Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856, Vol. 2 (of 16) (part 4 of 8)

Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856, Vol. 2 (of 16) (part 4 of 8)

What, then, said Mr. D., are our hopes relative to France? Does any body expect any thing from the terrible generosity of the Great Nation? Can we expect any thing from their justice, or, rather, have we not every thing to expect from their vengeance, if not prepared to meet it? Why do gentlemen tell the House of the danger of irritating France? He thought delicacy of this kind unnecessary, when speaking of a nation which has set at defiance every moral principle, which has taken and is determined to take our vessels, contrary to every principle of right. For himself, he felt no such delicacy; and, therefore, he was in favor of referring the resolutions under consideration. He did not think them so notoriously wrong that they are not fit subjects for deliberation.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS wished to say a few words in reply to the remark which had been made, that members who voted for the reference of resolutions, generally vote for the resolution itself. He believed he could produce twenty instances to the contrary, where references had been made, and the measures themselves afterwards have been disagreed to. He should give his vote in favor of the committal, because he wished to see the principles of these resolutions detailed; but he by no means pledged himself to vote for the passage of the bill.

The gentleman from Kentucky had spoken of two parties in this country, but that the decision upon a resolution of this morning proved that there is now a third party. He supposed the gentleman who had made the motion alluded to would have given some reasons why it ought to be agreed to; but not having done that, he voted against it.

[The SPEAKER reminded Mr. W. of the question.]

He then observed in reply to the remark of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. R. WILLIAMS) with respect to treaties, that it was clear from the writers on the laws of nations, that when one nation breaks a treaty, it is no longer obligatory on the other party. But treaties are nowadays done away, and power substituted in their place.

According to the opinion which gentlemen had themselves expressed, Congress had already agreed to form different measures, which would involve the country in war. If the present bill was passed (and he doubted not it would be) it will be the fifth, though the gentleman from Pennsylvania has said that this reference will give the Committee for the Protection of Commerce and the Defence of the Country no new power, and of course, in his opinion, it could make no difference whether these resolutions are referred or not.

The yeas and nays were taken, and the question was negatived--42 to 41, as follows:

YEAS.--John Allen, Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard, David Brooks, Christopher G. Champlin, James Cochran, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, John Dennis, William Edmond, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, William Matthews, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, John Read, John Rutledge, junior, James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams.

NAYS.--George Baer, jun., Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Stephen Bullock, Dempsey Burges, John Chapman, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne, John Clopton, Joshua Coit, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, George Dent, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, Anthony New, Josiah Parker, William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, Robert Williams, and Matthew Locke.

Mr. SITGREAVES moved to postpone the consideration of these resolutions for two weeks, which motion was seconded by Mr. J. PARKER.

Mr. VENABLE inquired whether it was in order to take any further question upon the resolutions, the original motion having been negatived.

The SPEAKER answered, that the question on reference having been disagreed to, the resolutions themselves are now before the House.

Mr. VENABLE said, he had thought it was not in order to enter again upon the consideration of these resolutions, after the question which had been taken upon them. He knew that, to suffer them to lie on the table, could have no effect upon the people of this country, but it might have effect on the conduct of a foreign nation, as, when they heard such resolutions were under consideration, and of course likely to be adopted, they might anticipate their being carried into law, and proceed to seize the property of our citizens in their ports. If this motion were to be negatived, or withdrawn for the present, it might be brought forward again, whenever gentlemen shall think it ought to be adopted. He was as much opposed to the suspension, as he was against the reference of these resolutions.

Mr. MACON hoped the consideration of these resolutions would not be postponed. It was a little curious that a gentleman who was a few minutes ago against a postponement for a week, was now become an advocate for a postponement for a fortnight.

The SPEAKER said, the two questions were different.

Mr. RUTLEDGE rose to make this observation: That members opposed to the former motion for postponement, when a mere question of reference was under consideration, might with propriety be in favor of it when the question comes to be final upon the resolution.

Mr. R. wished gentlemen to use their victory with moderation. He believed the country was big with expectation that spirited measures would be entered into. He did not believe they approved of the half-measures which Congress took. Indeed, the countries which France had overcome, had been overcome chiefly from their taking half-measures while France had taken whole measures. He hoped the postponement would be agreed to; as if the next advices from our Envoys are not more favorable than the last were, he supposed there could be no hesitation in agreeing to have these resolutions carried into effect, and to reject them would have a mischievous effect.

Mr. LYON called for the yeas and nays on the question, but as one fifth of the members present did not rise in favor of it, the question was not carried.

Mr. DAVIS wished the mover to withdraw his resolution.

The question on postponement was put and carried--44 to 40.

Alien Enemies, &c.

Mr. SEWALL, from the Committee for the Protection of Commerce and the Defence of the Country, reported the bill respecting alien enemies, newly modified, which was some days ago recommitted to the committee for that purpose. Also, a bill authorizing merchant vessels to defend themselves against French depredations. This bill authorizes the commanders and crews of merchant vessels to oppose the attack or search of any French armed vessel, and to repel any such search or attack by force, and to capture the vessels making such attack. All such captures to go--one-half to the owner of the vessel making the capture, and the other half to the captors. No armed merchant vessel to be suffered to clear out but such as is owned by citizens of the United States, who, together with the commander, shall enter into bond that she shall not commit any outrage against the vessels of any nation at amity with the United States, and that said vessel shall not, during her voyage, carry any articles contraband of war.

A bill was received from the Senate entitled "An act concerning aliens." This bill goes to authorize the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to order all such aliens as he shall deem dangerous to the United States to depart out of its territory; and if, after such order, any such alien shall be found at large, he shall be imprisoned for three years, and for ever after deprived of the privilege of becoming a citizen of the United States. And if any alien shall return to this country, after he shall have been sent out of it, he shall be imprisoned and kept to hard labor for life. And all commanders of vessels who shall arrive in any of the ports of the United States after the 1st day of July next, shall make a report in writing of all aliens who shall come passengers on board their vessels, giving an account of their age, profession, description of their person, &c., on pain of forfeiting three hundred dollars.

These bills were severally made the order of the day for Monday.

SATURDAY, June 9.

Mr. J. PARKER moved that the bills, with the amendments of the Senate to them, for altering the time of entering stills, and for the more effectual collection of the internal revenues, be referred to a select committee. Agreed to.

The House spent the remainder of the day principally in going through a very long bill to provide for the valuation of lands and dwelling houses, and the enumeration of slaves within the United States, previously to the laying a direct tax on them. The bill was gone through in the Committee of the Whole, without any debate of consequence, except as to what related to filling the blanks intended to contain the amount to be appropriated for carrying the law into execution, the salary of the Commissioners, Assessors, &c. The committee had leave to sit again. No other business of importance was done this day.

MONDAY, June 11.

Mr. HARPER, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported a bill providing for the enumeration of the inhabitants of the United States; which was committed for Wednesday.

WEDNESDAY, June 13.

Direct Taxes.

The bill providing for the valuation of houses and lands and the enumeration of slaves within the United States, was then read the third time, and upon the question being put "Shall this bill pass?"

Mr. DAVIS said, he was under the necessity of opposing the passage of this bill. No part of the community would contribute more cheerfully, to the extent of their ability, to the support of the General Government, than his constituents; but, from the knowledge he had of their situation; of the scarcity of circulating medium amongst them; and from the want of a market for their surplus produce, he could not give his vote in favor of a tax, which it would be with great difficulty they would be able to pay. The people of Kentucky, he said, had produce of every kind, in abundance, but they want a market for it. The Mississippi had lately promised a medium through which to transport it, but as yet, little advantage has been derived from it; and whenever a war shall take place, it may be expected that they would be deprived of the advantages which the free navigation of that river promises to the Western country.

Mr. D. said, when he came from home he did not think the coin in circulation, in Kentucky, amounted to $10,000; and, since that period, he was informed that money had become still more scarce. If he thought the tax would be paid without great difficulty he would have cheerfully voted for it; but believing the contrary, he was constrained to give his vote against it.

Mr. W. CLAIBORNE said, the people of Tennessee are, in a great degree, similarly situated with those of Kentucky. Every one enjoyed the necessaries of life, but few of them experience those conveniences which flow from wealth. Money is a scarce article amongst them; and when he reflected upon the present situation of things, and the probability there is, that the avenue which was lately opened for the disposal of the surplus produce of the State would soon be closed, he feared his constituents would be illy able to pay this tax. But if, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. MACON) on a former occasion suggested, he should be mistaken in this respect, and that the people of Tennessee are well able to pay the tax, he should rejoice in the event. Fearing the contrary, however, when he heard the people complaining of this grievous burden, he wished to have the consolation of saying, "I did not consent to this law, because I was of opinion that its operation would be particularly oppressive to the Western people."

Mr. GALLATIN observed, it would be extremely difficult to point out any mode of taxation which will not be inconvenient and oppressive, in some degree, for some part of the people to pay; and it must be expected that every mode which can be adopted, will bear more hardly on some parts of the community than on others. With respect to the tax on land, he must agree with the gentleman from Kentucky and Tennessee, that, from there being a less quantity of circulating medium in their States than any other State of the Union, it would probably fall heavier upon their constituents than upon people of the Atlantic States. But there is one circumstance with respect to those States which ought to be taken into consideration, viz: that the tax for this year will be laid according to the old census taken seven or eight years ago; since which time, it is well known that the population of these States has more than doubled. Therefore, the inconvenience of paying this tax will be greatly lessened to these States by that circumstance. In the State of Tennessee, by the old census taken in 1791, there were only 35,000 inhabitants, whereas, by a census taken in that State by themselves, two years ago, the number exceeded 60,000.

Besides, it appeared to him that both the gentlemen assumed a principle by no means ascertained, viz: that the Mississippi will be shortly closed to the Western country. No people could suffer more by such an event than the people whom he himself represented. They stood precisely in the situation of the constituents of those gentlemen; and undoubtedly, if our present difficulties with France should produce a war with Spain, it would be extremely fatal to his constituents as well as theirs. But he knew of no reason for supposing this; and it would be wrong to legislate on a presumption that such will be the case.

In relation to this law, it was not formed, Mr. G. said, altogether to his wish; but it was as nearly so as he could get it, and it was necessary the money should be raised. He had opposed, as long and as forcibly as he was able, most of the measures which made the great expenses of the present session necessary; but a majority having determined that the expense shall be incurred, and that measures shall be taken which will necessarily decrease our present revenue, it has become the duty of every member to provide the means for paying the expense to be incurred, and for supplying the probable deficiencies of former revenues.

If the expense is to be provided for, how is it to be done? It must be either by taxation or by loans. Indeed, it is probable that Congress will be obliged to resort to loans, even during the present session; but certainly it is their duty, as far as they are able, to provide for the public expenses, without going into measures which will increase the public debt. Our choice lies, therefore, between loans and taxation; and however inconvenient it may be to the people to pay taxes, he should certainly resort to taxes rather than loans. And if the money is to be raised by taxes, to what objects can we turn our attention? Congress must have recourse to internal revenue, or an increase of duty on the importation of some of the necessaries of life. Indeed, after turning his attention very seriously to the subject, he could not find how any considerable revenue could be raised, but by means of a direct tax on land and houses, or a tax on salt. He did not think any other could be relied upon; and, between the two, he believed it would be infinitely better, both for the United States and his constituents, to lay a tax on land and houses than on salt. The tax on land and houses will be laid according to the value of the property; and though there is less circulating medium in the back country, which is thinly settled, than in the larger towns, the property in those parts will be estimated at a much lower rate, and of course the people will have a smaller proportion of the tax to pay; and he thought it far preferable to lay a tax which would fall, in a great degree, upon persons according to their wealth, than one which would operate as a poll tax, (as a tax on salt would do,) according to their number.

Mr. DAVIS said, he believed he could prove to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GALLATIN) that his conclusions with respect to the ability of the people of the State of Kentucky to pay this tax, were not altogether correct; and that the number of the people inhabiting the State now, being double what it was when the last census was taken, will afford them no relief. For, if there were $10,000 in circulation in the State, when there were only 30,000 inhabitants, and no more, now there are 150,000--the tax would fall no lighter now than it would have fallen then. How, it might be inquired, does it happen that, though the population is so greatly increased, no increase should have been made in the quantity of circulating specie? It happens thus: Men who emigrate from the Atlantic States to this country, seldom bring much money with them; for, whatever they may have when they set out, it is expended on their journey, or paid for land to a single person when they reach us, so that none of their money comes into general circulation and though the people are able to raise plenty of produce, they are not able to exchange it for money. It is true, the more inhabitants they get, the more the general property of the State is increased, but it did not increase the circulating medium. He did not believe there is now so much money in circulation as there was when the census was taken. There was then an army there, and produce sold for a good price; but since a peace was made with the Indians, money has been constantly draining off from the State, to pay the debts which the merchants of that State had contracted whilst trade was brisk in this and other cities.

Mr. S. SMITH did not think the fears of the gentlemen from Kentucky and Tennessee would be realized. It is no doubt true that the quantity of circulating specie in Kentucky had diminished since the peace with the Indians; but it is also true that the spring trade this year from Kentucky by the Mississippi has been both great and profitable. But gentlemen suppose, if we have a war with France, we shall also be at war with Spain, and our intercourse by that river will be cut off. But the interest of Spain will be against this; for in case of war, there will be great difficulty in getting flour to the Havana from the Atlantic ports, as our West India trade will be cut off, and they will have to depend upon a supply by the Mississippi. Besides, if produce be so much cheaper in the Western country than in the Atlantic States, as it has been stated to be, it will become the interest of neutrals in the Atlantic cities, to make remittances by produce from that country to the Havana. And if Spain should be drawn into the war, there would be other modes of the people of those States disposing of their produce. He did not think, therefore, gentlemen from that country need be so much alarmed as they appeared to be.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS had always been opposed to every system of direct taxes; but as a majority of the House had agreed to call forth the resources of the country by this means, he must give his vote for this bill. He was astonished to find the gentlemen from Kentucky and Tennessee opposing this bill, when so much of the money of the General Government had been expended in that country. They must acknowledge their States have had their portion of specie from the Treasury of the United States. An act had indeed been passed during the present session for paying a company of militia for a certain expedition in Tennessee, which amounted to nearly one fourth of the whole sum required from that State. He believed some of the troops of the United States are also now there, and likely to continue, so that they are constantly receiving supplies of cash from the Treasury of the United States. Besides, it ought to be considered that this tax will fall upon unimproved, as well as improved land, many of the owners of which, he supposed, lived out of that State, which would reduce the portion of the tax to the State. The district in which he lived would pay more tax than the whole State of Tennessee. He knew the tax would be collected in some places with difficulty, and more so, since the bill had undergone a change which had thrown the tax upon land more than it would otherwise have fallen.

But, whatever difficulty may attend the collection of this tax, when we see the ruinous effects of public debt in other countries, we ought to be cautious how we make extensive loans, and endeavor to draw forth the resources of the country, to meet any of the expenses which we may have to encounter.

Mr. VARNUM should vote against this bill. He had always thought, since the establishment of the present Government, that there would be no necessity for resorting to direct taxes, except in case of our being engaged in war. He believed the measures already taken would not require a direct tax if no further expenses were contemplated. But he now believed a majority of the Government of the United States are determined on war, and he would, on that account, have given his vote for the bill, if the tax was proposed to be laid on just and equal principles. It was his opinion, that every species of property ought to be taxed, as well as houses and land. So far from this being the case, he believed that between one third and one half of the property taxed by the State Legislatures, in their system of direct taxes, would, by the present plan, be excused altogether from tax. Some of the most wealthy people in the Union would, by this means, be untaxed, in a great degree, while persons who hold a small property in houses or land, will bear the burden of it; and not only of this tax, but to any further extent to which the Government may have occasion to carry it.

Mr. T. CLAIBORNE had opposed many of the measures which made this tax necessary; but a majority of Congress having determined upon a certain course of measures, however contrary they may be to his opinion, he should cheerfully submit to them, and vote in favor of this bill.

The people of Virginia, if they must be taxed, wished to be taxed in a direct way, and he doubted not this tax would be paid with alacrity. They always had been, and would continue to be, he had no doubt, prompt in their obedience to the laws of the General Government.

The yeas and nays were then taken upon the passing of the bill; it was passed--69 votes to 19.

Resolved, That the title be, "An act to provide for the valuation of lands and dwelling houses, and the enumeration of slaves, within the United States."

THURSDAY, June 21.

Relations with France.

In the course of the sitting, the following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:

While I congratulate you on the arrival of General Marshall, one of our late Envoys Extraordinary to the French Republic, at a place of safety, where he is justly held in honor, I think it my duty to communicate to you a letter received by him from Mr. Gerry, the only one of the three who has not received his congé. This letter, together with another from the Minister of Foreign Relations to him, of the third of April, and his answer of the fourth, will show the situation in which he remains, his intentions and prospects.

I presume that, before this time, he has received fresh instructions, (a copy of which accompanies this message,) to consent to no loan, and therefore the negotiation may be considered as at an end.

I will never send another Minister to France, without assurances that he will be received, respected, and honored, as the representative of a great, free, powerful, and independent nation.

JOHN ADAMS.

UNITED STATES, June 21, 1798.

PARIS, April 16, 1798.

MY DEAR SIR: This, I expect, you will receive by my colleague, General Marshall, who carries with him the last letter of Mr. Talleyrand to the American Envoys, and their answer. On the day when we sent the answer, I received a letter from the Minister, a copy of which and my answer is enclosed. I have not sent these to the Secretary of State, because I have not time to prepare a letter to accompany them. Indeed, I expected my passport with my colleagues, but am informed the Directory will not consent to my leaving France; and to bring on an immediate rupture, by adopting this measure contrary to their wishes, would be, in my mind, unwarrantable.

The object of Mr. Talleyrand, you will perceive, was to resume our reciprocal communications, and again to discuss the subject of a loan. I thought it best, in my answer, not merely to object to this, but to every measure, that could have a tendency to draw me into a negotiation. I accepted of this mission, my dear sir, to support your Administration, and have brought myself into a predicament,[36] which you must assist me to extricate myself from, by appointing some others to supply the places of myself and colleagues, if a further progress in this business should be found practicable.

I have only a moment to add my best respects to your lady, and my assurance of the most sincere and respectful attachment. My dear sir, yours, sincerely,

E. GERRY.

The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

[TRANSLATION.]

PARIS, the 4th Germinal, 6th year of the French Republic, one and indivisible, April 3, 1798.

The Minister of Foreign Relations to Mr. Gerry, Envoy Extraordinary of the United States of America to the French Republic.

I suppose, sir, that Messrs. Pinckney and Marshall have thought it useful and proper, in consequence of the intimations given in the end of my note of the 28th Ventose last, and the obstacles which their known opinions have interposed to the desired reconciliation, to quit the territory of the Republic; on this supposition, I have the honor to point out to you the 5th or the 7th of this decade, to resume our reciprocal communications upon the interests of the French Republic and the United States of America.

Receive, I pray you, the assurances of my perfect consideration.

CH. MAU. TALLEYRAND.

MONDAY, June 25.

Alien Enemies.

On motion of Mr. S. SMITH, the House went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill respecting alien enemies. The Chairman stated, that when this bill was formerly under consideration, a motion was made to strike out the first section, which was negatived. He proceeded to read the second.

Mr. OTIS hoped the committee would rise. He made this motion with a view of moving, in the House, a postponement of the consideration of this bill until the next session of Congress. He did not know that there was any immediate necessity for it, the PRESIDENT having sufficient power over aliens by the bill already passed.

Mr. GALLATIN said, he did not expect a motion of this kind. If any bill respecting aliens was necessary, it was certainly a bill of this kind against alien enemies; but a bill having been passed against aliens generally, the gentleman from Massachusetts appears now to be willing to pass by the bill against alien enemies. This gives a new coloring to the business, and it seems as if gentlemen were more desirous of guarding against alien friends than alien enemies. It is true, if this bill is not passed, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES will have the power of removing from the country all those aliens whom he may think it necessary and proper to be removed, whether they are alien enemies or alien friends. But, if alien enemies are really dangerous, it cannot be supposed that the PRESIDENT can remove them all. This bill, therefore, provides in what manner they may be laid under certain restraints by way of security.

Mr. OTIS interrupted Mr. G. to say he would withdraw his motion. He made it, because he expected the bill would have been objected to by the gentleman from Pennsylvania and his friends. Since they were agreeable to pass it, he had no objection to it.

The committee rose and reported the bill, and it was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.

THURSDAY, July 5.

Punishment of Crime.

SEDITION.

A bill was received from the Senate in addition to the act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, which was read the first time.

[This bill provides, that if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measures of the Government of the United States, or to impede the operation of any law, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding an office under the Government from exercising his trust. And if any person shall, by writing, printing, or speaking, threaten such officer with any damage to his character, person, or estate, or shall counsel, advise, or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, &c., whether such attempt shall have the desired effect, or not, he shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and punished by a fine, on conviction, not exceeding $5,000, and by imprisonment not less than six months, nor exceeding five years. And if any person shall, by any libellous or scandalous writing, printing, publishing, or speaking, traduce or defame the Legislature of the United States, by seditious or inflammatory declarations or expressions, with intent to create a belief in the citizens thereof, that the said Legislature in enacting any law, was induced thereto by motives hostile to the constitution, or liberties and happiness of the people thereof; or shall in manner aforesaid, traduce or defame the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, or any Court, or Judge thereof, by declarations tending to criminate their motives in any official transaction, the persons so offending, being convicted shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,000 and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.]

Mr. OTIS moved that it be read a second time.

Mr. HARRISON called for the reading of the amendments to the constitution.

The SPEAKER said, the only motion in order, if objections were made to the second reading of the bill, would be to reject the bill.

Mr. LIVINGSTON made that motion.

Mr. ALLEN.--I hope this bill will not be rejected. If ever there was a nation which required a law of this kind, it is this. Let gentlemen look at certain papers printed in this city and elsewhere, and ask themselves whether an unwarrantable and dangerous combination does not exist to overturn and ruin the Government by publishing the most shameless falsehoods against the Representatives of the people of all denominations, that they are hostile to free Governments and genuine liberty, and of course to the welfare of this country; that they ought, therefore, to be displaced, and that the people ought to raise an insurrection against the Government.

In the Aurora, of the 28th of June last, we see this paragraph: "It is a curious fact, America is making war with France for not treating, at the very moment the Minister for Foreign Affairs fixed upon the very day for opening a negotiation with Mr. GERRY. What think you of this, Americans!"

Such paragraphs need but little comment. The public agents are charged with crimes, for which, if true, they ought to be hung. The intention here is to persuade the people that peace with France is in our power; nay, that she is sincerely desirous of it, on proper terms, but that we reject her offers, and proceed to plunge our country into a destructive war.

This combination against our peace is extensive; it embraces characters whose stations demand a different course. Is this House free from it? Recollect what a few days ago fell from the very gentleman (Mr. LIVINGSTON) who now so boldly and violently calls on us to reject this bill at the instant of its coming before us, without suffering it to be read a second time. The gentleman proposed a resolution requesting the PRESIDENT to instruct Mr. Gerry to conclude a treaty with the French Government; and declared that "he believed a negotiation might be opened, and that it was probable a treaty might be concluded which it would be honorable to the United States to accept. He did not wish to frustrate so happy an event by any punctilio, because they had refused to treat with three Envoys, but were willing to treat with one." This is in the very spirit of the malicious paragraph I just now read. It is pursuing the same systematic course of operations. The gentleman also said, (what has not been published, however,) that "the commission of the Envoys being joint and several, Mr. Gerry had unquestionably ample powers to treat alone." Here are circumstances of what I call a combination against the Government, in attempts to persuade the people of certain facts, which a majority of this House, at least, and of the people at large, I believe, know to be unfounded. Who can say that Mr. Gerry has power to treat alone, or that the French Government is willing to treat with him on fair and honorable terms? Gentlemen do not believe either, let them say what they will. Does such a commission empower one to exercise the functions of the whole in opposition to the opinions of his colleagues? It would produce the most inextricable confusion. The severalty of the powers is well known always to be a provision against such accidents as may prevent or disable a part of the Commissioners from acting. I mention these things to show what false ideas gentlemen endeavor to impress the public mind with on this subject.

The gentleman (Mr. LIVINGSTON) makes his proclamation of war on the Government in the House on Monday, and this infamous printer (Bache) follows it up with the tocsin of insurrection on Tuesday. While this bill was under consideration in the Senate, an attempt is made to render it odious among the people. "Is there any alternative," says this printer, "between an abandonment of the constitution and resistance?" He declares what is unconstitutional, and then invites the people to "resistance." This is an awful, horrible example of "the liberty of opinion and freedom of the press." Can gentlemen hear these things and lie quietly on their pillows? Are we to see all these acts practised against the repose of our country, and remain passive? Are we bound hand and foot that we must be witnesses of these deadly thrusts at our liberty? Are we to be the unresisting spectators of these exertions to destroy all that we hold dear? Are these approaches to revolution and Jacobinic domination, to be observed with the eye of meek submission? No, sir, they are indeed terrible; they are calculated to freeze the very blood in our veins. Such liberty of the press and of opinion is calculated to destroy all confidence between man and man; it leads to a dissolution of every bond of union; it cuts asunder every ligament that unites man to his family, man to his neighbor, man to society, and to Government. God deliver us from such liberty, the liberty of vomiting on the public floods of falsehood and hatred to every thing sacred, human, and divine! If any gentleman doubts the effects of such a liberty, let me direct his attention across the water; it has there made slaves of thirty millions of men.

At the commencement of the Revolution in France those loud and enthusiastic advocates for liberty and equality took special care to occupy and command all the presses in the nation; they well knew the powerful influence to be obtained on the public mind by that engine; its operations are on the poor, the ignorant, the passionate, and the vicious; over all these classes of men the freedom of the press shed its baneful effects, and they all became the tools of faction and ambition, and the virtuous, the pacific, and the rich, were their victims. The Jacobins of our country, too, sir, are determined to preserve in their hands the same weapon; it is our business to wrest it from them. Hence this motion so suddenly made, and so violently supported by the mover, to reject this bill without even suffering it to have a second reading; hence this alarm for the safety of "the freedom of speech and of the press."

Mr. HARPER said, if, in voting against the rejection of this bill, his vote should be considered as giving his assent to all its provisions, it would be misunderstood. He thought it right and necessary to make a law on the subject; but not exactly such a law as the present, his particular objections to which he should make known when the subject was fully before him. He should vote against a rejection of the bill, because to vote for it, would be to declare that no law ought to be passed to restrict seditious writing and speaking, which was not his opinion.

He had often heard in this place, and elsewhere, harangues on the liberty of the press, as if it were to swallow up all other liberties; as if all law and reason, and every right, human and divine, was to fall prostrate before the liberty of the press; whereas, the true meaning of it is no more than that a man shall be at liberty to print what he pleases, provided he does not offend against the laws, and not that no law shall be passed to regulate this liberty of the press. He admitted that a law which should say a man shall not slander his neighbor would be unnecessary; but it is perfectly within the constitution to say, that a man shall not do this, or the other, which shall be injurious to the well-being of society; in the same way that Congress had a right to make laws to restrain the personal liberty of man, when that liberty is abused by acts of violence on his neighbor.

Mr. H. knew the liberty of the press had been carried to a very considerable extent in this country. He had frequently seen private character vilely calumniated; he had himself come in for a share of abuse, but he had always despised the base calumniators, believing that a man's propriety of conduct would always be sufficient to shield him against these slanders. When he saw the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and the Government of the Union defamed, he still despised them, and he believed also that the people were not affected by them, because he saw they did not rise in insurrection against the Government; and if they had not believed that all the things which were said respecting the Government were vile falsehoods, he should have thought the people the most wretched fools, had they not risen against it.

Mr. NICHOLAS was sorry this motion had been made, because it prevents members from going into the modification of the bill, which he was convinced would completely exemplify the folly of the principle; but until gentlemen saw what form the bill was finally to take, it was impossible to speak with precision on its merits; because if the declarations of the gentlemen from Connecticut and South Carolina were attended to, it would be found they are most afraid of the speeches and letters of gentlemen in this House. They acknowledge, however, they cannot prevent members from speaking what they please here. What, then, is their aim? Do they mean to prevent the publication of their sentiments to their constituents and to the world? If this was not their intention, he could not tell what it was.

There was one general view of this subject, which Mr. N. took to be the most momentous that this country ever saw. He was ready to go with gentlemen into measures for affording a liberal support to the war, which it appears must be gone into; but he was not ready to create a domestic tyranny. The people of this country are competent judges of their own interests, and he was desirous that the press should remain perfectly free to give them every information relative to them; and to restrict it, would be to create a suspicion that there is something in our measures which ought to be kept from the light. It was striking at the root of free republican Government, to restrict the use of speaking and writing. He wished, however, to see the bill put into such a shape as the friends of it themselves might approve.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said, after receiving the chastisement of the gentleman from Connecticut on one cheek, he, like a good Christian, had turned the other to the gentleman from South Carolina, and received the stripes of both. He expressed his acknowledgments to these gentlemen, however, if not for their chastisement, for the insight which they had given the House into this bill. They have said, its design is not only to restrict the liberty of the press, which is secured by the constitution, but the liberty of speech on this floor. The gentleman from South Carolina did not say explicitly that he wished this; but he said he was regardless of what was said in the public papers, either of private or personal slander, or of a slander on the Government, until he heard a certain speech delivered in this House; and though he said he did not intend to restrict the liberty of speech in this House, he must have had something of the kind in view. [Mr. HARPER said it was not his intention to restrict the freedom of speech on that floor, but the consequences of it out of doors.] Then, said Mr. L., he will either restrict the members from speaking, or, in some way, prevent the people from knowing what has been said. How is this to be done? By shackling newspapers, and preventing that free communication of sentiment which has heretofore been expressed on public topics.

The gentleman from Connecticut had been pleased to read a quotation from some observations which he had made on a former occasion, which that gentleman thought highly blamable. Mr. L. said, what he had read he avowed to be his sentiments. He avowed them with pride, and he trusted he should always avow them with pride. Nor could he see how acts made contrary to the constitution could be binding upon the people; unless gentlemen say Congress may act in contravention to the constitution. [Mr. OTIS asked who were to be the judges?] Mr. L. answered, the people of the United States. We, said he, are their servants, when we exceed our powers, we become their tyrants!

This is one object of complaint; the other is against newspaper publications. The gentleman from South Carolina has said, that provided the law is clear and well defined, and the trial by jury is preserved, he knew of no law which could infringe the liberty of the press. If this be true, Congress might restrict all printing at once. We have, said he, nothing to do but to make the law precise, and then we may forbid a newspaper to be printed, and make it death for any man to attempt it!

If this be the extent to which this bill goes, it is not only an abridgment of the liberty of the press, which the constitution has said shall not be abridged; but it is a total annihilation of the press. Were he then to withdraw his motion, he should consider himself guilty of treason; by his consent, so unconstitutional a measure should not progress an inch. However unsuccessful he might be, he would oppose it in every stage.

Mr. OTIS supposed the opposition to this bill arose chiefly from prejudice, as gentlemen could not be so well acquainted with the bill from hearing it once read, as to say there are no parts of it which ought to become law. He had not nicely examined the merits of this bill, but he heard that it contained several important provisions, and he should certainly be opposed to a rejection of it without a perusal. To vote for such a motion, would be to say, we will not examine the bill; and yet he believed there was nothing in it contrary to the common law of the several States of the Union.

Mr. MACON had no doubt on his mind that this bill was in direct opposition to the constitution; and that if a law like this was passed, to abridge the liberty of the press, Congress would have the same right to pass a law making an establishment of religion, or to prohibit its free exercise, as all are contained in the same clause of the constitution; and, if it be violated in one respect, it may as well be violated in others. Several laws had been passed which he thought violated the spirit, but none before this which directly violated the letter of the constitution; and, if this bill was passed, he should hardly think it worth while in future to allege against any measure that it is in direct contradiction to the constitution.

Laws of restraint, like this, Mr. M. said, always operate in a contrary direction from that which they were intended to take. The people suspect something is not right, when free discussion is feared by government. They know that truth is not afraid of investigation.

If, said Mr. M., the people are so dissatisfied with Government as some gentlemen would have it believed, but which he did not credit, by passing a law like the present you will force them to combine together; they will establish corresponding societies throughout the Union, and communications will be made in secret, instead of publicly, as had been the case in other countries. He believed the people might be as safely trusted with free discussion, as they whom they have chosen to do their business.

It was a most extraordinary thing, Mr. M. said, that at a time like this, when some gentlemen say we are at war, and when all believe we must have war, that Congress are about to pass a law which will produce more uneasiness, more irritation, than any act which ever passed the Legislature of the Union.

No gentleman, in support of the bill, has gone into the constitutional question; no one has shown what part of the constitution will authorize the passage of a law like this. He believed none such could be adduced.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. OTIS) has said, this bill is conformable to the common law. He knew persons might be prosecuted for a libel under the State Governments; but if this power exists in full force at present, what necessity can there be for this bill?

Mr. MCDOWELL was in hopes that when the third article of the amendments to the constitution had been read, that the unconstitutionality of this bill would have been so evident, that it would have been rejected without debate.

Mr. McD. was sorry that the gentleman from Connecticut should have thought it necessary to have taken up so much of the time of the House by reading paragraphs from newspapers, which every body had seen; but it might have been expected after the gentleman had taken so much pains to vilify and abuse the printer of one of the papers of this city, a citizen of respectable character and connections, that he should have taken at least some notice of another, called the British printer, who boasts of being a subject of King George, and who is generally supposed to be in the pay of the British Minister--whose paper contains more libels and lies than any other in the United States, and who, notwithstanding, is countenanced by characters whom he was sorry to see have any connection with such a man; whose constant daily business it is to abuse, and render ridiculous, every member of our Government who does not in every thing fall in with the British views.

As to what had been said with respect to the circular and other letters of members which have been published, he had seen some of them and heard of others. It was not any thing which the gentleman from South Carolina could say, which would prevent him from speaking and writing his sentiments freely. The gentleman from South Carolina said he had seen a letter in the papers the signature of which he knew. He should be glad to know where he saw the signature to know it? He had seen a letter in Fenno's paper, signed McDowell, followed by some violent strictures on the letter, and on the author. The letter he owned to be his, but the insinuations contained in the observations upon it were as false as they were malicious.

Mr. HARPER said, he knew the gentleman wrote the letter in question; but he would assure him he did not see it under seal, nor did he break the seal, or write the strictures upon it.

Mr. GALLATIN wished that the bill had been committed before any debate had taken place, as in its present stage, any observations on details susceptible of amendment would be out of order; and he must now confine himself to the general question "Does the situation of the country, at this time, require that any law of this kind should pass? Do there exist such new and alarming symptoms of sedition, as render it necessary to adopt, in addition to the existing laws, any extraordinary measure for the purpose of suppressing unlawful combinations, and of restricting the freedom of speech and of the press?" For such were the objects of the bill, whatever modifications it might hereafter receive.

The manner in which the principle of the bill had been supported, was perhaps more extraordinary still than the bill itself. The gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. ALLEN,) in order to prove the existence of a combination against the constitution and government, he communicated to the House--what? a number of newspaper paragraphs; and even most of those were such as would not be punishable by the bill as it now stands. The object of that gentleman in wishing a bill of this nature to pass, extended far beyond the intention of the Senate who had sent down this bill; far beyond, he would venture to say, the idea of any other member upon this floor, besides himself. His idea was to punish men for stating facts which he happened to disbelieve, or for enacting and avowing opinions, not criminal, but perhaps erroneous. Thus one of the paragraphs most obnoxious to the gentleman from Connecticut, was that in which the writer expresses his belief that Mr. Gerry may yet make a treaty with the French Government, his powers being sufficient for that purpose. [Mr. ALLEN said, his charge was against persons making this assertion, when they knew it to be unfounded.] Mr. G. said, he did not understand the gentleman's explanation. He now says that the act he condemns is the assertion of a fact, which may be true, but which the writer himself disbelieves; and thus he wished to punish such men as, according to his caprice, he may suppose guilty of expressing opinions not consonant with their own sentiments. For by what rule of evidence could he discover and know what was really the writer's belief? But, to return, was there any thing criminal in that paragraph? It asserted that Mr. Gerry had powers sufficient to treat. The gentleman from Connecticut denies this to be true. Mr. G. would aver that it was an undeniable fact, as appears evidently from the documents now on the table. They showed that the powers given to the Envoys were joint and several. And, if Mr. Gerry had powers to treat, how could it be criminal to say that he might treat? Or supposing the writer of the paragraph to have said, that he believed Mr. Gerry would treat, could the opinion be charged with any thing but being erroneous? When a paragraph of this nature was held out as criminal, what writings, what opinions could escape the severity of the intended law, which did not coincide with the opinions, and which might counteract the secret views of a prevailing party?

The gentleman from Connecticut had also quoted an extract of a letter said to be written by a member of Congress from Virginia, and published in last Saturday's Aurora. The style and composition of that letter did the highest honor to its writer. It contained more information and more sense, and gave more proofs of a sound understanding and strong mind, than ever the gentleman from Connecticut had displayed, or could display on this floor. So far he would venture to say, although he had given but a cursory reading to the letter, and he was altogether at a loss to know what was criminal in it, though he might easily see why it was obnoxious. Was it erroneous or criminal to say that debts and taxes were the ruinous consequences of war? Or that some members in both Houses of Congress uniformly voted in favor of an extension of the powers of the Executive, and of every proposed expenditure of money? Was it not true? Gentlemen of that description avow that, in their opinion, the Executive is the weakest branch of government; and they act upon the ostensible principle that, on that account, its influence and powers must be increased. Look at the laws passed during this session. Look at the alien bill, at the provisional army bill, look at the prodigious influence acquired by so many new officers, and then deny that the powers of the Executive have not been greatly increased. As to the increased rate of expenditure, and the propensity of these gentlemen to vote money, they would not themselves deny it. Was it criminal to say that the Executive is supported by a party? when gentlemen declared that it must be supported by a party. When the doctrine had been avowed on this floor that men of a certain political opinion, alone ought to be appointed to offices; and when the Executive had now adopted and carried into practice that doctrine in its fullest extent?

Mr. DANA did not propose to enter into any controversy respecting the honor which some gentlemen seemed disposed to arrogate to themselves, on account of certain sentiments which they have avowed. If any members of that House were ambitious of being distinguished as heralds of calumny and apostles of insurrection, it might serve to show how incorrect were their ideas of what is truly honorable.

The bill has two objects in view--it proposed to punish conspiracies and calumnies against the Government. Against this bill, the freedom of speech and of the press has been insisted on; and the bill has been condemned as violating one of the articles adopted as amendments to the constitution. Why is the gentleman from Pennsylvania so very anxious on the subject? Or is it abridged by a law to restrain lying? Could the framers of the constitution intend to guarantee, as a sacred principle, the liberty of lying against the Government? What do gentlemen understand by "the freedom of speech and of the press?" Is it a license to injure others or the Government, by calumnies, with impunity?

Let it be remembered, that the uttering of malicious falsehoods, to the injury of the Government, is the offence which it is now intended to restrain; for, if what is uttered can be proved true, it will not, according to this bill, be punished as libellous. What, then, is the rational, the honest, the constitutional idea of freedom of language or of conduct? Can it be any thing more than the right of uttering and doing what is not injurious to others? This limitation of doing no injury to the rights of others, undoubtedly belongs to the true character of real liberty. Indeed, can it, in the nature of things, be one of the rights of freemen to do injury? Let gentlemen consult any writer of established reputation on this subject; let them examine the constitution of their own favorite "terrible" Republic! they will not find the ideas of liberty extended to that indefinite latitude which they advocate on this floor.

However, if there are gentlemen who seriously and conscientiously believe that it would be violating the constitution to restrain abuses of the press, by punishing the guilty; if there are gentlemen who believe that malicious calumnies against the Government ought to be uttered and published with impunity, such gentlemen ought certainly not to consent to act further upon this subject. Mr. D. was of a different opinion. He believed that the editor of a newspaper, like the writer of a public history, in the execution of his office, should dare to utter what is true, and dread to utter any thing that is false. Considering, therefore, that the liberty of lying, the privilege of vice, is what is truly intended to be corrected by this bill, how is it possible that gentlemen should appear so anxious to excite clamor against it? For himself, Mr. D. wanted not the liberty of calumny or of conspiracy, and was in favor of the principle of the bill.

The question on rejecting the bill, was taken by yeas and nays--yeas 36, nays 47, as follows:

YEAS.--David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Dempsey Burges, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne, John Clopton, John Dawson, John Fowler, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jun., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.

NAYS.--John Allen, George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, Jas. A. Bayard, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher G. Champlin, John Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, George Dent, William Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, William Matthews, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, John Read, John Rutledge, jr., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thos. Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Peleg Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, and Peleg Wadsworth.

FRIDAY, July 6.

Abrogation of Treaty with France.

Mr. SEWALL called up the bill from the Senate, declaring the treaty between France and the United States void, and of no effect.

Mr. ALLEN wished the resolution that he laid upon the table yesterday, respecting the condition and relation of this country with respect to France, first to be taken up.

Mr. SITGREAVES thought it would be proper first to go into a consideration of this resolution. We are, said he, now in a state of war. The House know that, by the distribution of powers under this Government, it is only competent for Congress to declare the country in war; therefore, until that declaration is made by this department, the Executive and Judiciary cannot act in the same way as if the country was at war. In other countries, the Executive Department can create war; but here it cannot. If it shall be considered expedient to declare war in consequence of the repeated aggressions and injuries we have received from the French Republic, and the hostility urged against us, and the necessity there exists of making defence against them, there can be no occasion for declaring the treaties void; because, if war is declared, it is the major proposition, and, of course, includes all the minor propositions. If discussed at all, therefore, it would be proper to discuss the major proposition first. He supposed it was a subject on which the minds of members were made up. Whether, therefore, the vote is affirmative or negative, it would be best to declare, in the first instance, the state of the country.

Mr. NICHOLAS hoped, if we are to come to this question of war at all, it might be so taken up as to occupy the least time of the Legislature. The question of setting aside the treaties is evidently included in the other; he hoped, therefore, the proposition of the gentleman from Connecticut, if to be taken up at all, would have a preference.

Mr. SEWALL said, if the question of annulling the treaties with France was included in the resolution of the gentleman from Connecticut, he should think it ought first to be taken up; but he did not think this was the case. The gentleman from Connecticut wishes a committee to state what is our relation with respect to the French Republic. How could we say what our relation is, except we determine what is our relation with respect to the treaties subsisting between the two countries? He took the two things to be perfectly distinct. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SITGREAVES) seems to conceive that the question whether it will be proper to make a declaration of war against France, is included in this resolution, as he could not be so anxious for the declaration of an historical fact, which, in his opinion, the report on this resolution could only be; for gentlemen could not consider that the constitutional power, placed in Congress to declare war, meant no more than a mere report, whether or not the country is in war. A number of acts have been done, which are indicative of war, and if a report was made as to our situation with the French Republic, it must be reckoned at least a state of hostility. But this would be doing nothing. If it was the intention of any gentleman to propose a declaration of war, such a motion would supersede the necessity of taking up the bill from the Senate; but, as the resolution of the gentleman from Connecticut did by no means go to this, he hoped the bill he had mentioned would be first considered. If he were to give an opinion on the subject, it would be clearly against declaring war at present. As to the Judicial Courts, they would find no difficulty in acting according to the situation of things, without troubling themselves with the nice distinctions which gentlemen seemed inclined to make between a state of war, and a state of hostility.

Mr. GALLATIN wished to know, if the House were to go into a Committee of the Whole on the bill from the Senate, whether a declaration of war might not be moved as an amendment to the bill. To his mind, there seemed to be but little difference between saying the treaties are at an end, and declaring war. If such a motion could be received, it would be desirable to know the will of the House upon it. The shortest way of coming at this question would be the best. He wished the SPEAKER to say whether he thought such a motion would be in order.

[No answer was given to the inquiry.]

Mr. ALLEN considered it best to act always with frankness. He wished, by his resolution, that a committee should inquire into, and declare to the House, and to the country, the true state of our situation with respect to France; and if they should report any measures which should supersede the bill from the Senate, it would be the most fair and open way of getting at the business.

The question on taking up the bill from the Senate was put, and negatived--41 to 35.

Mr. ALLEN then called up his resolution. It had been said that our negotiation with France is yet carrying on, which he denied, and he wished this resolution to go to a numerous committee to report as to that fact, and as to our situation generally with respect to France.

Mr. HARRISON hoped the House would go into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, in order to inquire into what is the state of the country? Those gentlemen who wish war, and are determined to have it, ought to speak out. The world should understand them, and the people ought not to be deceived. He hoped gentlemen would bring forward their declaration of war at once. He had always been, and should now be, opposed to war, but he wanted to put his negative upon it.

Mr. HARPER had no objection to go into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, if the gentleman from Virginia had any motion to make, when the House got into that situation.

Mr. HARTLEY hoped the resolution before the House would be referred to a select committee, that the House might have a report upon it. He wondered that gentlemen who were against going to war, should wish to press the question of a declaration of it upon the House.

Mr. DANA observed that, from what had been now said upon the resolution, he saw no necessity for voting upon it at all.

Mr. OTIS spoke in favor of referring the resolution to a select committee, and saw no reason why the House should go into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. HARRISON said, every one would know he had no proposition to bring forward with respect to war; he wished to remain at peace; but he wished his constituents and the country at large to be informed as to what was to be the state of the country. Seeing, however, that no member is ready to make the declaration which had been so often spoken of, he should withdraw his motion for going into a Committee of the Whole.

Mr. SITGREAVES observed, with respect to the allusions of the gentleman last up, as to being prepared for a declaration of war, he confessed he felt no hesitation in saying, that he thought this declaration ought to be made in some form or other. He believed it was the duty of the Legislature to make it. He had thought so for some time; but certain considerations with respect to our Envoys, had prevented its being proposed. Such, he said, was his individual opinion; but he owned he had some scruples about bringing it forward, unless he should be assured, from a comparison of the opinions of gentlemen, such a proposition would receive a respectable and firm support. If he supposed this would be the case, he would make the motion at this moment; and it was because the motion of the gentleman from Connecticut looked towards a declaration, that he was in favor of it.

Mr. S. said he had heard it said for months past, by gentlemen of different opinions, that the aggressions of France against this country were lawful cause of war, and all have admitted that it has become a single question of expediency whether we shall declare war, or not. It was said no consideration but that of interest, would prevent its being done, and he did not believe there was any such. We have, said he, for a long time suffered all the mischiefs that can be inflicted upon us in a state of war, and, therefore, the single question is now, whether we will avail ourselves of the advantages which might be derived from declaring war; for, however trifling gentlemen may deem the distinction which he made between a state of hostility and war, he looked upon that distinction as real and material. In case of an invasion taking place before a declaration of war has been made, certain limited authorities are placed in the PRESIDENT, and in the Executives of the several States, with respect to the armed force; but, if a declaration of war has previously taken place, the direction of that force is placed wholly in the hands of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. If this declaration should be made, he should still deem it a war of defence on our part. Mr. S. said he rose to declare his opinion on this point, and to say he was in favor of the motion of the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. NICHOLAS supposed there could have been no doubt as to the intentions of the gentleman from Connecticut in bringing forward this resolution, though he expected it would have been found necessary to have made it more explicit. If the object was, as he had no doubt it was, to procure a proposition for a declaration of war, he hoped the resolution would be so amended as to embrace that object. At present, it was quite an unmeaning thing.

Mr. GALLATIN said, if he understood the resolution, it proposed the appointment of a committee, to declare what is the state of things between this country and France. He could not see with what propriety Congress could declare a statement of facts by a legislative act. It would be a little curious to pass a law to declare Mr. Gerry has no authority to treat with the French Government; or to declare that this room is sixty feet long, or any other fact. If the committee were to report what was necessary to be done, he could see the use of such a report.

Mr. LYON observed, that though this resolution was not so explicit as gentlemen might wish, yet such as it was, he was desirous it should pass. He wished to know the state of the country. Some say we are at war; others that we are in a state of hostility; others at peace. He wished to see a report on the subject. He had considered the country as in war for some time; if he was mistaken, he was desirous his mistake should be rectified. If we are at war, it would be well to request the PRESIDENT to get us peace as soon as he can.

The question on the resolution was put and negatived, without a division.

On motion of Mr. OTIS, the House went into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, to take into consideration the bill from the Senate declaring our treaties with France void and of no effect. The committee being formed, and the bill having been read,

Mr. LIVINGSTON called for the reading of the treaties.

Mr. GALLATIN thought it would be sufficient to have certain parts of the treaties, which he mentioned, read. Mr. LIVINGSTON consented; but Mr. LYON persisted in the motion for reading the whole. On the question being taken, he only rose in favor of it. The parts of the treaties called for by Mr. G. were read.

Mr. SEWALL said, some doubts might be entertained, perhaps, as to the propriety of this measure. It is certainly a novel doctrine to pass a law declaring a treaty void; but the necessity arose from the peculiar situation of this country. In most countries, it is in the power of the Chief Magistrate to suspend a treaty whenever he thinks proper; here Congress only has that power. We have, said he, during this session, in a variety of cases, suspended the treaties in question, by authorizing measures of hostility against France, contrary to the stipulations contained therein. He believed it would be proper, therefore, to set aside these treaties by legal authority. But he confessed to do this, in the manner proposed by the Senate, would, at least, be inconvenient. He could not conceive that the Senate meant to go so far as this bill goes. We ought not to say the treaties are void and of no effect. They must have effect as historical facts; they must have effect, in our appeal to the world, on the ground of their having been violated, and in our claim upon France on account of those violations. There are also other articles which must have effect in case of war. He alluded to the articles which respect the situation of French citizens in this country, or American citizens in France, after war shall have been declared by either power. Mr. S., therefore, proposed a new form of a bill, more simple and with a much shorter preface, viz: "that, whereas the treaties have been in numerous instances violated, they are no longer to be considered as law within the United States," &c. It also proposed that any claim or restraint, stipulated by the said treaties, shall be abrogated and annulled.

The CHAIRMAN said this motion was not in order, and could not be received.

Mr. NICHOLAS saw no difference between the substitute proposed and the original bill. The gentleman from Massachusetts wished to retain the provision relative to the residence of the citizens of either country, after the declaration of war shall have taken place; but could that gentleman for a moment suppose that he could annul one part of a treaty and preserve other parts? The idea appeared to him a very extraordinary one.

Mr. RUTLEDGE hoped the committee would rise, and that the bill would be referred to a select committee. He believed it would be better to declare a part of the treaties void than the whole, which he thought might with propriety be done.

Mr. NICHOLAS had no objection to the committee's rising; but he could not believe we could take such parts of a treaty as we liked, and declare the rest void.

Mr. DANA believed that the gentleman from Virginia did not rightly apprehend what had been said by the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. D. admitted the impropriety of declaring void and of no effect a legal instrument which was originally valid. In his opinion, this impropriety might be avoided, and the object of the bill attained, by a different phraseology. He believed a proper mode of acting upon this business would be, to declare the stipulations of the French treaties no longer obligatory on the United States. This we may justly do, in consequence of their being disregarded by France.

As to the effect of such a declaration, he acknowledged that it must be regarded as abrogating all those articles of the treaties which are executory, such as stipulate for the future conduct of the parties. Agreeing thus far with the gentleman from Virginia, he would consent most cheerfully that all such articles should be set aside, as they respect both countries. But the declaration would not have any effect on articles which are executed, such as contain cessions or renunciations of territorial claims, and where a corresponding possession has taken place. The operation of these articles is completed, and cannot be reversed by the declaration now proposed.

Mr. D. then moved to amend the enacting clause, by expunging all the words after "That," and substituting "the United States are, of right, freed and exonerated from the stipulations of the treaties heretofore concluded between the United States and France, and that the same shall not henceforth be regarded as legally obligatory on the Government or citizens of the United States."

Mr. OTIS approved of this motion, and, after a few observations by him in favor of it, the question was put and carried upon it without a division.

Mr. O. then moved to strike out the whole of this preamble; which motion being carried,

Mr. DANA proposed that the reasons for passing this bill should be condensed in the preamble, to read as follows: "Whereas, the treaties concluded between the United States and France have been repeatedly violated on the part of the French Government, and the just claims of the United States for reparation of the injuries so committed have been refused; and their attempts to negotiate an amicable adjustment of all complaints between the two nations have been repelled with indignity; and whereas, under the authority of the French Government, there is yet pursued against the United States a system of predatory violence infracting the said treaties, and hostile to the rights of a free and independent nation, therefore," &c.

The question on the preamble was put and carried--41 to 38.

The committee then rose, and the House took up the amendments. On the question being put on agreeing to the new preamble,

Mr. BAYARD said he thought it more in detail than was necessary. He thought it more like a State paper than the preamble of a law. He thought the preamble ought to go no further than to state sufficient ground for the act, which was about to be done; and he took it for granted that whenever a nation violates an essential article of a treaty, it is competent for the other party to declare the treaty no longer binding upon them. He, therefore, moved to strike out all the preamble after saying the treaties have been frequently violated. As to the French having committed depredations upon our commerce, and refused to negotiate with our Commissioners, though these circumstances may be a just cause of war, he did not know whether they were sufficient ground upon which to declare a treaty void.

Mr. KITTERA was against striking out. He could not agree that there could be causes for a declaration of war, which are not also causes for setting aside a treaty. The reverse of this position appeared to him to be true, viz: that there might be causes for declaring a treaty void, which would not be causes of war.

Mr. CRAIK was in favor of the preamble as it stood.

Mr. GORDON hoped the amendment would not prevail. It ought to be considered that if this bill passed into a law, it would be considered as a novel thing. It will be tantamount to a State declaration to annul a treaty, and there ought to be the grounds annexed to it which had led to the measure; and though the gentleman from Delaware is desirous of stating a sufficient cause, he did not think his motion went far enough. The practice of nations is, that when injuries are done, reparation is demanded; and it was necessary, in his opinion, to state that this demand had been made in vain, and that the injuries complained of are still continued.

Mr. S. SMITH hoped the amendment would be adopted. He disliked preambles very much. The reasons given by the gentleman from Delaware in favor of his motion he thought well founded. It would be much better to give one good reason for declaring the treaties no longer binding, than several doubtful ones. In his opinion there were some of this description as the preamble stands at present. He did not know that a reparation for injuries had been refused by France. He had seen nothing like an absolute demand made upon the French Government. The Envoys were empowered to make the demand; but, from their not having been duly received, the demand was never made. If it were made, it is clear it has not been complied with; but we have no evidence of its having been refused to be complied with. On the contrary, we see that on the 3d of April, Talleyrand had fixed a day on which he proposed to treat with Mr. Gerry on the subject of the disputes between the two countries. We have not heard the result of the conference; but it may have happened that Mr. Talleyrand has offered to make complete reparation for the injuries committed on our commerce, and this intelligence may arrive here a fortnight hence, and then a declaration of this sort would not have a good appearance. He thought, therefore, it would be better to strike these words out than to retain them.

Mr. S. presumed it was not yet sedition for him to say that he believed proposals to treat would be made to our Commissioners, independent of any tribute, and such as this country might with honor accept. He hoped, therefore, no difficulty would be placed in the way, by passing the preamble as it now stands.

Mr. DANA was not generally in favor of fixing preambles to laws. Whenever the subject is such that it is obviously competent for the Legislature to act upon it; whenever the act proposed is, from its nature, completely within the usual Legislative powers, and, without any explanation, appears perfectly consistent with national honor and propriety, a preamble is unnecessary. But ought this to be said of the subject under consideration? Whence is it that the United States may abrogate the treaties with France? Is it because the Legislature may, at pleasure, set aside a treaty? If it is proper to do this, without any external cause, a preamble is needless in the present instance. According to his view of the subject, the act was founded on a different principle. France has violated the faith pledged by her treaties with America: this, by the law of nations, puts it within the option of the Legislature to decide, as a question of expediency, whether the United States shall any longer continue to observe their stipulations. It is owing to the perfidy of the French Government that the abrogation of our treaties with that nation has become justifiable and necessary. As an American, he hoped the United States would always regard the faith due to treaties, and that all their acts would, on the face of them, appear consistent with it. In this respect, he wished the conduct of the American Government to exhibit a marked contrast to French perfidy. It is of importance to the fairness of our national character. Therefore it is that the facts should be stated which have led to this measure.

The gentleman from Delaware, in support of the amendment which he has moved, supposes it sufficient to state one cause for setting aside the treaties. He is understood to admit that a sufficient cause should be stated. In this principle, said Mr. D., we are agreed. But the question arises, whether a violation of the treaties on the part of France is, of itself, sufficient for setting them aside? The idea of Mr. D. was, that it would not be sufficient, according to the liberal principles which should be cherished in the United States. A treaty might be violated by the imprudence of some person in authority, or by persons acting without authority; and yet the foreign Government, on proper representations, might be willing to redress the injury. In such case, it would ill become the Government of the injured party immediately to dissolve friendly connections. Why is it now deemed requisite to abrogate the treaties by which this country has been connected with France? It is because France has not only violated them, but has also refused that attention which was due to our representations on the subject, and persists in the violation. On this account, and in order to show that the United States were completely justifiable in taking the measure, he was against the amendment of the gentleman from Delaware, and in favor of retaining the several clauses of the preamble.

A gentleman from Maryland (Mr. SMITH) has declared himself in favor of this amendment, because, in his view, there is no proof that our claim for the injuries committed on our rights, as a neutral nation, have been refused to be adjusted by France. The reason assigned for this opinion is so extraordinary that it may astonish every man acquainted with subjects of this nature. It is, that the French would not receive the Envoys charged with this business, or permit their speaking to them, although they waited for months at the palace-gate of Directorial Arrogance supplicating in vain for an audience. Were the gentleman from Maryland to go himself, or send one of his clerks, to present a demand for a sum justly due to him, if his debtor, instead of discharging or attending to the account, would not consent even to hear him on the subject, but should kick him from the door, or order a servant to do it, would not the gentleman consider such conduct as a refusal to satisfy the demand. He who knows that claims of justice merit the respect of Governments, as well as of individuals, and ought never to be neglected without reasonable cause, must know that evasions, intentional procrastination, and affected delays, are equivalent to a refusal of satisfaction. This is the doctrine of reason, of common sense, of municipal law, and of the law of nations. The facts stated in the preamble, therefore, are strictly true; they are established by the very statement which the gentleman has made to disprove them. And since he has made a question on the subject, it is of additional importance for the Legislature to declare its conviction of their truth.

Mr. CRAIK believed with the gentleman from Connecticut, last up, that from the declaration of his colleague this question was of consequence. He believed gentlemen were now called upon to testify to the truth of this statement, since it had been doubted. The people ought not to be left in doubt on this subject.

Mr. OTIS said, exactly the same effect which had been produced upon the mind of the gentleman last up, was also produced upon his. Before he had heard the arguments of the gentleman from Maryland in its favor, he intended to vote for the motion of the gentleman from Delaware, as being more concise, and as he thought stating sufficient ground for the act about to be passed; but when that gentleman says we have no evidence of reparation for the injuries committed upon our commerce being refused to be made, the abhorrence he felt at the idea of being ranked among members of this opinion would lead him to vote against it. He believed the facts stated in the preamble unquestionably true, and he did not think there could have been a man in the United States who had a doubt on the subject. He believed there could be no doubt that when a sum of money is neglected to be paid, when due, though the debtor may refuse to see any person authorized to make the demand, that it is legally refused to be paid.

If the documents on the table were examined, Mr. O. said it would be found, that so far from Mr. Talleyrand having listened to the claims of our Commissioners, he had expressed his surprise that they should have been made, alleging that the priority of claim was on the part of the French Government. Mr. O. made several other observations, when he concluded by saying, that if any offers of pacification were made by men of the description of those at present in power in the French Directory, he should have no confidence in them: he should think them insidious, and that they originated in their fears, and were intended to effect our ruin.

Mr. HARPER said he would say only a few words in justification of his vote in favor of the present motion. He disliked preambles altogether. He voted against the one from the Senate, and he should be in favor of reducing this; for, if we must have a preamble, he thought the less the better. It is the business of the Legislature, Mr. H. said, to pass laws; if a manifesto is proper to be published on this occasion, it would more probably fall under the Executive Department. It is his business to issue State papers, and he could do it much better than it could be done in this House. He was sorry it should be thought necessary to have any preface at all to the law, as it was departing from a good old rule laid down by Congress.

Mr. S. SMITH was not convinced, by any thing that had been said against this motion, that what he had before stated was ill-founded. It had been asked whether, if he sent three persons to demand a debt, and the debtor ordered them away without seeing them, he should not consider the act as a refusal to pay. He answered, he should. But he would put a case, which he thought more in point. Were he to send three persons to settle an account with a debtor, and he were to send two of them home again, but keep one, and promise to adjust the business with him, he should naturally expect he would do so, and should not think of proceeding to any rigorous measures with him, until he heard the result.

The gentleman from Massachusetts has said that he can never consent to accept of any terms from the present Executive Directory, as he shall consider them insidious, and not to be relied upon. After a two years' war, perhaps, he may be of a different opinion. Mr. S. said he should be as unwilling as any man to accept of any terms from the French Government which would be derogatory to the United States; but if the Directory will engage that all the depredations upon our commerce shall cease, and will offer to treat with us on equitable terms, (which he did not think improbable,) he should be for acceding, most cheerfully, to the proposal.

Mr. GALLATIN said he should vote against the motion to strike out a part of the preamble agreed to in the Committee of the Whole. He was of opinion with gentlemen, that it was better to pass laws in general, without preambles; but this proceeding is altogether of a novel nature. He knew of no precedent of a Legislature repealing a treaty. It is therefore an act of a peculiar kind, and it appeared to him necessary that Congress should justify it by a declaration of their reasons. Nor could he understand the argument of the gentleman from South Carolina, when he said the Executive Department was better calculated for the publishing of a manifesto than the Legislature, or, in other words, could assign the reasons that influenced Congress better than Congress themselves. If, then, a preamble is to be adopted, it ought to contain those reasons which operated in producing the law. He thought this would be more correctly stated by leaving the preamble as it is, than by adopting the amendment.

There was also another reason for preserving the preamble as at present. The French have violated the Treaty of Commerce made with this country; but it would be rather difficult for any gentleman to show that repeated violations have taken place of our Treaty of Alliance with France. The ground of complaint is, that France has violated the Treaty of Commerce between the two countries, and the laws of nations, and not the Treaty of Alliance; and, therefore, a breach of that treaty is not the reason why it is set aside. Besides, if repeated violations of a treaty are sufficient reasons for setting it aside, it could not be forgotten that certain orders had been issued by another country, which are not conformable to our treaty with that power. So, that it is not sufficient to say, that because a treaty has been violated, we will repeal it; but we ought to show to the world that repeated attempts have been made, in vain, to obtain redress.

But the gentleman from Maryland is apprehensive that the statement of the French Government having refused to make reparation for the injuries committed upon our commerce could not be correct, from the possibility of Mr. Gerry having succeeded in making a treaty since the date of our last despatches. He acknowledged there was a bare possibility of the fact being so; but this ought to operate as a reason against passing the bill at all, and not against the preamble.

Mr. EDMOND said, he voted for rejecting the Senate's preamble. It appeared to him that no preamble was necessary. For, if it were necessary to state the reasons which induced the passing of this act, it would be proper to state all the reasons, and to do that would be a work of considerable time; and, upon the facts stated, there might probably be a considerable difference of opinion. If reasons were stated for passing this law, and, at a future day, when an adjustment of differences should take place, the negotiator on the part of the United States were to adduce other reasons for passing this act than are stated in this preamble, it might be stated by the negotiator, on the part of France, why do you muster up complaints now, which you did not think of when the law passed? He therefore thought it would be best to pass the law without a preamble at all.

No question in the laws of nations, Mr. E. said, was more clear, than that, when a treaty is violated by one nation, the other party, who has maintained good faith, may either discharge themselves from the obligations of it, or, if kindly disposed, they may set on foot a negotiation, or they may declare war, without doing either of the other two. He laid it down as a further principle, that where there are several treaties in existence between two countries, and one of them is violated, the injured party may demand satisfaction; and if it be not given, they may declare the whole of the treaties void. He therefore was of opinion that France having violated our treaty with her, we have a right, without assigning any reason for it, to set it aside; and as we have repeatedly applied to them for redress, and they have refused to grant it, we have a right to reject the whole or to declare war, without assigning any reason whatever. However, if we wish to appear fair in the eyes of the world, we may, if we please, assign a reason for our act; but, in this case, he would either give all the reasons which exist, or make them as precise as possible. He should, therefore, vote in favor of striking out the words in question.

The question to strike out was negatived; and the question being taken on the preamble, it was carried--there being 53 votes for it.

The bill was ordered for a third reading this day. It afterwards received its third reading, and was passed--yeas 47, nays 37, as follows:

YEAS.--John Allen, George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, Jas A. Bayard, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher G. Champlin, John Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, George Dent, William Edmond, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, Jas. H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, William Matthews, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, John Read, John Rutledge, jr., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thos. Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Peleg Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, and Peleg Wadsworth.

NAYS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Thos. Blount, Dempsey Burges, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne, John Clopton, John Dawson, Thomas Evans, John Fowler, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.

TUESDAY, July 10.

Punishment of Crimes.

The bill, in addition to the act for punishing crimes against the United States, and for other purposes, was read the third time; when

Mr. SITGREAVES wished the bill to be recommitted. It had been suggested to him that great inconvenience arises in the Federal Courts, from its having been conceived that they have not the power to bind to good behavior, and he was desirous of removing this defect, by adding a section to this bill for the purpose.

Mr. BAYARD thought the gentleman from Pennsylvania had better bring this subject forward by itself, than have this bill recommitted, as it was no way connected with it.

Mr. SITGREAVES consented.

The question was now on the passing of the bill.

Mr. MCDOWELL called for the yeas and nays upon it.

Mr. NICHOLAS rose, he said, to ask an explanation of the principles upon which this bill is founded. He confessed it was strongly impressed upon his mind, that it was not within the powers of the House to act upon this subject. He looked in vain amongst the enumerated powers given to Congress in the constitution, for an authority to pass a law like the present; but he found what he considered as an express prohibition against passing it. He found that, in order to quiet the alarms of the people of the United States with respect to the silence of the constitution as to the liberty of the press, not being perfectly satisfied that the powers not vested in Congress remained with the people, that one of the first acts of this Government was to propose certain amendments to the constitution, to put this matter beyond doubt, which amendments are now become a part of the constitution. It is now expressly declared by that instrument, "that the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;" and, also, "that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

Mr. N. asked whether this bill did not go to the abridgment of the freedom of speech and of the press? If it did not, he would be glad if gentlemen would define wherein the freedom of speech and of the press consists.

Mr. N. wished gentlemen, before they give a final vote on this bill, to consider its effects; and, if they do this, he thought they would consent to stop here. He desired them to reflect on the nature of our Government; that all its officers are elective, and that the people have no other means of examining their conduct but by means of the press, and an unrestrained investigation through them of the conduct of the Government. Indeed, the heart and life of a free Government, is a free press; take away this, and you take away its main support. You might as well say to the people, we, your Representatives, are faithful servants, you need not look into our conduct; we will keep our seats for a little longer time than that for which you have given them to us. To restrict the press, would be to destroy the elective principle, by taking away the information necessary to election, and there would be no difference between it and a total denial of the right of election, but in the degree of usurpation.

Mr. OTIS said, the professions of attachment to the constitution, made by the gentleman from Virginia, are certainly honorable to him; and he could not believe that an attachment so deeply engrafted, as he states his to be, would be shaken by this bill. The gentleman had caught an alarm on the first suggestion of a sedition bill, which had not yet subsided; and though the present bill is perfectly harmless, and contains no provision which is not practised upon under the laws of the several States in which gentlemen had been educated, and from which they had drawn most of their ideas of jurisprudence, yet the gentleman continues to be dissatisfied with it.

The objections of the gentleman from Virginia, he believed, might be reduced to two inquiries. In the first place, had the constitution given Congress cognizance over the offences described in this bill prior to the adoption of the amendments to the constitution? and, if Congress had that cognizance before that time, have those amendments taken it away? With respect to the first question, it must be allowed that every independent Government has a right to preserve and defend itself against injuries and outrages which endanger its existence; for, unless it has this power, it is unworthy the name of a free Government, and must either fall or be subordinate to some other protection. Now some of the offences delineated in this bill are of this description. Unlawful combinations to oppose the measures of Government, to intimidate its officers, and to excite insurrections, are acts which tend directly to the destruction of the constitution, and there could be no doubt that the guardians of that constitution are bound to provide against them. And if gentlemen would agree that these were acts of a criminal nature, it follows that all means calculated to produce these effects, whether by speaking, writing, or printing, were also criminal. From the nature of things, therefore, the National Government is invested with a power to protect itself against outrages of this kind, or it must be indebted to and dependent on an individual State for its protection, which is absurd. This essential right resulting from the spirit of the constitution, was still more evident in the language of that instrument. The people of the individual States brought with them as a birthright into this country the common law of England, upon which all of them have founded their statute law. If it were not for this common law, many crimes which are committed in the United States would go unpunished. No State has enacted statutes for the punishment of all crimes which may be committed; yet in every State he presumed there was a Superior Court which claimed cognizance of all offences against good morals, and which restrained misdemeanors and opposition to the constituted authorities, under the sanction merely of the common law. When the people of the United States convened for the purpose of framing a federal compact, they were all habituated to this common law, to its usages, its maxims, and its definitions. It had been more or less explicitly recognized in the constitution of every State, and in that of Maryland it was declared to be the law of the land. If, then, we find in an instrument digested by men who were all familiarized to the common law, not only that the distribution of power, and the great objects to be provided for are congenial to that law, but that the terms and definitions by which those powers are described, have an evident allusion to it, and must otherwise be quite inexplicable, or at best of a very uncertain meaning, it will be natural to conclude that, in forming the constitution, they kept in view the model of the common law, and that a safe recourse may be had to it in all cases that would otherwise be doubtful. Thus we shall find that one great end of this compact, as appears in the preamble, is the establishment of justice, and for this purpose a Judicial department is erected, whose powers are declared "to extend to all cases in law and equity, arising under the constitution, the laws of the United States," &c. Justice, if the common law ideas of it are rejected, is susceptible of various constructions, but agreeably to the principles of that law, it affords redress for every injury, and provides a punishment for every crime that threatens to disturb the lawful operations of Government. Again, what is intended by "cases at law and equity arising under the constitution," as distinguished from cases "arising under the laws of the United States?" What other law can be contemplated but common law; what sort of equity but that legal discretion which has been exercised in England from time immemorial, and is to be learnt from the books and reports of that country? If it be answered that these words comprise civil controversies only, though no reason appears for this distinction, yet what is to be done with other terms, with trial, jury, impeachment, &c., for an explanation of all which, the common law alone can furnish a standard? It has been said by the gentleman that the constitution has specified the only crimes that are cognizable under it; but other crimes had been made penal at an early period of the Government, by express statute, to which no exception had been taken. For example, stealing public records, perjury, obstructing the officers of justice, bribery in a Judge, and even a contract to give a bribe, (which last was a restraint upon the liberty of writing and speaking,) were all punishable, and why? Not because they are described in the constitution, but because they are crimes against the United States--because laws against them are necessary to carry other laws into effect; because they tend to subvert the constitution. The same reasons applied to the offences mentioned in the bill.

Mr. MACON said, the same section of the constitution which forbids any interference with the freedom of speech and of the press, extends also to religious establishments, and says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This bill ought to be considered, therefore, as the commencement of a system which might as well be extended to the establishment of a national religion, as to a "restraint of speech, and of the press." He acknowledged the bill was less exceptionable than when it came from the Senate; but it yet contained the principle which he considered as violating the constitution.

Mr. M. said, he had attended to all that had been said in support of this bill; but could find nothing like argument in it. When the words of the constitution were so express, it seems impossible they could be understood as the gentleman from Massachusetts had represented them. Several authorities, Mr. M. said, had been read to show that this bill will form a constitutional law. He believed, however, far more might be adduced to show the reverse. He believed the best way of coming at the truth of the construction of any part of the constitution, was, by examining the opinions that were held respecting it when it was under discussion in the different States.

Mr. M. then proceeded to quote the opinions of the leading members in several of the State conventions, in order to show, from the opinions of the friends of the constitution, that it was never understood that prosecutions for libels could take place under the General Government; but that they must be carried on in the State courts, as the constitution gave no power to Congress to pass laws on this subject. Not a single member in any of the conventions gave an opinion to the contrary. The following are the words of Judge Iredell, of North Carolina, on the occasion. Judge Wilson, of this State, and several others, were equally strong; but we have them not at hand, and if we had, to give extracts from the whole would occupy too much room. In the Convention of North Carolina, in reply to a member who had said that the General Government might make it treason to write against the most arbitrary proceedings, but who, it appears, afterwards corrected himself, and said he meant only misprision of treason, and only that it might be done within the ten miles square, where they were to have exclusive legislation, Judge Iredell, thus spoke:

"Where is the power given them to do this? They (Congress) have power to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations; but they have no power to define any other crime whatever. This shows how apt gentlemen are to commit mistakes. The powers of the Government are particularly enumerated and defined. They can claim no others but such as are so enumerated. In my opinion, they are excluded as much from the exercise of any other authority, as they could be by the strongest negative clause that could be framed."

Gentlemen, Mr. M. said, might call this a harmless bill; but however harmless it may be, it is a beginning to act upon forbidden ground, and no one can say to what extent it may hereafter be carried. He thought this subject of the liberty of the press was sacred, and ought to be left where the constitution had left it. The States have complete power on the subject, and when Congress legislates, it ought to have confidence in the States, as the States ought also to have confidence in Congress, or our Government is gone. This Government depends upon the State Legislatures for existence. They have only to refuse to elect Senators to Congress, and all is gone. He believed there was nowhere any complaint of a want of proper laws under the State Governments; and though there may not be remedies found for every grievance in the General Government, what it wants of power will be found in the State Governments, and there can be no doubt but that power will be duly exercised when necessity calls for it.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said, that notwithstanding the sarcasms which had been thrown out against those who oppose this measure; notwithstanding that kind of accommodating principle which has been set up and reiterated, that the powers of this constitution extend to every possible case--a principle which goes to the destruction of State authorities, and makes that instrument mean any thing or nothing--notwithstanding this, he should again venture to engage the attention of the House while he endeavored to show that this bill is not only contrary to the spirit, but to the direct letter of the constitution.

The constitution declares that "no law shall be passed to abridge the liberty of speech or of the press." Let us inquire, said Mr. L., what was the liberty enjoyed at the time this declaration was agreed to, and see whether citizens will enjoy the same liberty after this law passes that they then enjoyed. Will gentlemen say that the same liberty of writing and speaking did not exist then that now exists? If they will not say this, must they not allow that the constitution is positive in prohibiting any change in this respect? Gentlemen may call this liberty an evil, if they please; if it be an evil, (which he was far from believing,) it is an evil perpetrated by the constitution.

The constitution seems to have contemplated cases which might arise at a future day. It seems to have foreseen that majorities (far be it from him to believe the present majority is of the number) might be actuated by dispositions hostile to the Government; that it might wish to pass laws to suppress the only means by which its corrupt views might be made known to the people, and therefore says, no law shall be passed to abridge the liberty of speech and of the press. This privilege is connected with another dear and valuable privilege--the liberty of conscience. What is liberty of conscience? Gentlemen may to-morrow establish a national religion agreeably to the opinion of a majority of this House, on the ground of a uniformity of worship being more consistent with public happiness than a diversity of worship. The doing of this is not less forbidden than the act which the House are about to do. But, it is said, will you suffer a printer to abuse his fellow-citizens with impunity, ascribing his conduct to the very worst of motives? Is no punishment to be inflicted on such a person? Yes. There is a remedy for offences of this kind in the laws of every State in the Union. Every man's character is protected by law, and every man who shall publish a libel on any part of the Government, is liable to punishment. Not, said Mr. L., by laws which we ourselves have made, but by laws passed by the several States. And is not this most proper? Suppose a libel were written against the PRESIDENT, where is it most probable that such an offence would receive an impartial trial? In a court, the judges of which are appointed by the PRESIDENT, by a jury selected by an officer holding his office at the will of the PRESIDENT? or in a court independent of any influence whatever? The States are as much interested in the preservation of the General Government as we are. We do wrong when we attempt to set up interests independent of the States. They are all desirous of preserving the constitution as it now stands; and it is, therefore, much more probable that justice will be found in a court in which neither of the parties have influence, than in one which is wholly in the power of the PRESIDENT.

The bill was then passed--yeas 44, nays 41, as follows:

YEAS.--John Allen, George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard, David Brooks, Christopher G. Champlin, John Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, Samuel W. Dana, William Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, John Read, John Rutledge, jun., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Peleg Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, and Peleg Wadsworth.

NAYS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Stephen Bullock, Dempsey Burges, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne, John Clopton, John Dawson, George Dent, John Fowler, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, William Matthews, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jun., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.

FRIDAY, July 13.

Capture of French armed vessels.

The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for encouraging the capture of French armed vessels by armed vessels belonging to citizens of the United States; which was agreed to without debate or amendment, and ordered to be read a third time to-day. It was accordingly immediately read a third time; when

Mr. MCDOWELL said, he hoped this bill would not pass. Congress had already passed laws authorizing public and private armed vessels to attack and take French vessels; but they are now called upon to give a bounty upon the guns that are brought in, according to their size. He was not willing to allow this. It would open a door to innumerable frauds. Plans would be laid between the owners of privateers here and their friends in the West Indies, and vessels and arms would be thrown in their way for the purpose of capture, and in this manner our Treasury would be drained to an extent which no man could at present foresee. He could see no use in the provision, as it would not induce merchant vessels to go in search of French vessels; and, without some unfair play, it would never be worth the while of persons fitting out privateers for the purpose. He called the yeas and nays upon it. They were taken accordingly, and were, yeas 34, nays 36, as follows:

YEAS.--John Allen, Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard, David Brooks, Christopher G. Champlin, Joshua Coit, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, William Edmond, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, John Read, John Rutledge, jun., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, George Thatcher, Mark Thompson, and John E. Van Allen.

NAYS.--David Bard, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Dempsey Burges, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne, John Clopton, John Dawson, George Dent, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, William Barry Grove, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Thomas Tillinghast, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.

And so the said bill was rejected.

SATURDAY, July 14.

The hour having arrived, at which the call of the House was to be made, the names of the members were called over, eighty-two members (including the Speaker) appeared in their seats, twenty-three absent, twenty of whom have leave, one sick, and two for whom excuses were made, and received by the House.

Capture of French vessels.

Mr. SITGREAVES, called up for decision the resolution he laid on the table yesterday, viz:

Resolved, That a committee be appointed to prepare and bring in a bill for giving a bounty on the capture of French armed ships or vessels, by armed ships or vessels owned by a citizen or citizens of the United States.

The question on the resolution, was then put and negatived--yeas 40, nays 41.

And so the motion was rejected.

MONDAY, July 16.

Intercourse with France.

Another bill was received from the Senate, to amend the act for suspending the commercial intercourse between the United States and France and her dependencies.

Mr. NICHOLAS moved to postpone this bill till next session.

Mr. HARPER hoped not. This bill, he said, was very different from the one which had been negatived. That proposed to dispense with sureties altogether; this only to lower the amount of the bond. Instead of the owner giving security in a sum equal to the amount of vessel and cargo, and finding two sureties in half the sum, this bill proposes that the owner and master shall be bound in a sum equal to the amount of the value of the vessel, and a surety in from one to ten thousand dollars. To exact a bond equal to the amount of the vessel and cargo in every case, would be very inconvenient. They are sometimes very valuable. There is now, he said, a vessel in this port ready to sail, whose cargo is worth $300,000. To exact from the owner a bond to the full amount, and two sureties in half the sum, would be requiring a very heavy security from them. It would be sufficient, he thought, to require a bond equal to the profit which it is probable would be derived from any voyage.

Mr. S. SMITH said, this bill was certainly very different from that which had been rejected by this House, though it did not meet with his approbation at present. It was capable, however, of amendment. The security at present proposed was not worthy of the name. Had he a ship ready to sail such as the gentleman last up had named, he would willingly forfeit the sum proposed, to have the privilege of sending her to a French market. The difference in price between a French and a Hamburg market would make it well worth his while to do so. In many cases, such a voyage would afford 50 per cent. A regulation something like the present could only secure the fair trader; but the surety must be a much larger sum than $10,000.

The committee rose, however, and Mr. SMITH renewed his amendment in the House, when it was agreed to, after some objections to it from Mr. BAYARD--36 to 28. The bill was then ordered to be read a third time, received its third reading, and passed.

The House having received all the bills from the PRESIDENT, and the business of the two Houses being finished, the SPEAKER adjourned the House till the first Monday in December next.

FIFTH CONGRESS.--THIRD SESSION.

BEGUN AT THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, DECEMBER 3, 1798.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.

MONDAY, December 3, 1798.

The third session of the fifth Congress commenced this day, conformably to the provision of the constitution, and the Senate assembled at the city of Philadelphia, in their Chamber.

PRESENT:

JOHN LANGDON and SAMUEL LIVERMORE, from New Hampshire.

THEODORE FOSTER and RAY GREENE, from Rhode Island.

WILLIAM BINGHAM, from Pennsylvania.

HUMPHREY MARSHALL, from Kentucky.

JACOB READ, from South Carolina.

JAMES GUNN, from Georgia.

DANIEL SMITH, appointed a Senator by the Executive of the State of Tennessee, in the recess of that Legislature, in place of Andrew Jackson, resigned, took his seat in the Senate.

The members present not being sufficient to form a quorum, the Senate adjourned to 11 o'clock to-morrow morning.

TUESDAY, December 4.

HENRY LATIMER, from the State of Delaware, attended.

The members present not being sufficient to form a quorum, adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, December 5.

BENJAMIN GOODHUE, from the State of Massachusetts; ELIJAH PAINE, and NATHANIEL CHIPMAN, from the State of Vermont; JOHN LAURANCE, from the State of New York; and TIMOTHY BLOODWORTH, from the State of North Carolina, severally attended.

No quorum being present, the Senate adjourned.

THURSDAY, December 6.

RICHARD STOCKTON, from the State of New Jersey, and JOSEPH ANDERSON, from the State of Tennessee, severally attended.

The VICE PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceeded to the election of a President pro tempore, as the constitution provides, and JOHN LAURANCE was chosen.

The credentials of DANIEL SMITH, appointed Senator by the Executive of the State of Tennessee, in place of Andrew Jackson, resigned, were read, and the oath was, by the PRESIDENT, administered to him, as the law provides.

Ordered, That the Secretary wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and acquaint him that a quorum of the Senate is assembled, and that, in the absence of the VICE PRESIDENT, they have elected JOHN LAURANCE, President of the Senate pro tempore.

Ordered, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives, that a quorum of the Senate is assembled, and ready to proceed to business, and that, in the absence of the VICE PRESIDENT, they have elected JOHN LAURANCE, President of the Senate pro tempore.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that a quorum of the House is assembled, and that they have appointed a joint committee on their part, together with such committee as the Senate may appoint on theirs, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and notify him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled, and ready to receive any communications that he may be pleased to make to them.

The Senate took into consideration the message from the House of Representatives, and

Resolved, That they do concur therein, and that Messrs. READ and PAINE be of the joint committee on the part of the Senate.

The return of service on the summons to William Blount, made by the Sergeant-at-arms, pursuant, to the resolution of the Senate of the first of March last, was read.

Mr. READ reported, from the joint committee appointed for that purpose, that they had waited on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and had notified him that a quorum of the two Houses of Congress were assembled, and the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES acquainted the committee that he would meet the two Houses on Saturday next at 12 o'clock, in the Chamber of the House of Representatives.

SATURDAY, December 8.

JAMES ROSS, from the State of Pennsylvania, attended.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that they are now ready to meet the Senate, in the Chamber of that House, to receive such communications as the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES shall be pleased to make to them. Whereupon,

The Senate repaired to the Chamber of the House of Representatives, for the purpose above expressed.

The Senate then returned to their own Chamber, and a copy of the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, this day addressed to both Houses of Congress, was read. [For which see proceedings in the House of Representatives.]

Ordered, That Messrs. STOCKTON, READ, and ROSS, be a committee to report the draft of an Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in answer to his Speech this day to both Houses of Congress, and that the Speech be printed for the use of the Senate.

MONDAY, December 10.

URIAH TRACY, from the State of Connecticut, attended.

TUESDAY, December 11.

JAMES WATSON, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of New York, in place of John S. Hobart, resigned, produced his credentials, which were read, and the oath was, by the PRESIDENT, administered to him, as the law provides.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee on the draft of an Address in answer to the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to both Houses of Congress, at the opening of the session; which, being read in paragraphs and amended, was adopted, as follows:

To the President of the United States:

SIR: The Senate of the United States join you in thanks to Almighty God for the removal of the late afflicting dispensations of his Providence, and for the patriotic spirit and general prosperity of our country. Sympathy for the sufferings of our fellow-citizens from disease, and the important interests of the Union, demand of the National Legislature a ready co-operation with the State Governments, in the use of such means as seem best calculated to prevent the return of this fatal calamity.

Although we have sincerely wished that an adjustment of our differences with the republic of France might be effected on safe and honorable terms, yet the information you have given us of the ultimate failure of the negotiations has not surprised us. In the general conduct of that Republic, we have seen a design of universal influence, incompatible with the self-government, and destructive of the independence of other States. In its conduct towards these United States, we have seen a plan of hostility pursued with unremitted constancy--equally disregarding the obligations of treaties, and the rights of individuals. We have seen two embassies formed for the purpose of mutual explanations, and clothed with the most extensive and liberal powers, dismissed without recognition and even without a hearing. The government of France has not only refused to repeal, but has recently enjoined the observance of its former edict, respecting merchandise of British fabric or produce, the property of neutrals, by which the interruption of our lawful commerce, and the spoliation of the property of our citizens, have again received a public sanction. These facts indicate no change of system or disposition--they speak a more intelligible language than professions of solicitude to avoid a rupture, however ardently made. But if, after the repeated proofs we have given of a sincere desire for peace, these professions should be accompanied by insinuations, implicating the integrity with which it has been pursued--if, neglecting and passing by the constitutional and authorized agents of the Government, they are made through the medium of individuals without public character or authority; and, above all, if they carry with them a claim to prescribe the political qualifications of the Minister of the United States to be employed in the negotiation, they are not entitled to attention or consideration, but ought to be regarded as designed to separate the people from their Government, and to bring about by intrigue that which open force could not effect.

We are of opinion with you, sir, that there has nothing yet been discovered in the conduct of France which can justify a relaxation of the means of defence adopted during the last session of Congress, the happy result of which is so strongly and generally marked. If the force by sea and land which the existing laws authorize should be judged inadequate to the public defence, we will perform the indispensable duty of bringing forward such other acts as will effectually call forth the resources and force of our country.

A steady adherence to this wise and manly policy--a proper direction of the noble spirit of patriotism which has arisen in our country, and which ought to be cherished and invigorated by every branch of the Government, will secure our liberty and independence against all open and secret attacks.

We enter on the business of the present session with an anxious solicitude for the public good, and shall bestow that consideration on the several objects pointed out in your communication, which they respectively merit.

Your long and important services--your talents and firmness, so often displayed in the most trying times and most critical situations--afford a sure pledge of a zealous co-operation in every measure necessary to secure us justice and respect.

JOHN LAURANCE, President of the Senate pro tempore.

Ordered, That the committee who prepared the Address, wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and desire him to acquaint the Senate at what time and place it will be most convenient for him that it should be presented.

Mr. STOCKTON reported, from the committee, that they had waited on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and that he would receive the Address of the Senate to-morrow, at 12 o'clock, at his own house. Whereupon,

Resolved, That the Senate will, to-morrow at 12 o'clock, wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES accordingly.

WEDNESDAY, December 12.

Agreeably to the resolution of yesterday, the Senate waited on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and the PRESIDENT of the Senate, in their name, presented the Address then agreed on.

To which the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES made the following reply:

To the Senate of the United States:

GENTLEMEN: I thank you for this Address, so conformable to the spirit of our constitution, and the established character of the Senate of the United States, for wisdom, honor, and virtue.

I have seen no real evidence of any change of system or disposition in the French Republic towards the United States. Although the officious interference of individuals, without public character or authority, is not entitled to any credit, yet it deserves to be considered, whether that temerity and impertinence of individuals affecting to interfere in public affairs, between France and the United States, whether by their secret correspondence or otherwise, and intended to impose upon the people, and separate them from their Government, ought not to be inquired into and corrected.

I thank you, gentlemen, for your assurances that you will bestow that consideration on the several objects pointed out in my communication, which they respectively merit.

If I have participated in that understanding, sincerity, and constancy, which have been displayed by my fellow-citizens and countrymen, in the most trying times, and critical situations, and fulfilled my duties to them, I am happy. The testimony of the Senate of the United States, in my favor, is a high and honorable reward, which receives, as it merits, my grateful acknowledgments. My zealous co-operation in measures necessary to secure us justice and consideration may be always depended on.

JOHN ADAMS.

December 12, 1798.

The Senate returned to their own Chamber, and proceeded to the consideration of Executive business.

FRIDAY, December 14.

JOHN E. HOWARD, from the State of Maryland, attended.

MONDAY, December 17.

ALEXANDER MARTIN, from the State of North Carolina, and JAMES HILLHOUSE, from the State of Connecticut, severally attended.

WEDNESDAY, December 19.

FRANKLIN DAVENPORT, appointed a Senator by the Executive of the State of New Jersey, in the recess of the Legislature, in the place of John Rutherford, resigned, produced his credentials; which were read, and, the oath of office being administered to him as the law provides, he took his seat in the Senate.

WEDNESDAY, December 26.

JAMES LLOYD, from the State of Maryland, attended.

THURSDAY, December 27.

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

MONDAY, December 31.

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a letter from JOHN HUNTER, notifying his resignation of his seat in the Senate.

MONDAY, January 7, 1799.

JOHN BROWN, from the State of Kentucky, and THEODORE SEDGWICK, from the State of Massachusetts, severally attended.

TUESDAY, January 8.

STEPHENS T. MASON, from the State of Virginia, attended.

MONDAY, January 21.

HENRY TAZEWELL, from the State of Virginia, attended.

THURSDAY, January 24.

The Senate being informed that HENRY TAZEWELL, one of the members from the State of Virginia, died this morning,

Resolved, That a committee be appointed to take order for superintending the funeral of the said HENRY TAZEWELL, Esq., and that the Senate will attend the same, and that notice of the event be given to the House of Representatives, and that this committee consist of Messrs. MASON, BROWN, and MARSHALL.

Resolved, unanimously, That the members of the Senate, from a sincere desire of showing every mark of respect due to the memory of HENRY TAZEWELL, deceased, late a member thereof, will go into mourning for him one month, by the usual mode of wearing a crape round the left arm.

Resolved, That the President of the Senate notify the Executive of Virginia of the death of HENRY TAZEWELL, late Senator of that State for the United States.

FRIDAY, January 25.

The VICE PRESIDENT communicated the credentials of WILLIAM HILL WELLS, elected a Senator for the State of Delaware, in the place of Joshua Clayton, deceased.

WEDNESDAY, January 30.

JOSIAH TATTNALL, from the State of Georgia, attended.

MONDAY, February 4.

WILLIAM HILL WELLS, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Delaware, in place of Joshua Clayton, deceased, attended; and his credentials being read, and the oath required by law administered to him, he took his seat in the Senate.

WEDNESDAY, February 6.

The bill sent from the House of Representatives, entitled "An act further to suspend the commercial intercourse between the United States and France, and the dependencies thereof, and for other purposes," was read a third time.

On motion to add the following proviso to the fourth section:

"Provided, That a notice of not less than nineteen days of the opening commerce with the French Republic, or any port or place under the Government thereof, by authority of this act, and of not less than thirty days of the revocation of any order issued by the PRESIDENT, by virtue of this act, shall be given:"

It was determined in the negative--yeas 13, nays 14, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bloodworth, Brown, Chipman, Gunn, Langdon, Livermore, Lloyd, Marshall, Martin, Mason, Read, and Tattnall.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Davenport, Foster, Goodhue, Greene, Hillhouse, Latimer, Paine, Ross, Sedgwick, Stockton, Tracy, Watson, and Wells.

On motion to amend the motion, to be read as follows:

"Provided, That notice shall be given, of not less than thirty days, of the revocation of any order issued by the PRESIDENT, by virtue of this act:"

It was determined in the affirmative--yeas 18, nays 10, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Davenport, Foster, Goodhue, Greene, Hillhouse, Howard, Latimer, Livermore, Lloyd, Marshall, Paine, Sedgwick, Stockton, Tracy, Watson, and Wells.

NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bloodworth, Brown, Langdon, Martin, Mason, Read, Ross, and Tattnall.

And on the question to agree to the motion thus amended, it was determined in the negative.

And having agreed to several amendments to the bill, the question on the final passage thereof, as amended, it was determined in the affirmative--yeas 18, nays 10, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Davenport, Foster, Goodhue, Greene, Hillhouse, Howard, Latimer, Livermore, Lloyd, Paine, Ross, Sedgwick, Tracy, Watson, and Wells.

NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bloodworth, Brown, Gunn, Langdon, Marshall, Martin, Mason, Read, and Tattnall.

SATURDAY, February 9.

The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill to amend the act, entitled "An act providing for the sale of the lands of the United States in the territory north-west of the river Ohio, and above the mouth of Kentucky River."

On motion to strike out the 8th section of the bill as follows:

"SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That aliens residing within the United States or elsewhere, shall be capable of purchasing and holding lands in the territory of the United States north-west of the river Ohio, and their heirs may succeed to them ab intestato, in the same manner as if they were citizens; and they may grant, sell, and devise the same to whom they may please, whether citizens or aliens; and that neither they, their heirs, or assigns, shall, so far as may respect the said lands, and the legal remedies incident thereto, be regarded as aliens."

It was determined in the affirmative--yeas 13, nays 11, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Chipman, Foster, Goodhue, Greene, Hillhouse, Howard, Martin, Read, Sedgwick, Stockton, Tracy, Watson, and Wells.

NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bingham, Bloodworth, Brown, Gunn, Langdon, Livermore, Marshall, Mason, Ross, and Tattnall.

TUESDAY, February 12.

The bill vesting the power of retaliation, in certain cases, in the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, was read the third time; and, being amended, the question on the final passage thereof was determined in the affirmative--yeas 22, nays 2, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bloodworth, Chipman, Davenport, Foster, Goodhue, Greene, Gunn, Hillhouse, Latimer, Livermore, Lloyd, Marshall, Martin, Paine, Ross, Sedgwick, Stockton, Tattnall, Tracy, Watson, and Wells.

NAYS.--Messrs. Howard and Langdon.

So it was Resolved, That this bill pass, that it be engrossed, and that the title thereof be "An act vesting the power of retaliation, in certain cases, in the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES."

WEDNESDAY, February 13.

The VICE PRESIDENT communicated a letter from the Executive of the State of Virginia, in answer to his of the 24th ultimo, stating that an appointment to fill the vacancy in the Senate, occasioned by the decease of Henry Tazewell, would, probably, be deferred to the meeting of their Legislature.

SATURDAY, February 16.

CHARLES PINCKNEY, elected a Senator by the Legislature of the State of South Carolina, in place of John Hunter, resigned, produced his credentials, and the oath prescribed by law being administered to him, he took his seat in the Senate.

The Senate proceeded to consider the amendments reported by the committee to the bill giving eventual authority to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to augment the Army.

On motion, to agree to the amendment reported to the 7th section, to read as follows:

"SEC. 7. Be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to call forth and employ the said volunteers in all cases, and to effect all the purposes for which he is authorized to call forth and employ the militia, by the act, entitled 'An act to provide for the calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, and to repeal the act now in force for these purposes:'"

It passed in the affirmative, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Foster, Goodhue, Greene, Gunn, Howard, Laurance, Livermore, Lloyd, Marshall, Paine, Ross, Sedgwick, Tracy, Watson, and Wells.

NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bloodworth, Langdon, Martin, Mason, Pinckney, and Tattnall.

SATURDAY, February 23.

The bill, sent from the House of Representatives, entitled "An act to grant an additional compensation from the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine, to certain officers of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States," was read the second time.

Ordered, That it be referred to Messrs. LIVERMORE, PAINE, and WELLS, to consider and report thereon to the Senate.

The Senate proceeded to consider the report of the committee to whom was referred the bill to augment the salaries of the principal officers of the Executive Departments, which was adopted; and

The question to agree to the third reading of the bill as amended, was determined in the affirmative--yeas 22, nays 3, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bloodworth, Chipman, Davenport, Foster, Goodhue, Greene, Hillhouse, Howard, Laurance, Lloyd, Marshall, Martin, Paine, Pinckney, Read, Sedgwick, Stockton, Tattnall, Tracy, Watson, and Wells.

NAYS.--Messrs. Langdon, Livermore, and Mason.

MONDAY, February 25.

The Senate resumed the third reading of the bill, authorizing the acceptance, from the State of Connecticut, of a cession of jurisdiction of the territory west of Pennsylvania, commonly called the Western Reserve of Connecticut; and the question on the final passage of the bill was determined in the affirmative--yeas 16, nays 12, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Chipman, Davenport, Foster, Goodhue, Greene, Gunn, Hillhouse, Livermore, Lloyd, Marshall, Paine, Read, Sedgwick, Stockton, Tracy, and Wells.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bloodworth, Brown, Howard, Langdon, Latimer, Laurance, Martin, Mason, Pinckney, Ross, and Watson.

FRIDAY, March 1.

The Senate resumed the third reading of the bill, sent from the House of Representatives, entitled "An act to establish the Post Office of the United States."

On motion, to add the following to the amendment of the 17th section:

"And, provided, That all the letters and packets franked by any one member, in any one week, shall not exceed thirty ounces; and such privilege shall continue:"

It was determined in the negative--yeas 13, nays 17, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Davenport, Goodhue, Hillhouse; Howard, Livermore, Lloyd, Paine, Ross, Sedgwick, Stockton, Watson, and Wells.

NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bloodworth, Brown, Chipman, Foster, Greene, Gunn, Langdon, Latimer, Laurance, Marshall, Martin, Mason, Pinckney, Read, Tattnall, and Tracy.

SATURDAY, March 2.

The bill, sent from the House of Representatives, entitled "An act authorizing a detachment from the militia of the United States," was read the second time.

On the question to agree to the third reading of the bill, it was determined in the affirmative--yeas 17, nays 12, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Foster, Goodhue, Greene, Gunn, Howard, Langdon, Laurance, Lloyd, Marshall, Martin, Mason, Pinckney, Ross, Tattnall, and Watson.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Davenport, Hillhouse, Latimer, Livermore, Paine, Read, Sedgwick, Stockton, Tracy, and Wells.

SATURDAY EVENING, March 2.

A message from the House of Representatives, informed the Senate that the House, having finished the business before them, are about to adjourn without day.

The Senate then proceeded to the consideration of Executive business.

The Senate, then, resuming Legislative business, adjourned without day.

FIFTH CONGRESS.--THIRD SESSION.

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES

IN

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

MONDAY, December 3, 1798.

This being the day appointed by the constitution for the annual meeting of Congress, a number of members of the House of Representatives assembled in their Chamber.

The following are the names of the members present:

From New Hampshire.--ABIEL FOSTER, JONATHAN FREEMAN, WILLIAM GORDON, and PELEG SPRAGUE.

From Massachusetts.--DWIGHT FOSTER, SAMUEL LYMAN, HARRISON G. OTIS, GEO. THATCHER, JOSEPH B. VARNUM, and PELEG WADSWORTH.

From Rhode Island.--THOMAS TILLINGHAST.

From Connecticut.--SAMUEL W. DANA, CHAUNCEY GOODRICH, and ROGER GRISWOLD.

From New York.--DAVID BROOKS, HENRY GLENN, JONATHAN N. HAVENS, and HEZEKIAH L. HOSMER.

From New Jersey.--JONATHAN DAYTON, (the Speaker.)

From Pennsylvania.--DAVID BARD, JOHN CHAPMAN, WILLIAM FINDLAY, ALBERT GALLATIN, JOHN A. HANNA, BLAIR MCCLENACHAN, and RICHARD THOMAS.

From Maryland.--GEORGE DENT.

From Virginia.--JOHN CLOPTON, JOHN DAWSON, DAVID HOLMES, JAMES MACHIR, and DANIEL MORGAN.

From North Carolina.--MATTHEW LOCKE, NATHANIEL MACON, and RICHARD STANFORD.

From Tennessee.--WILLIAM CHARLES COLE CLAIBORNE.

From Georgia.--ABRAHAM BALDWIN.

Three new members, to wit: JONATHAN BRACE, returned to serve in this House as a member for Connecticut, in the room of Joshua Coit, deceased; ROBERT WALN, returned to serve as a member for Pennsylvania, in the room of John Swanwick, deceased; and JOSEPH EGGLESTON, returned to serve as a member for Virginia, in the room of William B. Giles, who has resigned his seat; appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats in the House.

A little after 12 o'clock the SPEAKER of the House took his chair, the names of all the members were called over by the Clerk, and there appearing only forty persons, (fourteen short of a quorum,) a motion was made to adjourn, and the House adjourned accordingly till to-morrow at 11 o'clock.

TUESDAY, December 4.

Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, STEPHEN BULLOCK; from New Jersey, JAMES H. IMLAY; from Pennsylvania, JOHN WILKES KITTERA; from Maryland, GEORGE BAER, Jr., WILLIAM CRAIK, and SAMUEL SMITH; from Virginia, ANTHONY NEW, ABRAM TRIGG, JOHN TRIGG, and ABRAHAM VENABLE; from North Carolina, THOMAS BLOUNT; and from South Carolina, WILLIAM SMITH; appeared and took their seats in the House.

A new member, to wit: ROBERT BROWN, returned to serve in this House as a member for Pennsylvania, in the room of Samuel Sitgreaves, appointed a Commissioner of the United States under the sixth article of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, with Great Britain, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

But a quorum of the whole number not being present, the House adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, December 5.

Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, ISAAC PARKER, JOHN READ, SAMUEL SEWALL, and WILLIAM SHEPARD; from Connecticut, NATHANIEL SMITH; from New York, LUCAS ELMENDORPH, JOHN E. VAN ALLEN, and JOHN WILLIAMS; from New Jersey, JAMES SCHUREMAN; and from South Carolina, ROBERT GOODLOE HARPER and JOHN RUTLEDGE, Jr., appeared, and took their seats in the House.

And a quorum consisting of a majority of the whole number, being present,

The oath or affirmation, to support the Constitution of the United States, as prescribed by the act, entitled "An act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths," was administered by Mr. SPEAKER to the following new members, to wit: JONATHAN BRACE, ROBERT BROWN, ROBERT WALN, and JOSEPH EGGLESTON, who took their seats in the House on the third and fourth instant.

Ordered, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that a quorum of this House is assembled, and ready to proceed to business.

SATURDAY, December 8.

Several other members, to wit: from Connecticut, WILLIAM EDMOND; from Maryland, JOHN DENNIS and WILLIAM HINDMAN; and from Virginia, THOMAS EVANS and WALTER JONES, appeared and took their seats in the House.

The House having been called to order, and the journal read, the SPEAKER observed that the hour was nearly arrived at which the President had proposed to make his communications to both Houses, and read a resolution which was usually entered into on such occasions, informing the Senate that this House is formed, and ready to receive any communications which the President may be pleased to make to them. The resolution was adopted, and a message having been sent to the Senate therewith, the members soon after entered and took the places prepared for them.

At twelve o'clock, Lieutenant General WASHINGTON, with his Secretary, Colonel LEAR, Major Generals PINCKNEY and HAMILTON, entered the Hall, and took their places on the right of the SPEAKER'S chair. The British and Portuguese Ministers, and the British and Danish Consuls, with their Secretaries, had their places assigned them on the left of the chair.

President's Speech.

A few minutes after 12, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, accompanied by his Secretary, and the Heads of the several Departments of the Government, appeared. The PRESIDENT having taken his seat, and the officers of Government theirs, near the general officers, he rose and addressed the two Houses as follows:

Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:

While with reverence and resignation we contemplate the dispensations of Divine Providence, in the alarming and destructive pestilence with which several of our cities and towns have been visited, there is cause for gratitude and mutual congratulations that the malady has disappeared, and that we are again permitted to assemble in safety at the seat of Government, for the discharge of our important duties. But, when we reflect that this fatal disorder has, within a few years, made repeated ravages in some of our principal seaports, and with increased malignancy; and, when we consider the magnitude of the evils arising from the interruption of public and private business, whereby the national interests are deeply affected, I think it my duty to invite the Legislature of the Union to examine the expediency of establishing suitable regulations in aid of the health laws of the respective States; for, these being formed on the idea that contagious sickness may be communicated through the channels of commerce, there seems to be a necessity that Congress, who alone can regulate trade, should frame a system which, while it may tend to preserve the general health, may be compatible with the interests of commerce and the safety of the revenue.

While we think on this calamity, and sympathize with the immediate sufferers, we have abundant reason to present to the Supreme Being our annual oblations of gratitude for a liberal participation in the ordinary blessings of His Providence. To the usual subjects of gratitude, I cannot omit to add one of the first importance to our well-being and safety: I mean that spirit which has arisen in our country against the menaces and aggression of a foreign nation. A manly sense of national honor, dignity, and independence, has appeared, which, if encouraged and invigorated by every branch of the Government, will enable us to view, undismayed, the enterprises of any foreign power, and become the sure foundation of national prosperity and glory.

The course of the transactions in relation to the United States and France, which have come to my knowledge during your recess, will be made the subject of a future communication. That communication will confirm the ultimate failure of the measures which have been taken by the Government of the United States towards an amicable adjustment of differences with that power. You will, at the same time, perceive that the French Government appears solicitous to impress the opinion that it is averse to a rupture with this country, and that it has, in a qualified manner, declared itself willing to receive a Minister from the United States, for the purpose of restoring a good understanding. It is unfortunate for professions of this kind that they should be expressed in terms which may countenance the inadmissible pretension of a right to prescribe the qualifications which a Minister of the United States should possess; and that while France is asserting the existence of a disposition, on her part, to conciliate with sincerity the differences which have arisen, the sincerity of a like disposition on the part of the United States, of which so many demonstrative proofs have been given, should even be indirectly questioned. It is also worthy of observation that the decree of the Directory, alleged to be intended to restrain the depredations of French cruisers on our commerce, has not given, and cannot give, any relief; it enjoins them to conform to all the laws of France relative to cruising and prizes, while these laws are themselves the sources of the depredation of which we have so long, so justly, and so fruitlessly complained.

The law of France enacted in January last, which subjects to capture and condemnation neutral vessels and their cargoes, if any portion of the latter are of British fabric or produce, although the entire property belongs to neutrals, instead of being rescinded, has lately received a confirmation, by the failure of a proposition for its repeal. While this law, which is an unequivocal act of war on the commerce of the nations it attacks, continues in force, those nations can see in the French Government only a power regardless of their essential rights, of their independence and sovereignty; and, if they possess the means, they can reconcile nothing with their interests and honor but a firm resistance.

Hitherto, therefore, nothing is discoverable in the conduct of France which ought to change or relax our measures of defence; on the contrary, to extend and invigorate them is our true policy. We have no reason to regret that these measures have been thus far adopted and pursued; and, in proportion as we enlarge our view of the portentous and incalculable situation of Europe, we shall discover new and cogent motives for the full development of our energies and resources.

But, in demonstrating by our conduct that we do not fear war, in the necessary protection of our rights and honor, we shall give no room to infer that we abandon the desire of peace. An efficient preparation for war can alone ensure peace. It is peace that we have uniformly and perseveringly cultivated, and harmony between us and France may be restored at her option. But to send another Minister, without more determinate assurances that he would be received, would be an act of humiliation to which the United States ought not to submit. It must, therefore, be left to France, if she is indeed desirous of accommodation, to take the requisite steps. The United States will steadily observe the maxims by which they have hitherto been governed. They will respect the sacred rites of embassy. And with a sincere disposition on the part of France to desist from hostility, to make reparation for the injuries heretofore inflicted on our commerce, and to do justice in future, there will be no obstacle to the restoration of a friendly intercourse. In making to you this declaration, I give a pledge to France and to the world that the Executive authority of this country still adheres to the humane and pacific policy which has invariably governed its proceedings, in conformity with the wishes of the other branches of the Government and of the people of the United States. But considering the late manifestations of her policy towards foreign nations, I deem it a duty deliberately and solemnly to declare my opinion, that, whether we negotiate with her or not, vigorous preparations for war will be alike indispensable. These alone will give to us an equal treaty, and ensure its observance.

Among the measures of preparation which appear expedient, I take the liberty to recall your attention to the Naval Establishment. The beneficial effects of the small naval armament provided under the acts of the last session, are known and acknowledged. Perhaps no country ever experienced more sudden and remarkable advantages from any measure of policy than we have derived from the arming for our maritime protection and defence. We ought, without loss of time, to lay the foundation for an increase of our Navy to a size sufficient to guard our coast, and protect our trade. Such a naval force as it is doubtless in the power of the United States to create and maintain, would also afford to them the best means of general defence, the safe transportation of troops and stores to every part of our extensive coast. To accomplish this important object, a prudent foresight requires that systematical measures be adopted for procuring, at all times, the requisite timber and other supplies. In what manner this shall be done, I leave to your consideration.

Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:

I have directed an estimate of the appropriations which will be necessary for the service of the ensuing year to be laid before you, accompanied with a view of the public receipts and expenditures to a recent period. It will afford you satisfaction to infer the great extent and solidity of the public resources, from the prosperous state of the finances, notwithstanding the unexampled embarrassments which have attended commerce. When you reflect on the conspicuous examples of a patriotism and liberality which have been exhibited by our mercantile fellow-citizens, and how great a proportion of the public resources depends on their enterprise, you will naturally consider, whether their convenience cannot be promoted and reconciled with the security of the revenue, by a revision of the system by which the collection is at present regulated.

During your recess, measures have been steadily pursued for effecting the valuations and returns directed by the act of the last session preliminary to the assessment and collection of a direct tax. No other delays or obstacles have been experienced except such as were expected to arise from the great extent of our country, and the magnitude and novelty of the operation, and enough has been accomplished to assure a fulfilment of the views of the Legislature.

Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:

I cannot close this Address, without once more adverting to our political situation, and inculcating the essential importance of uniting in the maintenance of our dearest interests: and I trust that, by the temper and wisdom of your proceedings, and by a harmony of measures, we shall secure to our country that weight and respect to which it is so justly entitled.

JOHN ADAMS.

UNITED STATES, December 8, 1798.

The PRESIDENT having finished his Address, after sitting a few moments, presented the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives, each of them, with a copy of it, and withdrew, and after him the Heads of Departments, Senators, general officers, foreign Ministers, &c. The SPEAKER then took his chair, and after calling the House to order, proceeded, as is usual, to read over the Speech, which being finished, it was committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday, and ordered to be printed. The House then adjourned.

MONDAY, December 10.

A new member, to wit: RICHARD DOBBS SPAIGHT, returned to serve in this House as a member for North Carolina, in the room of Nathan Bryan, deceased, appeared, produced his credentials, and took his seat in the House; the oath to support the Constitution of the United States having been first administered to him by the SPEAKER.

Address to the President.

On motion, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, Mr. DENT in the chair; when

Mr. SPRAGUE proposed for adoption the following resolution:

Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee, that a respectful Address ought to be presented by the House of Representatives to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress at the commencement of this session, containing assurances that this House will take into consideration the various and important subjects recommended to their consideration.

The resolution was agreed to without objection, and the committee rose and reported the resolution. The House took it up, concurred in it, and appointed a committee of five to prepare an answer accordingly.

The committee consists of Messrs. DANA, VENABLE, HARPER, HOSMER, and BALDWIN.

TUESDAY, December 11.

Two other members, to wit: THOMAS SINNICKSON and MARK THOMPSON, from New Jersey, appeared and took their seats in the House.

WEDNESDAY, December 12.

Several other members, to wit: from Rhode Island, CHRISTOPHER G. CHAMPLIN; from Pennsylvania, THOMAS HARTLEY; and from Virginia, CARTER B. HARRISON; appeared, and took their seats in the House.

Address to the President.

Mr. DANA, from the committee appointed to draft a respectful Address in answer to the PRESIDENT'S Speech, made a report, which was committed for to-morrow.

THURSDAY, December 13.

PHILIP VAN CORTLANDT, from the State of New York, appeared, and took his seat.

Address to the President.

On motion of Mr. DANA, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the Address yesterday reported, in answer to the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and Mr. DENT having taken the chair, the Address was read, as follows, omitting the words printed within brackets, which were added as amendments: The words printed in italics were struck out in the discussion, so that the Address to be presented to the PRESIDENT contains the words printed within brackets, and does not contain those printed in italics.

JOHN ADAMS, President of the United States--

SIR: The House of Representatives unite with you in deploring the effects of the desolating malady by which the seat of Government and other parts of our country have recently been visited. In calling our attention to the fatality of its repeated ravages, and inviting us to consider the expediency of exercising our constitutional powers, in aid of the health laws of the respective States, your recommendation is sanctioned by the dictates of humanity and liberal policy. On this interesting subject we feel the necessity of adopting every wise expedient for preventing a calamity so distressing to individual sufferers, and so prejudicial to our national commerce.

That our finances are in a prosperous state, notwithstanding the commercial derangements resulting from this calamity, and from external embarrassments, is a satisfactory manifestation of the great extent and solidity of the public resources. Connected with this situation of our fiscal concerns, the assurance that the legal provisions for obtaining revenue by direct taxation will fulfil the views of the Legislature, is peculiarly acceptable.

Desirous as we are that all causes of hostility may be exterminated [removed] by the amicable adjustment of national differences, we learn with satisfaction, that in pursuance of our treaties with Spain and with Great Britain, advances have been made for definitively settling the controversies relative to the Southern and the North-eastern limits of the United States. With similar sentiments have we received your information, that the proceedings under commissions authorized by the same treaties, afford to a respectable portion of our citizens, the prospect of a final decision on their claims for maritime injuries committed by subjects of those powers.

It would be the theme of mutual felicitation, were we assured of experiencing similar moderation and justice from another Power, [the French Republic,] between whom [which] and the United States differences have unhappily arisen. But this is denied us by the ultimate failure of the measures which have been taken by this Government towards an amicable adjustment of those differences, and by the various inadmissible pretensions on the part of that nation.

The continuing in force the decree of January last, to which you have more particularly pointed our attention, ought, of itself, to be considered as demonstrative of the real intentions of the French Government. That decree proclaims a predatory warfare against the unquestionable rights of actual commerce; which [with] our means of defence, our interest and our honor, command us to repel. It therefore now becomes the United States to be as determined in resistance as they have been patient in suffering, and condescending in negotiation.

While those who direct the affairs of France persist in the enforcement of decrees so hostile to our essential rights, their conduct forbids us to confide in any of their professions of amity.

As therefore the conduct of France hitherto exhibits nothing which ought to change or relax our measures of defence, the policy of extending and invigorating those measures, demands our sedulous attention. The sudden and remarkable advantages which this country has experienced from a small naval armament, sufficiently prove the utility of its establishment. As it respects the guarding of our coast, the protection of our trade, and the facility of safely transporting the means of territoral defence to every part of our maritime frontier, an adequate naval force must be considered as an important object of national policy. Nor do we hesitate to adopt the opinion, that, whether negotiations with France are resumed or not, vigorous preparations for war will be alike indispensable.

In this conjuncture of affairs, while with you we recognize our abundant cause of gratitude to the Supreme Disposer of events for the ordinary blessings of Providence, we regard, as of high national importance, the manifestation, in our country, of a magnanimous spirit of resistance to foreign domination. This spirit merits to be cherished and invigorated by every branch of Government, as the estimable pledge of national prosperity and glory.

Disdaining a reliance on foreign protection, wanting no foreign guarantee of our liberties, resolving to maintain our national independence against every attempt to despoil us of this inestimable treasure, we confide, under Providence, in the patriotism and energies of the people of these United States for defeating the hostile enterprises of any foreign power.

To adopt with prudent foresight such systematical measures as may be expedient for calling forth those energies wherever the national exigencies may require, whether on the ocean, or on our own territory--and to reconcile with the proper security of revenue, the convenience of the mercantile enterprise, on which so great a proportion of the public resources depends--are objects of moment, which shall be duly regarded in the course of our deliberations.

Fully as we accord with you in the opinion, that the United States ought not to submit to the humiliation of sending another Minister to France, without previous assurances sufficiently determinate that he will be duly accredited, we have heard, with cordial acquiescence, [approbation,] the declaration of your purpose, steadily to observe those maxims of humane and pacific policy by which the United States have hitherto been governed. While it is left with France to take the requisite steps for accommodation, it is worthy the Chief Magistrate of a free people, to make known to the world, that justice on the part of France will annihilate every obstacle to the restoration of a friendly intercourse, and that the Executive authority of this country will respect the sacred rights of embassy. At the same time, the wisdom and decision, which have characterized your past Administration, assure us that no illusory professions will seduce you into any abandonment of the rights which belong to the United States as [a] free and independent [nation.]

The clerk having read the Address, it was again read by the Chairman by paragraphs.

[After a few slight amendments the answer was agreed to.]

Mr. THATCHER wished, as no objection was made to the Address, that it might be entered on the journals as unanimously agreed to; but, on the question being put, a few noes being heard, the SPEAKER declared it not carried.

The usual resolution was then passed, that the SPEAKER, attended by the House, do present the Address, and that a committee be appointed to wait upon the PRESIDENT, to know when and where he will be pleased to receive the same.

Messrs. DANA, VENABLE, and HARPER, were appointed a committee for this purpose. They waited upon the PRESIDENT accordingly, and Mr. DANA reported that the PRESIDENT would receive the Address to-morrow, at his own house, at twelve o'clock.[37]

FRIDAY, December 14.

Several other members, to wit: JAMES COCHRAN, from New York; WILLIAM MATTHEWS, from Maryland; JOSIAH PARKER, from Virginia; and THOMAS PINCKNEY, from South Carolina, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

Answer of the President.

The hour having arrived at which the PRESIDENT had appointed to receive the Address of this House in answer to his Speech to both Houses, the SPEAKER announced it, and the House withdrew for the purpose of presenting the Address.

In about a quarter of an hour, the members returned; when the SPEAKER, having taken his chair, proceeded to read the answer to their Address, a copy of which had been put into his hand by the PRESIDENT. It was as follows:

To the House of Representatives of the United States:

GENTLEMEN: My sincere acknowledgments are due to the House of Representatives of the United States, for this excellent Address, so consonant to the character of Representatives of a great and free people. The judgment and feelings of a nation, I believe, were never more truly expressed by their Representatives than those of our constituents, by your decided declaration, that with our means of defence, our interest and honor command us to repel a predatory warfare against the unquestionable rights of a neutral commerce. That it becomes the United States to be as determined in resistance as they have been patient in suffering and condescending in negotiation. That, while those who direct the affairs of France persist in the enforcement of decrees so hostile to our essential rights, their conduct forbids us to confide in any of their professions of amity; that an adequate naval force must be considered as an important object of national policy; and that, whether negotiations with France are resumed or not, vigorous preparations for war will be alike indispensable.

The generous disdain you so coolly and deliberately express, of a reliance on foreign protection, wanting no foreign guaranty of our liberties, resolving to maintain our national independence against every attempt to despoil us of this inestimable treasure, will meet the full approbation of every sound understanding, and exulting applauses from the heart of every faithful American.

I thank you, gentlemen, for your candid approbation of my sentiments on the subject of negotiation, and for the declaration of your opinion, that the policy of extending and invigorating our measures of defence, and the adoption with prudent foresight of such systematical measures as may be expedient for calling forth the energies of our country, wherever the national exigencies may require, whether on the ocean or on our own territory, will demand your most sedulous attention.

At the same time, I take the liberty to assure you, it shall be my vigilant endeavor, that no illusory professions shall seduce me into an abandonment of the rights which belong to the United States, as a free and independent nation.

JOHN ADAMS.

UNITED STATES, December 14, 1798.

MONDAY, December 31.

Several other members, viz: from Connecticut, JOHN ALLEN; and from Virginia, SAMUEL J. CABELL and THOMAS CLAIBORNE, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

Remonstrance of Georgia.

RECLAMATION FOR SACRIFICED TERRITORY--COMPARATIVE EXPENDITURE IN DEFENDING NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN FRONTIERS FROM INDIAN DEPREDATIONS.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the report of a select committee on the representation and remonstrance of the State of Georgia; which was read as follows:

"Report of the committee to whom was referred the representation and remonstrance of the Legislature of the State of Georgia:

"That a certain tract of country, within the limits of Georgia, bounded by a line beginning at the fork of Oconee and Ocmulgee Rivers, and thence running in a south-west direction, until it intersects the most southern part of St. Mary's River, thence down the river to the old line, was ceded by the Creek nation of Indians, to the said State, by a treaty held between the Commissioner of said State, and the Creek Indians at Galphinton, on the 12th of November, 1785, which tract of country was, by the Legislature of said State, formed into a county, by the name of Talessee county; and the cession thereof was afterward confirmed, at a treaty held between the same parties, at Shoulderbone, on the 3d day of November, 1786.

"Your committee further report, that, by the treaty made at New York, between the United States and the Creek Indians, bearing date on the 7th day of August, 1790, a boundary line was established between the said nation of Indians and the United States, whereby the above described tract of country, named Talessee county, was declared to be within the Indian territory.

"The committee have not been able to discover upon what principles the relinquishment of the territory of the State of Georgia was acceded to on the part of the United States; it is therefore to be presumed that it was done upon principles of general policy, with the intention of establishing a permanent peace between the United States and the said nation. They are, therefore, of opinion that compensation ought to be made to the State of Georgia for the loss of this territory, and recommend to the House to adopt the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the United States will make compensation to the State of Georgia, for the loss and damage sustained by that State, in consequence of the cession of the county of Talessee, made to the Creek nation, by the Treaty of New York, unless it shall be deemed expedient to extinguish the Indian title to the said land."

Mr. BALDWIN said, he should not call for the reading of the remonstrance, as it had already been twice read, and had also been published in the newspapers. The committee in their report have stated such parts of it as they thought necessary to lead the House to a decision. It is seen at once to relate to two objects: what they consider as a dismemberment of the State, by giving back to the Indians a district of country, called Talessee county, and the injurious operation of the act for regulating trade and intercourse with the Indians. He was himself at New York at the time when the treaty, called the Treaty of New York, was made; he knew well it was with great concern and reluctance that the Federal Government consented to an act which had so much the appearance of dismembering a State, as giving back Talessee county to the Indians; but that frontier was so extensive, the savages who border upon it were so much more numerous and hostile than any others in the United States, that they were induced to consent for a time to the relinquishment of that district to them, as the counterpart of all the other conditions which they obtained in that treaty. He was sure it was at that time their expectation and design to have before now peaceably repurchased it of the Indians. The act was not founded on any defect in the right of the State to that county; but a short time before, three Commissioners, viz: Gen. Lincoln, Judge Griffin, a former member of Congress, and Mr. Humphreys, who is now our Minister at Madrid, were sent to examine into the state of that frontier, and to form treaties with the neighboring tribes; they were unwearied in the execution of their trust, visited the frontier in person, collected the Indian chiefs to meet them there, to learn what information they could give; they afterwards returned to the seat of Government of Georgia, and examined the treaties, laws, and journals, and examined individuals on oath, so as to obtain all the information that it was possible to procure, on the spot. On their return they made a special and very full report, a copy of which is on the files of the House, and, without doubt, is to be regarded on those subjects as a document paramount to every thing else, at the time it was made. This document leaves no doubt of the fairness of the transaction in the treaties of 1785 and 1786, in which this Talessee county was purchased and contained, as stated by the committee. The giving it back, by the subsequent Treaty of New York, rested only on the importance and urgency of the case, as the only possible means of obtaining peace.

On the other point contained in the remonstrance, viz: the injurious operation of the law respecting trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, he did not think it necessary now to make many observations, the report of the committee was, that it should be revised and amended; as that law expires by its own limitation with this session, it is a subject that must be taken up, and at that time he should submit to the consideration of the House the various matters which seemed to impress themselves so strongly upon the minds of his constituents.

Mr. B. said, the report of the committee was peculiarly grateful to him, and he hoped the confirmation of it by Congress would be so to his constituents, because the individuals who composed the committee were so long and so well known in the United States, that their report will be likely to have a great effect in finally settling the minds of people on those old subjects of reproach and discord, especially as it is in direct conformity with the copious report of the three Commissioners who examined into the same subject on the spot, as he had before mentioned. This appeared to him to be a matter of great importance.

From the close of the Revolution to the present time, these reproaches have always been at the threshold, to encounter every thing that was proposed in behalf of that growing and important part of the United States. The Revolution had raged there to such a degree, and the minds of men were so embittered against each other, that it required more than the usual time for them to lay aside the fierceness of their hostility. Though their enemies were driven from them, yet they were not driven beyond the recoil of their resentment. This, joined to the disappointment of some pecuniary enterprises of individuals for gain, had been the cause of those malignant torrents of reproach which have but too long poured forth upon the greater part of their councils, and upon the most distinguished of their public servants.

It was well known to him, and to some who heard him, that their calls for protection on a very extensive and very turbulent frontier, had, till within these few years, always been repelled with reproaches, that they had never been any thing but an expense; were totally delinquent in bearing the burdens of the Revolution; that they had been carried through entirely at the expense of the other States; and that they ought not now to be protected any further till they were willing to pay requisitions. When this reproach was wiped off by the report of the General Board of Commissioners, on the settlement of the whole account of the old co-partnership of the Confederation, and the very small number there, at that time, appeared to have done the proportion of the whole number by the census which was the rule of the settlement, and to have reimbursed the great delinquency of the loan officers appointed by Congress, for which they were made accountable, still they were told they must protect themselves, for they wronged the Indians out of their lands, and this was the cause of their suffering. It appears now, in the result, that they have always discharged all their Federal obligations, and much more, and instead of getting away the lands from the Indians, the Indians have got away their lands, and they cannot get them back.

He believed there could not be much doubt left but that the principles contained in the report of the committee were just and proper. These had been to him for many years very sore objects; the position in which he considered them immovably fixed gave him great pleasure. His constituents had not sent him here to play the champion. He thought it could not be denied that there was some ground for them to triumph over those who had so long vilified and abused them. He begged leave still further to urge the measures recommended by the committee, from the consideration of the small expenditures which have been made on that frontier, in proportion to the others.

The accounts of the military expenditures on the northern frontiers, were now more than ten millions of dollars. This had been begun, and principally originated from a regular expedition to destroy a village of fugitive Indians, who committed depredations on the northern frontier; a similar village on the southern frontier, called the Chehaw, was also destined by the Government for a similar expedition; but the measure failed in the Legislature, and that frontier was left to protect themselves. This has been done; the fugitives in that village have been driven off by a party of volunteers. He believed the whole amount of military expenditures on that frontier, till the time of entire peace with the Indians, did not exceed a quarter of a million, and nearly one hundred thousand of that the militia had now been kept out of for four or five years; though he hoped and trusted they would not much longer have cause of complaint on that head. After the observations which he had made, he thought no apology was necessary for some apparent harshness in the language of the remonstrance.

As to the course which it is proper to pursue in granting relief on the subject, he had not much to say. He was confident the expectations of the State were not unreasonable; he was sure they would be satisfied with any result which could be considered as fair and honorable; and his confidence in the House forbade him to suppose for a moment that it could be brought to any other. The course recommended by the committee in their resolution now under consideration, is either to make compensation to the State for the land which has been relinquished, and for the damages which they have sustained, or else to repurchase that district or another district, on that frontier, of equal value. He said he had laid on the table a certificate from the Surveyor General of that State, taken at that time, as to the length of the lines enclosing that district, and the probable contents of it. If the report of the committee should be agreed to, a bill might be reported in conformity to one or the other, or all of those principles, as might be thought proper. He was contented in leaving it to the judgment of the House.

On the call of Mr. BROOKS, the representation and remonstrance were read. After which,

Mr. CHAMPLIN moved that the committee might rise, with a view of postponing this subject till the next session of Congress. He thought the language of the remonstrance too violent and indecorous to claim attention from the House. This opinion was also supported by Mr. DANA. Messrs. BAYARD and N. SMITH wished this motion to prevail, because they doubted the propriety of the report, and supposed there would not be time thoroughly to investigate the business during this session.

On the other hand, Messrs. PINCKNEY, RUTLEDGE, HARPER, GALLATIN, VENABLE, W. CLAIBORNE, J. PARKER, and MACON, were against the postponement. The objection to the language, it was said, was out of time. If made at all, it ought to have been made when the remonstrance was presented; that some allowance ought to be made for the language, as it appeared to have been drawn in a moment of passion; that if the claim was just, it ought not to be rejected because it was made in improper language, especially, since the Legislature of Georgia were not the only persons concerned, as the inhabitants on the frontier, while this subject is undecided, are suffering severely from Indian cruelties and depredations.

The question for leave to be given to the committee to sit again, was carried by 69 votes.

TUESDAY, January 8, 1799.

Impressment of Seamen.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:

In compliance with your desire, expressed in your resolution of the 2d of this month, I lay before you an extract of a letter from George C. Morton, acting Consul of the United States at Havana, dated the 13th of November, 1798, to the Secretary of State, with a copy of a letter from him to L. Trezevant and William Timmons, Esqs., with their answer. Although your request extends no further than to such information as has been received, yet it may be a satisfaction to you to know that as soon as this intelligence was communicated to me, circular orders were given, by my direction, to all the commanders of our vessels of war; a copy of which is also herewith transmitted. I also direct this intelligence and these orders to be communicated to His Britannic Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the United States, and to our Minister Plenipotentiary to the Court of Great Britain, with instructions to him to make the proper representation to that Government upon this subject.

It is but justice to say that this is the first instance of misbehavior of any of the British officers towards our vessels of war, that has come to my knowledge. According to all the representations that I have seen, the flag of the United States, and their officers and men, have been treated by the civil and military authority of the British nation, in Nova Scotia, the West India Islands and on the ocean, with uniform civility, politeness, and friendship. I have no doubt that this first instance of misconduct will be readily corrected.

Jan. 8, 1799.

JOHN ADAMS.

[CIRCULAR.]

_To the Commanders of Armed Vessels in the service of the United States; given at the Navy Department, December 29, 1798._

SIR: It is the positive command of the PRESIDENT, that on no pretence whatever, you permit the public vessel of war under your command to be detained, or searched, nor any of the officers or men belonging to her to be taken from her, by the ships or vessels of any foreign nation, so long as you are in a capacity to repel such outrage on the honor of the American flag. If force should be exerted to compel your submission, you are to resist that force to the utmost of your power, and when overpowered by superior force, you are to strike your flag, and thus yield your vessel, as well as your men; but never your men without your vessel.

You will remember, however, that your demeanor be respectful and friendly to the vessels and people of all nations in amity with the United States; and that you avoid as carefully the commission of, as the submission to, insult or injury.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

BEN. STODDERT.

Letters which accompanied the above Message:

Extract of a letter from George C. Morton, acting Consul of the United States at the Havana, dated there the 18th November, 1798, to the Secretary of State.

"By the delegation of Daniel Hawley, Esq., I am at present acting as Consul of the United States in this district, with which he will most probably have acquainted you. It imposes upon me the mortifying task of informing you, sir, of the partial capture of an American fleet under the convoy of the Baltimore sloop-of-war, ---- Phillips, Esq., commander, by a British squadron, off this harbor, accompanied with circumstances rather grating to the feelings of Americans, and by no means analogous to that good harmony which seems to subsist between the two Governments.

"The answer of Messrs. Trezevant and Timmons to my annexed note of the 17th instant, requesting an exact relation of the occurrence, will I presume be deemed as impartial a narration as can be given of the whole transaction, they having been passengers on board one of the captured vessels, and removed to the Baltimore.

"Mr. Morton adds, that Commodore Loring ordered the fifty-five men out of the Baltimore "on board of his ship, previous to any proposal of exchanging the natives of one nation for those of the other, and retained five of the hands as being British subjects, without giving an equal number of Americans, whom he acknowledged to have on board.""

HAVANA, November, 17, 1798.

GENTLEMEN: As acting American Consul for this city and district, and of course obliged to forward the most correct statement possible to the Government of the United States officially, I would beg the favor of you, gentlemen, to furnish me with an exact relation, under your signatures, of the unpleasant occurrence which took place off the Moro Castle on the 16th instant, by which you will much oblige,

Gentlemen, your most obedient servant, GEO. C. MORTON.

L. TREZEVANT and W. TIMMONS, Esqs.

N. B.--It would be proper to premise that you were passengers, and your distance from the Moro Castle at the time of capture.

G. C. M.

* * * * *

HAVANA, November 18, 1798.

SIR: Agreeably to your request, we now commit to writing the best account we are able to give you of the conduct of Captain Loring, Commodore of the British squadron which was lately off the Moro, towards the United States ship Baltimore. We must observe, however, that all we can say of it is from the information of Captain Phillips, as we were not on board the Baltimore when she was visited by Captain L.'s officers.

In the morning of the 16th instant, we discovered this squadron when we were in sight of the Moro, and afterwards found it was composed of Captain Loring's ship, the Carnatic, of 74 guns; Captain ----'s ship, the Thunderer, of the same force; Captain Dobson's ship, the Queen, of 98 guns; Captain Donnelly's frigate, the Maidstone, of 32 guns; and Captain Hardy's frigate the Greyhound, of the same force. We were passengers in the brig Norfolk, Captain Butler, which, together with the ship Eliza, Captain Baas, and the brig Friendship, Captain Fuller, were cut off from their entrance into port, and were all made prizes within gunshot of the Moro. We obtained leave to go on board the Baltimore with our baggage, and did so. When Captain Phillips discovered they were English ships, (which was before we were taken,) he stood towards them, and spoke the Commodore. After we got on board the Baltimore, the Captain informed us that he had been on board the Carnatic, and the Commodore told him he should take out of the Baltimore all such men as had not American protections; that he had remonstrated with him against showing such an indignity to our flag; that to do so would leave his ship in a very defenceless state, and would deprive him of nearly all his men, as not even those who were really Americans, or at least very few of them, could show protections, because it was always thought that our flag on board of a Government ship, was a sufficient protection. All this, however, was urged in vain. Captain P. returned to his ship, and the Commodore sent an officer on board the Baltimore, who carried away fifty-five of her men to the Carnatic. Captain Phillips remained in expectation that nearly all the rest would be taken from him; but whether the Commodore, upon reflection, thought better of it, or whatever else might have been his motive, he sent back fifty, and kept five, among whom was the ship's boatswain. Captain Loring proposed to give up a number of American seamen, who, he said, were in his fleet, if Captain P. would give him English subjects for them. Captain P. refused this offer, and the American seamen were not delivered to him. Before any of the men were returned, he sent a message to Captain P. to let him know if he, or one of his officers, would go on board of him, and point out who were Americans and who were not, he would return all the Americans; but this was declined also. After we got on board the Baltimore, he sent a letter to Captain P. which he showed to us, in which the Commodore "demanded" that he would give up all the British subjects on board the Baltimore. To this, Captain P. replied that he could not know any of his men as British subjects, nor could he, as commander of a ship, in the service of the United States, voluntarily give up any of his men; but if he thought fit to send an officer on board, with orders to take any number of his men, he should not oppose it. In this answer, Captain P. mentioned he should lay before the Executive of the United States a full account of the occurrences of the day. Shortly after sending this reply, the squadron set sail, and left the Baltimore. Commodore L. was very polite to us, and was so to Captain P. when he went on board; but Captain P. complained of indecent behavior from the inferior officers.

LEWIS TREZEVANT, WM. TIMMONS.

G. C. MORTON, Esq., Vice Consul of the U. S. at Havana.

The Message and documents were read, and ordered to lie on the table.

MONDAY, January 14.

EDWARD LIVINGSTON, from New York, appeared, and took his seat.

MONDAY, January 21.

Intercourse with France, and her Islands.

SAN DOMINGO.

The fourth section of the bill to suspend this intercourse being under consideration,

Mr. NICHOLAS said, there are some words in this section [in italics] which he did not understand, and if he could not get an explanation of them in any other way, he would move to strike them out. They are not in the former law; and they are very extensive. They go to this, that a man in authority in one of these islands, be his authority as limited as it may, may make an agreement on the subject of intercourse different from what he is authorized to do by the Republic of France, and, in that case, the island is to be open for our commerce. He wished for some information on this subject.

Mr. S. SMITH understood, that the reason why these words had been introduced into the bill was, in order to meet the case of Hispaniola.[38] It was well known that a new agent had succeeded Hedouville there; that he has published a proclamation, stating, that notwithstanding the decree of the French Republic, which directs the seizure of all American vessels and their cargoes, whenever there shall be found on board an article of British manufacture, he was authorized to suspend that decree so far as relates to vessels coming to that island. And, Mr. S. said, if any agent in the West Indies could give assurances that no capture should take place from the island of which he is Governor, then the PRESIDENT shall be authorized to open our commerce with that Island. It was on this ground that he had given his consent to this clause of the bill.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, if the clause were intended to meet the case to which the gentleman had alluded, the agent had his powers from the French Government, and whatever he did must be considered as done by that Government, until his power shall be revoked; but as the clause stood, it would authorize the PRESIDENT to treat with usurpers; not merely with persons in power, but with any persons having momentary possession of a place, and he could not agree to such a principle. Why, asked Mr. N., was this law originally passed? Was it not an order to bring France to terms by distressing her islands? Suppose France should say to one of her agents in the West Indies, "You shall be authorized to make a stipulation with the United States to take off the suspension of intercourse with respect to your Island." Would not this be to acknowledge that there our regulation pinched her? And would not the opening of intercourse with such a place, by relieving the distresses of France, defeat the original intention of the law? [Mr. HARPER asked if there was any question before the committee?] Mr. N. said he would make one by moving to strike out this section. A clause of this kind, Mr. N. said, held out an invitation to agents to abandon their country, and to set up Governments of their own. If it were to operate only in a partial manner, for the relief of such of the French islands as are so far distressed as that the Government should be willing to restrain her depredations, so far as related to those particular places, where will be the efficiency of the law afterwards? It will only prove a burden upon our own citizens, without injuring France. If we are to have a free trade with the West Indies, why deprive tobacco planters of going immediately to the country where the article is consumed, instead of going through Spain, and by other circuitous routes? But the other aspect of the bill, Mr. N. said, was the most extraordinary and exceptionable he ever saw. It authorized the PRESIDENT to treat with persons "claiming authority." This provision may produce consequences the most fatal. Suppose any of the islands make a separate negotiation with this country; what will be the effect of our having thus enticed them to disobey their Government? Will this Government not be chargeable with having assisted in detaching such a colony from its Government? And if so, could any thing afford a more lasting cause for war than an act of this kind? If there be any disposition in the French Government to treat, (which, however, the Secretary of State denies,) a conduct of this kind would effectually root it out, and there could be no treaty--no peace between the two countries--for years to come. If gentlemen, therefore, can give no better explanation of this clause than has already been given, he hoped it would be stricken out.

Mr. OTIS did not believe that a more unjustifiable jealousy ever entered the heated imagination of the gentleman from Virginia, than that which occupies it at this moment. He seems to think that this section of the bill is intended only to encourage usurpation and rebellion, whereas a slight attention should convince him, that when any one of the French islands or dependencies revolt and declare for independence, neither the law passed the last session nor this bill will apply to such a case. In such an event, there is nothing in the existing laws to prevent our carrying on a free trade with such revolted island. If attention be paid to the first section of the bill, it will be seen to apply only to such places as are under the acknowledged government of France; and the moment a place is no longer under her government, both the existing law and this section become null with respect to that place, and a new relation would be created which would be regulated under the law of nations. If a rebellion of this kind should break out, it would become a question to what extent we ought to carry on commerce with the rebellious place; and we should then be governed by existing circumstances. If we should be at war with France, we should doubtless, said Mr. O., avail ourselves of the trade to its full extent, without respect to her wishes; but if an accommodation of differences should be effected, and the mother country should prohibit all trade with the revolters, it is not presumable that this Government would sanction any commerce that would provoke a war, or protect adventurers from the seizure and confiscation of their property.

But it is not enough, observed Mr. O., to say that this section does not relate to rebellious colonies; it is merely a provision to meet such conditions as the agents of the Executive Directory are entitled to make, consistently with their allegiance to their own country--such at least as they constantly undertake to propose. Without assuming to define the powers of these agents, it was very clear that they have undertaken to dispense with the decrees and laws of the Republic, whenever the exigencies of their Governments have, in their opinion, made it necessary or convenient.

At St. Domingo and at Guadaloupe, the agents seem to exercise an unlimited control over the trade and maritime concerns of those islands. He presumed they had a discretionary right given to them to relax or suspend many of the decrees of the mother country, with respect to the territory they are appointed to govern. The uniform conduct of Santhonax and Polverel, and of all the Commissioners at St. Domingo, show this to be the case; and at Guadaloupe, Victor Hugues has proved himself to be nothing less than a despot. If this bill passed, these Commissioners may open the commerce with this country, even though an open war should exist between this nation and France. Nay, Mr. O. said, he had a proclamation of Hedouville, the late agent at Cape Francois, in his hand, which shows that he had determined to adopt this line of conduct.

[Mr. O. read the proclamation which states that neutral ships and cargoes, that provisions and dry goods, shall be admitted into St. Domingo in American bottoms, that they shall not be seized when destined for French ports, but pass unmolested by French cruisers even if war should break out between the mother country and the United States.]

Now, said Mr. O., the interests of this country, and of our mercantile citizens in particular, require us to place ourselves in a situation to meet these advances. Can there be any difficulty in giving to the PRESIDENT a power with respect to the trade with a part of the French dominions, which he at present possesses over the whole? Gentlemen have said that an agent has arrived from a usurper in St. Domingo. Mr. O. said he did not know the fact. He did not know of any usurper in St. Domingo. He believed General Toussaint had succeeded Hedouville in the government of that island; that he had, in imitation of his superiors, sent him off in the same way as in the mother country are sent off those who may be obnoxious to the designs of the reigning and the strongest party. But it does not follow that these measures of General Toussaint will not be ratified by the French Government. The same General had heretofore sent off the commissioner Santhonax. He was not, however, for this cause declared to have forfeited his allegiance, but pains were taken to appease and reconcile him, and Santhonax came back. He was afterwards succeeded by Hedouville, who is, in his turn, sent on a voyage to France. But, said Mr. O., shall we now begin to examine into the legality of the powers of persons in authority, either in France or in her West India possessions? Have we not uniformly adhered to the principle that those who exercise power de facto are the only persons that we are bound to recognize? From the first dawn of the Revolution, we have, said he, never questioned the legitimacy of the power exercised in France; to us it seemed indifferent whether Jacobins or Girondists were at the helm of affairs; whether it was a reign of terror or of moderation. We have constantly sung hosannas and offered adorations to the great Republic, one and indivisible, without considering by whose hands the power was exercised. It is now too late to change this system. We have no way of knowing, said Mr. O., whether the agents of the Directory act in conformity to the will of their masters or not, until the Government declares them out of their allegiance. It will then be soon enough for us to determine the posture which good faith and policy require us to take.

But, the gentleman from Virginia says, we ought not to treat with individuals under any circumstances; but it appears probable that the French Republic may permit her agents to carry on this commerce, and to give us satisfactory assurances of safety and protection without a treaty; and such an arrangement would be advantageous to that Republic.

We find, indeed, said Mr. O., from the papers on the table, that one of the complaints of that Government is founded on this suspension of intercourse, and therefore to restore the trade in part is to diminish the cause of complaint. With respect to the remark of the gentleman from Virginia, that it was the object of the original act, by distressing France, to bring her to terms, he differed in opinion from him. It was merely a defensive measure. Our trade became so insecure, that it was necessary to do--what? conquer France? No; but to prevent the ruin which threatened our citizens, by prohibiting all intercourse with that country and its dependencies; and whenever an end is put to those aggressions and depredations, the suspension may be removed.

This, said Mr. O., is not a novel practice. At the commencement of the late war, the citizens of the Bahamas were excepted from the general regulations and orders prescribed to our privateers. It is very possible to be at war with a nation, and yet at peace with a certain portion of its territory. We find, by the papers on our table, that France says her privateers have transgressed their authority, and that they have now determined that no commissions shall be issued, except by their agents. Let us be prepared to meet them, if they will act accordingly; and if their agents in the Colonies restrain privateering, and depredations within their respective jurisdictions, let us avail ourselves of their good dispositions without any nice inquiries.

Mr. O. had said, that this law had no allusion to any country in rebellion; but he could conceive it possible that St. Domingo may declare itself independent, and become so, in spite of the opposition of France, or the wishes of this country. Far be it from me, continued Mr. O., to contend that it is desirable for the interest of the United States that such an event should happen; such a doctrine at this moment would be unseasonable and improper; but, if it does take place, he might say, without offence, it would be good policy to be upon the best terms with the persons in authority there; if not, the inhabitants of that island may become pirates upon our trade, and do us more mischief than we formerly suffered from the Barbary Powers. To prevent which, let us feed and clothe them, and deprive them of inducements to quit their island.

Mr. HARPER did not know that he could give an explanation of this section which would be satisfactory to the gentleman from Virginia; but he would state what was the intention of the bill, and what he thought would be its effects. He conceived that the section now under consideration is in strict conformity with the bill heretofore passed. The object of that bill was twofold; first, to save our commerce from that speculative and hazardous enterprise which the high profits made by successful voyages enticed the merchant to go into, which was a species of gambling by which some made large fortunes, and others sustained heavy losses. This trade was something of the nature of faro-banks, or lotteries, which all good Governments have thought proper to prohibit. The Government of this country thought it wise to interfere, and say to the merchants: "You shall not run these great risks; for though a few of you make great gain by the trade, the loss upon the whole is much greater than the gain." This was one object. The other was, to deter the French nation, and those exercising authority under it, from committing depredations upon our commerce, and thus procure protection to our trade. By what means was this to be accomplished? By withholding from the French those articles of prime necessity which they were accustomed to receive through the medium of commerce, to produce an effect which they should feel.

Let us examine, said Mr. H., whether this section is in conformity to these two objects. There could be no doubt with respect to the first, because if you can prevail upon those who heretofore encouraged privateering, to forbear to make further depredations, our commerce will unquestionably be rendered safe. The reason, therefore, for laying the restriction, is thus removed; and he saw no reason why it should be continued.

Mr. GALLATIN said, one of the objects of this bill when it passed at the last session, was to prevent depredations upon our commerce; but a majority of the House who voted for it, did so with a view of compelling France, by the loss of our trade to her islands, to come to reasonable terms of settlement with the United States. It was then said by some gentlemen, that it was not improbable that the trade to the West Indies was even more advantageous to the United States than to France, valuable as it was to her; and that, therefore, it would not produce the effect predicted. This was his opinion, and he therefore voted against the bill. But, though he voted against this measure, and some others, which, he thought at the time premature, yet a majority of Congress having, by adopting them, placed the nation in its present situation, whatever his opinion might then have been, and whatever it might now be, as to the probability of an end being put to our differences with France, he should think it bad policy, under present circumstances, to recede from the ground then taken, since such a conduct could betray nothing but weakness, and tend to defeat the object which all doubtless have in view, whatever might be the different opinions of obtaining it, an honorable peace. Though this law, therefore, was limited to the present session, he was ready to vote for a continuance of it; but the section now under consideration goes entirely upon new ground, and entirely different to any either taken or avowed at the last session.

The law now in existence, said Mr. G., has a section something similar to this, though widely different in substance. It is to this effect; that if, before the next session of Congress, the Government of France, and all persons under its authority, shall disavow and be found to refrain from depredations upon our commerce, then it shall be lawful for the PRESIDENT to suspend the operation of this law. Not to any part, but with the whole. By that law, we said, "We are not yet at war with you, we will adopt such measures as we think necessary for our present situation. We will suspend commerce with you as a nation; but if you, as a nation, shall disavow and refrain from depredations, we have given the PRESIDENT power to renew our commercial intercourse with you."

But what, said Mr. G., is the language of this section? It is this. [He read the section as above.] It is, that if any part of the nation, or any commanding officer, or person claiming authority, in any one port, or island, shall take those steps which we consider necessary for that nation to take, it shall be lawful for the PRESIDENT to remit and discontinue the restraints, prohibitions, &c. Instead of taking a general national ground, it provides for the negotiation of an individual, on his private account, who may either exercise, or claim to exercise, authority in any island, &c.

We are not, said Mr. G., at war, and an act of this kind is an act which, if it can be justified at all, can only be made use of in a state of war. It is only in such a state that we are authorized to declare, that we will act a different part with certain parts of a country at war, from what we meant to act with the whole; that we will negotiate, treat, make specific regulations with private individuals, provided they shall do--what? Disavow what the French Republic does not disavow. The present act makes it necessary for the disavowal to come from the Government; but this section says, "that although the French Government shall not disavow or restrain her depredations, &c., yet if an individual shall do it, we will open a trade with this individual." This would be to encourage insurrections. It is establishing a doctrine which is reprobated almost every day on this floor--that it is right to divide a people from their Government.

Mr. G. conceived, therefore, that the question comes to this: Is it proper to give power to the PRESIDENT, under our present circumstances, to stipulate with certain agents, that in case they will disobey their Government, by declaring themselves independent, or by throwing themselves into other hands, we will renew our commercial intercourse with you? No man, said Mr. G., will deny that a trade of this kind would be advantageous to the United States; he believed it to be one of the most lucrative branches of our commerce; but it was nevertheless thought proper, at the last session, to suspend it, in order, as then supposed, to effect a greater good. Therefore, this commerce being advantageous to the United States, is not a sufficient reason why this measure should be taken, if it be wrong in itself, and may produce greater mischiefs than the trade can do us good.

What, said Mr. G., are the inconveniences which would arise from a measure of this kind? It must be allowed, in the first place, that it would give the lie to all our former declarations of abhorrence against the attempts of other countries to divide the people of a nation from their Government; for we here, said he, assume the ground that it is proper to negotiate and stipulate with a part of the people, with a certain district of a country, with any person who shall choose to say that he claims the right of governing in any place. We abandon the general ground of treating with a foreign Government, and determine to treat with any individual who may either have, or claim to have, authority. Mr. G. believed a principle of this kind at all times improper; and it would be peculiarly improper in us to act upon it, with respect to a nation, against which we have so many grounds of complaint of this kind. He had already stated, that it could only be justified in a state of war, if then, to hold out encouragement to insurrection and rebellion to the colonies of another country.

Mr. G. believed he might go so far as to say that this section was not inserted to meet the case spoken of by the gentleman from Maryland; but for the admission of one which had been a subject of discussion in the newspapers for some time past. He meant what was generally understood by the mission of Toussaint, a black General, of St. Domingo. It had been asserted, from the moment of the arrival of a supposed agent, that he came here with the late Consul of the United States at that port; that he brought despatches from Toussaint to our Government. Further than this, we have seen, in some of the newspapers printed at the eastward, that this mission is likely to have some effect. We have seen it there stated, "that the President is neither rash nor diffident, and that good effects may be expected to flow from this mission." So far, on the authority of the public newspapers, and none of these assertions have been denied.

Should I be doing right, said Mr. G., to say that I believe that this section of the bill is an effect of that negotiation? It is true I only deduce this from probability, but the probability is strong. Mr. G. said he knew that the independence of St. Domingo had been a favorite theme with gentlemen, and they had made an appeal upon it to the avarice of the people of the United States, that, in case of war, this independence would be of advantage to the United States, and that, during a time of peace, the minds of the people ought to be prepared for this event. But gentlemen seem to think that the public mind is not yet ready for this change, or they do not choose to avow the object of this mission. Which, he could not tell; but he would advise those gentlemen who have received information on this subject to communicate it. Mr. G. said he should be happy to know the subject of the despatches of General Toussaint. What is his offer to our Government? Whether his ideas go to independence or not? Whether he is in any way connected with the British Government, or not? Whether the sudden and extraordinary evacuation of St. Domingo by General Maitland was to promote something of this kind, or to support the force of General Toussaint? He should wish to know what is the disposition of the Executive with respect to this business, so far as it shall have come to the knowledge of any of these gentlemen. He would also be glad to know the disposition of this agent, or the nature of his object, at least so much of it as may have escaped at any petit soupér or dinér, at which these gentlemen may have been parties? If any such information could be obtained, it might tend to throw some light upon the subject. If he should be mistaken in his views of it, it would be wholly owing to his being deprived of that information, which he believed either the Executive, or some of the members on this floor possess.

Mr. G. believed the object of this section is to give encouragement to the black General in his present views. A single sentiment had dropped from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. OTIS) in the course of the debate, which had given rise to part of what he had said on this subject, and which led him to believe that he had some information which he ought to communicate. He said, "if St. Domingo should finally be independent, it was proper to cultivate a good understanding with that island at present, and not refuse"--what? "to hold out certain encouragement to them in such an event." When? Now; so that we are not only to cultivate a good understanding with St. Domingo, if it should become independent, but in the expectation of it, and before it takes place, it is proper to cultivate a good understanding with that island, by holding out the encouragement proposed by this bill. This was nothing less than to confess that this section is inserted in the bill to encourage Toussaint to declare the island independent. Nay, his views, if he is a man of sense, must go further; he must not only secure a temporary trade, but he would also desire to know whether it be the wish of this country that St. Domingo should become independent; because he should suppose that if the Government of the United States was opposed to such an event, a temporary trade would not be a sufficient inducement to him to throw off his present allegiance.

To me, however, said Mr. G., if it be the intention of the General to declare it, the independence of St. Domingo is a very problematical event. It would certainly be the interest of Great Britain to oppose an attempt of this kind; since it could not be her interest to have a black Government there. But supposing the event possible, he should consider it as extremely injurious to the interests of the United States. Suppose that island, with its present population, under present circumstances, should become an independent State. What is this population? It is known to consist, almost altogether, of slaves just emancipated, of men who received their first education under the lash of the whip, and who have been initiated to liberty only by that series of rapine, pillage, and massacre, that have laid waste and deluged that island in blood; of men, who, if left to themselves, if altogether independent, are by no means likely to apply themselves to the peaceable cultivation of the country, but will try to continue to live, as heretofore, by plunder and depredations. No man, said Mr. G., wishes more than I do to see an abolition of slavery, when it can be properly effected; but no man would be more unwilling than I to constitute a whole nation of freed slaves, who had arrived to the age of thirty years, and thus to throw so many wild tigers on society.[39] If the population of St. Domingo can remain free in that island, he had no objection; but, however free, he did not wish to have them independent, and he would rather see them under a government that would be likely to keep them where they are, and prevent them from committing depredations out of the island. But if they were left to govern themselves, they might become more troublesome to us, in our commerce to the West Indies, than the Algerines ever were in the Mediterranean; they might also become dangerous neighbors to the Southern States, and an asylum for renegadoes from those parts.

This being the case, Mr. G. said, he must deprecate every encouragement which may be held out to produce such an event. Did not gentlemen recollect what an alarm was sounded last year, with respect to the probability of an invasion of the Southern States from the West Indies; an alarm upon which some of the strongest measures of the last session were grounded? Mr. G. could not help hoping, there would be a general wish not to take any measure which may embody so dangerous a description of men in our neighborhood, whose object may be plunder, and who might visit the States of South Carolina and Georgia, and spread their views among the negro people there, and excite dangerous insurrections among them. He did not wish, therefore, to see this black population independent; and that the interest will be wholly black is clear. The General is black, and his agent here is married to a black woman in this city. Mr. G. did not mean by this to throw any reflection upon the General. He believed he had behaved well to Americans. His remarks were general, and were only intended to show that it would be with a black population we must treat.

WEDNESDAY, January 23.

Mr. S. SMITH said, that if he thought with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that the clause under consideration was connected with the mission from Toussaint, and the separation of Hispaniola from France, or with an intention of dividing the people of that island from their Government, he should also be opposed to it; but believing, as he did, that it would be productive of none but good effects to this country, he was in favor of retaining the clause.[40]

It might be well, Mr. S. said, to take a view of the relation which had subsisted between France and her colonies for some years back. Early in the Revolution, Santhonax and Polverel were sent as Commissioners to Hispaniola, for the purpose of governing the island, and to carry into effect the decree of the French Government for liberating the slaves. They conducted themselves in a friendly manner towards America, but destructively to the northern part of Hispaniola, and particularly towards Cape Francois. The disastrous contest which took place between the whites and blacks, to the destruction of the former, is well known. From the abuse of their power, these Commissioners were recalled. Polverel had not sufficient courage to appear before the French Government, and put an end to his existence. Santhonax went to France, and was sent out again to the island. Still he was favorable to this country, until the decree of France declared that their vessels of war should treat neutral vessels in the same manner as neutral powers suffered Great Britain to treat them. Santhonax then issued his decree of December, 1797, and American vessels were taken and carried into Hispaniola indiscriminately, and unsuspectingly, not under the authority of France, but under the authority of this agent. Not content with this abuse of his power, Santhonax sent Deforneaux, the Commissioner of Guadaloupe, to the south side of Hispaniola, to carry his plans into effect there; but Rigaud, a man of color, and an honest man, who had gained the esteem of the people, who was in power there, frustrated the attempt. Deforneaux attempted to escape, but was taken and sent to France. We see, therefore, that Santhonax made no scruple to set aside the decrees of France; and in this manner has Rigaud ever done, repealing and preventing the execution of the decrees of France, whenever he disliked them. And was Rigaud punished by France for thus exercising his power or not? No; he was made Commander-in-chief of the south side of the island for having sent off Deforneaux. Hedouville succeeded Santhonax in the Government, and brought with him the power to execute or not, as he judged proper, the decree of the Directory directing the capture of neutral vessels with British manufactures on board. He determined that this decree should not be carried into effect against vessels bound to Hispaniola. Did he carry his purpose into effect? So far as his (Mr. S.'s) information went, he did.

Here, then, we see Hedouville setting aside the decrees of France; and Rigaud has not only prevented American vessels from being condemned, but has thrown the captains of privateers into prison for daring to bring in American vessels, and has caused such as have been carried into Jacquemel, on account of not having a rôle d'equipage, to be delivered up immediately. Victor Hugues, upon the recall of Mr. Adet, ordered that all vessels carrying on trade to what he called rebel ports, should be brought in and made legal prizes of. This was another separate authority. He afterwards issued orders for the condemnation of vessels coming into Guadaloupe with a supercargo, who should either be an Irish or a Scotchman, though they had every necessary paper on board to show that they were bound to that port, and vessels were condemned for this alone; and this is not seen in any of the decrees of France. Mr. S. understood this clause as intended to meet cases of this kind; and, so far from this being offensive to France, it must be quite the reverse. Under this law, said Mr. S., the PRESIDENT will be enabled to say to these special agents, "if you will suspend your decrees with respect to your islands our trade shall be opened to you," and by this means give to our citizens a commerce which is a mine of gold to them. Such a conduct, he thought, must appear to every one perfectly reasonable.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania says that the independence of Hispaniola would be dangerous to the Southern States. But does this bill, said Mr. S., contemplate any such thing? Does it not say that the agents must be under the Government of France? If the island were to declare itself independent, we could not, said he, prevent our merchants from trading with it; or if it should be in a state of rebellion, they would trade with it at all risks, without coming under this act. This bill seems, instead of encouraging the independence of the island, to place an obstacle in the way of it. It promises to the commanding officer the trade of this country, so long as he remains attached to France, and forbears to depredate upon our commerce; but the moment he declares himself independent, that promise is no longer binding.

Certain words in this clause are complained of; and Mr. S. owned he did not like them himself. He meant the words, "shall clearly disavow;" and, if this motion should not prevail, he would move to strike them out. He should be satisfied if the islands refrained from depredating upon our trade, without making any disavowal. Mr. S. said he could by no means bring his mind to believe that this clause could give encouragement to the people of Hispaniola to rebel against their country. Toussaint, said he, is not the only Governor of that island. Rigaud, who, as he had already stated, is a man of color and a man of excellent character, who has great hold of the affections of the people, and whose attachments are also strong to the French Government, has also a considerable share of authority; and Toussaint, in his opinion, would not on this account dare to declare the island independent.

But suppose, said Mr. S., this independence were to take place, would all the danger to this country actually take place which has been stated? In his opinion the reverse would be true. Refuse to these people our commerce, and the provisions of which they stand in need, and you compel them to become pirates and dangerous neighbors to the Southern States; but, so long as you supply them, they will turn their attention to the cultivation of their plantations. If, on the contrary, they once get a taste for plunder, they will never settle to labor.

Mr. S. observed that it was the other day said that truth was the characteristic of the Federal party. It might be so, though he had found it otherwise; but the characteristics of party, he observed, always is detraction, suspicion, and jealousy, whether it be called this or that. On the present occasion he found jealousy and doubts had intruded on the minds of gentlemen who would, at other times, see very differently. He did not mean to throw any censure upon them on this account, because they doubtless believe themselves right. This party spirit, said Mr. S., is every where to be found. The gentleman from Connecticut had the other day said that he (Mr. S.) had constantly voted against every measure of defence, yet if he would have read the journals, he would have found the reverse the fact. [The Chairman doubted whether this was connected with the question.][41] Mr. S. concluded by saying that the more gentlemen think on the subject, the more they will be convinced the bill is not pregnant with the mischiefs which they apprehend.

Mr. NICHOLAS said it would be difficult to ascertain precisely where truth is to be found; whether in the extremes of party or in a middle course. The gentleman from Maryland says party men are always in the wrong; therefore he supposed that gentleman to be of opinion that those who vibrate between two parties are always in the right. In considering this question, he should do it according to his best judgment. If his mind should be so operated upon by party spirit as not to see the truth, it would be his misfortune.

He believed, as he had already stated, that this bill, as it now stands, will authorize the PRESIDENT to negotiate with the subordinate agents of a Government against the will of that Government, and thereby promote a separation between the agent and his Government, by holding out a temptation to do certain acts not warranted by the Government. The House had been told, by two gentlemen from Massachusetts, that this cannot be the operation of the law, because it has no relation to a revolted colony; that when a revolt once takes place, the trade will open of itself, as the territory will no longer be under the authority of France. He wished to inquire into the truth of this doctrine, which one gentleman has asserted and another has endeavored to prove. Mr. N. asked if Toussaint should to-morrow declare himself independent, would the PRESIDENT be authorized to direct the collector of the customs to consider St. Domingo as no longer coming under the present law? In his own opinion, he could not, because it would be contrary to the practice of any other Government; and, if done, would give the lie to all the professions made by us on subjects of this kind. When the separation merely commences; when we know nothing of the means which the revolters possess, but because some person chooses to declare a place independent, shall our Government interfere and acknowledge such a place independent? He asked whether any gentlemen in this House, who are so frequently called disorganizers, had ever broached a doctrine like this? He knew very well, without the authority of Vattel, which the gentleman from Massachusetts had introduced, that any nation is at liberty to take part in a rebellion; but it is a good cause of war. When a revolution is effected, then the country revolting becomes independent, and any nation may treat with it according to its will. But, if you take part with the revolters, you place yourselves on the same ground with them in respect to the Government revolted against. And, said he, in case we give any assistance to any island belonging to France, in its revolt against that Government, we place ourselves in a state of war.

Mr. N. believed gentlemen are wrong in their construction of the present law, when they say if Toussaint were to declare himself independent to-morrow, that the Executive might immediately consider him so, and direct trade to be carried on with that island as heretofore. He believed the PRESIDENT would not do it, and that the present clause of this bill is founded upon the certainty that he would not. If this is the case, the same objection is in full force against the wording of this section. The gentleman from Massachusetts, first up, seems to acknowledge that this law is to have this operation. He, says, St. Domingo may become independent, and that therefore it is highly proper we should let them know what dependence they may have upon us; to let them know that they may expect all the advantages of independence. Is not this, said Mr. N., an acknowledgment of the effect which this law will have? That the moment they throw off the French yoke, they will receive all the assistance from this country which a free commerce can give them? Mr. N. thought the gentleman himself inflicted the deepest wound on this bill, for gentlemen cannot say that such an assurance is not a temptation to commit the act.

Mr. N. could readily believe that the trade of St. Domingo is very valuable to this country, and the assertion of the gentleman from Maryland, that it is a "mine of gold," had confirmed that opinion; and he was really afraid that that gentleman's representing a commercial part of the country, and being himself deeply engaged in commerce, the importance of this trade may have too much weight in deciding a question of this kind, and be a means of disregarding the evils which may arise from it; but Mr. N. was of opinion, that a solid peace would be far more beneficial to commerce generally, than any temporary advantage of this kind. Besides, the principle upon which such advantages would be built, is something similar to that which would actuate a man to fall upon the property of his neighbor, because he is richer than himself.

But does not the same gentleman tell the House that the powers in St. Domingo are pretty equally balanced between General Toussaint and Rigaud, and that, therefore, if Toussaint attempted to establish the independence of the island, there could be no certainty of his success? Why, then, said Mr. N., should we go into a measure which might produce war between the two countries, when the advantage to be derived from it is so very doubtful? And he thought the danger from the proceeding was heightened by the circumstance which gentlemen have mentioned of there being so very large a body of people in arms there; for, since the powers are so nicely balanced, is it not probable that the government party, in case of a struggle, would have the advantage? And would it not be the height of madness for us to run the risk of having the large force of that island turned against us, in consequence of our improper interference between the colony and its government?

Mr. N. said, he could not overlook some considerations connected with this subject, which he thought of great importance. It is well known, (and he begged gentlemen who have the same desire to preserve the country in peace that he had, to pause at the suggestion,) that there are many gentlemen in this House who have been long in favor of coming to an open declaration of war against France; and he had every reason to believe that the same disposition yet exists in these gentlemen; but the same opportunity of making this declaration does not now exist. The public mind is not now so well prepared for entering upon a war as it was some time ago, because they believe things wear a better appearance. If then, said Mr. N., the same disposition exists for war; if these gentlemen think they or their country will be benefited by war, they may be very willing that France should declare it; and if it be possible that a wish of this sort may exist, it affords a full solution to the meaning of this bill.

But we are told, said Mr. N., that we ought not to excite the animosity of the people of St. Domingo. Is our present situation calculated to produce this effect? Certainly not, since they are necessarily involved with the mother country; and to take the part proposed, he had already shown might be attended with the most direful consequences. He thought this country ought not to wish for the independence of St. Domingo in another point of view. However we may wish to see the naval power of France put down, so that they may not have it in their power, if they have the wish, to invade this country, it is highly important to us that the naval power of Europe should be divided. He did not think that it could be for the interest of this country that Great Britain should have a navy which should keep the world in awe, and subject it to her views; and if we assist in destroying the colonies of France, we shall be the means of throwing them and their naval power into the hands of Great Britain. He did not know that it mattered much to us whether St. Domingo was a colony of France or England, only as it would add to the naval strength of England. He hoped, therefore, the motion for striking out would prevail.

Mr. PINCKNEY observed, that so much had already been said on this subject, and the general principles of the bill had been so ably defended, that it would be unnecessary to make more than one or two remarks in reply to the gentleman from Virginia. That gentleman had gone altogether upon the idea of this bill being of so obnoxious a nature to the Government of France, that it must be considered by that government as a cause of war. He thought it had already been shown, that the gentleman was altogether mistaken; and, very unhappily for his position, our own experience was sufficient to determine whether it has ever been considered as a cause of war for neutral countries to trade with colonies revolting from a mother country. We know, said he, very well how neutral nations conducted towards us in our revolt from the Government of Great Britain. Mr. P. believed it was never understood that any nation with whom we traded was, in consequence, involved in war with Great Britain. The fact was otherwise. It was never so looked upon by that country, and gentlemen will admit that that Government was at least hightoned enough. All that Great Britain did was to seize the vessels whenever she could lay hold of them; and this is the risk which the gentleman from Maryland mentioned our traders would run in carrying commerce into any place in a state of revolution. It is well known that we endeavored, during the whole course of our war, to draw foreign commerce to this country, which was found necessary in order to enable us to carry on the war. Agents were employed for this purpose, and we saw no moral turpitude in this. And during the time that Holland was separated from the dominion of Spain, was war declared in consequence of any nation trading with Holland? The case was so different, he recollected that Holland declared, that she would seize all vessels going to Spain, though that had heretofore been considered as the mother country. This was reversing the case.

With respect to the three points stated generally by the Secretary of State, they are not said to go to the point for which the gentleman from Virginia has taken them. With regard to the douceur of £50,000, Mr. P. would say, that if we believe this attempt to have been made to extort this sum of money from our Envoys, for corrupt purposes, (and notwithstanding all that has been said on the subject, he did believe that X and Y were the agents of the French Government in that transaction, and which has, indeed, been acknowledged by Y, Mr. Bellamy, of Hamburg, who declares he has never written or said any thing to our Envoys, but by the direction of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs,) no reliance ought to be placed upon any of their declarations; for after such an act, it may be supposed they will say one thing at one time and another at another; and no reliance could be had upon any thing which comes from so corrupt a source.

Mr. P. said he would not trouble the committee longer, except in one point, and that was as to the consequences which might flow from a declaration of independence on the part of St. Domingo. He should endeavor to answer the gentleman from Pennsylvania as to the consequences which it might produce to the Southern States. It was a subject to which he had paid all the attention in his power. He did, on all questions, endeavor as much as possible to divest himself of any thing like party spirit; but in this case, where he had himself so much at stake, in which his native country and every thing dear to him was concerned, his sincerity could not be doubted. Mr. P. did not himself believe that this bill would have the least tendency to procure the independence of St. Domingo; but as some gentlemen think it is probable that this may be the result, and as no one could say with certainty what the effect of any measure would be, he had considered the subject, and was clearly of opinion, that should the independence of that island take place, the event would be more advantageous to the Southern States, than if it remained under the dominion of France, considering the disposition which France has evinced towards us, (and of which he saw no prospects of a change,) and the present conduct of the inhabitants of St. Domingo. Nothing which we can do, said Mr. P., can bring back the internal state of that island to the state it was formerly in. Considering the inhabitants, then, in the light of freemen, whether will it be better for us, in the Southern States, to have to deal with them, as such, or under the direction of the French Government, unreasonable and arbitrary as we have found it? He had no hesitation in saying, that, it would be more for the safety of the Southern States, to have that island independent, than under the Government of France, either in time of peace or war. If our dispute with France should not be accommodated, and they keep possession of St. Domingo, they could invade this country only from that quarter. There is there a large body of troops, and their unofficial agents told our Envoys, that in case we did not submit to their conditions, we might expect an attack from that quarter. It would certainly lessen the danger from that island, were it to be separated from France; but remaining in the hands of France, and supported by the powerful navy of France, notwithstanding all the vigor we have shown on the ocean, we might be very much annoyed from thence.

If these people in St. Domingo find that we withhold from them supplies which are necessary for their subsistence, said Mr. P., though they are friendly disposed towards us, they will look elsewhere for support; they must either turn their attention to cultivating their land, look to Great Britain, or become freebooters. Which situation is it most for the interest of the United States that they should be in? Surely the peaceful cultivation of the ground; and to induce them to take this course, it will be our interest to supply them with what they have occasion for, lest they should get the habit of freebooters, and make our commerce the object of their plunder. He hoped, therefore, the motion for striking out would not prevail.

Mr. MACON had no doubt the gentleman from South Carolina had paid particular attention to this subject. It was to be expected that every gentleman from the Southern States would pay attention to it. In one respect, he was precisely in the same situation with the gentleman from South Carolina. He lived in a country that would be affected by any event, such as had been mentioned, and all his connections were there. It was the same with all other gentlemen from the Southern States. He differed in opinion, however, when the gentlemen said that we should have less to apprehend from St. Domingo, in case it should become independent, than whilst it remained a part of the French Republic. He believed the state of society to be such in that country, as not to admit of self-government. In case they separate from France, he should apprehend that the consequence will be, that instead of being ruled by one of the European powers, they would become the tools of them all, in turn, and we should probably have the same game played off upon us from thence, that we have heretofore had played upon us by means of the Indians.

Mr. M. said, that although the part of the bill moved to be stricken out, does not go directly to say that it has reference to St. Domingo, it is a little extraordinary that no other case will fit it. There could be no doubt, if the island became independent, we should have a right to trade to it; but he believed it would puzzle gentlemen to find an instance of a Legislature passing a law in order to fit a case which might happen. As he thought it improper, he hoped it would be stricken out.

Mr. GOODRICH said this amendment went to change the principle of the bill. The bill goes upon the idea that when any island in the West Indies shall cease to make depredations upon our commerce, our trade shall be opened with them, without regarding by what authority or force the change was effected. The matter is not placed upon the ground of any treaty whatever; for, said Mr. G., we can neither increase nor diminish the power of the PRESIDENT in this respect. A great deal of mist has been thrown on this subject. The effect of this amendment will be, that the person restraining from depredations upon our commerce must act under the authority of the French Republic; on the contrary, the friends of this bill wish not to examine by what authority the thing is done, provided that it be done. We have a right to say that our vessels shall go to any port we please; but, according to the doctrine of the amendment supposing the island of St. Domingo was conquered, we could not send our commerce there, nor could we send it to a place in rebellion; so that our commerce was to be affected by every change of circumstances which might take place. He hoped the committee would recognize no principle which shall say we have not a right to send our commerce wherever we please, whether the places to which our vessels go are in war, peace, or rebellion.

Mr. GALLATIN was astonished to hear the gentleman from Connecticut say that this is merely a commercial question. Let us, said he, examine the effect of this amendment. We are told that the provisions of this bill do not extend to any colony which may be conquered; for instance, to St. Martin's, St. Lucia, or any other colonies which have been conquered. Let us see, then, how it will apply if this amendment is rejected, and whether the question is commercial or political. Let us inquire, said he, what is the case provided for, if the amendment is rejected, and which is unprovided for if it is adopted, and it will then appear what ground is covered by the opposers of this amendment. If rejected, it will result, that all persons who may claim or exercise any command in any island, &c., although they have not that command under the Government of France, and who shall refrain from privateering, shall be entitled to a free trade with this country. The only case is a case of insurrection and rebellion. Suppose, said Mr. G., I should agree with the gentleman from Connecticut, that if once a rebellion takes place, or any colony shall declare itself independent, (but, by the by, the doctrine is not countenanced by the law of nations,) that we may trade there as we please. Does it result that we have a right to pass a law beforehand to contemplate such an event? If we do, it will be speaking publicly, thus: "If any persons shall, in any island, port, or place, belonging to the French Republic, raise an insurrection, and declare themselves independent, and shall be found to refrain from committing depredations upon our commerce, we will open a free trade with them." And yet the gentleman from Connecticut calls this a mere commercial question.

The committee have been told of a number of cases which he had been astonished to hear--cases which happened in our war. Gentlemen who have mentioned these have not attended to any of the facts of the war. Mr. G. referred to the case of the treaty made in Holland, which has already been explained in a former debate. Mr. G. said, gentlemen might put what construction they pleased upon this section; but certainly publicly to tell the French colonies that if they will rebel against their Government, and restrain from depredating upon us, we will treat with them, is to invite them to do it. A declaration of war has always been the consequence of such a conduct in other countries; and he supposed gentlemen are not ready for a declaration of war, though they tell us there is no change in our affairs for the better; that negotiation is at an end; that no idea can be entertained of the sincerity of any professions of the French; and not being ready to bring in a declaration of war, they are not surely ready to make it, or provoke it; and if not, why assume a principle that may have this effect? He hoped the amendment would be agreed to.

The committee now rose, and had leave to sit again.

THURSDAY, January 24.

Death of Mr. Tazewell.

A message was received from the Senate, informing the House that HENRY TAZEWELL, Esq., one of their body, died this morning, and that they had directed orders to be taken respecting his funeral.

Afterwards, on motion of Mr. DENT, the House came to the following resolution:

Resolved, That this House will attend the funeral of HENRY TAZEWELL, Esq., late a member of the Senate of the United States, on to-morrow, at half past four o'clock.[42]

Intercourse with France.

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill further to suspend the commercial intercourse between the United States and France, and the dependencies thereof, and for other purposes.

Mr. SPAIGHT'S amendment being under consideration,

Mr. HARTLEY said the general policy of this bill had been considered at the last session; and he had no doubt, that when any parts of the French dominions cease to depredate upon our commerce, we might, with propriety, open our intercourse with them. If, for instance, the Isle of France had fitted out privateers, and depredated upon our commerce, and chose to forbear to do so in future, and leave our passage to the Indian seas clear, it would be a good reason for opening our commerce with that place. The case of St. Domingo is still stronger, and has, as has been shown, the power of doing as much mischief, should we refuse to furnish them with the necessary supplies. If they call in their privateers, therefore, it would certainly be right to open our intercourse with that valuable island, especially since they appear to be abandoned by France, who has withdrawn all her troops from the island.

After some other observations, Mr. H. concluded with hoping the amendment would not be agreed to, as it would only tend to embarrass the bill, by making it necessary to ascertain the legality of the governing authority of the places with which we might open our intercourse.

Mr. BRACE was opposed to this amendment, as it came round to the same point with that which the gentleman from Pennsylvania had proposed. It struck him that, in the course of the debate, gentlemen have forgot the ground on which we stand. Our treaties with the French Government have been declared void, on account of the conduct of that Government. We have proceeded further, and suspended all commercial intercourse with France and her dependencies. It would be well to consider what kind of connection now exists between the United States and France, and whether a measure of the kind proposed can injure our present prospect of peace. By the arguments of some gentlemen it would seem that we are under some obligation or contract to that Government; whereas, we ought to consider ourselves, with respect to it, in no other light than we consider ourselves with respect to the governments of the world with which we have no connection. We have, therefore, no object to pursue, but what, in a dignified national view, it is our duty and our interest to pursue.

This separation having been effected by the wrong acts of the French Government, she can have no claim upon us; we have taken our stand upon such ground as can always be justified, whenever a spirit of justice shall return. There is no man, said Mr. B., in the House, who does not wish for peace, whenever it can be obtained on a solid foundation. But it was well observed yesterday by his colleague, (Mr. GOODRICH,) that this question is wholly a commercial one. This declaration gave offence to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He was surprised that any one could suppose this to be the case. Mr. B. said he was equally surprised at the arguments of that gentleman. What connection had we with the French Government? or what connection had we with, any other, besides commercial? He had heard much clamor out of doors about other connections--about treaties offensive and defensive. He hoped no such connexion ever would exist between this country and any nation whatever.

Mr. SPAIGHT said, he wished to have given the reasons which induced him to make this amendment yesterday, but a motion being made for the committee to rise, prevented him. Having been a member of the committee who formed this bill, and having given his consent to it, he trusted it would not be believed that he brought forward this motion to defeat the bill; his object was to make it more palatable to many gentlemen, who, if an amendment something like the present was not adopted, would vote against the bill. The gentlemen from Massachusetts and Connecticut have said, that if this amendment is adopted, it will destroy some of the most important principles of the bill. He believed they had mistaken the effect of the amendment. They state that it will be necessary for the PRESIDENT to inquire whether the commander of any island with which he was about to open our intercourse, had his authority from the French Government? On the contrary, it appeared to Mr. S. that, so long as the citizens of any island acknowledged France as the mother country, whatever authority may exist there, the place must be under the Government of France. If an open rebellion took place, it would alter the case entirely. And if conquered by any of the belligerent powers, it would not then come under the bill; so that, in either case, the amendment could have no bad effect. The principal motive with him for moving the amendment was, in order to take away the objection made to it by many gentlemen, that the bill is calculated to produce the independence of St. Domingo; for he himself had no such view, nor did he think any other member of the committee, who reported the bill, had. He believed, if the wants of these people are supplied from this country, it will be better that they should remain under the Government of France; but, if we refuse to supply them with provisions, they may act as freebooters, or do still worse--throw themselves into the hands of Great Britain, in order to procure supplies. These reasons had induced him to make the amendment, and he should be glad to see it adopted.

Mr. CHAMPLIN could see no difference between this and the former amendment, which had been negatived. The design of this section is, to authorize the PRESIDENT to open the intercourse with any of the islands and the United States, whenever he shall deem it consistent with the honor and dignity of this country, without inquiring whether such place is under the French Government. Frequent decrees are passed in France, said Mr. C., for revoking the commissions of these officers, which are not enforced; and yet, if this amendment is passed, such a person could not be treated with, and it would always be difficult to ascertain whether an officer acted under the French Government or not. If the islands choose to cease from their depredations, he would openly trade with them; for the intercourse was originally suspended, not with a view of starving the islands, but to prevent depredations being committed upon our commerce. He was astonished to find that nothing could come before this House, but gentlemen are ready to object to it on account of the effect it may have on France. For his part, if the measure be beneficial to this country, he cared not what effect it might have upon France. It was said this provision would have a tendency to provoke insurrection, or the independence of the island; on the contrary, he believed, if this law does not pass, they will throw themselves into the hands of Great Britain, or become plunderers of our property. He hoped to see the intercourse opened, not only with St. Domingo, but with the Isle of France.

Mr. HARPER said, when this amendment was first made, he considered it as making no considerable change in the section, and was, therefore, inclined to vote for it; but the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. VARNUM,) of whose discernment he had a very high opinion, having said that he considered it as making a very considerable change in the section, and declaring that he would, on that account, vote for it, he was induced to take a further view of it, and he found, upon reconsideration, that it would, indeed, make a very material change in the section, and because he found this would be the case, he must vote against it.

Mr. GALLATIN said, it appeared to him that this amendment goes no further than to prevent any stipulations with persons who have usurped the power of a country. It was yesterday stated by the gentleman from Massachusetts, and repeated to-day by the gentleman from North Carolina, that it did not extend to cases where men's commissions are doubtful. If a man has once held a commission as an agent in any French colony, he may be recognized as their agent, so long as he has not been publicly declared to be otherwise. His exercising the power will be sufficient proof that he has it; and, unless this principle is admitted, it must be evident that the bill is intended to operate in favor of revolters.

There is a great difference, said Mr. G., between this amendment and the one which had been moved by the gentleman from Virginia, the gentleman from New York, or that which he had himself moved. It was the opinion of the gentleman from Virginia, and it was his also, that the PRESIDENT ought not to be authorized to open a trade with St. Domingo, unless the constituted authorities of France had disavowed their former aggressions, and refrained from them; they did not think it right to permit a trade with particular parts of the possessions of France, considering that the measure was originally taken to distress the French Government, and bring it to terms; but this section gives the power of opening a partial intercourse with St. Domingo, though the Government of France should not disavow any of her former illegal acts; and the present amendment only proposes to except cases of insurgency. Nor could he see what possible objection can be made to it, except that it will prevent a lure from being held out to promote the independence of St. Domingo; for in nothing else does the amendment differ from the bill as it now stands.

If we are to hold out this lure, said Mr. G., it must be because we have the right, and it is our interest to do it. When he asserted we have not the right to do it, he would remark upon the word "right." Gentlemen say we have a right to do this, because we are an independent nation. No doubt. But when he said we have not a right to do it, he meant that we could not do it without infracting the law of nations, or those rules which we have declared ought to govern every nation. And though the gentleman from Connecticut has said that there is no connection of a political nature between us and France, and therefore considers this as merely a commercial regulation, Mr. G. said, he has mistaken his meaning, by making use of the word "connection" instead of relation. We have no connection, either commercial or political, with France; but we stand, as a nation, in a political and commercial relation with France and other nations. There is no connection between us, but there is the same relation, both political and commercial, that there is between all other nations. And, said Mr. G., it is, doubtless, an infraction on the law of nations to offer any lure, or promote the independence of a colony. We certainly have a right to give assistance, in case of a rebellion, by running the risk of becoming a party in the war, but not without infracting the law of nations; still less could we do it without breaking that morality in politics, the breach of which we have so often complained of. We may suppose the Government of France radically wrong, and the people exercising it corrupt, but neither would justify the overturning, or holding out any encouragement to others to overturn, the Government of any part of her dependencies. A conduct of this kind could only be justified in time of war.

In this country, in our speeches, at least, we have gone further, and said that, even in case of war, it would not be right to sow the seeds of insurrection; for, on what other grounds could we account for the philippics which have been pronounced on this floor against France, for her conduct not only against countries with whom she was at peace, but also against those with whom she was at war. This was the case with respect to all the charges made against France with respect to Holland, or the Milanese (now Cisalpine Republic) with whom she was at war when the attempts condemned were made. But we have said, war is at best an unfortunate state, and it is not right to heighten its evils by exciting insurrections and commotions. If this principle is right, and Mr. G. believed it correct in most cases, it is clear that we shall not be justified in promoting insurrections, even in war, much less in this state which is a state of hostility, but not of war.

Notwithstanding the respect which he paid to the opinion of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. PINCKNEY) he could not be persuaded that the independence of St. Domingo could be a desirable object. To-day, it had been avowed, in what fell from his colleague, (Mr. HARTLEY,) that this was the ground upon which the clause was founded, all the French force being withdrawn. He gave credit to the candor of his colleague for the declaration, and it was in this point of view which he had always considered it, because he had stated that, no doubt, an agent from that quarter had come with propositions to our government.

Mr. G. repeated some of his former reasons against the policy of promoting the independence of St. Domingo. He heard the gentleman from Rhode Island, with regret, repeat one of those illiberal ideas that had been so frequently introduced here, by saying that gentlemen seemed opposed to this measure, because it would be injurious to France.

Mr. PINCKNEY wished to make a single observation upon what fell from the gentleman from Pennsylvania. In order to defeat all that has been said about this section holding out a lure for the establishment of the independence of St. Domingo, it need only be said, that it is confined to the colonies which are under the jurisdiction of France. The language of this clause is, "so long as you continue dependent, we will treat with you."

Mr. NICHOLAS explained.

Mr. SPRAGUE observed that the gentleman from Pennsylvania insisted upon it, that, without this amendment, this bill would hold out a lure to insurrections in St. Domingo, and that if gentlemen did not wish to encourage these, they must agree to the amendment. What is this encouragement? It is, "if you will forbear committing depredations, which we have heretofore experienced from you, we will open our trade with you." Then, according to the gentleman's reasoning, acts of hostility against the commerce of this country, are favorable to France; or rather, ceasing to commit them is an act of rebellion against the mother country; and, to hold out a lure on our part, to stop these depredations, is so contrary to the views of France, as to give a high offence to that country.

Mr. MCDOWELL remarked, that gentlemen opposed to this amendment, all agree that the section, as it stands, holds out no lure to insurrection in the French West India islands; if not, why should they object to this amendment, which is only calculated to make certain what is at present doubtful to some members. He wished gentlemen to consider what might be the consequence of authorizing the PRESIDENT to treat with unauthorized persons. Gentlemen have stated, and he supposed truly, that the trade of this island of St. Domingo is a gold mine to the merchants of this country; and he was afraid that the richness of this trade had too much attraction to be resisted by those concerned in it, though it might be dearly purchased by the nation at large. He differed widely in opinion from the gentleman from South Carolina, with respect to the effect which the independence of that island would have upon this country; he believed it was by no means a desirable event to this country.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS did not intend to have said any thing on this subject, as it is principally a commercial concern, of which he knew but little; but he also conceived that the agricultural interest is connected with it. Gentlemen are afraid more is meant by this bill than meets the eye; they are afraid to take a worm or a fly, lest a hook should be concealed in them. Instead of war, he thought this bill calculated to promote peace. It is admitted, on all hands, said Mr. W., that Hispaniola cannot support itself. How must they, then, get support? Either we must supply them, or they must depend upon neutral islands, or the people must bend their whole force upon our commerce. What, said he, is most prudent to do? He thought the regulation proposed by this bill the best that could be hit upon. But the gentleman from Virginia said we are obliged to send our tobacco through Spain to France; is this, said he, an advantage to the people of this country? It may be presumed, Mr. W. said, that the President will go no further in this business than the interest of the country requires. This jealousy of the PRESIDENT has a bad effect; because from a want of confidence in this officer, he will be unable to do any thing for us. He hoped the amendment would not be agreed to.

It was negatived--49 to 41.

MONDAY, January 28.

Intercourse with France.

The bill further suspending our commercial intercourse with France and her dependencies, and for other purposes, having been read the third time,

Mr. ALLEN moved for a recommitment of the bill in order to have expunged a proviso introduced by the member from Tennessee, excluding the port of New Orleans from its operation. He stated his reason to be, that he did not believe that was likely to be a rendezvous for French privateers; but that, if it should be, it ought to be liable to the same restrictions with other ports; and, if it was not likely to become a harbor of privateers, to insert a proviso of this kind, was to show a distrust that the PRESIDENT would not exercise the power given to him for the interest of the United States.

This motion was seconded by Mr. OTIS, and opposed by Messrs. VENABLE, NICHOLAS, S. SMITH, W. CLAIBORNE, and HARPER. It was negatived, the yeas and nays being taken--74 to 18.

The question on the passing of the bill was then taken, and stood, yeas 55, nays 37, as follows:

YEAS.--John Allen, George Baer, jun., Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard, Jonathan Brace, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher G. Champlin, John Chapman, James Cochran, William Craik, John Dennis, George Dent, William Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Nathaniel Freeman, jun., Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, James Machir, William Matthews, Daniel Morgan, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, Josiah Parker, Thomas Pinckney, John Reed, John Rutledge, jun., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel Smith, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Peleg Sprague, George Thatcher, Mark Thompson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, Robert Waln, John Williams, and Robert Williams.

NAYS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Thos. Blount, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, William C. C. Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, Joseph Eggleston, Lucas Elmendorph, William Findlay, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Thompson J. Skinner, William Smith, Richard Sprigg, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, and Abraham Venable.

French Affairs.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:

An edict of the Executive Directory of the French Republic of the twenty-ninth of October, 1798, inclosed in a letter from our Minister Plenipotentiary in London, of the sixteenth of November, is of so much importance that it cannot be too soon communicated to you and to the public.

JOHN ADAMS.

January 28, 1799.

_Extract of a letter from Rufus King, Esq., Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States at London, to the Secretary of State, dated November 16, 1798._

"The annexed arrêt would appear extravagant and incredible, if it proceeded from any other authority; but mankind is so accustomed to the violence and injustice of France, that we almost cease to express our surprise and indignation at the new instances that she continues to display."

[TRANSLATION.]

Decree of the Executive Directory, of October 29, 1798.

The Executive Directory, upon the report of the Minister of Foreign Relations, considering that the fleets, privateers, and ships, of England and Russia, are in part equipped by foreigners.

Considering that this violation is a manifest abuse of the rights of nations, and that the powers of Europe have not taken any measures to prohibit it. Decrees:

1st. Every individual, native (ou originaire) of friendly countries, allied to the French Republic, or neutral, bearing a commission, granted by the enemies of France, or making part of the crews of ships of war, and others, enemies, shall be by this single fact declared a pirate, and treated as such, without being permitted in any case to allege that he had been forced into such service by violence, threats, or otherwise.

2d. The Executive Directories of the Batavian, Lagurian, Cisalpine, and Roman Republics, shall be instructed to this effect.

3d. The provisions contained in the first article shall be notified to those powers which are neutral or allied to the French Republic.

4th. The Ministers of Exterior Relations is charged with the execution of the present arrêt which shall be printed in the Bulletin of the Laws.

(Signed) TERILHARD, President.

The message and documents were read, and ordered to lie on the table.

TUESDAY, January 29.

THOMAS SUMTER, from South Carolina, appeared and took his seat in the House.

FRIDAY, February 1.

JOHN FOWLER, from Kentucky, appeared and took his seat in the House.

Remonstrance of Georgia.

On motion of Mr. BALDWIN, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report of a select committee on the petition and remonstrance of the Legislature of Georgia; and the resolution reported by that committee being under consideration, its adoption was opposed principally by Mr. ALLEN.

Mr. NICHOLAS thought the following resolution would be less exceptionable than the one reported, and it was agreed to--55 votes being in its favor.

"Resolved, That provision ought to be made by law for complying with such treaty as the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES may think proper to make with the Creek Indians, and for obtaining possession, in behalf of the State of Georgia, of the lands lying within the country of Tallassee, or other lands on the frontier of the said State, which may be deemed equivalent thereto, and that ---- dollars be appropriated therefor."

The committee rose, and after some further remarks from Mr. ALLEN, the resolution was concurred in--59 votes being in its favor. It was then referred to the select committee to report a bill.

The House adjourned to Monday.

THURSDAY, February 7.

Augmentation of the Navy.

On motion of Mr. JOSIAH PARKER, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for the augmentation of the Navy, and fixing the pay of the captains of ships or vessels of war; when the first section being under consideration--

Mr. GALLATIN moved to strike out the words "six ships of war, of a size to carry, and which shall be armed with not less than seventy-four guns each; and these shall be built or purchased within the United States;" in order to take the sense of the committee on the propriety of building, at present, ships-of-the-line. When this subject was last year before the House, the general opinion was, that during the present war, considering the crippled state of the French navy, frigates and vessels of a smaller size, were sufficient to protect our vessels on our own coast, and in the West India seas; nor did that opinion seem to have undergone any material alteration; for, although the Secretary of the Navy, and the select committee, had reported that the expense of building the six seventy-four gun ships now proposed, would amount to $2,400,000, yet the appropriation asked for the present year was only one million of dollars. It was not expected that much more than one-third of the work necessary to send those ships to sea, could be executed during the present year. It was not expected that they could be finished in less than two or three years. They were not wanted for any immediate purpose. The proposed measure was not therefore a measure of defence. It was a project of a general nature. The question is, whether it be proper, at the present time, to lay the foundation of a navy, of a fleet, that might be able, hereafter, to give us a certain weight in relation to European nations; which might be able to cope with the fleets of those nations: and it was in order to bring that question fairly before the Committee of the Whole that he had made his motion. Should that motion prevail, it would not affect the building of the six sloops of war which were said to be immediately wanted, in addition to our present naval force, for the purpose of protecting our commerce. It would merely prevent the building, at present, of a fleet which was supposed, by the friends of the bill, to be wanted only for future purposes.

This led him naturally to consider the expense of that navy. It is stated by the Secretary of the Navy, that the annual expense of a 74-gun ship will exceed 216,000 dollars, and that therefore the annual expense of six of these ships will be about 1,300,000 dollars. That the building and equipping a 74-gun ship, exclusive of military stores, will be 342,700 dollars; and that the military stores will cost 48,000 dollars; so that the first building and equipping six of these vessels will cost about 2,400,000 dollars. This is the first expense, but nothing is said of the yearly repairing and building which will be necessary to keep up a fleet of this kind. It is estimated, in the navies of Europe, that a ship-of-the-line will last from 12 to 15 years; so that, besides ordinary repairs, the whole expense of building would have to be renewed every 12 or 15 years.[43] It would have been desirable, and it might have been expected, that the select committee should have laid before the House an estimate of the peace establishment of a navy to the extent proposed, in order to have enabled the House to have formed a just opinion on the main question. This they have not done; but supposing the other estimates to be perfectly correct; supposing that the expense would not overrun the calculations laid before the House, and, if so, it would be the first time it had not done it; supposing, according to those calculations, that a 74-gun ship will hereafter cost us less than two-thirds of what 44-gun frigates have heretofore cost us; it results, that the first necessary expense (including $150,000 for docks and timber) will exceed, for six ships only, two millions and a half of dollars; and that the annual expense of supporting them, when in commission, exclusively of annual repairs, and of building new ships, necessary to supply those that from time to time will become unfit for service, will amount to 1,300,000 dollars.

If these premises are true, and he knew they could not be contradicted, the conclusion must be most forcible that it is improper at present to build a navy, especially since there is no immediate demand for it. But if once the foundation of a large navy is laid, no one can say where it will stop. The Secretary of the Navy does not suppose that six 74-gun ships will be sufficient. He supposes twelve necessary; six are now proposed merely as an entering wedge. And when once twelve ships-of-the-line are obtained, if our commerce and coast, extensive as they are, must be effectually protected, these will not be deemed sufficient. He drew this conclusion from the naval force of European nations. Our tonnage exceeds that of any European nation, except Great Britain and Holland; and if we must have a navy to protect our commerce, it must bear some proportion to the extent of our coast, to the amount of our tonnage, and to the navies of the European nations. And upon what terms are we to cope with the powers of Europe with respect to any navy? It would be recollected that when last year there was a mutiny on board the British fleet, in order to put an end to it, the sailors' wages were advanced to one shilling sterling per day, equal to thirty shillings sterling, or six dollars and two-thirds per month, whilst we give our seamen seventeen dollars a month, so that we pay nearly three times as much for men to supply our navy, as England does.

Mr. G said, he would not detain the committee longer at present, though he meant to have made some observations with respect to the expense of navies to those nations who support them in order to show that the expense of them far exceeds the benefits derived from them. If reference were had to European nations, it would be found, Mr. G. said, that navies were used more as engines of power, than as a protection to commerce. Even with respect to Great Britain, which is the only nation which has succeeded in effecting any material object by a navy, though she has obtained a preponderancy at sea, and has been mistress of it for the last hundred years, yet it has been the means of involving her in almost continual war, and the support of it has always been attended with enormous expense. He believed he was correct, when he stated that from 1776 to 1789, the average expense of the navy of Great Britain (including a period of seven years of war and six of peace) was six millions of pounds sterling a year. Now, said Mr. G., if we calculate the rate at which we shall be obliged to pay for every thing appertaining to a navy, what will be the sum necessary to support a navy of any extent here? Suppose a navy should only be one-tenth part of the British, and instead of 120 ships-of-the-line, we should be content with twelve. The expense, according to the British rate of expenditure, would be £600,000 sterling, nearly three millions of dollars a year; but when we know that we pay three times as much for our seamen as they do, it is impossible precisely to calculate what the expense would be.

In relation to European nations, it would be found, that none had ever derived any advantage from a navy, except Great Britain. It has been said (and by high authority) that an extensive commerce cannot be maintained without a navy. In answer to this it may be said, that Spain has always had a considerable navy, but very little commerce; their tonnage compared with ours was insignificant, yet theirs is the third navy in Europe. Holland, for a time, had a powerful navy; but they gave it up, as more expensive than beneficial, since the wars of Queen Anne. Yet their commerce, on this account, never diminished in any considerable degree. They are the second commercial nation in Europe; and they never suffer for want of a navy, except when they become a party in war; he conceived, therefore, that a navy is not necessary to protect commerce. At this time, Mr. G. knew that the commerce of Holland was in a great degree annihilated; but so was that of France and Spain, notwithstanding their powerful navies. Holland being at the door of Great Britain, may, in time of war, be altogether blocked up by the fleets of that nation. Fortunately that was not our situation.

Mr. G. concluded by saying, that as he believed commerce might exist independently of a navy; that a navy would cost far more than it would ever benefit the country; and knowing our finances were not such as to admit of the expense, he must hope his motion would prevail.

FRIDAY, February 8.

Augmentation of the Navy.

The House then went into Committee of the Whole on the bill for augmenting the Navy, Mr. GALLATIN'S motion for striking out what relates to 74-gun ships being under consideration.

Mr. JOSIAH PARKER hoped this amendment would not be agreed to. He was happy to find, however, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania did not go farther, and oppose the whole force, as he had heretofore always opposed every thing like a navy. Indeed, he has acknowledged that our infant navy has done some service, though he does not give to it all the credit which the committee who reported this bill thinks it deserves. He attributes the fall in insurance to other objects than the navy, because he says it has fallen more on vessels to Europe, where our navy could have had no effect, than to the West Indies, where that effect was more likely to be produced. But the gentleman should have recollected that the fall to Europe may have been occasioned by the vigilance of the British navy; but in the West Indies, the British, or at least the officers of the British men of war, seemed rather to countenance, than prevent, the depredations of the French; as, in many instances, they have suffered captures to be made by the French, and immediately afterwards recaptured the vessels, and by that means obtained a salvage upon them. Nor did he suppose the British Government would regret these depredations, since they knew such treatment would serve to rouse the resentment of this country against her enemy. Mr. P. supposed that the saving produced by our navy had even been greater than the committee had supposed, as, by the report made yesterday on the subject of our exports, it appears they have been ten millions more than the committee calculated them at. He allowed that our navy had not been the sole cause of safety to our commerce; the British navy had also contributed greatly to it. But it would be recollected that when this navy was first fitted out, French privateers and picaroons were not only upon our coast, but in our very bays; and, but for these measures, there can be no doubt, but our shores would at this time have swarmed with French privateers, which the British would have suffered, in order to widen the breach between the two countries.

Mr. P. hoped when the quantity of shipping, and the number of seamen we employ, is considered--that these are the means of bringing us from foreign countries all that we desire to have from thence, and that they thereby fill our treasury with money--gentlemen will not hesitate to allow our commerce a competent protection. No nation, except Great Britain, exceeds this country in the number of vessels and men engaged in this service, yet no nation has done so little to protect them. He trusted we should be allowed to have a sufficient navy to protect our commerce and coast, and to cause us to be respected abroad.

The British Government, Mr. P. said, has 141 sail-of-the-line, (according to Steele's list, which he had lately seen,) and these, according to the opinion of the first statesman and politician that England ever possessed, Lord Chatham, require as many thousand seamen; not that each vessel requires 1000 men, but it is necessary to have this number in order to employ their frigates and sloops of war, not that the ships of the line require 1000 men; yet, though Britain has this immense navy, she has not double the number of merchant vessels and seamen which this country possesses. If, said Mr. P., these six 74-gun ships and six sloops are agreed to, we shall not want more than 12,000 seamen to man our navy. At present we have only 4,000; and the whole annual expense will be 4,230,149 dollars. Mr. P. believed, in order to give us efficient protection, we ought to have eleven sail-of-the-line; but as he considered six to be as many as our present finances will allow, he should be satisfied with that number.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania wished to be informed as to the expense of a peace establishment of our navy. A large navy in time of peace would be unnecessary; he should wish it, however, to be kept on a respectable footing. Many of our ships, Mr. P. said, will last much longer than the gentleman from Pennsylvania had supposed; some of them, he doubted not, would last forty or fifty years. The British have ships which have been in service thirty years; when poorly built they may not last more than seven years. He had not made an estimate of what would be the expense of a peace establishment with respect to the navy; nor did he know what force the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES might think it necessary to maintain in time of peace, but he supposed it would be small, and a single officer and thirty men would be sufficient to take care of a ship where she is laid up in ordinary: that only a few of the best ships would be kept, and the others sold.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania had represented the expense of a navy in this country as being much greater than in England; but when he spoke of the pay of British sailors being only one shilling sterling a day, he was certainly mistaken. They have at least a guinea and an half a month, which is seven dollars; and ours average fourteen dollars, which is double to that of England. If the same means were taken here that are taken in England, of raising men by means of press-gangs (which, however, he rejoiced never could be suffered in this country,) they might, perhaps, be gotten on easier terms, as the Government might follow the example of Great Britain, by fixing the pay and pressing the men. He would much rather pay higher wages; especially when it is considered that a very small part of the money paid to seamen will ever go out of the country; they spend their money freely, and the United States will not, therefore, lose it.

And as to the number of men employed in the navy, if they were not thus employed in our own service, they would go abroad, since this is the employment they choose; indeed, if all our citizens were employed in cultivating the ground, our produce would be so great, and sell for so little, as to make it scarcely worth the trouble of raising. And if we do not provide for our own defence, we shall be at the mercy of every foreign power which chooses to insult or ill-treat us. The interests of commerce and agriculture must always go hand in hand; and farmers who now get so much better a price for their product than they heretofore got, ought to be the first in supporting a navy sufficient to protect our vessels in carrying that produce to foreign countries. When they see their interests more clearly, Mr. P. trusted they would, like the gentleman from Pennsylvania, be ready to allow that our navy is of service. It would be happy for us, and for the world, Mr. P. said, if there were no use for navies, and nations might be permitted to carry their productions wherever they pleased without annoyance; but, while nations continue to make war upon each other, we must expect to come in for our share of the evils of such a system, and it will be necessary to have some force not only to guard against injuries, but to keep foreign belligerent nations in check, lest we should throw our force into the scale against them. The French Directory, said Mr. P., have lately passed a decree, which ought to be considered as a declaration of war against the world, "that the citizens of neutral countries found on board of any of their ships shall be considered and punished as pirates!" Where is the man, exclaimed he, who will not defend his country and his fellow-citizens against such a decree?

Mr. P. said he would take the liberty of quoting the authority, on the subject of a navy, of a gentleman who deservedly ranked high in public estimation, and whom he was proud to call his countryman. The authority he referred to was Mr. Jefferson's Notes on Virginia. He read the following extract.

"But the actual habits of our countrymen attach them to commerce. They will exercise it for themselves. Wars, then, must sometimes be our lot; and all the wise can do, will be to avoid that half of them which would be produced by our own follies, and our own acts of injustice; and to make for the other half the best preparations we can. Of what nature should these be? A land army would be useless for offence, and not the best nor safest instrument of defence. For either of these purposes, the sea is the field on which we should meet an European enemy. On that element it is necessary we should possess some power. To aim at such a navy as the greater nations of Europe possess, would be a foolish and wicked waste of the energies of our countrymen; it would be to pull on our own heads that load of military expense which makes the European laborer go supperless to bed, and moistens his bread with the sweat of his brow. It will be enough if we enable ourselves to prevent insults from those nations of Europe which are weak on the sea, because circumstances exist which render even the stronger ones weak as to us. Providence has placed their richest and most defenceless possessions at our door--has obliged their most precious commerce to pass, as it were, in review before us. To protect this, or to assail us, a small part only of their naval force will ever be risked across the Atlantic. The danger to which the elements expose them here are too well known, and the greater danger to which they would be exposed at home, were any general calamity to involve their whole fleet. They can attack us by detachment only; and it will suffice to make ourselves equal to what they may detach. Even a smaller force than what they may detach will be rendered equal or superior by the quickness with which any check may be repaired with us, while losses with them will be irreparable till too late. A small naval force, then, is sufficient for us, and a small one is necessary. What this should be, I will not undertake to say. I will only say, it should by no means be so great as we are able to make it."

Mr. P. perfectly concurred in this opinion. He had frequently expressed it. But the gentleman from Pennsylvania says we have no money, and therefore we ought neither to have a navy nor any thing else, to defend ourselves at home or at sea. He tells the House that our revenue will not exceed ten millions, and that if we agree to have these ships built, we shall want twelve millions. Mr. P. trusted that if these two millions were wanted the ways and means will be found, rather than that we shall suffer our commerce to be destroyed, and lose all our credit as a nation abroad. Admitting, said Mr. P., that our debt is a hundred millions of dollars, it must be recollected that its increase has been owing to a number of causes which could not be avoided, amongst which was our war with the Indians, the Western insurrection, our treaty with Algiers, and the building of vessels for the protection of our commerce; but if our debt is fifteen millions more now than it was at the commencement of the present Government, our numbers have greatly increased since that time, so that he supposed, considering the number of individuals who have to bear it, it is not so heavy, in proportion to our population, as it was at that time. Having the ability, therefore, he trusted there would be found the will to provide a respectable naval force to protect us at home, our commerce abroad, and leave us in a situation to be more respected by foreign nations than we have heretofore been, and therefore hoped the present motion would be rejected.

Mr. HARPER.--Notwithstanding, Mr. Chairman, the subject now before the committee, the usefulness of a Naval Establishment for the United States, has been so frequently and so fully discussed on former occasions, I deem it important to enter once more into a particular consideration of it, less on account of the general reasons so often urged against the measure, than of those particular objections, founded on the supposed state of our pecuniary resources, whereby it has, at this time, been assailed.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania has proved, as he thinks, that no possible navy could be equal to the protection of our commerce, extended as it is. And how has he proved this? By the example of other nations--of Holland, Spain, and Great Britain. Spain, he says, has a very considerable navy, perhaps the third in Europe, and yet no commerce. Holland found herself unable to support her navy, and even while she supported it, was unable to protect her trade; and therefore she gave it up, and yet, after she had done so, continued to possess a very great commerce. Even Britain, according to him, mistress of the ocean as she has been for a century past, has not fully protected her trade by her marine; which, in the mean time, has cost her more than the whole sum which her trade has yielded--and, therefore, she would have been better without a navy. This, Mr. Chairman, is the calculation of a schoolboy, not of a statesman; of the counting-house, not of the cabinet; and if the judgment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania were not warped on this, as on so many other occasions, by his particular political system, he would be one of the last persons in the world to present the subject in a point of view so much beneath a mind of the least political discernment. The gentleman, in fact, forgets that Britain is indebted to her navy, not for her commerce only, but for her independence; not only for the dominion of the seas, but for her existence as a nation. Every man, who is in the smallest degree versed in history, knows that Great Britain, but for her navy, must long since have been a province of France. Had not Britain been mistress of the ocean, France would long since have been not only her mistress, but mistress of the rest of Europe. That great people, uniting within itself all the sources of military, pecuniary, and maritime strength, has never ceased to contend for universal empire, with immense means, vast genius, boundless ambition and unwearied perseverance, since the period when, two centuries ago, its provinces became united under one Government, and its immense resources, managed and called into activity by a minister whose mind was equal to his station, were directed to the increase of its power and extension of its limits. How has Britain been enabled to check this formidable career, to maintain her own power, and to arrive at her present high pitch of consequence in the scale of nations? Not by her population, which is little more than one-third of that possessed by France; nor by her insular situation, which heretofore could not protect her from invasion and conquest; nor by her military power, which, when compared with that of France, has never been considerable--but by her navy. It was that navy, and the wealth which commerce, protected by it, poured into her lap, that enabled her to support with glory so unequal a contest, to call to her aid the military force of Germany, and thus to establish a counterpoise to the power of France. But for this naval force, and the commerce which it protected and cherished--but for this union, cemented by the money, and aided by the maritime preponderance of England--France, combining, as she did, greater means of strength of every kind than any other nation, or even than all the nations of Europe united, except Germany and Great Britain, must long since have established her dominion over all. England must have fallen first, being unable, without the command of the sea, to save herself from invasion; and then the powers of the Continent, deprived of the pecuniary aid wherewith England was enabled by her commerce, under the protection of her navy, to supply and unite them, would have bent, one after another, beneath her formidable and continually augmenting strength. Even now this same navy enables England to ride secure amidst the most terrible storm wherewith the political world has ever been afflicted; to brave all the tremendous dangers by which she has been threatened; to baffle every attempt against her safety, or that of her remotest possessions; and amidst the dismay, the humiliation, or the total overthrow of so many powers, to triumph over her rival, whose strength, always formidable, is exercised, not more by her extension of territory and of influence, than by the consternation wherewith her successes have stricken other States, by the disunion and feebleness which has characterized their counsels, by the terrible weapon of internal commotion with which she threatens, or has actually assailed them, and by the unheard of despotism of her own Government, which enables it to employ, in a degree hitherto unexampled in the history of civilized men, the physical forces of the nation, in executing its plans of plunder and conquest. This same navy enables England not only to maintain thus gloriously a conflict so dreadful and so unequal, but to stand the barrier between independence and universal dominion, between liberty and the most degrading despotism, between civilization and the barbarism of the dark ages--to become the citadel of property, the storehouse and the banker of the world, and to render all nations, with their own consent, tributary, by means of her commerce, to the support of her greatness.

What, then, Mr. Chairman, must we think of that political system which estimates the British navy by a calculation of the sums which it has cost to maintain it; forgetting that, without this navy, there would have been no wealth to supply these sums, and, perhaps, no nation to pay them; that without this navy, Great Britain, instead of holding her present exalted station among the powers of the earth, must long since have sunk into a secondary and unimportant State; and, probably, into the condition of a province of that very rival against whom she now so nobly and so gloriously contends! Is it too much to say of such a calculation, that it is a paltry calculation, unworthy of a statesman, and befitting only a schoolboy?

But even the navy of Great Britain, the gentleman from Pennsylvania has told us, formidable as it is, has not afforded complete protection to her commerce. How, then, he asks, can we expect to protect our commerce by a navy? If the gentleman means by "protection" the total prevention of captures at sea, it is certain that no nation ever did, or ever can protect its commerce, in that scale. But that is not the true idea of "protection," which means nothing more than such a degree of safety as may enable the merchants of a nation, taken as a body, to pursue their commercial enterprises without discouragement, or eventual loss. This is all the protection that is ever attempted, or that is necessary; and this, I contend, we have it in our power to give.

Respecting the navy of Holland, the gentleman from Pennsylvania falls into a mistake equally remarkable. Holland, he tells us, has no navy, and yet maintains a very great commerce. Formerly she had a navy, but could not maintain it, and was forced to give it up. But where did that gentleman learn that Holland has no navy? Had she no navy in the American war, when with great gallantry, though with unequal success, she fought the English at sea? Had she no navy when she fitted out the formidable armament under De Winter, in October, 1797, which, after a dreadful conflict, was defeated rather by the superior address of the British Admiral, than the superior force or bravery of his fleet? Do we not know, that even now, after this fatal defeat, she possesses, in her different harbors, a much more numerous fleet than is proposed by the present bill for the United States? How then could the gentleman from Pennsylvania say that Holland has no navy? He ought to have known that until the marine of France and Spain were destroyed, in the present war, that of Holland was sufficient to turn the scale in their favor and against England; which gave her not only security for her commerce, but respectability and weight among the maritime powers of Europe.

As to the other assertion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that Holland a long time ago found her navy too burdensome for her resources, and therefore gave it up, it is equally erroneous. Holland, as we have seen, never gave up her navy, and even now, exhausted and ruined as she is by French fraternity and internal revolution, maintains a much greater one than is proposed for the United States. There is, indeed, a period in her history, the close of the last and the beginning of the present century, when she ceased to be ranked with the first maritime powers of Europe; but that happened, not through the want of means, but a mistake in policy. Before that period her system had been wholly maritime. All her resources were applied to her navy. A maritime armed neutrality was her great object, and she long preserved it with success. Her commerce, fostered by her marine, spread over every sea; and the Northern maritime States, guided to the same policy by her influence, acknowledged her as their umpire, their mediator, and their safeguard. The great powers courted her alliance and respected her rights. She interfered with weight in their disputes. Her village of the Hague became the centre of their most important negotiations. She disputed the empire of the seas with them singly; and, at one time, she held the united forces of France and England in check at sea, and finally compelled the French armies to retreat from her territory, which they had overrun and occupied. All this she effected by means of her navy, and of the resources which it had furnished to her by the protection of her commerce.

At this period she altered her system, and instead of cherishing her marine, and confining herself solely to the maintenance of her commerce, by an armed maritime neutrality at the head of the Northern Powers, she engaged in the land wars of the great military powers, and made exertions disproportionate to her strength, whereby her resources were exhausted. Into this fatal mistake she was drawn by the aspiring ambition, the popularity, and the heroism of one of her own citizens, stimulated and aided by the aggressions, the insults, and the alarming encroachments of the French Monarch, Louis XIV., at the zenith of his glory, evidently aspiring to universal dominion. William III., placed by his birth and personal merit at the head of the Dutch nation, saw those objects of French ambition, and roused his own country to resistance. Called, at length, to the Government of England, he communicated to that nation his own martial ardor. He finally succeeded in forming a confederacy to check the progress of France. Of this confederacy, Holland, his native country, was induced by his influence to become a principal member. At the head of it he struggled against the power of France, with unequal means, and sometimes with unprosperous fortune, but with a genius and perseverance not to be subdued, and a heroism rarely to be equalled. After his death, the impulse which his mind had given to his own and other countries continued to be felt, and the confederacy was renewed under his successor, on a different occasion, but with the same views. At length its object was altered. France was completely humbled and Europe secured against her enterprises, but the strength of Holland was undermined in the struggle. The vast armies which she had kept up had loaded her with debts. Her operations for so many years, by land, had drawn off her attention from her marine; and from that moment it declined, while that of England rose gradually on its ruins.

Hence, Mr. Chairman, the downfall of the maritime greatness of Holland. Her resources were not equal to the maintenance of fleets and armies, of both maritime and military strength. While she was left to attend solely to her maritime concerns, she continued to be powerful, respected, and prosperous; but her situation on the Continent, in the neighborhood of a great and ambitious military power, drew her, perhaps unnecessarily, into land wars, to which her strength was unequal, and, of course, her naval power declined. But still she continued for a century to keep up a navy sufficient to form a considerable weight in the scale, and to secure attention to her rights as a nation; and under this security her commerce continued to flourish, in a greater or less degree, till a domestic revolution, aiding and aided by foreign oppression, dried up all its sources.

What, then, Mr. Chairman, is the instruction which we may draw from this example? A nation whose population never exceeded two millions and a half, and whose territory, compared with ours, is but a mere speck on the surface of the globe, a mere garden spot, was able to maintain a most formidable marine, while it attended to that object solely, to extend its commerce under the protection of this marine, and to maintain not only an equal, but a distinguished rank, among the great powers of Europe, by whose territories it was surrounded, and by whose formidable armies it was liable to be invaded. Even this nation, after a mistake in its policy, or the pressure of inevitable circumstances, it had been induced to divert its attention from its marine to land wars, to exhaust its resources, and burden itself with debts too great for its means, by these disproportionate efforts, still was able to preserve a navy sufficient to give respectability to its flag, and a degree of safety to its commerce. Even now, when its resources are dried up by anarchy, or diverted by foreign exaction into the coffers of another nation; when its territory is curtailed, and its population reduced to one million and a half; when it is compelled to maintain an army of 25,000 men for France, still it has a navy greater than we propose. Shall it, then, be said, that this country, with probably six millions of population, most rapidly increasing, with an extent of territory capable of containing fifty millions, with a commerce greater than that of Holland ever was, and with more tonnage and sailors than she ever possessed, is not able to support such a navy as she, even since the commencement of her downfall, has always supported, and still supports? Yes, it is said by the gentleman from Pennsylvania; but the good sense of this House and of this country will, I trust, correct his mistake, as it has so often done heretofore.

But if it were true, Mr. Chairman, that Holland had afforded no protection to her commerce by the navy which she has been able to keep up, does it follow that the same thing will happen to us? Will the same navy be more efficacious in our case, than in the case of Holland, or Spain, or Portugal? This must be taken for granted in order to give any solidity to the argument of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and yet nothing can be more untrue. Those States are situated at the very door of the great maritime powers, and their dominions are also exposed to invasion by land. They must, therefore, either singly or by combinations with other powers, contend against the whole maritime force of those great States, and must maintain navies adequate to that purpose. But we are under no such necessity. Placed at a vast distance from those great powers, and in the neighborhood of those possessions which contribute most to the support of their commerce and their navies, we can attack them in a weak, and yet a vital part, with our whole force, while but a small part of their force can at any time be brought to act against us. It is with this part only that we shall have to contend, should they at any time drive us into a war. Let us take England as an instance. Her great and valuable possessions lie at our threshold. The uniform course of the trade-winds compels all her vast and rich commerce with those possessions, to pass almost in sight of our shores. The force which she can send to protect this commerce and annoy us, in case of a rupture, will not be her whole force, but that part of it only which she can spare from Europe, after securing her preponderance there. France, notwithstanding the prostrate condition of her navy at present, possesses maritime means which will speedily enable her to raise it up again, whensoever those means come to be directed, as one day they must, by a Government of some understanding. This navy, and the maritime combinations which will be formed under its protection, England must watch and keep under. Her existence will depend upon it. She will, therefore, have but little force to spare which she can bring to act against us. A comparatively small maritime force, therefore, will compel her to respect us, and to avoid a quarrel with us by all just and reasonable means.

It follows that a moderate navy, a much smaller one than Holland, Spain, or even Portugal, have supported, would be sufficient for our protection, aided by the peculiar advantages of our situation. Those nations, inconsiderable as they are when compared to us in population, wealth, and extent of territory, have supported navies which, however unequal to that of England, have yet afforded some degree of protection to their trade, rendered their flags in some degree respectable, and given them a weight in the scale, a consequence among nations, which otherwise they could not have had. And shall not we, with our great and increasing resources, and the peculiar advantages of our situation, be able to effect still more?

Mr. NICHOLAS said this question was different from any former question, with respect to the Navy, which had been before the House. Whatever gentlemen may have heretofore said with respect to the advantages of a navy for the protection of our commerce, they must agree that the present question has a different aspect, as no man can say that seventy-four gun ships are calculated to resist the kind of force which has heretofore made attacks upon our commerce in the West Indies.

Mr. N. was far from believing that our armed vessels had produced the effect which the committee, who reported this bill, stated them to have done. He thought the gentleman from Pennsylvania had adduced many sufficient reasons for the fall which had taken place in the price of insurance, independent of our navy; and that, therefore, the committee were wholly mistaken that the advantages already derived from our navy have exceeded the cost of it; and that, if it had been established several years ago, it would have proved a great saving to the United States.

Mr. N. confessed he had always been opposed to a naval force for the purpose of warring with European nations, and whether the force now proposed is considered as necessary for defence or offence, it must have that character. The propriety of a naval force for this purpose never appeared to him in a questionable point of view; he thought every consideration of policy and interest forbids it. We are well informed, said he, by the best historians, that the British navy has been the means of sinking that nation to its present state; for he could not admire, like the gentleman from South Carolina, the splendor and prosperity of a nation, which is brought into such a situation as to render it doubtful whether it can exist for a day, a month, or any other period. If the navy of Great Britain, then, commenced under different circumstances from those in which we are placed--which, according to the gentleman from South Carolina, was not only for the protection of her commerce, but as a defence against neighboring nations, and to guard against the worst revolutionary principles--has nearly ruined that country by the immense sums necessary for its support, shall we, who, according also to the confession of that gentleman, have nothing to fear from European nations--[Mr. HARPER interrupted Mr. N. to deny that he had said we had nothing to fear from Europe. He had said we had nothing to fear but from the sea.] Mr. N. said this was the way in which he understood the gentleman, and that no danger exists of any invasion by a land force. If this is the case, the use to which a navy can be put will only be to defend our commerce from cruisers, and passing fleets. We have not, therefore, half the inducements to the establishment of a navy which influence European nations, and many powerful reasons against such a force.

The European nations have, most of them, distant colonies, which they have to protect, and with which they have to keep up a constant communication across the ocean, which renders a navy in some degree necessary. But all the European nations commenced their navies under the delusion that a small force would only be necessary, and that one or two ships would give them an ascendency over other nations. Can we expect this, said Mr. N.? No; we begin the business with fewer inducements than any other nation ever begun a navy, and without necessity; for it is acknowledged we have nothing now to apprehend from invasion, (and if we had, this force could not be provided in time,) we have no colonies to protect, and no intercourse which calls for a naval force.

We cannot, therefore, said Mr. N., embark in this business with the same motives which influenced all European nations in establishments of this kind. They built small navies because they would be equal to cope with the small navies of their neighbors; but we are about to begin the business with a navy staring us in the face, the most formidable that any man could suppose to exist. According to his colleague, the British have 140 sail-of-the-line; and yet our navy is undertaken with the avowed purpose of keeping her, as well as the other nations of Europe, in check. Mr. N. asked whether we could ever hope to succeed in a plan of this kind? We certainly could not, since Great Britain would always even in war have more than a sufficient force to meet all the ships which we can build. Besides, if our situation, as gentlemen say, will make a small force so operative in our hands in time of European wars, will not our possessing it be sufficient to produce war with Great Britain, when it is always a sufficient cause for war, in the opinion of Great Britain, for any other maritime power to put a few more ships in commission than their ordinary establishment? And, if Congress were to order the building of fifty ships, it would only increase the certainty of this effect. How is a naval force to guard us, which Great Britain can destroy, whenever she pleases, even in time of war? For she has frequently ships sufficient on our coast to destroy all the vessels which are contemplated to be built. In short, this navy will be the means of keeping this country in continual broils. On the first appearance of arming any additional vessels on the part of Great Britain, for whatever cause, we must set on foot a negotiation to combine the other powers of Europe in our favor; and this country will become the centre of intrigue and tricks for the agents of every country.

But the gentleman from South Carolina says, this is the cheapest mode of defence; but does the gentleman prove this? Can he prove that £10,000,000 sterling is only the third part of the expense of defence, as he says? Does he not recollect how much of the revenue of that country goes to pay the interest of their enormous debt, and, therefore, cannot be considered as a part of the expenditure for defence? The gentleman will find, on reflection, he is much mistaken in his calculation in this respect. The gentleman from South Carolina has been loud in his encomiums on the British navy, on account of its usefulness to the world; and he calls the calculation of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, relative to the expenses of a navy, a paltry, schoolboy calculation, because it has not taken into view this usefulness. That gentleman, said Mr. N., only referred to the British navy so far as it was useful in the way gentlemen say they expect ours to be advantageous. But from the contradictions which the gentleman from South Carolina seemed to run into on this subject, he did believe that he had not an eye to a navy, merely for the defence of our commerce; he appeared to wish that this country should take a stand like that of Great Britain, that the safety of the world may, at a future day, depend upon us, as it now does upon Great Britain. Mr. N. believed the ambition of this country, the pride of its Government, and naval commanders, will all operate this way; and we may, one day or other, if we proceed with this navy scheme, be as aspiring, as domineering, as any other nation in the world, and by this means be embroiled in continual war, and be saddled with a debt equal to that of Great Britain.

Mr. N. believed there existed no good reason for going into the establishment of a navy at all, because he believed it would never be really useful to this country; but if it should be otherwise determined by a majority of Congress, this, he thought, of all times the most improper to commence the work.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS then moved to strike out what relates to 18-gun vessels, on the ground that the thirty-nine small vessels which we have are sufficient. The motion was negatived without a division.

Mr. J. PARKER proposed filling up the blanks in the section fixing the pay of captains in the Navy, with an advance from $75 to $100 per month to captains of 74's, and others in proportion; except the masters of vessels under 20 guns, which were proposed to be lowered.

Some objection, however, being made to this, and particularly to the mode of doing the business, this being the first time that the subject had been before the House, the section was moved to be struck out, and carried.

The committee then rose, and the House having concurred in the amendment reported,

Mr. NICHOLAS renewed the motion for striking out the 74-gun ships, and called the yeas and nays upon it. They were taken and stood, yeas 40, nays 54, as follows:

YEAS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles, Cole Claiborne, John Clopton, John Dawson, Joseph Eggleston, Lucas Elmendorph, William Findlay, John Fowler, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Thompson J. Skinner, William Smith, Richard Sprigg, Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.

NAYS.--John Allen, George Baer, jun., Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard, Jonathan Brace, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher G. Champlin, James Cochran, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, John Dennis, George Dent, William Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, James Machir, William Matthews, Daniel Morgan, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, Josiah Parker, Thomas Pinckney, John Read, John Rutledge, jun., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel Smith, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Peleg Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Alen, Peleg Wadsworth, Robert Waln, and John Williams.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading [and passed by the same vote].[44]

THURSDAY, February 14.

Relations with France.

Mr. LIVINGSTON called up for consideration the resolution which he yesterday laid upon the table, calling upon the PRESIDENT for any information which he may possess touching the suspension of the French arrêt, declaring neutral citizens pirates when found on board the vessels of belligerent powers; which being read,

Mr. L. called the yeas and nays upon it. He said he understood that, since yesterday, a member of this House had applied at the office of the Secretary of State, and had been informed that some information had been received relative to this subject. Perhaps the gentleman would himself state to the House what he had learned from that office.

Mr. HARPER said, he had only to state, that he had made inquiry at the office of the Secretary of State, and had been informed that a letter had been received from our Minister in London, enclosing an extract from the Redacteur (supposed to be an official French paper) stating that the Executive Directory had suspended the edict in question. This extract, he understood, does not state the reason of this suspension; but our Minister writes it was owing to a threat of the British Government to retaliate upon French citizens within their power.

The yeas and nays were taken, and stood--52 to 38.

Naval Pay.

On motion of Mr. JOSIAH PARKER, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill fixing the pay of captains of ships and vessels of the United States; and after some amendments, the bill was reported, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

[This bill provides "that all vessels in the service of the United States, mounting 20 guns and upward, be commanded by captains; those not exceeding 18 guns (except galleys, which are to be commanded as heretofore provided by law,) by masters or lieutenants, according to the size of the vessel, to be regulated by the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; that the pay of a captain, commanding ships of 32 guns and upward, be $100 dollars per month, and eight rations per day; of captains, commanding ships of 20 and under 32 guns, $75 a month, and six rations a day; of a master-commandant, $60 per month, and five rations per day; and of lieutenants who may command the smaller vessels, $50 dollars per month, and four rations per day; that whenever any officer as aforesaid shall be employed in the command of a squadron, in separate service, the allowance of rations to such commanding officer shall be doubled during the continuance of such command, and no longer, except in case of a commanding officer of the Navy, whose allowance, while in service, shall always be at the rate of sixteen rations per day."]

FRIDAY, February 8.

Relations with France.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:

In pursuance of the request, in your resolve of yesterday, I lay before you such information as I have received, touching a suspension of the arrêt of the French Republic, communicated to your House by my Message of the 28th of January last. But if the execution of that arrêt be suspended, or even if it were repealed, it should be remembered that the arrêt of the Executive Directory of the 2d of March, 1797, remains in force, the third article of which subjects explicitly and exclusively American seamen to be treated as pirates, if found on board ships of the enemies of France.

JOHN ADAMS.

UNITED STATES, February 15, 1799.

Extract of a letter from Rufus King, Esq., Minister Plenipotentiary, &c., London, to the Secretary of State, dated 28th November, 1798.

"Annexed I send you a copy of a note from Lord Grenville, respecting the French arrêt transmitted to you with my No. 9. A late French paper contains a second arrêt which postpones the execution of the first."

Lord Grenville to Mr. King.

The undersigned, His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has the honor of communicating to Mr. King, Minister Plenipotentiary for the United States of America, for the information of his Government, that, by a decree, published officially at Paris, it appears to have been declared, in the name of the French Directory, that every person being a native of or originally belonging to neutral countries, or to such as are in amity and alliance with the French Republic, who shall bear any commission under His Majesty, or who shall form a part of the crews of any British ships of war, or other vessels, should, on the proof of that fact alone, be considered and treated as a pirate, and that it has been ordered that this resolution shall be notified to the neutral powers, and to those in alliance with France.

Even this decree, contrary as it is to the usages of every civilized nation, cannot excite any surprise, as proceeding from those in whose name it has been published. To the different powers who are thus insulted, and whose innocent subjects are exposed to the most cruel treatment on the part of a Government professing friendship or alliance with them, His Majesty must leave it to adopt such measures as they will, without doubt, judge necessary, in the case of an outrage hitherto unexampled in the history of the world.

The King, however, feels, that protection is also due from him to those who sail under his flag, either in His Majesty's ships of war, or in other British vessels; His Majesty has, therefore, not hesitated to direct it to be signified to the Commissioner for French prisoners in Great Britain, that the first instance of the execution of this decree shall be followed by the most rigorous retaliation against the French prisoners, whom the fortune of war has already, or may hereafter place at the King's disposal.

It would certainly never be but with extreme reluctance that the King could yield to the painful necessity of exposing so many unfortunate individuals to the fatal but inevitable effects of this atrocious decree; but His Majesty will have at least the satisfaction of feeling that nothing has been omitted on his part to prevent its execution, and that the authors of it can alone be considered responsible for all its guilt and all its consequences.

GRENVILLE.

DOWNING STREET, November 27, 1798.

Mr. LIVINGSTON moved that this communication be printed.

Mr. ALLEN objected to the motion as it would delay the consideration of the bill proposing to vest the PRESIDENT with the power of retaliation in certain cases; and it was clear, from this communication, it ought to have no effect upon that bill.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said he was not possessed of that intuitive faculty which the gentleman from Connecticut seemed to have, as he seems prepared to act on the bill alluded to, without scarcely hearing this communication read; and, perhaps, without knowing the dates of the different decrees. The PRESIDENT has told the House that though the obnoxious decree has been repealed, there is still left in force another decree. Does the gentleman from Connecticut recollect the words of that decree? Or has he had time to examine whether that decree is really in force, or not? If he had done this, Mr. L. said he had not done it. It would appear, from what happened the other day, that the House ought not to move quite so rapidly in this business. The House was then told by the gentleman from South Carolina, that it was impossible that this information could have been received by the PRESIDENT, because, if it had been received, the PRESIDENT would undoubtedly have immediately sent it to the House. [Mr. RUTLEDGE said, he did not use the word impossible, but improbable.] Mr. L. admitted this might be the word. But it now appears, that the PRESIDENT has not only received the information then alluded to, but received it officially.

Mr. ALLEN interrupted Mr. L. by withdrawing his motion. The communication was ordered to be printed, and was committed to the same Committee of the Whole to whom was referred the bill vesting the power of retaliation in the PRESIDENT.

MONDAY, February 18.

Army Increase.

A bill from the Senate giving eventual authority to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to augment the army. [This bill gives the PRESIDENT authority, in case a war shall break out between the United States and any foreign power, or in case of imminent danger of such war, in his opinion to exist, to organize and raise twenty-four regiments of infantry, one regiment of riflemen, and three regiments of cavalry. The PRESIDENT is also authorized to call out the volunteer corps, on all occasions in which he is at present authorized to call out the militia, provided that he does not call a greater proportion from any one State, than he is authorized to call out of the militia, by the law which directs the 80,000 militia to be held in readiness. If it be necessary to carry this law into effect, two millions of dollars are appropriated for the purpose.]

On the question for reading this bill a second time, it was carried--45 to 37.

Capture of French Vessels.

On motion of Mr. OTIS, the House went into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. RUTLEDGE in the chair, on the bill encouraging the capture of French armed vessels, by armed ships or vessels, owned by a citizen or citizens of the United States, and for allowing salvage in certain cases. The bill, which proposes a bounty on guns, according to their sizes, having been read,

Mr. MCDOWELL observed, that this bill is similar to the one which was two or three different times negatived at the last session. At that time, he considered the situation of this country more alarming than at present, and the conduct of France more likely to drive us to extremities than it has since been. Knowing this, he did not expect gentlemen would have introduced a bill of this kind. Finding however that gentlemen are not satisfied with things as they are, but are desirous of hiring the people of the United States to make war upon France, though they are unwilling to declare war, and not being willing to give his vote to any such measure, he should move to strike out the first section of the bill.

The question was put, when there appeared 43 votes for it, and 42 against it, and the Chairman said "it is carried," before he declared his vote to be in the negative.

A motion was made for the committee to rise, and negatived--43 to 42.

WEDNESDAY, February 20.

MATTHEW LYON, from Vermont, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Alien and Sedition laws.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said, he had received, under cover, a number of petitions from the State of Vermont, praying for a repeal of the alien and sedition laws, which he begged leave to present to the House. One of which having been read, in which, among their other objections to the laws, the petitioners complain of having been deprived, by the sedition law, of their Representative in Congress for the greater part of the present session; Mr. L. moved to have the whole referred to the select committee to whom was referred the other petitions relative to this subject; but on Mr. GALLATIN's suggesting that he understood that committee is ready to report, and that it would therefore be better to suffer the petitions to lie on the table until that report is made, and then have the whole referred to the same Committee of the Whole; that course was taken.

Capture of French Vessels.

The House took up the report of the Committee of the Whole on the bill for encouraging the capture of French privateers, by allowing a bounty on guns, and the motion being to concur in the agreement of the committee to strike out the first section of the bill,

Mr. MACON said, there were some other observations made the other day, when this subject was under consideration, which he thought very foreign to the subject. The history of this bill during the last session was given. The House was told it was three times rejected--once by trick. He was surprised to hear two gentlemen make use of this expression. If there was any trick, it certainly was among those gentlemen who had so frequently brought the subject before the House. It had been said, also, that it was once rejected by accident. It was the first time he had ever heard it urged as a reason for reconsidering a subject, that certain members had before voted accidentally upon it. Another reason was given, that the vote in the Committee of the Whole had been improperly obtained, by taking advantage of a mistake of the Chairman. By the rules of the House, Mr. M. said, the Speaker, or Chairman of a Committee of the Whole, has a casting vote, or they may tie a vote; but, after the Chairman had declared the question carried, it might be supposed he did not mean to vote, or if he did that he meant to vote with the majority.

Mr. M. said, he had seen a letter printed in the papers from one of our naval commanders in the West Indies, wherein he says, that American vessels sail into the neighborhood of the French islands, in order to be carried in; that they afterwards get away, pretending to have made their escape, and soon return with another cargo. He also mentions having fallen in with one of these vessels evidently steering for a French island, but the vessel's papers were so well managed, and the captain and mate understood each other so well, that he could make nothing of them. If, said Mr. M., the laws for suspending our intercourse with France and her possessions can be so easily evaded, might it not be expected that this law would be evaded, and that privateers might be fitted out in the West Indies, and brought to a certain latitude, for the purpose of being taken? He had no doubt this would be the case.

Mr. MCDOWELL said, that when this bill was before under discussion, he had stated that our situation with respect to France appeared to be more favorable than last year. This was denied by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. OTIS.) He considers our danger greater, and this bill more necessary than at that time; and has gone on to remark, that all that was said about our improved situation with respect to France, were songs only fit for children, and not for the people of America. He was of a different opinion; they were the songs of peace, and as such, he believed, suited to the people of this country, who wish to live in peace. And if that gentleman knew more of the evils attendant on war than he does, he certainly would not be so ready to embrace them as he appears to be.

But he thought the gentleman from Massachusetts mistaken as to our situation; he believed it to be much better than it was at the last session. He formed this opinion from the despatches of Mr. Gerry, who declares it to be his opinion, that France is sincerely disposed to make peace; and more particularly from the PRESIDENT having nominated a Minister to treat with France, though he had declared he never would send another Minister until he should receive assurances that he would be received as the Minister of a great, free, and powerful nation. He supposed, therefore, that the PRESIDENT has received these assurances, and that we have, on this account, some reason to hope, that a reconciliation between the two Governments will take place.

He was opposed to this bill, because it might be the means of bringing the country into difficulties and war; it was giving to one part of our citizens the power to embroil the whole. No necessity has been shown to exist for this law; it is, indeed, said to be necessary to keep down the privateers of France, but we find by letters which have just been published, from the commanders of our armed vessels, that there are very few to be seen. But supposing there are yet a number of them, what better use can our public armed vessels be put to than to go after them? They must either be employed in doing this, or sent where he did not wish them to go, to the European seas, or kept useless at home.

Mr. GALLATIN would not have troubled the House on this subject, had it not been for the remark of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. OTIS) immediately before the adjournment took place on Monday. He told the House that the vote on this subject ought not to be influenced by the nomination of a minister to go to France; and he precluded any answer being then given to the remark, by moving an adjournment.

For my part, said Mr. G., I do not consider this bill as very important in itself, and I have always been at a loss to know why there appeared to be so great an anxiety to have it passed. It is said, we ought not to recede from the ground we have taken; and really, from the arguments of the gentleman from Massachusetts, it would appear that there was a motion before the House to prevent our merchants from arming their vessels, or our public vessels from taking French privateers. This measure brings us to the question, not whether we will recede, but whether we will progress. The object of this bill is not to authorize any new measure, but it is to give a bounty to merchants to do what they are already authorized to do. The only question is, whether it will promote the taking of French privateers? He believed it would produce no effect at all, except the blanks in the bill are to be filled with sums which would produce a very serious demand on our treasury. The object of merchants is to make a safe and quick voyage, and if privateers will keep out of their way, they will never go in search of them: and if they should fall in with a privateer, their aim would be self-defence, and not capture, since to attempt this might hazard the loss of their vessel and valuable cargo, and take from them means of defence against any other attack, since they must put their own men on board the captured privateer.

It is clear, therefore, said Mr. G., that one of two things must take place, either we must give such a bounty on the guns of privateers as will make the expense of taking them greater than the benefit, or else it will become a mere matter of speculation, or small vessels will be fitted out on purpose to obtain the bounty. When privateers are taken by other countries, they are always taken by their vessels of war, and seldom by letters of marque.

But it is said this measure ought to be taken, in order to strengthen the hands of our Minister, by showing our determination to resist, in case an accommodation does not take place. On the same grounds, Mr. G. said, a declaration of war might be urged.

As to the effect to be expected from the appointment of a Minister to treat with France, he considered it merely as opening a door to negotiation. He agreed with the gentleman from Massachusetts, that it ought by no means to be considered as putting an end to the dispute between the two countries. It may succeed, or not. But this step having been taken, he did not think proper to go into a measure of this kind, especially since it can be attended with so little good effect.

Mr. JOSIAH PARKER said, when he gave notice to the House on Monday of the nomination of a Minister to go to France, and declared that, on that account, he should vote against this bill, he did not do so because he was willing to relax from any of our measures of defence or offence against the French; but because he thought the measure proposed by this bill puerile and ineffectual, and therefore unnecessary. When he made this declaration, he was sorry to differ in opinion from the gentleman from Massachusetts, with whom he had had the honor to vote very frequently. At the same time that he said this, he declared himself ready to abide by every measure of defence yet adopted, and even to take higher ground than has yet been taken: for he had no opinion either of the magnanimity or sincerity of the French Republic. He believed they had no desire for peace, except such as arose from their changed situation. He thought it better, however, not to go into any little, irritating measure, like this. The PRESIDENT had heretofore told the House that he would never send another Minister to France until he received assurances that he would be properly received; he believed the PRESIDENT had received these assurances from the French Minister at the Hague, through our Minister there.

Mr. P. thought the second section of this bill, allowing a salvage on the retaking of any of our vessels, ought to pass; the first he hoped would be struck out.

Mr. PINCKNEY was sorry to differ in opinion from the gentleman just sat down as to the expediency of passing this bill. He did not think it a measure of great importance; but, as an additional measure of defence, it may have some effect, and he was therefore for agreeing to it. He thought the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GALLATIN) had put the prospect of a negotiation with France upon a proper footing; and he agreed with that gentleman that we ought not to vary the ground we have already taken; but he did not think that any augmentation of force would be going off the ground originally taken.

What, asked Mr. P., was the ground taken at the last session, and acted upon at this? It was, that we should, by all means in our power, prepare for our defence, more especially that we should add to every measure of defence to which our revenue is adequate, on the ocean. We have shown this to be our determination both at the last session and this, and our preparations have only been limited by our ability to make them. This measure, therefore, is a continuance of the same ground.

This bill reverts, therefore, altogether upon the question of expediency, and this he thought the proper footing on which to place it. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has objected to its expediency, because he says it will be inefficacious. Mr. P. would give a short answer to this, which was, that its expense will be commensurate with its utility. There is no doubt, if it has any effect at all; if it induces any private armed vessels of the United States to bring into our ports privateers which are depredating on our commerce, no moderate reward could be too great to be given for this advantage. And if there is nothing done; if the law proves ineffectual, then the public is nothing out of pocket. It is one of those cheap expedients which may be beneficial, but which can have no bad consequences.

Mr. HARPER believed that gentlemen, in their deliberations on this subject, have fallen into some mistakes as to the course which this bill took at the last session. Mr. H. gave the history of this bill, and also spoke of the decision which had taken place in Committee of the Whole as by no means conclusive. On the general policy of the measure, he was not inclined to make any observations. He believed it was well understood; but he would not omit this occasion of declaring, that, in his opinion, its policy had not been changed by the nomination which has taken place of a Minister to treat with the French Republic.

It is said that an intimation has been made, not through the Dutch Minister, but through the Secretary of Legation at the Hague, to our Minister there, that the French government is disposed to receive any Minister Plenipotentiary which we may choose to appoint, suitable to the dignity due to the representative of a great, free, and independent nation. This intimation having been given to the PRESIDENT, he has thought it proper to meet the advance so far as to nominate a Minister, which Minister is to go to France, provided he shall receive assurances of being properly received, and a Minister of equal rank appointed to treat with him.

This change, Mr. H. said, from haughty insolence; from the expulsion of our Minister; from a demand of tribute; from requiring apologies for speeches; from outrage and insult, to the mild language of supplication, must certainly have been owing to the measures of this Government, and therefore clearly evinced the policy and propriety of these measures. We have thus far, said Mr. H., seen the good effects of buckling on our armor, at the same time that we hold out the olive branch. And instead of relaxing, we ought now to brace up the system; not that he would wish to take any new ground but merely reinforce and invigorate the system already established. This he thought the true policy of this country. Whether this application for a negotiation on the part of the French Republic may arise from sincerity, or from a wish to wheedle this country to their own advantage, or because they perceive we are not to be bullied into submission, and therefore it is best to live on friendly terms with us, he held it wise policy in us to enlarge our means both of defence and offence, until our dispute with France is brought to a close. He, therefore, thought it of more importance to adopt this measure now than heretofore; because, if it is not carried, it may be supposed that we have forborne to adopt it, because we are disposed to relax the instant we have information that a negotiation is likely to be opened, and that they may at any time unnerve our arm by a proposition to negotiate. Therefore, if he had before been against this measure, he should now be in favor of it, because, if it had no other good effect, it would convince the government with which we are about to treat, that the same vigorous measures which have produced this negotiation will still be continued, and that though we are treating for peace, we are preparing for war, and that we are determined to do ourselves justice, if they refuse to do us justice. For these reasons he hoped the bill would pass.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said, that considering how great a favorite this measure had been of its partial parents, it was the most unlucky child that ever showed its face in the House. It had scarcely seen the light at the last session, when it was lost in the short passage from its nursery in the committee to the House, because those who were most interested in its preservation, by accident, did not happen to vote for it. Another accident of the same nature prevented its passage when it was again attempted in the same session. At the interval of a year, the same ill fortune seemed to pursue this unlucky bantling. It had scarcely taken its first step into existence when the same forgetfulness seemed to seize all those who had the care of it. Again, it was lost in the committee; again it accidentally expired; and all the efforts to revive it, he believed, would be in vain. Mr. L. then went into a history of the bill to show that it was lost, not by accident, but because a majority were opposed to it.

Mr. L. said, he understood that France proposes to receive a Minister from this country on the very terms upon which only the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES has heretofore said he would ever send one. It was said to be improper to recede from the ground we have taken on this account, because the French may not be sincere. He had heard no such idea suggested, and gentlemen certainly do wrong in imputing motives to others without foundation. But when gentlemen come to the merits of the bill, they touch them very lightly. They tell you it is part of our general system of defence. Is this the case? How is it to operate? It is to operate as a measure of aggression, not of preservation, or self-defence; and though he was perfectly willing to preserve our present ground, he did not wish to progress in any measures of hostility, especially when so little advantage can be derived from it as is proposed by this bill.

Mr. DANA said that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in his Message to both Houses of the 21st of June last, declared, "that he would never send another Minister to France until he had assurances that he would be received as the Minister of a great, free, and powerful nation." The character of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES for integrity and political fortitude, is well known and established, and that character is pledged for an adherence to the declaration above recited. Nor had he any idea of his receding from it. With a knowledge of this fact, we are to inquire what is the purport of the information which has been given to this House of a Minister having been appointed to negotiate with the French Republic. For his own part he did not consider the French Government sincere; and he was authorized to think so by the declaration of this House in answer to the PRESIDENT'S Speech. Nor did he think the PRESIDENT believed them to be sincere, and he was authorized in thinking so, from his communication to both Houses at the opening of the session. How, then, is the nomination of a Minister to be understood? It was to be understood in the same light in which we used to appoint Commissioners during our Revolutionary war, who were sent to Europe to treat with Great Britain long before we expected she would be willing to treat for peace; but they were possessed of eventual authority. So, in the present case, the authority proposed to be given to our Minister at the Hague, is only to be an eventual authority, that when he receives sufficient evidence of the sincerity of the French Government, he may proceed to treat with them. Nor did he believe that the Senate possessed any document informing them that the PRESIDENT has already received these assurances.

[Mr. D. here read extracts from the PRESIDENT'S Address to both Houses, from the address of this House in answer to it, and from his reply; in which the PRESIDENT states he can have no confidence in the sincerity of the French Government, while the decree which condemns our vessels as prizes, on account of having articles of British growth or manufacture on board, is in force.]

We know, said Mr. D., that this decree is, however, yet in force; and yet gentlemen pretend to say that the nomination which has taken place is a proof that the PRESIDENT has now some reliance on the sincerity of the French Government; whereas it is nothing more than a conditional appointment, such as he had already stated. No gentleman will hazard his political sagacity by saying, a negotiation is likely to take place whilst that decree is in existence; nor can any gentleman be found who will apologize for it, if it is so atrocious that its repeal must be an indispensable preliminary to any negotiation which may take place. Believing this nomination, therefore, to be nothing more than the naming of a person to treat with the French Government when it shall condescend to do us justice, the arguments of gentlemen built upon it fall to the ground. And if they attend to the declaration of this House, in the address already alluded to, they will find that we ought to advance in our defensive measures instead of receding, or even remaining stationary.

Mr. NICHOLAS supposed during the first half of the speech, of the gentleman who had just sat down, that he meant to vote against this bill, for he could not have supposed that he had quoted the PRESIDENT'S Message to Congress, in June last, for the purpose of making a declaration such as he has made with respect to it. He supposes that the PRESIDENT has received no assurances from the French Republic that our Minister will be received, though he has heretofore said he never would send a Minister until he had assurances he would be properly received; but that he has appointed a Minister to wait, as it were, at the door of France, for a declaration that he will be properly received. And he supposes that the declaration of the PRESIDENT will in this way be satisfied. Mr. N. believed, if the PRESIDENT has appointed a Minister, he will be received, because he did not believe he would have appointed him until he had good assurances that this would be the case; or, if he has, that he has certainly forgotten his declaration.

The gentleman last up had made use of a very extraordinary argument. He says the French nation is governed by different principles from any other. When we entreat them to be at peace, he says, they insult us; but when we give them cause to wage eternal war against us, they become humble and submissive. Mr. N. believed that this was not the first time that such measures have had this tendency; but it is the first time it has been acknowledged that the measure alluded to (the publication of the despatches containing the unauthorized negotiations of X, Y, and Z, he supposed was meant) was calculated to produce these direful effects. He did fear they were intended to have these mischievous consequences; but he hoped and believed that their being so notorious and palpable have been the means of defeating the intention, and of saving the nation from war, as it showed that the Government of this country had no desire to be at peace. The French saw that a war between the United States and them would have been a war of passion, in which they could have had no possible interest, and which would, above all other things, have proved agreeable to their enemy. They saw that there was a party in this country who wished for this state of things, and he believed the extremity to which things had been carried has defeated the object in view. I do believe, said Mr. N., that France is now disposed to make peace; that she is calling upon us to enter into negotiation, in order that the party in this country who are desirous of war may have no pretext for carrying their wishes into effect.

Mr. N. was astonished, that after a Minister of respectable character, a Minister chosen by the PRESIDENT, and who declared he accepted of the employment from a desire to support his administration, being well acquainted with the disposition of France, from his having resided there a considerable time--has asserted that, previous to their knowledge of the publication of the negotiations of X, Y, and Z, in this country, the French Government were desirous of negotiating a peace; that after having rejected two of our Ministers, and retained a third, the resentments appeared to be satisfied; and that, though, after they had received information of the publication of these despatches, their displeasure was for a while excited, yet before Mr. Gerry left France, the same disposition for peace had returned; though, from the disposition which appeared in this country, they were doubtful how their overtures would be received. And after we have now proofs that they have made overtures, in conformity to the sentiments exhibited in Mr. Gerry's despatches, it was astonishing, he said, that gentlemen should ascribe this offer to negotiate to the effect which the small force we raised has had upon them--a force which could not possibly have availed any thing against such a force as it might be expected would be sent against us, if it was the purpose of France to invade this country.

Mr. RUTLEDGE observed, that the effect of the measures which were taken at the two last sessions of Congress have been so different from what was predicted by the gentleman from Virginia that he was no longer inclined to give credit to his predictions. He has constantly been prophesying, but time and experience have shown his prophesies to be wholly unfounded. It was doubtless in the recollection of the House, that that gentleman thought it would be weak to rely upon a navy; he thought and said that many of the measures formerly taken would plunge the country in war, by causing a declaration of war on the part of France. The gentleman apologized for the length of his speeches, because he thought the measures of the last importance; and that if they were adopted, the scabbard would be thrown away, and it would not be in our power to resume it. But, instead of war, it is now found these measures have obtained for us peace--at least gentlemen say so. The gentleman from Virginia now predicts we shall have peace; but as all the former predictions of that gentleman have fallen to the ground, he trusted a majority of this House will not be inclined to give credit to his present prediction.

Much had been said about the diplomatic skill of France; and he thought her present conduct more deserving of this epithet than any of her former measures with respect to this country. Let gentlemen review the conduct of that country. She first attempted to bully us; but finding that we were not to be frightened, her next object was to obtain delay, in order to afford time for the spirit which had been roused by her injuries, to spend its force. When our Minister, Mr. Pinckney, first arrived in France, he was assured he would be received; but the French had an agent in this country feeling the pulse of the people, and finding that there existed a great deal of French mania, and a party upon whom they could rely, the French Government refused to receive our Minister. This country, still desirous of preserving peace, sent three Commissioners. What was then the conduct of the French Government? Our Ministers remained for months at Paris an unique spectacle, waiting in vain to be received. France has endeavored to palsy our Government--to produce delay--to give time for that noble spirit which has done so much honor to our country to spend itself. When she finds that our efforts to negotiate having failed, we buckled on our armor, and were determined to resist her injustice, the French Secretary of Legation at the Hague is directed to have some conversation with our Minister there; and assure him, notwithstanding this country had done acts enough to justify the most offensive measures, that if he will send another Minister to France, he would be received as an agent of a great, independent, and powerful nation. Gentlemen catch at this; but what is it but an attempt to arrest the arm of the Government of this country, just when it was about to strike a blow? And yet gentlemen are the dupes of this diplomatic skill.

Mr. LIVINGSTON was not surprised that gentlemen who had always been the advocates of war, at this critical moment, when all the horrors of peace stare them in the face, should seize every opportunity of postponing that dreaded event by questioning the sincerity of the offer to negotiate. [Mr. RUTLEDGE asked whether this had been done? The SPEAKER answered in the negative.] From those gentlemen this was naturally to have been expected, and he therefore excused their vexation and dismay. But Mr. L. said he was not a little astonished that others, who at least professed an attachment to peace, should betray such evident anxiety and uneasiness at its approach. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. RUTLEDGE) has said that he wishes for peace; that no class of men are more exposed than his constituents, and that he himself would be a great sufferer by war. Such wishes and such motives he was however inclined to believe would have prompted language very different from that which had just been heard. A gentleman really desirous of peace would not, he should have supposed, travel out of the argument to pronounce philippics against those with whom we were treating, or to question the sincerity of overtures which were made in the mode we ourselves had prescribed.

He would not ask gentlemen who pronounce so decisively on the subject; who tell us that no reliance is to be placed in French professions; that they promise only to betray; that, unlike all other nations, they treat us with disdain when we ask for peace, but like spaniels, crouch and fawn upon us when we use them ill, whether they had calculated the consequences of their doctrine? That would be demanding more from them than their conduct had given him a right to expect; but he would ask whether they had attended to dates, when they arrogated to their measures the credit of producing the present disposition for peace in the Government of France? Let it be remembered, said Mr. L., that the most earnest and pressing solicitations for an accommodation were expressed to Mr. Gerry; that he was repeatedly urged to negotiate a treaty, which it was more than intimated he might have on his own terms; and that, after his repeated refusals to treat, a Minister was designated to carry these pacific intentions to America--and all this before any account of those measures on which gentlemen so much pride themselves had arrived in France. Let it not be forgotten, too, that when the account of these measures did arrive, so far from having a beneficial effect, they were very near producing the one for which gentlemen now tell us they were intended, and for which they were indeed admirably calculated--that of provoking on the part of France, a declaration which could not be obtained here. Mr. Gerry very expressively gives us these important facts. He states the evident desire to accommodate before the arrival of the despatches, and the turn which their contents gave to the negotiation. The discussion was turned to unimportant points; the design of sending a Minister was relinquished; and every thing showed a design to protract the business, until it could be ascertained whether the United States were desirous of peace, or would receive a Minister if he should be sent. In this state of things, Mr. Gerry received orders to return. All further intercourse with France then ceased, until the PRESIDENT, by his Message to this House, declared the terms on which alone he would send a Minister to France. No sooner were these terms known, than the assurance is sent in the very words prescribed by the PRESIDENT, accompanied by expressions of an earnest desire to treat. In all this history, subsequent to the departure of Messrs. Pinckney and Marshall, he thought an evident desire had been shown for an accommodation, the sincerity of which he believed it was our duty to test--not by reproachful speeches and hostile measures, but by meeting their overtures for negotiation in good faith; and while we showed our desire for peace, not to trust too much to our wishes, but retain every measure of defence.

The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. RUTLEDGE) had mentioned delay. France, he said, always conquered by producing delays. This he thought not a very applicable expression to the rapidity with which gentlemen traced their conquests. But on this occasion it was particularly unfortunate. It appears that the overtures which have now been acted upon were communicated by the Minister for Foreign Relations at Paris, to Mr. Pichon at the Hague, and by him to Mr. Murray, on the 28th of September; and we hear nothing of them until the close of February. He did not know when the communication was received here; but there was at least a probability, from the date, that it was before the opening of the session; before the adoption of all the expensive measures we have undertaken; before the loan was opened at eight per cent.; before the intemperate commentary was written on Mr. Gerry's despatches, with which we have been favored by the Secretary of State. Let gentlemen compare the language of that singular State paper with these proposals made to Mr. Murray; let them examine the respective dates, and then let them talk to us of delay.

Mr. SHEPARD could not think, with the gentleman from New York, that France is serious in her proposals to negotiate; he believed she meant to deceive us; and sooner than be deceived by them, he would fight the ungodly nation. After some other observations, he sat down, with hoping the question would be taken.

The question was put on agreeing to the report of the Committee of the Whole, and carried--52 to 48, as follows:

YEAS.--George Baer, jr., Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, John Chapman, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, George Dent, Joseph Eggleston, Lucas Elmendorph, William Findlay, John Fowler, Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, William Barry Grove, John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Josiah Parker, Thompson J. Skinner, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Peleg Sprague, Richard Sprigg, Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.

NAYS.--John Allen, Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard, Jonathan Brace, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher G. Champlin, James Cochran, Wm. Craik, Samuel W. Dana, John Dennis, William Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, Jas. H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, James Machir, William Matthews, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, Thomas Pinckney, John Read, John Rutledge, jr., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Nathaniel Smith, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, Robert Waln, and John Williams.

The second section was then amended by adding to it the usual enacting clause; but after some observations against passing it by Mr. SEWALL, since the first section had been stricken out on the motion for its going to a third reading, it was negatived. And so the bill was rejected.

Expulsion of Matthew Lyon.

Mr. BAYARD proposed the following resolution to the House:

"Resolved, That Matthew Lyon, a member of this House, having been convicted of being a notorious and seditious person, and of a depraved mind, and wicked and diabolical disposition; and of wickedly, deceitfully, and maliciously, contriving to defame the Government of the United States; and having, with intent and design to defame the Government of the United States, and John Adams, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and to bring the said Government and PRESIDENT into contempt and disrepute, and with intent and design to excite against the said Government and PRESIDENT the hatred of the good people of the United States, and to stir up sedition in the United States--wickedly, knowingly, and maliciously, written and published certain scandalous and seditious writings, or libels, be therefor expelled this House."

Mr. B. said he had only to remark that this resolution is copied from the record of the trial, which he had in his possession.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, if this had been a candid statement of the business, he should have been willing to have come to an immediate vote upon it; but words are introduced into this resolution (which are words of course in every indictment) which do not particularly belong to this offence, and the truth of which is never inquired into upon a trial. As he wished the nature of the offence to be clearly stated, he hoped the motion would lie for the present.

Mr. BAYARD observed he had already said the terms used are copied from the record itself, and he did not think the gentleman from Virginia had been wiser than the law. He had himself no doubt that all the charges on the record are pertinent to the subject; if not, it would be extremely improper to introduce them. They are charges upon which a jury of the country have decided.

Mr. NICHOLAS appealed to the gentleman from Delaware, and to all other gentlemen of the law who heard him, whether the words here used are not the mere form of the indictment, and unconnected with the act here charged. He moved to adjourn, which motion was carried without a division.

FRIDAY, February 22.

Alien and Sedition Laws.

Mr. BARD presented several petitions and remonstrances from 1,487 inhabitants of the county of Franklin, in Pennsylvania, praying for the repeal of the alien and sedition laws; which having been read,

Mr. BARD moved to have this petition referred as usual.

Mr. HARPER inquired whether it would be in order to strike out a part of this petition. On being answered in the negative by the SPEAKER, Mr. H. said, he was always unwilling to object to the reference of petitions; but, on this occasion he could not help protesting against an atrocious libel contained in these petitions against the courts and juries of this country. Some time ago a great deal had been said on the subject of courts and juries in this House, and now we find the sentiments, as many others have been, reverberated in the form of petitions. It is here said, "that the sedition law had, in its execution, been used as a means of private vengeance, personal enmity, and party resentment." A charge so unjustifiable, and so untrue, upon the courts and juries of this country, he could not suffer to be referred without his protest.

Mr. GALLATIN observed, that the reference of these petitions is objected to, on account of what the gentleman from South Carolina calls a libel, which makes a part of these petitions. This, said Mr. G., is going upon the ground, which the greatest enemies of these laws have barely suggested might be taken, but which they thought scarcely possible, viz: that the right of petitioning might next be restricted, since the liberty of writing and speaking on the measures of Government was by law restricted: and now, taking it for granted, that the allegation contained in these petitions is untrue, the gentleman from South Carolina wishes to refuse these petitions a reference, without examining whether it is true or not. The petitioners say that the sedition law has been carried into effect under the operation of party spirit and personal revenge. The gentleman says that this is not true; but he does not want to have the allegation examined, in order to discover whether it be true or not, but to dismiss the subject at once; to tell the people, "You shall not be permitted to lay your petitions before us, if you dare to say that laws are carried into operation to gratify party spirit or private revenge, (for nothing is said of courts and juries,) if they contain such allegations, we will reject your petitions." Mr. G. hoped, on examination of the fact, the House would be convinced that though the charge is not a libel, that it is at least a gross mistake; that no such personal enmity, party spirit, or private revenge, has taken place, either in the commencement of any prosecution under this law, or in any decision which has taken place. But thus to object to the reference of petitions, would be to say that we have the power of defining the nature of petitions; that they may apply to this and that object, but that there are certain points which the people may not touch. He wished to know whether the people have not a right to say, if they choose, that the administration of justice is corrupt? and whether, if they do say so, the fact ought not to be inquired into? It certainly ought, and he was surprised to hear such an objection made. It must have arisen, because these petitions are grating to the feelings of gentlemen who are favorable to these laws. He hoped, on recollection, that the reference of petitions does not imply an approbation of the sentiments contained in them, that the gentleman from South Carolina would permit these petitions to be referred.

Mr. HARPER was not surprised that the gentleman from Pennsylvania should defend these petitions, for reasons which every man must know. What he has said upon the subject is no more than a repetition of some things which we have before heard. He agreed that, when grievances are complained of, they ought to be examined; and if the people were to complain of a maladministration of justice, the fact ought to be inquired into; but when the repeal of a law is prayed for, it certainly cannot be proper for petitioners to go into charges against the administration of courts and juries, by saying that prosecutions are carried on under party malice and party revenge. To do this is to strike at the vitals of our constitution. The gentleman from Pennsylvania likes this, perhaps, from party motives, but he ought to remember that it is an instrument which will cut both ways; and the use of which, if he has any respect for the laws and rights of his country, he may live to regret having countenanced. Mr. H. said, if in order, he would move to refer this part of the memorial to a select committee, with a view of inquiring into the subject-matter, and report their opinion thereon to the House.

The SPEAKER declared such a motion out of order; and, after some observations from Mr. NICHOLAS, in which he said the gentleman from South Carolina had answered himself, by allowing the propriety of a reference at all; and observed, if because these petitions complained of the administration of one part of our Government (which, however, he did not allow they do) they were to be rejected, it might be expected that, hereafter, no petition would be received that complained of the maladministration of any department of the Government.

The reference was carried, there being 55 votes for it.

Mr. GALLATIN presented petitions from six hundred and seventy-eight inhabitants of Chester County, praying for the repeal of the alien and sedition laws, in the same words with those presented yesterday.

On expelling Matthew Lyon.

Mr. BAYARD called up for consideration the following resolution, which he had laid upon the table a day or two ago:

The resolution having been read, Mr. B. presented to the House a copy of the record of Mr. Lyon's trial, which was read by the Clerk, after which,

Mr. B. observed, it would not be necessary to trouble the House with many observations in support of this resolution. The facts upon which the resolution is founded, are proved to be incontrovertibly true, by the record which had just been read. The only question, therefore, before the House was, as to the consequence of the fact, or whether the crime of which the member in question had been convicted, is a sufficient cause for expulsion. Mr. B. referred the House to that clause of the constitution which gives the House the power of expulsion. The power, said he, is unlimited. The House has the power to expel a member for any crime, or for any cause, which, in their discretion, they conceive has rendered him unfit to remain a member of the body. Perhaps some gentlemen may think that it is improper for the House to take notice of acts done by its members out of the House, but he believed the fallacy of such a doctrine would be easily seen. It was certainly possible, and might, therefore, be imagined, that a member of this House, might be guilty of murder, treason, perjury, or other infamous crime, and would it be asserted that a man, defiled by crimes of this kind, ought to be suffered to represent a portion of the people of the United States in the National Legislature? He trusted that no gentleman, who valued reputation, would contend for such a point. The question, then is, said Mr. B., whether the act in question is an act of that description, the commission of which ought to induce the House to expel the convicted member? In his opinion, the crime was of the first political magnitude. A crime not only affecting the members of this House, but the whole community, as its consequences go to the subversion of the Government. This Government, said Mr. B., depends for its existence upon the good will of the people. That good will is maintained by their good opinion. But, how is that good opinion to be preserved, if wicked and unprincipled men, men of inordinate and desperate ambition, are allowed to state facts to the people which are not true, which they know at the time to be false, and which are stated with the criminal intention of bringing the Government into disrepute among the people. This was falsely and deceitfully stealing the public opinion; it was a felony of the worst and most dangerous nature. The member from Vermont has been convicted of doing this, with a view of exciting the hatred of the people against the PRESIDENT and Senate, and of stirring up sedition in the country. This, in his opinion, was a crime of the greatest magnitude, since it is all-important that the channel by which information is conveyed to the people should be preserved as pure as possible; for, if men are allowed to state things as facts, which they know to be false, what will be the consequence? However upright the Government, or however correct the First Magistrate may be, the hatred of the people may be excited against them by means of false information; and when a foreign foe, or domestic traitors, join the standard of rebellion, the best constitution and government may be subverted. Therefore, that falsehood which deprives men of the means of forming a true judgment of public affairs, in this country, where the Government is elective, is a crime of the first magnitude. The member from Vermont has been convicted, under aggravated circumstances. He was on this floor when the law, against which he has offended, was passed. He, therefore, was well acquainted with the law; yet, with this knowledge, he has falsely, scandalously and maliciously, defamed the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, with a view of exciting hatred, and stirring up sedition. These facts are recorded and incontrovertible; and he conceived it would be out of order to call them in question.

Mr. B. concluded with appealing to the candor and honor which he expected to find in the House, whether a member, the malice of whose heart, and the falsehood of whose pen, stood recorded; who had, from the worst and basest motives, violated a law which he had himself assisted to make, was fit to hold a seat in that House. Will any one say that a man who does not keep the laws ought to be allowed to make them? Certainly, nothing was more repugnant to principle and propriety; and, as he conceived the member from Vermont was notoriously and exemplarily guilty in this respect, an obligation rested on the House to expel him. Mr. B. said he brought forward this resolution from a sense only of public duty, from a strong feeling for national character. He knew but little, and should be happy if it were less, of the member who was the object of it. He could not be suspected of having been induced to the step he had taken by the miserable gratification of offering violence to the feelings of the member. He believed that nothing he had said, nor any thing which could be said, would awaken a single feeling. His sensations were of another sort, and excited in another manner. Mr. B. conceived he had done his duty, and if the House refused to purify itself by the expulsion of the member, it was a satisfaction to him to reflect that it would appear to the world that he had no share in the disgrace.

Mr. NICHOLAS had hoped that the gentleman from Delaware would have shown to the House something in this transaction which made the character of the member alluded to so infamous as to have rendered him unfit to hold a seat in this House. He should have thought that, after a member of this House had suffered so severely as the member from Vermont has suffered by fine and imprisonment, it would have been thought necessary to go into a consideration of the nature of the offence of which he is said to have been guilty, and to have shown that the guilt attaching to him was such as to defile the characters of the rest of the members to sit with him, before a vote of expulsion was taken. Indeed, Mr. N. had supposed that there had been but one opinion on this subject, and that no attempt would have been made to have inflicted a second punishment. The gentleman from Delaware, Mr. N. said, had confined himself in his declaration about this offence, to its being an offence against one of the laws of the United States, without showing the House what the offence was, or wishing them to form a judgment upon it.

Mr. N. was surprised at this second prosecution, because, if gentlemen will speak candidly according to the opinions which they formerly delivered in justification of the law, they will acknowledge that the whole of the charges brought against the member from Vermont ought not to have been inquired into under the sedition law; since two of the counts contained in the indictment are mere matters of opinion, not containing the least suggestion of fact; and the third rests so much on matter of opinion, that it is impossible, according to a sound construction of the law, for any guilt to be incurred by the act.

Mr. N. wished the House to attend to the nature of the charges exhibited against the member from Vermont, and to say whether they were not of such a nature as to render it difficult to say whether they are well founded, and, if they are well founded, then they are innocent. In the record from which he had copied the charges, there are three counts; two of them are founded on extracts taken from a letter, called "Barlow's Letter;" the third is for sentiments contained in a letter of the member's own writing. The two first turn on mere matters of opinion. Mr. N. read the counts as follows:

"The misunderstanding between the two Governments has become extremely alarming, confidence is completely destroyed, mistrusts, jealousy, and a disposition to a wrong attribution of motives, are so apparent as to require the utmost caution in every word and action that are to come before your Executive--I mean if your object is to avoid hostilities. Had this truth been understood with you before the recall of Monroe, before the coming and second coming of Pinckney; had it guided the pens that wrote the bullying Speech of your President, and stupid answer of your Senate, at the opening of Congress in November last, I should probably have had no occasion to address you this letter. But we found him borrowing the language of Great Britain, and telling the world that, although he should succeed in treating with the French, there was no dependence to be placed on any of their engagements; that their religion and morality were at an end; that they had turned pirates and plunderers; and it would be necessary to be perpetually armed against them, though they are at peace. We wondered that the answer of both Houses had not been an order to send him to a mad-house. Instead of this, the Senate had echoed the Speech with more servility than ever George III. experienced from either House of Parliament.

"As to the Executive, when I shall see the efforts of that power bent on the promotion of the comfort, the happiness, and accommodation of the people, that Executive shall have my zealous and uniform support. But, when I see every consideration of the public welfare swallowed up in a continual grasp for power, in an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, or selfish avarice; when I shall behold men of real merit daily turned out of office for no other cause but independence of sentiment; when I shall see men of firmness, merit, years, abilities, and experience, discarded on their application for office, for fear they possess that independence; and men of meanness preferred for the ease with which they take up and advocate opinions, the consequence of which they know but little of; when I shall see the sacred name of religion employed as a State engine to make mankind hate and persecute one another, I shall not be their humble advocate."

The two first counts contain the opinions of the writer on public and notorious acts. No act is charged upon the PRESIDENT and Senate which is not notorious. It is not an attempt to impose upon the world a belief of facts which do not exist. He called upon gentlemen of the law and others to say whether this law was ever intended to extend to matters of opinion. He was astonished that a record of this kind should ever come from a court of the United States. The law declares that the publications which it proposes to punish, shall be false and scandalous. Do gentlemen say opinions can be false which do not contain matter of fact? Another part of the law gives to the party accused the privilege of giving the truth of the fact charged in evidence; but it is impossible that this can be done, where the matter charged consists of mere opinion; and juries could not possibly say whether an opinion be true or false. They can only determine whether or not it is their own opinion.

If a man is to be subject to a prosecution for his opinions, what will be the consequence? We are, said Mr. N., sent here to form an opinion, and, when we return home, we are expected to deliver that opinion to our constituents: but, if the propriety of our opinions are not to be judged of by ourselves, but by others, what will become of us? No man will be safe; for, though he may have formed his opinion as correctly as possible, if twelve men are to sit upon it, and, if it should not happen to be their opinion, or if they should not believe it to be his upon whom it is charged, he will be liable to a severe fine and imprisonment. Is it proper, Mr. N. asked, for legislators to be placed on this ground? Or, will gentlemen say it was their intention to place themselves in this situation? They certainly will not; for who would consent to sit here, or of what use would it be, under such conditions?

The third count is somewhat of a different nature. Mr. N. said, in speaking on this subject, he was not giving his own opinion. If he were to give it, he should say he had no foundation for the fact here stated. There is no mode, however, of ascertaining whether or not it was the opinion of the member from Vermont, and if it were his opinion, there being no mode of determining whether the opinion is correct or otherwise, it was impossible to act upon it.

With respect to the first part of the third count, which speaks of "every consideration of the public welfare being swallowed up in a continual grasp of power, &c.," he supposed it would be agreed that it was an expression of the affection of the mind--an opinion upon the disposition discovered by actions. That part of it which relates to "men of real merit being turned out of office for no other cause but independence of sentiment, &c.," suggests a fact, but if this was his opinion, it is a matter so much connected with opinion, as to be scarcely distinguishable from it. And shall we be told, said Mr. N., that a member ought to be banished from his seat for uttering a sentiment of this kind, after having been told by the gentleman from Delaware, and others, that it was a complete disqualification for office for a man to hold a different political opinion from that of the Executive? He trusted gentlemen could not seriously think so. For, since if the fact were true, and the member from Vermont had adduced (as he believed he might have done) two or three instances of men being turned out of office merely on account of their political opinions, still the jury might have asked, "how do you know that the men displaced possessed superior talents to those who succeeded them?" This, though true, could not be proved, therefore the member from Vermont could not have availed himself of the advantage held out by the law. Gentlemen may say this is not necessary, as this law goes to many offences not capable of this proof; they may say that the British law on this subject goes to many others. But our law is not the same with the British law; there, though the libel be true, it is not less a libel, which is not the case under our law, which is an important distinction.

It was clear, Mr. N. said, that such parts of the counts as went to insinuate fact, were so connected with opinion, that it was impossible to separate them. It could not be said that the jury were competent to decide upon the truth of the case. The decision of twelve honest men on a point of fact, is, perhaps, the best security that can be devised for the security of justice; but if a man is to be convicted because his opinions and those of a jury are at variance, there is an end to all security. Men's opinions are as various as their faces, and the truth or falsehood of those opinions are not fit subjects for the decision of a jury.

Upon what ground does the member from Vermont stand? He is a representative of the people; and gentlemen could not shut their eyes against a notorious fact, viz: that the constituents of this member, with a full knowledge of this prosecution, have re-elected him; and if the people of Vermont choose to have a person possessing these opinions to represent them, who have a right to say they shall not? Indeed, if they are to be represented at all, they must be represented by the man whom they choose to elect.

The gentleman from Delaware had said, that all the offences of Mr. LYON were greatly aggravated from his being a member of this House. Mr. N. was of a different opinion. He thought it incumbent on a Representative to disclose his opinions on public affairs to his constituents; and this disclosure will become more necessary, in proportion as such opinions may be offensive to the administrators of the Government; as, when all goes on smoothly and well, there will be no necessity for calling the attention of the people to public concerns.

The gentleman has also said, that it would be out of order to contest the truth of any thing contained in this record. He thought differently, and that if it was proper to act upon the subject at all, it would be proper to assign a day to have a fair hearing of the business, to enable the House to judge of the facts. For gentlemen will not say, that courts and juries are so infallible, that there is no case in which the decision of a court ought to be revised. If the member from Vermont should think it necessary to demand this investigation, the House ought to submit to it.

There was something in that record, Mr. N. said, which was very singular indeed; something which requires investigation; for unless the fact is different from what his information made it, a most extraordinary circumstance was connected with the third count. It will be seen, from the showing of the record, that the letter upon which the charge is founded, was written before the passage of the law on which the offence was tried. If he was not misinformed, no evidence was adduced in court to show that Mr. LYON did any act subsequent to the writing of his letter in the publication, and that though the thing appeared in print after the law took its effect, all that was done by the writer was done before the law was passed. He thought, therefore, before the House acted upon this subject, an inquiry ought to be had upon it. He did not know what were the wishes of the member from Vermont himself on this subject; he had not put the question to him, because he thought there was no offence contained in the record of which the House ought to take notice. He would say farther, that believing most religiously that the law against which the member from Vermont is said to have offended, is a violation of the constitution of this country, he could not without a breach of his oath, do any act to punish a breach of that law.

Mr. LYON said, he did expect that if he was to have had a second trial, he should have been at liberty to have adduced the evidence upon which a jury had already decided. Gentlemen who have been able to obtain a copy of the record, which he, notwithstanding all his earnest desires to obtain it, had not been able to procure, might also have obtained a copy of the testimony on which this judgment was founded.

Mr. L. thought he had received an unjust trial and a hard sentence. He said unjust, because he was frowned upon by the Judge in a very abrupt manner when he challenged two of the jury, which he had a right to do by a law of the State. The Judge answered me, said Mr. L., "You are unacquainted with the laws of the State." Mr. L. observed that there is a law in the State of Vermont for punishing persons who speak against the public authorities, which gives to the accused the privilege of challenging six of his jury. This privilege, said Mr. L., I was denied, exclusive of the political packing of the jury who tried me. This is the kind of treatment I have received: but I shall submit to the decision of the House without occupying their time on my account, further than my enemies are desirous of so occupying it.

Mr. ALLEN said, nothing but the respect which he entertained for the character who presided at the trial of the member from Vermont would have drawn him from his seat on that occasion. But if he understood the member from Vermont, he said he was frowned upon by the court when he challenged two of his jury, and having been present at the trial, he was able to speak to that fact. He understood the member to make a challenge, and the Judge told him he did not know the laws of Vermont; but so far from any harshness being used towards the member, he must say he never saw a trial more fairly conducted. He thought it did honor to Judge Paterson, who presided. When the member persisted in his opinion, that a law of the State gave him a right to challenge his jury, the Judge replied, "if that was the law, it would require consideration;" and he inquired of the district judge if that was the law, who said it was not. As to the member's being precipitately tried, [Mr. LYON observed, he did say so,] if ever there was a case deliberately tried, or in which unexampled indulgence was shown to the accused, it was this.

The member from Vermont had spoken of the jury being packed. He had seen this asserted in the papers, and the public ought to be informed that the charge is wholly untrue. The member from Vermont must know it is untrue. The jury was drawn from the boxes as is usual, in consequence of an order made by the court in May, which pointed out the particular towns from whence the jury were to be drawn. Mr. A. concluded by saying, he was sorry to find any man base enough to attack the gentleman who presided on this trial, as he believed his conduct to be unimpeachable.

Mr. BAYARD said, considering the lateness of the hour, he should limit his reply to a few observations. He did not know what would bind the gentleman from Virginia; he denies the obligation of the law, and the credibility of the record. He could not expect, therefore, that he would be bound by the obligation of reason.

The gentleman from Virginia, in his defence of the member from Vermont, has gone upon the ground that mere matter of opinion cannot be construed into a libel. He begged leave to differ from that opinion, for which there was not the least ground. Four things, Mr. B. said, are necessary to constitute a crime under the law in question: it is necessary that a publication should be seditious, false, scandalous, and malicious. When these four things appear, whether the publication consists in the assertion of matter of opinion, or matter of fact, it will be within the law, which makes no discrimination on the subject.

Mr. B. did not think it altogether in order to question in this place the regularity of the proceedings of a court of justice. According to the organization of this Government, the powers of it are distributed, and the Judiciary in its department is as sovereign as the Legislature; and it is as improper for the Legislature to question the proceedings of a court as it would be for a court in common cases, to question the obligation of a law. What has the fact been? The judgment of a court has decided, on the verdict of a jury given upon oath, that this case was within the law; and, after a judicial determination, is it for a member of this House to say that the case was not within the law?

But Mr. B. could conceive no idea more groundless than that of the gentleman from Virginia, that mere matters of opinion are not grounds of charges under this law. This the gentleman had made his alpha and omega. He wished to know how a distinction was to be made on this subject? If an opinion upon a fact be expressed, and that opinion is false, scandalous, and malicious, ought it not to be subject to prosecution? Does the gentleman say opinions cannot be false? Mr. B. said, he would put a case to the gentleman from Virginia, without any intention of personal reflection, but merely for the sake of the argument. Suppose any person were to say, that in his opinion, that gentleman was a rogue, or any other opinion casting a gross imputation, would the offence be less, because he had, instead of saying expressly he was a rogue, merely given it as his opinion? But if the gentleman insisted opinions could not be false, how would he get rid of the conclusion? This, Mr. B. conceived, might be sufficient to show that opinions may be false. Or, suppose a man were to say that, in his opinion, another was a traitor, ought he not to be punished as severely as if he had asserted the thing as a fact? The intention and wisdom of this law was, Mr. B. said, to caution men to be guarded in the publication of their opinions; since, by the expression of false opinions the minds of the people may be alienated from their Government. Suppose, for instance, that the gentleman from Virginia, or the member from Vermont, were to harangue the people, and say, in their opinion, this law is unconstitutional, and, therefore, not binding; that it ought not to be obeyed, but opposed by force; that it was made by men grasping after power, in defiance of the best interests of their country, in order to answer their own private views. Although this all might be mere matter of opinion, would it not come within the meaning of the law in question? No man on earth, Mr. B. said, would be more opposed to any measure for restraining the expression of honest and well-intentioned opinions, than himself. All that this law does, is to restrain false, malicious, and scandalous opinions. And will the gentleman from Virginia say, that the good of the country, or its liberty, will be promoted by indulging in an expression of what is false, scandalous, and malicious? Could this be liberty? He thought not. Every man, under this law, has the liberty of publishing what he pleases, taking the responsibility upon himself for the truth of what he writes. If he writes only what is true, he is not liable to punishment; if what is false, and that maliciously, it is only reasonable he should be punished for his falsehood and malice.

Suppose a common case, that a man were to say that, in his opinion, another was insolvent, a bankrupt, or a thief, would he not be answerable for this opinion? He certainly would. And ought a man to be permitted to slander the Government and not an individual? If the licentiousness of the press be allowed to go thus far, there will be nothing safe in character; it will always be in the power of a malicious person to rob the best men of their reputation with impunity. He presumed, therefore, that there was no ground for the distinction which the gentleman had attempted to draw.

The gentleman from Virginia had called upon the advocates of this resolution to show, that the member from Vermont could be punished a second time. Mr. B. did not know that the expulsion of a member from his seat could be considered in the light of a punishment. It was merely lopping off from the Legislative body a rotten member who contaminates the whole system. This was done without regard to the member himself, but with a view solely to the health and purity of the body of which he is a member. The constitution, however, left no doubt on the subject.

It is said that the member from Vermont has been re-elected, since his offences were known. He wished the gentleman from Virginia to say, how this fact was ascertained. At one moment he disputes the truth of the record, and says it cannot be considered as conclusive or creditable; yet, at another, he asserts a fact, upon the grounds of an extract of a letter, or a paragraph in a newspaper, of which this House could take no notice. The member was not re-elected to the present Congress, nor was any return made of his re-election to the next. Suppose he had a majority of votes at the late election, may it not hereafter appear that the election was carried by corruption or fraud, and that the member is not entitled to his seat?

It is suggested as a fact that the letter of the member from Vermont was written before the law passed; but the crime is not in the writing of the letter, but in the publication of it. There would have been no crime in scandalously writing, if he had not published the letter. The crime consisted not in the wickedness of his own heart, but the intention to corrupt others; the design to scatter firebrands through the community, with a view of exciting insurrections. If, therefore, he could have proved before the court and jury that he was not accessory to the publication after the passing of the law, he would doubtless have been acquitted; and though he did not think highly of the talents of that member, he supposed, if this had been the case, he would have had wit enough to have availed himself of it.

He would say a word with respect to the consequences of the crime upon a member. In England, a member of the House of Commons may be expelled for libellous matter. Such was the case with Mr. Wilkes; though in this case, the transaction was afterwards expunged from the journals, it was not done upon the principle that the original expulsion was not justifiable, but because he had been expelled for the same offence, after he had been re-elected to the same Parliament.

Believing, as he did, that the member in question disgraced the body to which at present he belonged, he hoped the resolution would be allowed to wash away the blot which marked and disfigured this branch of the Government.

Mr. GALLATIN confessed that, though there were some reasons which diminished his surprise at seeing this resolution on the table, he did not expect to have heard it defended on the ground which the gentleman from Delaware had taken in his last speech. He did not expect that when a judgment, awarded under the sedition law, was under consideration, a gentleman should rise and tell the House that this law applies to the publication of opinions as well as to that of facts; and it was less to be expected from the very gentleman who introduced an amendment into that law, providing that the truth of a charge may be given in evidence. His present declaration amounted to this: that those words were introduced in order to deceive the public, since they could be of no real use.

The gentleman from Delaware had constantly confounded matter of fact expressed, not positively, but only as the belief of the writer, and opinions or deduction from facts. If a man, with a view of defaming the government, publishes that, in his opinion, according to his belief, a certain fact does exist, which is susceptible of proof, and is found to be false, the publication, by the law, is undoubtedly a libel. Thus, if a man says that, in his opinion, a man is a thief, a bankrupt, or insolvent, it is not less a libel, than if he said such a person was positively so, because these things are susceptible of proof. But, when we speak of opinion, as distinct from fact, we speak of opinions not susceptible of proof, because they depend upon reasoning, and different opinions may be deduced from the same facts; therefore, we say that such opinions are not matter for prosecution even under this law. But, the gentleman from Delaware says that all opinions are liable to be prosecuted, provided that they can be proved to be false, scandalous, and malicious. Proved false! And who are the judges? To be sure, twelve jurymen, who are sworn to give a verdict according to evidence. And how can the truth of things which cannot be proved by evidence, be determined by evidence? An opinion may be incorrect; and, if judged incorrect by the gentleman from Delaware, it is, according to his reasoning, to be deemed false, and liable to prosecution.

The House had been told by the gentleman from Delaware, that it has nothing to do with this trial, any further than the record; that it ought to be taken as complete evidence of the facts which it contains, which ought not to be disputed. He also tells the House that courts of justice are as independent of the Legislature, as the Legislature of them; that this House has nothing to do with the crime; that it is the conviction only which they ought to take cognizance of. If, said Mr. G., the gentleman from Delaware had not brought forward the resolution now under discussion, we would have had nothing to do with the business. We did not bring forward the subject; we have nothing to do with it. Mr. G. added, I believe I go too far when I say we have nothing to do with it; for I believe it was the duty of the House to have sent the Sergeant-at-Arms for the member from Vermont, and demanded him from confinement, that he might have attended to his duty in this House.

[The SPEAKER said this was not now the question.]

Mr. G. knew this was not the question; he mentioned this to show that the House might have had something to do with the business. But we did not, said he, bring the subject before the House; and, if we have nothing to do with the decision of a court, that decision has nothing to do with us. If the member from Vermont is to be expelled, he ought to be expelled, not because he has been convicted, but because he has committed a crime which renders him unfit to retain his seat. What is that crime? It is stated in the record: and, stated as it is, he did not believe it was sufficient to ground a motion of this kind upon. Whatever is contained in these charges, which is capable of proof, ought to be taken into consideration, but not what is mere matter of opinion. It was generally allowed, he believed, that the paragraphs from what is called Barlow's letter, are of this last description. With respect to the other part of the charge, viz: the extract from a letter said to be written by the member from Vermont himself, to which he meant to confine his observations, he would beg leave to state it. [Mr. G. read it.]

Mr. G. said, the whole of the paragraph was hypothetical; but, supposing that the member from Vermont had declared it as his opinion "that the efforts of the Executive power were not bent on the promotion of the comfort, the happiness, and the accommodation of the people," he wished to know whether this could be considered as a declaration of fact or opinion? There is, perhaps, no measure passed by Congress, which one or other may not think will be contrary to the happiness, comfort, and accommodation of the people of the United States. We had, said he, the other day, the question of a navy before us, the establishment of which many believe is necessary for the promotion of the comfort, happiness, and accommodation of the people; whereas, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, it will produce the very reverse. How is this question to be decided? And yet it is known that the President, in his writings and speaking, has recommended the establishment of a navy; and persons writing and speaking against this system, which they ought to do, if they believe the system inimical to the United States, might be charged with bringing the Congress and PRESIDENT into contempt. But, doubtless, this is a mere matter of opinion, and not susceptible of proof by evidence. In order to prove the truth of either assertion, you must bring forward a dissertation pro and con.

The next part of the paragraph, viz: "when I shall see every consideration of the public welfare swallowed up," &c. So far as relates to the first member of this sentence, he did not see how it could be proved. He was not of opinion that every consideration of the public welfare was swallowed up in a continual grasp for power; but he did believe that there was a constant disposition, not only in the Executive, but in many gentlemen on this floor, to increase the power of the Executive.

[The SPEAKER said, neither this remark, nor the observations on the Navy, were in order.]

Mr. G. said, that he always wished strictly to adhere to order, and in order to avoid committing any further mistake, he desired to be informed why it was out of order? Was the argument not in point; or was it the declaration of his own opinion, as he went along, that was out of order? He wished to know, as he meant to be guided by the rule adopted by the Chair.

[The SPEAKER repeated that the gentleman from Pennsylvania had been out of order.]

Mr. G. proceeded. With respect to that part of the paragraph which says, "when I shall see men of firmness, &c., discarded on their application for office," &c. This, said Mr. G., is, in some degree, matter of fact, and in some degree, matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact, so far as that men of firmness, experience, &c., have been turned out of office; and matter of opinion as to what is said of men of meanness being preferred in their place. I do believe, said Mr. G., that the first assertion is true; and what is here written is no more than an illustration of what has been declared upon this floor, that men of certain political opinions, however capable, experienced, firm, and virtuous they might be, were unfit to hold offices. This, Mr. G. said, was the only fact which could be brought under the law, and he thought it a fact capable of being proved to be true. Mr. G. adduced, as evidence of the fact, the cases of the late Commissioner of Revenue for the United States, and of the Commissioner of Loans for the State of New Hampshire, who, he said, it was evident, were turned out of office on account of their political opinions. And he read, in support of his assertion, the publication of the late Commissioner of Loans of New Hampshire.

Another part of this paragraph speaks of "an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp." This, said Mr. G., is mere matter of opinion. Take the member from Vermont to the house of the PRESIDENT, and he may call its furniture and appendages, ridiculous pomp; take a member from a different part of the country, and he may declare every thing decent and plain; but take an overgrown nobleman from Great Britain into the house of the PRESIDENT, and he would set down every thing he saw as mean and selfish.

But, I insist upon it, said Mr. G., that matter of opinion ought not to be subject to cognizance by this law. What, said he, is the nature of the crime now proposed to be punished by the expulsion of the member from Vermont? We are told that he has published and uttered false, seditious, and malicious writings; that though these writings may be only matter of opinion, yet if those opinions are false, they come under this law; and, also, that such writings have a tendency to stir up sedition and insurrection.

Mr. G. would not repeat what had been said as to the unconstitutionality of the law under which the member from Vermont had been convicted; but this alone would be a sufficient reason for him to vote against the present motion. But, supposing the law constitutional, is the crime an infamous one? Certainly not. It is a political crime, and will always be determined according to the situation of the parties at the time. For, said he, we may say as much as we please about the purity of our courts and juries, and of our own purity; decisions upon political questions will always be influenced by party spirit. It is we, said Mr. G., that have introduced this spirit into the courts; and having given them political questions to decide, it need not be expected that courts will be free from party prejudice any more than others. Therefore, the falsehood or maliciousness of a publication will be determined by the political opinion of the jury.

As to the manner in which the trial of the member from Vermont had been conducted, he knew nothing of it. He wished the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. ALLEN,) who, it seems, was present at the trial, would inform the House what proof was adduced to the court to show that the letter of Mr. LYON was published by him after the sedition law passed. The letter is dated the 20th of June, the law was passed on the 6th of July, and the letter was published in Vermont on the 30th of July. He should be glad to know whether any evidence was adduced to show that Mr. LYON did any thing relative to that publication, after writing the letter from Philadelphia on the 20th of June? If not, it will appear strange, indeed, that he should have been punished for an act done prior to the passage of the law under which he was convicted.

As to the manner in which the jury had been summoned, he supposed it had been done in the usual way. Without saying, however, that the jury was packed, which he did not believe, yet, if the towns out of which the jury was selected, were the towns which had never given Mr. LYON but one or two votes at his election, it necessarily results that the jury were his political enemies; and being called upon to try him for a political offence, they would, of course, convict him.

Mr. G. said, the lateness of the hour would prevent him from detaining the House longer. He would only observe that, considering that the member from Vermont had been tried for a political offence, by a jury opposed to him in opinion, and upon a law passed on political ground at the last session; that he had been punished by an imprisonment of four months, and by a fine of one thousand dollars; that he had been deprived of his seat in the Legislature for three months: he thought it would have been better not to have proposed this resolution.

If this resolution should be adopted, it would follow, Mr. G. said, that every member who shall write any thing which is contrary to the opinion of a majority of this House, whether what he writes be founded in truth or not, will be liable to be expelled, in order to purify the House. Mr. G. thought persecution had followed the member from Vermont long enough. Every candid man must acknowledge that, if he has committed an offence, he has already been sufficiently punished by fine and imprisonment; to expel him from his seat, would carry with it an idea of persecution to the public, and to his constituents, that they would not be permitted to have a representative on this floor. He knew the circumstance of the member from Vermont's having been re-elected could not be introduced as an argument in his favor, but it might serve to show that what he had suffered for was no offence in the eyes of his constituents.

The question was put; when there appeared 49 yeas and 45 nays, as follows:

YEAS.--John Allen, Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard, Jonathan Brace, David Brooks, Christopher G. Champlin, John Chapman, James Cochran, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, John Dennis, William Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold, William B. Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, James Machir, William Matthews, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, Josiah Parker, Thomas Pinckney, John Rutledge, jr., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Nathaniel Smith, Peleg Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, Robert Waln, and John Williams.

NAYS.--George Baer, jr., Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Robert Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, George Dent, Joseph Eggleston, Lucas Elmendorph, William Findlay, John Fowler, Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Thompson J. Skinner, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Sprigg, Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.

The SPEAKER, declaring the state of the vote, said, the constitution requiring two-thirds of the members present to expel a member, the resolution is not carried.

SATURDAY, February 23.

Mr. J. PARKER, from the Navy Committee, reported a bill authorizing the augmentation of the Marine Corps; which was committed.

MONDAY, February 25.

Mr. GREGG presented two petitions praying for a repeal of the alien and sedition laws; the one from Cumberland County, signed by 270 persons; the other from Mifflin County, in Pennsylvania, signed by 314 persons.

Mr. GALLATIN presented another petition of the same kind from Chester County, signed by 692 persons.

Mr. LIVINGSTON, one of a similar nature, signed by 2,500 citizens of New York.

Mr. HEISTER, one of the same kind, from 1,400 inhabitants of Berks County.

Mr. BAYARD, one from the inhabitants of Newcastle County, State of Delaware, signed by between 700 and 800 persons.

Mr. BAYARD and Mr. BROWN each of them presented petitions to the same effect, signed by a small number of persons.

The whole were referred as usual.

On motion of Mr. LIVINGSTON, the petition presented some days ago from a number of alien Irishmen against the alien bill, was also referred--44 to 35.

Alien and Sedition Laws.

On motion of Mr. GOODRICH, the House went into a Committee of the Whole on the report of a select committee, on the petitions praying for a repeal of the alien and sedition laws; which was read by the Chairman, as follows:

The committee to whom was referred the memorials of sundry inhabitants of the counties of Suffolk and Queen, in the State of New York; of Essex County, in New Jersey; of the counties of Philadelphia, York, Northampton, Mifflin, Dauphin, Washington, and Cumberland, in Pennsylvania; and of the county of Amelia, in Virginia; complaining of the act, entitled "An act concerning aliens," and other late acts of Congress, submit the following report:

[The report was a condensation of the arguments used in support of the two bills by the members who supported them, and was accompanied by three resolutions, offered for the adoption of the House.]

Impressed with these sentiments, the committee beg leave to report the following resolutions:

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to repeal the act passed the last session, entitled "An act concerning aliens"

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to repeal the act passed the last session, entitled "An act in addition to the act, entitled 'An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States.'"

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to repeal any of the laws respecting the Navy, Military Establishment, or revenue of the United States.

The question being upon agreeing to the first resolution declaring it to be inexpedient to repeal the alien law,

Mr. GALLATIN rose and spoke as follows:

Mr. Chairman: This subject was so fully discussed during the last session, that I would not have addressed the committee on this occasion, did I not entertain some hope that the change of circumstances which has taken place since the laws were enacted, and above all, the sense which so many of our fellow-citizens have expressed on their propriety and constitutionality, may induce the House to reconsider their decision of last year.

Petitions, signed by near 18,000 freemen of this State alone, collected in a few counties and within a few weeks, have been laid on your table, earnestly requesting Congress to repeal laws, at best of a doubtful nature, and passed under an impression of danger which does not now seem to exist, of general alarm, which has nearly subsided.

Sixteen hundred of my immediate constituents have joined in these petitions, and their opinion on this subject being the same which I have uniformly entertained, I feel it forcibly to be my duty to examine the reasoning used by the select committee who have reported against the repeal of the obnoxious laws.

The act concerning aliens comes first under consideration. Two laws were passed during the last session of Congress on that subject, the one concerning aliens generally, and the other respecting alien enemies. No petition has been presented against the last, and it would remain in force even if the first should, agreeably to the request of the petitioners, be repealed. The petitions apply solely to those provisions of the first act which are not included in the last. The provision, therefore, complained of, and which is the subject-matter of the reference to the committee, is that which authorizes the President to remove out of the territory of the United States, "all such aliens, (being natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of a nation which is not at war with the United States, and which has not perpetrated, attempted, or threatened any invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States,) as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or shall have reasonable grounds to suspect are concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations against the Government thereof."

This authorization is considered by the petitioners as unconstitutional--1st, because such power being neither among the specific powers granted by the constitution of the General Government, nor necessary to carry into effect any of those specific powers, is, both by incontestable deduction, and by the 12th amendment, reserved to the individual States; 2d, because, even supposing such power to be by implication comprehended among those granted to the General Government, its exercise is, for the present, expressly prohibited to that Government by the section which provides that the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808; and 3dly, because aliens are supposed to come under the general description of persons to whom, by the constitution, the right of a trial of all crimes by jury is secured.

In answer to the first objection, it is not contended that the power of removing such aliens is specifically granted by the constitution. But it is insisted, first, that every nation has a power at will to admit, or to remove aliens; second, that this power is necessary and proper in order to carry into effect the specific powers vested in Congress to declare war and to protect each State from invasion.

To admit the first position in its full extent does not destroy the force of the objection; for that objection rests not on a supposition that the power of removing aliens does not exist in the nation; but on the principle that it is not one of those granted by the nation to the General Government; that it is one of those intrusted by the nation to the Governments of the individual States respectively. The second position is predicated on a construction of the clause of the constitution and an application of that construction to the act, which to me appear inadmissible. The expressions used in that clause are "necessary and proper." The idea conveyed by the word "proper" is implied in that of the word "necessary," for whatever is necessary must be proper. The addition of the word "proper" was therefore useless, unless designed more precisely to ascertain the meaning of the word "necessary," the better to prevent a construction "that by necessity nothing more was meant than propriety," and to establish, beyond contradiction, that whatever might by Congress be thought proper, was not on that account to be judged necessary. Hence the meaning of the word "necessary" is confined in that clause to its strict sense, to wit: the power of passing laws without which some of the powers delegated to Congress could not be carried into effect.

In the present case it cannot be said that a power generally to remove aliens, not belonging to a nation from which a war or invasion is apprehended, is necessary or even proper in order to protect the States against such a war or invasion. Aliens individually may commit acts tending to assist the enemy, and, in such case, it would become necessary to punish them. Should a body of armed aliens (the supposed case of the select committee) land with views evidently hostile, to whatever nation they might belong, the act itself would be an invasion, and the necessity of repelling, or if another expression is selected, of removing them, would be self-evident and immediately flowing from the specific power delegated to Congress to protect the States against invasions. But it is preposterous to say that the necessity of a general removal of alien friends flows from the apprehension of an invasion. The law concerning aliens, however, does not designate the acts which shall establish the necessity of their removal individually. Although they may not have been concerned in any machinations against Government; although the machinations in which they may have been concerned shall not have tended to promote or assist an invasion; and although their machinations might be sufficiently prevented and punished in the common course of law; although, therefore, their removal may not be necessary to protect the States against an invasion; yet, by the present law, they are liable to be removed, if they shall be suspected of being concerned in those machinations. Their having actually and individually committed certain acts is requisite to constitute that necessity which alone can justify the exercise of the power delegated by this law. And yet that removal, which, in order to be constitutional, should rest on its necessity, depends, by the provisions of this law, on the bare suspicion of a necessity. But necessity implies proof, and cannot rest on suspicion. The law cannot be supported by the constitution unless that instrument had declared that Congress shall have power to pass laws which they may suspect to be proper or necessary in order to carry into effect certain specific powers delegated to them.

But the law does not even confine its operation to cases when a war or invasion should be apprehended. Supposing the alarms on that subject to be completely at an end, still the power remains with the PRESIDENT to remove aliens suspected by him to be concerned in secret machinations against Government. The power delegated by this law is not applicable exclusively to cases where it may be thought necessary in order to carry into effect the power to protect States against an invasion. It is to apply generally and under color of its necessity for executing certain specific powers, it may be exercised in a case where that specific power, on which alone it rests, has itself, nothing on which to operate. Although it may happen that there shall be no necessity to protect States against invasion, it will even then, according to this constructive doctrine, still be lawful to do an act which cannot be constitutional, except on account of its being necessary to protect States against invasion.

In order, therefore, to support the constitutionality of the law, the select committee must suppose, in the first place, that Congress may pass laws, without a certainty of their being necessary for carrying into execution some of the specific powers granted to them; that is to say, that Congress have a right to pass laws which may be unnecessary for that purpose. In the next place, that if a certain law is necessary only for executing a constitutional measure of a temporary nature, that law may constitutionally be executed, although the temporary measure itself should not be executed at all; that is to say, that the incidental power may be exercised for a purpose different than that of executing the original power on which it rests.

The application of that constructive doctrine to the sedition and alien laws justifies a conclusion that, if adopted, it will substitute in that clause of the constitution a supposed usefulness or propriety to the necessity expressed and contemplated by the instrument, and will, in fact, destroy every limitation of the powers of Congress. It will follow that instead of being bound by any positive rule laid down by their charter, the discretion of Congress, a discretion to be governed by suspicions, alarms, popular clamor, private ambition, and by the views of fluctuating factions, will justify any measure they may please to adopt; that, instead of being bound by a constitution, they may claim the omnipotence of a British Parliament; that all the reserved powers of the people or of the States will be swallowed up at their pleasure by that undefined discretion; in a word, that the constitution itself, so far as respects a limitation of powers, is by that doctrine completely annihilated. Even the positive checks, which, in a few instances, prohibit the exercise of certain powers, will not prove a sufficient guard against an inordinate appetite to legislate on some favorite subject.

Thus, in the case of the sedition law, the prohibitory clause, respecting an abridgment of the liberty of the press, is attempted to be construed away by star-chamber definitions, by exotic doctrines, which, if suffered to flourish, will overshadow and smother every plant of American growth; doctrines incompatible with the principles of a Government elective in all its Executive and Legislative branches; of a Government which the people, the sole fountain of power, cannot properly carry into execution, if the sources of information are shut up from them; if a free and full discussion of every public measure is at the will of those who enjoy only a delegated authority, checked and embarrassed by prosecutions for libels, grounded solely on the British system of hereditary prerogative.

And thus, in the case of the alien law, it is said that the temporary prohibition enjoined on Congress, to forbid the importation of persons, must be understood as applying only to slaves; and that a power to remove emigrants may be constitutionally exercised, though that of prohibiting their migration should be unconstitutional.

The evidence of members of the Convention which framed the constitution, has sometimes been offered to prove that that body by persons, meant slaves. But the evidence of those members cannot prove any thing beyond their own individual intention, or, at most, their belief of what might have been the intention of some other members. Nor is, on any possible supposition, the intention of the Convention itself of any importance to decide the true meaning of the constitution. For they were not the legislators who passed and ratified the act, but only the framers who drew the instrument and offered it for consideration. As well might the Judges of the Supreme Court be induced in their decision on a point of law, to abandon the clear construction pointed out by the precise meaning of the words of the statute, on account of the supposed opinion of some one of the members of the committee of this House that had drafted the law, as we be guided by what was, at the time, the meaning of some of the gentlemen who drew the constitution. After a lapse of ten years, it is preposterous to receive parole evidence against a sacred record. Are the people of America to be told, after a lapse of ten years, that the delegation of powers, which they sanctioned under the impression of what on its face appeared to be its meaning, is to receive a contrary construction, bottomed on private meaning, on the unknown opinion of the members of a body whose deliberations were secret? And if, even through mistake, those individuals adopted expressions which conveyed a different meaning from what they intended, is that supposed intention to prevail over the explicit sense of those expressions?

But we are told by the select committee, that "there could not have been the least reason" for confining the restriction to the then existing States, and to a period of twenty years, had the restriction "been intended" to apply to all emigrants in general. Here again, a supposed intention is brought as an argument against the general acceptation of the word "persons." The question is not, whether we are at a loss to find the reasons which dictated a modification of the restriction. Yet, if we were to recur to suppositions, we might as well suppose that the then existing States, which alone formed the constitution, felt interested only for themselves, and not for future non-existing States; and that those States, who were interested in promoting the migration of free persons, were satisfied with the same regulation which satisfied those States who were apprehensive of an interference in the importation of slaves. But the only question is, whether modification is contradictory with the common acceptation of the word "persons," which, it will not be denied, in its natural sense, will apply to free as well as to the other description of individuals? Whether there is any thing absurd or repugnant to common sense, in saying that Congress shall not, for twenty years, prohibit the migration of free persons in the existing States? If there be nothing inconsistent in that provision, the modification of the restriction cannot modify and alter the meaning of the word "persons."

Was there any possibility of doubt on the sense of that word, it might be explained by other parts of the constitution and by other expressions in the clause itself.

The 2d section of the 1st article of the constitution, speaking of the mode of ascertaining the respective numbers of the several States, declares that they shall be determined by adding to "the whole number of free persons" (including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed) "three-fifths of all other persons." A sentence in which the word persons is expressly applied first to freemen, and secondly to slaves.

The prohibitory clause itself declares that the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States, &c., shall not be prohibited. The word "migration," as contradistinguished from "importation," clearly implies the free will of the person, and applies exclusively to free persons.

The select committee have also informed us that the power to send off emigrants, who abuse the indulgence granted them to remain, is a very different thing from the power of preventing emigration; meaning, I suppose, that although Congress might be forbidden by the constitution to prohibit migration, they may constitutionally send off such emigrants. Was the power claimed by this law, that of punishing by transportation aliens convicted of certain offences, defined by the law, although the constitutional necessity of the mode of punishment would still remain to be proven, yet the argument of the committee would deserve some consideration. But it is denied that there is the least difference between a power of prohibiting emigration and that of sending off any alien at the will of the PRESIDENT, merely because he is suspected by that Magistrate. The transportation of the emigrant does not rest on any act committed by him, but on the degree of suspicion entertained by the PRESIDENT. The removal, therefore, contemplated by the law, is not the special removal of certain emigrants, but a general power to remove all the emigrants, on suspicion, if the PRESIDENT shall please. I must confess that, to my understanding, that power to remove all emigrants would, if exercised, (and the law authorizes its general exercise,) amount precisely to the same thing with a general prohibition of emigration.

So far is it true that the clause of the constitution admits of a construction which would defeat its object; that, at the end of it, we find a provision permitting Congress to lay a duty of ten dollars, not on migration, but on the importation of persons. Had it not been for that provision, Congress could not even have checked that importation by any duty. As the clause now stands, they cannot check the migration by any duty whatever, nor the importation by a duty higher than ten dollars. And yet it is contended that notwithstanding so much caution, Congress may, by a general power of sending off emigrants, evade the restriction laid upon them, and altogether prevent the effect of migration.

Finally, if there be any difference between the power of prohibiting migration and that of sending off emigrants, it consists in this, that it might have been apprehended that, under color of the general power over commerce given to Congress, they might, by duties or other commercial regulations, have prevented or checked migration; but that there does not exist any power granted to the General Government by the constitution which can rationally serve as a pretence to claim an authority to remove emigrants generally. And the only deduction to be thence inferred is, that the clause now under consideration, although it might be proper for preventing the exercise of the first power, was unnecessary for the last purpose--a conclusion to which I agree in its full extent, and which it seems to me I have already fully established in the first part of my arguments.

The select committee (driven thereto, perhaps, by the weakness of the ground they were compelled to defend) have recurred to a last argument, the most extraordinary, perhaps, of any they have advanced. Having said, in the former part of their report, that every nation had a right to send off aliens at will, they afterwards assert that, "as the constitution has given to the States no power to remove aliens," it is necessary to conclude that the power devolves to the General Government.

It is, I believe, the first time it has been suggested that the powers of the individual States were derived from the Constitution of the United States. That constitution has heretofore been considered as a delegation of powers to the General Government, and not to the several States. But the assertion of the committee may be shortly answered by reading the twelfth amendment to the constitution, viz: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people." In order to prove that the powers are not reserved to the States, it is necessary to prove that they are delegated to Congress; and the committee, with that kind of logic which pervades the whole of their report, in order to prove that powers are delegated to Congress, assume the position that they do not belong to the States. The constitution declares that the powers not prohibited to the States are reserved to them, and the committee asserts that the powers not given to the States, are not reserved to them. It would seem, as the committee had been desirous of justifying, by their own arguments, what I have advanced, that the doctrine necessary to support the constitutionality of this law would infallibly swallow up all the powers of the several States.

That the States had a right to legislate on this subject never was denied. It is a fact, that some of them have legislated upon it. Virginia has passed an alien law, which has been quoted by the supporters of the law of Congress. It was strange enough, that on a constitutional question, whether the United States or the several States had a right to pass such laws, the advocates for the right of Congress should quote a law of one of the States, which proved the very reverse of their doctrine. But their object was to puzzle and confound, and not to enlighten the understanding; and if they meant to rescue the law of Congress from the charge of impropriety and injustice, by the instance of that of Virginia, they have been guilty of a gross misrepresentation; for the act of that State, so far from being similar to that complained of, is not a law concerning alien friends, but a law respecting alien enemies, perfectly similar to that of Congress, of which no one complains, and which passed without opposition.

To the argument against the law, drawn from that part of the constitution which secures the trial of all crimes by jury, the most satisfactory answer given by the committee is, that aliens not being parties to the constitution, have no rights under it. Without entering into an examination of the constitutional question arising on that point, I will only remark, that the construction is harsh; and that, to transport emigrants, "merely from motives of policy," and "without their having committed any offence," is often unjust--always oppressive and cruel. The manner in which aliens have been invited to this country, and the peculiar situation in which they stand, justify the assertion.

The constitution gives to Congress no power over aliens, except that of naturalization. The power, therefore, remains with the States to give to aliens the rights of denizens. That power has not been exercised by that name; but it has, in fact, been carried into effect. Not only in some States have aliens been enabled to purchase, to hold, to inherit, and to leave by will, real estate--a right which principally constitutes a denizen--but many have actually been admitted in some States, either by special acts of the Legislature, or in conformity to former general laws, to all the rights of citizens of those States, so far as it was in the power of individual States to do it; that is to say, that they have received every right, but such as arise from naturalization--every right of denizens. On the other hand, the laws of the Union have invited emigration, by holding out the prospect of being naturalized at the end of a period which, till nearly the time when the alien law passed, never exceeded five years. Under these laws, emigrants have, by a formal declaration before our courts, given evidence of their intention of becoming citizens and of renouncing their former allegiance--a declaration almost tantamount to an actual renunciation. They have abandoned their native countries for ever; many of them have acquired lands, and married in America; most of them have here the whole of their property, or their only means of subsistence. Under all these circumstances, it may be doubtful whether a great proportion of these aliens are not entitled to the rights of denizens; and if they are not so, by a strict construction of positive laws, at least, it can hardly be denied that the provisions of the law violate, in this respect, the dictates of humanity and justice.

The policy of this measure seems to be defended by the select committee on the same ground which is to be a pretence and a justification for every act of domestic oppression, for every encroachment of power, for every new tax, for every extravagant loan, for every prodigal act of expenditure, for every increase of the navy, for every standing army which may be raised under the various names of permanent army, additional army, provisional army, eventual army, or well-affected volunteers. The alien and sedition acts form, in the opinion of the committee, an essential part of our general system of defence against France. I do not mean to follow them, whilst they use, instead of arguments, the mere cant of the day. They cannot be serious when they tell us of the employment of the active talents of a numerous body of French citizens here as emissaries and spies. And if they are, does that committee mean to impose upon this House, as upon the people of some parts of the Union? Do we not know that, if there be any danger from France, the act respecting alien enemies is applicable to her citizens, and that the law now complained of respects alien friends, and was originally intended to operate, not against subjects of France, but against Irish emigrants and other subjects of Great Britain? Do we not know that, notwithstanding all the clamor of last summer, and notwithstanding the two laws passed on that subject, not a single French citizen has been removed?

Still less can I suppose that the committee were in earnest when they pretended to believe that the United States offered as easy and alluring a conquest to France as Egypt. They seem to have forgotten that Egypt was governed and defended by Mamelukes and inhabited by slaves; that the United States are as yet inhabited and defended by the people themselves. But if the committee thought that the fear of an invasion did justify those laws, when passed, will they pretend to say that the danger, even in their opinion, now exists, and that the same necessity now justifies the continuance of the laws?

It is not only against invasion that those laws are said to be necessary. We are told of a system which convulses the civilized world, and has shaken the fabric of society; of an unprecedented combination to establish new principles of social action, on the subversion of religion, morality, law, and Government. If these are the dangers which threaten us, and if Congress think themselves vested with all the powers which they may think expedient to repel them, I wish to know to what extent they may not legislate, and by what possible limitation they can be restrained, in their assumption of powers? There is not an individual on this floor, there is not a man of common understanding and common information in the nation, who, unless he is under the influence of the illusions of the new anti-republican fanaticism, or blinded by party spirit, does not know that these pretended dangers are, in America, the visionary phantoms of a disordered imagination. And I have taken notice of those sentiments merely to give an additional proof, that under pretence of preventing imaginary evils, an attempt is made to establish the omnipotence of Congress, and substantial despotism, on the ruins of our constitution.

Is that a measure of security and general defence which puts a numerous body of aliens--aliens who are represented as so desperate and dangerous--under the absolute control of one man, which, by holding the rod of terror over their heads, and leaving their fate at his sole disposal, renders them complete slaves of the PRESIDENT, and makes them proper instruments for the execution of every project which ambition may suggest, which faction may dictate? Is that a Government of laws which leaves us no security but in the confidence we have in the moderation and patriotism of one man? And do the abettors of these laws forget that even that is precarious, and that the unlimited power which they think safely lodged in one individual may in a day be vested in another man in whom they do not place the same confidence?

Is that a measure of general defence which has diminished confidence in the Government and produced disunion among the States and among the people?

Yet I am happy to find that even this law has produced such general dissatisfaction. I was the more alarmed on account of this law, because, attacking only aliens, for whom no immediate concern could be felt, it might the more easily become the vehicle to introduce doctrines and innovations which would hereafter serve as a precedent to attack the liberties of the citizens themselves. A pretence of general defence may justify oppressive measures against citizens as well as against aliens. Although some nice distinctions may now be made in order to discriminate one class from the other, yet it must be remembered that the only security of citizens against unconstitutional measures consists in a strict adherence to the constitution; that their liberties are only protected by a parchment--by words--and that they may be destroyed whenever it shall be admitted that the strict and common sense of words may be construed away under the plea of some supposed necessity; whenever the constitution shall be understood and exercised as an instrument unlimited where it grants power, and nugatory where it limits power.

We may feel alarmed when we see a committee of this House asserting that the powers not given to the States (and it may be added, by the same rule of construction, the powers not given to the people by the constitution) belong to the General Government. We may feel alarmed when that committee insist that, although it is true that the trial of all crimes must be by jury, yet, to inflict a punishment when no offence--no crime--has been committed, is not a violation of the constitution; when the only distinction they apply to citizens consists in the difference of punishment, but not in a difference of the principle. We may feel alarmed when we find that Congress have already acted on those principles towards citizens; that they have already passed another law--the sedition law--grounded on the same principles, on the same doctrine, or rather on the same abandonment of the explicit and evident sense of the constitution, which alone could justify the alien law. I hope--I trust--that the spirit which dictated both laws has subsided, even within these walls, and that the same Congress who, under the impressions of a momentary alarm, which prevented a cool investigation, hastily adopted those two measures, will have courage enough to revise their own conduct, to acknowledge their own errors, and, by a repeal of the obnoxious acts, restore general confidence, union, and harmony, amongst the States and the people.

When Mr. GALLATIN had concluded, the question was taken and carried--yeas 52, nays 48.

The 2d resolution being next in order, viz:

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to repeal the act passed the last session, entitled "An act in addition to the act, entitled An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States:"

Mr. NICHOLAS rose and spoke as follows:

Mr. Chairman--I am sorry to be obliged to rise at this late hour of the day, indisposed also as I find myself, to speak on this important question; but, since gentlemen are determined now to decide upon it, I must be indulged in making some observations upon it, previous to the question being taken.

The select committee had very truly stated, that only the second and third sections of the act, in addition to the act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, are complained of--that the part of the law which punishes seditious acts is acquiesced in, and that the part that goes to restrain what are called seditious writings, is alone the object of the petitions.

This part of the law is complained of as being unwarranted by the constitution, and destructive of the first principles of Republican Government. It is always justifiable, in examining the principle of a law, to inquire what other laws can be passed with equal reason, and to impute to it all the mischiefs for which it may be used as a precedent. In this case, little inquiry is left for us to make, the arguments in favor of the law carrying us immediately, and by inevitable consequence, to absolute power over the press. The case chosen for our first legislation, that of "false, scandalous, and malicious writings," is specious, and as likely as any can be to establish an interest in its favor; but when it is fairly examined, it will be found to operate on cases, which could not, at first view, be expected to come under it; to be the instrument of most unjust oppression, and to restrain that free communication of honest opinion which is the soul of the Government. But when you come to inquire further, and learn, from the advocates of the law, the authority which they claim for passing it, you will find that the power claimed does not stop even with this law, mischievous as it may be, but that it extends to absolute and unlimited control.

It is not pretended that the constitution has given any express authority which they claim for passing this law, and it is claimed only as implied in that clause of the constitution which says, "Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof." It is, therefore, necessary to fix a just construction of this clause.

That the powers of the Federal Government were intended to be limited, is universally admitted, in the abstract; is proved by every clause of the constitution, and is positively declared by the 12th amendment in these words: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The just construction of the constitution, if the clause respecting necessary and proper powers had been omitted, would have been the same that it ought to be with the addition; for there can be no doubt, that a grant of specified powers would have contained a grant of such power as is necessary to carry the specified power into effect, and therefore the declaration ought to make no difference, according to a well-known maxim. This was the understanding of all the friends of the constitution at its adoption, and the constitution ought now to be construed as if the clause had been omitted. But it is proper to examine the meaning of it, as expressed.

It is clear, that this clause was intended to be merely an auxiliary to the powers specially enumerated in the constitution; and it must, therefore, be so construed as to aid them, and at the same time to leave the boundaries between the General Government and the State Governments untouched. The argument by which the select committee have endeavored to establish the authority of Congress over the press, is the following: "Congress have power to punish seditious combinations to resist the laws, and therefore Congress must have the power to punish false, scandalous and malicious writings; because such writings render the Administration odious and contemptible among the people, and, by doing so, have a tendency to produce opposition to the laws."

It is expressly admitted by the committee, that the power to punish seditious combinations to resist the laws, is only derived, by construction, from the clause giving all necessary and proper powers before recited; and that there is no express power in the constitution to that effect. There is no dispute about this construction being just; but I contend that the inference from this implied power cannot be supported, viz: That Congress have a power to punish seditious writings.

The constitution says: "Congress shall have power over all acts which hinder the execution," &c.; but, to make it support the construction of the committee, it should say that, "Congress shall have power over all acts which are likely to produce acts which hinder the execution," &c. Our construction confines the power of Congress to such acts as immediately interfere with the execution of the enumerated powers of Congress; because the power can only be necessary as well as proper, when the acts really would hinder the execution. The construction of the committee extends the power of Congress to all acts which have a relation, ever so many degrees removed, to the enumerated powers, or rather to the acts which would hinder their execution. By our construction, the constitution remains defined and limited, according to the plain intent and meaning of the framers; by the construction of the committee, all limitation is lost, and it may be extended over the different actions of life as speculative politicians may think fit.

The suggestion on which the authority over the press is founded, is, that seditious writings have a tendency to produce opposition to Government. What has a greater tendency to fit men for insurrection and resistance to Government, than dissolute, immoral habits, at once destroying love of order, and dissipating the fortune which gives an interest in society?

The doctrine that Congress can punish any act which has a tendency to hinder the execution of the laws, as well as acts which do hinder it, will, therefore, clearly entitle them to assume a general guardianship over the morals of the people of the United States.

Again: nothing can have a greater tendency to ensure obedience to law, and nothing can be more likely to check every propensity to resistance to Government, than virtuous and wise education; therefore Congress must have power to subject all the youth of the United States to a certain system of education. It would be very easy to connect every sort of authority used by any government with the well-being of the General Government, and with as much reason as the committee had for their opinion to assign the power to Congress, although the consequence must be the prostration of the State Governments.

But enough has been said to show the necessity of adhering to the common meaning of the word "necessary," in the clause under consideration, which is, that the power to be assumed must be one without which some one of the enumerated powers cannot exist or be maintained. It cannot escape notice, however, that the doctrine contended for, that the Administration must be protected against writings which are likely to bring it into contempt, as tending to opposition, will apply with more force to truth than falsehood. It cannot be denied that the discovery of maladministration will bring more lasting discredit on the government of a country, than the same charges would if untrue.

This is not an alarm founded merely on construction; for the governments which have exercised control over the press, have carried it the whole length. This is notoriously the law of England, from whence this system has been drawn; for there, truth and falsehood are alike subject to punishment, if the publication brings contempt on the officers of government.

I have shown, as I promised, that the authority on which this act is supported, gives unlimited power over the press, as to its investigation of public affairs, which is its most important function; and I will now endeavor to show, that the effect of the present law is very little short of the complete restraint of all useful discussion on public men and measures.

The law has been current by the fair pretence of punishing nothing but falsehood, and by holding out to the accused the liberty of proving the truth of the writing; but, it was from the first apprehended, and it seems now to have been adjudged, (the doctrine has certainly been asserted on this floor,) that matters of opinion, arising on notorious facts, come under the law. If this is the case, where is the advantage of the law requiring that the writing should be false, before a man shall be liable to punishment, or of his having the liberty of proving the truth of his writing? Of the truth of facts there is an almost certain test; the belief of honest men is certain enough to entitle it to great confidence; but their opinions have no certainty at all. The trial of the truth of opinions, in the best state of society, would be altogether precarious; and, perhaps, a jury of twelve men could never be found to agree in any one opinion. At the present moment, when, unfortunately, opinion is almost entirely governed by prejudice and passion, it may be more decided, but nobody will say it is more respectable; chance must determine whether political opinions are true or false, and it will not unfrequently happen, that a man will be punished for publishing opinions which are sincerely his, and which are of a nature to be extremely interesting to the public, merely because accident, or design, has collected a jury of different sentiments.

If the effect of the present law is to restrain the free communication of opinion, and its principle will justify any control Government chooses to exercise over the press, an inquiry may safely be entered on, whether Congress ought to possess the power, even if the clause giving necessary and proper power would extend to such remote cases? It is the more necessary to inquire into the usefulness of this power in the hands of Congress, since the opinion is becoming current, that that alone will give Congress a right to assume it, upon the principle that Government must have a right to do every thing proper for its safety. This doctrine may be very fallacious, if not taken in the restricted sense to be found in the clause giving necessary powers. No government can assume a power not delegated, on pretence of its being necessary; for none have a right to judge of what is necessary but the makers of the constitution, otherwise all governments would be competent to make every alteration in a constitution they might think proper, and the constitution would rank with the laws, and not above them. For the execution of powers expressly given, there must have been some latitude allowed to those who were to execute them, the same in fact which is expressed in the clause respecting necessary powers.

Is the power claimed proper for Congress to possess? It is believed not, and will readily be admitted, if it can be proved, as I think it can, that the persons who administer the Government have an interest in the power to be confided, opposed to that of the community. It must be agreed that the nature of our Government makes a diffusion of knowledge of public affairs necessary and proper, and that the people have no mode of obtaining it but through the press. The necessity for their having this information, results from its being their duty to elect all the parts of the Government, and, in this way, to sit in judgment over the conduct of those who have been heretofore employed. The most important and necessary information for the people to receive is, of the misconduct of the Government; because their good deeds, although they will produce affection and gratitude to public officers, will only confirm the existing confidence, and will, therefore, make no change in the conduct of the people. The question, then, whether the Government ought to have control over the persons who alone can give information throughout a country, is nothing more than this, whether men interested in suppressing information necessary for the people to have, ought to be intrusted with the power, or whether they ought to have a power which their personal interest leads to the abuse of? I am sure no candid man will hesitate about the answer; and it may also safely be left with ingenuous men to say whether the misconduct which we sometimes see in the press, had not better be borne with, than to run the risk of confiding the power of correction to men who will be constantly urged by their own feelings to destroy its usefulness.

The mode of thinking which countenances this law, and the doctrines on which it is built, are derived from a country whose government is so different from ours, that the situation of public officers ought to be very different. In Great Britain, the King is hereditary, and, according to the theory of their government, can do no wrong. Public officers are his representatives, and derive some portion of his inviolability from theory, but more from the practice of the government, which has, for the most part, been very arbitrary. It was, therefore, of course, that they should receive a different sort of respect from that which is proper in our Government, where the officers of government are the servants of the people, are amenable to them, and liable to be turned out of office at periodical elections. In Great Britain, writings are seditious, though they are true, if they tend to bring a public officer into contempt.

In this country, it is seen that the same principle is contended for, and that in practice, with respect to matters of opinion, we have gone the whole length of the principle. How long can we expect to maintain the other distinctive qualities of the magistracy of the two countries, when this sameness is established? How long can it be desirable to have periodical elections, for the purpose of judging of the conduct of our rulers, when the channels of information may be choked at their will?

But, sir, I have ever believed this question as settled by an amendment to the constitution, proposed with others, for declaring and restricting its powers, as the preamble declares, at the request of several of the States, made at the adoption of the constitution, in order to prevent their misconstruction and abuse. This amendment is in the following words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances." There can be no doubt about the effect of this amendment, unless the "freedom of the press" means something very different from what it seems; or unless there was some actual restraint upon it, under the Constitution of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this amendment, commensurate with that imposed by this law. Both are asserted, viz: that the "freedom of the press" has a defined, limited meaning, and that the restraints of the common law were in force under the United States, and are greater than those of the act of Congress; and that, therefore, either way the "freedom of the press" is not abridged.

It is asserted by the select committee, and by every body who has gone before them in this discussion, that the "freedom of the press," according to the universally received acceptation of the expression, means only an exemption from all previous restraints on publication, but not to an exemption from any punishment Government pleases to inflict for what is published. This definition does not at all distinguish between publications of different sorts, but leaves all to the regulation of the law, only forbidding Government to interfere until the publication is really made. The definition, if true, so reduces the effect of the amendment, that the power of Congress is left unlimited over the productions of the press, and they are merely deprived of one mode of restraint.

The amendment was certainly intended to produce some limitation to legislative discretion, and it must be construed so as to produce such an effect, if it is possible. This is required in the construction of all solemn acts, but must be more particularly due to this on account of the various examinations it underwent, previous to its adoption. It was first recommended by the conventions of several States, was adopted by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, and finally ratified by three-fourths of the State Legislatures. To give it such a construction as will bring it to a mere nullity, would violate the strongest injunctions of common sense and decorum; and yet that appears to me to be the effect of the construction adopted by the committee. If subsequent punishments are sufficient to deter printers from publishing any thing which is prohibited, there is no stint to the power of Congress; and yet, it appears to me that a limitation was clearly intended. I cannot doubt the power of Government to bend printers to their will by subsequent punishments, when all other offences are restrained only in this way. Government does not punish men for keeping instruments with which they can commit murder, but contents itself with punishing murder when committed. The effect of the amendment, says the committee, is to prevent Government taking the press from its owner; but how is their power lessened by this, when they may take the printer from his press and imprison him for any length of time, for publishing what they choose to prohibit, although it may be ever so proper for public information? The result is, that Government may forbid any species of writing, true as well as false, to be published; may inflict the heaviest punishments they can devise for disobedience; and yet we are very gravely assured that this is "the freedom of the press."

But it is worth while to trace this definition to the place from whence it is taken, and inquire into the circumstances in which it is used. Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, after stating the law respecting libels, which is, that every thing which brings a magistrate into contempt is punishable, whether true or false, goes on to say, that this law is not inconsistent with the liberty of the press; and then gives a definition of the liberty of the press in the manner it is used by the committee. The meaning of all Blackstone has said is this, that the press has the proper degree of liberty in England, and that libels, whether true or false, ought to be punished there. Let us apply what he has called a definition, in the way he used it, to the legislation of the United States. Suppose the present question was, whether we should punish truth, as well as falsehood, in libels, would gentlemen venture to tell us that it was consistent with the freedom of the press, or that the degree of freedom proper for the United States would remain? I venture to say they would not. Ought they, then, to support the doctrine which hereafter may be practised on to the full extent? Is there not reason to believe gentlemen hope to conceal the full extent of their principles, by bringing them into operation only by degrees? But, sir, it is a manifest abuse of Blackstone's authority to apply it as it has been here applied. He had advanced into the fourth volume of a panegyric on the laws of England, and after stating the law on this subject, makes a theory to justify the actual state of the law. It must be remarked, in his justification, that the nature of their government justifies more rigor than is consistent with ours, and that the existing law, of which he was writing the praise, had been greatly softened in practice, by public opinion. In this case, there was no danger of impairing the security to liberty, intended by the constitution; for England has no constitution but what may be altered by the Parliament, and therefore no great precision was necessary with respect to general principles. Indeed, his observations on this subject ought to be called a theory, and a theory adapted merely to his own country, and not a definition. Very different are the circumstances in which his doctrine has been applied here. A restrictive clause of the Constitution of the United States, by its application, is made to mean nothing, and when it is clearly the intention of the constitution to put, at least, some acts of the press out of the control of Congress, by the authority of this writer, all are subjected to their power.

But it is said, that the States have all adopted the same construction which is given to freedom of the press by the committee, for that all the State constitutions provide for it, and yet the law of libels remains part of their codes. If this is fact, about which however I am uninformed, it is easily to be accounted for. At the Revolution, the State laws were either the law of England, or were built on it, and, of course, they would contain the monarchical doctrine respecting libels. When the State constitutions were formed, the old law was continued in force indiscriminately, and only a general exception made of what should be found inconsistent with the State constitutions. Now, to prove that the States have considered the law of libels consistent with the freedom of the press, gentlemen should show that this law has been practised on since the Revolution, and that the attention of the States had been called to it by its execution, and that it still remains in force. I believe this cannot be done. So far as I know, it has been a dead letter. I mean the law of libels against magistrates, and if so, the argument is reversed, and is wholly on my side. The terms of this law furnish one of the best proofs of the truth of my opinion; for the framers of it, wound up as they have been, in their notions about Government, since the adoption of the State Governments, endeavored to take a middle course between real liberty and the State law, which is supposed to continue in force, and have studiously endeavored to conceal that their doctrine leads to the same thing by constantly pretending that their law is to punish only falsehood. This is a plain admission, that even now, public opinion would not support what they pretend is the law of each State. But from the argument before urged, I think it must be admitted, that if the States had so understood it, the construction could not be extended to this amendment. No solemn instrument can be construed so as to destroy it. I have seen somewhere, and I beg leave here to remark on it, the authority of the Convention who formed the constitution of Virginia, quoted to justify this construction. That Convention is said to have passed a law similar to the law of Congress, after having provided for the liberty of the press in their bill of rights. Let us examine that law. The first section is to punish those who shall "by any word, open deed, or act, advisedly and willingly maintain or defend the authority, jurisdiction, or power of the King, or Parliament of Great Britain, heretofore claimed over this Colony, or shall attribute any such authority," &c. This section, passed at the beginning of the most awful contest in which ever man was engaged, a contest for the right of self-government against one of the most powerful nations in the world, was to establish what? Not the inviolability of the Governor of the State, nor of the majority of either House of the Legislature, but to punish men who should promote resistance to the right of the people to govern themselves, to the principle of the constitution, to the republican principle. So different is this from the object of the law of Congress, that it would have been impossible to believe that they should have been compared, if we had not seen it done. All argument must be thrown away on gentlemen who do not feel the difference between the respect due to the constitution, to the right of self-government in the people, and that which is due to the organs of administration, who cannot only deserve contempt, but who are to be removed with disgrace, according to the constitution itself, when they misbehave. By the second section of this law, those were to be punished "who should maliciously and advisedly endeavor to excite the people to resist the Government of the colony, or persuade them to return to a dependence on the Crown of Great Britain, or maliciously and advisedly to excite or raise tumults and disorders in the State, or maliciously and advisedly terrify and discourage the people from enlisting in the service of the Commonwealth, or dispose them to favor the enemy." The design of this section is apparently the same with the former. Every act of ill-will to the existing Government, is immediately followed by one tending to submission to Great Britain. These acts are, however, out of the question, for they belong to the class enumerated in the first section of the sedition law, which nobody wishes to repeal, as the committee declare. But if the law had any analogy to the law of Congress, it would be improper to quote it; for it is well known that our Revolution made a resort to expedients necessary in a variety of instances, which could not be justified by principle, and that for a time personal rights were compelled to bend before public necessity.

A distinction is very frequently relied on, between the freedom and the licentiousness of the press, which it is proper to examine. This seems to me to refute every other argument which is used on this subject; it amounts to an admission that there are some acts of the press which Congress ought not to have power to restrain, and that by the amendment they are prohibited to restrain these acts. Now, to justify any act of Congress, they ought to show the boundary between what is prohibited and what is permitted, and that the act is not within the prohibited class. The constitution has fixed no such boundary, therefore they can pretend to no power over the press, without claiming the right of defining what is freedom, and what is licentiousness, and that would be to claim a right which would defeat the constitution; for every Congress would have the same right, and the freedom of the press would fluctuate according to the will of the Legislature. This is, therefore, only a new mode of claiming absolute power over the press.

But it is said, that the phraseology of the amendment proves that the framers of it considered the freedom of the press as limited, otherwise they would have used the same words in speaking of the freedom of the press which they use in speaking of religious establishments. This argument is certainly fanciful; but it shall be considered, as it is my design to leave no argument, which I recollect to have seen, unanswered. It is plain the writer of the amendment intended to indulge his copiousness of expression, or that he had been accustomed to use certain words in a particular connection. The amendment says, in speaking of religion, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The change of expression, according to the argument, ought to have some new object; and yet there can be no doubt that if the word prohibiting was dropped, the provision would be the same. But the argument will lose all force when the amendment is read to the end, and it seems to have arisen merely from the committee having stopped in the middle of it, and lost sight of the latter part. It says, "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The argument is that the word abridging, as it is distinguished from respecting, implies that the freedom of the press was before limited; but, if this is true, it must also be the case with the right of peaceably assembling and petitioning, &c. Is this pretended, and may we hereafter expect to have a definition of the right of petitioning, which will put it also under the control of Congress?

I think I have answered every construction of the amendment which can prevent its being completely prohibitory of all legislation by Congress on the subject of the press, unless there was some existing restraint under the Constitution of the United States, at the time of adopting the amendment. To this inquiry I now proceed.

It is said, there is a common law which makes part of the law of the United States, which restrained the press more than the act of Congress has done, and that therefore there is no abridgment of its freedom. What this common law is I cannot conceive, nor have I seen any body who could explain himself when he was talking of it. It certainly is not a common law of the United States, acquired as that of England was, by immemorial usage. The standing of the Government makes this impossible. It cannot be a code of laws adopted because they were universally in use in the States, for the States had no uniform code; and if they had, it could hardly become, by implication, part of the code of a Government of limited powers, from which every thing is expressly retained, which is not given. There never was a uniform code of laws at any time among the States. Their settlement took place at different times, and the law of England was adopted up to the respective settlements, in the whole or by selection. Virginia recognized the common law, properly so called, and the statutes to the 4th James I.; Maryland, the common law, and statutes up to the time of her settlement; and South Carolina, I am told, never acknowledged any of the English statutes to be in force, except what were specially adopted by law. With this dissimilarity at the commencement, there can be no doubt that the decisions of courts, and the statutes which were constantly passing, must have made the codes of the several States altogether unlike at the time of adopting the Federal Government. Is it the law of England, at any particular period, which is adopted? It cannot be believed that this was a universal favorite; for it had been greatly altered in every State, to adapt it to their situation, and it cannot be believed that after altering it under the instruction of experience, it was intended to bring it again into force. But the nature of the law of England makes it impossible that it should have been adopted in the lump into such a Government as this is; because it was a complete system for the management of all the affairs of a country. It regulated estate, punished all crimes, and, in short, went to all things for which laws are necessary. It might be more properly considered as the measure of the powers left with the States. But how was this law adopted? Was it by the constitution? If so, it is immutable and incapable of amendment. In what part of the constitution is it declared to be adopted? Was it adopted by the courts? From whence do they derive their authority? The constitution, in the clause first cited, relies on Congress to pass all laws necessary to enable the courts to carry their powers into execution; it cannot, therefore, have been intended to give them a power not necessary to their declared powers. There does not seem to me the smallest pretext for so monstrous an assumption; on the contrary, while the constitution is silent about it, every fair inference is against it. It was thought necessary to adopt expressly many of the ancient and most valuable principles of the law of England, such as trial by jury, and the writ of habeas corpus; and wherever the constitution gives cognizance of crimes, which were known in the law, it requires Congress to define them, and direct the punishment, except in the case of treason, which it defines itself. Perhaps it may be said, that the law of England with respect to libel was in force in all the States, and that therefore it is to be considered as adopted. When we recollect what that law is, that it punishes truth as well as falsehood, and that the Congress of 1798 did not think proper to enact its provisions in the full extent, it may be fairly denied that it could have accorded with the jealous republican temper of the Convention who adopted the constitution. If the common law was adopted on this subject, it was adopted entire as it then existed, and must remain for ever unchangeable as part of the constitution. The power of juries must be the same that it was then, and no more, and the improvement which was immediately afterwards produced by public opinion in that respect, in England, will be denied to us, and we may even have to regret the want of some of the provisions of the present odious law; but there is too little reason for the suggestion of there being a common law in the United States, to need a refutation. If there was a uniformity in the law respecting libels, it is one of the strongest evidences of what was before said, that this whole doctrine of libels was obsolete; for nobody can doubt, after hearing what it is, that it must have undergone considerable changes, if it had ever been practised on.

The committee seem to suppose, for I confess it is very difficult to comprehend this part of their argument, that the law of libels is adopted by that part of the constitution which extends the judicial power to cases of law and equity arising under the constitution; for this is the expression of the part referred to by them, and not "offences arising under the constitution," as they have quoted it. How this can be inferred, I cannot conceive. If the expression was "offences," as they assert, still it would mean offences on which Congress was directed by the constitution to legislate; but, as the expression really is, the cases are innumerable which come within it. See "The Federalist," vol. II., for an explanation of this part of the constitution. It is there said: "It has been asked, what is meant by cases arising under the constitution, in contradistinction from those arising under the laws of the United States? All the restrictions on the authority of the State Legislature furnish examples of it," &c. For the opinion of the same writer, as to the force of the common law in the United States, see same volume, page 345, and the two following pages, in which he answers the objection to an omission of its provisions, and admits that it is not adopted by the constitution.

Upon the whole, therefore, I am fully satisfied, that no power is given by the constitution to control the press, and that such laws are expressly prohibited by the amendment. I think it inconsistent with the nature of our Government, that its administration should have power to restrain animadversions on public measures; and for protection from private injury from defamation, the States are fully competent. It is to them that our officers must look for protection of persons, estates, and every other personal right; and, therefore, I see no reason why it is not proper to rely upon it, for defence against private libels.

The call for the question being loud,

Mr. MCDOWELL rose, and hoped the question would not now be taken, but that the committee would rise, it being now a late hour of the day, and he doubted not other gentlemen would wish to deliver their sentiments upon this important question; and he thought an hour or two of to-morrow might be well employed in the discussion of this subject--a subject which had been brought before the House by the people, and ought, therefore, to receive a full discussion. He moved the committee to rise.

The question on rising, was put and negatived--55 to 42.

The question was then taken on the resolution, and carried, 52 votes being in favor of it.

The question was then taken upon the third resolution, which was carried without a division.

The committee then rose, and the question being upon concurring in the agreement of the committee for the first resolution,

Mr. LIVINGSTON entered upon a defence of the sentiments which he delivered when the passage of this law was under consideration, which, he said, had been much misrepresented; but, after making some progress in his observations, the Speaker declaring them unconnected with the question before the House, he sat down, and the first resolution was decided by yeas and nays, and stood--52 to 48, as follows:

YEAS.--John Allen, George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard, Jonathan Brace, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher G. Champlin, John Chapman, James Cochran, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, John Dennis, William Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, Samuel Lyman, James Machir, William Matthews, Daniel Morgan, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, Thomas Pinckney, John Read, John Rutledge, jr., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Nathaniel Smith, Peleg Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, Robert Waln, and John Williams.

NAYS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Thos. T. Davis, John Dawson, George Dent, Joseph Eggleston, Lucas Elmendorph, William Findlay, John Fowler, Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Josiah Parker, Thompson J. Skinner, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Sprigg, Richard Stanford, Thos. Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.

Mr. MCDOWELL then moved an adjournment; which was negatived--55 to 38.

The question was then taken on the second resolution, upon which the yeas and nays were exactly the same as upon the first.

The question on the third was concurred in, 61 votes being for it.

SATURDAY, March 2.

EVENING SITTING.

Law of Retaliation.

Mr. OTIS called the order of the day on the bill vesting the power of retaliation, in certain cases, in the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; when

Mr. DENT moved to postpone the consideration of this bill until the next session of Congress; which motion was negatived--35 to 32.

The House then went into a Committee of the Whole on this bill, and after some discussion, and an amendment being introduced into the preamble of the bill by Mr. DAYTON, (the Speaker,) to make it apply generally to any acts of severity that may be committed by the French Republic in pursuance of any violent decree, instead of applying particularly to the decree declaring American citizens, found on board vessels of their enemy, pirates, and liable to suffer death, the committee rose, and the amendment was concurred in.

The question being, "Shall this bill pass?"

Mr. LIVINGSTON complained that this bill went to place the power of life and death in the hands of the PRESIDENT, with respect to every Frenchman in this country, in case the French Government should commit any act of violence against one of our citizens. He doubted, indeed, whether he would not have this power, in case of any American citizen being killed in battle on board a British ship. The Legislature, he said, had no right to vest this power, except in case of war; nor did he believe it would ever be exercised, if given. And as the decree complained of had been two years in existence without being carried into effect, he thought there was no need now to create an alarm about it. Indeed, the last decree having been suspended, he considered the first to be so also.

Mr. EDMOND was sorry, at this late hour, to occupy a single moment of the time of the House; but he found himself called upon to say a few words. It was a painful reflection, he said, that any nation in the world should deliberately pass a legislative act for the purpose of authorizing the commission of murder; for the arrêt of the French Republic was nothing less than a law for putting innocent men to death. An instance like it could not be found on record. In time of war retaliation is found necessary to prevent the enormities of an enemy. Indeed, the intention of retaliation is always to prevent cruelty. This decree was said to be suspended; but if it were not intended to give it future operation, it would have been repeated. It might be convenient to suspend the decree for a time; but when a nation is so depraved as to pass a decree of this kind, what security have we that the decree will not be brought into operation in the recess of Congress. If it is not, the present law can have no effect. Mr. E. believed no one but the gentleman from New York could have supposed that this law was meant to retaliate for men killed in battle. If he examines the bill, he will find that the person must have been put to death pursuant to a decree of the French Republic. And whilst we suffer our humanity to be touched with respect to French citizens here, we ought not to forget American citizens, whose blood may be spilt in France under this decree.

Mr. GALLATIN observed, that three arguments had been used in favor of passing this bill. One of them was, that it would afford protection to our seamen; the second, to give sufficient cause of irritation by repelling every hostile measure of the French Government by one of a similar nature; the third, to prevent the people of America having any belief in either the sincerity of France or the probability of a negotiation.

Mr. G. did not believe that this bill would give the protection expected to our seamen; and as to the power of retaliation, well knowing, both from the character of the PRESIDENT and the general character of America, that retaliation would be repugnant to his feelings, and the feelings of the public at large, he did not believe a single case would ever happen in which it would be exercised. What, said Mr. G., would be the degree of proof necessary to carry into effect this law? A man must have been taken on board a British vessel, or some other vessel at war with France, and put to death or ill-treated by the French. It must also be proved to have been done in pursuance of a French decree. In the next place, he must be an American citizen, and have been compelled to go on board such ship; and Mr. G. did not know how all this information was to come to the PRESIDENT.

If, said Mr. G., it be really our intention to give protection to our seamen, instead of authorizing the proposed retaliation, we ought to go to the source of the evil, and endeavor to prevent the impressment of our seamen by the British, which alone brought them into this situation. This bill does not comprehend any American who goes on board of a British ship of war voluntarily; they are not entitled to our protection by the law of nations; they must seek protection from the country under whose flag they sail. Those American citizens only, therefore, who have been forced on board a British ship of war, and who have been obliged to fight their battles against their will, are by this bill to be protected, so far as retaliation can protect them.

Mr. G. said, he had been induced to mention this point, not only because it naturally flows from the subject, but from one of the documents which had been submitted to the House. He alluded to Lord Grenville's letter to Mr. King, our Minister at London. [Mr. G. read an extract of that letter.]

Mr. G. observed, upon this document, that it contained a very extraordinary acknowledgment. Lord Grenville says, "the King feels the protection due to those who sail under his flag." Thereby openly acknowledging that there are a number of American seamen who do sail under his flag. And, as not many of our seamen had selected his service in preference to that of their own country; as our own seamen, if left to their choice, would sooner sail on board of our own ships than those of His British Majesty, it is therefore an explicit avowal of the impressment of American seamen. That identical document which communicates the offensive decree of France, is also the occasion of this bill.

This acknowledgment, said Mr. G., leads to more than one consequence. If we pass this bill, it will amount to this, that knowing American seamen were impressed by the British, the fact having been thus confessed, we choose rather to pass a retaliatory law against the French for punishing our seamen found in a situation into which they were arbitrarily forced by the British, than apply a remedy to the root of the evil.

Again, another part of this letter of Lord Grenville, when connected with this measure, made an extraordinary impression on his mind. The acknowledgment having been made, it might have been supposed Lord Grenville would have ordered all such American seamen to have been released; but he does not do this, but says the King will cause retaliation to be exercised. To do this might have some effect whilst these men remained on board of the King's ships; it would, therefore, increase his power, and prolong the time during which such seamen will remain on board. But Lord Grenville does not stop here. He says, the "King leaves it with the different powers to take measures accordingly." So that he gives us advice what we ought to do, and we are about to do it. Mr. G. had said, this bill was not likely to produce any effect; yet, if it should be put in force, by referring once more to Lord Grenville's letter, it will appear that the retaliation of which he speaks is to be confined to French prisoners, whom the fortune of war had thrown into the power of Great Britain; and he believed the present law should be confined to persons who should be captured by vessels of the United States. And it would be most effectual in this way; because if it were to operate against other French citizens in this country, the French Government would not be concerned about it, since ninety-nine out of a hundred of those citizens are probably emigrants, or persons for whose safety they have no interest.

If by meeting every hostile act of the French Government by a measure of a similar kind, we could render this country more respectable, Mr. G. should be in favor of it; but, in the present case, he did not think the measure applicable. There was a great difference, he said, between measures of hostility and retaliation. Measures of retaliation could do no good, except as preventives; and as the decree in question had already been two years in force without being carried into effect, it could scarcely be expected that it would now be exercised.

It must be allowed, Mr. G. said, that some change had taken place in our situation with respect to France; but it seemed as if gentlemen wished, by the passing of this bill, to take off any impression of this kind which might have been made on the people by the late appointment of Ministers to treat with France. Mr. G. did not mean to express any opinion on the probable issue of that nomination. He believed the PRESIDENT had taken certain measures; and that nothing which he could do or say would either accelerate or delay those measures. He wished to leave them uncontrolled, to have the effect they may, whatever it may be. Yet, in relation to what had been said with respect to Guadaloupe, he believed that captures had taken place; yet, when we speak of information, there was a letter written by one of the commanders of our vessels, which says, that a number of vessels go there for the purpose of being taken, in order to carry on a trade contrary to the laws of the United States. [The SPEAKER called to order.] Mr. G. said he was about to conclude. He considered this bill as calculated to have but little effect, and had it not been for the arguments of the gentleman from Massachusetts, he should have been at a loss to have known for what reason it was passed.

Mr. DANA said, "with what measure you mete, the same shall be measured to you again," was a doctrine long since established. It was a doctrine which injured man had assumed in all countries, and the justice of which had been universally admitted.

An appeal to this national sentiment, and to the writers on this subject, would be a sufficient answer to the gentleman's humanity for Frenchmen, to the forgetfulness of his fellow-citizens.

The general principles of the law are too just to be questioned. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, well knowing that the national feelings of man must approve of the principle, undertakes to distinguish away the subject. Instead of coming forward to the point, he has gone into complaints against British inhumanity. But why speak of British inhumanity, if not to embarrass this bill? This bill is intended against the French nation. If the gentleman wished a similar law against the British, neither he nor his followers could be suspected of any attachment to that nation, which would have prevented him or them from bringing forward such a measure. The gentleman knew such a measure would be embarrassed with difficulties; and, if it failed, it would deprive him of the argument he now makes use of. Shall we, said Mr. D., because our seamen have been first injured by Great Britain, when France uses them still worse, abandon them? Because they have been once injured with impunity, shall we turn our backs upon them for ever? The doctrine is too inhuman, too absurd, to be countenanced.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania assigns another reason against this bill. To make it effectual he says certain information must be given to the PRESIDENT, viz: that the person ill-treated is an American seaman; and that he has received his ill-treatment in pursuance of a decree of the French Government. Has the gentleman to learn that, when the officers of the French Government do an act of violence, which the principles of humanity and the law of nations condemn, if the nation does not punish its officers for the act, it must be done in pursuance of the orders of Government?

The gentleman's other objection was honorable to Americans. It was that the humanity of the PRESIDENT, and of the people of this country, would not suffer the law, if passed, to be carried into effect. Mr. D. said it was difficult to reason on this subject, but, admitting the fact, it affords a decisive proof that this power will never be abused, and at the worst, the law could only be ineffectual, and it might have the good effect of preventing the unprincipled murder of our countrymen.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania had said that the decree of the British Cabinet might have had some effect in procuring a suspension of the decree of the Executive Directory.

[Mr. GALLATIN denied having said that the French Government had suspended their decree on account of the threats of the British. Mr. King's first letter is dated the 27th of November, and his second, mentioning the suspension of the decree, the 28th, so that that was impossible.]

The gentleman has taken an opportunity of referring to the note of Lord Grenville. If the gentleman was disposed to make a philippic against Lord Grenville, Mr. D. said, he had no reason to vindicate him; but, when the gentleman went so far beside the question to do it, it showed he had little respect for his audience. But the gentleman from Pennsylvania was certainly incorrect, when he said the note of Lord Grenville was a direct admission that impressed American seamen were held on board the British fleet. He would state a case in which American seamen would be liable to the effects of the French decree, where the British Government could not be censurable. Suppose an American vessel captured and plundered by the French, and some of our seamen, to escape the severities of a French dungeon, had escaped and got on board of a British ship of war, hoping by that means, in time, to get to their own country. Such cases, he had no doubt, had happened, and in such, the gentleman must allow, our citizens must be liable to suffer as pirates, without any blame resting on the conduct of the British.

Mr. OTIS said, it had been so long unfashionable to vindicate the conduct of France, or to make apologies in her behalf, that those who now wished to do it, attempt to excite hatred against another nation. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has gone altogether upon this principle. He has said but little against the principle of the bill. His only objection to it was that it was not sufficiently extensive. Admitting the injuries to exist with respect to Great Britain, and that many of our seamen have been impressed by them, did the gentleman wish us to retaliate by impressing British seamen? No, he would be the first to oppose such a law; and yet this is the only just kind of retaliation that could be adopted, for he would not wish us, because the British have impressed our seamen, to put the first British subject we meet to death; and to talk of impressing their seamen, would be perfectly ridiculous.

It was not incumbent upon him, Mr. O. said, to enter into any argument to distinguish between the injuries which we have received from the French and British Governments, nor to palliate the conduct of any nation which has done us wrong; but when things perfectly clear are violently distorted, to excite undue prejudices, with a view of diverting the attention of the House from the subject before them, it becomes necessary to notice the attempt. Let it be granted that Great Britain impresses our seamen; she renounces every right to do so. She perseveres, it is true, in her right to reclaim her own seamen from on board our vessels, and in making this claim, some abuses may have taken place.

If the gentleman from Pennsylvania had seen fit to do justice to Lord Grenville, he would have turned to another document laid before Congress by the Secretary of State last year, wherein he says that Great Britain had never assumed the principle of impressing American seamen. His friend from South Carolina (Mr. PINCKNEY) affirmed what he said, and showed that the great difficulty was in preventing false passports from being given. This was verified in the conduct of Captain Loring and the Baltimore sloop of war. The difference, Mr. O. said, between the conduct of France and Great Britain towards us was palpable. Great Britain never refused to rectify grievances; she never heaped outrages upon us. If she had, he should have been for vengeance and war against that country, and the cry would certainly have been echoed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. O. said he disdained that sort of sensibility which his friend from Connecticut (Mr. DANA) seemed to think redounded to the honor of the people of this country. He owned it would not wound his feelings, in the smallest degree, to see the law of retaliation executed upon any French citizen in America. If one American citizen fell a sacrifice to the decree of France, it would altogether absorb his sympathies for Frenchmen. There is a French citizen, said he, now living in the neighborhood of New York, who originally came here as Ambassador from the French Republic; and I must say that I should not feel the least sensibility if he should fall a victim to this law! Indeed, there were French citizens enough on whom to execute the law; though he joined gentlemen on all sides of the House in hoping that there would be no occasion to carry it into effect.

The gentleman from New York says that a law of this kind ought not to be passed, except in time of war; and yet, said Mr. O., the gentleman will not let us go to war, and in the mean time our citizens may suffer with impunity under the bloody decrees of France. But he believed Congress had clearly the power, from those words of the constitution which say, "they shall grant letters of marque and reprisal"--reprisal, doubtless, not only against ships, but against property and persons, to pass a law of this kind. Mr. O. thought it necessary, therefore, to show to the French Republic that we are not negotiating through fear; that we are desirous of keeping peace with all the world, so long as we can do it consistent with our honor and independence; but no longer.

Mr. S. SMITH wished to have postponed this bill till the next session. He thought it improper as it originally stood; as the decree which was passed two years ago was never acted upon. Indeed he had somewhere seen that American seamen were released on application of Mr. Skipwith, our Consul in France. The bill, as amended, is far less objectionable, yet he wished it were postponed till next session, because he never wished to see a law of this kind on our code. He agreed with the gentleman from Connecticut that it was legalizing murder.

Mr. S. believed the gentleman from Massachusetts mistaken in many respects. He himself believed France was disposed to make peace. Mr. S. proposed an amendment to the bill confining the retaliation to persons captured in pursuance of any of the laws of the United States. If this amendment was agreed to, the bill would be less exceptionable; for, though the gentleman from Massachusetts had said he should not regret the murder of any French citizen, under this law, nothing surely but the heat of argument could have led him to say this; he must own he should: nor did he believe that that gentleman, or any other, could lay hold of an unfortunate Frenchman, and put him to death, though one of our citizens might have suffered unjustly and cruelly in France.

The amendment was carried.

Mr. MACON did not wish to see this law in our code. In his opinion nothing but the utmost necessity ought to induce us to pass it. Nor could he believe that the gentleman from Massachusetts could see any man, even if taken in arms, put to death in cold blood! Though it might be right to punish those who passed the decree, if they could be laid hold of, it was a mournful thing to retaliate upon innocent persons the offences of the guilty.

The gentleman from Connecticut had quoted a scriptural passage--"With the same measure that you mete, the same shall be measured unto you." In the same volume, Mr. M. said, he would also find, "Do unto others as ye would they should do unto you;" and a law of this kind could not be justified upon the latter principle.

It is said we ought to show that we do not act from fear. He thought this one of the last measures the House should pass to evince that. Mr. M. hoped, that on the last evening of the session, a bill of this kind would not be pressed. The members had heretofore been accustomed to part in good humor, at the close of the session, however they might have differed in the course of it. He hoped they should not now depart from this custom. He therefore moved to postpone the bill till next session.

The question for postponement was negatived--48 to 37.

After a few observations from Mr. MCDOWELL, against the bill, it was ordered to be read a third time and passed--yeas 56, nays 30.

A motion was made by Mr. LIVINGSTON, to adjourn till ten in the morning, as it would be impossible to get through the business to-night, and he understood the Senate were about to adjourn to that time.

Mr. DANA proposed to adjourn till seven in the evening; but that motion being negatived, the House adjourned till ten o'clock on Sunday morning.

SUNDAY MORNING, March 3.

Several reports were made by the Committee of Enrolment, and sundry messages communicated from the Senate relative to the bills in their passage.

Vote of Thanks.

Mr. CHAMPLIN rose and addressed the House as follows:

"Sensible as I am of the importance of the duties that at all times attach to a gentleman who presides over the deliberations of this assembly, and more especially in times of imminent danger; impressed with the able and honorable manner in which those duties have been discharged by the gentleman who now fills the chair; and believing the sentiments I entertain on this occasion to be in perfect unison with those of every member of this House--I beg leave to submit a resolution expressive of the sense of the House on this subject:"

He then moved the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the thanks of this House be presented to Jonathan Dayton, in testimony of their approbation of his conduct in discharging the arduous and important duties assigned him whilst in the chair."

This motion was received by the Clerk, and the question being put upon it by him, there appeared for it 40, against it 22.

The resolution being carried, the SPEAKER rose and addressed the House as follows:

No language, gentlemen, can do justice to those feelings which this second vote of approbation of my conduct, after four years' presidency in the House of Representatives, has excited in my breast. It would be unjust in me not to acknowledge, that to the support uniformly afforded, and to the confidence unremittedly reposed in me, rather than to any merit of my own, is to be ascribed the success with which you are pleased to declare that the duties of the chair have been executed.

Permit me to say, that far from being displeased, I have, on the contrary, been very much gratified at hearing that the resolution of thanks has not been passed, as a mere matter of form, unanimously. As in all public bodies, there have ever been found men whose approbation must be considered by the meritorious as a censure, so in this body, there are, unhappily, some whose censure will be regarded by all whose esteem I value, as the highest testimony of merit. About to abandon the seat which I have held in this branch of the General Legislature for eight successive years, I take advantage of the moment which precedes our separation to bid you, gentlemen, an affectionate farewell.

Mr. MACON moved the usual resolution appointing a joint committee with the Senate, to inform the PRESIDENT, that Congress is ready to adjourn without day, unless he has any further communication to make them; which being agreed to, Messrs. OTIS, MACON, and BROOKS, were appointed a committee on the part of this House.

Mr. OTIS, from the committee appointed to wait upon the PRESIDENT, informed the House that they had performed that service; and he informed them "that he had no further communication to make, except to express his wish for the health and happiness of the members, and a pleasant journey home to their families and friends."

The SPEAKER then adjourned the House without day.

NOTE.

The fifth Congress, the first under the administration of Mr. John Adams, was wholly occupied with measures of defence against France, and incurred debt and taxes in these preparations which greatly impaired its popularity, and contributed to the overthrow of the federal party: but there was great necessity for these exertions at that time, and both national honor, and national interest, and national safety required them to be made. Besides the insults which went to our honor, and the depredations which affected our commerce, there were threats of attack and invasion not to be despised. The Directory, inflated with the successes of Buonaparte in Italy, with the subjugation of several small powers, the transformation of several principalities and kingdoms into republics, the peace with the Emperor of Germany, the neutralization of some kingdoms and the alliance of others: exalted with so much success, and anxious to bring the United States into their system and especially into the war with Great Britain, had recourse to all the means of accomplishing its purpose--first, by entreaties; afterwards by insults and outrages; and finally by threats of war. It is difficult for general history to give a view of these proceedings, and it is only in contemporary sources that they can be adequately studied. The Debates of Congress are one, and the largest one, of these sources; documents on which the debates are founded are another: and it is often desirable, in after time, to produce these documents in greater extent than used in the debate. That is the case with these debates on French affairs during the time of which we speak, and the communications of our Ministers sent to Paris furnish the documentary evidence necessary to complete them--evidence too well known to require copious quotation at the time, but now little known to the subsequent generation. This note then, in the nature of an appendix to the debates of the fifth Congress, will contain extracts from the dispatches of the Ministers of that day: and first of General Pinckney.

Arriving at Paris the 5th of December 1796, he immediately waited on the Minister of Exterior Relations (Citizen Charles De la Croix) in company with Mr. Monroe, according to an appointment previously made, and had an interview with him; of which he gives this account in a dispatch to Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State: (Extracts only are given.)

Mr. Monroe and myself, with my secretary, Major Rutledge, about two o'clock, waited upon M. De la Croix, and I was introduced by Mr. Monroe as the person appointed as his successor. The Minister at first received us with great stiffness, but afterwards, on our conversing on some general subjects, he unbent and behaved with civility; and, on receiving the official copies of our letter of credence and recall, said he would deliver them, without delay, to the Directory. He desired Major Rutledge to let him have our names of baptism, and our ages, that cards of hospitality might be made out, which he said were necessary to reside here unmolested. This requisition was immediately complied with, and he promised to send the cards the next morning. When this interview was known, the reports which had been spread abroad before my arrival, of my not being received by the Directory, vanished, and the general idea seemed to be that there would be no objection to receive me as Minister from America. At 11 o'clock, on Monday, December 12, Mr. Prevost (Mr. Monroe's secretary) called upon me, and told me that Mr. Monroe had just received a letter from M. De la Croix, and desired to know if I had received one. I said no. He then showed me M. De la Croix's to Mr. Monroe, which was as follows: [Date, Dec. 9.

CITIZEN MINISTER: I hasten to lay before the Executive Directory the copies of your letters of recall, and of the letter of credence of Mr. Pinckney, whom the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES has appointed to succeed you, in the quality of Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States near the French Republic. The Directory has charged me to notify you "that it will not acknowledge nor receive another Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States, until after the redress of the grievances demanded of the American Government, and which the French Republic has a right to expect from it." [Date, Dec. 11.

I waited until next morning, expecting to receive a notification from M. De la Croix, when, not hearing from him, I wrote him the following letter:

CITIZEN MINISTER: Colonel Monroe has been so good as to communicate to me your letter to him of the 21st Frimaire, wherein you inform him that you had submitted to the Executive Directory his letters of recall, and my letters of credence as Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States of America, and that the Directory had instructed you to notify him "qu'il ne reconnoitra et ne recevra plus de Ministre Plenipotentiaire des Etats Unis jusqu'après le redressement des griefs demandé au Gouvernement Americain, et que la République Françoise est en droit d'en attendre." [That it will not acknowledge nor receive any Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States, until after the redress of the grievances demanded of the American Government, and which the French Republic has a right to expect from it.] This communication has filled me with real sorrow, as I am thoroughly convinced that the sentiments of America and its Government--for they are one--are misunderstood, and that I am not permitted even to attempt to explain them, or, in the terms of my letters of credence, to endeavor "to efface unfavorable impressions, to banish suspicions, and to restore that cordiality which was at once the evidence and pledge of a friendly union." Devoted, as I am, to the liberty, prosperity, and independence of my own country, the freedom, happiness, and perfect establishment of the French Republic, have always been dear to me, and to have been instrumental in cementing the good understanding which, from the commencement of their alliance, has subsisted between the two nations, would have been the height of my ambition. I most fervently pray that there may be a speedy and candid investigation of those points in which you differ from us, that affection may banish distrust, and that the alliance of the two Republics may be perpetual.

In your letter to Colonel Monroe you do not desire him to make any communication to me, and I am indebted to his politeness for the knowledge I have of the intentions of the Directory. I submit to you, citizen Minister, that, as the letters of recall had been received by Mr. Monroe, and official copies of his letters of recall, and my letters of credence, had been delivered to you, that the sentiments of the Directory should be communicated by you immediately to me, that I may, without delay, transmit them as from the Executive of this Republic to the Government of the United States; and that I may be informed by you, whether it is the intention of the Directory that I should immediately quit the territories of the Republic, or whether I and my family may remain until I hear from my Government. As I have not received the cards which, in your interview, you said I ought to possess in order to enable me to reside here, and that they should be transmitted to me next morning, I am the more doubtful on this subject than I should otherwise be. Accept my best wishes. [Dec. 13.

This letter I sent by Major Rutledge, who delivered it to M. De la Croix, and made the following report of what passed between them, which he immediately reduced to writing:

"I this day waited upon M. De la Croix, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, at two o'clock, as bearer of a letter from General Pinckney. I was admitted immediately on sending in my name, and delivered the letter. Having informed him from whom it came, and that there was a French translation annexed, he opened it and proceeded to read the letter in my presence, which, when he had finished, he desired me to return to General Pinckney as his answer: That the Executive Directory knew of no Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States of America, since the presentation of Mr. Monroe's letters of recall, and that the Executive Directory had charged him to notify to Mr. Monroe (here he read the quotation contained in the letter) qu'il ne reconnoitra et ne recevra plus de Ministre Plenipotentiaire des Etats Unis, jusqu'après le redressement des griefs demandé au Gouvernement Americain, et que la République Françoise est en droit d'en attendre. Which notification the Directory relied upon Mr. Monroe's imparting to his own Government, as well as communicating to General Pinckney."

On the 25th of Frimaire, (15th of December,) about three o'clock in the afternoon, a Mr. Giraudet called on me, and said he was chief secretary in the Department of Foreign Affairs; that he came on the part of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to signify to me that, with respect to my letter to him, (which he produced, together with the translation,) he could not directly communicate with me on it, as such direct communication would be acknowledging me as Minister, when the Directory had determined not to receive me; that, as to the other part of my letter, relative to remaining here, that he supposed I was acquainted with the laws of France, as they applied to strangers. I told him that I was not acquainted with the local laws of the Republic; he said that there was a decree which prevented all foreigners from remaining at Paris without particular permission, which, as the Directory did not mean to grant to me, of course the general law would operate. I answered, that I could not conceive the having a direct communication with me would involve the consequences he stated; that if Mr. Monroe had died before my arrival, the information that they would not acknowledge me, must, of course, have been made to myself. Mr. Monroe having received his letter of recall from our Government, could not now act officially any more than if he had ceased to exist; that I was indebted to Mr. Monroe's politeness for the information I had received of the intention of the Directory not to acknowledge me, but that he had not intended it as an official communication. That, with regard to the laws of France relative to strangers, the law which he had cited did not apply to the requisition of my letter, which was to know whether it was the intention of the Directory that I should quit the territories of the Republic; or whether I might remain here until I should hear from my Government. He said he rather believed that it was the intention that I should quit the territories of the Republic; but, as it admitted of a doubt, he would mention it to the Minister, with whom he was to dine, and acquaint me with the result in the evening. I told him I should be obliged to him, should it be the intention of the Directory that I should quit the Republic, to inform me in what time I was to set out, as my baggage was not arrived from Bordeaux; that I meant not to ask any personal favor, but to have the intention of the Directory clearly expressed, as it related to me, in the situation in which I came to France. He said he would, and expressed a regret at being the bearer of disagreeable information, and then departed. His behavior and manners were very polite.

In the evening, about eight o'clock, he returned, and informed me that, in answer to the doubt which had been entertained in the morning, (a doubt, he observed, which had proceeded from his own inattention to the words of M. De la Croix,) the Minister could only reply that he understood the Directory to mean the territory of the Republic, and not Paris alone, which was to be quitted; that as to the time in which it was necessary to depart, the Minister could not designate it, but that he would have another communication with the Directory, and that their intentions should be made known to me in a more explicit manner upon both points; that, at the same time, he must inform me that, in all probability, M. De la Croix would not be the organ through which they would be addressed, as the Minister of the Police Générale would be the officer under whose department my case would come. I replied that I apprehended M. De la Croix was the proper organ through which information should come to me, as he knew the capacity in which I had come to France; whereas, the Minister of Police might regard me as a mere stranger, and throw me into confinement; that it was in the power of the Directory to receive me, or not: but they could not divest themselves of the knowledge which they had of the public character in which I came to France; and that, in that character, I was entitled to the protection of the laws of nations, whether the Directory received me or not. If they permitted me to remain until I heard from my Government, I was under the protection of those laws; if they ordered me to quit the territories of the Republic, I was still entitled to letters of safe conduct, and passports on my journey out; that this was the case even with Ministers of belligerent powers, much more ought it to apply between us, who were at peace. Since this conversation, I have not heard from the Directory, or any of the Ministers or their agents. My situation, as you may easily conceive, is unpleasant; but if I can ultimately render any services to my country, I shall be fully compensated: at all events, it shall be my study to avoid increasing the discontent of this Government, without committing the honor, dignity, and respect due to our own. Should I fail in doing this, or should I err in the measures I pursue to accomplish it, the failing will not be in my zeal, but should be charged to my want of ability. At present, I think the ground I have taken has puzzled them: they wish me gone, but they apprehend that it would be too harsh a measure to send off, in a peremptory manner, the Minister of my country; though there is no saying what their conduct will ultimately be, as I am informed that they have already sent off thirteen foreign Ministers: and a late emigrant, now here, has assured them that America is not of greater consequence to them, nor ought to be treated with greater respect, than Geneva or Genoa. Those who regard us as being of some consequence, seem to have taken up an idea that our Government acts upon principles opposed to the real sentiments of a large majority of our people, and they are willing to temporize until the event of the election of President is known; thinking that, if one public character is chosen, he will be attached to the interest of Great Britain; and that, if another character is elected, he will be (to use the expression of Du Pont de Nemours, in the Council of Ancients) devoted to the interest of France; entertaining the humiliating idea that we are a people divided by party, the mere creatures of foreign influence, and regardless of our national character, honor, and interest.

I have seen Mr. Monroe very often since my arrival: his conduct has been open and candid, and I believe he has made me every communication which he thought would be of service to our country. He undoubtedly felt himself hurt at his being superseded; but I am convinced he has not, on that account, left any thing undone which he thought would promote the objects of my mission. The Directory and Ministers had, for some time before they were informed of his removal, treated him with great coolness; but as soon as they heard of his recall, their attentions to him were renewed. Should this Government attempt to make any further communications to me, through him, he has promised me to inform them that he cannot comply with their desire, as his powers have ceased. I remain, with great respect, &c. [Dec. 15.

Major Rutledge having called on the Minister of Exterior Relations on another affair, and finished, inquired of the Minister if he had heard any thing further from the Directory, in relation to General Pinckney's remaining where he was:

"He answered, with marks of great surprise, that he thought he had already explained himself with sufficient clearness on the subject; that he had signified to General Pinckney, long since, the impossibility of his staying; that he thought he had exercised much "condescendance" in having been so long silent; which he had been induced to do by General Pinckney's having complained of the delay of his baggage, which, he supposed, must, by this time, have arrived from Bordeaux; that, in short, he should be sorry if his further stay should compel him to give information to the Minister of the Police. To this I replied, that General Pinckney had refused to regard himself in any other light than the one in which he had entered France, which had not been in a private capacity, but in a public character; which circumstance had been officially announced to the Directory, by his having delivered to the Minister of Foreign Affairs a copy of his letters of credence and by other acts. That this precluded all laws relative to strangers from operating on him, and put him under the protection of the law of nations, which he claimed in his favor. That Mr. Giraudet had taken leave with a promise to communicate to the Minister of Foreign Affairs the ground which General Pinckney had taken. That he returned again in the evening, and then said, that the Minister would again lay General Pinckney's letter before the Directory, and that their intentions should be made known to him as soon as possible. All this had, no doubt, been faithfully related to him by his secretary. He answered that General Pinckney must have mistaken Mr. Giraudet as to his intention of again laying his letter before the Directory. I told him that it was impossible; for that I had been present at both conversations, in which the material points had passed in English, and been repeated in French. He then said Mr. Giraudet had acted without his authority. I replied, that General Pinckney had, however, waited until this moment in expectation of hearing from him, agreeably to Mr. Giraudet's promise; that he was very far from intending to dispute the will of the Executive Directory; what he wanted was a communication of their wishes in writing. He said that it had already been given. I desired to know when; he answered in the notification which he had made, by their order, to Mr. Monroe; that it had contained their sentiments on Mr. Pinckney's staying, inasmuch as that his not being received, implied that he should depart. I denied that it was a fair deduction; he insisted that it was; I declared that it had not struck General Pinckney or any person with whom he had conversed; but that, however, if such was the construction which he had put upon it, I flattered myself that he could have no objection to throwing his idea upon paper, that General Pinckney might have something more substantial, than the authenticity of the word of his secretary to justify himself to his own Government, for quitting a spot to which he had come in obedience to their orders. The Minister here turned from me with some warmth, and said that he should do no such thing; that General Pinckney might make his own deductions; he desired to have no more communication with him. I only replied by a bow, satisfied to end a conversation which had already lasted near half an hour; during which I had not been admitted to the honor of a seat." [Dec. 26.

The written order to quit the territory of the Republic did not come: General Pinckney would not depart without it: the Police Générale did not molest him; two months elapsed, when Buonaparte having gained a great victory over the Austrians in Italy, the day after the arrival of the news of it in Paris, he received the following notification from the Minister, De la Croix:

"The Executive Directory has charged me to make known to you, that not having obtained special permission to reside at Paris, you are amenable to the law which obliges foreigners to quit the territory of the Republic. I had the honor of informing you near two months ago, by the principal Secretary of my department, of the intentions of the Government in this respect. I cannot dispense with notifying you of them to-day. Receive, sir, &c." [Feb. 1, 1797.

To which General Pinckney immediately returned this answer:

CITIZEN MINISTER: I did not receive, until 3 o'clock to-day, your note in date of the 6th inst., informing me that the Directory had charged you to acquaint me, that not having obtained particular permission to reside at Paris, I was subject to the law which obliged strangers to quit the territory of the Republic. I intimated to you some time since, by the Secretary General of your department, and by Major Rutledge, my Secretary, that I deemed a notification of this sort, in writing, from you necessary, previous to my departure. Having now received it, I shall, without delay, prepare to go, and, in the meanwhile, will be obliged to you for the necessary passports for myself and family, with our baggage, to quit the Republic, in my way to Holland. Accept, citizen Minister, &c.

This notification was addressed to "Mr. Pinckney, Anglo-American," upon which designation of his nationality, and the supposed motives for giving the order to depart so suddenly after having been so long delayed, General Pinckney remarks:

I should have made some observation on being termed Anglo-American, but, on inquiry, I found it was customary to call all my countrymen so, to distinguish us from the inhabitants of St. Domingo and the other French West India islands. I have received my passports, and shall, in two days, set out for Amsterdam. I know not what has occasioned this determination of the Directory after having permitted me to remain here so long a time from their refusal to acknowledge me. You will judge whether the answer of the Senate and the House of Representatives to the President's Speech, and the late successes in Italy have not concurred to occasion it. Mr. De la Croix assured Major Rutledge, that he acted by the express orders of the Directory in this particular, and not from himself.

General Pinckney remained in Holland till the autumn of '97, when Messrs. Marshall and Gerry were joined with him in an extraordinary mission, and all three proceeded to Paris. Arrived there, they asked an interview with the Minister of Foreign Relations, now changed to the astute and supple Talleyrand--obtained it--and thus describe it in their dispatch to Mr. Pickering, the Secretary of State:

The Minister, we found, was then engaged with the Portuguese Minister, who retired in about ten minutes, when we were introduced and produced the copy of our letters of credence, which the Minister perused and kept. He informed us "that the Directory had required him to make a report relative to the situation of the United States with regard to France, which he was then about, and which would be finished in a few days, when he would let us know what steps were to follow." We asked if cards of hospitality were in the mean time necessary? He said they were, and that they should be delivered to us; and he immediately rung for his secretary and directed him to make them out.

This interview with Talleyrand being over, a game of intrigue, impudence, venality and corruption was immediately commenced upon the American Ministers, by the intimates and agents of Talleyrand, which has but few parallels in history, and of which they give this account:

On Saturday, the 14th, Major Mountflorence (U. S. Consul General in Paris,) informed General Pinckney that he had a conversation with Mr. Osmond, the private and confidential secretary of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who told him that the Directory were greatly exasperated at some parts of the President's Speech at the opening of the last session of Congress, and would require an explanation of them from us. The particular parts were not mentioned. In another conversation on the same day, the secretary informed the Major that the Minister had told him it was probable we should not have a public audience of the Directory till such time as our negotiation was finished; that probably persons might be appointed to treat with us, but they would report to him, and he would have the direction of the negotiation. The Major did not conceal from Mr. Osmond his intention to communicate these conversations to us.

In the morning of October the 13th, Mr. W., of the house of ----, called on General Pinckney and informed him that a Mr. X., who was in Paris, and whom the General had seen, * * * * was a gentleman of considerable credit and reputation, * * * * and that we might place great reliance on him.

In the evening of the same day, Mr. X. called on General Pinckney, and after having sat some time, * * * * whispered him that he had a message from M. Talleyrand to communicate when he was at leisure. General Pinckney immediately withdrew with him into another room; and when they were alone, Mr. X. said that he was charged with a business in which he was a novice; that he had been acquainted with M. Talleyrand, * * * * and that he was sure he had a great regard for [America] and its citizens; and was very desirous that a reconciliation should be brought about with France; that, to effect that end, he was ready, if it was thought proper, to suggest a plan, confidentially, that M. Talleyrand expected would answer the purpose. General Pinckney said he should be glad to hear it. Mr. X. replied that the Directory, and particularly two of the members of it, were exceedingly irritated at some passages of the President's Speech, and desired that they should be softened, and that this step would be necessary previous to our reception. That, besides this, a sum of money was required for the pocket of the Directory and Ministers, which would be at the disposal of M. Talleyrand; and that a loan would also be insisted on. M. X. said if we acceded to these measures, M. Talleyrand had no doubt that all our differences with France might be accommodated. On inquiry, M. X. could not point out the particular passages of the speech that had given offence, nor the quantum of the loan, but mentioned that the douceur for the pocket, was twelve hundred thousand livres, about fifty thousand pounds sterling. General Pinckney told him, that his colleagues and himself, from the time of their arrival here, had been treated with great slight and disrespect; that they earnestly wished for peace and reconciliation with France; and had been entrusted by their country with very great powers to obtain these ends on honorable terms; that, with regard to the propositions made, he could not even consider of them before he had communicated them to his colleagues; that, after he had done so, he should hear from him. After a communication and consultation had, it was agreed that General Pinckney should call on M. X. and request him to make his propositions to us all: and, for fear of mistake or misapprehension, that he should be requested to reduce the heads into writing. Accordingly, on the morning of October 19, General Pinckney called on M. X., who consented to see his colleagues in the evening, and to reduce his propositions to writing. He said his communication was not immediately with M. Talleyrand, but through another gentleman in whom M. Talleyrand had great confidence. This proved afterwards to be M. Y.

At six in the evening, M. X. came and left with us the first set of propositions, which, translated from the French, are as follows: "A person who possesses the confidence of the Directory, on what relates to the affairs of America, convinced of the mutual advantages which would result from the re-establishment of the good understanding between the two nations, proposes to employ all of his influence to obtain this object. He will assist the Commissioners of the United States in all the demands which they may have to make from the Government of France, inasmuch as they may not be contradictory to those which he proposes himself to make, and of which the principal will be communicated confidentially. It is desired that, in the official communications, there should be given a softening turn to a part of the President's Speech to Congress, which has caused much irritation. It is feared, that in not satisfying certain individuals in this respect, they may give way to all their resentment. The nomination of Commissioners will be consented to on the same footing as they have been named in the treaty of America with England, to decide on the reclamations which individuals may make on the Government of France, or on French individuals. The payments which, agreeably to the decisions of the Commissioners, shall fall to the share of the French Government, are to be advanced by the American Government itself. It is desired that the funds which, by this means, shall enter again into the American trade, should be employed in new supplies for the French colonies. Engagements of this nature, on the part of individuals reclaiming, will always hasten, in all probability, the decisions of the French Commissioners; and, perhaps, it may be desired that this clause should make a part of the instructions which the Government of the United States should give to the Commissioners they may choose. The French Government desires, besides, to obtain a loan from the United States; but so that that should not give any jealousy to the English Government nor hurt the neutrality of the United States. This loan shall be masked by stipulating, that the Government of the United States consents to make the advances for the payment of the debts contracted by the agents of the French Government with the citizens of the United States, and which are already acknowledged, and the payment ordered by the Directory, without having been yet effectuated. There should be delivered a note to the amount of these debts. Probably this note may be accompanied by ostensible pieces, which will guarantee to the agents the responsibility of the United States, in case any umbrage should cause an inquiry. There shall also be first taken from this loan certain sums for the purpose of making the customary distributions in diplomatic affairs." The person of note mentioned in the minutes, who had the confidence of the Directory, he said, before us all, was M. Talleyrand. The amount of the loan he could not ascertain precisely, but understood it would be according to our ability to pay. The sum which would be considered as proper, according to diplomatic usage, was about twelve hundred thousand livres. He could not state to us what parts of the President's speech were excepted to, but said he would inquire and inform us. He agreed to breakfast with Mr. Gerry the morning of the 21st, in order to make such explanations as we had then requested, or should think proper to request; but, on the morning of the 20th, M. X. called, and said that M. Y., the confidential friend of M. Talleyrand, instead of communicating with us through M. X., would see us himself and make the necessary explanations. We appointed to meet him the evening of the 20th at seven o'clock, in General Marshall's room. At seven, M. Y. and M. X. entered; and the first mentioned gentleman, being introduced to us as the confidential friend of M. Talleyrand, immediately stated to us the favorable impression of that gentleman towards our country--impressions which were made by the kindness and civilities he had personally received in America. That, impressed by his solicitude to repay these kindnesses, he was willing to aid us in the present negotiation by his good offices with the Directory, who were, he said, extremely irritated against the Government of the United States, on account of some parts of the President's speech, and who had neither acknowledged nor received us, and consequently have not authorized M. Talleyrand to have any communications with us. The minister therefore could not see us himself, but had authorized his friend M. Y. to communicate to us certain propositions, and to receive our answers to them; and to promise, on his part, that if we would engage to consider them as the basis of the proposed negotiation, he would intercede with the Directory to acknowledge us, and to give us a public audience. M. Y. stated to us explicitly and repeatedly, that he was clothed with no authority; that he was not a diplomatic character; that he was not * * * * he was only the friend of M. Talleyrand, and trusted by him: that, with regard to himself, he had * * * and he earnestly wished well to the United States.

On reading the speech (Mr. Adams' to Congress,) M. Y. dilated very much upon the keenness of the resentment it had produced, and expatiated largely on the satisfaction he said was indispensably necessary as a preliminary to negotiation. "But, said he, gentlemen, I will not disguise from you that this satisfaction being made, the essential part of the treaty remains to be adjusted; il faut de l'argent--il faut beaucoup d'argent;" you must pay money, you must pay a great deal of money. He spoke much of the force, the honor, and the jealous republican pride of France; and represented to us strongly the advantage which we should derive from the neutrality thus to be purchased. He said that the receipt of the money might be so disguised as to prevent its being considered as a breach of neutrality by England; and thus save us from being embroiled with that power. Concerning the twelve hundred thousand livres little was said; that being completely understood, on all sides, to be required for the officers of the Government, and, therefore, needing no further explanation. These propositions, he said, being considered as the admitted basis of the proposed treaty, M. Talleyrand trusted that, by his influence with the Directory, he could prevail on the Government to receive us. We asked whether we were to consider it as certain, that, without a previous stipulation to the effect required, we were not to be received. He answered that M. Talleyrand himself was not authorized to speak to us the will of the Directory, and consequently could not authorize him. The conversation continued until half after nine, when they left us; having engaged to breakfast with Mr. Gerry the next morning.

October the 21st, M. X. came before nine o'clock; M. Y. did not come until ten: he had passed the morning with M. Talleyrand. After breakfast the subject was immediately resumed. He represented to us, that we were not yet acknowledged or received; that the Directory were so exasperated against the United States, as to have come to a determination to demand from us, previous to our reception, those disavowals, reparations, and explanations, which were stated at large last evening. He said that M. Talleyrand and himself were extremely sensible of the pain we must feel in complying with this demand; but that the Directory would not dispense with it; that, therefore, we must consider it as the indispensable preliminary to obtain our reception, unless we could find the means to change their determination in this particular; that if we satisfied the Directory in these particulars, a letter would be written to us to demand the extent of our powers, and to know whether we were authorized to place them precisely on the same footing with England. We required an explanation of that part of the conversation, in which M. Y. had hinted at our finding means to avert the demand concerning the President's speech. He answered, that he was not authorized to state those means, but that we must search for them and propose them ourselves. If, however, we asked his opinion as a private individual, and would receive it as coming from him, he would suggest to us the means which, in his opinion, would succeed. On being asked to suggest the means, he answered, money; that the Directory were jealous of its own honor and of the honor of the nation; that it insisted on receiving from us the same respect with which we had treated the King; that this honor must be maintained in the manner before required, unless we substituted, in the place of these reparations, something, perhaps more valuable, that was money. He said, further, that if we desired him to point out the sum, which he believed would be satisfactory, he would do so. We requested him to proceed; and he said that there were thirty-two millions of florins, of Dutch inscriptions, worth ten shillings in the pound, which might be assigned to us at twenty shillings in the pound; and he proceeded to state to us the certainty that, after a peace, the Dutch Government would repay us the money; so that we should ultimately lose nothing, and the only operation of the measure would be, an advance from us to France of thirty-two millions, on the credit of the Government of Holland. We asked him whether the fifty thousand pounds sterling as a douceur to the Directory, must be in addition to this sum. He answered in the affirmative. We told him that, on the subject of the treaty, we had no hesitation in saying that our powers were ample; that, on the other points proposed to us, we would retire into another room, and return in a few minutes with our answer.

We committed immediately to writing the answer we proposed, in the following words: "Our powers respecting a treaty are ample; but the proposition of a loan, in the form of Dutch inscriptions, or in any other form, is not within the limits of our instructions; upon this point, therefore, the Government must be consulted; one of the American Ministers will, for the purpose, forthwith embark for America; provided the Directory will suspend all further captures on American vessels; and will suspend proceedings on those already captured, as well where they have been already condemned, as where the decisions have not yet been rendered; and that where sales have been made, but the money not yet received by the captors, it shall not be paid until the preliminary questions, proposed to the Ministers of the United States, be discussed and decided;" which was read as a verbal answer, and we told them they might copy it if they pleased. M. Y. refused to do so; his disappointment was apparent; he said we treated the money part of the proposition as if it had proceeded from the Directory; whereas, in fact, it did not proceed even from the Minister, but was only a suggestion from himself, as a substitute to be proposed by us, in order to avoid the painful acknowledgment that the Directory had determined to demand of us. It was told him that we understood that matter perfectly; that we knew the proposition was in form to be ours; but that it came substantially from the Minister. We asked what had led to our present conversation? And General Pinckney then repeated the first communication from M. X., (to the whole of which that gentleman assented,) and we observed that those gentlemen had brought no testimonials of their speaking any thing from authority; but that, relying on the fair characters they bore, we had believed them when they said they were from the Minister, and had conversed with them, in like manner, as if we were conversing with M. Talleyrand himself; and that we could not consider any suggestion M. Y. had made as not having been previously approved of; but yet, if he did not choose to take a memorandum in writing of our answer, we had no wish that he should do so; and further, if he chose to give the answer to his proposition the form of a proposition from ourselves, we could only tell him that we had no other proposition to make, relative to any advance of money on our part; that America had sustained deep and heavy losses by the French depredations on our commerce, and that France had alleged so [many] complaints against the United States, that on those subjects we came fully prepared, and were not a little surprised to find France unwilling to hear us; and making demands upon us which could never have been suspected by our Government, and which had the appearance of our being the aggressing party. M. Y. expressed himself vehemently on the resentment of France; and complained that, instead of our proposing some substitute for the reparations demanded of us, we were stipulating certain conditions to be performed by the Directory itself; that he could not take charge of such propositions; and that the Directory would persist in its demand of those reparations which he at first stated. We answered that we could not help it; it was for the Directory to determine what course its own honor and the interests of France required it to pursue; it was for us to guard the interest and honor of our country. M. Y. observed that we had taken no notice of the first proposition, which was to know whether we were ready to make the disavowal, reparations, and explanations, concerning the President's speech. We told him that we supposed it to be impossible that either he, or the Minister, could imagine that such a proposition could require an answer; that we did not understand it as being seriously expected; but merely as introductory to the subjects of real consideration.

He spoke of the respect which the Directory required, and repeated that it would exact as much as was paid to the ancient kings. We answered that America had demonstrated to the world, and especially to France, a much greater respect for her present Government than for her former monarchy: and that there was no evidence of this disposition which ought to be required, that we were not ready to give. He said that we should certainly not be received; and seemed to shudder at the consequences. We told him, that America had made every possible effort to remain on friendly terms with France--that she was still making them, that if France would not hear us, but would make war on the United States, nothing remained for us but to regret the unavoidable necessity of defending ourselves. [Oct. 22.

No. 2.

OCTOBER 27, 1797.

About twelve we received another visit from M. X. He immediately mentioned the great event announced in the papers, and then said, that some proposals from us had been expected on the subject on which we had before conversed: that the Directory were becoming impatient, and would take a decided course with regard to America, if we could not soften them. We answered, that on that subject we had already spoken explicitly, and had nothing further to add. He mentioned the change in the state of things which had been produced by the peace with the Emperor, as warranting an expectation of a change in our system; to which we only replied, that this event had been expected by us, and would not, in any degree, affect our conduct. M. X. urged, that the Directory had, since this peace, taken a higher and more decided tone with respect to us, and all other neutral nations, than had been before taken; that it had been determined, that all nations should aid them, or be considered and treated as their enemies. We answered, that such an effect had already been contemplated by us, as probable, and had not been overlooked when we gave to this proposition our decided answer; and further, that we had no powers to negotiate for a loan of money; that our Government had not contemplated such a circumstance in any degree whatever; that if we should stipulate a loan, it would be a perfectly void thing, and would only deceive France, and expose ourselves. M. X. again expatiated on the power and violence of France; he urged the danger of our situation, and pressed the policy of softening them, and of thereby obtaining time. M. X. again returned to the subject of money. Said he, you do not speak to the point; it is money: it is expected that you will offer money. We said that we had spoken to that point very explicitly: we had given an answer. No, said he, you have not: what is your answer? We replied, it is no; no; not a sixpence. He again called our attention to the dangers which threatened our country, and asked, if it would not be prudent, though we might not make a loan to the nation, to interest an influential friend in our favor. He said we ought to consider what men we had to treat with; that they disregarded the justice of our claims, and the reasoning with which we might support them; that they disregarded their own colonies, and considered themselves as perfectly invulnerable with respect to us; that we could only acquire an interest among them by a judicious application of money, and it was for us to consider, whether the situation of our country did not require that these means should be resorted to.

He said that all the members of the Directory were not disposed to receive our money; that Merlin, for instance, was paid from another quarter, and would touch no part of the douceur which was to come from us. We replied, that we had understood that Merlin was paid by the owners of the privateers; and he nodded an assent to the fact. He proceeded to press this subject with vast perseverance. He told us that we had paid money to obtain peace with the Algerines and with the Indians; and that it was doing no more to pay France for peace. To this it was answered, that when our Government commenced a treaty with either Algiers or the Indian tribes, it was understood that money was to form the basis of the treaty, and was its essential article; that the whole nation knew it, and was prepared to expect it as a thing of course; but that in treating with France, our Government had supposed that a proposition, such as he spoke of, would, if made by us, give mortal offence. He asked if our Government did not know that nothing was to be obtained here without money? We replied, that our Government had not even suspected such a state of things. He appeared surprised at it, and said, that there was not an American in Paris who could not have given that information. The conversation continued for nearly two hours; and the public and private advance of money was pressed and re-pressed in a variety of forms. At length M. X. said that he did not blame us; that our determination was certainly proper, if we could keep it; but he showed decidedly his opinion to be that we could not keep it. He said that he would communicate, as nearly as he could, our conversation to the Minister, or to M. Y. to be given by him to the Minister; we are not certain which. We then separated. On the 22d of October, M. Z., a French gentleman of respectable character, informed Mr. Gerry, that M. Talleyrand, Minister of Foreign Relations, who professed to be well-disposed towards the United States, had expected to have seen the American Ministers frequently in their private capacities; and to have conferred with them individually on the object of their mission; and had authorized M. Z. to make this communication to Mr. Gerry. The latter sent for his colleagues; and a conference was held with M. Z. on the subject; in which General Pinckney and General Marshall expressed their opinions, that, not being acquainted with M. Talleyrand, they could not, with propriety, call on him; but that, according to the custom of France, he might expect this of Mr. Gerry, from a previous acquaintance in America. This Mr. Gerry reluctantly complied with on the 23d, and with M. Z. called on M. Talleyrand, who, not being then at his office, appointed the 28th for the interview. After the first introduction, M. Talleyrand began the conference. He said that the Directory had passed an arrêt, which he offered for perusal, in which they had demanded of the Envoys an explanation of some part, and a reparation for others, of the President's speech to Congress, of the 16th of May: he was sensible, he said, that difficulties would exist on the part of the Envoys relative to this demand; but that by their offering money, he thought he could prevent the effect of the arrêt. M. Z., at the request of Mr. Gerry, having stated that the Envoys have no such powers, M. Talleyrand replied, they can, in such a case, take a power on themselves; and proposed that they should make a loan. A courier arriving at this moment from Italy, and M. Talleyrand appearing impatient to read the letters, Mr. Gerry took leave of him immediately. He followed to the door, and desired M. Z. to repeat to Mr. Gerry what he, M. Talleyrand, had said to him. Mr. Gerry then returned to his quarters with M. Z., took down the particulars of this interview, as before stated, sent for Gens. Pinckney and Marshall, and read it to them in the presence of M. Z., who confirmed it. Generals Pinckney and Marshall then desired M. Z. to inform M. Talleyrand that they had nothing to add to this conference, and did not wish that the arrêt might be delayed on their account.

OCTOBER 29.

M. X. again called upon us. He said M. Talleyrand was extremely anxious to be of service to us, and had requested that one more effort should be made to induce us to enable him to be so. A great deal of the same conversation which had passed at our former interviews was repeated. He said that, without this money, we should be obliged to quit Paris; and that we ought to consider the consequences: the property of the Americans would be confiscated, and their vessels in port embargoed. We told him that, unless there was a hope of a real reconciliation, these evils could not be prevented by us; and the little delay that we might obtain would only increase them; that our mission had induced many of our countrymen to trust their vessels in the ports of France; and if we remained at Paris, that very circumstance would increase their number; and, consequently, the injury which our countrymen would sustain, if France could permit herself so to violate her own engagements and the laws of nations. He expressed a wish, that M. Y. should see us once more. We told him that a visit from M. Y., as a private gentleman, would always be agreeable to us; but if he came only with the expectation that we should stipulate advances of money, without previously establishing a solid and permanent reconciliation, he might save himself the trouble of the application, because it was a subject we had considered maturely, and on which we were immovable. He parted with us, saying, if that was the case, it would not be worth while for M. Y. to come. In the evening, while General Pinckney and General Marshall were absent, M. Y. and M. X. called, and were invited by Mr. Gerry to breakfast with us the next morning.

OCTOBER 30.

Immediately after breakfast the subject was resumed. M. Y. spoke without interruption for near an hour. He said that he was desirous of making a last effort to serve us, by proposing something which might accommodate the differences between the two nations; that what he was now about to mention, had not, by any means, the approbation of the Directory; nor could M. Talleyrand undertake further than to make from us the proposition to the Directory, and use his influence for its success; that, last week, M. Talleyrand could not have ventured to have offered such propositions; but that his situation had been very materially changed by the peace with the Emperor; by that peace he had acquired, in a high degree, the confidence of the Directory, and now possessed great influence with that body; that he was also closely connected with Buonaparte and the Generals of the Army in Italy, and was to be considered as firmly fixed in his post, at least for five or six months; that, under these circumstances, he could undertake to offer, in our behalf, propositions which, before this increase of influence, he could not have hazarded. M. Y. then called our attention to our own situation, and to the force France was capable of bringing to bear upon us. He said that we were the best judges of our capacity to resist, so far as depended on our own resources, and ought not to deceive ourselves on so interesting a subject. The fate of Venice was one which might befall the United States.

The American Ministers determined to have no more of these conferences, and broke them off altogether; but shortly after, they were approached indirectly and in a new way, as thus detailed by General Pinckney to his Government:

On the 14th of December, M. X. called on me, in order, as he said, to gain some information relative to some lands in * * *, purchased by * * *, for whom * * *. Soon afterwards, General Marshall came in, and then Mr. Gerry's carriage drove into the yard. Here is Mr. Gerry, said General Marshall. I am glad of it, said M. X., for I wished to meet all of you gentlemen, to inform you that M. Y. had another message to you from M. Talleyrand. I immediately expressed my surprise at it, as M. Talleyrand, M. Y., and he, all knew our determination to have no further communication on the subject of our mission with persons not officially authorized. He replied, that determination was made six weeks ago; and it was presumed that we had changed our opinion. I said that I had not, and I did not believe my colleagues had. At that moment Mr. Gerry entered the room, and I privately acquainted him with the object of M. X.'s visit. General Marshall, Mr. Gerry, and myself, then withdrew into another room, and immediately agreed to adhere to our former resolution. M. X. was then called in; when I acquainted him, in a few words, with our determination; and Mr. Gerry expatiated more at large on the propriety of our acting in this manner, and on the very unprecedented way in which we had been treated since our arrival.

On the 20th of December, a lady, who is well acquainted with M. Talleyrand, expressed to me her concern that we were still in so unsettled a situation; but, adds she, why will you not lend us money? If you would but make us a loan, all matters would be adjusted; and, she added, when you were contending for your revolution, we lent you money. I mentioned the very great difference there was between the situation of the two countries at that period and the present, and the very different circumstances under which the loan was made us, and the loan was now demanded from us. She replied, we do not make a demand; we think it more delicate that the offer should come from you: but M. Talleyrand has mentioned to me (who am surely not in his confidence) the necessity of your making us a loan; and I know that he has mentioned it to two or three others; and that you have been informed of it; and I will assure you that, if you remain here six months longer, you would not advance a single step further in your negotiations without a loan. If that is the case, I replied, we may as well go away now. Why that, possibly, said she, might lead to a rupture, which you had better avoid; for we know we have a very considerable party in America, who are strongly in our interest.

The American Envoys having repulsed all these attempts, and refused to listen longer to these intermediaries, two of them (Messrs. Pinckney and Marshall) were furnished with their passports, and left France. Mr. Gerry remained, and underwent many attempts to be inveigled into a separate negotiation, all of which failed. In the mean time, (for half a year had now been consumed in this intrigue,) the despatches of the American Ministers had become public, exciting every where odium upon the Directorial Government. The occasion required them to say something, which Talleyrand undertook, and had the "unparalleled effrontery," as expressed by Mr. Pickering, to affect ignorance of the whole affair, to demand the names of the enigmatical personages, (X., Y., Z.,) and of the "woman" that reinforced them; and to pronounce the whole the imposture of some intriguers taking advantage of the state of isolation in which the Ministers lived to try and wheedle them out of money. Upon this disavowal, Mr. Pickering remarks:

Although the Envoys' despatches, and the facts and circumstances hereinbefore stated, cannot leave a doubt that X., as well as Y. and Z., was well known to Mr. Talleyrand, it will not be amiss to add, that on the 2d of December, X., Y., and Z., dined together at Mr. Talleyrand's, in company with Mr. Gerry; and that, after rising from the table, the money propositions, which had before been made, were repeated, in the room and in the presence, though, perhaps, not in the hearing, of Mr. Talleyrand. Mr. X. put the question to Mr. Gerry in direct terms, either "whether the Envoys would now give the douceur," or "whether they had got the money ready." Mr. Gerry, very justly offended, answered positively in the negative, and the conversation dropped.

Mr. Z., who has avowed himself to be Mr. Hauteval, was the person who first made known to the Envoys the Minister's desire to confer with them individually on the objects of their mission. He it was who first introduced Mr. Gerry to Mr. Talleyrand, and served as the interpreter of their conversations; and in his letter to Mr. Talleyrand, at the close of Mr. Gerry's document, No. 35, he announces himself to be the agent of the Minister, to make communications to the Envoys.

The sensation which these details irresistibly excite is that of astonishment at the unparalleled effrontery of Mr. Talleyrand, in demanding of Mr. Gerry the names of X., Y., and Z., after Y. had accompanied him on a visit to the Minister, with whom the conversation detailed in the printed despatches then passed, and who then assured Mr. Gerry "that the information Mr. Y. had given him was just, and might always be relied on;" after Z. had in the first instance introduced Mr. Gerry to the Minister, and served as their mutual interpreter, and when the conversation between them had also been stated in despatches; and after X., Y., and Z. had all dined together with Mr. Gerry at Mr. Talleyrand's table, on rising from which X. and Y. renewed the proposition about the money! The very circumstances of Mr. Talleyrand's being continued in office after the account of these intrigues had been published to the world is a decisive proof that they were commenced and carried on with the privity and by the secret orders of the Directory. It was to accomplish the object of these intrigues that the American Envoys were kept at Paris unreceived six months after their credentials had been laid before the Directory; and it was only because they were superior to those intrigues, and that no hopes remained of wheedling or terrifying them into a compliance, that two of them were then sent away, and with marks of insult and contempt.

The Directory at that time were: Barras, Merlin, Siéyes, Gohier, and Roger Ducos,--whose government Buonaparte soon after overthrew, and drove the two first from France, with the epithet "rotten" applied to them. The American Ministers were censured by some of their contemporaries for listening to these subaltern agents, but they had valid reasons for their conduct: first, to avoid the further threatened depredations on American commerce; and next, to unite their fellow-citizens at home by exposing the corruption of the (then) French Government.

SIXTH CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION.

BEGUN AT THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, DECEMBER 2, 1799.

LIST OF MEMBERS.

SENATORS.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us