Your officers, and those aiding and assisting them, ought to be

protected and supported. I will now say, as I did the other day, that

the fear of having their houses or barns burned, terrified many a man in

the Western country from joining the standard of the law, and forced him

to temporize with rebellion. When the officers know that they are to be

protected in their persons and property--when the _posse comitatus_ are

informed that they are to be regarded in like manner--we may expect

energy in the execution of the laws. The law of Pennsylvania is

defective, or at least doubtful; and, if the present punishment for

arson continues, the Legislature of that State will, I dare say, point

out a decided remedy for the party injured against the offender. It

becomes the honor and justice of the Legislature to protect and support

the officers, and those aiding them. I shall, therefore, vote for the

amendment.

Mr. VENABLE differed entirely from the gentleman who spoke last. He

understood that pardons extended only to the offences against

Government. It would, for that reason, be no hardship against the people

who had received pardons to prosecute them for civil damages; and, by

the statement of the member himself, actions would lie where no public

prosecutions had been made.

Mr. SWIFT was of opinion that the member from Pennsylvania (Mr. HARTLEY)

was most certainly mistaken in point of law, when he imagined that the

pardon granted by the commissioners extended, or might be construed to a

remission of civil offences. He did not believe it to be in the power of

Government to pardon these rioters and trespassers to that length. He

did not expect that the gentleman from Pennsylvania would have stood up

in the House to recommend an unqualified pardon. When a million of

dollars had been expended, were the House to give them fifteen or twenty

thousand dollars more? He did not come there prepared to hear of a

premium for insurrection. He rejected all idea of so much tenderness for

rioters and rebels.

Mr. BOUDINOT rejected all idea of the rioters being exempted from civil

suits. There was but one exception, where they were executed for their

crimes. He had no other view of the matter, but as a question of

policy--whether it was expedient, or the contrary, to prosecute these

people. He believed that, before the new constitution, the law stood as

the member from Pennsylvania represented it. But all this was much from

the purpose. By far the greater number of the rioters have accepted the

amnesty. Nobody imagines them exempted from prosecution. To prevent any

misconception of this nature, the commissioners, in the terms of pardon

which they held out, expressly warned the people that they were to be

liable to civil actions for the damages committed. It was needless,

then, to embarrass the question with more difficulties than naturally

belonged to it. He was satisfied that this was a mere question of

policy, whether it was better to pay off these people at once, or let

them first try the effects of civil actions.

Mr. DAYTON rose and asked, "Who shall decide, when doctors disagree?"

Who shall declare what is the law, when the learned gentlemen of the bar

are so directly opposed to each other? The House (Mr. D. observed) had,

by some means, imperceptibly, and, he thought, unnecessarily, been drawn

into the discussion of a common law question. Law had been aptly

compared to a bottomless pit, and the sooner, therefore, that they

extricated themselves from it, the better. Very fortunately, (he said,)

there existed no necessity for determining, in the present cases, upon

any intricate point of law, as the proposals of amnesty, in their very

terms, as well as in their nature, left each individual trespasser

liable to suits at law on the part of the friends of good order, for the

damages sustained by the one and done by the other. Mr. D. was for

allowing those prosecutions to go forward, and was well informed, not

only that there was far more than sufficient of the property of the

insurgents to make compensation, but that it was probable they would

agree together, and make up the whole among themselves, rather than be

vexed by lawsuits. He could not agree with those gentlemen who expressed

a wish to vote for the whole amount of damages, immediately to be paid

from the Treasury. He did not believe with them, that such a measure

would promote the dignity, or manifest the justice, of the Government.

This would be to enter into an improper compromise with guilt. It would

be to make peace with sedition, in a way that might tend to encourage

rather than, to discourage it in future. We were obligated, upon

principle and precedent, to ensure indemnity to those officers of

Government, who, in consequence of a prompt and steady discharge of

their duty, had suffered in their property from the resentment of the

insurgents. But he wished not to do more, until the result of actions at

law could be ascertained. Although the Government may offer a pardon for

offences against the public, yet nothing was more clear than that the

general amnesty did not, and could not, exempt the seditious offenders

from answering to private persons for injuries done to them in their

property.

Mr. HARTLEY rose to explain. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. SWIFT)

had mistaken his meaning. He was going on, when

Mr. DAYTON rose, and declared that he had never put any such

construction on the words of the gentleman, who certainly must have

misapprehended him.

I did not mean you, sir, (said Mr. HARTLEY,) I said the gentleman from

_Connecticut_. You made a mistake of the same kind with me last session.

The amendment of Mr. BOUDINOT was, on a division, lost--only twenty-six

gentlemen rising when the question was called for.

The question on the first resolution was then called for; when it was

moved to take the previous question, that is to say, "Shall the main

question be now put?"

Mr. FITZSIMONS rose. He thought that this discussion comprehended a

principle of the most important nature. He trusted that it would not be

got rid of in this way. He was not of opinion with those gentlemen who

were disposed to waive the question just now, under the notion that they

should have an opportunity of voting for it at another time. He believed

that the true design of moving the previous question was to lay it aside

altogether. This expedient should not answer the end; for, if he had

only one other gentleman in the House to second him, he would stand by

the matter until he obtained an explicit answer.

Mr. MCDOWELL vindicated the propriety of taking the previous question.

Mr. SEDGWICK said, that when the British carried on a most unjust war

against this country, the Ministry who began it were in time turned

out. Their successors had always reprobated the war, but, after the

peace, they, notwithstanding, had expended several millions to support

the loyalists. While the British had acted with so much liberality, did

it become Americans to stick at the paltry sum of seventeen thousand

dollars? The House had wrangled so long about this matter, that the very

wages which they received for the time spent in this discussion would

about have discharged the whole sum in dispute. When a wild,

unprincipled, mad attempt had been made to destroy this noble

constitution, were the Representatives of this people to make it a doubt

whether those who saved it from, perhaps, destruction, were to be

indemnified? Mr. S. declared that he felt more unpleasant sensations

than he remembered ever to have experienced since he became a member of

this House. Gentlemen might argue and argue about this drop in the

bucket compared with the ocean. They might go into metaphysical

deductions about whether the men who saved this constitution were, some

of them, to be reduced to beggary and misery, as the price of having

done so. He would bring up the question again and again, until he had

the sense of the House again. Mr. S. repeated the following argument,

which he, on a former day, had pressed. He asked whether persons who,

from the pure, conscious dignity of the republican character, stepped

forward to support the Government, did not deserve better of it than

excise officers, who were bound to and paid for their services? He was

even of opinion that the conduct of the private soldiers in this case

was more meritorious than that of the officers. He might be mistaken,

but his opinion was so. From this language it is not to be inferred that

Mr. S. undervalued the exertions of the officers of the army, or of the

excise. He only meant that the less interest or emolument which an

individual has at stake in the success of an affair, the greater is his

merit in performing it. He asked what better time there was than the

present for settling the amount of these claims?

Mr. HEATH was for the previous question. He thought the resolution

unseasonable at this time. However little the gentleman chose to think

of seventeen thousand dollars, they might grow into a precedent for

seventeen hundred thousand dollars.

Mr. BOUDINOT thought that the seventeen thousand dollars were not the

whole of the damages that might be claimed. When commissioners were sent

to the Westward, the demand might rise to seventy thousand. Numerous

other requisitions might start up. He was for taking the previous

question.

Mr. DEXTER regretted his necessity to differ from a gentleman (Mr.

BOUDINOT) for whose opinions he was in the habit of entertaining the

highest respect. He was against the previous question, because he

disliked obliquity. Whether he was against or for the first resolution

in the report of the select committee, he would give the resolution

itself a fair meeting. He then inquired what better time there could be

for learning the number and extent of the losses than the present? He

again explained, as on Wednesday, that the House appeared to mistake the

extent of the resolution, which did not imply any complete

indemnification, nor even assure any relief at all. The whole amounted

only to the taking of measures for obtaining information. He would not

have voted for it, if he had thought that it promised complete

indemnification. He thought that no future time could be so proper as

the present for deciding.

Mr. SWIFT, Mr. KITTERA, and Mr. GILBERT, also spoke.

Mr. HILLHOUSE went on the same ground with Mr. DEXTER. He was one of the

committee who drew up the resolutions. They never understood that the

resolution implied an assurance of complete indemnity to the sufferers.

The previous question was called for by five members, to wit: "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 31, as follows:

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

Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Lambert

Cadwalader, David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Jonathan Dayton,

Henry Dearborn, Samuel Dexter, Gabriel Duvall, William

Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert,

Nicholas Gilman, Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, James

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

Thomas Hartley, Daniel Heister, James Hillhouse, William

Hindman, Samuel Holten, John Wilkes Kittera, Henry Latimer,

Amasa Learned, William Lyman, Francis Malbone, William

Montgomery, Peter Muhlenberg, Alexander D. Orr, John Page,

Josiah Parker, Andrew Pickens, Thomas Scott, Theodore

Sedgwick, William Smith, George Thatcher, Uriah Tracy,

Jonathan Trumbull, Philip Van Cortlandt, Peter Van

Gaasbeck, Peleg Wadsworth, John Watts, Benjamin Williams,

and Richard Winn.

NAYS.--Theodorus Bailey, Thomas Blount, Thomas P. Carnes,

Gabriel Christie, Joshua Coit, George Dent, William B.

Giles, James Gillespie, George Hancock, Carter B. Harrison,

John Heath, John Hunter, Richard Bland Lee, Matthew Locke,

James Madison, Joseph McDowell, Alexander Mebane, Andrew

Moore, Anthony New, John Nichols, Nathaniel Niles, Robert

Rutherford, John S. Sherburne, Jeremiah Smith, Israel

Smith, Zephaniah Swift, Thomas Tredwell, Abraham Venable,

Francis Walker, Paine Wingate, and Joseph Winston.

Mr. GILBERT then moved a resolution, the substance of which was

understood to be to ascertain whether the losses in the Western counties

were incurred in defence of Government, and how far the sufferers were

capable to carry on the lawsuits themselves against the rioters.

Mr. GILES, was against the amendment, the resolution itself, and the

whole mode of conducting the business. He had listened to many long

speeches, and been surprised that no gentleman had made the observation

which he was now going to submit to the House.

[The noise had by this time become so intense, that the SPEAKER rose and

reminded the members of a rule that there must be no private

conversation while a member addresses the Chair.]

Mr. G. then proceeded to declare that he disliked the form rather than

the substance of the resolution. If people in the Western counties had

suffered injuries, why should not they, as well as every other class of

citizens, come to the bar of that House and petition? An inquest was, he

imagined, intended, which would unite all the back country in one common

interest against the Treasury of the United States. The mode proposed by

the report of the select committee was the most exceptionable of all

that could have been devised. It was said that this was only an affair

of seventeen thousand dollars. What evidence have we that the demand

will stop there? Sir, there is none. The mode is, besides, totally

wrong. Let persons who have suffered come here in the usual manner. It

is said that a gentleman has had his house burned. Let him come here and

tell us so. Mr. G. entirely scouted the idea advanced by Mr. DEXTER,

that we might inquire into the extent of the losses, without a design to

discharge them. If you do not mean to indemnify, why inquire at all? He

did not object to relieving the sufferers, but, to erect a board of

inquest, under Presidential direction, was what he never would consent

to. He again repeated, that he did not mean to dissent from the

principle, but from this most exceptionable of all modes for putting it

into practice. Let people lay memorials of their losses before the

House, which would then see distinctly what it was doing, and examine

the evidence on which the claim was founded. He wondered that none of

all the speakers in the debate had adverted to this distinction.

Mr. HILLHOUSE differed in every particular from the gentleman who spoke

last. If petitioners come from the Westward, they are referred to a

select committee. They bring all the evidence which they can muster to

swell their bill. The committee have no counter-evidence, as we in this

House almost never hear more than one of the parties. It is much better

to send persons to the spot who can examine the subject on both sides,

which we cannot possibly do, and who will be responsible to this House

for their conduct. The whole arguments and ideas of Mr. H. were in

direct contradiction to every thing advanced by Mr. GILES. He (Mr. H.)

was satisfied that, before we undertook to pay the losses of the Western

people, it was better, in the first place, to know the extent of them.

The resolution amounted to nothing more than the ascertaining of this

loss, and Mr. H. could see many good reasons for deferring the payment

of a bill until he knew the sum to which it amounted. He could also see

reasons why the mode recommended in the resolution was much preferable

to that of bringing people so far to the House. Commissioners going to

the spot could make themselves perfectly masters of the subject;

whereas, if the parties come here, the matter will be decided on _ex

parte_ evidence, as it always is.

Mr. BOUDINOT considered the resolution as too loosely worded. A

gentleman who had been on the expedition, and who had heard or read the

report, observed to him (Mr. B.) that he himself came within the

resolution, as he had suffered considerably in his business by his

absence.

Mr. HILLHOUSE explained, that the resolution extended only to actual

destruction. The committee never meant to compensate people for the loss

which they had suffered by being banished. He was ready, if the House

liked it better, to insert in the first resolution the words "property

actually destroyed." This would prevent the misapprehension of the

gentleman mentioned by Mr. BOUDINOT.

The House divided on the amendment of Mr. GILBERT--ayes 39, noes 33.

Mr. HILLHOUSE then moved to strike out the word "in" from the first

resolution, and put into its place, "by the actual destruction of" their

property.

Mr. MADISON apprehended that this amendment left the resolution as bad

as it was before, if not worse. A person in the Western counties had his

horse stolen by the insurgents. But this did not imply the actual

destruction or annihilation of the horse. The amendment meant either too

much or too little. It certainly could be no improvement on the

resolution.

After some further discussion, the amendment was agreed to.

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

resolution, amended to read as follows:

"_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, by the actual destruction of their property (in

consequence of their exertions in support of the laws) by

insurgents in the Western counties of Pennsylvania;

together with a report of the particular condition of the

respective sufferers, in relation to their ability to

prosecute their several claims, and recover, at law,

satisfaction from the insurgent aggressors."

It was resolved in the affirmative.

The second resolution on the subject of indemnification was then taken

up in the House.

Mr. BOUDINOT moved the following amendatory addition:

"To aid such of the sufferers as, in his (the President's)

opinion, stand in need of immediate assistance, to be

accounted for by them in such manner as may hereafter be

directed by law."

The amendment was carried, forty-four gentlemen rising.

The resolution, as amended, is as follows:

"_Resolved_, That the President be authorized to draw out

of the Treasury of the United States the sum of ----

dollars, to be applied by him to aid such of the said

sufferers as, in his opinion, stand in need of immediate

assistance, to be accounted for by them in such manner as

may hereafter be directed by law."

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the said

resolutions; and that Mr. HILLHOUSE, Mr. FINDLAY, Mr. LYMAN, Mr. WATTS,

and Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, do prepare and bring in the same.

FRIDAY, December 26.

Two other members, to wit: JEREMIAH WADSWORTH, from Connecticut; and

SAMUEL SMITH, from Maryland, appeared, and took their seats in the

House.

_Naturalization Bill._

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

the bill to amend the act, entitled "An act to establish a uniform rule

of naturalization."

Mr. GILES proposed to amend the intended test of a citizen, by adding,

after "two witnesses giving evidence as to his moral character," these

words: "attached to a Republican form of Government." He thought this

test proper, to prevent those poisonous communications from Europe, of

which gentlemen were so much afraid.

Mr. DEXTER preferred saying, "attached to the Constitution of the United

States."

To this amendment Mr. GILES had little or no objection.

Mr. BOUDINOT did not see the use of either amendment. It was only giving

unnecessary trouble. The oath which the person himself must take, was

sufficient for expressing his fidelity to the Government of this

country.

Mr. NICHOLAS considered both the amendment, and the clause to which it

was annexed, as unnecessary; and even if in themselves proper, they were

misplaced. He thought both equally superfluous. They should have been

inserted in the oath of allegiance of the man himself.

Mr. DAYTON hoped that the whole clause would be rejected. He should be

against it, unless the nature of the evidence was referred to a Court of

Justice. He foresaw many difficulties arising to poor men in attempting

to get two such witnesses. It might suit extremely well with merchants

and men of large capital, who had, he supposed, been alluded to the

other day, under the title of meritorious emigrants. He was not so

anxious for them as for useful laboring people, who, as he thought,

would be more likely to do good. This class, however, had never, it was

likely, troubled their heads about forms of Government. He further

objected to the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia, that the word

Republican was entirely equivocal. This title was assumed by many

Governments in Europe, which were upon principles entirely different

from ours. Some of them, such as Poland, had been Aristocracies of the

most hideous form.

Mr. DEXTER hoped that the amendment of Mr. GILES would not pass, [Mr.

GILES had, as before noticed, consented to withdraw it;] not so much for

the sake of the principle, as of the language in which it was

expressed. The word Republican implied so much, that nobody could tell

where to limit it. Why use so hackneyed a word? Many call themselves

Republicans, who, by this word, mean pulling down every establishment:

they were mere Anarchists.

Mr. HILLHOUSE was equally against the clause and amendment. Mr. DEXTER

and Mr. GILES previously declared themselves extremely doubtful whether

they should even vote for the clause, when amended in their own way.

Mr. GILES felt himself extremely surprised to hear it asserted on the

floor of Congress, that the words "Republican form of Government" meant

any thing or nothing. He read a passage from the constitution, whereby a

Republican form of Government is guaranteed to each of the United States

composing the Union. He should, therefore, have imagined that the words

were well understood from one end of the Continent to the other. He did

not expect such criticism. He was not sure if he should vote for the

clause at all; but if he did so, he should wish the best to be made of

it. He then altered his amendment to these words: "attached to the

principles of the Government of the United States."

Mr. DAYTON.--With all the ambition of that gentleman (Mr. GILES) to be

called a Democrat, both he and Mr. D. would more properly be called

Republicans. He again vindicated his assertion as to the equivocal

meaning of the word. A Venetian or Genoese might come to this country,

and take the oath as proposed, and then excuse himself by saying, "it

was the Republican form of my own country which I had in view." One of

the best writers on the British Constitution had called that also a

Republic.

Mr. MADISON was of opinion that the word was well enough understood to

signify a free Representative Government, deriving its authority from

the people, and calculated for their benefit; and thus far the amendment

of his colleague was sufficiently proper. Mr. M. doubted whether he

himself should, however, vote for the clause, thus amended. It would,

perhaps, be very difficult for many citizens to find two reputable

witnesses, who could swear to the purity of their principles for three

years back. Many useful and virtuous members of the community may be

thrown into the greatest difficulties, by such a procedure. In three

years time, a person may have shifted his residence from one end of the

Continent to the other. How then was he to find evidence of his behavior

during such a length of time? But he objected to both amendments on a

different ground. It was hard to make a man swear that he preferred the

Constitution of the United States, or to give any general opinion,

because he may, in his own private judgment, think Monarchy or

Aristocracy better, and yet be honestly determined to support this

Government as he finds it.

Mr. HILLHOUSE then proposed as an amendment, to insert, that "evidence

should be produced to the satisfaction of the Court."

Mr. DEXTER mentioned the abuses that have happened in the present form

of admitting citizens. He did not comprehend the argument of Mr. DAYTON,

that it would be more easy for a rich than for a poor man to get

evidences to swear to his having resided in the country. If he had not,

the fact was of a notorious nature. It would likewise be as easy for a

poor man, as for a rich one, to get an attestation of his character. The

point of residence was, in itself, but little. A man may have resided

here for a long time, and defrauded the citizens, which would be no

recommendation.

Several other gentlemen spoke. The resolution finally passed.

The second resolution produced a long conversation, in the course of

which Mr. MURRAY declared that he was quite indifferent if not fifty

emigrants came into this Continent in a year's time. It would be unjust

to hinder them, but impolitic to encourage them. He was afraid that,

coming from a quarter of the world so full of disorder and corruption,

they might contaminate the purity and simplicity of the American

character.

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

MONDAY, December 29.

_Naturalization Bill._

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

the bill to amend the act entitled, "An act to establish a uniform rule

of naturalization."

The motion before the committee, made by Mr. VENABLE, when they broke

off the last discussion, had been to strike the word "moral" out of this

amendment: "good moral character." These three words, altogether, were

an addition of what was to be attested by the witnesses for a candidate

to admission as a citizen.

Mr. DEXTER opened the debate on the amendment of Mr. VENABLE to the

amendment by saying, that he wished to hear the reasons for it.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, that he did not make the motion, but his colleague,

who had made it, thought that the insertion of the word "moral" gave too

strict an air to the sentence. This word might be hereafter implied to

mean something relative to religious opinions.

Mr. SEDGWICK remarked, that if no better reason than that advanced by

Mr. NICHOLAS could be given for striking out the word "moral," he could

not agree to it. Moral is opposed to immoral, but has no particular

reference whatever to religion, or whether a man believes any thing or

nothing. It has no reference to religious opinions. We can every where

tell, by the common voice of the world, whether a man is moral or not in

his life, without difficulty. In some States of the Union, adultery is

not punishable by law, yet it is every where said to be an immoral

action. It is too nice to make a distinction between a good character

and a good moral character. The word good itself is very equivocal in

its meaning. It signifies any thing, every thing, or nothing. A good

companion is one thing; a good man, as applied to wealth, conveys a

different sense; and so on.

Mr. B. BOURNE considered the amendment itself and the motion of Mr.

VENABLE to strike out the word "moral," as equally useless.

Mr. MURRAY hoped that the word would not be struck out. This would be

the greatest slander ever cast upon the American character. It would

excite the surprise of foreign nations.

Mr. VENABLE had thought the wording of the phrase too strict; but rather

than have any further dispute, he withdrew his motion for striking out

the word "moral."

The clause was then read as amended.

Mr. GILBERT thought that the term of residence, before admitting aliens,

ought to be very much longer than mentioned in the bill. The Chairman

informed him that the term in the bill was left blank.

Mr. SEDGWICK agreed to the idea of Mr. GILBERT. He wished that a method

could be found of permitting aliens to possess and transmit property,

without, at the same time, giving them a right to vote. He did not know

if the constitution authorized such a thing.

After some further conversation, the clause passed. The third resolution

in the report was then read; which was, that if an American citizen

chose to expatriate himself, he should not be allowed to enter into the

list of citizens again without a special act of Congress, and of the

State from which he had gone.

Mr. MADISON did not think that Congress, by the constitution, had any

authority to readmit American citizens at all. It was only granted to

them to admit aliens.

Mr. SEDGWICK was very willing, for his part, that citizens who had once

expatriated themselves should never be readmitted again.

The committee, on two successive motions to that effect, from Mr.

Madison and Mr. GILES, rose. The Chairman reported progress, and asked

leave to sit again, which was granted.

WEDNESDAY, December 31.

LEMUEL BENTON, from South Carolina, appeared, and took his seat in the

House.

THURSDAY, January 1, 1795.

_Naturalization Bill._

The House proceeded to consider the amendments reported yesterday from

the Committee of the whole House, to the bill to amend the act entitled,

"An act to establish a uniform rule of naturalization."

The House went through the report of the committee, and agreed to the

amendments.

Mr. GILES then rose to make his promised motion as to the exclusion of

any foreign emigrant from citizenship who had borne a title of nobility

in Europe till he had formally renounced it. He proceeded to observe

that, agreeably to the spirit of the constitution, we ought to have the

strongest possible evidence that people of this description have

renounced all pretence to a right of this nature, before we admit them

into the bosom of society. Moderation had been recommended. He requested

gentlemen to observe that he conducted his motion on the strictest

principles of moderation. He had, in a former part of this bill, voted

for some clauses which were intended to guard the Government against any

disturbance from the people called Jacobins, when their principles

should run to a dangerous and seditious extreme. The same spirit of

candor and moderation which had induced him to vote for a precaution

against the attempts of the one party, now led him to propose a

precaution against the prejudices of the aristocrats, which were, upon

the whole, more hostile to the spirit of the American constitution than

those of their antagonists. He also requested gentlemen to observe that

his present motion went not to the invasion of any positive right. It

left the individual exactly where it found him, unless he aspired to be

an American citizen. Otherwise, he might retain his titles undisturbed

as long as he pleased. But if he wanted any promotion of a civil nature

in this country, he must rise to it by conforming exactly to the rules

laid down by the constitution itself. That code had declared no titled

character admissible to any civil rank. It was not to be supposed that

people born and nurtured in the lap of aristocracy would heartily

renounce their titles, and become all at once sincere Republicans. It

was, therefore, highly improper that such people should be admitted. If

we are allowed to anticipate probabilities, it seems highly probable

that we shall soon have a great number of this kind of persons here. A

revolution is now going onward, to which there is nothing similar in

history. A large portion of Europe has already declared against titles,

and where the innovations are to stop, no man can presume to guess.

There is at present no law in the United States by which a foreigner can

be hindered from voting at elections, or even from coming into this

House; and if a great number of these fugitive nobility come over, they

may soon acquire considerable influence. The tone of thinking may

insensibly change in the course of a few years, and no person can say

how far such a matter may spread. After these, and other prefatory

remarks, Mr. G. read a resolution, which was in effect as follows:

"And in case any alien applying for admission to

citizenship of the United States, shall have borne any

title or order of nobility in any Kingdom or State from

whence he may come, he must renounce all pretensions to his

title before the court in which such application shall be

made; and this renunciation must be registered in the said

court."

Mr. G. observed, that previous to the late revolution, the French

nobility were, by the lowest calculation, rated at twenty thousand; and

as we may conclude on France being successful, a great proportion of

these people may be finally expected here.

Mr. DEXTER declared that he was not very anxious against the resolution.

He, however, opposed it. He imagined that, by the same mode of

reasoning, we might hinder his Holiness the Pope from coming into this

country. He entered at some length into the ridicule of certain tenets

in the Roman Catholic religion, and said that priestcraft had done more

mischief than aristocracy.

Mr. MADISON said that the question was not perhaps so important as some

gentlemen supposed; nor of so little consequence as others seem to think

it. It is very probable that the spirit of Republicanism will pervade a

great part of Europe. It is hard to guess what numbers of titled

characters may, by such an event, be thrown out of that part of the

world. What can be more reasonable than that when crowds of them come

here, they should be forced to renounce every thing contrary to the

spirit of the constitution. He did not approve the ridicule attempted to

be thrown out on the Roman Catholics. In their religion there was

nothing inconsistent with the purest republicanism. In Switzerland,

about one-half of the Cantons were of the Roman Catholic persuasion.

Some of the most democratical Cantons were so; Cantons where every man

gave his vote for a representative. Americans had no right to ridicule

Catholics. They had, many of them, proved good citizens during the

Revolution. As to hereditary titles, they were proscribed by the

constitution. He would not wish to have a citizen, who refused such an

oath.

Mr. PAGE was for the motion of his colleague. It did not become that

House to be afraid of introducing democratical principles. Titles only

gave a particular class of men a right to be insolent, and another class

a pretence to be mean and cringing. The principle will come in by

degrees, and produce mischievous effects here as well as elsewhere. If

such men do come here, nothing can be more grateful to a Republican than

to see them renounce their titles. This does not amount to any demand of

making them renounce their principles. If they do not aspire to be

citizens, they may assume as many titles as they think fit. Equality is

the basis of good order and society, whereas titles turn every thing

wrong. Mr. P. said that a scavenger was as necessary to the health of a

city as any one of its magistrates. It was proper, therefore, not to

lose sight of equality, and to prevent, as far as possible, any

opportunities of being insolent. He did not want to see a duke come here

and contest an election for Congress with a citizen.

Mr. SEDGWICK was really at a loss to see what end this motion could

answer. He agreed with the arguments of Mr. GILES. But the point in view

was explicitly provided for already. By taking an oath of citizenship,

the individual not only renounces but solemnly abjures nobility. The

title is destroyed when the allegiance is broken by his oath being taken

to this Government. This abjuration has destroyed all connection with

the old Government. Why then provide for it a second time?

Mr. GILES said, that by admitting a thing to have been once done, it was

admitted that it might be done again. If it had been right to do it

once, there could be no harm in repeating it. The member then quoted Mr.

DEXTER, who rose and declared that the gentleman had misunderstood him.

He spoke for some time, and when he sat down--

Mr. GILES declared himself incapable of comprehending whether Mr. DEXTER

was for his motion or against it. He therefore proceeded to reply to Mr.

SEDGWICK, whose chief argument had been that the thing was provided for

already. He did not suppose that this gentleman would allege the matter

to be explicitly provided for. It only could be so by implication; which

was a very bad way of making a law, because it gave room for endless

disputes. If the thing is in itself right, why refuse to vote directly

for it? Why leave it only to be implied? He wished to let foreigners

know expressly the ground upon which they stood. Why not tell them at

once, and in plain English, you must renounce your titles before you can

have the privileges of an American citizen? Mr. G. pressed home this

idea more than once. He meant no act of inhospitality to these

emigrants. He would deprive them of no right, nor do any thing unkind to

them. But he was entitled, by the spirit of the constitution, to

withhold this right from them till they renounced all hereditary titles.

This was no incivility. He concluded by declaring that he would, if

supported, call for the yeas and nays on this question. A number of

members rose to support this proposal.

Mr. NICHOLAS had no objection to the motion, but that it did not go far

enough. The emigrants ought to be obliged to swear not only that they

abjured all titles hitherto received, but that they would never accept

of any in future. He believed that this would hurt their feelings, and,

sympathizing with them, he would not urge a proposal that might add to

their distress, but should vote for the motion as it stood.

Mr. SCOTT was sorry that so much time had been spent on the motion. We

are not by the constitution authorized to make titles; and he

apprehended that if it was unlawful to manufacture a commodity at home,

it was unlawful to import it from abroad. On this account he was for the

resolution. If once we allow the thing to be manufactured at all, he had

no doubt but titles would be as prevalent here as in Britain. He should

think it very odd to see a man sitting opposite to him in that House,

with a star and garter on his breast. The emigrant was as welcome to

wear them as to wear his hat. Only let him wear them out of doors.

Mr. TRACY thought that more time had been spent upon the subject than it

was worth. He mentioned the proceedings of the French Convention, who,

some time before they cut off the head of the Duke of Orleans, debated

four days upon what name they should give him, and at last called him

_Egalité_. He feared that calling for the yeas and nays thus early would

look like party, as if intended to cast an odium on gentlemen who should

vote against the motion.

Mr. DEXTER would vote for the resolution, if the gentleman would agree

to an amendment; which was, that he renounced all possession of slaves.

Mr. THATCHER moved as a second amendment, "and that he never will

possess them."

The words of Mr. DEXTER's amendment were nearly these: "And also, in

case any such alien shall hold any person in slavery, he shall renounce

it, and declare that he holds all men free and equal."

Mr. GILES said, that he should begin to think his motion of very

peculiar importance, if such extraordinary resources were adopted to

disappoint it. He was sorry to see slavery made a jest of in that House.

He understood this to be intended as a hint against members from the

Southern States. It had no proper connection with the subject before the

House. He had therefore no scruple in voting against it. It was

calculated to injure the property of gentlemen. As to slavery, he

lamented and detested it; but, from the existing state of the country,

it was impossible at present to help it. He himself owned slaves. He

regretted that he did so, and if any member could point out a way in

which he could be properly freed from that situation, he should rejoice

in it. The thing was reducing as fast as could prudently be done. He

believed that slavery was infinitely more deprecated in countries where

it actually existed, and consequently where its evils were known, than

in other countries where it was only an object of conversation.

Gentlemen had objected to calling for the yeas and nays. Have not the

public a right to know the sentiments of the House on every question?

Was it any unusual thing to call for the yeas and nays? Or was there any

use for it but that the sentiments of every member might be known?

Mr. MADISON mentioned regulations adopted in Virginia for gradually

reducing the number of slaves. None were allowed to be imported into the

State. The operation of reducing the number of slaves was going on as

quickly as possible. The mention of such a thing in the House had in the

mean time a very bad effect on that species of property, otherwise he

did not know but what he should have voted for the amendment of Mr.

DEXTER. It had a dangerous tendency on the minds of these unfortunate

people.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, that Mr. DEXTER had more than on one occasion hinted

his opinion that possessors of slaves were unfit to hold any Legislative

trust in a Republican Government. He was solicitous that before Mr. D.

spoke on a subject, he would make himself in some degree acquainted with

it. He ought to acquire some information as to the state of the country,

otherwise his opinion would fall into contempt with those who knew it.

Mr. N. said, that gentlemen who possessed a thousand slaves in Virginia

had no more influence on their neighbor who had not one than that

neighbor had on them.

Mr. DEXTER complained of the attempt to take the yeas and nays, as a

design to hold up certain people to public odium. He would withdraw his

amendment if the gentleman would withdraw his motion.

Mr. SEDGWICK rose in some warmth. He said that there was no design in

calling for the yeas and nays but to fix a stigma upon gentlemen in that

House as friends to a nobility, when they were no such thing, and to

raise a popular odium against them. To propose an abolition of slavery

in this country would be the height of madness. Here the slaves are, and

here they must remain.

A question of adjournment was now carried by 43 against 29. So the

motion of Mr. GILES stands over till to-morrow.

FRIDAY, January 2.

_Naturalization Bill._

The House resumed the consideration of the amendments reported on

Wednesday last from the Committee of the whole House to the bill to

amend the act entitled "An act to establish a uniform rule of

naturalization." Whereupon,

The amendment moved yesterday to the said bill being under

consideration, in the words following, to wit:

"And in case any such alien applying for admission to

become a citizen of the United States, shall have borne any

hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility

in the kingdom or state from which he came, in addition to

the requisites of this, and the before recited act, he

shall make an express renunciation of his title, or order

of nobility, in the Court to which his application shall be

made, before he shall be entitled to such admission; which

renunciation shall be recorded in the said Court."

A motion was made and seconded to amend the said amendment, by adding to

the end thereof the words following, to wit:

"And, also, in case such alien shall, at the time of his

application, hold any person in slavery, he shall in the

same manner renounce all right and claim to hold such

person in slavery."

On the question that the House do agree to the said amendment to the

amendment,

Mr. BOURNE said he was against both amendments. He saw no use either for

the one or the other. He recapitulated the numerous checks which the

constitution had framed against nobility getting into it. He, therefore,

with all these checks, could see no danger from it. So much for the

expediency of the proposal. He next considered it in a different point

of view. A foreigner comes, perhaps with a title, which he has derived

from a long train of ancestors, and, with a very pardonable infirmity,

he is fond, he is perhaps proud, of his badge of nobility. Is it polite,

is it generous, to force him to renounce it? If it is an hereditary

title, he can renounce only for himself. His children shall inherit the

right. Mr. B. wished both amendments withdrawn.

Mr. RUTHERFORD said, the people of America had an exceeding aversion to

the bubble of nobility. He had so much confidence in the wisdom, good

sense, and public spirit, of the gentlemen in this House, that he was

sure the amendment would be carried by a very great majority. He was

equally certain that the amendment of the other gentleman (Mr. DEXTER)

would be rejected. It went to wound the feelings and alienate the

affections of six or eight States in the Union. He was against the yeas

and nays. He wished for a silent vote.

Mr. MCDOWELL.--When the gentleman from Massachusetts first brought

forward the motion on the table, Mr. McD. could not think he was

sincere, from the idea which he had formed of the candor and good sense

of that gentleman. But, much to his surprise, Mr. D. persisted in

supporting the propriety of his motion, which is not only an indirect

attack on the State Governments, but even on the constitution of the

United States, and on the members of this House who represent the

Southern States. This amendment not only tends to irritate the minds of

members, but of thousands of the good citizens in the Southern States,

as it affects the property which they have acquired by their industry.

Thus it cools their affections towards the Government, as they will find

that one part of the Government is about to operate on their property in

an indirect way. The gentleman dare not come directly forward, and tell

the House, that men who possess slaves are unfit for holding an office

under a Republican Government. Mr. McD. recalled to the mind of the

House the conduct of the people that compose the Southern States, during

the late war, and their struggle for American Independence. He then bade

the House review the behavior of their Representatives, under the

present Government, and say whether they do not partake more of the

Republican spirit than the members from the Eastern States. The latter,

also, no doubt had members who did honor to the States which they

represented, and to the United States. He thought the amendment of Mr.

DEXTER partook more of monarchical or despotic principles than any thing

which he had seen for some time. What right had the House to say to a

particular class of people, you shall not have that kind of property

which other people have? This was the language of the motion, and he

considered it as highly unjust. Mr. McD. wished the gentleman to

consider what might be the consequence of his motion, at this time, when

the West Indies are transformed into an immense scene of slaughter.

When thousands of people had been massacred, and thousands had fled for

refuge to this country, when the proprietors of slaves in this country

could only keep them in peace with the utmost difficulty, was this a

time for such inflammatory motions? He was amazed that a gentleman of

whom he had so high an opinion, could, for a moment, embrace an idea

which was, in all points of view, so extremely improper and dangerous.

Mr. DEXTER chiefly excused his motion because the other gentlemen had

been for taking the yeas and nays. The tenor of his argument seemed to

be this: You want to hold us up to the public as aristocrats. I, as a

retaliation, will hold you up to the same public as dealers in slaves.

Mr. D., however, did not wish to irritate. He, for that reason, withdrew

his motion, under the hope that the yeas and nays would not be taken.

Mr. GILES said, that no person could be more anxious than himself to

conciliate. But he could not submit to purchase conciliation by

sacrificing his opinion, or betraying his duty. He should, on that

account, stand by his amendment. It had been said that he called for the

yeas and nays for the purpose of holding up to popular detestation a

certain party in that House. Such an idea had never entered into his

mind. He then commenced a vindication of the propriety of his amendment

against the observations of Mr. BOURNE, who had, among other things,

alleged that it had no proper relation to the spirit of the

Naturalization Bill. After defending it, on this quarter, Mr. G.

proceeded to answer something that had been alleged yesterday against

his amendment. This was that it had been calculated to hold up an idea

to the world, that there was a party in that House in favor of

Aristocracy. If there is no such party, a general vote for the amendment

will prove that this report is without foundation. In reality there is

no connection between the amendment and any such scheme. The idea must

have been in the head of the member himself. It is not the amendment,

but the use which the gentleman makes of it, that can have any tendency

that way. Mr. G. never could have thought of such a way of holding up a

party. As to the amendment of Mr. DEXTER, he, Mr. G., held property

sacred, and never could have consented to prohibit the emigrant nobility

from having slaves any more than other people. But as for titles of

nobility, they were quite a different thing. They were but a name, and

people were not obliged even to give them up, unless they wanted to

become American citizens. As the call of yeas and nays had given such

uncommon uneasiness, he, for his own part, should give it up. He was

careless how the vote was taken. The other gentlemen who supported his

call might act for themselves.

Mr. LEE said, he hoped that to-day the question would have been taken

without further debate; he had no disposition to say any thing more on

it, and should have remained silent if his colleague (Mr. GILES) had not

made some strictures on the observations which fell from him on the

preceding day.

Mr. L. always thought the Eastern and Southern States were well situated

to unite on terms of the greatest reciprocal benefit. That, for the good

of his own country, he valued such a union above all things. He knew, in

particular, that it was highly important to the interests of the people

whom he represented, to conciliate the cordial and affectionate esteem

of their Eastern brethren. That this was not only important to his

constituents, but to the whole State, and all the Southern country; as

on it must materially depend the preservation of our Union, which Mr. L.

feared was more necessary to our safety and prosperity than to theirs.

Mr. L. said, he never saw any reason to suspect the Eastern people of

anti-Republican principles; that there was no just ground to accuse them

of such principles in any manner. Mr. L. had always thought that the

Southern country had no right to claim a superiority over their Eastern

brethren in Republican virtue. Mr. L. always lamented that his country

was not, in some points, so fortunately situated as the Eastern States;

but still, he rejoiced to find just ideas of liberty, and a proper

respect to the rights of men, animating all the citizens of it; and in

public virtue they had a right to rank with their brethren to the North

and East of them. Mr. L. thought that his colleague's strongest argument

was the corrupting relation which existed in Europe between noblemen and

their dependants. Mr. L. feared that this argument might too readily be

extended to the situation of this country, and conclusions very

disparaging to their Republican virtue drawn from it, from which he had

felt it his duty to vindicate them.

Mr. L. believed that the people throughout America were all animated by

an equal zeal for the liberty and happiness of their country. As a

person, therefore, anxious to preserve our harmony and union, he always

felt pain at any question, which was, in any degree, calculated to

excite suspicions of each other, and produce enmity, when concord was so

much the interest of all. This proposition had, to his mind, a very

denunciating aspect; and, as such, he felt it his duty to discountenance

it, and every thing of the same sort, without presuming to ascertain or

question the motives or designs of the mover. Mr. L. could not help

viewing the motion as capable of guarding us from no one danger, but as

well fitted to produce unnecessary alarm and irritation.

Mr. L. was indifferent how the question was decided; but, being a friend

to harmony and union, he could by no means countenance by his vote any

thing that might be construed to denounce a most respectable and

patriotic part of this House.

Mr. HILLHOUSE observed, that when the amendment was first introduced, he

considered it as altogether harmless and unnecessary; but, being

friendly to what appeared to be the object of the mover, that is,

keeping out privileged orders from among us, he was inclined to vote for

it. Yet, upon more mature reflection, he was of opinion that if the

provision contained in the amendment had any effect at all, it would be

a directly contrary one from what was intended, and would indirectly

establish the principle that privileged orders might be introduced and

exist among us, a principle which he wholly rejected and reprobated;

and, as he did not doubt that the views of the gentleman who moved the

amendment were similar to his own on that subject, he hoped that, upon

further consideration, he (Mr. GILES) would withdraw it. It was his

opinion that the ground upon which foreigners should be admitted to a

share in the administration of our Government ought to be narrowed in

every possible way, and if the gentleman would so modify the amendment

as wholly to exclude that class of foreigners, or any other, from ever

becoming citizens, so far as to elect or to be elected to any office, he

would most heartily join in giving his vote for it. In those nations

where privileged orders are admitted, the benefits and advantages

arising from it have been considered as merely local, so that, if a

nobleman removes from one nation to another, he is not considered as

carrying with him the privileges of his order; as, for instance, if a

nobleman from any other nation removes to England, where an hereditary

nobility is established by law, and even becomes naturalized, he is not

a peer of England; he is no more than a private subject, and can claim

nothing on account of his former rank. The Convention who formed our

constitution undoubtedly viewed the subject in that light, or they would

have been equally anxious to have provided against the importation as of

the creation of nobility; but, passing this amendment will, as far as

the influence of a law and the opinion of Congress can go, be putting a

different and wrong construction upon the constitution, and will be

admitting that there may be some other mode of introducing a privileged

order or a nobility among us, than the one guarded against in the

constitution; for, if a law is passed requiring a person, before he

shall be admitted to a certain privilege, to renounce some other

privilege, it is clearly admitting that such person does or may possess

such privilege, otherwise the law is futile, requiring a person to

renounce what he does not or cannot possess.

Mr. J. WADSWORTH rose next. He had been up four times before, but, other

gentlemen always rising along with him, he had sat down again. Mr. W.

said, that a rage against nobility and privileged orders now pervades

the whole world. He really did not see the use of this amendment. It put

him in mind of an old law which, within his memory, had been in use.

When a man had shot himself, his neighbors were not contented with the

certainty of his being dead in this world, and damned in the next, but,

besides all this, they drove a stake through his body. Mr. W. regarded

nobility as in a similar situation with such a man, for nobility

appeared to him in the certain road to instant destruction; and this

amendment of Mr. GILES, he thought, was like driving in the stake. The

latter practice had been laid aside, and he thought that the amendment

deserved the same fate. He reminded the House that the time had been

when America was very much indebted to nobility, and very glad to see

them fight her battles. We might now be taxed with ingratitude on that

head, for some of those identical French noblemen, who, during the late

war, had rendered us essential service, were now in this country in a

state of beggary, subsisting on the charity of their friends. Others of

the same noblemen were in dungeons, and some again had got their heads

chopped off. He was warranted to say that many of those noblemen, when

here, during the war, and long before a French revolution had been

talked of, were, in their hearts, as good Republicans as any Americans

whatever. We had seen, some time ago, a party spirit rising in the

United States. He had observed that the thing was dying away, but the

present amendment would afford a new theme. The newspapers are extremely

numerous, and he doubted not that the writers in them would embrace so

notable an opportunity for exercising their talents. As to the notion

that there was a danger of nobility being introduced into this country,

the thing was held in such detestation in America, that he had no more

apprehension of its obtaining a footing here than he had that there

would arise a new race of men without heads, or with their heads placed

below their shoulders, or any other unnatural production. In short, he

did not know a thing so impossible as the establishment of an American

nobility. Knowing this, he regarded the amendment as entirely useless.

As to the call for the yeas and nays having an impression on his vote,

that was out of the question. He knew his constituents, and they knew

him; and they were both too well acquainted with each other for a trifle

of this nature to have any influence. To him the call was a matter of

the utmost indifference, and he took this opportunity to declare frankly

that he should vote against the amendment, whether the yeas and nays

were called or not.

Mr. NICHOLAS could not consent to abandon the proposition. It might be

said that he did so in terror of the amendment of Mr. DEXTER, which he

thoroughly despised.

Mr. BOUDINOT had not designed to speak on this question, but there was

one objection to the amendment, which occurred to him, and which had not

been noticed by any gentleman. This was, that it would be an act of

injustice to make a man do an act in this country which might affect his

own interest, and that of his family in another. This case might very

possibly happen. A person, by renouncing nobility here, might he

debarred from claiming its privileges in another place, when it would,

perhaps, be for his advantage.

Mr. AMES observed, that too much attention had been given to the

amendment as an abstract question. Nothing tended more to bewilder and

confuse a debate than such a departure from the subject into

abstractions and refinements; for, although by this means we found that

plain principles were rendered obscure, and reasonable doctrines carried

to excess, yet we did not seem to reflect that nothing is more opposite

to just principles than the extremes of those principles. For instance,

it would not be safe or proper indiscriminately to admit aliens to

become citizens, yet a scrutiny into their political orthodoxy might be

carried to a very absurd extreme. The merit of the amendment depends on

its adaptedness to the end proposed by the bill, and what is that? To

make a rule of naturalization for the admission of aliens to become

citizens, on such terms as may consist with our tranquillity and safety.

Now, said he, do we think of refusing this privilege to all heretics in

respect to political doctrines? Even that strictness would not hasten

the millennium. For our own citizens freely propagate a great variety of

opinions hostile to each other, and therefore, many of them deviate

widely from the intended standard of right thinking; good and bad, fools

and wise men, the philosopher and the dupes of prejudice, we find could

live very peaceably together, because there was a sufficient coincidence

of common interest. If we depend on this strong tie, if we oblige

foreigners to wait seven years, till they have formed it, till their

habits as well as interests become assimilated with our own, we may

leave them to cherish or to renounce their imported prejudices and

follies as they may choose. The danger of their diffusing them among our

own citizens, is to be prevented by public opinion, if we may leave

error and prejudice to stand or fall before truth and freedom of

inquiry.

Can the advocates of the amendment even affect apprehensions that there

is any intention to introduce a foreign nobility as a privileged order?

If they can, such diseases of the brain were not bred by reasoning and

cannot be cured by it. Still less should we give effect by law to

chimerical whimsies. For what is the tendency of this counterfeit alarm?

Is it to rouse again the sleeping apparitions which have disturbed the

back country? Is it to show that the mock dangers which they have

pretended to dread are real? Or, is it to mark a line of separation

between those who have the merit of maintaining the extremes of

political opinions, and those whom this vote would denounce as stopping

at what they deem a wise moderation? If that is the case, it seems that

the amendment is intended rather to publish a creed than to settle a

rule of naturalization. Yet it should be noticed that those who would go

to extremes are less entitled to the praise of Republicanism than those

who would not.

Mr. SAMUEL SMITH was sorry for the turn which the debate had taken;

though at first it bore a trifling appearance, it had since called up

all the warmth of the House. The gentlemen from the Eastern States, who

knew the Republican character of their constituents, and how independent

every man there was, both in his temper and his circumstances, had

slighted the amendment as unnecessary. Gentlemen from the Southern

States, on the other hand, say that they have some reason to be

apprehensive. Why, said Mr. S., will not the Eastern members indulge us

in this trifle? It is owned by the one party, that it can have no bad

tendency; and the other imagine that it must have a good one. Then why

not, for the sake of conciliation, grant it?

Mr. MURRAY was sorry that the House had begun the new year with such a

discussion. He had seen with much pleasure the appearances of

conciliation and unanimity at the outset of the session. He should vote

for the amendment, and he hoped that those members who were against it

would come round and vote for it. They would thus put an end to this

motion, so wasteful of time. Of nobility, however, the gentleman had no

alarming apprehensions. There had once been in this House a baronet. He

was there for two years before it was known, and it was then discovered

that a baronet was a thing perfectly harmless. As for titles of

nobility, he believed that all the wholesome and sensible part of the

community looked upon the whole as stuff. When Mr. M. contemplated this

subject, it reminded him of Holbein's Dance of Death.[56] He saw nothing

in this country but the ghosts of nobility. In Europe, indeed, it was a

matter of importance. It established the etiquette of precedence among

the ladies in leading down a country dance. The amendment was not worth

much either one way or the other. But he wished it to be granted for the

reasons assigned by his colleague from Maryland, who had spoke just

before him.

Mr. MADISON. When the amendment was first suggested, he had considered

it as highly proper, and naturally connected with the subject. No man

can say how far the Republican revolution that is now proceeding in

Europe will go. If a revolution was to take place in Britain, which for

his part he expected and believed would be the case, the peerage of that

country would be thronging to the United States. He should be ready to

receive them with all that hospitality, tenderness, and respect to which

misfortune is entitled. He should sympathize with them, and be as ready

to afford them whatever friendly offices lay in his power as any man.

But this was entirely distinct from admitting them as citizens of

America before they were constitutionally qualified to become so. In

reply to the remark of Mr. BOUDINOT, that a renunciation of their titles

might injure their families, Mr. M. observed, that if a British

revolution took place, these fugitives would, as aliens, be

incapacitated from holding real estates. In discussing this question, we

had been reminded of the Marquis de Lafayette. He had the greatest

respect for that character; but if he were to come to this country, this

very gentleman would be the first to recommend and acquiesce in the

amendment on the table. He had urged the necessity of utterly abolishing

nobility in France, even at a time when he thought it necessary for the

safety of the state that the king should possess a considerable portion

of power; and Mr. M. believed, that if he were now at freedom, he was as

completely stripped of every thing relative to nobility, as it was

possible he could be. It had been said, that it was needless to make

emigrants renounce their rank, and that oaths were no security. He was

ready to allow, that oaths were, in any case, but a very poor security,

but they had been adopted in other parts of the bill, and the same

reason which recommended them on former occasions might recommend them

now.

Mr. W. SMITH was convinced that the amendment was wholly incompetent to

the end which it professed to have in view. You may force a man to

renounce his title, but what does that signify, when you cannot hinder

his neighbors from calling both him, his wife, and family by the title?

He replied to the argument of Mr. S. SMITH, as to the Eastern members

giving up the point for the sake of conciliation with the Southern

members.

He did not understand that his own constituents had any such panic about

them, or that they would thank the Eastern members very ardently for

such a concession. They were not afraid of aristocracy. You cannot

abolish the practice; and even supposing a nobleman had made his

renunciation, perhaps the very person who administered the oath, may,

the next moment, say, "My Lord, I wish you a good morning!" and you

cannot punish the individual who says so. As to not allowing of titles

to wives and daughters, this renunciation will not prevent their being

given. But in some parts of the country we have titles already. Mr. S.

had often heard an old lady called "the Duchess." He could see no good

consequence from the motion. There was indeed one obvious effect. The

ignorant part of the American citizens--who, he hoped, were but

few--would imagine that those who voted for the amendment were against

the introduction of nobility into America, and that those against the

amendment were for that introduction. This frivolous kind of legislation

had disgraced the proceedings of another nation. They had begun to

change the names of their towns and harbors, such as Conde, Dunkirk,

Toulon, Havre de Grace, and Lyons. One of these they had named _Havre de

Marat_, and so on. But now they were coming back to their sober

judgment, and were repealing these edicts. Lyons was restored to its

old name. The pillar erected to announce its rebellion and annihilation

had been taken down. The Convention had formerly passed a law for

demolishing houses inhabited by aristocrats, but now they began to think

it was better to let the houses stand. Would any body say that French

liberty was better secured by naming a harbor _Havre de Marat_? Had this

done any good to the cause? But if people who were so much afraid of the

introduction of nobility would look around them, they might already find

in this country alarming marks of attachment to royalty. When Mr. SMITH

was lately at New Haven, in Connecticut, he had observed on the top of

the State House the figure of a _Crown_, which had stood there

undisturbed since long before the beginning of the Revolution. He went

into the State House, and found the people as good Republicans as could

be, notwithstanding this crown. Again, at Middletown, in the same State,

he went into a church, and on the top of the organ there was another

_Crown_, which might also be interpreted as a proof of monarchical

principles. Reverting to the subject of changing names, Mr. S. said,

that the people in the State of New York had for a long time enjoyed as

much liberty as the other States. At last, however, it was recollected

that one of the streets of the city of New York was called King's

street; but this was changed to _Liberty_ street, which was, to be sure,

a very momentous alteration. If Congress descend to legislate in such

littlenesses, they may forbid the title of Worshipful. They may abolish

the order of Freemasons, which he thought that they had just as much

right to do as to make the foreign nobility renounce their titles before

they should be accepted as American citizens. The Congress may, among

other objects of legislation, forbid any member to come into that House

with an aristocratical cloak--one with gold lace, for example. He asked

more than once this question: What peculiar privileges has a foreign

nobleman, coming into this country, which he possessed more than all

other citizens? He considered the whole amendment as totally trifling.

He was content that the yeas and nays should be taken. His sentiments

were known already. His name should stand among the noes.

Mr. GILES said, that there had been an echo from one end to the other of

the House that his amendment was trifling. Was it consistent for the

gentleman, who had been up for half an hour, to spend so much time upon

a question, and then conclude by telling the House that it was nothing;

that he had been talking for so long a time upon a subject that did not

merit their attention? What kind of reasoning was this, or how did the

gentleman propose to reconcile it? Was it consistent with the warmth

which had been discovered, to say that all this discussion, all this

length of time, had been consumed upon nothing? But this kind of

language had something more serious in it, for this prohibition of

nobility formed one of the pillars of the constitution; so that to call

a principle recognized and affirmed by the constitution a trifle, or

nothing, and so on, was a very unguarded proceeding. Another notable

argument against agreeing to his amendment had been, that the people

already detested nobility so thoroughly that it was not worth while to

pass this amendment, as their hatred of it would put an end to it

without a law. It was enough that the two principal reasons against his

amendment, were, first, that it was authorized by the constitution, and

secondly, that it would be agreeable to the people. It is strange, that

the will of the people, who send us here, is to have no influence in

this House, but is to be turned into an argument against passing a law!

Mr. G. would adhere to his amendment, because, as the law now stands,

there is nothing to hinder a foreigner with a title to become an

American citizen, and obtain a seat in this House, and hold both his

office and his title. Mr. G. next answered a part of the argument of Mr.

W. SMITH, that making people renounce their titles would only rivet

their attachment to them, and make them, perhaps, think of these things,

when otherwise they would have been forgotten. Mr. G. said, it was quite

a new kind of argument, that to renounce a thing, was the way to give it

existence. If this rule were to hold, he believed that some members of

the House would renounce things which they very much wanted. For

example, he himself should possibly renounce a hundred thousand dollars.

As to the call for yeas and nays, he had some time ago informed the

House that he gave up this point. The thing could not affect him, either

one way or another, because his sentiments were already known.

Mr. TRACY regretted that so much time should be lost on trifling

subjects. We had seen the National Convention of France diminish their

dignity, by spending three or four days on the business of giving a name

to the late Duke of Orleans, and hardly had they finished, by giving him

the _name_ of Egalité, before in _substance_ he became so bad that they

cut his head off. What good did his renunciation of title do, excepting

that it afforded him a short opportunity of deceiving his

fellow-citizens? Mr. T. said he was fully convinced, and had been so

from the beginning of the debate on the Naturalization bill, that a

length of time was the only valuable probation of an alien, and the only

successful mode of discerning his principles, and the justice and

propriety of his claim to be naturalized. He thought the sentiments of

the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. _Giles_) were highly commendable, when

he said we ought to avoid extremes in politics, and adopt a sober medium

of political reasoning, suited to the steady and rational temper of

Americans, equally removed, on the one hand, from tyranny, and on the

other from anarchy. And he would ask, whether a solemn abjuration of all

foreign allegiance, with proofs of a good moral character, and

attachment to the principles of our Government, would not secure us, as

to the principles of the heart, as thoroughly, without the farce of

renouncing his title, as with it? He considered titles, in this country,

as very empty, unmeaning things; and they would go into disuse of

themselves, having no solid support, either in the habits or

constitution of this country. But, by the Constitution of the United

States, any citizen might receive and enjoy a title from a foreign

prince or sovereignty, and Congress could not prevent it. The words of

the constitution are:

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United

States; and no person holding any office of profit or

trust, under them, shall, without the consent of Congress,

accept any present, emolument, office, or title, of any

kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

Mr. T. supposed it was clear that Congress had no power respecting this

matter, but what was expressly delegated by the constitution, and that

had given them a check only on officers of their own appointment,

leaving every other citizen, not an officer of Government, at liberty to

retain a foreign title if he pleased. And an alien might, even if this

amendment should pass, renounce his title, become naturalized, and in an

hour accept of the same title, or another, from any foreign Prince, and

Congress can make no laws to prevent it. If it be a fault that our

citizens can receive and enjoy titles, it is a constitutional one;

Congress are not blamable for it, but they would be blamable were they

to arrogate powers not given them, upon this or any other subject. Mr.

T. repeated, that there could be no danger in this country from titles;

they were universally considered as trifles, and it would be dignifying

them too much to legislate about them. He asked the gentleman who

brought forward this motion, whether it was not, in a measure, a

departure from his former declaration, of sober, rational temper, in

politics, to insist so much upon its importance as he did? He was sorry

the yeas and nays were insisted upon with so much spirit; it looked like

party, in a very unimportant matter: he did not mean to accuse any man,

or men, and mentioned it with diffidence, but it really struck his mind

in this way. Much had been said about adhering to the constitution

strictly, on former occasions; but, from many things said now, it seemed

as though there was no safety for the people, unless the House of

Representatives absorbed the whole governmental power. Mr. T. said, if

that House should become political cannibals, and attempt to devour both

the other branches of the Legislature, he would oppose it, whether it

was popular or not, for he considered the constitutional checks of the

branches of this Government, upon one another, as containing the most

complete security for liberty that any people could enjoy. If his

construction was a just one, Mr. T. thought the amendment could do no

good; it formed a test which might make hypocrites, but not proselytes:

it stripped an alien for a moment of a trifle, which in the next he

might resume and wear for ever.

Mr. SEDGWICK.--Has it not been said that there was a party in the United

States, not only for aristocracy, but even for monarchy? Is not the

present a most favorable opportunity for holding up these people to

popular resentment? He was convinced that the gentleman who moved this

amendment had no design of doing any such thing, but that did not lessen

the reality. He said that Mr. GILES had brought gentlemen into a

dilemma, which he did not, or would not see. They had at first opposed

the motion, as trifling, and this they had a right to do. The member

(Mr. GILES) then moved his call for the yeas and nays; and if gentlemen

who had already spoken against the amendment, were now to draw back, and

vote for it, they would betray a disgraceful poverty of spirit. Their

constituents would say that their votes had been given _in terrorem_ of

the yeas and nays. The motives for pushing this call could be nothing

else but to stigmatize members of that House, as wanting to introduce a

nobility, whereas they opposed the amendment on no such account, but

merely because it was not worth their taking up. As to himself, he did

not care. He could not wish to stand better with his constituents than

he actually did. He was well known to them. But, in other quarters of

the continent, it might be said that the Eastern States were represented

by aristocrats. If this be a desirable object, said Mr. S., in God's

name, let gentlemen persist in calling for the yeas and nays. It will be

said, "There go the Eastern aristocrats! They want to import nobility

here, when it can no longer exist in Europe!" Mr. S. said, that, at

first, he gave but little opposition to the amendment, thinking it

frivolous. He repeatedly declared, upon his honor, that he firmly

believed it to be so, and that he had no other reason for opposing it.

If he had been, upon this occasion, warmer than usual, he was sorry for

it; but the mischievous and unconciliating consequences of this call for

the yeas and nays, had hurt him exceedingly.

Mr. MADISON denied the assertion of Mr. SEDGWICK, that the amendment was

trifling; and the member himself seemed to betray, by his behavior, a

consciousness that he had not promoted conciliation. An abolition of

titles was essential to a Republican revolution, and therefore such an

abolition had been highly proper in France. The sons of the Cincinnati

could not have inherited their honors, and yet the minds of the

Americans were universally disgusted with the institution, and in

particular, in South Carolina; yet a member from that State (Mr. W.

SMITH) has told the House that his constituents were under no fears of

aristocracy, and that they could hear titles without emotion. Even the

Chief Magistrate of South Carolina had told the Cincinnati that these

distinctions ought to be laid aside.

Mr. HILLHOUSE thought it quite frivolous to spend time upon the motion.

That was all his objection. It had been said that, allowing the

amendment to be trifling, yet it was no harm to make an idle law, and

that therefore it should be agreed to for the sake of conciliation.

Supposing a man to make a will, bequeathing a hundred thousand guineas,

when he was not worth a shilling, there would be one serious effect at

least, for it would make the testator ridiculous. To legislate for the

sake of expressing a sentiment, was very silly, and what he never should

agree to. If Mr. GILES would make an amendment incapacitating all

foreigners whatever from holding, upon any account, a civil office in

America, Mr. H. would agree with him, because he did not want to see any

of them in such offices, and conceived that Americans could legislate

for themselves much better without any such assistance.

Mr. LYMAN said, that whenever a member of that House called for the yeas

and nays, it was a rule with him to rise and second the motion, because

the people had, upon all occasions, a right to know their votes; and

even if only one member desires the yeas and nays to be taken, Mr. L.

conceived that it ought to be done, as the thing was in itself so highly

proper. Since he had the honor of a seat in that House, therefore, he

had always seconded every call for yeas and nays, that the public might

understand, as fully as possible, what they were about, and how their

votes went. He said that it was extremely improper to ascribe wrong

motives, when gentlemen supported a call for yeas and nays. It was

sacrificing the dignity of the House to cast out such insinuations. When

the call had once been made and agreed to, it would be very mean to

retract it, to gratify any member. The public had always, and without

any exception, a right to know what their Representatives were doing,

and how they were voting, and he, for one, should adhere to the call.

Mr. W. SMITH said, that he had already put a question which nobody had

answered, and on that account he should now rise and put it again. What

are the emigrant nobility to renounce? When they come into this country,

they possess not one privilege which is not possessed by every body

else. He had expected that the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. GILES,)

when last up, would have explained this matter, but he had not done it.

The great bugbear was, lest a _ci-devant_ Lord may get a seat here, and

that somebody may call him My Lord. But, even after you have got his

renunciation of nobility, if other people choose to give him his titles,

you can neither hinder nor punish them; so that the amendment is, to all

practical intents and purposes, absolutely useless and nugatory. Some

members of this House belong to the order of Cincinnati. If they come

here with badges at their button-holes, can you forbid them? He wished

that gentlemen would show what was to be renounced. There was nothing at

all to renounce. The whole amendment is totally futile.

Mr. DEXTER then rose, but the House had become so impatient for the

question, that he was heard with difficulty. He only wanted to ask

whether the call for yeas and nays was withdrawn or not?

Mr. MCDOWELL said that he had already informed the House that he should

insist on the call.

Mr. AMES then asked, whether it was not competent to put the previous

question, viz: Shall this call be now taken?

The SPEAKER, in reply, said, that according to his judgment, the

previous question could have been regularly taken upon any topic

whatever, which produced a debate; but the House, by a recent decision,

had determined that the previous question could not be regularly taken

upon an amendment.

He was then asked, whether the call of yesterday was valid to-day, or if

it was necessary for the members to rise over again? Mr. SEDGWICK was

clearly of this opinion; in which the SPEAKER, after some consideration,

concurred, as some gentlemen had deserted the call, and he, in reality,

did not know whether a fifth part of the members would support a call or

not.

It was then suggested, that there could not be a second call, if the

first was disappointed; and some gentleman said, that he hoped no member

would insist on a thing so extremely distressing to the feelings of many

members. Several gentlemen had now attempted to speak at the same time,

and the mischievous and unconciliating effects of the call were

enumerated with much emphasis.

Mr. NEW at last came forward, and declared that he moved for a call. Mr.

MCDOWELL said the same.

Mr. SEDGWICK then rose again. He appealed to the House, that, since he

had a seat in Congress, he had never troubled them with a call more than

a very few times; and he affirmed, upon his honor, that he never had

moved for the yeas and nays at all, unless he was uncertain how the

votes of the House would go. But the gentlemen who now moved for the

call had not this excuse. They knew very well that they would carry

their point, and that by a large majority; so that the insisting for the

yeas and nays could arise only from a design that gentlemen who voted

against the amendment should be held out to the public as wanting to

introduce a nobility. He owed little to Mr. GILES for having withdrawn

his motion, when others were so ready to renew it.

Mr. NEW, on hearing these remarks, declared that he should withdraw his

motion, since so much had been said about it.

Mr. BLOUNT then rose, and said that it was needless to waste time, for

the yeas and nays must and should be taken.

Twenty-three members seconded his motion, and the SPEAKER declared that

the point was now determined.

Mr. DEXTER next rose, and observed that he had withdrawn his amendment,

under a hope of conciliation, and that the yeas and nays would not be

taken. But since this request had been refused, he should move it again,

and have the yeas and nays upon that likewise, and before the other. He

went over the beaten ground of the bad consequences of holding members

up to popular resentment.

Mr. VENABLE said, that if the gentleman were so disposed, he should

willingly try the question at once on this motion, without farther

investigation about it.

On calling over the names, there were, on the amendment of Mr.

DEXTER--yeas 28, nays 63.

The amendment of Mr. GILES was then taken up, and determined in the

affirmative--yeas 59, nays 32.

_Ordered_, That the said bill, with the amendments agreed to, be

recommitted to Mr. MADISON, Mr. DEXTER, and Mr. CARNES.

MONDAY, January 5,

THOMAS SPRIGG, from Maryland, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

MONDAY, January 12.

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

bill from the Senate, entitled "An act to authorize the settlement of

the claim of Samuel Prioleau;" and, after some time spent therein, the

committee rose and reported progress.

_Defence of the Frontiers._

A Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, laying

before Congress, for their consideration, the copy of a letter from the

Secretary of War,[57] accompanied by an extract from a memorandum of

James Seagrove, Agent of Indian Affairs. The Message and papers were

read:

Mr. MURRAY then moved that the Message should be referred to the same

Committee of the whole House, to which had been referred the memorial

from the inhabitants of the South-western Territory.

Mr. NICHOLAS objected strongly to this motion, as showing too much

deference to the Heads of the Departments. The paper in question ought

not to have been sent to the House at all.

Mr. MURRAY defended his motion. He inquired how the gentleman proposed

to get information? Was he to manufacture it himself, or in what way

could he better obtain it than from the Heads of the Departments? He had

not, for his own part, that species of jealousy of them which the

gentleman last up had.

Mr. NICHOLAS repeated his arguments with some warmth. He said that the

letter from the late Secretary at War was not official, but officious.

It had a particular aspect which should forbid its getting any such mark

of attention. It was neither more nor less than a commentary on some of

the proceedings of the last session of Congress. If this was received,

we might expect the table to be heaped with such things.

Mr. SEDGWICK could really see no reason to reject the motion. The

PRESIDENT had undoubtedly a right to send the communication. The subject

was confessedly of the utmost importance. The member asked, if the House

were to close their understandings, and refuse all information from that

quarter? He repeated that he could see no ground of any sort for

refusing consent to the motion.

Mr. GILES was equally dissatisfied with the matter of this letter, and

with the manner in which it had been introduced into the House. They

were both equally exceptionable. The letter had come without any call.

It was an Executive comment on a Legislative proceeding. It was a

defence of a measure adopted by the Senate, and it condemned by

implication another of that House. To Mr. G. it was a very extraordinary

paper. The PRESIDENT was not to be supposed, however, answerable for the

propriety of its contents. He should be very unwilling to take any

notice of this paper at all. It had been justly remarked that it was a

comment on transactions of the last session. A section of a bill passed

in the Senate last session, and rejected by the House of

Representatives, was inserted in it, and recommended. This paper might

operate very materially on the deliberations of the House. This was a

very bad precedent. The Executive had nothing to do with any question

depending before the Legislature, and consequently had no occasion to

send such a thing.

Mr. HOLTEN imagined that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. MURRAY) had

extended his motion too far. It ought to have comprehended only the

taking into consideration the Message of the PRESIDENT.

Mr. MURRAY complained of the asperity of expression employed by a

gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. NICHOLAS.) Not official but officious, and

the intelligence artificial, were phrases to which he objected. The

gentleman might have higher sources of information than he had. Mr. M.

was willing to take up with information wherever he could get it, and he

could have it nowhere with more propriety than from the national

servants. It was no good reason to reject information merely because we

had not asked for it. Mr. GILES had given a piece of intelligence which

Mr. M. said was to him entirely new, viz.: that when the House wanted

information, it was one of their rules not to refer for it to the Heads

of Departments. The topic was great and important, and the House, before

they rise, must examine in general into the situation of the

South-western frontier, and our terms with the Indians. Mr. M. said,

that the delegate from the South-western territory (Mr. WHITE) would

certainly be glad to obtain the information conveyed in this paper. If

any gentleman would point out any other way by which the House could,

without absurdity, get from the PRESIDENT the information contained in

this letter, Mr. M. should be willing to adopt it.

Mr. BOUDINOT was entirely satisfied both as to the propriety of the

matter contained in the letter of the Secretary, and as to the manner in

which it had been introduced into that House. That the PRESIDENT had a

right to consult the Heads of Departments, there could be no kind of

doubt. Mr. BOUDINOT then read the following passage from the

constitution: "The PRESIDENT shall be Commander-in-chief of the Army and

Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States. He

may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of

the Executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of

their respective offices." Mr. B. defended the Message in all its

circumstances, and in the most pointed terms. It was perfectly proper,

and peculiarly so at this time. By the constitution, and by the rules

and practice of the House, the PRESIDENT had a right to offer his advice

regarding Legislative acts.

Mr. W. SMITH had seen much needless jealousy in the House towards Heads

of Departments; and the present he thought a refinement on that side.

There had been two objections to the communication from the Secretary of

War, the one as to the matter, and the other as to the manner in which

it was introduced to the House; as to the latter, it was said to have

been obtruded unasked. In this last objection Mr. S. saw nothing. He

read a precedent from the Journals, which he insisted to be exactly

similar, and where Mr. NICHOLAS himself had been one of a committee

appointed to examine and report. As to the matter, we might as

reasonably object to the Speeches of the PRESIDENT, reminding the House

of business which had been before them, or recommending subjects to

their notice. He considered the objections of both sorts as entirely

unfounded.

Mr. MADISON recommended the alteration suggested by Mr. HOLTEN, for

restricting the motion of commitment to the Message of the PRESIDENT,

and not to take any notice of the letter from the Secretary, which he

considered as, in itself, extremely improper. It could not be meant as

information, and the House had no occasion to take advice from the

Secretary. The letter itself looked more like a forced thing, than any

which he recollected to have seen since the establishment of the

constitution. The subject, however, was delicate. The PRESIDENT had an

undoubted right to give advice or information in any way which he

thought best. It was totally ill-judged in the Secretary to have

conveyed his opinion in the very words of a clause in a bill that had

passed through the Senate last session, and been rejected in that House.

The communication translated into plain language amounted to this: "The

Senate last session had more wisdom than this House, and it is proper

for this House to reconsider its proceedings, and improve by the

superior wisdom of the Senate." Due respect should, however, be paid to

the Message of the PRESIDENT. It ought to be taken into consideration,

and Mr. M. was not willing to cast obstructions in its way, or to make

needless objections.

Mr. DAYTON said, that he was for referring the Report of the Secretary

at War, with the PRESIDENT's Message, to the Committee of the Whole, and

that consequently he was against striking out the words which expressed

that intention. If, by omitting to take any notice of the Report of the

Secretary, it was meant to reject the information on account of the

source from which it came, it argued such a degree of jealousy and

distrust as appeared both unreasonable and unconstitutional. If, on the

contrary, the object was not so much to reject it, as, by the manner of

referring the Message, to convey any reproof or disrespect towards the

late Secretary of War, Mr. D. should be still more decidedly averse to

the modification proposed. He lamented it as an unhappy circumstance for

this country, that the gentleman who was lately the Head of the War

Department had thought proper to resign. That gentleman had executed the

complicated and important duties of his office with zeal, fidelity, and

ability, and ought to be protected from any proposition or remark which

glanced unfavorably at him, or might wound his feelings at the moment of

his leaving us. Mr. D. then adduced the Report of the Secretary of War

in 1790, to the PRESIDENT, on the subject of the militia system, as a

striking precedent. The Secretary there informed the PRESIDENT, that he

had submitted to him a plan for the arrangement of the militia. The

PRESIDENT sent a Message with the plan to the House of Representatives.

What were the steps then taken in that parallel case? Was the Message

then alone referred as it is now proposed by some gentlemen? The

journals, on the contrary, prove, that the Message and plan were

referred to the Committee of the Whole. It was possible, Mr. D. added,

that the present Congress might deem themselves wiser than their

predecessors. It was possible that many might think it safest to shut

their ears against all kinds of information from the Heads of

Departments, or even from the PRESIDENT himself. There might be some who

would be willing to free the House of Representatives from certain

obligations, or shackles under which the constitution placed them, by

tearing out a leaf from that instrument, but he ventured to say that it

was too soon yet to attempt it.

Mr. SMILIE complained of the style of the memorial from the Secretary of

War, and, as a specimen, he read the following passage:

"It is a melancholy reflection that our modes of population

have been more destructive to the Indian natives than the

conduct of the conquerors of Mexico and Peru. The evidence

of this is the utter extirpation of nearly all the Indians

in the most populous parts of the Union. A future historian

may mark the causes of this destruction of the human race

in sable colors. Although the present Government of the

United States cannot with propriety be involved in the

opprobrium, yet it seems necessary however, in order to

render their attention upon this subject strongly

characteristic of their justice, that some powerful

attempts should be made to tranquillize the frontiers,

particularly those south of the Ohio."

In reading the above extract, Mr. M. went no farther than to the words

_sable colors_. Mr. S. SMITH desired that he should read on, that the

House might hear that no insinuation was intended, as if the present

Government of the United States had countenanced such ravages. Mr.

SMILIE said, that he knew what came after, but who would compare the

first settlers of North America to the Spaniards, who destroyed in their

mines thousands and millions of the Indians, and whose memory had been

consigned to the execration of centuries?

Mr. AMES rose. Just when he had begun speaking, there came in a message

from the PRESIDENT by his Secretary. On this, Mr. A. observed, that,

perhaps, while gentlemen were now speaking there might have arisen a new

subject of dispute. Perhaps by the new doctrine, we should reject all

communications from that quarter. The message having been delivered, Mr.

A. went on to remark, that turning loose the American militia to guard

the South-western frontier, was a system of slaughter, of desolation. It

was to make a Potter's field a hundred thousand miles in extent! It was

a system to waste the blood of the white man, and to extirpate the

Indians. The militia were not the people to prevent those kind of

injuries against the Indians which were the cause of hostilities. But

gentlemen who were now so delicate as to the style of memorials, would

do well, if they extended that delicacy to other memorials which had

been presented to that House, and referred by the consent of those very

members to select committees. Papers had been offered to that House,

wherein its conduct had been criminated and reprobated in the most

unqualified language of detestation. Yet gentlemen, on some of these

occasions, showed no resentment. Mr. A. ridiculed the idea of the

present motion as introducing a new and dangerous precedent. The

opposition to it came exactly under that description, for it was a

direct attack upon the principles of the constitution.

Mr. FITZSIMONS approved of the motion. It had been asked if the

PRESIDENT was responsible for the contents of this Report from the

Secretary of War? Mr. F. did not think so; but if he had not

communicated it, the member would have thought him responsible for the

omission. The PRESIDENT had a right to ask advice from the Heads of the

Departments. Mr. F. never knew a message from the PRESIDENT which

required a reference, that had been refused it. As a matter of course,

as a matter of right, it ought to be referred.

Mr. MURRAY rose and read that passage in the Report of the Secretary,

which Mr. S. Smith had desired Mr. SMILIE to read, and which he had not

read. [They are inserted both together at full length as above.]

Mr. NICHOLAS moved an amendment, and which was seconded, for striking

out the latter part of the resolution proposed by Mr. MURRAY. This made

it merely a reference of the Message from the PRESIDENT to the Committee

of the Whole, and omitted all notice whatever of the Report from the

Secretary of War.

Mr. SEDGWICK really thought this a squeamishness for which he saw no

manner of foundation.

Mr. GILES arose. He said that a gentleman from Massachusetts had

asserted that some members considered the whole constitution as entirely

in this House. This imputation was a thing of so serious a nature, that

Mr. G. wished the gentleman to point out the person to whom he alluded.

If it respected Mr. G. himself, the assertion was unfounded. It was not

true. He had the highest respect for every branch of the constitution.

This was a charge frequently made by one side of the House. Gentlemen

had called the contents of this paper information. He saw in it nothing

but what the House knew without the assistance of the Secretary. He

considered the report as an effort upon the opinion of this House, as an

attack upon its independence, and that in a very indelicate way. He

thought the report in all respects unworthy of the notice of the House.

He hoped that this paper would not be committed, but that the Message of

the PRESIDENT would be so.

[The passage in the report repeatedly referred to as having been

borrowed from a bill passed in the Senate, last session, is in these

words:

"That all persons who shall be assembled, or embodied in

arms, on any lands belonging to Indians, out of the

ordinary jurisdiction of any State, or of the territory

south of the Ohio, for the purpose of warring against the

Indians, or committing depredations upon any Indian town,

or persons, or property, shall thereby become liable and

subject to the rules and articles of war, which are or

shall be established for the government of the troops of

the United States."

This was a section of a bill which the Senate passed the last session,

entitled "An act for the more effectual protection of the South-western

frontiers," but it was disagreed to by the House.]

Mr. KITTERA considered this as entirely a dispute about words, or

plainly about nothing at all. Gentlemen from Virginia were more jealous

of the Executive than even the constitution itself. Mr. K. was satisfied

that the PRESIDENT had a right to interfere in the Legislative

proceedings with his opinion and advice. There was neither principle nor

precedent for the amendment of Mr. NICHOLAS. The dispute was merely

about words, because if the Message of the PRESIDENT was referred to a

Committee of the Whole, the report in question would, in any case, be

referred along with it.

Mr. AMES rose again to make some remarks on the danger of extending too

far the privileges of the House of Representatives over the other House.

The moment that this House is turned into a Convention, there is an end

of liberty. As to impropriety and indelicacy of style, he could wish

that the cognizance of members might extend to memorials addressed to

the House, that we may not have addresses disrespectful to it. He

entirely vindicated the conduct of the PRESIDENT as to this matter, and

saw a peculiar propriety in his having made the communication at present

on the table.

The question was loudly called for; but Mr. NICHOLAS rose in reply to

Mr. AMES. Would any man call this a communication from the Executive?

Mr. AMES spoke a few words in a low tone of voice. Mr. N. proceeded,

"The gentleman prevaricates." "I prevaricate, sir!" rejoined Mr. A. Mr.

N said, that at best he went off from the point. As to the precedent

produced by Mr. W. SMITH, it was quite inapplicable. It bore no

resemblance or connection to the one before the House. The other adduced

by Mr. DAYTON was, he admitted, in point. But that gentleman would admit

that it occurred in the infancy of the constitution, which was an excuse

for it. He hoped that the amendment would go through.

Mr. TRACY quoted something which Mr. NICHOLAS had said. That gentleman

immediately answered, that he had been misquoted. I know, said Mr.

TRACY, as well as that gentleman, what he said. Mr. NICHOLAS got up a

second time, and repeated what he affirmed were the words which he had

really spoken. He did not say so before, said Mr. TRACY, but I am

content that he should say so now. I only beg that he may not interrupt

me. As to the motion for striking out one-half of the resolution, Mr.

TRACY looked upon it as out of all propriety. The PRESIDENT had sent a

letter of two lines, enclosing a report from the Secretary of War. To

refer the former without the latter, would be like referring to any

person the superscription of a letter, but adding, at the same time, you

must not look at the inside of it. Mr. T. did not care from whom the

report came. If it contained useful information, that was all he wanted

to know. And, supposing it had been sent from a Democratic society, that

of itself would with Mr. T. be no reason to refuse it a reference. He

then observed how much more deference had been paid by that House to

Democratic societies than was now paid by some gentlemen to the

PRESIDENT. Much care had been taken that a vote of censure should not be

passed on them. It looked as if gentlemen wanted to grasp all power

within this body. The amendment was wrong in point both of principle and

practice. To refer a mere superscription, (for the letter of the

PRESIDENT was nothing more,) would look strange enough. The resolution,

as amended, was in a state of hostility with common sense.

Mr. LYMAN was in favor of the amendment for striking out the words in

the latter part of the motion. He thought it improper to refer to a

Committee of the whole House the report of the late Secretary of War,

because it was of an amphibious nature. It was not a mere official

statement of supposed facts, but the reasoning on these facts. He was

sensible that precedents could be found on the journals, which

sanctioned a commitment of similar reports; but, for his part, he had

ever thought the practice improper, and he must meet the question as it

appeared to him. He said, that the constitution authorized the PRESIDENT

OF THE UNITED STATES, nay, it made it a duty incumbent on him, to give

information, from time to time, of the state of the Union. He was also

equally required to suggest, for the consideration of the House,

whatever he thought expedient; but there was a most material difference

between communicating information, and argument or inferences deduced

from it. The official information would always, without doubt, be

reports from the different departments, and, therefore, would have the

credit and weight which was due to it; but whenever plans or arguments

were communicated, they should have the responsibility attached to the

signature of the PRESIDENT. What was the case in the present instance?

Had the Executive avowed the plan of the Secretary of War, or his

reasoning? He was persuaded, from the communication itself, that the

PRESIDENT did not at all espouse the report as his own wishes or

opinion; for there was nothing in the Message implying that the report

had been officially required, or that any one sentiment was from the

high authority of the Executive. As to the Secretary of War, Mr. L. had

a respect for him, and believed that he had discharged the duties of his

office with ability and fidelity, but it implied no censure to decline

hearing his arguments. All that the House wanted was facts and

information. They were fully competent to the suitable deductions. As to

the observation of his colleague, that the House were abridging the

powers of the Executive, it was so far from being the case, they were

only reclaiming what had been remitted and disused; and he had no fears

that they would abuse it.

Mr. HILLHOUSE thought that gentlemen were spending time in a very

trifling way. It is the duty of the House to hear information from every

quarter. He was against the amendment.

Mr. J. WADSWORTH said, that some gentlemen had been offended at the

comparison in the report between the North American settlers and the

Spaniards. Mr. W. remarked, that if gentlemen would look into two

historians, the one of Virginia and the other of New England, they would

see bad enough work. If the Spaniards, or any other nation in history,

had acted worse, he was much at a loss to comprehend what their

proceedings could have been. As to Pennsylvania, much had been said of

the purchases from the Indians of their lands; but where was the

difference between shooting an Indian and catching him in a trap? And,

as to the conduct of the Pennsylvanians, when they drove the Indians

back to Pittsburg, that was sufficiently cruel. We have murdered them

from the beginning, said Mr. W. As to the question on the amendment, he

knew perfectly well that the PRESIDENT had acted exactly conformable

both to the constitution and the practice of the House. To refuse

committing the report of the Secretary along with the Message, would be

an affront, not to the Secretary, but to the PRESIDENT.

Mr. MADISON looked upon the expression, as to the Spaniards, as being

extremely exceptionable. It had escaped, perhaps, inadvertently. The

Secretary would not have used it in a report to the House, nor would the

PRESIDENT have employed it, as from himself, in any Message to the

House. Mr. M. was for the amendment. It was natural enough that the

Secretary, when communicating his sentiments in a private manner, should

make use of illustrations for enforcing his opinion that he would not

have adopted in an official paper.

Mr. PAGE was persuaded that the Report from the Secretary of War

contained nothing new, or, if new, nothing which may not as well be used

when in the hands of members, as when in those of a Committee of the

Whole. If the amendment had been to throw the Message under the table,

more warmth could not have been shown, in charging the opposers of the

motion for reference to a Committee of the Whole with indecency to the

PRESIDENT, and with a design at usurpation of his power, &c. It is said,

that a jealousy has been betrayed by some members of an encroachment on

the privileges of this House. Surely, a most unnecessary and

unreasonable suspicion has also been betrayed by others, of a design in

the gentlemen who supported the motion of Mr. NICHOLAS, to encroach on

the powers of the Executive. Expressions have been used not consistent

with decency and order. Gentlemen have been charged with a factious

spirit, favoring indecent remonstrances, and with slighting and treating

contemptuously the Message from the PRESIDENT. Some members have, at

another time, been charged with speaking, not to the House, but to their

constituents, in order to gain their votes at an approaching election.

Mr. P. said, that his respect for the Government, and for the PRESIDENT,

was equal to that of any man in the House. He was far from wishing to

reflect on the late Secretary of War. Mr. P. had never, by any vote,

censured his conduct, and he entertained no wish for his resignation.

But he was at liberty to think the report given to the PRESIDENT wrong,

the communication of it to the House as unnecessary, and even if

necessary, as sufficiently acted upon when printed and put into the

hands of the members. He might have no doubt respecting the

constitutionality of the Message from the PRESIDENT, or of the report of

the Secretary to him. He might require no precedents from the Journals

to prove that the motion for referring that Message was perfectly in

order. But he might doubt whether the substance of the report was of

such a nature as to require the consideration of the Committee of the

Whole. He might also doubt whether the report was of sufficient

importance to require the most mature consideration. There might be

circumstances attending the manner of its introduction, as some members

allege that there were, which render the report improper to be referred

to a Committee of the Whole. It would be a precedent for referring every

Message, and that would be attended with unnecessary delay. It will be

paying a superfluous compliment. If the information came from the

poorest citizen, and was sufficiently important, he would refer it, but

though it came from the PRESIDENT or Senate, and contained nothing

which, in his opinion, required a commitment, he should vote against it.

Mr. P. was for the amendment of Mr. NICHOLAS.

Mr. S. SMITH remarked, that the principal objection made by the

gentleman who spoke last, (Mr. PAGE,) to the commitment of the report

was, that it contains nothing new. The observation will apply with equal

justness to a great part of what has been said on the subject before the

House. He wished, therefore, that the question might be immediately

taken.

The amendment was negatived without a division, but by a very great

majority. The motion, as it originally stood, was then put and carried.

TUESDAY, January 27.

_Reduction of Salaries._

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

motion of the twenty-third instant, "that a committee be appointed to

bring in a bill or bills to amend the act entitled 'An act for

establishing the salaries of the Executive Officers of Government, with

their assistants and clerks;' and an act 'for allowing compensation to

the members of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

States, and to the officers of both Houses;' and to reduce all such

salaries as, in the opinion of the said committee, after having made due

inquiry, ought to be reduced."