Mr. DAYTON rose to make a reply to "remarks so illiberal."

Mr. AMES here rose again and said that the gentleman certainly could not

mean him.

I mean _that_ gentleman, Mr. SPEAKER, said Mr. DAYTON, pointing to Mr.

AMES. He has accused me of "habits of jealousy." To this charge Mr. D.

rejoined with some warmth. He again declared that he never would pledge

himself to approve of the mission of Mr. Jay, till he should learn what

were that gentleman's instructions. He meant to draw this line of

distinction, to give approbation of general principles, but not of

particular measures. The former he considered as implied in the

amendment of Mr. MADISON, the latter in that of Mr. HILLHOUSE.

Mr. VANS MURRAY considered the dispute as resting on the words _a_

policy and _your_ policy. He would not give explicit approbation to

particular measures, but he approved the general principles on which the

PRESIDENT preferred a pacific system.

Mr. GILES.--It is admitted on all sides of the House, that we approve

the general principles, but will not pledge ourselves to approve the

particular means. It is best, then, to adopt the least equivocal words.

Mr. G. allowed that there was but little difference, yet he should vote

for the amendment of Mr. MADISON as it stood.

Mr. DEXTER, in opposition to the sentiments of the gentleman who had

last sat down, would vote for "_your_ policy," instead of "_a_ policy."

The latter made the sentence an abstract proposition. The words "_your_

policy," made it a personal application. The omission of the word _your_

tended to an implication of censure. If an abstract proposition was the

whole meaning intended to be expressed, that meaning might as well be

put into any other place as into an Address to the PRESIDENT. He did not

see the use of it. Praise (said Mr. D.) is the only reward which a

person receives in a Republican Government; or at least, it is the

greatest reward; and if withheld where due, the effect must be

pernicious. Here it would be of more particular impropriety to withhold

praise, when all our constituents approve the pacific policy of the

PRESIDENT. It would have been a matter of little consequence at first,

whether "_a_ policy" or "_your_ policy" had been adopted, for every

reader would have understood it as an approbation of the PRESIDENT. But

now, after such a debate, if we scruple at the word _your_, all the

world will conclude that we mean an implied censure.

Mr. BOUDINOT said that he adopted the word _your_ as unequivocal. He had

no meaning but what was open and candid. By adopting the amendment the

House would make that language explicit, which was at present, at least

in some degree, ambiguous.

Mr. TRACY pronounced an elegant panegyric on the character and conduct

of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, whom no man admired more

sincerely than he did, though he could not speak thus from the honor of

enjoying a personal acquaintance. He recommended to Mr. MADISON rather

to withdraw his motion of amendment altogether than bring it forward at

such an expense of the good temper of the House. The present session had

commenced with good auspices, and much cordiality, and he would be

extremely sorry to disturb its tranquillity.

Mr. MADISON said that he felt sensibly the force of the remarks made by

the gentleman who was last up. In consequence of these remarks, he

should be happy to withdraw his amendment. This was accordingly done.

It was then proposed that the Committee of the whole House should rise,

and report the draft of the Address as originally given in by the

special committee, with the additional amendment that had been proposed

by Mr. DAYTON, and adopted.

Mr. FITZSIMONS then rose and said, that it would seem somewhat

incongruous for the House to present an Address to the PRESIDENT which

omitted all notice of so very important an article in his Speech as that

referring to the self-created societies. Mr. F. then read an amendment,

which gave rise to a very interesting debate. The amendment was in these

words:

"As part of this subject, we cannot withhold our

reprobation of the self-created societies, which have risen

up in some parts of the Union, misrepresenting the conduct

of the Government, and disturbing the operation of the

laws, and which, by deceiving and inflaming the ignorant

and the weak, may naturally be supposed to have stimulated

and urged the insurrection."

These are "institutions, not strictly unlawful, yet not less fatal to

good order and true liberty; and reprehensible in the degree that our

system of government approaches to perfect political freedom."

Mr. GILES stated at large his sentiments as to this expression in the

Speech of the PRESIDENT about self-created societies. The tone of that

passage in the Speech had made a great deal of noise without doors, and

it was likely to produce a considerable agitation within doors. [Here a

motion was made for the rising of the committee.] Mr. G. did not wish to

press himself upon the attention of the committee, but if they were

disposed to hear him, he was prepared to proceed.

Mr. SEDGWICK objected to the rising of the committee. The House had been

often entertained and informed by the ingenuity of that gentleman, who

was now prepared to address them.

Mr. W. SMITH considered it as opposite to the practice of the House for

a member to move that a committee should rise, at the very time when

gentlemen had declared themselves ready to deliver their sentiments.

[It was repeatedly inquired from the Chair, by whom this motion was

made. No answer was given and it seemed to be the unanimous wish of the

House that Mr. GILES should proceed, which he did.] Mr. G. began by

declaring that, when he saw, or thought he saw, the House of

Representatives about to erect itself into an office of censorship, he

could not sit silent. He did not rise with the hope of making

proselytes, but he trusted that the fiat of no person in America should

ever be taken for truth, implicitly, and without evidence.

Mr. GILES next entered into an encomium of some length on the public

services and personal character of the PRESIDENT. He vindicated himself

from any want of respect or esteem towards him. He then entered into an

examination of the propriety of the expression employed by the

PRESIDENT, with regard to self-created societies. Mr. G. said, that

there was not an individual in America, who might not come under the

charge of being a member of some one or other self-created society.

Associations of this kind, religious, political, and philosophical, were

to be found in every quarter of the Continent. The Baptists and

Methodists, for example, might be termed self-created societies. The

people called the Friends, were of the same kind. Every pulpit in the

United States might be included in this vote of censure, since, from

every one of them, upon occasion, instructions had been delivered, not

only for the eternal welfare, but likewise for the temporal happiness of

the people. There had been other societies in Pennsylvania for several

purposes. The venerable Franklin had been at the head of one, entitled a

society for political information. They had criminated the conduct of

the Governor of this State and of the Governors of other States, yet

they were not prosecuted or disturbed. There was, if he mistook not,

once a society in this State, for the purpose of opposing or subverting

the existing constitution. They also were unmolested. If the House are

to censure the Democratic societies, they might do the same by the

Cincinnati Society. It is out of the way of the Legislature to attempt

checking or restraining public opinion. If the self-created societies

act contrary to law, they are unprotected, and let the law pursue them.

That a man is a member of one of these societies will not protect him

from an accusation for treason, if the charge is well founded. If the

charge is not well founded, if the societies, in their proceedings, keep

within the verge of the law, Mr. G. would be glad to learn what was to

be the sequel? If the House undertake to censure particular classes of

men, who can tell where they will stop? Perhaps it may be advisable to

commence moral philosophers, and compose a new system of ethics for the

citizens of America. In that case, there would be many other subjects

for censure, as well as the self-created societies. Land-jobbing, for

example, has been in various instances brought to such a pass that it

might be defined swindling on a broad scale. Paper money, also, would be

a subject of very tolerable fertility for the censure of a moralist. Mr.

G. proceeded to enumerate other particulars on this head, and again

insisted on the sufficiency of the existing laws for the punishment of

every existing abuse. He observed, that gentlemen were sent to this

House, not for the purpose of passing indiscriminate votes of censure,

but to legislate only. By adopting the amendment of Mr. FITZSIMONS, the

House would only produce recrimination on the part of the societies, and

raise them into much more importance than they possibly could have

acquired if they had not been distinguished by a vote of censure from

that House. Gentlemen were interfering with a delicate right, and they

would be much wiser to let the Democratic societies alone. Did the House

imagine that their censure, like the wand of a magician, would lay a

spell on these people? It would be quite the contrary, and the

recrimination of the societies would develope the propriety of having

meddled with them at all. One thing ought never to be forgotten, that if

these people acted wrong, the law was open to punish them; and if they

did not, they would care very little for a vote of that House. Why all

this particular deviation from the common line of business to pass

random votes of censure? The American mind was too enlightened to bear

the interposition of this House, to assist either in their

contemplations or conclusions on this subject. Members are not sent here

to deal out applauses or censures in this way. Mr. G. rejected all

aiming at a restraint on the opinions of private persons. As to the

societies themselves, Mr. G. personally had nothing to do with them, nor

was he acquainted with any of the persons concerned in their original

organization.

Mr. LYMAN hoped that the member from Pennsylvania would, upon

reflection, withdraw his amendment. Mr. L. considered it to be as

improper to pass a vote of censure, as it would be to pass a vote of

approbation. He did not wish to give printers an opportunity of

publishing debates that had better be suppressed. Besides, where will

this business of censorship end? It would be much better not to meddle

with the Democratic societies at all. Some of them were perfectly

sensible that they had gone too far. He should, therefore, move that

this committee do now rise, and that the Chairman report the Address as

it now stands.

Mr. THATCHER hoped that his colleague would not insist on taking that

question just now, before other gentlemen had an opportunity of

delivering their sentiments.

Mr. LYMAN, in reply, said that gentlemen were at liberty, in discussing

his motion, to tell their minds as to the self-created societies.

Mr. SEDGWICK requested that Mr. LYMAN would take this motion out of the

way. Mr. L. withdrew it.

Mr. W. SMITH then rose, and entered at large into the subject. He said,

that if the committee withheld an expression of their sentiments in

regard to the societies pointed out by the PRESIDENT, their silence

would be an avowed desertion of the Executive. He had no scruple to

declare that the conduct of these people had tended to blow up the

insurrection. Adverting to Mr. GILES, he thought the assertion of that

gentleman too broad, when he spoke of not meddling with the opinions of

other than political societies.

He considered the dissemination of improper sentiments as a suitable

object for the public reprobation of that House. Suppose an agricultural

society were to establish itself, and under that title to disseminate

opinions subversive of good order; the difference of a name should not

make Mr. S. think them exempted from becoming objects of justice. Would

any man say that the sole object of self-created societies has been the

publication of political doctrines? The whole of their proceedings has

been a chain of censures on the conduct of Government. If we do not

support the PRESIDENT, the silence of the House will be interpreted into

an implied disapprobation of that part of his Speech. He will be left in

a dilemma. It will be said that he has committed himself.

Mr. S. declared that he was a friend to the freedom of the press; but

would any one compare a regular town-meeting where deliberations were

cool and unruffled, to these societies, to the nocturnal meetings of

individuals, after they have dined, where they shut their doors, pass

votes in secret, and admit no members into their societies, but those of

their own choosing? Mr. S., by way of illustration, observed, that this

House had never done much business after dinner. In objection to this

amendment it had been stated, that the self-created societies would

acquire importance from a vote of censure passed on them. They were, for

his part, welcome to the whole importance that such a vote could give

them. He complained, in strong terms, of the calumnies and slanders

which they had propagated against Government. Every gentleman who

thought that these clubs had done mischief, was by this amendment called

upon to avow his opinion. This was the whole. Mr. S. begged the House to

take notice, and he repeated his words once or twice, that he did not

mean to go into the constitution of these societies, or to say that they

were illegal. The question before the House was not whether these

societies were illegal or not, but whether they have been mischievous in

their consequences.

Mr. MCDOWELL was of opinion that the term self-created societies, was

too indefinite. He professed the highest respect for the character of

the PRESIDENT; but he did not think that the proposed vote of censure

would be any eligible proof of it. The House of Representatives were

assembled not to volunteer in passing votes of reprobation on societies,

or individuals, but to legislate. He wished that gentlemen, instead of

losing their time on such frivolous and inflammatory amendments, would

proceed to the proper business of the House. The gentleman from South

Carolina seemed to be well acquainted with Democratic societies. It was

very true that they had published resolutions reprobating the assumption

business, and the system of funding; but the rest of the people, as well

as Democratic societies, had very generally censured the assumption and

the funding transactions. He thought that some laws had been passed

which answered no good purpose, nor indeed any purpose, but that of

irritating the public. The present amendment he considered as

destructive not only to the intercourse of domestic society, but that it

involved a prospect of throwing restraint upon the conduct of gentlemen

in the House of Representatives. With the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr.

GILES,) he was satisfied that the amendment, if adopted, would have no

weight whatever with the citizens of the United States; as they were too

enlightened to accept of opinions from their Representatives.

Mr. TRACY had imagined that no man would have the hardihood to come

forward in that House and vindicate these societies. He quoted from the

remarks of Mr. MCDOWELL, the words, "your wanton laws, begotten in

darkness, first raised insurrection;" and likewise some other words

about the enormous expense of millions for the Western expedition. Mr.

T., after reading these expressions from a memorandum, which he held in

his hand, declared his surprise, that a gentleman, whom he knew to

possess the candor and good sense of the member from North Carolina,

could suffer such language to escape him. He was certain that the

gentleman, if he had not been somewhat in a hurry, never would have

permitted those words to pass from his lips.

Quitting this topic, Mr. T. said, that he would, for his own part, be

disposed to let these societies alone, and leave them to the

chastisement of their own consciences. If they were to say, "Gentlemen,

you, as tyrants, make laws, and slaves obey them," I would answer, said

Mr. T., "It is very rash. Think again before you say this again. We

believe that, from inadvertency, some things have escaped from

Democratic societies, which they had not well weighed, and which had a

bad effect on weak and ignorant people in the western counties of

Pennsylvania. You have seen the bad effects of your temerity. Take care

before you publish any such thing again." Mr. T. said, this is all the

length which we mean to go, and can any body object to this? The

Democratic societies form but a very small portion of the people of

America. Where is the harm in saying that one-hundredth, or, I believe I

might say, not more than one-thousandth part of the citizens of the

United States have been mistaken, and that they have been imprudent in

printing certain indiscreet resolutions? Mr. T. declared that if the

PRESIDENT had not spoke of the matter, he should have been willing to

let it alone, because whenever a subject of that kind was touched, there

were certain gentlemen in that House who shook their backs, like a

sore-backed horse, and cried out, The Liberties of the people! Mr. T.

wished only that the House, if their opinion of these societies

corresponded with that of the PRESIDENT, should declare that they had

such an opinion. This was quite different from attempting to legislate

on the subject. Has not the Legislature done so before? Is there any

impropriety in paying this mark of respect to a man to whom all America

owes such indelible obligations? He thought that this declaration from

the House of Representatives would tend to discourage Democratic

societies, by uniting all men of sense against them. Mr. T. said, that

perhaps the member who spoke last might be connected with some of these

societies, of which he entertained so favorable an impression.

Mr. MCDOWELL said, that he wanted the House to avoid quarrels, and to

mind their proper business of legislation. He declared that he was not a

member of any such society. He did not know that he had ever been in the

company of any person who was a member of any of them. He was even, he

declared upon his honor, ignorant whether there were, or ever had been,

any such societies in North Carolina. He adverted to the simile of the

sore-backed horse, and said that he believed his back to have been

rubbed harder in the last war, than that of the gentleman. He imagined

that these societies had done both good and harm, and again declared,

that he could not consent to a vote of indiscriminate reprobation.

Mr. DAYTON was heartily for the amendment. He observed that he wanted no

evidence to satisfy him, as to the gentleman not being a member of any

of these societies. If he had been connected with them, he would have

known their principles better than he seems to do. Mr. D. said that many

persons in New Jersey, who had been the most violent against the excise

law were equally so against the insurgents; and though their opinion of

the law itself was unaltered, which they made no scruple of openly

declaring, yet they did not, on that account, hesitate about marching

against the insurgents. They did not suppose that one obnoxious statute

was any reason for overturning the Federal Constitution. The murmurs

against the excise law in New Jersey had been converted into universal

silence, because no man would venture to express his discontent, at the

hazard of being suspected of being a friend to the insurgents. That the

Democratic societies had produced the most mischievous effects in the

western counties there could be no question. Letters had been received

from officers in the army, who were the most respectable characters, and

who, from authentic information, had affirmed the fact. It had been

stated that these people would recriminate upon the House, and it had

even been hinted that their recriminations might affect the PRESIDENT.

_That man_, said Mr. D., is above their censure. He believed that if

their censures had any effect at all, it would be to do the PRESIDENT

honor.

Mr. NICHOLAS.--When we see an attempt made in this House to reprobate

whole societies, on account of the conduct of individuals, it may truly

be suspected that some of the members of this House have sore backs. The

PRESIDENT has been apprised of the absurdity of making this a

Legislative business. Here Mr. N. read a passage from the PRESIDENT's

Speech, to show, that the notice taken of self-created societies was not

intended for a topic of discussion in that House. The passage was

expressly addressed to every description of citizens:

"And when in the calm moments of reflection, they shall

have retraced the origin and progress of the insurrection,

let them determine, whether it has been fomented by

combinations of men, who, careless of consequences," &c.

Was this an address to the two Houses? Did this passage show that the

PRESIDENT wanted them to intermeddle? Were they called upon to give an

opinion? Where could be the pretence for any thing of this sort? The

House have made acts. The Democratic societies reprobate them, and then

the House reprobate the Democratic societies. When you first cut a man's

throat, and thereafter call him a rascal, do you suppose that your

accusation will affect the man's reputation? The House, by passing this

vote of censure, would make themselves a party, and lose a title to

unsuspected confidence. Mr. N. declared, that, for his own part, he

never had any concern with these societies, nor ever to his knowledge

had spent an hour with any person who was a member of them. He rather,

if any thing, despised them. He had always thought them the very worst

advocates for the cause which they espoused; but he had come two hundred

miles to legislate, and not to reprobate private societies. He was not

paid by his constituents for doing business of that sort. The PRESIDENT

knew the business of the House better than to call for any such votes of

censure. It was wrong to condemn societies for particular acts. That

there never should be a Democratical society in America, said Mr. N., I

would give my most hearty consent; but I cannot agree to persecution for

the sake of opinions. With respect either to the propriety or the power

of suppressing them, Mr. N. was in both cases equally of opinion that it

was much better to let them alone. They must stand or fall by the

general sentiments of the people of America. Is it possible that these

societies can exist, for any length of time, when they are of no real

use to the country? No. But this amendment will make the people at large

imagine that they are of consequence.

Mr. DAYTON said, that these societies had produced the Western

insurrection, and, therefore, the committee were just as well entitled

to institute an inquiry in this case, as formerly regarding the failure

of the expedition of General St. Clair.

The committee now rose, and reported progress, and had leave to sit

again.

TUESDAY, November 25.

Another member, to wit, JAMES GILLESPIE, from North Carolina, appeared,

and took his seat in the House.

_The President's Speech._

The House again went into Committee of the Whole on the Address of the

PRESIDENT and the amendment of Mr. FITZSIMONS, Mr. COBB in the chair.

Mr. MURRAY said, that he did not altogether like the wording of the

amendment now before the House. He had hoped that some modification of

it would have been prepared by some of its friends; but as none was

offered, and there was a call for the question, he would vote for it

rather than against it. He said, that he had not been personally

attacked by any of the tribunals in question, and no further injured by

their machinations than as he was a citizen of a free Republic in whose

prosperity he felt the closest possible union, and in whose calamities

he of course felt great sympathy. Among the various sources of the late

calamity, the PRESIDENT had traced and designated certain self-created

societies, who had arrogated the management of public opinions and

affairs, and whom he had declared to have been, in his opinion,

instrumental in fomenting the late insurrection. Mr. M. confessed that

he had feared, last winter, lest the disorganizing spirit which had gone

abroad in the shape of resolutions from these societies, would have

produced the effect ascribed to them by the PRESIDENT. The conduct of

the Democratic clubs, or those of them with which he had most

acquaintance, appeared to him to have been instrumental to an event

which threatened destruction to legitimate government. If we believe

this to be the case, Mr. M. knew no motive, duty, or policy, which ought

to restrain us at this period from saying that we believe it, and from

lamenting it. Our declaration will rather hold out a caution to the

thoughtless, than inflict legal penalties upon their follies. It will

present to our fellow-citizens a memorable example of one source of

error and political misfortune, by showing them the danger, which has

already cost above twelve hundred thousand dollars. He could not see any

evil that was to result from an expression of the opinion of the House,

by the proposed amendment. It had not the quality of law; for, if a law

were proposed for the abolition of these societies, he would oppose it.

This amendment to the Address would operate as an advice. It curtails

not the right of a free press, which Mr. M. held to be the luminary of

the public mind. It would tend to excite a judicious and salutary

inquiry among many respecting the just and true limits within which a

virtuous and enlightened well-wisher to our country would think it safe

to exercise this right. Of the inutility and danger of such societies in

this country, he had little doubt. The scene of their birthplace was

well adapted to the wholesome display of their powers. In France, where

a despotism, impregnable to public opinion, had reigned--where no

channel opened a sympathy by representation with the great body of the

nation--those societies were admirably adapted to break down and subvert

the old bulwark of habitual authority. But in America the case was

widely different. Look at the immense body of public functionaries, who

in this country are elected immediately by the people, or by their

electors, in a constitutional mode, and say whether they are not

adequate as functionaries to the public purposes of the country.

Including every description of Legislators, Councils, Governors, Courts,

Jurors, and Sheriffs, there are above twelve thousand. Of these, more

than eleven hundred are actual Legislators, besides the hundred in this

House, and those above stairs. These all act in the States, counties,

townships, and hundreds, in separate but relative circles, so as to

preclude a partial attention to any one scene, to the exclusion of

another. The whole country is full of well-constituted organs of the

people's will. Many of these Legislatures are in session twice a year,

and all of them annually. We might be confused by their immense number,

were they not so admirably dispersed over the Continent, and did they

not move under the guidance of the laws, with the harmony of the

spheres. It would not be easy to organize the nation into a more

multifarious shape.

The case maintained by Mr. DAYTON yesterday appeared to be strong. He

said that we had inquired into the defeat of St. Clair's army, and so we

might into the causes of the insurrection. To point it out to a people

so enlightened, will be to prevent it in future. If the House agree in

opinion with the PRESIDENT, they will speak their opinion, and do their

duty. This declaration goes to the constituent body, through the

Executive; and, while it gratifies their inquiries in a point of so much

solicitude, it erects a warning beacon. It shows to them the stormy

breakers which lately threatened the public peace with shipwreck, and

invites them to adhere to pilots of their own choosing, and to charts

with which they are acquainted.

If the PRESIDENT had not thought some of the societies instrumental in

producing the late calamity, they would not have attracted his notice,

nor that of the House. It is because they are believed to have assisted

and fomented the insurrection, that our constituents ought to be warned

against them; and that another necessity for exerting their patriotism

may be saved to those brave men who are at present encountering every

difficulty in the West. These societies are not attended to, because,

however offensive some of their proceedings and doctrines may have

been, yet the rights of the press ought not to be freely handled.

Mr. FITZSIMONS had no violent predilection for any performance of his

own. He had, therefore, to prevent so much disputing, prepared to

withdraw his motion, provided the committee be willing that he should do

so, and, in the room of this motion, he would read another, for which he

was indebted to a gentleman at his right hand, (Mr. B. BOURNE.)

The committee consented. The former motion was withdrawn, and the other

was read. This was an echo of that part of the speech of the PRESIDENT

which mentions self-created societies.

Mr. CHRISTIE then rose. He was sorry to differ from his worthy colleague

(Mr. MURRAY) on the question then before the committee; and he was

doubly sorry to hear that gentleman labor so strenuously to saddle a

public odium on some of the best citizens of the State which he

represented. Mr. C. should not have risen on the present occasion,

although he thought it an important one, had it not been to endeavor to

rescue from public censure a society of gentlemen, who were described in

the present amendment before the committee, as objects of public

opprobrium. Mr. C. alluded to the Republican Society of the town of

Baltimore. If the present amendment took place, that society would be

involved in general and undeserved censure. He would, therefore, inform

the House of what description of men the Republican Society of Baltimore

consisted; and then the committee would be the best judges whether they

ought to be rewarded in the manner in which the present amendment

proposes. They are a society of gentlemen associated together for the

purpose of diffusing political knowledge throughout the State of

Maryland, and to instruct their Representatives in Congress, and the

Legislature of the State, in any point that they think necessary, and

not for the purpose of sowing dissension among the citizens of America,

or of cultivating dislike to the Union, or to the laws. This society

consists of men whose characters are superior to any censure that might

be thrown against them, by the mover of the amendment. But when Congress

are about to cast an odium on a particular society, the members of which

have every respect for that body, and have always inculcated obedience

to the laws of the United States, Mr. C. left it to the committee to

determine whether, if they were themselves in the place of the Baltimore

Society, they would not feel their sensibility materially wounded? Was

not this returning good for evil? He again reminded the committee that

the Republican Society at Baltimore was composed of a band of patriots,

not the fair-weather patriots of the present day, but the patriots of

seventy-five, the men who were not afraid to rally around the American

standard, when that station was almost concluded to be a forlorn hope.

They were men who, with their persons and properties, had assisted to

drive from the soil of America the present lawless disturbers of the

world. Are these the men, asked Mr. C., who ought to have all this mass

of Congressional odium cast upon them? I trust not, sir. I trust, that

if particular gentlemen are illiberal enough to censure them, yet that

this House will never agree to such iniquitous measures. What was the

conduct of this society when the first news of the late insurrection

reached them? Did they not, in the most pointed manner, discountenance

any such proceeding? Did they not refuse to correspond with any society

that aided, or in any manner abetted, the insurrection? They did more.

They offered their personal services to go and help to crush this

commotion in the bud. Mr. C. subjoined that he would venture to say, and

at the same time he spoke within bounds, that nine-tenths of this

society actually took up their muskets and marched into the field for

the above laudable purpose, and that numbers of them still continue

there, and are the friends of peace and order, and not the disorganizers

that the present amendment would make them. Mr. C. appealed to the

candor of the committee to say, whether the Baltimore self-created

Republican Society were the description of men whom the PRESIDENT, in

his Speech, meant to describe. He was sure it was not. Therefore, why

involve in this indiscriminate censure men who have deserved so well of

their country? men who, instead of having odium cast upon them, merit

every praise which the Federal Government can bestow. For these, and

some other reasons, Mr. C. declared that he should vote against the

amendment, and he trusted that he should vote in the majority.

Mr. MURRAY rose to explain. He did not mean this society. It was the

Philadelphia and Pittsburg societies. Mr. M. was acquainted with this

society, and had the greatest respect for them. As for the members of

the other societies, he was for gibbeting their principles only.

Mr. RUTHERFORD.--This alarm is owing to an overgrown moneyed system,

with which the people are not entirely satisfied. But the moneyholders

need not be afraid. The people will pay the public debt. Then why

disturb the tranquillity of the people? The PRESIDENT, in his Speech,

points only at combinations over the mountains. As to the character of

the PRESIDENT himself, to praise him was like holding up a rush candle

to let us see the sun. I have known that man, said Mr. R., for these

forty years. I have had the honor of serving under him in the last war,

and of frequently executing his wise and noble orders. The member

declared that this amendment could answer no purpose but that of

disturbing the public peace. He himself represented as respectable a

district as any in Virginia, and he had as good opportunities as any

gentleman in that House to know the temper of Americans. They were

firmly attached to the present Government, and the holders of paper need

not be so much afraid of Democratic societies, for the people, to

preserve the tranquillity, were determined to discharge the public debt,

no matter how it was contracted, and, therefore, it would be much better

not to harass the public mind with amendments like that on the table.

Mr. GILES said, that he had an amendment to propose that would, he

hoped, meet with the approbation of a certain description of gentlemen

in that committee. His amendment was to strike out the words

"self-created societies," from the amendment of Mr. FITZSIMONS, and

insert "the Democratic societies of Philadelphia, New York, and

Pittsburg." Gentlemen could then have some specific object at which they

could say that their vote of censure was levelled; for the general

expression of self-created, comprehended every society of any kind in

the Union. For his own part, he was very far from wanting to censure any

set of men for their political opinions.

Mr. PARKER seconded the motion for striking out, but he would not

consent to the insertion proposed by Mr. GILES.

Mr. SEDGWICK thought that the amendment stands better as it is at

present.

Mr. VENABLE said, that there was a paper on that table (he referred to

the letter from Mr. HAMILTON to the PRESIDENT) which showed that the

combinations in the western counties began their existence at the very

same time with the Excise law itself. It was, therefore, entirely

improper to ascribe them to Democratic societies. Should Government,

said Mr. V., come forward and show their imbecility by censuring what we

cannot punish? The people have a right to think and a right to speak. I

am not afraid to speak my sentiments. I am not afraid of being called a

disorganizer. I am, as much as any gentleman in this committee, a friend

to regular government.

Mr. DEXTER believed that such societies were, in themselves, wrong, but

he was still not for making laws against them. He had, however, numerous

objections to their conduct. One of these was, that they erected

themselves into a model for the rest of their fellow-citizens to copy.

The great principle of Republicanism was, that the minority should

submit to the will of the majority. But these people have elevated

themselves into tyrants. Such societies are proper in a country where

government is despotic, but it is improper that such societies should

exist in a free country like the United States, and hence, Mr. D. was a

friend to the amendment proposed by Mr. FITZSIMONS. It had been said,

that it was unusual to give opinions of this kind, but, in reality, the

House were in the practice of expressing their sentiments on matters of

that sort, in such addresses as the one now before them. Mr. D. was

decidedly against the amendment of the amendment proposed by Mr. GILES.

Mr. NICHOLAS.--Gentlemen have brought us into a discussion, and then say

we must decide as they please, in deference to the PRESIDENT. This is

the real ground and foundation of their arguments. But who started this

question? If the gentlemen have brought themselves into a difficulty

with regard to the PRESIDENT, by their participation in proposing votes

of censure which they cannot carry through, they have only to blame

themselves. Is it expected, said Mr. N., that I am to abandon my

independence for the sake of the PRESIDENT? He never intended that we

should take any such notice of his reference to these societies; but if

the popularity of the PRESIDENT has, in the present case, been

committed, let those who have hatched this thing, and who have brought

it forward, answer for the consequences. This whole question turns upon

a matter of fact, which ought to be proved, viz: Have the Democratic

societies been one of the principal causes of the Western insurrection?

This is a matter of fact, or otherwise, and it depends upon direct

evidence. But how do gentlemen handle this question? They digress into

abstract propositions, a thing never heard of before, where a matter of

fact was to be proved. I say, where direct proof is wanted, we see

gentlemen standing on the floor for half an hour together, without

attempting to advance a single fact in support of their assertions; yet

this is the only admissible kind of evidence that the societies are from

their nature unfriendly to the Federal Government.

Mr. N. then adverted to a remark which had been made, that libels were

daily prosecuted in this country, from which it was inferred that

calumnious attacks on Government were the just objects of reprehension.

Mr. N. said, that the comparison was not fair, because in a case of

libel, the parties accused have a proper opportunity to defend

themselves. Have these people here (the Democratic societies) any such

opportunity? It has been alleged, as a crime against them, that they

have never once published any approbation of any measure of Government.

Mr. N. argued that this arose from the very nature of their institution,

which was to watch the errors of the Legislature and Executive, and

point out to the public what they considered to be mistakes. Faults were

the only kind of facts which they were in quest of. Here Mr. N. drew a

material distinction. If these societies had censured every proceeding

of Government, there would have been the greatest reason for taking some

measures. But what was the case? As to an immense number of the

proceedings of the Executive and Legislature, they had taken no notice

whatever.

Mr. SEDGWICK thought that the PRESIDENT would have been defective in his

duty, had he omitted to mention what he religiously believed to be true,

viz: that the Democratic societies had in a great measure originated the

late disturbances. It was the indispensable duty of the PRESIDENT to

speak as he had spoken. The present amendment (of Mr. FITZSIMONS) would

have a tendency to plunge these societies into contempt, and to sink

them still farther into abhorrence and detestation. He pronounced them

to be illicit combinations. One gentleman (Mr. NICHOLAS) tells you, that

he despises them most heartily. Another (Mr. LYMAN) says that they begin

to repent. Will the American people perversely propose to shoulder and

bolster up these despised and repenting societies, which are now

tumbling into dust and contempt? Their conduct differed as far from a

fair and honorable investigation, as Christ and Belial. They were men

prowling in the dark. God is my judge, said Mr. S., that I would not

wish to check a fair discussion.

One gentleman (Mr. MCDOWELL) had told the committee, that the Assumption

and Funding transactions were a cause of public discontent. It has been

the trick of these people to make this assertion. They have said that

the Funding System is a mass of favoritism, for the purpose of erecting

an oppressive aristocracy, and a paper nobility. There is not a man

among them, who is able to write, and who does not know that these

assertions are false. As to the assumption of the debts of individual

States, it has been said that this measure was undertaken for the

purpose of making up a large debt. There was no such thing. Before the

adoption of the new constitution, of which Mr. S. considered the Funding

and Assumption Systems to be essential preliminaries, the credit and

commerce of America were declining or gone. The States were disagreeing

at home, and the American name was disgraced abroad. It was not to be

supposed that every one of the measures of the new Government could

please every body. Among the rest, excise was objected to in both Houses

of Congress; but at last the good sense of the people acquiesced. At

this crisis, a foreign agent (_Genet_) landed at Charleston. On his way

to this city, he was attended by the hosannas of all the disaffected. He

did the utmost mischief that was in his power; and in consequence of his

efforts, Democratic societies sprung up. Mr. S. here gave a particular

account of some proceedings of a society in Virginia, of more than usual

boldness. He quoted some of their expressions relative to a very

illustrious character, the PRESIDENT, and added that perhaps the

individuals who composed this society were in themselves too despicable

to deserve any notice in this place. He did not know whether they were

or not. [Mr. S. was here interrupted by a member from Virginia, and an

explanation ensued.]

Mr. MCDOWELL rose to make an apology for some words which had escaped

him the day before. He did not expect to have been so smartly handled.

He had been forcibly struck at the time, and had spoken from a momentary

impulse. In substance, however, he adhered to all his former

allegations. He still persisted in believing that the excise laws were

shapen in darkness. He apologized for some part of his heat, from having

seen and suffered so much by despotic government during the last war in

which this gentleman supported the character of a brave and able

officer.

Mr. HILLHOUSE approved of the amendment; as proposed by Mr. FITZSIMONS.

Constituents made no scruple to tell Representatives of their faults,

and he saw no reason why Representatives might not tell constituents of

theirs? The resolutions of Democratic societies printed in newspapers,

had spirited up the people in the Western counties to resistance. They

had weakly fancied that the American nation would not stand by their

constitution and their PRESIDENT. But for the publication of these

resolutions, there would have been no insurrection. This was a piece of

information which the people of the United States had a right to know.

It was the duty of that House to let them know it. The PRESIDENT had

done his duty. Mr. H. did not consider the amendment of Mr. FITZSIMONS

as an indiscriminate censure levelled at these societies; he thought it

only a suitable answer to a part of the PRESIDENT's Speech.

Mr. PARKER concluded this long debate by the following remarks. He did

not think that Democratic societies were so far to blame as had been

imagined. He suspected that the PRESIDENT himself, for whose character

and services he felt as much respect and gratitude as any man in

America, had been misinformed on this point. It would be absurd to say,

that the Western disturbances originated from the publications of

Democratic societies, if it could be proved to the satisfaction of the

committee, that such disturbances had begun long before any of the

associations alluded to had a being. To prove this position, Mr. P.

desired that the Clerk might read a passage from the letter on that

affair, written by Mr. Hamilton, and which has already been published in

all the newspapers. The Clerk accordingly read a part of the letter,

from which Mr. P. inferred that his inference was incontestable, and he

then stated the absurdity of making the Democratic publications the

origin of a discontent, which existed before them. He was satisfied that

the PRESIDENT did not wish this thing echoed; and that he would entirely

disapprove of the proposed persecution. Mr. P. said, that he had the

honor of being an honorary member of a Democratic society. Personally he

knew nothing of the gentlemen, but he understood that they were

respectable characters; and that they were friends to good order and the

Federal Government, there could be no question, for when the Embargo was

laid last spring, and some vessels had been attempting to get off, these

vigilant citizens armed and embodied themselves, and prevented the

execution of the design. With all his respect for the PRESIDENT, he was

not to give up his opinions for the sake of any man. He was convinced

that all this violent declamation and irritation in the House would do a

great deal of mischief, and would have an effect exactly the reverse of

what was designed by the amendment as it first stood. A gentleman (Mr.

DEXTER) had spoken of town meetings, as the proper vehicles for the

communication of political ideas, and had drawn a comparison between

these and Democratic societies. Mr. P. requested that it might be

noticed, that in the Southern States there neither were nor could be

such things as town meetings, because the population was too thin and

too widely scattered. They were therefore to make the best of it which

they could, and meet and deliberate, no matter where, whenever they

found a convenient opportunity. Mr. P. expressed, in strong terms the

aversion that his constituents would feel to this species of censorship.

He concluded with these words: "They love your Government much, but they

love their independence more."

The question was then called for on striking out the word "self-created"

from the new amendment of Mr. FITZSIMONS. For the amendment of Mr.

GILES, ayes 47, noes 45. This amendment was therefore adopted.

Mr. GILES then proposed an amendment, after the words "combination of

men," by adding, "in the four Western counties of Pennsylvania."

Mr. HARTLEY said, that the gentleman should have added, "and a county in

Virginia." This amendment of Mr. GILES was rejected.

The committee now rose, and reported the amendments to the House.

WEDNESDAY, November 26.

[The committee having risen, and the question having been

taken in the House, the yeas and nays on the motion to

reinstate the obnoxious words, were:]

YEAS.--Fisher Ames, James Armstrong, John Beatty, Elias

Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Lambert

Cadwalader, David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Joshua Coit, William

J. Dawson, Jonathan Dayton, Samuel Baxter, Thomas

Fitzsimons, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas

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

Griffin, William Barry Grove, Thomas Hartley, James

Hillhouse, William Hindman, Samuel Holten, John Wilkes

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

Francis Malbone, William Vans Murray, Thomas Scott,

Theodore Sedgwick, John S. Sherburne, Jeremiah Smith,

William Smith, Zephaniah Swift, George Thatcher, Uriah

Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, John E. Van Allen, Peter Van

Gaasbeck, Peleg Wadsworth, Artemas Ward, John Watts, and

Paine Wingate.

NAYS.--Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, Thomas Blount,

Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel Christie, Thomas Claiborne, Isaac

Coles, Henry Dearborn, George Dent, Gabriel Duvall, William

Findlay, William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Christopher

Greenup, Andrew Gregg, George Hancock, Carter B. Harrison,

John Heath, 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, Nathaniel Niles, Alexander D. Orr, Josiah Parker,

Andrew Pickens, Francis Preston, Robert Rutherford, John

Smilie, Israel Smith, Thomas Tredwell, Philip Van

Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, Francis Walker, and Joseph

Winston.

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

said clause, amended to read as followeth:

"In tracing the origin and progress of the insurrection, we

can entertain no doubt that certain self-created societies

and combinations of men in the four Western counties of

Pennsylvania, and parts adjacent, careless of consequences,

and disregarding the truth, by disseminating suspicions,

jealousies, and accusations of the Government, have had all

the agency you ascribe to them, in fomenting this daring

outrage against social order and the authority of the

laws:"

It passed in the negative, nineteen members only rising in the

affirmative.

FRIDAY, November 28.

_Answer to the Address._

The Answer, as amended, was then read throughout at the Clerk's table as

follows:

SIR: The House of Representatives, calling to mind the

blessings enjoyed by the people of the United States, and

especially the happiness of living under constitutions and

laws which rest on their authority alone, could not learn,

with other emotions than those you have expressed, that any

part of our fellow-citizens should have shown themselves

capable of an insurrection. And we learn, with the greatest

concern, that any misrepresentations whatever, of the

Government and its proceedings, either by individuals or

combinations of men, should have been made, and so far

credited as to foment the flagrant outrage which has been

committed on the laws. We feel, with you, the deepest

regret at so painful an occurrence in the annals of our

country. As men regardful of the tender interests of

humanity, we look with grief at scenes which might have

stained our land with civil blood. As lovers of public

order, we lament that it has suffered so flagrant a

violation: as zealous friends of Republican Government, we

deplore every occasion which, in the hands of its enemies,

may be turned into a calumny against it.

This aspect of the crisis, however, is happily not the only

one which it presents. There is another, which yields all

the consolations which you have drawn from it. It has

demonstrated to the candid world, as well as to the

American people themselves, that the great body of them,

every where, are equally attached to the luminous and vital

principle of our constitution, which enjoins that the will

of the majority shall prevail; that they understand the

indissoluble union between true liberty and regular

government; that they feel their duties no less than they

are watchful over their rights; that they will be as ready,

at all times, to crush licentiousness, as they have been to

defeat usurpation: in a word, that they are capable of

carrying into execution that noble plan of self-government

which they have chosen as the guarantee of their own

happiness, and the asylum for that of all, from every

clime, who may wish to unite their destiny with ours.

These are the just inferences flowing from the promptitude

with which the summons to the standard of the laws has been

obeyed; and from the sentiments which have been witnessed,

in every description of citizens, in every quarter of the

Union. The spectacle, therefore, when viewed in its true

light, may well be affirmed to display, in equal lustre,

the virtues of the American character, and the value of

Republican Government. All must particularly acknowledge

and applaud the patriotism of that portion of citizens who

have freely sacrificed every thing less dear than the love

of their country, to the meritorious task of defending its

happiness.

In the part which you have yourself borne through this

delicate and distressing period, we trace the additional

proofs it has afforded of your solicitude for the public

good. Your laudable and successful endeavors to render

lenity in executing the laws conducive to their real

energy, and to convert tumult into order, without the

effusion of blood, form a particular title to the

confidence and praise of your constituents. In all that may

be found necessary, on our part, to complete this

benevolent purpose, and to secure the ministers and friends

of the laws against the remains of danger, our due

co-operation will be afforded.

The other subjects which you have recommended, or

communicated, and of which several are peculiarly

interesting, will all receive the attention which they

demand. We are deeply impressed with the importance of an

effectual organization of the militia. We rejoice at the

intelligence of the advance and success of the army under

the command of General Wayne, whether we regard it as a

proof of the perseverance, prowess, and superiority of our

troops, or as a happy presage to our military operations

against the hostile Indians, and as a probable prelude to

the establishment of a lasting peace, upon terms of candor,

equity, and good neighborhood. We receive it with the

greater pleasure, as it increases the probability of sooner

restoring a part of the public resources to the desirable

object of reducing the public debt.

We shall, on this, as on all occasions, be disposed to

adopt any measure which may advance the safety and

prosperity of our country. In nothing can we more cordially

unite with you, than in imploring the Supreme Ruler of

Nations to multiply His blessings on these United States;

to guard our free and happy constitution against every

machination and danger; and to make it the best source of

public happiness, by verifying its character of being the

best safeguard of human rights.

_Resolved_, That Mr. SPEAKER, attended by the House, do present the said

address; and that Mr. MADISON, Mr. SEDGWICK, and Mr. SCOTT, be a

committee to wait on the PRESIDENT, to know when and where it will be

convenient for him to receive the same.

Mr. GILES, from the committee appointed, presented a bill to regulate

the pay of the non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates, of

the militia of the United States, when called into actual service, and

for other purposes; which was read twice and committed.

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

United States, accompanying his account of receipts and expenditures of

public moneys, from the 1st of April to the 30th of June, 1794; also,

his account of payments and receipts for the War Department, from the

1st of July to the 30th of September, 1794, inclusive; which were read,

and ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. MADISON, from the committee appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT OF

THE UNITED STATES, to know when and where it will be convenient for him

to receive the Address of this House, in answer to his Speech to both

Houses of Congress, reported that the committee had waited on the

PRESIDENT, who signified to them that it would be convenient to him to

receive the said Address at twelve o'clock to-morrow, at his own house.

SATURDAY, November 29.

The SPEAKER, attended by the House, then withdrew to the house of the

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and there presented to him the Address

of this House, in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress; to

which the PRESIDENT made the following reply:

_Gentlemen:_ I anticipated, with confidence, the

concurrence of the House of Representatives in the regret

produced by the insurrection. Every effort ought to be used

to discountenance what has contributed to foment it; and

thus discourage a repetition of like attempts. For,

notwithstanding the consolations which may be drawn from

the issue of this event, it is far better that the artful

approaches to such a situation of things should be checked

by the vigilant and duly admonished patriotism of our

fellow-citizens, than that the evil should increase until

it becomes necessary to crush it by the strength of their

arms.

I am happy that the part which I have myself borne on this

occasion receives the approbation of your House. For the

discharge of a constitutional duty, it is a sufficient

reward to me to be assured that you will unite in

consummating what remains to be done.

I feel, also, great satisfaction in learning that the other

subjects which I have communicated or recommended, will

meet with due attention; that you are deeply impressed with

the importance of an effectual organization of the militia;

and that the advance and success of the army under the

command of General Wayne is regarded by you, no less than

myself, as a proof of the perseverance, prowess, and

superiority of our troops. G. WASHINGTON.

TUESDAY, December 2.

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

Treasury, stating his intention of resigning his office on the last day

of January next, and which he now communicates, in order that an

opportunity may be given, previous to that event, to institute any

further proceedings which may be contemplated, if any there be, in

consequence of the inquiry during the last session, into the state of

the Treasury Department; which was read, and ordered to lie on the

table.[55]

THURSDAY, December 4.

_Thanks to General Wayne._

Mr. W. SMITH wished to make his promised motion, which he prefaced by

observing that he had varied it at the request of several gentlemen. In

the original motion, he had particularly noticed the diligence of the

General in disciplining his army to the nature of the service in which

they were engaged, and his fortitude and perseverance in encountering

the difficulties which opposed his march through a wilderness.

Though he and many others were ready to acknowledge in the fullest

manner the merits of the General in those important particulars, yet as

they were not matters of general notoriety, and as unanimity on an

occasion like the present was extremely desirable, he had now confined

the motion to the brilliant action of the 20th August.

Mr. SMITH concluded with saying, that as he had no doubt the services of

the army had made the same impression on the House as they had on him,

he trusted the motion he was about to make would be honored with a

unanimous vote. He then moved the three resolutions, as follow:

_Resolved_, That the thanks of this House he given to Major

General Wayne for the good conduct and bravery displayed by

him in the action of the 20th August last with the Indians.

_Resolved, unanimously_, That the thanks of this House be

given to the brave officers and soldiers of the legion

under the orders of Major General Wayne, for their

patience, fortitude, and bravery.

_Resolved_, That the thanks of this House be given to Major

General Scott, and to the gallant mounted volunteers from

the State of Kentucky, who have served their country in the

field during the late campaign, under the orders of Major

General Wayne, for their zeal, bravery, and good conduct.

Mr. GILES foresaw many bad consequences that might ensue from the

practice of giving opinions of men. One part of the House might be for a

vote of thanks, and the other against it. He should vote for the

proposition, but wished that some mode might be adopted for expressing

the general opinion of the House against the practice.

Mr. KITTERA was for restoring the clause respecting the vigilance of

General Wayne in attending to the discipline of his troops.

Mr. HILLHOUSE hoped that the resolutions would not be adopted. He should

go farther than the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. GILES) and vote against

them. The House in their answer to the PRESIDENT, had expressed their

approbation, and that was enough. It was not the business of that House,

but of the Executive, to express such things. Mr. H. had voted most

cordially for that part of the Address respecting the Western army. The

Answer to the Speech of the PRESIDENT would always afford a good

opportunity of conveying these kind of matters. It would immediately

become necessary to give thanks in every case; and not to give them will

be regarded as an implied censure. He trusted that the gentleman would

withdraw his motion, and that the House in this way would get rid of

it. He had, and he repeated it again, a high sense of the merit of the

officers and soldiers of the army under General Wayne, but he had said

so already in the Address to the PRESIDENT. It had been urged, as a

precedent for this measure, that it was usual to thank the Speaker. This

was a mere ceremony. He wished that it had never come into practice, but

since it had been so, he should always agree to the vote of thanks.

Mr. MURRAY thought that we might trust that the House would always have

too much prudence to abuse their thanks, by giving them improperly. By

way of precedent Mr. M. read a vote of the State of Virginia, thanking

Governor Lee for his conduct in the Western insurrection.

Mr. NICHOLAS approved highly of the conduct of the troops, but it was

only an act of duty. If we send soldiers against the Indians, it is

supposed that they will stand to their posts, otherwise the Government

cannot be supported even for a month.

Mr. HILLHOUSE saw no business which the House had with the proceedings

in the State of Virginia. It had been hinted that the army under General

Wayne might feel disagreeably, if the resolution should be rejected.

With that Mr. H. had no business. He acted on principles without

regarding the feelings of individuals.

Mr. W. SMITH agreed with gentlemen that the principal object of the

House was to legislate; but it did not follow that they were to be

confined merely to legislation. Every Legislative body exercised the

right of opinion in cases where no act was to follow. This House has

frequently exercised it: the answers to the PRESIDENT's Speech; the

answer to the King of the French on his acceptance of the Constitution

of ninety-one; the opinion of the House on the merits of that

constitution; the vote respecting Benjamin Franklin; the vote of last

session in reply to a letter from the Committee of Public Safety of

France; the votes of thanks to the Speakers, were precedents on the

journals which refuted a contrary doctrine. It had been said that the

latter case was a mere matter of form. Mr. S. thought differently, and

if ever he was in that House when a vote of thanks should be proposed to

a Speaker who had no claim to it, he should feel it his duty to oppose

it. Gentlemen apprehended that this practice might lead to innumerable

difficulties hereafter. But every House would exercise its judgment and

discretion. Members would not be so rash as to propose the thanks of the

House where serious opposition was expected, nor would the thanks be

voted unless well merited. He was unwilling as any member to make the

thanks of the House too cheap; but all must confess that if ever there

was an occasion where they were properly called for, this was one. To

deny the right or expediency of the practice was in fact to strip the

House of one of its most agreeable functions, that of expressing its

gratitude.

It had been advanced as an objection, that the two Houses might differ;

one might vote thanks and the other censure, in the same case; but that

might happen in other cases where the propriety of expressing an opinion

was admitted; in answering the PRESIDENT's Speech in the State

Legislatures, where thanks were frequently voted, the two branches might

differ; that was never deemed an objection to the practice; each House

expressed its individual opinion.

Mr. SMITH said, if the House had been sitting in September last when the

account arrived of this victory, would the members have then felt as

coldly as they now do? No: he was convinced that in the moment of joy

and gratitude, they would have unanimously voted thanks to the army

without the least hesitation; but they have since had time to cool, and

the impression is worn away.

Gentlemen should consider the hard services of that army; how badly paid

they were; the nature of the country they were in; and then determine

whether the brilliant action of the 20th August is to go unrewarded? To

appreciate truly the merits of that army in obtaining so signal a

victory, let the House reflect on the consequences of a defeat: the army

disbanded and broken up; the frontiers exposed to the ferocious savages;

the combination of the tribes more cemented and formidable; an

expensive, long, and bloody war. What is now our prospect? The frontiers

protected; the combination of the tribes dissolved, and peace with them

all a probable event.

Before, therefore, the motion which he had made could be got rid of, it

was incumbent on the gentlemen on the other side to show, either that it

was improper in any case whatever to pass a vote of thanks, or that this

was not a case entitled to them; to do the first they must establish, in

the face of precedents innumerable, a doctrine destructive of one of the

most amiable privileges of the House; to do the last, they must express

a sentiment which would, he was persuaded, be repugnant to the

sentiments of all their constituents, for throughout the United States

there was but one opinion on this subject, and that was in unison with

the motion. Having made the motion after due deliberation, he certainly

should not withdraw it; but would submit it to the good sense of the

House.

Mr. COIT moved the previous question. He thought the practice of

dangerous consequence. It might produce much uncomfortable proceeding in

that House. He was seconded by a number of members.

Mr. PARKER felt the highest esteem for the services of the Western army.

He was intimate both with General Wayne and General Scott; but he

disapproved of the practice upon principle. It was wrong in Mr. MURRAY

to quote the proceedings in the Legislature of Virginia, where the

Governor was in authority a mere cipher, because the two cases did not

apply. The Federal Government was on a quite different footing, a

mixture of monarchy, of aristocracy, and of democracy. The PRESIDENT

represented the monarchical part. It was his business to give thanks, if

requisite. If he himself was an officer in that army, Mr. P. said that

he should be satisfied by the first thanks, those in the answer to the

PRESIDENT. He would be hurt by the second as unconstitutional. What if,

in the mean time, General Wayne and his army may have committed some

error that requires an inquiry, and the House are to go into it with

this vote of thanks staring them in their face! It had been said by Mr.

SMITH, that if we had been sitting in September, when this news arrived,

a vote of thanks would have been passed immediately and unanimously. I

believe no such thing (said Mr. P.) We should have recommended such a

step to the PRESIDENT.

Mr. GILES said, that if there ever could have been any doubt as to the

impropriety of the resolution, that was now removed, (alluding to the

speech of Mr. PARKER.) He thought that the gentleman (Mr. COIT) who

moved the previous question had acted from the best motives. Two

gentlemen (Mr. GILES referred to Mr. SEDGWICK and Mr. AMES) had

recommended an appeal to _feeling_. We are sent here to reason. A

gentleman (Mr. SEDGWICK) says that he has feelings which he cannot

express. Let him strive to express them. It is not expected that a

member is to express all that he may feel on every subject.

Mr. MURRAY said he thought the present resolution proper,

unexceptionable, and as the fate of this question would have an effect

on the motion for thanks to the militia, which he brought forward

yesterday, he hoped it would succeed, and that its mover (Mr. SMITH, of

South Carolina) would not withdraw it. Gentlemen who are against the

vote have talked of precedent. If example would serve their feelings

with a stimulus, he would take the liberty of calling their attention to

a page he had in his hand, in which they would find that some of our

constituents have got the start of us, for the House of Delegates of

Virginia had very properly considered the conduct of their Governor (Mr.

LEE) in a light which merited their thanks for his acceptance of the

command of his fellow-citizens against the insurgents. Mr. M. read the

vote from a newspaper, which was a unanimous one. He said he considered

this circumstance as extremely auspicious to both votes.

He said he had no objection to consider the practice as founded in

principles which would bear examination. He thought it more necessary in

the administration of our Government--the great basis of which was

public opinion--than in that of any other which he had read or heard of.

Here our theories have made a bold appeal to the reason and feelings of

our fellow-citizens. Neither titles, nor hereditary honors, nor crosses,

nor ribbons, nor stars, nor garters, are permitted or endurable. Neither

would they be accepted here were they offered. We had but two ways, as

far as his knowledge then served him, of rewarding or acknowledging

great displays of public virtue. One way is by pay in money; the other

by thanks expressed by vote, or presented and perpetuated in some

memorial, as in a medal. The first is unequal; as the fortunes of men

differ, so would such reward not be equally valuable to all its objects;

and were it practicable to apportion this reward agreeably to the

fortunes of men, there is a something ill-assorted in it with the idea

of honorable ambition; nor did he think there was any good man who had a

spark of what is called sentiment in his bosom, who would not say the

reward was not only lame for want of uniformity, but defective in point

of taste in its species. He believed much in the sense of duty as a

motive to good and reasonable services, and that an enlightened mind

would feel the close alliance between interest and duty; but he held

reward to be essential, politically considered, to the practice of great

virtue, taking men as you find them. Not that money can be an adequate

reward; it was therefore that he wished to see a style of acknowledgment

derived both from the genius of the Government and congenial with the

passions which work on the side of virtue--a mode as far removed from

mere avarice as it was nearly associated to the movements of the most

elevated minds. He readily yielded his belief that the gentlemen who

were unwilling to adopt the practice fully admitted the merits to which

they did not think it expedient to give a vote of thanks; but the

precedent, founded expressly on the principle, that in no case of the

greatest events are we to give thanks to the agents in them, will

absolutely strip the Government of the only power its constitution

admits of conferring deserved distinction. He thought that public

gratitude was a great fund, which if judiciously and delicately

economized, might be rendered a source of great and good actions. It is

an honor both to the nation that can feel and express it, and to those

who receive it. He did not think it ought to be lightly drawn on, and

hoped a line which it was more easy to conceive than draw, would be

adopted by the House to save the Legislature from those perilous

occasions which would lessen its value, and that no member would ever

move a vote of thanks but upon the happening of some event so strikingly

great and useful as to carry but one opinion. The two events designated

at present (for he saw both votes were to have one fate) were great,

highly interesting, and carried but one opinion. The army under General

Wayne had gained a brilliant victory. It was, he believed, the first

great victory that had attended the arms of the United States since the

adoption of the constitution. That army merited the thanks of their

country, and we may say so. They had not only gained victory and fame,

but had earned them in a solitude where the voice of fame could not be

heard; in a profound wilderness, where neither the soothings of just

ambition can reach them, nor the smiles of social and civilized life can

comfort them after their severe labors.

The militia, both officers and men, in "quelling the insurrection," had

displayed the wisdom and virtue which the constitution had anticipated;

had eminently deserved the most public testimony to their good conduct.

Shall we, as we certainly feel this to be true, be deterred from

expressing what we feel, because the folly of a future moment may

possibly betray us into an undue multiplication of thanks, or because we

may be harassed by a fatiguing succession of calls upon our gratitude?

There could be little fear that great events would crowd too fast upon

our feelings, and take up our time by applause, and he believed his

constituents would readily admit the importance of two such events as

some excuse for the time we consume in celebrating them.

In favor of the principle, we are supported by the example of the old

Congress, by the practice of all nations, and by the known character of

human nature in all cases and everywhere. The ancients and the moderns,

by a variety of inventions and of policy, analogous to our object,

endeavored to enlist all the passions in the public service. The old

Congress understood the springs that work in great events, and though

there was in the glorious revolution which they guided, an ardor in the

public mind that needed little aid, they did not disdain an appeal to

the just pride and ambition of the individual; that the motives to

public virtue might be multiplied, they in many instances took care that

great events and services should be attended by some small but

inestimable memorial.

Mr. AMES.--The apprehensions of the House have been attempted to be

alarmed, as if they were pushed to adopt hastily and unguardedly some

dangerous new principle. The practice of all public bodies, without

exception, has been to express their approbation of distinguished public

services. Instead of establishing a new principle, the attempt is now

made to induce us to depart from an old one. Nay, the objection taken

altogether is still more inconsistent and singular, for it is urged, the

answer of the House to the PRESIDENT's Speech has already expressed our

approbation of the conduct of General Wayne and his army. It is, say

they, superfluous to express it again. The argument opposed to the vote

of thanks stands thus: It is a dangerous new principle, without a

precedent, and without any just authority from the constitution, to

thank the army; for, the objectors add, we have in the answer to the

Speech expressed all that is contained in the motion. It is unusual to

quote precedent, and our own recent conduct, to prove a motion

unprecedented, and to prove a measure new and dangerous because it has

been adopted without question or apprehension heretofore.

It is simply a question of mere propriety; and is it a novelty, is it

any thing to alarm the caution of the House, that such questions are

always to be decided by feeling? What but the sense of propriety induces

me to perform to others the nameless and arbitrary duties, and to

receive from others the rights which the civilities and refinements of

life have erected into laws? In cases of a more serious kind, is not

sentiment the only prompt and enlightened guide of our conduct? If I

receive a favor, what but the sentiment of gratitude ought to direct me

in my acknowledgments? Shall I go to my benefactor and say, Sir, I act

coolly and carefully; I will examine all the circumstances of this

transaction, and if upon the whole I find some cause of gratitude, I

will thank you. Is this gratitude or insult? The man who affects to hold

his feelings, and his best feelings back for this cold-blooded process

of reasoning, has none. He deceives himself, and attempts to deceive

others, if he pretends to reason up or to reason down the impressions

which actions worthy of gratitude and admiration make upon his heart.

Was it necessary to wait for the joy and exultation which the news of

the victory of General Wayne instantly inspired, till we could proceed

with all due phlegm and caution to analyze it? The gentleman from

Virginia (Mr. NICHOLAS) has not even yet received the impressions which

are so natural and so nearly universal; for he has insisted that the

army has only done its duty, and therefore it is improper to express our

thanks. Indeed, it has done its duty, but in a manner the most splendid,

the most worthy of admiration and thanks. That gentleman has also

expressed his doubts of the very important nature of the victory, and

one would suppose it was thought by many a very trivial advantage that

is gained. It is such an one, however, as has humbled a victorious foe;

as has avenged the slaughter of two armies; as gives us the reasonable

prospect of a speedy peace. Can we desire any thing more ardently than a

termination of the Indian war?

A soldier, of all men, looks to this kind of recompense for his

services; and surely, to look to the approbation and applause of his

country is one means of keeping alive the sentiments of citizenship,

which ought not to be suffered to expire even in a camp. Shall we make

it an excuse for refusing to pass this vote, that we establish the

principle of thanking nobody? Is not this, as a principle, as novel, as

improper, as that which alarms our opponents? And shall we establish it

as a principle against the known practice of other assemblies and of

this, and against the intrinsic propriety of the case, merely because we

think our discretion will not be firm enough in future to prevent the

abuse of the practice? Scarcely any abuse could have a worse influence

than the refusal to adopt this vote, because, should the negative

prevail, what would the army believe? Would they not say, a vote of

thanks has been rejected? It is said we have not done much, and what we

have done is merely our duty, for which we receive wages?

The debate has taken such a turn, that I confess I could have wished the

motion had not been made. For the most awkward and ridiculous thing in

the world is to express our gratitude lothly. But at least it offers to

those who fear that votes of thanks will be too frequent, some security

against their apprehensions. Would any man risk the feelings and

character of his friend by an attempt to force a vote of thanks by a

bare majority through the House? No, an ingenuous mind will shrink from

this gross reward. If there is any force in the precedent it is feared

we are now making, it will operate more to deter from than to invite the

repetition.

Mr. DEARBORN was in favor of the original motion. In addition to some

remarks relative to the Republicanism of the idea of the Representatives

of the people thanking the armies of the people for their prowess and

victories, he compared the argument against the resolutions on the score

of abuse to a miser's excusing himself from the practice of charity,

lest he should bestow it on unworthy objects.

Mr. RUTHERFORD was opposed to the previous question. He hoped the

resolution of thanks would pass without a dissenting voice.

The previous question was now called for, by five members, viz: "Shall

the main question to agree to the said resolution, be now put?" And

On the previous question, "Shall the said main question be now put?" it

was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 52, nays 36.

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

said resolution, it was

_Resolved, unanimously_, That the thanks of this House be given to the

brave officers and soldiers of the legion under the orders of Major

General Wayne, for their patience, fortitude, and bravery.

_Resolved, unanimously_, That the thanks of this House be given to Major

General Scott, and to the gallant mounted volunteers from the State of

Kentucky, who have served their country in the field, during the late

campaign, under the orders of Major General Wayne, for their zeal,

bravery, and good conduct.

_Resolved_, That the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES be requested to

transmit the foregoing resolutions; and that Mr. WILLIAM SMITH and Mr.

MURRAY be appointed a committee to wait on the PRESIDENT therewith.

On motion of Mr. MURRAY,

_Resolved, unanimously_, That the thanks of this House be given to the

gallant officers and privates of the militia of the States of New

Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, who, on the late call of

the PRESIDENT, rallied round the standard of the laws, and, in the

prompt and severe services which they encountered, bore the most

illustrious testimony to the value of the constitution, and the

blessings of internal peace and order; and that the PRESIDENT be

requested to communicate the above vote of thanks in such manner as he

may judge most acceptable to the patriotic citizens who are its objects.

_Ordered_, That Mr. WILLIAM SMITH and Mr. MURRAY be appointed a

committee to wait on the PRESIDENT with the foregoing resolution.

TUESDAY, December 9.

_The Mint._

The House then took up the motion of Mr. COIT, relative to the Mint. The

letter of Mr. Rittenhouse, referred to yesterday, was again read.

Mr. BOUDINOT drew the attention of the House for some time, by a series

of the most interesting observations. He went to the Bank of the United

States to inquire for cents. He was told that there were none to be had,

because the Bank could not get them from the Mint. He then went to the

Mint, where he was informed that cents were not coined faster because

the officers of the Mint did not know where to get them vented! He said

that this Mint cost twenty-four thousand dollars per annum, and every

cent coined there cost the public several cents, though he could not

exactly tell how many. In New Jersey far more cents had been coined in a

few months than had ever been coined altogether at the Mint of the

United States, and this had been done at one-fortieth part of the

expense which the Mint of the United States has cost.

Several other members adverted to the prodigious inconvenience which is

felt all over the Union for want of copper coin; and it appeared to

excite some curiosity, on what foundation the officers of the Mint said

that they could not get their cents vented. It was remarked by Mr. W.

SMITH that, except as to Philadelphia, the Mint is of little or no use

whatever. The cents given out never go farther than the city.

A committee of three members were appointed to examine and report on the

state of the Mint, and what means may be used to render the institution

more beneficial to the United States.

WEDNESDAY, December 10.

An engrossed bill making appropriations for the support of Government,

for the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, was read the

third time, and passed.

MONDAY, December 15.

Two other members, to wit: from Virginia, JOHN PAGE; and from North

Carolina, BENJAMIN WILLIAMS, appeared, and took their seats in the

House.

TUESDAY, December 16.

_Pennsylvania Insurgents._

It was then moved and seconded that the House should go into a

committee, on the report of the select committee, on that part of the

PRESIDENT's Speech which recommended compensation to the sufferers by

the insurgents in the Western counties. The House accordingly went into

a committee, Mr. COBB in the chair, and the report was read.

In the clause for making compensation to officers of Government, and

other citizens, Mr. NICHOLAS was for striking out the three last words,

and restricting indemnification to the officers of Government, as the

additional words would make room for a set of claims which never could

be satisfied or put to an end. It is now ascertained that the majority

of the people of the four western counties have always been in favor of

Government; but, since it is so, they ought to have suppressed the

insurrection, and saved the expense of sending an army into that

country. But as they did not do so, Mr. N. did not see what claim they

had for compensation any more than the sufferers in the war with

Britain.

Mr. FINDLAY thought that sound policy required an indemnification to the

sufferers.

Mr. HILLHOUSE was in favor of the report of the committee as it stood.

The whole affair was but a trifle. He understood that the damages done

by the rioters did not altogether exceed twenty thousand dollars; and

that three-fourths of this sum was for losses sustained by officers of

the revenue. The rest of the account was for persons who had fought in

defence of the officers or who had lodged and protected them. He

observed that the whole of the select committee were of one mind upon

the subject, and agreed in considering the other citizens as equally

entitled to indemnification with the officers themselves.

Mr. NICHOLAS was still against the resolutions as originally worded. He

did not see any proof of extraordinary attachment on the part of the

claimants, nor any peculiar call on the justice of the House in this

particular case.

Mr. W. SMITH said, that one man had his whole property burned for

having, at the hazard of his life, assisted in attempting to defend the

house of the Inspector General. A second received the same treatment for

having lodged an excise officer; and a third, because he had

antecedently been one himself, though he had quitted his employment

before the riots began. Mr. S. urged that these were certainly peculiar

and pressing cases, and that it would be highly impolitic not to protect

such people.

Mr. GILBERT hoped that there would be no discrimination, but that all

the sufferers would be alike reimbursed.

Mr. BOUDINOT proposed a kind of compromise between the original

resolution and the amendment by Mr. NICHOLAS. He proposed that the

clause should read thus: "officers of the revenue, and other citizens

aiding and assisting them." He was willing to indemnify persons who had

actually suffered in defence of Government, but not other persons who

might accidentally have been injured by the rioters.

Mr. DAYTON was of opinion that some restriction of this sort was

necessary. Citizens were in duty bound to support Government, but the

latter was not in all cases bound to indemnify their losses. Let any

person go through any part of the country wherever British soldiers had

marched, and he would find thousands and tens of thousands of people

whose property had been utterly destroyed by the wanton barbarity of

these troops. Go to another part of the country and you will find people

who suffered very considerably by the American soldiers, when Government

did not give them an ounce of bread for pounds that they should have

had. It was not possible to make satisfaction to all these people.

Mr. SEDGWICK said it was extremely disagreeable to attempt detaining the

committee with this subject, to which they discovered such general

inattention, that he did not know if it had ever been equalled in any

popular assembly before. He again adverted to an argument which he had

used on a former day, viz: that when a private person, at the risk of

his property and his life, comes forward to support the execution of the

laws, his service was much more meritorious, and demonstrated a much

greater degree of patriotism than that of a revenue officer who was paid

for his share of the business. He inferred that the sufferers by the

Western rioters should all be equally indemnified.

Mr. HILLHOUSE repeated some of his former reasons for wishing to

discharge the whole claims. He was therefore against the qualified

amendment of Mr. BOUDINOT.

Mr. SWIFT was against the amendment of Mr. BOUDINOT, because he was

against giving, at present, any thing at all. He would suffer the

persons who have sustained injury from these rioters and trespassers to

prosecute them at law. If they cannot get any retribution in that way,

then, and not sooner, you may begin to consider upon the propriety of

giving any compensation; but till the parties aggrieved have done their

utmost in that way, he would have no steps whatever taken of the nature

proposed. It had been alleged that the House might advance money in the

mean time to the sufferers, and leave them to their actions against the

rioters. But if you pay a man for his damages, what security is there

that he will follow up his suit; or, is it not evident that such

previous compensation will greatly damp his ardor? Mr. S. said, that if

previous notice were given of Government being ready to pay the damages,

in case they could not be recovered before a court of law, there

certainly never would be found a jury to bring a verdict against a

private person. For this reason Mr. S. was entirely against the

resolution at this time. What he might do hereafter, he would not say.

There was only one case wherein he could be induced to advance money. If

any of these persons could prove that they had been reduced by the

rioters to such poverty that they were unable to prosecute their claims

in a court of law, it might then perhaps be expedient to advance for

them the expenses of the suit. But the interposition of the House at

this period would affect the claims very greatly, and thus confer on the

rioters themselves a favor which Mr. S. was very unwilling to bestow, as

he would wish them prosecuted to the utmost. Before the meeting of next

Congress, it might be ascertained what could be made of these

prosecutions, and then, and not till then, Mr. S. would think it proper

to enter on the discussion suggested by the report of the select

committee.

Mr. DEXTER drew a distinction between persons suffering by an open

enemy, whose approaches they could not avoid, and those who suffer

voluntarily. The claim for compensation was complete, and we should do

the parties injustice if they did not receive full satisfaction.

Mr. BOUDINOT withdrew his amendment, under the idea that the particular

cases would hereafter come before the House. The question therefore

reverted to its former shape, shall the words "and other citizens" be

struck out.

Mr. DAYTON, in opposition to Mr. DEXTER, considered the Government of

the United States as more justly bound to make reparation to the people

who suffered by the robberies and conflagrations perpetrated by British

soldiers than to compensate the sufferers in the four Western counties;

for those whose houses were burned, and whose property was destroyed by

the British, had no quarter to which they could look for relief except

to their own Government. The people to the Westward, on the contrary,

had it in their power to prosecute the rioters, who were well able to

pay them. Mr. DEXTER had said that the losses of the persons ruined by

the British were upon record. Perhaps, said Mr. DAYTON, they will always

be on record; but nobody supposes that we shall ever indemnify these

losses. He thought it prudent for the present to restrict relief to the

officers of Government alone.

The question was about to be put, on the amendment proposed by Mr.

NICHOLAS to the first resolution in the report of the select committee,

when Mr. SCOTT rose. He said, that if there had been a proposal devised

to weaken the hands of Government in the four Western counties, there

was no one thing which could have effected that point so completely as

the striking out of these three words, "and other citizens." If

gentlemen would only reflect for a moment, he would ask them how they

thought it possible that any civil officer, after the adoption of such

an amendment, would ever be able to raise a posse in that part of the

country? Who would hereafter venture to defend the life of an excise

officer, when the world has been told, that individuals do it at their

own hazard, and cannot look to Government for any compensation? Who will

hereafter admit an excise officer into his house, if that house may,

with impunity, be burned about his ears? As soon as this amendment has

gone abroad, every body, instead of assisting the officers of the

revenue, will strive to keep out of their way, and have nothing to do

with them. If there never had been any thing said about making a

compensation to other citizens, perhaps there might have been little

harm, or at least there would have been much less harm by forbearing to

give them relief. But when the subject has been fairly brought forward

by the PRESIDENT in his Speech, and when it had been debated at full

length in this House, when so much notice had been attracted, and so

many hopes have been thrown out, to give, in the face of all this, a

direct negative, would be the most impolitic step that could possibly be

thought of.

The committee then agreed to reject the amendment, and divided on the

first resolution as it originally stood in the report of the select

committee--yeas 46, nays 37.

The second resolution was then put for enabling the PRESIDENT to draw

the sum of ---- dollars for the relief of the sufferers--yeas 41, nays

37.

Mr. SMITH then said, that seventeen thousand dollars had been mentioned

in the committee as sufficient to pay the whole damages. He proposed to

fill up the blank with eight or ten thousand dollars, on account, till

they should see what was to be the final amount of the claims.

Mr. HILLHOUSE and Mr. KITTERA both objected to this proposal. The

committee rose. The Chairman reported that the committee had agreed to

the report of the select committee without any amendment. The House were

about to take up the report, when Mr. SEDGWICK said, that he was really

concerned at thinking that there could have been any division at all

about such a thing. He still hoped that a measure might be adopted which

would produce unanimity on the subject, and would have a much better

effect than such a division.

The bill appropriating one million one hundred and twenty-two thousand

five hundred and sixty-nine dollars and one cent for the expenses of the

militia in the Western expedition, was read a first and second time, and

referred to a Committee of the Whole to-morrow.

WEDNESDAY, December 17.

_Pennsylvania Insurgents._

The House resumed the consideration of the report of the select

committee on that part of the PRESIDENT's Speech respecting compensation

to the sufferers by insurgents in the Western counties in Pennsylvania.

When the first of the two resolutions in the report was read, Mr. SWIFT

objected to the granting of immediate indemnification, on much the same

ground as he adopted yesterday in the Committee of the Whole. He

inquired how a person, with a compensation from that House in his

pocket, could appear in a Court of Justice to prosecute a rioter for

damages, when the Judge, the jurors, and every one in Court knew he had

been indemnified? He enlarged, at some length, on the great pity that it

would be to let those rioters and rebels escape so; and, after they had

cost Government above a million of dollars, that they should not be

obliged to pay these sixteen or twenty thousand.

Mr. LYMAN hoped that the House would give the money, and have done with

the business.

Mr. NICHOLAS.--The more he considered this question, he was the more

convinced that the House are involving themselves in embarrassment. Are

you not told (said he, alluding to what had been urged by Mr. SWIFT)

that, by paying these claims in the first instance, you are cutting the

sinews of civil process? In any future commotion of this kind a person

who has lodged an exciseman may have his house burnt from private spite

against him, and not because he interfered in favor of a revenue

officer. Then you are bound, by this precedent, to indemnify him; and

how can you distinguish what was the real motive to that outrage? He

believed it impossible ever to bring Government to such a state of

perfection as that all losses suffered in defence of it should be

indemnified at its charge. Where is the difference between this case and

that of indemnifying the losses at sea by the British? Yet that proposal

was rejected. Where is the gentleman who will say that he believes

people will put themselves to the trouble of prosecuting, when they know

that the money, if recovered, must go into your pockets again? Let us

put the case, that a jury in the Western counties, where these points

must be tried, shall find any of these people entitled to less than what

you have bestowed upon them? Can you then recover the money back again?

It is said that this resolution embraces but a few instances, and these

of the most meritorious kind; but, in reality, it includes all citizens

who have suffered. What will this comprehend, or, rather, what will it

not comprehend? He supposed that the design was that the commissioners

appointed by the PRESIDENT for that effect should be sent into the

Western counties to ascertain the damages. Mr. N. concluded by declaring

that nothing which he had heard could induce him to go to the extent

proposed; and, by giving money at present, the prosecutions would all

come to nothing.

Mr. MURRAY hoped the first resolution would succeed. He really thought

that the reasoning of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. NICHOLAS) would

extend to the exclusion of General Neville.

Mr. MADISON remarked, that great respect was due to this proposition,

both on account of the interesting occasion that produced it, and of the

quarter from whence it came. But the more he revolved the subject in his

mind, the more he was convinced that great circumspection was requisite,

and that the House, for many reasons, ought to take as much time in

deliberating upon what they ought to do as the nature of the subject

will admit. He recommended the proposal of some gentlemen to let the

affair lie over to next session.

It is no doubt proper to encourage a spirit for suppressing

insurrections, and this measure is certainly calculated to promote that

spirit. But, in his judgment, Mr. M. feared that it would likewise

encourage insurrections. A great body of people were commonly engaged in

such disturbances who were not worth hanging, and to whom an established

Government usually held out an amnesty. By this means great multitudes

came in, and received pardon before the operations of chastisement

began. The mob, therefore, would in this case reason thus: As a crowd,

we have a good chance to escape the gallows. Let us then plunder as fast

as possible, because Government will disburse the loss, and we shall not

be forced to disgorge our booty. Mr. M. thought that speculations of

this kind might be entertained by future insurgents, if the House were

instantly to vote a complete indemnification to the sufferers. Mr. M.

held the highest respect for the arguments and feelings of gentlemen who

espoused the other side of the question. What he himself had just now

suggested, he did not regard as decisive considerations, but yet as

considerations of weight. His own impression was to let the matter lie

over till the next session, and then those who had done their best in

prosecuting would come forward to that House to claim compensation under

the most auspicious circumstances, and all which they shall have

recovered will be saved to the State.

Mr. BOUDINOT differed in some degree from the gentleman who spoke last.

He was for doing something at present, though not so much as was implied

in the first resolution. He recapitulated the danger that would arise

from slackening the efforts of people to prosecute the rioters. He

entirely dissented from the principle laid down by some gentlemen, that

Government was in all cases bound to indemnify the losses sustained by

its citizens from foreign or domestic outrage. In the war with Britain

there were great numbers of people who chose rather to fight it out to

the last, and permit their houses to be burnt by the British troops,

than accept of terms which they might have obtained. Mr. B. again

proposed the amendment which he laid yesterday before the committee,

viz: that after the words "and other citizens," there should be

inserted, "personally aiding and assisting them." This he thought

sufficient in the mean time.

Mr. HEATH declared himself against the resolution as unsound policy. He

feared that it may be an encouragement to future mischief. When an

officer of the revenue finds that he is to be so easily paid--to be paid

a double value for the burning of his house--will not this slacken his

ardor in defence of it? Who has not heard of the rebellion of _Shays_,

where a great deal of property was destroyed? People there began at the

right end of the business. Lawsuits were commenced against the rebels,

and damages were recovered. Pray, would it not be a proper bar to the

recovery of damages in a court of law to say Government has paid you?

Will not these people who suffered by the Tories in the last war come

next, with open mouths, and demand indemnity? We shall next have those

citizens who lately suffered by the pirates of Britain hastening to

demand compensation. Mr. H. considered this as the most important

question which had come before Congress during the present session. He

concluded by saying that he would bear his testimony against this

resolution.

Mr. CARNES was of the same opinion. Mr. MURRAY had said that it would be

impossible to find a jury in the Western counties who would give honest

damages against the rioters, because almost every body was on their

side, and there would be no possibility of finding a jury who would pass

an equitable verdict, unless recourse was had to the odious and

execrable practice of packing juries. This remedy was worse than the

disease; and from this Mr. MURRAY inferred the futility of compelling

the sufferers to wait for the result of hopeless prosecutions, and the

propriety of immediately paying the damages. Mr. CARNES asked the

gentleman whether his knowledge as a lawyer did not inform him that an

upright jury might be selected without having recourse to the infamous

expedient of packing? When a jury were chosen, the prosecutors would be

at liberty to except against them; and if they were either men of bad

characters, or in any shape connected with the rioters, these exceptions

would be admitted, and this process would go on till a respectable jury

could be chosen. This was quite distinct from any thing like packing. He

considered this explanation as a satisfactory answer to the arguments

advanced by the member from Maryland; and he entertained a better

opinion than that gentleman seemed to possess of the jurymen in the

Western counties. Mr. C. foresaw many bad consequences that might

possibly flow from this alacrity in discharging damages. What if there

should be a collusive insurrection between two parties, and then,

instead of twenty thousand dollars, we shall have to discharge a bill of

perhaps an hundred thousand, or twice that sum? He considered it as good

a plea in bar of prosecutions to say, Government has paid you. But if we

are so fond of indemnifying people who suffer losses, the House may

begin by satisfying the settlers in the back part of Georgia, where the

Creeks within the last ten months only have done mischief to the extent

of five or six hundred thousand dollars. He should be glad to hear the

House disposed to indemnify these people, but it was what he did not

expect. He could not see why these sufferers were not as much entitled

to compensation as the others in the four Western counties. As to the

Creeks, the State of Georgia was neither at war nor peace with them.

Peace it was called, but in the mean time the savages were committing

incessant murders. Reverting to the question before the House, Mr. C.

said, that it would be most impolitic to proceed at present in the

payment of these losses; and he was convinced that the PRESIDENT

himself, when he made the reference in his Speech, did not intend that

the thing should be acted on immediately. Mr. C. hoped that there would

be a delay for the present session. The best way to ascertain the real

extent of the damages was to leave the matter to the decision of a jury.

When juries have determined this point, then, if the rebels cannot pay,

give satisfaction to the sufferers in terms of the verdicts. The member

from Maryland had said, that damages could not be accurately specified

by a jury. Yes. If you pay nothing at present, but, if you pay at

present, the action is barred. Mr. C. had not entirely formed his

opinion on the question of compensation, but he was satisfied that it

was better to make a delay.

Mr. DEXTER, in reply to the supposition that this compensation would

encourage future insurrections, gave it as his opinion that it would be

the means of preventing them. An insurgent would say to himself, "I

might escape from the prosecution of my neighbor, but, when the United

States assist him, I cannot stand against both." Mr. D. conceived that

the meaning of the resolution had been mistaken, and he placed the

question in a light entirely new and unnoticed by any former speaker.

Gentlemen had spoken as if the resolution went to the immediate and

complete discharge of the whole damages, and upon this many arguments

had been founded. This idea was an entire mistake, for the first

resolution went only to ascertain the real extent of the damages, and

did not pledge the House to pay the total amount of them. He considered

this as a very material distinction, and which, in a great measure,

obviated many arguments on the opposite side of the question. Mr. D. did

not think, with the member from Georgia, that the same rule applied to

the south-western settlers of that State and to parties in the present

resolution. The people on the frontiers have "placed themselves in a

place of danger knowingly." The Creeks were an open enemy, but the

insurgents were an unexpected one. Mr. D. proceeded at great length to

make a distinction between the two cases, and concluded by saying that

the second resolution, which, as well as the first, he hoped would pass,

went only to a temporary relief.

Mr. HARTLEY also placed a part of the question in quite a different

light from any former gentleman. Since he had been a member of that

House he had found occasion to read a good deal of law, and, from that

knowledge of law, he had, yesterday, in the committee, informed the

House that neither General Neville nor any body else could obtain

damages against the rioters in a civil action. All the arguments,

therefore, which had been advanced as to whether equitable damages could

be recovered before a jury, proceeded upon an error, because no civil

process whatever would lie in the case. If the House were disposed to

doubt his own opinion, Mr. H. could now give them that of the first law

officer in Pennsylvania. Since yesterday Mr. H. had consulted that

gentleman, who gave it as his express opinion that the greater crime

absorbs the lesser; that a case of this kind is only a criminal action,

and that no penal damages can be recovered. The crime is liable to a

capital punishment; he did not mean to death; but to such a degree of

punishment as the offence should be found to deserve. Mr. H. added,

that if people had known that they were to be indemnified for their

losses by the United States, a much greater number would have stood by

the law than did so. It was not the fear of personal danger which

prevented people from resisting the insurgents; it was apprehension of

having their barns burned down in the night time.

Mr. DEXTER interrupted Mr. HARTLEY to inquire whether, by the laws of

this State, the property of an insurgent is forfeited for his crime? Mr.

HARTLEY replied that it was not. Mr. DEXTER then remarked, that it was

very absurd to say to a man, "You are an insurgent; you have committed a

great deal of mischief, but you are so very deep an offender that I

cannot recover damages." Mr. HARTLEY rose again to give some further

explanation, when the SPEAKER announced that he had something to

communicate to the House. Mr. HARTLEY sat down, and the SPEAKER said,

that he had received from the PRESIDENT some important and confidential

communications, which it was requisite to read in the House this day. It

did not appear that they would decide on the first resolution at

present, and there was not now more time left before the common hour of

rising than would be necessary for reading the communications from the

PRESIDENT. The debate was instantly deferred, and the galleries cleared.

FRIDAY, December 19.

WILLIAM IRVINE, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and took his seat in the

House.

_Pennsylvania Insurgents._

The House resumed the consideration of the resolutions reported on

Wednesday last, from the Committee of the whole House, on the report of

the committee to whom was referred that part of the Speech of the

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES which relates to the policy of

indemnifying the sufferers by the depredations of the insurgents in the

Western counties of Pennsylvania. Whereupon,

The first resolution being under consideration, in the following words,

to wit:

"_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be

requested to cause an ascertainment to be made of the

losses sustained by the officers of Government and other

citizens, in their property, (in consequence of their

exertions in support of the laws,) by the insurgents in the

Western counties of Pennsylvania."

The amendment of Mr. BOUDINOT, on which the House had been debating on

Wednesday, was read. It was for the insertion, after the words "and

other citizens," of the following addition: "personally aiding and

assisting them."

Mr. HARTLEY then rose, and spoke as follows: I have no great

encouragement to speak, when I find that my expressions and language

have been totally mistaken, both by gentlemen in this House and by the

person who frequently reports the debates. On Tuesday, I had ventured to

say, that I thought no great reliance could be had upon the individuals

injured obtaining satisfaction by personal actions against the

insurgents; that I imagined the civil remedy was merged in the offence

of arson against the State, or perhaps a higher offence; that, from the

state of things, we could not promise ourselves that the sufferers would

be compensated by civil suits.

On Wednesday, I mentioned to the House, that, though there had been much

discussion, yet, as I considered part of the House to labor under what I

held to be a mistake with respect to the _lex loci_, or law of the

State, which we were obliged to take into view, I held it my duty to

observe, that, the day before, I had said that I thought the smaller

offence, that is, the civil injury, had been merged in the greater

against society; that the offence, so far as related to the State, would

be arson, which had been a capital offence, punishable with death, that

the punishment had been mitigated by the alteration of the penal code,

but still it was a felony. I noticed that I had formerly read law a good

deal with considerable attention, but since I had been in Congress, I

had not been able to bestow much time upon it. I said that formerly

certain principles or maxims had made impression upon my mind; that,

among others, was the one under consideration, that, in arson, the

injury to the individual was merged in that against society, or, at

least, must give way to the other; and public justice must be done in

the first place. I mentioned that I had consulted one of the first law

officers of the State, which is true, and he agreed with me in opinion.

Indeed, he added, that no reliance should be had upon the personal

remedy, but that compensation ought to be made to the sufferers.

I have no reason to change my former opinion. Really, when I consider

the conduct of the commissioners to those who made their submissions, I

should imagine it was the intention of the parties that there was to be

an oblivion as well of the civil as the criminal offences to those who

submitted; and, as the Legislature has the power to construe the

agreement, it becomes her rather to do it with magnanimity than

otherwise.