution declaring, "That the following articles be
    proposed as amendments," &c., 133;
  form of less importance than substance, but there is a neatness and
    propriety here in incorporating articles, 134;
  method proposed by the resolution incompatible with the constitution, which
    requires amendments to form a part of the constitution, 134;
  all amendments should stand separate from the constitution--see precedents,
    134;
  supplementary form most desirable, 134;
  by incorporation the original instrument may be entirely gone, 135;
  can the mode make any possible difference, 135;
  how can amendments be incorporated, 135;
  report of committee founded on recommendation of State conventions, 135;
  the original constitution should remain inviolate, and not be patched from
    time to time like Joseph's coat, 136;
  _magna charta_ never altered by incorporation of amendments, 136;
  arguments for incorporation considered, 136;
  motion lost, 137;
  see _note_, 137.

_Freedom of conscience considered_, 137;
  proposition to insert the words, "no religion shall be established by law,
    nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed," 137;
  the words liable to a wrong construction--have a tendency to abolish
    religion altogether, 137;
  amendment unnecessary--Congress no authority to make religious
    establishments, 137;
  many sects think they are not well secured, and the effect of amendment will
    be conciliatory for the new government, 137;
  some States had desired it, 137;
  reason thereof, 137;
  experience of Rhode Island, 137;
  apprehensions of the people, 138;
  result, 138.

_Right of instruction considered._--On a motion to insert the words, "to
    instruct their representatives," an amendment proposed, 138;
  arguments against the right, 138;
  its propriety in this country, 139;
  if our constituents have a constitutional right to instruct, we are bound to
    obey, 139;
  the words are calculated to mislead by conveying the idea to the people that
    they have a right to instruct, 139;
  duty of a representative, 139;
  dangerous tendency of the doctrine, 140;
  what may be the consequence of binding a man to vote according to the will
    of others in all cases, 140;
  arguments in favor, 140; this amendment is of a doubtful nature, and will
    have a tendency to prejudice
  the whole system, 141;
  if sovereignty resides with the whole people, they cannot, in detached
    bodies, contravene an act established by the whole, 141;
  the clause would not bind representatives, 141;
  it will operate inconveniently to the more distant States, 141;
  under its adoption, one member as good as many, 141;
  no law of the House would be of force if a majority were instructed against
    it, 141; subversive of the principles of
  the constitution, 141;
  must members violate the constitution if instructed, 142;
  objections further considered, 142;
  no instruction should have binding force, 143;
  right of State Legislature to instruct the House opposed, 143;
  absolute necessity of adopting the amendment, 143;
  no right of obligation claimed for instructions heretofore, 144;
  constitutions of several States recognize the right, 144;
  motion lost, 144;
  another motion, 144.

_Amendments_ proposed in the Senate relative to the judiciary power of
    the United States, 445;
  do. passed in Senate, 446.

AMES, FISHER, Representative from Massachusetts, 21, 175, 255, 315,
    388, 527, 637;
  on duty on molasses, 30;
  on duty on hemp and cordage, 37;
  moves duty on barley and lime, 38;
  remarks on tonnage duties, 48;
  remarks on tonnage duties, 54; on the scale of duties on imports, 59, 62,
    65;
  would make no bargain or compromise relative to duties on imports, 69;
  further remarks, 70, 71;
  opposes the motion to lay duty on African slaves, 74;
  thinks a limitation of the impost bill injurious to public credit, 79;
  further remarks, 80, 84; on the admission of Rhode Island, 101;
  on the President's power to remove officers, 106;
  on the organization of the Treasury Department, 110;
  on the compensation of the Vice President, 122;
  on the right of instructions, 143;
  on the location of the seat of government, 158;
  further remarks, 160;
  on manner the Secretary of the Treasury shall make his report, 177;
  on the discrimination between foreign and domestic debts, 195;
  on discrimination of public creditors, 215;
  moves to strike out "Potomac," and insert Germantown as seat of Government,
    249;
  on excise officers, 271;
  further, 272;
  on the commitment of the bill for a Bank of the United States, 273;
  do. speech on the bank, 278;
  on report of Secretary at War, 317;
  on the bill for the encouragement of the Cod Fisheries, 353;
  on attendance of Secretary of War, 391, 392;
  on discharging Committee on defeat of St. Clair, 393;
  on petition of Warner Mifflin, 397;
  on official conduct of Secretary of Treasury, 436;
  on the commerce of the United States, 468;
  on fighting the Algerines, 477;
  in favor of taxing salt, 506;
  urges duties on manufactured tobacco and refined sugar, 507;
  on the advance of money to France, 514;
  on an increase of the army, 515;
  on raising a force for protection of S. W. frontier, 517;
  on the President's speech, 532;
  on resolutions of thanks to General Wayne, 545;
  on the renunciation of nobility for citizenship, 562;
  on reference of letter of Secretary of War, 568, 569;
  on the execution of the British treaty, 743.

AMY DARDIN'S horse, claim for, 763;
  _note_, 763.

_Apportionment Bill, see_ Ratio of Representation;
  veto of, 374;
  action of the House on, 374.

_Appropriations_.--Bill for the appropriations for 1792 considered, 330;
  various amendments proposed, 330;
  bill recommitted, 330.

    _The Right of Congress to withhold_ appropriations from existing
    establishments considered, 625;
  _note_, 625;
  moved to strike out all appropriated for the officers of the mint, 625;
  such motion cannot regularly be brought forward, 626;
  the bill is conformed to the state of the public engagements, 626;
  an investigation should be made on an independent footing, 626;
  a discretionary power in the House to appropriate or not, 626;
  when legal establishments are made, neither branch has a right to withhold
    its assent to appropriations conformable to the public engagements, 626;
  illustration, 626;
  the House is not to pass an appropriation bill as a matter of course, 627;
  amendment agreed to, 627;
  in the House, moved to strike out all appropriated to the mint, 627;
  motion to strike out an appropriation for the purpose of bringing the policy
    of a law into discussion, is repugnant to legislative duties, 627;
  doctrine of discretionary power not correct, 627;
  no appropriation should obtain sanction unless the House were convinced of
    the propriety of the law, 627;
  otherwise the House becomes a mere office for registering edicts, 628;
  House has no right to obstruct the operation of the laws while they exist,
    628;
  otherwise, the House has a right to refuse an appropriation to pay a just
    debt, 628;
  a constitutional view, 628;
  mode of getting rid of an establishment by refusing appropriations not the
    constitutional one, 628;
  expenditure of Washington's administration, _note_ 629.

_The bill providing appropriations_ for military, &c. establishments
    considered, 763;
  debate on the value of rations and the amount appropriated, 764;
  the army had been reduced, but not the expenses, 764;
  various sums proposed for the gross amount for different objects, 765;
  other items considered, 766;
  _note_ 767.

ARMSTRONG JAMES, votes for, as Vice President, in 1789, 10.

ARMSTRONG JAMES, Representative from Pennsylvania, 455, 528.

_Army, Memorial of Officers of_, 397.

_Army, Reduction of_--Resolution for the appointment of a committee to
    bring in a bill for the reduction of the United States Military
    Establishment considered, 398;
  reasons and necessity of the motion, 398;
  expenses, charges, and increase of the War Department, 398;
  _note_, 398;
  the protection of the frontiers considered if the army is disbanded, 399;
  amount of reduction suggested, 399;
  expense of militia expeditions, 399;
  improper time to disband the army when negotiations of peace are going on,
    399;
  been warring with our finances to keep up an army, 400;
  dangerous so suddenly to alter the system, 400;
  strange statements of members considered, 400;
  referred to Committee of the Whole, 401;
  calculations examined, 401;
  circumstances requiring a force, 401;
  history of the frontier wars, 402;
  superiority of regular troops over militia shown, 402;
  case of Major Adair, 402;
  successes of Clark and Sevier, 402;
  improper to take militia to fight Indians, 403.

Improper to adopt the motion under the present circumstances of the country,
    404;
  former law gave President power to exercise his discretion, 404;
  have circumstances so changed as to render it proper for the Legislature to
    interfere? 404;
  the great object of the additional armament is peace, 404;
  cannot rely upon the backwoods riflemen to turn out as often as wanted, 404;
  the President has practised economy in organizing the troops voted for, 404.

The motion only goes to prevent the raising any more troops, it does not
    disband a man, 405;
  militia always more spirited soldiers, and fitter for fighting the Indians
    than regulars, 405;
  experience with militia, 405;
  no peace can be obtained from the Indians unless dictated by British agents
    in Canada, 406;
  any immediate alteration of the system dangerous under present
    circumstances, 406;
  the spirit of the motion in regard to the prevention of standing armies is
    good, 407;
  the reduction of the military establishment will neither put an end to the
    savage war, nor to the enormous expense, 407;
  consider the state of the exposed parts of the Union, 407;
  these people demand the protecting arm of Government, 408;
  commenced wrong in warring with the Indians, 408;
  if public officers have misapplied the public money, the constitution
    pointed out a mode to punish them, 408;
  the defence of the frontier is of superior concern to the redemption of the
    public debt by savings to be made by a reduction of the army, 408;
  a particular plan is set in operation, and it should be tried, 409;
  confidential communications referred to, 409;
  this protection of the frontiers is a test of the Government, 409;
  this Indian war differs from any other, 410;
  not sufficient information respecting the prospect of peace to warrant a
    reduction of the army, 410;
  any abuses in the war establishment are insignificant, 410;
  regular troops grow experienced, and by a line of forts trade can be
    cultivated with the Indians, 411;
  the most important question before the House--on its decision are suspended
    the hopes of the people for peace and their fears of a standing army, 411;
  the principle of keeping up standing armies, though highly obnoxious to the
    people, has not been equally so to the Government, 411;
  effects of standing armies, 411;
  much deliberation is not necessary to form an opinion of military
    establishments, 411;
  the arguments of the opponents lead to four points, 412;
  these points considered, 412;
  although a war establishment is objectionable, this system should not be
    arrested at the moment of its efficiency, 414;
  a standing army is impossible so long as this House holds the purse-strings,
    414;
  motion lost, 415;
  further considered, 416.

_The Pay of Soldiers proposed_ to be increased from three to four dollars
    per month, 459;
  motion to add a fifth dollar, 459;
  no proportion between the wages of ordinary labor and that of military
    service, 459;
  it was justly due, 460;
  no reason for this increase of wages, 460;
  better to increase the rations, 460;
  six dollars had secured some of the most respectable kind of people in
    Pennsylvania, 460;
  further considerations offered, 461;
  motions withdrawn, 461.

_Bill to increase the Army_, lost, 511;
  bill to increase the military force and to encourage recruiting, considered,
    515;
  principle of the bill wrong, 515;
  is it proper to intrust the President with a discretionary power to raise an
    army of ten thousand men owing to the particular state of the country? 515;
  if we have war, it is economy to be prepared beforehand, 515;
  no danger to trust the President, 515;
  the force can be discontinued at our pleasure, 515;
  it would involve the country in useless expense, 515;
  the interests of the country promoted by vesting the President with this
    power, 515;
  what would be the consequence if he cannot make preparation when he sees the
    war approaching, 516;
  no such immediate prospect of war as could induce the House to violate the
    constitution, 516;
  under the constitution one branch of the government raises an army, and the
    other conducts it, 516;
  it encroaches upon a salutary principle of the constitution, 516;
  bill rejected, 516.

_Amendments of the Senate_, fixing the military establishment considered,
    759;
  number of troops sufficient without this amendment, 759;
  amendment to keep a larger number of troops, negatived, 759;
  moved to retain the Major General, 759;
  question debated, 760;
  lost, 760.

_Arts useful_, to promote progress of, 259.

ASHE JOHN BAPTIST, Representative from North Carolina, 239, 259, 317.

_Assumption of State Debts.--See_ Treasury, Report of Secretary of.


B

BAILEY THEODORE, Representative from New York, 455,527, 604.

BAIRD DAVID, Representative from Pennsylvania, 604.

BALDWIN ABRAHAM, Representative from Georgia, 42, 175, 255, 317, 388,
    455, 527, 604;
  on the practicability of collecting duties, 63;
  on organization of Treasury Department, 93;
  on the preparation of estimates by the Secretary of the Treasury, 113;
  on the compensation of the President, 116;
  further remarks, 119;
  on power of Congress to interfere with slavery, 209;
  presides in Committee of the Whole, 216, 220, 221, 228;
  on memorial of officers of Navy, 240;
  on vacancy in the Presidency, 269;
  on ratio of representation, 322;
  on the meeting of the Electoral College, 333;
  on the preparations for the Algerine war, 476;
  on admission of the delegate south of the Ohio, 530;
  on a salary for members of Congress, 636;
  on a stenographer for the House, 631;
  on Post-roads, 637;
  on rights of the House relative to treaties, 659;
  on the admission of Tennessee, 756.

_Bank of the United States._--On the passage of a bill from the Senate to
    incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States, 272;
  recommittal moved, 272;
  various objections to the bill, 272;
  no argument in favor of a bank can be deduced from Great Britain, 272;
  no necessity for a bank, 273;
  plan unconstitutional, 273;
  Government has power to borrow money and therefore had a right to create
    capital to facilitate it, 273;
  its operation benefits all parts of the Union, 273;
  bill should be recommitted as too important to pass without discussion, 273;
  other objections urged, 273;
  clause of constitution respecting monopolies refers to commercial
    monopolies, 273;
  no sufficient reason for recommitment, 273;
  fault of members if they have not offered their objections, 274;
  motion for recommitment lost, 274;
  put on its final passage, 274;
  advantages and disadvantages of banks, 274;
  is the power of establishing an incorporated bank vested by the constitution
    in the Legislature of the United States? considered at length, 275;
  rules of interpretation, 275;
  clauses upon which constitutional power is based, 275;
  general welfare clause, 275;
  various answers to it, 275;
  former bank no precedent, 275;
  this is not a bill to borrow money, 276;
  the clause, "All laws necessary and proper," &c., does not give unlimited
    discretion to Congress, 276;
  the Government is of limited and enumerated powers, 276;
  consequences of considering that the power to borrow authorizes the creation
    of means to lend, 276;
  various objections urged, 277;
  distinction between a power necessary and proper for the Government, and a
    power necessary and proper for executing an enumerated power, 277;
  contemporary expositions of the constitution, 277;
  if the power is in the constitution, its immediate exercise is not
    essential, 278;
  motion to recommit lost, 278;
  bill put on its passage, 278.

Little doubt of the utility of banks, 278;
  constitutional question examined, 279;
  may Congress exercise any powers not expressly given in the constitution but
    deducible by a reasonable construction of it, and will such construction
    warrant the establishment of a bank? 279;
  the doctrine of implied power has been a bugbear to many, 279;
  danger of implied power does not arise from its assuming a new principle,
    279;
  not exercising the powers we have may be as pernicious as usurping those we
    have not, 279;
  if some interpretation of the constitution may be indulged, by what rules is
    it to be governed, 280;
  Congress may do what is necessary to the end for which the constitution was
    adopted, if not repugnant to natural rights or reserved powers, 280;
  as the bank is founded on the free choice of those who use it, and highly
    useful to the people and government, a liberal construction is natural and
    safe, 280;
  a presumption in favor of its conformity to the constitution, 280;
  necessity of a bank to other Governments, 280;
  if war should suddenly break out here, is Congress to provide for it? 280;
  objected, that necessity is the tyrant's plea, 280;
  how does Congress get the right to govern the Western Territory, 281;
  is the establishment of a national bank a violent misinterpretation of the
    constitution, 281;
  are corporate powers incidental to those which Congress may exercise by the
    constitution, 281;
  Congress may exercise exclusive legislation in certain places--of course
    establish a bank, 281;
  the preamble to the constitution warrants the remark that a bank is not
    repugnant to its spirit and essential objects, 281;
  Congress may exercise all necessary powers, 282;
  constitutionality never before doubted, 282;
  the whole business of legislation is a practical construction of the powers
    of the Legislature, 282;
  immense difficulties to be surmounted on all important questions, 282;
  whenever a power is delegated for express purposes, all the known and usual
    means for the attainment of the objects are conceded, 282;
  if banks are among the known and useful means to facilitate and effectuate
    the ends of Government, the argument is irrefragable and conclusive to prove
    the constitutionality of the bill, 283;
  the utility of banks, 283;
  answer to various objections, 284;
  silence of the people is presumptive that they regard the measure as
    constitutional, 284;
  every power necessary to secure the great objects of the constitution must
    necessarily follow, 284;
  the power of removability had been construed, it was as
  important as the present, 285;
  numerous objections considered, 285;
  the expediency of banks considered, 285.

  Latitude in construing the constitution to be reprobated, 285;
  bill will interfere with State rights, 285;
  arguments drawn from implication considered, 286;
  that banks may exist without a charter reprobated, 286;
  construction of powers considered, 286;
  the powers relative to finance do not warrant the adoption of any powers
    thought proper, 286;
  power over Western Territory had reference to property already belonging to
    the United States, 286;
  necessity of proposed institution denied, 286;
  general welfare clause, 286;
  European banks, 286;
  facility of borrowing will involve the Union in irretrievable debts, 287;
  a geographical line divides friends and opponents of the measure, 287.

  Is Congress vested with power to grant privileges contained in the bill?
    considered, 287;
  what rights will this company enjoy in this new character that they did not
    enjoy independent of it, 287;
  the bank must be a legally artificial body composed of these rights, 288;
  is not this simple power fairly to be drawn by necessary implication from
    those vested by the constitution in the legislative authority? 288;
  not express but necessarily deduced, 288;
  peace is preserved by being always prepared for defence--this is a duty of
    Congress, but it must borrow money to secure it, which a bank can aid, 288;
  banks only are reliable for borrowing money, 289;
  a national bank is the necessary means for this end, 289;
  numerous powers have been exercised which were deduced by implication, 289;
  if power was given to raise an army, the making provision for all the
    necessary supplies and incidental charges was included, 290;
  quotations from the Federalist, 290;
  some objections to a bank considered, 291;
  no preference shall be given to one part of the Union over another, not an
    objection, 291;
  this clause inserted for a particular purpose, 292;
  expediency of a national bank, 292;
  divisions of opinion in Philadelphia, 292;
  instances of implied powers exercised, 292.

  Members vary widely in their opinion of the direction of the Government,
    292;
  the Continental debt has travelled eastward of the Potomac, this law is to
    raise the value of that paper, 292;
  implication a serpent that may sting and poison the constitution, 293;
  it destroys the principle of the Government at a blow, 293;
  it is agreed that the power is not expressly granted but implied, yet it is
    not agreed as to the particular power to which this is an incident, 293;
  latitude of principles premised reprobated, 293;
  the form not only points to the ends of Government but specifies the means,
    293;
  if all laws proceed from expediency, what becomes of the constitution? 293;
  the idea that no implication should be made against the law of nature, &c.,
    is hostile to the main principle of our Government, 293;
  review of precedents in the former and present Congress which are relied on
    to justify the measure, 294;
  arguments of its advocates considered, 295;
  there is no necessity, no occasion for a bank, 295;
  propriety of its adoption not manifest, 296;
  source of all the arguments in favor of the measure, 296;
  arguments in favor of the measure, or the doctrine of implication
    considered, 297;
  authority to grant charters in general, 297;
  preamble of the constitution, 297;
  other clauses, 297;
  general welfare clause, 297;
  to regulate commerce, 298;
  the terms "necessary," and "proper," 298;
  exclusive jurisdiction considered, 298;
  derived from its incidentality to the mere creation and existence of
    government, considered, 298;
  does it not interfere with rights of States? 299;
  expediency of the measure considered, 299;
  the right of exercising this authority problematical, 300;
  death will be the penalty of counterfeiting, thus a life at stake on one
    hand, and an improvident act on the other, 300;
  two modes of administering the government, 300;
  objections to the bill in detail, 300;
  unconstitutionality considered, 300;
  Blackstone's rules of interpretation, 301;
  what is the meaning of the word "necessary," 301;
  rules of Blackstone applied, 302;
  this mode of interpretation compared with that of opponents of the bank,
    303;
  the usage of Congress considered, 303;
  sense of the Federal Convention considered, 304;
  no such consequence as a monopoly can result from the bill, 305;
  Congress cannot give authority to purchase land, considered, 305;
  the sense of the Continental Convention is regarded differently by senators,
    305;
  the restriction contended for would annihilate the most essential rights of
    the citizens, 305;
  origin of corporations, 305;
  various objections illustrated, 305.

  Warmth and passion should be excluded from this question, 306;
  the powers proposed to be given do not exist antecedent to the
    incorporation, 306;
  various arguments examined, 306, 307;
  defects of the bill, 307;
  previous question moved, 308;
  bill passed, 308.

  Motion made in the Senate to exclude Bank officers and stockholders from
    Congress, 445;
  amendment proposed, 446;
  amendment to the amendment passed, 446;
  further amendments considered, 446.

BARNWELL, ROBERT, Representative from South Carolina, 317, 390;
  on ratio of representation, 322;
  on the cod fisheries, 356;
  on official conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury, 421, 426.

BASSET, RICHARD, Senator from Delaware, 9, 251, 313, 383;
  appointed on Judiciary Committee, first Congress, 10;
  on committee on rules in cases of conference, first Congress, 10;
  on manner of electing chaplains, 10;
  on rules of business, 10.

BEATTY, JOHN, Representative from New Jersey, 455, 527.

BECKLEY, JOHN, elected Clerk of the House, 21,315, 604.

_Beef, Salt._--Duty on, opposed and rejected, 34.

_Beer, ale and porter_, in bottles or casks, 33;
  duty on, 34;
  beer, duty on, 113.

BENSON, EGBERT, Representative from New York, 23,175, 255, 317, 388;
  on committee for reception of President, 27;
  reports on reception of President to the House, 33;
  reports from committee on administering the oath to the President, 45;
  moves the organization of three executive departments, 85;
  further remarks, 85;
  on a Board of Treasury or Superintendent of Finance, 92;
  on the Treasury Department, 109;
  on the form of amending the constitution, 135;
  on manner in which Secretary of Treasury shall make his report, 177;
  on motion to discriminate among the public creditors, 217;
  presides in Committee of the Whole, 229;
  on vacancy in the Presidency, 268, 270;
  on the stamp of American coins, 372.

BENTON, LEMUEL, Representative from South Carolina, 519, 555.

_Bills, Money._--Power to originate, 110;
  do. enrolled--a standing committee ordered, 129.

BINGHAM, WILLIAM, Senator from Pennsylvania, 591.

BLAIR,----, chosen chaplain of the House, 316.

BLAND, THEODORICK, Representative from Virginia, 21;
  remarks on duties on imports, 28;
  on duty on Madeira wine, 31;
  opposes a duty on salt beef, 34;
  regards duty on nails, &c., unequal, 38;
  presents application of Virginia for amendment of constitution, 47;
  remarks, 47;
  advocates low duties on imports, 61;
  urges appointment of committee of conference on first disagreement between
    the two Houses, 67;
  urges limitation of the impost bill, 78;
  in the power of the President to remove officers, 87;
  further remarks, 89;
  believes the power of Congress to require oaths of State officers.

BLOODWORTH, TIMOTHY, Representative from North Carolina, 255;
  on excise bill, 265;
  further remarks, 271;
  Senator from Maryland, 591.

BLOUNT, THOMAS, Representative from North Carolina, 455, 527, 604;
  the right to Indian lands within a State, 578;
  on intruders on Indian lands, 585;
  on the admission of Tennessee, 755, 757.

BLOUNT, WILLIAM, Senator from Tennessee, 602.

BOUDINOT, ELIAS, Representative from New Jersey, 21, 175, 255, 315,
    388, 455, 527;
  informs the Senate of the readiness of the House to meet them and count the
    electoral votes, 10;
  urges scale of duties on imports proposed by Congress in 1783, 23;
  engages in the debate, 26;
  further speech, 27;
  on duty on distilled spirits, 28;
  do. on molasses, 28;
  on duty on Madeira wine, 32;
  on duty on hemp, 36;
  favors duty on teas, 42;
  reports on reception of President, 44;
  opposes high duties, 44;
  on the application to amend the constitution, 47;
  reviews objections to high and low duties in regard to collection, 63;
  on no limit to the impost bill, 78;
  further remarks, 83;
  moves organization of executive department, 85;
  further remarks, 85;
  on the power of the President to remove officers, 88;
  whether the treasury shall be composed of one or many officers, 93;
  on the duties of Secretary of the Treasury, 110;
  on providing house and furniture for the President, 117;
  further remarks, 119;
  on pay of Vice President, 122;
  presides in Committee of Whole, 126;
  on amount of pay of members, 132;
  further remarks, 133;
  presides in Committee of the Whole, 145;
  moves Potomac, Susquehanna, or Delaware, instead of east bank of Susquehanna
    for seat of Government, 162;
  on importance of the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, 182;
  on the assumption of the State debts, 194;
  further remarks, 197;
  on the constitutional right of an attempt to depress the slave trade, 203;
  remarks on the motion to discriminate among public creditors, 207;
  further remarks, 211;
  on Pennsylvania memorial, 235;
  moves to strike out "Potomac," and insert "Delaware" for seat of government,
    249;
  offers resolution for a land office, 260, 261;
  on the commitment of the bill for a Bank of the United States, 274;
  speech on the bank, 287;
  on report of Secretary of War, 317;
  on the ratio of representation, 320;
  further remarks, 324:
  on the petition of Catherine Greene, 336;
  against attendance of Secretary of War, 391;
  on discharging committee on defeat of St. Clair, 394;
  on official conduct of Secretary of Treasury, 430;
  on the pay of soldiers, 460;
  on the flag of the Union, 461;
  on the French emigrants from St. Domingo, 463;
  do. on the relief of do., 474;
  on the embargo, 480;
  on the legality of the sequestration of British debts, 484;
  on non-intercourse with Great Britain, 495;
  on admitting the delegate south of the Ohio, 529;
  further do., 531; on the coinage of cents, 546;
  on indemnification to sufferers by Pennsylvania insurgents, 547, 549;
  do. on the Pennsylvania insurgents, 552;
  on amending the naturalization laws, 555;
  on the requirements of titled foreigners for citizenship, 561;
  on reference of letter of Secretary of War, 567;
  on the reduction of salaries, 572;
  on the right to Indian lands within a State, 578, 580.

BOURNE, SYLVANUS, appointed by the Senate to notify John Adams of his
election as Vice-President, 10.

BOURNE, BENJAMIN, Representative from Rhode Island, 260, 315, 388,
    457, 528;
  on amending the naturalization laws, 559;
  on post roads, 637;
  on a salary for members of Congress, 637;
  on the rights of the House relative to treaties, 666;
  on the military and naval appropriation, 764.

BOURNE, SHEARJASHUB, Representative from Massachusetts, 315, 388,
    455, 528;
  on the Cod Fisheries, 363.

BRADBURY, THEOPHILUS, Representative from Massachusetts, 604.

BRADFORD, WILLIAM, Senator from Rhode Island, 445, 520, 591.

BRADLEY, STEPHEN R., Senator from Vermont, 313, 380, 444, 523.

BRENT.--On the rights of the House relative to treaties, 666.

_Bribery_.--Case of Robert Randall considered, 609;
  charges, 609, 610;
  arrest of Randall and Charles Whitney, 611;
  time given to prepare for defence, 611;
  debate thereon, 611;
  further statement of the case, 612;
  charges against Randall and against Whitney, 613;
  petition of Randall for counsel considered, 614;
  report on further proceedings, 614;
  considered, 615;
  information against accused, 617;
  counsel of Randall, 618;
  examination of members, 619, 620;
  resolutions on the case, 621, 622;
  case of Whitney, 622;
  debate thereon, 623;
  Whitney discharged, 624.

BROWN, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 175, 255, 315;
  on Quaker memorial, 229.

BROWN, JOHN, Senator from Kentucky, 380, 444, 520, 591.

BRYAN, NATHAN, Representative from North Carolina, 604.

BUCK, DANIEL, Representative from Vermont, 606.

BURKE, EDANUS, Representative from South Carolina, 27, 175, 255;
  on low price of staples in South Carolina, 37;
  opposes duty on salt, 38;
  on tonnage duties, 50;
  favors effective tonnage duties, 54;
  opposes any title for President, 66;
  urges low salaries in consequence of embarrassed finances, 122;
  brings in a bill for compensation of members and officers, 129;
  on the right of instructions, 144;
  on the admission of foreigners, 188;
  one year too short a term for naturalization, 189, 190;
  opposes the commitment of the Quaker memorial, 202;
  Pennsylvania memorial unconstitutional, 208;
  further remarks, 229;
  on memorial of officers of navy, 240;
  on a seat of Government, 243;
  further remarks, 246;
  on vacancy in the Presidency, 270.

BURGES, DEMPSEY, Representative from North Carolina, 604.

BURR, AARON, Senator from New York, 309, 441, 520, 591;
  vote for, as Vice-President in 1793, 386;
  on resolutions relative to presentation of French flag, 601.

BUTLER, PIERCE, Senator from South Carolina, 15, 168, 251, 309, 380,
    442, 591;
  on answer to the President's speech, 594;
  on consideration of resolution relative to presentation of French flag, 598;
  on resolution relative to presentation of French flag, 599.


C

CABELL, SAMUEL J., Representative from Virginia, 604.

CABOT, GEORGE, Senator from Massachusetts, 309, 380, 441, 520, 591.

CADWALADER, LAMBERT, Representative from New Jersey, 22, 175, 255,
    455, 528;
  on a committee to report a bill regulating oaths, 22.

_Candles, Tallow_, duty on proposed, 34;
  adopted, 35.

CARNES, THOMAS P., Representative from Georgia, 455, 527;
  on continental troops on frontiers, 518;
  on indemnification to sufferers by Pennsylvania insurgents, 550;
  on the right to Indian lands within a State, 579;
  on intruders on Indian lands, 587;
  offers amendment to resolution relative to intruders on Indian lands, 589.

CARROLL, CHARLES, Senator from Maryland, 10, 254, 303;
  added to Judiciary Committee, 10;
  on committee to prepare an answer to Washington's inaugural, 12;
  reports on President's Message relative to the ratification of certain
    treaties, 20;
  urges decision relative to duty on molasses, 70, 71;
  on the amendment to the constitution relative to freedom of conscience, 137;
  on Fort Cumberland as a seat of Government, 159;
  further remarks, 160, 164;
  on vacancy in the Presidency, 269.

CARROLL, DANIEL, Representative from Maryland, 22, 175.

_Census of the Union_, debate on, 181;
  in order to know the various interests of the United States, the description
    of the several classes into which the community was divided should be
    accurately known, 181;
  census should comprise more than a mere enumeration of the inhabitants, 181;
  the progress of each interest thus shown, 181;
  motion that the marshal receive of every white male inhabitant over twenty-one
  years of age five cents, and for every male slave of like age three cents,
    as his compensation, 182;
  an equitable tax, 182;
  motion lost, 182;
  bill read a third time, 184.

_Charitable objects_, appropriations by Congress for, _see_
    French Refugees, 462.

_Chaplains_, manner of electing, Senate committee on, 10;
  resolution of the House on, 168.

CHRISTIE, GABRIEL, Representative from Maryland, 437, 527, 604;
  on the President's Speech, 537;
  on the Randall bribery case, 610.

_Circular_, addressed to absent member at the first session of Senate, 9.

_Citizenship_, during absence, see contested election of William Smith,
    96.

_City Hall_, New York, use of, tendered to Congress, 10;
  accepted, 10.

_Civil List for 1796, note, 629._

CLAIBORNE, THOMAS, Representative from Virginia, 457, 527, 608;
  on the reduction of salaries, 571, 575.

CLARK, ABRAHAM, Representative from New Jersey, 316, 388, 455;
  on the ratio of representation, 326;
  on election of President, 334;
  on attendance of Secretary of War, 391;
  on the reduction of the army, 405;
  further remarks, 407;
  on the French emigrants from St. Domingo, 462;
  on the relief of do., 474;
  on the commerce of the United States, 472;
  on the preparations for the Algerine War, 475;
  on the embargo, 500;
  urges postponement of indemnity resolutions, 504;
  asks what taxes are paid by back settlers, 506;
  opposes duties on manufactured tobacco and refined sugar, 507.

CLAXTON, THOMAS, elected assistant doorkeeper of House, 22, 315.

CLINTON, GEORGE, votes for as Vice President in 1789, 10;
  vote for as Vice President in 1793, 386.

CLOPTON, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 604.

CLYMER, GEORGE, Representative from Pennsylvania, 22, 175, 255;
  engages in the discussion on laying duties on imports, 27;
  advocates protection of unwrought steel, 35;
  on state of paper mills in Pennsylvania, 41;
  sustains the power of the President to remove certain officers, 89;
  opposed to title for President, 68;
  opposed to incorporating amendments in the body of the constitution, 134;
  on the right of instruction, 139;
  on the location of the seat of Government on the Susquehanna, 151.

_Coal_, duty fixed, 42, 113.

COBB, DAVID, Representative from Massachusetts, 455, 527.

COCKE, WILLIAM, Senator from Tennessee, 602.

_Cod Fisheries._--A bill for the encouragement of the bank and cod
    fisheries, and for the regulation and government of the fishermen employed
    therein, considered, 350;
  motion to strike out first section, 350;
  principle of the bill doubted, a bounty on occupations, 350;
  no powers given to Congress for such a purpose, 350;
  the revenue to be employed in this bounty is to be drawn from all the
    sources of revenue, 350;
  an authority given to any government to exercise such a principle would lead
    to tyranny, 350;
  bad policy to encourage an occupation that would diminish rather than
    increase the aggregate wealth, 351;
  the bill does not contain that kind of encouragement essential to national
    defence, 351;
  the part of the national defence derived from the fisheries would be too
    costly, 351;
  to show the propriety of the measure, it should be demonstrated that the
    trade is in a state of decay, &c., 351;
  that there is a system of defence involved, &c., 351.

  The fisheries are confined to Massachusetts, which is a part of the Union,
    351;
  they are a nursery of hardy seamen, a never failing source of protection to
    commerce, 351;
  more annoyance to the enemy from privateers, in the war, than from any other
    source, 351;
  all desired by the bill is to avoid the burden of duties, 352;
  the drawback on exported fish benefits the merchant, not the fishermen, 352;
  this bill pays the same money to the fishermen, 352;
  no bounty in the case, 352;
  it is only a drawback on the salt used on the fish, 352;
  the fishermen are now under no control, 352;
  bounty given only to those who conform to regulations, 352;
  constitution says no duty shall be laid on exports, 352;
  on exporting dried fish, the exporter is entitled to draw back the duty paid
    on the salt--this is the whole question, 352;
  defects of drawback law shown, 352;
  bill defended on three grounds, 353;
  it will increase the national wealth, 353;
  it affords naval protection in time of war, 353;
  character of the fishermen, 353;
  product of the fisheries, 354;
  anticipated increase in exports, 354;
  advantages now derived by the Government, 355;
  mode of paying the bounty explained, 355;
  not a dollar will be charged to the public, 355;
  other points considered, 356;
  justice only is asked, 356;
  it is not a bounty, 356;
  we ask that the drawback, in all instances, shall be equal to the money
    received, 356;
  the allowance proposed will not be greater than the drawback on exportation,
    356;
  if it were a bounty, it would only be similar to the indulgence granted the
    land and agricultural interests, 357;
  how can Massachusetts contribute for protection to the Western frontier when
    no contribution is made to support her commerce, which, without it, will be
    ruined? 357;
  diminution of revenue shown, in consequence of the failure of the fisheries,
    357.

  The money to be given will exceed the drawback, 358;
  this surplus is a bounty, and Congress has no power to grant bounties, 358;
  two or three provisions of the constitution to the point, 358;
  what will follow the doctrine of bounties, 358;
  guards in the constitution against the dangerous bias of interest which the
    doctrine of bounties subverts, 358;
  the objects of the bounty mark a dangerous innovation, 359;
  it is better to increase the drawback, a plan comprehending the useful parts
    of the bill without the objections, 359.

  Nothing of a bounty except the name in the bill, 360;
  the object of the bill is to encourage fishermen and thereby increase their
    numbers, and to govern them by certain laws by which they will be kept under
    due restraint, 360;
  these points considered, 360;
  the bill proposes to commute the drawback on the exportation of fish to a
    payment on the tonnage--thus no bounty, 361;
  the bill contemplates no more than what the merchant is entitled to by
    existing laws, 361;
  the powers of the Government must, in various cases, extend to granting
    bounties, 361.

  A material distinction here between an allowance as a mere commutation and
    modification of a drawback, and an allowance in the nature of a real and
    positive bounty, 362;
  the term bounty improper here, and does not express the sense of the bill,
    362;
  some think Congress may do any thing they may think conducive to the
    "_general welfare_" 362;
  this term examined at some length, 362;
  consequences of the novel idea advanced, 363;
  the power of Congress, if established to this latitude, would subvert the
    Government, 363;
  is it worthy the attention of the Government that the cod fisheries should
    be preserved? 363;
  privilege carefully secured in the treaty with Great Britain, 363;
  products obtained in exchange for fish are dutiable, 364.

  Congress does not possess the power, 364;
  arguments for the bounty examined at length, 365;
  perhaps the State Legislature should give the bounty, 365;
  framers of the constitution guarded against partial preferences extremely,
    366;
  is it politic and wise to exert this power even if it be authorized by the
    constitution? 366;
  an examination of terms used, 368;
  distinction between bounties and drawbacks, 368;
  arguments drawn from the term "general welfare" dangerous, 368;
  general welfare and particular welfare, 368;
  the inherent rights of the Government, 369;
  passage of the bill, 369.

_Coffee_, duty on, 33.

COFFIN, PELEG, Jr., Representative from Massachusetts, 456, 528.

COIT, JOSHUA, Representative from Connecticut, 457, 527, 604;
  on the rights of the House relative to treaties, 687;
  on the execution of the British treaty, 731;
  on the admission of Tennessee, 757.

COLES, ISAAC, Representative from Virginia, 23, 175, 456, 604.

_Commerce of United States._--Report of Secretary of State on the
    privileges, and restrictions on the commerce of the United States in foreign
    countries, considered, 458;
  _note_ on, 458;
  proceedings previous to the adoption of the constitution, 458;
  duty to see if such measures could not be taken as would be promotive of
    those objects for which the Government was in a great measure instituted, 458;
  effects of such a movement, 458;
  numerous considerations advanced, 459;
  line to which the debate should be confined, 464;
  Great Britain and France, the two powers aimed at in the restrictions
    proposed, 464;
  an accurate and impartial comparison of the commercial systems of the two
    countries in reference to the United States; the test of the solidity of these
    propositions, 464;
  results of the comparison, 464.

  Should any thing be done at this time in the way of commercial regulations
    towards vindicating and advancing our national interests? 465;
  Navigation Act of Great Britain, 465;
  to allow trade to regulate itself, is not to be admitted as a maxim
    universally sound, 465;
  history of American policy, 466;
  trade between the United States and Great Britain, considered, 466.

  We should not regard the favoring of the French and British nation, but
    study to do that which would tend to the promotion of our own commerce
    and the interest of our own navigation, 467;
  which would suffer most, the United States or Great Britain? 467;
  three fourths of our revenue is derived from our commerce with Great
    Britain, 467;
  our intercourse with Great Britain, excepting some points, is as favorable
    as we can expect, 468;
  a judicious system of regulations would be of infinite advantage to the
    maritime interest of this country, 468;
  principles in regard to trade, 468;
  the subject is divided into navigation and manufactures, 469;
  navigation considered, 469;
  benefits derived from the consumption of European manufactures, 470;
  on the trade between America and Great Britain, 471;
  fixed principles and regulations by which to promote our commerce, 472;
  question considered in a political light, 472;
  the question postponed, 473.

  _Promoting Commerce_ by the increase of American seamen; moved that a
    committee be appointed to report bills for, 395;
  injury and insult arising from having British seamen, 395;
  cases of search and seizure stated, 396;
  conduct of Great Britain, 396;
  Government should take steps to secure abundance of American seamen, 396;
  motion adopted, 396.

_Committee._--Senate, 1st Congress; on judiciary, 10;
  on rules in cases of conference, 10;
  on manner of electing chaplains, 10;
  on arrangements for receiving President, 10;
  to wait on Vice President, 11;
  on conducting the ceremonial of receiving the President, 11;
  to prepare an answer to Washington's Inaugural, 12;
  of House to report a bill regulating oaths, 22;
  of House to receive President, 37;
  to receive Vice President, 37;
  on supplies ordered, 46;
  appointed, 46;
  on disposition of papers in the office of late Secretary of United States,
    46;
  on the answer to Washington's Inaugural, 46;
  on supplies; instructions to, 57;
  of Conference with Senate on disagreement relative to title of President,
    69;
  to draft bills organizing Executive Departments, 94;
  to draft bills on pay of members, 126;
  on the establishment of a land office, 127;
  on enrolled bills, 129;
  to bring in bills relative to a seat of Government, 164;
  of Senate to draft an address to the President, 169;
  of Senate to bring in a bill additional to the Judiciary Act, 170;
  on unfinished business of last session, 170;
  of House on unfinished business of the last session, 171;
  to wait upon the President, 175;
  to prepare an address to the President, 178;
  of Senate to draft an answer to the President's address, third session,
    first Congress, 253;
  standing, appointed by the Speaker, 315;
  on rules, 315;
  to prepare an answer to the President's address, 316.

_Compensation of the President, &c._--Report of a committee on the
    compensation of President, Vice President, Senators, and Representatives
    considered, 116;
  in what style is the President expected to live? 116;
  is five thousand dollars in proportion to the services of the Vice
    President? 116;
  members should know the rate at which they are paid in order to regulate
    their expenses, 116;
  the pay of the President should be granted as one sum, 117;
  under the constitution, he can receive no other emolument, 117;
  the provision in the report for paying the expenses of enumerated articles,
    house, furniture, clerks, horses, does not leave the President in the
    situation contemplated by the constitution, 117;
  furniture and plate should always be provided by Government, 117;
  report perfectly constitutional; if one thing can be allowed, another can
    be, 117;
  the constitution intends nothing but a fixed compensation for his services,
    117;
  compensation should be according to services, and the President allowed to
    live as he pleased, 118;
  there should be proper dignity attached to the office, 118; motion to strike
    out enumerated articles, horses, &c., carried, 118;
  motion to strike out twenty and insert thirty thousand dollars, 118;
  do. divided, first carried, 118; various sums proposed, 119;
  if we knew the style in which the President should live, amount of pay would
    be easy to determine, 119;
  experiment only can tell, 119;
  $25,000 sufficient to test it, 119; various sums farther considered, 120;
  $25,000 adopted, 120.

_Compensation of Vice President_ considered, 120;
  $5,000 per annum in quarterly payments reported, 120;
  nothing in the constitution gives him a right to a salary, 120;
  moved to strike out $5,000 in order to allow salary when he acts as
    President, and daily pay for services in the Senate, 120;
  $5,000 is out of proportion to $25,000, 120;
  it should be a perpetual salary as he is expected to remain at the seat of
    Government, and be ready in case of death of the President, 120;
  a compensation is to be made only for services rendered, 120;
    Lieutenant Governors of States, 120;
  services required of Vice President, 121;
  advantages of the position, 121;
  constitution silent on the subject, 121;
  therefore left to the Legislature to determine, 121;
  pay according to services does not hold good in Executive and
    Judiciary Departments, 121;
  the post not a sinecure, 121;
  no more entitled to an allowance than the other members of the
    Legislature are, 122;
  shall the Vice President receive a per diem or an annual salary?
    the constitution should serve as the ground by which to determine, 122;
  all motions lost and original proposition agreed to, 123.

  _Pay of Senators and Representatives_ considered, 123;
  six dollars per day and for every twenty miles proposed, 123;
  six per day for Senators and five for Representatives moved, 123;
  a distinction made in the constitution, 123;
  discrimination opposed, 123;
  discrimination urged on the ground of different qualifications and mode of
    election, 123;
  difference not perceived in the constitution, 124;
  discrimination evidently contemplated in the constitution, 124;
  unless adopted, proper Senators may not be obtained, 124;
  no difference in Legislative concerns, 124;
  arguments in favor of discrimination considered, 124;
  do. 125;
  distinction marked in many points, 125;
  a discrimination may eventually be a public injury, 126;
  a measure injurious to the Government, 126;
  motion lost, 126;
  bill for compensation, &c., 129;
  moved to strike out six dollars as pay of members, 129;
  objects of the mover, 130;
  six dollars too high, 130;
  present course is contrary to all Parliamentary proceeding, 130;
  motion to strike out lost, 131;
  bill reported to the House, and moved to strike out six dollars, and insert
    five, 131;
  six too high, 131;
  consider the principles upon which the President, Judges and members are to
    be paid, 131;
  necessary to secure an independent Legislature, 132;
  five high enough, 132;
  insinuations of improper and unworthy motives in the movers, 133;
   motion lost, 133.

  Annual salary proposed of $1,000 for members of the House, 635;
  present mode good--no alteration necessary, 635;
  members be induced to greater despatch in business, 635;
  public think the session unreasonably protracted, 635;
  annual salary causes neglect of business, 635;
  a salary, a bounty to neglect business, 635;
  a measure affords no advantage, 636;
  many suppose the bill to cover advance pay--yearly allowance not shorten
    sessions, 636;
  further consideration advanced, 636;
  motion to strike out the word annual passed, 637;
  motion to strike out greater allowance to the Speaker, 638;
  debated at length, 638;
  motion lost, 639.

_Congress._--Day of meeting, 9;
  _note_, 46;
  proposition to adjourn first session, 16;
  adjournment of first session, 20;
  compensation of members, 116;
  debate on, 116;
  pay of members, 123;
  debate on discrimination in pay of members of two Houses, 123;
  compensation of members and officers, 129;
  debate on amount of pay, 129;
  first session, adjournment of, 167;
  second session, day of meeting, 168;
  members of, when term of office commenced, 171;
  second session, 175;
  first, third session, 251;
  first, closed, 308;
  second, first session, 309;
  second, first session closed, 379;
  second session commenced, 388;
  third, first session, 455;
  third, second session, 520;
  adjournment, second session of third Congress, 591;
  fourth, first session, 592.

_Connecticut._--Vote for President, 10, 385.

_Constitution._--Amendment of, proposed by Virginia, 47;
  how treated by the House, 48;
  debate on the mode of, 133;
  on the freedom of conscience, 137;
  right of instruction, 138;
  debate on, 138;
  vote on, 144;
  all amendments, in one report, 144;
  constitution, amendments of; _see Amendment_ of the constitution.

CONTEE, BENJAMIN, Representative from Maryland, 89, 175.

_Contested Elections._--Debate on the resolution that William Smith,
    member of the House, had been seven years a resident of the United
    States at the time of his election, 94;
  statement of Mr. Smith, 94;
  was Mr. Smith a citizen of South Carolina during his absence in Europe? 97;
  if the laws of the State decided him to be, that should settle the question,
    97;
  is the gentleman eligible to a seat in the House, or has he been seven years
    in the United States? 97;
  qualities of a citizen and an alien, 97;
  to become a citizen, allegiance is first due to the whole nation, 98;
  what was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of
    their allegiance took place? 98;
  views of Mr. Madison, 98;
  opposite views of Mr. Jackson, 99;
  vote admitting Mr. Smith, 99.

  _Ineligibility of Albert Gallatin_ to a seat in the Senate, considered,
    448;
  on the petition of Conrad Earle, reported that it remains with Mr. G. to
    prove his citizenship, 448;
  facts stated, 448;
  who shall open the prosecution and conclude the arguments? 449;
  Mr. G. was an inhabitant of the United States before the peace of 1783, 449;
  all previous laws respecting aliens were done away, 449;
  he conceived himself a citizen from the time of his first qualifying, 449.

  Qualifications required in Virginia and Massachusetts, 449;
  mischievous consequences of permitting such innovations, 449;
  the doctrine of the old law still virtually in force, 449;
  other objections considered, 450;
  reply of Mr. Gallatin, 450, 451, 452;
  vote of the Senate, 452.

COOPER, WILLIAM, Representative from New York, 604.

_Cotton_, its introduction into South Carolina contemplated, 37.

COUNT DE GRASSE, Memorial of heirs of, 582.

CRABB, JEREMIAH, Representative from Maryland, 624.

_Creek Nation._--Secret article of treaty with, 173.

_Crown on the State House_ at New Haven, 563.


D

DALTON, TRISTRAM, Senator from Massachusetts, 10, 168, 251;
  on committee for conducting reception of President, 11.

DAWSON, WILLIAM J., Representative from North Carolina, 455, 527.

DAYTON, JONATHAN, Representative from New Jersey, 316, 388, 455, 527,
    604;
  in favor of the attendance of the Secretary of War, 391;
  on discharging committee on defeat of St. Clair, 395;
  on reduction of the army, 400;
  acknowledges thanks of the House, 440;
  on the sequestration of British debts, 483;
  against continuing the embargo, 500;
  moves to refer indemnity resolution to committee on sequestration of British
    debts, 503;
  advocates his motion, 503;
  in favor of the bill to increase the army, 515;
  on admitting the delegate south of the Ohio, 529;
  on administering the oath to the delegate south of the Ohio, 531;
  on the President's speech, 535;
  on indemnification to sufferers by Pennsylvania insurgents, 547, 548;
  on Pennsylvania insurgents, 552;
  on amending naturalization laws, 555;
  on reference of letter of Secretary of War, 568;
  on the purchase of Indian lands, 583;
  elected Speaker, 604;
  do. speech, 604;
  on establishing Indian trading-houses, 624;
  on the pay of the Speaker, 638;
  on the execution of the British Treaty, 748;
  on the admission of Tennessee, 754, 755;
  on the military and naval appropriation, 764, 765.

DEARBORN, HENRY, Representative from Massachusetts, 455, 527, 664;
  on thanks to General Wayne, 546;
  on the sense of the House relative to the British treaty, 750, 751;
  on the admission of Tennessee, 755.

_Debate_, on duties and imports, 37, 41, 57, 58;
  on permanent seat of government, 145;
  on amendments of the Senate to House bill fixing seat of government, 165;
  on call of the House, 176;
  on manner in which Secretary of the Treasury shall make a report, 177;
  on answer to President's speech, 178;
  on admission of reporters, 180;
  on census of United States, 181;
  on report of Secretary of the Treasury, 182;
  on the naturalization laws, 184;
  on the assumption of State debts, 191;
  on the reception of the address of the Friends urging the discontinuance of
    the slave trade, 202;
  publication of, 377;
  on a military establishment, 390;
  on the defeat of St. Clair, 391, 393;
  on the reduction of the army, 398;
  on official conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury, 418;
  on the pay of soldiers, 459;
  on the commerce of the United States, 464;
  on the war with Algiers, 475;
  on sequestration of British debts, 483;
  on non-intercourse with Great Britain, 493;
  on the embargo, 499;
  on indemnity for spoliations, 503;
  on tobacco and sugar duties, 507, 599, 511;
  on the delegate south of the Ohio, 529;
  on answer to President's speech, 531;
  on Pennsylvania insurgents, 547;
  on naturalization bill, 555;
  on reduction of salaries, 571;
  on Thomas Pearson and others, 576;
  on Indian lands in Georgia, 586;
  on the address to the President, 605;
  Robert Randall bribery case, 609;
  on appropriations, 625;
  on Treaty with Great Britain, 639;
  on admission of Tennessee, 754.

_Debt of the States_, _note_, 140;
  assumption of, 191.

_Delaware_, vote for President, 10, 385.

_Delegates from Territories._--Report on the credentials of James White,
    Representative of the territory south of the Ohio, 528;
  unconstitutional to permit the delegate to debate and not to vote, 528;
  the law says he shall be a member of Congress--one House is not Congress,
    hence the delegate may vote in both Houses, 528;
  constitution makes no provision for such a person, 528;
  his proper title is to a seat in the Senate, 529;
  the House can admit those whom it regards as lawfully entitled to a seat,
    529;
  by whom was he to be paid? 529;
  expedient to admit the delegate, 529;
  the House has the right to consult or admit any one to debate, but not to
    vote, 529;
  an act of the whole legislature requisite for the introduction of a
    delegate, 529;
  an act of the legislature impracticable, 529;
  he has a right to a seat founded on an original compact, 530;
  amendment proposed, 530;
  the constitution admits no such character, 530;
  report of the committee, 530;
  moved that the delegate be required to take an oath, 531;
  the constitution requires only members and the clerk to take an oath, 531;
  improper to demand an oath of a delegate as he cannot vote, 531;
  motion lost, 531.

DENT, GEORGE, Representative from Maryland, 455, 527, 604.

_Departments_, executive, debate on, 85;
  of interior, organization of, proposed as a home department, 85;
  of State, organization of, proposed, 85;
  resolved, 86;
  of treasury, organization of proposed, 85;
  of war, organization of, proposed, 85;
  of the treasury, organization of, proposed, 90;
  debate, 90;
  three commissioners of treasury voted down, 94;
  executive, resolution on, 94;
  do. committee on, 94;
  of State, on removal of the Secretary by the President, 102;
  of war, 108;
  do. bill ordered to be engrossed, 109;
  of the treasury, debate on duties of the Secretary, 109;
  home, 127;
  proposition lost, 128;
  see _Executive_ departments.

DEXTER, SAMUEL, Jr., Representative from Massachusetts, 457, 528;
  on the French emigrants from St. Domingo, 463;
  against continuing the embargo, 500;
  opposes reference of the indemnity resolutions to committee on sequestration
    of British debts, 505;
  on admitting the delegate south of the Ohio, 529, 530;
  on the President's speech, 532, 535, 538;
  on indemnification to sufferers by Pennsylvania insurgents, 550, 551, 553;
  on amending naturalization laws, 556;
  on the exclusion of titled foreigners from citizenship, 557.

DICKINSON, PHILEMON, Senator from New Jersey, 251, 309, 380.

_Discrimination_, in public creditors, _see Treasury_, report of
Secretary.

_Distilled spirits_, debate on drawback, 43;
  duty on, proposed, 28, 29;
  duty on, 113;
  _see Duties_ on imports.

_Drawbacks_, _see Duties_ on imports.

DUDLEY, GIFFORD, elected doorkeeper of House, 22, 315.

_Duties ad valorem_, laid, 41, 43;
  collection of, bill reported, 57;
  on imports, bill laying the same considered, 15;
  subject brought before the House by Mr. Madison, 22;
  scale adopted in 1783, 23;
  debate on, in committee, 23, 33, 44;
  effect of high duties on smuggling, 44;
  debate thereon, 69, 73;
  debate on limiting the time of the bill, 77;
  amendment proposed, 81;
  withdrawn, 83;
  another moved, 84;
  bearing of the debate upon protection, _note_, 84.

_Duties on Import_s.--Debate on, 22;
  importance of the subject, 22;
  deficiency of the Treasury, 22;
  the propositions by Congress in 1783, suitable for a basis, 23;
  heretofore approved by the States, 23;
  tonnage duties added, 23;
  necessity of the measure, 23;
  motion to fill the blanks of rate of duty as proposed by Congress in 1783,
    23;
  filling the blanks should be postponed until the business is more mature,
    23;
  immediate filling not necessary, 23;
  the proposition considered in a revenue light alone, 24;
  system of the plan proposed, 24;
  its simplicity, 24;
  something more than a temporary measure should be adopted, 24;
  list of articles on which duties should be levied proposed, 24;
  a single system embracing the most material and productive articles is best
    at present--a plan comprising all is a work of time and leisure, 25;
  to establish a permanent regulation now is most satisfactory to the public,
    25;
  five per cent. on all imports excepting a few articles enumerated for
    specific duty proposed in 1783--the history of the ancient world shows
    protection to domestic manufactures, 25;
  the fostering hand of the General Government should extend to all
    manufactures of national utility, 25;
  any system of imports must be founded on mutual concession, 26;
  the means of encouraging agriculture should be considered, 26;
  of this we have the monopoly, 26;
  commerce, labor and industry, should be free, with some exceptions--every
    nation should have means of defence within itself, 26;
  imposts the easiest system of revenue, 26;
  but in what manner shall it be done? 26;
  specific duties on enumerated articles desirable, 26;
  a political necessity exists for encouraging manufactures, and raising a
    revenue, 27;
  what articles shall be taxed, what amount of money will each yield, and in
    what manner shall it be collected? 27;
  these questions should be the subjects of two bills, 27;
  in laying duties where the quantum is unascertainable, they should be low
    rather than high, 27.

_Rum._--Fifteen cents per gallon proposed, 27;
  fifteen too high, ten moved, 27;
  committee not prepared to enter on the business in the accurate manner
    proposed, 27;
  encouragement to manufactures in their present feeble state would be a tax
    on the public for the benefit of a few, 27;
  what article shall be subject to specific, and what to _ad valorem_,
    duties, and on what principle shall the discrimination be made? 28;
  if the main object is revenue, consider when a duty is laid how far it is
    likely to be collected, 28;
  fifteen cents per gallon on rum may tempt smuggling, 28;
  it is one third the cost, 28;
  the highest sum can be collected, 28;
  revenue is the present object, and rum is the most productive article, 28;
  what shall be the duty on one article must be determined by the
    circumstances of the article, 29;
  yet fifteen cents on rum may lead to evasion of the law, 29;
  fifteen cents adopted, 29;
  _drawback_ on rum exported, of six cents, 49;
  lead to frauds on the revenue, 43;
  no drawback will be a great injury to the manufacture, 43;
  drawbacks will not operate to the disadvantage of the revenue, 43;
  if not allowed it will be a restraint on commerce, 43;
  particularly unjust if not allowed on rum, 43;
  this was an encouragement to commerce, and should not be combined in a bill
    encouraging manufactures, 43;
  drawbacks generally, 45;
  duty on rum, 65;
  motion to reduce lost, 65.

  _Bill repealing duties_ heretofore laid on distilled spirits imported
    from abroad, and laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits
    distilled within the United States, considered, 262;
  an excise law to be reprobated, 263;
  unequal in its operation, 262, 263;
  history of excises in England, 263;
  compliment to importers on promptness in paying duties, 263;
  bill hostile to the liberties of the people, 263;
  present revenue and demands compared, 263;
  tendency to promote smuggling, 263;
  mode of raising additional revenue disliked, 263;
  motion to strike out duties specified in order to insert duties on molasses,
    264;
  of all excises that on ardent spirits least exceptionable, 264;
  direct taxation preferable, 264;
  no other mode can be adopted, 264;
  other sources of revenue might be explored, 264;
  smuggling be promoted, 264;
  deficiency exists--money must be raised--direct taxation impracticable, 264;
  operation of an excise in North Carolina, 265;
  an equal and just mode of taxation, 265;
  good sense of the people support it, 265;
  no more proper subject for revenue, 265;
  direct taxes opposed, 266;
  difference from the English bill, 266;
  excises constitutional, 266;
  people of Southern States cheerfully acquiesce in the wisdom of Legislature,
    266;
  probable revenue of the year, 267;
  an amendment moved to prevent inspectors, &c., from interfering in
    elections, &c., 270;
  the amendment should be extended to every person, 270;
  proposition important, 271;
  bad policy to render the law odious by fixing a stigma on the officers to
    execute it, 271;
  propriety of the motion, 271;
  motion does not go far enough, 271;
  reasons for the amendment, 271;
  objections to the amendment, 271;
  amendment lost, 272;
  bill passed, 272.

  _Molasses._--Shall we tax spirits or the article from which it comes,
    29;
  better collect on the importation of molasses, 29;
  eight cents is in proportion to the tax on rum, 29;
  this is a raw material important to manufactures in Eastern States, a
    necessary of life--the tax, a local burden--two cents high enough, 29;
  a principle of action should be adopted, 29;
  if molasses is taxed high because the duty on spirits is high, a necessary
    of life is burdened, 29;
  this rate of duty is unequal, 30;
  it will bring sudden ruin on the manufacturers of domestic spirits, 30;
  if a particular duty bears hard on one member of the Union, it is part only
    of a system bearing equally upon all, 30;
  is this duty ruinous to Massachusetts? 30;
  let a drawback of this duty be paid on all rum exported, 30;
  eight cents is more than a third of the cost of molasses, and higher than
    the duty on rum, 31;
  six cents is more equitable; this principle now fixed would carry them
    through the whole, 31;
  fixed at six cents, 31;
  if a reduction is made on other articles, there should be one on molasses,
    69;
  the duty is not rated in proportion to other articles; the reduction must
    depend on the article itself, 69;
  should so rate as to make the States bear their due proportion of the
    aggregate, 69;
  every article should stand on its own bottom, 70;
  this duty is out of proportion, and too high to be collected, 70;
  it is a tax on a raw material and on an article of consumption, 70;
  the necessity of a drawback on country rum is incurred, 70;
  without the molasses trade the fishery cannot be carried on, 70;
  experience is against high duties on molasses, 70;
  fish are given in exchange for French molasses in the colonies; if the
    exportation of molasses is impeded so is that of fish, 71;
  the arguments of the advocates of a reduced duty, 71;
  six cents changed to five, 73.

  _Madeira Wine._--Thirty cents proposed, as it corresponds with the rate
    per cent. on the value--a principle now admitted, 31;
  fifty cents proposed, as the article is not a necessary of life, and it is
    desirable to raise all the revenue from imports, 31;
  fifty cents prohibitory, 31;
  the duty should be according to the relative value of the article at the
    time and place of importation, 32;
  cost of wine estimated, 32;
  thirty-three cents substituted, 32;
  discrimination on all other wine, 32;
  discrimination not proper at this time, 33.

  _Sugar_, put on same footing as molasses, 33.

  _Beer, ale, and porter._--This manufacture should be encouraged, 33;
  nine cents moved, 33;
  the duty should be so high as to give preference to American beer, 33;
  a low tax will raise money enough, 33;
  nine cents prohibitory, 33;
  prohibition will increase the manufacture and reduce the price--encourage
    raw material, 34;
  eight cents fixed, 34.

  _Candles._--Moved to strike out, 34;
  it is necessary to continue encouragements begun by the State Governments,
    34;
  a small encouragement would place the article beyond competition, 35;
  if there was much importation of the article, it should be taxed for the
    sake of revenue, 35.

  _Steel, unwrought._--Any duty on, unwise and impolitic, 35;
  more deserving of a bounty, 35;
  a little encouragement would furnish abundance, 35;
  encouragement of the object of selecting the article, 85;
  the smallest tax on steel would be a burden upon agriculture, an interest
    most deserving of protection, 35;
  condition of South Carolina, 35;
  local considerations must be got rid of, 35;
  what operates to the benefit of one part in establishing useful institutions
    will operate finally to the advantage of all, 36;
  sixty-six cents a heavy duty on agriculture and mechanic arts, 36;
  fixed at fifty-six, 36.

  _Hemp and Cordage._--Policy of taxing cordage doubtful, 36;
  ship-building of national interest, 36;
  duty on hemp moved also, 36;
  if one is necessary, so is the other, 36;
  soil of the country ill adapted to hemp, 36;
  a duty on it would discourage navigation, trade and fisheries, 36;
  policy of taxing either doubtful, 36;
  Southern States calculated to raise hemp--protection to husbandry important
    as to manufactures, 36;
  distinction between taxing manufactures and raw material, 36;
  no amount of duty could give encouragement, if present price failed to do
    it, 36;
  frontier lands excellent for its growth, 36;
  the committee should do as much for the farmer as the artisan, 36;
  American lands will produce it equal to any in the world, 37;
  a small duty would turn public attention to it, 37;
  agriculture should be encouraged, but not at the expense of ship-building,
    37;
  forty cents moved, 37;
  encouraging the settlement of western lands will encourage ship-building
    more than a bounty on hemp, 37;
  a low duty will encourage its growth in South Carolina and Georgia, 37;
  if hemp left out, cordage should be also, 38;
  a low duty at first, 38;
  fifty cents fixed, 38;
  immediate encouragement contended for, 54.

  _Nails, spikes, &c._--This is a tax on the improvement of estates, 38;
  like a tax on hemp, would increase the price of ship-building, 38;
  an unequal tax, 38;
  in a little time the home supply would equal the demand, 38;
  needs no legislative assistance, 38;
  refusing the duty will do no material injury, 38;
  one cent per pound fixed, 38.

  _Salt_, a necessary of life, 38;
  present price high, 38;
  much to be depended on as a source of revenue, 39;
  this tax heavier on the poor than on the rich, 39;
  no encouragement would be sufficient to establish its manufacture, 39;
  this tax unpopular and unjust, 39;
  it will cause much dissatisfaction with the new Government, 39;
  dissatisfaction will be only partial, 40;
  the tax not unequal, 40;
  taxes, to be just, should affect all, as this will, 40;
  the good sense and justice of the people to be trusted, 40;
  to be considered on the principle of justice and policy, 40;
  it falls on all alike, is part of a system, 40;
  any distinction is in favor of the Southern division, 40;
  if oppressive to the West, the equilibrium is restored by other articles in
    the system of revenue, 40;
  no law unjust and oppressive should be made, 41;
  such the duty on salt will be considered, 41;
  fixed at six cents, with a drawback on salted provisions, 41.

  _Teas_, a discriminating duty in favor of American bottoms proposed,
    41;
  a large trade now sprung up with the East, 42;
  policy of the measure doubtful, 42;
  its object is not to add to the revenue, 42;
  long voyages unfriendly to commerce, 42;
  the only advantage is to raise the India commerce, 42;
  large amounts of American produce were exported in this trade, 42;
  it would afford protection against the large companies in Europe, 42;
  duty fixed as proposed, 42.

  _Coal._--Coal came from Europe as ballast so cheap as to prevent the
    working of the mines in Virginia, 42;
  three cents fixed, 42.

  _Scale of duties_, motion to reduce as too high, 44;
  the scale will be found not too high, 44;
  certainly too high to be well collected, especially in Georgia, 44;
  greater revenue can be obtained from a lower scale, 44;
  high duties produce smuggling, 44;
  high duties now will lead to smuggling, and oppress certain citizens and
    States for the benefit of others, 57;
  high duties raise a scruple respecting the allowance of a drawback, 58;
  high duties improper, because they are impolitic, 59;
  Southern States willing to consent to moderate duties, and give every
    encouragement possible, but not consent to great oppression, 59;
  are the duties too high or not? 59;
  what are the objects of Government--revenue one of the first? 60;
  if the revenue system falls with oppressive weight, it will shake the
    foundations of the Government, 60;
  what we may reasonably expect to collect is the point to be considered, 60;
  the chain of ideas upon which the whole subject is suspended, 60;
  all the money should be drawn from impost which can be, 60;
  rate of the duties, 60;
  if the scale is reduced, the amount of revenue will be insufficient, 61;
  direct taxation and excises are the only other means of resource, 61;
  experience of the old Congress and the increase of our importations show the
    scale to be too high, 61;
  the objects for which the money is needed are most important, 62;
  direct taxes are the alternative of lowering the scale, 62;
  every article stands as well as possible under the information possessed,
    62;
  the arguments of the advocates of low duties considered, 62;
  this system compared in amount with that of Great Britain, 63;
  arguments of the advocates of high duties considered, 63;
  a host of revenue officers required to collect high duties would leave
    little for the treasury, 64;
  America has vessels well adapted for smuggling, 64;
  effects of high duties on the mercantile interest, 64;
  the impost will be well collected, 64;
  whatever is just and right the people will judge of and comply with, 65;
  if revenue is our primary object and other considerations secondary, we
    should do nothing to operate against the principle, 65;
  object of the committee is to raise revenue, 65.

  _African Slaves._--Duty on their importation moved, 73;
  not to be hastily considered, 73;
  impost bill on goods not proper to embrace this subject, 73;
  the motion should comprehend the white slave as well as black imported from
    the jails of Europe, 74;
  no right to consider whether the importation is proper or not, as the
    constitution gives the power, 74;
  the principle of the bill is to raise revenue, the principle of the motion
    is to correct a moral evil, 74;
  the whole burden falls on two or three States, which bear their full
    proportion of other taxes, 74;
  imposing a duty on the importation may have the appearance of countenancing
    it, 74;
  if <DW64>s are goods, they come within the provisions of the bill--if not,
    the bill would be inconsistent, 74;
  the motion should be brought forward as a distinct proposition, 74;
  now is a proper time and place to consider the motion, 75;
  the object of enumerating persons on paper with goods is to prevent the
    practice of treating them as such by having them form part of cargoes of
    goods, 75;
  the tax not partial--in many instances such taxes are laid, 75;
  arguments of the opponents considered, 75;
  no difference whether left among enumerated or non-enumerated articles, 76;
  would a five per cent, _ad valorem_ on goods apply to slaves unless so
    stated, 76;
  the States were now prevented from continuing their duty on the importation,
    76;
  motion withdrawn, 76.

  _Limitation clause_ as to the time of continuing the impost bill moved,
    77;
  propriety doubted, 77;
  difficulty of fixing a suitable time, 77;
  this is an experiment, and should be limited to three or five years, 77;
  if the law is temporary, the people will not object to high duties, 77;
  the object of the bill is the re-establishment of public credit, a motion
    limiting it strikes at that credit, 77;
  to pass a bill to draw revenue from the people without limitation of time
    appeared dangerous, 77;
  it was not only to restore credit, but encourage certain people to engage in
    enterprises for which the public faith seemed to be pledged, 77;
  if made perpetual, the House could not alter it unless the President or a
    majority of the Senate approved, 78;
  the House is constitutionally the originator of money bills, 78;
  impossible to provide for the objects of the bill if it is limited to a few
    years, 78;
  a future Congress may repeal it, 78;
  great care was necessary to preserve the principle of raising money
    inviolate, 78;
  there are great demands on the treasury, and no documents to show what they
    are or what the revenue bill will produce, 79;
  danger of making the bill perpetual is the loss of power to originate money
    bills, and the extending the revenue above the demands of Government, 79;
  a temporary limitation would inspire confidence, 79;
  a perpetual one for interest alone would destroy all hope of payment of the
    principal, and shock credit, 79;
  nothing but a fixed, permanent, system can give security, 79;
  public credit will not admit a temporary act, 80;
  a measure of this kind necessary to reconcile members to different parts of
    the bill, 80;
  if the law is made perpetual, it will collect money in the public coffers
    after the debt is paid, 80;
  the Senate more likely than the House to misunderstand the public voice--the
    latter should preserve power of redress, 81;
  examination of reasons for making the law perpetual, 81;
  no law should be passed without a limitation, 83;
  no opportunity to amend errors if the law is made perpetual, 83;
  the system should be permanent if the law is not perpetual, 83;
  no revenue law with a limitation can probably be found on the English
    statute books, 83;
  motion withdrawn, and another substituted fixing a day for the termination
    of the act, unless otherwise provided, &c., 84;
  latter part struck out, 84; motion passed, 84;
  first day of June, 1796, fixed, 84.

  Duties as agreed in conference with the Senate, 113;
  bill for laying additional duties considered, 506;
  three cents additional on salt opposed as oppressive, 506;
  it is better than a land tax, 506;
  no tax could be so universally unpopular as this, 506;
  rejected, 506;
  other duties considered, 506;
  one and a half cents additional laid on coal, 506.

  _Manufactured Tobacco and Refined Sugar_, duty on,
  considered, 507;
  these articles incapable of bearing a burden, 507;
  of the nature of an excise, and the money can be raised either way, 507;
  if the bill is thrown out, then farewell to firm and determined measures,
    507;
  objections to an excise, 507;
  the principle of excise is settled, 507;
  reasons in favor of the duty, 507;
  delay urged, 509;
  money needed, 509;
  a considerable deficiency, 509;
  imports reduced by capture of American shipping, 509;
  a general increased import would not effect the object, 509;
  if peace continues, the revenue may be adequate--if war comes, it will be
    deficient, 510;
  better to postpone the subject, 510;
  motion to reject the bill lost, 511;
  amended so as to confine the duty to manufactured snuff, 511;
  moved to strike out duty on refined sugars, 511;
  now in its infancy, 512;
  state of the trade--objections to the duty considered, 512;
  motion to strike out lost, 512.

_Duties on Tonnage._--Debate in Committee of the Whole, 48;
  objects of tonnage duties, 48;
  motion to reduce from thirty to twenty cents, 48;
  the objects accomplished, 48;
  Southern products cannot bear high duties, 48;
  reasons for the reduction insufficient, 49;
  if we have various, we have not opposite interests, 49;
  no feeling of jealousy or rivalry exists, 49;
  encouragement of navigation indispensably necessary, 49;
  the price of freight will equalize itself, 49;
  regulation in favor of American shipping absolutely necessary to restore
    equality with foreigners, 50;
  Southern States indignant at the power which foreigners have over their
    commerce, 50;
  they look forward to the day when their navigation will be secured to the
    Eastern States, 50;
  under present circumstances a heavy tonnage duty will be attended with
    dangerous consequences at the South, 50;
  the principle of preference being fixed, it only remains to ascertain the
    proper degree, 50;
  a moderate duty should be allowed now, 50;
  but little difference in the capacity of the several States for
  ship-building, 50;
  this encouragement will diffuse and equalize its operation in every port,
    50;
  proposition to lay a duty of fifty cents per ton on all vessels wholly or in
    parts, owned by subjects of foreign powers, 53;
  motion to reduce to forty until 1791; then increase it to seventy-five
    cents, 53;
  State duties are higher, and, if now reduced, will cause distress, 54;
  if sufficient encouragement is given now, our navigation will probably
    immediately flourish, 54;
  doubtful policy now to reduce and then increase duty at the end of two
    years, 54;
  ship-building now needs the greatest encouragement, owing to its present low
    state, 54;
  different course pursued by the members from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania,
    54;
  people of the Southern States in debt, and have no shipping, and are unable
    to sustain any new burdens, 55;
  the difference in views does not arise from the geographical situation of
    the country, 55;
  the States expect Congress to protect their citizens in the property
    acquired under State legislation, 55;
  forty cents not too low, 54;
  many years must elapse before we have sufficient tonnage to export our
    commodities, 55;
  the business is now in the hands of foreigners, and a duty will cause a rise
    of freight by them, 55;
  is fifty cents too high? 55;
  a permanent regulation best, 55;
  British shipping now crowds the ports of Virginia, although the tonnage duty
    is twice as high, 56;
  the question of discrimination has been decided, 56;
  two years will not produce sufficient shipping--it will be improper to raise
    the duty then, 56;
  a certain tonnage duty best, 56;
  motion to reduce, and then raise in two years, lost, 57;
  regulations as adopted, 57;
  _see Address_ of House to President, and page 257.

_Duties_, protective, on unwrought steel advocated, 35.

DUVALL, GEORGE, Representative from Maryland, 604.


E

EARLE, SAMUEL, Representative from South Carolina, 604.

EDWARDS, JOHN, Senator from Kentucky, 380, 441, 520.

_Elections_, contested, 94;
  case of Wm. Smith, 94;
  do. _note___, 94.

_Elections.--See Contested Elections._

_Electors of President._--Bill in relation to election of President
    considered, 333;
  longer time for the choice of Electors of President and Vice President, 333;
  disagreeable consequences likely to follow a failure of choice, 333;
  moved to strike out thirty days, 333;
  if possible, the Electors should meet on the very day they are chosen, 333;
  fourteen days would be a more proper time, 333;
  it was hardly possible to know electors would agree in a choice--in such
    cases a short time might answer, 333;
  motion negatived, 333.

  Objections urged to the clause requiring Executives to certify the names of
Electors, 333;
  no person can be called on to discharge any duty for the U. S. who does not
    receive an appointment from the U. S., 333;
  if Congress cannot call upon Executives, upon whom can they call? 334;
  provision improper, 334;
  on the contrary, it is neither an undue assumption nor degrading to the
    Executives, 334;
  motion to strike out lost, 334.

ELLSWORTH, OLIVER, Senator from Connecticut, 9, 168, 251, 313, 380,
    441, 520, 591;
  ordered to inform the House of a quorum in the Senate, &c., 9;
  appointed on Committee on Rules, in case of conference, first Congress--on
    electing Chaplain, 10;
  appointed on Judiciary Committee, first Congress, 10;
  on committee on titles of President and Vice President, 13;
  delivered message from the Senate to the House, 22;
  report upon the commencement of the term of office of President, &c., 171;
  on answer to President's speech, 596;
  on consideration of resolutions relative to presentation of French flag,
    598;
  on resolutions relative to presentation of French flag, 599, 600.

ELMER, JONATHAN, Senator from New Jersey, 9, 151, 170.

_Embargo._--_See Great Britain_, retaliatory measures upon.

_Emigration_, Proclamation of Spanish Governor of Illinois Posts, 114;
  encouragement of, 114.

_Estimates of Money_ necessary for 1794, 480.

_Excise Laws_, Debate, 263.
  See "_Duties on Imports_" under head of _Distilled Spirits_;
  memorial on the, 328.

_Excise.--See Duties_ on Imports, manufactured tobacco, 507.

_Executive Departments._--Resolution respecting, 85;
  debate thereon, 85; how many departments shall be established? 85;
  three moved, 85;
  founded upon the constitutional division of these powers, 85;
  Home Department should be added, 85;
  previous motion withdrawn, 85;
  new motion to establish a Department of Foreign Affairs, one of the
    Treasury, one of War, 86;
  Department of Foreign Affairs agreed to, 86.

_Mode of appointing the officer_, 86;
  motion to strike out "by the President with the advice of the Senate," as
    unnecessary, 86;
  no serious reason against their insertion, 86;
  the power of appointing is the gift of the Legislature, as the Secretary is
    an inferior officer, 86;
  the words only repeat those in the constitution, 86; words struck out by a
    vote, 86.

_Power of Removal_ in the President doubted, 86;
  impeachment the only mode, 86;
  what the consequences of such an interpretation, 86;
  absolutely necessary the President should have the power of removal, 87;
  if an officer can be removed only by impeachment, he holds his office during
    good behavior, 87;
  it does not consist with the nature of things that impeachment should be the
    only mode of removal, 87;
  the power given to the Senate respecting appointments would be almost
    nugatory if the President had the power of removal, 87;
  if the House had the power of removal by the constitution, they could not
    give it out of their hands, 87;
  not a proper construction of the constitution to say impeachment is the only
    mode of removal, 87;
  a legislative construction of this part of the constitution necessary, 88;
  in all cases the party who appointed should judge of the removal, unless
    otherwise excepted, 88;
  a liberal construction should be given to the constitution, 88;
  the President should be made as responsible as possible for the conduct of
    his officers, 88;
  how the constitution provides for the appointment of public officers, 89;
  the power which appointed had the right of removal--shall it be given to the
    President alone? 89;
  the power of removal exists somewhere, and where? 89;
  it is an executive power, and belongs to the President, 89;
  the power declared to be in the President by a large majority, 90.

  _Department of Foreign Affairs_, in Committee of the Whole on the bill
    to establish a, 102;
  on the words, "To be removable from office by the President of the United
    States," 102;
  debate, 102;
  the power of appointing and dismissing united in their natures, 102;
  motion to strike out the words, 102;
  the declaration should not be made even if the President has the power, 102;
  no right to deprive the Senate of their constitutional prerogative, 102;
  we are declaring a power in the President which may be greatly abused, 103;
  the constitution the only guide; as it is silent, Congress should say
    nothing about it, 103;
  the nature of things; the express objects of the constitution require this
    power in the President as the most suitable person, and it must be conferred
    upon him by the constitution as the executive officer of the Government, 104;
  safer in the hands of the President than elsewhere, 104;
  if this power is not in the President, it is not vested anywhere, 105;
  this construction preserves to the department the full exercise of its
    powers, 105;
  the precedent of the individual States, 106;
  may arrive at something near certainty by attending to the leading
    principles of the constitution, 106;
  examination of the constitution, 107;
  motion to strike out decided in the negative, 108;
  passage of the bill, 108;
  same clause attached to the bill organizing Department of War, 108.

  _Treasury Department._--Debate, 90;
  shall this important department be in the hands of a single officer or in a
    Board of Commissioners? 90;
  duties to be assigned to the Secretary, 90;
  a Board of Treasury would conduct the business of finance with greater
    security and satisfaction than a single officer, 92;
  experience shows a Board of Treasury is the worst of all institutions, 92;
  experience with a single individual, 92;
  not so much system, energy, or responsibility in a Board as in a single
    officer, 93;
  with, a single officer there is safety, if the various business of the
    department is divided and modified, 93;
  with a Board more power is given to each individual than is proposed to give
    to a Secretary, 93;
  shall the department be under one or more officers is the question;
  what does experience show? 93;
  motion in favor of a Board lost, 94.

  The words in bill to "digest and report plans for the improvement and
    management of the revenue and the support of public credit," objected to, 109;
  Debate thereon, 109;
  to require the Secretary to make out and prepare estimates is sufficient--
    any thing farther is a dangerous innovation upon the constitutional privilege
    of the House, 109;
  to report plans will abridge the privileges of the House, 109;
  the bill will be nugatory without this clause, 109;
  it cannot infringe the privileges of the House, 109;
  from the nature of his office, the Secretary will be better acquainted than
    any other person, 110;
  the constitution expressly delegates to us
  the business of revenue--if we blindly follow an unskilful minister, our
    constituents have no security, 110;
  the power of originating money bills here is a sacred deposit, 110;
  we may neither violate it nor divest ourselves of it, 110;
  the circumstances of the country are such that the House needs the aid of
    such an individual, 111;
  too great jealousy for liberty hurtful, 111;
  the clause is unsafe and inconsistent with the constitution, 111;
  the object of the clause is good, viz: to get information, but the Secretary
    should not possess a right to give it, 111;
  what is this officer to be responsible for, to entitle him to such powers?
    112;
  difficult to see where the danger lies, 112;
  what is meant by responsibility? 112;
  something of the kind is required in the bill, 112;
  motion to strike out lost, 113.

  _Home Department_ moved, 127;
  duties of it proposed, 127;
  necessity of it not apparent, 127;
  duties may be distributed to other departments, 127;
  they have not been so distributed, 127;
  foreign to the other officers, 128;
  economy forbids it, 128;
  motion to establish lost, 128.

  _Reception of a Letter from the Head of Department._--Motion to refer
    a message of the President laying before Congress a copy of a letter from the
    Secretary of War, &c., 566;
  objected to, as showing too much deference to heads of departments, 566;
  the President had a right to send the communication and the subject of
    utmost importance, 567;
  it is an executive comment on a Legislative proceeding, 567;
  a defence of a measure adopted by the Senate condemned by implication
    another of the House, 567;
  no good reason to reject information because we had not asked for it, 567;
  reference to the constitution, 567;
  such jealousy needless, 567;
  objections unfounded, 567;
  letter of Secretary extremely improper and ill-judged, 567;
  former practice, 568;
  passage from the letter, 568;
  the idea of a dangerous precedent at hand, 568;
  report unworthy of the notice of the House, 569;
  the amendment wrong in principle and practice, 569;
  farther consideration of the subject, 570;
  amendment negatived, 571.


F

FEW, WILLIAM, Senator from Georgia, 9, 168, 251, 309, 380;
  on committee of arrangements for reception of President, 10;
  appointed on Judiciary Committee, 1st Congress, 10.

FINDLAY, WILLIAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 317, 389, 455,
    532, 606;
  on the ratio of representation, 324;
  on the petition of Catharine Greene, 336;
  on discharging committee in case of St. Clair, 395;
  on the reduction of the army, 408;
  further remarks, 414;
  on the official conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury, 424;
  objects to additional duty on salt, 506;
  on intruders on Indian lands, 585;
  on a salary for members of Congress, 636;
  on the rights of the House relative to treaties, 668.

FISHBOURN, BENJAMIN, nomination as naval officer at Savannah rejected
    by the Senate, 17.

FITCH, JOHN, petition for protection of his rights in applying steam
    power to purposes of navigation, 73.

FITZSIMONS, THOMAS, Representative from Pennsylvania, 22, 175, 255,
    315, 388, 455, 527;
  remarks on duties on imports--offers an amendment fixing certain duties on
    certain articles, 24;
  on duty on molasses, 29, 30, 31;
  on duty on Madeira wine, 31;
  on duty on teas, 32;
  on sugar, 33;
  on duty on beer, &c., 33;
  do. on candles, 34;
  advocates do. on unwrought steel, 35;
  on duty on hemp, 36;
  do. on nails, 38;
  motion relative to duty on teas, 41;
  proposes drawback on distilled spirits, 43;
  proposes drawbacks on foreign goods exported, 43;
  opposes low tonnage duties, 54;
  explanation of his remarks relative to duty on molasses, 69;
  on the time for continuing in force the impost bill, 77;
  further remarks, 84;
  on the finances, 128;
  offers resolution for the appointment of commissioners
    to select site for a seat of government, &c., 159;
  presents the address of Friends in Pennsylvania, &c., against the African
    slave trade, _note_, 201;
  on Treasury returns, 263;
  against attendance of Secretary of War, 391;
  on the reduction of the army, 400; on official conduct of Secretary of
    Treasury, 426;
  on the pay of soldiers, 460;
  on the French emigrants from St. Domingo, 463;
  on the commerce of the United States, 468;
  on the preparations for the Algerine war, 478;
  against the embargo laws, 499;
  defends the tax on coal, 506;
  on duty on sugar, 513;
  on an increase of the army, 515;
  amendment relative to the President's speech, 533, 537;
  on intruders on Indian lands, 585.

_French Flag._--Resolutions relating thereto, considered in the Senate,
    597;
  moved to postpone consideration, 597;
  it might convey a distrust of the sense of the Senate on the Republic, 598;
  no difference of feeling in the Senate on the subject, but more time was
    desirable, 598;
  moved to strike out certain words, 598;
  the parts of the President's communication, 598;
  the subject was divided into two parts, 599;
  other points considered, 599;
  the Senate should express their own sentiments, 599;
  former practice, 600;
  other cases considered, 600;
  no difference, except in a matter of form, 600;
  further considerations, 601;
  motion carried, 601;
  presentation to the House, 615;
  do. description of, 615.

_Flag of the United States._--A bill from the Senate to alter the flag of
    the United States, considered, 461;
  if it is altered from thirteen to fifteen stripes because Vermont and
Kentucky have been added, it may be necessary to alter it for a hundred years,
    461;
  very important not to offend the new States, 461;
  the whole idea ridiculous, 461;
  important to inform the rest of the world that two States were added, 461;
  the alteration would cost every vessel in the Union sixty dollars, 462;
  bill ordered to third reading, 462.

FLOYD, WILLIAM, Representative from New York, 27, 175, 255.

_Foreign Intercourse.--See Intercourse._

FORREST, URIAH, Representative from Maryland, 458;
  on the commerce of the United States, 467.

FOSTER, ABIEL, Representative from New Hampshire, 137, 175, 255, 604.

FOSTER, DWIGHT, Representative from Massachusetts, 527, 604;
  on the execution of the British treaty, 734.

FOSTER, THEODORE, Senator from Rhode Island, 309, 380, 444, 520, 591.

_France, Advance of Money to._--The report relative to an advance of
    money requested by the Minister of the French Republic, considered, 514;
  American citizens have claims for indemnification, why use the money to pay
    to France before it is due, 514;
  the cause of France and this country inseparably connected, 514;
  they are our old allies, 514;
  the loan in Europe was obtained for the defence of this country--it would be
    imprudence to apply it to any other purpose, 514;
  no ground for a plea of necessity for giving this money, 514;
  no good reason for disposing of this money in this way, 514;
  complaints have arisen of want of money in the Treasury since that has been
    proposed, 517; bill
  amended and passed, 517.

_France._--Letter of French King, 313;
  resolutions on courtesies of, 370.

_Franking Privileges.--See Post Office Bill._

FRANKLIN, BENJAMIN, death announced to the House, 239;
  eulogy on, in France, sent to Senate, 253.

FRANKLIN, JESSE, Representative from North Carolina, 604.

_Freedom of Conscience._--Amendment to the constitution, debate on, 137.

FREEMAN, NATHANIEL, Jr., Representative from Mass., 604;
  on the answer to the President's speech, 606.

FRELINGHUYSEN, FREDERICK, Senator from New Jersey, 524, 591.

_French Committee_ of Public Safety, address of, 616.

_French Minister's_ address to the President on the presentation of the
Flag of the French Republic, 616.

_French Refugees._--The petition of the committee appointed by the
    Legislature of Maryland to draw and distribute the money appropriated by that
    State to the French refugees, considered, 462;
  three thousand fugitives from St. Domingo had been at once landed, 462;
  what article of the constitution grants a right to Congress to expend on
    benevolent objects the money of their constituents? 462;
  a dangerous precedent would be established, 462;
  generosity of the English Parliament in 1755, 462;
  perhaps some other mode can be devised, 462;
  as much authority for relieving these fugitives as for indemnifying citizens
    for losses by British pirates, 462;
  the two cases widely different, 463;
  no difficulty in this matter, we are bound by the law of nature and of
    nations to relieve the citizens of a Republic who were our allies, and
    formerly our benefactors, 463;
  look at our treatment of the Indian embassies, 463;
  delay was desirable in this matter, 463;
  its legality is doubtful, 463;
  an appeal to our humanity is out of place, 463;
  petition for the speedy action of Congress on the memorial, 474;
  moved to pay $10,000 and negotiate the matter with the French Minister, 474;
  House has a right to, 474;
  passage of the motion warmly urged, 474;
  not to be tied up by the constitution in such a case, 474;
  it should be done as an act of charity, 475;
  motion passed, 475.

_Frontiers, Protection of._--Bill for further and more effectual
    provision for the protection of the frontiers, considered, 341;
  moved to strike out the section for raising three regiments of infantry and
    a squadron of dragoons, 341;
  the Indian war is unjust and unwise, 341;
  the general treatment of the Indians unwise and impolitic, 341;
  _note_, 341;
  peace may be obtained at less expense than is necessary for war, 342;
  the roving disposition of frontier settlers should be checked, 342;
  no hope of success while Britain retains possession of the posts, 342;
  should be content to defend the frontier and not invade, 342;
  frontier militia better than regular troops, 342;
  even to secure the objects in view no such increase in the military
    establishment necessary, 343;
  the troops to be employed should be raised at once, 343;
  information on the report not implicitly reliable, 343;
  frontier militia the best troops, 343;
  the expense a serious matter at this time, 343;
  is not the object of this movement to raise a standing regular military
    force? 344;
  no one knows for what reason the war has been carried on three years, 344;
  it is said a sum might be appropriated to enable the executive to act as
    circumstances require, but it is the duty of the House to appropriate money
    for specific purposes, 344.

  We could have had the British posts if an embargo had been laid, 344;
  no man who regards self-preservation can doubt the justice of the war, 344;
  the murders and depredations of years call for redress, 344;
  the whites have seldom committed depredations, 345;
  peace is utterly unattainable by friendly efforts in the present state of
    affairs, 345;
  frequent attempts at treaties have been made, but in vain, 345;
  Indians have rejected our offers and added insults, 345;
  it is too late to inquire into the justice of the war, 345;
  a force must be raised, and the question is what the force shall be, 346;
  the number proposed is not extravagant if the number of the Indians is
    considered, 346;
  every reason to expect a most formidable opposition, 346;
  the objection of increased expense is vain compared with an unsuccessful
    campaign, 346;
  the experience of Virginia and Kentucky offers no inducement to the
    government to follow any other plan than the one proposed, 347;
  militia quickly disband or become insubordinate from slight causes, 347;
  Cornplanter's speech referred to, 347;
  galleries cleared and speech confidentially read, 347;
  _note_, Cornplanter's speech, 347;
  subject originally referred to the Secretary of the Treasury, 348;
  consequences of that reference, 348;
  clauses of the bill, 348;
  what reflection arises from a contemplation of this bill, 349;
  motion to strike out, lost, 349;
  bill passed, 350.

  _South-western Frontier_, to protect more effectually, bill considered,
    517;
  when all other schemes have been voted down for raising a military force, it
    appears in this form, 517;
  regular troops useless in this service, 517;
  this no part of a system, 517;
  Indians are fifteen thousand strong, 517;
  a body of militia only is wanted, 517;
  this bill proposes a bounty for raising a particular corps, while the army
    needs all to fill its deficiencies, 518;
  Indians eight thousand strong, 518; posts do more mischief than service,
    518;
  experience of years, 518;
  amendment lost, 518.

_Fugitives from justice._--Bill of Senate, 384, 385;
  bill passed Senate, 416;
  read in the House, &c., 417;
  passed, 417;
  _note_, 417.


G

GALE, GEORGE, Representative from Maryland, 21, 175;
  on duty on beer, &c., 33.

GALLATIN, ALBERT, Senator from Pennsylvania, 386, 441;
  proves citizenship, 448, 450, 452;
  Representative from Pennsylvania, 604;
  on the support of existing establishments, 626, 628;
  on the call for papers relative to British treaty, 640;
  on rights of the House relative to treaties, 644;
  on the execution of the British treaty, 735;
  on the admission of Tennessee, 757, 759;
  on the military and naval appropriation, 763, 764, 765, 766.

_Georgia_, vote for President, 10, 385.

_General Wayne_, resolutions of thanks to, considered, 542;
  bad consequences might ensue from the practice of giving opinions of men,
    542;
  abundance of precedents, 543;
  it must be shown that it is improper in any case to pass such a vote, or
    that this is an improper case, 543;
  the resolution proper and unexceptionable, 544;
  this point considered, 544;
  it is simply a question of mere propriety, 545;
  this propriety considered, 545;
  resolutions adopted, 546.

_General welfare_, clause examined and explained, 362.

GERRY, ELBRIDGE, Representative from Massachusetts, 21, 175, 255,
    315, 388;
  appointed on Committee of Supplies, 46;
  on application to amend the constitution, 48;
  doubts the power of Congress to require oaths of State officers, 51;
  reports a bill for the collection of duties, 57;
  on effects of high duties, 64;
  asks further investigations relative to duty on molasses, 72;
  urges limitation of the impost bill, 78;
  further remarks, 80;
  doubts the power of the President to remove heads of departments, 89;
  on organization of Treasury Department, 90;
  called to order, 91;
  _note_ on, 91;
  on Board of Treasury, 92;
  on President's power of removal, 106;
  on identity of reporting plans and originating money bills, 111;
  on the finances, 128;
  on the amount of pay of members of Congress, 131, 132;
  on the form of amending the constitution, 135;
  on the terms federalist and anti-federalist, 138;
  on the right and obligation of instruction, 139, 142, 143;
  urges delay in fixing seat of Government, 166;
  on manner in which Secretary of the Treasury shall make his report, 177;
  on the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, 183;
  on the humanity of the Quaker memorial, 204;
  upon constitutionality of interference of Congress with slave trade, 211;
  on a seat of Government, 245;
  further remarks, 247;
  on vacancy in the Presidency, 269;
  on interference of excise officers in elections, 271;
  on the commitment of the bill for a bank of the U.S., 273;
  speech on the bank, 300; on the ratio of representation, 320;
  further remarks, 327;
  does a resignation produce a vacancy, 329;
  offers a resolution on reports of Secretary of Treasury, 330;
  on vacancy of Presidency, 335;
  on the bill for the encouragement of the cod fisheries, 356;
  on the publication of the debates, 377;
  on attendance of Secretary of War, 392;
  on discharging committee on defeat of St. Clair, 394, 395.

GILBERT, EZEKIEL, Representative from New York, 455, 527, 604;
  on a salary for members of Congress, 636.

GILES, WILLIAM B. Representative from Virginia, 255, 315, 388, 455,
    528, 604;
  on excise bill, 266;
  on vacancy in the Presidency, 270;
  speech on the Bank of the U.S., 296;
  on the ratio of representation, 324;
  is a resignation a constitutional vacancy, 328;
  on vacancy of Presidency, 334;
  on the bill for the encouragement of the cod fisheries, 350;
  on the stamp of American coin, 372;
  on the apportionment bill, 374;
  against attendance of Secretary of War, 391;
  on attendance of Secretary of War, 392;
  on discharging committee on defeat of St. Clair, 393, 394;
  on the official conduct of the Secretary of Treasury, 425;
  further remarks, 427;
  on the flag of the Union, 461;
  on the French emigrants from St. Domingo, 463;
  on conducting the Algerine War, 477, 480;
  examination of principles relative to the sequestration of British debts,
    486;
  against the continuance of the embargo, 500;
  on modifying it, 502;
  urges postponement of indemnity resolutions, 505;
  against increase of the army, 515;
  on the advance of money to France, 516;
  on the bill to raise a force for the protection of the frontier, 517;
  on admitting the delegate south of the Ohio, 529;
  on the President's speech, 533, 538;
  reports a bill on soldier's pay, 541;
  on the resolutions of thanks to Gen. Wayne, 542, 544;
  on the investigation of losses by Pennsylvania insurgents, 553;
  on an amendment to the Naturalization laws, 555;
  on excluding titled foreigners from citizenship, 557, 558, 560, 563;
  on reference of letter of Secretary of War, 567, 569;
  on the reduction of salaries, 575;
  on the frontier settlers, 587;
  on the answer to the President's speech, 606;
  on the attempt at bribery, by Robert Randall, 610;
  on the resolution relative to bribery, 622;
  on the support of existing establishments, 628;
  on establishing Indian trading houses, 634;
  on a salary for members of Congress, 635;
  on the pay of the Speaker, 638, 639;
  on rights of the House relative to treaties, 653;
  on the execution of the British treaty, 718;
  on the army establishment, 760.

GILLESPIE, JAMES, Representative from North Carolina, 459, 536;
  on the right to Indian lands within a State, 576.

GILLON, ALEXANDER, Representative from South Carolina, 498;
  in favor of continuing the embargo, 501;
  opposes the tax on salt, 506;
  against duties on tobacco and sugar, 510;
  on the advance of money to France, 514, 516;
  on force to protect the S. W. frontier, 517;
  deceased, 582.

GILMAN, NICHOLAS, Representative from New Hampshire, 21, 175, 255,
    315, 388, 455, 527, 604;
  on a committee to report a bill regulating oaths, 22.

_Glass, window and other_, duty fixed, 41.

GLENN, HENRY, Representative from New York, 455, 527.

GOODHUE, BENJAMIN, Representative from Massachusetts, 21, 175, 255,
    315, 388, 455, 527, 604;
  on duty on molasses, 29, 31;
  on duty on salt beef, 34;
  on manufacture of nails, &c., 38;
  on duty on teas, 42;
  on giving preference to American shipping, 50;
  the object to raise revenue, 65;
  opposes deliberation on subject of President's title, 67;
  thinks duties too high for collection, excepting that on molasses, 69;
  on connection of molasses trade with the fisheries, 71;
  on concurrence of the Senate in appointments, 88;
  on location of the seat of Government, 145;
  further remarks, 148, 149, 160;
  on ratio of representation, 322;
  on the bill for the encouragement of the cod fisheries, 351;
  further remarks, 360;
  on the flag of the Union, 461;
  on the commerce of the United States, 472;
  on the preparations for the Algerine war, 479;
  moves to refer indemnity resolutions to Committee of the Whole, 503;
  opposed to referring indemnity resolutions to committee on sequestration of
    British debts, 503, 504;
  urges delay in laying duties on tobacco and sugar, 509;
  on a salary for members of Congress, 635;
  on the pay of the Speaker, 638;
  on the execution of the British treaty, 717.

GOODRICH, CHAUNCEY, Representative from Connecticut, 604.

GORDON, JAMES, Representative from New York, 315, 388, 455, 527.

GRAYSON, WILLIAM, Representative from Virginia, 15.

_Great Britain, Treaty with.--See Treaty, &c._

  _Great Britain, Retaliatory Measures upon.--Sequestration of debts due_
    to, considered, 482;
  considering the conduct of Great Britain sequestration, merely, is a great
    lenity, 483;
  no hope of the restitution of our property plundered on the seas--no
    possibility of indemnification, 483;
  no other method by which to enforce our claims, 483;
  it would be warrantable to sequester without negotiation, 483;
  with these resolutions, we may have peace--without them we shall have war,
    483;
  not for the interest of the United States at this time, 484;
  the proposition is to arrest, not confiscate debts due to British subjects,
    484;
  law of nations considered, 484;
  by this measure we make their motives for peace more weighty, and show our
    amicable disposition, 484;
  various points considered, 485;
  two points involved--the right of one nation to sequester the property of
    another in any possible case, and the policy of exercising this right at this
    time, 486;
  these points considered, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492.

  _Non-intercourse with Great Britain_, considered, 493;
  moved to prohibit all commercial intercourse between citizens of the United
    States and subjects of Great Britain, as respects articles of the growth or
    manufacture of Great Britain, 493;
  the line of conduct that should be pursued, 493;
  this measure, a war measure, 493;
  no representation of our injuries has been made, 494;
  how far does cool, temperate reflection direct our conduct? 494;
  constitutional considerations, 495;
  answers to them, 495;
  admitting the constitutionality and the right of the committee to originate
    the measure, and the aggression of Great Britain; are these principles
    sufficient to justify so harsh a measure?. 496;
  resolutions adopted, 498.

  _Embargo, continuation of_, considered, 498;
  reason for its adoption ceased, 499;
  numerous inconveniences have arisen from the measure, 499;
  British conduct now altered, 499;
  should not be revoked until a change of system by the British Government
    warrants it, 499;
  if it continues, the value of our imports will rise one hundred per cent.,
    500;
  France will suffer considerably if it is continued, 500;
  the other measures of the system have been laid aside and this should be,
    500;
  although the reasons for it have not changed, it should be discontinued, as
    it will now operate against ourselves and our allies, 500;
  farmers suffer from the present restraints, 500;
  letter from the merchants of Charleston, 500;
  various considerations for its continuance, 501;
  the reason for the embargo, 501;
  reason for its continuance, 501;
  resolution for its continuance lost, 502.

  _Indemnity for Spoliations_ considered, 503;
  resolution that the United States indemnify her citizens for property
    captured and confiscated by Great Britain, &c., 503;
  moved that the resolution be referred to the Committee of the Whole, 503;
  moved to amend by referring it to the committee to whom was referred the
    resolution for the sequestration of British debts, 503;
  objected that the subject was distinct and separate, 503;
  urged that the two subjects ought not to be separated, 503;
  wrong to bring up this motion alone, 503;
  only course of indemnity was by sequestration, 503;
  security and protection should be extended to all interests, and redress for
    all injuries, 504;
  if present negotiations fail, we owe it to our citizens to obtain redress,
    504;
  the reference moved is not fair for various reasons, 504;
  a tax should be laid to effect indemnity to our citizens, 504;
  the subject should be laid aside for the present, 505;
  there are strong reasons for indemnity, and also against connecting it with
    sequestration, 505;
  amendment agreed to, 505.

GREEN, ASHBEL, chosen Chaplain, 388.

GREENE, CATHARINE, Petition of widow, to obtain an indemnification
    from United States against certain engagements of General Greene, undertaken
    while commanding officer of U. S. army, 335;
  recommendation of Secretary of Treasury, 335;
  pressing necessity compelled General Greene to become surety, for which
    indemnity is now claimed, 336;
  the claim is just, 336;
  a resolution moved, 336;
  three alternatives were left to the committee, 336;
  claim should be granted by special law as matter of right, 336;
  circumstances connected with the evacuation of Charleston, 337;
  how to distinguish between the articles necessary and the other goods, 337;
  danger of establishing a bad precedent considered, 338;
  the measure not proper or just, 338;
  contract not beneficial to the United States, 338;
  character and circumstances of General Greene, 339;
  of the manner of conducting the affairs in South Carolina, 339;
  points of contest before the committee, 340;
  those points considered, 340;
  further debate, 340;
  resolution negatived, 340;
  further resolution relative to the report of Secretary of the Treasury, 340;
  resolutions on indemnity, 370;
  do. passage, 375;
  petition for indemnity against the demands of Harris & Blatchford
    considered, 761;
  report of committee, 761;
  resolution referred to Committee on Claims, 762;
  facts, 762.

GREENUP, CHRISTOPHER, Representative from Kentucky, 455, 527, 609;
  on the flag of the Union, 461;
  on intruders on Indian lands, 585.

GREGG, ANDREW, Representative from Pennsylvania, 317, 397, 455, 528,
    609;
  on the sense of the House relative to the British treaty, 751.

GRIFFIN, SAMUEL, Representative from Virginia, 21, 175, 255, 315,
    388, 457, 527;
  on committee for reception of President, 27.

GRISWOLD, ROGER, Representative from Connecticut, 604;
  on rights of the House relative to treaties, 647;
  on the execution of the British treaty, 735.

GROUT, JONATHAN, Representative from Massachusetts, 46, 175, 255.

GROVE, WILLIAM BARRY, Representative from North Carolina, 317, 393,
    458, 528, 604.

GUNN, JAMES, Senator from Georgia, 10, 254, 313, 448, 524, 591.


H

HAMPTON, WADE, Representative from South Carolina, 608.

HANCOCK, GEORGE, Representative from Virginia, 457, 527, 604.

HANCOCK, JOHN, votes for, as Vice President, in 1789, 10.

HARPER, ROBERT G., Representative from South Carolina, 582, 604;
  on difficulties with the Indians, 588;
  on the answer to the President's speech, 607;
  on the Randall bribery case, 611;
  on a stenographer for the House, 631;
  on establishing Indian trading-houses, 634;
  on rights of the House relative to treaties, 643;
  on the sense of the House relative to the British treaty, 752.

HARRISON, CARTER B., Representative from Virginia, 455, 528, 604.

HARRISON, ROBERT H., votes for, as Vice President, 10.

HARTLEY, THOMAS, Representative from Pennsylvania, 21, 175, 260, 309,
    455, 527, 606;
  speech on laying duties on imports, 25;
  on duties of the Secretary of the Treasury, 111;
  on the form of amending the constitution, 136;
  on the right of instruction, 138;
  on location of the seat of Government, 146;
  further remarks, 148;
  on the propriety of naturalization laws, 185;
  urges residence as a condition of naturalization, 186;
  further remarks, 190;
  on the Quaker memorial, 202;
  calls up memorial of Pennsylvania Society, 208;
  further remarks, 229;
  on discrimination among the public creditors, 219;
  moves report on memorial of officers of the navy, 239;
  do. remarks on, 239;
  on a seat of Government, 246;
  on the petition of Catharine Greene, 339;
  on the reduction of the army, 399;
  further remarks, 403;
  on indemnification to sufferers by Pennsylvania insurgents, 550, 551;
  on rights of the House relative to treaties, 647.

HATHORN, JOHN, Representative from New York, 43, 175, 260, 608.

HAVENS, JONATHAN N., Representative from New York, 604.

HAWKINS, BENJAMIN, Senator from North Carolina, 170, 251, 309, 380,
    441, 520.

HEATH, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 455, 527, 604;
  on indemnification to sufferers by Pennsylvania insurgents, 549;
  on the execution of the British treaty, 719.

HEISTER, DANIEL, Representative from Pennsylvania, 21, 175, 255, 315,
    458, 528, 604;
  appointed by the House to make list of votes for President as they are
    counted in the Senate, 22;
  advocates encouragement to growth of hemp by duty, 37;
  appointed on committee to draft bill on tonnage duties, 57;
  moves to select Harrisburg for the seat of Government, 151.

_Hemp_, debate on duty on, 36, 37;
  do. fixed, 38.

HENDERSON, THOMAS, Representative from New Jersey, 606.

HENRY, JOHN, Senator from Maryland, 10, 168, 254, 312, 382, 523, 591.

HILLHOUSE, JAMES, Representative from Connecticut, 315, 389, 456,
    527, 604;
  on the ratio of representation, 327;
  on vacancy of Presidency, 335;
  on the reduction of the army, 414;
  on official conduct of Secretary of Treasury, 429;
  on the advance of money to France, 514;
  on the President's speech, 532, 540;
  on thanks to General Wayne, 542;
  on damages by Pennsylvania insurgents, 547, 554;
  on the admission of foreigners to citizenship, 560;
  on the resolutions relative to intruders on Indian lands, 585;
  on the resolution relative to bribery, 622;
  on a salary for members of Congress. 635;
  on the pay of the Speaker, 638;
  on the rights of the House relative to treaties, 690;
  on the execution of the British treaty, 721;
  on the sense of the House relative to the British treaty, 751.

HINDMAN, WILLIAM, Representative from Maryland, 457, 527, 604.

HOLLAND, JOHN, Representative from North Carolina, 604;
  on rights of the House relative to treaties, 661;
  on the execution of the British treaty, 730.

HOLTEN, SAMUEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 455, 527.

_House_, elects Frederick A. Muhlenberg Speaker, 9;
  of Representatives, meets in Senate Chamber to count electoral votes, 10;
  meets Senate to count electoral votes, 22;
  proceedings relative to Washington's inaugural, 46;
  answer to same, 47, 53;
  thanks presented to the Speaker, 90;
  conference with the Senate on the impost bill, 113;
  results of, 113;
  adjournment of, 167;
  journal of, title of, 176;
  answer to President's speech, 178;
  answer to President's address at 3d session, 1st Congress, 259;
  answer to President's message, 316;
  answer to the President's message, 389;
  answer to the President's address, 456;
  answer of, to President's speech, 609;
  answer to the President's speech, 2d session, 3d Congress, 541.

HUGER, DANIEL, Representative from South Carolina, 27, 175, 255, 315,
    390.

HUNTER, JOHN, Representative from South Carolina, 457, 528;
  on the relief of the French emigrants, 474.

HUNTINGDON, SAMUEL, votes for, as Vice President, 10.

HUNTINGTON, BENJAMIN, Representative from Connecticut, 21, 175, 255;
  on application to amend the constitution, 48;
  urges limitation of the impost bill, 79;
  on the power of removal, 103;
  on the amendment to the constitution relative to freedom of conscience, 137;
  opposes easy terms of naturalization, 189;
  on memorial of officers of navy, 240;
  on a seat of Government, 242.


I

_Imports.--See Duties_ on imports.

_Indemnity_, for spoliations.--_See Great Britain._

_Indian lands within a State, Rights over._--The claim of Thomas Person
    to certain lands on the frontier of North Carolina, and ceded by the United
    States Commissioners to the Indians, considered, 576;
  _note_, 576;
  the conduct of other States, 576;
  the Government of the United States has converted property of the citizens
    of North Carolina, and they ask compensation, 576;
  examination of authorities on the rights of the sovereign to take property,
    576;
  detail of the circumstances of the present dispute, 577;
  the claim of North Carolina to sell the land was wrong, 578;
  the cause of all the disputes with the Federal Government, 578;
  have the United States taken away any claim which the purchasers of these
    lands had, 578;
  suitable method to settle the matter, 578;
  Indians never occupied the lands, 578;
  on the limits of the States and the right to what was jointly acquired, 579;
  North Carolina could grant only the pre-emption right, 579;
  further details respecting the grants in North Carolina, 579;
  these lands within the limits guaranteed by the articles of Confederation,
    580;
  further particulars, 580;
  resolutions reported to the House, 582;
  do. further reported, 583.

_Indian lands disposed of by the Legislature of Georgia_, considered,
    583;
  resolutions on the subject, 584;
  they subject persons to martial law, 584;
  amendment proposed, 584;
  also that persons in pursuit of Indians should not be liable to the law,
    584;
  useless to expend money to protect the frontier if this permission is
    granted, 585;
  better declare there shall be no frontier, 585;
  no man could be arrested under this amendment, 585;
  amendment carried in committee, 585;
  reported to House, 586;
  reasons for authorizing pursuit of Indians, 587;
  importance of the amendment, 587;
  further considerations, 588;
  lost, 589.

_Indians, Southern_, treaty to be negotiated with, 18.

_Indian Trading Houses_, bill for establishing trading houses for
    supplying Indians considered, 585;
  tends to conciliate an unhappy and distressed people, 585;
  bill of utmost consequence, 586;
  system of arrangements for the frontiers proposed, 586;
  bill to establish trading post considered, 624;
  amendments made, 624;
  the object of the bill unattainable, 624;
  it effects a change in our system, 625;
  influence of the Canada traders, 625;
  _note_, 625;
  objects of the measure, 625;
  bill put on its passage, 625;
  principles of the bill considered, 634;
  no opinion of governmental bargains, 634;
  _note_, 634;
  bill passed, 635.

_Indian Tribes._--Message from the President on disputes between the same
    and some of the States, 16.

_Instruction_, right of debate on, 138.

_Insurgents of Pennsylvania.--See Pennsylvania Insurgents._

_Intercourse Foreign_.--On the bill providing means of intercourse with
    foreign nations, 242;
  moved to strike out thirty and insert forty thousand dollars, 242;
  reasons urged in opposition, 242;
  reasons urged in favor of the motion, 242;
  motion adopted, 242.

_Invalid Pensions_, bill reported, 406.

IRVINE, WILLIAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 455, 551.

IZARD, RALPH, Senator from South Carolina, 10,168,251,309, 380, 441,
    520;
  on committee on future disposition of papers of late Secretary of Congress,
    10;
  added to Judiciary committee, 10;
  on committee for conducting reception of President, 11;
  on committee to wait on Vice President, 11.


J

JACKSON, GEO., Representative from Virginia, 604.

JACKSON, JAMES, Representative from Georgia, 42, 175, 255;
  remarks in favor of reducing duties, 44;
  remarks on tonnage duties, 48;
  on power of Congress to require oaths of State officers, 51;
  objects to high duties on account of expense of their collection, 64;
  temptation to smuggle, 64;
  considers subject of title for President as trifling, 68;
  urges postponement of consideration of duty on African slaves imported, 73;
  further remarks, 74;
  urges limitation to impost bill, 81;
  on the power of the President to remove officers, 87;
  remarks on citizenship and foreign allegiance, 98;
  opposes discrimination in the pay of Senators and Representatives, 123;
  further remarks, 126;
  on the form of amending the constitution, 136;
  on the rights of instruction, 139;
  on location of a seat of Government, 149;
  on amendments of the Senate to House bill on seat of Government, 165;
  on subjects embraced in the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, 182;
  further remarks, 183, 184;
  on testimonials of behavior and conduct as requisites of naturalization,
    187;
  favors a progressive and probational naturalization, 189;
  further remarks, 189;
  a funded debt is an injury, 191;
  further remarks, 195, 197, 199;
  opposes a commitment of the Quaker memorial, 202;
  on property of master in the slave, 209;
  on discrimination among the public creditors, 216;
  further remarks, 217;
  on memorial of Officers of the Navy, 240;
  on answer to the President's message, 256;
  further remarks, 257;
  on price of public lands, 261;
  moves to strike out essential part of first clause of bill relating to
    duties on distilled spirits, 261;
  remarks on, 261;
  further remarks, 264,270,271,272;
  on the commitment of the bill for Bank of the United States, 272;
  speech on the Bank, 285;
  petition on election and return of Anthony Wayne, 324;
  Senator from Georgia, 445, 520.

JACOBS, ISAAC, Representative from Pennsylvania, 389.

_Jails of the States_, resolutions on, 308.

JAY, JOHN, votes for, as Vice President in 1789, 10.

JEFFERSON, THOMAS, desires to return from France as Minister, 15;
  votes for, as Vice President in 1793, 386.

JOHNS, KINSEY, claims a seat as Senator from Delaware--claim
    considered, 453;
  rejected, 453.

JOHNSON, WM. S., Senator from Connecticut, 9, 168, 254;
  resigned, 309;
  on committee on future disposition of papers of late Secretary of Congress,
    10;
  on committee of arrangements for reception of President, 10;
  on committee to prepare answer to Washington's inaugural, 12;
  on committee on titles of President and Vice President, 13.

JOHNSTON, SAMUEL, Senator from North Carolina, 171, 251, 309, 383.

JOHN TORREY.--Petition of, in Committee of the Whole on report of
    Secretary of Treasury, 317;
  Congress promised half-pay to the officers who should continue in service to
    _the end of the War._--Major Torrey continued in service till near end of
    1783 and died, did he continue in service to the end of the war? 318;
  peace concluded April, 1783, 318;
  what was the intention of the parties in this contract? 318;
  when did the war end? 318;
  what does the law of nations say? 318;
  distinction between preliminaries and a definite treaty by the law of
    nations, 318;
  objections considered, 319;
  the question does not turn on a judicial principle, 319;
  certain established rules have been observed in settling with every officer,
    320;
  terms of contract decided by the sovereign power, 320;
  motion for accepting report carried, 320.

_Judiciary_, Senate committee on, first Congress, 10.


K

_Kentucky_, memorial of a convention in, 253;
  vote for President in 1793, 385.

KEY, PHILIP, Representative from Maryland, 388.

KING, RUFUS, Senator from New York, 16, 168, 251, 312, 380, 444,
    520, 591;
  on answer to Presidents speech, 594.

KITCHELL, AARON, Representative from New Jersey, 316, 388, 455, 527,
    604;
  on the ratio of representation, 328;
  on the execution of the British treaty, 734.

KITTERA, JOHN W., Representative from Pennsylvania, 323, 388, 455,
    527, 604;
  on reference of letter of Secretary of War, 569;
  on the right to Indian lands within a State, 578;
  on the execution of the British treaty, 729.


L

LA FAYETTE, bill relative to the accounts of, 448;
  son of, letter from, 740.

_Lands, Western_, disposal of, 99;
  report of committee, 113;
  plan of land office, 115.
  _See Public Lands._

LANGDON, JOHN, Senator from New Hampshire, 9, 168, 251, 309, 380,
    441, 520, 590;
  elected President of Senate, 9;
  on committee of arrangements for reception of President, 10;
  address to Vice President on his taking the chair, 11;
  administers the oath to the Vice President according to law, 15;
  elected President of Senate _pro tem._, in the absence of Vice
    President, and President _pro tem._, 380;
  elected President _pro tem._ of Senate, 441.

LATIMER, HENRY, Representative from Delaware, 527.

LATIMER, HUGH, Senator from Maryland, 524, 591.

LAWRENCE, JOHN, Representative from New York, 22, 175, 255, 315,
    388;
  remarks on laying duties on imports as proposed, 24;
  remarks on duty on distilled spirits, 38;
  favors high duty on beer, 33;
  do. duty on candles, 35;
  advocates duty on salt, 39, 40;
  on requiring oaths of State officers, 52;
  favors permanent rate of tonnage duties, 55, 56;
  on the object of duties, 65;
  doubts the propriety of limiting the impost bill, 78;
  on duties of Secretary of Treasury, 112;
  on the compensation of the President, 116;
  opposes furnishing houses, &c., 116;
  on the form of amending the constitution, 135;
  on the location of the seat of Government, 149;
  on the manner of persuading members, 154;
  on the constitutional requirements for a seat of Government, 160;
  on the mode and reason for admitting foreigners to citizenship, 185;
  further remarks, 187;
  on the validity of the full amount of the debt, 195;
  on effects of stopping importation of slaves, 202;
  on Pennsylvania memorial, 209;
  presents the address of Society of Friends in New York against the African
    slave trade, 211;
  on discrimination of public creditors, 213;
  on a seat of Government, 244;
  further remarks, 247;
  moves to strike out "Potomac," and insert Baltimore, 249;
  on price of public lands, 261;
  further remarks, 262;
  on excise bill, 264;
  on vacancy in the Presidency, 268;
  on officers, 271;
  on the commitment of the bill for a bank of the United States, 273;
  speech on the bank, 284;
  on claim of John Torrey, 317;
  on ratio of representation, 320;
  further remarks, 322;
  on the bill for the encouragement of the cod fishery, 361;
  on attendance of Secretary of War, 391, 392;
  on discharging committee on defeat of St. Clair, 394;
  on official conduct of Secretary of Treasury, 426;
  further remarks, 427.

LEARNED, AMASA, Representative from Connecticut, 315, 388, 455, 527.

LEE, RICHARD BLAND, Representative from Virginia, 21, 175, 235, 317,
    465, 527;
  on duty on steel, 35;
  on duty on nails, &c., 38;
  makes report of Committee on Messages between the two Houses, 45;
  favors a limited time for the impost bill to be in force, 77;
  on citizenship during absence, 97;
  favors discrimination in the pay of members of the two Houses of Congress,
    123;
  offers a resolution on the principles which should control the choice of a
    seat of Government, 146;
  further remarks, 147;
  vote, 147;
  further remarks, 148;
  do. on the Potomac, 153, 161;
  in favor of New York for seat of Government, 163;
  do. on amendments of the Senate to House bill on seat of Government, 165;
  on a seat of Government, 243;
  on official conduct of Secretary of Treasury, 429;
  on harmony between the Eastern and Southern States, 560.

LEE, RICHARD HENRY, Senator from Virginia, 9, 254;
  on committee on rules in cases of conference, 1st Congress, 10;
  do. on manner of electing chaplains, 10;
  do. on rules of business, 10;
  appointed on Judiciary Committee, 1st Congress, 10;
  on committee for conducting reception of President, 11;
  on committee on titles of President and Vice President, 13.

LEONARD, GEORGE, Representative from Massachusetts, 21, 175, 250,
    388, 604.

LEWIS, ----, counsel for petitioners relative to seat of Albert
    Gallatin, 449;
  speech of, 449, 452.

_Liberty street_, New York, name of, 563.

_Lighthouses, &c._, bill for the establishment of, passed, 129.

LINCOLN, BENJAMIN, votes for, as Vice President, 10.

LINN, WILLIAM, elected chaplain of the House, 46.

_List of Persons_ employed in Treasury Department reported to the House,
    406;
  do. employed in War Department, reported to the House, 406.

LIVERMORE, SAMUEL, Representative from New Hampshire, 46, 175, 255,
    315, 388;
  considers motion to lay duty on African slaves improper at that time, 74;
  on the time of extending the impost bill, 77;
  on the Executive Departments, 86;
  on removals, 89;
  on the power to remove officers, 107;
  on the power of originating bills, 110;
  on a salary for the President, 117;
  on form of amending the constitution, 135;
  motion relative to the amendment of the constitution touching freedom of
    conscience, 138;
  on the doctrine of instruction, 142;
  further remarks, 143;
  on funding the debts of the States 192;
  do. on the reduction of the debt from its nominal value, 196;
  on discrimination among the public creditors, 227;
  on a seat of Government, 247;
  on excise bill, 265;
  on excise officers, 271;
  on vacancy in the Presidency, 267, 268;
  on the bill for the encouragement of the cod fisheries, 360;
  on American coins, 371;
  further remarks, 371;
  against attendance of Secretary of War, 391;
  on official conduct of Secretary of Treasury, 428;
  Senator from New Hampshire, 441, 520, 590.

LIVINGSTON, EDWARD, Representative from New York, 604;
  on salary for members of Congress, 636;
  on the treaty with Great Britain, 640;
  on the rights of the House relative to treaties, 675.

LOCKE, MATTHEW, Representative from North Carolina, 455, 527, 604.

LYMAN, SAMUEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 604;
  on rights of the House relative to treaties, 658;
  on the execution of the British treaty, 706.

LYMAN, WILLIAM, Representative from Massachusetts, 455, 527, 604;
  on the flag of the Union, 461;
  opposes the duties on manufactured tobacco and refined sugar, 507;
  on the President's speech, 534;
  on reference of letter of Secretary of War, 569;
  on intruders on Indian lands, 587;
  on the reports of the debates, 632;
  on rights of the House relative to treaties, 670;
  on the admission of Tennessee, 755.


M

MCDOWELL, JOSEPH, Representative from North Carolina, 455, 528;
  against duty on sugar, 518;
  against raising a force for the protection of a S.W. frontier, 517;
  on admitting the delegate south of the Ohio, 529;
  on the President's speech, 535, 539;
  on amending the naturalization laws by requiring foreigners to renounce
    their slaves, 559;
  on the right to Indian lands within a State, 580;
  on difficulties with the Indians, 587.

MCINTOSH, LACHLAN, nominated as naval officer at Savannah, 17.

MACLAY, WILLIAM, Senator from Pennsylvania, 9, 168, 251;
  appointed on Judiciary Committee, first Congress, 10;
  on committee on future disposition of papers of late Secretary of Congress,
    10;
  on committee on rules in cases of conference, first Congress, 10;
  on manner of electing chaplains, 10;
  on rules of business, 10.

MACLAY, SAMUEL, Representative from Pennsylvania, 604.

MACON, NATHANIEL, Representative from North Carolina, 388, 455, 527,
    604;
  on the right to Indian lands within a State, 579;
  on the resolution relative to the heirs of Count de Grasse, 583;
  on establishing Indian trading houses, 625, _note_, 625;
  on the admission of Tennessee, 756.

_Madeira Wine_, proposed duty on, 81;
  duty on, 32.

MADISON, JAMES, Jr., Representative from Virginia, 21, 175, 255, 315,
    388, 455, 527, 604;
  informs the Senate that the House agrees that the notifications of the
    election of President and Vice President be made by the former, 10;
  on a committee to report a bill regulating oaths, 22;
  speech introducing the measure for imposing impost and tonnage duties, 23;
  his manner of proceeding, _note_, 23;
  further speech on laying duties on imports, 25;
  on duty on distilled spirits, 28; on duty on molasses, 29;
  on duty on salt beef, 34;
  on duty on beer, 34;
  proposes duty on hemp, 36, 38;
  on duty on nails, &c., 38;
  on duty on salt, 40;
  opposes duty on teas, 42;
  on drawback on distilled spirits, 43;
  on high duties, 44;
  reports an answer to Washington's Inaugural, 47;
  on tonnage duties and their equality, 50;
  on tonnage duties, 53, 55;
  do. discrimination of, 56;
  on the scale of duties proposed, 60, 62;
  where the burden of duties would operate, 64;
  opposes title for President as hostile to spirit of the Government, 67, 68;
  thinks arguments against duty on molasses inconsistent, &c., 71;
  further remarks, 71;
  remarks on the motion to lay a duty on African slaves imported, 75, 76;
  moves a limitation clause to the impost bill--respecting the time of its
    continuance, 77;
  remarks on the same, 77, 80;
  withdraws his motion to limit impost bill and introduces another, 83;
  on organization of the Treasury Department, 84;
  moves the organization of three departments, 86;
  on power of President to remove officers, 86;
  further remarks, 87;
  remarks on citizenship, 97;
  on the admission of Rhode Island, 101;
  on the power of removal of officers, 104;
  on the power to report plans of revenue by the Secretary of the Treasury,
    112;
  on the compensation of the President, 117;
  on the compensation of the Vice President, 121;
  thinks discrimination in the pay of Senators and Representatives necessary,
    124;
  moves a discrimination in the pay of members of the two Houses, 131;
  on the form of amendment of the constitution, 134;
  on the amendment to the constitution relative to the freedom of conscience,
    137;
  further remarks, 138;
  on the right of instruction, 139;
  on the principles which should govern the selection of a seat of Government,
    147;
  further remarks, 147, 148, 151;
  on deliberation in choosing the seat of Government, 154;
  on the place for a seat of Government, 155;
  further remarks, 160; constitutional objection, 164;
  further remarks on amendments of the Senate, 166;
  further remarks, 167;
  on census of United States, 181;
  on residence as essential to naturalization, 186;
  on the constitutional privilege to import African slaves, 201;
  further remarks favoring the commitment of the Quaker memorial as harmless,
    204;
  on propriety of committing Pennsylvania memorial, 211;
  moves to discriminate between original creditors and present holders of
    public debt, 205;
  do. speech thereon, 205, 223;
  announces the death of Dr. Franklin, 239;
  on a seat of Government, 245;
  further remarks, 248;
  on answer to President's message, 258;
  on excise bill, 264;
  on vacancy in the Presidency, 268;
  on the commitment of the bill for a bank of the United States, 273;
  do. speech on the bank, 274, 306;
  on the bill for the encouragement of the cod fisheries, 361;
  on attendance of the Secretary of War to report, 391, 392;
  on the case of General St. Clair, 393;
  further, 394;
  on official conduct of Secretary of Treasury, 431;
  on the French emigrants from St. Domingo, 462;
  on the relief of the French emigrants, 474;
  on the preparations for the Algerine War, 475, 477, 479;
  speech on the commerce of the United States, 458, 465, 469;
  on duties on tobacco and sugar, 510;
  against the bill to increase the army, 516;
  on the delegate south of the Ohio, 531;
  on indemnification to sufferers by Pennsylvania insurgents, 549;
  on amending naturalization laws, 555;
  on the exclusion of titled foreigners from citizenship, 557;
  on the renunciation of nobility for citizenship, 562, 565;
  on reference of letter of Secretary of War, 567;
  on the Randall bribery case, 610;
  moves a resolution on post roads, 637;
  on the pay of the Speaker, 638;
  on the call for papers on the British treaty, 640;
  on rights of the House relative to treaties, 648;
  on the resolutions relative to the refusal of the President to furnish
    papers on the treaty with Great Britain, 696;
  on the execution of the treaty with Great Britain, 702.

MALBONE, FRANCIS, Representative from Rhode Island, 457, 527, 604.

_Malt_, duty on fixed, 38.

MARSHALL, HUMPHREY, Senator from Kentucky, 591.

MARTIN, ALEXANDER, Senator from North Carolina, 442, 520, 591.

_Maryland_, offers ten miles square to Congress for a seat of
 Government, 81; vote for President, 10, 385.

MASON, STEVENS T., Senator from Virginia, 591; on answer
 to the President's speech, 594.

_Massachusetts._--Vote for President, 10, 385.

MATTHEWS, GEORGE, Representative from Georgia, 175, 255.

MATTHEWS, JAMES, elected doorkeeper, 10.

MAXWELL, CORNELIUS, appointed messenger by the Senate, 10.

MEBANE ALEXANDER, Representative from North Carolina, 455, 527.

_Members_ of the House.--_See Representation._

MERCER, JOHN FRANCIS, Representative from Maryland, 320, 360;
  on the protection of the frontiers, 348;
  on the stamp of American coins, 372;
  on the publication of the debates, 379;
  on official conduct of Secretary of Treasury, 427;
  on the legality of the sequestration of British debts, 484.

_Message, &c._, between the two Houses--report of House Committee, 45;
  from the President, 167;
  of the President, 251;
  from the President, on commerce with England, 308;
  of the President, first session, second Congress, 310, _note_, 311;
  of the President to Senate, on fugitives from justice, 312;
  from the President on defeat of St. Clair, 330;
  of the President, with a veto of the apportionment bill, 374;
  of the President to second session of second Congress, 381;
  from the President, on Spanish interference, 389;
  of the President to first session of third Congress, 442;
  of the President, on foreign relations, 443;
  of President, relative to South-western frontier, 447;
  from the President, relative to foreign relations, 454;
  of the President, to second session of third Congress, 520;
  of President to the House, declining to furnish papers relative to the
    treaty with Great Britain, 692, _note_, 692;
  message, see _Address_.

MILLEDGE, JOHN, Representative from Georgia, 396, 605;
  on the reduction of the army, 407;
  on the rights of the House relative to treaties, 685.

MILTON, JOHN, votes for, as Vice President, in 1789, 10.

_Mint, establishment of._--Bill from the Senate to establish a mint
    considered, 371;
  moved to strike out clause requiring a representation of the head of the
    President, &c., on the coins, and insert emblems of Liberty, &c., 371;
  the practice of monarchs not to be regarded 371;
  the emblems of Liberty more acceptable to the people, 371;
  no consequence whether the head of Liberty or that of the President is on
    the coins, 371;
  motion carried, 371;
  disagreement of the Senate, 371;
  moved that the House recede, 371;
  no friend of the President could refuse such a tribute to him, 372;
  compared with the other representation, 372;
  tyrants' heads have been stamped on the coin, 372;
  republican cautions not a subject to be treated with levity, 372;
  motion to recede lost, 373;
  facts relative to the coinage of cents, 546;
  committee of examination, &c., appointed, 547.

MITCHELL, STEPHEN MIX, Senator from Connecticut, 442, 524.

_Molasses_, proposed duty on, 29;
  duty on, 31;
  duty on considered, 69;
  decided, 73.
  _See Duties on imports._

MONROE, JAMES, Senator from Virginia, 251, 380, 441.

MONTGOMERY, WILLIAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 456, 528;
   on Indian trading houses, 586.

MOORE, ANDREW, Representative from Virginia, 21, 175, 255, 315, 388,
    455, 527, 604;
  on duty on hemp, 36, 37;
  opposes duty on salt as unjust, 39;
  opposes discrimination in the pay of members of the two Houses, 124;
  on the reduction of the army, 410;
  on the execution of the British treaty, 727.

MORRIS, ROBERT, Senator from Pennsylvania, 9, 168, 251, 309, 380,
    441, 520.

MUHLENBERG, FREDERICK A., Representative from Pennsylvania, 21, 175,
    255, 315, 388, 455, 527, 604;
  elected Speaker, 21;
  speech on thanks tendered him by the House, 308;
  chosen Speaker, 455;
  do. _note_, 455;
  against a duty of two cents on sugar, 511;
  answer to thanks of House, 590.

MUHLENBERG, PETER, Representative from Pennsylvania, 21, 175,
    255, 315, 388, 455, 527;
  on committee for reception of President, 27;
  appointed on a committee to draft a bill relative to the importation of
African slaves, 84.

MURRAY, WILLIAM VANS, Representative from Maryland, 320, 388, 456,
    527, 604;
  does a resignation produce a vacancy, 329;
  on the bill for the encouragement of the cod fisheries, 351;
  further remarks, 356;
  on attendance of Secretary of War, 392;
  on discharging committee on defeat of St. Clair, 395;
  on the reduction of the army, 414;
  on the relief of the Trench emigrants, 474;
  on conducting the Algerine war, 478;
  against continuing the embargo, 501;
  on force to protect S. W. frontier, 517;
  on the President's speech, 532, 536;
  on thanks to Gen. Wayne, 544;
  on the renunciation of nobility for citizenship, 562;
  for the reference of letter of Secretary of War, 566, 567;
  on the right to Indian lands within a State, 578;
  on Indian trading houses, 586; on intruders on Indian lands, 588;
  on the answer to President's speech, 606;
  on the attempt at bribery by Robert Randall, 610, 612;
  statement of the case of Randall and Whitney, 617;
  on establishing Indian trading-houses, 625;
  on the support of existing establishments, 627, 628;
  on the pay of the Speaker, 639;
  opposes the resolution calling for papers on British treaty, 640.


N

_Nails and Spikes_, debate on duty on, 38; do. fixed, 38.

_Naturalization Laws._--The bill under consideration, 184;
  motion to strike out "and shall have resided in the U. S. one year," 184;
  it was policy to let aliens come in and take the oath, and hold lands
    without any residence, 184;
  some security for their fidelity and allegiance was required, 185;
  without a residence the terms are too cheap, 185;
  policy of European nations, 185;
  does not apply here, 185;
  we should be inconsistent by prescribing too long a term for the enjoyment
    of our privileges, 185;
  foreign merchants could evade additional duties on foreign vessels unless
    residence was required, 185;
  the reason of admitting foreigners is to encourage emigration and people our
    large tract of country, 185;
  a long term may restrain emigration, 185;
  cautions necessary to guard against abuses, 186;
  the object is not merely to swell the catalogue of the people, but add to
    the wealth and strength of the community, 186;
  the admission step by step is a nice question, but residence should be
    required, 186;
  a sufficient residence should be required for the privilege of electing and
    being elected, 186;
  many of the States admit aliens step by step, 186;
  doubtful if the constitution authorizes Congress to say on what terms aliens
    may hold land in the respective States, 186;
  Congress possesses power only to make a uniform rule of naturalization, 186;
  if the motion prevails, vagrants, paupers, and outcasts of Europe will find
    too easy an admission to citizenship, 187;
  some probation necessary and testimonials of a proper and decent behavior,
    187;
  no creditable man can think such terms difficult, 187;
  grand jury or district courts could determine on the character of the man,
    175;
  excluding bad men impracticable, 187;
  propriety of residence doubted, 187;
  every person, rich or poor, adds to our wealth and strength, 187;
  citizenship can be made progressive, 187;
  policy of settling the vacant territory by emigration doubtful, 188;
  some probation requisite, 188;
  some classes should be received with encouragement, 188;
  others excluded, 188;
  naturalization progressive in England, 189;
  in some States an act of the Legislature is now required--this is
    sufficiently easy, 189;
  unless some residence is required confusion may arise, 189;
  no person should hold land without a residence and an intention of becoming
    a citizen, 189;
  story of voting in Philadelphia, 189;
  two years inserted in the bill, _note_, 190;
  act to establish a uniform rate of naturalization considered, 555;
  moved to insert the words "attached to a Republican form of government,"
    555;
  or "attached to the Constitution of the United States," 555;
  both superfluous, 555;
  word Republican very indefinite, 555;
  do. used in the constitution, 555;
  difficult for many citizens to find two reputable witnesses, 555;
  other amendments proposed, 555;
  do. to strike out word "moral" in the words good moral character, 556;
  the word too strict, 556;
  the whole useless, 556;
  moved to exclude from citizenship any emigrant who had borne a title of
    nobility, 557;
  reasons for the same, 557;
  better be required to renounce every thing contrary to the spirit of the constitution, 557;
  nothing more grateful to a republican than to see them renounce their
    titles, 557;
  the title is destroyed when the allegiance is broken, 558;
  if we cannot manufacture a commodity at home, it is unlawful to import it
    from abroad, 558;
  yeas and nays threatened, 558;
  moved to amend by requiring the emigrant to renounce the possession of all
    slaves, 558;
  not a proper connection with the subject, 558;
  the amendment unnecessary, as slavery was declining fast as possible, 558;
  the amendment a retaliation upon those who call for the yeas and nays, 559;
  both amendments unnecessary, 559;
  what right had the House to say one class of people shall not have that kind
    of property which others have? 559;
  amendment withdrawn, 560;
  further discussion relative to renouncing titles of nobility, 561, 562, 563,
    564, 565;
  amendment adopted, 566.

_Naval Establishment_, on a permanent, 481.

_Navy, officers of._--Report of the committee on the memorial of officers
    of the Navy relative to a difference of pay compared with the officers of the
    army, 239;
  justice of their claims, 240;
  origin of commutation, 240;
  the grounds of their claims, 240;
  circumstances which led to a distinction, 240;
  no precedent for extending commutation to officers of the navy, 240;
  examination of the grounds of these demands, 241;
  difference between officers of the army and navy, 241;
  claims strictly just, 241.

NEVILLE, JOSEPH, Representative from Virginia, 456, 527.

NEW, ANTHONY, Representative from Virginia, 455, 527, 606.

_New Hampshire_, vote for President, 10, 385.

_New Jersey_, vote for President, 10, 385.

_New York City_ Corporation, vote of thanks to, 250.

_New York_, vote for President in 1793, 385.

NICHOLAS, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 455, 528, 606;
  on the French emigrants from St. Domingo, 463;
  on the relief of, 474;
  speech on the commerce of the United States, 468;
  on the power of the Algerines, 476, 478;
  on the advance of money to France, 514;
  on the bill to protect the South-western frontiers, 517;
  on the President's speech, 532, 536, 538;
  on indemnification to sufferers by the Pennsylvania insurgents, 541, 548;
  on amending the naturalization laws, 555, 556;
  on exclusion of titled foreigners from citizenship, 558;
  on the reference of a letter of the Secretary of War, 566;
  on the reduction of salaries, 572;
  on the right to Indian lands within a State, 577;
  on the Randall bribery case, 615;
  on the resolution relative to bribery, 621;
  on the support of existing establishments, 628;
  on a stenographer for the House, 631;
  on a salary for members of Congress, 636;
  on rights of the House relative to treaties, 641;
  on the execution of the British treaty, 710;
  on the military and naval appropriations, 766.

NILES, NATHANIEL, Representative from Vermont, 317, 388, 527;
  on the Electoral College, 333;
  on the flag of the Union, 461.

_Non-intercourse_ with Great Britain, _see Great Britain_.

_North Carolina_, vote for President in 1793, 385.


O

_Oaths_, a bill to regulate the time and manner of administering certain,
    reported, 11;
  administered to Vice President and each Senator, 15;
  to Secretary of Senate, 15;
  leave to bring in a bill, in the House--form of, for the members of the
    House, 22;
  of President--proceedings of the House after its administration, 46.

  Amendments of the Senate to the bill regulating the time and manner of
    taking oaths, 51;
  whence is derived the power to oblige members of State Legislatures to take this oath? 51;
  no doubt respecting the powers of Congress on the subject, 51;
  if left to State Legislatures, different laws might be passed, and different
    degrees of obligation required, 51;
  the power appears to be generally conceded; the principle of policy should
    be examined, 51;
  not a suitable time; it argues a jealousy in the national Government, 52;
  the States should comply with an act of Congress, 52;
  Congress has not the power to carry it into effect, 52;
  Congress has such power, 52;
  the policy depends on a variety of circumstances, 52;
  it may be considered an interference with the State Governments, 53;
  no reason offered by the Senate for concurrence, 53;
  a general provision better than particular ones, 53;
  no other Legislature capable to make one, 53;
  it is the duty of the House to detail the general principles laid down by
    the constitution, and reduce them to practice, 53.

O'BRIEN, RICHARD, petition of, 389.

_Officers_, removal of, 102;
  debate on the power of the President, 103.
  _See Executive Departments._

ORR, ALEXANDER D., Representative from Kentucky, 457, 528.

OTIS, SAMUEL ALYNE, elected Secretary of the Senate, 10.


P

PAGE, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 21, 175, 317, 388, 477,
    546, 604;
  presides in Committee of Whole, 22, 24, 27, 33, 37, 39, 41, 42;
  on application to amend the constitution, 48;
  on tonnage duties--experience of Virginia, 56;
  presides in Committee of the Whole, 57, 58, 71;
  opposed to all titles for the President, 66, 68;
  on the admission of Rhode Island, 101;
  remarks on the Treasury Department, 109;
  further remarks, 110;
  on the compensation of President, &c., 116;
  further remarks, 119;
  do. on Vice President, 122;
  on amount of compensation of members, 129, 132;
  on the right of Instruction, 139;
  do. further, 143;
  on the admission of reporters for the press, 180;
  on making easy terms of naturalization, 185, 187;
  on the public debt, 193;
  urges commitment of Pennsylvania memorial, 210;
  on discrimination among the public creditors, 221;
  do. further remarks, 228;
  on a seat of Government, 247;
  speech on ratio of Representation, 325;
  a bill for the encouragement of the cod fisheries, 364;
  on the head to be stamped on American coins, 371, 372;
  on discharging committee in case of St. Clair, 395;
  on reference to the Committee of the Whole of the resolutions relative to
    the official conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury, 420;
  on the exclusion of titled foreigners from citizenship, 557;
  on reference of letter of Secretary of War, 570;
  on the reduction of salaries, 573;
  on the support of existing establishments, 627;
  on the pay of the Speaker, 638;
  on the rights of the House relative to treaties, 664;
  on the execution of the British treaty, 726.

PAINE, ELIJAH, Senator from Vermont, 591.

PAINE, WINGATE, Representative from New Hampshire, 455, 527.

_Paris._--Letter of President of Commonalty on death of Dr. Franklin,
    256.

PARKER, JONATHAN, Representative from Virginia, 21, 175, 259, 388;
  appointed by House to make list of votes for President when counted in the
    Senate, 22;
  appointed on Committee of Supplies, 46;
  appointed of Committee of Conference on subject of title of
    President--because it is all repugnant to republicanism, 67;
  moves a duty on importation of African slaves, 73, 74;
  withdraws motion for duty on African slaves, 76;
  appointed on committee to draft a bill relative to the importation of
    African slaves, 84;
  on duties on distilled spirits, 263;
  further remarks, 264.

PARKER, JOSIAH, Representative from Virginia, 456, 527, 604;
  on the reduction of the army, 399;
  further remarks, 405;
  on the commerce of the United States, 472;
  against the embargo laws, 499;
  on the President's speech, 539;
  on resolutions of thanks to General Wayne, 543;
  on Indian trading houses, 585;
  on the address to the President, 605, 606;
  on establishing Indian trading houses, 625, 633.

PARTRIDGE, GEORGE, Representative from Massachusetts, 22, 175, 255;
  on duty on molasses, 31;
  on duty on hemp, 36, 37.

PATERSON, WILLIAM, Senator from New Jersey, 9, 168;
  appointed on Judiciary Committee, first Congress, 10;
  on committee to prepare answer to Washington's Inaugural, 12;
  resigns his seat in Senate, 251.

PATTON, JOHN, Representative from Delaware, 457, 604.

_Pennsylvania._--Vote for President, 10, 385.

_Pennsylvania Insurgents._--The recommendation of compensation to the
    sufferers by the Pennsylvania insurgents considered, 546;
  proposed to confine it to officers of the Government, 547;
  sound policy required indemnification of the sufferers, 547;
  the whole affair but a trifle, not twenty thousand dollars, 547;
  there should be no discrimination, 547;
  it should be confined to persons who had suffered in defence of Government,
    547;
  a private person more entitled to indemnification than revenue officers who
    are paid for their services, 547;
  let the sufferers have recourse to the laws, 547;
  Government equally bound to make compensation to those who suffered by
    British soldiers, 548;
  amendment rejected, 548;
  on the bill before the House, immediate indemnity, objected to, 548;
  if you pay the claims you cut off civil process, 549;
  it becomes a precedent, 549;
  the measure will encourage a spirit to suppress insurrections, and it may
    encourage insurrections, 549;
  resolution is unsound policy, 549;
  the subject should be postponed to another session, 550;
  no civil process will lie in the case, 550;
  the amendment to confine the damages to citizens personally aiding or
    assisting the officers, considered, 551;
  it becomes the honor and justice of the Legislature to indemnify them, 551;
  the point of law considered relative to civil actions, 552;
  the British had practised indemnification to the Royalists, 553;
  previous question carried, 553;
  other amendments added, 554.

PERSON, THOMAS, petition of, _see Indian lands_ within States, &c.

_Petition_, of Catharine Greene, 335;
  of William Dunbar, in behalf of the heir of George Galphin, 383;
  of Richard O'Brien, 339;
  of Warner Mifflin, on subject of <DW64> slavery, 397;
  to make Hudson, N. Y., port of entry, 410;
  of Conrad Laub, respecting the seat of Albert Gallatin in the Senate, 442;
  from the Quakers of Rhode Island, relative to the slave trade, 446.

_Philadelphia._--Letter from Commissioners offering Congress the Court
    House, 251.

PICKENS, ANDREW, Representative from South Carolina, 457, 528.

PINKNEY, WILLIAM, resignation of, 320.

_Post Office._--Bill to establish post offices and post roads, 249;
  moved to empower Postmasters General to establish certain roads under the
    direction of the President, 249;
  reasons for opposing a concurrence in this amendment, 249;
  reasons in favor of the amendment, 249.

    _Franking Privilege_ under consideration, 330;
  it is presumed no gentleman will ask a member to frank for him, 330;
  if abuses arise, Legislature can correct them, 330;
  to take away privilege of franking would level a deadly stroke at the
    freedom of the press, 331;
  dangerous to take any measures that may stop the channels of public
    information, 331;
  franking granted, not as a personal benefit, but for the good of the
    constituents, 331;
  means of bringing much information to the House, 331;
  some restrictions can be put on it, 331;
  equally as objectionable in the hands of the President, 331;
  so long as it is advantageous to citizens it should not be relinquished,
    331;
  motion to withdraw the privilege from members of both Houses, 332;
  the security of the people is that their Representatives are subject to the
    same regulations as themselves, 332;
  Congress enjoys only such rights as are mentioned in the charter, 332;
  people view this privilege with a jealous eye, 332;
  example of Great Britain shows to what an enormous height the abuse can be
    carried, 332;
  the privilege is unequal in its operation, 332;
  the diminution of revenue not a sufficient reason for abolishing the
    privilege, 332;
  revenue a secondary consideration, 332;
  if this privilege be taken away, the avenues of information cut off, 333;
  various other considerations in favor of retaining the privilege considered,
    333;
  bill passed, 335.

    _Post Roads_ from Maine to Georgia, resolution relative to a survey
    of, &c., considered, 637;
  the business of the General Government to undertake the improvement of
    roads, 637;
  present roads greatly improved by adopting the resolution, 637;
  not right to apply revenues of post office to this object, 637;
  resolution offered by Mr. Madison, 637.

POTTS, RICHARD, Senator from Maryland, 384, 447, 524, 591.

_Presidency, Vacancy in._--Bill declaring what officer, in case of
    vacancy in the offices of President and Vice President, shall act as
    President, 267;
  it must be an officer of the United States by the constitution, 267;
  shall he hold for the remainder of the term, or only until a new election?
    267;
  Secretary of State, 267;
  President of the Senate, _pro tem._, moved, 267;
  this last motion repugnant to the constitution, 267;
  the matter is left with the Legislature, 267;
  Chief Justice a suitable officer, 268;
  objections to different officers, 268;
  delay urged, 268;
  unnecessary, 268;
  considerations respecting various officers, 269;
  the contingency might not happen more than once in eight hundred years, 270;
  further objections to Secretary of State, 270;
  motion to strike out clause providing the President of the Senate, _pro
    tem._, or the Speaker of the House shall act as President, in case of a
    vacancy, 334;
  subject of not immediate importance, 334;
  objected to as not connected with other parts of the bill, 334;
  necessary the business should be decided, 334;
  bill unconstitutional--neither the President, _pro tem._, nor Speaker,
    nor officers of the government in the sense contemplated, 334;
  Speaker no more an officer of the government than any member of the House,
    334;
  unconstitutionality further considered, 334.

_President_, vote for, in 1789, 10;
  in 1793, 385;
  compensation of, 16, 17;
  message on disputes between some of the States and the Indian tribes, 16;
  on the rejection by the Senate of the nomination of Benjamin Fishbourn, 17;
  meets the Senate in consultation, 18;
  _note_, 18;
  message to Senate on hostilities of Wabash Indians, 19;
  on ratification of treaties with Indian tribes, 19;
  message communicating the death of the Dauphin of France to the Senate, 20;
  on adjournment of Congress, 20;
  his reply to the address of the House, 57;
  his power to remove officers, 86;
  declared by vote, 90;
  compensation of, 116;
  debate on, 116;
  salary fixed, 120;
  message to House, 167;
  his reply to address of the Senate, 170;
  his term of office, when commenced, 171;
  his message to the Senate on the accession of Rhode Island to the Union,
    172;
  on conferring a brevet commission on a French officer, 172;
  message from, to the Senate, 173;
  _note_, 173;
  question of consultation addressed to the Senate, 173;
  message to Senate on treaty with Indian tribes, 173;
  his reply to address of the House, 179;
  message to Senate on surrender of Western posts by the British, 254;
  reply to answer of the Senate, 313;
  reply to address of House, 316;
  reply to Senate's address, 383;
  inaugural address at second election, 387;
  counting votes for, 418;
  answer to address of the Senate, 444;
  reply to address of the House, 457;
  reply to Senate's address, 523;
  reply to House address, 542;
  message to Senate with colors of French Republic, 597;
  answer to address of the House, 597;
  reply to address of the House, 609;
  message to the House with the French Flag, 616;
  answer to French Minister on presentation of French Flag, 617;
  message relative to intruders on Cherokee lands, 635.

PRESTON, FRANCIS, Representative from Virginia, 455, 527, 606;
  on the execution of the British treaty, 740.

_Protection_ of American commerce, _see Commerce_;
  do. of frontiers, _see Frontiers_.

_Protective duties_, how far sustained by the debate on the impost bill,
    _note_, 84.

_Protest_, or dissent of any Senator--motion to grant right to enter on
    the journal of the Senate--negatived, 16.

PROVOST, SAMUEL, elected chaplain of the Senate, 11.

_Public lands_, debate on resolutions respecting the disposal of the land
    in the Western territory, 99;
  speedy measures necessary to be taken, 99;
  a land office should be opened to sell the land in small quantities, 99;
  great numbers of people are on the ground waiting to purchase, 100;
  they will move to Spanish Territory, or take possession of ours without
    leave, 100;
  other reasons showing the necessity of doing something, 100;
  this business should not be precipitated, 101;
  some early measures necessary, 101.

  Resolution to establish a land office and fix terms of granting vacant lands
    in the west, considered, 113;
  character of the emigration, 114;
  adhesion to the Union, 115;
  organization of a land office, 115;
  its system of business, 115;
  resolution adopted, 116;
  on a resolution to establish a land office at the seat of Government, &c.,
    260;
  details of the business, 260;
  better to settle general principles, 260;
  perfect liberty in selection by purchasers most for the interest of the
    Government, 260;
  reasons against indiscriminate location, 260;
  bad effects of, 261;
  manner of laying out land by late Congress, 261;
  moved that the price thirty cents per acre be struck out, 261;
  various prices proposed, 261;
  motion lost, 261;
  moved--the price be not less than thirty cents per acre, 261;
  the policy of the Government is to fix a price so reasonable that any can
    pay, 261;
  relative value of lands in several States, 261;
  no discretion for determining the price should be left to any one, 262;
  considerations for and against fixing a price, 262;
  practice of some States, 262.


Q

_Question_, the previous--_note_, 101;
  ordered, 102.

_Quorum_, at first session of Senate when formed, 9.


R

RAMSEY, DAVID, petition to the House on eligibility of Wm. Smith, 33.

RANDALL, ROBERT, charged with an attempt at bribery, 609;
  arrest of, 611;
  trial before the House, 618.

READ, GEORGE, Senator from Delaware, 10, 251, 309, 380;
  resigns his seat in the Senate, 442.

READ, JACOB, Senator from South Carolina, 591;
  on answer to President's speech, 595.

READ, JOHN, Representative from Massachusetts, 604;
  on the rights of the House relative to treaties, 671.

_Reception of President_, Senate Committee on, 10;
  of President, report of Senate Committee thereon, 11;
  of committee on conducting the same, 11;
  report of House Committee on, 33;
  report of committee appointed for that purpose, 44.

_Reduction of Salaries_ of Executive officers, clerks, &c., and Senators
    and Representatives, &c., motion for a committee to bring in a bill, 571;
  a subject of grievous complaint among citizens, 571;
  salaries exorbitant, 571;
  other circumstances considered, 571;
  experience of members of the House, 572;
  the motion unnecessary, 573;
  the question arises from misapprehension, 574;
  the pay of members considered, 574;
  of Speakers, 574;
  of Senators, 574;
  difference between pay of Senators and Representatives, 575,
  _note_, 575;
  present pay small enough, 575;
  motion negatived, 575.

_Report_ of House Committee on messages, &c., between the two Houses, 45;
  of House Committee of Elections on proceedings relative to the petition of
    David Ramsey, 45;
  of House Committee on title of President, 47;
  of committee on unfinished business of last session, 171;
  of Special Committee on Quaker memorial, 238;
  of Committee of the whole House on Quaker memorial, 239;
  _note_, 239;
  on memorial of the officers of the navy, 239;
  on mode of examining votes for President, 417;
  on admission of the delegate south of the Ohio, 530;
  on proceedings in the Randall bribery case, 614.

_Reporters_, their admission to the House, 180;
  blunders of, 181.

_Representation, ratio of_, moved there be one Representative for every
    thirty thousand inhabitants, and motion to strike out "thirty,"
    considered, 320;
  sense of the States considered, 321;
  one to thirty thousand will not give more than an adequate number, 321;
  objection on account of expense, considered, 321;
  citizens of United States expect this ratio, 321;
  thirty should be struck out, 321;
  difficult to do business if representation too numerous, 321;
  people will be satisfied if ratio is higher, 321;
  it will increase expense and the number of public officers, 322;
  two points to be considered, viz., what is the proper number to constitute a
    representative body for the United States, and what ratio will leave the
    fewest fractions in the States, 322;
  thirty-five thousand leave fewest fractions, 322;
  an adequate number was the great object, 322;
  future sessions will be shorter, 322;
  existence of the Union may depend on fulness of representation, 322;
  doubtful if a large representation was less liable to corruption than a
    small one, 322;
  philosophical examination of the principle of representation, 322;
  the opinion advanced for reducing the representative branch is a dangerous
    error, 323;
  situation of the country calls for great extension of the principle of
    representation, 323;
  other points considered, 323;
  the will of the people should be regarded, 324;
  expenses, delays, and other objections considered, 324;
  is not Congress precluded from exercising any discretion in the matter by
    the constitution? 324;
  is it expedient to do it? 324;
  objects of State and Congressional assemblies, 324;
  leave the restriction of the number of members to the people, or to some
    future Congress, 325;
  Congress being the creature of the people should not lessen the importance
    of the people or exclude them from a full share in their own government, 325;
  one man cannot know the wishes of thirty-five thousand, therefore the people
    should not be desired to accede to that ratio, 325;
  it is said the President secured the present ratio to the people, and shall
    we be less solicitous than the President? 326;
  no danger of disorders from a large number, 326;
  if more wisdom is brought into the House by a larger number, is not also
    more folly, 326;
  the Senate, a smaller body, is as competent as the House, 326;
  if we go on theory the representation should be enlarged, 327;
  no propriety in comparing
    the government to that of Great Britain, 327;
  no danger of corruption from a large number, 327;
  the constitution secures independence of legislature, 327;
  a numerous representation tends to weaken, if not destroy, the Government,
    327;
  the proposed amendment to the constitution should be a guide to the House,
    328;
  instability of State governments arises from mode of election, 328;
  other objections considered, 328;
  on the resolution that the representation be one to thirty thousand,
    adopted, 328.

  _Apportionment bill_, considered, 374;
  the people expect one representative for thirty thousand inhabitants,
    according to the constitution, 375;
  grounds of this expectation, 375;
  the inequality of representation suggested to result from this ratio is more
    apparent than real, 375;
  objection that the relative influence of the States should not be resorted
    to in the apportionment of representatives, considered, 375;
  the inconveniences of the rule in their greatest extent can never be very
    great, 375;
  the increasing representation considered, with a view to the necessity of
    establishing in this branch a permanent sympathy with the landed interest,
    376;
  organization of a moneyed interest, 376;
  apprehensions from the principles beginning to be developed, 377;
  thirty-three adopted, 377.

_Resignation, does it cause a vacancy?_--Wm. Pinkney resigned as
    Representative from Maryland without taking the oath or his seat,
    John F. Mercer was appointed by the Governor and Council to fill
    the vacancy under the laws of Maryland, report on considered, 328;
  under the constitution a resignation does not cause a vacancy, 328;
  in the British House of Commons there can be no resignation, 329;
  under the constitution Executives of States are not judges of a vacancy,
    329;
  great inconvenience would result from a rejection of the report, 329;
  no analogy between Parliament of Great Britain and this House, 329;
  no part of the constitution prohibits a member from resigning, 329;
  it is uncertain how the practice of the British Parliament originated, 329;
  vacancies can happen from various causes, 329;
  difference between a resignation before and after taking a seat, 329;
  great inconvenience of contrary course, 329;
  the constitution contemplates resignations, 329;
  nothing to show resignations may not take place in one House as well as in
    the other, 329;
  report accepted, 330.

_Resolution_ on the consideration of all bills on a second reading in the
    Senate, 15;
  on contested election of Wm. Smith, 94;
  on Executive Departments, 94;
  relative to Western lands, 100;
  _note_, 100;
  adopted, 101;
  relative to the admission of Rhode Island, 101;
  relating to Western lands, 113;
  adopted, 114;
  on the establishment of a land office, 127;
  for a Home department, 127;
  of thanks to the Speaker at close first Congress, 129;
  on adjournment, 129;
  on location of seat of Government, 146;
  on a central location, 146;
  for the appointment of Commissioners to fix seat of Government on
    Susquehanna, &c., 159, 161, 163;
  for Commissioners to fix site for a seat of Government, 163;
  proviso offered to, 163;
  rejection of, 163;
  adoption of resolution, 163;
  on unfinished business of last session, 171;
  on non-intercourse with Rhode Island, 171;
  adopted, 173;
  of Senate to attend the funeral of Thomas Bland, 172;
  _note_ on, 172;
  of Senate on secret article of treaty with the Creek nation, 173;
  of Senate relative to a treaty with the Cherokee Indians, 174;
  of thanks to the Corporation of New York city, 174;
  of adjournment, 174;
  of House on Chaplain, 175;
  relative to an answer to the President's speech, 177;
  on public credit, 190;
  relative to eulogium on Dr. Franklin, 259;
  on jails of the States, 308;
  of the Senate, relative to open doors, 313;
  on the ratio of representation, 328;
  to refer petition of Catharine Greene to select committee, 341;
  on the petition of Catharine Greene, 341;
  lost, 341;
  on the courtesies of France, 370;
  on the petition of Catharine Greene, 370;
  of Senate respecting open doors, 384;
  on the official conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury, 418;
  of thanks to Speaker Dayton, 440;
  of Senate relative to amendments of the constitution, 445;
  of Senate relative to open doors, 448;
  relative to British debts, 482;
  of non-intercourse with Great Britain, 498;
  on indemnity for spoliation, 503;
  of amendments to the constitution 524;
  on deported slaves of the Revolution, 525;
  amendment, 526;
  _note_, 526;
  of thanks to Gen. Wayne and others, 542, 546;
  of thanks to the militia of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and
    Virginia, 546;
  respecting losses by Pennsylvania insurgents, 554;
  on excluding titled foreigners from citizenship, 557;
  on the right to Indian lands within a State, 582;
  relative to the case of Thomas Person and others, 583;
  relative to the heirs of Count de Grasse, 583;
  relative to intruders on Indian lands, 584;
  relative to Indian lands in Georgia, 584;
  relative to open doors in the Senate, 593;
  _note_, 594;
  in Senate on presentation of French Flag, 597;
  relative to attempt at bribery, 621;
  on post roads, 637;
  on the treaty with Great Britain, 640, 692;
  relative to the refusal of the President to furnish papers relative to the
    treaty with Great Britain, 696;
  _note_, 696;
  on the sense of the House relative to the British treaty, 751.

_Rhode Island, Admission of._--Resolution desiring Rhode Island to take
    the necessary steps for admission into the Union, 101;
  propriety of interfering in the matter doubtful, 101;
  why interfere in the concerns of sister States who have not joined the
    confederacy, 101;
  course of Rhode Island, 101;
  not proper for this House to expose themselves to have the invitation
    rejected, 102;
  previous question moved for the first time, 102;
  reasons therefor, 102;
  decided in the negative, 102;
  letter from Governor of, to the President, 171;
  proposal of non-intercourse with, 171;
  considered in the Senate, 172;
  adopted, 173;
  vote for President in 1793, 385.

ROBINSON, MOSES, Senator from Vermont, 380, 441, 520, 590.

ROSS, JAMES, Senator from Pennsylvania, 523, 591.

_Rules._--Senate, committee on, in case of conference, 10;
  for conducting business, Senate committee on, first Congress, 10;
  of the Senate for open doors, 314.

_Rum._--The word changed to distilled spirits, 28; duty on, 28.

RUTHERFORD, JOHN, Senator from New Jersey, 309, 380, 441, 523, 591.

RUTHERFORD, ROBERT, Representative from Virginia, 455, 527, 604;
  objects to the duty on salt, 506;
  on the President's speech, 538;
  on the reduction of salaries, 573;
  on the admission of Tennessee, 754.

RUTLEDGE, JOHN, votes for, as Vice President in 1789, 10.


S

_Salt_, debate on duty on, 38; duty fixed, 41.

_Salted Provisions_, drawback on, fixed, 41.

SCHUREMAN, JAMES, Representative from New Jersey, 21, 175, 255;
  opposes the motion to lay duty on African slaves as improper at that time, 74.

SCHUYLER, PHILIP, Senator from New York, 16;
  draws lots with Rufus King for length of term, 10, 168, 254.

SCOTT, MAJOR GENERAL, resolution of thanks to, by the House, 546.

SCOTT, THOMAS, Representative from Pennsylvania, 175, 255, 455, 530;
  remarks on the principle of discrimination in laying duties, 28;
  favors duty on hemp, 36; opposes duty on salt, 39;
  on Western lands, 99;
  on do., encouragement to emigration, 113;
  plan of land-office, 115;
  on selecting a seat of government, 155;
  on a distinction between foreign and domestic creditors, 194;
  further remarks, 197;
  do. on the discrimination and liquidation of the public debt, 198;
  on constitutionality and propriety of Pennsylvania memorial for the
    abolition of slavery, 208;
  on a seat of Government, 245;
  on establishment of a land office, 260;
  further remarks, 261;
  moves to strike out thirty cents as the price of land, 261;
  on the pay of soldiers, 459;
  further remarks, 460;
  on the relief of the French emigrants, 474;
  on exclusion of titled foreigners from citizenship, 558;
  on the right to Indian lands within a State, 578;
  on intruders on Indian lands, 587.

_Seat of Government._--Motion to fix a permanent residence for the
    general Government of the United States, 145;
  a spot on the banks of the Susquehanna regarded as most central, although
    south of the centre of population, 145;
  resolution to locate on east bank of Susquehanna offered, 146;
  a great national question, 146;
  a preamble of general principles moved, 146;
  spot on the Delaware proposed, do. on the Potomac, 146;
  preamble regarded as unnecessary, 146, 147;
  voted in the negative, 147;
  neither centre of wealth, or population, or locality, should decide, as the
    future may make great changes, 147;
  the several places should be considered on their merits, 147;
  original motion under consideration, 148;
  advantages of the banks of the Susquehanna, 148;
  the whole thing arranged out doors, let its consistency with general
    principles be shown, 148;
  answer, 148;
  if Eastern members have settled the question let them settle the principles
    of the government, 149;
  the territorial centrality on the Susquehanna denied, 149;
  the place proposed comes within the general principles agreed on, 149;
  cannot men consult together who have a common interest, 150;
  the Susquehanna south-west of the centre of wealth, &c., 150;
  the Potomac regarded as unhealthy, 150;
  banks of the Potomac the best place, 150;
  advantages of Harrisburg, 151;
  advantages of the Potomac, 151;
  advantages of the Hudson, 151;
  various considerations on the subject, 152;
  motion to insert Harrisburg, lost, 153;
  motion to strike out "east bank of the Susquehanna," and insert Potomac,
    158;
  remarks thereon, 154;
  motion for committee to rise, 154;
  attempts to precipitate a decision, 154;
  a league between the Northern States and Pennsylvania against the South,
    155;
  opposition in New England to the Potomac, 155;
  this business should be decided under an equal attention to the rights of
    the community, 155;
  effects of an uncentral location, 156;
  seat should be the centre of the Union, 156;
  Potomac the centre, 157;
  facts respecting the Susquehanna, 157;
  objections to the Potomac considered, 157;
  arguments in favor of the Susquehanna, 158;
  motion to strike out Susquehanna and insert Potomac, lost, 159;
  motion to insert "or Potomac" after Susquehanna, lost, 159;
  resolution for appointment of commissioners to examine, report to the
    President, and purchase on east bank of Susquehanna, &c., offered, 159;
  the site should be ceded, 159;
  the jurisdiction be exclusive, 160;
  several States offered a cession, 160;
  the reproach of bargaining, 160;
  do. repelled, 160;
  opposition of Southern members made to prevent an improper decision, 160;
  motion to insert "north bank of Potomac" for east bank of Susquehanna, lost,
    161;
  do. to insert Wilmington, &c., lost, 161;
  do. to insert Potomac, Susquehanna, or Delaware, lost, 162;
  do. to insert "either side of the Delaware," &c., lost, 162;
  do. to insert "banks" for east bank, carried, 162;
  do. to insert "or Maryland " after Pennsylvania, lost, 162;
  do. to insert "Wilmington" for city of New York, lost, 163;
  do. to insert "Philadelphia" for New York, lost, 163;
  bill to establish a seat of government, considered, 164;
  moved to confine the choice between the mouth of Checkiselungo creek and the
    mouth of the Susquehanna, 164;
  moved to strike out all that part of the bill making New York the temporary
    seat of government, as unconstitutional, 164;
  bill passed, 164;
  do. passed by the Senate, with amendments, and returned to the House, 165;
  motion to postpone its consideration, 165;
  House should not be influenced by the Senate keeping the appropriation bill
    as a hostage, 165;
  insinuation wrongful, 165;
  amendment of Senate changes the tenor of the bill, 165;
  Germantown most proper spot, 165;
  arguments for postponement, 166;
  motion lost, 166;
  motion to concur with Senate, 166;
  advantages of Germantown, 166;
  a costly location, 167;
  a departure from every principle adopted by the House, 167;
  an amendment moved and carried, 167;
  on Committee of the Whole on a bill from the Senate fixing the temporary and
    permanent seat of government, debated, 242;
  moved to strike out "Potomac" and insert "a district to include the town of
    Baltimore," 242;
  centrality is not an idea which predominates in regard to any other country,
    242;
  if the clause is struck out the bill will be lost, 242;
  consideration of the relative interests of the Southern, Middle, and
    Northern States, 243;
  a central position necessary, 243;
  the merits of the question, 243;
  map of the Potomac, 243;
  reasons in favor of Baltimore, 243;
  objections to the place proposed, 244;
  Philadelphia will become the permanent residence, 244;
  no necessity for moving temporary residence, 244;
  Potomac a national location, 244;
  only three States can claim it, 244;
  advantages of the Potomac, 245;
  advantages and disadvantages of the two places compared, 245;
  centrality of the Potomac, 245;
  not the time to fix the seat of government, 245;
  objections considered, 246;
  New York a temporary seat, 246;
  history of the Quakers, 246;
  conduct of New York during the war, 247;
  conduct of her Senators on this question, 247;
  Baltimore the place on the map, 247;
  character of New York, 247;
  advantages of Baltimore, 247;
  principles of the bill, 247;
  no State has a right to the seat of government, 248;
  report of a committee of the late Congress, 248;
  Baltimore or the Potomac too far south, 248;
  Baltimore nearest the centre, 248;
  after present ferment has subsided, Potomac will be considered the bond of
    the Union, 248;
  improvements on the Potomac, 248;
  difficulty of ever removing from Philadelphia if made temporary residence,
    248;
  proceedings at last session, 248;
  motion lost, 248;
  moved to strike out Potomac and insert Delaware, 249;
  motion lost, 249;
  do. to strike out Potomac and insert Germantown, 249;
  do. lost, 249;
  do. to strike out Potomac and insert Baltimore, 249;
  do. lost, 249;
  do. to adjourn, lost, 249;
  bill passed, 249;
  _note_, 250.

_Secretaries_, resolution requiring attendance on the House, 390.

_Secretary_, of the Senate, elected by ballot, 1st Congress, 10.

_Secretary of the Treasury_, debate on his duties, 109;
  on communicating information to the House, 111;
  report of, 176;
  manner of making it, 177.
  _See Treasury._

_Secretary of War_, letter from, 393.
  _See St. Clair._

SEDGWICK, THEODORE, Representative from Massachusetts, 175, 395, 455,
    530, 604;
  on removal of officers, 103;
  on the compensation of the President, 117;
  further remarks on pay of Vice President, 120, 122;
  motion on the pay of members of Congress, 123;
  favors discrimination in the pay of members of the two Houses, 125;
  opposes a Home Department, 128;
  on amount of pay of members, 130;
  farther remarks, 132, 133;
  on the manner of giving instructions to Representatives, 143;
  on the location of a seat of Government, 150;
  further remarks, 154;
  on the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, 183;
  opposed to indiscriminate admission of foreigners, 188;
  on the importance of prompt action relative to the public debt, 199;
  on the immediate second reading of the Quaker Memorial, 203;
  on discrimination of public creditors, 211;
  on memorial of officers of navy, 241;
  on price of public lands, 261;
  further remarks, 262;
  on vacancy in the Presidency, 267;
  on excise bill, 265;
  on officers, 271;
  speech on the Bank of the United States, 282;
  on resignation of William Pinkney, 329;
  on the electoral college, 333;
  on vacancy in the office of President, 335;
  on official conduct of Secretary of Treasury, 426, 429;
  on non-intercourse with Great Britain, 493;
  on merits of indemnity resolution, and on reference, 504;
  on the President's speech, 532, 539;
  on indemnification sufferers by Pennsylvania insurgents, 547, 553;
  on amending naturalization laws, 556, 557, 565;
  on intruders on Indian lands, 585;
  on the answer to the President's speech, 607;
  on the support of existing establishments, 626;
  on a stenographer for the House, 630;
  on a salary for members of Congress, 636;
  on rights of the House relative to treaties, 656;
  on the admission of Tennessee, 755.

SEENY, JOSHUA, Representative from Maryland, 27, 175, 255, 315;
  appointed on committee to draft bill on tonnage duties, 57;
  urges decision relative to duty on molasses, 69;
  presents the offer of ten miles square by Maryland for a seat of Government
    of United States, 81;
  on the compensation of Vice President, 122;
  opposes discrimination in the pay of members of the two Houses, 125;
  approves of the Susquehanna region for a seat of Government, 161;
  on constitutionality of memorial for the abolition of slavery, 203;
  on discrimination among the public creditors, 226;
  on memorial of officers of navy, 240;
  on a seat of Government, 244;
  on answer to President's message, 258;
  on the election of Mercer, 328;
  further remarks, 329.

_Senate_, members present at first meeting, 9;
  adjournment from day to day for want of a quorum, 9;
  session with closed doors until 1794, _note_, 9;
  no publication of debates of, _note_, 9;
  receives the House on the inauguration of Washington, 12;
  resolution of respecting titles of President and Vice President, 14;
  do. division in three classes, 14;
  first executive session, 15;
  confirmed the appointment of collectors, naval officers, and surveyors, 16;
  mode of communication with the President, 16;
  report on, 17;
  do. resolution on, 17;
  President consults with, _note_, 17;
  wait upon the President and deliver their answer to the inaugural address,
    18;
  on ratification of treaties with Indian tribes, &c., report of committee on,
    20;
  conference with the House on the impost bill, 113;
  results of, 113;
  and House meet together to receive President's message, 168;
  address of to the President, 169;
  manner of presentation, 170;
  when the term of office of members commenced, 171;
  answer to the President's address, 253;
  notice of letter of French King, 313;
  answer to President's message, 313;
  resolutions respecting public proceedings, 384;
  special session of, 386;
  answer to President's address, 383;
  answer to the President's message, 444;
  answer to President's message, 523;
  executive journal of, 524;
  answer to President's address to 1st session, 4th Congress, 594.

_Sequestration of British debts._--_See Great Britain._

SEVIER, JOHN, Representative from North Carolina, 260.

SHERBURNE, JOHN S., Representative from New Hampshire, 455, 527, 604;
  on a stenographer to the House, 630.

SHERBURNE, UPTON, Representative from Maryland, 317.

SHERMAN, ROGER, Representative from Connecticut, 21, 175, 255;
  views on the proposition to lay duties on Madeira wine, 31;
  on oaths of State officers, 53;
  on necessity of impost duties, 61, 65;
  on committee of conference respecting title of President, 68;
  opposed to embracing African slaves in a bill for duties on goods, &c., 73;
  further remarks, 74;
  on limiting the period of the impost bill, 80;
  further remarks, 84;
  on naturalization of pauper emigrants, 84;
  on admission of Rhode Island, 101;
  on the removal of officers by a general law, 108;
  on compensation of Vice President, 121;
  offers a resolution respecting the form of amendment of the constitution,
    133;
  remarks, 136, 137;
  do. _note_, 137;
  on the amendment to the constitution relative to the freedom of conscience,
    137;
  on the right of instruction, 139;
  on the place for a seat of Government, 159, 166;
  on report of Secretary of the Treasury, 183;
  on committee on Pennsylvania memorial, 209;
  on memorial of officers of the navy, 240;
  further remarks, 240;
  on a seat of Government, 242;
  further remarks, 248;
  on answer to President's message, 257;
  on vacancy in the Presidency, 267, 269;
  on excise bill, 265;
  further remarks, 270, 272;
  on the commitment of the bill for a Bank of the United States, 273;
  Senator from Connecticut, 309, 380.

SHORT, WILLIAM, proposed to the Senate as Minister to France, 15;
  his fitness considered, 15;
  appointment to charge during the absence of the Minister, confirmed, 15.

SINNICKSON, THOMAS, Representative from New Jersey, 27, 175, 255;
  on duty on beer, 34;
  opposes a limit to the impost bill, 77;
  further remarks, 83;
  appointed on a committee to draft a bill relative to the importation of
    African slaves, 84.

SITGREAVES, SAMUEL, Representative from Pennsylvania, 604;
  on the admission of Tennessee, 758.

_Slavery and Slave Trade._--Address of the annual assembly of Friends in
    Philadelphia, and one of the society of Friends in New York, against
    the continuance of the slave trade, considered, 201;
  motion to refer to a committee, 201;
  contrary to usual proceeding to commit to-day, 201;
  why is its second reading pressed to-day? 201;
  reference urged, 201;
  no apprehension from commitment at once--constitution secures the rights,
    202;
  any measures indicative of an intention to interfere may sink the value of
    this kind of property, 202;
  men have come here to meddle in a business with which they have nothing to
    do, 202;
  the memorialists are influenced by motives of benignity, 202;
  if the importation was crushed, the value of the slave would be increased
    instead of diminished, 202;
  if it was abolished through interference of General Government, it would
    evince a disposition to total emancipation, and the property be in jeopardy,
    202;
  is the whole morality of the United States confined to Quakers? 203;
  the petition desires an unconstitutional act, 203;
  no foundation for apprehension, 203;
  it is proper to commit the petition, 204;
  no importance to the question unless members made it so, 204;
  the memorialists should be dismissed, 204;
  petition laid over, 205;
  memorial of Pennsylvania Society for abolition of slavery, 207;
  memorial of Friends in Philadelphia read second time, 208;
  petition of Friends contains unconstitutional requests, 208;
  any thing unconstitutional denied, 208;
  it prayed for an unconstitutional measure, and its commitment would sound
    alarm, 208;
  strictly constitutional, 208;
  no difficulty in committing the memorial--committee would understand their
    business, 209;
  language of the constitution on the importation of slaves, 209;
  it prays for the abolition of slavery, 209;
  the present is not a time to consider the subject, 209;
  the present a proper time to determine the constitutional limits, 209;
  no power in the House to grant the prayer, and therefore unnecessary to
    commit, 209;
  jealousy of Southern States, 210;
  the States would never have entered the confederacy if their property had
    not been guaranteed to them, 210;
  the memorialists do not ask total abolition of the slave trade, but that
    Congress will consider if they can exercise justice and mercy, 210;
  no tendency in the commitment to break in on the constitution--the object is
    worthy of consideration, 211;
  the interference of Congress compatible with the constitution, 211;
  nothing in the petition like what was complained of, 211;
  the petitioners pray Congress to take measures for abolition of slave trade,
    211;
  commitment carried, 211;
  debate on the report upon the memorial of the people called Quakers, 229;
  moved to strike out the first paragraph, 229;
  contents of report, 229;
  total prohibition not produce difficulties, 229;
  particulars which took place in the course of the investigation of the
    business, 229;
  pernicious consequences likely to flow from interference of Congress, 229;
  humane treatment of the slaves, 229;
  Quakers enemies of freedom, 229;
  warm altercation, 229;
  injustice of the measure of interference, 230;
  powers of Congress respecting slavery and slave trade, 230;
  an indecent attack on the character of certain States, 230;
  interference contrary to Quaker principles, 230;
  where does the power of manumission reside? 230;
  plans of the friends of emancipation, 231;
  <DW64>s are inferior race, 231;
  slavery is no new thing, 231;
  does slavery weaken the Southern States? 231;
  is public opinion against slavery? 232;
  this squeamishness is very extraordinary, 232;
  consequences of emancipation, 233;
  if importation prohibited, will that species become extinct? 233;
  will the abolition strengthen South Carolina? 233;
  does toleration of slavery bring reproach on America? 233;
  does slavery vitiate and debase the mind of the owner? 234;
  was South Carolina wanting in patriotism? 234;
  the cruel mode of transportation, 235;
  the clause in the constitution was designed to apply expressly to <DW64>
    slaves, 235;
  now is the time to declare the sense of Congress, 236;
  irregularities of the course of the debate, 236;
  Paley on slavery, 236;
  the genius of the government in relation to slavery and slave trade, 237;
  characters of the signers of the memorials, 237;
  character of Franklin, 238;
  moved to take up report of Committee of the Whole, 238;
  every principle of policy and concern for the dignity of the House and peace
    of the country requires it to be dropped, 238;
  reasons for taking it up, 238;
  ordered that report and memorials be inserted in the journal, 338;
  _note_, 239. _See Duties_ on imports, 73.

  _Abolition Petitions._--Petition of Warner Mifflin on <DW64> slavery
    considered, 397;
  after what has passed, the subject is started again, 397;
  if a stop is not put to such proceedings, the Southern States would be
    compelled to apply to the General Government for their interference, 397;
  moved that the paper be returned to the Clerk, &c., 397;
  on the general principle every citizen has a right to petition the
    Legislature, 397;
  the subject is not properly before the House, 397;
  every citizen has a right to petition for a redress of grievances, but the
    present paper is mere rant, and concludes with no specific prayer, 397;
  if favorably received, it would occasion alarm in the Southern States, 397;
  motion agreed to, 397.

  _To prohibit carrying_ on the slave trade, bill considered, 480;
  amendments proposed, 480;
  ordered to be engrossed, 480.

  _To require foreigners_ to renounce their slaves before admission to
    citizenship--motion, 558;
  debate thereon, 558;
  motion withdrawn, 560;
  do. renewed, 566;
  do. vote on, 566.

_Slaves, African._--Duty on importation, proposed, 73;
  debated, 73;
  deported, of the Revolution, 525;
  importation of, _see Duties_ on imports.

SMILIE, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 455, 528;
  on the pay of soldiers, 459;
  on the relief of the French emigrants, 474;
  on the preparations for the Algerine War, 478;
  against increase of the army, 515;
  on reference of letter of Secretary of War, 568.

SMITH, ISAAC, Representative from New Jersey, 604;
  on the rights of the House relative to treaties, 675.

SMITH, ISRAEL, Representative from Vermont, 317, 388, 455, 527, 604.

SMITH, JEREMIAH, Representative from New Hampshire, 315, 388, 455,
    527, 604;
  on election of President, 334.

SMITH, NATHANIEL, Representative from Connecticut, 609.

SMITH, SAMUEL, Representative from Maryland, 455, 555, 605;
  on the reception of the French emigrants from St. Domingo, 462;
  do. on the relief of do., 474;
  on the commerce of the United States, 473;
  on the Algerine War, 476;
  on the sequestration of British debts, 483;
  on the renunciation of nobility for citizenship, 562;
  on establishing Indian trading houses, 639;
  on the execution of the British treaty, 732;
  on the army establishment, 760.

SMITH, WILLIAM, Representative from Maryland, 21, 175, 255;
  opposes high duties, 33;
  appointed on Committee of Supplies, 46;
  opposes law of tonnage duties, 54;
  on the site for the seat of Government, 166.

SMITH, WILLIAM, Representative from South Carolina, 27, 175, 255,
    315, 388, 455, 527, 604;
  his eligibility, 33;
  opposes duty on salt, as it will lead to dissatisfaction, 39;
  opposes present consideration of duty on African slaves, 73;
  favors limiting the period of impost bill, 79;
  on power of President to remove Secretary of State, 86;
  remarks on diseligibility, 94;
  on the President's power of removal, 102;
  on the compensation of Vice President, 122;
  on the mode of amending the constitution, 134;
  further remarks, 136;
  on the obligation of instructions, 139;
  on the constitutional requirement for a seat of Government, 159;
  reports an answer to the President's speech, 178;
  on the propriety of restraints to naturalization, 186;
  further remarks, 188;
  offers resolutions on public credit, 190;
  benefits of a funded debt, 191;
  fund or pay, 200;
  opposes reception of the Quaker memorial, 203;
  unnecessary to commit Pennsylvania memorial, 209;
  further remarks, 211, 230;
  discrimination of public creditors, 214;
  on answer to President's message, 257;
  further remarks, 257, 258;
  on a seat of Government, 248;
  offers resolution relative to eulogium of Dr. Franklin, 259;
  on vacancy in the Presidency, 267, 269;
  on the commitment of the bill for a Bank of the United States, 272;
  speech on the bank, 291;
  further, 296;
  is a resignation a constitutional vacancy? 329;
  on emblems on American coins, 371;
  on discharging the committee on defeat of St. Clair, 393;
  on reduction of the army, 400;
  reports a bill to regulate the claims of invalid pensions, 406;
  reports mode of examining votes for President, &c., 417;
  on reference to Committee of the Whole the resolutions relative to the
    official conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury, 418;
  on official conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury, 422;
  on the result of the votes on, 439;
  on the commerce of the United States, 464;
  on the propriety of sequestering the British debts, 485;
  in favor of continuing the embargo, 499, 502;
  urges duties on manufactured tobacco and refined sugar, 507, 509;
  on the delegate south of the Ohio, 529;
  on the President's speech, 534;
  on thanks to General Wayne, 542, 543;
  on damages by Pennsylvania insurgents, 547;
  on the renunciation of titles for citizenship, 563, 565;
  on reference of the letter of the Secretary of War, 567;
  on the reduction of salaries, 573;
  on the right to Indian lands within a State, 577;
  on the attempt at bribery by Robert Randall, 609;
  on the Randall bribery case, 614;
  on the resolution relative to bribery, 621;
  on the support of existing establishments, 625;
  on call for papers relative to British treaty, 640;
  on the rights of the House relative to treaties, 651;
  on the admission of Tennessee, 756;
  on the military and naval appropriation, 764, 765, 766.

_Snuff_, duty fixed, 41.

_Spirits_, all other, duty on, 113.

SPRIGG, THOMAS, Representative from Maryland, 458, 566.

_South Carolina_, vote for President, 10, 385.

STANTON, JOSEPH, Jr., Senator from Rhode Island, 254, 309, 383.

_State Department_, bill to establish, considered, 15;
  Secretary of, called before the Senate to give explanations, 16;
  practice now superseded, _note_, 16. _See_ _Executive
    Department_.

_State, Secretary of_, mode of appointment, 86;
  how removed, debate on, 86.

ST. CLAIR, GENERAL, defeat of, considered, 390;
  resolution requiring the attendance of the Secretary of the Treasury and the
    Secretary of War in the House, to furnish information needed for an
    investigation of the causes of St. Clair's defeat, 390;
  moved to strike out so much as requires the attendance of the Secretaries,
390;
  resolution improper--the Secretaries are not impeached, 391;
  importance of the information they can give, 391;
  the information had better be in writing, 391;
  the measure would introduce a bad precedent, 391;
  a thorough investigation, highly important, 391;
  this mode the best possible, 391;
  not necessary in the present state of the business, 391;
  the information must be had, 391;
  no advantage to arise from adopting the resolution, 391;
  now is not the proper time to call for information, 392;
  remarks on the report, 392;
  importance of the investigation, a million dollars involved, 392;
  peculiar position of the Secretaries, 392;
  both implicated in the failure of the expedition, 392;
  resolution lost, 393;
  motion to discharge the Committee of the Whole, 393;
  the only proper course is to consider the report, 393;
  report perfectly satisfactory, 393;
  what is the situation of those implicated in the failure? 394;
  no disposition to smother inquiry, 394;
  the House can get through the subject in a shorter time than a committee,
    394;
  shall the House or a select committee establish the facts, 394;
  effects of finding some of the officers culpable by either, 394;
  uniform practice of the House to recommit, 394;
  Secretaries attended only once on the committee, and were anxious to leave,
    395;
  in the case of the contested election the House reserved the right of
    establishing the facts, 395;
  other points considered, 395;
  recommitment agreed to, 395.

_Steel, Unwrought_, duty on, proposed, 35;
  adopted, 36.

STEELE, JOHN, Representative from North Carolina, 315, 388;
  on ratio of Representation, 322;
  on discharging committee in case of St. Clair, 395;
  on petition of Warner Mifflin on <DW64> slavery, 397;
  on the reduction of the army, 398;
  further remarks, 403, 407, 411.

STERRETT, SAMUEL, Representative from Maryland, 315, 410.

_Stenographer to the House_, debate on, 629;
  object to find a person who would satisfy the House and the public, 630;
  other considerations urged, 631, 632.

STONE, MICHAEL JENIFER, Representative from Maryland, 102, 175;
  on the compensation of the President, 117;
  further remarks on amount, 119;
  do. Vice President, 122;
  opposes discrimination in the pay of members of the two Houses, 126;
  on the mode of amending the constitution, 135;
  further remarks, 135;
  opposes the amendment of constitution relative to the right of instruction,
    141;
  on the location of a seat of Government, 152;
  do. on Harrisburg as a seat, 153;
  further remarks, 166;
  on the powers of Congress and rights of the States respecting naturalized
    citizens, 188;
  thinks interference with the importation of African slaves will tend to
    depreciate their value, 202;
  on discrimination among the public creditors, 221;
  on memorial of officers of navy, 240;
  on a seat of Government, 243;
  on price of public lands, 261;
  further remarks, 262;
  on excise bill, 263;
  further remarks, 267, 271;
  speech on the Bank of the United States, 292.

_St. Paul's Chapel_, service at, upon the inauguration of Washington, 12.

STRONG, CALEB, Senator from Massachusetts, 9, 168, 309, 380, 445,
    523, 591;
  on committee on rules of first Congress, 10;
  on manner of electing chaplains, 10;
  on rules of business, 10;
  appointed on Judiciary Committee, first Congress, 19;
  on committee to wait on Vice President, 11;
  on the resolution relative to the presentation of the French flag, 598.

STURGES, JONATHAN, Representative from Connecticut, 21, 175, 255,
    315, 388.

_Sugars_, duty on, 33.

SUMTER, THOMAS, Representative from North Carolina, 175, 320, 388;
  on the location of a seat of Government, 151;
  opposition to bill organizing State Department, 108;
  on the petition of Catharine Greene, 338, 341.

SWANWICK, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 604;
  on establishing Indian trading houses, 625, 634;
  on a stenographer for the House, 629, 631;
  on rights of the House relative to treaties, 642;
  on the execution of the British treaty, 707;
  on the sense of the House relative to the British treaty, 751.

SWIFT, ZEPHANIAH, Representative from Connecticut, 457, 527, 604;
  on conducting the Algerine war, 478;
  on the legality of sequestering the British debts, 491;
  on the constitutionality of admitting a territorial delegate, 528, 530;
  on indemnification to sufferers by Pennsylvania insurgents, 547, 548, 552;
  on establishing Indian trading houses, 624;
  on the pay of the Speaker, 638, 639;
  on the resolutions relative to the refusal of the President to furnish
    papers on the British treaty, 701.

SYLVESTER, PETER, Representative from New York, 43, 175, 255, 315,
    389;
  on oaths of State officers, 52;
  favors limitation of impost bill, 83;
  on the impeachment clause of the constitution, 88;
  on Pennsylvania memorial, 209.


T

TALBOT, SILAS, Representative from New York, 455.

_Tanners of Newark, N. J._, petition of, 360;
  referred to committee, 364;
  do. of New York, 370.

TATOM, ABSALOM, Representative from North Carolina, 604.

TAYLOR, JOHN, Senator from Virginia, 445;
  do. resigned, 524.

TAZEWELL, HENRY, Senator from Virginia, 524, 594;
  on answer to President's speech, 596;
  on resolutions relative to presentation of French flag, 600.

_Teas_, duty on, considered, 32;
  proposed duty on, 41;
  debated, 41;
  duty fixed, 42.

TELFAIR, EDWARD, votes for, as Vice President, in 1789, 10.

_Tennessee_, bill for laying out, before the Senate, 601.

_Tennessee, Admission of_, report relative to territory south of the Ohio
    River considered, 754;
  the people inhabiting any territory of the United States, cannot of their
    mere will and pleasure, and without the consent of Congress, erect themselves
    into a separate and independent State, 754;
  a law might be passed now to provide for it, 754;
  no reason for objecting to receive those people as a State, 755;
  the State Government is already organized and in operation, 755;
  statement of proceeding in Tennessee, 755;
  under the ordinance they had a clear right to be admitted, for they had the
    population required, 755;
  one State preferable to two, 755;
  the Government is Republican, and the population adequate to admit the State
    at once, 756;
  course of proceeding which should have been taken, 756;
  terms of the compact considered, 757;
  constructions of the compact, 758;
  right claimed for the people, 759;
  resolution reported by committee adopted, 759;
  moved that some law should be passed by Congress recognizing the territory
    as a State before they were admitted into the Union--negatived, 759.

_Territories._--_See Delegate from Territories._

THATCHER, GEORGE, Representative from Massachusetts, 21, 175, 255,
    315, 388, 455, 527, 604;
  on duty on molasses, 29;
  do. on salt beef, 34;
  on the flag of the Union, 461;
  on the Randall bribery case, 615.

THOMAS, RICHARD, Representative from Pennsylvania, 604.

THOMPSON, CHARLES, appointed by the Senate to notify Washington of
    his election, 10;
  writes to the Senate respecting his notification of Washington, 11.

THOMPSON, MARK, Representative from New Jersey, 604.

_Title of President and Vice President_, 11;
  House committee thereon, 12;
  report of same made, 12;
  message from the House thereon, 13;
  committee of conference appointed by Senate, 13;
  consideration of original report postponed, 14;
  disagreement of committee of conference, 14;
  resolution of the Senate respecting the same, 14;
  report of House committee thereon, 47;
  message from Senate on, 58;
  message from Senate--debate thereon, 65;
  debate on resolution against a committee of conference with the Senate on
    titles of President and Vice President, 65;
  constitution prescribes the power of the House respecting titles, 66;
  a committee of conference should not be appointed because it is a subject
    which the House has no right to consider, 66;
  the House agreed no title should be conferred, and a joint committee so
    reported, but the Senate resolved upon a title, and ask our concurrence, 66;
  excite alarm among those who fear that the constitution is hostile to
    popular liberty, 66;
  to countenance such a measure would be an indignity to the House, 66;
  conference unnecessary, 67;
  a respect due to the Senate, 67;
  titles harmless, 67;
  add no power, 67;
  they diminish the true dignity and importance of a Republic, 67;
  a committee of conference very proper, 67;
  a committee unnecessary, 67;
  umbrage should not be given to the Senate, 67;
  no purpose secured by a committee, 67;
  subject better be dropped, 68;
  the proposition of a title is trifling with the dignity of the Government,
    68;
  a committee of conference could be appointed without seeming to countenance
    the measure, 68;
  after having adopted the report of the committee it would derogate from
    their dignity to rescind a unanimous resolution, 68;
  committee appointed, 69.

_Tobacco_, manufactured, duty fixed, 41.

_Tonnage Duties_, proposed, 23;
  debate thereon, 48, 53;
  fixed, 57;
  method of discussing the subject, _note_, 57. _See_ _Duties_
    on Tonnage.

TRACY, URIAH, Representative from Connecticut, 455, 527, 604;
  on duties on tobacco and sugar, 510;
  on the President's speech, 533;
  on exclusion of titled foreigners from citizenship, 558, 564;
  on reference of letter of Secretary of War, 569;
  on the rights of the House relative to treaties, 672.

_Treasury Department._--_See Executive Departments._

_Treasury, Report of Secretary of._--Motion that the Secretary of the
    Treasury's report be in writing, 177;
  if he reports in person he can answer inquiries, 177;
  propriety doubted, 177;
  if the report is written it will be better understood, 177;
  the importance and extent of the subject is such it should be in writing,
    177;
  motion carried, 177;
  report under consideration, 182;
  postponement moved, 182;
  it embraces two important objects: first, that all idea of discrimination
    among the public creditors as original holders and transferees, ought to be
    done away;
  second, the assumption of the State debts by the General Government, 182;
  the States should be consulted, 182;
  a considerable postponement required, 182;
  speculation is rife--if postponed too long fluctuations will be still
    greater, 182;
  postponed until North Carolina enters the Union, 183;
  Congress possess all the information necessary to act on the measure, 183;
  speculation has existed since the securities were first issued, 183;
  the subject of the State debts should not be decided until the sense of the
    Legislatures is known, 183;
  the postponement should be long enough to enable members to enter on the
    task with understanding, and the spirit of speculation should be counteracted
    at the earliest practicable period, 183;
  impossible to suppress speculation, 183;
  the policy of speculation, 184;
  the speculation arisen since the report was denounced, 184;
  objects of the report submitted in the form of independent resolutions, 190;
  assumption of State debts considered, 191;
  doubtful if a permanent funded debt is beneficial or not, 191;
  history of funded debts, 191;
  a precedent that will bring ruin, 191;
  debts of the States unknown, 192;
  the funding will occasion enormous taxes for interest, 192;
  all that can be done is to provide funds for the gradual extinction, 192;
  funding a small debt is beneficial, 192;
  we have a debt already and some funds must be appropriated for payment of
    interest, 192;
  the foreign and domestic debt carry very material distinctions, 193;
  the domestic securities should be considered in a depreciated state, 193;
  an equivalent was not received for them in hard cash like the foreign debt,
    193;
  domestic debt should be liquidated at its real value, 193;
  terms proposed by the Secretary, 193;
  the Government is in a very different situation with respect to foreign and
    domestic creditors, 194;
  we are not judges of the claims of our creditors, but parties to the
    contract, 194;
  if we are parties, what would be the decision before a court of justice,
    194;
  the French loans, 195;
  no distinction between foreign and domestic creditors, 195;
  the face of the paper is our guide, the demand is not to be lessened, 195;
  if it is intended to reduce either, the principles on which such a measure
    is founded should be considered, 195;
  nature of the public contract, 196;
  the same argument might be applied to paying the Continental debts at their
    nominal value, 196;
  the present Government should pay the debts of the United States, but as the
    domestic part has been contracted in depreciated notes, less than six per
    cent. interest should be paid on it, 196;
  if the Government is one party and the individual the other, who is the
    judge? 197;
  can two parties exist in a well organized government to dispute about
    property and have no judge? 197;
  is not the want of consideration a good plea? 197;
  we stand in the same condition as the late Congress, who are admitted to be
    parties, 197;
  the Government should be at liberty to ascertain the amount of the debts
    assumed as the motion contemplates, 197;
  discrimination and liquidation the two great points involved, 198;
  manner in which the debt was contracted, 198;
  if the certificates, at the time they were issued, were taken for only a
    small part of their face, they should not now be raised to the full amount,
    198;
  debts of the United States of four kinds, 199;
  their character, 199;
  the subject should be decided at this time, 199;
  a discrimination of some kind necessary, 200;
  three classes of creditors, 200;
  the obligations of each considered, 200.

  _To discriminate_ between original creditors and present holders, &c.,
    moved, 205;
  extent and form in which the debt exists, 205;
  the United States owes the value they have received, and which they
    acknowledge, 205;
  to whom is payment really due? 205;
  four classes of creditors, 205;
  the principles that govern the decision of their respective pretensions
    considered, 205, 206;
  motion to amend original proposition, 207;
  the debt is still due, and if the owner has transferred it shall we disown
    his act? 207;
  the nature of contracts, 211;
  their transferability, 212;
  the property of the certificates is now vested in the transferees, 212;
  if they are now divested by Government, it is an _ex post facto_ law,
    212;
  the proposed discrimination, 212;
  effects of, 213;
  this doctrine repugnant to the interests and prosperity of the Union, 213;
  the States are restrained from passing laws violating contracts, 213;
  public justice requires a performance of contracts, 213;
  the new paper given might be subject to another liquidation on the same
    principle, 214;
  the proposition is unjust, impolitic, and impracticable, 214;
  strict justice the plain line of conduct, 215;
  other objections, 215;
  the debt is the price of our liberties, and cannot be diminished a farthing,
    but the measure proposed does diminish it, 215;
  the obligation of the debt is not denied, the difficulty is how it shall be
    discharged, 216;
  the justice of discrimination, 216;
  the army repudiate discrimination, 217;
  no Legislature should interfere with a contract--but it does not appear that
    the transaction between the original holders and the purchasers of
    certificates was a fair one, 217;
  other points in favor of the measure, 218;
  justice or legality of the measure--its practicability or policy and
    consequences, 219;
  the claim of the soldier just, 219;
  state of public opinion, 220;
  seven-eighths of the debt has not been disposed of from necessity, 220;
  inequitability of the measure not shown, 221;
  how far will this measure operate as a precedent? 221;
  a review of the grounds upon which the proposition has been combated, 223;
  the United States cannot pay in full original creditors or assignees, what
    course is just and expedient? 226;
  all parties understood there would be no discrimination in certificates
    transferable, 227;
  other objections examined, 227;
  the ability of the Government and the claims of assignees, 228;
  motion lost, 228;
  _note_, 228, 250.

_Official Conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury_, considered, 418;
  moved that nine resolutions on the subject be referred to the Committee of
    the Whole, 418;
  discussion of them unnecessary and unwarranted, 418;
  much time be wasted on them, 419;
  objections to the first resolution, 419;
  do. second do., 419;
  do. third do. 419;
  the last one objectionable, for the preceding ones determine the guilt and
    the last directs the President to remove the Secretary, 419;
  too short time remaining to consider the resolutions, 420;
  the abstract propositions should be decided first, the others are
    unwarranted by facts, 420;
  most unheard of course against a party accused, 420;
  no opportunity offered for defence, 420;
  the first resolution of great importance, 420;
  the Secretary differs from others in his opinion respecting his powers and
    the constitutional obligation respecting the acts of appropriation, 420;
  shall the Secretary be bound by our acts of appropriation or not? 421;
  the first resolution is no part of the others, but should be determined,
    421;
  all referred excepting the first, second, and ninth resolutions, 421;
  the third resolution, charging that the Secretary had violated the law by
    applying a certain portion of the principal borrowed to the payment of
    interest falling due on the principal, which was not authorized, and by
    drawing part of the same moneys into the United States without the
    instructions of the President, considered, 421;
  what regards the right of drawing money into the country, 421;
  the case examined 422;
  the charges of mismanagement so long before the public have now assumed
    shape, 422;
  change in the tone of the charges since the session commenced, 422;
  no self-interested pecuniary considerations imputed to the Secretary, 423;
    the charge consists of two items, 423; each
  examined in detail, 423.

  No greatness of character known in the Executive Departments, 424;
  was the money appropriated to special and distinct purposes, and did the
    Secretary apply the money to other uses than the law directed? 424;
  both points considered, 424;
  if a responsible officer has violated the laws he should be called to
    account, 425;
  the testimony compared with the facts, 425; can any necessity be shown for
    deviations from positive law? 426;
  attempt to show that the Legislature were not ignorant of the drafts of the
    Secretary, 426;
  money borrowed in Europe was economically applied to paying interest there,
    426;
  the inquiry is, whether a debt was paid out of this or that fund, 426;
  the whole business reviewed, 426;
  even if the Secretary made the drafts without the instructions of the
    President, it is not probably reprehensible, 426;
  the act was not a financial operation to avoid the necessity of drawing and
    remitting, 427;
  the interest was not paid out of the principal of the loan, 427;
  the President is the principal and the Secretary the agent, 427;
  impossible to account for the conduct of the Secretary, 427;
  to judge of his conduct we must consider his duties, and whether a necessity
    existed to justify his drawing, 427;
  if the Secretary has paid what was due, what, then, is the complaint, 428;
  no law has been violated, nor any rule of propriety departed from, 428;
  the drafts were made agreeably to the instructions of the President, 429;
  did the authority from the President and his subsequent instructions
    authorize the Secretary to consolidate the loans? if so, he acted legally,
    429;
  both charges examined, 430;
  the reports of the committee, 481;
  the questions now are questions of fact, 431;
  these facts are too clearly supported by the reports of the Secretary and
    accompanying documents to be denied or controverted, 431;
  this position investigated, 431;
  can the Executive, without special permission, apply the excess of one fund
    to the deficiency of another? 433;
  the drawing money without the instructions of the President established by
    the documents, 433;
  both points rest on the most solid proofs, 434;
  on the necessity of sometimes departing from the strictness of legal
    appropriations, 434;
  the authority of the Secretary in the special case of loans must be derived
    from the President, 435;
  the recent drafts, 435.

  No proof to support the charges, 436;
  if there had been, there is nothing criminal in them, 436;
  insufficient reports of the Secretary, 437;
  third resolution disagreed to, 438;
  fourth resolution disagreed to, 438;
  fifth resolution disagreed to, 438;
  sixth resolution disagreed to, 438;
  seventh resolution disagreed to, 439;
  eighth resolution disagreed to, 439;
  after such a large vote the Secretary cannot be criminated, 439;
  review of the arguments against the Secretary, 439.

_Treaty with Great Britain._--Ratification of, 525;
  _note_, 525, 639;
  resolution calling for papers relative to the treaty with Great Britain,
    640;
  reasons for calling for the papers, 640;
  opposed for want of a declared object within cognizance of the House, and
    because it was the groundwork of the dangerous doctrine that the House had a
    right to adjudge, adopt, or to reject treaties generally, 640;
  no other source of information, 640;
  constitutional questions likely to arise in course of debate, 640;
  does the general power of making treaties supersede the powers of the House
    and leave it only an executive and ministerial instrumental agency? 641;
  no propriety in the resolution, and no question of the constitutionality of
    the treaty, 641;
  House has a right to inquire into the conduct of the officers concerned,
    641;
  preceding arguments reviewed, 641;
  is the power of the President and Senate as to treaties complete? 641;
  power of control of English House of Commons, 642;
  true meaning of the power of appropriation in the constitution, 642;
  a discretion exists in the House, 642;
  legislative power completely vested in Congress--to pass laws discretion is
    implied--the House must judge when it is required to act, 642;
  words of the constitution respecting treaties, 643;
  papers unnecessary, and to call for them is an unconstitutional and improper
    interference with the Executive Department, 643;
  the House has a _right_ to ask for the papers, because their
    co-operation and sanction was necessary to carry the treaty into effect--because
    they had full discretion to give or refuse that co-operation, and must be
    guided in the exercise of that discretion by the merits and expediency of the
    treaty, 644;
  what treaties unconstitutional, 644;
  consequences of the treaty power being unlimited and undefined, 645;
  House has a check on treaty-making power, 645;
  authorities referred to, 645;
  propriety of the resolution, 647;
  what powers has the constitution given, and to what departments have they
    been distributed? 647;
  view of legislative and treaty-making powers, 648;
  how is the will of the people expressed in the constitution to be
    understood? 648;
  different constructions of the constitution, 649;
  extent of the treaty-making power in relation to the objects specially and
    expressly submitted to the legislative power of Congress, 650;
  treaty power solely delegated to the President and Senate, 651;
  practice of Congress, 652;
  there are cases in which the House has not the right of withholding
    appropriations, 652;
  is there any provision in the constitution by which the House can check the
    treaty-making power, or question the merits of treaties under any
    circumstances? 653;
  review of arguments, 654;
  must resort to the constitution to know the extent and limits of our power,
    657;
  arguments against the exclusive treaty-making power considered, 658;
  this doctrine is inconsistent with the constitution and the law of nations,
    659;
  the state of the question, 660;
  words of the constitution, 660;
  have we a right to exercise our judgment on the treaty? is the question,
    661;
  depends on a rational construction of the fundamental principles of
    government, as drawn from the histories of nations, 661;
  construction of the constitution, 662;
  the treaty is now the law of the land, and no act of Congress is or can be
    necessary to make it so, 662;
  no right to require papers where there is no obligation to obey, 664;
  different kinds of treaties, 664;
  power given to Congress to regulate commerce considered, 665;
  if these sentiments prevail, the small States would be deprived of one of
    their most essential rights, 666;
  when treaties contain stipulations bearing a relation to the specific power
    vested in the Legislature, the House has a right to take cognizance of it, as
    it is proved by three considerations, 666;
  these examined, 667;
  the express words of the constitution will not support either position
    without a liberty of construction--what construction is most agreeable to the
    general principles of the constitution? 668;
  exposition of the constitution and the position of the opposition, 660;
  the right to call for papers sanctioned by the uniform practice of the
    House, 670;
  practice in cases of former treaties, 671;
  _note_, 671;
  view of the constitutional rights of the House, 671;
  these rights considered in two points of view, 672;
  case of the proclamation of neutrality, 674;
  the construction of the constitution advanced, 674;
  explanation of the original resolution, 675;
  does the treaty operate by way of obligation? 676;
  is it paramount to a law, and can it repeal law, although itself cannot be
    acted upon by the legislative power? 677;
  this question considered, 677;
  objections to the power of the House considered, 678;
  precedents examined relative to a call for papers, 681;
  objections urged by the advocates of the power of the House considered, 682,
    683;
  authority of the United States examined, 685;
  the House cannot legislate without information, 686;
  what does the constitution say? 686;
  if the doctrines now urged prevail, they will make inroads on the
    constitution, 687;
  the propriety of calling for papers if the Legislature have no part in
    making treaties, 687;
  points of the subjects reviewed, 688;
  duty to look into every treaty, 690;
  what was the constitution of the United States? 690;
  resolution as offered, 692;
  passed, 692; note, 692.

_Message of the President declining_ to send papers, 693;
  _note_, 693;
  debate on reference of the answer, 694, 695;
  answer referred to Committee of the Whole, 696;
  resolutions introduced relative to the class of treaties over which the
    House claims a right of judgment, and limits it to those which involve a
    matter which has been specially granted to Congress, 696;
  important occasion when two of the constituted authorities of the Government
    interpret differently the extent of their respective powers? 696; message
    considered, 697;
  it related to two points, the application for the papers and the
    constitutional rights of Congress and of the House of Representatives on the
    subject of treaties, 697;
  these points examined, 698, 699, 700, 701;
  resolutions adopted, 702;
  _note_, 702.

_Execution of the Treaty_, considered, 702;
  resolution to carry it into effect, 702;
  the proposition must be determined by the fact of whether the treaty was a
    good one, or whether there were extraneous reasons for putting it in force,
    703;
  the merits of the treaty considered as it relates to the execution of the
    treaty of 1783, as it determines the several points in the law of nations, and
    as it respects the commerce between the two nations, 703, 704, 705;
  extraneous circumstances--the treaty continues two years--consequences of
    not carrying it into effect, 706;
  principles of the treaty considered, 707;
  merits of the treaty, 707;
  admission to British ports, 707;
  article respecting British debts, 707;
  sequestration of debts, 707;
  articles of a temporary nature considered, 709;
  Burke on the commerce of the American colonies, 710;
  points which pressed themselves on the negotiation and demanded provision,
    711, 712;
  the contents of the treaty examined, 714, 715, 716, 717;
  the commercial part of the treaty examined, 718;
  want of reciprocity in the instrument, 720;
  view of the origin of the treaty--party dissensions which then prevailed,
    720;
  critical posture of our affairs, &c., considered, 720, 721;
  objected against the treaty that a claim for <DW64>s and other property
    taken at New York had been overlooked, 722;
  has not the ownership of the property changed under the law of nations? 722;
  correspondence of the commissioners, 723, 724;
  consequences if the treaty is rejected, 725;
  treaty is unconstitutional and pernicious, 726;
  if the treaty is executed we admit the ground taken by the Executive, 728;
  merits of the treaty, 729;
  prejudice against the treaty in the public mind, 729;
  the permanent and the temporary part of the treaty considered, 730;
  the only question is, whether they would or would not appropriate money to
    carry the treaty into effect, 730;
  objections to the treaty considered, 731;
  the negotiation was advisable, and the only means of avoiding war, 734;
  consequences of rejecting the treaty, 734;
  three objects embraced in the treaty, 735;
  on the expediency of carrying the treaty into effect, 736, 737;
  free bottoms make free goods, 737;
  effects of rejecting the treaty, 738, 739;
  treaty of 1783, 741;
  threats of war if treaty rejected, 742;
  constitutional rights of the House to be looked at with candor, 744;
  will we observe the treaty or break it? is the only question, 745;
  consequences of its rejection, 746, 747;
  the good and prosperity of the people should be the primary object, 748;
  notwithstanding the objections to the treaty the appropriations ought to be
    granted, 749;
  resolution carried in committee by vote of the Chairman, 750.

  Resolution offered in the House expressive of its opinion of the treaty,
    751;
  debate on its propriety, 751;
  amendment lost--resolutions for executing the treaty passed, 753;
  _note_, 754.

TREDWELL, THOMAS, Representative from New York, 315, 388, 457, 528.

TRUMBULL, JONATHAN, Representative from Connecticut, 21, 175, 255,
315, 388, 455, 527;
  on a committee to report a bill regulating oaths, 22;
  elected Speaker, 315;
  speech on taking the chair, 315;
  moves an amendment to the bill on the slave trade, 480;
  Senator from Connecticut, 591.

TUCKER, THOMAS TUDOR, Representative from South Carolina, 21, 175,
    255, 315, 388;
  takes part in the debates on laying duties on imports, 25;
  opposes duty on salt beef, 34;
  do. on candles, 34;
  on duty on unwrought steel, 35;
  opposes duty on nails, 38;
  opposes duty on salt as unequal, 39;
  on high duties, 44;
  favors low tonnage duties, 56;
  advocates moderate duties on imports, 57, 58;
  opposes the appointment of committee of conference in reference to title of
President, 66;
  favors reduction of duty on molasses, if those on other articles are
    reduced, 69;
  repels insinuation of a bargain, 69;
  opposes the motion to lay a duty on African slaves, 74;
  gives reason for his vote on limitation of the impost bill, 83;
  on the Treasury Department, 109;
  on compensation of President, 117;
  further remarks on same, 119;
  on the difficulty of amending the constitution, 144;
  on the principles which should control the selection of a seat of
Government, 147;
  further remarks, 152;
  on a short period of residence for naturalization, 185;
  further remarks, 187, 190;
  favors discrimination among the public creditors, 200;
  urges the dismission of the Quaker memorial, 205;
  on the commitment of the bill for a Bank of the United States, 273.

TURNER, GEORGE, memorial of, 335.


V

VAN ALLEN, JOHN E., Representative from New York, 455, 527, 604.

VAN CORTLANDT, PHILIP, Representative from New York, 455, 527, 604.

VAN GAASBECK, PETER, Representative from New York, 458, 528.

VAN RENSSELAER, JEREMIAH, Representative from New York, 58.

VAN RENSSELAER, STEPHEN, Representative from New York, 175, 260.

VARNUM, JOSEPH B., Representative from Massachusetts, 204;
  on the pay of the Speaker, 639.

VENABLE, ABRAHAM, Representative from Virginia, 388, 455, 528, 604;
  on the attendance of the Secretary of War, 390, on the President's speech,
    538;
  on the Pennsylvania insurgents, 552;
  on amending naturalization laws, 556;
  on the resolutions relative to intruders on Indian lands, 584, 586;
  on the military and naval appropriation, 764;
  on the sense of the House relative to the British treaty, 752.

_Vermont_--Vote for President in 1793, 385.

_Vessels._--Registering and clearing bills, on, 129.

_Vice President_, ordered to sign the answer to Washington's inaugural,
    in behalf of the Senate, 13;
  takes the oath, 15;
  compensation of, 17, 120;
  fixed, 123;
  his term of office, when commenced, 171;
  letter to the Mayor of New York, 174;
  vote for in 1789, 10;
  do. in 1793, 385.

VINING, JOHN, Representative from Delaware, 51, 175, 259, 315, 442,
    520, 591;
  proposes the organization of a Home Department, 85;
  further remarks, 86;
  on the President's power to remove officers, 87;
  moves the organization of a Domestic Department, 94;
  on the President's power of removal, 104;
  on the compensation of members of Congress, &c., 116;
  further remarks, 119, 132;
  introduces a resolution for a Home Department, 127;
  remarks on, 127;
  further remarks, 128;
  on the form of amending the constitution, 134;
  on the location of a seat of Government, 150;
  on the banks of the Delaware for do., 161;
  on a seat of Government, 245;
  further remarks, 248;
  on interference of excise officers in elections, 271;
  on the commitment of a bill for a Bank of the United States, 274;
  speech on the bank, 305;
  on the ratio of representation, 326.

_Virginia._--Vote for President in 1789, 10, 385;
  county lands, report on, 129.

_Virginia Legislature._--Offers ten miles square to United
    States for a seat of Government, 76.

_Vote_, on limiting the time for the operation of the impost bill, 84;
  on the President's power of removal, 90;
  on striking out Susquehanna and inserting Potomac for the seat of
    Government, 159;
  on motion for discrimination among public creditors, 228;
  _note_, on do. 288;
  on Quaker memorial, 238.

_Votes, Electoral._--Counted in the presence of Senate and House in 1789, 10;
  do. 385.


W

WADSWORTH, JEREMIAH, Representative from Connecticut, 21, 175, 255,
    315, 455, 555;
  appointed on committee to draft bill on tonnage duties, 57;
  urges reduction of duty on molasses, 70;
  on a Board of Treasury or Superintendent of Finance, 92;
  on the right of instructions, 144;
  on deliberation in fixing the seat of Government, 155;
  further remarks, 160;
  on discrimination among the public creditors, 220;
  on the post office bill, 332;
  on the petition of Catharine Greene, 339;
  on the reduction of the army, 401;
  further remarks, 407, 414;
  on the pay of soldiers, 460, 466;
  against the embargo laws, 499;
  urges increased duty on coal in foreign vessels, 506;
  on duties on manufactured tobacco and refined sugar, 509;
  on the advance of money to France, 514;
  on the rage against nobility, 561;
  on defence of the frontiers, 570;
  on the trial of intruders upon the Indians, 584;
  on the protection of settlers, 587.

WADSWORTH, PELEG, Representative from Massachusetts, 456, 527, 609.

WALKER, FRANCIS, Representative from Virginia, 455, 527.

WALKER, JOHN, appointed Senator by Governor of Virginia, 251.

WALTON, GEORGE, Senator from Georgia, 591.

WARD, ARTEMAS, Representative from Massachusetts, 315, 388, 455, 527.

_War Department.--See Executive Departments._

WASHINGTON, GEORGE, elected President in 1789, 10;
  votes for as President in 1789, 10;
  do. 1793, 385;
  proceedings at his inauguration, 12;
  do. inaugural address, 12;
  reply to the answer of the Senate to the inaugural address, 15;
  day of his inauguration, _Note_, 46;
  resolution for an equestrian statue, 330;
  birthday--motion to adjourn, 638;
  considered, 638;
  motion lost, 638.

WATTS, JOHN, Representative from New York, 455, 527.

WAYNE, ANTHONY, Representative from Georgia, 317;
  on the petition of Catharine Greene, 335;
  further remarks, 337.

_Ways and Means_, proposition to appoint a committee, 128.

_Western Lands.--See Public Lands_.

WHEATON, JOSEPH, appointed sergeant-at-arms, 315.

WHITE, ALEXANDER, Representative from Virginia, 21, 175, 255, 315,
    388;
  on committee to report a bill regulating oaths, 22;
  advocates delay in fixing scale of duties on imports, 23;
  further remarks, 25;
  on duty on hemp, 37;
  opposes duty on salt, 41;
  report from Committee of Elections, 41;
  presents resolution of Virginia Legislature, offering ten miles square to
    United States for seat of Government, 76;
  thinks appropriation bills are limited by the constitution, 77;
  further remarks, 81;
  sustains the power of the President to remove certain officers, 88;
  on the power of the President to remove Secretary of State, 102;
  further remarks, 105;
  opposes discrimination in the pay of members of the two Houses, 124;
  on compensation of President, 119;
  further remarks, 120;
  on compensation of Vice President, 121;
  on a Home Department, 127;
  on amendments of the Senate to House bill on seat of Government, 165;
  on admission of reporters of the press, 180;
  on the constitutional power of Congress respecting naturalization, 186;
  on discrimination among the public creditors, 217;
  on report of committee on Quaker memorial, 229;
  on a seat of Government, 242;
  further remarks, 248;
  on vacancy in the Presidency, 267;
  on the meeting of the Electoral College, 333;
  moves to strike out of bill all relative to vacancy of President, 334;
  on the bill for the encouragement of the cod fisheries, 351.

WHITE, Rev. Bishop, elected chaplain of the Senate, 380.

WHITE, JAMES, delegate from territory south of Ohio River, 528.

WHITNEY, CHARLES, arrested with Robert Randall, 611;
  examination of, 613.

_Widows and Orphans_, a bill making compensation to certain, considered, 410.

WILLIAMS, BENJAMIN, Representative from North Carolina, 455, 546;
  on a salary for members of Congress, 636;
  on post-roads, 637;
  on the rights of the House relative to treaties, 680;
  on the execution of the British treaty, 720;
  on the army establishment, 759.

WILLIAMS, JOHN, Representative from New York, 604.

WILLIAMSON, HUGH, Representative from North Carolina, 255, 315, 388;
  on answer to President's message, 257;
  further remarks, 257;
  on selection of land by settlers, 260;
  on vacancy in the Presidency, 267;
  on the commitment of the bill for a Bank of the United States, 273;
  on resignation of William Pinkney, 329;
  on the bill for the encouragement of the cod fisheries, 357;
  on the emblems on American coins, 371;
  on the resolution that the Secretary of the Treasury and at War attend the
    House, and report relative to defeat of St. Clair, 390;
  against attendance of Secretary of War, 392;
  on discharging committee on defeat of St. Clair, 394;
  on protection of American commerce, 395;
  on reduction of the army, 400;
  further remarks, 414.

WILLIS, FRANCIS, Representative from Georgia, 315, 388.

_Wines_, all other, discrimination opposed, 32; duty on, 32.

WINGATE, PAINE, Senator from New Hampshire, 9, 168, 251, 309, 380.

WINN, RICHARD, Representative from South Carolina, 457, 528, 614.

WINSTON, JOSEPH, Representative from North Carolina, 457, 528.

_Wool Cards_, duty on, 41;
  state of manufacture, 41.

WYNKOOP, HENRY, Representative from Pennsylvania, 21, 175, 255.


Y

_Yeas and Nays_ on contested election of Wm. Smith, 99;
  on the bill organizing the State Department, 108;
  on embracing all the proposed amendments of the constitution in one report,
    145;
  on fixing the seat of Government on the Potomac, 161; on Wilmington for the
    seat of Government, 161;
  on Potomac, Susquehanna, or Delaware, instead of east bank of Susquehanna,
    162;
  Delaware instead of do., 162;
  banks instead of east bank, 162;
  on inserting, or Maryland, after "Pennsylvania," 162;
  on Wilmington, instead of "city of New York," 163;
  on "Philadelphia," instead of "New York," 163;
  on proviso of Mr. Gale, 163;
  on resolution for the appointment of Commissioners to fix the site for a
    seat of Government, 163;
  on the bill to establish a seat of Government, 164;
  on postponing consideration of amended bill relative to seat of Government,
    166;
  on the proviso of Mr. Madison relative to a seat of Government, 167;
  in Senate on resolution relative to unfinished business, 171;
  in Senate, on bill for non-intercourse with Rhode Island, 172;
  on commitment of Pennsylvania memorial, 211;
  on Quaker memorial, 238;
  on motion to strike out "Potomac," and insert Delaware for seat of
    Government, 249;
  on motion to strike out "Potomac," and insert Germantown, 249;
  to strike out "Potomac," and insert Baltimore, 249;
  on the passage of the bill fixing a seat of Government, 249;
  on motion to strike out a clause of excise bill, 272;
  on its passage, 272;
  on the bill for a Bank of the United States, 308;
  on the resolution respecting ratio of representation, 328;
  on motion to amend by striking out second section of bill for the protection
    of the frontiers, 349;
  on the bill for the encouragement of the cod fisheries, &c., 369;
  on the resolutions relative to the courtesies of France, 370;
  on receding from the amendment relative to the stamp of American coins, 373;
  on the apportionment bill after it was vetoed, 374;
  on its subsequent passage, 377;
  on motion to strike out clause of the army reduction bill, 416;
  on agreement of the House in said motion, 416;
  on the passage of the bill relative to fugitives from justice, 417;
  on the third resolution relative to the official conduct of the Secretary of
    the Treasury, 438;
  on the fourth resolution, &c., 438;
  on the fifth resolution, &c., 438;
  on the sixth resolution, &c., 438;
  on the seventh resolution, 439;
  on the question relating to, &c., 440;
  on amendment of constitution in the Senate, excluding bank officers from
    Congress, 446;
  relative to the interest of the United States in the bank, 446;
  on Senate resolution relative to open doors, 448;
  on the eligibility of Albert Gallatin, 452; on postponing consideration of
    the commerce of the United States, 473;
  on the bill making preparations for the Algerine war, 482;
  on the resolutions of non-intercourse with Great Britain, 498;
  on continuing the embargo, 502;
  on the reference of the indemnity resolutions to the committee on
    sequestration of British debts, 505;
  on motion to reject the bill laying duties on tobacco and sugar, 511;
  on the bill to augment the army, 511;
  on amendment to raise a force for protection of south-west frontiers, 519;
  on striking out certain words in the answer to the President's speech, 540;
  on the indemnification of the sufferers by the Pennsylvania insurgents, 553;
  on the resolution relative to Indian lands in North Carolina, 582;
  on resolutions relative to intruders on Indian lands, 589;
  in Senate on agreeing to answer of President's speech, 596;
  in Senate on resolutions relative to French flag, 601;
  in Senate, relative to the admission of Tennessee, 602, 603;
  on the resolution relative to the treaty with Great Britain, 692;
  on the resolutions relative to the refusal of the President to furnish
    papers on the British treaty, 702;
  on the resolution expressive of the sense of the House on the British
    treaty, 753;
  on the resolution of the House relative to the execution of the British
    treaty, 753;
  _note_, 754;
  on the resolution that some law should be passed by Congress recognizing
    Tennessee as a State before its admission, 759;
  on the claim of Catharine Greene, 762.


END OF VOL. I.


FOOTNOTES:

[1] Of this talent, Mr. Gales has lately given a most remarkable
instance, in drawing out from notes which had remained as lost for near
forty years, a most important speech of Mr. Randolph, delivered shortly
before the late war with Great Britain, and in relation to the then
condition of public affairs, both with Great Britain and the Emperor
Napoleon the First. Mr. Gales had taken down the speech: the notes of it
got into the bottom of a trunk, and lay there till a year ago, when Mr.
Gales, searching high and low for matter for the Annals, chanced to find
them; and immediately drew out the full speech with the freshness and
vigor of a morning report of a previous day's debate.

[2] In the first five years of the existence of the Federal Government,
there was no publication of debates in the Senate, that body having sat
with closed doors, in its legislative as well as in its executive
capacity, until the 20th of February, 1794. Until that time there will
be no Senate debates to be abridged; but the proceedings of the body
were fully kept in journals, and selections from these proceedings will
afford much curious and instructive information to the student of
American political history, as showing the manner in which the founders
of the government put it into operation, their views in relation to
important points, and the changes which the constitution of the Senate
has undergone.

[3] A list of the Senators and Representatives who composed the First
Congress is inserted at page 20.

[4] his address being in the nature of an Inaugural, and confined to
general recommendations, only the beginning and the ending, so
characteristic of the father of his country, have been given.

[5] These entries in relation to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs show
the early method of communicating with the Secretaries, being called
before the Senate to give explanations and bring papers--a method now
superseded by reports. The early Senators lamented the change, believing
the old way to be the best for getting the information that was wanted,
and also the best security against the appointment of incompetent
Secretaries.

[6] Another instance of the early practice of the government. The
President consults the Senate beforehand upon the negotiation of Indian
treaties, and sends the Secretary at War in person to give the necessary
explanations: this mode of consulting the Senate since so far departed
from that that body has no knowledge of the treaty until sent in for
ratification.

[7] This message of President Washington is a strong instance of his
deference for the Senate, thus giving up upon its objection the
nomination of a citizen which he knew to be fit and meritorious. It was
also a strong instance of the deference of the Senate to the Senators of
the State interested in the nomination, Col. Fishbourn having been
rejected simply because the Georgia Senators preferred another.

[8] These proceedings of President Washington and the Senate, in fixing
on the mode of communication between them when treaties were to be
formed, or appointments to be made, was their interpretation of the
clause in the constitution which requires the advice and consent of the
Senate on such occasions. Their interpretation was (according to the
obvious meaning of language) that the advice and consent should be
obtained beforehand; and the practice was in conformity to that
interpretation, as will be seen in the proceedings of the next day, when
the President and Secretary at War attended the Senate, and the
President gave in a statement of facts, which, in his opinion, rendered
treaties with the Southern Indian tribes necessary, and asked the advice
and consent of the Senate upon their formation. These proceedings will
be read with interest by all who study the working of our government,
and observe the changes which its practice has undergone. The change has
been great in the mode of obtaining this advice and consent, and greatly
to the prejudice of the free and independent action of the Senate in
such cases. Instead of consultation and concurrence beforehand, as the
words of the constitution imply, and as the practice under Washington
required (even to the minute provisions of an Indian treaty), the most
important, and even unusual and extraordinary treaties, and with foreign
powers, have come to be negotiated (oftentimes) without even the
knowledge of the Senate, concealed from it until concluded, and then
laid before the body for ratification, as an administration measure--the
ratification to be pressed under all the influences of an executive
measure, and upon all the considerations of inconvenience and danger to
attend the rejection of a measure executively concluded with a foreign
power. Under such circumstances treaties are often ratified, and
appointments often confirmed, under a moral duress of the Senate, the
weight of the executive and the inconveniences of rejection leaving no
chance for the free action of the body. President Polk revived the
Washingtonian mode of consulting the Senate, in the formation of the
Oregon Treaty in 1846, asking the advice of the Senate beforehand on the
point of establishing the boundary line with Great Britain on the
parallel of 49 degrees; whereof the secret as well as the public history
may be seen in the "Thirty Years' View," under the proper year. The
personal attendance of the President and Secretaries being found to be
inconvenient, that part of the mode of communication was dispensed with
in Washington's time.

[9] The question in relation to North Carolina arose out of the
circumstance that she had not then accepted the Federal Constitution,
and was not at that time a member of the Union.

[10] North Carolina was not represented in the _first_ Session of this
Congress, not having at that time accepted the Constitution.

[11] Rhode Island, for the same cause, did not appear till the _third_
Session.

[12] Mr. Bland deceased during the second recess of Congress, and was
succeeded at the third Session by William B. Giles.

[13] See notes to list of Senators.

[14] Ibid.

[15] For a list of the Representatives in the first Congress, see p. 20.

[16] For this list see the Senate Journal.

[17] This scale of duties, thus offered by the Continental Congress of
1783, and agreed to by the States, after proposing small specific duties
on a few enumerated articles, (wines, spirits, teas, coffee, cocoa,
molasses, sugars and pepper,) proposed an _ad valorem_ duty of five per
centum upon all other goods, computed on the value of the article at the
time and place of importation.

[18] In bringing forward the measure for imposing impost and tonnage
duties, Mr. Madison proceeded in the approved parliamentary form, of
first discussing and agreeing upon the provisions of the measure, and
then appointing a committee to bring in a bill according to what had
been agreed upon. Long experience had proved that to be the safest mode
of legislation, giving full scope to the whole intelligence of the
House, before the measure had taken a form which it might be difficult
to alter, as is always the case when a committee brings in a detailed
bill, (without previous instructions from the House,) and which, as an
act of a committee, and as a matured plan, (though done by a few,) has
an authority which resists alteration, and renders amendments, at the
instance of a member, most difficult to obtain. This wise and safe
practice, of settling the provisions of a bill beforehand, has been
nearly abandoned by our Congress--to the great prejudice of beneficial
legislation.

[19] Not additional. The enumerated articles were not to be subject to
the _ad valorem_ duty of five per centum.

[20] The delegates from that State were gone to meet the Vice-President,
who was expected in town this day.

[21] The members of the two Houses of Congress began to assemble on the
4th day of March, but a quorum did not appear in the House of
Representatives until the 1st of April, nor in the Senate until the 6th
of that month. The organization of the two Houses necessarily preceded
the inauguration of the President, which took place on the 30th of
April. Some of the ceremonies observed on that occasion, and for some
time afterwards, have since been discontinued: as, the proclamation for
the long life of the President--his repairing to church to attend divine
service, accompanied by the two Houses--his re-conducting to his own
house by a committee of the two Houses--the answer to the inaugural
address by each House.

[22] In this measure of the tonnage duties the House, as in the case of
the impost duties, (and in fact in all other cases in which a law was
wanted,) first settled the provisions of the bill in discussing the
propositions on which it was to be founded, and then directed a
committee to bring in a bill accordingly: but the bill, when brought in,
still open to debate and amendment. This was the safe mode of
legislation, approved by long experience in the British Parliament, and
still more commended by the evils which have grown out of its
abandonment in our Congress.

[23] The legislative and diplomatic history of the United States affords
abundant evidence of the wisdom of the objection taken in this debate
against the indefinite duration of public acts. To repeal such laws, or
to terminate such treaties, is almost impossible. Besides the difficulty
of getting the three legislative branches to agree at the same time upon
the repeal, or the termination, an interest grows up under the measure
which becomes identified with its existence, and works for its
perpetuity; and when it has been continued for some years, and the
temporary circumstances in which it originated have been forgotten, it
becomes invested with the sanctity of age, and finds protection in the
spirit which dreads change as innovation. Of this character, two acts of
Congress, and two conventions with foreign powers, may be mentioned as
samples of many in our history, to wit: 1. The Factory system of
supplying the Indians with cheap goods through Government agents,
established as a temporary experimental measure for three years, &c.,
under Washington, and which was soon found to be working badly both for
the Indians and for the Government, and yet which could not be got rid
of for thirty years! nor until after the whole capital had disappeared.

2. The salt tax, and the fishing bounties and allowances founded upon
it, revived as a temporary war-tax during the late war with Great
Britain in 1812, and now continued forty years after the war has been
finished! successfully resisting all attempts at repeal, while
burthening the people with an odious tax, and enabling the fishing
interest to take some $300,000 annually (near five millions up to this
time) out of the public treasury, most of it unduly. Of treaties may be
considered as instances the convention with Great Britain for the joint
occupation of the Columbia, where the stipulated right of each party to
terminate it at pleasure upon a year's notice, could not be exercised
for twenty years! and then, with alarms of war and great disturbance to
the country. And also the convention of 1842, with the same power for
keeping up each a squadron on the coast of Africa, (for the suppression
of the slave trade,) for five years; and until either party should give
notice for its abrogation. The five years have been out three times
over! yet the notice cannot be given; and a temporary measure becomes
permanent through an illusory limitation.

[24] The preamble to this act, and the speeches in favor of it, have
been greatly relied upon in support of a protective tariff, but without
reason, as the speeches themselves, and the rate of duties established,
fully show. Every speech showed revenue to be the object of every
proposed duty--protection to domestic industry being an incident to
result from the accomplishment of that object, and from such moderate
duties as were then imposed--the _ad valorems_ being five per centum,
7-1/2 and 12-1/2; and only a single class going as high as fifteen per
centum, and that class confined to an article of luxury, to wit:
imported pleasure carriages. The specific duties were on the like
moderate scale; yet these moderate duties, thus laid for revenue, gave
all the protection which was then asked, and to the satisfaction of
every part of the Union, and cannot be quoted as any argument for the
protective system which so much disturbed the country.

[25] This call to order, and enforcement of it, for so slight a
deviation from the point in debate, is a striking illustration of the
business habits of our early Congresses, and accounts for the reason
(_inter alia_) why the debates of that early time were so pithy,
pointed, sententious, instructive and beautiful.

[26] It is presumable he alluded to Mr. GERRY, a member of a Committee
of Congress, appointed to superintend the Treasury.

[27] The questions of contested elections, generally depending upon
personal and temporary circumstances, are usually omitted in this
abridgment; but where they rise higher and reach the principles of
Government, or connect themselves with the national history, then they
become questions of general and permanent interest, adding to the stock
of political knowledge; and as such are entitled to historical
commemoration. Upon this view of such questions the debate on the
contested election of William Smith, of South Carolina, is here given;
and that on the contested election of Albert Gallatin, and some others,
will be given hereafter.

[28] This remark of Mr. MADISON shows the true reason for instituting
the previous question, which was to prevent debate in cases in which
there ought not to be any; cases in which it was necessary to guard the
House against improper discussion. What a departure from that reason has
since taken place in the House of Representatives! for the Senate has,
thus far, been shielded from the introduction of that question and its
consequent abuse.

[29] It was afterwards renewed and carried, and in that form the
amendments were made, twelve in number, and form additional articles to
the constitution, leaving the text of that instrument unaltered, but
controlled by the amendment where they differ, as in the twelfth
amendment.

[30] By taking the hour of 5 o'clock for the funeral, the adjournment of
the two Houses, and the loss of a day was obviated, while becoming
respect was shown to the memory of the deceased member.

[31] Having found a personal attendance on such occasions inconvenient,
President Washington adopted the form of a written message in asking the
advice and consent of the Senate to the formation of the treaties which
he judged to be necessary. Mr. Polk followed this form in consulting the
Senate on the Oregon treaty of 1846.

[32] The galleries were unusually crowded.

[33] The committee reported in favor of a residence of two years, and
with that provision the bill was passed.

[34] Estimated at twenty-one millions of dollars, and distributed among
the States thus:

New Hampshire,       $300,000
Massachusetts,      4,000,000
Rhode Island,         200,000
Connecticut,        1,600,000
New York,           1,200,000
New Jersey,           800,000
Pennsylvania,       2,200,000
Delaware,             200,000
Maryland,             800,000
Virginia,           3,200,000
North Carolina,     2,200,000
South Carolina,     4,000,000
Georgia,              300,000
                  -----------
                  $21,000,000

[35] The motion of Mr. Madison was lost, and with it the largest door
was opened to the pillage of original creditors, the plunder of the
public Treasury and the corruption of Congress which the history of any
Government has ever seen. The immediate mischief was some thirty
millions: it was only the beginning. Assignees of claims have since been
the great suitors to Congress--purchasing for a trifle, and upon
speculation--pursuing the recovery by indirect means--taking no
denial--and gaining in the end what was scouted at the start. It has
given rise to a new profession--a new industrial pursuit, still more
industrious by night than by day--hunting up claims, pressing them upon
Congress; and by organization, skill, perseverance, appliances, and
seductions carrying through the most unfounded demands. By the common
law a _chose in action_ (an executory contract) was not assignable; and
the whole experience of our Government from the assumption of the State
debts, and funding of the revolutionary certificates in 1790 down to the
present day, shows that the interest of the original creditor, the
safety of the Treasury, and the purity of Congress require this wise
common law principle to be applied to all claims upon the Government.

[36] These proceedings put an end to abolition petitions in Congress.
The Society of which Dr. Franklin was president was purely philanthropic
in its character, and having got the answer to their petition, "that
Congress had no right to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or
their treatment in any of the States," acquiesced in the decision and
did not repeat their application.

[37] This measure became combined with the Assumption Bill. Each had
failed by small majorities: both were afterwards passed. There was a
strong sectional party for each, but not a majority. The Eastern and
Middle States were for the assumption--the Southern States against it:
these latter were for the Potomac for the seat of Government--the former
for the Susquehannah. The discontent was extreme on each side at losing
its favorite measure. At last the two measures were combined. Two
members from the Potomac who had voted against the assumption, agreed to
change their votes: a few from the Eastern and Middle States who had
voted against the Potomac, agreed to change in its favor; and so the two
measures were passed. Mr. Jefferson gives this account of it, omitting
his strictures: "This measure (the assumption) produced the most bitter
and angry contest ever known in Congress, before or since the union of
the States. I arrived in the midst of it: but a stranger to the ground,
a stranger to the actors in it, so long absent as to have lost all
familiarity with the subject, and as yet unaware of its object, I took
no concern in it. The great and trying question, however, was lost in
the House of Representatives. So high were the feuds excited on this
subject that, on its rejection, business was suspended. Congress met and
adjourned from day to day without doing any thing, the parties being too
much out of temper to do business together. The Eastern members
threatened secession and dissolution. Hamilton was in despair. As I was
going to the President's one day, I met him in the street. He walked me
backwards and forwards before the President's door for half an hour. He
painted pathetically the temper into which the Legislature had been
wrought--the disgust of those who were called the creditor States--the
danger of the secession of their members, and of the separation of the
States. He observed that the members of the administration ought to act
in concert--that though this question was not of my department, yet a
common duty should make it a common concern--that the President was the
centre on which all administrative questions ultimately rested, and that
all of us should rally around him, and support, with joint efforts,
measures approved by him; and that the question having been lost by a
small majority only, it was probable that an appeal from me to the
judgment and discretion of some of my friends, might effect change in
the vote, and the machine of government, now suspended, might be again
set in motion. I told him that I was really a stranger to the whole
subject; that not having yet informed myself of the system of finances
adopted, I knew not how far this was a necessary sequence; that
undoubtedly, if its rejection endangered a dissolution of our Union at
this incipient stage, I should deem that the most unfortunate of all
consequences, to avert which all partial and temporary evils should be
yielded. I proposed to him, however, to dine with me the next day, and I
would invite another friend or two, bring them into conference together,
and I thought it impossible that reasonable men, consulting together
coolly, could fail, by some mutual sacrifices of opinion, to form a
compromise which would save the Union. The discussion took place. I
could take no part in it but an exhortatory one, because I was a
stranger to the circumstances which should govern it. But it was finally
agreed, that whatever importance had been attached to the rejection of
this proposition, the preservation of the Union, and of concord among
the States, was more important, and that therefore it would be better
that the vote of rejection should be rescinded--to effect which some
members should change their votes. But it was observed that this pill
would be peculiarly bitter to the Southern States, and that some
concomitant measure should be adopted to sweeten it a little to them.
There had before been propositions to fix the seat of Government either
at Philadelphia, or at Georgetown on the Potomac; and it was thought
that by giving it to Philadelphia for ten years, and to Georgetown
permanently afterwards, this might, as an anodyne, calm in some degree
the ferment which might be excited by the other measure alone: so two of
the Potomac members (White and Lee, but the former with a revulsion of
stomach almost convulsive) agreed to change their votes; and Hamilton
undertook to carry the other point."

[38] Could the extent to which the evil has since been carried, have
been foreseen at the time, the state of the vote might have been very
different.

[39] Topics of temporary interest omitted.

[40] At this commencement of the second Congress, being in the third
year of Washington's administration, and when the finances had been
brought to order and system by General Hamilton, and the machinery of
government put into fair and full operation, a proper point presents
itself to look at the expenses of the new Government, both as a fact at
the time, and as a point of comparison in the future. In the annual
speech which the President delivered to the two Houses, he congratulated
Congress on the adequacy of the revenues which had been provided, and on
the prospect that no new burthens would be required to be laid upon the
people. This was a gratifying announcement, and makes it desirable to
see what was the revenue at that time, and to what objects applied. The
first inquiry is answered by a recurrence to the two tariff acts which
had been passed--one at the first, the other at the second session of
the first Congress. The first act had produced near two millions of
dollars, which, though five times beyond what was necessary for the
support of the Government, was not sufficient for the demands of the
public debt and the Indian war raging in the North-west. An augmentation
of the duties became necessary, and was accomplished in the second act,
but still on a scale of moderation. The _ad valorems_ were 5 per centum,
7-1/2, 10, 12-1/2, 15; but in counting their product, only the two first
may be considered, as the mass of the importations fell under those
rates; to wit, above 16 millions under the two first, and less than one
million under the three last; so that the 5 and the 7-1/2 _ad valorems_
may be considered as the effective duties, and the actual levy upon the
imports. The list of specific duties was enlarged in the second bill,
(the Secretary of the Treasury wisely saying that the experience of the
world showed that duties upon quantities, ascertainable by weight and
measure, were the only ones capable of safe and cheap collection, and
therefore to be preferred as far as possible.) and their rate increased,
but still in moderate proportion. The produce of the whole was about
3-1/2 millions, which was nearly nine times as much as the support of
the Government required, leaving nearly eight parts out of nine to go to
the public debt, the Indian war, and other extraordinary objects. This
important statement requires to be verified, which is done by referring
to General Hamilton's estimate of appropriations at the commencement of
this first session of the second Congress; to wit, CIVIL LIST,
comprehending compensation to the President and Vice President--the
Departments of State, Treasury and War--the Board of Commissioners--the
government of the North-western Territory--the Judiciary--the two Houses
of Congress--contingencies incident to the civil list: in all
$328,653.00; to which was afterwards added $87,000 for diplomatic
intercourse, increasing the amount of the annual estimate to $415,000.
The public debt, the Indian war, and other extraordinaries took all the
rest, amounting to about three millions; so that this small revenue,
produced by such moderate duties upon the small importation of that day,
sufficed for the support of the Government, for carrying on an Indian
war as far off, (the distance measured by time and cost of march and
transportation,) and with Indians far more formidable than any now in
the world; and also for the interest of the public debt. This is a
result for statesmen to consider, and to bring into comparison with the
present state of things; and the reflection may be, that with the same
spirit of economy which, then prevailed, the same knowledge of the
objects for which the Federal Government was created, and the same
determination to confine its action to those objects, the same moderate
rate of duties on the large importations of this day would be entirely
sufficient, both for the support of the Government and for all
extraordinary objects. The cost of collecting the revenue in that early
period also presents a point for retrospect and comparison; it was then
about 3 and 1/3 per cent., and according to the principle of such
collections, should become less in proportion to the larger amount
collected. On the contrary, the increase has been inordinate! and is,
perhaps, now hardly ascertainable, but cutting deep into the national
income.

[41] The case of Pennsylvania goes far to sustain this view. The policy
of William Penn was that of justice and humanity to the Indians, and his
colony was long exempt from its calamity of savage hostility. It had
been settled seventy years--from 1680 to 1753--before an Indian killed
one of its inhabitants, and then in consequence of a disturbance in a
neighboring province. Such an exemption, for so long a time, and while
all the other colonies were involved in Indian wars from their early
settlement, while so honorable to Penn's government and to the
inoffensive manners of the inhabitants, goes far to show that the
Indians were manageable by good treatment, and that, although savage,
their savageism was not of a kind to resist the effects of justice and
kindness.

[42] This speech, of Cornplanter, the famous chief of the Seneca tribe,
(one of the Six Nations,) does not appear in the debates, having been
confidentially read to the House; but it is found in the State papers of
the time, and is, as the allusions to it implied, a plea in behalf of
the Indians against the wrongs of the whites. Intrusion upon their
lands, fraudulent purchases, and killing unoffending Indians, are the
subjects of complaint. The speech opens with a characteristic appeal to
Washington.

"Father: The voice of the Seneca nation speaks to you, the great
councillor in whose heart the wise men of all the Thirteen Fires
(Thirteen United States) have placed their wisdom. It may be very small
in your ears, and we therefore entreat you to hearken with attention:
for we are about to speak of things which are to us very great. When
your army entered the country of the Six Nations, we called you the town
destroyer; and to this day, when that name is heard, our women look
behind them and turn pale, and our children cling close to the necks of
their mothers. Our councillors and warriors are men, and cannot be
afraid; but their hearts are grieved with the fears of our women and
children, and desire it to be buried so deep as to be heard no more.
When you gave us peace, we called you Father, because you promised to
secure us in the possession of our lands. Do this, and, so long as the
lands shall remain, that beloved name will live in the heart of every
Seneca."

Then followed a complaint for wrongs done them in their lands; to which
Washington replied that that wrong was done before the new Government
was established and the management of Indian affairs given up to it; but
that they would now be protected. This reply fell short of his
expectations, and the Cornplanter rejoined:

"Father: Your speech written on the great paper, is to us like the first
light of the morning to a sick man, whose pulse beats too strongly in
his temples, and prevents him from sleep. He sees it and rejoices, but
is not cured."

Of killing and robbing their people he said:

"Three men and one woman have been killed at Big Beaver Creek, and they
were good people, and some of the white people will testify this.
Twenty-seven men came from another State, and murdered these men in the
Quaker State where they had come to trade, and took away all the horses,
and all the goods they had purchased from the traders."

The President answers to this complaint that he is very angry to hear of
this murder and robbery--that he will have it inquired into, and will
comfort the friends and relations of the persons who were killed, and
make them compensation for the horses and property taken; and do all in
his power to bring the murderers to justice, and that he will consider
the crime as bad, exactly, as if committed against so many white people,
and will use the same endeavors to bring them to punishment. Satisfied
with the assurances which the President gave them, the Cornplanter, and
the other chiefs with him, took a formal and affectionate leave in
writing; in which they say:

"Father: No Seneca ever goes from the fire of his friend until he has
said to him 'I am going.' We therefore now tell you, that we are setting
out for our own country. Father: We thank you from our hearts, that we
now know there is a country we may call our own, and on which we may lie
down in peace. We see that there will be peace between your children and
our children, and our hearts are very glad."

On arriving at Pittsburg on their way home, for these interviews with
Washington took place in Philadelphia, these children of the forest with
a native sentiment of graceful politeness, wrote back to him to let him
know how they were getting along, the whole expressed in two brief
sentences.

"Through the whole Quaker State, as we came up the road, we were treated
well, and they took good care of us until we came here. One misfortune
happened only, that one of our wagons is not yet arrived here, the one
we first engaged, and with the goods you presented to us."

They always speak affectionately of the Quaker State, and in one of the
speeches to President Washington, having occasion to mention a promise
made to them by the State, said:

"The Quaker State will do what it promises."

[43] Mr. JEFFERSON, Secretary of State, in his Report on the fisheries.

[44] Letters of the Secretary of War and Quartermaster General.

[45] For an authorized establishment of 5,120 men, of all arms, the
actual establishment being about 3,600. It would be curious to compare
the army expenses of that day with those of this day, and the
comparative care with which Congress looked into these expenses at the
two different periods. The United States were engaged in Indian wars
then as now, and upon a theatre (time and cost of getting to it
considered) as far off as our Indian wars are at present; for, the
distance estimated in that way, is less now to California than it was
then to the Miami of the Lakes: yet a cost of something like $200 a head
was considered extravagant, and such as to call upon Congress for an
inquiry.

[46] The bill came down from the Senate where debates were not
published, and seems to have passed the House without debate, and almost
without division, there being but seven votes against it, and two of
these (Messrs. Mercer and Parker) from slave States. Nor does it appear
to what part of the bill they objected, whether to the part in relation
to fugitives from justice, or to those who fled from service, for both
classes of fugitives were comprehended in the same bill. It was passed
on a message from President Washington, founded on a communication from
the Governor of Pennsylvania in relation to a fugitive from justice who
had taken refuge in Virginia, and because it was necessary to have an
act of Congress to give effect to the rendition clause in the
constitution. There was but little necessity in those times, nor for
long after, for an act of Congress to authorize the recovery of fugitive
slaves. The laws of the free States, and still more the force of public
opinion, were the owners' best safeguards. Public opinion was against
the abduction of slaves; and if any one was seduced from his owner, it
was done furtively and secretly, without show or force, and as any other
moral offence would be committed. State laws favored the owner, and to a
greater extent than the act of Congress did, or could. In Pennsylvania
there was an act (it was passed in 1780, and only repealed in 1847)
discriminating between the traveller and sojourner, and the permanent
resident, allowing the former to remain six months in the State before
his slaves would become subject to the emancipation laws; and, in the
case of a federal government officer, allowing as much more time as his
duties required him to remain. New York had the same act, only varying
in time, which was nine months. While these two acts were in force, and
supported by public opinion, the traveller and sojourner was safe with
his slaves in those States, and the same in the other free States. There
was no trouble about fugitive slaves in those times. This act of 1793
did not grow out of any such trouble, but out of the case of a fugitive
from justice. It was that case which brought the subject before
Congress; and, in the act that was passed, the case of fugitives from
justice was first provided for, the first and second sections of the act
being given to that branch of the subject, and the third and fourth to
the other--all brief and plain, and executable without expense or fuss.
In the case of a slave the owner was allowed to seize him wherever he
saw him, by day or by night, Sundays or week-days, just as if he was in
his own State, and a penalty of $500 attached to any person who resisted
or obstructed him in this seizure. The only authority he wanted was
after the seizure, and to justify the carrying back, and for that
purpose, the affidavit of the owner, or his agent was sufficient. This
act was perfect, except in relying upon State officers, as well as
federal officers to execute it, these State officers not being subject
to the federal law, and being forbid to act after slavery became a
subject of political agitation.

[47] This was a party election, and as such conducted on both sides.
Marshall, in his Life of Washington, says of it: "By each party a
candidate for the chair was brought forward; and Mr. Muhlenberg, who was
supported by the opposition, was elected by a majority of ten votes
against Mr. Sedgwick whom the Federalists supported."

[48] The debate on this subject was one of the most elaborate, and most
replete with knowledge of commercial principles and statistics, which
our Congress has furnished. It grew out of the clause in the
constitution which gave Congress power to regulate commerce with foreign
nations, and gives the interpretation of that clause by its authors,
which was wholly different in its nature, as well as distinct in its
grant, from the power to lay and collect duties on imports. The latter
was to raise revenue: the former to coerce nations into reciprocity of
liberal trade with us by making a discrimination in the trade of nations
to the disadvantage of the nations which refused to come into reciprocal
arrangements with us. The discrimination proposed by Mr. Madison was 5
per centum, and was levelled against Britain, and was only defeated by
five votes. In this great debate, as in that upon the Bank of the United
States, the genius of Hamilton and Jefferson were pitted against each
other, each having made opposite reports on each question, which were
the magazines from which the opposing speakers in Congress chiefly armed
themselves--Mr. Madison being the chief exponent of the Jeffersonian
side, and Mr. William Smith, of South Carolina, that of General
Hamilton. It is curious that while this power to regulate foreign
commerce by Congress, was one of the chief causes for forming the
Federal Government, yet it has never been exercised by Congress, and
seems to be a power overlooked, or confounded with that to lay duties
and imposts for revenue. Though not yet exercised, it is a power which
has found need for its exercise, and will find it again. Our immense
commerce, if all articles are taxed even moderately, will produce far
more revenue than the economical and fair administration of the
Government would require: a large part of it would be left free, as
after the payment of the public debt in President Jackson's time; and as
may be again after the extinction of the public debt, and the
introduction of economy into the expenditures. A moderate duty on
two-thirds of the importations may then be sufficient for the
expenditures of the Government, leaving (say) one-third to go upon the
free list. Now the nations which receive the chief benefit of that large
free importation ought to reciprocate the favor by taking something
free, or at a moderate duty, from us. "_Free commerce is not to be given
in exchange for burthens and impositions_;" and that was the principle
of Mr. Madison's resolutions, which were barely defeated, and that by
the influence of the mercantile class engaged in commerce with Great
Britain. A full view of this subject is given in the first volume of the
Thirty Years' View, in giving an account of the effort of the author to
revive Mr. Madison's plan.

[49] It is grateful to behold the immense progress which the humanity of
nations has made. Great Britain is no longer subject to the imputation
of exciting pirates and savages against us. She has long since ceased to
instigate Indian hostilities, and long ago joined us in humbling
Algiers. Far from stimulating barbarian war, she even interposes to save
us from civilized war with great nations--witness the proffered
mediation of William the Fourth to settle the difficulty between France
and the United States, in General Jackson's time: a beautiful instance
of old animosity extinct under time, and former evil deeds succeeded by
works of kindness and respect.

[50] This seventh, article stipulated indemnity to the owners of the
deported slaves.

[51] Mr. Jefferson resigned his place of Secretary of State at the end
of this session, and was succeeded by Mr. Edmund Randolph, of Virginia.
Of the resignation and character of Mr. Jefferson, Marshall thus speaks:
"This gentleman withdrew from political station at a moment when he
stood particularly high in the esteem of his countrymen. His fixed
opposition to the financial schemes which had been proposed by the
Secretary of the Treasury, and approved by the Legislative and Executive
Departments of the Government; his ardent and undisguised attachment to
the revolutionary party in France; the dispositions which he was
declared to possess in regard to Great Britain; and the popularity of
his opinions respecting the Constitution of the United States; had
devoted to him that immense party whose sentiments were supposed to
comport with his on most or all of these interesting subjects. To the
opposite party he had, of course, become particularly unacceptable. But
the publication of his correspondence with the French minister, _Genet_,
dissipated much of the prejudice which had been excited against him. He
had, in that correspondence, maintained, with great ability, the
opinions embraced by the Federalists on those points of difference which
had arisen between the two Republics, and which, having become
universally the subjects of discussion, had in some measure dissipated
those topics on which parties had previously divided."

[52] The ratification of the Treaty, with the exception of the 12th
article, was by the following vote: YEAS--_Messrs._ Bingham, Bradford,
Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster, Frelinghuysen, Gunn, Henry, King, Latimer,
Livermore, Marshall, Paine, Potts, Read, Ross, Rutherford, Strong,
Trumbull, and Vining--20. NAYS--_Messrs._ Bloodworth, Brown, Burr,
Butler, Jackson, Langdon, Martin, Mason, Robinson, and Tazewell--10.
This excepted article related to the direct trade with the British West
Indies; and the recommendation added to the clause of ratification was
with a view to obtain the full enjoyment of that trade. This was in the
year 1795, and the object of the recommendation was not obtained until
above thirty years thereafter, and under the administration of General
Jackson.

[53] This recommendation to treat further for obtaining indemnity for
the slaves carried off by the British during the Revolution, remained
without effect, and all claim to that indemnification was relinquished
by the treaty of 1796. But the same deportation of slaves took place in
the war of 1812, followed by the same stipulation for indemnity in the
treaty which closed that war, which was contained in the treaty which
closed the war of the Revolution; and attended by the same refusal to
comply with it. It was not until after twelve years of further
negotiation, and under the administration of Mr. John Quincy Adams, and
under the arbitrament of the Emperor Alexander, of Russia, that
indemnity for these deported slaves of 1812 was received.

[54] This was the first instance of any heated debate in answering an
address from Washington. It became a party discussion on some points,
especially in relation to what was said of the Democratic societies.
Marshall says of it: "A very eloquent and animated debate ensued, which
terminated in the Committee of the Whole by striking out the words,
"self-created societies"--47 voting for, and 45 against expunging them."
The question was renewed in the House; and the Chairman of the committee
being opposed in sentiment to the Speaker, who was now placed in the
chair, the majority was precisely changed, and the words were
reinstated. This was a victory for the Administration, but soon lost,
the next being in favor of the opposition.

[55] He resigned accordingly, no further investigation being moved with
respect to him. Recording the event, Marshall says: "Seldom has any
minister excited in a higher, or more extensive degree than General
Hamilton, the opposite passions of love and hate. His talents were of a
grade too exalted not to receive from all the tribute of profound
respect; and his integrity and honor as a man, not less than his
official rectitude, though slandered at a distance, were admitted to be
superior to reproach by those enemies who knew him."

[56] A celebrated painter who died in 1554. Speaking of this artist,
Henry the Eighth once said, "Out of seven ploughmen I can make seven
Lords, but out of seven Lords I cannot make even one Holbein."

[57] Col. Timothy Pickering, in place of Gen. Knox, resigned.

[58] The distinction was invidious, and soon fell under the ban of
public opinion; but the mode of making it was commendable, and freed the
Senators voting for the increase from the imputation of a personal
motive.

[59] This was nominally a private petition, but in reality a question
between the State of North Carolina and the Federal Government in
relation to their relative rights over Indian lands within the chartered
limits of the State.

[60] This was the first discussion with open doors, except on the
contested election of Mr. Gallatin.

[61] This was the first formal opposition to the mode of answering the
President's Speech at the opening of the Sessions of Congress, though
many members had from the first been repugnant to it as being too close
an imitation of the British mode of opening the Sessions of Parliament
by an Address from the sovereign in person, an answer to it, and the
presentation of the answer by the House in a body.

[62] DESCRIPTION OF THE FLAG.--It is tricolor, made of the richest silk,
and highly ornamented with allegorical paintings. In the middle, a cock
is represented, the emblem of France, standing on a thunderbolt. At two
corners, diagonally opposite, are represented two bombshells bursting;
at the other two corners, other military emblems. Round the whole is a
rich border of oak leaves, alternately yellow and green; the first
shaded with brown and heightened with gold; the latter shaded with black
and relieved with silver; in this border are entwined warlike musical
instruments. The edge is ornamented with a rich gold fringe. The staff
is covered with black velvet, crowned with a golden pike, and enriched
with the tricolor cravatte and a pair of tassels worked in gold, and the
three national colors. The flag is to be deposited in the archives of
the United States.

[63] Counsel for the prisoner.

[64] Of all the members who opposed this trading establishment from the
commencement, Mr. Macon was the only one that remained in Congress until
it was abolished in 1822.

[65] This motion, going to the destruction of the Mint itself, brought
up an incidental debate on the right of Congress to withhold
appropriations for the support of existing establishments--which is the
only part of the debate on the bill which retains a surviving interest.

[66] This being the last year of Washington's administration, it
presents a proper occasion for seeing what the support of the Government
then cost, both as an inquiry pertinent in itself, and as furnishing a
point of comparison for the future. This is shown in the introductory
clause to the appropriations, stating, "That for defraying the
expenditure of the civil list of the United States for the year 1796,
together with the incidental and contingent expenses of the several
departments and officers thereof, there be appropriated a sum not
exceeding $530,392 85 cents." The objects to which this expenditure
went, were, 1. Salary to President and Vice President. 2. Compensation
to the members of Congress, with all the incidental expenses of that
body. 3. The federal judiciary, with all its contingent expenses. 4. The
Executive departments, with all their subordinate offices and expenses
of every kind. 5. The Mint establishment. 6. The light-house
establishment. 7. North-western and South-western territorial
governments; with a few other small objects. For each of these items a
specific sum was appropriated, of which, the appropriations for Congress
were, for the pay of the members and all the officers and attendants,
(estimated for a session of six months,) $193,460; and the expenses,
fuel, stationery, printing, and all other contingencies of the two
Houses, were $11,500. For diplomatic intercourse, $40,000.

[67] And proved to be so in this case, though it required thirty years'
experience to show it. When the system was brought to a close in 1822,
it was found that the whole capital was gone.

[68] This was the first attempt to pay members of Congress as salaried
officers.

[69] This resolution would seem to embody Mr. Madison's interpretation
of the clause in the constitution which authorizes Congress to establish
post roads.

[70] This explanatory note was written by Mr. Gales, editor of the
Annals of Congress, who has rendered a valuable service to the student
of political history in bringing these two great debates, each by
itself, into a single and connected form. They are the groundwork of
high constitutional knowledge; and, whether for the intrinsic importance
of their matter, the close acquaintance of the speakers with their
subject, or as fine specimens of parliamentary debating, they stand
forth as debates of the first class which our congressional history has
afforded. Marshall, in his history, says of them: "Never had a greater
display been made of argument, of eloquence, and of passion; and never
had a subject been discussed in which all classes of their
fellow-citizens took a deeper interest." The first debate related to the
Treaty-making power, and how far the House of Representatives had the
right to refuse assent to a treaty which required an appropriation of
money, or which regulated commerce, or which required the exercise of
any other power specifically granted to Congress. The second applied to
the execution of the commercial Treaty of 1794, with Great Britain; one
party contending that the Congress was bound to make the appropriation
to carry it into effect--the other denying the obligation and claiming
the right of a discretionary power. The two debates were upon kindred
subjects, and before the House at the same time, yet kept distinct, in
the discussion, neither sliding into the other, and one finished before
the other began; such was the closeness with which members then adhered
to the subject, even in Committee of the Whole, and which gave to these
early debates of our Congress so much point and power, and so much
attraction to the hearer then and to the reader now. An abridgment can
only present a part of these great debates, which cover above 300 pages
of the Annals of Congress; but the whole argument will be seen on both
sides, as the pith and marrow of each main speech will be given.

[71] This course was long followed, no Indian Treaty being held except
authorized by an act of Congress, which was the Legislative consent to
the grants of money which such Treaties usually contain, and for the
payment of which an Act of Congress would be necessary. And in the two
great cases of acquiring foreign territory, (Louisiana and Florida,)
under Presidents contemporary with the formation of the constitution,
and which required large appropriations to carry them into effect, the
consent of the Legislative branch of the Government was sought and
obtained before the Executive began to act--the law in both cases
originating in the House of Representatives as the proper initiatory
branch when money was to be paid which the people would have to raise.

[72] Thus the House, by a majority of 25, passed the call upon the
President for the papers, and upon the declared ground of a _right_ to
judge the Treaty, as it contained a regulation of commerce, and also
required an appropriation of money. President Washington received the
call in the sense in which it was made, and although he had no objection
to furnishing the papers, and had laid them before the Senate, (whence
they became public,) yet he deemed it his duty to resist the claim of
right asserted by the House, and therefore to refuse the papers--which
he did in a closely reasoned Message, an epitome of the arguments used
in the House on that side.

[73] It is seen in this answer of President Washington, that he holds
the assent of the House to be unnecessary to the validity of any Treaty
whatever, which, of course, includes the class contended for by the
House, but makes the question broader than the one presented by its
limited claim.

[74] In this resolution the House specifies the class of Treaties over
which it claims a right of judgment, and limits it to those which
involve a matter which has been specially granted to Congress--as an
appropriation of money, or the regulation of commerce.

[75] And thus the President and the House were completely at issue--the
House having expressly asserted, by a majority of 27, a right to judge,
not every Treaty, or Treaties generally, but those which involved the
exercise of any power granted by the constitution to itself. Trained in
the school of this majority, the author of this Abridgment, as often as
the occasion required, has maintained the same right for the House; and
especially in the case of the territorial purchase from Mexico in 1854.

[76] Mr. Hillhouse had submitted a resolution in favor of carrying the
Treaty into effect, and afterwards Mr. Maclay submitted one, declaring
the contrary; and the question was, which should be taken up? Mr.
Madison, as a skilful parliamentary tactician, preferred that of Mr.
Hillhouse, as putting the burden of the affirmative upon the adversary,
always an advantage in the debate, and, in an even vote, always decisive
for the negative side.

[77] The following is the letter received by the committee appointed to
inquire into the situation of the son of General LAFAYETTE:

[TRANSLATION.]

                            "RAMAPAGH, (New Jersey,) March 28, 1796.

"SIR: I have just received the honorable resolution which the merits of
my father have procured for me. Deign to express to the Representatives
of the people of America his gratitude--my youth forbids me yet to speak
of mine. Every day recalls to me what he taught me, at every period of
his life, so full of vicissitudes, and what he has repeated in a letter,
written from the depth of his prison. 'I am convinced (he says) that the
goodness of the United States and the tenderness of my paternal friend
will need nothing to excite them.

"Arrived in America some months since, I live in the country, in New
Jersey, occupied in the pursuits of my education. I have no wants; if I
had felt any, I should have answered to the paternal solicitude of the
President of the United States, either by confiding them to him, or by
accepting his offers. I shall hereafter consider it a duty, to impart
them to the House of Representatives, which deigns to inquire into my
situation.

"I am as happy as a continual inquietude relative to the object of my
first affections will permit. I have found benevolence wherever I have
been known, and have often had the satisfaction of hearing those, who
were ignorant of my connections, speak of their interest in the fate of
my father, express their admiration of, and partake the gratitude I
feel, for the generous Dr. Bollman, who has done so much to break his
chains.

"It is amid all these motives of emulation, that I shall continue my
studies. Every day more convinced of the duties which are imposed by the
goodness of Congress, and the names I have the honor to bear.

                              "GEO. WASHINGTON MOTIER LAFAYETTE.
                             The Hon. EDWARD LIVINGSTON, Chairman," &c.

[78] This vote of the House to carry the Treaty into effect, was no
abandonment of the right it had asserted to judge its merits, and to
grant or withhold the appropriation according to its discretion. The
discussion sufficiently shows this, and that many members took care to
save their votes from any misconstruction on this head. A sense of
expediency, and not the force of obligation, carried the vote; and
certainly the inducements to let the Treaty stand were very great.
Marshall sums them up thus: "If Congress refused to perform the Treaty
on the part of the United States, a compliance on the part of Great
Britain could not be expected. The posts on the great lakes would still
be occupied by British garrisons: no compensation would be made for
American vessels illegally captured: the hostile dispositions which had
been excited, would be restored with increased aggravation: and that
these dispositions must infallibly lead to war, was implicitly
believed." The amount to be appropriated was only $90,000, a sum
entirely insignificant, and only to be contested on account of the
principle its appropriation would involve. Yet the insignificance of the
sum, and with all the inducements to let the Treaty stand, and under
such a President as Washington, barely saved it from defeat! so jealous
was the Democratic party of that day of the rights of Congress, and so
determined was the House to remain master of the public purse. Ninety
thousand dollars was all the money at stake; but what has since been
seen? An Executive offering fifty millions for a slip of territory! and
one hundred millions, and afterwards two hundred, for an island!
Actually negotiating a Treaty of twenty millions, which the Senate
reduced to ten! and all, not only without the sanction, but without the
knowledge of the Legislative power. To admit that Congress would be
bound to appropriate such sums if the offers had ripened into Treaty
stipulations, would be to admit that the President, Senate, and a
foreign potentate were masters of the appropriating power; and, of
course, of the taxing and borrowing power, and of all the means by which
money was to be raised. Even a discretionary power over the
appropriation, after the Treaty has been made, is but a slight defence
for the treasury, there being always in Congress, as in all public
bodies, men to yield to circumstances,--good easy men to be persuaded;
timid men to be scared; venal men to be purchased. And out of these
classes enough are usually found to turn the scale, when upright men
divide upon a large measure. The only safe way is that of consultation
beforehand, as practised by Washington in the early part of his
Administration, and by the Presidents under whom Louisiana, Florida, and
California were acquired.

[79] The claim was renewed continually, and fruitlessly, until the year
1832, when it was allowed, and the horse paid for according to his
certificated specie value at the time he was taken in the year
1781--$1,500.

[80] Up to this time and afterwards, until the year 1798, there was no
Naval Department, or Secretary of the Navy, and the marine, as well as
the land force, was under the charge of the Secretary of War--which
accounts for the appropriations of the two branches of the service
appearing in the same bill.

[81] The whole sum appropriated for the Military and Naval
Establishments of the year, was, $1,318,873--the strength of the army
being 3000 men, and the debate is given as an instance of the closeness
with which appropriations were scrutinized in the early ages of the
Government, and also as showing the expense of maintaining troops in the
north-west--then as far off (time and cost considered) as our Pacific
possessions now are.






End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Abridgment of the Debates of Congress,
from 1789 to 1856, Vol. I (of 16), by Thomas Hart Benton

*** 