Mr. GILES recommended a discontinuance of the Embargo. The gentleman

from South Carolina had urged the public sentiment as a reason for

keeping it on. He was glad to hear that the public sentiment was an

argument in that House for the adoption of measures; and he was

particularly highly pleased that this respect for the public sentiment

had now come from the quarter from which it was at present announced. He

hinted that the gentleman (Mr. W. SMITH) had not always paid an equal

deference to public sentiment. He was for the Embargo being taken off,

because he understood that France would suffer considerably by its

continuance; because it would materially affect the American farmers;

and because, as the danger was now more fully known, merchants would

beware of the danger, and provide more or less for their individual

security. Farmers in the United States had entered into contracts of

various kinds. For the discharge of these, they depended on the sale of

their crops. He was originally for the measure, which had answered many

good purposes, by preventing American vessels from falling into the

hands of British privateers. He was likewise for it, as connected with a

system of other measures. [Mr. G. alluded to the sequestration of

British property, &c.] These measures had been laid aside; and

therefore, he would now likewise be for laying this aside.

Mr. DAYTON said, that he had been in favor of laying the Embargo, both

in the first month and in the second month of its continuance; but he

should now be opposed to the proposition on the table, and against

extending the Embargo beyond the 25th of this month, when the present

one would expire. He would not be understood to found any part of his

conduct upon a belief that there was a returning sense of justice in the

Government of Great Britain, or that there had been any material change

in the predatory system. He lamented that any of those who were on the

same side should have entertained such a belief, and especially that

they should have mentioned it as an argument against the motion. Where,

he asked, was the proof that the instructions of the 8th of January had

effected a change favorable to this country in the conduct of that

nation? If there was such a change, as some gentlemen asserted, where

were the two or three hundred American vessels that have been captured

and carried into the British West India Islands? If we look for them in

our ports they are not to be found. It is true, that now and then a

solitary vessel enters into our harbors, escaped from British

depredation; but you would hear the seamen who arrived felicitating one

another almost as much as if they had escaped from the clutches of

pirates. He said that those instructions might make them more complacent

highwaymen, but still they would be highwaymen. They might practice a

little more of the solemn mockery of judicial process; they might be a

little more observant of forms; but they had since continued, and would

probably continue to rob us. He mentioned those things to show that

there were other considerations which influenced him. These were, that

an embargo would operate hereafter most unfavorably for ourselves,

particularly our farmers, and for our allies, the French. Produce, he

said, would certainly fall much lower, if we continued the Embargo

longer than the 25th. Our farmers and planters depend upon the sale of

that produce to pay their debts, or to purchase necessaries for their

families; and the resolution on the table would operate doubly hard for

them, not only in lowering the value of the product of their farms, but

by increasing the price of every foreign article which they would need

to purchase from the merchants. The injury which its further continuance

would occasion to our allies, the French, had great weight with him in

opposing it. It could not be denied, that France was much more dependent

upon this country for supplies of provisions, in her present arduous

struggle, than any other nation, or than all others; and he inferred

from thence, that there could not be a disposition in that House to

extend a prohibition which should add to the sufferings of those who are

fighting in the cause of liberty against the most powerful combination

that was ever formed to crush it.

Mr. DEXTER was likewise for taking off the Embargo. It was become pretty

evident that the United States are not in immediate danger of

hostilities. It was difficult to continue the Embargo till we could hear

from Mr. Jay, which might require six months. Farmers suffer as much by

the present restraint upon commerce as they would suffer by war.

Mr. CLARK was for letting the Embargo die of itself. He did not think it

quite fair for gentlemen all to speak upon one side of a question. There

was another embargo that Mr. C. wished to see taken off as soon as it

could be done with propriety. We have been embargoed in this House, said

he, for six months, and if we persist in this habit of making fine

speeches upon every occasion, it will be a long time before this second

Embargo can be taken off.

Mr. GILLON desired that the matter might have a full discussion. He and

his colleague from Charleston supported the motion by order of their

constituents.

Mr. HUNTER then laid on the table a letter subscribed by forty-eight of

the merchants and other citizens of Charleston, who had suffered by the

piracies of Britain, with a list of the ships thus taken, and an

estimate of their value. The letter was read by the Clerk.

Mr. GILLON then proceeded to make a variety of remarks in support of the

motion before the House. He apologized, if any part of what he had to

say, should seem a digression, as the subject was of so great an extent.

Mr. G. said, that he remembered, in that Assembly, in 1777, they had

used to flatter themselves, that the Eastern States would build ships,

and the Southern would supply them with cargoes; and they would mutually

support the interest of each other. He regretted that this cordiality

was not, on the present occasion, so ardent as could have been wished.

As to Britain relaxing her outrages in the West Indies, the sole object

of that nation is gain, no matter by what means it could be obtained.

Mr. G., to show the infamy of Britain in its proper light, quoted some

passages from the letter of a captain in the West Indies, who had

received the most unprovoked and the most horrible treatment from these

miscreants.

Mr. G. hoped that the Embargo would continue for a longer period than to

the 25th of June, the term specified in the resolution. He recommended

that the House should adjourn but for a short time, and continue the

restriction till they sat again. It had been said, that this step would

injure our allies; that the price of imports would rise, while that of

exports would fall. He would be one of the last men willing to distress

our allies. He hoped that the Embargo might be restricted, so as to let

the French import from this country whatever they wanted in American

bottoms. This would promote our commerce, if gentlemen acquainted with

that business considered the measure as practicable. Reverting to the

remarks of Mr. WADSWORTH, Mr. G. observed, that salt is at present only

three shillings and sixpence or four shillings a bushel in Charleston.

The price has fallen there, and it has not even risen at Philadelphia.

He did not see much danger of a rise in the price of foreign articles

here; merchant ships came at present frequently to this country. They

encourage one another, as sure of a high market; and as to the Embargo,

they say that it cannot hold long. If the British depredations have

ceased, it certainly is not owing to any change of principle in them.

But our ships are kept safe at home in our harbors; their British system

changes with the course of events in Europe. No nation is more insolent

in prosperity; none more humiliated in adversity. Mr. G. concluded by

expressing a hope that some way might be contributed for keeping on an

embargo, without injury to the farmers. If this could not be done, it

must be taken off.

Mr. MURRAY hoped that the resolution would not succeed. Indeed he

thought, that a total refusal of its terms would consist of our true

policy. He said, he was among those who supported the first unsuccessful

vote for an embargo, and had in each following vote been for it. There

were two reasons that had led him to think the Embargo a good measure,

when it was laid, and continued: the risk the American trade and seamen

were exposed to from that infamous course of depredation which followed

the Order of the 6th of November, and the evidence that flowed from that

order of an intention to involve this country in war. The depredation on

our trade had been immense; and the Embargo was not only defensible as a

good cautionary measure, to secure the seamen and vessels of this

country from violence, but by shutting out our vessels from the

opportunity of being longer exposed to British depredation, the

occasions would be diminished that would bring up the irksome question,

how far Government is bound to indemnify citizens for losses sustained

under a violation of the laws of nations? The same act under which the

depredations had been committed, manifested a spirit of hostility that

betrayed the probability of war. He had believed when he voted for the

Embargo, that there was something of system in the November 6th Order.

He thought that order was the first movement of a system of hostile

operations, which some intermediate events had set aside: of this, the

Order of the 8th January, and the subsequent dismissal of the captured

vessels, was evidenced. If the depredations have ceased, and the vessels

captured have been released, and if the probability of war be

diminished, the leading motives that justified so strong a measure had

ceased to operate. There can be no doubt that vessels that have been

taken have been released: the daily arrivals in various parts of the

Union prove this. Had the chance of war continued in full force, the

continuance of the Embargo, as is designed by this resolution, though it

stood on a prodigious sacrifice of present interest, would have been not

only defensible, but perhaps essential. It would not only prove

negatively a benefit in the preservation of our shipping and seamen, but

would operate, in the most sensible manner, as a withdrawal of supplies

from the power with whom hostilities might be expected. This great

sacrifice to policy he could not now believe to be necessary longer than

the term assigned by law--the 25th of this month.

The reason why he had voted for the continuance of the Embargo, though

we had received intelligence of the revocation of the obnoxious and

shameful Order of 6th November, was, because he had lost all confidence

in the justice or wisdom of those who issued it; as he thought the first

unjust by premeditation, he had suspected the last as insidious;

however, this we know, that they have released our vessels. So very

extensive was the influence of embargoes in this country, that nothing

but dire necessity could justify them; a country with small capital and

yet of immense export, and a great part of that export of a quality that

could not endure the summer's heat. In such a moment as the present,

where evidence of the opinions of the public was so contradictory, he

would endeavor to do what appeared to be the broad and general interest.

There was, he believed, a field open to speculation by the doubt

entertained of this day's decision: a variety of opposite interests of

course was thus created, and opinions and wishes might be expected out

of doors from the different views of self-interest. Those who had to

purchase grain, for instance, calculating on the almost certain

termination of the Embargo some time this summer, and foreseeing great

prices in foreign markets, might, if they were actuated by selfish

principles, wish to see this resolution succeed. As the aspect of

affairs had certainly considerably altered, and the reasons that led to

the Embargo had so diminished as no longer to warrant either a dread of

the capture of our vessels or the apprehension of war, (at least

speedily,) he hoped the resolution would fail of success.

Mr. BOUDINOT asked what assurance we have that Britain will not play the

same game over again that she has done already? Does not that new order

prohibit, as much as ever, American vessels from carrying provisions to

the West India Islands? As to the Republic of France, he could make

great allowances for their situation; but, after all, what apology could

there be made for the starving of American sailors in French harbors! Is

this proper! These men, as Mr. B. had been well informed, were at this

moment actually starving, and in want of the common necessaries of life.

If the Embargo is taken off, this must be done upon the principle that

it ought never to have been laid on. We must expect, that if our ships

go back again to the West Indies, they will be taken as formerly. He

could wish to stand by the measure, since it had once been adopted, and

let the West Indies see that we can starve them out; let them see that

we can make them feel the effects of our measures. He did not wish to

continue the Embargo one moment longer than public necessity requires;

but to have made the merchants and farmers suffer as they have done for

two months, and then to have the business end in nothing, was rather

vexatious.

Mr. W. SMITH defended his resolution. It had been alleged, that

emigrants wanting to get back to the West Indies, were prevented by this

Embargo. Government had provided for that. The point, it is said, has

been determined, that the West Indies depend on America for subsistence.

He asserted, on the contrary, that this point was not determined; and

this revocation will prove to the world, that we are as eager to sell,

as they are to buy. He hoped that there was a spirit in this country to

stand the consequences of the measures. He next replied to the ironical

applause bestowed upon him in a former part of this debate, by Mr.

GILES, for his recently assumed respect to the public sentiment. He said

that it is often very difficult to say what public sentiment is. The

member himself had often opposed the public sentiment: he had opposed

the arming of frigates, and yet that was surely a popular measure. At

the same time, he hoped that no member would vote for a measure that his

judgment condemns, because it is said to be a popular one; as this would

reduce him to a mere puppet--a machine. It had been said, that this

Embargo should be taken off on account of France; but our vessels, if

that obstacle is removed, will not go to France: they will go to the

West Indies, where they can get thirty dollars a barrel for their flour,

which they cannot get in France.

Mr. S. next adverted to the other Embargo, upon the members of the

House, referred to by Mr. CLARK. He hoped that public business would not

be treated with levity, and that they would rise, when they found it

convenient; but if the gentleman was so very impatient to get home, he

could be very well spared by the House.

Mr. CLARK rose, and said a few words in reply.

Mr. GILES approved of the idea of Mr. GILLON, as to the limiting the

Embargo to the sailing of vessels for the West Indies: and a resolution

to this effect was laid by the member on the table. Mr. G. thought this

a proper discrimination, and, if it could be effected, the true ground

that the House ought to take. As to what the farmers of America had

suffered by the Embargo, Mr. G. believed that there was not a single

planter in the district which he represented, who would not rather burn

his wheat, and dance round the bonfire, than sell it to the West Indies

to feed the British army. He would have brought forward a motion of this

nature sooner, but he had not thought that it would succeed, nor did he

think yet that it would. It would, however, show his sentiments, and he

hoped the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. W. SMITH,) if he was

anxious to support his reputation for consistency, would give his vote

for the resolution.

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

said resolution, it passed in the negative--yeas 13, nays 73, as

follows:

YEAS.--John Beatty, Elias Boudinot, Lambert Cadwalader,

George Dent, Alexander Gillon, Benjamin Goodhue, John

Hunter, Francis Malbone, Joseph Neville, John Page, William

Smith, Artemas Ward, and Richard Winn.

NAYS.--Fisher Ames, Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin,

Thomas Blount, Benjamin Bourne, Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel

Christie, Thomas Claiborne, Abraham Clark, David Cobb,

Peleg Coffin, Joshua Coit, Isaac Coles, William J. Dawson,

Jonathan Dayton, Henry Dearborn, Samuel Dexter, William

Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert,

William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Nicholas Gilman, Henry

Glenn, James Gordon, Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg,

Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, George Hancock, Daniel

Heister, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Amasa Learned,

Richard Bland Lee, Matthew Locke, William Lyman, Nathaniel

Macon, James Madison, Joseph McDowell, Alexander Mebane,

William Montgomery, Andrew Moore, Peter Muhlenberg, William

Vans Murray, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr,

Josiah Parker, Andrew Pickens, Francis Preston, Thomas

Scott, Theodore Sedgwick, John S. Sherburne, John Smilie,

Israel Smith, Zephaniah Swift, Silas Talbot, George

Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, Thomas Tredwell, Jonathan Trumbull,

John E. Van Allen, Philip Van Cortlandt, Peter Van

Gaasbeck, Abraham Venable, Peleg Wadsworth, Jeremiah

Wadsworth, Francis Walker, John Watts, Benjamin Williams,

and Joseph Winston.

THURSDAY, May 15.

_Indemnity for Spoliations._

Mr. GOODHUE moved the following resolution:

"Whereas it is a primary object in the establishment of

Civil Government, to protect the persons and property of

its citizens from the violence of nations as well as

individuals; and whereas many of the citizens of the United

States have suffered great losses, by spoliation made on

their commerce, under the authority of Great Britain, in

violation of the law of nations and the rights of

neutrality,

"_Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That

the United States will guarantee an indemnification to all

such citizens of the United States, whose property may have

been captured and confiscated, under the authority of Great

Britain, in violation of the law of nations, and the rights

of neutrality."

Mr. GOODHUE moved that the resolution might be referred to a Committee

of the whole House, which was seconded by Mr. DEXTER. It was then moved,

by way of amendment to the motion, by Mr. DAYTON, to add these words,

"to whom was referred the resolution, for the sequestration of British

debts:" to which Mr. GOODHUE objected, because, he said, the subjects

were distinct and separate in their nature and ought not to be combined.

His resolution went only to establish the principle of indemnification,

by guaranteeing it to the sufferers, leaving the fund from which it

should be made (in case Great Britain should refuse to do us justice) to

a future consideration. That whether British debts were sequestered or

not, he said, the United States were bound to see that indemnity was

made to the merchants whose property had been kidnapped in a secret,

clandestine manner, while pursuing a lawful trade, under the authority

of this Government and law of nations, or to give them an opportunity of

indemnifying themselves by making reprisals. That it was well known

there was great opposition to the sequestration of British debts, and it

was very doubtful whether such a measure would ever be adopted; and if

this resolution was to be referred to the same committee, and become

connected with that, he should very much despair of ever getting any

indemnification. That British debts were a very precarious and uncertain

fund; and the idea of ever getting indemnification from that source,

would operate as a delusion. That if sequestration, under any

circumstances, could be proper, it was highly improper at this time,

when an Envoy Extraordinary had just been despatched to Great Britain;

and more so, as we had discontinued the Embargo, which would put all our

remaining vessels in the power of that nation. He should, therefore,

consider an agreement to the amendment as amounting to a determination

not to consider the subject, at least for the present session.

In support of the amendment, it was argued, that the two subjects had an

intimate connection with each other, and never ought to be separated;

that British debts and British property were the natural and only funds

for paying British depredations, and if indemnity was not given this

way, it ought not to be given at all; that, as it was probable the

resolution for sequestration would lie dormant for some time, it was

best to refer this to the same committee, that they might sleep

together. The amendment was supported by Messrs. LYMAN, NICHOLAS,

SMILIE, DEARBORN, and MADISON.

Mr. DAYTON made a number of pointed remarks on what he considered as the

total futility of such a resolution. He looked on it as nothing better

than an awkward attempt to gain popularity. He complained bitterly of

the injustice of bringing up this motion alone; because when he voted

against it, it might be surmised that he was unfavorable to the redress

of the injuries of a certain class of citizens. He was for redressing

their wrongs, and he had marked out to the House the only effectual way

in which these wrongs should ever be redressed, viz: the sequestration

of British property. He adverted to an expression made use of, some days

ago, by Mr. SEDGWICK, who had called this a _mad_ project. Mr. D. was of

opinion that the _mad-cap_ might with propriety be transferred to a

different situation, which he specified to the House. He said, that we

were frequently told of the justice due to the British subjects. Be it

so. But was there no justice also due to the people of the United

States? And what justice could there be in attempting to make the

American citizens pay for depredations committed by British privateers,

when we had in our hands British property? Were we not bound to take as

much care of our own interest, as of that of other people? It had been

said, that as a negotiation was to commence under an Ambassador

Extraordinary, that this measure would impede its success. He was, on

the contrary, convinced that this was the only step that could be likely

to insure the success of Mr. Jay's mission. It would teach Britain to

give up her infamous conduct. It would convert, in the literal sense of

the word, every English manufacturing house, that had debts due to it in

this country, into an American negotiator; and they would, for their own

sakes, compel their Government to do justice to the American merchants.

Mr. D. scouted the idea of taxing America, to pay for the depredations

committed in the West Indies. Supposing, what every gentleman in the

House knew to be impossible, that if Congress actually were to pass such

an act, the people would not submit to pay their money for any such

purpose.

Mr. SEDGWICK said, it certainly had not been his wish that the question

should be brought forward at the present time. As it was, however,

before the House, as he approved the motives of his colleague, who made

the motion, and as he perfectly concurred with him in opinion on the

subject, he would make a few concise observations. He believed, that in

a Government such as that of this country it was the peculiar duty of

those to whom the administration has been committed, to extend security

and protection to all the interests, and redress for all the injuries of

the citizens. That inexcusable and unexampled injuries had been

perpetrated, and an immense value in property unjustly spoiled, and that

the honor of our country had been insulted, without provocation, were

facts admitted by all. Those whose property had been the sport of wanton

violation, which, in many instances, had reduced the sufferers from ease

and affluence to want and misery, came forward and demanded redress and

indemnification. That they were entitled to such indemnification, from

the nature of our social compact, he understood to be agreed by every

gentleman.

[Here Mr. S. was interrupted by several members; and Mr. NICHOLAS and

Mr. SMILIE declared that in their opinion, there was no obligation to

indemnify the sufferers, except it were done out of a fund to be formed

by the sequestration of British property.]

Mr. S. said he was obliged to the gentlemen for setting him right; till

now he had believed that the right of the sufferers to indemnification

was denied by none. If this, however, was really a question yet to be

decided, it was due to the sufferers, it was due to our own honor, to

decide it without delay. It was asked, by what means is the Government

to administer redress? They were first to apply to the Governments which

had inflicted the injuries, to state their nature and extent, and to

demand, in unequivocal terms, redress. This business, notwithstanding

all the opposition which had been made, was happily in a proper train.

He hoped and believed that the application would be effectual. It might,

however, fail; and in that case, he was free to declare that we owed it

to our honor and to our injured citizens, to attempt redress by means of

the last resort. In that unhappy event, the interests of the sufferers

must be involved with the general interests of the nation, and must

abide the ultimate result of war. But if satisfaction should not be

obtained by negotiation, and should the Government, from any political

considerations, not seek redress by force, in such events the sufferers

would have a just claim on their country for indemnification. The

question now immediately before the House was, to refer the motion for

indemnification to the Committee of the Whole on the subject of

sequestration. This was not fair, as it respected that part of the House

who approved an engagement to indemnify, and who would never consent to

sequestration. It was not fair as respected the sufferers, because he

believed there was not a gentleman in the House who supposed that the

measure of sequestration would prevail. He was astonished that any

should believe that it ought to be adopted. He, himself, without

hesitation, approved of engaging to indemnify the sufferers; but at the

same time, with all his heart, he abhorred sequestration and

confiscation of debts, as the measures which all civilized nations had

for more than a century abandoned as immoral and unjust. He would not

now enter into a discussion of the question of sequestration. Whenever

it came directly under consideration, he pledged himself to undertake to

prove that it was against the law of nations, that it was immoral,

unjust, and impolitic. He had been sorry to perceive that the feelings

of the mover of that proposition (Mr. DAYTON) were wounded, by the terms

in which gentlemen had spoken of his motion. He himself, in his

conscience, believed it to be immoral and unjust; and, as such, he felt

himself bound as a man of honor to give it his strenuous opposition. The

gentleman surely could not reasonably expect that independent men would

sacrifice opinion to politeness or to friendship. All he could do, and

that he did with pleasure, was to declare that he believed the

gentleman's motives were pure and upright, and that he had a perfect

confidence in the correctness of his moral sentiments. Viewing the

subject in the light he had expressed, he appealed to the candor and

fairness of gentlemen, to what tended the combining of those irritative

questions of indemnification and sequestration, but to wound the

feelings and evade the just application of the sufferers? Gentlemen had

charged his colleague, and those who had supported his motion, with

attempting, by these means, meanly to court popularity. To refute this

charge would, in his opinion, be unnecessary, because no well-informed

man in America could believe it. He did not know that the opinions which

were held by his friends and himself on this subject, were popular; it

was sufficient that they were believed to be just. Was he, however,

disposed to recriminate, by disclosing motives which were not avowed,

but concealed, he could tell a tale, which, he believed, could be heard

with effect.

Mr. GOODHUE spoke a few words, in direct opposition to what had been

advanced by Mr. DAYTON. The two propositions ought to be discussed

separately. We had sent a negotiator to Britain, and a sequestration

would put an end to his business. The citizens of the United States

ought to be taxed, in the mean time, to pay these losses; and it was

possible that a sequestration might, hereafter, be thought advisable. He

very strongly pressed the idea of a tax to this end. It would be a

proceeding of the most superlative impropriety, to lay on such a

sequestration at this particular juncture, when we had just agreed to

take off the Embargo, because our ships would go to England, and be all

seized, by way of reprisal.

Mr. CLARK recommended that both propositions should be laid aside for

the present, and be suffered to take a sweet nap together, till a more

convenient time. He spoke with much contempt of the notion of taxing the

people of this country to pay for the ravages of Britain. The Court of

London would say to the world: "You see that we acted right: you see

the United States think so likewise; for they themselves pay their

merchants."

Mr. GILES agreed with Mr. CLARK: but as there is a necessary sameness in

the arguments on this question, and as they have already been detailed

in so many different forms, it seems needless to repeat them over again

so frequently. He said that when this tax came to be levied, every

farmer would say, every man in America would say, "We shall have nothing

to do with this business. Why don't you indemnify British depredations

out of the British property that is within your grasp?" He had heard

that Congress ought to decide an abstract proposition, viz: that this

Government was, in any event, bound to pay the recent losses of its

merchants by sea; and then proceed to assign funds for the payment. He

thought that before Congress undertook any such engagement, they ought

at least to be possessed of the money requisite to discharge it. He

hoped that the House would never proceed to a vote in support of any

abstract axiom, especially where taxes and public money were concerned,

till they had carefully digested the collateral circumstances.

Mr. DEXTER spoke against the amendment. He said, that very strong

reasons existed both for taking into consideration a proposition for

indemnity to the sufferers, and also against connecting it with

sequestration or any other subject. Each ought to stand or fall on its

own merits. The sufferers were numerous, and deserving citizens; they

had waited a long time, and had a right to know, before the close of the

session, what protection they were to expect from the Government of

their own country. Sequestration, without a change of political

circumstances, would never pass both Houses of the Legislature; to

connect them, then, would be to deny relief, without even examining the

principles on which they claim it. He said, British debts had been

called the only proper and natural funds: in his opinion, they would be

no fund at all, even if sequestration could be adopted. The debts would

never be collected; and not only so, but sequestration would be the

beginning of hostilities, and war must ensue; this, at the same moment,

would prevent all hope of obtaining justice from Britain, and also

discharge our own Government from every obligation to indemnify. Mr. D.

said he would state what, in his opinion, was the proper and natural

fund--the money to be demanded of Britain by our Envoy Extraordinary.

Should this fail, the Government of America would either pay the

sufferers, or grant them letters of marque and reprisal. This, he said,

is the constant course of nations, and this the sufferers have a right

to demand, as a counterpart of their allegiance. Mr. D. said, it had

been objected that the British Government would be encouraged by it to

refuse a recompense. This, if true, would be a serious objection, for he

had always viewed negotiation as affording the only probable chance for

indemnity to the sufferers. If a recompense be refused by Britain, war

will be the consequence. The objection, however, he thought, would be

entirely removed, by attending to the resolution itself. It is not, he

said, a provision for taking the debt on ourselves, but merely to

_guarantee_ a recompense to the sufferers. The very word itself implies

that the Government of America is not the principal debtor, but is to

compel another to make indemnity, or become the debtor. Mr. D. closed

with saying that he had attended only to the reasoning of the gentlemen,

and not to their personalities. It was not his practice to leave the

question, to impute to others motives either corrupt or paltry: if they

chose to glean imaginary laurels on this ground, he was not anxious to

share them; they could best judge whether, in this way, they were likely

to increase their reputation or benefit the public.

Messrs. AMES, MURRAY, SMITH, (of South Carolina,) and HILLHOUSE, also

spoke against the amendment, and said the merits of neither proposition

were now before the House, but only the mode in which the subject should

be considered; that they were in themselves separate and independent,

and ought to have a separate and independent consideration; they were

questions of very great national concern, and that blending them

together would give an undue bias, and neither would be fairly and

impartially decided. It was doubtful whether the resolution for

sequestration ever ought to be adopted, and that to connect the two

subjects, would be to hang a millstone about the necks of the sufferers;

that, as they were a numerous and very meritorious class of citizens,

their claim merited a candid and full examination, unembarrassed with

any other matter.

A warm dispute arose about the form in which the question on this

resolution should be taken. The point actually contested seemed to be,

whether the resolution was to be referred to the committee on Mr.

DAYTON'S motion for the sequestration of British property, or to a

separate committee, which was insisted on by the mover, Mr. GOODHUE.

A division took place upon the question of agreeing to Mr. DAYTON's

amendment, to add, after the words "be referred to a Committee of the

Whole," the following words, viz: "to whom were referred the resolutions

for sequestering the British debts;" and the yeas and nays being called

for, were taken--yeas 57, nays 31, as follows:

YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, John Beatty,

Thomas Blount, Elias Boudinot, Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel

Christie, Thomas Claiborne, Abraham Clark, Isaac Coles,

William J. Dawson, Jonathan Dayton, Henry Dearborn, George

Dent, William Findlay, William B. Giles, James Gillespie,

Alexander Gillon, Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg, Samuel

Griffin, William B. Grove, George Hancock, John Heath,

Daniel Heister, William Hindman, John Hunter, Matthew

Locke, William Lyman, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison,

Joseph McDowell, Alexander Mebane, William Montgomery,

Andrew Moore, Peter Muhlenberg, Joseph Neville, Anthony

New, John Nicholas, Nathaniel Niles, Alexander D. Orr, John

Page, Josiah Parker, Andrew Pickens, Francis Preston,

Robert Rutherford, Thomas Scott, John S. Sherburne, John

Smilie, Israel Smith, Silas Talbot, Philip Van Cortlandt,

Abraham Venable, Francis Walker, Benjamin Williams, Richard

Winn, and Joseph Winston.

NAYS.--Fisher Ames, James Armstrong, Benjamin Bourne, David

Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Joshua Coit, Samuel Dexter, Thomas

Fitzsimons, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas

Gilman, Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, James

Hillhouse, Henry Latimer, Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee,

Francis Malbone, William Vans Murray, Theodore Sedgwick,

Jeremiah Smith, William Smith, Zephaniah Swift, George

Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, John E. Van

Allen, Peter Van Gaasbeck, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Watts.

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

said motion for commitment, as amended, it was resolved in the

affirmative.

FRIDAY, May 16.

_Revenue Bill: Salt and Coal Tax._

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

bill laying additional duties on goods, wares, and merchandise imported

into the United States, and on the tonnage of ships or vessels.

The three cents per bushel of additional duty on salt was objected to by

Mr. FINDLAY, as oppressive to his constituents.

Mr. AMES was convinced, that this was much better than a land-tax. It

was beyond all comparison, more cheap, more certain, and more equal in

the collection than a land-tax. He would rather tax salt, at even half a

dollar per bushel, than agree to a land-tax.

Mr. CLARK would be very glad to hear the gentleman from Pennsylvania

(Mr. FINDLAY) specify, upon what subject he was willing to pay a tax? It

was beyond the comprehension of Mr. C., for what sort of a tax the

gentleman was prepared to vote, or, indeed, what sort of taxes the

Western settlers of Pennsylvania pay. We lay a duty on sugar. They make

sugar for themselves. We lay a tax on tobacco. They are to manufacture

for themselves. We lay an excise on distilleries. They refuse to pay

this tax, and, in fact, they do not pay it. We tax wines; but we are

told that these people are poor. They cannot, therefore, afford to drink

wine, on which the duty is very heavy, for that duty is paid only by the

rich. We tax the importation of foreign fineries, such as silk, but silk

also is not the dress of poor people, so that here again the

constituents of the gentleman get off. We are going to tax the

importation of foreign coals, but they have plenty of their own, and so

far from paying a tax on them, are cutting a canal to bring them down to

Philadelphia; which will drive out the importation of foreign coals, and

so destroy the tax altogether. Under these circumstances, Mr. C. was

solicitous to learn what taxes the back settlers paid, for, as far as

he could understand, they paid none; and their Representative would do

well to inform the House on what they were willing to pay a tax. Was

Government to be burdened with them, and derive no compensation? Was it

a sufficient reason for exempting a district from public burdens to say

that the people are poor? Are taxes to be paid exclusively by the rich?

Mr. RUTHERFORD objected to this duty on salt. It was often to be carried

from one to three hundred and fifty miles inland, and in fact, it

frequently costs twenty shillings per bushel. No tax could be so

universally unpopular as this would be.

Mr. FINDLAY replied to Mr. CLARK. As to sugar, though some of his

neighbors made theirs, Mr. F. bought his own in Philadelphia. As to

silks and other female fineries, his constituents did just like other

people. They spent, in that way, as much as they could possibly afford,

and had among them ladies very well dressed. As to other matters, his

constituents purchased their manufactures in Philadelphia, and paid for

them as other people did. Salt, he said, was known to be necessary for

cattle in the back country. He was strongly against the tax.

Mr. GILLON likewise opposed the tax on salt. It had been proposed, in

the State which he represented, but never could be carried through.

On a division, it was rejected--ayes 32, noes 47.

A motion was made for striking out twenty-five cents per ton of

additional tonnage, on foreign vessels, in order to insert fifty.

It was passed in the negative--ayes 39, noes 41.

After going through the bill, the committee rose, and the House went

into consideration of the amendments made in Committee of the Whole.

On the subject of an additional duty on coal imported, Mr. GILES said,

that the rise was very moderate, from four and a half to six cents per

ton. A Boston company was about, as he understood, to embark in this

business, but waited to see the steps taken by Congress. There was as

much coal in Virginia as would serve all America and Europe besides.

Mr. WADSWORTH would have the additional duty restricted to all coal

imported in foreign vessels.

Mr. HEISTER wanted to know, whether the price of coal had not been

already doubled within these few years. He was informed that coal

imported had of late risen from six dollars per ton, to twelve dollars

and a half.

Mr. FITZSIMONS said, that a few years would put an end to importation

altogether. He defended the tax. He saw no danger to any of the

manufactures in America, that make use of foreign coal arising from this

tax. Nothing but a capital was wanting to make America supply herself.

Mr. SHERBURNE recommended the amendment of Mr. WADSWORTH, as to the

restriction of this duty to foreign bottoms.

Mr. MADISON worded this amendment, "on all vessels not belonging to

citizens of the United States;" because foreign bottoms might belong to

people of this country. He was not solicitous about the fate of the

motion. The amendment was lost; but the original motion was carried.

SATURDAY, May 17.

_Tobacco and Sugar Duties._

The bill laying a duty on tobacco manufactured, and sugar refined, in

the United States, was read a second time.

Mr. LYMAN opposed its passing to a third reading, on the ground that

those articles deserve yet the fostering care of Government, and are

entirely incapable of bearing such a burden; for, even now,

notwithstanding the present protecting duties, they, especially the

article of manufactured snuff, are yet imported. He also objected to the

bill from the exceptionable nature of an excise.

Some objections were made to the propriety of opposing the bill in its

present stage.

Mr. CLARK thought the bill unnecessary, because the two and a half per

cent. of additional impost would supply all the wants of the public. He

thought that the bill had an _immoral_ tendency, because it tempted men

to perjure themselves. It was oppressive, as making every man's house

liable to be searched at midnight. He thought it also would produce an

expensive mode of collection. He, therefore, objected against it, as

unnecessary, of an immoral tendency, as oppressive, and expensive. He

had always voted against it, and he always should persist in voting

against it.

Mr. AMES pressed the necessity for money, and the want of other funds to

discharge the services of the current year. He said, that to impose

taxes was an unpopular office, and exposed members to dislike. Perhaps

they might be _persecuted_; but it was still requisite for members to

perform their duty. He had a great repugnance to the excise as

established in Europe; but in America it was of a different nature. To

reject the present bill would place the finances of this country in a

very alarming point of view. If this bill was thrown out, we might bid

farewell to firm and determined measures. We must go home when we are to

lay a tax, and ask the people whether or not they like it.

Mr. NICHOLAS went into the old arguments against excise. He was severe

on the general character of excise officers, whom he represented as the

dregs of society. Very few persons in America would accept of such an

office at all, and those who accepted of it, were by no means of a

respectable rank in life.

Mr. FITZSIMONS.--There are as good men employed in the collection of the

revenue as any others in the country, not excepting the gentleman

himself; and men who are as well liked by their neighbors.

Mr. W. SMITH.--The rejection of the bill at this time will not decide

the principle of excise; if rejected, it will not be owing to the

arguments against it, but to the absence of a great many members, who

never dreamed that the question would have been brought on to-day, and

who do not even know that the bill has been so much as reported. The

practice is uncandid, and unprecedented, to endeavor to reject a bill at

this stage, before it has been printed, and the members know its

contents. Was it fair and consistent, in a thin House, to reject the

bill without any further consideration than one reading, for the sake of

form, a reading, to which _nobody had listened_? How was this to settle

the principle of excise? Was it not already settled in the constitution

and by existing laws? But a new argument had been this day resorted to;

there was a surplus of revenue in the Treasury, without new taxes, and

this had been discovered since this tax had been agreed to. If this

argument was founded in fact, it would put an end to all debates on all

the new taxes; but what was this notable discovery? an additional two

and a half per cent. on impost. This was no discovery which could change

the question, for it was agreed to before the duty on manufactured

tobacco and sugar; and the latter had been therefore established by the

House, with a knowledge that the former was laid. He asked if, in the

present situation of the country, all dependence was to be placed on

commerce? How could certain members reconcile this proceeding with their

former votes and language? But the other day we were to prohibit all

commercial intercourse, to sequester debts, and to prepare for war. Now,

we are to derive the whole of the revenues from trade; the same

gentlemen who urged these measures were now defeating every kind of

revenue which might be productive. There was something so extraordinary

in this, that he could not account for it. It was said, that the

Committee of Ways and Means ought not to have reckoned on a defalcation,

in the impost of $1,300,000, but the gentlemen assign no reasons for

their assertion, whereas the committee founded their report on the best

information. Admit, however, that it is doubtful; was it safe, in the

present critical state of the country, to place all dependence on

_external_ resources, which were every moment in danger of being cut

off? Did not duty require a provision for the defence and safety of the

United States by _internal_ resources? This was certain, that the extra

appropriations of this year exceeded those of any former year by two

millions and a half of dollars. Where was the money to come from? The

members in opposition to this tax, voted out land and salt; they

endeavored to vote out stamps and carriages. They will agree to nothing

but impost. Are the merchants to be saddled with the whole burden,

because, like friends to order and tranquillity, they have not called

_town-meetings, or published inflammatory resolves_? It is said, war is

no longer expected; this country is willing to submit to every thing.

Was this insinuation pointed at Congress or the Executive? It was

unfounded in either case; because negotiation was tried, it did not

follow that either the one or the other branch of the Government were

disposed tamely to submit to injury; for himself, he was ready to aver

that, if proper reparation were not obtained, he should be for war. The

balance now being trembling on its beam, and no one could say whether it

would settle for peace or war, he was for preparing seriously for the

latter, while he strove to preserve the former. Pecuniary exertions were

indispensable; it might be a pleasant thing to oppose taxes, and the

advocates of new taxes might be obnoxious, but this would not draw him

from his duty. The increase of excise officers had been mentioned; the

bill did not propose a single one; the bad character of the excise

officers had been mentioned; the supervisors were among the most

respectable men in the United States, and the inspectors were as

virtuous as the officers of the customs. The embarrassments, the taking

of oaths, &c., were not more applicable to manufacturers than to

merchants and captains, who could not enter, or unlade, or clear out,

without difficulties, embarrassments, and oaths; but this was

disregarded, as if they had less feeling than other people. As to the

injury to morals, the necessary oaths required by all revenue laws were

not injurious to the morals of the honest, and those who swore to the

truth; and, as to those who were disposed to commit frauds and

perjuries, no injury could be done to the morals of those who had none.

Mr. S. wished that less had been said in the way of general reflection

on the collectors of the revenue. Some years ago, a member of that

House, when they were at New York, attacked the tide-waiters. There

happened to be a tide-waiter in the gallery, who wrote, next day, a

pretty smart letter to the member who had spoken so freely of his

profession.

Mr. NILES hoped that no gentleman would say, that he wished to see the

Treasury empty. He would, for his own part, be glad to know whether

there was a deficiency or not, clearly stated. He did not see so much as

some others did, in the objections to an excise. It was _called_ an

excise, it was true, but we do not know yet the way in which it is to be

levied; so, we cannot tell whether there will be any hardship in it or

not. He went over some of the statements of different gentlemen, but on

the whole, there was so much contradiction in the assertions of

different members, that Mr. N. knew not what to make of them.

Mr. BOUDINOT moved that the House adjourn, which they did immediately,

at three o'clock.

MONDAY, May 19.

_Impressment of American Seamen._

Mr. MURRAY moved, that a committee be appointed to report a bill to

provide such regulations as may enable American seamen to obtain and

carry evidence of citizenship, for the purpose of protecting them from

impressment into foreign service. He said, that it was a reasonable

expectation that the subject of this resolution should be seriously

attended to, at any time; but there were the most urgent reasons for an

attention to the situation of our fellow-citizens of this description at

the present period. That the evil of impressment into foreign service

existed, no gentleman could doubt, and it was equally doubtless, that it

was the duty of Congress, as far as they could, to provide a remedy for

the evil. A few years since, when Britain armed her navy against Spain,

on the Nootka-Sound question, it had been the fate of several hundreds

of the American seamen to be impressed into a service which they

abhorred. For a proof of this fact, he would recall the remembrance of

the House to the claim made by Mr. Cutting for repayment of money

actually expended by him, in the liberation of seamen in this

humiliating situation. Congress repaid Mr. Cutting two thousand dollars.

That they had thus attended to this claim was proof that the fact

complained of existed. The evil arose, not more from the extreme

insolence of disposition of the pressgangs, than from a real difficulty

of discriminating American citizens from British subjects. The

difficulty was in similarity of language, dress, and manners; and from

the deficiency of evidence of citizenship, which, in a foreign port,

could not always be obtained. For, though the Lords of the Admiralty of

England had laid down certain rules, in the case that he had mentioned,

the rules laid down had exacted so rigid and pointed an oath, from

personal knowledge, that they scarcely could, in any case, be complied

with. A captain might, in many instances, _believe_ his sailor to be an

American, and yet not think himself warranted in making oath to this

fact. The object of his resolution was, that seamen, who are American

citizens, might all pursue a uniform line of evidence in proof of

citizenship, and that, by an entry of such evidence solemnly obtained in

the clearances or other authentic papers of the ship, the same weight

and authority should be given to their part of a ship's papers as were,

in all cases, given to all sea letters and other papers. He believed

that, if the subject went to a select committee, a particular regulation

on this subject might be digested, which would, in many cases, if not in

all, afford such good evidence of citizenship, as would save American

seamen from the injustice and cruelty that many, he believed, now

actually suffered under; for he had heard that a number of them had been

impressed in the West Indies on board of the British fleet. He was not

so sanguine as to imagine, that any law could give full protection to

our seamen; for he was convinced that, in order to give complete

protection, certain rules of evidence must first be recognized, by

convention between this country and Britain, stipulating the extent of

certain political principles relative to alienage and allegiance. Till,

however, that is done, he thought it the duty of Congress, and

particularly at this disturbed period, to afford every aid in its power

to this class of citizens. To bring the subject before the House, he had

moved the resolution, which he gave notice that he would call up

to-morrow.

_Tobacco and Sugar Duties._

The House then resumed the consideration of the bill for laying a duty

on manufactured tobacco and refined sugar, which had been debated and

postponed on Saturday.

Mr. GOODHUE wished for a delay. He had seen a gentleman from

Pennsylvania, last night, whom he did not now see in his place in the

House, and who was making out an estimate, whether the money proposed to

be raised by these taxes would be wanted or not. If they could really do

without the money, it would be better to reject the bill.

Mr. SHERBURNE thought that the question might be delayed, till it was

seen whether the sums to be produced by this bill, would be actually

required or not.

Mr. DAYTON believed that the money was wanted. He would therefore vote

for the bill. It was incumbent on gentlemen who objected to the bill, to

show that the money would not be wanted.

Mr. SMILIE and Mr. LEE rose at the same time.

The SPEAKER observed, that Mr. SMILIE had risen first.

Mr. LEE said, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania had already spoken

twice on this subject and he _insisted for order_. [Mr. L. referred to

the proceedings of Saturday, for Mr. SMILIE had not spoke any before,

this day.] Our time, said Mr. L., is too precious to be wasted in

talking, when every gentleman is competent to give his vote already. I

call for the question. His opinion was, that the money was not yet

wanted; and that it was being too provident to vote for taxes, before

they were required by necessity.

Mr. W. SMITH contended, that there would be a very considerable

deficiency. He asked, who would lend us money, if there was such a

difficulty in establishing funds to pay the interest of it?

Mr. WADSWORTH hoped that the bill would not be altogether thrown aside.

There was part of it that he approved, and part of it that he did not

perfectly approve. In discussing this question, much stress has been

laid upon the two and a half per cent. of additional impost on

importations, as if _that_ would be a fund for the increase of revenue,

and supersede the necessity for some other taxes. Mr. W. assigned his

reasons for believing that this supposition was perfectly chimerical.

Within the last six months, American vessels and property had been

captured by the British privateers in the West Indies, to the extent of

_one million of dollars_. This will make the importations less, by at

least five hundred thousand dollars, and, of consequence, destroy a

great part both of the old and new impost. Property to the extent of

one-fourth of a million of dollars, perhaps, had likewise been seized by

the Spaniards, and other nations had most likely taken as much more. The

total loss to American commerce could not, therefore, be less than

_fifteen hundred thousand dollars_. The imposts on importations must,

therefore, be very much reduced; as from Britain, for example, there

would not, in his judgment, be one-fourth part of the imports, from this

time to the first of December, that had been formerly. And no man could

imagine that, at the most, they would exceed one-half of their former

amount. The British merchants would be afraid, on account of the matters

that had been proposed. These people, they would say, have been laying

embargoes, and speaking of sequestration, and indemnification. We must

be cautious. Mr. W. added, that it was possible enough, that America

might, in the fall, be at war with Britain; and then impost and

importation will fall together. These were his motives for believing

that the two and a half per cent. would be of no great consequence. It

had been said, that the ten per cent. would produce a large

augmentation. He did not, from the diminished quantity of imports,

believe that it would be _so much_, by twenty or thirty per cent. as the

old seven and half duty had produced. Mr. W. next reverted to the bill

before the House. One part of it (the duty on snuff) he could not agree

to. The other part, refined sugars, would fall on those who could afford

to pay it, and after all that had been said against this bill, he was

firmly convinced, that, so far from injuring the manufacture, it would

thrive the better for this tax. He, on this account, hoped that the bill

would pass, in spite of his objection to some things that might,

perhaps, be corrected. He then replied to the complaints of some

gentlemen, who, as an excuse for repeating over and over again their

former arguments and opinions, observed, that they had not received an

answer. It was very likely that they might think so, and he, for his

part, did not think that he had been _answered_. This kind of reasoning

had no end. Perhaps it was impossible for him, or gentlemen of his

sentiments, to answer the opposite side of the question. And, again,

perhaps the gentlemen of the opposite opinion could not answer them. The

matter must rest there, and the question come to a vote.

Mr. FITZSIMONS was convinced that there was a deficiency, and a great

one. But he was not fully prepared to speak upon the subject; though he

was sure of the fact. He did not wish to hurry the subject. The bill

might be printed.

Mr. NICHOLAS was sorry to have learned that he had, on Saturday, made a

general reflection on a profession of men. With some gentlemen, in the

line referred to, he had as strict a friendship as with any persons on

earth. He said, that ten lines of figures, which he had in his hand,

would satisfy the House, that the taxes in the present bill are not

wanted. He then began a detail of considerable length, to which Mr.

FITZSIMONS replied.

Mr. TRACY.--One gentleman says that we have a surplus of three millions;

another, that we have a surplus of one million. It is very strange for

gentlemen to be coming forward in this stage of the debate, and to say

that money is not wanted, after the want of money has been so frequently

advanced, and admitted, in the House. It is unaccountable, that there

should be a contradiction on a point of this nature. He next went into a

long series of calculations.

He objected to the estimate of the impost of 1793, that was reckoned

upon for the current expenses of 1794. A great part of this impost was

still due, by bonds. The persons who had given these bonds were, many of

them, broke by the British depredations in the West Indies; and, in

fact, a large proportion of that impost never would be paid in to the

collectors of the revenue.

He was displeased with the way in which some gentlemen had spoken of the

national debt. He had no share, for his own part, as a creditor; but a

part of his property must go to the discharge of it, and he should

cheerfully pay it. He did not agree with those gentlemen who, in the

event of a peace, would not wish to replenish the Treasury. It was

curious, that the House had now been assembled for nearly six months;

and that their chief object had been to discover ways and means for

raising public money. A bill for that purpose had been brought in; and

just when it was on the point of being passed, we make a sudden and

wonderful discovery, that no money is wanted; but that we have an

overplus of three millions of dollars. The thing cannot be. The

calculations are not founded on truth. He did not believe that members

understood the bill. He could demonstrate that there was occasion for a

supply of money.

Mr. MADISON thought that the arguments on each side of this question

might be reduced to a narrow compass. If peace continues, he supposed it

likely that the revenue would not fall so far short, as the committee

had apprehended. But if there was a war, the expense would much exceed

any thing yet thought of. He was for laying aside the subject at

present, and if a rupture with England should ensue, he would then

recommend, at once, a _direct_ tax, and that these excise acts should be

entirely thrown aside. If there was no war, he believed that no new

taxes were required; let the matter therefore die, as to the present. He

disapproved the principle of the tax, and should, on that account, think

himself justified in voting against it.

Mr. GILLON rose, and replied to several gentlemen, who were for the

excise on tobacco, snuff, and loaf and lump sugar; and observed, that he

had partly obtained his object, by drawing gentlemen forward, with the

calculations which had been kept back. But as the gentlemen, after

having, by their own account, been three months on this subject, avowed

that his request of detailing those large sums came rather unexpected,

and that they wished to have more time to make their calculations, he

had not much objection to let this bill have a second reading; but he

hoped they would be accurate, in proportion to the time taken to preface

them. As to the idea of our general taxes not taking place until the

first of next March, that had no weight with him; because he knew the

Civil List for the year was not all then due, nor would all the sum for

military and naval preparations be to be paid down, the day the ore was

dug for the guns, nor on the day that the first tree was cut to begin

the frigates.

He agreed that a deficiency might arise on the supplies now due, for the

terms which the gentlemen had assigned by the plunder of our merchants'

property. He was happy to find that gentlemen had not lost sight of the

serious applications they had received from that respectable and utile

body (the merchants) for redress; and he should take care to remind

gentlemen of their own observations, when the requests of the merchants

were brought forward, as he was clear something must be done, either by

restitution on the debts to be sequestered, a loan for them under the

guarantee of the Union, or by prolonging the time to a remote period, of

paying the duties that they owed. He was accused of making _wonderful

discoveries_, of making calculations not founded in truth. The latter he

denied, for, if there is any untruth in them, it cannot be on his side,

but must have arisen from the committee; therefore, to them be the

untruth applicable, as he did not make use of a figure but what they

placed in their report.

He still retained his opinion, that surplus revenue was dangerous in the

hands of any Government. What did they want to do with it? He hoped

nothing else but to buy up the national funded debt as cheap as they

could, which act was pardonable, only by the intent, he presumed, they

must feel of at last doing justice to our late armies. His meaning was,

that the profits arising from this speculation should be kept as a

sacred deposit out at interest, and that interest to be employed towards

paying off the interest due on the principal losses which our brave

officers and soldiers had met with, by being obliged to part with their

shares of pay at a very inferior value. This you may better pay to

patriotism and misfortune than pay to speculators.

Mr. TRACY.--If I have said what is alleged, the language is too

indecorous to be used by me to any gentleman on this floor. If any thing

of that kind has escaped from me, I am ready to ask the gentleman's

pardon. I have the highest respect for his character.

And the question was then put, Shall this bill be rejected? It passed in

the negative--yeas 31, nays 56, as follows:

YEAS.--Thomas Blount, Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel Christie,

Thomas Claiborne, Abraham Clark, Isaac Coles, William

Findlay, William B. Giles, Alexander Gillon, Andrew Gregg,

Daniel Heister, William Lyman, Nathaniel Macon, James

Madison, Joseph McDowell, William Montgomery, Andrew Moore,

Peter Muhlenberg, Joseph Neville, Anthony New, John

Nicholas, Josiah Parker, Francis Preston, Robert

Rutherford, Thomas Scott, John Smilie, Thomas Tredwell,

Abraham Venable, Francis Walker, Richard Winn, and Joseph

Winston.

NAYS.--Fisher Ames, James Armstrong, Theodorus Bailey,

Abraham Baldwin, John Beatty, Elias Boudinot, Benjamin

Bourne, Lambert Cadwalader, David Cobb, Peleg Coffin,

Joshua Coit, William J. Dawson, Jonathan Dayton, Henry

Dearborn, George Dent, Samuel Dexter, Thomas Fitzsimons,

Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, James Gillespie, Nicholas

Gilman, Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Samuel

Griffin, William Barry Grove, Thomas Hartley, James

Hillhouse, William Hindman, John Hunter, Henry Latimer,

Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee, Matthew Locke, Francis

Malbone, Alexander Mebane, William Vans Murray, Alexander

D. Orr, Andrew Pickens, Theodore Sedgwick, John S.

Sherburne, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, William Smith,

Zephaniah Swift, Silas Talbot, George Thatcher, Uriah

Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, John E. Van Allen, Peter Van

Gaasbeck, Peleg Wadsworth, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Artemas

Ward, John Watts, and Benjamin Williams.

The said bill was then read the second time, and ordered to be committed

to a Committee of the whole House on Wednesday next.

_Augmentation of the Army._

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

bill to augment the military force of the United States; and after some

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

said bill under consideration, and made amendment thereto; which was

read, as follows:

Strike out the first section of the bill, in the words following, to

wit:

"_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives

of the United States of America in Congress assembled_,

That there shall be raised, for the term of ---- years, or

during a war which may break out between the United States

and any European Power, an additional military force,

consisting of twenty-five thousand non-commissioned

officers, privates, and musicians, together with a proper

proportion of commissioned officers of all grades,

respectively, according to the present Military

Establishment of the United States:"

And on the question that the House do agree with the Committee of the

whole House in the said amendment, it was resolved in the affirmative.

A motion was then made and seconded to amend the said bill, by

inserting, in lieu of the section stricken out, the following section,

to wit:

"_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives

of the United States of America in Congress assembled_,

That there shall be raised, upon the terms and conditions

hereafter mentioned, an additional provisional military

force, to consist of ---- non-commissioned officers,

privates, and musicians, together with a proper proportion

of commissioned officers."

It passed in the negative--yeas 30, nays 50, as follows:

YEAS.--Fisher Ames, John Beatty, Benjamin Bourne, David

Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Jonathan Dayton, George Dent, Samuel

Dexter, Thomas Fitzsimons, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert,

Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, James Hillhouse, William

Hindman, Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee, Francis Malbone,

William Vans Murray, Theodore Sedgwick, William Smith,

Zephaniah Swift, Silas Talbot, George Thatcher, Uriah

Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, John E. Van Allen, Peter Van

Gaasbeck, Jeremiah Wadsworth, and John Watts.

NAYS.--James Armstrong, Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin,

Thomas Blount, Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel Christie, Thomas

Claiborne, Abraham Clark, Joshua Coit, Isaac Coles, William

J. Dawson, Henry Dearborn, William Findlay, William B.

Giles, James Gillespie, Alexander Gillon, Nicholas Gilman,

Henry Glenn, Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg, William

Barry Grove, Daniel Heister, John Hunter, Matthew Locke,

William Lyman, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, Joseph

McDowell, Alexander Mebane, William Montgomery, Andrew

Moore, Peter Muhlenberg, Joseph Neville, Anthony New, John

Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, Josiah Parker, Francis Preston,

Robert Rutherford, Thomas Scott, John S. Sherburne, John

Smilie, Israel Smith, Thomas Tredwell, Philip Van

Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, Francis Walker, Richard Winn,

Benjamin Williams, and Joseph Winston.

And then the question being put that the said bill, as amended, be

engrossed and read the third time, it passed in the negative. And so the

said bill was rejected.

FRIDAY, May 23.

_Tobacco and Sugar Duties._

The House went into a committee, Mr. TRUMBULL in the chair, on the bill

for an excise on tobacco, snuff, and refined sugar.

In the first section, it was agreed to strike out the words, "tobacco

and." This proposed that the word tobacco be struck out in every

subsequent part of the bill, so that the duty be confined to the

manufacture of snuff.

Mr. MUHLENBERG (The SPEAKER) moved to strikeout the second section,

"that from and after the ---- day of ---- there be levied, collected,

and paid, upon all sugar which shall be refined within the United

States, a duty of two cents per pound."

He would not trouble the committee with any comments on the excise,

enough having already been said on that subject; although he could not

forbear mentioning, that in England, where almost every thing was

subject to an excise, and where the Minister is ever on the watch to

discover new articles for that purpose, loaf sugar had never yet been

taxed, the Committee on Ways and Means had all the credit of the

seasonable discovery. The reason for not attempting an excise on this

article was obvious, because the manufacture employed a greater quantity

of shipping than any other, they therefore rather wished to encourage

than to depress it; the former of which they effectually do, by allowing

a generous drawback on exportation of refined sugar, for which the

different ports of the Continent afford them a constant and ready

market. The case was widely different here. The manufacture is yet in

its infant state--it has to contend with the old established ones in

Europe, who have larger capitals and can afford longer credits, whereas

we have not only no market to export it to, but even now already, can

annually make a quantity more than sufficient for the consumption of the

United States. It is true, it appears from the last returns, that

upwards of 200,000 lbs. of refined sugars were imported last year, which

is about the same quantity which two houses might furnish in one year,

but it is to be observed, that owing to the high price of raw sugars,

some establishments were not worked at all, whilst others did not work

above eight or nine months in the year, and I will here, said Mr. M.,

venture to assert, that if this duty of two cents actually takes place,

some of those who are now engaged in this difficult and expensive

business will abandon it and turn their capitals into other channels. I

do not stand alone in this opinion; others, of more experience, join me,

and it is founded on the following incontrovertible facts. Raw sugars

have for several years past been so high, that refined sugars naturally

bore an equally high price. This has already lessened the consumption,

to a considerable degree, in the United States, and from the present

prospect before us, when the French islands are in the hands of the

British, the probability is, that they will rather be higher than lower;

and if the two cents be added to the present high price of refined

sugars, the consumption will still be lessened in the same proportion as

the price of the article increases. This observation is founded on

facts, which every person concerned in the business has felt, and daily

experiences; nay, it can be proved, however strange it may appear, that

a less quantity of refined sugar is consumed at present in the United

States, than a year or two before the Revolution. Again, owing to the

high price of refined sugars, and which must be still higher when this

duty takes place, many even of our opulent families have, in a great

degree, abandoned the use of it, and substituted the white Havana, or

the white East India sugar. I well remember a remarkable instance of

this kind which took place not many months ago in this city. A gentleman

having imported a considerable quantity of white East India sugar, sold

it to the refiners of this place. Before the sale was concluded, he

reserved a quantity for himself and an opulent friend of his. The

consequence was that neither himself nor his friend used half the

quantity of refined sugar they had used the year before.

Permit me to add another circumstance. Sugars are higher at present, and

from a variety of circumstances must continue to be higher here than in

England, and although an additional duty on imported loaf and lump sugar

may take place, unless it exceeds what I have yet heard mentioned, they

will be able to undersell the manufacturers here, and this from the

single circumstance of their being allowed a drawback of 26_s._ sterling

per cwt., for if even a drawback of the same sum was allowed us here,

which is not to be expected, it cannot operate, because we have no

market for this article. In the West Indies, it is well known to be

contraband, and to transport it to Europe, would be carrying water into

the ocean, and even then it could not be accomplished on as low terms as

the Europeans can afford to do it.

One fact more, equally incontrovertible, suffer me to add. By the

additional duty on coal, which I am far from disapproving, because I

wish to encourage the consumption of our home productions, you have, in

fact, laid an additional tax on sugar. Every work of this kind consumes

annually from 2,000 to 4,000 bushels. This article was heretofore at the

rate of eleven pence or one shilling per bushel; owing to the duty on

imported coal, it has now risen to 2_s._ to 2_s._ 4_d._ This naturally

enhances the price of the article made in this manufacture, which is

already burdened to a considerable degree with taxes or duties. Thus,

there is a duty on the raw material, a duty on the paper they use, a

duty on the twine, a duty on the coal, and, to crown all, a duty is

intended on the article produced in this devoted manufacture. If it is

thus my friend from Connecticut means to do us good, or if this is the

decided encouragement and protection my colleague means to yield us, it

is such a one as I am sure the manufacturer will not thank him for.

Sir, I could add that this bill partakes strongly of the nature of a

sumptuary law; that in case of a war it will not produce you any

revenue, because the supplies of the raw material are too irregular, and

no other but imported sugar is refined, which already pays a duty; and

that by this duty you not only lessen the consumption, but also increase

the number of those who cannot pay for it; but I forbear to trespass any

longer on the patience of the committee on this subject.

But, Mr. Chairman, we want money to build our frigates and arsenals, to

fortify our ports and harbors, and to release our unfortunate brethren

in captivity. We want revenues. If this really be the intention of the

committee, and not merely to establish the principle of excise on home

manufactures, no one will join more cheerfully in such measures as shall

appear most prudent and most likely to obtain the object, and which, in

my opinion, will neither injure the commerce of this country, nor in an

equal degree the manufactures, nor indeed the poorer sort of the

community who consume the article of sugar.

By the last returns which I could lay my hands on, it appears that there

are annually imported into the United States upwards of twenty-five

millions of pounds of sugar, and from the same returns it appears that

about four or four and a half millions are exported, which are allowed a

drawback of the duty on exportation; thus then there are upwards of

twenty millions of pounds annually consumed in the United States.

You have, in the late impost bill, imposed an additional duty of one

cent per pound on coffee; half that sum additional duty on raw sugar

will yield you upwards of 100,000 dollars. This then will at once yield

you the sum which the committee expected from an excise both on sugar

and manufactured tobacco, and will neither injure the merchant, nor in

an equal degree the manufacturer, nor indeed the poor; the latter, and

in my opinion none but the idle can be so, as well as many others, have

long since substituted molasses for all the purposes for which they

heretofore used sugar; besides which the American sugar is daily getting

more into use, and bids fair to become general, at least at and near the

frontiers.

When, therefore, it is considered that this manufacture is yet in its

infancy in the United States; that it has to contend with the old

established ones of Europe; that there is no excise on this article in

England; that this manufacture employs a great quantity of tonnage; that

raw sugars are high here, and comparatively low in Europe; that there is

a drawback in England, which operates as a bounty, and which from local

situations cannot operate, if even granted, with the same advantage

here; when it is reduced to a certainty that the duty will operate

injuriously on the manufactures here; and when it appears that double

the sum can be raised by a trifling additional duty on raw sugar,

without any additional expense or inconvenience, and which will

effectually remove the evils complained of, I flatter myself the motion

will prevail.

Mr. FITZSIMONS objected to the proposal of the SPEAKER, for a tax of

half a cent per pound on common sugar imported. The unrefined sugar

formed a considerable portion of the subsistence of the poor. Formerly,

the price of it was not more than sixpence, (currency,) but it is now

twelve pence per pound. The coffee duty was another, to which Mr. F. had

felt reluctance, because coffee is an article of universal consumption,

and the tax upon it falls where taxes ought not to fall, that is upon

the poor; but there is no help for it. He would, if possible, have

avoided this tax, for coffee, formerly eleven pence or a shilling per

pound, has risen to one shilling and ten pence. Mr. F. said, that we are

able to lay a heavy enough tax on imported sugar effectually to protect

our own sugar refiners. It had been said that the two cents per pound

duty would make it requisite for the refiners to augment their

capitals. This he could not believe, because the Executive gives credit

to the manufacturers for the payment of the duty. Mr. F. said, that the

time was perhaps not distant, when we shall be obliged to seek sugar in

the East Indies. Britain has acquired the West Indies, which will

increase the difficulties of this country in obtaining it from that part

of the world.

Mr. MCDOWELL hoped that the section would be struck out. He objected to

the principle of the bill. He considered it as highly impolitic to tax

the infant manufactures of America. He would rather, if the Public

Treasury could afford it, give a premium for the encouragement of our

manufactures, to dissolve the dependence of the United States upon

Europe. This dependence of ours has repeatedly been urged as a reason

why the House ought not to adopt certain commercial regulations and

restrictions. Some gentlemen had undertaken to prove that the

manufacturers would be benefited by such laws, an assertion which he

considered as very extraordinary. The manufacturers themselves

understood their business best, and thought quite otherwise. This tax

will not only alarm those already engaged, but will prevent other men of

enterprise and capital from engaging in manufactures, when they find

that the moment their business becomes profitable, they are to be taxed.

He could not help remarking upon some observations that fell from his

friend, (Mr. BALDWIN, from Georgia,) when this subject was before the

committee some days ago. It had been objected that the bill was not well

founded, as it established a new principle; and the member (Mr. BALDWIN)

replied, that it was not new, as there was already an excise fixed on

ardent spirits. He had opposed that law, but since it was passed, he

could not object to the present bill. Had the gentleman reflected, he

would have seen that there was equal reason for resisting this bill,

because it fixed that obnoxious principle more strongly, by giving a

further sanction to an American excise. Mr. McD. also considered the tax

to be unnecessary. The tax was contemplated on the prospect of a war

which has now become less likely, the British having, since the Orders

of the 8th of January, relaxed their depredations. Further, the tax was

unnecessary, because, it was asserted by several very well informed

merchants, that the amount of the impost this year would exceed that of

the last.

On dividing, the motion for striking out the clause was rejected--ayes

31, nays 45.

WEDNESDAY, May 28.

_Advance of Money to France._

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

the report of the committee to whom was referred the Message of the

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of the 18th of March last, relative to

an advance of money requested by the Minister of the French Republic.

Mr. GILES offered the following motion:

"_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be

authorized and requested to apply the proceeds of the loan

of three millions of florins, lately obtained in Holland,

towards the discharge of the debt remaining due to France;

or to the protection and defence of the United States, if,

in his opinion, the same should be found necessary for that

purpose, any appropriation to the contrary

notwithstanding."

Mr. HILLHOUSE was of opinion that, before any payments in advance should

be made to the French Minister, it was proper to secure the

indemnification of our own citizens, who had sustained such immense

losses by the detention of their vessels in the ports of the Republic,

both in Europe and the West Indies. Mr. H. here made a distinction, that

if the term stipulated for payment of an instalment to France had

actually arrived, he would have made that payment, though they had burnt

our ships, and have sought redress in the ordinary way. But when they

come forward before the money is due, and make such a requisition, he

thought it a fair opportunity to secure the claims of American citizens.

Mr. NICHOLAS was in favor of the motion. He felt, as an American, that

the cause of this country and of France were inseparably connected; and

that giving the money to the Republic was equivalent to expending it in

the service of the United States. He reminded the House of the indelible

obligations of America to France. That Republic is now reduced to

distress, as this country was when supported by the French arms. Every

principle of humanity, of honor, of gratitude, and of justice, calls

upon us to give that nation the most effectual support in our power.

Mr. FITZSIMONS.--The Americans have applied to M. Fauchet, for payment

in this country. He has assured them that he cannot give it, but that he

will inform the French Government of their application. They are

satisfied to wait for the reply to the Minister, which is expected from

Europe.

Mr. AMES remarked, that, as the three millions of florins had been

loaned in Holland for the defence of this country, it would be something

worse than imprudence to give it away for any other purpose. The cause

of France does not depend on her receiving a million of dollars. She is

in a much better situation to give us that sum, than we are to advance

it for her. He did not think that, to keep our money to ourselves, and

to bestow it upon France, were the same thing, nor did he believe that

it would be so considered by the citizens of the United States. He could

not approve the motion.

Mr. GILLON thought that, as to the claims of American citizens, a

complete answer had been given by the member from Pennsylvania. If the

merchants themselves are willing to wait for an answer from France,

nobody else has any concern with the matter. He rejected the idea of

not paying the money to the French until it was due, unless with a

restriction in favor of the American claimants. The money due to France

had been advanced by her in the time of our utmost distress. It was at

present wanted for her own defence. To indulge us, indeed, she had

formerly granted a longer time than she was obliged to grant for the

repayment. But if necessity compelled her to solicit an abridgment of

that indulgence, is it inconsistent with the feelings of honor and

generosity, to refuse her such a request?

Mr. WADSWORTH was too ill-informed upon this question, to know upon what

side he ought to vote. Much had been said about the gratitude due from

this country to France. We had been grateful, indeed, since we had

suffered them for a long time past to plunder our vessels without making

a complaint. He stated that the American property seized in the ports of

France amounted to one million of dollars, and that taken by her in the

West India Colonies, to four millions of dollars. Much of this property

had been paid for in such a way, that the owners did not realize more

than twenty-five per cent. of its value. The present application had

been made a long time ago, and Mr. W. did not suppose that the French

Minister could, at present, be in any want of the money. Since the time

when he first sought for it, something had happened which altered the

case. The greatest portion of specie in America is now at the command of

M. Fauchet. There can be, therefore, no pretence for giving away this

million of dollars on the plea of necessity. The Republic herself

possesses, if we are to believe common fame, more cash than all the

kings in Europe; and, though the story may be very greatly exaggerated,

yet make allowance for exaggeration, and still her treasures are very

great. No part of her misfortunes can be ascribed to the want of money.

Matters so standing, he thought that it was our duty to make a halt, and

begin to take some care of the interests of our fellow-citizens. As for

gratitude towards the Republic, he felt as much of that sentiment as

those who talked more about it than he did. But he had not learned any

good reason why this money should be disposed of in this way; and he

could not agree to vote so great a sum where he could not see the need.

Mr. BOURNE said, that the purposes for which it had been first asked,

had been long since accomplished without it. The transportation of the

emigrants of St. Domingo to France had been given as a reason for this

request, but they were all gone already.

Mr. SEDGWICK and Mr. GOODHUE also spoke. The resolution was carried in

the committee, and reported to the House, where it was likewise carried;

and it was

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

resolution, and that Mr. MADISON, Mr. BEATTY, and Mr. HEISTER, do

prepare and bring in the same.

FRIDAY, May 30.

_Military Establishment._

The bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act to increase the Military

Force of the United States, and to encourage the recruiting service,"

was read the first time.

Mr. SMILIE objected that there must be some other purpose for these

troops than any that had been acknowledged; for he could see none. The

principle of the bill was wrong.

Mr. GILES said, that the bill ought to be named "A bill authorizing the

PRESIDENT _to pass a law_ for raising ten thousand men." In point of

principle, it was infinitely worse than the former one, which the House

had already rejected, (the one supported by Mr. SEDGWICK.) He hoped that

they would not suffer it to go to a second reading. We had made

estimates of the expenses of this year, and have been told that the ways

and means are not sufficient. Yet, in the face of this, to come upon us

all at once with the expense of a standing army of ten thousand men was

too hard. He trusted that gentlemen who would vote for a second reading

would explain the reasons that could induce them to such a measure. The

time spent upon such a bill would be perfectly cast away. He was at a

loss to discover against whom these ten thousand men were to be

employed.

Mr. HILLHOUSE could not, at this moment, decide whether he ought to vote

for this bill or not. He would recommend a Committee of the Whole to

examine its merits. He should think it ungenerous for any gentleman in

that House to call for his vote till it had been fully discussed.

Mr. FITZSIMONS.--If we were to debate for a week upon it, I am sure that

there cannot be one new idea started. The whole argument lies in so

narrow a compass that every member may decide on a first hearing. The

question is, whether, on account of the particular state of the country

at this time, it is proper to intrust the PRESIDENT with a discretionary

power of raising an army of ten thousand men? For my own part, I am as

ready to decide just now as I ever can be.

Mr. AMES.--If we are to go to war, will it not be a prodigious saving of

expense to have all matters ready beforehand? By being prepared two

months before the war breaks out, the advantages in economy would be

immense, as the price of enlisting men would rise fourfold when it was

once known that war was certain. He knew many weak parts in the Union

that might be attacked and in danger before a body of militia could be

ready for effectual service. He was not qualified for details of this

sort; but he knew that Rhode Island, for example, might be taken, and,

in a short time, so strongly fortified, that it would be difficult or

impossible to retake it. Why were we afraid to intrust the PRESIDENT

with the power of raising ten thousand men? Can any body of men to be

raised in this country tread down the substantial yeomanry? This is

quite a Utopian dread. It is infinitely cheaper to raise and embody an

army at leisure, when the storm is seen to be approaching, than all at

once, when twenty things must be done at the same time. There is,

besides, a material distinction between this bill and the former. The

force may be discontinued whenever the Legislature thinks proper; nor is

it to be raised at all unless the PRESIDENT sees or thinks it necessary.

The principle of the bill is, therefore, much less exceptionable than

that of the other. To reject a bill on the first reading is a bad

practice. Mr. A. hoped that the House would guard against it, unless

where any thing was grossly improper, and depended on a single

principle. But he trusted that the House would, in every common case,

set their faces against it.

Mr. SMILIE controverted every thing said by Mr. AMES. He thought that

the measure would involve this country in a very useless expense. Did we

intend to rival the military establishments in Europe? The British might

be expected to increase their forces in Canada in proportion to those of

the United States.

Mr. DAYTON followed Mr. SMILIE, and said, that the arguments of the

member who spoke last, although intended to make a different impression,

had convinced him of the impropriety of rejecting this bill upon its

first reading. That gentleman had thought proper to enter into the

intrinsic merits at this stage of it, when those who favored its

principles could have no opportunity of defending or amending the

particular parts of it. He had heard the objects of it grossly

misrepresented. It had been asserted that the bill contemplated the

increase of our military peace establishment to sixteen thousand men.

[Mr. SMILIE interrupted Mr. DAYTON by declaring that he had never said

or meant any such thing. But the defence of the Western Territory was to

require six thousand men; and these, with the ten thousand to be raised

by this bill, would amount, in the whole, to sixteen thousand men.]

No such thing (said Mr. D.) was to be found in it, and he called upon

gentlemen to show upon what such an assertion was founded. He, for one,

was of opinion that the interests and safety of the United States might

be materially promoted by our vesting the PRESIDENT with the power to

raise these men, if war should break out in the recess of Congress. Who

did not believe that such an event was not only possible, but in some

degree probable? Who would say that, if war should be forced upon us,

this would not be considered as a most valuable provision, because we

might have this respectable body of troops engaged, equipped, and

prepared to act the moment that hostilities should be declared by the

constituted authority? He would address himself to the feelings and

interests of the member who spoke last, and those similarly

circumstanced. They resided in the interior parts of the country, and

hence it was that they did not seem to experience such lively sensations

at the approach of danger on the eastern frontiers--the sea. What (he

asked) was their situation, and what had they to fear in case of an open

rupture with Great Britain? It was easy to foresee that they would be

vigorously pressed, not only by those Indians which are at present

hostile, and by the regular troops in that quarter, but by all the

neighboring nations of savages over whom British threats or bribes could

have influence. A part of the Six Nations, too, would probably join the

confederacy, and the frontier settlers of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and

New York, would certainly be driven in. With such a corps as the one

proposed, an early check might be given to their irruptions, and the war

be carried to their towns.

On the other hand, what would be the consequence, if, after the

PRESIDENT perceives a war inevitable, he is not permitted to make the

smallest preparation until he can convene Congress? Two months must be

lost in convening them, owing to the extreme distances of their

residence, all which time would be employed by our enemies in increasing

their forces, in strengthening their posts, and establishing new ones,

and in invading our country. Let this discretionary power be given to

the PRESIDENT, (with whom much greater had repeatedly been lodged, and

had never in any instance been improperly exercised,) and the men might

be engaged while the members were collecting, and a small army in

readiness to act as Congress should by law direct and authorize. No

danger could arise from it, because the enlistments of those who might

be engaged would be void, unless the Legislature, immediately upon their

meeting, should confirm them. It had been said, that our reliance should

be upon the militia. He had, Mr. D. said, as high an opinion of militia

as any member in that House, for he had witnessed their exertions and

importance in the late war; but could it be said that it would be very

convenient or agreeable to them, to be drawn a distance from their own

homes, to be employed in taking and garrisoning posts, if it should be

deemed advisable to direct operations of that kind? He concluded, with

wishing that the bill might be allowed to have a second reading, as

constructions had been imputed to it which it certainly would not bear.

Mr. MADISON did not accede to the principle of the bill. He did not see

any such immediate prospect of a war, as could induce the House to

violate the constitution. He thought that it was a wise principle in the

constitution, to make one branch of Government raise an army, and

another conduct it. If the Legislature had the power to conduct an army,

they might embody it for that end. On the other hand, if the PRESIDENT

was empowered to raise an army, as he is to direct its motions when

raised, he might wish to assemble it for the sake of the influence to be

acquired by the command. The constitution had wisely guarded against

that danger on either side. He could not, in the present case, consent

to the breaking down of this barrier of public safety. He saw no

necessity for it; nor any violent probability, that this country will be

speedily invaded by any force, to which the present military

establishment cannot make an adequate resistance. Let us hear from the

Minister whom we have just sent to Britain, before we take such abrupt

and expensive measures. We shall certainly hear from him, at least,

before we are invaded. Now, if we enter into a calculation of the time

requisite for his arrival in Britain, for commencing his business, and

for sending back an account of what kind of reception he has met with,

we shall find that by this period, Congress will have met again; or at

least, the interval will be so small as to make it not worth while to

embrace any measure of this kind.

Upon the whole, he could not venture to give his consent for violating

so salutary a principle of the constitution as that upon which this bill

encroached.

Mr. SEDGWICK differed from Mr. MADISON. He did not think that, in

certain contingencies, war was so distant a prospect. Simcoe is going to

erect a fort in our territories, and the PRESIDENT has declared that he

will repel the attempt. We all know the waste of time and property in

the last war, at its commencement, by trying to do the business with

militia. The proposal met his approbation, as did the resolution of the

PRESIDENT to repel force by force.

Mr. FINDLAY spoke against the bill.

The question was then stated, to wit: "Shall the said bill be rejected?"

and, after debate thereon, the question being taken, it was resolved in

the affirmative--yeas 50, nays 32.

_Advance of Money to France._

Mr. PARKER then moved that the House take into consideration the bill

for the payment of a certain sum of money to the French Republic.

The House resolved itself into a committee on this bill, Mr. PARKER in

the chair.

Several amendments were proposed, and several members spoke.

Mr. GILES knew that Mr. Fauchet was anxious for this money, and spoke of

it as necessary for his operations. He did not know whether to-day,

to-morrow, or at what time in particular; but in fact the money was

needed. He had another remark to make. This loan of three millions of

florins had come upon all parts of the House alike unexpectedly. Before

it was known, we heard of no particular complaints from the Treasury,

for want of money to raise the fortifications. But now, when the loan

was come, the tone was altered, and there was a loud cry of emptiness in

the Treasury.

Mr. GILLON said, that gentlemen talked of giving this money, as if we

were doing a favor to France. Is this so? We are sending a new

ambassador to that country. A very pretty introduction truly he would

have at Paris, with our credentials in one hand, and a refusal to pay

the debts due to the Republic in the other. We have been in need of her

assistance before, and we may want it again.

The committee made some amendments; the Chairman reported them, and the

bill finally passed the House.

FRIDAY, June 5.

_Protection of South-western Frontier._

The House proceeded to consider the amendments proposed by the Senate to

the bill, entitled "An act for the more effectual protection of the

South-western frontier settlers."

Mr. GILES expressed the utmost surprise at such a proposal. First, it

had been projected to raise a standing army of fifteen thousand men,

then twenty-five thousand, then ten thousand; and now, when all these

schemes had been put to an end, this regiment of eleven hundred and

forty men has appeared. Proteus never assumed a greater number of shapes

than this attempt has done. His jealousy was highly excited by such a

steady adherence to an idea so extremely offensive. The people of the

United States did not wish to be trodden down by a Continental army. How

this amendment might sit on the stomachs of some people, he could not

say; but, if he were one of the gentlemen who represented the people

from whom the requisition for defence had come, the amendment of the

Senate would sit very badly indeed upon his stomach.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, that a bill had been wanted to _protect_ the

frontiers, but, by this amendment, the bill would _scourge_ them. He

wondered at the pertinacity of some people, in adhering to the idea of a

standing army. Mr. N. enlarged considerably on the question before the

House.

Mr. MCDOWELL had lived long on the frontiers, and he believed that he

understood, from personal experience, what was the proper mode of

defending them, as well as perhaps any gentleman on that floor. He was

against the amendment, because he knew, from repeated experiments, that

regular troops were, in this kind of service, altogether useless. The

militia of the frontiers, who knew the country, and whose habits of life

made them perfectly acquainted with the character of the enemy whom they

had to encounter, were the only proper forces to oppose the Indians with

success. But why Government should burden itself with a useless expense,

or the people with a kind of defence which they disliked, Mr. McD. did

not know. Perhaps there was no part of the Union that had behaved so

prudently and so pacifically as the citizens on the South-western

frontiers. Yet Indian treaties were constantly broken by the savages

themselves. Gentlemen who had never been witnesses to the scene, did not

feel it, with adequate comprehension or sensibility. A man went to his

corn-field, along with his son, who was shot dead by his side. He came

home, and found his wife and the rest of his family murdered.

Circumstances of this kind, and of which Mr. McD. drew an affecting

picture, were too dreadful for human patience to support.

Mr. BOUDINOT thought that the militia could not be kept together for six

months, and that it was better to have regular troops.

Mr. AMES replied to Mr. GILES. It was wrong to say that this was part of

a system, and that the twenty-five thousand men had been part of it. He

saw no such thing. We have one Indian war already, which is enough at a

time. Those whom we are now to quarrel with, are three times more

numerous than those to the North-west. The Creeks, Cherokees, Choctaws,

and Chickasaws, were, as Mr. A. had been informed, fifteen thousand

fighting men. He did not think that there were too many Indians on the

frontier, any more than too many wild beasts. The one might, by skilful

management, be rendered as harmless as the other. Even the success of an

Indian war, by extending our frontier, augments the number of our

enemies; so that the task is hopeless, and has no end. Distance from the

seat of Government would increase, and with it the charges of defence.

He was not one of those who wished to exterminate these poor creatures.

He recommended a system of restraint on both sides. He could wish for

something as strong as the Chinese wall to separate them. When an

exasperated militia went out, what were we to expect, but that the first

man with a red skin whom they met would be shot? Presently you discover

that you have been shooting an Indian of the wrong nation, while, in the

mean time, this whole nation rises and attacks you. The Continental

troops, as being less exasperated, were less apt to fall into mistakes

of this kind. He did not wish the militia to be called out in such

numbers as were proposed by the bill when sent up to the Senate. He

wished, if possible, for a restraint on both parties. He was for the

amendment.

Mr. MURRAY was of the same opinion. It was not once in ten times that,

when an Indian was killed by a white man, the murderer could be

convicted. As to the standing army being an object of alarm, he

ridiculed that idea. But, at any rate, it was possible to limit the

operations of this regiment of eleven hundred and forty men to the

South-western frontier, if gentlemen were afraid of their being marched

up and down the country.

Mr. GILLON said, that there was something in this question, just like

that some days since, about the galleys. If you do not want them, they

shall not be forced upon you. He could not see their use in South

Carolina. It was a body of militia that was wanted. There are no tumults

in South Carolina to be repressed by a standing army. The expedition

against Spain is knocked up. What occasion, then, can there be for them?

He feared that this corps was only a part of the old leaven, the gilding

of a bad pill He liked this proposal better than the others of the same

sort, only because, as the numbers are inferior, the evils are less. Mr.

G. had no idea of hiring other people to do for us what we can do for

ourselves. He had voted against the twenty-five thousand men, and the

ten thousand, and he should also vote against the present number.

Mr. MADISON said, that he would not enter at large into this subject,

but there was one circumstance in the business which struck him as very

strange. It was proposed to raise a new corps, at a bounty of twenty

dollars. The present army wanted more than the whole number of this

corps to fill up its deficiencies, and yet the proposal for completing

them had been rejected. Thus are we to be at the expense of supporting

the skeleton of an army. Was it not better to fill up the old corps,

than to put ourselves to the inconvenience of raising a new one?

Mr. MCDOWELL rose to correct what had fallen from Mr. AMES, as to the

strength of the Indian nations on the South-western frontier. The

Choctaws and Chickasaws are, and always have been, friends to the white

people, and ready to fight for them. The Creeks and Cherokees do not, at

the most, extend to more than seven or eight thousand men.

Mr. CARNES.--The only use that Continental troops can be of is to defend

posts; and it has been found, by the experience of several years, that

posts do more mischief than service. They are established at a distance

of fifteen or twenty miles from each other. The Indian parties slip in

between them; and the frontier settlers, depending on the protection of

the regulars, are not, as they otherwise would be, upon their guard

against the savages. The consequence is, that they are frequently

murdered; while the only service performed by the Continentals is, that

when the militia pursue the Indians, they are prevented by the former

from crossing what is called the line. That is the whole service which

they have performed in Georgia. In short, against the Creeks, they are

good for nothing. Mr. C. wished that gentlemen would frankly say, once

for all, that the Georgians did not deserve protection, and then the

State would know what was to be done. He insisted on it, that, in

Georgia, there were improper leanings in favor of the Indians. He

referred to some persons in office, whom he specified. He believed

sincerely that the Senate imagined themselves to be acting for the best;

but they could not be such competent judges as persons on the spot.

Within the last seven years, there has not been a single instance of an

Indian killed by a white man, unless when the Indians themselves began

the quarrel. During the last ten or twelve years, there had been stolen

from Georgia, horses to the amount of a hundred thousand dollars. These

were often the chief property of poor people, who had nothing else to

depend on for supporting their families. Gentlemen say that we have one

Indian war already. But if you have two hands, both in the fire at

once, will you pull out one before the other? The Creeks are a savage

and faithless tribe. Some years ago, a treaty was made with them at New

York; and this treaty cost, in presents, sixty-one thousand dollars.

Well, before the chiefs got home, a fresh set of murders were committed.

A set of commissioners were next sent, and this embassy cost perhaps a

hundred and fifty thousand dollars more. Gentlemen might talk as they

thought fit about Indians; for his own part, he would not give the life

of one white man for those of fifty Indians. The militia had been always

successful against them, and the regulars had always been beaten; this

showed the futility of the present amendment from the Senate. Of the

successes of the militia, he gave some striking instances, where they

had defeated three or four times their own number. As an evidence of the

improper leaning on behalf of the Indians, Mr. C. adverted to what had

just happened in Georgia. A gang of savages stole some horses.

Lieutenant Hay, with a party of dragoons, pursued them, and fell into an

ambuscade, where Mr. Hay and two men were killed. This was the way that

the Creeks kept a peace. Soon after, an Indian, being found in the

State, was wounded; and in the correspondence read the other day to the

House, it was so stated, as if the white people were to blame. It made

every drop of blood in his heart boil, to hear what he heard in this

city as to the character and conduct of his constituents. As a

Representative of Georgia, he _demanded_ effectual aid for that State.

If the House did not choose to grant it, he warned them that the

Georgians would take measures for themselves. It was needless to speak

of economy, after squandering such vast sums as he had mentioned, in the

purchase of treaties that were never kept. He was against the amendment

of the Senate.

Mr. DAYTON rose to contradict one assertion, which had fallen from the

gentleman, viz: that the regulars were always beaten by the Indians. If

gentlemen exercised their memories, or attended to historical facts,

they would see the contrary. General Sullivan had entered the country of

the Six Nations, had defeated them, and destroyed their towns, and since

that time they had been looked upon as a subdued people. Mr. D. was

himself in the army on that expedition, and a witness to the success of

the regulars. He was for the amendment.

The question was put that the House do concur with the Senate in the

said amendment, and passed in the negative--yeas 26, nays 42, as

follows:

YEAS.--Fisher Ames, David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Joshua Coit,

Jonathan Dayton, George Dent, Thomas Fitzsimons, Dwight

Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Henry Glenn, James Gordon, William

Hindman, Henry Latimer, Amasa Learned, Francis Malbone,

William Vans Murray, Theodore Sedgwick, William Smith,

Zephaniah Swift, Uriah Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, John E.

Van Allen, Peter Van Gaasbeck, Peleg Wadsworth, Jeremiah

Wadsworth, and John Watts.

NAYS.--Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, John Beatty,

Thomas Blount, Thomas P. Carnes, Thomas Claiborne, Isaac

Coles, William J. Dawson, Henry Dearborn, William Findlay,

William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Alexander Gillon,

Nicholas Gilman, Andrew Gregg, Samuel Griffin, William

Barry Grove, Daniel Heister, William Lyman, Nathaniel

Macon, James Madison, Joseph McDowell, Alexander Mebane,

William Montgomery, Andrew Moore, Joseph Neville, John

Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, Josiah Parker, Francis Preston,

Robert Rutherford, Thomas Scott, John Smilie, Jeremiah

Smith, Thomas Sprigg, Thomas Tredwell, Philip Van

Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, Francis Walker, Benjamin

Williams, Richard Winn, and Joseph Winston.

_Ordered_, That the further consideration of the said amendments be put

off till to-morrow.

SATURDAY, June 7.

Mr. THATCHER moved that such members as had received their pay up to

Monday next, and then absented themselves, should be ordered next

session to return as much as they had received for the days when absent.

The motion was ordered to lie on the table.

MONDAY, June 9.

LEMUEL BENTON (from South Carolina) appeared, produced his credentials,

and took his seat in the House; the oath to support the Constitution of

the United States being first administered to him by Mr. SPEAKER,

according to law.

Mr. BENTON (from South Carolina) informed the SPEAKER, that he had been

prevented by indisposition in his family, and a long voyage, from

attending his duty sooner in that House. This was the day of

adjournment, and he wished to inform the House, that he should decline

receiving pay for his travelling expenses, or attendance. He was not

willing to qualify himself this day, unless it could be noted on the

journals that he had refused any compensation. He took the oath.

A message from the Senate informed the House, that the Senate having

completed the Legislative business before them, are now about to adjourn

until the first Monday in November next: Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER

adjourned the House until the first Monday in November next.[51]