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

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

Mr. DANA said that he did not know, nor had he heard from any quarter, that there was any negotiation depending respecting the cession of Louisiana. The President has informed us of the fact. All that the resolution asks are official documents respecting the cession, with the stipulations, circumstances, and conditions, under which it is to be delivered up. He could not see the impropriety of such a request. But if the President deem it improper to furnish the information, we do not assert our right to demand it. There are two views in which this information may be important; that which may throw light on the boundaries of the province as ceded; and another, whether the province is to be ceded to the French in the condition it shall be in when actually delivered up, or whether subject to the conditions in which it was held according to treaty by Spain. This is important information to guide our deliberations; information not depending upon an existing negotiation, but upon a negotiation decided.

Mr. GRISWOLD called for the taking of the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMILIE was in favor of the widest publicity in every case where it would not prove injurious; and there were, in his opinion, very few cases in which it ought not to take place. He could not, however, withhold one remark; that gentlemen should object to the mode now proposed, a mode similar to that adopted in like cases, greatly surprised him. [He here quoted the proceedings of the House on a call for papers in the case of the British Treaty.] That case furnished a precedent, by which it appeared that a motion for information was referred to a Committee of the Whole for a more full discussion.

Mr. DAVIS observed that, as he lived in that district of country most materially affected by the subject before the House, he thought it proper to express his opinion on the motion. He said he did not know what reason could be assigned for the motion, but that expressed by the gentleman from Virginia, to go into a Committee of the Whole in private, to propose certain resolutions that required secrecy.

Mr. D. said it had been his purpose yesterday to have submitted certain resolutions, which he should have done, but for the motion of the gentleman from Connecticut calling for information; after it was made he was willing to wait until all information was obtained that could be furnished. Suppose we go into a Committee of the Whole, what light can we expect from their deliberation? We can gain nothing. But let the call for information prevail; let us draw from the President such information as he may think it proper to give; and let us then refer that information to a Committee of the Whole, and they will be able to deliberate wisely. What use can it be to take a step from which no benefit can be derived? As to the call on the President, he will not give us any thing that is improper. How does the gentleman from Virginia know what light this information may throw on the subject? Is he prepared to say it will throw no light on this subject? If he is, Mr. D. said he himself was not. He might have ways of acquiring the secrets of the Cabinet; but for himself he had no such opportunities. Mr. D. concluded by declaring himself against the motion.

Mr. RANDOLPH was compelled again reluctantly to trespass on the indulgence of the House, to assure them, and the gentleman from Kentucky, that his motion did not comprehend a refusal to agree to the call for information made by the gentleman from Connecticut. After going into committee, they might, perhaps, either by a unanimous vote, or by that of a majority, agree to the resolution. Benefit might arise, and no mischief possibly could, from going into a Committee of the Whole.

Mr. HUGER must acknowledge that he could not understand the object of those who were for refusing this information. If they had any objection to asking the information, let them inform us what it is. And if they have no objection, why go into a Committee of the Whole; which, if gone into, must be with closed doors? The question alluded to in the British Treaty was very different from this. In that case, one part of the House thought they had a right to demand the information of the Executive, and that he was bound to deliver it; while the other part of the House neither acknowledged the right to demand, nor the obligation to obey. The present case was entirely different. We ask nothing but what the Executive shall think proper to furnish, we are as cautious as we can possibly be; we even go so far as to put words in the President's mouth, if he shall think there is any impropriety in giving the information. Gentlemen certainly have confidence in the Executive, that he will tell us if the information is improper to be furnished.

Mr. H. could not but express his surprise that the House had received no official documents on this important subject. He could not comprehend why Congress should not know the contents of the convention. If proper, we ought to have these documents; and if not proper, we ought to have a reason for it. The country was in a state of serious alarm; and it might have a bad effect if something was not immediately done, and a disposition exhibited to act, in case it should prove necessary.

Mr. SMILIE said the gentleman, from South Carolina (Mr. HUGER) was incorrect, when he stated that, in the case of the British Treaty one set of gentlemen had contended for the right of the House to demand papers. If this had been so, the resolution then proposed would have been peremptory; whereas the fact was that it was qualified by an exception of such papers as the President might consider it improper to furnish. [Mr. SMILIE here quoted the journals, which confirmed his remark.]

Mr. GREGG said it would be allowed that this was an important resolution, which related to an important subject. This was, he believed, the first instance in which a resolution allowed to be important, had been refused a reference to a Committee of the Whole. On this principle his vote would be decided. If the motion did not prevail he should then move that the resolution should be printed before it was acted upon.

Mr. GRISWOLD would not object to the reference if the object were to obtain a more full discussion of the resolution. He was generally in favor of such references, as the discussion was conducted in a Committee of the Whole on a freer scale than in the House. On this principle it was, that the call for papers respecting the British Treaty was referred to a Committee of the Whole. But it had not been referred to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

He, however, understood the object of gentlemen to be to refer the resolution to a Committee of the Whole, for the purpose of discussing it with closed doors. If that were the object, he should oppose it. For, he would say, nothing of secrecy could arise out of the discussion of this resolution. He did not wish that a resolution so important should be referred to a secret committee. If gentlemen mean to deny us this information, let them deny it in public. Let them not do it in a secret committee. Surely they can have no such unworthy motives.

As to the case of 1796, under the British Treaty, the ground of opposition was this: It was claimed that the House had a right to decide upon a treaty, and to establish this point papers were called for. And on the decision of the question, on the granting or refusing the application, depended the establishment of the right of the House to participate in the treaty-making power. This right was denied by those who voted against the call. But in this case there was no difference as to the power of the House. The President in his Message had expressly stated that the cession would have weight in the deliberations of the Legislature. This, then, being a case in which it is proper to legislate, shall we go to work blindfold, without having all the information possessed by the Executive, that it is proper we should possess? What do we know respecting the cession? Though made for more than one year, we have no information, except that contained in the Message, which barely mentions the fact. For these reasons Mr. G. hoped the motion would not prevail, as its avowed object was not for a more full discussion, but for the purpose of going into a secret committee. If gentlemen mean to deny us the information we ask, let the denial be public; and if they grant it, there is no reason against their doing it publicly.

Mr. RANDOLPH.--The gentleman from Connecticut tells us that this subject is referred to in the Message of the President, and that on it we are called by him to legislate. That subject has been referred to a Committee of the Whole; and yet, he says, it is improper to refer this resolution to the same committee. This may be logic; but I confess, if it is, I do not understand it. He says if the object of reference be for a more ample discussion, he will be in favor of it; but not so, if it be to send it to a secret committee. Does the gentleman mean to insinuate that the debates of this body are for the entertainment of the ladies who honor us with their presence; or that as soon as our doors are shut, our ears also are shut to all useful and necessary information? If the doors shall be closed, cannot we still agree to the resolution? However gentlemen may persist in the course they have taken, I shall not permit the warmth of their remarks, or that of my own feelings, to betray me into a debate on points which the House have determined shall be discussed with closed doors. For my own part, I am ready to declare that I have arguments to advance, that it is not my wish to advance with open doors.

Mr. BACON said the resolution simply called for information respecting the cession of the province of Louisiana to the French. He did not see the end to be answered by committing it. Is there any doubt that we shall not stand in need of information when we come to discuss points connected with this subject? It appeared to him they would. He was therefore against the reference.

Mr. S. SMITH.--The gentleman from Connecticut has candidly admitted that it is customary in such cases to make a reference; that he is not in favor of the reference being made to a committee with shut doors; but if the object were to obtain a free discussion, he would not object to it. He is told that a full and free discussion cannot be had without such a reference, and yet he persists in his hostility to the motion. He had been told so by the mover, and common sense would have told him so at first; yet he is for taking advantage of the mover, and for shutting out the arguments he has to urge. The gentleman is mistaken in his statement of the motives of the different sides of the House in the discussion on a call for papers, in 1796, when he represents one side as claiming a right to participate in the treaty-making power. He recollected it had been charged upon them; but they had denied it. We contended, said Mr. S., that when a treaty was formed, appropriating a large sum of money, we had a right to appropriate or not to appropriate the money; but we never assumed the right to say whether the treaty was concluded or not. Afterwards, gentlemen themselves, if he recollected right, moved a resolution that it was expedient to carry the treaty into effect, by which they did admit the right of the House. Mr. S. said he had no previous knowledge of what the gentleman from Virginia meant by his motion; he might perhaps wish to amend the resolution; but when he says he has arguments that he cannot urge without shut doors, he trusted that indulgence would be allowed him, or there would be a denial of justice.

Mr. DANA said, there was a magic of language, to those unaccustomed to parliamentary language, in the House resolving itself into a committee, and that committee returning itself back into the House, both composed of the same members, that made the proceedings of public bodies appear ridiculous. But there were substantial benefits derived from the observance of these forms. There was a fuller and freer discussion; every member spoke as often as he chose, and they enjoyed the Speaker's advice. There were, besides, two discussions and decisions, instead of one. He admitted, therefore, the propriety of such procedure in all cases where there was an important principle involved. But in this instance there was no important principle to discuss. There was an important principle involved in the famous question of 1796. It was therefore right to refer it to a Committee of the Whole. He did not know what principle was to be discussed on this reference, unless it was the want of information. This he most sensibly felt; and those gentlemen who also felt it, might, he thought, be indulged by those who possess all information on the subject. If any gentleman, however, will say that any important principle is involved in the resolution, he was ready to go into Committee of the Whole, though not with closed doors.

The question was then taken by yeas and nays on Mr. RANDOLPH'S motion, to refer the resolution of Mr. GRISWOLD to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and carried--yeas 49, nays 39, as follows:

YEAS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, Theodorus Bailey, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William Butler, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard Cutts, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Joseph Heister, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Michael Leib, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, John Randolph, jr., John Smilie, John Smith, (of New York,) John Smith, (of Virginia,) Josiah Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stewart, John Taliaferro, jr., David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abraham Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, and Thomas Wynns.

NAYS.--John Bacon, Phanuel Bishop, Thos. Boude, John Campbell, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Thomas T. Davis, John Dennis, Wm. Dickson, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Seth Hastings, William Helms, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer Mattoon, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Morris, James Mott, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, William Shepard, John Cotton Smith, John Stanley, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, Thos. Tillinghast, George B. Upham, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

On motion of Mr. GRISWOLD, the House immediately went into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. RANDOLPH rose, and observed that he held in his hands certain resolutions connected with the Message of the President, relative to the late proceedings at New Orleans, the discussion of which had been ordered to be carried on with closed doors. He asked the decision of the question, whether, previously to offering his resolutions, the doors ought not to be closed? The resolutions he meant to submit grew out of the Message. If the House, however, insisted upon their being then read, he had no indisposition to read them.

The CHAIRMAN considered the committee as incompetent to clearing the galleries. He thought it must be the act of the House.

Mr. DAWSON inquired if the same rules that applied to the House, did not also apply to Committees of the Whole?

Mr. RANDOLPH called for the reading of the President's Message respecting New Orleans.

Mr. GRISWOLD said there was other business, not requiring secrecy, referred to the committee.

Mr. RANDOLPH repeated his call for the reading of the President's Message.

The CHAIRMAN asked what Message?

Mr. RANDOLPH replied, the confidential Message.

Mr. GRISWOLD said that could not be read with open doors.

The CHAIRMAN said the doors could not be closed without an order of the House.

Mr. S. SMITH observed that it had been customary to clear the galleries before the House went into committee. To save time, he would move that the committee should rise, in order to obtain an order of the House to that effect.

Mr. GRISWOLD hoped the committee would not rise. The business he had proposed was of a public, not of a private nature. It was also of a pressing nature, and ought not to be postponed for any other business.

Mr. DANA hoped, indeed, for the honor of the House, they would not exhibit the spectacle of wasting time in going into committee and then coming out of it without doing any thing, but would proceed to the public business.

Mr. RUTLEDGE.--The gentleman from Virginia holds in his hands resolutions that require secrecy. After deciding on the motion of the gentleman from Connecticut, he will not be precluded from offering these resolutions.

Mr. EUSTIS said if the House had resolved itself into a committee for the express purpose of taking into consideration the resolution of the gentleman from Connecticut, it would be proper to give it the preference over any other business; and in that case he should have been as ready at this moment as at any other to offer his objections to it. But if it were understood that the House had resolved itself generally into a Committee on the state of the Union, one gentleman from Virginia having made a motion, and another gentleman from Connecticut having afterwards made another motion, that made by the last gentleman being junior in point of time ought to be last attended to. The other gentleman's motion was first in course; and if the gentleman who offered it desired the galleries to be cleared, he had an undoubted right to an order to that effect.

Mr. MACON (Speaker) remarked that a Committee of the whole House was one committee, and a Committee of the whole House on the state of the Union another committee. They were distinct committees. The last was never formed for special purposes. He did not recollect that this had ever been done. Whereas the other committee was always formed for a special purpose. The difficulty in this case had arisen from referring the confidential Message to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. He believed it would be well to rise, and separate the two subjects that had been referred to the Committee on the state of the Union.

Mr. GRISWOLD did not understand what the gentleman from Massachusetts meant by priority of motion. The Chairman had determined that the motion of the gentleman from Virginia was not in order, as it could not be submitted to a public committee. After this disposition of that motion, none remained before the committee other than his own. In point of priority, he rose, therefore, to have his resolution then decided upon. With regard to the proposition of the honorable Speaker, he did not see any reason for it. Was it not as well to decide on this resolution in this committee as in any other committee? Why, then, rise for the purpose of referring it to a secret committee?

Mr. S. SMITH said, the gentleman from Massachusetts meant by his remarks that the Message of the President had precedence. The gentleman from Connecticut was only now urging what had been decided against him in the House. He thinks he has now an advantage, and presses it.

Mr. S. said, he had not a doubt that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. RUTLEDGE) is very sincere in his opinion, that, if we will agree to submit all power to them, they will indulge us by agreeing to certain subordinate points. But gentlemen will excuse us. We have already taken great pains to divest them of power, and we are not yet disposed to return it into their hands.

We are of opinion that the Message ought to be discussed with closed doors; that is the intention of the motion; let us not take advantage of those who have arguments to offer which they wish not to submit with open doors; let the committee rise, and the galleries be cleared.

Mr. DANA, in one point, fully agreed with the gentleman from Maryland. They had taken great pains to get power. But he regretted that any political party allusion whatever had been made on this subject. He had supposed it so important, so deeply interesting to all America, that he had hoped all spirit of party would have slept during our deliberations on it; and that we should have shown that we entertained but one sentiment, and were ready, if necessary, to extend one arm in defence of our invaded rights.

Mr. L. R. MORRIS expressed his disagreement with the Speaker on a point of order--

When the question was taken on the rising of the committee, and carried in the affirmative--ayes 49, noes 37.

The committee accordingly rose, and the Chairman reported that they had come to no resolution.

A motion was made to adjourn, on which Mr. GRISWOLD called the yeas and nays; which were--yeas 38, nays 51.

Navigation of the Mississippi.

[SECRET SESSION.]

The House was then cleared of all persons, except the members and the Clerk: Whereupon the House resumed the consideration of a confidential communication from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, received the thirty-first ultimo.

Ordered, That the Committee of the whole House on the state of the Union, to whom was referred the Message of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES of the twenty-second and thirtieth ultimo, be discharged from the consideration thereof; and that the said Message, together with the documents transmitted therewith, be committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

On a motion made and seconded that the House do come to the following resolution:

Resolved, That this House receive, with great sensibility, the information of a disposition in certain officers of the Spanish Government at New Orleans, to obstruct the navigation of the river Mississippi, as secured to the United States by the most solemn stipulations.

That, adhering to the humane and wise policy which ought ever to characterize a free people, and by which the United States have always professed to be governed; willing, at the same time, to ascribe this breach of compact to the unauthorized misconduct of certain individuals, rather than to a want of good faith on the part of His Catholic Majesty; and relying with perfect confidence on the vigilance and wisdom of the Executive, they will wait the issue of such measures as that department of the Government shall have pursued for asserting the rights and vindicating the injuries of the United States; holding it to be their duty, at the same time, to express their unalterable determination to maintain the boundaries, and the rights of navigation and commerce through the river Mississippi, as established by existing treaties.

Ordered, That the said motion be referred to the Committee of the whole House last appointed.

THURSDAY, January 6.

Cession of Louisiana.

[PUBLIC SESSION.]

Mr. GRISWOLD moved that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on his resolution respecting Louisiana.

Mr. DAWSON was opposed to the motion, for reasons before assigned.

Mr. GRISWOLD said the gentleman did not understand what he had proposed. It had been the wish of gentlemen to separate the consideration of his resolution from other subjects referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. For which purpose he had been willing to refer it to a Committee of the Whole. But he was averse to referring it to a secret committee; as he did not perceive its connection with any subject that required secrecy. The discussion on it ought, in his opinion, to be public. It was not necessary for him to repeat that it was of a pressing nature. It respected the obtaining information on a subject, he would say, of greater importance than any which could come before Congress that session. One third of the session was gone, and yet the Legislature had no information before them. He hoped there was no disposition entertained by gentlemen to embarrass this proposition with points unconnected with it. The proposition was extremely simple. Called upon by the President to legislate on the subject of the cession of Louisiana, we do not know the precise state of that cession. To legislate correctly, we want to be informed of all the circumstances. If gentlemen are disposed to deny us this information, let the denial be public. Do not let them refer this motion to a secret committee, where they may deny us the information we ask on reasons which we cannot divulge. Mr. G. concluded by calling for the yeas and nays.

Mr. S. SMITH asked if this were not the precise motion decided yesterday by the House? He thought it had been referred to a Committee of the Whole. He had considered it as having taken that course. When we go into committee the gentlemen will see whether we shall refuse them the information. Perhaps we shall see that it is of such a nature as we ought to possess. He did not himself know how that was; nor did he mean to commit himself by any remarks which he had made. He trusted gentlemen would remember their vote yesterday, and not suffer themselves to be put out of their course by this extraordinary mode of conducting business.

Mr. LOWNDES demanded whether, even if the motion were the same, there was any impropriety in putting it again to-day; and whether it were not perfectly consistent with the rules of order to go into a committee, and take up the resolution? If there ever was a resolution offered to that House which ought to obtain a unanimous vote, it was that of his honorable friend from Connecticut; which proposes simply the calling for such information as the President might see fit to give on a most important subject that had excited the sensibility of the whole nation. The President himself, in his Message, alludes to the subject as one which may require Legislative interposition, and gentlemen persist in refusing us this information. It was a most extraordinary circumstance in the annals of the United States, that, notwithstanding the magnitude of the cession of Louisiana, the length of time since it was made, and the necessary consequence of having a new and powerful neighbor on our frontier, we had yet no official information on the subject. The President in his Message really tells us nothing. He says "the cession of the Spanish province of Louisiana to France, which took place in the course of the late war,"--this we had been told long before by the public prints, and in a discussion before the British Parliament--but he goes on and says--"will, if carried into effect, make a change in the aspect of our foreign relations, which will doubtless have just weight in any deliberations of the Legislature connected with that subject." To this the understanding of every schoolboy is competent. It was really surprising that gentlemen should wish to reject such a call as this. It was not probable that the President had been so unmindful of his duty as not to have demanded an explanation through our Ministers at the Court of Spain, or at Paris. If he has this information, and it is of a nature proper to be known to us, we ought immediately to obtain it, that we may not be slumbering at our posts on an infraction of our rights.

Mr. L. suspected gentlemen had not correctly attended to the resolution. It only requests the President to lay such information before the House as he may think proper. Are gentlemen then afraid to trust to the discretion of the President? Are they apprehensive lest he should communicate that which is improper? He hoped they had more confidence in the Executive. He thought this call should precede any resolutions. He could not disconnect the shutting of the port of New Orleans from the cession of Louisiana. There appeared to be a natural connection between these two events. He was afraid that the shutting the port was ominous of the disposition of Spain to cede the province to France, independently of any encumbrances she may have imposed upon herself. He was afraid France in this transaction would consult her interests and convenience, and not our rights. We well knew the grounds on which that nation interpreted treaties, and we had no reason from that knowledge to repress our fears. An observation of the gentleman from Virginia had given him great uneasiness. That gentleman had told us, if Spain had ceded Louisiana to France she had a right to cede it. This Mr. L. was not prepared to say. He did not think Spain had a right to give to America what she pleased; much less give her a new neighbor, under circumstances different from those by which she held the province. He was not, however, then disposed to discuss the abstract question involved in this subject. He trusted the resolution calling for information would be agreed to. The House need not fear that, in asking this information, they would not speak the sense of the people; and, if other measures were necessary, they would also, in adopting them, speak the sense of the nation.

Mr. BACON said it was not uncommon to hear of extraordinary occurrences in that House. One mode of reasoning yesterday had great weight, that asserted a connection between the resolution and the subject of New Orleans, which had been taken up and referred to a committee with closed doors. One subject appeared to him to be not only nearly connected, but to form an essential part of the other. For what purpose this resolution should be separated from the general subject, he could not conceive. Why do we want information, but that we may have a more clear view of the general subject? He could not see any detached purpose for which it was required. Why then divide it into little detached parts? Until he could hear reasons for such a division, he should be against the reference.

Mr. HEMPHILL observed that the gentleman was mistaken in what passed yesterday. The gentleman from Maryland had first stated the subjects as similar; that ground was afterwards abandoned, and they were considered as distinct. There were only two points connected with the subject before the House in which documents could be required or secrecy necessary. The one related to the cession of Louisiana; the other to the shutting the port of New Orleans. The former, though not referred to a committee, was as important as the latter, which had been referred. In the last case we deemed it important to have and request papers. The resolution before them related to the first point; it had been deemed of sufficient importance to refer it to a committee, and this afforded good reasons for calling for papers respecting the cession. He begged leave to refer to the Message, which says the cession "will, if carried into effect, make a change in the aspect of our foreign relations, which will doubtless have just weight in any deliberations of the Legislature connected with that subject." The House will perceive that the language of the Message is hypothetical--the words are, "if carried into effect." How then can we deliberate on this subject, unless we know the degree of probability there is, that it will be carried into effect? A knowledge of the circumstances necessary to ascertain this, appeared to be absolutely indispensable.

If likely to be carried into effect, the next question is, as to the time when it will be carried into effect. When these two inquiries were solved, another naturally offered itself: Is France to take the province subject to existing treaties, or as she shall receive it at the time of delivery? All these circumstances it was necessary for Congress to know, before they could act correctly.

What necessity there was for secrecy in the discussion of this resolution, Mr. HEMPHILL could not conceive. All the information we have on the subject is contained in the President's Message, which every person in the United States knows as well as we do. It appeared to him that when their deliberations turned on facts which every body knew, they ought to be public. His ideas of secrecy were these: that policy might require certain facts to be kept secret for a time; but, when made known, their arguments on them ought not to be secret. In this opinion he was strengthened by the rule of the House. [Mr. H. here read the rule on that point, which prescribes that the galleries shall be cleared whenever a confidential communication shall be received from the President, or whenever the Speaker or any other member shall inform the House that he has communications to make which he conceives ought to be kept secret.] Mr. H. asked on which branch of this rule could the arguments of gentlemen be predicated? The President had not sent them a confidential communication, nor had any member said he had communications to make which he conceived ought to be kept secret. The information referred to in the rule meant facts, and not arguments drawn from facts. He concluded by saying he saw no occasion whatever for discussing this proposition with closed doors.

Mr. DAWSON.--The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. LOWNDES) says there is a material connection between the shutting the port of New Orleans and the cession of Louisiana. After, then, that part of the discussion which related to New Orleans had been ordered to be conducted with shut doors, how proper was it in him to introduce into debate a subject intimately connected with it? His opposition to the present motion did not arise from an indisposition fully to discuss the subject to which it referred; but from an indisposition to delay the discussion of the motion offered by his colleague. Against the present motion he should vote, because it promised nothing useful, and might be mischievous. We have been told that this subject is important and pressing. That it was important he felt; but he did not believe it was pressing. He could say, if the time should ever arrive when it became that House to act, this was not the time. When the time did arrive, he was prepared to act. Gentlemen were very anxious on this subject. He rejoiced to witness their anxiety. But he and his friends were not now to hear who were the friends of the Western country. The people of that country doubted not the protection of the Government. They were warmly attached to the Government, and knew that every thing would be done, that ought to be done, to protect and defend their rights.

Mr. BACON said, if he understood the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. HEMPHILL,) he perfectly agreed with him in opinion, that this resolution was connected with the subject of New Orleans. He agreed with him as to their inseparable connection. But the only difference was that they inferred opposite consequences from the same premises. He, Mr. B., contended that the resolution made a part of the same general subject, and ought not to be divided from it. They say it ought to be divided.

Mr. HEMPHILL, replied that he had spoken as plainly as he could. He had said the subjects were distinct.

Mr. GODDARD.--The gentleman from Massachusetts yesterday told us the call for information ought to be public, though the information itself should be secret. This reasoning had been satisfactory to him then; he had hoped it would have also proved so to-day. But it appears that he is now for sending us to a secret committee. Mr. G. said in his opinion, the call ought to be public, whatever the nature of the information might be. This information gentlemen will either deny or grant. They say it is not to be denied. Why then go into a committee? And if granted, why not grant it without assigning reasons, as well as with assigning them? Are we to be told by the gentleman from Virginia, there is no occasion for this call; that we have information enough? How does that honorable gentleman get his information? If from the cabinet, are we, the representatives of the people, to obtain it from him? Surely this will be degrading to our characters. We may believe it is true as coming from him, but, as representatives, we should spurn at receiving it in such a channel. We want official information, but gentlemen say they want to go into secret committee on this resolution. What will be the good of this? Though he could not say what was done in secret yesterday, he might say what had not been done. They had done nothing; and if they went into secret session again, the consequence would be the same.

Mr. RANDOLPH felt extremely reluctant to rise in this stage of the discussion, but he deemed it time to repel insinuations so frequently thrown out as perhaps to gain some credit, if they were permitted to pass entirely unnoticed. We are averse to take up the motion of the gentleman from Connecticut, and wherefore? Because, as our opponents would fain have it believed, we are insensible to the vast interest affected by the obstruction of the Mississippi? No, sir, because we are alive to this delicate and momentous subject; because we wish to act upon it; because we wish to go into committee on the confidential Message of the Executive; because the information required by the motion before you is not necessary to determine us in the course which we ought, and, I trust, will pursue; and because these preliminary questions, whatever be their object, are, in effect, only calculated to retard and to embarrass the decision of this House on this great question. Sir, I am content that gentlemen should repeat after each other the trite observations which have been so often reiterated of the magnitude of the object in question. I am content that they should make the best possible display of their ardor on this occasion. But wherefore this exhibition of a zeal so inordinate as to arrogate to itself all sensibility to the national welfare? Since gentlemen insist upon it, since they provoke the discussion, I must request to be indulged in some remarks on the history of this subject. And in reply to the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. GODDARD,) I must be permitted to observe that such of my information as may have been derived from the Executive is equally accessible to every member of this House, and I believe to every reputable citizen in the Union, who chooses to apply for it. That, however, which I am about to present, is derived from a source accessible to the whole world. It is to be found in a document of inestimable value, (the debates of the Virginia Convention in 1788,) and might truly be said to be official. It is an account given in his official character of member of Congress, and under the old confederation, by that able and eminent man, that faithful and illustrious public servant, the late Governor of Virginia, to the Convention of that State, at their requisition. At his own suggestion the Legislature of the State had declined to insist upon it. To the Convention it was given, (however reluctantly,) as to a paramount authority. [Here Mr. E. read Mr. Monroe's speech.][73]

"After some desultory conversation, Mr. MONROE spoke as follows: Mr. Chairman--My conduct respecting the transactions of Congress upon this interesting subject, since my return to the State, has been well known to many worthy gentlemen here. I have been often called upon before this, in a public line, and particularly in the last Assembly, whilst I was present, for information in regard to these transactions; but have heretofore declined it, and for reasons that were held satisfactory. Being amenable, upon the principles of the Federal compact, to the Legislature, for my conduct in Congress, it cannot be doubted, if required, it was my duty to obey their directions; but that honorable body thought it best to dispense with such demand. The right in this Assembly is unquestionably more complete, having power paramount to that; but even here I could wish it had not been exerted as I understand it to be, by going into committee for that purpose. Before, however, I enter into this subject, I cannot but observe, it has given me pain to hear it treated by honorable gentlemen in a manner that has appeared not altogether free from exception. For they have not gone into it fully, and given a proper view of the transaction in every part, but of those only which preceded, and were subsequent to that, which had been the particular object of inquiry; a conduct that has seemed too much calculated to make an impression favorable to their wishes in the present instance. But, in making this observation, I owe it to those gentlemen to declare, that it is my opinion such omission has proceeded, not from intention, but their having forgotten facts, or to some cause not obvious to me, and which I make no doubt they will readily explain.

"The policy of this State, respecting this river, has always been the same. It has contemplated but one object, the opening it for the use of the inhabitants, whose interest depended on it; and in this she has, in my opinion, shown her wisdom and magnanimity. I may, I believe, with propriety say, that all the measures that have at any time been taken by Congress for that purpose, were adopted at the instance of this State. There was a time, it is true, sir, when even this State, in some measure, abandoned the object, by authorizing its cession to the Court of Spain. But let us take all circumstances into view, as they were at that time, and I am persuaded it will by no means show a departure from this liberal and enlightened system of policy, although it may manifest an accommodation to the exigencies which pressed on us at the time. The Southern States were overrun, and in possession of the enemy. The governments of South Carolina and Georgia were prostrate, and opposition there at an end. North Carolina made but a feeble resistance; and Virginia herself was greatly harassed by the enemy in force at that time in the heart of the country, and by impressments for her own and the defence of the Southern States. In addition to this, the finances of the United States were in a deplorable condition, if not totally exhausted; and France, our ally, seemed anxious for peace; and as the means of bringing the war to a more happy and speedy conclusion, the object of this cession was the hopes of uniting Spain in it with all her forces. If I recollect aright, too, at this moment, the Minister of the United States, at the Court of Madrid, informed Congress of the difficulty he found in prevailing upon that Court to acknowledge our independence, or take any measure in our favor, suggested the jealousy with which it viewed our settlements in the Western country, and the probability of better success, provided we would cede the navigation of this river, as the consideration. The latter circumstances were made known to the Legislature, and they had their weight. All inferior objects must yield to the safety of the society itself. A resolution passed to that effect. An act of Congress likewise passed; and the Minister of the United States had full authority to relinquish this valuable right to that Court, upon the condition above stated. But what was the issue of this proposition? Was any treaty made with Spain that obtained any acknowledgment of our independence, although at war with Great Britain; and such acknowledgment would have cost her nothing? Was a loan of money accomplished? In short, does it appear that even Spain herself thought it an object of any importance? So soon as the war ended, this resolution was rescinded. The power to make such a treaty was revoked. So that this system of policy was departed from, only for a short time, for the most important object that can be conceived, and resumed again as soon as it possibly could be.

"After the peace, it became the business of Congress to investigate the relation of these States to the different powers of the earth, in a more extensive view than they had hitherto done, and particularly in the commercial line; and to make arrangements for entering into treaties with them on such terms as might be mutually beneficial for each party. As the result of the deliberations of that day, it was resolved, 'That commercial treaties be formed, if possible, with said powers, those of Europe in particular, Spain included, upon similar principles; and three Commissioners, Mr. Adams, Mr. Franklin, and Mr. Jefferson, be appointed for that purpose.' So that an arrangement for a treaty of commerce with Spain had already been taken. Whilst these powers were in force, a representative from Spain arrived, authorized to treat with the United States on the interfering claims of the two nations, respecting the Mississippi, and the boundaries, and other concerns, wherein they were respectively interested. A similar commission was given to the honorable Secretary of Foreign Affairs, on the part of the United States, with these ultimata, 'That he enter into no treaty, compact, or convention whatever, with the said representative of Spain, which did not stipulate our right to the navigation of the Mississippi, and the boundaries as established in our treaty with Great Britain.' And thus the late negotiation commenced, under auspices, as I supposed, very favorable to the wishes of the United States; for Spain had become sensible of the propriety of cultivating the friendship of these States. Knowing our claim to the navigation of the river, she had sent a Minister hither principally to treat on that point; and the time would not be remote when, under the increasing population of the country, the inhabitants would be able to open it without our assistance or her consent. These circumstances being considered, was it not presumable she intended to make a merit of her concession to our wishes, and to agree to an accommodation upon that subject, that would not only be satisfactory, but highly pleasing to the United States? But what was the issue of this negotiation? How was it terminated? Has it forwarded the particular object in view, or otherwise promoted the interests and the harmony of the States, or any of them! Eight or ten months elapsed without any communications of its progress to Congress. At length a letter was received from the Secretary, stating that difficulties had arisen in his negotiation with the representative of Spain, which, in his opinion, should be so managed as that even their existence should remain a secret for the present; and proposing that a committee be appointed with full power to direct and instruct him in every case relative to the proposed treaty. As the only ultimata appointed in his instructions respected the Mississippi and the boundaries, it readily occurred that these occasioned the difficulties alluded to, and were those he wished to remove. And, for many reasons, this appeared, at least to me, an extraordinary proposition. By the Articles of Confederation nine States are necessary to enter into treaties. The instruction is the foundation of the treaty; for if it is formed agreeable thereto, good faith requires that it be ratified. The practice of Congress has also been always, I believe, in conformity to this idea. The instructions under which our commercial treaties have been made, were carried by nine States. Those under which the Secretary now acted were passed by nine States. The proposition, then, would be, that the powers which, under the constitution, nine States only were competent to, should be transferred to a committee, and the object thereby to disengage himself from the ultimata already mentioned in his existing instructions. In this light the subject was taken up, and on these principles discussed. The Secretary, Mr. Jay, being called before Congress to explain the difficulties mentioned in his letter, presented to their view the project of a treaty of commerce, containing, as he supposed, advantageous stipulations in our favor, in that line; in consideration for which we were to contract to forbear the use of the navigation of the river Mississippi for the term of 25 or 30 years, and earnestly advised our adopting it. The subject now took a decided form; there was no further ambiguity in it, and we were surprised, for reasons that have been already given, that he had taken up the subject of commerce at all. We were greatly surprised it should form the principal object of the project, and that a partial or temporary sacrifice of that interest, for the advancement of which the negotiation was set on foot, should be the consideration proposed to be given for it. But the honorable Secretary urged, that it was necessary to stand well with Spain; that the commercial project was a beneficial one, and should not be neglected; that a stipulation to forbear the use contained an acknowledgment, on her part, of the right in the United States; that we were in no condition to take the river, and therefore gave nothing for it; with other reasons which, perhaps, I have forgotten; for the subject in detail has nearly escaped my memory. We differed with the honorable Secretary, almost in every respect. We admitted, indeed, the propriety of standing well with Spain, but supposed we might accomplish that end, at least, on equal terms. We considered the stipulation to forbear the use, as a species of barter, that should never be countenanced in the councils of the American States, since it might tend to the destruction of the society itself; for a forbearance of the use of one river, might lead to more extensive consequences; to that of the Chesapeake, the Potomac, or any other of the rivers that emptied into it. In short, that the councils of the confederacy should be conducted with more magnanimity and candor, should contemplate the benefit of all parts upon common principles, and not the sacrifice of one part for that of another. There appeared to us a material difference between stipulating by treaty to forbear the use, and not being able to open the river. The former would be considered by the inhabitants of the Western country as an act of hostility; the latter might be justified by our inability. And, with respect to the commercial part of the project, we really thought it an ill-advised one on its own merits solely.

"Thus was this project brought before Congress, and so far as I recollect, in this form, and upon these principles. It was the subject of tedious and lengthy discussion in that honorable body. Every distinct measure that was taken I do not now remember, nor do I suppose it of consequence. I have shown the outlines of the transaction, which is, if I apprehend rightly, all that the committee wish to possess. The communications of the Secretary were referred to a Committee of the whole House. The Delegates of the seven easternmost States voted that the ultimata in the Secretary's instructions be repealed; which was reported to the House, and entered on the journal by the Secretary of Congress, that the question was carried. Upon this entry, a constitutional question arose to this effect: 'Nine States being necessary, by the Federal Constitution, to give an instruction; and seven having repealed a part of an instruction so given, for the formation of a treaty with a foreign power, so as to alter its import, and authorize, under the remaining part thereof, the formation of a treaty, on principles altogether different from what the said instruction originally contemplated, can such remaining part be considered as in force, and constitutionally obligatory?' We pressed on Congress for a decision on this point often, but without effect. Notwithstanding this, I understood it was the intention of the Secretary to proceed and conclude a treaty, in conformity to his project, with the Minister of Spain. In this situation I left Congress. What I have since heard, belongs not to me to discover. Other gentlemen have more ample information of this business, in the course it has taken, than I can possibly have been able to obtain; for, having done my duty whilst there, I left it for others who succeeded me to perform theirs, and I have made but little further inquiry respecting it. The animated pursuit that was made of this object, required, and, I believe, received, as firm an opposition. The Southern States were on their guard, and warmly opposed it. For my part, I thought it my duty to use every effort in Congress for the interest of the Southern States. But so far as it depended on me, with my official character, it ceased. With many of those gentlemen, to whom I always considered it as my particular misfortune to be opposed, I am now in habits of correspondence and friendship; and I am concerned for the necessity which has given birth to this relation.

"Whether the Delegates of those States spoke the language of their constituents; whether it may be considered as the permanent interest of such States to depress the growth and increasing population of the Western country, are points which I cannot pretend to determine. I must observe, however, that I always supposed it would, for a variety of reasons, prove injurious to every part of the Confederacy. These are well understood, and need not be dilated on here. If, however, such should be the interest of seven States, let gentlemen contemplate the consequences in the operation of the Government, as it applies to this subject. I have always been of opinion, sir, that the American States, to all national objects, had, in every respect, a common interest. Few persons would be willing to bind them together by a stronger or more indissoluble bond, or give the National Government more power than myself. I only wish to prevent it from doing harm, either to States or individuals; and the rights and interests of both, in a variety of instances, in which they are now left unprotected, might, in my opinion, be better guarded. If I have mistaken any facts, honorable gentlemen will correct me. If I omitted any, and it has not been intentional, so I shall be happy with their assistance to supply the defect.

"Mr. Monroe added several other observations, the purport of which was, that the interest of the Western country would not be as secure under the proposed constitution as under the Confederation; because, under the latter system, the Mississippi could not be relinquished without the consent of nine States, whereas by the former, he said, a majority of seven States could yield it. His own opinion was, that it would be given up by a majority of the Senators present in the Senate, with the President, which would put it in the power of less than seven States to surrender it. That the Northern States were inclined to yield it. That it was their interest to prevent an augmentation of the Southern influence and power; and that as mankind in general, and States in particular, were governed by interest, the Northern States would not fail of availing themselves of the opportunity given them by the constitution of relinquishing that river, in order to depress the Western country, and prevent the Southern interest from preponderating.

"Mr. HENRY[74] then rose and requested that the honorable gentleman (Mr. Monroe) would discover the rest of the project, and what Spain was to do on her part, as an equivalent for the cession of the Mississippi.

"Mr. MONROE.--Mr. Chairman, I do not thoroughly recollect every circumstance relative to this project. But there was to be a commercial intercourse between the United States and Spain. We were to be allowed to carry our produce to the ports of Spain, and the Spaniards to have an equal right of trading hither. It was stipulated that there should be a reciprocity of commercial intercourse and benefits between the subjects of Spain and the citizens of the United States. The manufactures of Spain were to be freely imported and vended in this country, and our manufactures to be carried to Spain, &c., without obstruction, and both parties were to have mutual privileges in point of commercial intercourse and connection. This, sir, is the amount of the project of Spain, which was looked upon as advantageous to us. I thought myself that it was not. I considered Spain as being without manufactures, as the most slow in the progress of arts, and the most unwise, with respect to commerce, of all nations under the sun, (in which respect I thought Great Britain the wisest.) Their gentlemen and nobles look on commerce with contempt. No man of character among them will undertake it. They make little discrimination with any nation. Their character is to shut out all nations, and exclude every intercourse with them, and this would be the case with respect to us. Nothing is given to us by this project, but what is given to all other nations. It is bad policy, and unjustifiable on such terms to yield that valuable right. Their merchants have great stocks in trade. It is not so with our merchants. Our people require encouragement. Mariners must be encouraged. On a review of these circumstances, I thought the project unwise and impolitic."

Haying completed the reading, Mr. R. resumed his remarks. I have, said he, to ask pardon of the House for detaining them with the reading of so lengthy a document. That it contains perhaps the only correct historical detail extant of this truly curious transaction, must constitute my apology.

I will now ask, Mr. Speaker, who ever have been, and still are, the unshaken friends of the navigation of the Mississippi, and of the Western interests of this Union? It is not my wish, sir, on this occasion, to cast gentlemen opposed to us into the shade--to throw them into the background. All we ask is an equal share of confidence in our zeal to assert this great right, until we shall have proved ourselves unworthy of it. What is there then exhibited from the earliest period of our history? What fact has transpired which renders us undeserving of that confidence, or which entitles gentlemen on the other side of the House exclusively to it? Shall we then silently submit to the intolerant assumption on their part of all feeling for this important right, involving the vital interests of our country? Shall we sit down contented under the imputation of lukewarmness in this cause? or, shall we tell those gentlemen that under every circumstance, and in all situations, with closed doors, as well as with open doors, we have been, are, and ever will be, the unalterable supporters of the free navigation of the Mississippi?

The sentiments which have been displayed in the course of this proceeding, present a phenomenon in the history of what are termed regular Governments. When an Administration have formed the design of subverting the public liberties--of enriching themselves or their adherents out of the public purse, or of crushing all opposition beneath the strong hand of power--war has ever been the favorite ministerial specific. Hence have we seen men in power too generally inclined to hostile measures, and hence the opposition have been, as uniformly, the champions of peace--not choosing to nerve with new vigor (the natural consequence of war) hands, on whose hearts or heads they were unwilling to bestow their confidence. But how shall we account for the exception which is now exhibited to this hitherto received maxim? On the one part the solution is easy. An Administration under which our country flourishes beyond all former example--with no sinister views--seeking to pay off the public encumbrances, to lessen the public burdens, and to leave to each man the enjoyment of the fruits of his own labor, are, therefore, desirous of peace, so long as it can be preserved consistently with the interests and honor of the country. On the other hand, what do you see? Shall I say an opposition sickening at the sight of the public prosperity, seeking through war, confusion, and a consequent derangement of our finances, that aggrandizement which the public felicity must for ever forbid? No, sir, my respect for this House and for those gentlemen forbids this declaration, whilst, at the same time, I am unable to account on any other principle for their conduct. Mr. R. concluded by saying, that he had forborne these observations until they were extorted from him. He had hoped that gentlemen would have let the business take its course, after the decision of yesterday, and that the House would have gone into committee on the confidential Message; but gentlemen had insisted on discussing the merits of the navigation on a preliminary question. The business having taken that turn, he thought it due to himself and friends to repel the odium which it was endeavored to attach to them.

Mr. DANA thought it was not necessary on this subject to enter into a history of political parties in this country. And when the gentleman from Virginia undertook to give a history, he had no idea that he was about giving details of secret history. He had supposed he was about offering a general view of the subject. He did not know that it was to be stated who were friendly or unfriendly to the rights of our Western citizens, much less that there was an established hereditary hostility to them. He had supposed that all the gentlemen on that floor had expressed the wishes of the people; he had supposed there was but one opinion; he had heard of no insinuation of difference. The only difference which he had thought existed was as to the means to be used, and the time when those means should be carried into effect. But as to the natural right, and the ultimate enjoyment of the nation to the free navigation of the Mississippi, he asked what gentleman had charged another with any doubts on that? And when we all agree in this, whence the necessity of calling up the animosities of party? May not gentlemen express their opinions in favor of decided measures, when the voice of the nation had been so audibly expressed, without such expression being construed into a censure upon others? When, too, the opinions of other gentlemen on fundamental points coincided with your own? Is it necessary, when the whole nation is alive, to be moderate in the expression of our ideas? If we do not come from that part of the Union more immediately affected by the late measures at New Orleans, are we therefore to be indifferent and unconcerned spectators of events? If, standing here as Representatives of the United States, we are not at liberty to attend to any thing not confined to the trifling district of country we may each of us represent, miserable is the ground on which we stand, and humble indeed our condition! But let me say, even on this ground, the ship-owners and the merchants on the Atlantic are deeply interested. Our Western citizens are certainly more deeply interested in the freedom of the Mississippi; but it goes to the great interests of navigation generally. They feel it most; but we feel it much.

This is all I deem it necessary, said Mr. D., to observe on the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia on his historical detail. Sir, this ought not to be made a party question. With respect to the motion before the House, my colleague has drawn it in terms the most respectful. Gentlemen propose to refer it to a Committee of the Whole. To this we object, because we want the information promptly. But the votes of gentlemen prevail, and it is referred. Our next step is to refer it immediately, to avoid delay. To obtain information, full and prompt, is the end of our endeavors. Why are we told of the inconsistency of our means? The course we pursue is plain and direct; that which carries us steadily to our obtaining information; and if the House will not give it to us in the way we wish, we are for taking it in the best way we can. Let it be remarked, that, if no obstacles had taken place at New Orleans, the subject of the cession of Louisiana is referred to in the Message of the President. Is not the information, we ask, important, in the general view, of who are to be our neighbors; where, from the dispersed population of our citizens, the Union is most vulnerable? And in this light it would have been proper to get the information, even if the measures at New Orleans had not occurred. It makes no difference whether those measures are the measures of Spain or of France. The two points were not necessarily connected, though I admit that the proceedings at New Orleans have a bearing on the general subject. With regard to the measures at New Orleans, we have information, and have obtained it. That information has been referred to a Committee of the Whole. We now ask information respecting the cession; and having got it, let us refer that also, and deliberate on the measures proper to be taken. Cannot the logical talents of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. BACON) distinguish between information and measures? Will he say that premises and conclusions are the same thing? This information is that on which we are to deliberate. I had supposed facts necessary to legislate on. I had thought there was, to be sure, a connection between one step and another which follows. But will the gentleman say, that whenever we ask information, we conclude upon measures?

The yeas and nays were then taken on the call of Mr. GRISWOLD, on going into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, which was lost--yeas 38, nays 48, as follows:

YEAS.--Phanuel Bishop, Thomas Boude, John Campbell, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Thomas T. Davis, William Dickson, William Eustis, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Seth Hastings, William Helms, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer Mattoon, Samuel L. Mitchill, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Morris, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, John Cotton Smith, John Stanley, John Stratton, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, Thomas Tillinghast, George B. Upham, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

NAYS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus Bailey, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William Butler, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard Cutts, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Joseph Heister, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Michael Leib, David Meriwether, Thomas Moore, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jun., Joseph H. Nicholson, John Randolph, jun., John Smilie, John Smith, (of New York,) John Smith, (of Virginia,) Josiah Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jun., John Stewart, John Taliaferro, jun., David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, John P. Van Ness, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, and Thomas Wynns.

Mr. GRISWOLD said, that notwithstanding the unfortunate situation they were placed in by the refusal of the House, he still deemed it his duty to move other resolutions, which he would read, and move to be referred to a Committee of the Whole.

Mr. G. then moved the following resolutions:

Resolved, That the people of the United States are entitled to the free navigation of the river Mississippi.

Resolved, That the navigation of the river Mississippi has been obstructed by the regulations recently carried into effect at New Orleans.

Resolved, That the right of freely navigating the river Mississippi ought never to be abandoned by the United States.

Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire whether any, and, if any, what, Legislative measures are necessary to secure to the people of the United States the free navigation of the river Mississippi.

Mr. DAWSON asked if these resolutions were not necessarily connected with a subject which the House had determined should be discussed in private? If, by this arrangement, other gentlemen had been precluded from offering resolutions, he would ask if it were right in the gentleman from Connecticut to violate a general injunction laid upon all the members?

Mr. GRISWOLD.--There is a Message from the President, of the 22d of December, on this subject that is publicly entered on the journals.[75] It is on this Message that these resolutions are predicated. I trust I understand the rules of the House well enough to know that I am not to bring forward what it has been enjoined shall be secret.

The question was then taken without further debate, on taking up the above resolutions for consideration, and lost--yeas 32, nays 50.

Mr. RANDOLPH then called for the consideration of the President's confidential Message, when the galleries were cleared.

FRIDAY, January 7.

Navigation of the Mississippi.

(SECRET SESSION.)

On a motion made and seconded, the House was cleared of all persons present, except the members and the Clerk: Whereupon,

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Messages from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of the twenty-second and thirtieth ultimo, and the documents transmitted therewith; and, after some time spent therein, Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair, and Mr. VARNUM reported that the committee had again had the said Messages and documents under consideration, and come to a resolution thereupon; which he delivered in at the Clerk's table, where the same was read as follows:

"Resolved, That this House receive with great sensibility the information of a disposition in certain officers of the Spanish Government, at New Orleans, to obstruct the navigation of the river Mississippi, as secured to the United States by the most solemn stipulations.

"That, adhering to that humane and wise policy which ought ever to characterize a free people, and by which the United States have always professed to be governed; willing, at the same time, to ascribe this breach of compact to the unauthorized misconduct of certain individuals, rather than to a want of good faith on the part of His Catholic Majesty; and relying, with perfect confidence, on the vigilance and wisdom of the Executive, they will wait the issue of such measures as that department of the Government shall have pursued for asserting the rights and vindicating the injuries of the United States; holding it to be their duty, at the same time, to express their unalterable determination to maintain the boundaries and the rights of navigation and commerce through the river Mississippi, as established by existing treaties."

The House proceeded to consider the said resolution at the Clerk's table: Whereupon, so much as is contained in the first clause thereof, being again read, in the words following, to wit:

"Resolved, That this House receive with great sensibility the information of a disposition in certain officers of the Spanish Government, at New Orleans, to obstruct the navigation of the river Mississippi, as secured to the United States by the most solemn stipulations."

The question was taken that the House do concur with the Committee of the whole House in their agreement to the same; and resolved in the affirmative.

The last clause of the said resolution being again read, in the words following, to wit:

"That, adhering to that humane and wise policy which ought ever to characterize a free people, and by which the United States have always professed to be governed; willing, at the same time, to ascribe this breach of compact to the unauthorized misconduct of certain individuals, rather than to a want of good faith on the part of His Catholic Majesty; and relying, with perfect confidence, on the vigilance and wisdom of the Executive, they will wait the issue of such measures as that department of the Government shall have pursued for asserting the rights and vindicating the injuries of the United States; holding it to be their duty, at the same time, to express their unalterable determination to maintain the boundaries and the rights of navigation and commerce through the river Mississippi, as established by existing treaties:"

A motion was made, and the question being put to amend the said last clause of the resolution, by striking out therefrom the words following, to wit:

"And relying, with perfect confidence, on the vigilance and wisdom of the Executive, they will wait the issue of such measures as that department of the Government shall have pursued for asserting the rights, and vindicating the injuries of the United States:"

It passed in the negative--yeas 30, nays 53, as follows:

YEAS.--Thos. Boude, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, John Dennis, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Seth Hastings, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer Mattoon, Lewis R. Morris, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, John Cotton Smith, John Stanley, John Stratton, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, George B. Upham, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

NAYS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus Bailey, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William Butler, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard Cutts, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, William Dickson, Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Joseph Heister, William Helms, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Michael Leib, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, James Mott, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, John Randolph, jr., John Smilie, John Smith, (of New York,) Josiah Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stewart, John Taliaferro, jr., David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, and Thomas Wynns.

Another motion was then made, and the question being put, to amend the said last clause of the resolution, by striking out therefrom the word "vindicating," next before the words "the injuries of the United States," and inserting the word "redressing," in lieu thereof, it passed in the negative.

The question was then taken that the House do concur with the Committee of the whole House in their agreement to the said last clause of the resolution, and resolved in the affirmative.

A motion was then made and seconded that the House reconsider their decision on the said last clause of the resolution; and the question being put thereupon, it was resolved in the affirmative.

A division of the question was then called for: whereupon the first member of the said last clause of the resolution being again read, in the words following, to wit:

"That adhering to that humane and wise policy which ought ever to characterize a free people, and by which the United States have always professed to be governed; willing, at the same time, to ascribe this breach of compact to the unauthorized misconduct of certain individuals, rather than to a want of good faith on the part of His Catholic Majesty:"

The said division of the question was objected to, as not being in order, and the SPEAKER having decided the same was in order, an appeal was made to the House from the decision of the Chair; and on the question, "Is the decision of the Chair in order?" it was resolved in the affirmative.

On the question that the House do agree to the said first member of the last clause of the resolution, it was unanimously resolved in the affirmative, by yeas and nays, every member present voting in the affirmative, to wit:

YEAS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus Bailey, Thomas Boude, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William Butler, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard Cutts, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, John Dawson, John Dennis, William Dickson, Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Calvin Goddard, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, John A. Hanna, Seth Hastings, Joseph Heister, William Helms, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, George Jackson, Michael Leib, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer Mattoon, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, Lewis R. Morris, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater, John Randolph, jr., Nathan Read, John Rutledge, John Smilie, John Cotton Smith, John Smith, (of New York,) Josiah Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, John Stanley, Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stratton, John Taliaferro, jr., Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, and Thomas Wynns.

The third member of the said last clause of the resolution being again read, in the words following, to wit:

"Holding it to be their duty, at the same time, to express their unalterable determination to maintain the boundaries, and the rights of navigation and commerce through the river Mississippi, as established by existing treaties:"

A motion was made, and the question being put, to amend the same by striking therefrom the words "existing treaties," and inserting the word "treaty" in lieu thereof, it passed in the negative.

On the question that the House do agree to the said third member of the last clause of the resolution, it was unanimously resolved in the affirmative, by yeas and nays, every member present voting in the affirmative.

And then the main question being taken, that the House do agree to the said resolution, as reported from the Committee of the whole House, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 50, nays 25, as follows:

YEAS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus Bailey, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William Butler, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard Cutts, John Dawson, William Dickson, Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Joseph Heister, William Helms, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Michael Leib, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, John Randolph, jr., John Smilie, John Smith, (of New York,) Josiah Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jr., John Taliaferro, jr., David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, and Thomas Wynns.

NAYS.--Thomas Boude, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, John Dennis, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, Seth Hastings, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, Thos. Lowndes, Ebenezer Mattoon, Lewis R. Morris, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, John Cotton Smith, John Stanley, John Stratton, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, and Lemuel Williams.

Resolved, That the injunction of secrecy upon the members of this House, so far as relates to the resolution last recited, and the proceedings of the House on the Messages from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of the twenty-second and thirtieth ultimo, be taken off.

MONDAY, January 10.

Another member, to wit, JAMES A. BAYARD, from Delaware, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

A new member, to wit, PETER EARLY, returned to serve in this House, as a member from the State of Georgia, in the room of John Milledge, who hath resigned, appeared, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

Monuments to Generals, and to the Captors of Andre.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed the bill entitled "An act to carry into effect several resolutions of Congress, for erecting monuments to the memories of the late Generals Wooster, Herkimer, Davidson, and Scriven," to which they desire the concurrence of this House.

The said bill was read twice and committed to the committee appointed the fourth instant, to prepare and bring in a bill for erecting a monument to the memory of General Herkimer, pursuant to a resolution of Congress, passed the fourth day of October, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-seven.

Sundry motions being made and seconded, that the House do come to the following resolutions respectively, to wit:

Resolved, That a monument be erected to the memory of Major General Joseph Warren, who was slain on Bunker's Hill on the seventeenth day of June, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five; and that the sum of ---- be appropriated therefor.

Resolved, That a monument be erected to the memory of General Hugh Mercer, who was slain at Princeton, on the third day of January, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-seven; and that the sum of ---- dollars be appropriated for that purpose.

Resolved, That a monument be erected to the memory of General Francis Nash, who was slain at the battle of Germantown; and that the sum of ---- dollars be appropriated for that purpose.

Resolved, That a monument be erected to the memory of General Richard Butler, who was killed gallantly fighting in an action with the Indians, on the fourth day of November, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one; and that ---- dollars be appropriated for that purpose.

Resolved, That a monument be erected to the memory of General Nathaniel Woodhull, who commanded the militia on Long Island, in the year one thousand seven hundred and seventy-six, and was then taken prisoner and most cruelly put to death by the enemy; and that ---- dollars be appropriated for that purpose.

Resolved, That a monument be erected to commemorate the virtuous and patriotic conduct of John Paulding, David Williams, and Isaac Van Wert, who, on the twenty-third day of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty, intercepted Major John Andre, Adjutant General of the British Army, returning from the American lines in the character of a spy; and that the sum of ---- dollars be appropriated for that purpose.

Ordered, That the said motions, severally, be referred to the committee to whom was this day committed the bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act to carry into effect several resolutions of Congress for erecting monuments to the memories of the late Generals Wooster, Herkimer, Davidson and Scriven."

National University.

Mr. VAN NESS presented a representation from Samuel Blodget, on the subject of a National University, as follows:

"The memorial of Samuel Blodget, late Supervisor of the City of Washington, represents that, owing his appointment chiefly to his zeal in forming several probationary plans for a National University, he conceived it an indispensable duty, after the death of WASHINGTON, to follow the commanding advice and noble example of the common Father of his Country, so irresistibly portrayed in his Farewell Address, and in the clause of his will annexed to his liberal donation therefor. In thus calling, most respectfully, the attention of your honorable body to this part of the will of WASHINGTON, he fulfils a promise made in behalf of more than one thousand subscribers to the same object, whose respectable names accompany this memorial, with a request that a committee may be appointed to consider what portion of the public lots and lands in the Western Territory of the United States, shall be appropriated by Congress to this important institution, in addition to the contents of either of the sites already contemplated therefor within the City of Washington, by WASHINGTON himself, and by the Commissioners thereof. And further to consider the expediency (should it comport with the monumental plan to be adopted) of erecting the statue of 1783, or in lieu thereof an appropriate and characteristic equestrian statue of the original founder of the National University, as a beautiful centre-piece for the entire plan, to be surrounded by halls and colleges as they may be built in succession, by the fund to which the whole people of America are now so liberally and so honorably contributing by voluntary subscriptions from Maine to Georgia inclusive; thus virtually following the ancient custom of the original Americans, who, men, women, and children, carried a stone to the monumental pile of a beloved chief."

The memorial was accompanied by a plan of the Equestrian Statue of Washington, surrounded by halls and colleges regularly arranged, the whole to be styled the Monument to Washington. Referred to a select committee--ayes 42, nays 27.

The following members constitute the committee: Mr. VAN NESS, Mr. TALIAFERRO, Mr. HILL, Mr. ELMENDORPH, and Mr. CUTLER.

TUESDAY, January 11.

The House proceeded to consider the amendment proposed by the Senate to the bill entitled "An act for the relief of Charles Hyde;" Whereupon,

Resolved, That this House do agree to the said amendment.

Cession of Louisiana to France.

Mr. GRISWOLD moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, intending, should he succeed, to call up his resolution presented on the 5th instant, viz:

"Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to direct the proper officer to lay before this House, copies of such official documents as have been received by this Government, announcing the cession of Louisiana to France, together with a report, explaining the stipulations, circumstances, and conditions, under which that province is to be delivered up, unless such documents and reports will, in the opinion of the President, divulge to the House particular transactions not proper at this time to be communicated."

I recollect, said Mr. G., when I proposed on a former day that the House should go into Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering this resolution, the principal arguments in opposition were drawn from its supposed connection with a subject which had been referred to a secret committee, and, therefore improper for previous or public discussion. Those arguments have now lost their weight. The House have decided on those confidential subjects, and their resolution was published, and I believe it will appear that I was not incorrect in my opinion, that this resolution has no concern with any confidential communications. When before under consideration, the inquiry contemplated was considered important. The information requested must be in possession of the Executive; it cannot be supposed that such documents as would be useful to the House, do not exist in the Executive cabinet. We cannot legislate with a proper understanding, unless we are informed of all the circumstances, conditions, and stipulations, under which that territory is ceded to France. I will not believe that the Executive has neglected to demand such explanations as the honor and interest of the United States require. It is this official information which we want. As we are unembarrassed by other subjects, either of a public or secret nature, I hope the House will now come to a decision; I shall call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DAWSON moved a postponement of the resolution to a future day.

Mr. MOTT said he was opposed to the resolution, but was for going into Committee of the Whole, and deciding upon it, rather than to be troubled with it from day to day.

Mr. DANA.--I consider the refusal to go into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union as a negative upon the resolution. We have been told before by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) that it does not amount to a refusal of the resolution. True, it may not be so harsh a mode of putting it aside, but the effect is virtually the same. Will it be made a question whether it is proper to ask for information? The President has recommended the subject to our attention in his message. It is not only proper, but of course becomes our duty, to deliberate, and to request such information from the President, as will assist and enlighten us in our proceedings. It is his constitutional province to do this, and it would be a reflection on him to suppose that he would withhold any information from the House, on a subject which he had thought so important, as to form part of an official message. It could not have been inserted merely for the sake of rounding off a period. No, sir, the President has undoubtedly sufficient reasons for mentioning this, as a subject worthy of our deliberations; he is designated by the constitution as the proper person from whom information on subjects of this nature is to be derived; he is supposed to combine the whole; it is not proper to receive it but from an official source. The general subject is mentioned in the following terms:

"The cession of the Spanish province of Louisiana to France, which took place in the course of the late war, will, if carried into effect, make a change in the aspect of our foreign relations, which will doubtless have just weight in any deliberations connected with that subject."

Are we to suppose the Executive has not been vigilant in ascertaining the circumstances attending this event? No. Are we to suppose he is unwilling to inform us what they are? No. He must be supposed willing to give the information. Therefore, why should gentlemen prevent us from obtaining that intelligence, which is presumed to exist, and which the Executive must be willing to give?

Mr. RANDOLPH was averse to going into a Committee of the whole House on the state of the Union, if it were understood that the resolution of the gentleman from Connecticut was to be taken up. It was not very material to him in what way the House signified their dissent to the measure; but, preferring that which was least circuitous, he hoped they would refuse to take it up in committee. Much pains having been taken to impress a belief that the President had communicated to the House a fact of which he possessed no official information, Mr. R. begged the House to recollect that the tortured ingenuity of gentlemen had been unable fairly to infer the fact from the Executive communications; nor could it be implied from a refusal to concur in the proposed resolution. His opposition to it grew out of the resolution itself. It conveys the suspicion that Spain has ceded Louisiana to France indefinitely, thereby giving to France some color of claim to the countries formerly comprised under that appellation; or that she has made the cession by limits incompatible with her engagements to us; and that in either case our right to the navigation of the Mississippi may have been impaired. For, if you suppose in this transfer of her property that Spain has paid due regard to her stipulations with us, the resolution ceases to have an object. Now, sir, wherefore cast this imputation on Spain?--especially at this crisis, when, as I am informed from a respectable source, one of the first characters in the Union is recently nominated Minister to that Court, for the purpose of adjusting all differences on this subject?

I should have supposed another reason would have deterred the gentleman from persisting in this call. That gentleman and his friends had recorded on the journals of this House their solemn determination, however sensibly they might feel the injuries inflicted on the rights and interests of these States, to refuse all co-operation in the support of those rights and interests so long as the direction of the Government should be retained by those who now possess it. For, after having expressed their disapprobation of that clause in a resolution lately adopted by the House to affect our rights of limits and of navigation through the Mississippi, objecting to no other part of it, they had, nevertheless, refused to give their assent to it because of this objectionable passage. There was a time, sir, when such conduct would have been denounced by a portion of this House as the essence of Jacobinism and disorganization. Mr. R. concluded by saying that he thought it unwise at this time, in the very cradle of the negotiation, to throw out insinuations which would have a tendency to irritate or disgust the Spanish Court.

Mr. GRISWOLD.--I did not expect that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) would, in the face of the journal now on the table, in contradiction to the knowledge of every gentleman in this House, have made the declaration we have just heard. Have we given our vote that we would not defend the free navigation of the Mississippi? Have we not been ready to unite in adopting those measures which the infraction of treaties and our violated rights demand? I appeal to our journals. What has been done, there appears, and will contradict the assertions of that gentleman. When the resolution was under consideration in the secret committee, which the gentleman (Mr. RANDOLPH) emphatically called HIS OFFSPRING, there were two votes taken on certain parts or members of it, previous to the main question. A motion was made to strike out the following clause:

"And relying with perfect confidence on the vigilance and wisdom of the Executive, they will wait the issue of such measures as that department of the Government shall have pursued for asserting the rights and vindicating the injuries of the United States."

I voted against this part of the resolution for two reasons: first, because I could not express a confidence which I did not feel; and secondly, because I was not satisfied with a resolution to do nothing. I thought we ought to do something; that it was not proper for the Legislature to sit as idle spectators of an important political transaction, which required legislative interference. I thought we ought to prepare for the worst. These were the reasons, Mr. Speaker, which influenced my conduct upon the motion for striking out. But how did we vote on the motion for agreeing to the following clause?

"Holding it to be their duty at the same time to express their unalterable determination to maintain the boundaries, and the rights of navigation and commerce, through the river Mississippi, as established by existing treaties."

Did we refuse our assent? Did we object to a syllable contained in this part of the resolution? No, sir, the vote was unanimous. Every member of the House stands pledged to support the sentiments therein expressed. On this point there was no difference of opinion. I appeal to your journals, sir, and to the recollection of every gentleman who was on that secret committee, whether I am not correct. It is true that there was a difference of opinion in the secret committee upon the other part of the resolution; on one side of the House it appeared proper to express great confidence in the present Executive, and, leaving every thing to that department, to do nothing ourselves; whilst on the other side, as we did not feel that confidence, we could not express it, and believing the occasion demanded legislative interference, we thought it necessary to prepare for the worst. How, then, can we be charged by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) with having recorded our determination not to protect the rights and interests of these States, when our votes, appearing on your journal, not only prove our unalterable determination to defend those rights, but likewise prove that we were willing to leave the vindicating of those rights entirely to the Executive, and were earnestly desirous of adding thereto all the aid which the Legislature could contribute, and that we have been prevented from pursuing this course by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) and his friends? I must be permitted again to express my astonishment that the gentleman can with any face make these charges, and again to appeal to your journal, and the recollection of every gentleman, for a contradiction of these unmerited aspersions.

When the main question was taken we refused our assent. Not because we were unwilling to adopt such measures as circumstances might require; but because we could not sanction those expressions of unbounded confidence in the Executive, and that determination to do nothing which the resolution contained.

As another argument against this resolution, we are told it is calculated to irritate and impede a negotiation, which the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) has informed us is about to commence, and, I must say, about to commence at a very late period; after an expiration of one year since the cession of that territory to France. Let us recur to the resolution:

"Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to direct the proper officer to lay before this House copies of such official documents as have been received by this Government, announcing the cession of Louisiana to France, together with a report explaining the stipulations, circumstances, and conditions, under which that province is to be delivered up; unless such documents and reports will, in the opinion of the President, divulge to the House particular transactions, not proper at this time to be communicated."

Is this the language of irritation? Is there an offensive sentence either to the Court of Spain or the Republic of France? Not one. So far from impeding negotiation, it might lead to measures which would accelerate the agency, and ensure terms more advantageous. To be ready for any and every event, would evince on our part a disposition to demand, and the power to enforce reparation if refused. Inactivity and silence in the Legislative Department will indeed retard successful negotiation, by depriving a Minister of powerful and unanswerable arguments.

Mr. S. SMITH said, it would be recollected, that on the first day the resolution of the gentleman from Connecticut was offered, it struck him as improper, and that it was at his instance it had been ordered to lie on the table. The more he had considered the nature of that resolution, the more averse to it had he become. So far from his original dislike to it having been removed by the arguments advanced, it had been confirmed, and particularly by what had fallen from the gentleman from Virginia. The gentleman from Connecticut does not perceive, or is unwilling to acknowledge, that there is any thing in his resolution that implies unfairness on the part of Spain, or that derogates from the honor of her character; but let him read the resolution. Mr. S. then read as follows:

"That the President of the United States be requested to direct the proper officer to lay before this House copies of such official documents as have been received by this Government, announcing the cession of Louisiana to France, together with a report explaining the stipulations, circumstances, and conditions under which the province is to be delivered up."

Does not the gentleman who drew this resolution seem to believe, from the express words of it, that the conduct of Spain has been unfair, and that she may have adopted measures derogatory to her character and honor? Shall we send a Minister hampered by such a resolution?

Let the gentleman recollect the conduct of this House on a similar occasion. When an order of the British Court issued to seize all American vessels, wherever found, certain spirited resolutions were proposed in that House to show the dissatisfaction of the Government at this unjust measure, and its disposition, if necessary, to resist it. The gentleman will recollect, that at that crisis, and pending those very resolutions, a Minister was appointed. Did not the gentleman's friends immediately state the impropriety of passing those resolutions? The fact was, that gentlemen on both sides felt the force of the suggestion, and the resolutions were withdrawn. Mr. S. thought it wise, prudent, and proper, to pursue on this occasion the same course. He could conceive of no good end which could be answered by the resolution. Is the gentleman really in earnest in his inquiries at this time? and if the effect of his resolution should be to show that the stipulations are injurious to our rights, would he know how to act? He would be for acting spiritedly, no doubt; and yet, at this very moment, when he professed such a declaration, he declares to the world, that he has no confidence in the Executive, who is now pursuing the proper measures! I cannot, therefore, conceive that the gentleman is in earnest, after the vote which he and his friends have given of a want of confidence in the Executive. I cannot consider their conduct as intended to promote the real interests of their country; but as calculated to bring the country into a situation from which it cannot withdraw, without pursuing measures attended with expense and blood.

Mr. RANDOLPH.--I trust neither this House, nor the American people, can be deceived as to this transaction. What I have stated the journals confirm, and I should call for the reading of them, if I were not informed by the Clerk that they were at the printer's. A resolution passed this House, expressing its disposition to assert the rights of the United States, in relation to their established limits, and to the navigation of the Mississippi. That resolution contained an expression of confidence in the Executive. Gentlemen moved to strike it out and failed. In every other part they concurred, separately and distinctly. But to the whole they gave their negative. What is the inference? That they will not assert our rights because they have no confidence in the Executive. Liken this to a bill: A clause is moved to be stricken out; it is retained. Those who object to that clause vote against the final passage of the bill. It is nevertheless carried; it becomes law. Are not those who voted against it fairly to be considered as enemies to the law? So have I a right to enumerate that gentleman and his friends, opponents to the measure which I submitted to the House; and yet, sir, although I stated every fact mentioned by the gentleman himself, (Mr. GRISWOLD,) except the final vote, which he took care to keep out of sight; although I mentioned expressly their concurrence in every other part of the resolution, it is asked with what face I can make such a statement in the teeth of your journals? Sir, let me tell that gentleman, not with the face of a prevaricator, but with the face of a man of honor and a gentleman; not with the face of one using terms intended to convey more than meets the ear, with a view of explaining them away when convenient; not with a design of simulating what I do not believe, or of dissembling my real purpose. The House will recollect, sir, that in the committee, the objection of the gentleman from Connecticut was confined solely to the expression of confidence in the Executive, there was then no reason to believe that there was any other. After protesting against this expression, and suffering it even to prevent his concurrence in any measures for the common good, he comes forward with another resolution, whether to benefit that cause which he has refused to espouse, or to diminish that confidence which appears so much to have disturbed him, I leave the House to determine. But Louisiana is ceded to France. It is so. Of this fact we have official information. But let it be remembered that it is yet in the hands of Spain. The injury which we have received is from officers of that Crown. The reparation is to be demanded from the same quarter. Now what has the information desired by gentlemen to do with any such negotiation? When France shall have taken possession of this province; when she shall have made pretensions inconsistent with our honor, or with our rights in that quarter, then will it be time enough to take up this subject. This is a transaction, which, if it ever does take place, must pass under the immediate cognizance and control of this House. Let gentlemen recollect that the treaty of cession is of an old date, and Louisiana is, notwithstanding, still in the possession of Spain. Shall we then suggest to France our expectation that she will set up a claim inconsistent with our rights; that she may have received a colorable pretence for violating them? Shall we thereby invite her aggressions? In whatever hands this country may be eventually placed, or by whomsoever our rights may be invaded, I doubt not a disposition will always be found to defend them. But it is with the actual possessors that we must negotiate; it is from them we must demand redress, and not from any nation who may possess a reversionary right to the province of Louisiana.

Mr. BACON said that there was one question before the House, and they were debating upon another, in an animated manner and on an extensive scale, before they come to it. It would be recollected, he hoped, that this question was not then before the House. To what point, therefore, could these discussions lead? He was for going into a Committee of the Whole, and meeting the resolution face to face.

Mr. DANA said that the observations of the gentleman from Massachusetts would be correct, were it not for the objections made to the resolution. That question is, therefore, fairly before the House; and the real point is, whether the House will, or will not, adopt the resolution requesting information. To adopting this resolution, one objection is urged by the gentleman from Virginia, and enforced by the gentleman from Maryland. This resolution, say they, may irritate the Court of Spain, and this will be improper. One gentleman has said that the language of propriety is uniform and consistent. Let gentlemen look then at the resolution long since offered by the gentleman from Virginia, requesting papers in relation to a violation of compact on the part of Spain in the late proceedings at New Orleans. Let me ask, is there any thing in this calculated to gratify the courtly delicacy of a Castilian? Here Spain is explicitly charged with a violation of her engagement with us. Look at the resolution that took its birth in secret committee, and which might be termed the offspring of the intellectual energies of the gentleman from Virginia. It is willing to ascribe this breach of compact to the unauthorized misconduct of certain individuals, rather than to a want of good faith on the part of His Catholic Majesty. If this were not the style of direct complaint, it was, at least, harsh, and in no wise courtly. Look now at the resolution proposed by my colleague. Compare them, and if there is not a revolution in the force of language as well as in other things, say if the language of my colleague's resolution is not that of civility, moderation, and even flattery, compared with the language of the other two?

[Mr. DANA having read Mr. GRISWOLD'S resolution proceeded.]

What is there here that implicates the character of Spain? If there is any fault in mentioning the cession, if that is calculated to irritate Spain, the fault lies with the President; for he first mentioned it. This argument, then, must be abandoned. There is nothing in this resolution that can impede negotiations; it is not my intention that this House should take any measures to impede, but that we should take measures to give additional force to negotiation. If I understand what will give most efficacy to Executive negotiations, it is when the world are assured that this House will support the President in all proper and necessary measures for vindicating our rights. But, say the gentlemen, is it possible that we can be for vindicating the rights of the citizens when we have withdrawn our confidence from the Executive? It is true we could not agree with gentlemen in their terms when they avowed "a perfect confidence in the vigilance and wisdom of the Executive." The gentleman from Virginia represented this as the theory of the Government. We could not agree with him. We voted for striking this out. It is unnecessary to mention our motives for this in detail. This might be to imitate. What! "relying with perfect confidence in the Executive"--is this the language of the constitution, as it respects any man? The resolution does not limit the confidence reposed to any degree, but ascribes a perfection of wisdom and vigor, which ought not to be reposed in any being subject to the ordinary frailties of human nature. Besides, there is an expression of confidence resulting from the constitutional powers of the Executive, which may be correct. But it will be recollected that the powers of the Executive are not competent to ulterior measures. He has only the power of negotiation; he has no other. Though he may prevent an aggression by employing force, he cannot enforce compensation for injuries received. It was, therefore, improper to agree to a resolution that pledged ourselves to abstain from doing any thing.

The allusion to the case with Great Britain was not correct. Will it be said that less success attended the measures of our negotiation then, because the House manifested a disposition to adopt spirited measures? Or, that there were in that case no measures adopted? Measures were adopted. But here, not a single measure had been.

Mr. RANDOLPH said it was extremely painful to him to be obliged so often to explain what appeared to him almost self-evident. The journals have been quoted, sir, to show that I have cast an imputation on the Spanish Court more injurious than that contained in the resolution of the gentleman from Connecticut. I am perfectly willing that the decision of the question before us should depend upon that fact. The resolution, sir, which I had the honor to submit to you, spoke of a fact notorious to the whole world, of a breach of compact, of a violation of treaty, on the part of Spain, which could be neither denied nor justified. It contained an inquiry into this circumstance, and, information having been received respecting it, was followed by a declaration of our willingness to ascribe it to the unauthorized misconduct of their agents rather than to the Court of Spain. The resolution of the gentleman from Connecticut implies a fact highly dishonorable to the Spanish nation--that the Government, and not subordinate, unauthorized persons, has secretly entered into stipulations repugnant to its engagements with us. Put the case between two individuals; suppose a gentleman of this House to receive an injury from either of the gentlemen from Connecticut. In an open and manly manner he speaks of this injury, and in undignified terms of resentment. He inquires into it; having found that it was the act of a subordinate agent, and, no proof being exhibited that it was at the instigation of the principal, he frankly says: There is a violation on your part of your engagements with me, but I am willing to ascribe it to the unauthorized misconduct of your agent. On the contrary, suppose him to insinuate strongly that his opponent has covertly taken steps to injure him by treacherously entering into engagements incompatible with those previously made with him. Sir, that honor which would feel itself wounded by the first of these proceedings, while it was insensible to the other, is very little allied to the Castilian.

But, sir, it seems that this unfortunate resolution betrays so entire an ignorance of the distribution of the powers of our Government as to clothe the Executive with an authority not only not devolved upon it by the constitution, but which is the peculiar province of this and the other branch of the Legislature. The gentleman (Mr. DANA) denies the power of the Executive to redress injuries received from foreign nations. The resolution, however, speaks only of a disposition to redress those injuries. But let us examine into the fact. Have I, indeed, so far mistaken, and, contrary to my own avowed principles, am so disposed to augment the Executive powers at the expense of the other departments of the Government? Suppose, on the representations of the Executive to the Court of Spain, that Court, which is more than probable, should restore the rights of navigation and deposit, disavow the conduct of their officers in violating those rights, and moreover, punish them for it? Would any person deny that, through the agency of the Executive, constitutionally exercised, the injury was redressed? There were other criticisms of the gentleman which I well remember, and to which he seems willing to call the recollection of the House. They were chiefly of a verbal nature. The gentleman objected to the expression "vindicating the injuries," which he contended implied the justifying, and not the redressing, of them. I could only reply, that I had been in the habit of hearing that word used in the sense in which I applied it as well as in that contended for by the gentleman. That the meaning of terms in our copious and flexible language should not be settled by provincial acceptation; and that by the only authority then accessible to us (knowing the disposition of the gentleman to bow to authority) it was decided that the word "vindicate" extended as well to the avenging of an injury as to the assertion of a right. I am, however, willing to confess that I have never attended to the technical structure of language with a precision so minute as that of the gentleman from Connecticut; and if the House are again to go to school to become acquainted with it, if again we are to be subjected to the lash of the pedagogue, no man shall have my vote for that high office so soon as the gentleman from Connecticut.

When the resolution which I submitted to you was under consideration, I did defend the expression contained in it, of confidence in the Executive, on the theory of our Government. I am still ready to defend it on the same principle. By the Constitution of the United States, the Executive is the representative of the United States to foreign nations. It is furnished with organs by which to receive their propositions, and to communicate our own. The constitution, therefore, presumes that to this department may be entirely confided our negotiations with foreign States. To this House is given the sole power to originate money bills, and the constitution supposes that a perfect reliance may be had upon it for executing this all-important trust. On the Senate, in like manner, is devolved the right of trying impeachments, and perfect confidence is placed in the wisdom and justice of their decision. The same confidence is reposed in the Executive with respect to exterior relations. Without adverting, therefore, to the character of the individual, we had the same right to presume that the constituted authority would take the proper steps in relation to his department, that he has to presume that we will raise the necessary revenue and pass the proper laws. Until, then, it could be shown that some specific act of the Executive had rendered that department unworthy of our confidence, we might consistently express it: and, even if proof of such misconduct could be established, it would not alter the tenor of the constitution, however the individual might be affected by it. For your constitution, sir, is not of that precarious nature which depends on the fluctuating characters of particular men. Mr. R. concluded by declaring his reluctance, then increased by indisposition, to be so frequently called upon the floor, but he felt himself in honor bound to defend a motion made by himself, and which had called forth such repeated animadversions from the other side of the House.

Mr. GODDARD.--The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) has complained so much of the objections to which his secret resolution was exposed, that I feel myself called upon to sustain a part of that complaint which he has seen fit to place to the account of my colleague. The motion, sir, to strike out the word "vindicating," which gave the gentleman the trouble of producing his pocket dictionary, came from me. He attempted to show, by the authority of his dictionary, that the word is sometimes used to signify revenge. Admitting it, I asked then, and I ask now, with what propriety it could be used, even in that sense, in the resolution referred to? We were then speaking of measures which had before that time been taken by the President, regarding the subject to which the resolution referred. Were we to suppose that the President had already taken measures to revenge the injuries of the United States? I had heard of no such intimation. Besides, has he the power to do so, in the manner then suggested by the gentleman from Virginia by taking possession of New Orleans? I believe not, without the concurrence of Congress. It was therefore absurd, in the highest degree, to use the expression in that resolution; and we had more than one reason for striking out that part of the resolution which contained it.

But this, as well as every other word and letter of this favorite resolution, was pertinaciously adhered to. The gentleman who framed the resolution seemed determined to compel us to eulogize the President--to extort from us a little praise of the man--or reduce us to the necessity of voting against the principle of the resolution, which asserted our right to the free navigation of the Mississippi. This part of the resolution could have been introduced for no other purpose. It also called upon us to pledge ourselves to wait the issue of such measures as the President might have taken, without any knowledge of the nature of those measures, if any had been taken. And this, the gentleman (Mr. RANDOLPH) now tells us, we might well enough have done, on the ground of the theory of our Government. I did not know, sir, that it belonged to the theory of Government to eulogize the President on all occasions, or express a confidence we do not feel. Nor does it make a part of the theory of our Government, that the President, without the concurrence of Congress, should avenge the injuries of the country. But, sir, we determined not to express a confidence we did not feel, or vote against the principle of a resolution which was agreeable to us; and the rules of the House, notwithstanding all the efforts to the contrary, protected us in carrying that determination into effect. We recorded our votes in favor of such parts of the resolution as we liked, and against that which we deemed exceptionable; and the final vote which was given upon the whole resolution was sufficiently explained by those upon its different parts. But, sir, because we did not vote that we had "perfect confidence" in the Executive, are we now to be told that we are not entitled to the information called for by the resolution on your table? Are those who do not express entire approbation of all the measures of the Administration to be refused all information respecting the most important interests of the country?

Another objection is raised to agreeing to this resolution. Gentlemen say it will offend foreign nations. What does the resolution call for? It calls for information of a fact which we are told in the President's Message exists. Louisiana, says the President, has been ceded by Spain to France. We ask for such documents as he may possess in evidence of that fact. We wish to know the terms and conditions upon which that province is to be delivered up. When this is asked, by the resolution on your table, the right is at the same time reserved to the President to withhold such parts of it (if any such there be) as, in his opinion, ought not to be communicated. And the passage of this resolution is to offend France or Spain! For fear of offending foreign nations we are not to ask or know what is our relative situation with such nations? If, sir, we hold this language, we may indeed avoid the anger of foreign nations, but we shall merit their contempt. But when, in answer to the suggestion that we may offend Spain, the gentleman from Virginia is reminded of his resolution, which charges Spain directly with a violation of treaty, he replies that this language is palliated by our saying that we are "willing to ascribe this violation to the unauthorized conduct of certain individuals rather than to the want of good faith on the part of His Catholic Majesty." But, in making out this apology, the gentleman has blended two resolutions together. The one to which my colleague referred passed early in the session. In that, Spain was charged directly with a violation of treaty. Nothing was then said about unauthorized conduct of individuals. This reluctance at charging Spain with this violation of treaty was not expressed until a long time after, and is found in the resolution which passed in secret. Indeed, this, as well as all the objections which have been offered to the passage of the resolution on your table, appear to me equally fallacious.

Mr. HUGER said, that having, on a former occasion, had an opportunity of delivering his sentiments in favor of the present resolution, "requesting the Executive to direct the proper officer to lay before the House such official documents, as were in possession of the Government, relative to the cession of Louisiana to France," he felt no disposition to enter at this time into a further discussion of the merits of that resolution, nor should he have again troubled the House on the subject, but for the assertion repeated more than once by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) that those gentlemen who thought and voted with himself in the secret committee, had recorded, on the journals of the House, their solemn determination (however sensibly they might feel the injuries inflicted on the rights and interests of these States) to refuse all co-operation in support of those rights and interests so long as the direction of the Government should remain in the hands of the present Chief Magistrate. This imputation had already, it was true, been very properly repelled by his friend from Connecticut, and it had been triumphantly shown from the journals themselves, with how little justice the insinuation had been made against those who agreed and voted with him on the different parts of the resolution lately adopted in the secret committee. The gentleman from Virginia had, nevertheless, thought proper again to make the assertion; Mr. H. must, therefore, beg leave again to meet it, and to declare that it was neither authorized by a fair construction of the different votes given on the occasion by yeas and nays, nor to be inferred from any thing which had fallen in debate either from himself or any of his political friends. The very contrary, continued Mr. H., is in truth the fact; and had the resolution in question been debated with open doors, it would have been very evident to every one, that the utmost pains had been taken by the other side of the House to place us in this very predicament, and by availing themselves of a point of order, to oblige us by our votes, not only to declare an implicit and entire confidence in the present Chief Magistrate, but to tie up our hands and bind ourselves not to take a single step in this important business until the Executive was graciously pleased to authorize us to do so. If the doors had been allowed, I say, to remain open during the debate, it would have been evident to every one how much pains were taken to oblige us to commit ourselves on these two points, or to submit to be presented to the world as unwilling to co-operate in any way in the support of the just rights of the nation, and be deprived of an opportunity of showing, as we were anxious to do, our approbation of, and concurrence in, other parts of the resolution; the last sentence in particular, which holds forth our unalterable determination to maintain, in every event, the boundaries and right of commerce and navigation through the Mississippi, as established by existing treaties. Fortunately, however, the point of order was determined in our favor, and we have had an opportunity to show, and did actually show, by our votes, in the most unequivocal manner, that we were, as well as our political opponents, decidedly in favor of every other part of the resolution, save only that which called on us so unnecessarily to declare ourselves the blind and passive tools of the Executive. Nay, more, he recollected to have declared himself, again and again, in the course of the debate, that, although he was not willing at the present moment unnecessarily to express an entire and implicit confidence in the political infallibility of the Executive, yet he certainly had not the smallest hesitation in saying, that he was as ready as any gentleman on the other side, to devote his life and fortune, even under the auspices of the present Chief Magistrate, to the defence of our common country against any and every foreign aggression whatever. He was not, it was true, one of the warm and enthusiastic devotees of the present Administration, and he must honestly acknowledge that he should greatly prefer seeing the reins of Government, at this critical juncture, in the hands of a WASHINGTON! He, nevertheless, recollected that the present Chief Magistrate was placed at the head of affairs by the constitutional voice of the majority of the American people. He acquiesced, therefore, in their decision, and hoped he might be permitted to avail himself of the advantage of having the doors now open, to repeat again, in the most unequivocal language, that he was as ready as any of the most devoted friends of the Administration, to risk his life and his all, (even under its auspices,) in asserting the rights and vindicating the injuries of the United States.

He was the more anxious to make a public and open avowal of his sentiments on this subject, because, although it might suit the party purposes for the moment to hold up one side of the House, as so forgetful of their duty, and so hurried away by their political zeal, as to pledge themselves in the face of the world, to give up the most important rights of the nation without a struggle, rather than co-operate with those now at the head of affairs in support of them, yet he thought it all-important that foreign nations at least should be convinced the fact was not so; and that whatever difference of opinion may exist amongst us with respect to our local politics, when called upon to meet and repel the encroachments of any foreign power, we would have but one sentiment on the subject. To bring about, indeed, a unanimous vote and present to the American people the agreeable and consoling spectacle of the National Legislature acting with one mind and with mutual confidence in each other on this great national question, big with such important consequences, had been his sincere wish, as well as that, he was confident, of every member on his side of the House. They had, consequently, left no stone unturned to effect the desirable end: they had called upon and conjured the majority to waive for the moment all party questions; to meet them on such fair and honorable grounds as might enable them to act with perfect unanimity in support of such measures, as it might be found expedient to adopt. Nor could gentlemen have forgotten the eloquent and conciliating speech of the member from Connecticut, and the ardent desire he had evinced, in common with all his friends, to bury the hatchet and lay aside every other consideration but the public good. It was scarcely necessary, however, to remind the House of the manner in which these proffers of conciliation and the anxiety on our part to obtain a unanimous vote on this important occasion were received. It is in the memory of every one, that they were treated with the most sovereign contempt, hooted and spurned at, and the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) in particular, went so far as to declare, that he neither wanted nor wished any thing like unanimity to appear in support of the measures which might be adopted; nay, that unanimity, however attainable, was not desirable. Mr. H. said he would make no comment on these sentiments and this conduct on the part of the majority; and as he did not rise for the purpose of entering into a further discussion of the main question, he should no longer encroach on the time or patience of the House, but leave them and the world to determine whether he or his political friends had, by their votes or conduct, in the course of the transaction alluded to, afforded any just ground for the imputation of the gentleman from Virginia, whatever plausibility he had ingeniously endeavored to give it.

The question was then taken, on the requisition of Mr. GRISWOLD, by yeas and nays, and carried in the negative--yeas 38, nays 52, as follows:

YEAS.--John Archer, John Bacon, James A. Bayard, Phanuel Bishop, John Campbell, Thomas Claiborne, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, John Dennis, Abiel Foster, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer Matoon, Lewis R. Morris, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, John C. Smith, John Stanley, John Stratton, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, Thomas Tillinghast, George B. Upham, Joseph B. Varnum, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

NAYS.--Willis Alston, Theodorus Bailey, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William Butler, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard Cutts, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, William Dickson, Peter Early, Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Daniel Heister, Joseph Heister, William Helms, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Michael Leib, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, John Randolph, jr., John Smilie, Israel Smith, John Smith, (of New York,) Josiah Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stewart, John Taliaferro, jr., David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, John P. Van Ness, Isaac Van Horne, and Thomas Wynns.

Mr. S. SMITH said he had a communication to make, which, in his opinion, required secrecy; whereupon the galleries were cleared.

After a short time they were opened; when the House resumed the consideration of Mr. GRISWOLD'S resolution which lay on the table.

Ordered, That the Committee of the whole House, on the State of the Union, to whom was referred, on the fifth instant, a motion respecting official information of the cession of Louisiana to France, be discharged from the consideration thereof; and that the said motion do lie on the table.

Mr. BAYARD said he lamented much, that unavoidable occurrences had prevented his attending in his place when the resolution was under consideration upon the motion to go into a Committee of the whole House. Having no knowledge of the arguments then employed to induce the adoption of the resolution, he should abstain from many remarks which obviously presented themselves on the subject, lest he should fall into repetitions of what was familiar to the minds of the House from the observations of other gentlemen. He must, however, be allowed to state that it was a practice little known heretofore, but one which had alarmingly increased of late, to resist a call for information from any branch of the Executive Government. It cannot be on the ground of secrecy, required by the state of affairs, for we have been often told that a Government like ours ought to have no secrets. Though the present times have assumed the character of economical, yet an honorable member of great weight in the House, and whom he did not then observe in his place, had remarked at the last session, with great emphasis and effect, that no disposition to economy should ever induce him to economize information. A stronger case than the present could not exist. The House had been called on to act upon a question touching our foreign relations. On such subjects, it was among the chief duties of the Executive to acquire information. It was for this purpose that Ministers were sent abroad, and their communications were made to the Cabinet, to which we had a right to look upon all occasions for information respecting the proceedings of foreign Governments which implicated the national interest.

It is stated in the Presidential Message, that Louisiana is ceded by Spain to France. This is an important fact. The statement in the Message shows that the President has obtained information relative to the cession after the fact is disclosed, which is the extent of any indiscretion which can be committed on the subject; why conceal from us the circumstances? The naked fact did not furnish sufficient light to enable us to judge of the steps which it would be proper for us to pursue. Though the country had been ceded, yet the possession remained with the Spaniards. This created a presumption that it was not a simple, absolute cession. If the cession be conditional or qualified, or to take effect upon some future contingency, it is extremely material that the House should be informed of the existence of the circumstances.

Mr. B. repeated his regret that he was not present at the discussion of the subject which had taken place, as it was beyond his powers to imagine a ground upon which the information requested by the resolution could be denied. But after the resolution had been in effect negatived on the motion to go into a Committee of the Whole, and, as he understood, by a large majority, he should not have risen to trouble the House but for an occurrence which had taken place since the House had made their determination upon the resolution. An honorable member from Maryland (Mr. S. SMITH) has just laid upon our table a resolution calling upon the House to place two millions of dollars at the discretion of the Executive. [The SPEAKER here remarked to Mr. BAYARD, that as the doors were no longer closed, it was not in order to refer to what had been done when the doors were closed.] Mr. B. said he had no disposition to transgress the rules of the House; but it was an awkward situation, when, arguing in support of a measure, he was not at liberty to state the strongest reason in favor of it. He would not repeat what had escaped him; but alluding to what was in the knowledge of every member, he considered himself allowed to urge the probability that the House would be called upon for a grant of money. Now, sir, can gentlemen expect that either we or the nation will in any case be satisfied to make a large grant of money, while no information is given of the grounds upon which the grant is required? When money is asked for, information ought never to be denied; and, for his part, he never would consent to give a cent, while information, which ought to be communicated, was withheld.

Mr. B. concluded by observing, that he hoped he might still flatter himself with the expectation, that what had recently occurred, would induce the House to vary from the determination they had made, and adopt the resolution.

The question was taken, that the House do agree to the resolution of Mr. GRISWOLD, and passed in the negative--yeas 35, nays 51.

WEDNESDAY, January 12.

Purchase of Louisiana.

[The injunction of secrecy having been removed from the following proceedings, had in secret session, they are here inserted under the proper date.]

Ordered, That the Committee of the whole House, to whom was yesterday committed a motion in the words following, to wit:

"Resolved, That a sum of two millions of dollars, in addition to the provision heretofore made, be appropriated to defray any expenses which may be incurred in relation to the intercourse between the United States and foreign nations, to be paid out of any money that may be in the Treasury, not otherwise appropriated, and to be applied under the direction of the President of the United States, who, if necessary, is hereby authorized to borrow the whole or any part thereof; an account whereof, as soon as may be, shall be laid before Congress:"

be discharged from the consideration thereof, and that the motion be referred to Mr. NICHOLSON, Mr. EUSTIS, Mr. BAYARD, Mr. DICKSON, Mr. LOWNDES, Mr. THOMPSON, and Mr. GREGG; that they do examine the matter thereof, and report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the House.

The committee to whom was referred a resolution proposing an appropriation of two millions of dollars, in addition to the sum usually appropriated for the purposes of intercourse between the United States and foreign nations, submit the following report:

The object of this resolution is to enable the Executive to commence, with more effect, a negotiation with the French and Spanish Governments relative to the purchase from them of the island of New Orleans, and the provinces of East and West Florida. This object is deemed highly important and has received the attentive consideration of the committee. The free and unmolested navigation of the river Mississippi is a point to which the attention of the General Government has been directed, ever since the peace of 1783, by which our independence as a nation was finally acknowledged. The immense tract of country owned by the United States, which lies immediately on the Mississippi, or communicates with it by means of large navigable rivers rising within our boundaries, renders its free navigation an object, not only of inestimable advantage, but of the very first necessity. The Mississippi forms the western boundary of the United States, from its source to the 31st degree of north latitude, and empties itself into the Gulf of Mexico, about the 29th degree of north latitude. It furnishes the only outlet through which the produce of the Indiana Territory, of the States of Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, and of the western parts of Pennsylvania and Virginia, and a portion of the Mississippi Territory, can be transported to a foreign market, or to the ports of the Atlantic States. From the 31st degree of north latitude, which is the southern boundary of the United States, to the mouth of the river, the territory on each side has heretofore been in possession of the Spanish Government; the province of Louisiana lying to the west, and those of East Florida, with the island of New Orleans, to the east. Although the United States have insisted on an uncontrollable right to pass up and down the river, from its source to the sea, yet this right, if admitted in its most ample latitude, will not secure to them the full advantages of navigation. The strength and rapidity of the current of the Mississippi are known to render its ascent so extremely difficult, that few vessels of burden have attempted to go as far as our boundary. This circumstance obliges the citizens of the Western country to carry their produce down the river in boats, from which it is put on board of ships capable of sustaining a sea voyage. It follows, therefore, that to enjoy the full benefits of navigation, some place should be fixed which sea vessels can approach without great inconvenience, where the American produce may be deposited until it is again shipped to be carried abroad. This great point was secured to us in the year 1795, by the Spanish Government, who agreed, in the treaty of San Lorenzo el Real, that Americans should have the right to deposit at New Orleans. This right has been used from that time till a late period; but the conduct of the Intendant at that place shows how liable the advantageous navigation of the river is to interruption, and strongly points out the impolicy of relying on a foreign nation for benefits, which our citizens have a right to expect should be secured to them by their own Government It is hoped that the port of New Orleans may again be opened before any very material injuries arise; but should this be the case, or if, as the treaty provides, a new place of deposit should be assigned, the late occurrence shows the uncertainty of its continuance. Experience proves that the caprice or the interested views of a single officer may perpetually subject us to the alternative of submitting to injury, or of resorting to war.

The late violation of our treaty with Spain necessarily leads to the inquiry, how far the Western country may be affected in other points, not connected with New Orleans? The Mississippi Territory extends from the confines of Georgia to the river Mississippi, and from the 31st to the 35th degree of north latitude. It is estimated to contain more than fifty millions of acres, and, from its numerous advantages, must, one day or other, possess an immense population. The variety, richness, and abundance of its productions, hold out to settlers the strongest inducements to resort thither, and the United States may safely calculate on drawing a considerable revenue from the sale of lands in this, as well as in other quarters of the Western country. The value of these, however, may be diminished or increased, and the sale impeded or advanced by the impression made on the public mind, by shutting the port of New Orleans, and by eventual measures which may be adopted to guard against similar injuries.

West Florida is bounded on the north by the Mississippi Territory, from which it is separated by no natural boundary; on the east by the river Appalachicola, which divides it from East Florida; on the west by the river Mississippi, and on the south by the Gulf of Mexico. The Mississippi Territory is intersected by many large and valuable rivers, which rise within its own boundaries and meander through it in a general direction, from north to south, but empty themselves into the Gulf of Mexico through the province of West Florida. In fact, with the exception of that part of the Territory which lies immediately on the Mississippi, the whole must depend on the Mobile and the Appalachicola, with their numerous branches, and on some other rivers of inferior note, for the means of sending its produce to market, and of returning to itself such foreign supplies as the necessities or convenience of its inhabitants may require. In these rivers, too, the Eastern parts of the State of Tennessee are deeply interested, as some of the great branches of the Mobile approach very near to some of those branches of the Tennessee river, which lie above the great Muscle shoals. Even if it should prove difficult to connect them, yet the land carriage will be shorter, and the route to the sea more direct than the river Tennessee furnishes. These rivers possess, likewise, an advantage which is denied to the Mississippi. As their sources are not in the mountains, and their course is through a level country, their currents are gentle, and the tide flows considerably above our boundary. This circumstance, together with the depth of water, which many of them afford, renders them accessible to sea vessels, and ships of two hundred tons burden may ascend for several hundred miles into the heart of the Mississippi Territory. These rivers, however, which run almost exclusively within our own limits, and which it would seem as if nature had intended for our own benefit, we must be indebted to others for the beneficial use of, so long as the province of West Florida shall continue in the possession of a foreign nation. If the province of West Florida were of itself an independent empire, it would be the interest of its Government to promote the freedom of trade, by laying open the mouths of the rivers to all nations; this having been the policy of those powers who possess the mouths of the Rhine, the Danube, the Po, and the Tagus, with some others. But the system of colonization which has always heretofore prevailed proves that the mother country is ever anxious to engross to itself the trade of its colonies, and affords us every reason to apprehend that Spain will not readily admit us to pass through her territory to carry on a trade either with each other or with foreign nations. This right we may insist on, and perhaps it may be conceded to us; but it is possible that it may be denied. At all events it may prove the source of endless disagreement and perpetual hostility.

In this respect East Florida may not perhaps be so important, but its acquisition is nevertheless deemed desirable. From its junction with the State of Georgia, at the river St. Mary's, it stretches nearly four hundred miles into the sea, forming a large peninsula, and has some very fine harbors. The southern point, Cape Florida, is not more than one hundred miles distant from the Havana, and the possession of it may be beneficial to us in relation to our trade with the West Indies. It would likewise make our whole territory compact, would add considerably to our sea-coast, and by giving us the Gulf of Mexico for our southern boundary, would render us less liable to attack, in what is now deemed the most vulnerable part of the Union.

From the foregoing view of facts, it must be seen that the possession of New Orleans and the Floridas will not only be required for the convenience of the United States, but will be demanded by their most imperious necessities. The Mississippi and its branches, with those of other rivers above referred to, drain an extent of country, not less, perhaps, than one half of our whole territory, containing at this time one-eighth of our population and progressing with a rapidity beyond the experience of any former time, or of any other nation. The Floridas and New Orleans command the only outlets to the sea, and our best interests require that we should get possession of them. This requisition, however, arises not from a disposition to increase our territory; for neither the Floridas nor New Orleans offer any other inducements than their mere geographical relation to the United States. But if we look forward to the free use of the Mississippi, the Mobile, the Appalachicola, and the other rivers of the West, by ourselves and our posterity, New Orleans and the Floridas must become a part of the United States, either by purchase or by conquest.

The great question, then, which presents itself is, shall we at this time lay the foundation for future peace by offering a fair and equivalent consideration; or shall we hereafter incur the hazards and the horrors of war? The Government of the United States is differently organized from any other in the world. Its object is the happiness of man: its policy and its interest, to pursue right by right means. War is the great scourge of the human race, and should never be resorted to but in cases of the most imperious necessity. A wise government will avoid it, when its views can be attained by peaceful measures. Princes fight for glory, and the blood and treasure of their subjects is the price they pay. In all nations the people bear the burden of war, and in the United States the people rule. Their Representatives are the guardians of their rights, and it is the duty of those Representatives to provide against any event which may, even at a distant day, involve the interests and the happiness of the nation. We may, indeed, have our rights restored to us by treaty, but there is a want of fortitude in applying temporary remedies to permanent evils; thereby imposing on our posterity a burden which we ourselves ought to bear. If the purchase can be made, we ought not to hesitate. If the attempt should fail, we shall have discharged an important duty.

War may be the result, but the American nation, satisfied with our conduct, will be animated by one soul, and will unite all its energies in the contest. Foreign powers will be convinced that it is not a war of aggrandizement on our part, and will feel no unreasonable jealousies towards us. We shall have proved that our object was justice; it will be seen that our propositions were fair: and it will be acknowledged that our cause is honorable. Should alliances be necessary they may be advantageously formed. We shall have merited, and shall therefore possess, general confidence. Our measures will stand justified, not only to ourselves and our country, but to the world.

In another point of view, perhaps, it would be preferable to make the purchase, as it is believed that a smaller sum would be required for this subject, than would necessarily be expended, if we should attempt to take possession by force; the expenses of a war being, indeed, almost incalculable. The committee have no information before them, to ascertain the amount for which the purchase can be made, but it is hoped, that with the assistance of two millions of dollars in hand, this will not be unreasonable. A similar course was pursued for the purpose of settling our differences with the Regency of Algiers, by an appropriation of one million of dollars, prior to the commencement of the negotiation, and we have since experienced its beneficial effects.

Under these impressions, therefore, the committee recommend the adoption of the resolution referred to them in the following words, viz:

Resolved, That a sum of two millions of dollars in addition to the provision heretofore made, be appropriated to defray the expenses which may be incurred in relation to the intercourse between the United States and foreign nations; to be paid out of any money that may be in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, and to be applied under the direction of the President of the United States; who, if necessary is hereby authorized to borrow the same, or any part thereof, an account whereof, as soon as may be, shall be laid before Congress.[76]

THURSDAY, January 13.

Another member, to wit, WILLIAM JONES, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Franking Privilege.

Mr. RANDOLPH moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the amendments offered by the Senate to the bill making appropriations for the Military Establishment for the year 1803.

The first amendment, applying an addition of two thousand dollars for the purchase of books, maps, and instruments for the use of the War Department, was agreed to.

On the second, adding $4,500 for the payment of postage on letters to and from the inspector, paymaster, &c., a lengthy debate ensued.

It was opposed on another ground--as being the duty of the Secretary of War to frank all letters going from the offices attached to the War Department, and, therefore, an appropriation was unnecessary.

In answer, it was observed, that the Government must, and ought, in some way, to support the expense of transporting returns, orders, and letters, relating to the military service; and, if they would not make an appropriation, it was proposed to extend the privilege of franking to the paymaster and inspector, through whom most of the details for the Army passed. That it was not the duty of the Secretary to frank letters and packages going from other offices--it was making a clerk of him--obliging him to do that which neither the law nor the constitution contemplated as being attached to his office; that it would encroach upon the time which, must necessarily be devoted to more important concerns. Besides, were he able and willing to perform the drudgery of that service, it was doubtful whether he had any legal or constitutional right to frank any packages, except those going immediately and directly from his own particular office, and that he might be liable to a penalty, though he should frank letters on public business, relating to the Army and War Department generally.

The extension of the privilege of franking was opposed by the Speaker, (Mr. MACON,) and others. They considered all franking as wrong, and liable to abuse--they would rather restrict than extend this privilege.

In reply, it was said that, if confidence could not be placed in those officers, as to the privilege of franking, the imposition could not be prevented by referring their packets to the Secretary of War, or by paying their account current with the postmasters. It was evident the Government must pay those expenses; that it could make no difference as to the revenue, whether the Postmaster General's Department received and paid to the Treasury the money which was drawn from the contingent fund of the War Department, or from a special appropriation to defray the expenses of postage on military letters and packets, or whether they extended the privilege of franking to those officers from and through whom the military details must pass. In the former case, it was but taking from one pocket and putting in the other--in the latter, much trouble was saved; and, if the characters employed in those departments were worthy of a confidence which should entitle them to the places they hold, it could never be supposed that they would abuse the privilege of franking.

On motion of Mr. GRISWOLD, seconded by Mr. EUSTIS, the committee rose and the amendments from the Senate were recommitted to the Committee of Ways and Means.

Amendment of the Bankrupt Act.

Mr. RANDOLPH hoped the act would not be amended, but repealed. When it passed, he was one of those who entered his protest against it. He considered it in the nature of an ex post facto law--an allurement to fraud--tending to corrupt the morals of the community--to change the nature of contracts--to discharge men, not only for their obligations and their solemn promises, but to violate their oaths. And, because Congress had a right to enact such a law, would gentlemen say it was for the benefit of trade? Its operations had been the reverse. He had been waiting, ever since its establishment, for the merchants themselves to come forward and urge the repeal. A portion of them had petitioned for amendments, which, in fact, amounted to a request for a repeal.

Mr. S. SMITH thought any arguments on the merits of the question were premature. It was a subject of too much importance to be hurried in that manner. He hoped it would be recommitted.

Mr. NICHOLSON.--Many gentlemen appeared to wish a repeal, because there were some injurious provisions in the law; others wished it might be amended, believing it was capable of such alterations as would remove their objections. He thought it in some respects defective, and in others beneficial. If the evils to which it was subjected could be remedied, he should be for retaining, if not, for repealing the law.

Mr. SMILIE.--Considering the situation of the United States, he thought there never should have been a bankrupt law; but he doubted whether it would be expedient to repeal it at this time, but let it expire of itself. He believed much mischief had been produced by it, and if it was repealed now, he apprehended much more would ensue. Its natural life was but five years, and he thought it had better exist for that period than be repealed. He was for recommitment.

Mr. BAYARD agreed with the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. NICHOLSON,) and thought the committee should have inquired what amendments were expedient. He was also forcibly impressed with the remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. SMILIE,) that it was better to suffer the law to expire of itself than repeal it now. He did not think that the House were prepared to go into a discussion. The argument of the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) that the bankrupt law was ex post facto, would not apply; but an act to repeal would in reality be an ex post facto law. Many merchants had entered into contracts, having an eye to the bankrupt law; many had embarked in perilous enterprises, knowing, that if they had made unfortunate calculations, that by a surrender of their effects they might again engage in commercial pursuits. And though a man might be discharged from his contracts, the sense of moral obligation was not impaired--in foro conscientiæ he was still answerable. He would not deny that frauds were committed, but for this should the honest debtor be eternally fettered with his debts? Should he, from unavoidable accidents, be cast into prison, and his family reduced to misery and distress? He was sure that the gentleman would revolt at the idea. Were the bankrupt law repealed, they must substitute the insolvent laws of the different States. Did not the insolvent laws of the Southern States hold out the same allurements to fraud as the general bankrupt law? By a repeal, they would increase the evils, and destroy the benefits of the general system. We were, said Mr. B., a great commercial Republic; the connection between merchants of the different States was increasing; therefore, the merchant of Georgia and the merchant of New Hampshire should be subjected to general regulations. Now, the merchant of Pennsylvania trusting the merchant of Virginia knew that his whole estate, real and personal, was liable for the payment of his debts; whereas, by the insolvent laws of that State, (Virginia,) the former might give an extensive credit; the latter might vest it all in land, which was untangible for the payment of his demand. The bankrupt act was a commercial law, extending equal benefits throughout the Union. If it was suffered to go back to the select committee, they would be able to give a clearer view of its advantages and defects. It was a subject of incalculable importance, both as it respected the debtor and creditor, and he hoped it would meet a candid and deliberate investigation.

Mr. RANDOLPH said that the affairs of the world had been found to suffer more from being put in the hands of those who were superior to the management of them, than from those who were inadequate to the execution of those objects intrusted to them. It had been allowed a sound rule of construction, that all general powers must be confined to particular exceptions. The constitution gave Congress the right of making a bankrupt law, but it did not give the power of impairing contracts. He would exonerate the person, but never the property. It was the case in Virginia, when a man had surrendered all his property, his person was liberated, but his property never. And though we were a commercial Republic, was it not necessary to take care of the agricultural interest? How did the bankrupt law operate upon the planter? He knew by experience that it had been in many instances ruinous; that many planters had been choused out of their property by the operations of this very law. He had known from experience that many men had been buoyed up and supported by their friends till those friends were made good, and then suffered to fail, to the great injury of the former.

Mr. BACON was in favor of a reference to a Committee of the whole House.

Mr. S. SMITH said, gentlemen seemed to consider the bankrupt law as made entirely for the benefit of the debtor. That was an erroneous opinion. It was made also for the creditor: as such he advocated it. It enabled the creditor to secure his property, if he found the debtor was disposed to be fraudulent: he could apply for a commission of bankruptcy, and make the debtor account for the property in his possession. Besides, it reduced the creditors to an equality--a debtor could not secure his friends, and leave the rest of his creditors without a dollar. An instance of that kind had lately come within his knowledge. To the agricultural interest it held out still greater advantages. The farmer who brought his produce to market could always get cash, if he would sell for cash; if he chose to sell on a credit, he received a higher price in proportion; that increase of price was his insurance for selling on credit. He was for examining the subject, and endeavoring to remedy defects, rather than repealing.

Mr. HOLLAND moved that it be referred to a Committee of the whole House. Carried.

FRIDAY, January 14.

Monument to Gen. Gates.

Mr. VAN NESS moved the following resolution:

Resolved, That a monument be erected in commemoration of the patriotism, valor, and good conduct of Major General Horatio Gates, who, in the late Revolutionary war, commanded the American forces that captured General Burgoyne and the British army under his command, at Saratoga, in the State of New York.

Ordered, That the said motion be referred to the committee to whom was committed, on the tenth instant, the bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act to carry into effect several resolutions of Congress for erecting monuments to the memories of the late Generals Wooster, Herkimer, Davidson, and Scriven."

MONDAY, January 17.

Two other members, to wit: from Virginia SAMUEL J. CABELL, and from North Carolina ROBERT WILLIAMS, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

Emancipated Slaves from French West Indies.

A memorial of sundry inhabitants of the town of Wilmington, in the State of North Carolina, was presented to the House and read, stating that a certain number of negroes or mulattoes, to whom emancipation has been granted by the Executive of the French Government in the Island of Guadaloupe, had been recently landed at the said town of Wilmington; that, in the opinion of the memorialists, much danger to the peace and safety of the people of the Southern States of the Union in particular, is justly to be apprehended from the admission of persons of that description into the United States, from the West India Islands; and praying that Congress will be pleased to take the premises into consideration, and adopt such effectual measures for prevention thereof, as they in their wisdom may deem proper.

Ordered, That the said memorial be referred to Mr. HILL, Mr. EARLY, Mr. HUGER, Mr. RANDOLPH, and Mr. CAMPBELL, to report their opinion thereupon to the House.

Case of John P. Van Ness.

Mr. DAVIS called up the report of the Committee of Elections on the case of John P. Van Ness.

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the report, as follows:

"That, from the free concessions and agreement of the said member, it appears to your committee that he has accepted and exercised the office of a major of the militia, under the authority of the United States, within the Territory of Columbia; and that a paragraph in the sixth section of the first article of the constitution, which expressly provides, that 'No person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office,' does, in the opinion of your committee, render the acceptance and exercise of the office aforesaid incompatible with the holding, at the same time, of a seat in the House.

"Your committee, therefore, ask leave to submit to the House the following resolution, to wit:

"Resolved, That John. P. Van Ness, one of the members of this House, having accepted and exercised the office of major of militia, under the authority of the United States, within the Territory of Columbia, has thereby forfeited his right to a seat as a member of this House."

Mr. VAN NESS said he would make a remark or two that would, perhaps, remove any impressions of indelicacy on his part in retaining his seat under the circumstances in which he was placed. He considered himself as standing on that floor, not as a private individual, but as a Representative of New York; and as holding a trust which he was not authorized to abandon before a constitutional decision should be made. His constituents had placed him there as the guardian of their rights; and that trust he could not desert without a constitutional decision being made. If that decision should be adverse to his retaining his seat, in retiring from the House he should feel no regret but at leaving his constituents unrepresented during the remainder of the session, at not having discharged all the business assigned him by the Chair, and at ceasing to associate with gentlemen whom, for the most part, he respected. In a pecuniary view, the relinquishing his seat could not in the least affect him; nor should he consider it disreputable to leave a body without any imputation of dishonor or impropriety.

The reasons he should offer to the committee for retaining his seat, were few and simple. He thought the fair, liberal, and sound construction of the constitution did not affect his case; that the incapacitating provision only applied to civil offices. The constitution was only a digest of the most approved principles of the constitutions of the several States, in which the spirit of those constitutions were combined. Not one of those constitutions excluded from office those who had accepted military appointments, except in the regular service. He, therefore, felt a full conviction that it was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution of the United States to exclude militia officers from holding a seat in Congress. And however important it might be to adhere to the letter of the constitution, yet, when the spirit of it was so clear as it appeared to him, it ought to have weight in the decision of the question before the committee, which might affect objects of great importance. The right of every portion of the Union to a representation in that House was very important, and ought to be respected in all cases which may either directly or indirectly affect it. Gentlemen, therefore, ought to reflect before they deprive a part of the Union of this important right.

Had he supposed that the acceptance of an office in the militia would have interfered with his seat in that House, he would never have accepted it. He had never entertained a doubt on this point until broached in the House. Since then, he had heard various opinions. By what he had heard, his own opinion was not changed, as he believed that a true construction of the constitution would exclude his case. Should, however, a decision against his holding his seat be made, he should retire without any other regret than that which he had expressed. He had not risen to argue the case as an advocate, but merely to assign the grounds on which he had acted.

The question was then taken on the report of the Committee of Elections, which was agreed to without a division.

The committee rose, and the House immediately took up their report.

Mr. RANDOLPH observed that, on a precedent so important as was about to be established by the vote of the House, it was unnecessary to say a word. He wished, however, that the disposition of the House to exclude, by a unanimous vote, even the shadow of Executive influence, should be recorded on their journals; for which purpose he called the yeas and nays; which were taken, and were unanimously in favor of the resolution.

MONDAY, January 24.

A new member, to wit, RICHARD WINN, returned to serve in this House as a member from South Carolina, in the room of Thomas Sumter, appointed a Senator of the United States, appeared, produced his credentials, and took his seat in the House.

Ohio Territorial Delegate unseated.

On a motion made and seconded that the House do come to the following resolution:

Resolved, That, inasmuch as the late Territory of the United States north-west of the river Ohio have, by virtue of an act of Congress passed on the first day of May, one thousand eight hundred and two, formed a Constitution and State Government, and have thereby, and by virtue of an act of Congress aforesaid, become a separate and independent State, by the name of "Ohio," that PAUL FEARING, a member of this House, who was elected by the late Territorial Government of the Territory north-west of the river Ohio, is no longer entitled to a seat in this House:

Ordered, That the said motion be referred to the Committee of Elections: that they do examine the matter thereof, and report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the House.

French Spoliations.

Mr. MITCHILL rose to address the House on a subject of a commercial nature. He alluded to the depredations committed upon the commerce of the United States, by French armed vessels, during the late war in Europe. The gentlemen of the House would, he hoped, turn their attention, for a few minutes, to the numerous memorials received from our merchants during the last session, praying compensation for those losses. These papers were numerous and respectful, and came from a most valuable portion of our fellow-citizens. Their grievances had not hitherto been redressed, nor even inquired into with the minuteness which it appeared to him to deserve. It was true a committee, numerous and intelligent, had been appointed during the last session, to examine the matter of these applications. A report had been made to the House. This report was full of information concerning the political and commercial connection between the United States and France. It comprised a concise and correct history of what had been done on both sides, since the mutual misunderstandings arose. It was a valuable document, as far as it went; but it did not conclude with any recommendation of a mode of relief, or even of investigation. It stopped short with the historical narrative, without proposing even a mode of further inquiry. During the present session, nothing further had been done or attempted. Early after the Congress assembled, he had himself given notice of an intention to revive the subject. It was confessedly of magnitude enough to merit investigation. This notice, he remembered, was given previous to the receipt of the message from the Executive. But the multitude of public business that had grown out of that communication, added to other subjects, had so completely occupied his mind, that he had hitherto suffered it to pass on without bestowing on it the consideration which he owned that it deserved. He was now ready to make amends for this inadvertent or necessary, certainly not intentional, delay. He had heard, with satisfaction, the call of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. LOWNDES) for his (Mr. MITCHILL'S) promised motion. He acknowledged the hint of that gentleman to be seasonable, and felt himself obliged to him for acting the part of a good prompter. To show that gentleman that he had profited by the suggestion made on Friday last, he had now risen with an intention to lay a resolve upon the table. The object of the resolve was to cause an inquiry to be entered upon, by a special Committee of the House, as to what amount of property, or its value in current money, had been taken from the Americans during the late war by the cruisers of France. The committee could devise some mode of ascertaining the magnitude of the sufferings complained of. This he considered as the first step that ought to be taken, towards the procuring of redress for the petitioners. And, until this was taken, he believed nothing was likely to be done. Another object of the resolve he was about to offer, was to instruct the same committee to inquire into the different classes of captures and claims. He did not suppose that all the petitioners were entitled to compensation. Some of them, he knew, were not; but it was equally clear that some of them were. This complicated mass of applications could be examined by a committee, who could draw some distinctions that would be useful. They could tell, for instance, that one sort were lawful captures for and on account of contraband, others for want of a rôle d'équipage, others were taken wrongfully, without any cause whatever, and the like. Some judgment might be formed in this way of the probable amount that might be contemplated as bona fide claims. He suspected this amount would be but an inconsiderable part of the gross amount of captures. But whether it was large or small, he hoped an examination would be attempted; and, for that purpose, he moved the following resolution:

Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire by what means the value or amount of property taken from citizens of the United States by the French, during the late war in Europe, can be best ascertained, and the several sorts of captures distinguished and classed, and report their opinion thereon to this House, to the end that indemnification may be made.

Mr. MITCHILL then said, that he did not press an instant decision upon it; but wished it to lie a day or two on the table for consideration.

THURSDAY, January 27.

United States Judges.

The several petitions of William Tilghman, Oliver Wolcott, Richard Bassett, Charles Magill, Samuel Hitchcock, Benjamin Bourne, Egbert Benson, Philip B. Key, William Griffith, Jeremiah Smith, and George K. Taylor, were presented to the House and read, respectively representing, that, by an act of Congress, passed on the thirteenth day of February, one thousand eight hundred and one, entitled "An act for the more convenient organization of the courts of the United States," certain judicial offices were created, and courts established, called Circuit Courts of the United States: That, in virtue of appointments made under the Constitution of the United States, the petitioners became vested with the offices so created, and received commissions, authorizing them to hold the same, with the emoluments thereunto appertaining, during their good behavior: That, during the last session, an act of Congress passed, by which the above-mentioned law was declared to be repealed; since which no law has been made for assigning to the petitioners the execution of any judicial function, nor has any provision been made for the payment of their stipulated compensations: That, under these circumstances, and finding it expressly declared in the Constitution of the United States that "the Judges both of the Supreme and Inferior Courts shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office," that petitioners are compelled to represent it as their opinion, that the rights secured to them by the constitution, as members of the Judicial Department, have been impaired: That, "with this sincere conviction, and influenced by a sense of public duty, they most respectfully request of Congress to review the existing laws, which respect the offices in question, and to define the duties to be performed by the petitioners, by such provisions as shall be consistent with the constitution, and the convenient administration of justice:" That "the right of the petitioners to their compensations, they sincerely believe to be secured by the constitution, notwithstanding any modification of the Judicial Department, which, in the opinion of Congress, public convenience may recommend. This right, however, involving a personal interest, will cheerfully be submitted to Judicial examination and decision, in such manner as the wisdom and impartiality of Congress may prescribe: That judges should not be deprived of their offices or compensations, without misbehavior, appears, to the petitioners, to be among the first and best established principles of the American constitutions; and, in the various reforms they have undergone, it has been preserved and guarded with increased solicitude: That, on this basis, the Constitution of the United States has laid the foundation of the Judicial Department, and expressed its meaning in terms equally plain and peremptory:" That, "this being the deliberate and solemn opinion of the petitioners, the duty of their stations requires that they should express it to the Legislative body. They regret the necessity which compels them to make the representation; and they confide, that it will be attributed to a conviction that they ought not, voluntarily, to surrender rights and authorities intrusted to their protection, not for their personal advantage, but for the benefit of the community."

Mr. GRISWOLD moved a reference of the foregoing memorial to a select committee.

Mr. GREGG observed that, according to the usual mode of transacting business, it ought to go to the Committee of Claims. He, therefore, made that motion.

Mr. RANDOLPH did not think a select committee, or the Committee of Claims, a proper committee to whom to refer this memorial. What is its nature? Does it embrace any point of fact on which a committee is to make inquiry? No. It is a broad constitutional question. He was, therefore, in favor of having it examined, where it must eventually be settled, in the House. If, therefore, the memorial had any reference, it ought to be referred to a Committee of the whole House; to which effect he made a motion.

Mr. BACON hoped this last motion would not obtain. He did not know what there was in this petition to distinguish it from any other petition from any citizens of the United States. It was suggested that it involved a great constitutional question. He did not know that this was the case. Any thing might be made a constitutional question. But he thought this question had been already determined by the whole Legislature on the most mature deliberation. He saw nothing to distinguish this petition from other petitions. He would not say that it would be doing it too much honor, but it would be making too wide a difference between similar applications to adopt this course. He was, therefore, for pursuing the common course.

Mr. GRISWOLD had no objection to a reference of the memorial to a Committee of the Whole. Perhaps that would be the better mode. It was true, as the gentleman from Virginia had stated, that a very important constitutional question may arise on this memorial. Nor did he know, as represented by the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. BACON,) that all the constitutional questions involved in the subject had been settled by the decision of the last session. He had understood the gentleman himself, in his speech, during the last session, to have said that the question of compensation was a very different question from that then under discussion. He was not absolutely certain that that gentleman expressed such an opinion, but he was certain that some gentlemen of the majority did. As the memorial was couched in terms of great respect, he trusted there would be no objection on the part of the House to give it a proper attention.

Mr. RANDOLPH would concisely answer the gentleman from Massachusetts. Does this question involve an inquiry either into matter of expediency or of fact? With respect to fact, they were all agreed. The judges make the question turn on a construction given to the constitution; it was, therefore, indubitably a constitutional question, on which a committee could not decide. The House, then, must decide. It appeared to him to be the plainest case on earth. No doubt constitutional questions may arise on many points. He hoped, therefore, the House would itself decide it. For his part, he considered the decision as already made. He hoped the memorial would be taken up that day.

Mr. SMILIE was against referring the memorial to a Committee of the Whole. If the subject had not been already maturely considered and discussed at the greatest length, he should be in favor of such a reference. But it had been most fully discussed. If they meant to sit there to the neglect of the important business, they ought to go into Committee of the Whole; but if they meant to do the public business, they ought not. Gentlemen should recollect the time spent in this discussion the last session.

Mr. DANA thought the gentleman from Pennsylvania did not calculate correctly. The same object, as to debate, would be attained in the House as in a Committee of the Whole. For he would recollect, that notwithstanding the length of the debate of the last session, and though the House were in Committee, no gentleman had spoken more than once; and, according to the rules of the House, every member had a right to speak twice.

Mr. DANA said that he agreed with the gentleman from Virginia in the ideas he had expressed.

The question was then taken on Mr. RANDOLPH'S motion to refer the memorial to a Committee of the whole House, and carried--ayes 53.

The SPEAKER inquired for what day it should be made the order.

Mr. RANDOLPH said, to-day.

Mr. GRISWOLD, to-morrow.

The question was taken on Mr. GRISWOLD'S motion, and lost--ayes 38, noes 51.

Mr. HUGER moved that it should be the order for Monday. It must be evident, that the members had not yet sufficiently attended to the subject to be prepared for a decision. It was a very different question from that decided the last session. It certainly required some little time to enable gentlemen to revolve it in their minds. It was not usual to force decisions in that way. If it was the object of gentlemen merely to vote it out, a majority must do as they please; but if they were disposed to pay it ordinary respect, they certainly could not urge so precipitate a discussion.

Mr. RANDOLPH asked if it were in order, after the question had been taken, to name another day. He said he would not have urged an immediate consideration of the memorial, but for the conviction that the subject, in all its bearings, had undergone the maturest investigation, not only of every member on that floor, but of every thinking man in the United States.

The SPEAKER decided that the moving another day was not in order.

The question on going into a Committee of the Whole this day, was then carried without a division. Whereupon,

Mr. RANDOLPH moved that the House should go into committee immediately.

The SPEAKER said the unfinished business of yesterday would be the first acted upon unless postponed.

Mr. RANDOLPH moved the postponement of the unfinished business till to-morrow. Carried.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the memorial--Mr. DAWSON in the chair.

The memorial of William Tilghman was read; which was accompanied by ten other verbatim memorials, signed by Oliver Wolcott, Jeremiah Smith, Richard Bassett, Philip B. Key, George K. Taylor, Charles Magill, Samuel Hitchcock, Benjamin Bourne, Egbert Benson, and William Griffiths.

Mr. GRISWOLD said, he did not think it proper to enter into an extensive discussion of the memorial. The haste with which the consideration of it was urged, appeared to him indicative of a disposition to reject it altogether. Under such circumstances discussion would be useless. At the same time, he would remark, that it involved a question very different from that decided at the last session. It had, then, been decided that the Legislature had the constitutional right to deprive the judges of all Judicial power; but the question never was settled, that, notwithstanding the judges should be deprived of all their Judicial powers, they were not entitled to the compensation guaranteed by the constitution. This involved a distinct point, which ought not to be hastily acted upon. The judges had never been heard before Congress on this question. They had a right by the constitution to be heard, and to be heard by counsel, he presumed, if they desired it. He had thought the House would have given time for them to be heard. But they had determined to proceed immediately. He should, therefore, be content with moving two resolutions.

Mr. GRISWOLD here read his resolutions as follows:

Resolved, That provision ought to be made by law to define the powers to be exercised by the judges of the circuit courts of the United States, who were appointed under an act, entitled "An act to provide for the more convenient organization of the courts of the United States."

Resolved, That provision ought to be made by law for submitting to judicial decision the right of the judges of the circuit court to their compensations.

Mr. RANDOLPH said, the provision desired by the gentleman from Connecticut already exists. The Legislature has defined the powers of the late circuit judges, and has decided that they shall not execute any powers. Those powers are transferred to other courts. Unless the House had changed their opinion, it was not necessary to go into any discussion on this point. The readiest and fairest course for gentlemen would be to propose to repeal the law of the last session, and restore the judges.

The question was then taken on the first resolution, and lost--ayes 34, noes 56.

The CHAIRMAN then read the second resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That provision ought to be made by law for submitting to judicial decision the right of the judges of the circuit court to their compensations.

Mr. RANDOLPH said he was not ready for the question. He had one or two remarks to offer, which had suggested themselves during the reading of the resolution. It had been repeatedly decided that the United States would not permit themselves to be brought into their own courts. Wherefore grant to a particular class of persons, in a single case, that which had ever been refused to the war-worn soldier of the Revolution; especially when it should be recollected that this case, involving the interests of judges, as a caste, could not be decided by any judicial tribunal free from bias?

A doctrine is advanced new to this House, which I have been told originated with an eminent character on the bench of the United States; I did not hear the gentleman from Connecticut distinctly, but I understand him as subscribing to it; that Congress may, constitutionally, deprive a judge of all authority, and transfer to another his powers and duties, but that the office nevertheless remains, and the judge, of course, entitled to his compensation. The constitution says that "the judges shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, for their services, receive a compensation." Without entering into a question which has already been so fully discussed, he would barely remark, that if the position just advanced be correct, the words "compensation" and "office," which the constitution supposes, and every one believes, to have distinct and different meanings, must be convertible terms. For when the powers and duties are taken away, what, let me ask, is left but a salary? The word office must be rendered by the word salary.

Mr. DANA.--The question of compensation to the judges involved considerations very distinct from those ordinarily decided upon in that House. Most of the individual cases brought here were made in pursuance of some particular law, and did not call in question the authority of Congress. If the case of the judges were to be referred to any tribunal, the right to refer was founded on the principle of controlling the decisions of the Legislature in case those decisions should appear to the tribunal to be unconstitutional. It was, therefore, in this view not proper to refer the question to a tribunal dependent on the body to be controlled. This was the only course that would probably be deemed impartial by all the parties concerned.

Mr. BACON said the true question was on the constitutionality of the repealing law. One Congress had passed a law constituting certain courts, which at the last session had been repealed. Now of what do courts consist? Of judges, who are officers of the court. The question is, whether by abolishing the courts, these officers are abolished. He supposed they were. He considered the terms as synonymous. Now the question is whether, if the offices are abolished, those who filled them before they were abolished are entitled to salaries? That is the only question that remains undetermined. What does the constitution say? Admitting the offices abolished, it says: "The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."

Does it not follow that if they continue in office they are entitled to a salary for the services they perform. If they do not continue in office they are entitled to nothing, and the constitution has no reference to them. This is the true question.

Mr. SMILIE would ask whether the Supreme Court in such a case as this could be denominated an impartial tribunal? He asked if they had not seen the time when, during the disputes between the clergy and laity, no wise man, not of the clerical order, would have trusted himself in the hands of the clergy? The same remark applied to the military, and also, with equal force, to the Judges of the Supreme Court. He really, however, thought that the judges would not receive the salaries, even if they were offered to them, as it would be contrary to every idea of patriotism. He, therefore, considered the application as a mere matter of form.

Mr. NICHOLSON.--The resolution contemplated giving the power to try the right of the judges to their claims; but the great object in reality was to authorize the judges of the Supreme Court to decide upon the constitutionality of the repealing act. Let this object, then, be avowed; let it be so declared openly, and not introduced in this incidental manner. From the remarks made last year by gentlemen on the other side of the House, it was a little surprising that this application should be made, for it was then strenuously contended that the Supreme Court had the right to decide upon the constitutionality of all laws. Why, then, ask for it? If they have this right we need not confer it; if they have it not, we cannot give it them. If the petitioning judges can bring their case before the Supreme Court, let them do so; my consent shall never authorize it. If the Supreme Court shall arrogate this power to themselves, and declare our law to be unconstitutional, it will then behoove us to act. Our duty is defined.

Mr. EUSTIS said when the office of judge was abolished all his duties ceased. The salary allowed was a compensation for services. Now when there were no services to be performed, what salary could there be allowed, or what retribution demanded? on what did this claim rest? On the opinion of the judges. But by the decision of the last winter their offices were abolished; it followed, therefore, of consequence, that their salaries ceased too. This was a plain and simple question. He considered the memorial as the protest of the judges against this decision. As such, he was willing that it should rest on the files of the House, and instead of being offended at this treatment the judges ought to be thankful.

Mr. DANA said the ideas of the gentleman from Massachusetts were in one respect correct. The memorial of the judges was a protest against the law passed by Congress. It was proper they should make it, so far as they confined themselves to language not indecorous or disrespectful. He would admit likewise that the question of powers decided the question of salary; others however entertained a different opinion. Why object then, in a case where there was a difference of opinion, to refer the decision to an impartial tribunal? The only question is whether in a contest for power, you, the Legislature, will claim the exclusive exercise of power, and whether, even if you shall exceed the constitutional limits, you will assert the entire right of saying so, or whether you will refer it to a tribunal which shall be an umpire between those who hold different opinions?

Mr. ALSTON said the resolution required amendment. As it now stood, it would appear that all the late judges of the circuit court claimed a compensation for services not rendered. He believed this was not the case. There were some of those judges who had made no such request. He, therefore, moved to insert the name of those who had presented memorials; also to insert the word "late" before the word "judges."

Carried without a division.

The resolution as amended stood thus:

Resolved, That provision ought to be made by law for submitting to judicial decision the right of William Tilghman, Oliver Wolcott, Jeremiah Smith, Richard Bassett, Philip B. Key, George K. Taylor, Charles Magill, Samuel Hitchcock, Benjamin Bourne, Egbert Benson, and William Griffiths, late judges of the circuit court appointed under an act entitled "An act to provide for the more convenient organization of the courts of the United States passed on the thirteenth day of February, 1801;" which said act was repealed at the last session of Congress, to their compensations.

On which the question being put, it was lost--ayes 35 noes 57.

Mr. VARNUM observed that the memorial contained two principles, both of which had been negatived. To draw the attention to a final decision he would move another resolution, to wit:

Resolved, That the prayer of the petition of William Tilghman and others, (naming them,) late judges of the circuit courts of the United States, ought not to be granted, and that the petitioners have leave to withdraw their petitions.

Mr. T. MORRIS moved that the committee should rise and report progress, that the petition might be printed. Negatived without a division.

The resolution was then carried without a division, when the committee rose and reported it.

The House immediately took it into consideration; when

Mr. RANDOLPH moved to strike out the words, "late judges of the circuit courts of the United States."

Mr. GRISWOLD said he presumed it was not the object to expunge all evidence of these gentlemen being judges, or late judges of the circuit courts of the United States, and yet that would appear to be the effect of the motion. He must, therefore, call for the yeas and nays, which would make that fact be recorded on the journals.

Mr. RANDOLPH said he had made the motion that the resolution might conform to the prayer of the petition. Had the memorialists called themselves late judges, he should have had no objection to their being so designated in the resolution. His wish was to style them in the resolution as they had styled themselves.

Mr. GRISWOLD said, though they had not expressly styled themselves circuit judges, yet they had stated that they had been appointed circuit judges under a law of the United States. They had therefore virtually so styled themselves.

A few words were added by Mr. EUSTIS against it, and by Messrs. RANDOLPH and NICHOLSON in favor of striking out the words, when the question was taken by yeas and nays and carried--yeas 50, nays 47.

And then the main question being taken, that the House do agree to the resolution reported from the Committee of the whole House, amended to read as follows:

Resolved, That the prayer of the petitions of William Tilghman, Oliver Wolcott, Richard Bassett, Charles Magill, Samuel Hitchcock, Benjamin Bourne, Egbert Benson, Philip B. Key, William Griffith, Jeremiah Smith and George K. Taylor, ought not to be granted; and that the petitioners have leave to withdraw their petitions.

It was resolved in the affirmative, yeas 61, nays 37, as follows:

YEAS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Phanuel Bishop, Walter Bowie, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William Butler, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard Cutts, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, William Dickson, Peter Early, Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Daniel Heister, Joseph Heister, William Helms, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Michael Leib, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, James Mott, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jun., Joseph H. Nicholson, John Randolph, jr., John Smilie, Israel Smith, John Smith, (of New York,) John Smith, (of Virginia,) Josiah Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, John Stewart, John Taliaferro, jr., David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, Robert Williams, Richard Winn, and Thomas Wynns.

NAYS.--Thomas Boude, John Campbell, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, John Dennis, Abiel Foster, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Seth Hastings, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer Mattoon, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Morris, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, William Shepard, John Cotton Smith, John Stanley, John Stratton, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, Thomas Tillinghast, George B. Upham, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

FRIDAY, January 28.

Presents to a Minister's Wife.

Mr. SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from Col. Humphreys, late Minister at the Court of Madrid, stating that, when he was about to leave that Court, the Minister of State urged his acceptance of the customary present from His Majesty. Col. Humphreys informed him that he could not, consistently with the constitution of his Government, accept the present. The Minister continued to press the acceptance, and urged that as he was no longer an officer of the United States, there could be no impropriety in his receiving it. Col. H. replied that, though he was then out of office, there would still, in his opinion, be an indelicacy in the acceptance, and that if he should receive the present designed for him, he should consider it as his duty to deliver it into the hands of the President of the United States, to be disposed of at the pleasure of the Government.

Under these circumstances he left the Court of Madrid; and upon his arrival in the United States, he found a casket of valuable female ornaments addressed to Mrs. Humphreys, which, though unaccompanied by any letter, he presumed to be a present from the Queen of Spain. Doubting the propriety of accepting it under such circumstances, Mrs. Humphreys presented the casket to the President of the United States, who put it into the hands of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State declining to decide the constitutional question, whether Mr. Humphreys could with propriety retain it, ordered it to be returned to him for the purpose of being sent back to Spain, or otherwise disposed of as he may think proper. Mr. Humphreys refused to receive it back on such terms: it consequently remains with the chief clerk in the Department of State, and Mr. H. now requests Congress to give orders for sending it back to Spain, or for disposing of it in such other way as they may think proper. He makes the same request respecting a sword presented him by the Dey of Algiers, which is also in the hands of the chief clerk of the Department of State, under similar circumstances.

The subject, after considerable conversation in the House, was referred to a select committee to report their opinion thereon.

French Spoliations.

Mr. MITCHILL called up his resolution respecting French depredations, as follows:

"Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire by what means the value or amount of property taken from citizens of the United States by the French during the late war in Europe can be best ascertained, and the several sorts of captures distinguished and classed, and report thereon to this House, to the end that indemnification be made."

Mr. BAYARD offered an amendment, which was agreed to, striking out the latter part of the resolution, and instructing the committee to report their opinion whether indemnification shall be made.

After a very desultory debate on referring the resolution to a Committee of the Whole, or to a select committee, and the rejection of a motion of reference to a Committee of the Whole, the question was taken on the resolution as amended, which was determined in the negative--ayes 34, noes 39.

The House adjourned.

MONDAY, January 31.

Another member, to wit, JOHN FOWLER, from Kentucky, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

French Spoliations.

Mr. BAYARD observed that a resolution offered some days since by a gentleman from New York, (Mr. MITCHILL,) of considerable national, and of great individual importance to a large description of citizens, appeared to him to have been disagreed to more from considerations of form than substance; as the merits of the subject were not, on that occasion, brought into discussion. In order to meet the ideas of gentlemen who desired, in the first instance, to decide the principle whether indemnity ought to be made to our merchants, he submitted the following resolution:

Resolved, That provision ought to be made by law, to indemnify the citizens of the United States who, in carrying on a lawful trade to foreign parts, suffered losses by the seizure of their property made by unauthorized French cruisers, or by any French cruiser, without sufficient cause, in violation of the rights of American commerce, during the late war between Great Britain and the French Republic, and whose claims for indemnity against the said Republic were renounced by the United States, by their acceptance of the ratification of the treaty lately made with France.

Mr. BAYARD moved the taking up the resolution for consideration; on which the House divided--yeas 39, nays 45. Resolution ordered to lie on the table.

About 3 o'clock the galleries were cleared, and the House remained with closed doors till 4 o'clock, when they adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, February 2.

French Spoliations.

Mr. HILL called for the order of the day on the bill to prohibit the importation of certain persons, whose admission is prohibited by laws of the States.

Mr. BAYARD requested the gentleman to waive his call for one moment, to enable the House to take his resolution respecting French spoliations, laid some days since on the table, into consideration for the sole purpose of giving it a proper disposition. His object, some days since, when he called it up, was to have it referred to a Committee of the whole House, not to urge its discussion on that day. His object was now the same, and his sole wish was that it should be referred, and a day named for its consideration. As, however, said Mr. B., it may be voted down now, as it then was, without any reasons being assigned, gentlemen will excuse me for calling the yeas and nays. I hope gentlemen will so far at least comply with the forms of justice as to suffer the case to be considered, whatever may be their ultimate decision upon it.

Mr. RANDOLPH said he would ask the gentleman from Delaware, whether he had seen any indisposition in that House to discuss the subject? For his part he had seen none, either in the House or in any individual member. He felt no objection to take up the subject at any time, and to discuss, or rather to hear the gentleman from Delaware discuss it. He hoped, therefore, the gentleman would not persist in taking up the time of the House by calling the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAYARD said he had seen an indisposition in the House to discuss the subject; and the reason why the gentleman from Virginia had not seen it was, that he was not in his place on the day he had before moved that the resolution should be taken up. Had he been in his place, he would have seen that a motion to take it into consideration had been rejected without a single reason being assigned. But under the assurance of the gentleman, that there was no aversion to consider the subject, he would waive his call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. RANDOLPH said he spoke only for himself.

Mr. BAYARD replied that he then persisted in the call.

The yeas and nays were then taken on taking up the resolution; and were--yeas 65, nays 26.

The resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole without opposition.

When Mr. BAYARD moved that it be made the order for Monday next.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS moved the 3d of March.

Mr. GREGG thought it was best to take the resolution up fairly and decide it at once.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS said he was willing to meet it fairly, but he thought one day sufficient for the investigation.

Mr. HUGER had no hesitation in saying this was a question of great moment, and one well worthy of the deliberate attention of the House. To be sure, if there was a great press of important business, he would acquiesce in its postponement. But this was not the case. There was no business before the House of pressing importance. He was in favor of a fair and full investigation of the subject. The motion to make it the order of the day for the last day of the session, when the press of other business would absolutely preclude any attention to it, was tantamount to a refusal of all investigation whatever. Unless the motion was withdrawn, he would, therefore, call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BACON said his mind preponderated against the claim. But to him it appeared that a postponement to such a day, would be the same as declaring the claim should not be attended to. If the claim should be sustained by the vote of the House, it would surely require more than one day to make the necessary arrangements for carrying it into the shape of a law.

Mr. BAYARD.--No doubt the observation of the gentleman from Massachusetts is correct, that a postponement to the last day of the session is, in effect, precisely the same as to reject the claim altogether. Gentlemen ought to consider that our sole object is to bring into discussion the claims of our citizens. I do not undertake to express any opinion of the validity of the claims. No member on the floor is less personally or locally interested than I am. But I do think that no claim whatever, of the meanest nature, should be decided upon until the party is heard. Many of our citizens, who have incurred losses, suppose they have an equitable claim on the Government. The claims have been announced in the public papers, and in petitions on the files of this House. Is it then for this House to say they will not attend to the petitions of our citizens? For what do we ask? Simply for a discussion, and that a decision shall not be made until those who consider themselves aggrieved shall be heard. Are gentlemen unwilling to trust themselves, lest their own consciences should compel them to an act of justice? But I will abstain from going into the merits of the subject. I will only repeat that there is no petition, however worthless, but the House pays it a decent respect, by referring it, and allowing time for its examination. Will they then, in a case of such magnitude as this, where there are so many claims, so variously characterized, will they refuse this ordinary measure of respect? I will expect a different decision from the justice and candor of the House.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS said he would withdraw his motion, and move that the subject be made the order of the day, for the first day of March, which would allow sufficient time for a full and fair investigation.

Mr. SMILIE did not know what the gentleman from Delaware meant, when he said we were not willing to trust our consciences. He hoped every gentleman had as good a conscience as the gentleman himself. For his own part, if there was time to discuss this subject, he would be willing to hear it discussed, and it would then appear who brought the merchants into their misfortunes, and who occasioned their losses. But, as he believed there was not now time, he thought it best to postpone the consideration of the subject until the next session, when it would fully appear who had been the friends, and who the enemies of our merchants. In the mean time he would only add that he would never be one of those who would consent to tax the agricultural interests of the country to pay the merchants.

Mr. RUTLEDGE observed that it was important that our merchants should be extricated from their present embarrassments. They wish to know the disposition of Congress on their claims. This cannot be done if the present motion obtain; for the subject, in that event, will be disposed of this session precisely as it was the last. It was then referred, at an early period, to a committee with whom it slept until near the close of the session, when a report, merely of facts, was made. The report was then made at a late day of the session, and the House never took it up. It is now proposed to be postponed until a very late day of this session, and it will then not be taken up.

Whatever the opinions of some gentlemen may be, it is a fact that many honorable and unfortunate merchants are now struggling with their misfortunes, produced by French spoliations, whom the hope of relief from Government has saved from ruin. They wish to know their fate, and no longer to be kept in suspense. Let their claims then be decided at once; and if gentlemen are ready to say they shall not be indemnified for losses, which, but for the renunciation of the treaty, they would have been indemnified for by France, let them say so. It is known that France would have indemnified for these losses, but for the treaty. The most respectable letters have been received from France to this effect; and Mr. R. said the fact was within his own personal knowledge. Under these circumstances the claims ought to be taken up and decided upon speedily. If the gentlemen were serious in naming so late a day, the House must be troubled with the calling of the yeas and nays; as it was impossible to expect that any thing that would be effectual could be done after the first of March, as all the measures adopted by the House required the concurrence of the Senate and the details of a law.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS said he never permitted himself to propose any thing to that House in which he was not serious. He was serious in his belief that if his motion should be adopted there would be full time allowed for an investigation of the subject. He was in favor of the distant day he had named, inasmuch as he was convinced that it would protect the House from the unnecessary consumption of a great deal of time, and which, if taken up now, would interfere with the transaction of much important business. Full time would still be allowed to decide the question of indemnity. He did not know that more was required this session by any body. He had not heard any member say that a law would be necessary this session. All that was required was a decision preparatory to a law. In his opinion this was an improper time to discuss the merits of the subject; he should, therefore, make no reply to observations of this nature, which, he thought, had been improperly offered at this stage of the business.

Mr. BAYARD said he had not fallen into the same mistake with his honorable friend from South Carolina, in considering the gentleman from North Carolina in earnest in the motion he had made. He had not thought him serious, as the day named by him was so late as not to allow time sufficient for a fair discussion. The gentleman was not a new member, and his experience could tell him how imperiously the House were occupied, during the last two or three days of its sitting, in detail indispensably necessary to complete business already begun. He had seldom known the close of a session, when it had not been necessary to sit on Sunday or till midnight. How then could it be expected that, at such a period, even the semblance of justice could be done to the subject? Whereas, if it were earlier attended to, they might consult their own convenience. If it happened, as had heretofore been the case, that they had more time than they knew what to do with, a much earlier day could be fixed on. But should the subject be postponed till the first day of March, it might be said, if the House should not then go into committee on it, that a day so late had been named with a view of deferring the subject to the next session. While, if the House, actuated by magnanimity and justice, shall go into its consideration, it would put it in the power of a minority, or even a few members, to prevent the transaction of other important business. Mr. B. said he would not pledge himself; but he rather thought the subject could be discussed in the course of one day.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania had mistaken him on the point of conscience. This was not astonishing, as that gentleman often made mistakes. He had said nothing about the conscience of that gentleman, as he knew nothing about it. He was asked whether gentlemen were unwilling to trust themselves, lest their own consciences should compel them to do an act of justice. This was all he had said, and it had not been said with any view to impeach the conscience of any gentleman on the subject.

Mr. BACON hoped this business would be so conducted as to show a disposition on the part of the House to meet these claims on honorable and fair principles, and so as to manifest no indisposition to a fair and full discussion. It was undoubtedly a serious question. There were a number of respectable characters interested in the decision--respectable, because citizens of the United States. He hoped their claims would be treated with all the candor and liberality they had a right to expect. He apprehended that two or three days were not sufficient, amidst the crowd of other business at the end of a session, for a fair and full examination. He should, therefore, vote against the motion.

Mr. DAWSON hoped the motion would prevail. A resolution in a great measure similar to that now proposed by the gentleman from Delaware had been offered some time since by a gentleman from New York. It was moved to refer that motion to a Committee of the Whole and negatived; afterwards a motion was made to refer it to a select committee, which was also negatived. He did conclude, from these decisions, that a majority of the House were not disposed to discuss the merits of the question this session. He believed this was still the sentiment of the majority, who considered the subject as not yet ripe for decision. He, therefore, thought the taking it up at an early day would only serve to waste time.

Mr. GREGG said, that so far as his mind was made up, he was against the claim; but he was, notwithstanding, in favor of a full discussion of it. The subject had been attended to. The committee appointed last session had gone into a laborious investigation of it; and had made a report containing very important statements and facts. He wished the consideration to be so far delayed, as to allow time for the printing of this report. He was against a postponement to the first day of March; but thought the second Monday in February would answer.

Mr. THATCHER said he felt gratified at the House manifesting more liberality in giving an opportunity now to discuss the subject than had been manifested before. Attempts made during the last session to discuss the subject had ended in nothing. This session, when the gentleman from New York (Mr. MITCHILL) had offered a resolution, it had been negatived. The motion of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. BAYARD) to take up the present resolution had also been negatived. But now a considerable majority were for taking it into consideration. He was, however, surprised at the motions for making the consideration of the subject the order of the day for the first and third of March, as they would in effect frustrate all discussion, from the press of other business. The subject was of infinite importance; millions depend upon the decision. The merchants were anxious to know the result. A state of suspense was, of all states, most painful to them. Why then put off the decision of a claim in his opinion just, and to which the House ought not to shut their ears?

Mr. EUSTIS said, whatever may have been the intention of the mover to postpone to the first of March, and of the intentions of gentlemen on this or any other occasion, he had no disposition to inquire--the tendency of the postponement will be to preclude a deliberate discussion. Those more conversant with the course of business knew, better than he did, the pressure of business which necessarily crowded the last days of a session; and he was more averse to the motion from the avowal of an honorable gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. DAWSON,) who had risen to support the motion, and avowed his principal reason to be a conviction that the present Congress ought not to take any decisive measures on the subject of the claims. He differed widely from that gentleman. Independently of the magnitude and extent of these claims, and of the situation of those concerned, the House were called upon by a sense of public duty to bestow upon them a cool and deliberate consideration, which on ordinary occasions was extended to applications of an individual and inferior nature. The common course of business brings this subject to view. It will be recollected that, at the last session of Congress, the memorials of the claimants were referred to the consideration of a select committee. That committee reported a state of facts, and closed their report with the following words:

"Upon the whole view of the case, the committee submit it to the House, to determine whether the Government of the United States are in any respect bound to indemnify the memorialists; and whether there be any ground for discrimination between the cases of losses sustained before the acts of the 28th of May, 1798, the 7th of July, 1798, and the 9th of July, 1798; and cases of losses sustained after those periods."

From the late day of the session in which this report was made, no order was taken on it, no discussion was had. By this part of the report facts are offered for consideration; data are furnished; a discrimination, in point of time, and of course in point of merit, is made; and the final determination is submitted to the House.

A sense of justice to the memorialists and a strong sense of public duty require that we meet the question and come to a decision. Those who appear already to have judged the question may possibly see in the statements which have been made, and the arguments by which the claim will be supported, reasons to alter their opinions. In any event, and especially after a discussion, in case of an adherence to those opinions they appear already to have formed, if they fail to produce conviction on others, the reasons on which they ground those opinions may be useful to the House, and will accompany and justify the vote they shall finally give. When the question shall be decided (and I hope it will be in favor of an earlier day than that moved for) I shall move that the report of the committee of the last winter shall be referred to the Committee of the Whole, together with the resolution under consideration. It will be also proper at that time to give a second reading to the memorials which have been presented--the grounds on which they rest their claim will be brought again into view, and by giving them a free discussion and consideration we shall be better enabled to come to a just decision. These claims, like conscience, are of no party; the misfortune has been indiscriminate, and it is to be expected the final determination will be just.

Mr. HOLLAND advocated a full discussion, and the assignment of an early day.

When the yeas and nays were taken, on making it the order of the day for the first of March, and it was decided in the negative--yeas 18, nays 74.

On motion of Mr. BAYARD it was made the order for the second Monday in February.

THURSDAY, February 3.

Amy Dardin's Claim.

A petition of Amy Dardin, of the county of Mecklenburg, in the State of Virginia, widow and relict of David Dardin, deceased, was presented to the House and read, praying compensation for the value of a stud horse, called Romulus, the property of the deceased, which was impressed into the service of the Southern army under the command of Major General Greene, by order of James Gunn, captain in a regiment of Continental cavalry, some time in the month of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-one. Referred to the Committee of Claims.

TUESDAY, February 8.

District of Columbia.

The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the following resolutions, offered by Mr. BACON:

"Resolved, That it is expedient for Congress to recede to the State of Virginia the jurisdiction of that part of the Territory of Columbia, which was ceded to the United States by the said State of Virginia, by an act passed the third day of December in the year 1789, entitled, "An act for the cession of ten miles square, or any lesser quantity of territory, within this State, to the United States in Congress assembled, for the permanent seat of the General Government." Provided, the said State of Virginia shall consent and agree thereto.

"Resolved, That it is expedient for Congress to recede to the State of Maryland the jurisdiction of that part of Columbia which was ceded to the United States by the said State of Maryland, by an act passed the 19th day of December, in the year 1791, entitled "An act concerning the Territory of Columbia and the City of Washington:" Provided, That said State of Maryland shall consent and agree thereto."

The first resolution being read,

Mr. SMILIE said it was not his wish to take up the time of the House, but barely to assign, in a few words, his reasons for the vote he should give. In the last Congress he had voted against the assumption, and he had heard no reasons since to change his opinion on the propriety of that vote. He should, therefore, vote now for a retrocession. He never could understand the reason for giving Congress an exclusive jurisdiction over ten miles square. He believed there was but one reason: It had been thought good policy to introduce this article into the constitution to facilitate its adoption, as it was known that all parts of the Union were anxious to have the seat of Government. It did not appear to him, in any proper point of view, necessary that Congress should possess such exclusive jurisdiction. There was no doubt that, let Congress sit where they would, they would always have sufficient power to protect themselves. Unfortunately, however, there was on this subject an association of ideas in the minds of many persons, not in the least connected, which was, that the residence of Congress in this place, and their possessing exclusive jurisdiction, was the same thing. If the exercise of exclusive jurisdiction could have any effect on his mind, as to the other point, it would be directly opposite, as he would much rather sit here without than with exclusive jurisdiction, as we cannot possess this authority without depriving the citizens of rights which were the most dear to them. When he looked around him, and saw no man, unless a stranger, who was not a political slave, he felt the most painful sensations. Under our exercise of exclusive jurisdiction the citizens here are deprived of all political rights, nor can we confer them. If Congress can derive no solid benefit from the exercise of this power, why keep the people in this degraded situation? It is true, this place may be settled by foreigners; but can we suppose that any native citizen, who values his political rights, will come here? For the honor of the country, he must suppose there would be none. Why not then restore the people to their former condition? Mr. S. concluded by declaring that the act of retrocession would have no effect upon his mind as to staying here.

Mr. BACON said he would state, in a few words, the reasons that influenced him in submitting these resolutions. In the first place, he knew of no advantage which the United States derived from retaining the exclusive jurisdiction of the District. Therefore, if the States to which it originally belonged were disposed to take it back, there could be no objection derived from this consideration. In the second place, it appeared, from their short experience, that the exercise of exclusive legislation would take up a great deal of time, and produce a great expense to the nation; and it was probable that, in the course of events, the trouble and expense would increase with the increasing number of the inhabitants. Should justice be done to the exercise of this power, it was likely that as much time would be spent in legislating for this District as for the whole United States. It was certain that very considerable time would be consumed. They would likewise be subjected to other expenses than those attendant on legislation. In the next place, the Government would be very diverse from that in the other parts of the Union. He would rather see the Government in the United States uniform. Here the citizens would be governed by laws, in the making of which they have no voice--by laws not made with their own consent, but by the United States for them--by men who have not the interest in the laws made that legislators ought always to possess--by men also not acquainted with the minute and local interests of the place, coming, as they did, from distances of 500 to 1,000 miles. From these considerations, he inferred their incompetency to legislate for this District, whatever their disposition might be. These were the principal reasons that influenced his mind. They might however, perhaps, be easily obviated by the reasons of other gentlemen, which he would be glad to hear.

Mr. HUGER was opposed to the resolutions, first, because he was not inclined hastily to make alterations in the great national compact that held us together. It appeared to him that, though they might not always understand the reasons on which a part of it was founded, yet it was prudent not to change it until experience had clearly proved its inconvenience. It must be obvious that it was easier to perceive its present inconvenience than to foresee the effects that may ensue from a change. The constitution contemplates the exercise by Congress of exclusive legislation over ten miles square. It must impress itself upon the mind of every gentleman that the wise men who framed the constitution deemed it proper. Congress also had thought it proper, as well as two of the most respectable States in the Union--the one by receiving and the other by granting the territory. All these considerations impressed his mind with a disinclination hastily to alter the course that had been pursued.

Mr. DENNIS regretted that he had been called out of the House when this subject was taken up, as, in the remarks which he considered it his duty to make, he could not avail himself of the ideas suggested by other gentlemen, and as he might repeat what had been perhaps already said. He would undertake, however, to show that the proposed resolutions were objectionable in every point of view that could be taken of them. They presented two aspects. Admitting, in the first place, that they could be carried into effect, so far as to restore the people of the territory to the situation in which they were placed before the cession, yet it appeared to him a strong objection that all the advantages of exclusive jurisdiction would be thereby lost. He had always thought that part of the constitution which gave Congress exclusive jurisdiction over a district of ten miles square wise and proper, and that a government whose laws were to pervade the whole United States ought not to be subjected to the whim or caprice of any part of the United States.

By exclusive legislation, he understood the exclusion to the States of all participation in legislation. He admitted that it was competent to Congress to sanction the acts of Maryland and Virginia; but he believed that no one would contend that Congress could divest themselves of an ultimate control. They might admit the Legislatures of Maryland and Virginia to legislate for the territory, but Congress possessed the power of controlling or modifying their acts. He would wish to know what advantage there could be in giving this legislative agency to those States? If given, no doubt could be entertained of many acts passed by them being disagreeable to the people of the territory, who would apply to Congress to repeal them. The next Congress, too, would have the power of resuming the jurisdiction, or, more properly speaking, the jurisdiction would still remain in Congress. Under such a qualified cession, he presumed the Legislatures of Virginia and Maryland would refuse to act; for, why should they legislate for people not within their limits? The power of legislation might as well be vested in the Legislature of Massachusetts. The truth is, that our jurisdiction would be paramount, and the acts of Maryland and Virginia would go into operation merely by our permission, and Congress might repeal and amend them whenever and howsoever they pleased. We should, therefore, be then relieved from no trouble that we now experience. There would then be as many applications to pass laws as there are now.

In another point of view he was astonished at these propositions, and at the quarter from which they came. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. BACON) has told us that his resolutions are bottomed on the broad basis of the rights of man; but he would ask how this could be, when the resolutions went to transfer twenty thousand men, without their consent, to a Government different from that under which they now live? Gentlemen are going to imitate some of the extraordinary scenes that have lately occurred in Europe, and propose to transfer this District with the same facility that in that quarter of the globe they have transferred an Italian dukedom or a German principality.

Mr. DENNIS thought the situation of Congress in relation to the people of this Territory was not sufficiently understood. He knew that it was always troublesome to legislate for any people: he foresaw these inconveniences when they removed to this place. He had thought then, as he thought now, that some legislative government must be provided for the District. In this opinion he had never varied, but had, from successive events, become more confirmed in its accuracy. But, if gentlemen object to vesting the people with the power of government, he thought he could suggest a plan better than that of retrocession, to wit: to vest the President with the power to revise the laws of Maryland and Virginia, and make a report to the next session of Congress. The laws of Maryland and Virginia were generally agreeable to the people, but they experienced many inconveniences from local and peculiar circumstances.

WEDNESDAY, February 9.

District of Columbia.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the resolutions of Mr. BACON to recede to the States of Maryland and Virginia the District of Columbia.

Mr. BAYARD hoped the committee would not agree to the resolutions. He did not believe that a constitutional power existed enabling the Government of the United States to recede the Territory. The Territory had been acquired by the direction and under the permission of the constitution. The constitution also allows the cession by particular States. When, therefore, gentlemen say Congress has the power to recede, he was at liberty to call upon them to exhibit that part of the constitution that conferred the power. He had looked over the constitution with a vigilant eye, and he could see nothing to this effect. Can it be done without power? Do gentlemen recollect that the Government of the United States is federative, and of course possessed of limited powers; and what is not delegated does not exist; and that there is an express provision that powers not expressly given shall not be assumed by implication? It was difficult to point out a non-entity. If gentlemen contend for an entity, they should distinguish it. If Congress have the power to recede this Territory, they have also the power to recede the others, the Indiana and Mississippi Territories. It is an extremely different thing to receive a cession and to recede it after it is received. Congress has the power to do the one, but not the other. How can the retrocession be made? Gentlemen say, by law. That law may be repealed. If receded, what would be the situation of the Territory? It could be no affair of contract. For a contract cannot exist without a consideration. Though, on the cession, there was a consideration, in receding there would be none. Would there be a power in Virginia and Maryland, if receded, to prevent a resumption? Such a measure showed but little respect for the people of the Territory. As far as he knew the sentiments of the people, it was not their wish to be receded. They were willing to live under the protection of Congress. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has called them slaves. They may not thank him for the appellation. If they were slaves, there must be some corollary; and if so, we must be their tyrants. But they are not slaves; they are children, over whom it is not our wish to tyrannize, but whom we would foster and nurture. Are we, in the character of Representatives of the United States, to be considered as their tyrants, because they are not immediately represented here? We ought not to decide this question until the people express their desire to return to the States.

But there is a more serious consideration relative to the people of the Territory. It is proposed to recede the District to Maryland and Virginia. Once take that step, and what obligation was there in Congress to remain here? He felt there was none. The obligation to remain arises, in a great measure, from the cession, and by destroying that, you extinguish the sense of the obligation to stay. This may be the object of gentlemen. A number of the measures lately proposed appeared to have that tendency. One motion had been made to concentrate the public buildings. Violate one stipulation of the Government, or disappoint a reasonable expectation that had been excited by the measures of the Government, and the ruin of hundreds follows. Now, a motion is made to recede. Combine these two operations. Unfix the Capitol, and recede the District, and, believe me, Congress will soon take wings and fly to some other place. It had been truly remarked, on a similar occasion, by those interested, though these things may be sport to you, they are death to us. Not a motion of this kind had been made, or could be made, that did not depreciate the interests of the place, and frustrate the object professed. By such means, our accommodations will be impaired, all enterprise be subdued, and industry languish. He hoped, therefore, that the House, by a decided vote, would reject these resolutions, and put all similar ones to sleep.

Mr. GREGG said he had expected that this question would have been decided by a silent vote. He, for his part, had no intention of having troubled the committee with any observations of his on the subject, but as other gentlemen had seen proper to enter into a discussion of it, he would beg the indulgence of the committee while he assigned, as concisely as possible, the reasons that would influence his vote. Having been a member of the Legislature at the time the act was passed for assuming the jurisdiction of the Territory, he foresaw pretty clearly most of the difficulties in which we are now involved by that act, and therefore had given it his opposition in every stage of its passage. A majority of the Legislature, however, at that time, entertained a different opinion, and made the assumption. From that moment he had considered a contract to be fully complete and ratified between the States of Maryland, Virginia, the people of the Territory of Columbia, and the Government of the United States. That contract he considered as of permanent obligation, not to be done away, but by the unanimous consent of all the parties.

Mr. SMILIE could not agree either with the gentleman from Delaware or with his colleague (Mr. GREGG) on the constitutional question. We had a power to accept the cession, or not to accept it; from which necessarily resulted the power of recession. Instead of arguing as the gentleman from Delaware, he would call on him to point out in the constitution the prohibition. His colleague talked of a moral obligation to keep the Territory. This might exist, if it were proposed to force this Territory on the States without their consent. The gentleman seems to have taken offence at the expression which had fallen from him of slaves. For his part, he had never been accustomed to courtly language, but to the expression of his ideas plainly and openly as he conceived them. He certainly had not used the expression with any intention to treat the people of this Territory with disrespect; but to express his regret at the degraded situation of those who were formerly in possession of the full rights of citizenship. The gentleman seems also offended at the epithet of tyrants applied to us.

Mr. S. would ask the gentleman from Delaware, if ever he knew a government possessed of unlimited power, who had not abused it. This was the condition of this Government, which he hoped, however, if continued, would be moderate. He had expected that gentlemen opposed to the retrocession would have shown the benefit to be derived to the United States from retaining the jurisdiction. If there were none, it was useless and dangerous, inasmuch as it could only be done at the expense of the rights of the people. He was surprised yesterday at the remarks of the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. DENNIS,) that this measure would deprive twenty thousand people of their rights. How could this be, when they had no right to be deprived of? You may give them a charter. But of what avail will this be, when Congress may take it away at any moment? They would continue for ever to be ultimately governed by a body over whom they had no control. Mr. S. concluded by again observing that he had always thought the assumption wrong; but that he had no idea of connecting that consideration with the removal of the Government. It could have no influence on his mind. He would go farther, and say that he had no idea of removing; nor did he believe they could remove.

Mr. RANDOLPH said that, whatever reasons might be advanced on the ground of expediency against the adoption of the resolution, he wished to say a few words on the constitutional objections which had been offered to them. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. BAYARD) told us, on a very late occasion, that the power to create involved the power to destroy; and although I may not be willing to adopt this maxim in all the latitude in which it was urged by that gentleman, I have no hesitation in averring my belief that Congress possess the right, with the assent of these States, respectively, to cede the several portions of this territory to Maryland and Virginia. Nor, in my opinion, does this doctrine militate against that construction of the constitution, which regards that instrument in the light of a limited grant of power. In this construction I heartily concur with the gentleman from Delaware, or rather, if he will permit me to say so, I am glad to find he agrees with me, as I have retained my opinion, whilst he seems to have changed his. I readily admit that Congress possesses no power but that which is devolved on them by the constitution, explicitly, or which is evidently included in, or deducible from its plain provisions. The constitution nowhere gives Congress the express power of repealing laws; but the repeal of laws is essentially connected with the power of passing them, as, in this case, the right to recede is involved in the right to accept the cession. The parties to this compact are the United States, of the one part, and the States of Maryland and Virginia, of the other. We speak the voice of the United States, and, among others, of Maryland and Virginia, in their confederate capacity. The Legislatures of those States answer for them in their individual capacity. If all these parties are agreed to revoke their act, I wish to know who is to dissent to it, or what obstacle can prevent its being rescinded?

Mr. R. said, that he was of the number of those who voted against assuming the jurisdiction of this territory. He did it from a predilection for those principles in which the American Revolution originated; from the firm belief that men ought not to be bound by laws in whose formation they had no influence. It was the violation of that principle, and not the extent to which it was carried, which laid the foundation of our independence. For, let it be remembered that the demand of Great Britain went only to a peppercorn; but that we disdained the admission of so odious a doctrine, and commenced a determined and successful resistance. But it is denied that this territory is in a state of slavery, because, says the gentleman, it implies that we are tyrants. The term slavery, sir, excites in the mind of man an odious idea. There are, however, various species of this wretched condition. Domestic slavery, of all others the most oppressive; and political slavery, which has been well defined to be that state in which any community is divested of the power of self-government, and regulated by laws to which its assent is not required, and may not be given. Nor have I ever before understood that slavery, particularly of the last description, necessarily implied tyranny, although it too frequently is productive of it. But, so far from being slaves, the people within this territory are, it seems, our children, who are to experience every indulgence at our hands. Sir, the form of government, such as has been described, however mild and beneficent it may be in its administration, places those subjected to it in a state of political slavery, and they are as completely divested of self-control as the infant who is dandled on the knee of its parent. As to the existence, then, of this species of slavery, it mattered not whether the people within the limits of this District were regarded as the favorite son, and feasted on the fatted calf, or were exposed to the cruel rigor of a step-mother.

An idea had been held out from a very respectable quarter that this District might, in time, become a State. As to Congress, what difference will they find between being under the jurisdiction of the State of Columbia, or the State of Maryland. But, if this objection were removed, it is impossible that this territory can become a State. The other States can never be brought to consent that two Senators and, at least, three electors of President, shall be chosen out of this small spot, and by a handful of men.

The constitution seems to have intended, by its provision on this subject, to guard the General Government against the undue influence of any particular States wherein it might sit. An insurrection in Philadelphia is mentioned by some gentleman as having given rise to this clause in the constitution. The constitution, no doubt, had a wise end in view, but it has failed in the means of attaining it. No man has a higher respect than myself for the talents of the framers of that instrument. But let it be remembered, that they were making a great experiment, and to have failed in but a single object, is the highest proof of their wisdom. The physical force of this small District would prove but a poor defence against the aggression of large and powerful States. Happily, our security is more amply provided for; it results from the command which has been given us over the sword and the purse of the Union. Our protection is not in a mathematical line--which would oppose but a feeble resistance to an invading foe. But let gentlemen ask themselves, why the inhabitants of this District should be less formidable if disposed to insurrection because under our own jurisdiction? Look at Paris! was the insurrection of the fourteenth of July, which humbled into the dust the ancient monarchy of France, the effect of a want of jurisdiction; of a want of power in the Government over the lives and fortunes of the people? Did the city afford the Government a defence? No, it was in insurrection. Did the military send its aid? On the contrary, it joined the insurgents. What was the fact at Philadelphia? That Congress was insulted by its own troops. Would the civil jurisdiction of the town have repelled the bayonet? No, it was not in parchment to afford this defence. It has left us an awful lesson against standing armies; and if we shall ever be so infatuated as to multiply armies about us, we may rely in vain on the lines of circumvallation which the limits of our exclusive jurisdiction form. The constitution, therefore, has failed in its endeavor to give to Congress any other security than that which public opinion and the command of the national resources afford.

But, whilst I have no doubt on the subject of our constitutional right, I am opposed to the resolution on the ground of expediency. It appears to have disseminated a great alarm among the people of our immediate neighborhood. At a proper time, when great unanimity can be obtained, it may be carried into effect. If now passed, it is irrevocable; and I have no indisposition to give the question the most mature deliberation, and to give it a fair operation on the public mind. I could wish, indeed, to see the people within this District restored to their rights. Men in such a situation are, as it had been wisely and eloquently said, fit instruments to enslave their fellow-men. This species of Government is an experiment how far freemen can be reconciled to live without rights; an experiment dangerous to the liberties of these States. But, inasmuch as it has been already made, inasmuch as I was not accessory to it, and as, at some future time, its deleterious effects may be arrested, I am disposed to vote against the resolutions. I view them as a fatal present to this House, although I respect the motives in which I believe them to have originated; as tending to disunite those who ought ever to act in concert; and I have no hesitation on a question of expediency to declare my disposition to concede something to the wishes and fears of those around me. In their present shape, at least, I shall therefore vote against the resolutions.

Mr. EUSTIS was opposed to the resolutions, for the reasons which had been stated, and for other reasons not mentioned, though they might have occurred to the minds of gentlemen. He thought it right to express a difference of opinion with the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) on an important question, the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress to the ten miles square. He was not prepared to pronounce the provision of the constitution on this subject deficient or unwise. It rather appeared to him to be founded in the nature of the Government. A Government on parchment, and without force, was no Government at all. It had been stated this provision grew out of a transaction at Philadelphia, and asked what dependence was to be placed on a military force when that force was itself the aggressor? But that transaction suggested a different result. Had the militia been well equipped and ready for service, and under the immediate control of Congress, would the military force have been suffered to overawe them? This very case furnished an argument for investing Congress with the complete command of the militia force of the territory, to screen them from insult, and to protect them from the application of force that might destroy deliberation. They had already taken a course calculated to prove the soundness of this mode of protection. Their laws had recognized the militia of the territory; and some measures had been taken to organize them. The militia was the physical force Congress must rely on. Suppose that militia were under the command of Maryland, and Congress was about to pass a law obnoxious to that State. Suppose the militia of Maryland to be mutinous, and to surround these walls. Must you resort to Maryland for protection, and wait on her measures? No; the situation of the territory and your immediate power over the militia must furnish you with the means of protection. He therefore thought it one of the best provisions of the constitution, to submit the physical force near the Government to its direction.

Mr. SOUTHARD rose only to make one observation, which had been touched on but lightly in the course of the debate. It appeared to him that when Congress assumed the exclusive jurisdiction of the ten miles square, they had, in the first instance, entered into a contract with the Legislatures of Virginia and Maryland. He had no doubt that, if the contract had ended here, they might, with their consent, make a retrocession. The second step, however, taken, was a contract between the agents of Government and the proprietors, in order to obtain the soil. This contract appeared to him to be solemn and binding. In entering into the contract, the proprietors gave the General Government sites for the public buildings, and half the residue of the land within the city plot. He conceived that this was a contract founded on express stipulations that Congress should exercise exclusive jurisdiction. The proprietors had no idea, at the time they made the contract, that their property would be retroceded and the Government had since received more than one million's worth of real property which they now enjoyed. He would ask, whether a retrocession, under such circumstances, would not have a retrospective effect, and impair those obligations which the United States were bound to observe? For this reason, he thought a retrocession improper, as it would be a violation of contract with the people of the territory. It appeared to him that, while they were satisfied, the General Government ought to be satisfied.

Mr. VARNUM doubted the reality of the observation of the gentleman from New Jersey. He suspected there was no such contract in existence. It was not the interest of the Government of the United States to do any thing that would injure this District. He therefore supposed that every gentleman who voted on this occasion, would act for the interest of his country. If he thought it possible for Congress to legislate for the territory, he should have no objection to retaining the jurisdiction. But, when he considered that Congress were appointed to legislate on great objects, and not on minute local concerns, he did not think them competent to legislate for the persons situated in the Territory of Columbia. He did not know whether, if the jurisdiction was retained, it would not be proper to indulge the citizens with a territorial legislature. But to this the people themselves object. Virginia objects to a union with Maryland. There were, manifestly, hostile interests which could not easily be united. And if there shall be a territorial legislature, still Congress has a right over their acts. Whether this was the fit time to retrocede the territory he did not know; but he believed the time would come when the citizens of the territory will be in favor of it.

Mr. SMILIE stated the circumstances of the case at Philadelphia, which had been so often alluded to by gentlemen. At the close of the late war there had been a mutiny among the troops, who had surrounded Congress. Not a drop of blood had, however, been spilt. This was the mighty incident of which so liberal a use had been made. He would ask whether, in countries over which the Government had complete jurisdiction, worse things had not happened? He would ask, whether this menace of Congress were to be compared with the mob of Lord George Gordon in a country over which the Government had an entire jurisdiction.

The question was then taken on the first resolution, for receding to Virginia the territory originally attached to that State, and lost--ayes 22.

When the question was taken on the second resolution, and lost, without a division.

The committee rose, and reported their disagreement to the resolutions.

The House immediately took up their report.

Mr. NICHOLSON called for the yeas and nays.

Mr. RANDOLPH said, as he believed the House incompetent to legislate for the people of Columbia; as he believed the interests of the several parts of the territory were as hostile as any in the Union, as it was manifest there was an Alexandria, a Georgetown, and a city interest; and even, within the city, a Capitol-hill interest, and a President's-house interest--which were irreconcilable; he should vote for the amendment of his colleague, (Mr. DAWSON.) To attempt to legislate for the District was, in effect, to constitute the chairman of the committee, or, at any rate, the committee itself on the affairs of the territory, the Solon or Lycurgus of the place. It was well known that the indolence of the other members, or their indifference, inseparable from the situation in which they were placed, would prevent Congress from legislating with a full understanding of the objects before them. He, therefore, thought it expedient to retrocede all the territory, excepting the City of Washington. This disposition of the territory would leave entirely untouched the question which arose from the interest of individuals who had made purchases of property under the faith of Congress retaining the jurisdiction. It was probable that, in such event, a corporation might be established in the city that would answer the ends of Government, without two-thirds of the time of the National Legislature being consumed.

The question was then taken by yeas and nays, on concurring with the Committee of the Whole, in their disagreement to the first resolution, and carried--yeas 66, nays 26, as follows:

YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, James A. Bayard, Thomas Boude, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, John Campbell, John Clopton, John Condit, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Thomas T. Davis, William Dickson, Peter Early, William Eustis, Abiel Foster, Calvin Goddard, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, John A. Hanna, Daniel Heister, William Helms, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, David Holmes, Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, George Jackson, William Jones, Ebenezer Mattoon, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Morris, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jun., Joseph H. Nicholson, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, William Shepard, Israel Smith, John Cotton Smith, John Smith, (of Virginia,) Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, John Stanley, John Stewart, John Taliaferro, jr., Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, Thomas Tillinghast, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, George B. Upham, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, Richard Winn, and Thomas Wynns.

NAYS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Phanuel Bishop, William Butler, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, Richard Cutts, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, John Fowler, William Hoge, James Holland, Michael Leib, James Mott, John Randolph, jr., John Smilie, John Smith, (of New York,) Josiah Smith, Richard Stanford, David Thomas, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, and Robert Williams.

The second and last resolution to which the Committee of the Whole reported their disagreement, being twice read, in the words following, to wit:

Resolved, That it is expedient for Congress to recede to the State of Maryland the jurisdiction of that part of the Territory of Columbia, which was ceded to the United States by the said State of Maryland, by an act passed the nineteenth day of December, in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one, entitled "An act concerning the Territory of Columbia and the City of Washington;" provided the said State of Maryland shall consent and agree thereto:

The question was taken that the House do concur with the Committee of the Whole in their disagreement to the same, and resolved in the affirmative.[77]

THURSDAY, February 10.

Ohio School Fund.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report of the committee of the second instant, to whom were referred, on the twenty-third of December last, a letter from Edward Tiffin, President of the Convention of Ohio, and a letter from Thomas Worthington, special agent of the said State, enclosing a copy of the constitution thereof, together with sundry propositions in addition to, and in modification of, those contained in an act passed at the last session of Congress; and after some time spent therein, the committee rose and reported to the House their agreement to the resolutions contained therein, with two amendments, which being severally read, the first amendment was, on the question put thereupon, agreed to, and the other disagreed to by the House.

The said resolutions, as amended, were again severally read at the Clerk's table, and agreed to by the House, as follows:

1. Resolved, That a donation, equal to one thirty-sixth part of the amount of the lands in the United States' Military Tract, within the State of Ohio, be made for the support of schools within that tract.

2. Resolved, That a donation equal to one thirty-sixth part of the county of Trumbull, be made, out of the lands within the United States' Military Tract, for the support of schools within the said county of Trumbull.

3. Resolved, That a donation equal to one thirty-sixth part of the Virginia reservation, so far as the unlocated lands, within that reservation, (after the warrants issued by that State shall have been first satisfied,) will supply the same, be made for the support of schools in the district contained between the Scioto and Little Miami Rivers.

4. Resolved, That a like provision, for the use of schools, be made, out of any lands which may hereafter be acquired from the Indian tribes.

5. Resolved, That the lands which now are, or hereafter may be, appropriated to the use of schools within the State of Ohio, be vested in the Legislature thereof, in trust for that object.

6. Resolved, That not less than three-fifths of the sum offered to be appropriated by Congress for the opening of roads, from the Western to the Atlantic waters, shall be appropriated under the direction of the State of Ohio, for the laying out of roads within that State.

7. Resolved, That, in lieu of the township proposed to be granted for the use of an academy, by the act passed the fifth day of May one thousand seven hundred and ninety-two, there be granted to the State of Ohio, for the purposes described in that act, one other entire township, within the district of Cincinnati; provided that the State of Ohio shall relinquish to the United States, all their claims, under the act aforesaid, against the said John C. Symmes.

8. Resolved, That these propositions shall depend on the compliance, by the State of Ohio, with the provisions of the third proposition, and second section of the aforesaid act, entitled "An act to enable the people of the eastern division of the territory north-west of the river Ohio to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States, and for other purposes," passed the thirtieth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and two.

Ordered, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the said resolutions; and that Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. ELMENDORPH, Mr. GODDARD, Mr. HENDERSON, and Mr. ARCHER, do prepare and bring in the same.

THURSDAY, February 17.

Emancipated Slaves from French West Indies.

An engrossed bill to prevent the importation of certain persons into certain States, where, by the laws thereof, their admission is prohibited, was read the third time.

And, on the question that the same do pass, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 48, nays 15, as follows:

YEAS.--Willis Alston, John Bacon, Theodorus Bailey, James A. Bayard, Phanuel Bishop, Thomas Boude, William Butler, Samuel J. Cabell, John Campbell, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Dawson, Peter Early, Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, Calvin Goddard, Edwin Gray, Daniel Heister, Joseph Heister, William Helms, Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, William Hoge, James Holland, George Jackson, Michael Leib, David Meriwether, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, Thomas Plater, John Rutledge, William Shepard, John Smilie, Samuel Smith, Richard Stanford, John Stewart, John Taliaferro, jr., Samuel Tenney, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, Robert Williams, Henry Woods, and Thomas Wynns.

NAYS.--Robert Brown, John Condit, Richard Cutts, John Davenport, Abiel Foster, John A. Hanna, Seth Hastings, Samuel L. Mitchill, James Mott, Israel Smith, Josiah Smith, Henry Southard, Joseph Stanton, David Thomas, and Peleg Wadsworth.

Resolved, That the title be, "An act to prevent the importation of certain persons into certain States, where, by the laws thereof, their admission is prohibited;" and that the Clerk of this House do carry the said bill to the Senate, and desire their concurrence.

TUESDAY, February 22.

Military Land Warrants.

GENERAL LAFAYETTE.

The House took up the bill respecting military land warrants.

Mr. DAVIS hoped it would not be adopted without inquiring whether the land proposed to be given to General Lafayette was the same as was given to other Major Generals. It was true he had rendered services to the United States, for which they had made him an allowance. There were other claims, in his opinion of greater force, made day after day, without being attended to. If this provision were annexed to the bill he should vote against its passage; though, otherwise, he would be glad to vote for it. If General Lafayette was entitled to this land, he wished to see the business regularly conducted. We are now making provision for persons who have legal claims. It is right, therefore, to separate these subjects. Let us attend to one first, and afterwards consider the other.

Mr. DAWSON.--When, on yesterday, I had the honor to submit this amendment, I indulged the pleasing hope that it would have received not only the vote of this House, but would have met with the patronage of all--of all the friends of justice, and of those who remember past services; and that it would have been adopted without delay and without debate.

In this I have been wofully disappointed. My fond anticipation was immediately damped by a gentleman from New York, on whose friendship I did count, and do now expect; and the amendment, instead of finding sympathizing advocates, has met with an unexpected opposition; instead of finding friends proud to reward past services, it has met with enemies, seeking for reasons to withhold justice.

Mr. Chairman, the search has been in vain; the grateful, the patriot mind will remember those services, while the reflection on a wish to withhold justice will be left as consolation to those who have made the search.

Sir, it was my wish, and it is my determination to support this amendment solely on the grounds of services rendered to us. Whatever may have been the conduct and the situation of General Lafayette since our Revolution, humanity may lament; but, sir, it belongs to us to pay this tribute to justice, if not to gratitude.

Sir, on yesterday, I stated what was known to every gentleman of this House, that this gentleman at an early period of life, animated by the love of liberty, left the pleasures of an enticing Court, encountered the danger of winds and waves, and entered into the service of a country known to him only by name, and endeared to him only by its devotion to that flame which he felt himself. In this service he continued until the end of our war, submitting to all the hardships and fatigues of the field; leading our armies to victory, and exposing himself to every danger; and this without any compensation, and at the sacrifice of the greater part of his private fortune.

I stated more--that that fortune is now much reduced; and this is what I do know. Yes, sir, I have spent two days with this adopted child of America on his little farm. I saw him surrounded by an amiable family, but not with wealth. I heard him pouring forth his best wishes for the prosperity and happiness of this country; and I witnessed his constant exertions to promote its interests. It may not be improper here to remember what I do know. Some short time before I went to France, the First Consul applied to Mr. Lafayette to come to this country as Minister. He replied, "I am by birth a French citizen, by adoption a citizen of the United States. I have served in that country, and am so attached to its interest that I doubt, if a case of difficulty should arise, whether I should do justice to my own; if I did, I am sure I should be suspected, and therefore I will not place myself in that delicate situation."

And now, sir, what is it that it is proposed to do for this gentleman; for him who rendered you services without emolument, and risked his life without hesitation; to this citizen of the United States; and not a foreigner, as the gentleman from Kentucky has been pleased to call him? It is to give to him what we give to others; and what he never would have received had it not been for the reverse of his fortunes. And shall we hesitate? I trust not.

Sir, this is not only a question of justice, but it is of feeling; every soldier, every officer must feel for a fellow-soldier and a fellow-officer, and every citizen for a fellow-citizen; and such is Mr. Lafayette.

Whatever may be the fate of that amendment, if it shall be adopted I shall feel proud for my country. If it shall be negatived, I shall have the pleasing reflection of having discharged a duty to my country and to my own feelings.

Mr. T. MORRIS said that the opposition he had made was more to the manner than to the matter of the motion. He thought it improper to decide upon it at so late an hour, and when there was scarcely a quorum of members within the walls. I have, said Mr. M., no objection to the grant. On the contrary I think it ought to be made in consideration of the circumstances of General Lafayette. I should indeed have wished that it had been the subject of a distinct bill. The value of gifts of this nature depends as much on the manner in which they are made, as on the gifts themselves; and I think the donation would, in this case, have been deemed more honorable, if a special bill had been passed, instead of inserting a clause in another bill. If there were time to bring in a distinct bill I should now vote against the amendment; but as I am unwilling to hazard the object altogether, I shall vote for it: expressing my regret, at the same time, that the gentleman who has viewed the distressed situation of General Lafayette had not sooner brought the business forward.

A debate of short duration ensued, between Messrs. S. SMITH, SHEPARD, DAWSON, and BACON, in favor of the amendment, and Mr. DAVIS against it, when it was carried without a division.

On engrossing the bill for a third reading, Messrs. SOUTHARD, and SHEPARD spoke in favor of, and Mr. VARNUM against it--carried, and ordered to a third reading to-morrow.

SATURDAY, February 26.

French Spoliations.

Mr. BAYARD moved that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on a motion of the thirty-first ultimo, "for indemnifying the citizens of the United States, who, in carrying on a lawful trade to foreign parts, have suffered losses by the seizure of their property, made by unauthorized French cruisers, or by any French cruiser, without sufficient cause," to which Committee of the whole House was also referred, on the second instant, the report of a select committee, made the twenty-second of April last, on "the memorials and petitions of sundry citizens of the United States, and resident merchants therein, praying relief, in the case of depredations committed on their vessels and cargoes, while in pursuit of lawful commerce, by the cruisers of the French Republic, during the late European war:"

It passed in the negative--yeas 21, nays 48, as follows:

YEAS.--John Bacon, James A. Bayard, John Campbell, Samuel W. Dana, William Eustis, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, Seth Hastings, William H. Hill, Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Morris, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Cotton Smith, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, George B. Upham, Peleg Wadsworth, and Lemuel Williams.

NAYS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, Theodorus Bailey, Phanuel Bishop, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William Butler, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, John Clopton, John Condit, William Dickson, Peter Early, Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, Andrew Gregg, Daniel Heister, Joseph Heister, William Helms, William Hoge, James Holland, George Jackson, Michael Leib, David Meriwether, Thomas Moore, James Mott, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., John Randolph, jr., John Smilie, Israel Smith, John Smith, (of New York,) John Smith, (of Virginia,) Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, John Stewart, John Taliaferro, jr., David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, Robert Williams, Robert Williams, Richard Winn, and Thomas Wynns.

THURSDAY, March 3.

Thanks to the Speaker.

On a motion made and seconded,

"That the thanks of this House be presented to NATHANIEL MACON, the Speaker, in testimony of their approbation for his conduct in discharging the arduous and important duties assigned him, while in the chair:"

It was unanimously resolved in the affirmative, by yeas and nays, every member present voting in the affirmative.

Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER made his acknowledgments to the House, in manner following:

"GENTLEMEN: Accept my sincere thanks for the vote which you have been pleased to pass, expressive of your approbation of my conduct in the chair; they are also due to each of you, for the liberal support which I have uniformly received.

"Permit me to wish you a safe return home and happy meeting with your friends."

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate having completed the Legislative business before them, are now ready to adjourn.

Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, sine die.

INDEX TO VOL. II.

A

Accommodation of the President, see Appropriations.

ADAMS, JOHN, Vice President, attends Senate, 3; declares result of election of President to Senate, 6; gives notice to the Senate of time he will take the oath, 6; valedictory to the Senate, 8; reply to answer of the Senate to his valedictory address as Vice President, 9; his inaugural address, 11; presides in joint meeting of Senate and House, to count the votes for President, 62; remarks on mode of proceeding, 62; his method of counting the votes, 62; votes given to, for President in 1796, 62; declaration to the two Houses of the votes for President in 1796, 63; notifies Congress of the time he will take the oath as President, 66; President of United States, 113; reply to answer of Senate to President's message, 119; his proclamation calling extra session of Congress, 120; reply to answer of House to President's message, 143; reply to answer of Senate to message, 170; reply to answer of House to President's message, 182; reply to answer of House to President's message, 330; message to House announcing death of Washington, 434; vote for, as President, 487; reply to address of Senate, 484; reply to answer of Senate to President's message, 323; reply to answer of Senate to message, 402; reply to address of Senate on death of Washington, 403; answer to address of House, 432; letter to Senate on public property in his hands, 487; reply to answer of House to message, 500; his administration, note, 539. See Message. See Index, vol. 1.

ADAMS, SAMUEL, vote for, as President in 1796, 63.

Address in Senate, in answer to message at 2d session, 4th Congress, 4; in answer to message 1st session, fifth Congress, 117; 2d session, 5th Congress, 169; 3d session, 5th Congress, 322; 1st session, 6th Congress, 402; 2d session, 6th Congress, 483; of Senate to President on death of Washington, 403.

Answer of House to Message, 2d session, 4th Congress, considered, 17; motion to lay over, 17; unusual if not unprecedented motion, 17; improper to go into the subject before members had time to reflect on it, 17; the more expeditious, the greater will the effect be, 17; a subject of extensive consequence, 18; too important to be hastened, 18; no precedent for delay, 18; only two subjects on which there can be a difference of opinion, 18; a delay would have a very unpleasant appearance, 18; many bad consequences may attend hastening the subject, 18; are we always to act by precedent?, 18; motion to postpone lost, 19; verbal amendments proposed, 22; debate on, 22; parts expressive of wisdom and firmness in the Administration objected to, 23; has been a want of firmness for the last six years, 23; this want has brought the country to its present alarming condition, 23; no reason to exult in the view of our foreign relations, 23; our internal situation no ground for admiration, 23; the government can go on very well after the President retires, 23; no uncomfortable sensations felt at his retirement, 23; wisdom and firmness not doubted, 24; further debate, 24, 25, 26, 27; no inconvenience from voting the address, 28; shall one slip, one criminal slip rob the President of his good name?, 28; duty of the House to do that patriot all the honor they could, 28; United States do not enjoy "tranquil prosperity," 29; we are not the proper organs to declare the people free and enlightened, 29; condition of Europe, 30; further debate, 31, 32; address adopted, 33.

Answer of House to President's Message, 1st session, 5th Congress, debate on, 124; sections proposed to be inserted, 124; the answer is predicated upon the principle of approving all the measures of the Executive with respect to France, whilst the amendment avoids giving that approbation, 124; which of the two grounds would the House take, was the question, 124; the present a most important crisis, 125; statement of the case, 125; the rights of France relative to the three principal subjects which are causes of complaint between the two countries, 126; arguments of our ministers recapitulated, 126; free ships make free goods, 126; contraband articles, 126; carrying provision, 126; if these amendments are agreed to, fresh insults and aggressions must be expected, 127; was the conduct of France justifiable in rejecting our minister?, 127; complaints of France, 127; examined, 127, 128; France considers our government and people divided, 129; address objectionable in approving the course pursued in conducting our foreign relations and in expressions of resentment and indignation towards France, 130; conduct of France considered, 130; federalism and anti-federalism, 130; amendment scrutinized, 131; all the steps taken by the Executive had a view to an eventual appeal to arms, 131; shall the Executive be approved, or France put on the same ground as other belligerents, 131; any answer to message objectionable, 132; further debate, 133; facts disclosed by the message, 134; the answer of the committee seems to express indignity on account of injuries received from France, and a determination to repel them--the amendment is in a conciliatory tone and recommends that negotiations be begun as with other belligerents, 135; arguments in favor of each considered, 135, 136; course of the debate, 136; view of the question, 137; from what line of conduct are we to expect the most beneficent issue, 137; the amount of the question is whether we shall place all nations on a level as to commerce, and remove inequalities existing between them, 138; a view of facts, 138, 139; other amendments proposed, 139; shall any notice be taken of the speech of Barras?, 140; it is an indignity, 140, 141; amendments carried, 142; moved that such members as do not choose need not attend at the presentation of the answer, 142; all now obliged to attend unless sick or leave of absence obtained, 142; the mover excused unanimously, if it would not comport with his, dignity to attend 142.

Answer to President's Message, 2d session, 5th Congress; verbal amendments proposed and adopted, 181; an excuse from attending the ceremony asked, 182; the House will not compel the members to go about parading the streets of Philadelphia, 182; none of the members particularly anxious for the society of the member who asks to be excused, 182; no power in the House to compel any member to attend, 182; further discussion, 182; motion withdrawn, 182.

Answer in House, 3d session, 5th Congress, 329; 1st session, 6th Congress, 431; 2d session, 6th Congress, 499.

Address of House to President, see Index, vol. 1.

Admirals in the Navy, bill for their appointment reported, 473; motion to postpone, 473; no necessity for the bill, 473; reasons for the appointment, 473; postponement lost, 474.

African Slaves, memorial of Quakers on, presented in Senate, 170; ordered to be withdrawn, 171. See Index, vol. 1, African Slaves and Slavery and Slave trade.

ALBERTSON, JOB, a manumitted slave, petition of, 57.

ALEXANDER, WILLIAM, petition of, 198.

Algerine captives, ransom of, 95. See Algerine War, Index, vol. 1.

Alien Enemies, bill relative to, 280; amended bill reported, 301; bill from House committee taken up, 305; motion to rise for purpose of postponement, 305; debate, 305; motion withdrawn, 305.

Alien and Sedition laws, petitions for repeal of, 358, 364.

Aliens.--See Naturalization Laws.

ALLEN, JOHN, Representative from Connecticut, 135, 179, 331; on a naval armament, 154; offers resolution for additional duty on salt, 163; on relations with France, 240, 241; on the naturalization laws, 258, 259; on the sedition bill, 305; on the expulsion of Matthew Lyon, 369.

ALSTON, WILLIS, Representative from North Carolina, 429, 497, 569, 693; against a mausoleum to Washington, 511; on the reading of the letter of James McHenry, 696.

Amendment to Constitution, resolution relative to, 446. See Index, vol. 1.

AMES, FISHER, Representative from Massachusetts, 14; on the address to the President, 17, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30; on bill to increase compensation of President and other officers, 61; on the accommodation of the President, 92; on naval appropriations, 101, 103.

AMY DARDIN'S claim, on a report to refuse the prayer of the petitioner the House voted in the negative, 85; the vote a precedent against the act of limitation, 85; an act of limitation should be considered only as a guard against fraud, 86; cause of the act of limitation, 86; any exception from the operation of the act should be in a general way, 86; statement of the case, 188; motion to report bill, 188; claim just but opposed to limitation act, 189; motion withdrawn, 189; motion to refer report on petition to Committee on Claims, 191; also moved to appoint a committee to report a bill, 191; also moved to refer to Committee on Claims, 191; referred to Committee of the Whole on excepting certain claims from operation of limitation act, 191; resolution to appoint a committee to bring in a bill for relief, 218; facts of the case, 213; it will throw open a door to every claim heretofore determined as barred, 213; setting aside limitation acts in most objectionable way, 213; a hard case, 213; it will not authorize the treasury to settle any claim, 213; acts of limitation liable to strong objections, 213; resolution lost, 213; Committee on Claims report against prayer of petitioner, 470; report adopted, 470; referred, 735. See Index, vol. 1.

ANDERSON, JOSEPH, Senator from Tennessee, 165, 321, 399, 481, 540, 664; on the resolutions relative to the right of the United States to the free navigation of the Mississippi, 685.

Appropriation bill for 1797, amendments of Senate, 95; for 1798, 198.

Appropriations to purchase furniture for President's house; appropriation considered, 88; indirect way of raising President's salary, 88; what has been done in former years, 88; if it was an increase of salary the President could dispose of the money as he pleased, but the furniture proposed for purchase remains the property of the United States, 89; motion to strike out $14,000 and insert $8,000--no reason for furnishing of the President more than that of any other officer, 89; the thing wrong, a larger salary should be given, 89; the situation of the President should be comfortable and respectable, 90; further debate on the amount of the appropriation, 90, 91, 92.

Military.--The hospital department considered, 93; $30,000 moved, 93; unnecessary to appropriate so much, 93; $10,000 enough, 93; $10,000 adopted, 93; Quartermaster's Department, &c., considered, 93; necessary to allow a certain discretion to the Secretary with regard to specific sums, 93; appropriations of previous years, 93; appropriations for repairing certain posts on lakes should be rejected, as it will become a yearly expense, 94; state of those works not known, 94; appropriation for West Point, debated, 94, 95; items agreed to, 97; motion to insert an item for the purchase of horses and equipment of cavalry, 97; debate, 98, 99. See Defensive Measures. Question of filling blanks, considered, 252; accounts of War Department obscure, 252; various items examined, 252; $150,000 adopted for Quartermaster's Department, 253.

Naval.--Appropriation for finishing three frigates, considered, 76; so far as they go, three frigates give stability and protection to commerce, 76; will save more than five times their cost, 76; treaty or ships are the two things before us, 76; motion to connect a bill for manning and equipping, 77; this form of tacking very improper, 77; constitutionality of the appropriation, 78; question on the connection of the two bills, 78; question of tacking the two bills carried, 78; appropriation resolved, 79.

Pay and subsistence of three naval captains, considered, 95; $4,200 the estimate--$5,000 appropriated, 95.

Moved to appropriate $175,000 for finishing three frigates, 99; smaller sum sufficient to secure them from injury, as it was the intention not to fit them for sea and save expense of manning them, 99; no prospect of manning them at present high rate of wages, 99; all appropriations are now specific and particular, 100; this sum is for finishing only, 100; if the frigates are not to be used, they should be sold at once, 100; many members intend to keep the frigates in such a state as to prevent their being manned, 100; a question whether we shall have a navy or not involved in this discussion, 100; Presidential discretion as proved by the past, 100; if this money is voted the frigates will get to sea under some pretext, 100; if the frigates are not finished the money expended will be lost, 101; if they are finished members fear they will be manned, 101; members who oppose finishing the frigates, think this country will never be a naval power, 101; its necessity will soon appear, 101; our commerce is now only less than that of Great Britain, 101; last year it was voted to finish the frigates--how can the House withhold the appropriation?, 101; if this body is a Legislature, how can its control over the public purse be denied?, 102; further debated, 103; question carried, 104, 105.

Specific Appropriations.--Moved to add to the bill the words, "which several sums shall be solely applied to the objects for which they are appropriated," 104; appropriations for some objects might fall short and others overrun, 104; this surplus should be used for deficiencies, 104; the military appropriation regarded as an aggregate for all the objects of the establishment, 104; theory good but the practice may be bad, 104; the practice of the Secretary, 105; motion carried, 105; bill returned to the House from the Senate with an amendment to remove the restriction to confine the expenditure to the specific objects for which each sum is appropriated, 106; not according to law as required by the constitution to appropriate money for one object and expend it for another, 106; the House has a constitutional power to depart from identifying articles to the sums appropriated, 106; the mode of the Senate gives too unbounded power to the Executive, 106; only four hours remain of the session--the bill may be lost, 106; to allow the Executive this power is an infringement of the constitution, 107; the amendment of the Senate lessens the privileges of the House, 107; further debate, 107; amendment lost, 107; Senate recedes, 108; a proposition for $197,000 to complete the frigates, 153; only two arguments in favor of the bill, viz. to lay the foundation for a navy, and the frigates being built, it is proper to man them, 153; if navies are necessary to European nations they are not to us--as a view of our revenue and the expense of a fleet prove, 153; revenue and expense examined, 153; reasons for the extra expense, 154; commerce will be carried on if we have no expensive naval force, 154; a navy a great evil to this country, our interests lie in the soil, 154; shall we at a time when we are threatened with danger abandon these frigates, 154; further debate, 154; bill passed, 155.

_Resolution for a committee of inquiry relative to expenditure of naval appropriations_, 195; such a committee unusual, 195; implies censure on public officers, 196; no statements yet received, 196; inquiry occasioned because a further appropriation called for, 196; if money has been justly expended for the frigates little objection would arise to further appropriations, 196; the expense has exceeded all belief, 196; objections to the inquiry considered, 196; reasons for the inquiry, 196; such an inquiry always proper, 197; if favorable, it will forward the design of creating a navy, 197; different estimates which have been made to the House, 197; further debate, 197. See Defensive Measures. See Appropriations, Index, vol. 1.

ARCHER, JOHN, Representative from Maryland, 569, 694.

Armed Vessels, instructions to, see Defensive Measures.

Army Establishment, bill to fix, returned with the President's veto, debated, 96.

Augmentation of Army bill, details of, 358; second reading ordered, 358.

Reduction of Army, remarks on, 578.

Peace Establishment, bill to fix, considered, 585; various amendments proposed, 585; better than former bill, and saves expense, 585; other considerations, 586.

Army, Provisional.--See Defensive Measures.

Army.--See Index, vol. 1.

Aurora newspaper, investigation in Senate relative to, 40.

B

BACON, JOHN, Representative from Massachusetts, 569, 693; on the apportionment bill, 574; relative to State balances, 595; on Ohio State Government, 649; on reading the letter of McHenry, 697; on call for information relative to cession of Louisiana, 704; on compensation to the ex-United States judges, 730; on jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 736.

BAER, GEORGE, jr., Representative from Maryland, 120, 179, 826, 429, 497.

BAILEY, THEODORUS, Representative from New York, 14, 429, 497, 569, 694. See Index, vol. 1.

BALDWIN, ABRAHAM, Representative from Georgia, 14, 121, 179, 326; on a national university, 35; on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 43; on petition of Hugh L. White, 51; on contingent expenses of Congress, 57; on answer of House to President Adams' first message, 132; on building frigates, 146; on foreign intercourse, 202; on the limits of Georgia, 220; on relations with France, 225; on the bill to raise a provisional army, 246; on letters of marque, 299; on the remonstrance of Georgia, 331; on disputed Presidential elections, 406; senator from Georgia, 399, 481, 540, 661; elected President pro tem. of Senate, 541. See Index, vol. 1.

Bank of the United States.--See Index, vol. 1.

Bankruptcy, bill to establish uniform system of, passed House, 536.

Bankrupt Act, should not be amended but repealed, 724; ex post facto law, 724; some objectionable features should be amended, 724; never should have been such a law, 724; other considerations in favor of amendment, 724; constitution does not give power to impair contracts, 725; the person may be exonerated but not the property, 725; further debate, 725.

Barbary Powers, resolution authorizing the President further and more effectually to provide for protecting commerce against the, considered, 571; moved to strike out words "further and more," 571; if adopted in present form we pledge ourselves to increase the naval force, 571; the words relate to the measures proposed, 571; it went only to authorize the President without any pledges, 571; we pledge ourselves to extend more protection without inquiring into its necessity, 571; force enough at present, 571; further discussion, 572; amendment lost, 572; original motion carried, 572.

BARD, DAVID, Representative from Pennsylvania, 17, 120, 180, 326.

BARRAS, President of French Directory, his speech to the American minister, 115.

BARTLETT, BAILEY, Representative from Massachusetts, 180, 429.

BAYARD, JAMES A., Representative from Delaware, 123, 179, 430, 522, 569, 712; on the Quakers' memorial, 185; on foreign intercourse, 205; on relations with France, 242; on presents to ministers by foreign courts, 261, 262; on taking new census before laying direct tax, 265; on presents to ministers, 276; on admission to citizenship, 278; on bill relative to treatment of alien enemies, 281, 282; on abrogation of treaty with France, 313; on the expulsion of Matthew Lyon, 365, 369; on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 448, 449, 451, 452, 455; on the bill prohibiting the slave trade, 475; on repeal of internal taxes, 579, 581; on Georgia limits, 576, 577; on army reduction, 578; on judiciary resolutions, 582; on the Mediterranean trade, 586; on the collection of internal revenues, 587; on State balances, 594, 596; against repeal of judiciary establishment, 611; in favor of relief for French spoliations, 644, 646; on Ohio State Government, 648, 649, 650; against discharge of the committee relative to cession of Louisiana, 720; on amendment to the bankrupt act, 724; on taking up resolution relative to French spoliations, 732, 733; on jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 737.

BECKLEY, JOHN, chosen Clerk of House, 569.

BENTON, LEMUEL, Representative from South Carolina, 195. See Index, vol. 1.

BINGHAM, WILLIAM, Senator from Pennsylvania, 3, 114, 165, 321, 399, 485; elected President pro tem. of Senate, 9. See Index, vol. 1.

BIRD, JOHN, Representative from New York, 429, 500; against the mausoleum to Washington, 515; on jurisdiction over District of Columbia, 519-525.

BISHOP, PHANUEL, Representative of Massachusetts, 429, 498, 569, 693.

BLODGET, SAMUEL, Memorial relative to a National University, 712.

BLOODWORTH, TIMOTHY, Senator from N. Carolina, 144, 165, 821, 403, 481; on breach of privilege, 417. See Index, vol. 1.

BLOUNT, THOMAS, Representative from North Carolina, 14, 120, 180, 326; on the petition of manumitted slaves, 58, 60; moves thanks to the Speaker at close of 4th Congress, 111.

BLOUNT, WILLIAM, Senator from Tennessee, 3, 114; to provide further naval force, 149; on the Quakers' memorial, 186, 187. See Index, vol. 1.

BOUDE, THOMAS, Representative from Pennsylvania, 569, 693.

BOWIE, WALTER, Representative from Maryland, 647, 693.

BRACE, JONATHAN, Representative from Connecticut, 326, 429; on intercourse with France, 344.

BRADBURY, THEOPHILUS, Representative from Massachusetts, 14, 120. See Index, vol. 1.

BRADFORD, WILLIAM, Senator from Rhode Island, 8, 113; chosen president pro tem. of the Senate, 119; resigns, as Senator from Rhode Island, 165. See Index, vol. 1.

BRADLEY, STEPHEN R., Senator from Vermont, 540, 661; elected president pro tem. of the Senate, 662. See Index, vol. 1.

Breach of Privilege.--Case of Matthew Lyon, 205; case stated, 205; resolution of expulsion referred, 206; letter from Lyon, 206; report of Committee on Privileges, 206; motion to postpone carried, 207; question of hearing the evidence in committee or before the House discussed, 208; in committee, carried, 208; note, relative to the evidence, 208; motion of expulsion lost, 208; resolution to expel Griswold and Lyon, 210; motion to postpone, 210; no reason for delay, 210; neither the dignity, honor, nor peace of the House can be preserved while these members remain in it, 210; the innocent should not be punished with the guilty; Lyon passive throughout, 210; the business should be taken up with despatch, 210; motion to refer to Committee on Privilege, with leave to sit during the session, carried, 211; motion to report in writing, carried, 212; motion that both pledge their words to the House to keep the peace, carried, 212; how to be executed, discussed, 212; pledge given, 213; report of Committee on Privilege, 213; debate on the report, 214; resolution of expulsion disagreed to, 215; resolution of reprimand adopted, 216.

Resolution in the Senate relative to publications in a certain paper, considered, 408; what powers has the Senate in this matter?, 408; can it define the crime and sit as judges?, 408; it had better be given up, 409; what are the privileges of Congress, and how far are they defined by the constitution, examined at length, 409; should the privileges of the parliament of Great Britain be those of Congress?, 411; privilege limited to what is necessary and nothing more, 412; with respect to libels, 412; liberty of the press applied to these defined privileges, 413; principle of the law of libel, 413; apprehensions of Government from the press, 413; object of open doors, 414; how far in case of libels shall either branch of Government have power to decide in what affects the liberty of the citizen?, 415; only course to get rid of the subject, 416; further debate, 417, 418; amendment proposed, 419; resolution passed, 421; report of committee considered, 422; report as adopted, 422; form of proceedings reported, 423; proceedings in the case of William Duane, 424, 425, 426.

BRECKENRIDGE, JOHN, Senator from Kentucky, 540, 661; moves repeal of Judiciary establishment, 546; on repeal of Judiciary establishment, 546.

BRENT, RICHARD, Representative from Virginia, 14, 121, 179, 569, 694; on a direct tax on slaves, 55; on naval appropriations, 103; on the bill relative to the protection of commerce, 290.

BROOKS, DAVID, Representative from New York, 120, 180, 326; on relations with France, 227; on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 157, 160.

BROWN, JOHN, Senator from Kentucky, 5, 117, 171, 323, 399, 481, 545, 665; on disputed Presidential elections, 405. See Index, vol. 1.

BROWN, JOHN, Representative from Rhode Island, 429, 505; on petition of free blacks, 438; on the bill to prohibit carrying on the slave trade, 474; for a mausoleum to Washington, 516.

BROWN, ROBERT, Representative from Pennsylvania, 326, 429, 497, 569, 693.

BRYAN, NATHAN, Representative from North Carolina, 117, 120, 188; decease of, 295; note, 295. See Index, vol. 1.

BUCK, DANIEL, Representative from Vermont, 60; on bill to increase compensation of President, and other officers, 64; on increase of duties on sugar, 72, 73; on the accommodation of the President, 90; on liberation of La Fayette, 110. See Index, vol. 1.

BULLOCK, STEPHEN, Representative from Massachusetts, 148, 179, 326.

BURGESS, DEMPSEY, Representative from North Carolina, 38, 188. See Index, vol. 1.

BURR, AARON, Senator from New York, 3; vote for, as President in 1796, 62; vote for, as President, 487; notification of his election as Vice President, 487; Vice President in Senate, 665. See Index, vol. 1.

BUTLER, WILLIAM, Representative from North Carolina, 570, 694.

C

CABELL, SAMUEL J., Representative from Virginia, 120, 192, 331, 522, 570, 725. See Index, vol. 1.

CALBERT, GEORGE, petition of, 49.

CAMPBELL, JOHN, Representative from Maryland, 570, 694.

CANADIAN REFUGEES.--Resolution to appropriate certain lands on the Miami, as compensation to refugees from British Provinces, debated, 44; unnecessary to state now the location of the land, 45; general resolutions to grant land, adopted, 45; resolutions to grant five hundred acres to each, considered, 45; improper to grant equal quantity to each, 45; some have suffered more than others, 45; resolution lost, 45; Senate bill considered, 480; amendments rejected, 480; Senate adhere, 480; bill postponed, 480.

CANTRILL, STEPHEN, petition of, 242.

CARPENTER, THOMAS, petition to House relative to debates, 188; memorial to House relative to reporting debates, 505.

Census of the Union.--See Index, vol. 1.

CHAMPLIN, CHRISTOPHER G., Representative from Rhode Island, 120, 179, 329, 429; moves vote of thanks, 388; in favor of Admirals in the navy, 474; for a mausoleum to Washington, 512, 515.

Charitable objects, appropriations by Congress for, see Index, vol. 1.

CHAPMAN, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 120, 165, 179, 326.

CHAPMAN, NATHANIEL, Senator from Vermont, 321, 402, 481, 540.

Chickasaw Claims, petition relative to, 49.

CHRISTIE, GABRIEL, Representative from Maryland, 17, 429, 497; on the petition of manumitted slaves, 59; on increase of duties on sugar, 72; on petition of free blacks, 439. See Index, vol. 1.

CLAIBORNE, THOMAS, Representative from Virginia, 17, 120, 180, 331, 570, 693; on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 43, 44; on a direct tax on slaves, 54; on increase of duties on sugar, 72; on liberation of La Fayette, 110; on expatriation, 150; on establishing the Navy Department, 250; on admirals in the navy, 474; on trade with the Indians, 501; note, 501; against a mausoleum to Washington, 512, 515; on Georgia limits, 577. See Index, vol. 1.

CLAIBORNE, WILLIAM C. C., Representative from Tennessee, 180, 326, 429, 497; on the claims of Stephen Cantrill, 243; on presents to ministers by foreign courts, 261, 263; on admission of aliens to citizenship, 279; on intercourse with France, 295; on letters of marque, 298; on direct taxes, 302, 304.

CLAY, MATTHEW, Representative from Virginia, 120, 179, 432, 498, 569, 694.

CLAYTON, JOSHUA, Senator from Maryland, 172; Clergy, pay of, in Massachusetts, 195.

CLINTON, GEORGE, vote for, as President in 1796, 63.

CLOPTON, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 14, 120, 180, 326, 570, 693. See Index, vol. 1.

Closed doors, or open doors, on the cession of Louisiana, discussion relative to, 701.

COCHRAN, JAMES, Representative from New York, 120, 179, 330; on tax on lawyers, 155.

COD FISHERIES.--Proviso offered against further increase of bounties, 163. See Index, vol. 1.

COIT, JOSHUA, Representative from Connecticut, 14, 120, 179; on kidnapping negroes, 45; moves to postpone, 48; on petition of Hugh L. White, 49; on a direct tax on slaves, 55; on the purchase of a site for a Navy Yard, 66; on naval appropriation, 76; on answer of House to President Adams first message, 139; on tax on lawyers, 156; on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 157, 159; on publication of the debates, 188. See Index, vol. 1.

COLES, ISAAC, Representative from Virginia, 14.

COLHOUN, JAMES LEWIS, Senator from South Carolina, 545.

Collectors of Revenue, bill for, compensation of, considered, 655.

Commerce, Depredations on, message of President on, 152; Report of Secretary of Treasury on, 152.

Commerce, protection of, see Defensive Measures.

Commerce of United States.--See Index, vol. 1.

Committee, to wait on the President relative to answer to his message, 33; on memorial of Quakers, 188; on resolution to expel Matthew Lyon, 206; on privileges, 206; on provisions for determining legality or illegality of votes for President in the States, 407; to report suitable measures on death of Washington, 434; of House, 570.

Compensation of President, Vice President, and other officers.--Bill from the Senate to increase President's salary $5000, Vice President's $2000, Senators', Representatives' and various other officers' 25 per cent., 60; debate on commitment to Committee of the Whole, 61; provision should be made for the expense of removing to the new Federal City and the purchase of new furniture for the President, but not by increase of salary, 63; expense of removal can be made up hereafter, 64; new furniture every four or eight years too extravagant, 64; salaries sufficiently high, 64; better advance the salary and let the President purchase the furniture, 64; true question is, whether it be right and just to augment the salaries, or whether they are adequate and just for the sacrifices made by the officers in undertaking the business of government, 64; the expenses of the first President amounted to the whole sum allowed, 65; can other Presidents be expected to give their services? 65; such is also the case with other officers of the Government, 65; the practice of the individual States warrants an advance, 65; what occurred in Holland, 65; motion to strike out first section relative to President and Vice President, carried, 65. See Index, vol. 1.

CONDIT, JOHN, Representative from New Jersey, 429, 498, 569, 693.

CONDY, JONATHAN W., elected Clerk of House, 430.

Congress, Fourth, second session, commenced, 3; closes with Washington's Administration, 111; Fifth, first session commences May 15, 1797, 113; extra session, 113; first session, Fifth Congress, adjournment postponed, 153; adjourns, 165; note on, 165; extra session, objects of note, 165; second session, Fifth Congress, meets Nov. 13, 1797, 166; Fifth, second session, adjourns, 320; Fifth, third session, commenced, 321; Fifth, third session, adjourns, 326; Fifth, note, 389; Sixth, first session, 399; bill for fixing time and place of meeting, 479; adjournment first session, Sixth Congress, 480; first meeting at Washington, 481; Seventh, first session, Senate, 540; adjournment first session, Seventh Congress, 660; meeting of second session, Seventh Congress, 661; adjourns, 744.

Connecticut, vote for President, 62, 487.

Contested Elections.--See Index, vol. 1.

Contingent expenses of Congress, 57; manner of acting upon them, 57.

Convention with French Republic ratified by Senate, 492.

COOKE, WILLIAM, Senator from Tennessee, 3, 114, 400, 481, 540, 664; on breach of privilege, 408, 416; on the repeal of the Judiciary establishment, 560. See Index, vol. 1.

COOPER, WILLIAM, Representative from New York, 14, 429, 497; on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 40; on increase of duties on sugar, 72. See Index, vol. 1.

COOPER, THOMAS, petition of, 656.

COUNT DE GRASSE, report on petition of daughters of, 192; bill granting annuity to daughters of, considered, 195; $500 per year for each daughter proposed, 195; a serious sum, in five years amounting to $10,000, 195; this sum no consideration for the risk and responsibility the Count took of remaining in the Chesapeake in defiance of order, 195; note, 195; ten times that sum would have been paid if asked then, 195; livelihood of other families, 195; $400 allowed, 195.

CRAIK, WILLIAM, Representative from Maryland, 14, 120, 179, 326, 429, 497; on a National University, 35, 38; on petition of Hugh L. White, 49; on military appropriations, 98; on restricting aliens from citizenship, 278; on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 451; on jurisdiction over District of Columbia, 521; on bill relative to District of Columbia, 524.

Credentials of members, report of committee on, 530.

CUTLER, MANASSEH, Representative from Massachusetts, 569, 693.

CUTTS, RICHARD, Representative from Massachusetts, 569, 694.

D

DANA, SAMUEL W., Representative from Connecticut, 120, 179, 326, 429, 505, 569, 693; on the report on the Griswold and Lyon case, 215; on relations with France, 230; on a provisional army, 243; on the resolutions granting letters of marque, 300; on the sedition bill, 309; on the abrogation of the treaty with France, 312, 313; on the capture of French vessels, 361; on the law of retaliation, 386; on petition of free blacks, 439, 442; on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 449, 450, 453; on Georgia limits, 577; on repeal of internal taxes, 580; on reducing duties on imports, 591; relative to State balances, 596; against repeal of Judiciary establishment, 636; in favor of relief for French spoliations, 643, 646; on call for papers relative to cession of Louisiana, 699, 701, 709, 713, 716; on petition of United States judges for compensation, 728, 730.

DAVENPORT, FRANKLIN, Representative from New Jersey, 323, 429, 497.

DAVENPORT, JOHN, Representative from Connecticut, 14, 120, 429, 497, 569, 693.

DAVIS, THOMAS T., Representative from Kentucky, 188, 502, 569, 693; on the case of Griswold and Lyon, 210; on the report on the Griswold and Lyon case, 214; relative to letters of marque, 296; on direct taxes, 302, 303; on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 450, 454; on reporting the debates, 509; on Georgia limits, 576; on call for papers relative to cession of Louisiana, 699; on granting land warrants to Lafayette, 742.

DAWSON, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 120, 179, 326, 429, 497, 693; on the claim of General Kosciusko, 191, 193; on the bill to repeal a part of the Sedition act, 535; on call for information relative to cession of Louisiana, 704; on postponing French spoliations, 734; on granting land warrants to Lafayette, 743.

DAYTON, JONATHAN, Representative from New Jersey, 14, 120, 179, 326; on the address to the President, 25, 30, 32; on land for Canadian refugees, 45; offers resolution relative to land for Canadian refugees, 45; on liability of United States to a State for war expenses, 50, 51; on increase of duties on sugar, 73; on suability of the States, 88; answer to vote of thanks of the House, 111; chosen Speaker, first session, 5th Congress, 121; returns thanks, 121; on defensive measures, 145; on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 160, 161; on relations with France, 226; on a new census for direct taxes, 265; acknowledges thanks of House as Speaker, 389; Senator from New Jersey, 401, 483, 541, 661; on breach of privilege, 418; on the right of the United States to the free navigation of the Mississippi, 690. See Index, vol. 1.

DEARBORN, HENRY, Representative from Massachusetts, 14; on increase of duties on sugar, 71; on military and naval appropriations, 94; on naval appropriations, 101. See Index, vol. 1.

Debates, Reporting of the, report on petition relative to, considered, 19; what would be the expense?, 19; about $1,600 per session, 19; this attempt would be of great use to the House, 19; why give one a privilege more than another, 19; no one to have preference?, 19; no need of expense, 19; more useful than to take so many newspapers, 19; further debate, 20; the book will be published whether the House adopt it or not, 20; shall the debates be under the sanction of the House or not?, 20; it will encourage the undertaking, and add to the stock of information, 20; petition of Thomas Carpenter, 188; reference objected to, 188; House had often refused to have any thing to do with the publication of the debates, 188; petition referred, 188; memorial of reporters for accommodation, considered, 501; statement of the Speaker, relative to his proceedings, 502; importance of having the debates taken with fidelity, 502; further debate, 502; referred to a committee, 502; report of committee against any action, 505; importance to the people of a knowledge of the merits of acts and reasons for our conduct, 506; uniform practice, 506; two objections considered, 506; shall an admission of a reporter take place independent of the Speaker, or shall he decide on its propriety?, 507; further debate, 507; objected that it will be against precedent, prevent members from having room, and a possibility the Speaker may indulge stenographers, 507; considered, 508; the only question is, whether the House shall persevere in the old plan, 508; further debate, 509, 510, 511; report adopted, 511.

In Senate, application for permission to report debates of, 545; resolution, proceedings thereon, 545; permission granted, 545.

In House, resolution offered that Speaker assign place to stenographers, 583; the question is, under what authority they shall be admitted, 583; facts relative to this view, 583; improper to come to any solemn decision, 584; important that the debates of the House should be taken with accuracy, and published without fear, 584; amended resolution carried, 584.

Defensive Measures.--A series of resolutions considered, 144; proposition to make further provision for forts offered now only as a subject for inquiry, 144; usefulness of this system of fortification doubtful, 144; this country may be drawn into a vortex of war and should be prepared, 144; resolution adopted, 144.

Completing and manning frigates.--Abstract principle first to be decided, 145; shall the frigates be manned?, 145; motion to strike out word "manning," 145; lost, 145; resolution adopted, 145.

To procure further naval force, considered, 145; it might be used for convoys, 146; note, 146; impolitic to adopt the measure, 146; cost will not amount to tenth part of loss by captures, 146; resolution agreed to, 147.

Arming merchant vessels, considered, 147; merchantmen are now arming, and it is necessary to regulate the business, 147; what is to be done with these vessels?, 147; if they act offensively it will lead to war, 147; does the law of nations permit merchant vessels of neutral nations to arm?, 147; the public defence intrusted to Government, 147; only exception in the case of letters of marque, 147; in any other case war has always followed, 148; further debate, 148; resolution lost, 148; further debate on resolution authorizing President to provide naval force when circumstances shall require, 149.

Bill from Senate authorizing President to raise an army of 20,000 men, question on its second reading, 243; not necessary to pass such a bill under any possible modification, 243; if an army is necessary, the Legislature ought to raise it, 243; no necessity for this measure at this session, 243; disgraceful to reject this bill without a second reading, 244; this course prescribed by the rules of the House, 244; what does a provisional army mean?, 244; this bill declares the power to raise an army in the President, the Constitution places it in Congress, 244; why not clothe the President with power to raise taxes, 244; it is the same in principle as authorizing the raising of an army and giving to the President power to suspend the raising, if necessary, 244; a manner of proceeding very objectionable, 244; unprecedented measure to reject a bill on its first reading, which contains such a variety of propositions, 245; intention to destroy the bill, 245; were troops ever raised in a different manner?, 245; expediency of the measure considered, 245; what is our external situation?, 245; this motion neither unprecedented nor improper, 246; in principle the army should not be raised until the House think it necessary, 246; objections arise because it is thought the militia will be sufficient for defence, 246; further considerations, 246; the bill delegates Legislative power to the President; objectionable as it respects volunteer corps, 246; this motion appears like indifference when the people expect effective measures, 247; extraordinary arguments used, 247; this bill sufficient to alarm the House, 247; the opposition does not arise from a determination to oppose defensive measures, 248; opposition to second reading, withdrawn, 248; every aid resorted to for pushing forward the scheme of a standing army, 273; Southern States to be terrified, 273; invidious distinctions drawn between the militia and regulars, 273; review of services of Southern militia, 273; motion lost to strike out 20,000, 274; motion to insert 10,000, 274; when peace occurs between France and England, the question of preparation for war should be determined, and the President should have the power during recess of Congress, 275; motion carried, 275; matter of training and disciplining given to the States, 275; amount of appropriation considered, 275; call of the House, note, 275; bill passed, 276.

Alien enemies, bill respecting, considered in committee, 280; its provisions, 280; too much power to consider President's proclamation as law, 281; various amendments proposed, 281; debate on, 281; seven years proposed as extreme limit of imprisonment of offenders, 282; debate on the punishment of harboring offenders, 282; crime may amount to high treason, 282; it is not a bill to punish crimes, but to provide for the public safety in certain cases, 283; in case of war with France, all her citizens here would be alien enemies, 283; only three practicable modes present themselves on this subject, 283; these considered, 283; ordered to third reading, 284; motion to recommit so far as relates to power conferred on the President, 284; it is grounded on the principle that the President shall have power to do by proclamation what ought only to be done by law, 284; this point considered, 285; bill recommitted, 286; bill reported with modifications, 301; Senate bill, 301.

Instructions to armed vessels, report on, considered, 286; motion to make the order for "to-morrow," 286; our vessels are seized by French cruisers every day, and decision required, 286; report just made, time should be given, 286; further debate on the necessity for immediate action, 287; copy of the bill, 287; motion to make it applicable to all nations, 287; this bill a declaration of war, 287; bad as our situation is, it is preferable to a state of war, 287; further arguments in favor of making the bill general, 288; propriety and justness of the bill, 288; vigorous measures called for, 288; objects of France, 288; to incense our foes only aggravates our misfortunes, 289; our treaties with Great Britain and Spain, 289; question negatived, 289; bill going to third reading, 290; reason for dissent, 290; ordered, 290; debate on the day for the passage of the bill, 291; do. passed, 291.

Marine corps, proposal to organize, 292; debate thereon, 292; agreed to, 292.

Letters of Marque, resolutions relative to, considered, 296; motion to refer to a committee to report a bill, 296; this course will shut out all hopes of a favorable termination of the dispute, 297; return of commissioners, 297; great difference between committing and agreeing to adopt a resolution, 297; negotiations not in a good train unless we pay the tribute France demands, 297; should be acted upon at once, otherwise the foreign nations will have notice to seize our vessels, 297; the reference will look like a challenge, 297; no good to be derived from a vote on this subject, 298; prospects of the negotiation, 298; all has been done for the defence of commerce which we can conveniently do, why then proceed to extreme measures?, 298; no good purpose answered by postponement of the resolutions, 299; this contrasted with former propositions, 299; Congress has acted with promptitude without taking this measure, 299; what measures have been adopted?, 299; nothing to expect from France without tribute, 300; question negatived, 300; postponement for two weeks moved, 300; debate, 300; carried, 300.

Bill to encourage the capture of French armed vessels by vessels of citizens of United States, read third time, 319; a bounty on guns brought in, according to their size, 319; of no use, 319; bill passed, 319; resolution for a bounty offered, 320; negatived, 320; similar bill negatived at previous session again considered, 358; carried in committee, 358; in House, on striking out first section, debate, 358; manner of evading laws for suspending intercourse explained, 359; present and former situation of the country, 359; bill may lead to difficulties, 359; bill of questionable advantage as regards privateers, 359; strengthen our Minister, 359; further debate on propriety of the measure, 360, 361; effect of measures of two last sessions, 362; further debate on, 363; bill rejected, 364.

Power of retaliation, bill vesting in the President, considered, 385; nature of the bill, 385; gives President power of life and death over every Frenchman in the country, 385; three arguments used for the bill, 385; these considered, 385; further debate, 386, 387, 388; bill passed, 388.

Delaware, vote for President, 62, 487.

Delegates from Territories, see Index, vol. 1.

DENNIS, JOHN, Representative from Maryland, 120, 180, 327, 501, 569, 693; on tax on lawyers, 156; on weekly license to distillers, 195; on petition of free blacks, 438; on jurisdiction over District of Columbia, 526; on the apportionment bill, 575; against abolishing the mint, 695; on jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 736.

DENT, GEORGE, Representative from Maryland, 14, 120, 179, 326, 429, 497; on compensation of President and other officers, 66; presides in Committee of whole House, 121, 123, 129; presides in Committee of Whole, 189, 195; on the law of retaliation, 385. See Index, vol. 1.

Despatches of American ministers at Paris, see France, relations with.

DEXTER, SAMUEL, Senator from Massachusetts, 400; on disputed Presidential elections, 406. See Index, vol. 1.

DICKSON, JOSEPH, Representative from N. Carolina, 429, 497.

DICKSON, WILLIAM, Representative from Tennessee, 569, 693.

Diplomatic or Foreign Intercourse, considered, 198; various sums proposed to fill the blanks, 199; a good time to bring back the establishment of a diplomatic corps to the footing settled at the outset of our Government, 199; tendency of our Government to consolidation in the Executive, 199; Legislature must resist, 199; this extension of influence of one department over another guarded in the constitution, 199; more beneficial to have no ministers at all, 199; object of motion to reduce this department, 199; its former state, 199; this no new doctrine, 200; danger of Executive influence has always been held up, 200; these doctrines are advanced because the views of the gentlemen are opposed by the measures of the Government, 200; appropriations made, 200; a small faction exists who wish to demolish the Government, 200; our foreign political intercourse in distinction from commercial intercourse, the subject to be considered, 200; what has been done hitherto, 201; our political intercourse greatly extended and from this comes the present crisis, 201; the constitution and laws have made certain offices necessary and left it to the Executive to fill them, and shall the House attempt to control this discretion?, 201; propriety of removing persons of opposite political sentiments, 202; has the Legislature nothing to do with the diplomatic establishment but to provide the money?, 202; origin of the law, 202; progress of our diplomatic intercourse, 202; necessary at this time that our ministers should remain as they are, 203; thus to change it would be forcing upon the Executive a measure contrary to his wishes, 203; object of the bill to limit extension of Executive power, 203; the Legislature can only settle the salaries of ministers and not determine their number, &c., 204; the motion reduces the number and salaries of ministers, as unnecessary, but the Executive thinks otherwise, 204; the constitutionality, the expediency, and the inconvenience of the measure considered, 204; further debate, 205; note, 216; discussion on filling the blanks, 216.

Direct Tax Law.--Difficulty of Commissioners in Pennsylvania, 433. See Taxes.

Disbursement of Public Moneys, report of committee considered, 656; four navy yards were purchased without authority, and the money misapplied which was paid for them, 656; facts which gave rise to the purchase, 656; the law which directs a thing to be done authorizes the agents to do every thing necessary for accomplishing the object, 656; letter of the Secretary explains the purchase, 657; report does not notice some extensive stores erected by the present administration, 657; a doubtful expenditure the minority think, 657; proceedings of committee relative to the navy yards, 657; Secretary's letter was addressed to committee and not to the House, hence it was not inserted in the report, 658; the purchase of the yards, 658; explanation, 658; further explanation, 659.

Distilled Spirits.--See Taxes.

District of Columbia, bill in relation to, considered, 518; moved to strike out first section, continuing in force law of Maryland and Virginia, in respective portions, 518; question if the existing laws are in force, and this bill to obviate all doubt, 518; jurisdiction a power that may or may not be exercised by Congress, 519; design of bill to cure evil arising from doubtful jurisdiction of Maryland and Virginia, 519; a difference of opinion seemed to exist as to the period when the powers of the States were superseded, 520; dilemma of the inhabitants, 520; construction contended for will disfranchise them, 520; reasons for the committee rising, 520; further debate, 521; motion to postpone the bill, 523; object to try the sense of the House, whether they were determined to assume the jurisdiction or not, 523; passage of the bill will deprive the citizens of their political, if not civil rights, 523; the people of the District ask the House to assume the jurisdiction, 523; to refuse it would be to insult them, 523; views of the inhabitants, 524; quarter from whence the opposition comes, 524; by the act jurisdiction commences with the occupation, 524; laws of the States in force until otherwise enacted by Congress, 525; the Legislature will not be satisfied without assuming the jurisdiction, 525; do members still wish to leave the subject in doubt?, 525; motion to postpone withdrawn, 526; moved to strike out first section, 526; impossible to preserve the rights of the people by the passage of the bill, 526; their judges and Governor will be the choice of the President, 526; interests of the people require the passage of the bill, 526; no necessity at present for the law, 527; other considerations, 527; details of the bill, examined, 527; motion negatived, 528; other amendments proposed, 528; bill reported for Territorial Government, 592; referred, 592; remonstrance, 592; resolutions on the retrocessions of jurisdiction to Virginia and Maryland, 736; restore the people to their former condition, 736; no advantage to retain the jurisdiction, 736; its exercise will take up a great deal of time and great expense, 736; it was prudent not to change until experience proved its inconvenience, 736; all the advantages of exclusive jurisdiction will be lost by the passage of the resolution, 737; no constitutional power exists enabling Congress to recede the Territory, 737; if receded, what obligation is there in Congress to remain here?, 738; the contract can be done away only by the unanimous consent of all the parties, 738; if we had power to accept, we had power to recede, 738; Congress possess the right with the assent of these two States to recede, 739; constitutional points considered, 739; further debate, 740; resolutions lost, 741; note, 741.

DUANE, WILLIAM, proceedings against, in Senate, 423, 424, 425; letter to Senate, 425.

Dumb Legislature, A, 591.

Duties on Imports, proposition to increase duties, considered, 71.

Brown Sugar, an eligible article for increased duty, 71; its consumption not to be decreased, 71; falls more upon the poor than on the rich, 71; rise of labor must follow increase of duty on it, 71; present duty one and a half cent per pound, an additional half cent not much difference to consumer, 71; a necessary of life, already too high, 71; moved to amend by one cent per gallon to molasses, 72; only way to secure duty on sugar was by advancing duty on molasses, 72; one advance on sugar will pave the way for others, 72; amendment moved to defeat increased duty, 73; amendment carried, 74; amended motion carried, 74.

Salt, additional duty of five cents moved, 74; at a lower rate of duty now than in other countries, 74; duty not easily evaded, 74; tax laid heavily on salt because of all necessaries this most easily collected, 74; operates as a poll tax, 74; a tax on agriculture, 74; article high now, 75; an unequal and odious tax, 75; objections would be good if it was proposed to raise the whole revenue from it, or substitute it for a land tax, 75; the high price not occasioned by a duty, 75; question lost, 75; eight cents adopted in committee, 163; salt tax as compared with license and stamp tax, 163; note, 163; a salt tax the most unequal tax in its operation, 163; oppressive to certain parts of the Union and no way affecting others, 163; amendment with regard to drawback proposed, 163; debate thereon, 163; this small advance cannot operate oppressively, 164; shall this necessary of life be called on for every thing Government wants?, 164; discontent already arisen, 164; question decided in affirmative, 164; motion to strike out all relating to drawback to fishing vessels, 164; the amount allowed is too large, 164; debate thereon, 164; motion lost, 164; 33-1/3 per cent. fixed, 164; limitation clause for two years adopted, 164; bill passed, 164.

In Committee--twenty per cent. additional duty on wine adopted, 477; two and a half per centum on all merchandise subject to ten per cent. duty adopted, 477; additional duty of one and a half per cent. on brown sugar rejected, 478; two and a half per cent. drawback allowed additional on all re-exports, 478; resolution instructing Committee on Ways and Means to report on propriety of reducing duties on certain articles, considered, 591; articles of first necessity and paid highest duty, 591; certain members have pledged themselves for repealing all internal taxes, 591; further remarks, question lost, 592. See Index, vol. 1.

Duties on Tonnage.--See Index, vol. 1.

Duties, Stamp, on vellum parchment and paper, bill for 149. See Taxes, Direct and Indirect.

E

EARLY, PETER, Representative from Georgia, 712.

EDMOND, WILLIAM, Representative from Connecticut, 179, 327, 429, 497; on the Quakers' memorial, 187; on abrogation of the treaty with France, 315; on the law of retaliation, 385; on petition of free blacks, 440.

EGGLESTON, JOSEPH, Representative from Virginia, 326, 501, 473.

EGE, GEORGE, Representative from Pennsylvania, 120.

Elections, military interference with, 446.

Elections Presidential, disputed, see President's election disputed.

Election of President.--House and Senate proceedings, 530, 531; do. proceedings of the House as prescribed by Constitution, 531; repeated ballotings, 531, 532, 533; Thomas Jefferson elected, 533; note, 533.

Electors of President, see Index, vol. 1.

ELLERY, CHRISTOPHER, Senator from Rhode Island, 540, 661.

ELLSWORTH, OLIVER, vote for, as President, 1796, 63.

ELMENDORPH, LUCAS, Representative from New York, 120, 179, 326, 429, 447, 569, 694.

ELMER, EBENEZER, Representative from New Jersey, 569, 693.

Enemies, Alien.--See Alien Enemies.

Estimate for Appropriations, for treaty with Cherokees, 198; on a monument for Washington, 479.

EUSTIS, WILLIAM, Representative from Massachusetts, 569, 694; on protection against the Barbary powers, 571; on repeal of internal taxes, 579; in favor of relief for French spoliations, 645; on compensation to the ex-United States Judges, 730; on French spoliations, 735; on jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 740.

EVANS, THOMAS, Representative from Virginia, 120, 179, 327, 429, 497.

Executive Departments.--See Index, vol. 1.

Expatriation.--A bill prohibiting citizens of the United States from entering any foreign military or naval service, considered, 149; motion to strike out section defining mode by which a citizen of the United States may dissolve ties of citizenship and become alien, 149; principle wrong, especially at this time, 149; men have a natural right to choose under what government they will live, 150; the right of expatriation should be allowed unclogged, 150; a man born and educated in a country owes obligations not easily shaken off, 150; doctrine of perpetual allegiance derived from Great Britain; bad in practice, 150; expatriation the opinion of the country, and now the time to declare it, 150; objections considered, 150; further debate, 151; if a right of expatriation exists, there should be some mode of exercising it, 151; the case of Talbot, 151; perpetual allegiance absurd, 151; right recognized by Executive and Judiciary, 151; unnecessary to consider it, 151; motion to agree to report lost, 152; further consideration postponed, 152.

F

FEARING, PAUL, Representative from N. W. Territory, 569, 693; on Ohio State Government, 648, 650, 651; unseated as delegate from Territory of Ohio, 726.

FINDLAY, WILLIAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 14, 135, 326; on increase of duties on sugar, 73; on increase of duties on salt, 75; on temporary direct tax, 271. See Index, vol. 1.

Flag of the United States.--See Index, vol. 1.

FOSTER, ABIEL, Representative from New Hampshire, 14, 120, 179, 326, 429, 497, 569, 693. See Index, vol. 1.

FOSTER, DWIGHT, Representative from Massachusetts, 14, 120, 180, 326, 429; presents petition of Thomas Carpenter, 185; on temporary direct tax, 270; Senator from Massachusetts, 481, 544, 663. See Index, vol. 1.

FOSTER, THEODORE, Senator from Rhode Island, 5, 113, 165, 321, 399, 481, 540, 661. See Index, vol. 1.

FOWLER, JOHN, Representative from Kentucky, 139, 193, 436, 522, 569.

France, Relations with.--President's message considered, 225; painful differences exist between this country and the French Republic, 225; the House should declare whether we are to have peace or war, 225; resolutions that it is inexpedient to go to war with France--that the arming of merchant vessels should be restricted--that provision should be made for protection of the sea-coast and interior, offered, 225; not a suitable time for a declaration of sentiment of first resolutions, 225; our situation better than it was twenty-three years ago, 225; verbal amendments proposed, 226; intention of the resolution, 226; now is the time to declare whether the country shall remain at peace or go to war, 227; the state of things calls for this declaration, 227; Legislature should determine whether they immediately mean to go to war or not, 227; defensive war always ready to undertake, 228; though we value peace, we are ready to resist insult and injury, 228; extent of defensive measures should now be decided on, 228; proceedings of France amount to a declaration, 229; to say we are not at war is no more than to say it is light when the sun shines, 229; to agree to the proposition would countenance the French assertion that we are a divided people, 229; the time has come when a stand should be made, 229; review of the past, 229; arguments in favor considered, 230; arguments of opposers examined, 230; the question very unimportant, 230; important time lost in discussing it, 230; it is a question of peace or war, 232; to strike out words "French Republic" proposed, 232; resolution unnecessary and uncommon, 232; this country is now the passive party, and any declaration on our part would have little effect, 232; our course with Great Britain, 233; the course of France, 232; instance of Venice, 233; ready to engage in a defensive but not offensive war, 234; a disposition on the part of the House and Government for war, 234; apprehension of war already produced effects in some parts of the country, 234; the resistance to the amendment shows the intention is to say to France, "You may commit against us injury after injury, we will not resent it," 234; peace and war are not in our power, 234; the movers of amendment exposed, 235; their intentions abject submission to France, 235; those now so loud for peace, heretofore supporters of war, shown, 235; example of the Swiss, 236; reply to objections, 236, 237; House obliged to act in the dark, 237; effect of French decree, 238; services of members as soldiers, 238; further debate, 239; Treaty of Pilnitz a forgery, 239; further debate, 240; resolution calling upon the President for papers, 241; debate thereon, 241, 242; subject postponed, 242.

Commercial intercourse with France.--Bill for suspending debate on its final passage, 292; no reason has been assigned for this bill, 292; effects of the bill, 293; effects on French commerce, 293; object to distress France and French West Indies, 293; its operation, 294; objections examined, 294; further debate, 295; bill passed, 295.

Resolutions relative to relations with France, offered, 296.

Bill to abrogate the treaty between France and the United States, 310; best to declare what is the state of the country, 310; the proper question to be considered, 310; bill from the Senate not taken up, but resolution for a committee to report on the state of the country, 311; debate on the reference, 311; the resolution an unmeaning thing, 311; question negatived, 312; bill from Senate again taken up and read, 312; amendment moved and carried, relative to enacting clause, 313; debate on amendments, 313; is a violation of the treaties on the part of France sufficient ground for our setting them aside?, 314; no proof that our claims have been refused, 314; further explanation of views, 315; preamble adopted and bill passed, 316.

Bill suspending commercial intercourse with France returned amended by the Senate to the House, motion to postpone, 320; amendments considered, 320; bill passed, 320.

Bill to suspend intercourse with France and open it with St. Domingo, considered, 334; section three, providing for intercourse with St. Domingo, debated, 334; strange proposition, 335; our non-intercourse affects the mother country, and it is proposed to relax it by way of the colonies, 335; or to negotiate with French agents in the colonies, and thus encourage rebellion and usurpation, 335; these agents independent of the decrees of France, 335; they may carry on commerce with this country even if at open war with France, 335; statement of the relation of affairs, 336; objects of this bill twofold, 337; reason for the passage of the bill at the last session, 337; weakness now to recede, 337; measures proposed are justifiable only in a state of war, 337; the question, 337; various reasons for the section in the bill, 338, 339; review of the relations between France and her colonies, 399; note, 399; advantages of commerce with Hispaniola, 340; this bill will authorize the President to negotiate with subordinate agents of a government against the will of that government, 341; it might produce war, 341; important considerations urged, 341; this measure is not so obnoxious as to be considered by France a cause of war, 342; consequences of the independence of St. Domingo, 342; the amendment changes the principle of the bill, 343; examination of the effects of the amendment, 343; if any part of the French dominions cease to depredate on our commerce, we might open intercourse with them, 344; the ground upon which we stand, 344; design of the amendment to take away the objection that the bill was calculated to promote independence of St. Domingo, 345; extent of the amendment, 345; further debate, 346; amendment negatived, 347; amendment proposed relative to part of New Orleans, 347; bill passed, 347.

French edict relative to neutrals; call for information respecting its suspension, 356; answer of the President, 357; motion to print discussed, 357.

Despatches of American Ministers.--Note, as an appendix to debates of Fifth Congress, 389; extract of a letter from Mr. Pinckney to the Secretary of State, 389; ditto to M. De la Croix, 390; report of Major Rutledge on the interview with M. De la Croix, 390; further report, 391; notification from M. De la Croix to General Pinckney, 392; reply of General Pinckney, 392; remarks of General Pinckney, 392; interview with Talleyrand, 392; proceedings of Talleyrand's agents, 393, 394, 395, 396; letter of General Pinckney to the Secretary of State, 397; remarks on the disavowal of Talleyrand, 397; members of the Directory, 398.

FRANKLIN, JESSE, Representative from North Carolina, 14; Senator from North Carolina, 404, 541, 661. See Index, vol. 1.

FREEMAN, JONATHAN, Representative from New Hampshire, 120, 180, 326, 429, 497; on answer of House to President Adams' first message, 129.

FREEMAN, NATHANIEL, Jr., Representative from Massachusetts, 14, 120. See Index, vol. 1.

French Refugees.--See Index, vol. 1.

French Republic, ratification of Convention with, 492.

French Spoliations.--Resolution that provision be made for indemnification for losses sustained by French spoliations, considered, 642; the principle must be decided by the House, 643; the resolution so broad as to defeat its object, 643; it goes to commit the House to the whole extent without any examination, 643; reasons for speedy action, 643; object of the resolution to place the question in a train for decision, 643; it is founded on the principle that Government has abandoned the claim, so that no citizen can come forward against the French Government, or any French citizen, 643; further debate, 644; a large portion of the losses so covered by insurance, the Government will not have to pay them, 645; further debate, 646; motion to postpone lost, 647; report made, 655; further remarks, 726; resolution, 727; amendments proposed, 732; lost, 732; discussion on calling yeas and nays on taking up for reference the original resolution, 732; referred, 733; a question of great moment, 733; debate on postponement, 733, 734; motion to take up, 743; lost, 744.

Friends or Quakers, memorial of, 182; report on, 209.

Frontiers, Protection of.--See Index, vol. 1.

Fugitives from justice.--See Index, vol. 1.

Furniture for President's House, see Appropriations.

G

GALLATIN, ALBERT, Representative from Pennsylvania, 14, 120, 179, 326, 429; on the address to the President, 32; on a direct tax on slaves, 52, 54; on naval policy, 68; on increase of duties on sugar, 71, 72, 73; on increase of duties on salt, 74; on naval appropriations, 78; on direct and indirect taxes, 82; on limitation period relative to claims against United States, 85; on suability of the States, 86; on the accommodation of the President, 92; on military and naval appropriations, 93, 94, 95, 98, 106; on naval appropriations, 100, 104, 105; proposes resolutions relative to statements from War Department, 105; on answer of House to President Adams' first message, 140; on resolutions relative to defensive measures, 144, 146; on arming merchant vessels, 147; on expatriation, 151; on a naval armament, 153; on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 158, 160, 161; proposes composition with banks in lieu of tax, 162; on additional duty on salt, 163, 164; offers proviso against increase in bounties to fishermen, 163; on address to the President, 182; on the Quakers' memorial, 184; against weekly licenses to distillers, 194; on naval expenditure, 197; on foreign intercourse, 200, 204; on the report on the Griswold and Lyon case, 215, 216; on the limits of Georgia, 223; on relations with France, 229; on a provisional army, 243, 247; on establishing the Navy Department, 248; on military appropriations, 252, 253; to postpone consideration of naturalization laws, 260; on presents to ministers by foreign courts, 264; on a temporary direct tax, 266; on the classes to be excluded from citizenship, 277, 278; on bill relative to treatment of alien enemies, 282, 284; on the consideration of the bill relative to the protection of commerce, 290; on intercourse with France, 293; relative to letters of marque, 298; on direct taxes, 302; on alien enemies, 305; on the sedition bill, 308; on the abrogation of the treaty with France, 311, 312, 315; on intercourse with France and St. Domingo, 337, 343, 345; on increase of the navy, 348; on the capture of French vessels, 359; on repeal of alien and sedition laws, 365; on the expulsion of Matthew Lyon, 370; on repeal of alien law, 373; on the law of retaliation, 385; on petition of free blacks, 440, 444; on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 449, 452, 455. See Index, vol. 1.

GANTT, Rev. Mr., elected chaplain to the Senate, 544, 694.

GATES, proposal for a monument to, 725.

Georgia, vote for President, 62, 487.

Georgia limits.--See Territories.

Georgia, remonstrance of, report of committee on, 331; compensation recommended, 331; points of the remonstrance, 331; comparative expenditure in defending northern and southern frontiers from depredations of Indians, 332; amended resolution proposed, 348; carried, 348; report on, 537.

German language, laws in, motion to print, 165; reason for the motion, 165; if a translation was authorized, great mischiefs might ensue, 165.

GERRY, ELBRIDGE, letter from Paris, 304.--See Index, vol. 1

GILBERT, EZEKIEL, Representative from New York, 14; on the address to the President, 32; on the petition of manumitted slaves, 59; on military and naval appropriations, 107. See Index, vol. 1.

GILES, WM. B., Representative from Virginia, 17, 120, 569; on the address to the President, 17, 21, 23, 27, 32; on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 43; on answer of House to President Adams' 1st message, 124, 137; on resolution relative to defensive measures, 144, 146; on expatriation, 151-152; on a naval armament, 154; on tax on lawyers, 156; on the Griswold and Lyon case, 214; on the limits of Georgia, 223; on relations with France, 227, 232, 234, 236, 240, 241; on protection against the Barbary powers, 571; on apportionment bill, 573; on the Mediterranean trade, 586; in favor of repeal of Judiciary Establishment, 603; on Ohio State Government, 648, 649, 650. See Index, vol. 1.

GILLESPIE, JAMES, Representative from North Carolina, 16, 120, 189. See Index, vol. 1.

GILMAN, NICHOLAS, Representative from New Hampshire, 14. See Index, vol. 1.

GLENN, HENRY, Representative from New York, 14, 120, 179, 326, 429, 497. See Index, vol. 1.

GODDARD, CALVIN, Representative from Connecticut, 569, 693; on call for information relative to cession of Louisiana, 705, 718.

GOODE, SAMUEL, Representative from Virginia, 433; on petition of free blacks, 442.

GOODHUE, BENJAMIN, Senator from Massachusetts, 3, 113, 165, 321, 399. See Index, vol. 1.

GOODRICH, CHAUNCEY, Representative from Connecticut, 14, 120, 179, 326, 429, 505; on a direct tax on slaves, 53. See Index, vol. 1.

GOODRICH, ELIZUR, Representative from Connecticut, 429, 497.

GORDON, WILLIAM, Representative from New Hampshire, 121, 180, 326, 429; on duties on naturalization certificates, 155; on the Quakers' Memorial, 180; against weekly licenses to distillers, 194; on the Georgia limits, 221, 222; on abrogation of treaty with France, 313.

GRAY, EDWIN, Representative from Virginia, 498, 569, 694.

Great Britain, retaliatory measures upon, see Index, vol. 1.

GREEN, ASHBEL, appointed chaplain to the House, 169.

GREEN, THOMAS M., delegate from Mississippi Territory, 693.

GREENE, RAY, Senator from Rhode Island, 165, 321, 485; resigns his seat in Senate, 491.

GREENUP, CHRISTOPHER, Representative from Kentucky, 14; on land for Canadian Refugees, 45. See Index, vol. 1.

GREGG, ANDREW, Representative from Pennsylvania, 17, 121, 188, 429, 498, 570, 693; on jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 738. See Index, vol. 1.

GRISWOLD, ROGER, Representative from Connecticut, 14, 120, 179, 326, 429, 497, 569, 693; on answer of House to President Adams' first message, 131; against weekly licenses to distillers, 194; assault on Matthew Lyon, 209; Griswold and Lyon, case of, see Breach of Privilege. On mausoleum to Washington, 503; on reporting the debates, 508; on ratio of representation, 572; on public printing, 573; on Georgia limits, 577; on Mediterranean Trade, 585; on the collection of international revenue, 588; on French spoliations, 642, 644; on Ohio State Government, 650; on unauthorized purchase of navy yards, 656; on the call for papers relative to the cession of Louisiana to France by Spain, 698, 700, 703, 705, 713, 714; on petitions of United States Judges, 728. See Index, vol. 1.

GROVE, WILLIAM BARRY, Representative from North Carolina, 14, 121, 179, 502, 581, 696. See Index, vol. 1.

GUNN, JAMES, Senator from Georgia, 3, 119, 165, 321, 398. See Index, vol. 1.

H

HANCOCK, GEORGE, Representative from Virginia, 44. See Index, vol. 1.

HANGING MAW, petition of widow of, 96.

HANNA, JOHN ANDRE, Representative from Pennsylvania, 120, 180, 326, 429, 498, 569, 694.

HARPER, ROBERT G., Representative from South Carolina, 121, 179, 326, 429, 498; on a national university, 35; on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 41; on petition of Hugh L. White, 49; on a direct tax on slaves, 53; on naval policy, 68; on increase of duties on salt, 74-75; on suability of the States, 86, 88; on naval appropriations, 105; on liberation of La Fayette, 110; on military and naval appropriations, 107; on defensive measures, 147; on a naval establishment, 154; on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 160; on additional duty on salt, 164; on the Quakers' Memorial, 183; on the expenditure for the naval service, 195; on relief to daughters of Count de Grasse, 195; on appropriation for foreign intercourse, 200, 204; on the case of Griswold and Lyon, 211, 215; on diplomatic intercourse, 216; on the limits of Georgia, 218, 221; moves amendment relative to importation of slaves in Mississippi Territory, 224, note, 224; on relations with France, 226, 234, 239; on a provisional army, 245; on establishing the Navy Department, 250; on the naturalization laws, 253, 254; against taking new census before laying direct tax, 265; relative to letters of marque, 297; on the sedition bill, 306, 308; on abrogation of treaty with France, 315; on intercourse with France, 320, 336, 345; on increase of the navy, 351; on relations with France, 356; on the capture of French vessels, 360; on petitions relative to repeal of alien and sedition laws, 364; asks leave to bring in a bill to amend direct tax law, 433; on petition of free blacks, 439; on the case of Jonathan Bobbins, 451, 454; on admirals in the navy, 474; for a mausoleum to Washington, 513, 516, 517; on jurisdiction over District of Columbia, 520, 521. See Index, vol. 1.

HARRISON, CARTER B., Representative from Virginia, 14, 120, 180, 329; advocates weekly licenses to distillers, 194. See Index, vol. 1.

HARRISON, WILLIAM HENRY, Representative from North West Territory, 430; credentials referred to committee, 432.

HARTLEY, THOMAS, Representative from Pennsylvania, 11, 120, 179, 329; on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 40, 41, 42, 43; on lands for Canadian refugees, 44; on a direct tax on slaves, 55; on the compensation of President and other officers, 61; on the accommodation of the President, 89; on military appropriations, 98, 99; on naval appropriations, 100; on liberation of La Fayette, 108; on answer of House to President Adams' 1st message, 141; on the limits of Georgia, 223; on intercourse with France, 344; decease reported to the House, 521. See Index, vol. 1.

HATHORN, JOHN, Representative from New York, 34. See Index, vol. 1.

HAVENS, JONATHAN N., Representative from New York, 14, 120, 179, 326. See Index, vol. 1.

HASTINGS, SETH, Representative from Massachusetts, 693.

HEATH, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 14; on the address to the President, 20; on the petition of manumitted slaves, 58; on the accommodation of the President, 89, 90; on military and naval appropriations, 106; on liberation of Lafayette, 109. See Index, vol. 1.

HEISTER, DANIEL, Representative from Maryland, 694

HEISTER, JOSEPH, Representative from Pennsylvania, 188, 429, 497, 569, 693.

HELMS, WILLIAM, Representative from New Jersey, 569, 693.

HEMPHILL, JOSEPH, Representative from Pennsylvania, 569, 693; on call for information relative to cession of Louisiana, 704.

HENDERSON, ARCHIBALD, Representative from North Carolina, 14, 120, 179, 429, 498, 569, 694; on the accommodation of the President, 88, 92; against the repeal of the Judiciary Establishment, 597.

HENDERSON, PLEASANT, claim to certain lands, 518.

HENRY, JOHN, Senator from Maryland, 3, 117; vote for, as President in 1796, 63. See Index, vol. 1.

HILL, WILLIAM H., Representative from North Carolina, 429, 500, 570, 696; on petition of free blacks, 438; on reporting the debates, 501.

HILLHOUSE, JAMES, Senator from Connecticut, 3, 118, 171, 323, 399, 481, 544, 664; elected President of Senate pro tem., 488. See Index, vol. 1.

HINDMAN, WILLIAM, Representative from Maryland, 14, 120, 179, 327. See Index, vol. 1.

HOBART, JOHN SLOSS, Senator from New York, 171; resigns, 172.

HOGE, WILLIAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 569, 693.

HOLLAND, JAMES, Representative from North Carolina, 14, 570, 693; on the petition of manumitted slaves, 59; on increase of duties, 71, 74; on increase of duties on salt, 75; on the accommodation of the President, 90; on naval appropriations, 100.

HOLMES, DAVID, Representative from Virginia, 120, 179, 326, 429, 497, 569, 693; on printing the laws in the German language, 165.

HOSMER, HEZEKIAH L., Representative from New York, 120, 179, 326.

House, secret session of, 79; adjourns at close of fourth Congress, 111; answer to President Adams' first message, 123; answer as delivered to President Adams' first message, 143; answer to President's message, 180; answer to President's message to third session, fifth Congress, 329; note on, 330; address in answer to President's message, 431; thanks to General Lee for eulogium on memory of Washington, 436; refuses to accompany Senate to hear eulogium on Washington, 447; answer to President's message second session, sixth Congress, 499; proceedings relative to purchase of Louisiana, 721; tenders thanks to Speaker Macon, 744.

HOWARD, JOHN E., Senator from Maryland, 6, 114, 171, 323, 403, 481, 540, 661; chosen President of Senate pro tem., 481.

HUGER, BENJAMIN, Representative from South Carolina, 572, 694; for a mausoleum to Washington, 516; on collection of internal revenue, 588; on call for papers relative to cession of Louisiana, 699, 719; on considering the French spoliations, 733; on jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 736.

HUNT, SAMUEL, Representative from New Hampshire, 693.

HUNTER, JOHN, Senator from South Carolina, 6, 114.

HUNTER, NARSWORTHY, Delegate from Mississippi, 569; decease of, 640.

I

IMLAY, JAMES H., Representative from New Jersey, 120, 179, 326, 429, 497.

Impressment of Seamen, message in relation to, 333.

Imprisonment for debt.--Bill making provision for relief of persons, passed, 479; particulars of bill, 479; resolution to revise the laws, offered, 593; object, to secure debtor his property and provide some remedy beside imprisonment, 593; considerations against imprisonment urged, 593.

Inaugural Address of John Adams, 11; of Thomas Jefferson, 490.

Indian Lands within a State, rights over, see Index, vol. 1.

Indian Trading Houses.--See Index, vol. 1.

Intercourse with France.--See France, relations with.

IREDELL, JAMES, vote for as President in 1796, 63.

J

JACKSON, ANDREW, Representative from Tennessee, 14; first appearance in National Councils, 48; note, 48; on petition of Hugh Lawson White, 48, 49; presents petition of George Colbert, 49; Senator from Tennessee, 165; resigns as Senator, 321.

JACKSON, GEORGE, Representative from Virginia, 14, 429, 497, 569, 693; on a direct tax on slaves, 53; on the Judiciary Establishment, 552; on resolutions relative to the navigation of the Mississippi, 678. See Index, vol. 1.

JACKSON, JAMES, Senator from Georgia, 541. See Index, vol. 1.

JARVIS, JAMES, officer on frigate Constellation, 470.

JAY, JOHN, vote for as President, 63, 487.

JEFFERSON, THOMAS, his address as President of the Senate, 10; note, 10; vote for as President in 1796, 62; Vice President and President of Senate, 113, 171, 323; Vice President attends Senate, 404, 484; vote for as President, 487; address on retiring from Senate, 488; inauguration as President, 490; address, 490; answer to notification of the House of his election, 535; letter to President of Senate, 541; note, 541; views on slavery, an obstacle to his receiving the vote of South Carolina for President, 636. See Index, vol. 1.

JOHNSON, CHARLES, Representative from North Carolina, 569.

JOHNSTON, SAMUEL, vote for as President in 1796, 63.

JONES, JAMES, Representative from Georgia, 429, 501; on petition of free blacks, 439, 443; on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 456; on the apportionment bill, 574.

JONES, WALTER, Representative from Virginia, 120, 179, 327.

JONES, WILLIAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 569, 723.

Judiciary System, bill to amend a previous act establishing judicial courts, 419; ordered to second reading, 419; numerous reasons for the introduction of the bill, 420; parts of the bill, 427; bill passed to third reading, 427; note, 427.

In the Senate, part of message relating to Judiciary system, read, 545; motion that the act of last session respecting the Judiciary Establishment be repealed, 546; note, 546; motion debated, 546; 1st. the law is unnecessary and improper--2d. the judges and courts created by it, can, and ought to be abolished, 546; existing courts, competent and able to discharge duties, 546; such was the case when the law passed, 546; amount of business before the courts, 546; suits decreasing, 546; United States never need thirty-eight federal judges, 547; limit to federal judicial powers, 547; power of Congress to put down these additional courts and judges, examined, 547; may be abolished as well as created under the constitution, 547; a judge cannot hold his office after it is abolished, 548; once a judge always a judge, examined, 548; one of the most important questions ever before a Legislature, 548; what says the constitution?, 548; judges hold during good behavior, 548; their compensation as prescribed, designed to preserve their existence, 549; motion unconstitutional, 549; the ancient system stated, 549; if you repeal so far as regards these judges, you may for all, 550; thereby you destroy the check provided in the constitution, 550; all power is not vested in the Legislature, 550; constitutional power, 550; words shall and may, 550; more afraid of an army of judges than an army of soldiers, 552; it is said the law which creates a judge cannot be touched, 552; the moment it is passed it exists to the end of time, 552; the power to alter the system rests here, or nowhere, 552; extent of our country, 553; tendency of acts of late administration, 553; history of legislative proceedings in the formation of the Judiciary system, 553; is this system so vicious as to deserve nothing but abhorrence?, 554; the letter and spirit of the constitution against the repeal, 555; Judicial Department should be independent, 555; but not independent of the nation itself, 555; what are the facts?, 555; if a court once established, cannot be vacated, the greatest absurdities follow, 556; the judges of Mississippi Territory, 556; further remarks on the independence of the Judiciary, 557; the expediency of repealing the law considered, 557; shall we restore to the people their former courts? is the true question, 558; defects of the present system, 559; reasons for the repeal insufficient, 560; the expediency of the repeal examined, 560, 561; the constitutional point examined, 562; repeal needed as a precedent, 562; our government a system of salutary checks, 563; constitutional point further examined, 563, 564, 565; bill passed, 565; note, 565.

In the House, resolutions offered in committee relative to the Judiciary considered, 581; resolutions agreed to, 581; motion to refer to committee, 581; remarks on reference, 581; resolutions referred, 583; bill from the Senate to repeal considered in House, 596; note, 596; the people have established three departments for the powers of government, 597; tenure by which the judges hold office, 597; the words "during good behavior" are a limitation on executive and legislative power, 597; examination of these words, 598; a subsequent legislature can repeal the acts of a previous one, examined, 598; any other construction leads to a concentration of executive and legislative power, 598; this is the spirit of innovation which has prostrated the old world, 599; expediency of the repeal examined, 599; comparison of the present and former system, 600; constitutionality of the measure examined, 600; delegated powers, 601; Judiciary is a check on the legislature, shown, 601; the judges are expounders of the constitution and laws, 602; they ought to be independent of the other branches of government, particularly the legislative, 602; concentration of power is the essence of tyranny, 602; as we advance to it, we recede from liberty, 602; what was the intention of the framers in introducing the words "good behavior"?, 602; origin of parties in this country fundamental, 603; manner of growth, 604; proceedings of the favorers of patronage, 604; the strict letter of the constitution now appealed to, 605; will the repeal of this law violate in any respect the salutary or practicable independence of the judges, secured by the constitution?, 605; the terms "independence of the judges" or "Judiciary" not found in the constitution, 605; relationship between the Executive and Judiciary Departments, 606; clauses of the constitution examined, 607, 608, 609; are not the judges more independent under this view than those of England?, 610; it is admitted Congress may increase or diminish the duties of judges, 610; preceding arguments for repeal examined in detail, and a defence of the late administration, 611, 612, 613, 614; inexpediency of the present bill shown by the expediency of the judicial law of last session, 617; the pre-existing system examined, and its defects and evils, as affected by the late act, considered, 617, 618, 619; changes made by the late law, 620, 621; when did the right of the Executive to recommend modifications of the Judiciary system cease, or of Congress to act?, 622; former practice with present theory compared, 622; doctrine of the Judiciary in Virginia, 623, 624; point conceded, 624; further debate, 625, 626; practice of North Carolina relative to instructions, 627; constitution of North Carolina, 627; interpretation of the words "during good behavior" there, 627; arguments against the bill examined, 628; further debate, 629, 630, 631; intention of the convention to make the judges independent of both executive and legislative power, so universally admitted at the time, 632; hence any intrusion or intermeddling by Congress is usurpation, 632; what avail are prohibitory clauses in the constitution, if there be no power to check Congress and the President?, 632; these regulations designed for the safety of the State Governments and the liberties of the people, 632; but the doctrine urged to-day will sweep away all barriers, 632; illustrations given by reference to the constitution, 632; expense of the national Judiciary, 633; reasons for passing the law of last session, 633; influence upon the elections, 633; vote at the election in the House, 634; note, 634; the professed friends of the people, 635; course of South Carolina on the Presidential election, 635, 636; Jefferson's views on slavery prevented his receiving the vote of South Carolina, 636; note, 636; what manifestation of the public will was there in reference to the late election for President?, 637; further debate, 637, 638; motion to postpone the bill lost, 638; bill passed, 655.

United States' Judges, Memorial of, in Senate, report of committee on, 665; what is due to the supreme law of the land?, 666; memorialists ask if the law of last session deprived them of their office of judge, 666; a question not cognizable by the Senate, to whom it does not belong to interpret their own acts, 666; it should be speedily settled by the proper tribunals, 666; effect of such a decision, 667; committee should have confined themselves to the points of the question, 667; constitutional power of Senate reviewed, 667; resolution of committee lost, 668.

Petitions of, 727; reference moved, 728; memorial does not embrace any point of inquiry, 728; it should be referred to Committee of the Whole, 728; the constitutional question already determined, 728; undoubtedly a constitutional question, 728; reference unnecessary, subject already fully discussed, 728; referred to Committee of the Whole, 729; discussion in committee, 729; question been settled as to right of depriving the judges of their office, but not the question as to their compensation, 729; resolutions offered, 729; a new doctrine advanced, that a judge is entitled to his compensation, after being deprived of his authority and his powers are transferred to another, 729; true question on the constitutionality of the law, 730; if the courts are abolished, are the officers abolished?, 730; would the Supreme Court in this case be an impartial tribunal?, 730; it would be improper to authorize the Supreme Court to decide upon the constitutionality of the law, 730; when there are no services, there can be no claim for salary, 730; memorial is a protest, and let it rest on the files of the House, 730; resolutions lost, 731.

K

Kentucky, vote for President, 62, 487.

KITCHELL, AARON, Representative from New Jersey, 14, 429, 498; on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 42; on petition of Hugh L. White, 51; on the petition of manumitted slaves, 60; on increase of duties on sugar, 71; on military appropriations, 98; on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 451. See Index, vol. 1.

KITTERA, JOHN WILKES, Representative from Pennsylvania, 120, 191, 326, 429; on a direct tax on slaves, 56; on naval appropriations, 101, 105; presides in Committee of the Whole, 193, 194; on the limits of Georgia, 220; on the bill relative to the protection of commerce, 289; on abrogation of treaty with France, 313. See Index, vol. 1.

KOSCIUSKO, General, claim of, 191; history of, 192; proceedings on, 192; accounts of, 193.

L

LAFAYETTE, GENERAL.--Resolution relative to, 108; negotiations to effect his release from imprisonment, 108; his services for this country, 108; propriety and duty of negotiations on the part of the Executive, 108; subject improper to be introduced to the House--President knows the will of the people, 109; no impropriety in it, 109; further debate, 110; question lost, 111; note, 111. See Index, vol. 1.

Lake Superior.--Copper lands and mines--resolution authorizing the purchase of copper lands, 456; report of committee, 472; resolution reported agreed to, 472.

LANGDON, JOHN, Senator from New Hampshire, 3, 113, 165, 321, 399, 481. See Index, vol. 1.

LATIMER, HENRY, Senator from Delaware, 3, 114, 165, 321, 400. See Index, vol. 1.

LAURANCE, JOHN Senator from New York, 4, 114, 165, 321, 399; elected President pro tem. of Senate, 321. See Index, vol. 1.

Law of Retaliation.--See Defensive Measures.

LEAR, TOBIAS, letter to President announcing death of Washington, 434.

LEE, HENRY, Representative from Virginia, 432, 497; delivers an oration on death of Washington, 404; letter accepting thanks of House, 436; on petition of free blacks, 437; on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 450, 455; on mausoleum for Washington, 503, 504, 512, 513; on reporting the debates, 509; on jurisdiction over District of Columbia, 518, 524.

LEE, SILAS, Representative from Massachusetts, 429, 497.

LEIB, MICHAEL, Representative from Pennsylvania, 429, 497, 569, 693.

LEONARD, GEORGE, Representative from Massachusetts, 57. See Index, vol. 1.

Library of Congress, resolution for a committee to procure, 474; bill regulating the use of, considered, 578; discussion of details, 578.

Limitation, Acts of, report on, 189; note on, 190.

LINCOLN, LEVI, Representative from Massachusetts, 528.

LINN, JAMES, Representative from New Jersey, 429, 498.

LISTON, ROBERT, note to Secretary of State, 445.

LIVERMORE, SAMUEL, Senator from New Hampshire, 3, 113, 165, 321, 400, 481; chosen President of Senate pro tem., 400; on disputed Presidential elections, 406.

LIVINGSTON, EDWARD, Representative from New York, 17, 120, 179, 334, 429, 522; on the address to the President, 29, 31; on a National University, 37; on military and naval appropriations, 107; on liberation of Lafayette, 108; on answer of House to President Adams' first message, 136, 141; on arming merchant vessels, 147; on tax on lawyers, 156; reports on petition of daughters of Count de Grasse, 192; on expenditure for the naval service, 196, 197; on diplomatic intercourse, 216; on relations with France, 241; on establishing the Navy Department, 251; on the sedition bill, 307, 318; on relations with France, 356, 357; on the capture of French vessels, 361, 363; on repeal of alien and sedition law, 384; on the law of retaliation, 385; proposes resolutions in case of Jonathan Robbins, 446; on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 448, 449, 451, 453, 457. See Index, vol. 1.

LLOYD, JAMES, Senator from Maryland, 171, 323, 402; resigns seat in Senate, 484.

LLOYD, THOMAS, proposes to report debates of House, 14.

LOCKE, MATTHEW, Representative from North Carolina, 14, 121, 179, 326.

LOGAN, GEORGE, Senator from Pennsylvania, 541, 661.

Louisiana, cession of, in the House.--Resolution calling on the President for any documents relative to the cession of Louisiana to France, considered, 697; subject akin to one that had been discussed with closed doors, it should therefore be referred in the same manner, 698; nothing which ought to be kept secret involved in the transaction, 698; why refer the resolution calling for information to a committee? 698; if publicity will interfere with constitutional functions of the President, resolution should not be supported, 698; the cession is a public fact, 698; custom of the House should determine this fact, 698; no impropriety in this request, 699; widest publicity desirable where it will not prove injurious, 699; let the call prevail, 699; advantage of going into Committee of the Whole, 699; what is the object of those refusing information? 699; if proper we ought to have these documents, 699; this the first instance a resolution allowed to be important had been refused a reference, 700; object of reference is discussion with closed doors, 700; case of the British Treaty, 700; logic of the opposition, 700; what end is to be answered by committal, 700; case of British Treaty restated, 700; reference carried, 701; in committee--shall the doors be closed as heretofore ordered in respect to this subject, 701; discussed, 701, 702; resolutions in secret session, 702; resolutions for a call for papers again considered, 703; should not be referred to a secret committee, 703; motion has already been decided, 703; the President alludes to the subject as one which may require Legislative interposition, yet persists in refusing information, 703; why do we want information, but that we may have a more clear view of the general subject, 704; only two points connected with the subject in which documents could be required or secrecy necessary, 704; material connection between shutting the port of New Orleans and the cession of Louisiana--one has been ordered to be discussed with shut doors, how proper then to introduce the other in debate, 704; numerous reasons for opposing the resolution, 705; speech of Mr. Monroe in the Virginia Convention, 705; note, 705; who now are the friends of the West and the free navigation of the river? 708; the sentiments displayed in this proceeding a phenomenon in the history of regular governments, 708; a history of political parties unnecessary, 709; resolution lost, 709; further resolutions moved, 710; lost, 710; motion for call renewed, 713; confidential subjects have been decided, 713; information necessary to legislation, 713; no fact has been communicated in the message, 713; it conveys the suspicion that Spain has ceded to France indefinitely, 714; unwise in the cradle of negotiation to throw out insinuations that may disgust, 714; farther discussion, 715; what is the inference from previous proceedings of these gentlemen? they will not assert our rights because they have no confidence in the Executive, 715; objections to the resolution, 716; relations of the departments of Government, 717; it will offend foreign nations to agree to the resolutions, 718; further debate, resolution lost, 720; motion to discharge committee to whom was referred a motion respecting official information, 720; the practice has alarmingly increased to resist a call for information, 720; reasons given, 721.

Purchase of Louisiana, resolutions, 721; report thereon, 721; note, 723.

Louisiana, purchase of, in Senate.--A bill making further provision for the expenses attending intercourse between the United States and foreign nations, considered, 671; read third time, 671; passed, 671; note, 6, 71.

LOWNDES, THOMAS, Representative from South Carolina, 569, 694; on public printing, 573; relative to State balances, 594; on French spoliations, 640; on the circulation of gold coin, 695; note, 695; on the call for information relative to cession of Louisiana, 703.

LYMAN, SAMUEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 14, 120, 179, 326, 429. See Index, vol. 1.

LYMAN, WILLIAM, Representative from Massachusetts, 14; on the address to the President, 17, 19; on a National University, 36; on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 40; on liberation of Lafayette, 110. See Index, vol. 1.

LYON, MATTHEW, Representative from Vermont, 120, 179, 358, 429; on accompanying the House to deliver their answer to the President's message, 142; on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 157; on additional duty on salt, 164; on printing the laws in the German language, 165; on address to the President, 182; attack on Roger Griswold, 205; letter of, relative to attack on Roger Griswold, 206; proceedings relative to his assault on Roger Griswold, 208; on treatment of alien enemies, 281. Expulsion of from House.--Resolution proposed, 364; objection to an immediate vote, 364; record of the trial proves the facts, 365; power of the House in reference to expulsion, 366; acts committed out of the House, 366; the acts of Lyon, 366; something should have been shown in the character of Lyon so infamous as to render him unfit to sit in the House, 366; the charges against the member ought not to have been inquired into under the sedition law, 367; charges, 367; examination of them, 367; the member is re-elected by constituents having a full knowledge of the prosecution, 368; remarks of Lyon, 368; reply, 369; further discussion of the law and the case, 369, 370; an examination of the letter published, 371; the constitutionality of the law under which the member was tried and manner of trial, 372; resolution to expel lost, 373; on the medal to Captain Truxton, 472.

LYON, MATTHEW, case of, see Breach of Privilege.

M

MACHIR, JAMES, Representative from Virginia, 120, 179, 326.

MACLAY, SAMUEL, Representative from Pennsylvania, 14. See Index, vol. 1.

MACON, NATHANIEL, Representative from North Carolina, 14, 121, 179, 326, 429, 497, 569, 693; on a National University, 34; on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 41; on land for Canadian refugees, 45; on kidnapping negroes, 46; on the petition of manumitted slaves, 60; on the accommodation of the President, 89, 91; on address to the President, 182; on the Quakers' memorial, 184, 187; on stamp duties, 185; advocates weekly licenses to distillers, 194; on report relative to the Matthew Lyon affair, 207; on the limits of Georgia, 219; on a provisional army, 247; on establishing the Navy Department, 249; on presents to ministers by foreign courts, 262; on temporary direct tax, 270; on persons to be admitted to citizenship, 279; on bill relative to instructions to armed vessels, 287; on the sedition bill, 308, 317; on intercourse with France and St. Domingo, 343; on the capture of French vessels, 358; on the law of retaliation, 388; against mausoleum to Washington, 504, 514, 515; on reporting the debates, 510; on jurisdiction over District of Columbia, 525, 527; elected Speaker, 569; address to House, 569; on ratio of representation, 573; on Georgia limits, 577; on repeal of internal taxes, 580; relative to State balances, 596; in favor of repeal of Judiciary Establishment, 626; acknowledges thanks of House, 747. See Index, vol. 1.

MADISON, JAMES, Representative from Virginia, 14; on a National University, 37; on liability of United States to a State for war expenses, 50; on a direct tax on land and slaves, 52; on the petition of manumitted slaves, 58; on liberation of Lafayette, 109. See Index, vol. 1.

MALBONE, FRANCIS, Representative from Rhode Island, 14. See Index, vol. 1.

MARSHALL, HUMPHREY, Senator from Kentucky, 3, 119, 165, 321, 399, 481. See Index, vol. 1.

MARSHALL, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 429; on breach of privilege, 429; announces death of Washington in House, 433; on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 453; his great speech, 457.

MARTIN, ALEXANDER, Senator from North Carolina, 3, 114, 165, 323. See Index, vol. 1.

Maryland, vote for President, 62, 487.

MASON, JONATHAN, Senator from Massachusetts, 544, 661; on repeal of Judiciary Establishment, 548.

MASON, STEVENS T., Senator from Virginia, 6, 114, 171, 323, 405, 481, 540, 661; on breach of privilege, 417; on the repeal of the Judiciary Establishment, 555; on the resolutions relative to the right of the United States to the free navigation of the Mississippi, 686. See Index, vol. 1.

Massachusetts vote for President, 62, 487.

MATHERS, JAMES, Sergeant-at-Arms to Senate, 541; his extra allowance, 541.

MATTHEWS, WILLIAM, Representative from Maryland, 120, 180, 330.

MATTOON, EBENEZER, Representative from Massachusetts, 523, 569, 694.

Mausoleum for Washington, report of committee in Senate, 485.

MCCLAY, SAMUEL, Senator from Pennsylvania, 14, 665.

MCCLENACHAN, BLAIR, Representative from Pennsylvania, 120, 179, 326.

MCDOWELL, JOSEPH, Representative from North Carolina, 129, 189; on answer of House to President Adams' first message, 140; on tax on lawyers, 156; on the bill to raise a provisional army, 246; on establishing the Navy Department, 250; on the naturalization laws, 256, 257; on presents to ministers by foreign courts, 261; moves to postpone bill for a provisional army, 275; on residence before citizenship, 277; on the bill relative to protection of commerce, 288; on intercourse with France, 292; on the sedition bill, 307; on instructions to armed vessels, 319; on intercourse with France, 346; on the bill relative to the capture of French vessels, 358; on the capture of French vessels, 359; on repeal of alien and sedition law, 384. See Index, vol. 1.

MCHENRY, JAMES, letter to the House on the application of money drawn from the Treasury, 696.

MCMILLAN, Delegate from North-west Territory, 498.

Mediterranean Powers, report relative to affairs with, 79; note, 81; bill in relation to, 81.

Mediterranean Trade, resolution calling for information relative to exports to the Mediterranean considered, 584; upon the report a calculation will be made of the expense of protection, 584; report must be defective, 584; this call may delay passage of an important bill, 585; resolution agreed to, 585; bill for the protection of commerce in Mediterranean considered, 586; amendment to give President power to issue letters of marque to affect Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli, 586; it seems to invite war, 586; their perfidiousness made this necessary, 586; other reasons urged, 586; not carried, 586.

MERIWETHER, JAMES, Representative from Georgia, 693.

Message, Washington to second session, fourth Congress, 15; of President John Adams to Congress, 114; confidential from President to Senate relative to the Dey of Algiers, 119; documents accompanying first message of John Adams to Congress, 121; of President Adams to second session, fifth Congress, 167; on the Creek Indians, 171; do. on French outrage, 171; do. on despatches from France, 172; on affairs with France, 173; from President Adams to Senate with Washington's letter accepting Lieutenant-Generalship, 177; to House relative to persons imprisoned for debt, 198; on French outrages, 207; on relations with France, 217, 304; from President Adams to third session of fifth Congress, 327; with documents relative to impressment of seamen, 333; on French affairs, 347; President Adams to first session, sixth Congress, 400; to Senate announcing death of Washington, 403; from House on death of Washington, 403; of President on sending resolutions to Mrs. Washington, 405; fourth of President Adams to second session, sixth Congress, 482; note, 482; first of President Jefferson, 541; from President on Georgia limits, 566; of President Jefferson, second session, seventh Congress, 662; on negotiation for acquisition of Louisiana, 664; with papers relative to removal of deposit at New Orleans, 694.

Military Academy, bill for establishing, introduced and read, 470; motion to reject it, 470; do. negatived, 470; bill referred, 470; postponement carried, 476.

Military Interference in elections, resolution relative to, 446.

MILLEDGE, JOHN, Representative from Georgia, 34, 121, 569; on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 40; on military appropriations, 98; on the limits of Georgia, 217; moves amendment to bill relative to Mississippi Territory, 224; on Georgia limits, 576. See Index, vol. 1.

Mint, motion to consider a repeal of act establishing, 695; present state of matters at the mint, 695; no advantage in the discussion at this time, 695; no member sees a gold coin, 695; two millions deposited in the bank, 695; note, 695; reasons adduced for its abolition are insufficient, 695.

Mint, Establishment of.--See Index, vol. 1.

Mississippi Question, or free navigation of the Mississippi, considered in Senate, 668; conduct of Spanish officers at New Orleans, 668; the power must be given and the means voted to vindicate in a becoming manner the honor and interests of the country, 668; spoliations by Spanish armed vessels, 668; our right to free navigation of the Mississippi, 669; denied, 669; consequence, 669; should take the command of the river, 669; feelings of Western people, 669; resolutions, 670; note, 671; resolutions mark out a system of measures honorable to the country, 671; extract from our treaty with Spain, 671; notwithstanding the treaty, New Orleans has been wrested from us, 672; represented as the rash act of an officer and not of the Spanish Government, 672; measures adopted, 672; agency of Bonaparte concealed, 673; danger of French control over the navigation of the Mississippi, 673; what is the true state of facts? 674; reasons for an immediate appeal to arms, 674; substitute for the resolutions moved, 675; a constant eye has been kept on this important subject by our Government in its negotiations, 676; history of negotiations, 676; conduct of the Intendant at New Orleans is an atrocious infraction of the treaty, 676; was it authorized by Spain or not? 676; true state of Spanish aggression, 676; nature, character and tendency of the remedy proposed, 676; proposes to seize part of the Territory, 676; in this case the controversy must be decided by force, 676; resolution then a war resolution, 677; its justice and policy considered, 677; in vain to say the Western States will seize New Orleans, 678; an indignity has been offered the United States by the Spanish Government, by withdrawing the right of deposit at New Orleans in this manner, 678; the right of the free navigation of the Mississippi, and to a place of deposit indisputable, 678; to seize any place or places is an act of war, 679; should we be justified in this measure on the grounds of private or public justice or the law of nations, considered? 679; what evidence that the Intendant is not authorized by the Spanish or French Government? 680; our interests, our honor, our safety require the course pointed out by the resolutions, 680; the resolutions do not go far enough, 680; we wish for peace, how is it to be preserved? 681; what is the state of things? 681; effect of this cession on the United States in general point of view, 682; its effects on the various divisions of the country, 682; its consequences to other nations, 683; the first resolution intended to involve members opposed to hostile measures in a dilemma, 685; they call on us to declare the deprivation of our right of deposit to be hostile to our interests and our honor, 685; effects of negotiation heretofore, 686; it is said negotiation is not the course for us to pursue, 687; merits of the different propositions, 687; it is said Spain had no right to cede Louisiana to France, 687; extraordinary aspect of the Senate, 688; on what right could we hold the country against France? 689; we have nothing to fear from the colony of any European nation on this continent, 689; conduct of this House on former occasions, 690; our object to obtain prompt redress of injuries immediately affecting our Western brethren, 690; we are not for rushing into war, but for repelling insult, 691; members have pledged themselves to employ force on failure of negotiations, 691; resolutions passed, 692; proceedings in secret session relative to free navigation of Mississippi, 710.

Mississippi Territory.--See Territories.

MITCHELL, SAMUEL L., Representative from New York, 569, 693; on protection against the Barbary powers, 571; in favor of resolution relative to state balances, 594; on French spoliations, 640, 645, 726, 732.

MONROE, JAMES, speech in Virginia Convention relative to surrender of the navigation of the Mississippi, 705.

Monuments to Generals and to the captors of Andre, 712.

MOORE, THOMAS, Representative from South Carolina, 11, 569, 693; on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 42, 43; on a direct tax on slaves, 53.

MORGAN, DANIEL, Representative from Virginia, 120, 179, 326.

MORRIS, GOUVERNEUR, Senator from New York, 481, 545, 664; on the resolutions relative to the right of the United States to the free navigation of the Mississippi, 680.

MORRIS, LEWIS R., Representative from Vermont, 155, 179, 429, 498, 570, 696.

MORRIS, THOMAS, Representative from New York, 569, 694; on repeal of Judiciary Establishment, 549, 560; on the apportionment bill, 575; on the collection of internal revenue, 588; relative to state balances, 595; on memorial of United States Judges, 666; for the reading of the letter of McHenry, 697; on granting land-warrants to La Fayette, 743.

MOTT, JAMES, Representative from New Jersey, 569, 693.

MUHLENBERG, FREDERICK A., Representative from Pennsylvania, 14, 429, 497. See Index, vol. 1.

MURRAY, WILLIAM VANS, Representative from Maryland, 14; on a national university, 38; on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 42; on kidnapping negroes, 46, 47; on a direct tax on slaves, 53; on the purchase of a site for a navy yard, 67. See Index, vol. 1.

N

National University.--Report on, considered, 34; the time has not arrived to incorporate a university, 35; if the House once enters on this subject, the responsibility will fall on it to keep it up, 35; the commissioners only ask to be incorporated, so as to receive legacies, 35; the President has already made a donation, 35; is it a proper step, 35; we are only asked to permit its encouragement, 35; better to ask this of Maryland, 36; improper time to decide upon a national university, 36; effects of the resolution, if adopted, 37; will we grant power and security to individuals to receive donations for this object, 37; negatived in committee, 38; further debate, 38; subject postponed, 39; vote on postponement of consideration of, 39; memorial of Samuel Blodget relative to, 712.

Naturalization Laws.--Resolution to prolong term of residence before aliens shall be admitted as citizens, considered, 253; five years too short, 253; at least ten should be required, 253; high time to recover from the mistake of admitting foreigners to citizenship, 253; amendment offered that no alien, not at present a resident, shall be capable of holding any office under U. S., or voting, 254; civil rights might be extended in full to foreigners, but not political rights, 254; unnecessary they should take a part in government, 254; only persons born in a country should do it, 254; the form of the amendment examined, 254; resolution proposed as a substitute, excluding all aliens not citizens from holding any U. S. office, 254; House not authorized to enact this principle into a law, 255; it ought to be considered as a proposition to amend the constitution, 255; if the House had power to extend the term of residence, they could make it for life, 255; question made on amendment of previous resolution, 255; President and Senate always appoint such men as they think proper, 255; people can elect a foreign-born citizen to any State office, 255; no doubt of the constitutionality of restricting aliens, 255; what advantage to be derived from giving aliens office? 255; propriety of action on the subject, 256; amendment withdrawn and original resolution adopted, 256; resolution relative to removal of resident aliens whose Government is at war with this country, considered, 256; what shall be considered "at war?" 256; foreigners have been invited here, this resolution will unnecessarily distress their minds, 256; intriguing aliens should be removed, 256; a positive declaration of war should be required before aliens are sent from the country and our citizens abroad similarly exposed, 257; only dangerous persons should be sent away, 257; the resolution proposes to give the President power to remove aliens when the country from which they come threatens invasion, 257; evil threatened at the present time, 257; commissions issued here by foreign ministers, 258; note, 258; this an essential feature of defence, about which Congress has been engaged during the session, 258; great number of French aliens in the country endeavoring to create divisions, 258; the same degree of hospitality is not due to French aliens and to alien friends, 258; moved to extend to all alien residents, 258; look at the results of French emissaries in Venice, Switzerland, and Rome, 259; similar emissaries in this country, 259; views of the committee who reported the resolution, 259; further debate, 260; last motion withdrawn, 260; proposition to add the words, "between which and the United States shall exist a state of war," 260; debate thereon, 260; postponement carried, 261; consideration resumed, and subject referred, 272; amended resolution, 272.

Motion to require fourteen years' residence before admission to citizenship, 277; tend to discourage emigration, 277; carried, 277; discussion on the retrospection of the bill, 277; committee thought bill should pass in its present form, 278; amendments proposed, 278; also to except residents previous to 1795, 278; reason in favor of the amendment, 278; no exception should be made, 278; the character of the persons who have come here is such as to require the amendment, 279; it is a question of right or expediency; considered as the latter, the danger is apparent of permitting foreigners to become citizens as heretofore, 279; injustice to a great number of people to pass the bill without the amendment, 279; amendment passed, 280; negatived in the House, 280; bill ordered to a third reading, 280.

Alien Laws, petition for repeal of, 364; motion to refer, 364; part of the petition contains an atrocious libel against the courts and juries of the country, 365; this should not be referred, 365; this is the ground suggested by the greatest enemies of these laws, that the right of petitioning might next be restricted, 365; to object is to say we have the power of defining the nature of petitions, 365; further remarks on the character of the petition, 365; further petitions for repeal, 373; report of committee on petitions for repeal, 373; resolution that it is inexpedient to repeal alien law, considered, 373; number of petitioners, 373; objectionable clause of the alien law, 373; grounds of objection by petitioners, 373; objections examined, 374; report of committee examined, 375, 376, 377, 378; resolution carried, 378.

Naturalization Laws.--See Index, Vol. 1.

Naval Armament.--See Appropriations, naval.

Naval Captains, bill for pay of, 357.

Naval and Marine officers, bill for relief of widows and orphans of, 566.

Naval Establishment--Purchase of a site for a navy yard, considered, 66; at some future day we shall become a naval power; it is now economy to prepare for it, 66; expense of this business alarming, 66; if the thing is proper, two or three years can make very little difference, 66; a navy would never do any real good to this country, 66; this country depends wholly on commerce for revenue, 67; that commerce is now in jeopardy, and no substitute for revenue found, 67; the money thrown away on Algiers to buy a peace would have been much better expended in building ships, 67; want of a navy will have a similar effect on all our negotiations, 67; our live-oak timber is too rich a mine to be neglected, 67; they must provide for the protection of commerce, or give it up, 67; is the measure proper, and is it not best to postpone it for the present? 68; if a navy is necessary to protect commerce, it must be such a one as will vie with those of other nations, 69; who can show that commerce and a navy have gone hand in hand? 69; this country not equal to support a navy, 69; how can such a navy, be manned? 69; our peculiar situation affords means of protection, 69; our only mode of warfare against Europe is by putting our seamen on board of privateers, 69; note, 69.

Bill to establish Navy Department considered, 248; unnecessary, 248; one department sufficient for army and navy, 248; objections have been to increase the navy because of enormous expense arising from want of knowledge--this department will obviate this, 248; necessity for this establishment, 249; notwithstanding all resistance the establishment of a naval force must soon be seriously considered, 249; the necessity for the department examined, 249; a want of knowledge of naval affairs in the War Department is the occasion of this bill--this can be obviated, 249; economy requires the department, 250; this bill is founded on the idea of establishing a large naval power, 250; economy further considered, 250; not for the interest of the country to establish a naval power, 251; large debts exist with large navies, 251; every measure to increase the navy will have a bad effect, 251; further debate, 251; bill ordered to third reading, 252; passed, 252; note, 252.

Bill for augmentation of the Navy considered, 348; question of the propriety of building ships of the line, 348; reasons for building smaller ships of the line, 348; is it proper at this time to lay the foundation of a navy that might be able to give us weight with Europe? 348; expense of proposed navy, 348; reasons urged against a large navy, 349; the extent and advantages of our commerce entitle it to competent protection, 350; British navy contrasted with ours, 350; expense of a navy, 350; Jefferson's views, 351; means by which to raise the money needed, 351; usefulness of a naval establishment considered, 351; navy of Holland, 353; instruction to be drawn from this example, 354; propriety of a naval force for warring with Europe, 355; arguments on, examined, 355; no good reason for its establishment exists, 356; motion to strike out ships of the line lost, 356; note, 356.

Bill for fixing pay of Captains of ships, &c., 356; details, 357. See Appropriations, and Index, vol. 1.

Naval Peace Establishment, bill for, passed House, 537.

Navy, Admirals in, see Admirals in the Navy.

Negroes, kidnapping of, report on memorial of State of Delaware relative to kidnapping negroes and mulattoes considered, 45; this practice done by masters of vessels, 45; plan was to pass an act requiring masters of vessels to have a certificate of the number and situation of any on board, 45; laws in the several States fully adequate, 46; State laws being local do not reach the case, 46; design is to prevent selling free negroes as slaves and taking slaves to make them free, 46; many serious questions involved, 46; committee better rise as the measure is improper, 46; many instances of this practice had occurred, 46; it is that kind of business which, by the constitution, was to be left to the different States, 47; the House should not interfere with the States, 47; motion for the committee to rise carried, 47; motion to discharge committee carried, 47; motion to recommit to report by bill or otherwise, 47; propriety of sending it to committee doubtful, 47; postponement carried, 48.

NEUFVILLE, JOHN DE, claim of widow of, 69; particulars of, 70.

NEW, ANTHONY, Representative from Virginia, 14, 120, 179, 326, 429, 497, 569, 693; advocates weekly license to distillers, 194. See Index, vol. 1.

New Hampshire, vote for President, 62, 487.

New Jersey, vote for President, 62, 487.

Newspapers, resolution of House relative to, 430; resolution of Senate for, 400.

NEWTON, THOMAS, jr., Representative from Virginia, 569, 693.

New York, vote for President, 62, 487.

NICHOLAS, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 120, 180, 429, 497; on the address to the President, 18, 28; on a National University, 35, 36; on kidnapping negroes, 47; on liability of United States to a State for war expenses, 51; on a direct tax on land and slaves, 52, 53, 54; on the purchase of a site for a navy yard, 66; on increase of duties on sugar, 72, 73; on increase of duties on salt, 74; on naval appropriation, 76, 77; on suability of the States, 86; on the accommodation of the President, 88, 90; on the military establishment, 96, 99; on naval appropriations, 99, 100, 102; on military and naval appropriations, 106; on liberation of La Fayette, 108; on answer of House to President Adams' first message, 125; on resolutions relative to defensive measures, 145; on a naval armament, 153, 154; on tax on lawyers, 155, 156; on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 157; on composition with banks in lieu of a tax, 162; on additional duty on salt, 164; on the Quakers' memorial, 186; advocates weekly licenses to distillers, 194; on naval expenditure, 197; on foreign intercourse, 199, 203; on report relative to Matthew Lyon, 207, 208; on the case of Griswold and Lyon, 210, 211; on diplomatic intercourse, 216; on the limits of Georgia, 219, 223; on relations with France, 227; on the bill to raise a provisional army, 243; on the sedition bill, 307, 316; on intercourse with France and St. Domingo, 334, 335, 340; on increase of the navy, 354; on the capture of French vessels, 362; on the expulsion of Matthew Lyon, 366; on repeal of sedition law, 378; on breach of privilege, 418; on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 451, 453, 457; on the medal to Captain Truxton, 471; on the bill to prohibit carrying on the slave trade, 475; on reporting the debates, 502; on mausoleum to Washington, 503; on reporting the debates, 506, 510; on jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 518, 520; on the right of the United States to the free navigation of the Mississippi, 688. See Index, vol. 1.

NICHOLAS, WILSON CARY, Senator from Virginia, 405, 481, 540, 664.

NICHOLSON, JACOB a manumitted slave, petition of, 57.

NICHOLSON, JOSEPH H., Representative from Maryland, 429, 497, 569, 693; on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 454; relative to officers and crew of frigate Constellation, 470; on reporting the debates, 507; on protection against the Barbary powers, 571; on public printing, 573; on the Mediterranean trade, 584; on unauthorized purchase of navy yards, 657; on amendment to the bankrupt act, 724.

NICHOLSON, JUPITER, a manumitted slave, petition of, 57.

North Carolina, vote for President, 62, 487.

NOTT, ABRAHAM, Representative from South Carolina, 429, 501; on mausoleum to Washington, 503.

O

Oaths.--See Index, vol. 1.

OGDEN, AARON, Senator from New Jersey, 489, 541, 661.

Ohio School Fund, resolutions relative to, 742.

Ohio State Government.--Report of Select Committee on admission of North-western Territory as a State, 648; after one State is laid off, Congress is under an obligation to form the remainder into a State, 648; number of the population, 648; manner of dividing the territory, 648; further debate thereon, 649; report agreed to and bill ordered, 650; do. before the House, 651; amendment moved to embrace Eastern division, 651; rights of all the inhabitants equal--if one part formed into a State, all must be under the compact, 651; arguments from expediency, 651; objections urged, 651; amendment lost, 651; various amendments proposed, 652; bill ordered to be engrossed, 653; do. passed, 654.

OLCOTT, SIMEON, Senator from New Hampshire, 541, 661; on the repeal of the Judiciary Establishment, 559.

ORR, ALEXANDER D., Representative from Kentucky, 49.

OTIS, HARRISON GRAY, Representative from Massachusetts, 120, 179, 326, 429, 498; on answer of House to President Adams' first message, 134, 141; on expatriation, 152; on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 159, 160; on address to President, 182; on the case of Griswold and Lyon, 212; on the limits of Georgia, 220, 222; on relations with France, 231; on the bill to raise a provisional army, 243; on establishing the Navy Department, 249; proposes amendment to naturalization laws, 254, 255, 256, 257; on presents to ministers by foreign courts, 262; on opposition to a direct tax, 268; on bill relative to treatment of alien enemies, 283; on the bill relative to the protection of commerce, 289; on intercourse with France, 295; on abrogation of treaty with France, 314; on the sedition bill, 307, 316; on intercourse with France and St. Domingo, 335; on the law of retaliation, 387; on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 452; on petition of free blacks, 437; on reporting the debates, 502; on mausoleum to Washington, 503; on reporting the debates, 507; on jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 519.

P

PAGE, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 17; on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 42; on a direct tax on slaves, 55. See Index, vol. 1.

PAGE, ROBERT, Representative from Virginia, 431, 497.

PAINE, ELIJAH, Senator from Vermont, 3, 118, 165, 321, 401, 485; on breach of privilege, 417. See Index, vol. 1.

PARKER, ISAAC, Representative from Massachusetts, 179, 326; on the Quakers' memorial, 185.

PARKER, JOSIAH, Representative from Virginia, 17, 129, 180, 380, 431, 498; on the address to the President, 18, 29; on the compensation of President and other officers, 61; on resolution to notify the Vice President of his election, 63; on compensation of President and other officers, 63; on naval appropriation, 77, 99, 102; on military and naval appropriations, 106; on defensive measures, 145; on the Quakers' memorial, 185; relative to General Kosciusko, 191; advocates weekly licenses to distillers, 194; on the case of Griswold and Lyon, 210; on third reading of the bill relative to protection of commerce, 291; on a marine corps, 292; on increase of the navy, 350; on the capture of French vessels, 360; reports a bill authorizing increase of marine corps, 373; on conduct of officers and crew of frigate Constellation, 470; on the medal to Captain Truxton, 471; on admirals in the navy, 473. See Index, vol. 1.

PATTON, JOHN, Representative from Delaware, 14.

Pennsylvania insurgents, see Index, vol. 1.

Pennsylvania, vote for President, 62, 487.

PERKINS, ELIAS, Representative from Connecticut, 569, 693.

Petitions for repeal of alien and sedition law, 373.

Petitions, reception of.--Petition of four negroes, manumitted by their master, and afterwards sold into slavery under the laws of North Carolina, and subsequently escaping and being arrested under the fugitive act in Philadelphia, considered, 57; they pray the House to modify the fugitive act so as not to affect persons of their description, 58; very proper to refer petition to a committee, 58; persons aggrieved have a sacred right to petition, 58; laws of North Carolina forbid emancipation, 58; men not free, 58; United States nothing to do with it, 58; if free by the laws of North Carolina, they should apply to those laws to establish their freedom--if slaves, the constitution gives them no hope of being heard here, 58; a committee could inquire into the facts, 58; every due respect should be paid to the petition, 59; former practice was to send the petition back, 59; they are slaves--a kind of property on which the House has no power to legislate, 59; cannot the House receive a petition without evidence that it is from a free man? 59; unjust to deprive them of the right of petitioning, 59; it is a judicial question, 59; by application to North Carolina justice would be done them, 60; they have received injury under a law of the United States, and have, therefore, a right to the attention of the Government, 60; receiving the petition negatived, 60.

Quakers, memorial of, 182; motion to read second time, 183; every Legislature should set their face against remonstrances complaining of what it is impossible to alter, 183; to read and commit is the regular way of getting rid of the difficulty, 183; no objection to commit if the committee will report the censure deserved, 183; no reason why the petition should not be dealt with in the ordinary way, 183; the practice of the House--what objection to it now? 184; note, 184; nature of the petition, 184; no authority over the subject, 184; Quakers war-makers, 184; note, 184; unconstitutional to ask the House to do what they had no power to do, 185; only object of petition to sow dissension, 185; nothing prayed for, 185; unnecessary to refer such a petition, 185; no objection in general principles to a reference of the petition, 185; contents of the petition, 185; previous treatment of abolition petitions, 185; to appear to be afraid of inquiring, will do more harm to slave property than a fair investigation, 186; reasons urged for the second reading, 186; the doors should be shut against any thing tending to produce such confusion as exists in West India Islands, 187; no ground of irritation in the question, 187; nothing unconstitutional be done, 187; the fact called for examination, 187; if petition is received and early reported on, it would stop the mouth of these people, 187; further debate, 187, 188; second reading carried, 188; referred to a select committee, 188; report of committee on Quakers' memorial, 209; remarks thereon, 209; memorialists have leave to withdraw, 209.

Petition of free blacks of the City and County of Philadelphia, considered, 436; outline of the petition, 437; reference moved, 437; any reference improper, 437; only two grievances noticed in the petition--fugitive act and slave trade, 437; a duty to grant relief so far as the House has power, 437; signers incapable of writing their names or reading the petition, 437; those who do not possess this property better leave its regulation to those who do, 437; so improper is it to consider this subject that some States would not have adopted the federal form of government if it had not been secured that Congress would never legislate on it, 438; no subject so likely to cause a division as this, 438; if an evil exists under any law, a committee should be appointed to examine it, 438; constitution put it out of the power of the House, 438; petition only asks amelioration of severities, 439; petition examined, 439; further debate, 440, 441; former treatment of petitions, 442; would gentlemen feel calm if measures were taken to destroy most of their property, 442; no danger from committing the petition, 443; further debate, 444; resolution relative to petition adopted, 444. See Index, vol. 1, Slavery and Slave Trade.

Philadelphia, first session, 5th Congress, commenced at, 113.

PICKERING, JOHN, impeached before the Senate by the House, 692.

PICKERING, TIMOTHY, report of, as Secretary of State, 80; letter with papers in Jonathan Robbins' case, 444.

PIERCE, JOSEPH, Representative from New Hampshire, 570.

Pilnitz, Treaty of, a forgery, 239.

PINCKNEY, CHARLES, Senator from South Carolina, 324, 405; vote for, as President in 1796, 63; on disputed Presidential elections, 406; on breach of privilege, 409; on bill to amend act establishing Judiciary courts, 419; vote for, as President, 487.

PINCKNEY, THOMAS, Representative from South Carolina, 180, 300; vote for, as President in 1796, 62; on answer to President's message, 181; relative to Gen. Kosciusko, 192; on foreign intercourse, 203; on relations with France, 232; letter relative to presents offered to him by courts in Europe, 253; on presents to Ministers by foreign courts, 269; on intercourse with France and St. Domingo, 342, 346; on the capture of French vessels, 360.

PLATER, THOMAS, Representative from Maryland, 569, 693.

PLATT JONAS, Representative from New York, 429, 497; on petition of free blacks, 440.

PLUMER, WILLIAM, Senator from New Hampshire, 661.

POLLOCK, OLIVER, bill reported for relief of, 207.

Post Office, franking privilege.--Motion to pay $4,500 on letters to and from certain officers of the army, 723; unnecessary, 723; Government ought to support this expense, 723; all franking wrong, 724; considerations in favor thereof, 724.

Post Office.--See Index, vol. 1.

Potomac Canal, shares in, given to the President, 87; note, 37.

POTTER, ELISHA R., Representative from Rhode Island, 34, 120; on a direct tax on personal property, 54; on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 159.

POWELL, LEVEN, Representative from Virginia, 429, 497.

Presents to Ministers.--Letter of Mr. Pinckney relative to presents offered to him by Spanish and British courts considered, 253; referred to a select committee, 253; resolution from the Senate granting leave to Mr. Pinckney to accept certain presents, 261; moved to concur, 261; if we allow presents to be received, we must prepare to give them, 261; if it should ever be allowed in consideration of public service, there never could be a better occasion, 261; object of the constitution is to oblige ministers to make known to the world the presents they receive, 261; this particular case considered, 261; policy dictates the propriety of rejecting the resolution, 261; object of the constitution to lock up every door to foreign influence, 262; if leave granted, a precedent established and a title will be tendered hereafter, 262; this will be the last application, if resolution rejected, 262; no grounds for apprehension, 262; practice under the confederation, 262; action in this case will fix future usage, 262; not necessary to accept them as a point of etiquette, 262; a dangerous principle as it opens an avenue to foreign influence, 263; a stop should be put to this business, 263; further debate--House refused to concur, 264; explanation and views of Mr. Pinckney, 269; reason of the House for refusal, 276.

Presents to a Minister's wife.--Letter from Col. Humphrey, 731; referred to a select committee, 732.

Presidency, vacancy in, see Index, vol. 1.

President's election disputed in the Senate.--Resolution for the appointment of a committee to inquire what provisions should be made by law to decide &c., considered, 405; if any thing is done it must be by an amendment to the constitution, 406; dangerous practice to endeavor to amend the constitution by making laws for it, 406; Legislature has a right to make such provision as may be necessary, 406; questions to be considered with regard to electors, 406; do. 407; committee appointed, 407; bill reported, 407; postponed, 408. In the House, bill considered, 473; motion debated, 473; postponed, 478; message from Senate disagreeing to amendments, 479; House adhere, 479; bill lost, 479.

PRITCHETT, THOMAS, a manumitted slave, petition of, 57.

Proceedings in Senate on ratification of convention with French Republic, 492.

Protection of Trade, see Appropriations, naval.

Public Lands.--See Index, vol. 1.

Public Printing.--Report in favor of appointing a public printer considered, 573; various objections urged, 573; reasons in favor stated, 573; lost, 573.

Q

Quakers' Memorial.--See Petitions.

R

RANDOLPH, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 429, 498, 569, 694; on petition of free blacks, 438; on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 450; on the medal to Captain Truxton, 471; moves $500 for furniture for President, 473; on a mausoleum to Washington, 516, 517; on jurisdiction over District of Columbia, 520; on public printing, 573; on the apportionment bill, 575; on library of Congress, 578; on reduction of the army, 578; on resolutions relative to Judiciary, 582; in favor of repeal of Judiciary Establishment, 621; against reading the letter of McHenry, 697; on motion to establish the mint, 695; on the call for papers relative to the cession of Louisiana, 698, 700, 713, 715, 717; on amendment to the bankrupt act, 724, 725; on petition of United States judges, 728, 729; against taking up resolution relative to French spoliations, 732; on jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 738.

Ratio of representation, in the Senate, bill to fix, considered, 550; moved to strike out 33,000 and insert 30,000, 550; unless amended 28,800 persons in Delaware will have no representative, 550; equity of the case, 550; other reasons urged, 551; motion to strike out lost, 551; moved to allow one member for every fraction of 27,000, 551; reasons for the motion, 551; lost, 551; bill passed, 551. In the House.--Resolution to fix the ratio at 33,000, 572; various numbers proposed, 572; arguments in favor of a small and of a large ratio, 572; resolution carried, 573; move to strike out 33,000 and insert 30,000, 573; object to lessen the size of the districts that electors might know the elected, 573; smallest ratio preferred as a matter of principle, 573; Delaware an extreme case, 574; small States materially affected by the ratio in the bill, 574; views of the people, 574; experience of the States, 574; large representation relied on for safety and economy, 574; further debate, 575; heretical and improper to consider the House as the representative of the people, 575; the members of the House are the representatives of the States in proportion to their numbers, 575; the apportionment is among the States, not among the people, 575; further debate, 576; motion to strike out eight and insert nine as the representation from Maryland, 583; motion carried, 583. See Index, vol. 1.

READ, JACOB, Senator from South Carolina, 3, 117, 165, 321, 399, 484; elected President pro tem. of the Senate, 166.

READ, JOHN, Representative from Massachusetts, 14, 120, 179, 326, 429, 497; on increase of duties on sugar, 72; on breach of privilege, 418.

READ, NATHAN, Representative from Massachusetts, 498, 569, 693.

Report on memorial of Anna de Neufville, 69; of Secretary of State, relative to affairs with Mediterranean powers, 79; on petition of widow of Hanging Maw, 97; on petition of daughters of Count de Grasse, 192; on the Matthew Lyon affair, 206; of Committee on Privileges on Griswold and Lyon case, 213; on petition of Stephen Cantrell, 242; on remonstrance of Georgia, 331; on petitions for repeal of alien and sedition law, 373; on measures in relation to breach of privilege, 422, 423; in Senate on mausoleum for Washington, 485; of committee of House on credentials, 500; of Committee on Unfinished Business, 522; on credentials of members, 530; of Committee on State Balances, 534; of committee on remonstrance of Georgia, 537; on the Wyoming controversy, 639; on State balances, 639; in Senate on memorial of United States Judges, 666; of committee on case of Van Ness, 725.

Resolution in Senate relative to joint meeting of two Houses to count votes for President, 6; of relief in lands to Canadian refugees, 44, 45; of Andrew Jackson on petition of Hugh L. White, 48; on direct taxes, 52; to notify Vice President Jefferson of his election, 63; relative to lands of live-oak and red timber, 69; relative to grant of lands to John C. Symmes, 70; relative to suability of the States, 88; relative to statements from War Department, 105; relative to Gen. Lafayette, 108; relative to defensive measures, 144; relative to printing the laws in the German language, 165; ordering newspapers for Senators, 166; authorizing Minister to Spain to receive presents, 173; relative to Gen. Kosciusko, 191; relative to attack of Matthew Lyon on Roger Griswold, 206; on Quakers' memorial, 209; relative to disorderly behavior of Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon, 210; of Otis, relative to case of Griswold and Lyon, 212; relative to claim of Amy Dardin, 213; on relations with France, 225; that no alien shall ever be a citizen, 254; relative to direct taxes, 265; relative to naturalization, 272; relative to presents to ministers by foreign courts, 276; relative to relations with France, 296; giving bounty on capture of French armed vessels, 320; relative to remonstrance of Georgia, 348; for the expulsion of Matthew Lyon, 364; relative to prints of John Trumbull, 402; of Senate relative to death of Washington, 403; of House sent to Senate on death of Washington, 404; of House relative to commemoration of death of Washington, 405; in Senate on disputed Presidential elections, 405; of Senate to hear eulogium on Washington, 408; of Senate relative to breach of privilege, 408; relative to prosecution of William Duane, 427; relative to prints of John Trumbull, 431; to grant W. H. Harrison franking privilege, 433; in House relative to death of Washington, 434; of respect to memory of Washington, 435; relative to amendment to constitution, 446; in case of Jonathan Robbins, 447-452; relative to western lands, 448; relative to conduct of officers and crew of frigate Constellation, 470; for a medal to Capt. Truxton, 469-471; on Lake Superior lands, 457-472; relative to lands given in satisfaction of judgments, 473; on appropriation for holding Indian treaties, 477; relative to additional revenue, 477; relative to an additional army, 477; relative to the memory of Washington, 478; relative to counting votes for President, 486; of old Congress relative to statue to Washington, 512; relative to election of President, 522, 523; relative to the Judiciary, 581; relative to Lieut. Sterret, officers, and crew, 593; relative to imprisonment for debt, 593; on decease of Narsworthy Hunter, 640; relative to French spoliations, 642; relative to funeral expenses of members, 648; relative to free navigation of Mississippi, 670; in Senate relative to impeachment of John Pickering, 692; calling for papers relative to removal of deposit at New Orleans, 694; relative to J. P. Van Ness, 696; calling for information relative to the cession of Louisiana, 697; relative to cession of Louisiana, 702; relative to the navigation of the Mississippi, 710; do. considered in secret session, 710; for monuments to various officers and others, 712; for a monument to Gen. Gates, 725; relative to pay of late U. S. Judges, 731; relative to French spoliations, 732; on receding to the respective States jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 736; relative to Ohio School Fund, 742.

Revenue statements, reports on, made, 214.

Revenue, collection of; resolution for information relative to expense of collecting the revenue, &c., considered, 587; great objection to internal taxes; the expense of collection, 588; information sought, that it may be reduced, 588; expense of collecting other taxes, 588; the collection of some cost more than the collection of other taxes--discrimination required, 588; statements of the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, 589; further debate, 589; the intention seems to be to repeal the internal taxes, right or wrong, 589; further debate, 590; motion lost, 591.

Rhode Island.--Vote for President, 62, 487.

Rhode Island.--See Index, vol. 1.

RICHARDS, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 14.

ROBBINS, JONATHAN, case of, 444; papers in, 444; resolutions of Mr. Bayard, 446; do. of Mr. Livingston, 447; resolutions of Mr. Livingston taken up, 448; note, 448; statement of facts, 448; record of the court should be obtained, 448; kind of evidence to be adduced, 449; point to be gained, 449; motion to discharge committee, not sufficient evidence before them, 450; if interference of Executive improper, it did not proceed from improper motives, 450; claim of citizenship and protection by Robbins, 450; further debate relative to rising of the committee, 450, 451, 452; motion negatived, 452; resolutions calling on President for copy of the proceedings of the court considered, 452; is there any such evidence as will throw light on the case? 453; all the evidence necessary should be obtained, 453; extraordinary resolution--was the President clerk of the court? 453; the resolution must be negatived, and the debate on the merits go forward, if the end is to be reached this session, 453; motion will operate as a discharge of the committee, 454; further debate, 454; substitute moved requiring Speaker of the House to obtain the proceedings of the Court, 454; postponement moved, 454; object of the resolution, a charge upon the President and upon the District Judge, 454; conduct of both called into view, and the reprehensibleness defended on the testimony before the House, 455; what do the resolutions amount to, 455; question of great importance to the American people and to the reputation of the House, 455; doubtful if the President has acted with propriety or not, 455; particulars of the case, 455; further debate, 456; motion to postpone negatived, 456; adoption of the resolution negatived, 456; Mr. Livingston's resolutions considered, 457; record of Circuit Court of New Jersey, 457; change of conduct in the Executive, 457; Committee disagree with Mr. Livingston's resolutions, 457; will the House concur, considered, 457; conduct of the Executive cannot be justly charged with the errors imputed to it, 458; the case within the 27th article of the Treaty between U. S. and Great Britain, 458; was the murder committed within the jurisdiction of Great Britain, 458; extent of a nation's jurisdiction examined, 458; jurisdiction of a nation at sea, 459; illustrations, 459; piracy, 459, 460; application of the Treaty, 460; act of Congress considered, 461; does not comprehend case of murder committed in a foreign ship of war, 461; English cases cited, 462; indictments found at Trenton, 462; bearing on jurisdiction, 462; secondly, the case was a case for Executive not Judicial decision, 462; this point examined, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466; the President, in exercising this power and in performing the duty it enjoins, has not committed an unauthorized interference with Judicial decisions, 467;

this point examined, 467, 468; House agree with Committee of the Whole in their disagreement to the resolutions, 469; committee discharged from further consideration, 469.

ROSS, JAMES, Senator from Penn., 6, 119, 171, 322, 400, 485, 665; on disputed presidential elections, 406; on the Mississippi question, 668. See Index, vol. 1.

Rules for the Election of President reported, 529.

RUTHERFORD, JOHN, Senator from New Jersey, 3, 117, 175. See Index, vol. 1.

RUTHERFORD, ROBERT, Representative from Va., 14; on the address to the President, 28; on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 41; on petition of Hugh L. White, 49; on liability of U. S. to a State for war expenses, 51; on the petition of manumitted slaves, 58; on compensation of President and other officers, 65; on increase of duties on sugar, 72; on increase of duties on salt, 75; on the accommodation of the President, 89, 91. See Index, vol. 1.

RUTLEDGE, JOHN, Jr., Representative from South Carolina, 121, 179, 326, 429, 505, 694; on answer of House to President Adams' 1st message, 132; on exempting bank notes from stamp duties, 158; on answer to President's message, 181; on the Quakers' memorial, 183, 187; on naval expenditure, 198; on report on the Quakers' memorial, 209; on the limits of Georgia, 222; on relations with France, 228; on the bill to raise a provisional army, 246, 248; on the naturalization laws, 256; on presents to ministers by foreign courts, 263; on intercourse with France, 294; on the capture of French vessels, 362; on petition of free blacks, 437, 438, 440, 441, 442; on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 451, 454; on the bill against the slave-trade, 475, 476; on reporting the debates, 508; for a mausoleum to Washington, 514; on a bill relative to District of Columbia, 523; on repeal of internal taxes, 579; on the collection of internal revenue, 590; on reducing duties on imports, 591; on imprisonment for debt, 593; against repeal of Judiciary Establishment, 632; in favor of relief for French spoliations, 645; on a public discussion of cession of Louisiana, 698; on taking up the French spoliation subject, 733.

S

Savannah, relief to.--Resolution to afford some relief to the sufferers by the late fire at Savannah, debated, 39; most calamitous event of the kind in United States--relief was granted to sufferers by fire at St. Domingo--if it was just in case of foreigners, it was equally so in the case of citizens, 40; if the unfortunate have any claim on the Government, none could have greater, 40; the city is a wide waste of ruin, 40; if relief is granted in this case, it should be also to New York and Charleston, and other places, 40; no occasion for insurance companies if Government makes good these losses, 40; the principle a bad one, 40; this is a distinct case, 40; the loss unexampled--only a contribution is asked, 40; it will not serve as a precedent, 40; motion to go into Committee of the Whole lost, 40; motion to discharge the committee made, 40; more respect due to the feelings of the sufferers than to dispose of the subject without discussion, 40; the Legislature of Pennsylvania had contributed, 40; $10,000 were given to sufferers in St. Domingo, 40; relief granted to the daughters of Count de Grasse, 41; too tenacious about approaching the treasury, 41; duty of Government to relieve such distress, 41; what would $30,000 be when divided among all the people of the Union, 41; motion to go into Committee of the Whole carried, 41; neither the act for relief to sufferers in St. Domingo, nor to the daughters of Count de Grasse, in point, 41; let gentlemen put their finger on that part of the constitution which gave the House power to grant relief, 41; if the United States become underwriters for the whole Union, where shall the line be drawn? 41; the constitution does not authorize any such grant, 41; our duty to grant relief from humanity and from policy, 41; no difference between the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Pennsylvania, yet the House of the latter had voted unanimously, 42; members, as individuals, can subscribe, but it is not constitutional to afford relief from the treasury, 42; if the principle is adopted it should be general--every sufferer has an equal claim, 42; motion to add Lexington to Savannah, 42; the House cannot undertake to make good individual misfortunes, 42; but the line is distinct between individual and national, and this is a national calamity, 42; Savannah and Lexington should not be united, 43; the former is an important place, 43; Lexington had not asked for relief, 43; our duty to pay claims of distressed soldiers first, 43; this amendment designed to defeat a laudable object, 43; this case a sharp conflict between humanity and the constitution, 43; amendment lost, 43; the greatness of the calamity is admitted and the disposition to relieve entire--a written constitution, however, prescribes the manner in which money shall be drawn from the treasury, yet it is impossible to obtain absolute directions in every case, 43; the objects are specified in the eighth section, yet many laws have passed not exactly specified, 43; the constitution cannot be administered under so rigorous and mechanical a construction, 43; the principle is the thing aimed at for establishment, 44; it is not what generosity and humanity require, but what the constitution and duty require, 44; disagreed to in committee, 44.

SCHUREMAN, JAMES, Representative from New Jersey, 121, 180, 326; Senator from New Jersey, 400, 481; resigns seat in Senate, 487. See Index, vol. 1.

Seat of Government, resolution relative to proper measures to be adopted preparatory to removal of, 470; bill to make further progress for removal and accommodation of the Government considered, 472; motion to fill blanks for expenses, 473. See Index, vol. 1.

SEDGWICK, THEODORE, Senator from Massachusetts, 5, 114, 171; elected President pro tem. of Senate, 173; Representative from Massachusetts, 429, 497; elected Speaker, 429; speech, 429; acknowledges thanks of House, 538. See Index, vol. 1.

Seditious practices, bill for restraint of, 295; details of do., 296; bill for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States considered, 305; its outlines, 305; motion to reject it, 305; necessity of the law, 305; extensive combinations exist, 306; freedom of the press an example, 306; effects of such liberty in France, 306; true meaning of liberty of the press, 306; its extent in this country, 307; it is striking at the root of a republican government to restrict the use of speaking and writing, 307; features of the bill, 307; the bill in direct opposition to the constitution, 308; operation of such laws, 308; does the situation of the country require any law of this kind, 308; the bill has two objects--to punish conspiracies and calumnies against the Government, 309; question on rejection of the bill lost, 310; question on its passage, 316; not within the powers of the House to act on this subject, 316; consider its effects, 316; had the constitution cognizance of these offences, and had its amendments taken that away? 317; this is the commencement of a system which may be extended to religious establishments, 317; prosecutions for libel cannot take place under general Government, 318; further debate, 318; bill passed, 319.

Resolution that it is inexpedient to repeal the sedition law considered, 378; objectionable clause, 378; the constitutional argument in relation thereto, 379; power of Congress over the press, 379; is it proper for Congress to possess the power claimed for it, 380; arguments in support of it examined, 381, 382, 383, 384; resolution carried, 384; question that the bill for repeal of part be engrossed, 535; grounds upon which the original bill was passed, 535; experience of the last two years, 535; further remarks, 536; engrossment refused, 536.

Senate.--Reply to the valedictory of John Adams as Vice President, 9; special session at inauguration of John Adams, 10; meets the House to count votes for President, 62; answer to President Adams' first message, 117; adjournment of, at 1st session, 5th Congress, 119; answer to President's message, 2d session, 5th Congress, 169; Legislative session adjourned, 175; Executive session, 175; adjourned, 178; answer to President's message at 3d session, 5th Congress, 322; form of warrant of, to be issued for apprehension of William Duane, 426; adjournment 1st session, 6th Congress, 427; message to House on eulogium to Washington, 447; answer to President's message 2d session, 6th Congress, 483; answer to address of Jefferson on retiring from Vice Presidency, 488; special session convened March 4, 1801, 489; secret session to ratify convention with French Republic, 492; adjourns 1st session, 7th Congress, 569.

SEWALL, SAMUEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 15, 120, 180, 326, 429; on expatriation, 149, 150, 152; on tax on lawyers, 156; on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 161; on the Quakers' memorial, 184; against weekly licenses to distillers, 194; on naval expenditure, 197; on breach of privilege, 205, 208; on the case of Griswold and Lyon, 212; on relations with France, 228; on a provisional army, 243; on establishing the navy department, 249; on the naturalization laws, 253, 256, 259; on a provisional army, 275; on the persons to be excluded from citizenship, 278, 279; on bill relative to treatment of alien enemies, 281, 282, 283; on instructions to armed vessels, 286; on a marine corps, 292; on intercourse with France, 293; on the abrogation of the treaty with France, 310, 312.

SHEAFE, JAMES, Senator from New Hampshire, 544.

SHEPARD, WILLIAM, Representative from Massachusetts, 120, 179, 326, 429, 497, 569, 693; on military appropriations, 252; on the bill relative to the protection of commerce, 288.

SHERBURNE, JOHN S., Representative from New Hampshire, 14; on the address to the President, 20; on the accommodation of the President, 92. See Index, vol. 1.

SINNICKSON, THOMAS, Representative from New Jersey, 121, 179, 329. See Index, vol. 1.

SITGREAVES, SAMUEL, Representative from Pennsylvania, 14, 120, 180; on the address to the President, 17, 24, 31; on land for Canadian refugees, 45; on kidnapping negroes, 47; on the petition of manumitted slaves, 58; on the accommodation of the President, 88, 89, 90; on naval appropriations, 99, 100, 104; on liberation of Lafayette, 109; on answer of House to President Adams' first message, 132, 140; on expatriation, 150, 152; on tax on lawyers, 156; on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 158, 160; on foreign intercourse, 201; on the case of Griswold and Lyon, 211, 212, 214; on relations with France, 225; on the naturalization laws, 256, 258, 260; on a new census for a direct tax, 265; on admission of aliens to citizenship, 279; on letters of marque, 299; on the abrogation of the treaty with France, 310, 311. See Index, vol. 1.

Slave Act, Mississippi, for bringing slaves into, 427.

Slavery, prohibiting it in a Territory, see Territories.

Slavery, prohibition of, in a Territory, debate on, 217.

Slave Trade, &c., bill from Senate to prohibit carrying on, considered, 474; manner of the passage of the former act, 474; conveniences of the commerce, 475; further debate, 475; most defective bill, 475; motion to refer to a select committee, 476; too late in the session, 476; the New England States should enjoy the profit of this traffic as well as the English, 476; present law does not stop the trade, 476; its extent, 476; bill committed, 476; bill passed, 477.

Slavery and Slave Trade.--See Index, vol. 1.

Slaves emancipated from West Indies, memorial respecting, 725.

SKINNER, THOMPSON J., Representative from Massachusetts, 57, 182.

SMILIE, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 429, 497, 569, 693; on petition of free blacks, 437; against a mausoleum to Washington, 513; on bill relative to District of Columbia, 523, 524, 526; on the apportionment bill, 574; on repeal of internal taxes, 580; on imprisonment for debt, 593; on call for papers relative to cession of Louisiana, 699; on amendment to the Bankrupt Act, 724; on compensation to the ex-United States judges 730; on taking up the French spoliation subject, 788; on jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 736; on jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 738. See Index, vol. 1.

SMITH, DANIEL, Senator from Tennessee, 321.

SMITH, ISAAC, Representative from New Jersey, 14; on kidnapping negroes, 46.

SMITH, ISRAEL, Representative from Vermont, 14, 569, 694.

SMITH, JEREMIAH, Representative from New Hampshire, 14, 121; on the accommodation of the President, 91; on a direct tax on slaves, 53.

SMITH, JOHN, Representative from New York, 497, 569, 693.

SMITH, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 569, 693.

SMITH, JOHN COTTON, Representative from Connecticut, 497, 569, 693; on a mausoleum to Washington, 516.

SMITH, JOSIAH, Representative from Massachusetts, 569, 693.

SMITH, NATHANIEL, Representative from Connecticut, 14, 120, 179, 326; on naval appropriations, 78; on expatriation, 151; on foreign intercourse, 203; on relations with France, 231; on the naturalization laws, 256; on a provisional army, 274; on bill relative to treatment of alien enemies, 281.

SMITH, SAMUEL, Representative from Maryland, 14, 135, 180, 326, 569, 693, 429, 497; on a direct tax on slaves, 54; on increase of duties on sugar, 73, 74; on tacking bills, 77; on indirect taxes, 84; on arming merchant vessels, 147, 148; on relations with France, 241; on a provisional army, 247; on establishing the Navy Department, 249; on the naturalization laws, 254; on temporary direct tax, 271; on direct taxes, 303; on abrogation of treaty with France, 313; on intercourse with France, 320; on intercourse With France and St. Domingo, 334, 339; on the law of retaliation, 388; on reporting the debates, 510; on protection against the Barbary powers, 571; on the apportionment bill, 576; on the Mediterranean trade, 584; on French spoliations, 640, 647; on call for papers relative to cession of Louisiana, 698, 700, 715; on amendment to the Bankrupt Act, 725. See Index, vol. 1.

SMITH, SAMUEL H., memorial to House relative to reporting the debates, 505; letter to Senate respecting reports of their proceedings, 545.

SMITH, WILLIAM, Representative from South Carolina, 14, 121, 179, 326; on address to the President, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25; on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 40, 41; on kidnapping negroes, 46, 47; on liability of United States to a State for war expenses, 50; on printing expenditure, 57; on the petition of manumitted slaves, 59, 60; on the purchase of a site for a navy yard, 66; on increase of duties, 71; on naval appropriation, 76, 78, 79; on indirect taxes, 83; on military and naval appropriations, 94; on the military establishment, 96, 97, 98; on naval appropriations, 99, 101, 104; on military and naval appropriations, 107; on liberation of Lafayette, 109; answer of House to President Adams' 1st message, 127, 139, 141; offered resolutions relative to defensive measures, 144, 145; on resolutions relative to defensive measures, 146; to provide further naval force, 148, 149; on expatriation, 150, 151, 152; on tax on lawyers, 156; on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 157, 159, 161; on duty on stamps, 162; on additional duty on salt, 163; appointed Minister to Portugal, 180. See Index, vol. 1.

SOUTHARD, HENRY, Representative from New Jersey, 569, 693; against resolution relative to extinguishing State balances, 596; to postpone resolution relative to the mint, 695; on jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 741.

South Carolina.--Vote for President, 62, 487; militia, vindication of, 273.

SPAIGHT, RICHARD DOBBS, Representative from North Carolina, 328, 497; on intercourse with France, 345.

SPRAGUE, PELEG, Representative from New Hampshire, 191, 326; on intercourse with France, 346.

SPRIGG, RICHARD, JUNR., Representative from Maryland, 14, 120, 179, 569; on a National University, 36, 38; on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 41; on compensation of President and other officers, 64; on relations with France, 225, 226.

SPRIGG, THOMAS, Representative from Maryland, 60. See Index, vol. 1.

STANFORD, RICHARD, Representative from North Carolina, 121, 179, 326, 429, 497, 569, 693.

STANLEY, JOHN, Representative from North Carolina, 569, 693; against repeal of Judiciary Establishment, 597; on the reading the letter of James McHenry, 696.

STANTON, JOSEPH, JUNR., Representative from Rhode Island, 569, 693.

State Balances, report of committee on 534; resolution for a committee to inquire into expediency of extinguishing certain balances due from States, &c., 594; debate thereon, 594, 595, 596; motion lost, 596; report of committee, 639; bill to extinguish claims of United States against certain States considered, 640; some of the States believe they were wronged in the settlement made, 640; rule adopted for apportioning the expenses of the war considered, 640; the original contract, 640; effect of adopting an enumeration of inhabitants made seven or eight years after the war, 641; the rule unjust and unequal, 641; what has New York done? 641; further debate, 642; bill ordered to be engrossed, 642; bill postponed, 647.

Stenographer to the Senate, admission of, 545; to the House, debate on, 583, 584.

STERRET, LIEUT., his officers and crew, 592.

STEWART, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 528, 569, 693.

STOCKTON, RICHARD, Senator from New Jersey, 3, 117, 165, 321.

STODDERT, BENJAMIN, letter of to commanders of armed vessels, 333.

STONE, DAVID, Representative from North Carolina, 429, 498, 545, 664; on the repeal of the Judiciary Establishment, 558.

STRATTON, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 569, 696.

STRUDWICK, WILLIAM, Representative from North Carolina, 17.

Suability of States.--On report authorizing the President to make inquiry if certain States adopted proposed amendment to constitution on suability of States, 86; question whether eleven States ratifying the ten amendments in 1791, should be considered three-fourths of fourteen, or whether a division of States could be made? 86; the fourth part of fourteen is three and a half, if a State cannot be divided, then four States must be taken instead of three and a half as one-fourth of fourteen, 87; eleven States have ratified the amendments, but are not twelve of the fourteen required, 87; discussion of the subject, 87, 88.

SUMTER, THOMAS, Representative from South Carolina, 121, 188, 429, 497; Senator from South Carolina, 545, 569, 661; vindication of South Carolina militia, 273.

SWANWICK, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 14, 120, 179; on the address to the President, 20, 24, 26; on kidnapping negroes, 45, 46, 47; on the petition of manumitted slaves, 58; on the purchase of a site for a navy yard, 66; on increase of duties on sugar, 72, 73; on naval appropriations, 76, 77, 99, 100, 103; on liberation of Lafayette, 108; on answer of House to President Adams' 1st message, 135; on defensive measures, 144, 147; on a naval armament, 154; moves ten dollars duty on attorney's licenses, 155; on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 159; on the Quakers' memorial, 183. See Index, vol. 1.

SWIFT, ZEPHANIAH, Representative from Connecticut, 14. See Index, vol. 1.

SYMMES, JOHN C.--Contract for land, 70; particulars of his case, 81; case of, 567.

T

TALIAFERRO, BENJAMIN, Representative from Georgia, 429, 497.

TALIAFERRO, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 569, 694.

TALLEYRAND, letter to American Minister in Paris, 304.

TALLMADGE, BENJAMIN, Representative from Connecticut, 569, 693.

TATTNALL, JOSIAH, Senator from Georgia, 6, 114, 171, 323.

Taxes, direct and indirect, proposition for a tax on land and on slaves, 52; should be separated, 52; associated together in order to do justice, and conform to the established usage of a large tract of country where one tax without the other was objectionable, 52; the resolution for a tax on land carried, 52.

Direct tax on slaves considered, 52; reason for bringing this species of personal property under view whilst all other personal property unnoticed, 52; slaves are laborers--not right to vote to tax laborers, 53; a tax on slaves would lighten the tax on land in the Southern States--would the tax on land be equal? 53; a direct tax should be equal as possible, 53; a tax on slaves the most productive tax in the Southern States, 54; exact equality impossible, 54; personal property in the Southern States should not bear a part of the burden whilst exempted elsewhere, 54; the objections can be completely obviated, 54; enumeration of slaves adds to the expense, 55; propriety of taxing personal property in one State and not in another, 55; the South is ready to pay the tax on slaves, 55; those who oppose the tax on slaves oppose all direct taxes, 56; motion to tax slaves carried, 56; note, 56; income and expenditure considered, 82; doubtful if a majority of the country in favor of the measure, 82; no deficiency in the revenue at present to make additional taxes necessary, 82; great argument for direct taxes is the uncertainty of a revenue from commerce, 82; receipts of 1797, 83; expenses of 1798, 83; receipts and expenditures of 1797, 83; for a sufficiency of revenue for 1798 direct taxes required, 84; a plan for direct taxes should be formed in case of extremity, 84; revenue for 1797, 84; estimated expenses for 1797, 85.

Bill for Stamp Duties, 149; do. considered, 155; moved to add certificates of naturalization, 155; naturalized persons cannot refuse to pay a small tax for the right of citizenship, 155; tax would fall heavy on persons who came here to live by their labor, 155; amendment carried, 155.

Moved to tax lawyers' licenses $10, 155; carried, 155; moved to extend the tax to lawyers in State, as well as United States courts, 155; lawyers in some States already highly taxed, 155; if a tax of this kind is right, it might be extended to any other officer of State Governments, 156; not unconstitutional, 156; State lawyers a fair object for taxation--motion withdrawn, 156.

Moved to tax deeds of conveyance, 156; this would clash with State jurisdiction, 156; the tax a good and profitable one, 156; interferes with State Governments, 156; further debated, 156; motion lost, 157.

Clause exempting bank-notes, moved to strike out, 157; all notes should be placed on the same footing, 157; subject too important and intricate for this session, 157; object is to tax the right an individual has of transferring his property and the evidences of it, 157; no objection to the principle, but to the convenience of the thing, 157; it is said, do not meddle with corporations, 157; it cannot be proved that stamping bank notes will embarrass their circulation, 158; motion essentially just and right, 158; operation of the tax considered, 158; objections considered, 158; foreign banks commute with their governments, 159; the introduction of this principle will destroy the bill, 159; analogy between private notes and bank notes? 159; great difficulties attend its operation, 159; no danger of a run on a bank, 159; a beginning should be made, 160; not the intention of opponents to screen the moneyed interest, 160; how shall the tax be arranged, 160; commutation can be made, 160; amount of the tax less than one per cent., 161; difference between bank and individual notes, 161; an estimate showing the operation of the tax on banks, 161; further debate, 162; bill passed, 162; note, 162.

Duties on Distilled Spirits, and on stills under debate, 193; proposition to allow to distillers weekly licenses, 194; designed to accommodate distillers from fruit, 194; distillers from fruit pay less duty than distillers from grain, 194; this proposition will give them an unfair advantage, 194; other objections in detail, 194; most distillers of peach-brandy now excluded under present law from distilling early fruit, 194; reason in favor at length, 194; capacity of peach stills, 195; motion carried, 195; present law on entry of stills, 195; four cents per gallon on weekly licenses adopted, 195; bill of Senate referred to a select committee, 302; resolution to inquire into the expediency of repealing laws laying duties on stills, distilled spirits, &c., considered, 579; time to commence proceedings on this subject, 579; it reduces the revenue, 579; reasons for referring the subject stated, 579; other subjects to be decided before this should be, 579; motion seeks information, 580; should be taken up at once, 580; President said the taxes might be dispensed with, if expenses were reduced, 580; information needed, 580; further debate, 580, 581; reference carried, 581.

Resolution to raise additional revenue annually by tax on land, houses, and slaves, to be apportioned according to the last census, considered in committee, 265; moved to strike out last census, 265; proper to have new census before the tax was assessed, 265; great inconvenience thereby incurred, 265; debate upon the census for taxation, 265; on report to the House moved to strike out "annually," 266; the tax not wanted for permanent revenue, but to meet present exigencies, 266; examination of present revenue, 266; the present revenues are equal to the expenditures, including redemption of public debt, except in case of war, 267; imposts and tonnage yielded a million more than the estimate, 267; arguments are presented as if a state of profound peace prevailed, and the defences of the country of no importance, 267; course of members on this subject, 268; censure of the House by members, 268; debate adjourned, 269; motion to strike out "annually" withdrawn, and limitation moved, 270; if laid for a number of years, the tax will be more unpopular, 271; it depends on a contingency whether the tax will be wanted or not, 271; it is a new tax, unsatisfactory to some parts, and should be of short duration, 271; no question about the propriety of levying a direct tax--only difference related to time of operation, 271; fears of the member from Pennsylvania, 272; two reasons against striking out the word "annually," 272; amendment lost, 272; word "annually" struck out, 272; bill providing for the valuation of houses and lands and enumeration of slaves read a third time, 302; the tax will bear hard on Kentucky, money is so scarce there, 302; such is the case of Tennessee, 302; both States have many advantages in respect to this tax, 302; the money was necessary, and the law as good as it well could be made, 308; loans and taxes the only resource, 303; no other objects so suitable for taxation, 303; fears respecting the ability of Kentucky and Tennessee not be realized, 303; tax not just and equal, 304; every species of property should be taxed, 304; bill passed, 304; bill to amend act for laying and collecting direct tax considered, 586; repeals clause for redemption of land sold for unpaid taxes, 586; this clause inoperative on account of its expense, 586; will be a hardship to non-residents, 587; non-payment had arisen in Southern States from a want of collectors, 587; committee rose, 587.

TAZEWELL, HENRY, Senator from Virginia, 5, 117, 323; decease of, 344. See Index, vol. 1.

TAZEWELL, LYTTLETON W., Representative from Virginia, 498.

Tennessee, vote for President, 62, 487; admission of, see Index, vol. 1.

TENNEY, SAMUEL, Representative from New Hampshire, 505, 569, 693.

Territories.--Subject of fixing the limits of Georgia, and erecting the Mississippi territory considered, 217; amendment proposed, "after the consent of the Legislature of Georgia shall have been obtained," 217; claim of the United States to this territory examined, 217; to proceed without consent of Georgia unconstitutional, 218; United States possess the right, 218; who is the judge? 218; amendment will defeat the bill, 218; shall the territory remain defenceless? 218; question of right examined, 218; point of right be settled hereafter, 218; terms required by Georgia, 219; proposed measure absolutely necessary for the people of that territory, 219; arguments so far do not show the right of the United States, but only the convenience of the measure, 219; advantages of the measure to Georgia as a protection against the Indians, 219; most proper that the amendment should be adopted, 219; the only reason for the amendment is, that if the bill pass without it, offence will be given to Georgia, 220; neither party has governed the territory, and Georgia cannot take offence in we hold it till the dispute is settled, 220; particulars relative to the territory, 220; Georgia always disposed to cede, 221; further discussion, 221; amendment lost, 221.

Clause providing that slavery shall not be forbidden, motion to strike out, 221; clause very proper in the North-western Territory, but very improper in the Mississippi Territory, 221; it would banish all the settlers, and exclude those intending to go there, 221; Congress should so far respect the rights of humanity as not to legalize slavery any further than it now exists, 222; is it proper on every occasion to bring forward the Southern States in an odious light? 222; an immediate insurrection will take place if this is adopted, 222; the motion will not be withdrawn, 222; the tendency of this motion is not really to further the rights of man, 223; it is a serious attack on the property of the country, 223; the amendment should not be rejected on the ground of jurisdiction, 223; only objection to the amendment is with regard to the people settled there, 223; interest of the United States to reject the amendment, 223; spreading the blacks over the country, 224; question negatived, 224; note, 224.

Report on the credentials of the Delegate from the Mississippi Territory, 576; Georgia has the right to the soil, and the laws of Congress for the government of the Territory are void, 576; the Delegate has no right to a seat, 576; no further proceedings should take place till the dispute is settled, 576; the only question is whether the member is duly chosen, 576; wait till the dispute is settled, 577; let the report lie on the table, and the member keep his seat according to former practice, 577; sufficient facts to decide the case without prejudicing the claims of Georgia, 577; report agreed to, 578.

THATCHER, GEORGE, Representative from Massachusetts, 14, 120, 179, 326, 429, 498, 693; on the address to the President, 20; on the petition of manumitted slaves, 57, 59; on answer to President Adams' first message, 124, 140; on the Quakers' memorial, 183, 187; on breach of privilege, 208; on report on Quakers' memorial, 209; on the case of Griswold and Lyon, 210, 211; on the limits of Georgia, 221, 222, 223, 224; on presents to ministers by foreign courts, 263; on petition of free blacks, 438, 440, 442, 443; on reporting the debates, 509. See Index, vol. 1.

THOMAS, DAVID, Representative from New York, 569, 693; in favor of a bill to extinguish State balances, 640.

THOMAS, JOHN CHEW, Representative from Maryland, 429, 497.

THOMAS, RICHARD, Representative from Pennsylvania, 14, 120, 179, 326, 429, 497.

THOMPSON, JOHN, Representative from New York, 429, 497.

THOMPSON, MARK, Representative from New Jersey, 14, 120, 180, 329. See Index, vol. 1.

THOMPSON, PHILIP R., Representative from Virginia, 569, 693.

TICHENOR, ISAAC, Senator from Vermont, 3, 113.

TILLINGHAST, THOMAS, Representative from Rhode Island, 179, 326, 569, 693.

Title, of President, &c., see Index, vol. 1.

TRACY, URIAH, Senator from Connecticut, 3, 113, 165, 322, 399, 481, 541, 661; on breach of privilege, 409, 416, 418; elected President of Senate, pro tem. 427. See Index, vol. 1.

Treason and Sedition, bill to define, 175.

Treasury Department, bill providing that the Secretary shall lay before Congress annual report with plans for improving revenue, &c., 478; House only has right to originate money bills, 478; not Senate or Secretary, 478; ordered to third reading, 478. See Index, vol. 1, Executive Departments.

Treaty with Great Britain, motion that no person be delivered up under the 27th article, 476; debated, 476; lost, 476. See Index, vol. 1.

TRIGG, ABRAM, Representative from Virginia, 120, 179, 326, 429, 497, 569, 694.

TRIGG, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 121, 179, 326, 497, 569, 693.

TRUMBULL, JOHN, presents to the Senate two prints, 400; letter to House, offering two prints, 430; note, 430.

TRUXTON, CAPTAIN, resolution to present a medal to, 469; no official information received on the subject, 470; resolution does not go far enough, 470; resolution to call for information adopted, 470; report of Secretary of the Navy in accordance therewith, 470; resolutions considered, 471; was it the duty of the commander of the Constellation to persist in the chase, and compel to action a ship of such superior force? 471; rash conduct, 471; law of Congress prescribes duty of naval commanders, 471; nothing in their conduct but what was highly laudatory, 471; frigates were constructed for protecting commerce--was this protecting commerce, to reduce his ship to a wreck? 472; resolution carried, 472.

U

United States Judges, memorial of to Senate, 665; petitions of, 727.

UPHAM, GEORGE P., Representative from New Hampshire, 569, 693.

V

VAN ALLEN, JONATHAN E., Representative from New York, 14, 120, 179, 326. See Index, vol. 1.

Van Cortlandt, Philip, Representative from New York, 14, 120, 180, 329, 429, 497.

VAN HORN, ISAAC, Representative from Pennsylvania, 569, 693.

VAN NESS, JOHN P., Representative from New York, 569, 693; on the apportionment bill, 574; case of, considered, 696; the member of the House has exercised the authority of a major of militia, under the authority of the United States, and thereby forfeited his seat, resolution to inquire considered, 696; important as deciding a principle, 696; resolution should go to committee on elections, 696; reference ordered, 697; report of committee, 725; explanation of Van Ness, 726; resolutions unanimously adopted; on the case of Van Ness, 697, 726.

VAN RENSSELAER, KILLIAN K., Representative from New York, 569, 693.

VARNUM, JOSEPH BRADLEY, Representative from Massachusetts, 14, 120, 179, 326, 429, 497, 569, 693; on the petition of manumitted slaves, 60; on military appropriations, 98, 99; on military and naval appropriations, 107; on tax on lawyers' licenses, 155; on the Georgia limits, 221; on temporary direct tax, 272; on bill relative to protection to commerce, 291; on a marine corps, 292; on direct taxes, 304; on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 455; on repeal of internal taxes, 580. See Index, vol. 1.

VENABLE, ABRAHAM, Representative from Virginia, 14, 120, 180, 326; on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 42; on lands for Canadian refugees, 45; on naval appropriations, 76, 77, 101, 103; on answer of House to President Adams' first message, 140; on expatriation, 151; on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 157, 159; on the case of Griswold and Lyon, 212; on the naturalization laws, 255, 256; on presents to ministers by foreign courts, 263; relative to letters of marque, 297. See Index, vol. 1.

Vermont.--Vote for President, 62, 487.

Veto of army bill, by President Washington, 95.

VINING, JOHN, Senator from Delaware, 6,114. See Index, vol. 1.

Virginia.--Vote for President, 62, 487.

W

WADSWORTH, PELEG, Representative from Massachusetts, 14, 179, 326, 429, 497, 570, 693. See Index, vol. 1.

WALKER, BENJAMIN, Representative from New York, 569.

WALN, ROBERT, Representative from Pennsylvania, 326, 529, 497; presents petition of free blacks, 436, 437; on petition of free blacks, 438, 440, 441; on the bill prohibiting the slave-trade, 476.

WASHINGTON, reply to address of Senate, 5; present at the inauguration of John Adams, 11; note 11; vote for, as President, in 1796, 62; vetoes army bill, 96; administration of, note, 111; letter accepting Lieutenant-Generalship, 177; as Lieutenant General, visits the House, 327; Mrs., reply to resolutions of Congress, 405; his death announced to House, 483; memory of, resolution on, 478; bill for erecting mausoleum reported, 478; discussion, 478; bill passed, 479; in Senate, bill to erect mausoleum, considered, 485; amendments agreed to, 486; bill passed, 486; bill to erect a mausoleum considered, 503; first section, 503; amendment moved to erect a monument, 503; a mausoleum preferable to a monument, 503; propriety of a monument, 503; a mausoleum more imperishable, 503; the adoption of the amendment equivalent to rejecting every plan, 504; expense of the proposed measure, 504; difference of expense between the two measures, 511; proceedings of last session, 512; bill recommitted, 512; proceedings of Congress in 1783; bill reported for a mausoleum as before, excepting a difference in materials, 513; various amendments proposed, 513; expense discussed, 514; blank filled with $200,000, 514; bill on third reading, 515; equestrian statue more proper than a mausoleum, 515; suitableness of a mausoleum, 515; the idea that a mausoleum would be equal to the character of Washington preposterous, 516; a tedious and useless debate, 516; a departure from the original plan a violation of the feelings of Mrs. Washington, 516; further debate, 517; bill ordered to be engrossed, 518; bill passed, 522; amendments of Senate considered, 538; House agree, 538. See Index, vol. 1, Washington.

Washington City, first meeting of Congress at, 481.

WATSON, JAMES, Senator from New York, 322, 399.

WELLS, WILLIAM HILL, Senator from Delaware, 323, 400, 481, 540, 664; on the resolutions relative to the right of the United States to the free navigation of the Mississippi, 680.

Western lands, resolutions relative to, 448.

WHEATON, JOSEPH, elected sergeant-at-arms to House, 430, 569.

WHITE, HUGH LAWSON, petition of, 48; report of committee on, 48; claim of, for services against the Indians, 48; committee report the expedition as undertaken without authority from the President, under laws of the United States, but the Indians highly aggressive, 48; note, 48; expedition just and necessary, 48; Indians carried the station and threatened to carry the seat of government, 48; the rations found for the troops on the expedition had been paid for, and no reason exists why the whole expense should not be paid, 49; if the expedition was unconstitutional, it should not affect the soldier who was obliged to obey his superior, 49; if this claim is allowed, it establishes a principle for all the militia in that expedition, 49; the expedition was a necessary one, 49; Congress were in session, and received information, but took no order thereon, 50; the constitution prescribes that if a State is actually invaded, it may engage in war; this is a case coming within the constitutional limits, 50; note, 50; referred to a select committee, 51; note, 52.

WHITE, Right Rev. Bishop, appointed chaplain to Senate, 166. See Index, vol. 1.

WHITE, SAMUEL, Senator from Delaware, 540, 661, 665; on the apportionment bill, 550; on the Mississippi question, 671.

WILLIAMS, JOHN, Representative from New York, 14, 120, 179, 326; on the address to the President, 18; on compensation of President and other officers, 64; on increase of duties on sugar, 71, 72; on the accommodation of the President, 90; on the military establishment, 96; on answer of House to President Adams' first message, 139; on arming merchant-vessels, 147; on a naval armament, 154; on relief to daughters of Count de Grasse, 195; on expenditure for the naval service, 196; on the case of Griswold and Lyon, 210, 211, and 212; on the limits of Georgia, 219; on relations with France, 232; on establishing the Navy Department, 248, 251; on a new census for a direct tax, 265; on a direct tax, 268; on admission of aliens to citizenship, 279; on instructions to armed vessels, 286; on the bill relative to protection to commerce, 288; on direct taxes, 303; on intercourse with France, 347. See Index, vol. 1.

WILLIAMS, LEMUEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 429, 497, 569, 693.

WILLIAMS, ROBERT, Representative from North Carolina, 121, 179, 725; on a tax on lawyers, 156; advocates weekly license to distillers, 194; on the Griswold and Lyon case, 215; on establishing the Navy Department, 251; on presents to ministers by foreign courts, 263; a bill relative to treatment of alien enemies, 284; relative to letters of marque, 297; relative to State balances, 595; on considering the French spoliations, 734.

WOODS, HENRY, Representative from Pennsylvania, 429, 497, 569, 693.

WOOSTER, GENERAL, and others, bill relative to, 664.

WRIGHT, ROBERT, Senator from Maryland, 540, 661; on memorial of United States Judges, 667.

WYNN, THOMAS, Representative from North Carolina, 693.

Y

Yeas and Nays in Senate on bill to accommodate the President, 9; in the House on amended answer to President's message, 33; on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 44; on a direct tax on land, 52; on a direct tax on slaves, 56; in House on naval appropriations, 79; in House on bill relative to Mediterranean Powers, 81; on the appropriation for the accommodation of the President, 92; in House on naval appropriation, 105; in House on bill relative to military and naval appropriations, 107; on adoption of answer of House to President Adams' 1st message, 142; on a bill providing for a naval armament, 155; on bill laying stamp duty, 162; on bill laying additional duties on salt, 164; in Senate on act to declare treaty with France void, 173; in Senate on resolution authorizing Minister to Spain to receive presents, 173; in Senate on bill to define and punish treason and sedition, 173, 175; relative to landing French passengers, 174; do. on census bill, 174; on motion to reconsider do. 174; on enumeration of slaves, 174; on bill to encourage capture of French armed vessels, 175; on bill making appropriations for a naval force, 175; on expulsion of Matthew Lyon, 208; relative to claim of Amy Dardin, 213; on the Griswold and Lyon case, 216; on the bill establishing the Navy Department, 252; on the resolution relative to presents to our Ministers at foreign courts, 264; on the bill to raise a provisional army, 276; on the bill relative to alien enemies, 286; on the bill relative to protection of commerce, 291; on resolutions granting letters of marque, 300; on the sedition bill, 310; on the abrogation of the treaty with France, 316; on bill for sedition and punishment of crimes, 319; on instructions to armed vessels, 319; in Senate on non-intercourse with France, 324; do. on aliens holding lands in the Territories, 324; do. on vesting power of retaliation in President, 324; in Senate on increase of army, 325; on increase of salaries, 325; on acceptance of jurisdiction over Western Reserve, 325; on establishing United States post office, 325; on bill relative to intercourse with France, 347; on bill to increase the navy, 356; on agreeing to report of committee relative to capture of French vessels, 364; on the expulsion of Matthew Lyon, 372; on repeal of alien and sedition law, 384; on amendments to bill relative to disputed Presidential elections, 408; in Senate on resolution relative to breach of privilege, 421; on resolutions of Committee on Privileges, 422; on adopting form of warrant of Senate for apprehension of William Duane, 426; on Mississippi Slave Act, 427; relative to petition of free blacks, 444; on resolutions in case of Jonathan Robbins, 469; on the medal to Captain Truxton, 472; on postponing the bill relative to admirals in the navy, 474; on bill prohibiting the slave trade, 477; on the bill to erect a mausoleum for Washington, 479; in Senate relative to mausoleum for Washington, 486; relative to reporting the debates, 511; on the bill for a mausoleum to Washington, 518; on passage, 522; on the engrossment of the bill to repeal a part of the sedition act, 536; on bill in House to establish uniform system of bankruptcy, 536; on Senate amendments to bill for mausoleum to Washington, 538; in Senate on admission of a stenographer, 545; on the apportionment bill, 551; in Senate on the repeal of the Judiciary Establishment, 565; note, 565; on bill for State Government of Ohio, 566; on bill for relief of widows and orphans of naval and marine officers, 566; on repeal of Judiciary Establishment, 638; on bill amending naturalization laws, 639; on the bill relative to Ohio State Government, 653, 654; on passage of bill relative to Judiciary System, 655; in Senate on agreeing to report on memorial of United States Judges, 668; in Senate on the resolutions relative to the right of the United States to the free navigation of the Mississippi, 692; on reference of resolution calling for papers relative to cession of Louisiana, 701; on going into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union relative to the cession of Louisiana, 709, 720; on resolutions relative to navigation of Mississippi, 710, 711; on refusing prayer of late United States Judges, 731; on receding to the respective States jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 741; on bill relative to importation of emancipated slaves, 742.

Z

ZANE, ISAAC, petition of, 545.

END OF VOL. II.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] A graceful compliment from Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Adams whose competitor he had been in the election, for the President and Vice President were not then voted for separately but the person having the highest number of votes became President, and the next highest the Vice President; and in this election there was only a difference of three votes between the two highest on the list.

[2] The sensibility which was manifested when General Washington entered, did not surpass the cheerfulness which overspread his own countenance, nor the heartfelt pleasure with which he saw another invested with the power and authorities that had so long been exercised by himself.--Marshall.

[3] In this early day, the parliamentary rule was enforced against any reference in one House to what was done in the other.

[4] Valued by a speaker in this debate at £5000 sterling, and afterwards given to the Washington College, Lexington, Va.

[5] Afterwards General and President. This was his first appearance in the national councils--and characteristically--defending with his voice those Western settlers whose defence, with the sword, was afterwards the foundation of his national fame and political elevation.

[6] This is the true ground on which the United States becomes liable to a State for its expenses in suppressing or repulsing Indian hostilities. It turns upon the idea of an actual invasion, or such imminent danger of it as not to admit of delay: then the contingency happens in which the State may engage in war, and all the acts of Congress, and the Government orders give way before a constitutional right. Tennessee, like other new countries in the United States, was settled without law, and against law. Its early settlers not only had no protection from the Federal Government, but were under legal disabilities to pursue the enemy. This arose from the policy of the Government to preserve peace on the frontiers by restraining the advance of settlements, and curbing the disposition of the people to war. The history of all the new settlements, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, is the same: people go without law, and against law; and when they can neither be stopped by the Government, nor driven back by the Indians, then the Government gives them protection.

[7] The committee reported in favor of paying the brigade of General Sevier, (300 infantry and two troops of horse,) amounting to the sum of $22,816 and 25 cents--a very small sum for a remote expedition into the country of a formidable Indian tribe, and so efficiently conducted as to secure tranquillity to the frontier. It deserves to be remembered for its promptitude, efficiency and cheapness.

[8] The solution of the enigma was, that those who voted against taxing slaves were opposed to any direct tax whatever, and the members from the slave States who supported the tax, did so because the taxation of lands and slaves went together in the slave States--the people were used to the association--and to omit slaves in the direct tax would be unjust and unpopular, as sparing the rich and making the tax fall heavier upon persons of less property.

[9] Yeas and nays not taken.

[10] The great naval powers of Europe show themselves sensible of this, by proposing to the United States to abolish privateering.

[11] The whole expense of procuring peace from Algiers, and forbearance to prey upon our citizens and commerce, and to redeem the captives, was then about one million of dollars; and the alternative was between paying that amount and carrying on war against her. War preparations had begun, and six frigates had been authorized to be built. A war with Algiers, then a formidable power, (and of course with the rest of the Barbary States,) was a very serious undertaking to the United States at that time--the cost great and certain--the issue uncertain. The greatest powers of Europe paid tribute to these barbaric pirates: it was no disgrace to the infant United States to do the same: and the redemption of the captives was a further inducement, founded in humanity: so that the price of peace became a question of economy.

[12] She was compensated accordingly.

[13] The resolution offered by Mr. Harper contemplated an official interposition in behalf of Lafayette--a grave proceeding, which President Washington had well considered beforehand, and maturely decided against. But unofficially he had been exerting himself to procure the release, or to mitigate the fate of the illustrious captive. A confidential person had been sent to Berlin to solicit his discharge, his first captivity being in Prussia; but before the arrival of the messenger the well-guarded prisoner had been turned over to the Emperor of Germany. Mr. Thomas Pinckney, the American Minister in London, had been instructed to make known the wishes of the President to the Austrian Minister at that place, and the British Ministry had been solicited to take an interest in the application: but all in vain. As a last attempt, and at the moment of ceasing to be President, he addressed a private letter to the Emperor of Austria, couched in noble and feeling terms, in which he solicited that Lafayette might be allowed to come to the United States. The letter said: "I forbear to enlarge upon this delicate subject. Permit me only to submit to your majesty's consideration, whether his long imprisonment, and the confiscation of his estate, and the indigence and dispersion of his family, and the painful anxieties incident to all these circumstances, do not form an assemblage of sufferings which recommend him to the mediation of humanity? Allow me, sir, on this occasion to be its organ; and to entreat that he may be permitted to come to this country on such conditions, and under such restrictions as your majesty may deem it expedient to prescribe." This touching appeal remained without effect; and the romantic effort of Dr. Bollman having failed to save Lafayette, after snatching him from the dungeon of Olmutz, it remained for the glittering sword of the conqueror of Italy to command what the noble letter of Washington failed to obtain. After the Treaty of Campo Formio, an aid-de-camp of the then young General Buonaparte proceeded to Vienna--asked the release of Lafayette--and obtained it. The Emperor, Francis the Second, might have appeared more gracefully in the transaction, if he had yielded the release to the letter of Washington.

[14] The close of the Fourth Congress terminates the presidency of General Washington, and presents, a proper point for a retrospective view of the working of the Government for the first eight years of its existence. Such a view is full of instruction, and deserves to be taken; and first of the finances. Moderate expenses, and moderate taxes were the characteristics of this branch of the service. The support of the Government, called the Civil List, and comprehending every object of civil expenditure, was, for the year 1796, (the last of Washington's administration,) $530,392, and the duties on imports about five millions of dollars--or nearly ten times as much as the support of the Government required--leaving nearly nine-tenths to go to the public debt, the preservation of peace with the Indian tribes, defence of the frontiers, protection of commerce in the Mediterranean; and other extraordinary objects. This amount was produced by moderate duties--the ad valorems, 10, 12-1/2, 15 and 20 per centum--and mainly produced by the two first rates, the two latter chiefly applying to objects of luxury not used by the general mass. Thus: The amount of imports subject to the 10 and the 12-1/2 rates was $28,267,000, while those subject to 15 were $7,850,000; and those subject to 20 per centum only the third of one million. The average of the whole was about 13 per centum. The specific duties were on the same moderate scale; and the cost of collecting the whole was 3.73 per cent. The interest on the public debt was three millions and a quarter; the Military Department, $1,300,000; Naval Department, $440,000; tribute to the Barbary powers, veiled under the name of foreign intercourse expense, was $300,000; while the regular diplomatic intercourse was only about $40,000. The whole expenditure of the Government was about 5-1/2 millions: its whole revenue something more--the excise on distilled spirits producing some $400,000. Thus, order and economy were established in the finances. Abroad peace had been maintained. The proclamation of neutrality, unanimously agreed upon in the Cabinet, saved the United States from the calamity of being involved in the wars of the French Revolution. The commercial treaty with Great Britain stopped the depredations which the British had commenced upon American vessels carrying provisions to France, and obtained indemnity for depredations already committed. With Spain the serious question of the free navigation of the Mississippi was settled; and, in addition to the right of navigation, a place of deposit for American produce and merchandise was obtained at New Orleans--the right to be absolute for three years, and afterwards until an equivalent place should be provided. (It was the subsequent violation of this right of deposit which led to the acquisition of all Louisiana.) Safety to the persons and property of American citizens in the Mediterranean Sea had been obtained, according to the means usual at that time, and upon terms to be endured until strong enough to do better. The formidable Indian war in the North-west, and the troublesome hostilities in the South-west, had been terminated, and peace given to the young communities on the Kentucky and Cumberland Rivers which, commencing without authority, were laying the foundations of future great States. A domestic insurrection (that of Western Pennsylvania) had been quelled, and happily without bloodshed--the exhibition of a large force, with Washington at its head, being sufficient to forbid resistance, and a wise humanity sparing all punishment. The new Government was solidly established, and amidst difficulties which might have been insuperable under any other President. Public credit, which had sunk so low under the Confederation, had risen to a high standard under the new Government; and a general commercial and agricultural prosperity pervaded the land.

[15] This was an extra session, called in the early months of Mr. Adams' administration, for the causes stated in his Message to the two Houses.

[16] The following is the speech referred to, Barras being the President of the Directory who addressed it to Mr. Monroe:

"Mr. Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America: By presenting to-day your letters of recall to the Executive Directory, you give to Europe a very strange spectacle.

"France, rich in her liberty, surrounded by a train of victories, strong in the esteem of her allies, will not abase herself by calculating the consequences of the condescension of the American Government to the suggestions of her former tyrants; moreover, the French Republic hopes that the successors of Columbus, Ramhiph, and Penn, always proud of their liberty, will never forget that they owe it to France. They will weigh, in their wisdom, the magnanimous benevolence of the French people with the crafty caresses of certain perfidious persons who meditate bringing them back to their former slavery. Assure the good American people, sir, that, like them, we adore liberty; that they will always have our esteem; and that they will find in the French people republican generosity, which knows how to grant peace, as it does to cause its sovereignty to be respected. As to you, Mr. Minister Plenipotentiary, you have combated for principles; you have known the true interests of your country: depart with our regret. In you we give up the representative to America, and retain the remembrance of the citizen whose personal qualities did honor to that title."

[17] This is a view of those depredations which has been lost sight of. Their injuries are now considered as falling exclusively upon the merchants: it was then agreed that they fell upon the community, the merchant indemnifying himself by insurances and increased profits.

[18] And is still so carried on.

[19] Taxed in Great Britain, with the privilege of commutation for a gross sum.

[20] This sum which amounted to one third of the amount of the notes and disposits, was a general rule for regulating the quantity of cash kept to answer their current demands.

[21] This taxation of bank notes presents the ready mode of regulating the paper currency of the States, and suppressing the mischief of small notes which are a constant source of depredation upon the laboring part of the community, a constant source of crime in the making and passing counterfeit paper, and the constant expeller of the constitutional currency. These small notes were hardly known at the time of this tax, which was so readily imposed, and therefore were taxed lightest: now they are a general circulation, and the most profitable part of a bank's issues; and, therefore, should be taxed highest, both on the principle of being most profitable to the banks and most injurious to the community.

[22] This equilibrium was soon destroyed. The merchants soon got rid of the stamp tax; but the farmers still bear a salt tax.

[23] This extra session having been called on account of expected hostilities with the French Republic, the labors of Congress were consequently limited to the two objects of defence and revenue--preparation for defence, and providing the additional revenue which the defence required. Both objects were accomplished. The three frigates--Constitution, Constellation and United States, which afterwards earned themselves a place in history--were finished and manned. A detachment of 80,000 militia was authorized. A stamp duty was imposed--a loan authorized--and the salt tax increased: the latter as a temporary measure, and with an express clause against continuance, without which it could not have passed, and in contravention of which it was continued. Defence was the great object of the session: invasion the danger: and its repulse by sea and land the remedy. Preparation against invasion was, at that time, a proper policy: the progress of science, and of the arts of peace, has superseded such policy in our day. The electric telegraph, and the steam car, have opened a new era in defensive war. Accumulated masses of volunteers, summoned by electricity and transported by steam, rushed upon the invaded point and giving incessant attacks with fresh arrivals, would exterminate any invading force; and give the cheap, effective and extemporaneous defence which the exigency required.

[24] An illustrious mission, nationally composed of the most eminent citizens, three in number, and taken from different parts of the Union, and from both political parties: Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, from South Carolina; John Marshall, from Virginia; Elbridge Gerry, from Massachusetts--the two first federal; Mr. Gerry, republican.

[25] Mr. Gallatin is not accurately reported. The exception extended to all the officers of the Federal Government, and for as long a time as their duties required them to remain in the States, and to all others for the period of six months.

[26] In a subsequent part of this same debate, Mr. Macon retracted this censure upon the Quakers, as being too general.

[27] Acts of limitation have been found necessary in all countries, and in all sorts of claims, to quiet demands, bring things to settlement, and to protect the fair dealer from stale demands, after time and accidents have deprived him of the means of invalidating them. Necessary in the transactions of individuals, they become still more so in the transactions of the Government. Its officers are constantly changing, and the knowledge of transactions continually being lost, and the representatives of the Government without the personal interest which stimulates inquiry and invigorates defence. The Government becomes helpless against claims, even the most unjustifiable, after the lapse of some years; and, without the protection of a statute of limitations, is subject to continual impositions. This was well known to the conductors of our Revolution, and the founders of our Federal Government; and they took care, as they believed, to provide against a danger which they knew to be imminent. Equally solicitous to pay every valid claim, and to avoid the payment of unjust ones, they began even during the war to call upon all claimants to present their demands--to furnish abstracts when the case was not ready to be proved up. These calls were redoubled at the conclusion of peace, were repeated during the existence of the confederation, and reiterated at the formation of the new Government under the constitution. They took the form of law, and barred the claims which were not presented within limited times. The final bar was seven years after the new Government went into operation. The committee, of which Mr. Gallatin was chairman, made an enumeration of these different statutes, and reported in favor of their observance--a report in which the House concurred, and to which Congress then conformed its action. These statutes, and the reasons in which they were founded, seem to have been since forgotten; and stale claims let in upon the Treasury without restraint, and proved without difficulty, which no call could bring forth at the time they were supposed to have originated. It is instructive to look over the list of these statutes, and see the reasons in which they were founded, and the efforts made to call in all valid claims, and the attention paid to them fifty years ago, and the disregard since.

[28] Upon the request of General Washington the Count de Grasse remained in the Chesapeake beyond the time which his instructions allowed, risking all the penalties of insubordination, and by so doing did what was indispensable to the capture of Lord Cornwallis.

[29] This was the first debate on the prohibition of Slavery in a Territory which took place under the Federal Constitution, and it is to be observed that the constitutional power of Congress to make the prohibition, was not questioned by any speaker. Expedient objections only were urged.

[30] The speaker here alludes to the paper called "the second treaty of Pilnitz," which he declares to be a forgery. The first treaty of Pilnitz was a mere conditional agreement between the Emperor and the King of Prussia, that if either of them should be attacked by France, they would unite to repel the attack. This treaty they avowed; and when, on the acceptance of the new Constitution by the King of France, better prospects of a peaceable conduct on the part of that nation were entertained, they suspended this treaty by a formal declaration.

[31] Thus, by a close vote, the Naval Department was created; and, as the proceedings show, by a party vote--the Republicans of that day being against a Navy.

[32] The allusion was to Mr. Liston, the British Minister, accused of complicity with Senator Blount, of Tennessee, in a scheme to send an expedition against the Spanish province of West Florida, in breach of our neutrality, Great Britain and Spain being then at war, and the United States at peace with both. Mr. Blount was expelled the Senate for his part in that affair, but it was only the beginning of the enterprises which ended twenty years afterwards in adding both East and West Florida to the United States. These provinces were geographically appurtenant to the American Union, and their possession essential to its political system. The desire for their acquisition was natural, and efforts to obtain them incessant, until the acquisition was made.

[33] The call was made with a view to the final vote on the Provisional Army Bill, and the way in which the absentees were accounted for--one sick and the rest on leave--was highly creditable to the members.

[34] Whereas, armed vessels sailing under authority, or pretence of authority, from the Republic of France, have committed depredations on the commerce of the United States, and have recently captured the vessels and property of citizens thereof, on and near the coast, in violation of the law of nations, and treaties between the United States and the French nation: Therefore,

Be it enacted, &c., That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, and he is hereby authorized, to instruct and direct the commanders of the armed vessels belonging to the United States, to seize, take, and bring into any port of the United States, to be proceeded against according to the laws of nations, any such armed vessel which shall have committed, or which shall be found hovering on the coasts of the United States, for the purpose of committing depredations on the vessels belonging to citizens thereof; and, also, to retake any ship or vessel, of any citizen or citizens of the United States, which may have been captured by any such armed vessel.

[35] At this period it was the custom of Congress to have the funerals of members in the morning or evening, before the meeting, or after the adjournment of the Houses.

[36] I allude to my painful residence here, as a political cipher.

[37] The general consent with which this answer was voted was honorable to the House, and advantageous to the character of the country. Besides depredations on our commerce, there was, at that time, a course of studied indignities to the United States from the French Government, then having the form of a Directory, of which Barras was President, and Talleyrand Foreign Secretary. These indignities were marked and systematic; of which the speech of Barras to Mr. Monroe when he had his take-leave audience--the refusal to receive his successor, General Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and insolent threat to commit him to the police as a mere foreigner in Paris--the subsequent refusal to receive both himself and Judge Marshall, sending them out of the country, and endeavoring to divide the embassy--intriguing to extort a bribe, and to obtain a loan in violation of our neutrality--and not only proclaiming but acting on the assumption that we were a divided people, (French and British,) and that a devotion to one or the other of these powers, and not a sentiment of American nationality, was the sole rule of our policy. The unanimity of the answer to the President's Speech was a proper reply to all this outrage and insult. And the re-echoed declaration of protection "to the sacred rights of embassy," was not only just in itself, and called for by the occasion, but was due to the personal characters, the dignity and decorum of the two repulsed Ministers, (Messrs. Pinckney and Marshall,) as well as to their official station and the nation they represented.

[38] Then in a state of successful revolt against France, but her independence not acknowledged.

[39] A strong expression, but justified by what had been seen in St. Domingo.

[40] This whole debate abounds with valuable information on the condition of the French West Indies--political, commercial and historical--during the period of the French Revolution. Toussaint, Santhonax, Polverel, Victor Hugues, Hedouville, Rigaud, Deforneaux, were household words fifty years ago; and words of portent in their day, and giving shape to events of present import--though hardly known now.

[41] The House was in Committee of the Whole, but still the speakers were held to the point, and hence the force and brevity, and instructive character of these early debates.

[42] It was not the custom then to adjourn the Houses to attend the funeral of a member. The burial took place before, or after, the day's session.

[43] In our service the time has been stated at much less--at every eight or ten years.

[44] The following extract from the celebrated report and resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia, in the year 1799, speak the sentiments of the democratic party of that day on the subject of a Navy: "With respect to the Navy, it may be proper to remind you that whatever may be the proposed object, or whatever may be the prospect of temporary advantages resulting therefrom, it is demonstrated by the experience of all nations who have ventured far into naval policy, that such prospect is ultimately delusive; and that a navy has ever in practice been known more as an instrument of power, a source of expense, and an occasion of collisions and wars with other nations, than as an instrument of defence, of economy, or of protection to commerce." And among the resolutions then adopted, she instructs her Representatives and requests her Senators as follows: "To prevent any augmentation of the navy, and to promote any proposition for reducing it within the narrowest limits compatible with the protection of the sea-coasts, ports and harbors of the United States, and of consequence a proportionate reduction of the taxes."

[45] These assurances were given by the same Directory, and through the same Minister of Foreign Affairs, (Talleyrand,) who had refused to receive Messrs. Pinckney and Marshall; and, on receiving these assurances, another extraordinary mission of three eminent citizens was appointed to proceed to Paris. They were: Oliver Ellsworth, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; William Richardson Davie, late Governor of the State of North Carolina; and William Vans Murray, U. S. Minister Resident at the Hague. Before they arrived at Paris, the Revolution of the 18th Brumaire had occurred--the Directorial Government overturned, the Consulate established, and Buonaparte at the head of affairs. He retained Talleyrand in the Foreign Ministry, and that astute and supple character conformed as readily to the policy of the First Consul, (peace with the United States,) as he had complied with the contrary policy of the Directory.

[46] The allusions were to Mr. Jay and Mr. Ellsworth, appointed to foreign embassies while chief Justices--the former by President Washington, the latter by President John Adams.

[47] This was the famous Judiciary act, passed in the last days of Mr. Adams' administration, and increasing the number of federal judges, which gave so much dissatisfaction at the time, and which was repealed in the beginning of Mr. Jefferson's administration.

[48] The prints referred to by Mr. Trumbull, in his letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, are, first, a representation of the Battle of Quebec, and death of General Montgomery; second, the Battle of Bunker's Hill--both elegant engravings. They are placed on the right and left of the Speaker's chair, and are highly ornamental to the Representatives' Chamber.

[49] This was a skilful movement, and a fair one. It shifted the onus from the friends to the opponents of the President; and besides giving them the advantage of the defensive, impeded the supporters of Mr. Livingston's motion with preliminary and extrinsic questions from the start. It was a great party question in its day, and before the people chiefly turned upon the point that Robbins was an American citizen, while in Congress that point was given up, and the debate turned upon the legal right of the President to advise the judge to give up the man, and especially to giving him up without trying his claim to American citizenship. Though made, in the main, a party question, it was not entirely so in the vote, many of the democracy voting with the federal members in justification of Mr. Adams. It was in this debate that the (afterwards) Chief Justice Marshall made the speech which gained him so much fame.

[50] This speech is not reported.

[51] This speech is not reported.

[52] Not reported.

[53] Not reported.

[54] Son of Mr. James Jarvis, of New York, and midshipman on board the Constellation in the engagement of the 1st of February, who was killed by the falling of the mast.

[55] The First Meeting of Congress at Washington City.

[56] Citizen Talleyrand, retained under the Consulate as Minister of Exterior Relations, was the organ of our Ministers' communications with the First Consul, and his language and deportment on their arrival present a fine contrast to what they were in the time of the Directory, and of the X., Y., Z. subaltern intriguers. Thus, arriving in Paris on the 2d of March, they notify the Citizen Minister of that fact on the 3d, and the same day receive this answer: "The information which you have just communicated of your arrival at Paris, has given me real satisfaction. If you will take the trouble to call upon me at half-past twelve to-morrow, I will be exceedingly glad to have the honor of receiving you." They called as requested, and were treated with all courtesy; and, having expressed a desire to be presented to the First Consul, they received the next day the evidence that he had attended to their request and accomplished it, and giving the hour they were to be "so obliging" as to attend in the Hall of the Ambassadors, in the Palace of the Tuileries. And in notifying them that a commission was appointed to treat with them, he expressed himself with amiable politeness, "to remove a misunderstanding which comports as little with the interests as with the sentiments of the two Governments."

[57] Subject to the disapproval of Congress, and to remain in force until disapproved--this Territory being a copy in its Government of that of the North-west under the Ordinance of the 13th July, 1787, except in the anti-slavery clause.

[58] Nominated Secretary at War, May 7th, 1800. Nomination postponed on the 9th of May. Appointed May 13th Secretary of State, appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Jan. 27th, 1801. Died 1835.

[59] Twenty-two years afterwards this opinion was verified, and the system abolished, after thirty years of injurious existence--so hard is it to get rid of an evil establishment when it has once got foothold.

[60] This result was due, more than to any other, to General Hamilton, as the majority of the federal party were strongly disposed to support Colonel Burr--from doing which, they were impressively and successfully counselled by him. He was personally well with Burr, and ill with Jefferson, but took the public good, and not his own feelings, for his guide. He said of them, and of his own duty between them: "If there be a man in the world I ought to hate, it is Jefferson. With Burr I have always been personally well. But the public good must be paramount to every private consideration." The danger of Burr's election was imminent, as appears from a letter of Bayard's to General Hamilton, wherein he says: "I assure you, sir, there appears to be a strong inclination in the Federal party to support Mr. Burr. The current has already (January 7th) acquired considerable force, and is manifestly increasing. The vote which the representation of a State enables me to give would decide the question in favor of Mr. Jefferson. At present I am by no means decided as to the object of preference. If the Federal Party should take up Mr. Burr, I ought certainly to be impressed with the most undoubting conviction before I separate myself from them." This passage from a letter of Mr. Bayard, (who afterwards decided the election,) shows the imminence of the danger of Burr's election; and the answer to it, (with letters to other federal members,) shows that that danger was averted by General Hamilton. In these letters he depicted Burr as morally and politically a bad man, utterly unfit and unsafe to be trusted with the Presidency, and in circumstances to make crime his necessity as well as his inclination, and implored him to save the country from the "calamity" of his election. The sting of these letters, rankling in the bosom of Burr, produced the duel in which General Hamilton afterwards lost his life. A singularly hard fate! to die for serving his country, and that in the person of an enemy.

This election in the House of Representatives, protracted through four days and to the 36th ballot, produced the most intense excitement throughout the United States, and filled the minds of all good men with alarm for the safety of the Union. The conclusion, however, showing ten States to have voted for Mr. Jefferson, and only four for Mr. Burr, shows that there were many members duly impressed with the solemnity of the crisis, and patriotically coming forward to sacrifice private and political feeling on the altar of public safety. The following detail of the 36 ballotings, all alike but the last, appeared in the National Intelligencer at the time, and shows the name and the vote of the different members in this most arduous and eventful struggle.

[From the National Intelligencer, of Feb. 17 and 18, 1801.]

That the people may know how the votes of their Representatives have been given, we present a statement:

New Hampshire.--4 for Burr, viz: Mr. Foster, Mr. Sheafe, Mr. Tenney, and Mr. Freeman.

Massachusetts.--11 for Burr, viz: Mr. S. Lee, Mr. Otis, Mr. N. Read, Mr. Shepard, Mr. Thatcher, Mr. Wadsworth, Mr. L. Williams, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Mattoon, Mr. J. Read, Mr. Sedgwick.

Three for Jefferson, viz: Mr. Bishop, Mr. Varnum, Mr. Lincoln.

Rhode Island.--2 for Burr, viz: Mr. Champlin, and Mr. J. Brown.

Connecticut.--7 for Burr, viz: Mr. C. Goodrich, Mr. E. Goodrich, Griswold, Mr. Dana, Mr. J. Davenport, Mr. Edmond, Mr. J. C. Smith.

Vermont.--1 for Jefferson, viz: Mr. Lyon.

One for Burr, viz: Mr. Morris.

New York.--6 for Mr. Jefferson, viz: Mr. Bailey, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Livingston, Mr. Elmendorph, Mr. Van Cortlandt, Mr. J. Smith.

Four for Mr. Burr, viz: Mr. Bird, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Platt.

New Jersey.--3 for Jefferson, viz: Mr. Kitchell, Mr. Condit, Mr. Linn.

Two for Burr, viz: Mr. F. Davenport, Mr. Imlay.

Pennsylvania.--9 for Mr. Jefferson, viz: Mr. Gallatin, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Hanna, Mr. Leib, Mr. Smilie, Mr. Muhlenberg, Mr. Heister, Mr. Stewart, Mr. R. Brown.

Four for Burr, viz: Mr. Waln, Mr. Kittera, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Woods.

Delaware.--1 for Mr. Burr, viz: Mr. Bayard.

Maryland.--4 for Mr. Jefferson, viz: Mr. S. Smith, Mr. Dent, Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Christie.

Four for Mr. Burr, viz: Mr. J. C. Thomas, Mr. Craik, Mr. Dennis, and Mr. Baer.

Virginia.--14 invariably for Mr. Jefferson, viz: Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Clay, Mr. Cabell, Mr. Dawson, Mr. Eggleston, Mr. Goode, Mr. Gray, Mr. Holmes, Mr. Jackson, Mr. New, Mr. Randolph, Mr. A. Trigg, Mr. J. Trigg, Mr. Tazewell.

Five for Mr. Burr on the same ballots, (two of whom on the first ballot voted for Mr. Jefferson,) viz: Mr. Evans, Mr. H. Lee, Mr. Page, Mr. Parker, Mr. Powell.

North Carolina.--6 invariably for Mr. Jefferson, viz: Mr. Alston, Mr. Macon, Mr. Stanford, Mr. Stone, Mr. R. Williams, Mr. Spaight.

Four for Burr on some ballots, (3 of whom on the first ballot voted for Mr. Jefferson,) viz: Mr. Henderson, Mr. Hill, Mr. Dickson, Mr. Grove.

South Carolina.--Mr. Sumter being sick has not attended, but will attend, at every hazard, the moment his vote can be of any avail. The individual votes of the Representatives of this State are not accurately known, but it is generally believed that Mr. Huger votes for Mr. Jefferson; and Mr. Rutledge, Mr. Pinckney, and Mr. Harper, vote for Mr. Burr. Mr. Nott's vote is doubtful. He has gone home.

Georgia.--1 for Jefferson, viz: Mr. Taliaferro--Mr. Jones, who is dead, would have voted the same way.

Kentucky.--2 for Mr. Jefferson, viz: Mr. Davis and Mr. Fowler.

Tennessee.--1 for Mr. Jefferson, viz: Mr. Claiborne.

On Saturday last a memorial was presented to John Chew Thomas, representative in Congress for this District, from a respectable number of his constituents, recommending him to vote for Thomas Jefferson, and declaring that at least two-thirds of his constituents were in favor of the election of Mr. Jefferson.

The memorial was signed by the most respectable Federal gentlemen of the City of Washington.

<tb>

[From the National Intelligencer, of Feb. 18.]

On Tuesday at 12 o'clock the 35th ballot was taken; the result the same with that of the preceding ballots.

At one o'clock the 36th ballot was taken which issued in the election of Thomas Jefferson.

On this ballot there were,

Ten States for Mr. Jefferson, viz: Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

Four States for Mr. Burr, viz: Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.

Two States voted by blank ballots, viz: Delaware and South Carolina.

In the instance of Vermont, Mr. Morris withdrew.

In that of South Carolina, Mr. Huger, who is understood previously uniformly to have voted for Mr. Jefferson, also withdrew, from a spirit of accommodation, which enabled South Carolina to give a blank vote.

And in the instance of Maryland, four votes were for Jefferson and four blank.

[61] The administration of Mr. Adams fell upon difficult times, and involved the necessity of measures always unpopular in themselves, and never more so than at that time. The actual aggressions of France upon our commerce, her threats of war, and insults to our ministers, required preparations to be made for war; and these could not be made without money, nor money be had without loans and taxes. Fifteen millions was the required expenditure of the last year of his administration; a large sum in that time, but almost the whole of which went to three objects; the army, the navy, and the public debt. The support of the Government remained at the moderate sum which it had previously presented; to wit, $560,000. The duties still remained moderate--the ad valorems, 10, 12-1/2, 15 and 20 per centum; and the latter more nominal than real, as it only fell upon a few articles of luxury, of which the importation was only to the value of $430,000. The main levy fell upon the 10 and 12-1/2 per centum classes, of which to the value of 26-1/2 millions were imported; of the 15 per centum class only 7-1/2 millions were imported; and the average of the whole was 13 per centum and a fraction. The specifics were increased, but not considerably; and the cost of collecting the whole was 4-1/2 per centum. Direct taxes and loans made up the remainder. The whole amount collected from duties was about 10 millions: to be precise, $10,126,213; that is to say, nearly twenty times as much as the support of the Government (comprehending every civil object) required. The administration of Mr. Adams, though condemned for extravagance, was strictly economical in the support of the Government, and in the collection of the revenue: the army and the navy, those cormorant objects of expenditure, brought the demands for money which injured the administration.

[62] This is the first instance of a Message being sent to the two Houses at the commencement of a session. Though veiled and commended by temporary reasons, founded in the convenience of the members and placed in the fore part of the letter, yet the concluding reasons (which are of a general and permanent nature) disclose the true reasons for the change--which was, to make it permanent: and permanent it has been. It was one of Mr. Jefferson's reforms--the former way of assembling the two Houses to hear an address in person from the President, returning an answer to it, the two Houses going in form to present their answer, and the intervention of repeated committees to arrange the details of these ceremonious meetings, being considered too close an imitation of the royal mode of opening a British Parliament. Some of the democratic friends of Mr. Jefferson doubted whether this change was a reform, in that part of it which dispensed with the answers to the President. Their view of it was, that the answer to the Speech, or Message, afforded a regular occasion for speaking to the state of the Union, and to all the topics presented; which speaking, losing its regular vent, would afterwards break out irregularly on the discussion of particular measures, and to the interruption of the business on hand. Experience has developed that irregularity, and another--that of speaking to the Message on the motions to refer particular clauses of it to appropriate committees, thereby delaying the reference; and, in one instance during Mr. Fillmore's administration, preventing the reference during the entire session.

[63] [From the National Intelligencer of Jan. 8, 1802.]

On Monday last the editor addressed a letter to the President of the Senate, requesting permission to occupy a position in the lower area of the Senate Chamber, for the purpose of taking with correctness the debates and proceedings of that body.

It may be necessary to remark that heretofore no stenographer has been admitted in this area; and the upper gallery, being open to the admission of every one, and very remote from the floor of the House, has prevented any attempt being made to take the debates, from the impossibility of hearing distinctly from it.

The contents of the letter were submitted by the President to the Senate; and a resolution agreed to, to the following effect: Resolved, That any stenographer, desirous to take the debates of the Senate on Legislative business, may be admitted for that purpose, at such place, within the area of the Senate Chamber, as the President shall allot.

On Wednesday the editor had, accordingly, assigned to him a convenient place in the lower area, from which he took notes of the proceedings of the Senate On the adoption of the above resolution, which opens a new door to public information, and which may be considered as the prelude to a more genuine sympathy between the Senate and the people of the United States, than may have heretofore subsisted, by rendering each better acquainted with the other, we congratulate, without qualification, every friend to the true principles of our republican institutions.

[64] This motion gave rise to one of the most extended and earnest debates which had occurred in Congress, involving the interests and passions of party, as well as questions of high constitutional law and of great public expediency; and was brought on in the approved parliamentary form of a resolution to try the principle, unembarrassed with the details of a new bill. The law proposed to be repealed, besides adding sixteen new circuit judges at once to the federal bench, (making 38 in all,) was passed in the last days of an expiring administration, and the appointments made in these last moments, and well confined to one political party: so that many reasons conspired to make it objectionable on one hand and desirable on the other, and to call forth the strongest exertions both for, and against, the repeal.

[65] It was a party vote, and a close one, some changes of members having changed the majority since the last session--then a bare majority on the Federal side.

[66] A debate of great length and earnestness now took place in the House on this repealing bill sent down from the Senate, and passed there by a majority of only one. The two parties seemed to have staked themselves upon it, not before the House, (where the issue was certain,) but before the country, to the arbitrament of which the great appeal was made. Above thirty members delivered elaborate speeches, of which but small parts can be given in an abridgment--the less to be regretted, as the staple of each was, of necessity, much the same--but varied, enlivened and enforced by the peculiar talent, learning and ability of different speakers. Their names were--for the repeal: John Bacon, of Massachusetts; John Clopton, of Virginia; Thomas T. Davis, of Kentucky; John Dawson, of Virginia; William B. Giles, of Virginia; Andrew Gregg, of Pennsylvania; Nathaniel Macon, of North Carolina; John Milledge, of Georgia; Thomas Morris, of New York; Joseph H. Nicholson, of Maryland; John Randolph, of Virginia; General Samuel Smith, of Maryland; Philip R. Thompson, of Virginia; James Holland and Robert Williams, of North Carolina.--Against the repeal: James A. Bayard, of Delaware; Manasseh Cutter, of Massachusetts; Samuel W. Dana, of Connecticut; John Dennis, of Maryland; Thomas Plater, of Maryland; William Eustis, of Massachusetts; Calvin Goddard, of Connecticut; Roger Griswold, of Connecticut; Seth Hastings, of Massachusetts; Joseph Hemphill, of Pennsylvania; Archibald Henderson, of North Carolina; William H. Hill, of North Carolina; Benjamin Huger, of South Carolina; Thomas Lowndes, of South Carolina; John Rutledge, of South Carolina; John Stanley, of North Carolina; Benjamin Tallmadge, of New York.

[67] The detail of the vote on the balloting shows this fact, so creditable to South Carolina.

[68] This is the first authentic declaration that Mr. Jefferson's opinion on slavery was an obstacle to his receiving the South Carolina vote.

[69] A double movement was going on at the same time in relation to the violation of the right of deposit at New Orleans: one by the Administration, commencing with an embassy both to France and Spain to negotiate for the desired places; the other by the opposition, who held negotiation to be unworthy of the country in circumstances of such wrong and insult, and preferred the immediate seizure of New Orleans. Mr. Ross, a Pennsylvania Senator, from the west of the State, whose trade went to New Orleans, was the leader of this forcible movement--in which he was well sustained by the feeling of the whole West. It was on Mr. Ross's resolutions that this violation of the right of deposit at New Orleans was publicly debated; and as it concerned the free navigation of the Mississippi, it was called the "Mississippi question."

[70] This is the act which began the movement, which ended in the purchase of Louisiana. At the time it was passed the views of no one extended to the acquisition of that great province. The island on which New Orleans stands, and the two Floridas, were the object. Even this object was veiled by general expressions in relation to foreign intercourse, but its true purpose was made known in a confidential communication from the President to the House of Representatives, and by it communicated to the Senate, when the bill was up for its concurrence. Mr. Bayard and Mr. Nicholson were the committee that carried up the bill, and delivered this message:

"Gentlemen of the Senate:

"We transmit you a bill, which has passed this House, entitled "An act making further provision for the expenses attending the intercourse between the United States and foreign nations," and in which we request your concurrence. This bill has been passed by us in order to enable the President of the United States to commence, with more effect, a negotiation with the French and Spanish Governments, relative to the purchase of the island of New Orleans, and the provinces of East and West Florida. The nature and importance of the measures contemplated, have induced us to act upon the subject with closed doors. You will, of consequence, consider this communication as confidential."

[71] This was spoken before the campaigns of Ulm, Austerlitz and Jena.

[72] The true reason for the non-circulation of gold was the erroneous valuation of that coin, which was not corrected until thirty years afterwards.

[73] This speech, delivered in the Virginia Convention which ratified the Federal constitution, is the only full and perfect account of the transaction to which it refers that has ever been published. It refers to the design in the Congress of the confederation to give up the navigation of the Mississippi for 25 or 30 years in return for some commercial privileges from Spain--a design which Mr. Monroe was mainly instrumental in defeating, and for which he deserved still higher rewards than honor and gratitude. His reluctance to give the history of this transaction arose from its secret nature, the Congress of the confederation sitting upon it with closed doors, and the members being under injunctions not to disclose what was done. Its essentiality to a knowledge of the political history of the times must be apparent to all who read it.

[74] The famous orator.

[75] See ante, under date of December 22.

[76] All the steps and proceedings which led to the acquisition of Louisiana (and the same occurred in the acquisition of Florida) are given in full, that it may be seen that this important negotiation, which was to involve an appropriation of money, had its foundation laid in the authority of the proper appropriating power--the House of Representatives; to which the purse-strings of the Union were specially confided.

[77] Above forty years afterwards, to wit, in 1846, the Virginia part of the District was retroceded to that State.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us