"The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and consult for the common good, and to apply to
the Government for a redress of grievances," being the clause under
consideration, Mr. TUCKER, of South Carolina, moved to add thereto these
words--_to instruct their representatives_.
Mr. HARTLEY wished the motion had not been made, for gentlemen
acquainted with the circumstances of this country, and the history of
the country from which we separated, differed exceedingly on this
point. The members of the House of Representatives, said he, are chosen
for two years, the members of the Senate for six.
According to the principles laid down in the Constitution, it is
presumable that the persons elected know the interests and the
circumstances of their constituents, and being checked in their
determinations by a division of the Legislative power into two branches,
there is little danger of error. At least it ought to be supposed that
they have the confidence of the people during the period for which they
are elected; and if, by misconduct, they forfeit it, their constituents
have the power of leaving them out at the expiration of that time--thus
they are answerable for the part they have taken in measures that may be
contrary to the general wish.
Representation is the principle of our Government; the people ought to
have confidence in the honor and integrity of those they send forward to
transact their business; their right to instruct them is a problematical
subject. We have seen it attended with bad consequences, both in England
and America. When the passions of the people are excited, instructions
have been resorted to and obtained, to answer party purposes; and
although the public opinion is generally respectable, yet at such
moments it has been known to be often wrong; and happy is that
Government composed of men of firmness and wisdom to discover, and
resist popular error.
If, in a small community, where the interests, habits, and manners are
neither so numerous nor diversified, instructions bind not, what shall
we say of instructions to this body? Can it be supposed that the
inhabitants of a single district in a State, are better informed with
respect to the general interests of the Union, than a select body
assembled from every part? Can it be supposed that a part will be more
desirous of promoting the good of the whole than the whole will of the
part? I apprehend, sir, that Congress will be the best judges of proper
measures, and that instructions will never be resorted to but for party
purposes, when they will generally contain the prejudices and acrimony
of the party, rather than the dictates of honest reason and sound
policy.
In England this question has been considerably agitated. The
representatives of some towns in Parliament have acknowledged, and
submitted to the binding force of instructions, while the majority have
thrown off the shackles with disdain. I would not have this precedent
influence our decision; but let the doctrine be tried upon its own
merits, and stand or fall as it shall be found to deserve.
It appears to my mind, that the principle of representation is distinct
from an agency, which may require written instructions. The great end of
meeting is to consult for the common good; but can the common good be
discerned without the object is reflected and shown in every light. A
local or partial view does not necessarily enable any man to comprehend
it clearly; this can only result from an inspection into the aggregate.
Instructions viewed in this light will be found to embarrass the best
and wisest men. And were all the members to take their seats in order to
obey instructions, and those instructions were as various as it is
probable they would be, what possibility would there exist of so
accommodating each to the other as to produce any act whatever? Perhaps
a majority of the whole might not be instructed to agree to any one
point, and is it thus the people of the United States propose to form a
more perfect union, provide for the common defence, and promote the
general welfare?
Sir, I have known within my own time so many inconveniences and real
evils arise from adopting the popular opinions on the moment, that,
although I respect them as much as any man, I hope this Government will
particularly guard against them, at least that they will not bind
themselves by a constitutional act, and by oath, to submit to their
influence; if they do, the great object which this Government has been
established to attain, will inevitably elude our grasp on the uncertain
and veering winds of popular commotion.
Mr. PAGE.--The gentleman from Pennsylvania tells you, that in England
this principle is doubted; how far this is consonant with the nature of
the Government I will not pretend to say; but I am not astonished to
find that the administrators of a monarchical Government are
unassailable by the weak voice of the people; but under a democracy,
whose great end is to form a code of laws congenial with the public
sentiment, the popular opinion ought to be collected and attended to.
Our present object is, I presume, to secure to our constituents and to
posterity these inestimable rights. Our Government is derived from the
people; of consequence the people have a right to consult for the common
good; but to what end will this be done, if they have not the power of
instructing their representatives? Instruction and representation in a
republic, appear to me to be inseparably connected; but were I the
subject of a monarch, I should doubt whether the public good did not
depend more upon the prince's will than the will of the people. I should
dread a popular assembly consulting for the public good, because, under
its influence, commotions and tumults might arise that would shake the
foundation of the monarch's throne, and make the empire tremble in
expectation. The people of England have submitted the crown to the
Hanover family, and have rejected the Stuarts. If instructions upon such
a revolution were considered binding, it is difficult to know what would
have been the effects. It might be well, therefore, to have the doctrine
exploded from that kingdom; but it will not be advanced as a substantial
reason in favor of our treading in the same steps.
The honorable gentleman has said, that when once the people have chosen
a representative, they must rely on his integrity and judgment during
the period for which he is elected. I think, sir, to doubt the authority
of the people to instruct their representatives, will give them just
cause to be alarmed for their fate. I look upon it as a dangerous
doctrine, subversive of the great end for which the United States have
confederated. Every friend of mankind, every well-wisher of his country,
will be desirous of obtaining the sense of the people on every occasion
of magnitude; but how can this be so well expressed as in instructions
to their representatives? I hope, therefore, that gentlemen will not
oppose the insertion of it in this part of the report.
Mr. CLYMER.--I hope the amendment will not be adopted; but if our
constituents choose to instruct us, that they may be left at liberty to
do so. Do gentlemen foresee the extent of these words? If they have a
constitutional right to instruct us, it infers that we are bound by
those instructions; and as we ought not to decide constitutional
questions by implication, I presume we shall be called upon to go
further, and expressly declare the members of the Legislature bound by
the instruction of their constituents. This is a most dangerous
principle, utterly destructive of all ideas of an independent and
deliberative body, which are essential requisites in the Legislatures of
free Governments; they prevent men of abilities and experience from
rendering those services to the community that are in their power,
destroying the object contemplated by establishing an efficient General
Government, and rendering Congress a mere passive machine.
Mr. SHERMAN.--It appears to me, that the words are calculated to mislead
the people, by conveying an idea that they have a right to control the
debates of the Legislature. This cannot be admitted to be just, because
it would destroy the object of their meeting. I think, when the people
have chosen a representative, it is his duty to meet others from the
different parts of the Union, and consult, and agree with them to such
acts as are for the general benefit of the whole community. If they were
to be guided by instructions, there would be no use in deliberation; all
that a man would have to do, would be to produce his instructions, and
lay them on the table, and let them speak for him. From hence I think it
may be fairly inferred, that the right of the people to consult for the
common good can go no further than to petition the Legislature, or apply
for a redress of grievances. It is the duty of a good representative to
inquire what measures are most likely to promote the general welfare,
and, after he has discovered them, to give them his support. Should his
instructions, therefore, coincide with his ideas on any measure, they
would be unnecessary; if they were contrary to the conviction of his own
mind, he must be bound by every principle of justice to disregard them.
Mr. JACKSON was in favor of the right of the people to assemble and
consult for the common good; it had been used in this country as one of
the best checks on the British Legislature in their unjustifiable
attempts to tax the colonies without their consent. America had no
representatives in the British Parliament, therefore they could instruct
none, yet they exercised the power of consultation to a good effect. He
begged gentlemen to consider the dangerous tendency of establishing such
a doctrine; it would necessarily drive the House into a number of
factions. There might be different instructions from every State, and
the representation from each State would be a faction to support its own
measures.
If we establish this as a right, we shall be bound by those
instructions; now, I am willing to leave both the people and
representatives to their own discretion on this subject. Let the people
consult and give their opinion; let the representative judge of it; and
if it is just, let him govern himself by it as a good member ought to
do; but if it is otherwise, let him have it in his power to reject their
advice.
What may be the consequence of binding a man to vote in all cases
according to the will of others? He is to decide upon a constitutional
point, and on this question his conscience is bound by the obligation of
a solemn oath; you now involve him in a serious dilemma. If he votes
according to his conscience, he decides against his instructions; but in
deciding against his instructions, he commits a breach of the
constitution, by infringing the prerogative of the people, secured to
them by this declaration. In short, it will give rise to such a variety
of absurdities and inconsistencies, as no prudent Legislature would wish
to involve themselves in.
Mr. GERRY.--By the checks provided in the constitution, we have good
grounds to believe that the very framers of it conceived that the
Government would be liable to maladministration, and I presume that the
gentlemen of this House do not mean to arrogate to themselves more
perfection than human nature has as yet been found to be capable of; if
they do not, they will admit an additional check against abuses which
this, like every other Government, is subject to. Instruction from the
people will furnish this in a considerable degree.
It has been said that the amendment proposed by the honorable gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. TUCKER) determines this point, "that the people
can bind their representatives to follow their instructions." I do not
conceive that this necessarily follows. I think the representative,
notwithstanding the insertion of these words, would be at liberty to act
as he pleased; if he declined to pursue such measures as he was directed
to attain, the people would have a right to refuse him their suffrages
at a future election.
Now, though I do not believe the amendment would bind the
representatives to obey the instructions, yet I think the people have a
right both to instruct and bind them. Do gentlemen conceive that on any
occasion instructions would be so general as to proceed from all our
constituents? If they do, it is the sovereign will; for gentlemen will
not contend that the sovereign will presides in the Legislature. The
friends and patrons of this constitution have always declared that the
sovereignty resides in the people, and that they do not part with it on
any occasion; to say the sovereignty vests in the people and that they
have not a right to instruct and control their representatives is absurd
to the last degree. They must either give up their principle, or grant
that the people have a right to exercise their sovereignty to control
the whole Government, as well as this branch of it. But the amendment
does not carry the principle to such an extent, it only declares the
right of the people to send instructions; the representative will, if he
thinks proper, communicate his instructions to the House, but how far
they shall operate on his conduct, he will judge for himself.
The honorable gentleman from Georgia (Mr. JACKSON) supposes that
instructions will tend to generate factions in this House; but he did
not see how it could have that effect, any more than the freedom of
debate had. If the representative entertains the same opinion with his
constituents, he will decide with them in favor of the measure; if other
gentlemen, who are not instructed on this point, are convinced by
argument that the measure is proper, they will also vote with them;
consequently the influence of debate and of instruction is the same.
The gentleman says further, that the people have the right of
instructing their representatives; if so, why not declare it? Does he
mean that it shall lie dormant and never be exercised? If so, it will be
a right of no utility. But much good may result from a declaration in
the constitution that they possess this privilege; the people will be
encouraged to come forward with their instructions, which will form a
fund of useful information for the Legislature. We cannot, I apprehend,
be too well informed of the true state, condition, and sentiment of our
constituents, and perhaps this is the best mode in our power of
obtaining information. I hope we shall never shut our ears against that
information which is to be derived from the petitions and instructions
of our constituents. I hope we shall never presume to think that all the
wisdom of this country is concentrated within the walls of this House.
Men, unambitious of distinctions from their fellow-citizens, remain
within their own domestic walk, unheard of and unseen, possessing all
the advantages resulting from a watchful observance of public men and
public measures, whose voice, if we would descend to listen to it, would
give us knowledge superior to what could be acquired amidst the cares
and bustles of a public life; let us then adopt the amendment, and
encourage the diffident to enrich our stock of knowledge with the
treasure of their remarks and observations.
Mr. MADISON.--I think the committee acted prudently in omitting to
insert these words in the report they have brought forward; if,
unfortunately, the attempt of proposing amendments should prove
abortive, it will not arise from the want of a disposition in the
friends of the constitution to do what is right with respect to securing
the rights and privileges of the people of America, but from the
difficulties arising from discussing and proposing abstract propositions
of which the judgment may not be convinced. I venture to say, that if we
confine ourselves to an enumeration of simple, acknowledged principles,
the ratification will meet with but little difficulty. Amendments of a
doubtful nature will have a tendency to prejudice the whole system; the
proposition now suggested partakes highly of this nature. It is doubted
by many gentlemen here; it has been objected to in intelligent
publications throughout the Union; it is doubted by many members of the
State Legislatures. In one sense this declaration is true, in many
others it is certainly not true; in the sense in which it is true, we
have asserted the right sufficiently in what we have done; if we mean
nothing more than this, that the people have a right to express and
communicate their sentiments and wishes, we have provided for it
already. The right of freedom of speech is secured; the liberty of the
press is expressly declared to be beyond the reach of this Government;
the people may therefore publicly address their representatives, may
privately advise them, or declare their sentiments by petition to the
whole body; in all these ways they may communicate their will. If
gentlemen mean to go further, and to say that the people have a right to
instruct their representatives in such a sense as that the delegates are
obliged to conform to those instructions, the declaration is not true.
Suppose they instruct a representative, by his vote, to violate the
constitution; is he at liberty to obey such instructions? Suppose he is
instructed to patronize certain measures, and from circumstances known
to him, but not to his constituents, he is convinced that they will
endanger the public good; is he obliged to sacrifice his own judgment to
them? Is he absolutely bound to perform what he is instructed to do?
Suppose he refuses, will his vote be the less valid, or the community be
disengaged from that obedience which is due to the laws of the Union? If
his vote must inevitably have the same effect, what sort of a right is
this in the constitution, to instruct a representative who has a right
to disregard the order, if he pleases? In this sense the right does not
exist, in the other sense it does exist, and is provided largely for.
The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts asks if the sovereignty is
not with the people at large. Does he infer that the people can, in
detached bodies, contravene an act established by the whole people? My
idea of the sovereignty of the people is, that the people can change the
constitution if they please; but while the constitution exists, they
must conform themselves to its dictates. But I do not believe that the
inhabitants of any district can speak the voice of the people; so far
from it, their ideas may contradict the sense of the whole people; hence
the consequence that instructions are binding on the representative is
of a doubtful, if not of a dangerous nature. I do not conceive,
therefore, that it is necessary to agree to the proposition now made; so
far as any real good is to arise from it, so far that real good is
provided for; so far as it is of a doubtful nature, so far it obliges us
to run the risk of losing the whole system.
Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina.)--I am opposed to this motion, because I
conceive it will operate as a partial inconvenience to the more distant
States. If every member is to be bound by instructions how to vote, what
are gentlemen from the extremities of the continent to do? Members from
the neighboring States can obtain their instructions earlier than those
from the Southern ones, and I presume that particular instructions will
be necessary for particular measures; of consequence, we vote perhaps
against instructions on their way to us, or we must decline voting at
all. But what is the necessity of having a numerous representation? One
member from a State can receive the instructions, and by his vote answer
all the purposes of many, provided his vote is allowed to count for the
proportion the State ought to send; in this way the business might be
done at a less expense than having one or two hundred members in the
House, which had been strongly contended for yesterday.
Mr. STONE.--I think the clause would change the Government entirely;
instead of being a Government founded upon representation, it would be a
democracy of singular properties.
I differ from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MADISON), if he thinks
this clause would not bind the representative; in my opinion, it would
bind him effectually, and I venture to assert, without diffidence, that
any law passed by the Legislature would be of no force, if a majority of
the members of this House were instructed to the contrary, provided the
amendment became part of the constitution. What would follow from this?
Instead of looking in the code of laws passed by Congress, your
Judiciary would have to collect and examine the instructions from the
various parts of the Union. It follows very clearly from hence, that the
Government would be altered from a representative one to a democracy,
wherein all laws are made immediately by the voice of the people.
This is a power not to be found in any part of the earth except among
the Swiss cantons; there the body of the people vote upon the laws, and
give instructions to their delegates. But here we have a different form
of Government; the people at large are not authorized under it to vote
upon the law, nor did I ever hear that any man required it. Why, then,
are we called upon to propose amendments subversive of the principles
of the constitution, which were never desired?
Several members now called for the question, and the Chairman being
about to put the same:
Mr. GERRY.--Gentlemen seem in a great hurry to get this business
through. I think, Mr. Chairman, it requires a further discussion; for my
part, I had rather do less business and do it well, than precipitate
measures before they are fully understood.
The honorable gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) stated, that if the
proposed amendments are defeated, it will be by the delay attending the
discussion of doubtful propositions; and he declares this to partake of
that quality. It is natural, sir, for us to be fond of our own work. We
do not like to see it disfigured by other hands. That honorable
gentleman brought forward a string of propositions; among them was the
clause now proposed to be amended: he is no doubt ready for the
question, and determined not to admit what we think an improvement. The
gentlemen who were on the committee, and brought in the report, have
considered the subject, and are also ripe for a decision. But other
gentlemen may crave a like indulgence. Is not the report before us for
deliberation and discussion, and to obtain the sense of the House upon
it; and will not gentlemen allow us a day or two for these purposes,
after they have forced us to proceed upon them at this time? I appeal to
their candor and good sense on the occasion, and am sure not to be
refused; and I must inform them now, that they may not be surprised
hereafter, that I wish all the amendments proposed by the respective
States to be considered. Gentlemen say it is necessary to finish the
subject, in order to reconcile a number of our fellow-citizens to the
Government. If this is their principle, they ought to consider the
wishes and intentions which the convention has expressed for them; if
they do this, they will find that they expect and wish for the
declaration proposed by the honorable gentleman over the way (Mr.
TUCKER), and, of consequence, they ought to agree to it; and why it,
with others recommended in the same way, were not reported, I cannot
pretend to say; the committee know this best themselves.
The honorable gentleman near me (Mr. STONE) says, that the laws passed
contrary to instruction will be nugatory. And other gentlemen ask, if
their constituents instruct them to violate the constitution, whether
they must do it. Sir, does not the constitution declare that all laws
passed by Congress are paramount to the laws and constitutions of the
several States; if our decrees are of such force as to set aside the
State laws and constitutions, certainly they may be repugnant to any
instructions whatever, without being injured thereby. But can we
conceive that our constituents would be so absurd as to instruct us to
violate our oath, and act directly contrary to the principles of a
Government ordained by themselves? We must look upon them to be
absolutely abandoned and false to their own interests, to suppose them
capable of giving such instructions.
If this amendment is introduced into the constitution, I do not think we
shall be much troubled with instructions; a knowledge of the right will
operate to check a spirit that would render instruction necessary.
The honorable gentleman from Virginia asked, will not the affirmative of
a member who votes repugnant to his instructions bind the community as
much as the votes of those who conform? There is no doubt, sir, but it
will; but does this tend to show that the constituent has no right to
instruct? Surely not. I admit, sir, that instructions contrary to the
constitution ought not to bind, though the sovereignty resides in the
people. The honorable gentleman acknowledges that the sovereignty vests
there; if so, it may exercise its will in any case not inconsistent with
a previous contract. The same gentleman asks if we are to give the power
to the people in detached bodies to contravene the Government while it
exists. Certainly not; nor does the proposed proposition extend to that
point; it is only intended to open for them a convenient mode in which
they may convey their sense to their agents. The gentleman therefore
takes for granted what is inadmissible, that Congress will always be
doing illegal things, and make it necessary for the sovereign to declare
its pleasure.
He says the people have a right to alter the constitution, but they have
no right to oppose the Government. If, while the Government exists, they
have no right to control it, it appears they have divested themselves of
the sovereignty over the constitution. Therefore, our language, with our
principles, must change, and we ought to say that the sovereignty
existed in the people previous to the establishment of this Government.
This will be ground for alarm indeed, if it is true; but I trust, sir,
too much to the good sense of my fellow-citizens ever to believe that
the doctrine will generally obtain in this country of freedom.
Mr. VINING.--If, Mr. Chairman, there appears on one side too great an
urgency to despatch this business, there appears on the other an
unnecessary delay and procrastination equally improper and unpardonable.
I think this business has been already well considered by the House, and
every gentleman in it; however, I am not for an unseemly expedition.
Mr. LIVERMORE was not very anxious whether the words were inserted or
not, but he had a great deal of doubt on the meaning of this whole
amendment; it provides that the people may meet and consult for the
common good. Does this mean a part of the people in a township or
district, or does it mean the representatives in the State Legislatures?
If it means the latter, there is no occasion for a provision that the
Legislature may instruct the members of this body.
In some States the representatives are chosen by districts. In such
case, perhaps, the instructions may be considered as coming from the
district; but in other States, each representative is chosen by the
whole people. In New Hampshire it is the case; the instructions of any
particular place would have but little weight, but a legislative
instruction would have considerable influence upon each representative.
If, therefore, the words mean that the Legislature may instruct, he
presumed it would have considerable effect, though he did not believe it
binding. Indeed, he was inclined to pay a deference to any information
he might receive from any number of gentlemen, even by a private letter;
but as for full binding force, no instructions contained that quality.
They could not, nor ought they to have it, because different parties
pursue different measures; and it might be expedient, nay, absolutely
necessary, to sacrifice them in mutual concessions.
The doctrine of instructions would hold better in England than here,
because the boroughs and corporations might have an interest to pursue
totally immaterial to the rest of the kingdom; in that case, it would be
prudent to instruct their members in Parliament.
Mr. GERRY wished the constitution amended without his having any hand in
it; but if he must interfere, he would do his duty. The honorable
gentleman from Delaware had given him an example of moderation and
laconic and consistent debate that he meant to follow; and would just
observe to the worthy gentleman last up, that several States had
proposed the amendment, and among the rest, New Hampshire.
There was one remark which escaped him, when he was up before. The
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. STONE) had said that the amendment would
change the nature of the Government, and make it a democracy. Now he had
always heard that it was a democracy; but perhaps he was misled, and the
honorable gentleman was right in distinguishing it by some other
appellation; perhaps an aristocracy was a term better adapted to it.
Mr. SEDGWICK opposed the idea of the gentleman from New Hampshire, that
the State Legislature had the power of instructing the members of this
House; he looked upon it as a subornation of the rights of the people to
admit such an authority. We stand not here, said he, the representatives
of the State Legislatures, as under the former Congress, but as the
representatives of the great body of the people. The sovereignty, the
independence, and the rights of the States are intended to be guarded by
the Senate; if we are to be viewed in any other light, the greatest
security the people have for their rights and privileges is destroyed.
But with respect to instructions, it is well worthy of consideration how
they are to be procured. It is not the opinion of an individual that is
to control my conduct: I consider myself as the representative of the
whole Union. An individual may give me information, but his sentiments
may he in opposition to the sense of the majority of the people. If
instructions are to be of any efficacy, they must speak the sense of the
majority of the people, at least of a State. In a State so large as
Massachusetts it will behoove gentlemen to consider how the sense of the
majority of the freemen is to be obtained and communicated. Let us take
care to avoid the insertion of crude and indigested propositions, more
likely to produce acrimony than that spirit of harmony which we ought to
cultivate.
Mr. LIVERMORE said that he did not understand the honorable gentleman,
or was not understood by him; he did not presume peremptorily to say
what degree of influence the legislative instructions would have on a
representative. He knew it was not the thing in contemplation here; and
what he had said respected only the influence it would have on his
private judgment.
Mr. AMES said there would be a very great inconvenience attending the
establishment of the doctrine contended for by his colleague. Those
States which had selected their members by districts would have no right
to give them instructions, consequently the members ought to withdraw;
in which case the House might be reduced below a majority, and not be
able, according to the constitution, to do any business at all.
According to the doctrine of the gentleman from New Hampshire, one part
of the Government would be annihilated; for of what avail is it that the
people have the appointment of a representative, if he is to pay
obedience to the dictates of another body?
Several members now rose, and called for the question.
Mr. PAGE was sorry to see gentlemen so impatient; the more so, as he saw
there was very little attention paid to any thing that was said; but he
would express his sentiments if he was only heard by the Chair. He
discovered clearly, notwithstanding what had been observed by the most
ingenious supporters of the opposition, that there was an absolute
necessity for adopting the amendment. It was strictly compatible with
the spirit and the nature of the Government; all power vests in the
people of the United States; it is therefore a Government of the people,
a democracy. If it were consistent with the peace and tranquillity of
the inhabitants, every freeman would have a right to come and give his
vote upon the law; but, inasmuch as this cannot be done, by reason of
the extent of territory, and some other causes, the people have agreed
that their representatives shall exercise a part of their authority. To
pretend to refuse them the power of instructing their agents, appears to
me to deny them a right. One gentleman asks how the instructions are to
be collected. Many parts of this country have been in the practice of
instructing their representatives; they found no difficulty in
communicating their sense. Another gentleman asks if they were to
instruct us to make paper money, what we would do. I would tell them,
said he, it was unconstitutional; alter that, and we will consider on
the point. Unless laws are made satisfactory to the people, they will
lose their support, they will be abused or done away; this tends to
destroy the efficiency of the Government.
It is the sense of several of the conventions that this amendment should
take place; I think it my duty to support it, and fear it will spread an
alarm among our constituents if we decline to do it.
Mr. WADSWORTH.--Instructions have frequently been given to the
representatives of the United States; but the people did not claim as a
right that they should have any obligation upon the representatives; it
is not right that they should. In troublous times, designing men have
drawn the people to instruct the representatives to their harm; the
representatives have, on such occasions, refused to comply with their
instructions. I have known, myself, that they have been disobeyed, and
yet the representative was not brought to account for it; on the
contrary he was caressed and re-elected, while those who have obeyed
them, contrary to their private sentiments, have ever after been
despised for it. Now, if people considered it an inherent right in them
to instruct their representatives, they would have undoubtedly punished
the violation of them. I have no idea of instructions, unless they are
obeyed; a discretional power is incompatible with them.
Mr. BURKE.--I am not positive with respect to the particular expression
in the declaration of rights of the people of Maryland, but the
constitutions of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina, all of
them recognize, in express terms, the right of the people to give
instruction to their representatives. I do not mean to insist
particularly upon this amendment; but I am very well satisfied that
those that are reported and likely to be adopted by this House are very
far from giving satisfaction to our constituents; they are not those
solid and substantial amendments which the people expect; they are
little better than whip-syllabub, frothy and full of wind, formed only
to please the palate; or they are like a tub thrown out to a whale, to
secure the freight of the ship and its peaceable voyage. In my judgment,
the people will not be gratified by the mode we have pursued in bringing
them forward. There was a committee of eleven appointed; and out of the
number I think there were five who were members of the convention that
formed the constitution. Such gentlemen, having already given their
opinion with respect to the perfection of the work, may be thought
improper agents to bring forward amendments. Upon the whole, I think it
will be found that we have done nothing but lose our time, and that it
will be better to drop the subject now, and proceed to the organization
of the Government.
The question was now called for from several parts of the House; but a
desultory conversation took place before the question was put. At length
the call becoming general, it was stated from the Chair, and determined
in the negative, 10 rising in favor of it, and 41 against it.
TUESDAY, August 18.
_Amendments to the Constitution._
Mr. GERRY moved, "That such of the amendments to the constitution
proposed by the several States, as are not in substance comprised in the
report of the select committee appointed to consider amendments, be
referred to a Committee of the whole House; and that all amendments
which shall be agreed to by the committee last mentioned be included in
one report."
Mr. TUCKER remarked, that many citizens expected that the amendments
proposed by the conventions would be attended to by the House, and that
several members conceived it to be their duty to bring them forward. If
the House should decline taking them into consideration, it might tend
to destroy that harmony which had hitherto existed, and which did great
honor to their proceedings; it might affect all their future measures,
and promote such feuds as might embarrass the Government exceedingly.
The States who had proposed these amendments would feel some degree of
chagrin at having misplaced their confidence in the General Government.
Five important States have pretty plainly expressed their apprehensions
of the danger to which the rights of their citizens are exposed. Finding
these cannot be secured in the mode they had wished, they will naturally
recur to the alternative, and endeavor to obtain a federal convention;
the consequence of this may be disagreeable to the Union; party spirit
may be revived, and animosities rekindled destructive of tranquillity.
States that exert themselves to obtain a federal convention, and those
that oppose the measure, may feel so strongly the spirit of discord, as
to sever the Union asunder.
If in this conflict the advocates for a federal convention should prove
successful, the consequences may be alarming; we may lose many of the
valuable principles now established in the present constitution. If, on
the other hand, a convention should not be obtained, the consequences
resulting are equally to be dreaded; it would render the administration
of this system of government weak, if not impracticable; for no
government can be administered with energy, however energetic its
system, unless it obtains the confidence and support of the people.
Which of the two evils is the greatest would be difficult to ascertain.
It is essential to our deliberations that the harmony of the House be
preserved; by it alone we shall be enabled to perfect the organization
of the Government--a Government but in embryo, or at best but in its
infancy.
My idea relative to this constitution, whilst it was dependent upon the
assent of the several States, was, that it required amendment, and that
the proper time for amendment was previous to the ratification. My
reasons were, that I conceived it difficult, if not impossible, to
obtain essential amendments by the way pointed out in the constitution;
nor have I been mistaken in this suspicion. It will be found, I fear,
still more difficult than I apprehended; for perhaps these amendments,
should they be agreed to by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, will
be submitted for ratification to the Legislatures of the several States,
instead of State conventions, in which case the chance is still worse.
The Legislatures of almost all the States consist of two independent,
distinct bodies; the amendments must be adopted by three-fourths of such
Legislatures; that is to say, they must meet the approbation of the
majority of each of eighteen deliberative assemblies. But,
notwithstanding all these objections to obtaining amendments after the
ratification of the constitution, it will tend to give a great degree of
satisfaction to those who are desirous of them, if this House shall take
them up, and consider them with that degree of candor and attention they
have hitherto displayed on the subjects that have come before them;
consider the amendments separately, and, after fair deliberation, either
approve or disapprove of them. By such conduct, we answer in some degree
the expectations of those citizens in the several States who have shown
so great a tenacity to the preservation of those rights and liberties
they secured to themselves by an arduous, persevering, and successful
conflict.
I have hopes that the States will be reconciled to this disappointment,
in consequence of such procedure.
A great variety of arguments might be urged in favor of the motion; but
I shall rest it here, and not trespass any further upon the patience of
the House.
Mr. _Madison_ was just going to move to refer these amendments, in order
that they might be considered in the fullest manner; but it would be
very inconvenient to have them made up into one report, or all of them
discussed at the present time.
Mr. _Vining_ had no objection to the bringing them forward in the
fullest point of view; but his objection arose from the informality
attending the introduction of the business.
The order of the House was to refer the report of the committee of
eleven to a Committee of the Whole, and therefore it was improper to
propose any thing additional.
A desultory conversation arose on this motion, when Mr. _Vining_ moved
the previous question, in which, being supported by five members, it was
put, and the question was,--Shall the main question, to agree to the
motion, be now put? The yeas and nays being demanded by one-fifth of the
members present, on this last motion, they were taken as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Burke, Coles, Floyd, Gerry, Griffin, Grout,
Hathorn, Livermore, Page, Parker, Van Renssellaer, Sherman,
Stone, Sturgis, Sumter, and Tucker.--16.
NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Baldwin, Benson, Boudinot, Brown,
Cadwalader, Carroll, Clymer, Fitzsimons, Foster, Gilman,
Goodhue, Hartley, Heister, Huntington, Lawrence, Lee,
Madison, Moore, Muhlenberg, Partridge, Schureman, Scott,
Sedgwick, Seney, Sylvester, Sinnickson, Smith, (of
Maryland,) Smith, (of South Carolina,) Thatcher, Trumbull,
Vining, Wadsworth, and Wynkoop.--34.
So the motion was lost.
A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate had passed
the bill providing for expenses which may attend negotiations or
treaties with the Indian tribes, and the appointment of commissioners
for managing the same, with an amendment, to which they desire the
concurrence of the House.
THURSDAY, September 3.
_Permanent Seat of Government._
Mr. _Scott_, agreeably to notice given, moved the following: "That a
permanent residence ought to be fixed for the General Government of the
United States at some convenient place, as near the centre of wealth,
population, and extent of territory, as may be consistent with
convenience to the navigation of the Atlantic Ocean, and having due
regard to the particular situation of the Western country."
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, to take into
consideration the motion presented by Mr. _Scott_, on Thursday last, for
establishing the permanent residence of Congress, Mr. BOUDINOT in the
chair.
Mr. _Goodhue_.--The motion before the committee I consider too
indefinite for the House to decide upon satisfactorily; I wish,
therefore, to add something which may bring the question to a point. It
is well known that the gentlemen from the Eastward are averse to taking
up this business at this time. Not that the subject was improper for our
discussion, but that the present session is drawing to a period, and
there remains yet much important business to be transacted before the
adjournment; but their opinion being overruled by a late vote of the
House, they have since taken it into consideration, and are now ready
and willing to come to a decision. The Eastern members, with the members
from New York, have agreed to fix a place upon national principles,
without a regard to their own convenience, and have turned their minds
to the banks of the Susquehanna. This is a situation as nearly central
as could be devised, upon some of the principles contained in the
resolution. It is, however, supposed to be considerably to the southward
of the centre of the population. Motives of convenience would have led
us to fix upon the banks of the Delaware, but it was supposed it would
give more lasting content to go further south. They were, therefore,
unitedly of opinion, that the banks of the river Susquehanna should be
the place of the permanent residence of the General Government; and that
until suitable buildings could be there erected for accommodation, they
should remain in the city of New York. Agreeably to these ideas, I move
the following resolution:
_Resolved_, That the permanent seat of the General
Government ought to be in some convenient place on the east
bank of the river Susquehanna, in the State of
Pennsylvania; and that until the necessary buildings be
erected for the purpose, the seat of Government ought to
continue at the city of New York.
Mr. STONE said, it ought to be "Government of the United States,"
instead of General Government.
Mr. LEE.--The House are now called upon to deliberate on a great
national question; and I hope they will discuss and decide it with that
dispassionate deliberation which the magnitude of the subject requires.
I hope they will be guided in this discussion and decision, by the great
principles on which the Government is founded. I have, with a view,
therefore, of bringing them before a committee, drawn up a preamble,
which recognizes them, in the words following:
Whereas the people of the United States have assented to
and ratified a constitution for their Government, to
provide for their defence against foreign danger, to secure
their perpetual union and domestic tranquillity, and to
promote their common interests; and all these great objects
will be the best effected by establishing the seat of
Government in a station as nearly central as a convenient
water communication with the Atlantic Ocean, and an easy
access to the Western Territory will permit; and as it will
be satisfactory to the people of the United States, and
give them a firm confidence in the justice and wisdom of
their Government, to be assured that such a station is
already in the contemplation of Congress; and that proper
measures will be taken to ascertain it, and to provide the
necessary accommodations, as soon as the indispensable
arrangements for carrying into effect the constitution can
be made, and the circumstances of the United States will
permit;
_Resolved_, That a place, as nearly central as a convenient
communication with the Atlantic Ocean, and an easy access
to the Western Territory, will permit, ought to be selected
and established as the permanent seat of the Government of
the United States.
I wish the principles to be recognized, that the people of the United
States may be able to judge whether, in the measures about to be
adopted, they are carried into execution by this House. If these great
principles are not observed, it will be an unhappy fulfilment of those
predictions which have been made by the opponents of the constitution;
that the general interest of America would not be consulted; that
partial measures would be pursued; and that, instead of being influenced
by a general policy, directed to the good of the whole, one part of the
Union would be depressed and trampled on, to benefit and exalt the
other. Instead of accomplishing and realizing those bright prospects
which shone upon us in the dawn of our Government, and for which our
patriots fought and bled, we shall find the whole to be a visionary
fancy. I flatter myself, that before the House decides on the question
before them, those principles will be recognized, if it is meant they
shall be regarded.
Mr. CARROL seconded Mr. LEE'S motion.
Mr. SHERMAN said, if they were both adopted, or blended together, they
would only amount to a preamble, and determine nothing. He thought the
first preamble the best, inasmuch as it stated the principles simply and
concisely.
Mr. HARTLEY.--Several places have been mentioned, and some have been
offered to Congress as proper situations for the Federal Government.
Many persons wish it seated on the banks of the Delaware, many on the
banks of the Potomac. I consider this as the middle ground between the
two extremes. It will suit the inhabitants to the north better than the
Potomac could, and the inhabitants to the south better than the Delaware
would. From this consideration, I am induced to believe, it will be a
situation more accommodating and agreeable than any other. Respecting
its communication with the Western Territory, no doubt but the
Susquehanna will facilitate that object with considerable ease and great
advantage; and as to its convenience to the navigation of the Atlantic
Ocean, the distance is nothing more than to afford safety from any
hostile attempt, while it affords a short and easy communication with
navigable rivers and large commercial towns. Nay, its intercourse may be
without land carriage, if proper measures are pursued to open the
navigation to the Delaware and Chesapeake. Perhaps, as the present
question is only intended to be on general principles, it may be
improper to be more minute than the honorable mover has been; but I
think it would be better to come to the point at once, and fix the
precise spot, if we could. With this view, I mention Wright's Ferry, on
the Susquehanna. Not, however, that the House should decide upon it,
until they have ascertained its advantages, which will, perhaps, come
more properly forward when the question on the preamble is determined.
Mr. THATCHER was against a preamble being prefixed to the resolution of
the committee, because the House had, on every occasion when preambles
were brought forward, rejected them. He thought this a prudent conduct,
because it avoided embarrassments. He observed, that it was not
unfrequently the case that the preambles occasioned more difficulty in
understanding the laws than the most intricate part of the laws
themselves; and, therefore, the committee would act wisely to reject
such trammels. He conceived, moreover, that the motion was out of order,
as it was a substitute for one before the committee.
Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) looked upon the motion as a preamble to a
preamble, both of which he conceived unnecessary; nay, he doubted the
truth of some of the assertions. So far from cementing the Union, by a
measure of the kind in contemplation, he rather feared it would have a
tendency to rend the Union in two; for which reason he was against
adopting it.
Mr. TUCKER wished the proposition might lie on the table, to give
gentlemen time to consider it.
Mr. LEE conceived it proper to adopt the preamble as a guide to their
decision. No gentlemen pretended to say it contained improper
principles. As to the whole being a preamble to a preamble, he did not
conceive that to be the case, because the resolution, subsequent to the
preamble, decided, that Congress should select a place for their
permanent residence. He did not conceive how gentlemen could refuse
their assent to a self-evident proposition. He thought such conduct
would give an alarm to the inhabitants of the United States; it amounted
to a declaration, that, on this important question, they would not be
governed by principles founded on rectitude and good policy.
Mr. MADISON.--I cannot, Mr. Chairman, discover why the opposition to my
colleague's preamble is so strenuous. Is it contended to be out of
order? I submit that to the decision of the Chair. Does it contain any
thing which is not true? I appeal, on that point, to the candid judgment
of the committee. Are the truths in it applicable to the great object we
are about to decide? I appeal to the justice and policy of the people of
the United States.
I flatter myself the Chair will decide with me, that the proposition is
strictly in order; that the committee will agree, that its contents are
substantial truths; and the whole world, that they are applicable to the
important point now under consideration.
It declares the principles which ought to govern our decision on this
question, and will, therefore, stand properly prefixed to the motion
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. GOODHUE.) By it we
declare our sentiments, and engage to conform to them, in fixing upon a
seat for the residence of Congress. Is there any thing improper or
unwise in this determination? An honorable gentleman near me (Mr.
TUCKER) says, that he feels himself embarrassed on this occasion; that
the propositions are a bandage over his eyes, to lead him blindfolded to
an object he cannot tell what. I must beg leave to differ from him. They
appear to me to contain those luminous truths which ought to guide him
through his embarrassment to the object which I am sure his justice and
patriotism are in pursuit of. I hope, therefore, he will agree with us
in adopting the motion, unless something more essential is offered
against it.
Mr. SHERMAN.--The resolution connected with the preamble contains a
proposition which, I think, ought not to be adopted. It selects a place,
having a convenient water-communication with the Atlantic. Now, it may
be just and expedient to fix upon a place at some distance from a
navigable river, therefore it may not agree with the intention of the
committee. As to the principles which are to guide our decisions, they
are as well expressed in the propositions of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania as in the substitute, and as free from ambiguity.
The question on Mr. LEE'S motion was taken, and determined in the
negative; yeas 17, nays 34.
Mr. TUCKER declared, that the majority for fixing upon any set of
principles whatever, could not govern his mind with regard to the fact.
If, on the whole, he did not think that place best, which the principles
adopted seemed to lead to, he certainly could not vote for it. Of what
use, then, was it to establish principles which could not govern the
conduct of the House? But the principles offered are vague, and lead to
no certain conclusion. What is the centre of wealth, population, and
territory? Is there a common centre? Territory has one centre,
population another, and wealth a third. Now, is it intended to determine
a centre from these three centres? This was not a practicable mode of
settling the place; and it was to be doubted whether the centre of
wealth ought at all to be considered. The centre of population is
variable, and a decision on that principle now, might establish the seat
of Government at a very inconvenient place to the next generation. The
centre of territory may be ascertained, but that will lead to a
situation entirely ineligible; consequently, whether these centres were
considered separately or together, they furnish no satisfactory
direction, no possible guide to the committee. The only way, then, to
come at a result yielding satisfaction, would be to consider the several
places to be proposed, according to their merits; and this would be done
by gentlemen in the course of the business. He was, therefore, against
settling any principles by vote.
Mr. MADISON.--I move to strike out the word wealth, because I do not
conceive this to be a consideration that ought to have much weight in
determining the place where the seat of Government ought to be. The two
other principles, I admit, are such as ought to have their influence;
but why wealth should is not so clear. Government is intended for the
accommodation of the citizens at large; an equal facility to communicate
with Government is due to all ranks; whether to transmit their
grievances or requests, or to receive those blessings which the
Government is intended to dispense. The rich are certainly not less able
than those who are indigent to resort to the seat of Government, or to
establish the means necessary for receiving those advantages to which,
as citizens, they are entitled.
I should rather suppose, if any distinctions are to be made, or superior
advantages to be enjoyed from the presence of the Government, that the
Government ought rather to move toward those who are the least able to
move toward it, and who stand most in need of its protection.
The question on this motion was taken, and passed in the negative; yeas
22, nays 28.
The question on Mr. SCOTT'S motion was then taken, and adopted; yeas 32,
nays 18.
Mr. GOODHUE'S motion was now taken into consideration.
Mr. LEE hoped that gentlemen would show how the banks of the Susquehanna
conformed with the principles laid down in the resolution adopted by the
House; how it communicated with the navigation of the Atlantic, and how
it was connected with the Western Territory. He hoped they would also
point out its other advantages, respecting salubrity of air and
fertility of soil. He expected all these advantages ought to be combined
in the place of the residence of the Federal Government, and every other
requisite to cement the common interest of America.
Mr. Hartley wished some gentleman had risen to satisfy the inquiries of
the honorable member, who could have given a description of the
advantages of that situation in better language than himself. But as no
gentleman had offered to undertake the subject, he thought himself bound
to make him an answer; and he trusted, in doing this, he should clearly
show that all the advantages contemplated would result from adopting the
motion. But he wished it had extended further, and selected the place
most convenient on the banks of the Susquehanna, as then the answer
would be more pointed and decisive. He had already mentioned Wright's
Ferry, and would consider that as the proper spot. Now, Wright's Ferry
lies on the east bank of the Susquehanna, about thirty-five miles from
navigable water; and, from a few miles above, is navigable to the source
of the river, at Lake Otsego, in the upper part of the State of New
York. The Tioga branch is navigable a very considerable distance up, and
is but a few miles from the Genesee, which empties into Lake Ontario.
The Juniata is navigable, and nearly connects with the Kisskemanetas,
and that with the Ohio; besides the West Branch connects with the
Alleghany River; forming a communication with the distant parts even of
Kentucky, with very little land carriage. The great body of water in
that river renders it navigable at all seasons of the year. With respect
to the settlements in the neighborhood of Wright's Ferry, he would
venture to assert it was as thickly inhabited as any part of the country
in North America. As to the quality of the soil, it was inferior to none
in the world, and though that was saying a good deal, it was not more
than he believed a fact. In short, from all the information he had
acquired, and that was not inconsiderable, he ventured to pronounce,
that in point of soil, water, and the advantages of nature, there was no
part of the country superior. And if honorable gentlemen were disposed
to pay much attention to a dish of fish, he could assure them their
table might be furnished with fine and good from the waters of the
Susquehanna; perhaps not in such variety as in this city, but the
deficiency was well made up in the abundance which liberal nature
presented them of her various products. It was in the neighborhood of
two large and populous towns, one of them the largest inland town in
America. Added to all these advantages, it possessed that of centrality,
perhaps, in a superior degree to any which could be proposed.
Mr. LEE asked the gentleman what was the distance of Wright's Ferry from
Yorktown, and whether that town, as it had once accommodated Congress,
could do it again? If a permanent seat is established, why not go to it
immediately? And why, let me ask, shall we go and fix upon the banks of
a rapid river, when we can have a more healthful situation? And here he
would inquire if the Codorus Creek, which runs through Yorktown into the
Susquehanna, was, or could be made navigable?
Mr. HARTLEY answered, that Yorktown was ten miles from the Ferry, that
it contained about five hundred houses, besides a number of large and
ornamental public buildings; that there was no doubt, but if Congress
deemed it expedient to remove immediately there, they could be
conveniently accommodated; but as gentlemen appeared to be inclined to
fix the permanent residence on the east banks of the Susquehanna, he was
very well satisfied it should be there.
Mr. MADISON.--The gentleman who brought forward this motion was candid
enough to tell us, that measures have been preconcerted out of doors,
and that the point was determined; that more than half the territory of
the United States, and nearly half its inhabitants have been disposed
of, not only without their consent, but without their knowledge. After
this, I hope the gentleman will extend his candor so much further, as to
show that the general principles now to be established are applicable to
their determination, in order that we may reconcile this fate to our own
minds, and submit to it with some degree of complacency.
I hope, if the seat of Government is to be at or near the centre of
wealth, population, and extent of territory, that gentlemen will show
that the permanent seat there proposed is near the permanent centre of
wealth, population and extent of territory, and the temporary seat, near
the temporary centre. I think we may, with good reason, call upon
gentlemen for an explanation on these points, in order that we may know
the ground on which the great question is decided, and be able to assign
to our constituents satisfactory reasons for what some of them may
consider a sacrifice of their interest, and be instrumental in
reconciling them, as far as possible, to their destiny.
Mr. GOODHUE thought the question, stated by the gentleman from Virginia,
was proper to be asked, and proper to be answered. The gentlemen from
the eastward, as he said before, were in favor of the Susquehanna; that
in contemplating the geographical centre of territory, they found the
banks of that river to be near the place. In point of population, they
considered the Susquehanna was south of that centre; but, from a spirit
of conciliation, they were inclined to go there, although the principle
and their own convenience would not lead them beyond the banks of the
Delaware. He believed the centre of population would not vary
considerably for ages yet to come, because he supposed it would
constantly incline more toward the Eastern, and manufacturing States,
than toward the Southern, and agricultural ones.
Mr. JACKSON.--I was originally opposed to the question coming forward,
and am so still. I thought the subject ought not to be touched till the
States, who have not yet acceded to the Union, might have an opportunity
of giving their voice. I agree with the gentleman from Virginia. I am
sorry that the people should learn that this matter has been
precipitated; that they should learn, that the members from New England
and New York had fixed on a seat of Government for the United States.
This is not proper language to go out to freemen. Jealousies have
already gone abroad. This language will blow the coals of sedition, and
endanger the Union. I would ask, if the other members of the Union are
not also to be consulted? Are the eastern members to dictate in this
business, and fix the seat of Government of the United States? Why not
also fix the principles of Government? Why not come forward, and demand
of us the power of Legislation, and say, give us up your privileges, and
we will govern you? If one part has the power to fix the seat of
Government, they may as well take the Government from the other. This
looks like aristocracy: not the united, but the partial voice of America
is to decide. How can gentlemen answer for this, who call themselves
representatives, on the broad basis of national interest?
I deny the fact of the territorial centrality of the place proposed.
From New York, to the nearest part of the province of Maine, it is two
hundred and fifty miles; and from New York, to the nearest part of the
upper district of Georgia, from which my colleague, General Matthews,
comes, is eleven hundred miles; and from the proposed place on the
Susquehanna, it is four hundred miles to the nearest part of Maine, and
nine hundred to the nearest part of that district; the proportion is
more than two to one. But the gentlemen should have an eye to the
population of Georgia; one of the finest countries in the world cannot
but rapidly extend her population; nothing but her being harassed by the
inroads of savages has checked her amazing increase, which must, under
the auspices of peace and safety, people her western regions. Georgia
will soon be as populous as any State in the Union. Calculations ought
not to be made on its present situation.
North Carolina is not yet in the Union, and perhaps the place may give
umbrage to her, which ought, at this moment, to be cautiously avoided.
I should, therefore, think it most advisable to postpone the decision
for this session at least. But, if we are to decide, I own, I think the
Potomac a better situation than the Susquehanna, and I hope it will be
selected for that purpose.
Mr. GOODHUE.--If gentlemen examine this subject with candor, they will
find that the banks of the Susquehanna are as near the geographical
centre as can be fixed upon. It is from the extreme of the Province of
Maine about seven hundred and sixty miles; to Savannah, in Georgia,
about seven hundred and sixty; and about seven hundred and thirty, or
seven hundred and forty, from Kentucky; so that it is rather south of
the centre of territory.
Mr. LAWRENCE.--When this subject was under discussion some time since,
it appeared to be the wish of gentlemen from the eastward, and of the
members from this State, that the question should not now be decided.
They urged several reasons why it would be improper. I thought those
reasons weighty, and was for postponing the consideration till our next
meeting. But it was answered, that the business was important; that the
citizens of the United States were uneasy and anxious; that as factions
did not now exist, it was the proper time to decide the question. What
was the representation to do? Was it not necessary for them to consult,
and fix upon a proper place?
They are, in a degree, disinterested, because they have no expectation
that the seat of Government will be fixed in any of the Eastern States.
On the other hand, there is a well-grounded expectation, that it will be
fixed either in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, or Jersey. We are
called on to determine a question in which we conceive ourselves
unbiased, and shall decide it on those principles that will reflect
honor on the House. I trust it will be found that we have fixed on those
principles, and that this resolution will be confirmed by Congress. We
do not decide for the Union, nor for the Southern States, we decide for
ourselves; and if our reasons are substantial, I trust that gentlemen
will meet us in the determination.
There are several principles which have been agreed to in the general
resolution; and I believe it will be shown, with exactness, that the
place proposed will come within these principles. The first respects
population. Is the House to consider the present, or the expected
population? The resolution has a determinate meaning; it speaks of the
population at the present period; and to calculate on this principle no
gentleman can say is unjust. The representation in this House is itself
a demonstration of it. The population of this country may be pretty
safely determined by the proportion of representatives in this House;
for it is established on this ground. I therefore believe, that the
principle of population inclines to this place, in preference to a more
southern situation.
But, in taking the principle of territory, are the House to calculate on
the uninhabited wilderness? Shall they take the Lake of the Woods on one
side, and the Missouri on the other, and find a geographical centre? If
so, to what an extent must they go? The inhabited and populated part of
the country ought chiefly to be considered. If St. Croix is taken as the
eastern limit, and St. Mary as the southern, the centre of the line will
be found to fall pretty near the Susquehanna.
Mr. SEDGWICK.--I beg leave to ask, if there really is any impropriety in
gentlemen's consulting together, who have a uniformity of interest, upon
a question which has been said to be of such infinite importance? My
colleague has barely stated that such a consultation has taken place,
and that, in consequence of it, men's minds have been induced to run in
a current. Is there any thing wrong in this? Let those, then, who are
determined not to consult, nor have any communication on such a subject,
decide for themselves. I should think myself lost to that regard I owe
to my country, and to my immediate constituents in particular, should I
abstract myself from the contemplation of the benefits that would flow
from knowing the feelings and sentiments of those with whom I am to act.
Instead of being an evidence to that aristocratic spirit which has been
mentioned, it is only a proof that men, attentive to their business, had
preferred that way, which every honest man had in view. I have
contemplated the subject with great anxiety, and though I cannot declare
that my local situation has had no influence on my mind, yet I will say
I endeavored to prevent its having any. I believe that the true
interests of the country will be best answered by taking a position
eastward and northward of the Susquehanna.
The Delaware is one extreme, the Potomac another; but when I reflect how
anxious some gentlemen are for the one, and some for the other, I am
willing to accommodate both parties, by advancing to a middle ground, to
which I hope the public mind will be reconciled. I was also influenced
in fixing this opinion, by the sentiment of the celebrated Montesquieu.
He had laid it down, that in a country partaking of northern and
southern interests, of a poor and productive soil, the centre and the
influence of Government ought to incline to that part where the former
circumstances prevailed; because necessity stimulates to industry,
produces good habits and a surplus of labor; because such parts are the
nurseries of soldiers and sailors, and the sources of that energy which
is the best security of the Government.
The Susquehanna is, in my opinion, south-west of the centre of wealth,
population, and resources of every kind. I would beg leave, gentlemen,
to suggest another idea. In my view, on the principles of population,
the Susquehanna is far beyond the centre; for I do not think it just,
on this subject, to take the constitutional computation. Will any
gentlemen pretend, that men, who are merely the subject of property or
wealth, should be taken into the estimate; that the slaves of the
country, men who have no rights to protect, (being deprived of them
all,) should be taken into view, in determining the centre of
Government? If they were considered, gentlemen might as well estimate
the black cattle of New England.
I would ask, if it is of no importance to take a position in which the
credit of the Government may procure those supplies that its necessities
might require? Will the strength and riches of the country be to the
north or to the south of the Susquehanna? Certainly to the north.
It is the opinion of all the Eastern States, that the climate of the
Potomac is not only unhealthy, but destructive to northern
constitutions. It is of importance to attend to this, for whether it be
true or false, such are the public prepossessions. Vast numbers of
Eastern adventures have gone to the Southern States, and all have found
their graves there; they have met destruction as soon as they arrived.
These accounts have been spread, and filled the Northern people with
apprehension.
Mr. VINING.--Although I must acknowledge myself a party to the bargain,
yet I had no share in making it. It is to me an unexpected bargain.
Though the interest of the State which I have the honor to represent is
involved in it, I am yet to learn of the committee, whether Congress are
to tickle the trout on the stream of the Codorus, to build their
sumptuous palaces on the banks of the Potomac, or to admire commerce
with her expanded wings, on the waters of the Delaware. I have, on this
occasion, educated my mind to impartiality, and have endeavored to
chastise its prejudices.
I confess to the House, and to the world, that, viewing this subject,
with all its circumstances, I am in favor of the Potomac. I wish the
seat of Government to be fixed there; because I think the interest, the
honor, and the greatness of this country require it. I look on it as the
centre from which those streams are to flow that are to animate and
invigorate the body politic. From thence, it appears to me, the rays of
Government will most naturally diverge to the extremities of the Union.
I declare, that I look on the Western Territory in an awful and striking
point of view. To that region the unpolished sons of earth are flowing
from all quarters; men, to whom the protection of the laws, and the
controlling force of the Government, are equally necessary. From this
great consideration, I conclude that the banks of the Potomac are the
proper station.
Mr. SENEY mentioned Peach Bottom, on the Susquehanna, about fifteen
miles above tide-water, as the proper place.