Mr. GERRY said, that the circumstance of a publication which had made
its appearance that morning induced him to rise for the purpose of
bringing forward a proposition respecting a full and impartial
publication of the debates of that House. Every gentleman, he believed,
would agree with him that, from a publication of this kind, the citizens
of the United States would derive such information respecting the
proceedings of the Legislature, and the principles on which the laws are
grounded, as must be productive of the most salutary effects, and attach
the people more strongly to the General Government; but the _ex parte_
publications can have no other tendency than to misrepresent their
proceedings, and alienate the affections of the citizens. He therefore
moved the following resolution:
"Whereas an impartial publication of the Debates of
Congress stating accurately their Legislative measures, and
the reasons urged for and against them, is a desirable
object, inasmuch as it may aid the Executive in
administering the Government, the Judiciary in expounding
the laws, the Governments and citizens of the several
States in forming a judgment of the conduct of their
respective Representatives, and Congress themselves in
revising and amending their Legislative proceedings: And
whereas, from the want of proper arrangements, such
publication has not been accomplished--
"_Resolved_, That ---- persons, of good reputation, and
skilled in the art of stenography, be, at the next session,
appointed by ballot, to take and publish, impartially and
accurately, the Legislative subjects which may be submitted
to the consideration of the House, and the debates thereon
of the members respectively; that the persons so to be
appointed be considered as officers of the House, and
provided for accordingly; that they be severally qualified
by oath to a faithful discharge of the trust; and that such
regulations shall be prescribed, as may be necessary to
protect them in attaining the salutary objects of their
appointment."
This, Mr. G. said, was a subject which ought no longer to be overlooked.
Whilst Congress sat at New York, great uneasiness had been occasioned in
the House by the mode in which the debates were published. Sometimes
members were introduced as uttering arguments directly the reverse of
what they had advanced. At other times, the substance of the arguments,
as published, wore an aspect widely different from what they had when
offered in debate. In some instances, their arguments were so garbled
that they themselves were unable to recognize them in print; in others,
they were disfigured with grammatical errors, and rendered totally
unintelligible; and on many occasions, the arguments on one side of the
question only were published.
Such were the effects produced by this mode of publication that a
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. BURKE) brought forward a motion for
correcting those evils, which was debated for some time. After the
subject had been two or three times under discussion, the House was
informed that there was a probability of care being taken in future to
correct the errors; and thus the matter was passed over.
Mr. G. then mentioned a circumstance which he had learned from a
gentleman who had declared he could prove it on oath before the House,
if called upon, viz: that, having asked one of those persons who at that
time published the debates, "how he could think of publishing them so
inaccurately?" the answer was, "that he was under a necessity of
obliging his employers." Hence, he concluded that there must have been a
corrupt faction who influenced that short-hand writer.
When Congress first came to this city, the debates were published pretty
accurately; and so they were this session, in some of the papers, but,
in others, the case was otherwise; and he himself, as well as other
gentlemen, had been under a necessity of publicly contradicting them in
print. In some of the debates, the answer to an argument was published
before the argument itself made its appearance; on other occasions, they
were published very fully on one side of the question, whilst nothing
appeared on the other. Every gentleman, he believed, would admit that
this was a true state of the business; and it was well known that, on
many important occasions, no debates had been published at all.
The want of regularity in the publication was, he supposed, owing, in
some measure, to the want of proper encouragement, as the printers of
newspapers would not probably find their account in allowing a
sufficient compensation to induce short-hand writers to devote their
whole time to the business.
Mr. G. then read from the American Daily Advertiser (of Friday last) the
following passage:
"A warm debate hereupon took place, during the course of
which one gentleman, who strenuously supported the motion,
was several times interrupted. Apprehensions were expressed
of dangerous consequences, in case his speech should appear
in print; and an honorable member, who opposed the motion,
(Mr. GERRY,) declared that the manner in which the Debates
of Congress had been published, and the business conducted,
during the present session, had a direct tendency to bring
about a dissolution of the Union.
"As the honorable gentleman did not further explain
himself, we are at a loss to determine whether he meant to
tax the publishers of the debates with inaccuracy in
stating them wrong,----or imprudence, in stating them
right, and freely publishing whatever sentiments any member
of that House may think proper to express, in the
constitutional exercise of the freedom of debate. But,
certain we are, that he could not mean to stigmatize them
as actuated by partiality, undue influence, or sinister
motives of any kind."
Here, said Mr. G., an idea was held up that the gentleman who had spoken
first (Mr. MERCER) was interrupted. But it is not said that I was
interrupted too. I was interrupted as often as he. The House can
determine whether I have ever taken any measure to prevent a free and
candid publication of the debates. On the contrary, I have always
endeavored to obtain it; and I will still proceed to accomplish it as
far as possible. I think neither this House nor any of its members ought
to be subject to publications of this kind. If they are, they will be
obliged either to enter into paper wars with printers, or to relinquish
the public good. It is incumbent on the House to take measures to
prevent misrepresentation. I therefore submit to the House the
resolution which I have read; and I hope that, if the proposition itself
appears worthy of their attention, they will take it into consideration;
or, if it wants any amendment, they will refer it to a committee; for I
think the subject ought not to be any longer neglected.
Mr. MERCER.--I second the motion; and I think the publication which the
honorable gentleman has read to the House contains but a fair statement
of facts. The gentleman, in the course of the former debate, made some
very strange allusions to what was said by me, which were wholly
unauthorized. I consider it as a primary object in this Government that
we should on this floor be at all times free to express our sentiments
of the Government, without involving the Government itself. I consider
such a measure as is now contemplated to be well worthy the serious
attention of the House. We are at a distance from our constituents; and
it is a misfortune that we are withdrawn from their inspection, by being
placed in a part of the Union where it is not easy to compare our
circumstances and conduct in private life with the motives which may be
supposed to influence our political conduct. Our constituents ought to
be acquainted with our proceedings here; and it is only from a full and
accurate publication of the debates of this House that they can obtain
any satisfactory information on this subject.
Mr. GERRY said, that the paragraph he had read did not contain a full
statement of facts, as the apprehensions he had expressed were only in
case the arguments should go "_unanswered_."
Mr. GILES made, and Mr. W. SMITH seconded, a motion for referring the
resolution to a select committee, to report such regulation as they may
think necessary for the publication of the debates. An additional reason
for the reference was, that some alteration in the wording appeared
necessary, to (Mr. SMITH,) so far as respects the Judiciary, &c.
Mr. BOUDINOT objected to the commitment, as he thought it a subject of
considerable consequence, and there would not be time to take it up
during the present session, the House having already outsat the time
which the other branch of the Legislature had proposed for the
adjournment. This was his only objection; otherwise, he was far from
being opposed to the measure.
Mr. GILES thought the consequence of letting the matter lie over till
next session would be, that it would die away, and nothing would be
done. Unless some steps be taken during the present session, no persons
would come forward as candidates at the commencement of the next. But if
a committee report on the subject, the House may determine what steps
are to be taken, and the people will be prepared accordingly.
The question being taken on the commitment, it passed in the
affirmative--yeas 27, nays, 22.
_Ordered_, That the said motion be committed to Mr. GERRY, Mr. MERCER,
Mr. LEE, Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina,) and Mr. KITTERA.
TUESDAY, May 8.
A message was received from the Senate, notifying the House that the
Senate, having completed the Legislative business before them, are now
about to adjourn. Whereupon,
_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that this
House, having completed the business before them, are now about to
adjourn until the first Monday in November next, and that the Clerk of
this House do go with the said message.
The Clerk accordingly went with the said message; and, being returned,
The SPEAKER adjourned the House, to meet on the first Monday in November
next.