Mr. MILLEDGE liked the spirit of the motion, in regard to the prevention

of standing armies; but he was against its being put in practice at the

present time. He differed from the gentleman from New Jersey, and as his

motion had not a second he would proceed. He wished the question under

consideration to go to a Committee of the Whole, that a fair and open

discussion of every point of the important subject might be brought into

view. The situation of the State he had the honor to represent, had been

mentioned in the course of debate; he therefore felt himself called on

to deliver his sentiments; that he was persuaded there was not a member

in the House who more ardently wished for peace than himself, or who

would go further to promote so desirable an object, as putting an end to

a savage war, and an enormous public expense; but he was of opinion that

the reduction of the military establishment would not answer either of

those purposes; that it well became members to take into consideration

such parts of the Union as lay exposed, and then judge the propriety of

the intended measure; that it was well known that Georgia was a frontier

State, bordered on one side by a nation with whom a just understanding

and intercourse still remains to be settled by treaty, and on the other

by a warlike tribe of Indians, the most numerous of any on the

continent, ten thousand warriors, besides the Cherokee nation of three

thousand and five hundred--a State, in proportion to its wealth, and in

proportion to what it contributes to the General Government, of the

fewest inhabitants, an extent of frontier from the river St. Mary to the

northernmost line, full three hundred miles--a country hardly at any

period enjoying perfect safety, since the commencement of the

Revolution. My constituents said he, adopted the Federal system, from a

hope that we should be protected: some of them at this moment, have

never been able to return to their habitations, which they left at the

commencement of the war; and I am warranted in saying that a part of my

constituents are now throughout the State under arms. Let members for a

moment place their constituents in the situation of mine, and let me ask

them if they would not demand the protecting arm of Government? As yet

we have experienced little more than the enforcing a treaty, that has

not been complied with on the part of the British, which has reduced

some of our first citizens to a state of dependence on those who not

long ago were their avowed and open enemies, and a deprivation of our

territorial right, for the yielding of which a permanent peace and

permanent line were to be established. Of the peace we have experienced

no great share, and as for the permanent line, it still remains to be

run, and, from well-grounded information, the half-way conduct of the

Creeks the other day with Mr. Seagrove, gives very little reason to

expect it. Such was the situation of his State. But to the point: he was

of opinion that we set out wrong in warring with the Indians at any

rate. Unfortunately for us, the event has not answered the design, and

we are now reduced to that state that hardly any change can mend. The

unaccountable success of the Indians has so elated them with their

prowess,--and which likewise has presented views to the English and

Spanish they never dreamed of; and the federated situation of the

different tribes occasioned him not to hesitate in pronouncing that the

several frontier States would be more or less exposed to the cruel

ravages of a savage warfare. If the customs of savage tribes did not

direct them towards us, they were incessantly excited by the British and

Spaniards to amuse us with false pretences of peace, while they were

engrossing the advantages of their trade. The aged Indians kept to their

hunting, and the young men were gratified in the military exploits with

the blood of our fellow-citizens. In this situation the frontier of the

United States, a distance of not less than fifteen hundred miles, must

be garrisoned. He left it to gentlemen to calculate what force would be

required for that purpose, if troops should be employed in no other way.

Militia, he said, were for sudden invasion; they were scattered when

they returned, and must be protected while at home. The jealousy of the

English, and their augmenting their force, surely ought not to occasion

the reduction of any part of ours; if any thing, it ought to have a

contrary effect. He likewise said that it would be necessary to view the

early history of our country, and find what had been the conduct of

Spaniards and Indians about the commencement of the present century. The

Spaniards, at the same spot where they now are, by their treachery, when

they were at peace with the English, at a time when the Carolinians

little suspected, when they imagined they were in perfect alliance with

the Indians, the Yamasses, Creeks, and Cherokees, those Indians, by

their instigation, massacred one hundred and thirty of their

inhabitants, and drove the rest into Charleston. The inhabitants of the

capital of Georgia are as much exposed as the Carolinians then were; a

distance of twenty miles from Savannah, places them in an open,

uninhabited country, to the Creek nation, and within that twenty miles,

thinly inhabited on account of the nature of their cultivation. What had

happened, he said, might happen again: the Spaniards had not changed

their policy. If, therefore, we are forewarned, ought we not to be

forearmed? That, from their dangerous situation, even on a peace

establishment, there ought to be at least five hundred troops on that

frontier.

If public officers have misapplied the public money, the constitution

pointed out a mode to punish them. The Government belongs to the people,

the officers are their servants, we are their Representatives, and we

ought to do them justice. He conceived it was praiseworthy in any member

to afford any aid or information in his power to bring these things to

light; that he felt it his duty to make strict inquiry into the

expenditure of public money; that he was sent by his constituents to

protect their property, and in doing that should vote against the

present proposition.

Mr. FINDLAY observed that a difference of opinion existed in respect to

the motion for reducing the army. The mover was for filling up the blank

with _two_ regiments; but Mr. CLARK had proposed _three_, and was

against discharging any of those already enlisted. The principle of the

motion was what he wished to speak to. Passing by the comparative view,

so much alluded to in the course of the debate, of militia and regulars,

he struck at once into the heart of the question. The redemption of the

public debt, from the savings to be made by the reduction of the army,

seemed to be a principal object with some members, but in his opinion,

it was no more than a secondary one: the defence of the frontier is of

superior concern.

The origin of the war goes much farther back than that of the present

Government; it arose out of the war with Britain; and it has been ever

since changing for the worse, until it has at length assumed a very

alarming complexion; for it has united a greater number of tribes than

has ever been known, and it has exposed a much greater extent of our

frontier. With regard to the mismanagement or abuses, if any there were,

it was no place to discuss such subjects by desultory debating in this

House, whilst there were other modes open. He did not, however, believe

that any material abuses had taken place indeed. This war is not one of

the faults chargeable to the Executive, for it might with more justice,

perhaps, be said to have had its origin in the ineffectual measures of

the Legislature. The first Congress assembled under the present

Government found the Union in a state of war; and although one regiment

was stationed at Pittsburg, yet the militia were not relieved from

actual service. But the lately raised troops may perhaps be found more

effectual, as it is said there is an excellent system of discipline

established amongst them.

With regard to the argument that the Union cannot support so heavy an

expense by new taxes, he was of opinion that every consideration ought

to give way to the safety and protection of the country.

A particular plan is set into operation for accomplishing a peace, and

it ought not to be arrested without a trial being made. The ill-defined

law authorizing the PRESIDENT to call out the militia, and the levies

under General Harmar, did not answer the end intended, for the time of

their enlistment had nearly expired ere they had reached their

destination; but if General Harmar had carried out two regiments of

permanent troops, he could, without the assistance of the militia, have

destroyed all the Indian towns and villages that stood in his way, and

he would have completed the object of erecting a line of posts which

would secure a lasting peace; but from the weakness of the force and the

inefficacy of the law, the purpose was arrested at a critical moment,

and the vengeance of the Indians roused to the utmost pitch; instead of

their fears being alarmed, the next step of raising another regiment was

of a piece with the former weak policy; for the encouragement was

insufficient, and the miserable two-dollar men who were raised for a six

months' service--their fate is too well known, and will be long

remembered. They arrived at the wilderness with clothing that lasted

only to the time they reached the scene of action, and those who were

not cut off by the enemy were left to starve with cold in the most

inclement season.

The fatal catastrophe of this campaign has only served to elate the

Indians, and render them insolent, as appears from their treatment of

our messengers under flags of truce. The parsimony on those occasions

has been the cause of a double expense.

In opposition to this it may be said that those parsimonious plans were

recommended by the Executive, and only enacted into laws by the

Legislature. This, however, if it were the fact, is no apology for the

Legislature, for they have no right to cast their Legislative

responsibility upon the Executive Department; nor can they do it without

a breach of trust towards their constituents. The members knew that the

encouragement of pay and time of enlistments would never answer any good

purpose; the want of resources could have been no reason for that

parsimony toward the defence of the frontiers, because it is known that

we found revenue enough not only to pay the interest of the public debt,

and to support the Government, but even to pay the debts of the

individual States. The conviction of these mistakes induced Congress at

last to make adequate provision, and now an attempt is made to withdraw

the means before the end is accomplished. The other branch of the

Legislature has prevented us from giving higher wages to encourage the

recruiting service; but notwithstanding all this, it appears to go on

with considerable success.

Here he mentioned something of the confidential communications which he

was not now at liberty to explain. The gentleman who says that two

regiments are sufficient to garrison the forts, ought to consider that

garrisoning those is not the only object in contemplation. If we expect

to exist as a nation we must protect the whole frontier, and make it the

interest of the Indians to be at peace with us.

But do gentlemen consider the consequences of throwing all internal

defence and distant expeditions upon the militia? Is it not enough that

they already stand as a picket guard to their brethren who live at ease;

that they eat their bread in the fear of their lives, and are frequently

embittered with the view of mournful incidents; but that we must lay a

deliberate plan for increasing the number of their fatherless children

and childless parents?

To say that those States who have frontiers, ought to be left to protect

themselves, is a very anti-Federal sentiment, which he was sorry to hear

advanced in that House. Neither is it generous to say we will pay the

expense, and let them fight for us. Do gentlemen contemplate to what

issue these principles would lead? Do they not observe that the fate of

the Government is deeply involved in the decision? Perhaps I may be

asked, Did not the States depend chiefly upon their own exertion for the

defence of the frontiers under the old Congress? Yes, they did, and were

better protected than since that period. But let it be recollected that

at the time the States had the command of their own resources, and the

laying and executing their own plans, that the Indians were not so

formidably combined. But that since the States had not the power of

retaliating, nor the means of gratifying with presents; since the

Indians have been solemnly told to look away from the little fires of

the States, to the great fire of the Union, they have looked upon us as

a more formidable and dangerous foe, and made their arrangements

accordingly; and European nations, and emissaries among them, have

improved upon the circumstance, and excited and aided them in their

union and exertions.

He made some further remarks on the impolicy of oppressing the militia

at Marietta, &c., and asked if it were possible that those unfortunate

few could be able to protect the whole frontier against the united force

of the Indians?

He agreed with those who said that the sense of the people of America

was in favor of peace; but the question is come to this. It is not to

begin a war that we have raised this army, but to procure a peace, and

so soon as this end is attained, the army will be discharged. It is

raised to protect, not to oppress, or to aid in governing our citizens.

I know, said he, that standing armies have always been sources of

oppression and aids of tyranny. Our people may long be governed without

such aids; their situation will not admit of abuses from standing

armies, nor would the citizens submit to them.

He was confident that the army would be discharged by the next

Legislature, as soon as a prospect of our affairs will admit it. The

present prospects were not of a very flattering nature, and therefore it

was good policy to keep up the force at the present crisis; and it would

be dangerous to repeal the law under the circumstances.

The present Indian war is essentially different from any former one.

When Britain and France divided North America betwixt them, if the

emissaries of both excited the Indians to war, the power of both

afforded protection. When Britain became possessed of the Western posts,

and many tribes of Indians commenced a war, the British Government

conducted the war, carried it into the Indian country, and by the dread

of their arms procured peace; but the Indians were not then supported by

other powers. In the present war, the Indians, who at that time knew

nothing of us, have combined to make it a common cause; and no superior

powers interest themselves in our favor. No: they conceive our interest

to be inimical to theirs. But if they did not receive encouragement,

protection, and supplies from our superior neighbors, a peace would soon

be procured. The gentlemen who support this resolution know well how

that matter stands, and they know explanations here are not convenient.

He concluded by declaring that he could not vote for the motion.

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

FRIDAY, January 4.

SAMUEL STERRETT, from Maryland, appeared, and took his seat in the

House.

The House proceeded to consider the amendments reported yesterday by the

Committee of the whole House to the bill to make compensation to the

widows and orphans of certain persons who were killed by Indians, under

the sanction of flags of truce; and the same being read, some were

agreed to and others disagreed to. And then the said bill, being further

amended at the Clerk's table, was, together with the amendments, ordered

to be engrossed and read the third time to-morrow.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the

Treasury, enclosing lists of the persons employed in the several offices

of his Department, with the salary allowed to each; also, a letter

accompanying certain statements relative to foreign loans, which have

been made by the United States, under the authority of the President,

pursuant to the resolutions of this House of the 24th and 27th ultimo;

which were read and ordered to lie on the table.

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

bill to regulate the claims to Invalid Pensions; and, after some time

spent therein, the committee rose and reported progress.

SATURDAY, January 5.

A petition of the inhabitants of the city of Hudson, in the State of New

York, was presented to the House and read, stating the inconveniences

under which they labor, from being obliged to register, enter, and clear

their vessels at the port of New York, and praying that the said city of

Hudson may be made a port of entry. Referred to the Secretary of the

Treasury, with instruction to examine the same, and report his opinion

thereupon to the House.

An engrossed bill to make compensation to the widows and orphans of

certain persons who were killed by Indians, under the sanction of flags

of truce, was read the third time and passed.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War,

accompanying the copy of a message of Cornplanter and New Arrow to Major

General Wayne, dated the 8th of December last, relative to the measures

which they have taken to conclude a peace, on behalf of the United

States, with certain tribes of hostile Indians; which were read and

ordered to lie on the table.

_Military Establishment._

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

the motion of the 28th ultimo, for reducing the military establishment

of the United States.

Mr. MOORE said, that there was not sufficient information before the

House respecting the prospect of a peace, to warrant a sudden reduction

of the army. He referred to the abuses which had been hinted at in some

of the branches dependent on the War Establishment, but he did not

believe there had been any worth much notice. He also mentioned the

abstruseness of attempting an investigation into the origin of the

war--whether the frontier settlers, or the Indians, were in fault, was a

difficult thing to determine; but from many circumstances, it appeared

to him, the white people were often guilty of committing depredations.

This was, in his opinion, a good reason why the protection of those

frontiers should not be intrusted to the militia that would be raised

there. Shall we intrust the conduct of that matter to the very persons

who it has been alleged are often the aggressors? Can the President, at

the distance he is situated from the Western territory, check all the

irregular proceedings that might happen amongst such a militia? There

were two obvious reasons for passing the law of the 5th of March, 1792,

for the protection of the frontiers by regular forces. First, it could

not be expected that militia would always prove successful against the

Indians, because the latter are gaining more experience every day in the

mode of warfare, and there can be no dependence on a treaty between

those militia and the Indians. The second reason was, that the

President was strongly impressed with the necessity of establishing the

greatest degree of harmony between the United States and the Indians, by

encouraging and protecting a trade with them, and that this could be

easiest and best effected by establishing a line of forts along the

frontiers, to be garrisoned by regular troops. Mr. M. next mentioned

something of the manners and customs of the Indians, whose practice it

is to spend most of their time on their hunting grounds, leaving their

old men, women, and children, in their towns. They have no regular plan

of government, and can only be attached by influencing some of their

chiefs. The system of harassing them by burning and destroying their

towns at the time they are employed in hunting, has come recommended to

us by experience, and regular troops are the best to be employed in this

service. Their present inexperience will soon be done away by a proper

mode of discipline, and why may not these troops be soon instructed? Are

they not as capable of receiving instructions as militia, and may we not

expect more subordination amongst them, than could possibly be

established over militia? He concluded by declaring himself against the

motion.

[Here the SPEAKER informed the Chair that lie had received a

confidential message from the PRESIDENT. The committee then rose, and

the galleries were closed for some time.]

The House having gone into Committee, the debate was renewed by Mr.

WILLIAMSON, Mr. MADISON, and Mr. STEELE.

Mr. STEELE rose after Mr. MADISON, and said he was perfectly in

sentiment with that gentleman, in regard to the propriety of inserting

an amendment to the motion, which might secure a sufficient

appropriation to carry on offensive operations against the hostile

Indians, by the militia of the frontiers; and if an alteration was

proposed to that effect, he would second it. The attention of the House

to this question speaks its importance; it is probable one more

important will not occur during the present session. On its decision are

suspended the hopes and fears of the people of this country, their hopes

of a speedy and honorable peace, and their fears of a standing army,

with its usual retinue of political evils.

The present is regarded as an interesting epoch in the affairs of the

United States; and it has been perceived, with serious regret, that

while our national character is forming, (he hoped it was not yet

formed,) it seems to partake, in some respects, more of the unnatural

spirit of monarchy, than of the mild and conciliatory temper of a

republic. The principle of keeping up standing armies, though highly

obnoxious to the great body of the people, has not been equally so to

the Government; they have been maintained and increased without

affording protection, or even defence to the frontiers. The supplies

necessary to support the establishment begin to discover an alarming

derangement of the public finances, and it is now incumbent on the

House of Representatives to check this growing mischief.

Mr. S. then adverted to the effects of standing armies on the morals and

political sentiments of the people, wherever they had been employed; of

the expensiveness of all such establishments, and of the wicked purposes

to which they had been, and might be subservient. He said he had

prepared himself to have spoken largely to this point, and to have

quoted the pernicious effects of such a policy in other nations; but the

debate having been already lengthy, and the committee probably fatigued,

it would be sufficient for his present purpose, for the members to make

their own reflections, and to mark the rapid progress of the army from

1789 to 1792, both in numbers and expenses. Instances from foreign

history are superfluous, when our own affords such ample testimony. The

establishment began with one regiment: it is now five. The House was

called on in 1789 to appropriate a little more than $100,000 for that

Department; in the present year, above $1,000,000 is demanded. The

reason of this extraordinary additional expenditure, this unexpected

increase of the army, if not enveloped in darkness, has been founded on

policy hitherto not satisfactorily explained. He said, however lightly

he was disposed to touch this part of the subject, he could not avoid

reminding the committee of the memorable sentiments of 1776, in regard

to standing armies; of the universal abhorrence of the Americans to them

at that time; and, to illustrate it more clearly, he read the

expressions of some of the States in their Bills of Right. These were

the sentiments of the Whigs of 1776, and to such Whigs he wished to

appeal on this occasion. He also reminded the committee of the recent

debates of 1788, of the amendments proposed in several of the State

Conventions; of the unanimity which prevailed among all ranks of people

on this particular point; and it is now to be lamented, said he, that

while the ink which recorded these objections to the constitution is yet

drying, the evil then predicted has taken place.

If there is a subject on which much deliberation is unnecessary, in

order to form a right opinion, it would be in regard to military

establishments. The feelings of a free people revolt at their

continuance, and every man who reads or thinks, can point out their

dangers. He said he felt more anxiety for the fate of this motion, than

commonly marks his conduct, because this is the last session that will

ever afford him an opportunity to trouble the House with his sentiments

on this or any other subject. The motion was brought forward to

discharge a duty which he owed to his constituents, to satisfy his own

conscience, and to afford that protection to the frontiers which they

deserved, and to save the public money. If an uncommon degree of zeal

was discovered in supporting the motion, it ought to be attributed to

these, and no other motives.

The question will now soon be taken; if adopted, I shall be among those

who rejoice; if rejected, among those who have always submitted with a

proper degree of decency to the decision of the majority. But in any

event, the public will know that we have asserted the sense of the

people against standing armies; that we are anxious to defend the

frontiers against their enemies; that we have recommended a system of

economy and efficiency, instead of profusion and delay; that we have

recommended a system calculated to produce victory and peace, instead of

disgrace and war; and that we wish to rescue the Government from the

intoxication of the times, and all the apery of military establishments.

He said he had been attentive to the arguments of the opposition, and

they led principally to four points. If neither of these positions be

found tenable, the motion will certainly succeed; and that they are not

tenable, is believed and will be shown.

1st. It has been boldly asserted that the PRESIDENT is the author of the

existing system.

2dly. They call in question the sincerity of our declarations in wishing

to afford effectual protection to the frontiers.

3dly. They deny the competency of the militia.

4thly. The impolicy of reducing the establishment, when a treaty is

expected.

In regard to the first, we deny that the PRESIDENT is the author of this

plan of prosecuting the war. Not having avowed explicitly himself that

he is so, no document appearing to confirm that opinion, we are

justified in attributing a system which appears to us ineffectual to his

Secretary, and not to him.

It is true, that the Secretary is only a finger of his hand, and the

intimate connection which must of necessity subsist between them,

perhaps, is the ground upon which the assertion has been made. The

Secretaries are all equally near to the PRESIDENT, and if it be admitted

that he is the author of this, he may, with equal propriety, be said to

have been the author of every system on general subjects which either of

them have recommended.

Was he the author of the report on the fisheries? Was he the author of

the plan for establishing the National Bank? It is known that he was

not, and circumstances might be mentioned (which are withheld from

delicacy) to confirm this opinion.

Was he the author of the Funding System? Some gentlemen in the

opposition to this motion, would not be willing to give the PRESIDENT

that credit if he claimed it, and some who support this motion would not

only be sorry that the PRESIDENT had even claimed such a credit, but

believe that it was in no respect attributable to him. The same

gentleman (Mr. WADSWORTH) who first asserted that the PRESIDENT was the

author of this military plan, in the same speech admitted it to be the

war, as well as the plan of the House, and then argued on the necessity

of stability in our measures. It is not very material to the present

question whose plan it is; being a public measure, we are justified in

offering our objections to it; and this is the first time that I have

heard it publicly asserted that a Government should persevere in an

error, because they had undertaken it. If the plan be a good one, it may

be supported by reason; if a bad one, no name ought to be called in to

prop it up.

The inconsistency of that gentleman's (Mr. WADSWORTH's) arguments not

only supports the motion before the committee, but shows the wretched

shifts which have been used to defeat it.

It has been said, in the course of the debate, that individual members,

and even this House, are incompetent to decide upon the efficacy or

inefficacy of military plans. In answer to this it may be said, that if

we are not all Generals, we are all members, and that we have the

privilege of thinking for ourselves and for our constituents. To admit

this doctrine in the latitude which has been expressed, would be to

introduce military ideas indeed; it would be to make soldiers of us,

instead of Legislators: nay, worse than that, it would be to revive the

exploded doctrines of passive obedience and non-resistance.

In regard to the sincerity of his intentions to afford effectual

protection to the frontiers, Mr. S. said that he had been sufficiently

explicit; that a feeling for the sufferers had dictated this motion;

that he was sorry that it had been whispered in the ears of some of the

members that it was intended to withhold the necessary appropriations,

and divert them to other purposes.

If two regiments were insufficient to garrison all the posts necessary

for defence, he would even, under certain restrictions, consent to

continue the three sub-legions, thereby enabling the PRESIDENT to

establish double the number of posts now erected, if he should deem it

advisable. Regular troops being incapable of active expeditions against

Indians in the wilderness, his wish was to abandon that system and

confine them entirely to the garrison.

The next objection to the motion is the incompetency of the militia; and

to support this opinion the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. WADSWORTH)

has made this expression, "that as to the expedition under General St.

Clair, the regulars were few, and not to be named when compared with the

number of the militia." The truth is, there was not a man engaged that

day as a militia man, except the advance guard commanded by Colonel

Oldham, which consisted of about three hundred, perhaps a few more. The

field return of the day preceding the action being in the War Office,

this can be ascertained with precision. The balance of the army on that

unfortunate day, had been enlisted as regulars, were fought as regulars,

even clothed as regulars, and, poor fellows, died like regulars. They

suffered the fate which awaits every regular army destined for similar

expeditions. Even the handful of militia employed that day, did not

deserve that name; they were chiefly substitutes for drafted men from

the ceded territory. This draft became unavoidable, from a misfortune to

General Sevier, which Mr. STEELE related.

The attack on Major Adair has also been mentioned as a proof of the

incompetency of militia, and Mr. S. insisted that the only inference

which could be drawn from thence was, that one hundred militia were able

to repel, but not destroy, near two hundred Indians. This event he

conceived was in favor of and not against his motion.

He next adverted to the arguments of Mr. WADSWORTH, in regard to the war

of 1762; of the establishment of posts in Pennsylvania and Virginia, and

of the success of Colonel Boquet's expedition. If two worn-out regiments

at that time were sufficient to defend the frontiers, and, with the aid

of the militia, to terminate the war, two new regiments, with all the

vigor which the gentleman described them to possess, with the aid of

established posts, and a much more effective militia, can certainly be

equal to the same end. After examining Mr. W.'s arguments for some time,

Mr. S. said, that when analyzed, it would be found that they proved more

than they were intended to prove; but the merits of this motion did not

require that he should take advantage of these indiscretions.

He showed from the history of 1762, that though posts were established,

with a handful of regular troops in each, they never answered the

purpose of effectual protection; but the frontier people were always

obliged, in a great degree, to defend themselves; that they were best

calculated for that service, and that they would perform it now with

alacrity and success, if well rewarded.

Mr. S. then refuted the objection against the militia on account of

their waste and expense which Mr. W. had alluded to. The law allows a

mounted volunteer, furnishing himself with a good horse, good arms,

provisions, and every other necessary, except ammunition, at his own

risk and expense, one dollar per day. The exact expense of such an

expedition can be calculated. Whether successful or not, the charge to

the public cannot be increased. The contractors, quartermasters, and

hospital departments, are all avoided, with the abuses, expenses, and

frauds, attending such establishments. Mr. S. enlarged upon this point,

and said that these were always found to be the most expensive

departments in any army, and that the Federal Treasury had felt their

effects already. In favor of the militia, it may be asked, who fought

the battle of Bunker's Hill? Who fought the battles of New Jersey? Who

have fought the Indians so often with success, under Generals Wilkinson,

Scott, Sevier, and others? Who marched in 1776 under General

Rutherford, through the Cherokee nation, laid waste their country, and

forced them to peace? Who fought the battles of Georgia, under Clark and

Twiggs? Who fought the battles of South Carolina, under the command of

an honorable member now present? Delicacy forbids me to enlarge upon his

successes in his presence.

Who fought the ever-memorable battles of Cowpens, King's Mountain,

Hanging Rock, Blackstocks, the pivots on which the Revolution turned in

the Southern States? In short, who fought all the battles of the

Southern States, while we had a mere handful of regular troops, scarcely

the shadow, much less the reality of an army?

They were all fought by freemen, the substantial freeholders of the

country--the men attached to the Revolution from principle, men who were

sensible of their rights and fought for them.

Such men will not enlist in regular armies, nor will any one who has the

disposition or the constitution of a freeman. It would give me pain to

describe the trash which composes all regular armies: they enlist for

three dollars a month; which, in a country like the United States, is a

sufficient description of their bodies as well as their minds. Such men

are not fit to combat the most active enemy in the world. Here Mr. S.

read Major Gaither's and Major Trueman's depositions, respecting the

defeat of the 4th November, 1791, stating that they could not see the

Indians, because they were behind trees, &c.; that the regular troops

tried, but could not fight that way; that they seemed to be stupid, and

incapable of resistance; and that if any General in the world had

commanded such men that day, he must have been defeated as they were.

An additional argument, and one of the most weighty, too, against

regular expeditions, in this species of warfare, is, that, by the

slowness of their movements, the force of the enemy may be concentrated;

time is afforded them to form alliances, and to confederate against

those whom they consider a common enemy. It is otherwise with militia

incursions. He offered a number of reasons to show that it was so, and

how essential for the interest of the United States to adopt a policy

calculated to detach the tribes from each other as much as possible.

But it has been said, these men were not regular troops. Mr. S. asked,

what, then, were they? They surely were not militia. The last objection,

and the least serious of all, to this motion, is the expectations of a

treaty in the spring. Mr. S. said, if he thought the gentleman who threw

this difficulty in the way believed himself that we have any reason to

expect a permanent peace from the treaty now proposed, it might deserve

an answer. Facts are more to be relied upon than words. From the channel

through which these propositions have come--from the whole complexion of

their talks, and from the late attack on Major Adair, it may safely be

asserted that no peace can be effected in the spring. He recapitulated

some of the difficulties which this motion had to conflict with, and

said that he could mention others, if he was at liberty to do so. Under

such circumstances, success is hardly to be expected; but he knew the

merits of the motion deserved it.

Mr. HILLHOUSE, who had hitherto sat silent, observed that nothing new

had been advanced in the whole course of this long debate, but what he

had heard mentioned last winter in that House. He was then opposed in

principle to a war establishment, and he still retained the same

opinion; but, from the complexion of affairs, it appeared to him that he

ought to submit, and give up his own opinion to the general sense of the

Legislature, which at present seemed to be for persevering in the system

already adopted, and which, as it had scarcely had time for a fair

trial, he thought, therefore, ought not to be arrested, perhaps in the

very instant when its efficacy was to be expected. If peace should not

be established during the next summer, he would then join with such

members as would propose a better system; but as the law provides for

the discretionary powers of the Executive, it would be best to rely on

them. A standing army, he said, was a thing impossible to be

accomplished in the United States whilst the House of Representatives

have the power of granting money only for two years at any time; he

therefore had no fears on that score. An army existing in time of peace

was the idea he had of a standing army, and not an army embodied for

only a year or two. Upon the whole, it would be as expensive to disband

the present force, and to institute another of militia, &c., as it will

be to keep up the existing establishment for a little longer time; it

was therefore his advice to let the matter rest where it is, with the

Executive, for the present. But, in case of a peace not being

accomplished within a reasonable period, he would join those who would

be for a change in the system; and he was clearly of opinion that a

system might easily be adopted, not only to protect our frontiers by

repelling the savages, but to exterminate them altogether.

Mr. FINDLAY felt himself inclined to say a word or two more in reply to

Mr. STEELE. He thought it would be unjust to lay so much of the weight

of protecting the frontiers on the militia only. He expatiated on the

meaning of the word _militia_ as defined by law, &c. He also remarked

that, however it might be fashionable to despise the levies, yet amongst

them there were examples of great bravery to be found, and particularly

in one battalion of the unfortunate army on the 4th of November, 1791.

He noticed the well-conducted retreat of Major CLARK, and the success of

General Broadhead up the Alleghany. It was unjust to expect to raise

enough of militia in the back parts of Pennsylvania; and the inhabitants

of Virginia are so dispersed near the frontiers that they cannot be

expected from that State. With respect to the men who went out with

General Harmar, and whose time of enlistment expired soon after they

reached the scene of operations, many of them remained and settled in

that country. He again repeated the injustice of calling out heads of

families from one part of the frontier; and above all, he lamented the

risk and loss of lives. But, if it should be determined to carry on the

war with militia, let them be called from all parts of the United

States. The burden already laid on a part of the inhabitants is

extremely unequal, and must not lie longer on them. Let the troops now

raising be disciplined. I am informed that many of them are considerably

advanced in point of discipline, and may before spring become expert

soldiers. Let these go on in the present system, and let the militia

also be kept up or increased, until the object shall be attained for

which the law was intended, and then, and not before, it may be proper

to talk of reducing the present establishment. We are now in a situation

that it would be extremely imprudent to retreat from.

Mr. MURRAY delivered some opinions on the preceding arguments of all the

members, and remarked that the army, under the present establishment,

had no right to be compared to or called a standing army; it bore no

more comparison to a standing army than a chameleon to an owl.

Mr. WADSWORTH closed this tedious debate with a few further

explanations. He accounted for the difference between his calculations

and those of the gentleman from North Carolina by observing that he got

some of his statements from the War Office. Mr. STEELE's were taken from

the appropriation laws, and in one instance he had underrated the

appropriations. With regard to the opinions he had delivered on the

militia, he had never meant to traduce the character of militia, because

he had often experienced their brilliant actions; his arguments went no

further than to show that the operations of regular troops were in

general more effectual. He never wished to detract from the honor of

militia, but only to remark that they were not so efficient as regular

troops.

The question on the original motion being now put, was negatived.

Mr. WILLIAMSON did not entirely approve of the motion in its present

form; the blanks might be so filled, he thought, as to import a thing

opposite to his wishes--they might import a discharge of the regular

troops already raised. He believed his colleague had no such desire; he

thought the measure would be improper; but he wished not to have a

regiment of officers without soldiers; he wished to fix a time at which

the recruiting service should cease and the supernumerary officers

should be discharged. As he intended to move that the proposition might

be so amended, he should consider it in that light, and he believed the

measure would not be imprudent nor inconsistent with the most vigorous

measures of defence or offence.

It should be remembered that the House of Representatives, when they had

the bill before them, which last winter passed into a law, for defending

the frontiers, sent it to the Senate, with a clause importing that

officers below the rank of field-officers should not be put into

commission any faster than troops could be enlisted. The Senate,

adhering to their privilege, refused to agree to that clause in the

bill, and it became necessary immediately to commission the officers for

five thousand men, some of whom, if report speaks truth, not covetous of

honor, are content with their pay, without having raised three men. By

the proposed amendment the officers only would be dismissed, whom most

of us wished never to have seen in commission.

The proposed regulation has been censured as implicating some kind of

censure on the Executive. He viewed it in a different light. The

Executive had done what was proper and necessary at the time. But if it

should appear that other measures would fit the change of circumstances,

he did not see why those measures should not be adopted. It should be

recollected that, during the last winter, when the estimate of five

thousand men as necessary for the defence of our frontiers was handed to

Congress, there was no militia law. A well-armed effective militia, that

palladium of liberty, had once and again been recommended by the

PRESIDENT to the attention of Congress; but Congress, from year to year,

as if they wished for a standing army, had neglected the militia.

Towards the close of the last session, indeed, they passed a law. He

hoped he might, without offence, call it the shadow of a law. It was

saying, in a few words, that the several States might have a good

militia if they pleased; and, if they pleased, they might have none at

all. Was the Executive to trust the defence of a country to a militia

formed under such a law? He thought not. But he observed that, since the

last winter, it had come to be generally known that a class of our

fellow-citizens exist on the frontiers who are at all times ready to

serve, not as drafted militia, but as volunteers. These are the men by

whom the Indians must be chastised, or we shall never have peace. They

are the best woodsmen and marksmen, and they have no professional

interest in spinning out the war. He must repeat the observation that

volunteers of the militia are the only troops for vigorous offensive

operations. Figure to yourselves an army of regulars creeping through

the wilderness, with all its cannon and other military apparatus, in

chase of a naked savage, who sees it without being seen. It is an

elephant in chase of a wolf. The troops already raised may be pretty

well disciplined before the season for action; they are sufficient, with

the co-operation of the militia, to take a post, and build forts where

they please; every thing else is beyond their power, if they were not

five but fifteen thousand. They will never see an Indian unless he

chooses to be seen. He wished to be indulged in a single observation

respecting a case in which it was said the other day, the militia had

been surprised. He was sorry that his naming Major Adair had produced

the remark. He would nevertheless venture to repeat the case as an

instance of vigilance and bravery. The Major, believing there was an

enemy at hand, had visited all his posts at midnight in person; his

Lieutenant, Madison, before the dawn of day, roused all the men, telling

them that the Indians were coming. The Major, wishing to leave the

ground before daylight, called in the sentinels; but the Indians,

rushing in with them, gave a heavy fire before there was light by which

they could be seen. The Major had not the merit, as he believed, of

having been a continental officer, but he had the merit, not less

honorable, of having served bravely in the militia. He questioned

whether any of the green troops to be recruited next spring or summer

will make so good a defence as Major Adair's militia had made. They had

taken scalp for scalp, though they fought against the odds of three to

one. He prayed it might be remembered that his ideas were not founded on

any hopes of sudden peace with the Indians; on the contrary, every

motion of the Indians, and every measure taken by those who had most

influence over the Indians, induced him to regard an Indian war as the

perpetual tax of at least one million per annum. It is fortunate, as he

conceived, that the United States know the source of their misfortunes;

and if they are compelled to spend one million per annum in opposing a

savage enemy, who seems to be hunted upon them, perhaps they may be

taught to indemnify themselves by refusing to expend several millions

which they can easily save. If a perpetual tax on this head must be

raised, sound policy will readily point to the proper object of

taxation; but this must remain over for our successors. In the mean

time, believing that the troops already raised are sufficient to

maintain every fort that is or may be erected, and being confident that

volunteers may be found at any time sufficient, if it shall be

necessary, to extirpate every hostile tribe of Indians, he should vote

for the proposition with the proposed amendment.

The question being taken on Mr. W.'s amendment, viz:

"_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to bring in a

bill to reduce the military establishment of the United

States to ---- regiments, to consist of the men who are now

in service, or who may be recruited before the ---- day of

---- next," &c.--

was negatived--32 to 24. The question then was on the original

resolution, as moved by Mr. STEELE; which, being put, it was

negatived--21 members only rising in favor of it. The committee then

rose, and the Chairman reported accordingly. The report was laid on the

table, and the House adjourned.

MONDAY, January 7.

Mr. LIVERMORE, from the committee appointed, presented a bill to repeal

part of a resolution of Congress of the 29th of August, 1788, respecting

the inhabitants of Post Saint Vincents; which was received, read twice,

and committed.

Mr. LAURANCE, from the committee to whom was recommitted the bill making

appropriations for the support of Government for the year 1793, reported

an amendatory bill; which was read twice, and committed to a Committee

of the whole House immediately.

The House accordingly resolved itself into the said committee, and,

after some time spent therein, the Chairman reported that the committee

had had the said bill under consideration, and made no amendment

thereto.

_Ordered_, That the said bill do lie on the table.

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

the bill to regulate the claims to Invalid Pensions; and, after some

time spent therein, the committee rose, and reported progress.

TUESDAY, January 8.

The House proceeded to the consideration of the bill making

appropriations for the support of Government for the year 1793, which

lay on the table; and the said bill being amended, was, together with

the amendments, ordered to be engrossed, and read the third time

to-morrow.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed

a bill entitled "An act in addition to the act entitled 'An act to

establish the Judicial Courts of the United States;'" to which they

desire the concurrence of this House.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of State,

accompanying a report of the assays and experiments made by the Director

of the Mint, on the gold and silver coins of France, England, Spain, and

Portugal, pursuant to the order of the 29th of November last; which were

read, and ordered to lie on the table.

The bill sent from the Senate entitled "An act in addition to the act

entitled 'An act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United

States,'" was read twice, and committed.

_Military Establishment._

The House proceeded to consider the motion of the 28th ultimo, for

reducing the Military Establishment of the United States, to which the

Committee of the whole House had reported their disagreement on Saturday

last. Whereupon,

A motion was made and seconded to amend the same by striking out the

words "each of ---- non-commissioned officers, privates, and musicians,"

and inserting, in lieu thereof, the words "of ---- non-commissioned

officers, musicians, and ---- of the privates who are now in service, or

may be recruited before the ---- day of ---- next."

And the question being put thereupon, it passed in the negative--yeas

26, nays 32, as follows:

YEAS.--John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Clark, Elbridge Gerry,

William B. Giles, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue,

Christopher Greenup, William Barry Grove, Richard Bland

Lee, George Leonard, Samuel Livermore, Nathaniel Macon,

James Madison, John Francis Mercer, Andrew Moore, Nathaniel

Niles, Alexander D. Orr, Josiah Parker, Jeremiah Smith,

John Steele, Thomas Sumter, Thomas Tredwell, Thomas Tudor

Tucker, Abraham Venable, Artemas Ward, and Hugh Williamson.

NAYS.--Fisher Ames, Abraham Baldwin, Robert Barnwell,

Egbert Benson, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin

Bourne, Jonathan Dayton, William Findlay, Thomas

Fitzsimons, Andrew Gregg, Thomas Hartley, Daniel Heister,

James Hillhouse, Daniel Huger, Aaron Kitchell, John Wilkes

Kittera, John Laurance, John Milledge, Frederick Augustus

Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker,

Theodore Sedgwick, Peter Sylvester, Israel Smith, William

Smith, Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan Sturges, George Thatcher,

Jeremiah Wadsworth, Alexander White, and Francis Willis.

And then the main question being put, that the House do agree to the

said motion, it passed in the negative--yeas 20, nays 36, as follows:

YEAS.--John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Clark, William B. Giles,

Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, Christopher Greenup,

William Barry Grove, George Leonard, Samuel Livermore,

Nathaniel Macon, John Francis Mercer, Nathaniel Niles,

Alexander D. Orr, Josiah Parker, Jeremiah Smith, John

Steele, Thomas Sumter, Thomas Tredwell, Abraham Venable,

and Artemas Ward.

NAYS.--Fisher Ames, Abraham Baldwin, Robert Barnwell,

Egbert Benson, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin

Bourne, Jonathan Dayton, William Findlay, Thomas

Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Andrew Gregg, Thomas Hartley,

James Hillhouse, Daniel Huger, Aaron Kitchell, John Wilkes

Kittera, John Laurance, Richard Bland Lee, John Milledge,

Andrew Moore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, William Vans

Murray, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, Theodore Sedgwick, Peter

Sylvester, Israel Smith, William Smith, Samuel Sterrett,

Jonathan Sturges, George Thatcher, Thomas Tudor Tucker,

Jeremiah Wadsworth, Alexander White, Hugh Williamson, and

Francis Willis.

_Ordered_, That the committee to whom was commiteed the letter and

representation from the Chief Justice and Associate Judges of the

Supreme Court of the United States, referred to in the PRESIDENT's

Message of the 7th of November last, be discharged from the further

consideration of the same.

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

the bill to regulate the claims to Invalid Pensions; and, after some

time spent therein, the Chairman reported that the committee had again

had the said bill under consideration, and made several amendments

thereto; which were read, and partly considered.

FRIDAY, January 18.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed

a bill, entitled "An act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons

escaping from the service of their masters," in which they desire the

concurrence of this House.

MONDAY, January 21.

The bill sent from the Senate entitled "An act respecting fugitives from

justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters," was

read twice, and committed.

MONDAY, February 4.

_Fugitives from Justice and from Labor._

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

bill sent from the Senate entitled, "An act respecting fugitives from

justice and persons escaping from the service of their masters;" and,

after some time spent therein, the Chairman reported that the committee

had had the said bill under consideration, and made an amendment

thereto; which was twice read, and agreed to by the House.

_Ordered_, That the said bill, with the amendment, do lie on the table.

TUESDAY, February 5.

_Fugitives from Justice and from Labor._

The House proceeded to consider the bill sent from the Senate entitled

"An act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the

service of their masters," which lay on the table: Whereupon, the said

bill, together with the amendment agreed to yesterday, was read the

third time; and, on the question that the same do pass, it was resolved

in the affirmative--yeas 48, nays 7, as follows:

YEAS.--Fisher Ames, John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin,

Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub

Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Abraham Clark, Jonathan Dayton,

Wm. Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas

Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Christopher

Greenup, Andrew Gregg, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove,

Thomas Hartley, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Daniel

Huger, Israel Jacobs, Philip Key, Aaron Kitchell, Amasa

Learned, Richard Bland Lee, George Leonard, Nathaniel

Macon, Andrew Moore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, William

Vans Murray, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Cornelius C.

Schoonmaker, Theodore Sedgwick, Peter Sylvester, Israel

Smith, William Smith, John Steele, Thomas Sumter, Thomas

Tudor Tucker, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Alexander White, Hugh

Williamson, and Francis Willis.

NAYS.--Samuel Livermore, John Francis Mercer, Nathaniel

Niles, Josiah Parker, Jonathan Sturges, George Thatcher,

and Thomas Tredwell.[46]

MONDAY, February 11.

_Examining Votes for President, &c._

Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, from the committee appointed on the part of this

House jointly with a committee appointed on the part of the Senate, to

ascertain and report a mode of examining the votes for PRESIDENT and

VICE PRESIDENT of the United States, and for other purposes expressed in

the resolution of the fifth instant, made a report; which was twice

read, and agreed to by the House, as follows:

"That the two Houses shall assemble in the Senate Chamber

on Wednesday next, at twelve o'clock: that two persons be

appointed tellers on the part of this House, to make a list

of the votes as they shall be declared: that the result

shall be delivered to the PRESIDENT of the Senate, who

shall announce the state of the vote, and the persons

elected, to both Houses, assembled as aforesaid, which

shall be deemed a declaration of the persons elected

PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT, and, together with a list of

the votes, be entered on the journal of the two Houses."

_Ordered_, That Mr. WILLIAM SMITH and Mr. LAURANCE be appointed tellers

on the part of this House, pursuant to the said report.

WEDNESDAY, February 13.

_Votes for President and Vice President._

A message from the Senate informed the House that a PRESIDENT of the

Senate is elected for the sole purpose of opening the certificates, and

counting the votes of the several States, in the choice of a PRESIDENT

and VICE PRESIDENT of the United States; and that the Senate is now

ready, in the Senate Chamber, to attend, with this House, on that

occasion.

_Resolved_, That the SPEAKER, attended by the House, do now withdraw to

the Senate Chamber, for the purpose expressed in the said message.

The SPEAKER accordingly left the chair, and, attended by the House,

withdrew to the Senate Chamber, and, after some time, returned to the

House.

The SPEAKER resumed the chair.

Mr. WILLIAM SMITH and Mr. LAURANCE then delivered in, at the Clerk's

table, a list of the votes of the Electors of the several States, in the

choice of a PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT of the United States, as the

same were declared by the PRESIDENT of the Senate, in the presence of

the Senate and of this House; which was ordered to be entered on the

journal, and is as follows:

[The same as in the Senate proceedings.]

THURSDAY, February 28.

_Official conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury._

The resolutions brought forward yesterday by Mr. GILES, were called for

by that gentleman. The reading being finished, Mr. AMES moved that the

resolutions should be taken up.

Mr. MURRAY suggested the necessity of giving a preference to the

Judiciary Bill reported by him some days since. He was seconded by Mr.

KEY.

The motion for taking up the resolutions was carried, forty members

rising in favor of it. The resolutions were accordingly read by the

Clerk, and are as follow, viz:

1. _Resolved_, That it is essential to the due

administration of the Government of the United States, that

laws making specific appropriations of money should be

strictly observed by the administrator of the finances

thereof.

2. _Resolved_, That a violation of a law making

appropriations of money, is a violation of that section of

the Constitution of the United States which requires that

no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in

consequence of appropriations made by law.

3. _Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has

violated the law passed the 4th of August, 1790, making

appropriations of certain moneys authorized to be borrowed

by the same law, in the following particulars, viz:

_First_, By applying a certain portion of the principal

borrowed to the payment of interest falling due upon that

principal, which was not authorized by that or any other

law. _Secondly_, By drawing part of the same moneys into

the United States, without the instructions of the

President of the United States.

4. _Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has

deviated from the instructions given by the President of

the United States, in exceeding the authorities for making

loans under the acts of the 4th and 12th of August, 1790.

5. _Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has

omitted to discharge an essential duty of his office, in

failing to give Congress official information in due time,

of the moneys drawn by him from Europe into the United

States; which drawing commenced December, 1790, and

continued till January, 1793; and of the causes of making

such drafts.

6. _Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has

without the instructions of the President of the United

States, drawn more moneys borrowed in Holland into the

United States than the President of the United States was

authorized to draw, under the act of the 12th of August,

1790: which act appropriated two millions of dollars only,

when borrowed, to the purchase of the Public Debt: And that

he has omitted to discharge an essential duty of his

office, in failing to give official information to the

Commissioners for purchasing the Public Debt, of the

various sums drawn from time to time, suggested by him to

have been intended for the purchase of the Public Debt.

7. _Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury did not

consult the public interest in negotiating a loan with the

Bank of the United States, and drawing therefrom four

hundred thousand dollars, at five per cent. per annum, when

a greater sum of public money was deposited in various

banks at the respective periods of making the respective

drafts.

8. _Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has been

guilty of an indecorum to this House, in undertaking to

judge of its motives in calling for information which was

demandable of him, from the constitution of his office; and

in failing to give all the necessary information within his

knowledge, relatively to the subjects of the reference made

to him of the 19th January, 1792, and of the 22d November,

1792, during the present session.

9. _Resolved_, That a copy of the foregoing resolutions be

transmitted to the President of the United States.

Mr. GILES then moved that they should be referred to a Committee of the

whole House.

Mr. W. SMITH was decidedly opposed to referring those resolutions to the

consideration of the Committee of the whole House, because he neither

viewed a discussion of them as necessary on the present occasion nor

warranted by the nature of the inquiry into the Secretary's conduct. It

was trifling with the precious time of the House to lavish it on

abstract propositions, when the object of the inquiry ought to be into

the facts. He was satisfied that should the House once involve itself in

an investigation of theoretic principles of government, the short

residue of the session would be exhausted, and no opportunity remain for

examining the charges themselves. Those charges being made, it became

the House, from a sense of duty to the public and justice to the

accused, to proceed immediately to consider them. If the mover intended

to apply the principles of the two first resolutions to the facts

contained in the subsequent ones, it was unquestionably proper first to

substantiate the facts, and then establish the principles which were

applicable to them; but it was surely a reversal of order to spend much

time in establishing principles, when it might happen that the charges

themselves would be totally unsupported. He did not like this mode of

proceeding, because it might tend to mislead the House; it was sometimes

a parliamentary practice to endeavor to lead the mind to vague and

uncertain results, by first laying down theorems from which no one could

dissent, and then proceeding by imperceptible shades to move unsettled

positions, in order ultimately to entrap the House in a vote which in

the first instance it would have rejected. This mode of conducting

public business, he considered as inconsistent with fair inquiry. The

question was, had the Secretary violated a law? If so, let it be shown;

every member was competent to decide so plain a question. He could

examine the proofs, read the law, and pronounce him guilty or innocent

without the aid of these preliminary metaphysical discussions.

If it were urged that the propositions are so plain and obvious that no

time would be lost in considering them, he then begged leave to observe

that all antecedent discussions of constitutional questions had never

failed to occupy a large portion of their time, and that however

self-evident the resolutions might at the first glance appear, a more

critical attention would satisfy a mind not much given to doubt that

they were by no means so conclusive as to be free from objections.

Though the position contained in the first resolution, as a general

rule, was not to be denied; yet it must be admitted, that there may be

cases of a sufficient urgency to justify a departure from it, and to

make it the duty of the Legislature to indemnify an officer; as if an

adherence would in particular cases and under particular circumstances,

prove ruinous to the public credit, or prevent the taking measures

essential to the public safety, against invasion or insurrection. In

cases of that nature, and which cannot be foreseen by the Legislature

nor guarded against, a discretionary authority must be deemed to reside

in the PRESIDENT, or some other Executive officer, to be exercised for

the public good; such exercise, instead of being construed into a crime,

would always meet the approbation of the National Legislature. If there

be any weight in these remarks, it does not then follow, as a general

rule, that it is essential to the due administration of the Government,

that laws making specific appropriations should in all cases whatsoever,

and under every public circumstance, be strictly observed. Before the

committee could come to a vote on such a proposition, it would be proper

to examine into the exceptions out of the rule, to state all the

circumstances which would warrant any departure from it, to whom the

exercise of the discretion should be intrusted, and to what extent. Did

any member wish at this period to attempt this inquiry? He supposed not.

Let every deviation from law be tested by its own merits or demerits.

The second resolution was liable to stronger objections. It might with

propriety be questioned whether, as a general rule, the position was

well founded. A law making appropriations may be violated in various

particulars without infringing on the constitution, which only enjoins

that no moneys shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of

the appropriations made by law. This is only to say, that every

disbursement must be authorized by some appropriation. Where a sum of

money is paid out of the Treasury, the payment of which is authorized by

law, the constitution is not violated, yet there may have been a

violation of the law in some collateral particulars. There may even have

been a shifting of funds, and however exceptionable this may be on other

accounts, it would not amount to that species of offence which is

created by the constitution. The Comptroller of the Treasury must

countersign every warrant, and is responsible that it be authorized by a

legal appropriation; yet it cannot be supposed that he is to investigate

the source of the fund.

One of the alleged infractions stated in the subsequent resolution,

namely, the drawing part of the loans into the United States without the

instructions of the PRESIDENT, evinces that the opposite construction is

not a sound one. For suppose the fact proved, and suppose it a violation

of the law, it certainly would be a very different thing from drawing

money out of the Treasury without an appropriation by law; for in this

case, there would be no drawing money from the Treasury at all, the

money never having been in the Treasury.

Mr. S. then, said, he should also object to referring the last

resolution, which is in these words,

"_Resolved_, That a copy of the foregoing resolutions be

transmitted to the PRESIDENT."

The object of this resolution went clearly to direct the PRESIDENT to

remove the Secretary from office; the foregoing were to determine the

guilt, the last to inflict the punishment, and both the one and other

without the accused being heard in his defence. When the violation of

the constitution was so uppermost in our minds, it would be indeed

astonishing that we should be so hoodwinked as to commit such a palpable

violation of it in this instance. The principles of that constitution,

careful of the lives and liberties of the citizens, and what is dearer

to every man of honor, his reputation, secure to every individual in

every class of society, the precious advantage of being heard before he

is condemned.

That constitution, peculiarly careful of the reputation of great public

functionaries, directs that when accused of a breach of duty, the

impeachment must be voted by a majority of the House of Representatives,

and tried by the Senate, who are to be on oath, and two-thirds of whom

must concur before a sentence can pass, by which the officer is to be

deemed guilty. The officer is to be furnished with a copy of the charge,

and is heard by himself or his counsel in vindication of his conduct.

Such are the solemnities and guards by which they are protected, and

which precede a sentence, the only effect of which is a removal from

office. But if the House proceed in the manner contemplated by this

resolution; if they first vote the charges, and send a copy of them to

the PRESIDENT, as an instruction to him to remove the officer, they will

violate the sacred and fundamental principles of this, and every free

Government. They will condemn a man unheard, nay, without his having

even been furnished with the charges against him; they will condemn to

infamy a high and responsible officer convicted by the Representatives

of the people, of a violation of the important trusts committed to him,

without affording him one opportunity of vindicating his character and

justifying his conduct.

Mr. MURRAY said he was opposed to the reference of the resolutions to

the Committee of the Whole. He had, as far as the time permitted,

examined the several reports on which the examination depended, and was

then ready to vote on them, though he confessed, from the intricacy

which was inherent in such a subject, as well as from the vast variety

of the detail involved, he had not had sufficient time for a complete

investigation. Nor did he imagine that any man who had not previously

meditated on the subject for a length of time, and made choice of his

ground of attack, could say he was completely master of the subject.

Some vote, however, was now rendered essential to the character, not

only of Government, but of the gentleman who presided over the finances

of the country. But three days were left for this inquiry, and to finish

a great deal of other business; and he thought that despatch which was

usual in the House ought to be used in preference to the indulgence

which a committee afforded. As to the abstract propositions, if it were

necessary now to go into them, he thought it would be proper to decide

on them first. He thought it most logical to lay down principles of

reasoning before facts were developed. Were they agreed to by the House,

it would be under provisions and restrictions. They could not have the

implicit force of axioms, but at most must be yielded to as wholesome

maxims, the application of which must be frequently modified by a

certain degree of discretion. With respect to all the other resolutions,

he imagined they would, on examination, be found to be unwarranted by

facts. He hoped the movers and supporters of the resolutions would not

be gratified at so late a season by the House in resolving itself into a

Committee of the Whole. The mode in which they were brought forward did

not entitle them to much confidence. He said, a more unhandsome

proceeding he had never seen in Congress. It had been a practice,

derived from the lights of common liberty, common right, and the first

principles of justice, that whoever was charged with a violation of law

on which a punishment ensued, should have some mode of answering to the

charge. It had, in a recent instance, been the practice of Congress,

when an officer's conduct was even in the first instance inquired into,

to afford the officer an opportunity of attending upon the examination

on which his offence or his freedom from blame was to appear. He alluded

to the conduct of the House when an examination took place relatively to

the failure of General St. Clair's expedition. Suspicions were

entertained that blame lay somewhere. A committee was appointed to

examine. The three officers particularly concerned were, he understood,

invited, as it were, to come before the committee, to explain, to

interrogate, and to give information. Though the Secretary of War was

not permitted to explain on this floor, justice and delicacy, and the

most common principles of jurisprudence, to which we attempted to hold

some analogy, demanded that he should be heard somewhere, and the

committee was renewed for this purpose. The Quartermaster General asked

to be heard on this floor. Though refused, he was permitted to attend

that committee on whose examination his character as a Quartermaster

depended. Were any man responsible as an officer to this House to fall

under the suspicion of its members, a regard to decency and to the

established rights of citizenship, would teach gentlemen to inquire

formally before they hastily laid a charge on the table, to which they

might move the assent of the House. But in this proceeding a Legislative

charge was gone into before inquiry had been instituted. Every rule of

justice, and all that delicacy which ought ever to attend her progress,

had been disregarded, and in the very first instance, a number of

charges are brought forward, not for inquiry, but conviction, which, if

sanctioned by a majority of the House, are to be followed by the

dismission of one of the highest officers in the Government. This mode

was as tyrannical as it was new, and if any thing could throw a bias

against the resolutions, independent of inquiry, it was the partial and

unjust form in which the proceeding had commenced. Resolutions of

conviction might rise out of the report of a committee of inquiry, who

would act as a Grand Jury to the House, but could never precede it. He

hoped the House would not refer to a Committee of the Whole what might

be decided in the House with more despatch.

Mr. PAGE in reply to Mr. SMITH, spoke, in substance, as follows:

Mr. Chairman: The more precious our time, the more readily shall I vote

for a consideration of the first resolution; for I think it of more

consequence that we should decide on it, than on any other before us. We

find, from the inquiry which has been set on foot into the conduct of

the Secretary of the Treasury, that he differs from the mover of the

resolution in opinion respecting his powers, and the constitutional

obligation he may be under of regarding acts of appropriation; it

therefore must be the wish of the Secretary himself, whether we agree

with him or not; and it is our duty, as soon as possible, I conceive,

to let our constituents know whether we approve, or not, of his opinion.

The Secretary himself, I think, confesses "that a strict adherence to

appropriations, in certain cases, would be pusillanimity." He preferred,

no doubt, the public good, which he thought he had in view, to a strict

compliance with an act of appropriation. It becomes us, then, to

determine whether we wish that the Secretary shall hereafter be bound by

our acts of appropriation or not.

I cannot conceive that the rejection of the first resolution can alter

the nature of the case before us, or in any manner confirm or invalidate

the truth of facts which some gentlemen seem so apprehensive may lead to

an impeachment. For my part, I keep in view the first resolution,

without thinking a moment of the last, or the intermediate propositions.

When they shall come under consideration, I shall be ready to show a

proper attention to them. How the first resolution can be called an

abstract proposition, I know not, when the nature of the last before us

requires a decision on it. The Secretary himself should desire it, and

our constituents must expect it. If the Committee of the Whole shall be

of opinion that appropriations ought to be sacredly regarded, they will

agree to the resolution; if they think they may be dispensed with "in

certain cases," they may amend the resolution, and qualify it so as to

justify the conduct of the Secretary. To call the resolution a preamble,

and to object to it as such, appears to me as extraordinary as to call

it an abstract proposition; for I have always thought it inconsistent

with Republican principles to object to preambles. I have remarked, sir,

when they have been objected to, it became the Representatives of a free

people to show on what principles and with what views their laws are

enacted, and, not in a dictatorial manner enact that it shall be so and

so. The framers of our constitution have set us an example of an

excellent preamble; and, as it has been remarked by several members,

this House has occasionally used them; I think, therefore, that none of

the objections to the commitment of the first resolution are of

sufficient weight to induce the House to agree to the motion for

striking out the two first resolutions.

The question was now taken on committing the first two resolutions, and

negatived--25 to 32. On the question of referring the last, only

fourteen members voted in the affirmative.

_Ordered_, That the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth

resolutions contained in the said motion be committed to a Committee of

the whole House immediately.

The House accordingly resolved itself into the said committee; and,

after some time spent therein, the committee rose, and had leave to sit

again.

FRIDAY, March 1.

_Official conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury._

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

the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth resolutions

contained in the motion of yesterday, respecting the official conduct of

the Secretary of the Treasury.

The third resolution being under consideration, in the words following,

viz:

"_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has

violated the law, passed the fourth of August, one thousand

seven hundred and ninety, making appropriations of certain

moneys authorized to be borrowed by the same law, in the

following particulars, to wit:

"1. By applying a certain portion of the principal borrowed

to the payment of the interest falling due upon that

principal, which was not authorized by that or any other

law.

"2. By drawing part of the same moneys into the United

States without the instructions of the President of the

United States."

Mr. BARNWELL.--Mr. Chairman, before I proceed to discuss the

observations which yesterday fell from the gentleman who introduced the

resolutions now before us, I cannot refrain from saying that I am

extremely happy that, in passing through the medium of that gentleman's

examination, this subject has changed its hue from the foul stain of

peculation to the milder coloring of an illegal exercise of discretion,

and a want of politeness in the Secretary of the Treasury. I feel happy,

because I always am so when any man charged with guilt can acquit

himself; and the more so now, when a man in a high responsible office,

and high in the estimation of his countrymen, can reduce a charge from a

quality calculated to have excited an alarm, even in Pandemonium, to

such a shape as I fancy will scarce serve to satisfy the uncommon

curiosity which it appears to have excited. As I have never been in the

habit of taking notes, I shall depend upon memory in answering the

gentleman from Virginia; although I imagine, as that gentleman usually

sticks very close to his point, whatever it may be, that, in pursuing

his charges, I shall substantially answer his arguments. In commenting

upon the two first resolutions, to which I am by order confined, I shall

consider, in the first instance, what regards the right of drawing money

into this country. The gentleman appears not to have considered the law

properly, for there cannot be a doubt that the PRESIDENT had a right to

make what arrangements he pleased, in order to attain what he might

consider a proper modification of the debt due by the United States

abroad. He might have borrowed the money here, or have paid it here; he

might have borrowed the money in England, or wherever he thought fit. I

will ask the gentleman by what precise authority he borrowed the money

in Amsterdam and Antwerp, and paid it in Paris? Certainly by none but

that discretion which has been depended upon to modify the debt in the

manner most conducive to the interest of the United States. I take it,

then, for granted, Mr. Chairman, that the right of the PRESIDENT to draw

the money borrowed here, or to send it any where, must be conceded. The

question will then arise, whether the Secretary of the Treasury had a

right to do this or not, and whether this has not been done without,

nay, against the instructions of the PRESIDENT? I really consider this

as one of the most extraordinary cases that I have ever known exhibited.

Let us consider its form. A highly important trust, of no less import

than the discretionary use of fourteen millions of dollars, is placed in

the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; he, by a general commission, and by

special instruction, deputes this power to the Secretary of the

Treasury, stating that he is to conform to these and whatever

instructions he might from time to time give him. Let any man seriously

examine these powers, and I am of opinion that the Secretary, under

these, had a right to draw, if he thought proper, unless instructed to

the contrary; for the PRESIDENT conveys a complete power to modify the

debt, provided that it should be, with all convenient despatch, applied

to pay the principal and interest due to France; for where the payments

are to be made is certainly left to the Secretary. If this has not been

exercised advantageously, this is another circumstance which the

gentleman himself has not questioned. But, says the gentleman, the

Secretary, under these instructions, had no special authority to draw;

notwithstanding which, he began to draw in 1790, and has continued to

draw, at different times, into this country the enormous sum of three

millions of dollars, and therefore he must have done this without, nay,

against the instructions of the PRESIDENT, who, it is presumed, having

delegated this great trust, has never, for three years, inquired into

the performance of it. Can this be the inference of common sense? Can

this be the inference of the experience which we have had of the

PRESIDENT, one of the prominent features of whose character always has

been an industry to investigate particulars, as remarkable as his

sagacity to frame generals? If, then, instructions have not been given,

or have been exceeded, was it necessary for us to come in aid of the

PRESIDENT, he who by our law has the power, which we ourselves cannot

exercise, of removing any of the Executive officers at pleasure? It

certainly cannot be necessary; for, as this officer continues to act, we

must conclude that he has either acted by instructions, or in such

manner as to have given satisfaction to his principal without them.

Really, Mr. Chairman, I cannot but believe that if suspicion had not led

the gentleman from Virginia astray, the usual correctness of his

understanding would have prevented him from pursuing such an _ignis

fatuus_ as this.

Mr. W. SMITH regretted that so important an inquiry had been instituted

at the very close of the session, when the members were thronged with

business of an indispensable nature, and it was scarcely possible for

them to bestow that attention and deliberation which the nature of the

subject called for. But, while he expressed this regret, he assured the

committee that it was mingled with much satisfaction, in finding that

the vague charges of mismanagement, with which the public had long been

alarmed, were at length cast into a shape susceptible of investigation

and decision. Previous to an examination of the specific charge then

under consideration, he claimed the indulgence of the committee in

offering a few preliminary remarks, which, though they did not bear

precisely upon the charge itself, yet were intimately connected with the

subject-matter of the inquiry, and were justified by the general remarks

of gentlemen who had preceded him.

In recurring back to the origin and progress of this examination, it

must appear somewhat surprising that that which, in the commencement of

the session, was sounded forth as gross peculation, now turned out to be

nothing more than a mere substitution of funds, and that that which was

announced as abominable corruption, was dwindled away into a mere

drawing of money from Europe into this country, to be applied here

according to law.

Whatever credit might be due to the motives which had originated this

inquiry, every member would concur in the sentiment, that in a

government constituted like that of the United States, which had nothing

but the public confidence for its basis, premature alarms and groundless

suspicions respecting the conduct of public officers were pregnant with

the most injurious consequences. This opinion was more peculiarly

applicable to the important station of Secretary of the Treasury.

Intrusted with the management of a large revenue, and necessarily

clothed with some latitude of discretion, it was to be expected that he

would excite the jealousy of the public vigilance; but as long as he

kept in view the injunctions of law, and the public good, his reputation

was entitled to that security which is due to every citizen.

An officer, intrusted with the care and distribution of public moneys,

is generally looked at with a watchful eye; mankind are too prone to

suspect the purity of his conduct; slight insinuations are but too often

sufficient to injure him in the public estimation. Such being the

natural propensity of things, it doubtless behoved those who wished for

tranquillity in the country to withhold charges not clearly warranted by

proof--to suspend animadversions which were not likely to terminate in

conviction. A contrary proceeding had an inevitable tendency

unnecessarily to alarm the public mind, to instil into it suspicions

against the integrity of men in high stations, to weaken their public

confidence in the Government, and to enervate its operations.