MONDAY, November 3, 1794.
The following members appeared, and took their seats, to wit:
_From New Hampshire._--NICHOLAS GILMAN, JEREMIAH SMITH, and PAINE
WINGATE.
_From Massachusetts._--FISHER AMES, DAVID COBB, HENRY DEARBORN, DWIGHT
FOSTER, BENJAMIN GOODHUE, SAMUEL HOLTEN, GEORGE THATCHER, PELEG
WADSWORTH, and ARTEMAS WARD.
_From Connecticut._--JOSHUA COIT, AMASA LEARNED, ZEPHANIAH SWIFT, URIAH
TRACY, and JONATHAN TRUMBULL.
_From Vermont._--ISRAEL SMITH.
_From New York._--THEODORUS BAILEY, PHILIP VAN CORTLANDT, and JOHN
WATTS.
_From New Jersey._--JOHN BEATTY and ELIAS BOUDINOT.
_From Pennsylvania._--THOMAS HARTLEY, JOHN WILKES KITTERA, FREDERICK A.
MUHLENBERG, (Speaker,) and PETER MUHLENBERG.
_From Maryland._--GABRIEL CHRISTIE and GEORGE DENT.
_From Virginia._--ISAAC COLES, SAMUEL GRIFFIN, JOHN HEATH, JOSEPH
NEVILLE, ANTHONY NEW, JOSIAH PARKER, and ROBERT RUTHERFORD.
_From Kentucky._--CHRISTOPHER GREENUP.
_From North Carolina._--THOMAS BLOUNT, WILLIAM JOHNSTON DAWSON,
NATHANIEL MACON, and ALEXANDER MEBANE.
_From South Carolina._--WILLIAM SMITH.
_From Georgia._--ABRAHAM BALDWIN.
A quorum of the whole number not being present, the House adjourned
until to-morrow.
TUESDAY, November 4.
Several other members, to wit: from Rhode Island, FRANCIS MALBONE; from
New York, HENRY GLENN, JAMES GORDON, and JOHN E. VAN ALLEN; from New
Jersey, JONATHAN DAYTON; from Pennsylvania, THOMAS FITZSIMONS; from
Delaware, HENRY LATIMER; from Maryland, WILLIAM VANS MURRAY; from
Virginia, GEORGE HANCOCK, RICHARD BLAND LEE, JAMES MADISON, ANDREW
MOORE, FRANCIS PRESTON, and FRANCIS WALKER; and from North Carolina,
MATTHEW LOCKE, appeared, and took their seats in the House.
And a quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole number, being
present,
_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate, to inform them that a
quorum of this House is assembled, and ready to proceed to business; and
that the Clerk of this House do go with said message.
WEDNESDAY, November 5.
Several other members, to wit: from New Hampshire, JOHN S. SHERBURNE;
from Massachusetts, WILLIAM LYMAN; from Connecticut, JAMES HILLHOUSE;
from Vermont, NATHANIEL NILES; from New York, EZEKIEL GILBERT; from
Maryland, WILLIAM HINDMAN; from Virginia, THOMAS CLAIBORNE; and from
Georgia, THOMAS P. CARNES, appeared, and took their seats in the House.
Notice was received that the Senate had not yet been able to form a
quorum.
Upon this, Mr. DAYTON moved that a committee shall be appointed to
examine the business left unfinished last session, and report to the
House. He saw no reason for losing time by waiting for the Senate.
Mr. GOODHUE objected to the motion as improper.
Mr. DAYTON challenged the gentleman to point out wherein the impropriety
consisted. For two or three weeks the House of Representatives would
have full employment, while the Senate, in reality, had none. He was
positive as to the legality and expediency of proceeding.
The SPEAKER put the question, and the ayes and noes were equal, each
being twenty-five.
The SPEAKER then informed the House that, as a quorum of their number
was not present, it would be requisite to adjourn.
The House rose immediately, after adjourning till to-morrow.
THURSDAY, November 6.
Two other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, PELEG COFFIN, and from
Virginia, JOHN NICHOLAS, appeared, and took their seats in the House.
FRIDAY, November 7.
Several other members, to wit: from Pennsylvania, JAMES ARMSTRONG and
WILLIAM MONTGOMERY; from Virginia, WILLIAM B. GILES; from North
Carolina, JOSEPH WINSTON; and from South Carolina, JOHN HUNTER,
appeared, and took their seats in the House.
On motion,
_Resolved_, That a Standing Committee of Elections be appointed, whose
duty it shall be to examine and report upon the certificates of
election, or other credentials of the members returned to serve in this
House, and to take into their consideration all such matters as shall or
may come in question, and be referred to them by the House, touching
returns and elections, and to report their proceedings with their
opinion thereupon, to the House.
And a committee was appointed of Mr. DAYTON, Mr. HILLHOUSE, Mr.
SHERBURNE, Mr. DENT, Mr. LEE, Mr. MACON, and Mr. HUNTER.
_Ordered_, That the letter from the Governor of Maryland, together with
the return of the election of Gabriel Duvall, to serve as one of the
members of this House for the said State, in the room of JOHN FRANCIS
MERCER, who has resigned his seat, which was laid before the House at
the last session, be referred to the said Committee of Elections.
MONDAY, November 10.
Several other members, to wit: from New York, THOMAS TREDWELL; from New
Jersey, LAMBERT CADWALADER; from Pennsylvania, JOHN SMILIE; from North
Carolina, WILLIAM BARRY GROVE and JOSEPH MCDOWELL; and from South
Carolina, RICHARD WINN, appeared, and took their seats in the House.
The SPEAKER informed the House that the Senate had not yet been able to
make a quorum. Fifteen members only appeared. One more was necessary.
TUESDAY, November 11.
Two other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, SHEARJASHUB BOURNE, and
from New York, PETER VAN GAASBECK, appeared, and took their seats in the
House.
The SPEAKER informed the House that one Senator was yet wanting to the
making of a quorum. [The Senate consists of thirty members, of whom only
fifteen have yet (Tuesday) made their appearance; of consequence, a
majority is wanting. The VICE PRESIDENT has, it is true, arrived, but
he is not, strictly speaking, a Senator. He does not give a vote in
questions that come before the Senate, unless the voices on a division
are equal.]
The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from James White, enclosing
the credentials of his appointment as a Representative of the territory
of the United States, south of the river Ohio, in the Congress of the
United States, according to the ordinance of Congress of the thirteenth
of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven; which were read,
and ordered to be referred to Mr. BALDWIN, Mr. GILBERT, Mr. WALKER, Mr.
SWIFT, and Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH, with instructions to examine the matter
thereof, and report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the
House.
WEDNESDAY, November 12.
Another member, to wit, CARTER B. HARRISON, from Virginia, appeared, and
took his seat in the House.
THURSDAY, November 13.
Two other members, to wit: ANDREW GREGG and DANIEL HEISTER, from
Pennsylvania, appeared, and took their seats in the House.
FRIDAY, November 14.
Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, SAMUEL DEXTER; from
Virginia, ABRAHAM VENABLE; and from Kentucky, ALEXANDER D. ORR,
appeared, and took their seats in the House.
MONDAY, November 17.
Two other members, to wit: from Rhode Island, BENJAMIN BOURNE, and from
South Carolina, ANDREW PICKENS, appeared, and took their seats in the
House.
_Delegate south of the Ohio._
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
report of the committee to whom was referred the letter from JAMES
WHITE, together with the credentials of his appointment as a
Representative of the territory of the United States south of the river
Ohio.
Mr. SWIFT objected to complying with the report of the committee. He
thought that it could not be carried into execution, because it involved
inconsistencies. If the object of the law referred to, was to admit this
person to debate, and not to vote, that was unconstitutional. He was, by
that law, to be a member of Congress; but the House of Representatives
are not Congress, and, therefore, this person may equally vote in the
House of Representatives and in the Senate; while, at the same time, he
may interrupt the PRESIDENT consenting to a bill, by giving his advice.
The constitution has made no provision for such a member as this person
is intended to be. If we can admit a delegate to Congress or a member of
the House of Representatives, we may with equal propriety admit a
stranger from any quarter of the world. We may as well admit the
gallery, or a foreign Minister, as this person from the territory
south-west of the Ohio. At this rate, we may very soon overturn the
constitution. If this person has any proper title to a seat, it must be
in the Senate; it could not be in the House of Representatives, who were
not delegates. The Senate, perhaps, might be called such. His election
was nearer the mode of theirs, than that of this House.
Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) had no difficulty in declaring that the
gentleman was fully qualified to take a seat in that House, by the terms
of an express compact with the people. He was convinced that the
Representatives have a right to admit those whom they regard as lawfully
entitled to a seat in the House, for the purpose of debating. They may
admit the Secretary of State, if they consider it as expedient. If this
gentleman had applied to the Senate, that body also were authorized to
admit him, if they thought it lawful. Under the old constitution, he
would have been a member _sui generis_. He does not claim a right of
voting, but of speaking only; and when the affairs of the South-western
Territory were agitated in the Senate, he had a right, in his (Mr. S.'s)
judgment, to speak and debate in that House also. Mr. S. wished that
there had been previously settled another part of this business, viz: by
whom the delegate was to be paid for his attendance. It may be a future
question, also, whether he is to be dismissed when the galleries are
cleared?
Mr. GILES was not prepared to speak on the subject. On the score of
expediency, his present opinion was, that the delegate from the
south-west of the Ohio should be admitted. He had no objection to the
motion of the member from Maryland, (Mr. MURRAY,) for the committee
rising, but he would never consent to it for the sake of consulting the
Senate. He would agree to it, for the sake of further deliberation among
themselves. If the House chose to consult the _gallery_--a resource for
information that he should never wish to see adopted--they had a right
to consult it, or to ask advice from any other quarter, notwithstanding
the assertion of the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. DEXTER said, he thought the obstacle should be got over by a formal
act of the Legislature. He was clear that the House had a right to
consult or admit to the privilege of debating, any individual whom they
thought proper. They might, for instance, admit an advocate to plead; in
a particular case; but that was entirely a different matter from
allowing him to give a vote on the question before the House. Mr. D.
declared that he would vote against the report, as it now stands, not
because he thought the gentleman from the South-western Territory
unentitled to a seat, but because he regarded an act of the whole
Legislature as a requisite for his introduction.
It was now moved that the committee should rise, and report the
resolution of the select committee.
Mr. W. SMITH differed from Mr. DEXTER. He thought the House of
Representatives was, in itself, perfectly competent to settle the point.
He was determined that they ought not to consult the Senate upon the
matter. It would be extremely improper to let the Senate interfere. He
again adverted to his former position, that the House may, if it sees
proper, introduce the Secretary of State to a privilege of being
consulted, or any other person who may be thought suitable. But he would
never submit to yield the privileges of the House to the Executive. They
ought to decide their elections on their own authority, and on no
occasion send to inquire of the Senate if such an amendment ought to be
admitted. Mr. S. considered the gentleman (Mr. WHITE) as expressly
within the present constitution. He trusted that the committee would not
rise, under any such idea as consulting the Senate; but, if they at
present rise, that it would be merely for the sake of obtaining further
information.
Mr. MURRAY.--If we could have foreseen this case, I am sure that we
should have had a joint committee of privileges from both Houses, as
judges. The situation of the gentleman refers to both, and therefore the
Senate ought to be consulted on this head. Perhaps he is entitled to a
seat in both Houses.
Mr. MCDOWELL objected, that an act of the Legislature would never,
practically, answer the purpose. The session would be next to ending,
before such a law would be passed. In the mean time, the interest of the
people south-west of the Ohio is agitated in a question, and their
delegate is condemned to silence. The members generally admit, in
substance, that he ought to be received into this House. He wished,
therefore, that they would take a vote on the resolution of the select
committee. He would object altogether to the proposal of the member from
Maryland, for an act of the Legislature, or any consultation with, the
Senate. Mr. MCD. was for admitting the member to his seat.
Mr. BOUDINOT observed, that it was universally agreed that the old law
for accepting such a member as a delegate of Congress, cannot be
executed in its full sense. The gentleman ought, in his opinion, to go
where members elected by Legislatures went, that is to say, to the
Senate. There was no pretence for his admission among the
Representatives of the people. If he had any right, it must be in the
other House. He thought this a very important question, and that it
deserved more consideration than it had yet received. Mr. B. was not
prepared to vote; but, if he was forced to give his voice at present, he
should be for remitting the gentleman to the Senate. He thought that
there should be an act of the whole Legislature. He should vote for the
committee rising.
Mr. DAYTON said, that he should vote against the motion of the Maryland
member, for the rising of the committee. He was against the object of
this motion. He agreed entirely with the report of the select committee
for receiving the south-western member immediately, as he had a right to
a seat, founded on an original compact, which gave it to him. He
objected to any concurrence of the Senate being asked. As to consulting
persons out of doors, the House had a right to call Heads of Departments
to give their opinions on any particular subject, if they thought
proper. Mr. D. mentioned some cases of this nature, where such an
expedient had been used.
Mr. GILES mentioned one reason against the committee rising, which was,
that the House had no other business before it. He then read an
amendment to the resolution of the select committee, as a middle course,
that would embrace the ideas of all parties.
Mr. DEXTER repeated some of his former reasons for preferring an act of
the Legislature.
The question was called for, and put by the Chairman, Shall the
committee now rise, and report progress? It was decided in the
negative--yeas 38, nays 39.
The question was then put on the resolution, as given by the committee.
Mr. GILES again proposed his amendment. This was, that after the word
"debating," in the resolution, there should be added, "upon any question
touching the rights and interests of people in the territory of the
United States south-west of the Ohio." The object was to narrow the
power of the delegate.
Mr. SMILIE was for his being admitted to deliberate on every subject, or
none at all.
Mr. GILES declared that he was very well pleased with the resolution, as
it originally stood. He had only suggested this amendment that he might
get the resolution through the House. He therefore withdrew his motion.
Mr. BALDWIN did not see that the question was of much importance. When a
member was permitted to speak, but forbidden to vote, his situation was,
no doubt, infinitely higher than that of strangers in the gallery, that
of an advocate allowed to plead at the bar of the House, or that of a
printer who came only to take notes; but still it was extremely short of
the situation of a member of Congress. This would be more especially the
case, if his right of debating was restricted to the affairs of the
North-west and South-west Territory. Mr. B. could see nothing in the new
constitution that made an exclusion of the delegate from the south-west
of the Ohio. This privilege had been solemnly promised to those people,
upon three different occasions. When they belonged to the State of South
Carolina, they sent a Representative, Mr. SEVIER, to Congress; and they
separated into a new State, under the promise of this privilege. But
now, we have made a discovery, that these laws cannot be put into
execution. It is a great pity that we had not made this discovery
sooner. Mr. B. rejected all idea of referring this matter to the Senate.
When the latter had any question of that kind, that concerned
themselves, they would, no doubt, judge for themselves, and that just as
properly as the House of Representatives. As to the pay of this
gentleman, that might be an after question. He was clear that there at
present existed no law which could make out that. The House may
hereafter, if they see fit, pass a law respecting it. But, in the mean
time, Mr. B. was satisfied that these people had a claim for a delegate,
which could not be got rid of by the House.
Mr. SWIFT thought that it would be better to erect these people into a
new State, and then the privilege would be of some real use to them. He
was still of opinion that the constitution admits of no such delegate as
this person is intended to be. He is a new kind of character, unknown to
it. This person is _sui generis_. If the constitution knows any thing
about him, then take him; if not, reject him. As to taking advice from
the gallery, Mr. S. seemed to think he had been misunderstood. To admit
a person within the bar for the purpose of consulting him, was a quite
different thing from permitting the gallery, like this person, to come
and take a permanent seat among the members, for the purpose of
regularly debating. Mr. S. never meant to debar the House from taking
information wherever they could find it.
Mr. MURRAY was concerned that he found himself obliged to vote against
the resolution of the Committee of the Whole. He still hoped that the
gentleman would have a seat, but that the Senate would first be
consulted.
Mr. WINGATE moved an amendment to take the resolution, by adopting these
words, "to a seat in Congress, as a delegate to Congress."
Mr. MADISON said, that the resolution, as passed by the select
committee, was so properly expressed, that he did not believe it could
admit of any amendment or alteration whatever.
The Committee of the whole House then divided on the resolution, when
there appeared a very large majority in favor of reporting it as it
first stood, and consequently for admitting Mr. WHITE as a delegate. The
committee then rose.
TUESDAY, November 18.
Another member, to wit, THEODORE SEDGWICK, from Massachusetts, appeared,
and took his seat in the House.
_Delegate south of the Ohio._
The House proceeded to consider the report of the committee on the
letter from JAMES WHITE, enclosing the credentials of his appointment as
a Representative of the territory of the United States south of the
river Ohio; to which the Committee of the whole House reported no
amendment. Whereupon, the said report being again read at the Clerk's
table, was, on the question put thereupon, agreed to by the House, as
follows:
"That, by the ordinance for the government of the territory
of the United States north-west of the river Ohio, section
nine, it is provided, "that, so soon as there shall be five
thousand free male inhabitants of full age in the district,
upon giving proof thereof to the Governor, they shall
receive authority to elect Representatives to represent
them in a General Assembly;" and by the 12th section of the
Ordinance, "as soon as a Legislature shall be formed in the
District, the Council and House, assembled in one room,
shall have authority, by joint ballot, to elect a delegate
to Congress, who shall have a seat in Congress, with a
right of debating but not of voting, during this temporary
government." Full effect is given to this Ordinance by act
of Congress, August 7, 1789.
"That, by the Deed of Cession of the territory south of the
river Ohio, to the United States, in the fourth article, it
is also provided 'that the inhabitants of the said
territory shall enjoy all the privileges, benefits, and
advantages, set forth in the Ordinance of the late Congress
for the government of the Western Territory; that is to
say, Congress shall assume the government of the said
territory, which they shall execute in a manner similar to
that which they support in the territory west of the Ohio,
and shall never bar or deprive them of any privilege which
the people in the territory west of the Ohio enjoy.'
"The cession, on these conditions, was accepted by act of
Congress, on the 2d of April, 1790.
"By an act passed the 26th of May, 1790, for the government
of the territory of the United States south of the river
Ohio, it is enacted, 'that the inhabitants shall enjoy all
the privileges, benefits, and advantages, set forth in the
Ordinance of the late Congress for the government of the
territory of the United States north-west of the river
Ohio. And the government of the said territory south of the
river Ohio, shall be similar to that which is now exercised
in the territory north-west of the river Ohio; except so
far as is otherwise provided in the conditions expressed in
an act of Congress of the present session, entitled 'An act
to accept a cession of the claim of the State of North
Carolina to a certain district of Western Territory.' The
committee are of opinion that James White has been duly
elected as delegate from the territory of the United States
south of the Ohio, on the terms of the foregoing acts; they
therefore submit the following resolution:
"_Resolved_, that James White be admitted to a seat in this
House as a delegate from the territory of the United States
south of the river Ohio, with a right of debating but not
of voting."
Mr. MADISON said, that in new cases there often arose a difficulty by
applying old names to new things. The proper definition of Mr. WHITE is
to be found in the laws and rules of the constitution. He is not a
member of Congress, therefore, and so cannot be directed to take an
oath, unless he chooses to do it voluntarily.
Mr. MURRAY moved that Mr. WHITE should be required to take the oath.
Mr. W. SMITH observed, that the constitution only required members and
the Clerk to take the oath. The gentleman was not a member. It does not
even appear for what number of years he is elected. In fact he is no
more than an envoy to Congress. Instead of being called delegate to
Congress, had he been plainly called an envoy, the difficulty would have
vanished. He is not a Representative from, but an officer deputed by
the people of the Western Territory. It is very improper to call on this
gentleman to take such an oath, any more than any civil officer in the
State of Pennsylvania. Mr. S. did not consider him as coming even within
the Post Office law, (viz: for franking letters.) He is not entitled to
pay, unless a law shall be passed for that end.
Mr. GILES agreed with the gentleman who spoke last as to the impropriety
of demanding an oath.
Mr. LYMAN was for it.
Mr. DAYTON was against the oath. Call him what you will, a member, a
delegate, or, if you please, a _nondescript_. It would be wrong to
accept his oath, even if he should offer it. He is not a member. He
cannot vote, which is the essential part. It is said that he can argue,
and by that means influence the votes of the House. But so also a
printer may be said to argue and influence, when he comes to this House,
takes notes, and prints them in the newspapers.
Mr. BOUDINOT.--As the House had set out on a wrong principle, it was
natural that, in their subsequent progress they should wander further
and further from the point. But, as the House had now given their
decision, he acquiesced in it. It was, however, a strange kind of thing
to have a gentleman here arguing, who was not bound by an oath. He never
could reconcile it.
Several other members spoke.
The House divided on the question, "Shall the delegate take an oath as a
member?" Ayes 32, noes 42--majority against the motion, 10.
_Ordered_, That a committee be appointed to bring in a bill extending
the privilege of franking to JAMES WHITE, the delegate from the
South-western Territory, and making provision for his compensation; and
that Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, Mr. THATCHER, and Mr. MACON, be the said
committee.
WEDNESDAY, November 19.
Another member, to wit, THOMAS SCOTT, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and
took his seat in the House.
_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that this
House is now ready to attend them in receiving the communication from
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, agreeably to his notification to
both Houses yesterday; and that the Clerk of this House do go with the
said message.
The Senate attended and took seats in the House; when, both Houses being
assembled, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES came into the
Representatives' Chamber, and delivered his Address to them. (For which
see Proceedings of the Senate.)
The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES then withdrew and the two Houses
separated.
_Ordered_, that the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to both
Houses be committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.
THURSDAY, November 20.
Another member, to wit, WILLIAM FINDLAY, from Pennsylvania, appeared,
and took his seat in the House.
MONDAY, November 24.
_Answer to the President's Speech._[54]
Mr. NICHOLAS then rose in defence of Mr. MADISON's amendment. He thought
the House should not bow so much to the Executive as to approve of his
proceedings without knowing what they are. Gentlemen say that they do
not mean an implicit approbation. Why, then, hazard words that infer it?
He would go as far in thanking the PRESIDENT as any person with
propriety could go.
Mr. SEDGWICK insisted that the amendment of the member from Connecticut
(Mr. HILLHOUSE) was preferable to the other. The PRESIDENT has said that
his policy in regard to foreign nations is founded on justice. We
approve of that. He recites his motives. They are also approved. Where,
then, is the danger of expressing a general approbation? Would it be
proper to give an approbation that cannot be appropriate, and that has
no definite meaning? Mr. S. was far from designing to approve,
explicitly or implicitly, what the House were not acquainted with. He
only intended to convey a general sentiment of approbation; and he saw
nothing more than this in the amendment of the gentleman from
Connecticut.
Mr. HILLHOUSE never designed indiscriminate approbation; nor had he any
secret meaning couched under the words of his amendment. When he had any
thing to say to the House, he came honestly and told them in plain words
what he would be at. He meant to express his applause of pacific and
equitable measures. As to the question so often referred to, (the
embassy of Mr. Jay,) he solemnly declared that it never was in his mind
to express any thing about it. It would come before another body.
Mr. MADISON imagined that, in his motion as now worded, every person
might see substantial approbation.
Mr. AMES.--Jealousy may become habitual as well as confidence. Nothing
but a habit of jealousy could have found any thing of a secret in this
verbal distinction of _your_ policy instead of _a_ policy. The
distinction was trifling, but, if there must be one, he preferred the
amendment of Mr. HILLHOUSE. His reasons for this preference were so
minute that they, perhaps, had little more value than what his
imagination chose to give them. In the mean time, nobody will suppose
that we do not approve of the policy of the PRESIDENT in preferring
pacific measures, because the system of peace is now preferred all over
the Continent of America.