The idea that a man ought to be paid only in proportion to his services,

holds good in some cases, but not in others. It holds good in

legislative business, but not in the executive or judicial departments.

A judge will be sometimes unemployed, as in the case of the Vice

President; yet it is found necessary to claim the whole of his time and

attention to the duties for which he is appointed. If the principle of

proportioning the allowance to the quantum of services performed

obtains, it will be found that the Judiciary will be as dependent on the

legislative authority, as if the Legislature was to declare what shall

be their salary for the succeeding year; because, by abridging their

services at every session, we could reduce them to such a degree, as to

require a very trifling compensation indeed. Neither do I, Mr. Speaker,

consider this as a sinecure; but that will appear from the reasons

already given. The office of a judge is liable, in some degree, to the

same objection; but these kinds of objections are levelled against the

institutions themselves. We are to consider his appointment as a part of

the constitution; and if we mean to carry the constitution into full

effect, we ought to make provision for his support, adequate to the

merits and nature of the office.

Mr. AMES said that the Vice President's acceptance of his appointment

was a renunciation of every other avocation. When a man is taken from

the mass of the people for a particular office, he is entitled to a

compensation from the public; during the time in which he is not

particularly employed, he is supposed to be engaged in political

researches for the benefit of his country.

Every man is eligible, by the constitution, to be chosen to this office;

but if a competent support is not allowed, the choice will be confined

to opulent characters. This is an aristocratic idea, and contravenes the

spirit of the constitution.

Mr. SENEY.--This, sir, is a subject of a delicate nature, and the

discussion of it rather disagreeable; but I think it my duty to declare

my sentiments freely upon it. No argument has been adduced to convince

me that the Vice President ought to receive an allowance any more than

the other members of the Legislature. He cannot be compelled to perform

any duty. This is an important subject, and ought to be maturely

considered, as a great deal depends on the decision which will now take

place.

Mr. BURKE observed that the situation of our finances was so much

embarrassed, as to dis-empower us from giving such ample salaries as we

might, under different circumstances, think necessary; that it was but

reasonable the Vice President should receive a compensation adequate to

the second officer in the Government. He will be subject to extra

expenses by living at the seat of Government, and will be obliged to

maintain his dignity. Mr. B. further suggested that the sum might not be

fully sufficient, but in our present situation, it was as much as we

could afford.

Mr. AMES, in his reply to Mr. SENEY'S observations, pointed out the

difference of the situation of the Vice President and the members of the

Legislature.

Mr. SEDGWICK made some additional remarks of a similar nature, and

further observed, it would be necessary that the members of the House

should return and associate with their constituents, in order to learn

their sentiments and their feelings, and witness their situation and

wants, that they may consequently resume their former occupations: but

with respect to the Vice President, his acceptance must be considered as

an abandonment of every other pursuit; he must reside at the seat of

Government, and will necessarily incur extra expenses in consequence of

his office.

Mr. STONE.--I am for giving such salaries to the officers of this

Government, as will render them easy in their situation. But we are

confined by the constitution; salaries are to be given for services

performed; they are considered in no other light. The Vice President

cannot be viewed in any other light than that of the President of the

Senate. I am for his being paid per diem, but would allow him a

generous support. I do not think five thousand dollars are sufficient; I

would allow him a larger sum, which allowance, per diem, would amount to

what would be fully adequate.

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, said, that by the constitution the Vice

President could not be considered as a Senator, and therefore could not,

with any propriety, be paid as such. Considering him as an officer in

the Government, next in dignity to the President, and particularly

designated by the constitution, he must support a correspondent dignity

in his style of living, and consequently ought to have a competent

allowance for that purpose. He did not think five thousand dollars would

be considered too much, and would vote for that sum. The idea of a daily

allowance must be given up, as inapplicable to the situation assigned

him by the constitution. He is there recognized as Vice President, and

as such ought to be provided for. A daily pay of twenty-five or thirty

dollars would appear a large compensation; yet if Congress sat but one

hundred days, which, in all probability, would be the length of their

future sessions, it would be insufficient for his support. But suppose

it one hundred and fifty days; this, at thirty dollars per day, would

come so near the proposed salary, that the saving would be an

inconsiderable trifle; but if the session was longer, it might amount to

more than is contemplated by any gentleman.

Mr. PAGE was clearly for making the allowance by annual salary, because

the office was permanent; a daily allowance could not be relied upon,

because if the Senate sat but a few days, it would be incompetent, even

at one hundred dollars per day; whereas, if the session was of long

continuance, that sum would be more than the services could require, if

they are to hold a comparison with those of the President. If the House

agreed to strike out the five thousand dollars he would propose eight

thousand, which was not one third of what was given to the President.

Mr. BOUDINOT.--The question seems to turn merely on this point, whether

the Vice President shall receive a per diem allowance, or an annual

salary? The constitution ought to serve as the ground on which to

determine it; therefore we are to consider the point of view in which

this office is placed by that instrument. The second article calls him

into view with the President; he is to be elected in the same manner as

the President, in order to obtain the second best character in the Union

to fill the place of the first, in case it should be vacated by any

unforeseen accident. The constitution considers him a respectable

officer; he is to supersede the President, when it shall happen that the

First Magistrate dies or is removed on impeachment and conviction. These

are the great objects of his appointment. His duty as President of the

Senate is only collateral; consequently he ought to be respected, and

provided for according to the dignity and importance of his principal

character. If still inferior duties were attached to him, would it be an

argument for reducing the compensation to an equality with what ought to

be granted, if he performed such inferior duties only? I apprehend it is

a principle of this nature which urges gentlemen on to press the

amendment. I cannot see any reason for differing with the constitution

on a point in which I think it ought to guide our decision.

I think there is an affinity between the duration of the office and the

compensation. The constitution establishes the office for four years;

the compensation ought to be made commensurate with that idea.

The question on Mr. WHITE'S motion was taken and lost, as was Mr. PAGE'S

motion for striking out 5,000 and inserting 8,000 dollars.

The proposition being then agreed to,

The House proceeded to consider the following: That the daily pay of the

members of the Senate, and House of Representatives, for their

attendance at the time appointed for the meeting of their respective

Houses, and for the time they shall be going to, and returning

therefrom, allowing the travel of twenty miles for each day, be six

dollars, and of the Speaker of the House of Representatives twelve

dollars.

Mr. SEDGWICK moved to amend this proposition, so as to give to the

members of the Senate six dollars per day, and five to the members of

the House of Representatives. His reason for introducing this

distinction was, that the convention had made it in the constitution.

The Senators are required to be of an advanced age, and are elected for

six years. Now this term taken out of the life of a man, passed the

middle stage, may be fairly deemed equal to a whole life; for it was to

be expected, that few, if any, of the Senators could return to their

former occupations when the period for retirement arrived; indeed after

six years spent in other pursuits, it may be questioned whether a man

would be qualified to return with any prospect of success.

He did not say six dollars was more than a compensation for their

services and expenses; but as economy ought to be particularly studied

by the Legislature, he had moved to reduce it. He hoped gentlemen would

pay some deference to the public opinion, on the present occasion; this

he thought to be in favor of small salaries. Not but a different

sentiment might prevail in some of the States; perhaps different

circumstances might warrant the difference of opinion. It was probable

that five dollars laid out in that part of the Union from which he came,

would be more advantageous to the person, than a like sum laid out at

the other extremity of the continent; but he believed, nevertheless,

that something would be left to those gentlemen out of the five dollars

per day, after their expenses were paid; but even if a little

self-denial was the consequence of this reduction, it would do but

little harm; whereas the precedent might have a salutary influence upon

the future administration of the Government.

Mr. JACKSON.--I am opposed to this discrimination, because all have

alike abandoned their particular pursuits in life, and all have equally

engaged in the service of their common country. On what principle can

this distinction then be contended for? Is it expected that a Senator

shall eat more, or drink more costly liquors, than a member of the House

of Representatives? I presume it is not; their expenses must be nearly

equal. I can see but one reason that can be assigned for this

difference, which is, that the Senate may sit longer than the House; but

considering they are to receive pay accordingly, this reason is of no

weight. The duties of both Houses are equal, and the pay ought to be

alike.

I will submit to the gentleman who brought this motion forward, whether

it is not much worse to the personal interest of men in business to be

taken off in the prime of life, than after the successful pursuit of

some profession at an advanced age, when the natural and proper time of

retirement arrives; and if so, his argument falls to the ground. But if

the reverse is true, it will not support his motion, because, if we look

around, our senses will inform us that this House contains as venerable

and aged members as any within the walls of the Senate; thus again we

are upon a footing. Now, unless gentlemen mean that we should depress

ourselves, and thereby set the Senate above us, I cannot conceive what

foundation there will be for a discrimination.

Mr. LEE.--I am in favor of the motion for discriminating between the

Senate and this House, because the constitution has done it in a variety

of modes. The qualifications are superior; a Senator must be a man

advanced in life, and have been nine years a citizen of the United

States; while a younger man who has been but seven years a citizen, may

obtain a seat in this House.

The constitution has made a difference in the mode of election. The

Senators are selected with peculiar care; they are the purified choice

of the people, and the best men are likely to be preferred by such a

choice; those who have shown the fullest proofs of their attachment to

the public interest, and evinced to their countrymen their superior

abilities. In order to bring forth such characters to partake of our

public councils, I think every motive of honor and of interest ought to

be called into action. If men are not brought forth who will maintain

their own dignity, and promote the public interest by a firm and

independent conduct, regardless of every risk, regardless of the voice

of calumny or popular clamor, our Government will soon lose its

importance and its energy. I contemplate, Mr. Speaker, the Senate as a

barrier between the Executive and this branch of the Legislature,

shielding the people from any apprehension of being attacked by an

aspiring Magistracy on the one hand, and on the other from being

desolated by the anarchy often generated by a time-servingness to

veering popularity. We shall gain these desirable objects at a trifling

price, if we make a distinction of two or three dollars per day--a

trifling allowance indeed to our most worthy sages. But, said the

gentleman last up, there are as young men in the Senate as in this

House; although there be, the time will come when none but the most

venerable and respectable of our citizens, men whose hoary heads are

silvered over with the honors of an experienced old age, men illustrious

by their virtues and capacity, will have the public confidence ensured

to them by the purity and notoriety of their principles.

Now is the time to deliberate and view every future circumstance which

may arise from our decision; the importance of this principle hereafter,

is infinitely above every advantage which the present members may derive

from it. By it alone you may secure dignity and permanency to the

Government, and happiness under its administration.

It is with difficulty, Mr. Speaker, that you can draw forth men of age

and much experience to participate in the political concerns of their

country. Retirement and reflection are incident to that period of life;

they are sought for, and, when obtained, they are highly prized. The

wise and virtuous sage, who from the monitions of nature has discovered

that his remaining years will be but few, must be incited by every

motive that can operate on the human heart to continue those labors

which he seeks to bury the remembrance of in the deeps of solitude.

Honor may stimulate the ingenuous mind; but interest is a great reason

of action, and may be usefully employed to influence old age.

What I have now urged is in favor of the constitutional distinction; I

approve of the amendment, but I wish the sum had been left out, that the

provision might be determined according to the sense of the House, and

not affect the principal question of discrimination. I am satisfied,

sir, that there is no heart within these walls but beats with patriotic

ardor, and has determined to pursue the noblest object, the public good.

Nothing but the anxiety I feel for this, as connected with the present

question, could have induced me to trouble the House with a repetition

of what was dilated upon, on a former occasion. Let it then be

considered, that on our decision depend the dignity of the Legislature,

and the perpetuity of that Government, the glory and the hopes of the

people of America, which, if now disappointed, must be succeeded by

confusion and gloomy despair.

Mr. WHITE.--I object, sir, to a discrimination. I cannot perceive that

difference in the constitution alluded to by the gentlemen. Among the

Senators and the people in some of the ancient commonwealths, an

artificial and political distinction was established, which was the case

at Rome, in particular. There the Senators were considered as possessing

some degree of divinity, and the rest of the people were not admitted to

associate with them. Can it be supposed that the name of Senators will

render those members superior to their fellow-citizens? I cannot see any

difference in the general estimation between a Senator and a

Representative, however great their sentiments may vary in their

respective States; and cannot conceive why any discrimination should be

made in their allowances.

The independence of the members of this House may be injured by such a

distinction; and the Senate, at some future day, may have it in their

power to carry points, and be enabled to prolong the session, when it

may be of great inconvenience to the House.

Mr. MADISON was of opinion that a discrimination was necessary; he

observed, that it had been evidently contemplated by the constitution,

to distinguish in favor of the Senate, that men of abilities and firm

principles, whom the love and custom of a retired life might render

averse to the fatigues of a public one, may be induced to devote the

experience of years, and the acquisitions of study, to the service of

their country. And unless something of this kind is adopted, it may be

difficult to obtain proper characters to fill the Senate, as men of

enterprise and genius will naturally prefer a seat in the House,

considering it to be a more conspicuous situation.

Mr. MOORE did not see the propriety of the discrimination proposed; the

business of each House is equal, or if there is a difference in their

legislative concerns, it is in favor of the House. He had no idea of

giving the public money for such an idle purpose as the support of a

fanciful dignity and superiority. His idea of the business was, each

member ought to be compensated for his services, and nothing further.

Mr. VINING.--The arguments brought forward by my honorable friend from

Virginia, (Mr. LEE,) have not proved satisfactory to my mind, that his

favorite opinion with respect to discrimination is right. He has told us

that the sages of America will be selected, and placed in this

distinguished situation. True, sir, I expect venerable and respectable

characters will find their way into every branch of the Government; but

when I consider the mode in which the Senate is elected, I apprehend we

may have there men whose wealth has created them the influence necessary

to get in. If any thing is to be expected by this refined choice, it is

that men of rank and opulence will draw the regard of the small and

select circle of a State Legislature; while the Representatives in this

House, being the choice of their fellow-citizens, among whom rank and

dignity are rather unpopular, will consist of men in middling

circumstances. Now if any thing is to be drawn from arguments like

these, it is in favor of this House. But the whole of this is a subject

on which we are better able to decide from our feelings, than from our

discussions.

I am against the motion for another reason, sir; it goes to reduce the

compensation, which I think is already set too low, to furnish good

security for the happy administration of the Government. In considering

this subject, there are two important objects necessary to engage the

attention of the Legislature. First, that the compensation be not made

an object for indigence to pursue; and second, that it be not so low as

to throw the business of legislation into the hands of rich and aspiring

nabobs, but such as to compensate a man in the middle grade of life.

These are generally men of business, who are fittest to conduct the

concerns of their fellow-citizens. Now, in compensating this class of

men, (for I would have the compensation proportioned to this class,) I

do not take into consideration the sacrifices they make, by dedicating

their time and abilities to the service of their country; but I confine

myself merely to a compensation for their time and services. If the

compensation is made an object for indigence, we shall have the sessions

protracted to an extreme length, and the expense will be increased; if

we make the reward barely commensurate with the services, you will have

men of abilities, who will despatch the public business, and return to

their private pursuits. If the business is done without pay, it may be

productive of the most enormous evils. Were every member of the British

House of Commons allowed a thousand guineas a year, they would be less

venal; we should not find them purchasing their seats, and selling their

votes, for places and pensions. The very money given in this way would

furnish a handsome compensation for every member, and add something

considerable, annually, to their sinking fund.

I apprehend, in establishing a compensation, we shall put it in the

power of gentlemen, while here, to live as independent as they can at

home. Perhaps I hazard a conjecture, when I say there is not a gentleman

on this floor, I am certain there are not many, but have found, from

experience, that six dollars per day is adequate to that object;

certainly it cannot be the wish of any man to make the public service

unpleasant, by rendering the situation of the members of Congress less

eligible than a solitary retirement from patriotic pursuits would be.

Any man who lives decently, will find six dollars a day not more than

sufficient to defray the expense of a casual residence in a splendid

city.

The experiment has been made. If a gentleman keeps a servant and his

horses, and means to reciprocate the civilities he receives, I again

assert the compensation is inadequate. It is true, we may live for two

dollars a day; but how? There is a dignity attached to the situation of

a Representative, with respect to his country; and the compensation

might be seven or eight dollars per day, without granting the members

more than a bare compensation. From all these considerations, I am

induced to hope that gentlemen will indulge a little, and rather support

an increase, than a diminution of pay.

As to the discrimination, it has been once decided against by a

considerable majority; I have no doubt but it will now meet a similar

fate; but be the decision of the House what it may, with respect to the

quantum, or manner of compensation, I shall never fear to deliver my

sentiments. On the present occasion, I wish them known to my

constituents, and I am much mistaken if they are not coincident with

their own.

Mr. SENEY.--I am sorry, sir, that the question of discrimination has

been brought before the House. Can any reason be assigned for making

this distinction? Are the services of the Senate of more importance than

those of the Representatives? I think not. Gentlemen have brought

forward the constitution upon this occasion, but I conceive it to be

opposite to the very principle they mean to advocate. This will destroy

the independence of the several branches, which is to be strictly

observed. If a discrimination should be established in favor of the

Senate, will it not naturally tend to create a sense of inferiority in

the minds of the Representatives? And the time may come when they may

find it their interest to become subservient to the views of the Senate.

I feel so sensibly, sir, the impropriety and unconstitutionality of this

measure, that had I the most distant idea it would comport with the

sentiments of a majority of the members of this House, I should call for

the yeas and nays on a division of the House upon the question. But as I

do not conceive that to be the case, I shall waive the proposition for

the present.

Mr. SEDGWICK said, that whenever he had a motion to make before the

House, he endeavored to satisfy himself of the reasonableness and

propriety of it. If he thought it proper, he did not consider the mode

of decision that might be adopted of any material consequence; but in

determining the present question, he hoped the yeas and nays would not

be called. There is a principle in mankind which revolts at the idea of

inferiority; a proposition, for example, shall be made, that has for its

object the establishment of a superiority (howsoever necessary;) that

principle is alarmed and excited to opposition; to discuss such a

question as the present, we ought to be divested of every partiality and

prejudice, that might bias our judgment in deciding an affair that will

not bear the test of reason and experience. I conceive the precedence of

the Senate has been clearly pointed out by the Constitution. There are

grades in society which are necessary to their very existence. This is a

self-evident proposition; it is recognized by every civilized nation,

and by the House in the report before us. For what reason have we made a

difference between the President and Vice President? Is it not on

account of his superior station and his dignity? And between the Vice

President and the Senate? This distinction is likewise established by

the constitution in the difference of the terms for which the members of

the Senate and those of the House of Representatives are chosen. The

time for which the Senate is chosen, demonstrates the propriety of a

difference being made in the pay they ought to receive; the duties of

their office require they should renounce every other avocation; their

attention will be wholly taken up in the discharge of public business;

therefore they should have an adequate and an independent allowance. The

generality of the members being so far advanced in years, will drop

every idea of engaging any more in their several professions, after

having once engaged in the service of their country. Their age, wisdom,

and experience, all warrant this discrimination. He concluded by saying,

that the real dignity of the House was, he thought, so far from being

diminished by adopting the proposition, that he conceived it was

essentially connected with it.

Mr. STONE thought the House ought not to assist in elevating one branch

of the Government more above the other than the constitution had done.

This had given influence to the Senate by a negative in the cases of

treaties and appointments. It had given importance to the House, by

vesting them with the sole power of originating money bills. But both

these powers could be exercised without a discrimination being made in

the pay of the members; therefore he inferred that it was not

contemplated by the constitution to make any such distinction.

A discrimination may eventually operate to the public injury; the House

of Representatives may be desirous of terminating the session, but the

Senate, finding the compensation they receive quite agreeable, may be

inclined to protract it. He thought the true way of deciding on this

subject, was to make the same allowance to both, and let it be such as

not to induce them to protract the session on the one hand, or have a

tendency to hurry over the business on the other.

Mr. JACKSON said, in reply to the inquiry of Mr. SEDGWICK--"Why have we

made a difference between the President and the Vice President?" that

the whole of the President's time would be taken up in the duties of his

station; that the Vice President might retire to his farm whenever he

thought proper. We refer, said he, to the wisdom of the Senate; but how

is this superior wisdom to be discerned? If on this account a

distinction is to be made, it necessarily follows that a difference

should be made between the members of this House, and those of the

Senate. We cannot be too cautious how we establish an undue

pre-eminence, and give an influence and importance to one branch of the

Legislature over the other. All governments incline to despotism, as

naturally as rivers run into the sea. Despotism makes its way gradually,

by slow and imperceptible steps; despotic power is never established all

at once; we shall, ere we are aware, get beyond the gulf, and then we

shall be astonished how we reached there. The services of the Senate are

not more arduous than ours; their proper business is legislation, and I

will never consent to any discrimination. If I imagined the question

would be determined in favor of discrimination, I would call the yeas

and nays, and should it be determined in favor of it, I will still call

them on purpose that my constituents may see that I have voted against a

measure which I look upon as injurious to the Government.

Mr. PAGE.--If he thought the discrimination proposed would have the

tendency which some gentlemen apprehended, he would be the last man on

the floor to support it. He would be as careful as any man how he

extended the influence of any part of the Government, or gave it the

least inclination towards aristocracy. But he apprehended gentlemen were

deceived in their principle--he did not believe the doctrine that money

confers importance, and he wished to evince to the world, that money,

under this Government would have no such effect. The Senate having more

duties to perform, may require a larger pecuniary gratification; but

this will not add to their importance. It will require something of this

kind to stimulate gentlemen to undertake the service; for his part, he

might consent to come here for two years, in order to assist in public

business, but no inducement, hardly, could engage him to undertake it

for six years. On this consideration, he thought the Senate ought to

have annual salaries, and to such an amount as would render their

situation independent and eligible.

If gentlemen are afraid of an aristocracy, they ought to be careful not

to make the compensation too low, so as to exclude men of middling

fortunes; the men of rank and distinguished opulence might serve without

any pecuniary compensation; but the Government would not be safe, if it

was exclusively in such hands. He wished to discriminate in favor of the

Senate, but he would rather increase their pay to eight dollars, than

reduce that of the members of this House, while he considered it but a

moderate compensation.

The question on Mr. SEDGWICK'S motion was taken, and lost by a

considerable majority.

The House having now gone through the report, it was _Ordered_, that a

bill or bills be brought in, pursuant thereto, and that Messrs. BURKE,

STONE, and MOORE, be a committee to prepare and bring in the same: with

instructions to insert a clause or clauses, making provision for a

reasonable compensation to the Secretary of the Senate, and Clerk of the

House of Representatives, respectively, for their services.

After which the House adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, July 22.

_Western Lands._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on

the state of the Union, Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair; and, after some time

spent therein, the committee rose and reported that they had had the

state of the Union under consideration, and come to a resolution

thereupon, which was read and then delivered in at the clerk's table,

where the same was twice read, and agreed to by the House, as follows:

_Resolved_, That an act of Congress ought to pass for

establishing a Land Office, and for regulating the terms

and manner of granting vacant and unappropriated lands, the

property of the United States; that the said office be

under the superintendence of the Governor of the Western

Territory; that the land to be disposed of be confined to

the following limits, viz:

That the tracts or parcels to be disposed of to any one

person, shall not exceed ---- acres; that the price to be

required for the same shall be ---- per acre; and that

every person actually settled within the said limits shall

be entitled to the pre-emption of a quantity not exceeding

---- acres, including his settlement.

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the said

resolution, and that Mr. SCOTT, Mr. SYLVESTER, and Mr. MOORE, do prepare

and bring in the same.

THURSDAY, July 23.

_Home Department._

On motion of Mr. VINING, the House resolved itself into a Committee of

the Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair.

Mr. VINING introduced a resolution for the adoption of the committee, by

which it is declared: That an Executive department ought to be

established, and to be denominated the Home Department; the head of

which to be called the Secretary of the United States for the Home

Department; whose duty it shall be to correspond with the several

States, and to see to the execution of the laws of the Union; to keep

the great seal, and affix the same to all public papers when necessary;

to keep the lesser seal, and to affix it to commissions, &c.; to make

out commissions, and enregister the same; to keep authentic copies of

all public acts, &c., and transmit the same to the several States; to

procure the acts of the several States, and report on the same when

contrary to the laws of the United States; to take into his custody the

archives of the late Congress; to report to the President plans for the

protection and improvement of manufactures, agriculture, and commerce;

to obtain a geographical account of the several States, their rivers,

towns, roads, &c.; to report what post-roads shall be established; to

receive and record the census; to receive reports respecting the Western

Territory; to receive the models and specimens presented by inventors

and authors; to enter all books for which patents are granted; to issue

patents, &c.; and, in general, to do and attend to all such matters and

things as he may be directed to do by the President.

Mr. BENSON objected to some of the duties mentioned in the resolution.

He thought the less the Government corresponded with particular States

the better, and there could be no necessity for an officer to see to

the execution of the laws of the United States, when there was a

Judiciary instituted with adequate powers.

Mr. WHITE was not convinced that there was a necessity for establishing

a separate department for all or any of the duties contained in the

resolution. The correspondence with the States belonged to the

Executive. To see to the execution of the laws was the duty of the

Judiciary. The great seal might be kept by the Secretary of Foreign

Affairs; the lesser seal might be deposited in the same hands.

Commissions might be made out by the departments to which the officer is

connected. The Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House might

transmit the public acts, and keep records thereof. What have Congress

to do with the acts of States? If they interfere with the constitutional

powers of the Government, the Judges will prevent their operation. The

papers of the late Congress may be distributed among the officers to

which they relate; the rest may be deposited with the officers of

Congress. The want of the reports on manufactures, agriculture, and

commerce, may be supplied by Congress. The post-roads may be left to the

Postmaster General. The census must be returned to Congress, and they

will preserve it among their files. And it can hardly be thought

necessary to establish a great department for the purpose of receiving

the models, specimens, and books presented by authors and inventors. If

none of these things are requisite to be done by a great department, why

should the United States incur the expense which such an arrangement

must necessarily draw along with it.

Mr. HUNTINGTON thought the Secretary of Foreign Affairs was not so much

overcharged with business but that he might attend to the major part of

the duties mentioned in the resolution.

Mr. VINING said, he had waited until the great Executive departments

were established; but none of those had embraced the duties contained in

his proposition, which he conceived to be of great importance; many of

the duties were as essential as those of any other department, except

the Treasury. As for their belonging to the Executive, as was said by

the gentleman from Virginia, he admitted it; but they were,

nevertheless, as proper to be put into the hands of a principal officer

under the President, as the War office, or office of Foreign Affairs;

the duties of these were especially within the Executive department of

the Government. He conceived that the President ought to be relieved

from the inferior duties of his station, by officers assigned to attend

to them under his inspection; he could then, with a mind free and

unembarrassed with the minutiæ of business, attend to the operations of

the whole machine.

If the office was admitted to be necessary, and he was certain the

performance of the duties were useful and essential, the expense could

be no solid objection, because the information it would furnish would

more than counterbalance that article.

The question he conceived to be reduced to this, whether a confidential

officer would not be more useful than any other, and whether the duties

could be distributed among the officers already instituted. For his

part, he conceived most of them foreign to either of those officers; and

that they could not be performed with advantage any other way than by an

officer appointed specially for the purpose. He thought every gentleman

would admit that the duties were important, and he assured them that his

only reason for bringing the motion forward was, to provide for the

public good. He had no personal motives in pressing it; he disclaimed

every idea of serving any particular man by the arrangement, and rested

it solely upon its merits.

Mr. SEDGWICK believed the honorable gentleman in his assertions, that he

had no personal motive in pressing this business. He believed that he

thought it essential, and if his sentiments were the same, he would join

the gentleman in supporting the motion; but after duly considering the

subject, he was inclined to believe that the office was unnecessary, and

that it would be squandering the public money, at a time when the

greatest economy is requisite. He thought the principal part of the

duties might be assigned to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs; and he

would, if the committee negatived the present motion, introduce another

for that purpose.

Mr. GERRY thought the burthens of the people would be sufficiently great

in providing the supplies absolutely necessary for the support of the

Government; therefore it would be improper to add expenses which might

possibly be avoided. The people are viewing the proceedings of Congress

with an attentive solicitude, and if they observe that we erect offices

for which there is no apparent necessity, they will be apt to think we

are providing sinecures for men whom we favor; they will reluctantly pay

what is extracted from their earnings to a Government which they think

is regardless of economy. They will suspect a further view in the change

of Government. They will suppose that we contemplate the establishment

of a monarchy, by raising round the Executive a phalanx of such men as

must be inclined to favor those of whom they hold their places.

Mr. VINING.--Why do gentlemen say that such an office is unnecessary,

when they are forced to admit that all the duties are essential? Or how

can they say it is more expensive to establish it in this way than in

another? Suppose these duties distributed in the manner which some

gentlemen have mentioned, is it not fairly to be presumed that the

departments to which any of them are attached, will require an extra pay

for these extra services? If so, will there be any economy in this mode

of procedure? All that is to be wished for, is to have a confidential

person employed, let his salary be what you please: if it is not worth

fifteen hundred dollars per annum, let it be five hundred. But it would

be better to have a principal to manage the business than to have it

consigned to clerks in the other departments.

Mr. LAWRENCE said that something was necessary to be done with respect

to the business brought forward by the honorable gentleman from

Delaware. He conceived that an officer of the rolls, or some inferior

officer, ought to be appointed to transact the business detailed in the

resolution; he did not insist upon making a great department.

Mr. SEDGWICK agreed with the gentleman from New York; but, he thought,

the business might be thrown into some other department, and save to the

Union the expense of the one which the gentleman from Delaware wished to

establish, by the name of the Home Department. He thought the resolution

proposed altogether so improper, that he hoped the committee would rise.

A desultory conversation arose, whether the committee should decide upon

the resolution or not; after which a question was taken on the rising of

the committee, and decided in the negative.

Then the question was put on the first part of Mr. VINING'S proposition,

viz: "That an Executive Department ought to be established, to be

denominated the Home Department;" and lost by a considerable majority.

FRIDAY, July 24.

_Committee of Ways and Means._

Mr. FITZSIMONS.--The finances of America have frequently been mentioned

in this House as being very inadequate to the demands. I have ever been

of a different opinion, and do believe that the funds of this country,

if properly drawn into operation, will be equal to every claim. The

estimate of supplies necessary for the current year appears very great

from a report on your table, and which report has found its way into the

public newspapers. I said on a former occasion, and I repeat it now,

notwithstanding what is set forth in the estimate, that a revenue of

three millions of dollars in specie, will enable us to provide every

supply necessary to support the Government, and pay the interest and

instalments on the foreign and domestic debt. If we wish to have more

particular information on these points, we ought to appoint a Committee

of Ways and Means, to whom, among other things, the estimate of supplies

may be referred, and this ought to be done speedily, if we mean to do it

this session.

Mr. GERRY said, the estimate reported by a committee was as accurate as

possible. From this it appeared, that eight millions of dollars would be

necessary for the support of Government, for the interest and

instalments becoming due, and for the arrearages already due. He

remarked, that we had been already dunned on this subject by foreigners,

and that Congress would have to make provision for their payment. If

three millions of dollars were employed to this use, it would only be

carrying the arrearages into another year; but, as they must be paid at

last, he recommended making an immediate exertion as a better way of

giving satisfaction than procrastination would be. He thought it best to

lay the real situation of this country before the House, and not

endeavor to make things appear better than they really are.

With respect to the publication of the estimate in the papers, he knew

nothing about it; he admitted that it was such a one as ought not to be

published by order of Congress. He approved of the idea of appointing a

Committee of Ways and Means, if it were only to ascertain what part of

the interest on the debt should be paid, and what of the principal

extinguished within the current year, from the funds already provided.

FRIDAY, July 31.

Mr. SCOTT, from the committee appointed for the purpose, brought in a

bill for establishing a Land Office for the Western Territory, which was

read and laid on the table.

On motion,

_Resolved_, That a standing committee be appointed to

examine the enrolled bills, and to present the same to the

President for his approbation and signature.

Messrs. WHITE and PARTRIDGE were accordingly appointed.

Mr. WHITE, of the committee appointed to examine into the measures taken

by Congress and the State of Virginia, respecting the lands reserved for

the use of the officers and soldiers of said State, &c., brought in a

report, which was read and laid on the table.

The House then resumed the consideration of the amendments agreed upon

in Committee of the Whole, to the bill for registering and clearing

vessels; which being finished, the bill was ordered to be engrossed for

a third reading on Monday next.

A message from the Senate informed the House that they had passed the

bill for establishing the Treasury Department, with amendments; to which

they desired the concurrence of the House.

Mr. SEDGWICK, from the committee appointed for the purpose, brought in a

bill to provide for the safe keeping of the acts, records, and great

seal of the United States, for the publication, preservation, and

authentication of the acts of Congress, &c.; which was read and laid on

the table.

MONDAY, August 3.

A message from the Senate informed the House that they had passed the

bill for the establishment of light-houses, beacons, and buoys, with

several amendments; to which they desired the concurrence of this House.

The amendments of the Senate were immediately considered and agreed to.

The engrossed bill for regulating the coasting trade was read a third

time; and, on motion, recommitted to a Committee of the Whole, to be

taken up to-morrow.

The bill for establishing a Land Office for the Western Territory was

read a second time, and made the order of the day for Thursday.

The bill to provide for the safe keeping of the acts, records, great

seal, &c., was read, and made the order of the day for Friday.

The report of the committee on amendments to the constitution was, on

motion of Mr. MADISON, made the order of the day for Wednesday sennight.

Mr. BENSON made a motion as follows:

_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to join with a

committee of the Senate to be appointed for the purpose, to

consider of and report when it will be convenient and

proper that an adjournment of the present session of

Congress should take place; and to consider and report such

business now before Congress, necessary to be finished

before the adjournment, and such as may be conveniently

postponed to the next session; and also to consider and

report such matters not now before Congress, but which it

will be necessary should be considered and determined by

Congress before an adjournment.

TUESDAY, August 4.

_Compensation of Members._

Mr. BURKE, from the committee appointed for the purpose, brought in a

bill for allowing a compensation to the members of both Houses, and to

their respective officers; this bill provides that the compensation

shall be as follows, viz:

To each member of the Senate and House, six dollars per day.

The Speaker of the House, twelve dollars per day.

To the Secretary of the Senate, and Clerk of the House, each fifteen

hundred dollars a year, and two dollars a day each during the session of

the Legislature; one principal clerk to each, at three dollars a day

during the session; one engrossing clerk to each, at two dollars a day

during the session.

Serjeant-at-arms, three dollars a day during the session.

Doorkeeper to the House and Senate, each seven hundred and thirty

dollars a year.

Assistant doorkeepers, during the session, one dollar and fifty cents a

day each. This bill was laid on the table.

WEDNESDAY, August 5.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the

bill for allowing compensation to the members of the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States, and to the officers of both

Houses, Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair.

Mr. GOODHUE moved to strike out six dollars, as the pay of each member

per diem.

Mr. CARROLL inquired, if it was not out of order for the committee to

alter principles, after they had been settled by the House.

Mr. PAGE wanted to know whether the gentleman meant to increase or

diminish the sum, for he presumed it was not intended to be left a blank

altogether; but he hoped the House would do neither. It had been

settled, after mature deliberation, at six dollars; the House certainly

thought that sum enough, and if it was more, that it would be too much;

he was satisfied with this determination, and would adhere to it.

Perhaps the gentleman meant to strike out the six dollars, in order to

make a discrimination between the members of this House and the Senate;

if so, he had better move to increase the compensation of the Senators,

and here he would second him, because he thought their services required

more.

He would once more mention his fears relative to a small sum. He dreaded

the abuse of economy, and was suspicious that a parsimonious provision

would throw the Government into the hands of bad men, by which the

people might lose every thing they now held dear. He thought few would

serve for a smaller sum than he would, and he was confident the

allowance was as moderate as any man could expect. Gentlemen who come a

great distance are put to considerable expense, and their domestic

arrangements destroyed: instead of laying up money by their attendance

here, it was almost certain they would spend part of their private

estates.

If it is meant that the republic should be provided with good and

wholesome laws, a proper provision should be made to bring into the

councils of the Union such men as are qualified to secure them well; it

is not to be expected that the spirit of patriotism will lead a man into

the perpetual habit of making such exertions and sacrifices as are too

often necessary in the hour of danger. No man ought to be called into

the services of his country, and receive less than will defray the

expenses he incurs by performing his duty. If he does, the public

affairs, in the time of tranquillity, will get exclusively into the

hands of nabobs and aspiring men, who will lay the foundation of

aristocracy, and reduce their equals to the capacity of menial servants

or slaves.

Mr. SEDGWICK seconded the motion for striking out. He had endeavored to

view this subject impartially, uninfluenced by any local considerations

or circumstances; and under these impressions, he was led to believe,

from all the information he had received, whether from abroad, or from

an examination in his own mind, of the effects it would produce, that it

would be expedient to establish the compensation at a lower sum. He

really did not see any solid ground for the apprehensions which his

worthy friend from Virginia (Mr. PAGE) had discovered. He had heard it

often said, that if salaries and allowances to public officers were

small, you would not be able to command the services of good men; but it

was contradicted by the fact. He would instance the late appointments,

and ask gentlemen whether they conceived better men could have been

procured, if the compensation had been doubled? If it was fair to

reason by experience and analogy, he should conclude there would be no

difficulty in procuring good and respectable men, to serve in this

House, at a less rate than six dollars per day. He had never yet

observed that men of small property shrunk from the expense of serving

in the councils of their country.

He thought the practice of the States was opposed to so high a

compensation; many of the State Legislatures allowed their members a

dollar and ten shillings a day, and yet they were served by good men.

He had been informed that it was thought by men of sense and

intelligence, that although six dollars might not be too great an

allowance for the services of the members of this House, yet,

considering the present circumstances of the people, it would be good

policy to reduce the same. He inclined to this opinion himself.

Impressed with these ideas, and knowing that it was generally the

opinion of the people, that six dollars was more than a moderate

compensation to the members of this House, he should support the motion

for striking out with a view to reduce the sum.

Mr. VINING said, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. CARROLL) had taken the

subject up in a proper point of view, by inquiring into the point of

order. He begged gentlemen to consider the manner in which the subject

had been discussed already--twice in the House, and twice in committee;

every decision had been the same; why should the point so often

determined be again agitated? It is contrary to all parliamentary

proceeding, and the House will never know when principles are settled.

He was certain that six dollars was but a moderate compensation, if a

member is to reside at the metropolis of the United States. He would

admit that they could live for less, in some more central part of the

country; but the gentlemen from the eastward should recollect that a

small allowance would be an argument for removing Congress from this

city, and when that time arrived, he should consent to a lower sum, but

not till then.

Mr. FITZSIMONS did not expect to hear the subject discussed again; he

thought it unnecessary, because he believed every gentleman would decide

more upon his own feelings than upon the arguments that could be

adduced; he would, however, just remind the committee, that six dollars

was about the average of what the members from the several States had

under the late confederation.

Mr. SEDGWICK.--According to the observation made by the gentleman from

Pennsylvania, it will be deemed insolent to reason on this subject: what

I offered before, I brought forward with candor; but shall we be

precluded from debate, because a subject has been once discussed? Sir,

when I moved, some days ago, to reduce the pay of the members to five

dollars, I was rather indifferent about it; but since then, I have been

so well convinced of the necessity there is for such a measure, that I

cannot decline pressing it once more upon the committee.

Mr. STONE thought the public mind would not be much influenced by the

trifling difference between five and six dollars. They pay greater

regard to the decisions of the House, on more important subjects. The

gentleman from Massachusetts says his correspondents inform him, that

the public mind is agitated on this subject; if we are to judge what is

the state of the public mind from what our friends say, I should be apt

to think the public mind quite unconcerned on the present question; for

among all my correspondents, not one has deigned to notice it.

The question was now taken on striking out, and there appeared sixteen

in favor of it, and thirty-five against it; so the motion passed in the

negative.

Mr. MADISON renewed the motion for making a difference in the pay of the

members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, which was also

lost.

Mr. GOODHUE moved to strike out twelve dollars, the pay assigned the

Speaker, and insert ten.

Mr. PAGE hoped his motion would share the fate of the two last; he was

certain that twelve dollars was not more than a compensation for the

Speaker's services; three times the sum would not induce him to accept

such a situation.

Mr. BURKE was against the motion, because he thought that twelve dollars

was not a reward for the Speaker's labor. The Speaker of the House of

Commons in England has an annual salary of £8000 sterling.

Mr. CARROLL thought the Chair of the House of Representatives was one of

the most important and dignified offices under the Government, and as

such ought to be provided for.

This motion was lost by a great majority.

The committee rose and reported progress.

THURSDAY, August 6.

_Compensation of Members._

The House then again went into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill for

allowing a compensation to the members of Congress; and after some time

spent therein, the committee rose and reported the bill as amended: then

the House proceeded to consider the same.

Mr. THATCHER moved to insert five dollars instead of six, as the pay of

the members.

Mr. PARTRIDGE observed, that money was more valuable now than it had

been some years past; if, therefore, six dollars was the average of what

the delegates received heretofore, five dollars was now equal to that

sum. In short, he was convinced that six dollars was too much, and in

justice to his constituents, and his own conscience, he would vote

against it, and perpetuate his vote by calling the yeas and nays upon

the question.

Mr. GERRY.--I was not present when this subject was last before the

House, therefore I cannot say what was understood on this point; but I

have seen some account of the debate in the papers, from which I am led

to believe, that gentlemen view this matter in a very narrow point of

light. It appears to me a question, in which one's popularity is more

concerned than any thing else. Gentlemen perhaps suppose that by voting

for five instead of six dollars, they will establish such a character

for economy and patriotism as will redound to their honor; but I can

easily conceive, that men of knowledge and sentiment, yes, our

constituents in general, will discover, in a glaring light, the ruinous

consequences of such a measure in a very short period. The difference of

pay, as it now stands in the bill, and what my colleague has moved for,

is one dollar a day, and on this important question the yeas and nays

are to be called. For my part, I shall deliver my sentiments freely; I

am willing to leave the question to the people to decide; I care not

about the pay, and I can assure them I never wish to have a seat in this

House again: but I wish to guard against the subversion of the public

liberty--against the introduction of pensions--against exposing the

Legislature to corruption.

I would have gentlemen consider the principles upon which they are to

pay the President, their Judges and themselves; the constitution says,

the members of this House and the Senate shall receive a compensation

for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the

Treasury of the United States. The President shall receive, at stated

times, a compensation for his services, neither to be increased nor

diminished; the Judges shall, at stated times, receive for their

services a compensation, not to be diminished during their continuance

in office; hence it appears that the provision for the three branches is

to be made on the same principle, namely a compensation for their

services. Now, though it is certainly a little embarrassing that we

should have to estimate the value of our own services, yet we are bound

to do it, and that upon a fixed principle. It has been said, that the

Parliament of Britain receive no pay. This may be the case, but if they

examine back, they will find that pay, of a mark per day, was regularly

established for them. If we consider the difference of the value of

money two or three centuries ago, we shall find this no inconsiderable

allowance. But the policy of the British ministry has been, of late, to

extend the influence of the Crown; the pay of members has dropped into

disuse; but every one knows by what means a majority in Parliament is

obtained and secured. Now, such is the extent of these means, that I

venture to say, two important members of the House of Commons receive

more per annum than the whole compensation given to the members of both

Houses of Congress. I leave it to the world to judge, whether the

people are likely to be better served by men who receive their wages of

the Monarch, and who own themselves the servants of the Crown, or by

those who are immediately paid by and dependent upon themselves. While

Britain had funds enough to support this plan, they did tolerably well;

but when the evil extended itself, and they feared they could no longer

continue it without having recourse to other means, they bethought

themselves of unconstitutional ones; they were desirous of obtaining a

revenue out of this country, and placing upon our establishment men whom

they could not provide for at home. This cause lost them America, and

this cause will lose them every dependency, where they attempt to play

the like game.

From this view, the importance of an independent Legislature may be

seen. Will gentlemen then say, that to gratify a thoughtless regard for

economy, they will risk the most invaluable part of the Government? If

gentlemen say it is justice to their constituents, I am willing to

appeal to their tribunal; let them know the reason upon which we act,

and I will abide by their determination; but I am against being

influenced by an apprehension that the people will disapprove our

conduct. I am not afraid of being left out, even if it were thought a

disgrace to be left out. I would risk that disgrace rather than agree to

an establishment which I am convinced would end in the ruin of the

liberties of my fellow-citizens. It would give my heart more

satisfaction to fall the victim of popular resentment, than to establish

my popularity at the expense of their dearest interest.

As I mentioned before, the principle upon which we fix our own pay must

go through the other branches of the Government. Your President ought to

be retrenched to 16 or 18,000 dollars; your judges must be kept poor;

and I leave gentlemen to consider the happy consequences arising from a

dependent and corrupt Judiciary. Your Legislature may be corrupt, and

your Executive aspiring; but a firm, independent Judiciary will stop the

course of devastation, at least it will shield individuals from rapine

and injustice; but remove this security, and tyranny and oppression will

rush forward as a flood, and overwhelm the country.

It has been said, that the proposed compensation bears no proportion to

the pay of the members of the State Legislatures; let me ask, do members

of the State Legislatures forego their business? Do they leave their

State and relinquish their occupations? Does the lawyer neglect his

client? Does the merchant forego his commerce, or the farmer his

agriculture? No, sir, the short period they are in session, and the

opportunity of being in the vicinity affords them of going home, even

during their sitting, enables them to pursue their other avocations,

while performing their duties in the Legislature. But are not gentlemen

who come from the most distant parts of the Union, compelled to

relinquish every thing to attend here? The representation from the

States is so small, that a member can be ill spared at any time; his

absence must give him pain, when even that absence is necessary, but

cannot be often allowed. In short, I would have the allowance such, as

to secure the services of men of abilities in every rank of life; or if

that cannot be obtained, I would have all that part of the bill struck

out, which relates to a compensation for the services of the members of

this House.

Mr. PAGE said, if gentlemen were satisfied that five dollars per day was

enough to compensate them and defray their expenses, because they

resided in a part of the Union where every thing was to be procured so

much cheaper, they might receive that sum and leave the residue in the

Treasury; by this means they would demonstrate their love of economy and

disinterestedness.

Mr. VINING thought gentlemen who were satisfied with four or five

dollars, might move to amend the clause, so as to make it read "not

exceeding six dollars per day," and then they might charge as much less

as they deemed prudent.

Mr. BOUDINOT said, that whatever measures he supported, he did it upon

principle, not from a desire of acquiring popularity; he was satisfied

that six dollars per day was not extravagant compensation, but

considering the situation of the country, and the delicacy of their own

situation, he would vote for five dollars, and he thought it sufficient

to secure men of ability. He asked the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.

GERRY) if he expected the paltry consideration of getting a dollar a day

more, was to induce men of abilities and integrity to come forward and

render their country their services?

He admitted that many gentlemen would find it difficult to bear all

their expenses with five dollars a day; but the compensation could not

be on a principle of discrimination, and therefore the House could not

make particular provision for such gentlemen. Others might think a less

sum sufficient, but no discrimination could here take place; it was

therefore necessary to accommodate, and upon this principle he hoped the

House would agree to five dollars per day; nor would this be any

variation from the principle established by the committee who reported

the bill. They had taken the pay of the delegates to the late Congress,

and struck an average, which was found to be about five dollars and a

half; they had reported six, but from the principles he had before

mentioned, he thought it better to agree to five.

Mr. GERRY.--The gentleman from Jersey, who was last up, says he does not

think six dollars per day more than sufficient; but that he will, from a

principle of delicacy, vote for five. I am as great a friend to delicacy

as any man, but I would not sacrifice essentials to a false delicacy. It

seems, from such sentiments, as if we were afraid to administer a

constitution which we are bound to administer. How are those sentiments

reconcilable to the oath we have taken? The constitution requires that

we shall, by law, compensate the services of the members of both Houses.

It has been said, that money is now more valuable than it was a few

years since. I admit the fact, sir, but four dollars per day was better

under the old plan of Government than six or eight under this, because a

delegate was then engaged for the whole year, but now he is to attend at

intervals. Some members were continued several years successively, and

consequently found it more advantageous. But this mode of reasoning is

fallacious; the question ought to be determined upon its own merits. But

if gentlemen are for sacrificing justice and propriety to delicacy, or

any other motive, let them come forward and agree to what I mentioned

before; let them strike out all that relates to their own compensation;

they are called upon by their own arguments to do this.

Mr. SEDGWICK did not rise to speak to the question, but merely to reply

to some observations that have fallen from the gentlemen who opposed the

present motion, particularly his colleague. The want of candor and

liberality might render gentlemen unpleasant in their situation; but the

consequences arising from such causes, were often still more unpleasant.

His colleague had insinuated, in a pointed manner, that the gentlemen

who were in favor of a reduction, were actuated by motives not only

improper and unworthy of a man of character, but such as appeared base

to his mind. It was said, that those who proposed this reduction, did it

merely to court popularity. Whether the gentleman, his colleague, who

brought forward the motion to-day, sacrificed more at that shrine than

his colleague who had opposed it, he left to those to determine who

noticed their conduct; but he believed they could never be charged with

such meanness. For his own part, if he had sacrificed in this way, as

his conduct had always been consistent with his sentiments, it must have

been known, and his character would long ere this have been blasted in

the manner it would have justly deserved. If he had done it heretofore,

he hoped the stigma would not be affixed upon him, for a conduct founded

upon the solid and substantial reasons he had advanced when the subject

was last before the House.

Mr. BOUDINOT.--The gentleman from Massachusetts makes me say, that six

dollars a day is not too much. I said it was not extravagant, but more

than I thought was proper upon due consideration of the circumstances of

this country. This is still my opinion, and upon it I shall ground my

vote. I believe no gentleman in this House regards his popularity, when

set in competition with his duty; my conduct has ever been open, and I

leave the world to judge from that what are my principles. I shall

therefore take no further notice of what has been said on that subject,

but conclude with wishing, for the honor of the House, and the dignity

of the gentlemen, that all our debates may be conducted with candor and

moderation.

Mr. AMES wished the call for the yeas and nays was withdrawn; because he

thought they lost their usefulness by a too frequent use. He was in

favor of the motion, but he did not wish to have his name entered on the

minutes on that account.

Mr. PARTRIDGE said, it was well known he never courted popularity; he

never sought a seat in this House, or any other public body; but he

insisted upon his right, as a member, to call for the yeas and nays,

when he thought the public interest might be benefited by it; however,

as the bill was not to be finished to-day, he would waive that call.

The question was taken on Mr. GOODHUE'S motion, and passed in the

negative, by a large majority.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed, and the House adjourned.

THURSDAY, August 13.

_Amendments to the Constitution._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.

BOUDINOT in the chair, and took the amendments under consideration. The

first article ran thus: "In the introductory paragraph of the

constitution, before the words 'We the people,' add 'Government being

intended for the benefit of the people, and the rightful establishment

thereof being derived from their authority alone.'"

Mr. SHERMAN.--I believe, Mr. Chairman, this is not the proper mode of

amending the constitution. We ought not to interweave our propositions

into the work itself, because it will be destructive of the whole

fabric. We might as well endeavor to mix brass, iron, and clay, as to

incorporate such heterogeneous articles; the one contradictory to the

other. Its absurdity will be discovered by comparing it with a law.

Would any legislature endeavor to introduce into a former act a

subsequent amendment, and let them stand so connected? When an

alteration is made in an act, it is done by way of supplement; the

latter act always repealing the former in every specified case of

difference.

Besides this, sir, it is questionable whether we have the right to

propose amendments in this way. The constitution is the act of the

people, and ought to remain entire. But the amendments will be the act

of the State Governments. Again, all the authority we possess is derived

from that instrument; if we mean to destroy the whole, and establish a

new constitution, we remove the basis on which we mean to build. For

these reasons, I will move to strike out that paragraph and substitute

another.

The paragraph proposed was to the following effect:

_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States in Congress assembled_, That the following

articles he proposed as amendments to the constitution, and

when ratified by three-fourths of the State Legislatures

shall become valid to all intents and purposes, as part of

the same.

Under this title, the amendments might come in nearly as stated in the

report, only varying the phraseology so as to accommodate them to a

supplementary form.

Mr. MADISON.--Form, sir, is always of less importance than the

substance; but on this occasion, I admit that form is of some

consequence, and it will be well for the House to pursue that which,

upon reflection, shall appear to be the most eligible. Now it appears to

me, that there is a neatness and propriety in incorporating the

amendments into the constitution itself; in that case the system will

remain uniform and entire; it will certainly be more simple, when the

amendments are interwoven into those parts to which they naturally

belong, than it will if they consist of separate and distinct parts. We

shall then be able to determine its meaning without references or

comparison; whereas, if they are supplementary, its meaning can only be

ascertained by a comparison of the two instruments, which will be a very

considerable embarrassment. It will be difficult to ascertain to what

parts of the instrument the amendments particularly refer; they will

create unfavorable comparisons; whereas, if they are placed upon the

footing here proposed, they will stand upon as good foundation as the

original work.

Nor is it so uncommon a thing as gentlemen suppose; systematic men

frequently take up the whole law, and, with its amendments and

alterations, reduce it into one act. I am not, however, very solicitous

about the form, provided the business is but well completed.

Mr. SMITH did not think the amendment proposed by the honorable

gentleman from Connecticut was compatible with the constitution, which

declared, that the amendments recommended by Congress, and ratified by

the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, should be part

of this constitution; in which case it would form one complete system;

but according to the idea of the amendment, the instrument is to have

five or six suits of improvements. Such a mode seems more calculated to

embarrass the people than any thing else, while nothing in his opinion

was a juster cause of complaint than the difficulties of knowing the

law, arising from legislative obscurities that might easily be avoided.

He said, that it had certainly been the custom in several of the State

Governments, to amend their laws by way of supplement. But South

Carolina had been an instance of the contrary practice, in revising the

old code; instead of making acts in addition to acts, which is always

attended with perplexity, she has incorporated them, and brought them

forward as a complete system, repealing the old. This is what he

understood was intended to be done by the committee; the present copy of

the constitution was to be done away, and a new one substituted in its

stead.

Mr. LIVERMORE was clearly of opinion, that whatever amendments were

made to the constitution, they ought to stand separate from the original

instrument. We have no right, said he, to alter a clause, any otherwise

than by a new proposition. We have well-established precedents for such

a mode of procedure in the practice of the British Parliament, and the

State Legislatures throughout America. I do not mean, however, to assert

that there has been no instance of a repeal of the whole law on enacting

another; but this has generally taken place on account of the complexity

of the original, with its supplements. Were we a mere legislative body,

no doubt it might be warrantable in us to pursue a similar method; but

it is questionable whether it is possible for us, consistent with the

oath we have taken, to attempt a repeal of the constitution of the

United States, by making a new one to substitute in its place; the

reason of this is grounded on a very simple consideration. It is by

virtue of the present constitution, I presume, that we attempt to make

another; now, if we proceed to the repeal of this, I cannot see upon

what authority we shall erect another; if we destroy the base, the

superstructure falls of course. At some future day it may be asked upon

what authority we proceeded to raise and appropriate public moneys. We

suppose we do it in virtue of the present constitution; but it may be

doubted whether we have a right to exercise any of its authorities while

it is suspended, as it will certainly be from the time that two-thirds

of both Houses have agreed to submit it to the State Legislatures; so

that, unless we mean to destroy the whole constitution, we ought to be

careful how we attempt to amend it in the way proposed by the committee.

From hence, I presume it will be more prudent to adopt the mode proposed

by the gentleman from Connecticut, than it will be to risk the

destruction of the whole by proposing amendments in the manner

recommended by the committee.

Mr. VINING disliked a supplementary form, and said it was a bad reason

to urge the practice of former ages, when there was a more convenient

method of doing the business at hand. He had seen an act entitled an act

to amend a supplement to an act entitled an act for altering part of an

act entitled an act for certain purposes therein mentioned. If gentlemen

were disposed to run into such jargon in amending and altering the

constitution, he could not help it; but he trusted they would adopt a

plainness and simplicity of style on this and every other occasion,

which should be easily understood. If the mode proposed by the gentleman

from Connecticut was adopted, the system would be distorted, and, like a

careless written letter, have more attached to it in a postscript than

was contained in the original composition.

The constitution being a great and important work, ought all to be

brought into one view, and made as intelligible as possible.

Mr. CLYMER was of opinion with the gentleman from Connecticut, that the

amendments ought not to be incorporated in the body of the work, which

he hoped would remain a monument to justify those who made it; by a

comparison, the world would discover the perfection of the original, and

the superfluity of the amendments. He made this distinction, because he

did not conceive any of the amendments essential, but as they were

solicited by his fellow-citizens, and for that reason they were

acquiesced in by others; he therefore wished the motion for throwing

them into a supplementary form might be carried.

Mr. STONE.--It is not a matter of much consequence, with respect to the

preservation of the original instrument, whether the amendments are

incorporated or made distinct; because the records will always show the

original form in which it stood. But in my opinion, we ought to mark its

progress with truth in every step we take. If the amendments are

incorporated in the body of the work, it will appear, unless we refer to

the archives of Congress, that GEORGE WASHINGTON, and the other worthy

characters who composed the convention, signed an instrument which they

never had in contemplation. The one to which he affixed his signature

purports to be adopted by the unanimous consent of the delegates from

every State there assembled. Now if we incorporate these amendments, we

must undoubtedly go further, and say that the constitution so formed was

defective, and had need of alteration; we therefore purpose to repeal

the old and substitute a new one in its place. From this consideration

alone, I think we ought not to pursue the line of conduct drawn for us

by the committee. This perhaps is not the last amendment the

constitution may receive; we ought therefore to be careful how we set a

precedent which, in dangerous and turbulent times, may unhinge the

whole.

Mr. LIVERMORE.--The mode adopted by the committee might be very proper,

provided Congress had the forming of a constitution in contemplation;

then they, or an individual member, might propose to strike out a clause

and insert another, as is done with respect to article 3, section 2. But

certainly no gentleman acquainted with legislative business would

pretend to alter and amend, in this manner, a law already passed. He was

convinced it could not be done properly in any other way than by the one

proposed by the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. GERRY asked, if the mode could make any possible difference,

provided the sanction was the same; or whether it would operate

differently in any one instance? If it will not, we are disputing about

form, and the question will turn on the expediency. Now one gentleman

tells you, that he is so attached to this instrument, that he is

unwilling to lose any part of it; therefore, to gratify him, we may

throw it into a supplementary form. But let me ask, will not this as

effectually destroy some parts, as if the correction had been made by

way of incorporation? or will posterity have a more favorable opinion

of the original, because it has been amended by distinct acts? For my

part, I cannot see what advantage can accrue from adopting the motion of

the honorable gentleman from Connecticut, unless it be to give every one

the trouble of erasing out of his copy of the constitution certain words

and sentences, and inserting others. But, perhaps, in our great

veneration for the original composition, we may go further, and pass an

act to prohibit these interpolations, as it may injure the text.

It is said that the present form of the amendments is contrary to the

5th article. I will not undertake to define the extent of the word

amendment, as it stands in the fifth article; but I suppose if we

proposed to change the division of the powers given to the three

branches of the Government, and that proposition is accepted and

ratified by three-fourths of the State Legislatures, it will become as

valid, to all intents and purposes, as any part of the constitution; but

if it is the opinion of gentlemen that the original is to be kept

sacred, amendments will be of no use, and had better be omitted;

whereas, on the other hand, if they are to be received as equal in

authority we shall have five or six constitutions, perhaps differing in

material points from each other, but all equally valid; so that they may

require a man of science to determine what is or is not the

constitution. This will certainly be attended with great inconvenience,

as the several States are bound not to make laws contradictory thereto,

and all officers are sworn to support it, without knowing precisely what

it is.

Mr. STONE asked the gentleman last up, how he meant to have the

amendments incorporated? Was it intended to have the constitution

republished, and the alterations inserted in their proper places? He did

not see how it was practicable to propose amendments, without making out

a new constitution, in the manner brought forward by the committee.

Mr. LAWRENCE could not conceive how gentlemen meant to engraft the

amendments into the constitution. The original one, executed by the

convention at Philadelphia, was lodged in the archives of the late

Congress; it was impossible for this House to take, and correct, and

interpolate that without making it speak a different language: this

would be supposing several things which never were contemplated. But

what would become of the acts of Congress? They will certainly be

vitiated, unless they are provided for by an additional clause in the

constitution.

Mr. BENSON said, that this question had been agitated in the select

committee, and determined in favor of the form in which it was reported;

he believed this decision was founded in a great degree upon the

recommendation of the State conventions, which had proposed amendments

in this very form. This pointed out the mode most agreeable to the

people of America, and therefore the one most eligible for Congress to

pursue; it will likewise be the most convenient way. Suppose the

amendments ratified by the several States; Congress may order a number

of copies to be printed, into which the alterations will be inserted,

and the work stand perfect and entire.

Mr. MADISON.--The gentleman last up has left me but one remark to add,

and that is, if we adopt the amendment, we shall so far unhinge the

business, as to occasion alterations in every article and clause of the

report.

Mr. HARTLEY hoped the committee would not agree to the alteration,

because it would perplex the business. He wished the propositions to be

simple and entire, that the State Legislatures might decide without

hesitation, and every man know what was the ground on which he rested

his political welfare. Besides, the consequent changes which the motion

would induce, were such as, he feared, would take up some days, if not

weeks; and the time of the House was too precious to be squandered away

in discussing mere matter of form.

Mr. JACKSON.--I do not like to differ with gentlemen about form; but as

so much has been said, I wish to give my opinion; it is this: that the

original constitution ought to remain inviolate, and not be patched up,

from time to time, with various stuffs resembling Joseph's coat of many

colors.

Some gentlemen talk of repealing the present constitution, and adopting

an improved one. If we have this power, we may go on from year to year,

making new ones; and in this way, we shall render the basis of the

superstructure the most fluctuating thing imaginable, and the people

will never know what the constitution is. As for the alteration proposed

by the committee, to prefix before "We the people" certain dogmas, I

cannot agree to it; the words, as they now stand, speak as much as it is

possible to speak; it is a practical recognition of the right of the

people to ordain and establish Governments, and is more expressive than

any other mere paper declaration.

But why will gentlemen contend for incorporating amendments into the

constitution? They say, that it is necessary for the people to have the

whole before them in one view. Have they precedent for this assertion?

Look at the constitution of Great Britain; is that all contained in one

instrument? It is well known, that _magna charta_ was extorted by the

barons from King John some centuries ago. Has that been altered since by

the incorporation of amendments? Or does it speak the same language now,

as it did at the time it was obtained? Sir, it is not altered a tittle

from its original form. Yet there have been many amendments and

improvements in the constitution of Britain since that period. In the

subsequent reign of his son, the great charters were confirmed with some

supplemental acts. Is the _habeas corpus_ act, or the statute _De

Tallagio non concedendo_ incorporated in _magna charta_? And yet there

is not an Englishman but would spill the last drop of his blood in

their defence; it is these, with some other acts of Parliament and

_magna charta_, that form the basis of English liberty. We have seen

amendments to their constitution during the present reign, by

establishing the independence of the judges, who are hereafter to be

appointed during good behavior; formerly they were at the pleasure of

the Crown. But was this done by striking out and inserting other words

in the great charter? No, sir, the constitution is composed of many

distinct acts; but an Englishman would be ashamed to own that, on this

account, he could not ascertain his own privileges or the authority of

the Government.

The constitution of the Union has been ratified and established by the

people; let their act remain inviolable; if any thing we can do has a

tendency to improve it, let it be done, but without mutilating and

defacing the original.

Mr. SHERMAN.--If I had looked upon this question as mere matter of form,

I should not have brought it forward or troubled the committee with such

a lengthy discussion. But, sir, I contend that amendments made in the

way proposed by the committee are void. No gentleman ever knew an

addition and alteration introduced into an existing law, and that any

part of such law was left in force; but if it was improved or altered by

a supplemental act, the original retained all its validity and

importance, in every case where the two were not incompatible. But if

these observations alone should be thought insufficient to support my

motion, I would desire gentlemen to consider the authorities upon which

the two constitutions are to stand. The original was established by the

people at large, by conventions chosen by them for the express purpose.

The preamble to the constitution declares the act: but will it be a

truth in ratifying the next constitution, which is to be done perhaps by

the State Legislatures, and not conventions chosen for the purpose? Will

gentlemen say it is "We the people" in this case? Certainly they cannot;

for, by the present constitution, we, nor all the Legislatures in the

Union together, do not possess the power of repealing it. All that is

granted us by the 5th article is, that whenever we shall think it

necessary, we may propose amendments to the constitution; not that we

may propose to repeal the old, and substitute a new one.

Gentlemen say, it would be convenient to have it in one instrument, that

people might see the whole at once; for my part, I view no difficulty on

this point. The amendments reported are a declaration of rights; the

people are secure in them, whether we declare them or not; the last

amendment but one provides that the three branches of Government shall

each exercise its own rights. This is well secured already; and, in

short, I do not see that they lessen the force of any article in the

constitution; if so, there can be little more difficulty in

comprehending them whether they are combined in one, or stand distinct

instruments.

Mr. SMITH read extracts from the amendments proposed by several of the

State conventions at the time they ratified the constitution, from

which, he said, it appeared that they were generally of opinion that the

phraseology of the constitution ought to be altered; nor would this mode

of proceeding repeal any part of the constitution but such as it

touched, the remainder will be in force during the time of considering

it and ever after.

As to the observations made by the honorable gentleman from Georgia,

respecting the amendments made to the constitution of Great Britain,

they did not apply; the cases were nothing like similar, and,

consequently, could not be drawn into precedent. The constitution of

Britain is neither the _magna charta_ of John, nor the _habeas corpus_

act, nor all the charters put together; it is what the Parliament wills.

It is true, there are rights granted to the subject that cannot be

resumed; but the constitution, or form of government, may be altered by

the authority of Parliament, whose power is absolute without control.

Mr. SHERMAN.--The gentlemen who oppose the motion say we contend for

matter of form; they think it nothing more. Now we say we contend for

substance, and therefore cannot agree to amendments in this way. If they

are so desirous of having the business completed, they had better

sacrifice what they consider but a matter of indifference to gentlemen,

to go more unanimously along with them in altering the constitution.