suggested an amendment to the proposition now before you, which I
understood to contemplate the increase of some salaries; and, if that
gentleman can reconcile it to himself and his constituents, let him move
and carry it, if he can. For my part, I am pleased with the proposition
as it is, and yet it may have great imperfections. It is very common for
fond parents to be blind to the imperfections of their own offspring;
and, as this is a production of my own, it is probable that I may be
under the same delusive prejudices, but I hope that cheerful
acquiescence which I have always shown to the majority, has sufficiently
evinced that I am no bigot to my own opinions. I said, the other day,
that I was determined, if the proposition must die, it should be by
assassination; but as, in this, a degree of guilt is implied, and might
be attended with serious consequences to those concerned in it, I
should be satisfied to give it a fair trial, and, if it must die, that
it may be by legal and fair adjudication, or, in other words, after full
and fair discussion of its merits.
We now have fairly before us a proposition that contemplates a redress
of these grievances, which, since the adoption of the present form of
Government, have been a subject of grievous complaint and heartburning
amongst citizens of the United States. Many of them, and, I believe, a
very great majority, conceive that the exorbitant salaries established
to the Legislative, Executive, Judiciary, and their assistants, are not
consistent with, or can possibly contribute to the existence or
well-being of a Republican Government, which, in its nature, holds out
the idea of equality and justice, but which, in the present mode of
administration, cannot fail to have a direct opposite tendency, inasmuch
as the very profuse salaries that all who have the good fortune to get
places under the pay and influence of the present Administration, if
they make a prudent use of them, must ultimately enrich and place them
in a situation so far above the vast bulk of the citizens, whose
industrious fingers are not permitted a single dip into those very
coffers which have been swelled by filching a little from that
hard-gotten pittance already far inadequate to the necessary but very
ordinary subsistence of their families, as at last to endanger the very
existence or shadow of this glorious and dear-bought Government, that
has already raised the drooping and once-dejected heads of the poor
American citizens, who now glory more in having thrown off that
subordination that was assumed and exercised over them under the late
detestable Monarchical Government, by their rulers, or public officers,
than even in their lives and fortunes. Men begin to know the inherent
rights of human nature. They have dipped into and tasted a little of the
sweets of political regeneration, and, amongst all classes of your
citizens, you may discover a zeal that amounts to enthusiasm, that lives
and burns and grows almost to a prodigy. Instances are not wanting, sir,
to evince that thousands of those who were not fond of this Government
at its adoption, are now, on all occasions, ready to step forth in its
support, and the laws that are passed consistent therewith. But this
does, by no means, argue that they will submit for ever to repeated
abuses of the Government, which may ultimately tend to its overthrow;
and exorbitant salaries, with other profuse appropriations of the public
money, at a time when the nation is groaning under an immense weight of
foreign and domestic debt, which (calculating upon the blessings of
peace, and of course, a very increasing revenue, not reasonably to be
calculated on so long a time,) it is agreed on all hands will take a
term not less than thirty-two years to extinguish. Here I shall again be
told, that the price of house-rent, and every other necessary of life,
has increased, and may continue to increase, so as to drive all your
officers out of your service. To this I beg leave to answer, that, if
you continue such high salaries, or increase them, as in some instances
it is asked, and because of the present enhanced price of the
necessaries of life, I think the evil will increase in proportion to the
immense sum of money that you throw into circulation, for a redundancy
of that, or any thing else, will always diminish the value; and, if the
present custom of disbursing the public money is persisted in, the whole
wealth of the United States must shortly centre in and about
Philadelphia! But, sir, by the adoption of public economy, we may
shortly become able to obviate this great evil, and make our
disbursements more diffusive, by paying out money to those who have
demands upon your justice, distributed over the United States, if any
but those who reside around the seat of Government have any demand upon
your justice or goodness. I am apprised that the proposition is a very
unpopular one here, and that many will perhaps knit their brows at me;
but, sir, when I entered into public life, it was without any cringing
views. I meant not to court smiles, or fear frowns, and I had no doubt
but I should meet my share of both. When I gain the former by proper
conduct, I have pleasure in it; when the latter by improper conduct, I
am sorry for it. But it will be much to be lamented if ever we see the
day when the people shall be suffered to complain from year to year of
any grievance, and their Representatives shall be ashamed, or afraid, to
make those grievances known, or ask redress, lest they be laughed out of
countenance, or lose favor at Court. But so hardy am I, if you prefer
that expression, that, while I have the honor of a seat in this House,
none of those considerations shall ever deter me from stepping forth in
their behalf; but, be the result of this proposition what it may, I now
warn you against evils that _may_ come, as you have been heretofore
warned of evils that _have_ come, for the obligations of power and
submission are reciprocal. It is as much your duty to pass wholesome
laws, as it is the duty of the people to obey them. And now, having done
my duty, I shall take my seat, content to abide the result, but hope a
committee will be appointed.
Mr. NICHOLAS declared that he would be very willing to vote for the
appointment of such a committee, if he could see any good purpose to be
derived from it, or if the gentleman who laid the resolution on the
table could give him any information that tended to prove its
expediency. For his own part he had but a small family, and of that he
had left one-half behind him in Virginia, yet he found that his
allowance as a member of the Legislature was barely sufficient for
supporting this half of his family, though he lived with as much economy
as he ever had done in his life. He was certain that he should not take
one shilling of public money home with him to Virginia. He requested
gentlemen to remember that it was not the present Congress who had given
six dollars per day to themselves, but that it had been fixed by their
predecessors, and fixed at a time when living was fifty per cent.
cheaper than it is now.
Mr. BOUDINOT observed, that he should not have troubled the committee on
this question, had it not been for several considerations particularly
applicable to himself. He was as impartial on the present debate as any
member on the floor. After the close of this session of Congress, he
never expected to receive a farthing of public money again, and
therefore no interest of his own could sway his judgment improperly to
object against the resolution on the table. He had been among the number
of those members who originally were for fixing the compensation of
members of Congress at a less sum than six dollars; not because he
thought it beyond the amount of their expenses, but, from an idea of the
then deranged state of the finances, and that, if sacrifices were to be
made, they should begin with this House. He appealed to his uniform
conduct for six years past, to prove that he had always opposed an
increase of salaries or other public expenses, when the interest of the
Union did not require it. He did not doubt that the gentleman who
brought forward this resolution thought he was doing his duty in
advocating it; and Mr. B. thought it was equally the duty of the
committee to be convinced that they were not wasting their time in
unnecessarily proceeding in business, without having some foundation for
rational inquiry.
Mr. B. did not doubt but there were uninformed individuals, who might
object to six dollars per day; but he was confident that the
well-informed among the citizens of the United States, and those who
reflected on the subject, would think (at the present day at least) it
was not more than would barely pay the reasonable expenses of gentlemen
who attended to their duty here in a proper manner. Almost every article
of consumption was from twenty to thirty per cent. higher now than it
was at the commencement of the Government.
The Constitution of the United States, as the act of the people and the
public voice, contemplated a compensation to the members of Congress.
Did not this mean something more than the bare discharge of their
expenses? Yet Congress had not gone beyond it.
When Congress sat at New York, Mr. B. said that he was in a situation
more favorable in point of expense than any gentleman on the floor, who
did not reside in that city. He boarded with a near relation, and was in
a manner in his own family; and, although he paid the usual price of
boarding as at other places, yet there were a thousand nameless small
articles which saved him many advances. He was within sixteen miles of
his own family, from whence he received many things that prevented his
laying out money. During three sessions, he kept an exact and faithful
account of his expenditures, and, at the end of that time, the balance
was but 43s. 4d.; but on which side of the question his memory did not
allow him to say. At present, he was also under very peculiar
advantages, yet he was confident that, at the end of the session, he
should not have any balance in his favor from his compensation as a
member. Mr. B. appealed to every gentleman's own knowledge, and
particularly to the gentleman who made the motion, if he thought that
what he received would more than pay his expenses.
Gentlemen were often crying out against an Aristocracy in this country;
yet measures of this kind tended to establish one, by reducing the
compensation of members, so that no citizen but the rich and affluent
could attend as a Representative in Congress. This certainly was the
most effectual way of bringing about a dangerous Aristocracy in the
United States. Should not men of abilities, though in the middle walks
of life, be encouraged to come forward and yield their services to their
country, without being dependent on any person or set of men whatever?
Is it not sufficient that their time and talents are given to the
public? Must they pay their expenses too?
Mr. B. was aware that the resolution proposed related to the officers of
Government as well as members of Congress, but he had confined his
remarks to the last, as the part of the subject he was best acquainted
with. He begged gentlemen to look around and point out the public
officer who received more than a reasonable reward for his services.
Professional men, of the first abilities, were absolutely necessary to
carry on the public business; and could any one, fit for his office, be
shown who could not do full as well, if not much better, in the exercise
of his profession in private life than he did in the public service, if
pecuniary matters were his only object? In short, (Mr. B. said,) this
House was placed between Scylla and Charybdis. The public officers were
complaining, and even resigning, for want of sufficient compensation for
their services; on the other hand, an attempt was now made to reduce
their salaries still lower, on the supposed clamors of the people. Mr.
B. did not believe they could be denominated those of the people;
neither did he see any evidence of the fact. He did not consider the
complaints of a few individuals as the public voice. Ought not the
gentlemen to come forward with some kind of calculations or estimates to
have shown that certain salaries were too high, or more than the
services performed were entitled to? This had not been done; but the
committee were urged, at this important moment, to proceed to an
inquiry, which every gentleman on the floor already knew as well as he
could do by the most labored investigation. He therefore concluded that,
to agree to the resolution, would be a waste of the short time that yet
remained of the session, and an unwise measure. Mr. B. would have
contented himself with joining the committee in a silent vote on this
subject, but he thought the observations made in support of the measure
ought to receive some answer, if not to convince the committee, yet to
satisfy their constituents that there could exist no necessity for a
present inquiry of this nature.
Mr. W. SMITH said, that the resolution was, in its present shape, so
extremely vague, that one did not know how to give it a definition or a
vote. Different objects were lumped together. If, by an inquiry, the
gentleman meant to examine into the wages of members of this House, it
was quite needless to appoint a committee, because every member can at
this moment speak for himself. But Mr. S. did not consider the present
time as the most proper for beginning to reduce salaries, when, within
the last twelve months, there had been three resignations, viz: the
Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, and the Secretary of the
Treasury, and all chiefly for one reason, the smallness of the salary. I
have no doubt (said Mr. S.) of there being complaints, and, if the
salary was reduced to three dollars per day, there would be still
complaints, as we see is the case with the members of the Legislature of
Pennsylvania. He only wished that the committee would rise, and he
should then vote in the House that they might not have leave to sit
again. The mover of this resolution had mentioned the danger of meeting
with reproaches from the people, who thought their salaries too high.
Mr. S. saw very little in this matter, because the people who railed at
the salary of six dollars per day, were only anxious to get in
themselves, and embraced this topic as an expedient of ousting those
members whom they wanted to succeed.
Mr. GOODHUE wished to ask Mr. CLAIBORNE one question, "Whether he found
himself growing rich?"
Mr. SEDGWICK saw no occasion for rising, because the committee were
perfectly competent at this moment to determine the question.
Mr. RUTHERFORD was for reducing the salaries by one dollar per day, and
one dollar every twenty-five miles that the members had to travel. This
would be a reduction of one hundred dollars per day, which would be much
better bestowed upon the innocent widow of the veteran, who had fallen
in the service of his country.
Mr. PAGE said, that he did not think the resolution, as it was worded,
was a proper subject for discussion in that place; for the House, and
not a committee, could properly resolve that committees should be
appointed. However, as the resolution had been submitted by the House to
the consideration of the Committee of the Whole, it must be examined;
but, as to the object of it, that he thought was more properly before
the committee, as proposed by the resolution; for, as I have remarked on
other occasions, if, instead of discussing a question fully, and
collecting the sense of all the members in a Committee of the Whole, it
be referred to a committee of one member from each State, that committee
might be unanimous in favor of a resolution, against which, eighteen
members for Virginia, and a proportionate number from other States,
might vote; or, by the weight of that committee, the resolution might be
carried, which could not have passed had it been fully and freely
discussed in the House. Here, then, my colleague's question should be
examined, as I cannot say (as has been said by one of them) that I had
no hand in fixing the salaries and pay of the officers of Government and
members of Congress, having actually voted at New York for them as they
now stand. I think I may, with propriety, give my opinion respecting it.
And I am clearly of opinion, sir, that the question arises from a
misapprehension of the subject to which it is applied; for there cannot
be a greater mistake than to suppose that parsimony in a Republic is
necessary to its support. A certain degree of economy is so; but
parsimony, applied to the salaries of public officers, and the
Representatives in particular, may be ruinous to the interests of a
Republic. Should the salaries be so low that men of small fortunes
cannot afford to serve their country, it must be deprived of their
assistance, and we must accept of the services of the rich, who, to have
their wills, though low, will serve even without pay; or, the State will
be served by artful demagogues, by ready, designing men, who may, in
pursuit of profit as well as popularity, cut out places for themselves
and friends, producing at length confusion and anarchy, or, at least,
such a bungling system of legislation as will cost more time and money
to rectify their blunders than the most extravagant salaries could
amount to. What true Republican could wish to exclude from a seat in
Congress a physician, lawyer, merchant, farmer, or any other person
possessed of such well-known abilities and virtues as to attract the
attention and respect of a district which might wish to intrust its
interests to him as a Representative? Or, rather, who ought not to
desire that, as all offices are open to all, that the son of the poorest
citizen might be enabled, if qualified to fill a seat here or elsewhere,
to do it without sacrificing his private interest? Is it reasonable to
expect that men should sacrifice domestic ease and the interests of
their families to serve their country? It is not just to require it.
Human nature, except on great and trying occasions, cannot obey such a
requisition. My colleague says that he is not a man of fortune; but, has
he not a profession by which he can make more than by his attendance on
this House? If not, he has not a right to require such a sacrifice of
any other person's time and talents. The constitution, far from
requiring any thing like it, demands that compensation shall be made for
all services; and who will desire less for services than a mere
subsistence for a person whilst actually employed in such service? I am
sure that less than the present pay of members of Congress would not, in
their present situation, be a subsistence. I recollect that, when the
House of Representatives were debating, in the first session, at New
York, whether their daily pay should be four, five, or six dollars, I
affirmed that the expenses of the members where I boarded required that
it should be six, that the State of Virginia having once allowed her
delegates to Congress eight dollars, and never less than six, when she
bore the whole expense, could not object to her Representatives
receiving that sum, when divided, as it was, amongst the States, and
spread out over the various duties and taxes of the United States. I
asked those, as I might ask my colleague now, who of our constituents
could calculate what he would save by any proposed reduction of our pay?
I have long suspected, sir, that Republics have lost more by parsimony
than they were aware of, and that a misapprehension of some practices in
ancient Republics has been artfully kept up, so as to favor Aristocracy
and Monarchy. The British Parliament has now no pay; but have they been
as independent as their countrymen wished them under the British
Government?
In reply to the member who had objected to the pay of the SPEAKER, and
the difference between the pay of members of the two Houses, Mr. P.
said, that whoever would consider the duty of the SPEAKER; his long
confinement to the chair; his painful attention to every word spoken in
the House, and his responsibility for the correctness of the
journals--an examination of which must take up much of his time--would
surely not think his pay too great. As to the difference between the pay
of a Senator and Representative, he had voted for it, from a belief that
a Senator having more services to perform than a Representative, had a
right to more pay. The Senate not only have to originate bills as this
House has, and to revise and amend bills sent from hence, and often to
correct the careless errors they contain, but to make themselves
acquainted with the law of nations, and to be prepared to judge of
treaties; and also of offences brought before them by impeachments. When
the Senators may have gone through the labors of a long session, and the
Representatives are returning home, they may be called upon to consider
certain nominations to offices, or certain treaties; and at another time
to try certain impeachments. Besides all this, the age of a Senator must
be such, by the constitution, that it is probable that his family is
larger, and his pursuits in life more fixed and profitable than those of
a Representative, who may be elected when only twenty-five, and
therefore his services must require higher compensation. As to the
PRESIDENT and VICE-PRESIDENT's salaries, I voted for a larger sum than
was allowed to either, and thought that the disproportion between them
was too great. With respect to the judges, I still think their salaries
too small, and so should every one think who will consider the vast
importance of their office; the labor of both mind and body which it
requires; the laborious course of study through which a man must have
gone to be qualified for it, and the lucrative employment such a one
must have given up to undertake it. In short, I do not recollect a
salary which I think too high. And I must repeat it, that I do not think
that large salaries in a Republic can injure it; but that small,
inadequate salaries may overturn a Republic.
I am sorry that the question has been brought before us respecting our
own pay this session, because the elections in Virginia are not over; it
would become us much better another session, if re-elected, to reduce
it, than to do so when we may be left out. Besides, if I vote for a
reduction, I may be suspected of courting popularity; and, if against
it, of despising the opinions of my constituents, if they have adopted
those which some members tell us prevail amongst their constituents. I
do not like to be in such a dilemma, nor to have my independence
unnecessarily tried. I wish, as the question is before us, that it may
be fully debated here, and even referred to the further consideration of
a select committee; because I think the opinions even of a single member
and his district should be treated with respect; and that when they have
been fairly proved to be founded in error, there will be an end of
complaints, and an acquiescence in the decision of this House.
Mr. GILLESPIE proposed an amendment, the scope of which was, that a
committee should be appointed to examine and report whether any and what
alterations were necessary in the act fixing salaries to the officers
under Government. He suggested this amendment from no motive whatever
but what was fair. There had been, and there still was, a degree of
clamor upon the subject, and it was the duty of the House to pay
attention to the voice of the public, whether right or wrong. If, upon
investigation, it should appear that the salaries were not higher than
they ought to be, then the report of the committee would be the best
method for stopping the public clamor.
Mr. CLAIBORNE hoped that the committee would not rise, but decide the
point. He trusted that no gentleman would again point at him, and say
that the motion came out of his brain. There was not one officer under
Government whom he would point out and say, that such an officer had too
high a salary. He had expectations that this discussion, by bringing
forward the observations of several gentlemen, would in some degree
satisfy the people, and that there would be no more pointing out with a
finger and saying, "_There goes a six-dollars-a-day man_."
Another member observed, that it was the duty of the House to attend to
the voice of their constituents, and for this reason, he should vote for
a committee. He would mention what he had always considered as a most
odious distinction, the additional dollar per day, which is to be paid
to the Senate from and after the 4th of March next. [The reader will
observe, that by the act, members of the Senate were to have seven
dollars per day, but the additional dollar was not to commence till the
lapse of six years,[58] when all the Senators of the first Congress had
gone out.] There was another thing for which he never could see any
reason, and that was the giving of the twelve dollars per day to the
SPEAKER.
Mr. GILES was perfectly convinced that the allowance to the members is
small enough already. The saving of a dollar per day suggested by Mr.
RUTHERFORD, would be but little, and it was beginning at the worst of
resources. The pay ought to be such as would bring persons of middling
circumstances into the House; persons neither too high in life nor too
low. If the pay was greatly reduced, none but very rich people could
afford to give their attendance, and if too high, a seat in the House
might be an object to persons of an opposite description. Formerly the
State of Virginia allowed eight dollars per day to the members of its
Legislature. This sum had since been reduced to six dollars. Mr. G.
mentioned this to show that in the practice of individual States, there
might be found a precedent for the allowance to members of Congress. He
was for voting directly. Mr. G. said, that there was a country from
which America had copied a great deal, and very often too much; a
country which still had a very pernicious influence in the United
States. The members of the British House of Commons received no wages,
while the officers of State had immense salaries. It was however
understood, that the British House of Commons were very well paid for
the trouble of their attendance. Mr. G. did not wish to see scenes of
that kind in this country.
Mr. HILLHOUSE hoped that the House would have done with this thing
immediately, as it had now answered all the purposes expected from it,
and he trusted that all motions of that sort which had an eye to certain
operations out of the House, would meet with the same fate.
The motion was negatived by a very great majority.
[Before the adjournment, the SPEAKER suggested to the House a
considerable inconvenience, occasioned by gentlemen being introduced,
and occupying such parts of the House without the bar as were
particularly allotted for the use of the House, and of which several
members complained. There was often so great a crowd that members could
scarce walk round when they had papers to present to the Chair. The
passage was often obstructed when messages were to be delivered, and
frequently there was no room left for the members when they wished to
confer privately with each other. As he did not conceive himself
authorized to give special directions without orders from the House, he
would take the liberty to suggest to the members of the House, when
introducing their friends, the propriety of placing them under the
galleries to the left of the Chair, and reserving the space to the
right of the Chair for the members of both branches of the Legislature,
the diplomatic gentlemen, judges, and other officers of Government;
which was generally acquiesced in.]
THURSDAY, January 29.
AARON KITCHELL, returned to serve in this House, as a member for the
State of New Jersey, in the room of Abraham Clark, deceased, appeared,
produced his credentials, and took his seat in the House; the oath to
support the Constitution of the United States being first administered
to him by Mr. SPEAKER, according to law.
_Thomas Person and others._[59]
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. COBB
in the chair, to resume the consideration of the claims of Thomas Person
and others, to certain lands lying on the frontier of the State of North
Carolina, and ceded by the Commissioners of the United States to the
Indians.
Mr. GILLESPIE took up the subject in the same stage in which it stood
before he spoke the preceding day. He said, let us examine the conduct
of other States. Did not New York dispose of lands within her chartered
limits, and from the sales become wealthy, as she has large sums in the
funds? The State of Virginia took advantage of the purchase of Henderson
and Company, for that part now called Kentucky, although they now
exclaim that the purchase was unlawful; yet, unlawful as it was, it has
extinguished the Indian title to those lands. Now, if the purchase of
Henderson and Company had this effect on the north-east side of Walker's
line, which divides Kentucky from the South-west Territory, is it not
just that it should have the same effect on the south-west side, when
made by the same persons, on the self-same day? And surely the rights of
North Carolina must be at least equal to those of Kentucky, in every
thing except that of power. But is Congress going to legislate by
strength of arm? I hope not. It has been admitted, by some who have
spoken on the subject, that the citizens of North Carolina have a right
of redress by law, and by others, against her own Legislature. To the
first of these I ask, against whom is the suit to commence? Are our
citizens, thus bereft of their property, to be compelled to litigate
suits at law for property taken for public use, and for which they have
a just claim against the United States; or have they not an equal right
to compensation for that which the United States, by their agent, took
from them, as other citizens are entitled to, for property piratically
taken on the high seas, by the robbers of Britain? And do we, in the
last case, say to these unfortunate sufferers, commence suits against
those who have injured you? No. Government has taken the litigation in
hand, at her own cost. Let her do so with the citizens of North
Carolina. Or, will the Government of the United States support the claim
of the injured against her own Executive? Will they do it against the
State of North Carolina? They cannot; and from what has been said in
this matter, it is plain that, as the Government of the United States
has converted the property of the citizens of North Carolina to the uses
of her Government, compensation ought to be made out of the public
purse, as the contrary would, on her part, destroy that bond of union
between her, as the sovereign power of the United States, and her
citizens, and as not only bound to govern with justice, but also to
protect them from all manner of injury, as well domestic as foreign. Mr.
G. apologized, that he was without authority in the House, but would
pledge his reputation that what he should advance, if not verbatim,
should be in substance with the author quoted:
"It is admitted by many, that the sovereign authority
possesses a power, under the laws of eminent domain, to
alienate the property of the subject, for the benefit of
the Commonwealth, by impending public necessity against
private injury." But, without doubt, they "that have lost
or sacrificed their property to the public safety in such
extremity, ought to have satisfaction made, as far as
possible, by the Commonwealth. Any thing short of this
would destroy the reciprocity between the sovereign and
subject."--_Puffendorf_, _b._ 8, _c._ 5, § 7.
But can public necessity be urged in the present case to justify this
kind of political robbery? I answer, no. If the Indians are to be kept
in peace by bribes, why not, in this, as in other similar cases, by
presents and pecuniary rewards? Is it not an indignity to the United
States to purchase peace from an Indian nation, at the expense of a part
of her citizens, whose resources at best were scanty, and are, by this
and other speculations, almost annihilated? Surely it is. And, let me
add, is it not an invariable axiom with all authors on Government,
"That all sacrifices of property made by individuals for
the public benefit or accommodation, should or ought to be
paid out of the public revenue, and that one should not
bear more of the burden than another."--_Burlamaqui_, _b._
8, _c._ 5, § 27, 28.
Is it not, then, obvious to all, who will reflect on this subject, that
compensation is due to these individuals, whose property has been
wrested from them for Government purposes? The same author observes, in
the 38th section of the same chapter:
"That as no subject can assume any part of the sovereign
power without the consent of the whole, neither can any
sovereign authority deprive the subject of his right and
property, nor substitute another sovereign over him without
his consent."
The public is in nothing more essentially interested than in the
protection of every individual's private rights, as modelled by the
municipal law in this and similar cases. The Legislature can, and
frequently does interpose, and compel the individual to acquiesce. But
how does it interpose and compel? Not by stripping the individual of his
property in an arbitrary manner. No. But by giving him full and ample
indemnification for the injury sustained; for there must be an end of
all social commerce between man and man, unless private possessions be
secured from unjust invasions. Thus, the protection of a State, in every
precedent to be found in books that treat of the fundamental laws of
civil society, or in the resolutions and acts of the British Parliament,
means restitution, indemnity, or compensation. _Grotius_, when treating
of the right of the sovereign authority to give up or take the property
of the subject, calls it "restitution, satisfaction;" _Burlamaqui_,
"indemnity, and indemnifying the subject for the injury sustained;" and
_Vattel_, "recompense out of the public money." It is farther observed,
that cases of this kind operate, like property thrown into the sea to
save the ship, by making an estimate of the loss, and causing an equal
average on the property saved, which each owner is bound to pay. So
that, from the fullest conviction, I am of opinion the citizens of North
Carolina are entitled to the relief reported by the select committee,
and that strict justice requires we should comply with it; for, as I
have said, in nothing is the Government of the United States more
concerned, in a superlative degree, than in doing strict justice to her
citizens, as of the last importance in preserving the affections of the
people to the Government. Vacancies in our departments, civil, judicial,
or military, may be supplied as well, but to restore the confidence of a
people borne down with oppression, exceeds comprehension. It is like
attempting to return from the grave--is without precedent, and is vain
labor indeed. At different epochs it has shook the foundations of
monarchies, and caused tyrants to tremble and atone for their crimes
with their lives; and, as I said at an early stage of the debate, if
usurpers, tyrants, and despots have been compelled to do justice by this
undeniable law of nature, shall the Government of the United States,
founded on the pure principles of Democracy, be less just? Surely not.
Have we received a power to exercise in wantonly oppressing those who
gave it? God forbid! Therefore, let it ever be impressed on our minds,
that justice exalteth a nation. The House, I hope, will pardon my
detaining them, at a time when every moment is precious. But the duty I
owe to my injured constituents forbids silence, and will, I hope, be a
sufficient apology. I shall, therefore, submit to the judgment of the
House, not doubting but justice will be done.
Mr. NICHOLAS was satisfied that the purchasers of the lands had a claim
either against the United States or the State of North Carolina. Much
had been said about the Indian right; but the Indians never had been fit
to occupy these lands. It could never have been the design of nature
that these people should be termed the possessors of land which they
were incapable to enjoy. He was, upon the whole, on the side of the
claimants, though he enumerated some of the difficulties that would
attend an attempt to please all parties.
Mr. W. SMITH had found much difficulty in forming his opinion upon this
question. He had at first been somewhat disposed against the claimants,
but at last, after full deliberation, he was convinced of the justice of
giving them redress. He requested the particular attention and candor of
the House. The United States were, in this case, made a judge in their
own cause, and therefore it became more their duty to examine every part
of the subject with the more accuracy. Mr. S. then began a distinct
detail of the circumstances in the present dispute. Previous to the year
1776, North Carolina was a British Colony, and the British Crown
considered itself as entitled to bestow grants of territory. In that
year, North Carolina became a sovereign State, and consequently she
conceived herself as succeeding to the right of the British Crown, and
as having a right to bestow grants in the same way as the Kings of Great
Britain had done. This claim was asserted in her general Declaration of
Rights, and it was incorporated into her constitution. When North
Carolina entered into the Union, all the Legislative rights of the State
were preserved, and, by a necessary inference, her title to the lands
comprehended in her original charter. In 1783, the State opened an
office to sell the absolute right of such lands as had not been disposed
of. In 1789, North Carolina ceded the right of jurisdiction to the
United States, but she reserved her own Legislative rights, and
consequently her right to sell the lands within her own territory; and
in disposing of the lands in question, the State did not intend merely
to sell the right of pre-emption from the Indians, but the absolute
title to the lands. Mr. S. read a part of the constitution of North
Carolina, in order to explain what degree of legislation the State had
conceded to the Federal Government, and what part she reserved to
herself; and he was clearly of opinion, that the disposal of the lands
had been reserved. In 1783 the State offered these lands for sale. In
1786, the Commissioners of the United States assigned a great part of
them to the Indians. In 1788, the Legislature of North Carolina declared
that they would support the purchasers. The grand question now is, did
the State, by acceding to the confederation, give up her right of
legislation? She gave up her right to make Indian treaties, but reserved
that of legislation, because, as above observed, it formed a part of her
constitution, which was understood to continue unviolated. These lands
were bought with certificates, which it was alleged, on the other side,
would purchase nothing else. If the certificates would purchase nothing
else, it was proper at least that they should have been restored to
their first owners, who might have subscribed them to a part of the
public debt of the United States. They were certainly entitled either to
their land or their certificates. These certificates, which were paid
into the Treasury of North Carolina, were those of the United States. If
the owners had only a pre-emption right, Mr. S. insisted that the
certificates should be returned.
Mr. SEDGWICK said, that this was quite a new fact to him, and if it was
as stated, there was no necessity for Legislative interference at all.
The State of North Carolina had only to come forward and subscribe them
to the Treasury.
Mr. W. SMITH explained, that when delivered into the Treasury of North
Carolina, they had been cancelled. After this they were again ordered to
be made current by the subscriptions of the officers of the State, and
in that shape they were offered to the Commissioners of Loans, who
refused to accept them. The exact amount of the certificates could still
be ascertained, as well as the names of the persons to whom they
belonged. They had been cancelled, but not destroyed.
Mr. BOUDINOT imagined that Mr. SMITH had furnished a new and forcible
argument against his own cause. This claim of North Carolina to sell the
lands was wrong, and this doctrine had been the cause of all the
disputes in which the Federal Government has been engaged. The Crown of
Britain had never pretended to any right of this kind, nor ever thought
it had a title to any lands till they were first purchased from the
Indians. The question before the committee was, have the United States
taken away any claim which the purchasers of these lands had? And the
answer is, that the United States have not. The State of North Carolina
only had a right to sell the privilege of pre-emption. This was the only
right which the purchasers obtained, and this right they still possess.
As to the certificates, they were not those of the United States, but
those of North Carolina. They were not Continental certificates, and for
that reason Continental officers would not accept them; but North
Carolina has since brought these certificates into her account against
the General Government. The commissioners, in 1786, had done a very
great service to North Carolina, by settling a line of boundary, and
putting an end to the Indian war. He thought that the best way would be
for the claimants to apply to the Executive, and agree among themselves
to extinguish, by an interference of that kind, the Indian right. This
would be much better than for the House to involve itself in the
purchase of an immense tract of land, at an expense of seven or eight
hundred thousand dollars, (or how much more, Mr. B. could not tell,)
when there was so much occasion for the money to pay the national debt.
He again declared that he should think it the best way to obtain the
good offices of the Executive in extinguishing the Indian right. The Six
Nations possessed part of the territory of Pennsylvania. This State also
may apply to the General Government for redress, if North Carolina were
to get payment for these lands. The State of New York may do so, for the
same reasons as North Carolina. This would be involving the Government
in an endless labyrinth. He was as unwilling as any gentleman in the
House to interfere with the rights of the Legislature of North Carolina.
But he did not wish to see the House going blindfold into the business.
The United States have too much land already.
Mr. KITTERA.--The certificates must have been given in by North Carolina
to the United States. She denied the right of the commissioners, in
1786, to make Indian treaties, but now that right is given up. He agreed
with Mr. BOUDINOT as to his observations on Pennsylvania. Georgia also,
he said, had about sixty millions of acres within her chartered limits.
The business would never have an end, if the General Government was to
interfere in all these cases.
Mr. SCOTT.--Has not this Government a right to restrain every wild-goose
excursion into the woods? If it has not, the Union must fall prostrate
at the feet of every wild speculator. Pennsylvania, at a great expense,
made preparations for an establishment at Presqu'Isle. The ground had
been bought at a great expense from the United States. Yet for the sake
of general peace, the settlement had been stopped.
Mr. MCDOWELL denied that the two cases corresponded, for the lands at
Presqu'Isle had not been given to the Six Nations.
Mr. BOUDINOT differed from the last speaker. He did not think that any
thing farther had been done against the interest of North Carolina than
against that of Pennsylvania.
Mr. BLOUNT denied that the Indians ever occupied the lands in question,
or were fit to occupy them, in any proper sense of the word. To walk
across a country, and to shoot in it, was different from an occupation.
But, besides, the Creeks and Cherokees were not the only tribes who had
hunted there. It had been said yesterday that these lands gave rise to
speculation. Mr. B. wished that it had done so, for in that case the
certificates would all have been paid by this time. There was no
difficulty in funding Southern certificates, when once they got into the
hands of Northern speculators. Mr. B. thought himself entitled to
receive back from the United States the money which he had paid into the
Treasury of North Carolina for these lands.
Mr. MURRAY requested the favor of any gentleman to inform him, whether
the lands in question were possessed and occupied, in the more civilized
sense of the terms, by the white people? He believed they were not. Had
they been in peaceable possession, living on, and cultivating the lands,
that circumstance would form a very interesting motive in his mind in
favor of the indemnity that was asked. But, in fact, they never were
possessed of any right but that which North Carolina could give
them--the pre-emption right; that right they now possessed as fully as
they did at the time of the cession to the United States. [Mr. CARNES
rose, and informed him, that many white people who had begun farms were
driven off their lands, and reduced to great distress by the
proceedings of the commissioners.] Mr. M. said, an argument struck him
of some weight--that if the claim be gratified, the claimants will be in
a better situation now than they would have been if the cession had not
been made; for North Carolina could not have given them absolute
possession but by force of arms. This she would not have a right to do,
under this Confederation, nor under the constitution, as no one State
can make war. But the claimants can ask nothing more of the United
States than they could have had accomplished for them by the State of
North Carolina. A new doctrine, resulting from the Revolution, must be
admitted as a ground of reasoning, when Indian, unconquered territory,
is before us. The Provinces had power, as individual bodies--which
States, as such, have not--the right of making war, and gaining
possession of Indian territory by conquest. So it was, that a province
could, from its own separate resources, make war on Indians, and pay
individually the expense. But when the great contest for independence
came on, all the States were, in fact, principal confederated bodies,
long before they signed the paper of confederation. The doctrine, which
suited such a body of States, was, that whatever might be gained by the
joint efforts and expense of all, should be the property of all,
jointly; and he thought that every principle of sound justice warranted
him in applying the doctrine, so far as to say, that whatever might be
the chartered limits of each province, while dependent, yet the moment
of the joint contest was that in which the true limits of a State were,
as far as property in land went, confined to that boundary which was
really located, occupied, and peaceably holden within the limits. To say
that the State had a right more positive than the pre-emptive one, to
lands actually occupied and defended by hostile tribes of Indians within
the chartered limits, admits a principle, that, if put into action,
tended necessarily to violate the great principle of the Confederation,
and of the present constitution, which divests the individual States of
the right to make war; as the State to make good any sales she might
make within the hostile territory, would be obliged to make war on the
tribes to dispossess them. The lands in question were in this situation.
They were occupied by Indian tribes, and were never in possession of
North Carolina. The gentleman from that State seems to doubt the
occupancy of the tribes. Mr. M. believed we would violate principles of
justice were we to borrow the principle of occupancy from books, and
apply it to Indian society. The Indian tribes held certain tracts of
land. As to the mode in which they thought it most rational to use the
land, it was nothing against their right to say its exercise differed
from our mode. He understood they made a hunting ground of the land in
dispute. They had a right to use it as such, and their mode of use was
no argument against their right. All that could be, or was proved to
belong to North Carolina, was the colonial right to qualified
sovereignty, called the pre-emption right. This was all she could grant,
and this was all that the claimants could take from her. They had that
now; and as he could not see the propriety of making their situation
better than if the cession had not been made, so he could not agree to
the resolution for giving them indemnity. Perhaps his ideas on the
subject might be fashioned by local circumstances, belonging as he did
to a State which had no share in those rich funds which the large
frontier States possessed, he thought, very unjustly, in immense tracts
of back lands. He felt it a duty to narrow all claims like the present
as much as possible. Connecticut, Rhode Island, Jersey, Delaware,
Maryland, were all in the same situation. They had no back lands, and
were divested of the share they were justly entitled to in the back
lands, which now bring immense funds of wealth into the land offices of
those States which possess them.
Mr. HEISTER wished to have that part of the law read which relates to
the species of certificates referred to in the debate; this was
accordingly done. Mr. H. said that he had not enough of evidence before
him to give a vote. He therefore wished that the committee might rise.
Mr. MACON said, that, according to Mr. BOUDINOT, it was the doctrine of
North Carolina in 1783, that the State possessed aright to the
unappropriated lands. If that was their doctrine then, nothing had since
happened which could make it cease to be so now. The Crown of Britain
had transferred the absolute property of lands, without inquiring for
permission from the Indians. This evidence went strongly to prove that
North Carolina had the same title. The case of Presqu'Isle did not
apply, for Pennsylvania was raising troops to make that settlement, and
no State can, by the constitution, raise troops of itself. He wished the
committee not to rise till they had determined the question.
Mr. CARNES had foreseen that the claim before the committee would be
opposed upon various grounds: but he considered none of them as well
founded. Grants were first made by North Carolina to individuals, of
lands within her chartered boundary. The cession made to, and accepted
by the United States, conditioned to secure the interest of individuals.
A treaty was thereafter ordered to be held by the United States with the
Indians, and by that treaty, lands formerly granted, were relinquished
to them. The commissioners of North Carolina protested in form. The
people turned out, had paid ten pounds the hundred acres, for their
lands, and they were entitled to compensation from North Carolina, or
from the United States. It had been said that North Carolina had no
right but that of pre-emption. This Mr. C. denied. North Carolina had a
right to all the lands within her boundary; and there was an express
agreement reserving those lands to individuals. Why did the United
States contract with the State, if she had no right? The Indians never
could have been considered an independent nation, else there would be
compensation _in imperio_. He mentioned the case of the Tallissee
Country containing four million of acres. By a treaty made in 1785,
between the State of Georgia and the Creeks, this land was ceded to
Georgia. By a second treaty at New York, this very country was
relinquished to the Indians, and of course the _bona fide_ right of the
State wrested from them. If a decision could be had on this case before
a judicial tribunal, it would not require a moment's hesitation to
determine in favor of the State, and that the treaty was a nullity. It
had been alleged that the right of pre-emption was the only right in
possession of the States, that is, a title to purchase of the holders of
the property, in exclusion of all other States, or individuals thereof
or the particular State. Mr. C. contended that the fee-simple of all the
soil within the chartered limits belonged to the State. As to the
boundaries, the definitive treaty of peace settles them beyond
contradiction. As to the proprietors of these lands being in no worse
condition now than before the cession back to the Indians, the people
were ploughing the lands, when driven from them, and will any gentleman
say that this is not injuring people? As to the State of North Carolina
having no particular claim to the land now beyond the Indian line, he
would put a case within the chapter of possibilities. Suppose that all
the Indians were driven over the Mississippi to-morrow, to whom would
the lands which they now possess belong? The particular States to be
sure, within whose range they lay. The gentlemen who advocate for
morality, and who talk of treating the Indians with humanity, are the
very men who have uniformly countenanced the raising of troops, and
augmenting the force on our north-western frontiers. How can they
reconcile their conduct? The Indians to the South are to be treated with
humanity, and those to the North are to be butchered, that the United
States may enjoy their property.
Mr. BOUDINOT said, that the charter from Britain extended to the South
Sea, but such a stretch of territory was not really claimed by Britain.
He read several of the old laws of North Carolina, to prove that the
Indian right of soil had always been acknowledged.
Mr. BLOUNT had never thought of quoting this book, which he now did, to
show that the British Government had authorized conquest. He did not
know of one purchase made in Carolina. It was all conquest, and so were
nine-tenths of all the lands held by the white people in America.
Mr. MCDOWELL.--Those lands which are the subject of debate, and which a
number of gentlemen have contended, that North Carolina had not a right
to grant to her citizens, have been proved to be within the chartered
limits as granted by Charles II., and which limits, sovereignty and
jurisdiction were guaranteed to the State by the Articles of
Confederation.
After this, and within the year 1783, the Legislature passed a law for
opening an office to receive entries of lands in the district of country
now called the territory south of the Ohio, for the redemption of
special and other certificates; and after a number of the surveys were
made, and the grants issued, the Government of the United States ordered
a treaty to be held with the Cherokee Indians at Holston, in the year
1785, and the commissioners agreed to give up a large quantity of lands
before stated to the Indians; but, previous to articles being signed,
Colonel Blount, who was the agent for North Carolina, entered his
protest in behalf of the State, that some of the articles about to be
entered into between the commissioners, on the part of the United
States, and the Cherokee Indians, would infringe on the Legislative
rights of the State of North Carolina, and the Legislature of the State
also protested against the proceedings.
I must here remark, that the then Government of the United States,
agreeably to the Articles of Confederation, could not legally make use
of the property of the State for any purpose without their consent.
This continued to be the situation of this business, till after Congress
requested a cession of those lands, with the sovereignty thereof, which
now form the territory south of the Ohio, which was complied with under
certain reservations, to continue claims, and the situations of the
claimants as good as though this cession had not been made, which was a
complete acknowledgment of the right of North Carolina, on the part of
the United States, but in my opinion placed them in the same situation
that the State would have been in, had the cession not taken place.
Since the adoption of the present Government, another treaty was ordered
to be held with the Indians, and the lands were given up to the Indians.
Here the Executive right to make such treaty may be questioned, and I
believe rightly too; for it would be an extraordinary power for them to
make use of the property of individuals, without their consent, or
making any compensation, and apply it to national purposes. Great
difficulties would be involved were a remedy to be attempted in a
judicial way against the Government. I do therefore think either that
policy or interest, on the part of the United States, would point out a
compliance, in part, with the report on the table, for it will not place
the United States in any worse situation than they would have been in,
had the lands not been entered. Had that been the case, those
certificates would have been in the hands of individuals, a debt against
the Government, but on their being subscribed now, to the amount
actually paid on their relinquishing their claim, you would then have
the land, which will be valuable at a period far distant.
Some gentlemen appear to be alarmed at the sum; but if the principle is
a just or fair one, the sum ought not to be an objection. I will here
state further, to remove the alarms of those gentlemen, that the sum
will fall far short of the statement made by Mr. Jefferson, as a great
deduction is to be taken from that; but I can further assert, that a
great number of the claimants would not relinquish their claim to said
lands to subscribe; it would generally be such as are in indigent
circumstances. And here I cannot help making some reply to the
objections stated by several members, who have alleged that North
Carolina had acted wrong in selling these lands before they had
extinguished the Indian claim, and that the claimants were in no worse
situation than they would have been had the cession not have taken
place. I am not a little surprised to find, that gentlemen cannot see
the distinction, for had the cession and treaty at Holston taken place,
they were at liberty to settle the lands, and North Carolina was bound
to protect them; but since the treaty had been made, the land is not
only given up as stated, but it is made criminal to cross the boundary.
Mr. DEXTER has stated that North Carolina has acted unjustly and wrong
in making sale of those lands before she had extinguished the Indian
claims.
Here I shall repeat what I stated before in answer to what the gentleman
has said: That the Indian claims to said lands were, in part,
extinguished by Henderson's purchase, and part by conquest, and that a
considerable part of the lands, that no nation of Indians could
establish a claim to, had been claimed by different tribes as territory
grounds, but had not been inhabited by any tribe within the memory, or
any account that can be traced, and for as great a length of time the
different tribes had been at war with each other about the right of
hunting on said land. But so far as it relates to the right of North
Carolina, I believe no member has a right to call it in question at this
time. The gentleman's arguments would have been more applicable at the
time the cession act was under consideration; and as to what the member
said about the principle and precedent it would fix, I will only call
the attention of that gentleman and the committee, to the conduct of the
Government of the United States. Have they not pushed conquests into the
Indian country north-west of the Ohio? Are they not continuing to do so,
and is it not in contemplation to sell large quantities of lands in that
country, that have never been purchased? If so, the precedent which the
gentleman fears so much is already established. But here I beg leave to
call the attention of the committee, in the most serious manner, to the
number of citizens concerned, perhaps near twenty thousand. A great
number of them are men who turned out in support of the American
Independence, who fought, who bled, and furnished their property freely
to the support of the cause. For this service they received
certificates, which they wished to realize by entering said lands, and
flattered themselves with sitting down on those lands, and in the latter
part of life making themselves and families happy. Their hopes were soon
blasted. After the act of last session, the Treaty of Holston took
place, which gave their property to a savage and cruel enemy, to quiet
the minds of an enemy who not only were opposed to us through the war
with Britain, but ever since have been imbruing their hands in the blood
of innocent women and children. What will be the feelings of the
claimants, who have acted as I have stated, when they find that their
request, which to be sure is a modest one, and which is only to be
reimbursed for sums actually paid, is refused? Should this be the
decision, I leave you to draw the conclusion. Should they proceed to
settle those lands in opposition to the treaty, I should not be much
surprised. But the report on your table goes too far, as to damage and a
future preference, which I am not in favor of; therefore the resolutions
in the latter part of the report I hope will be stricken out.
On the same question, Mr. GILLESPIE made the subsequent remarks: he
observed a disposition in the House to call the question; he then said
that the situation in which he stood required that he should say
something in support of the resolution under consideration, as it had
been stated as a new and singular case, from which he took the liberty
to dissent, as every writer on the law and usage of nations, held it as
an invariable axiom, that all sacrifices of property made by individuals
for public uses, ought to be paid out of the public purse. He stated the
treaty between England, France, and Spain, in 1763, and the case of the
loyalists in 1783, and as the hour of adjournment had arrived, concluded
with a motion for the committee to rise and report progress.
The question was then put, Shall the committee now rise and report
progress? This was negatived. The resolutions in the report were
successively put, and lost.
The committee then rose; the Chairman reported progress, and the House
adjourned.
FRIDAY, January 30.
The House proceeded to consider the report of the committee to whom was
referred the Message from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of the
thirtieth of January, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-four,
enclosing the copy of a letter from the Governor of North Carolina,
covering a resolution of the Legislature of that State; as, also, the
petitions of Thomas Person and others, proprietors of lands in the
territory of the United States south of the river Ohio, and of the
Trustees of the University of North Carolina, to which the Committee of
the whole House had, yesterday, reported their disagreement: Whereupon,
The first resolution reported by the committee, being again read, in the
words following, to wit:
"_Resolved_, That it shall be lawful for the Executive of
the State of North Carolina to subscribe, by way of loan to
the United States, the amount of all such certificates as
have been deposited in payment for any lands, (reserved by
the act of cession aforesaid,) in payment for any lands
which may have been relinquished to the Indians by the
treaty aforesaid, in trust for the persons by whom they
were so deposited, according to their respective rights and
interests:"
The question was taken, that the House do agree with the Committee of
the whole House in their disagreement to the said first resolution, and
it was resolved in the affirmative.
The second resolution reported by the committee, being again read, in
the words following, to wit:
"_Resolved_, That the United States ought to reimburse the
said persons the money which they have expended in having
entries and surveys made, and in obtaining grants, and any
other incidental charges which they have necessarily
incurred, with interest; and that they should moreover make
a reasonable allowance for the loss and damage which the
petitioners have sustained, by having possession of the
said land withheld from them:"
The question was taken, that the House do agree with the Committee of
the whole House in their disagreement to the said second resolution, and
resolved in the affirmative.
The third resolution reported by the committee, being again read, in the
words following, to wit:
"And whereas, the grants to the aforesaid lands, made by
virtue of an act of the Legislature of North Carolina, are
valid to all intents and purposes, as coming fully within
the purview of a condition contained in the act of session
from the said State to the United States: therefore,
"_Resolved_, That, whenever the United States shall think
proper to extinguish the Indian claim to the said lands, by
purchase or otherwise, it will be just and reasonable that
the several persons who have obtained grants or made
surveys or entries, should have such rights confirmed and
established, and their titles perfected, in preference to
any other persons, on repaying to the Treasury of the
United States, the amount of what they may now receive, as
a compensation for their disbursements and losses, in case
such persons shall think proper to make such repayment
within a certain time, to be limited by Congress for that
purpose:"
The question was taken that the House do agree with the Committee of the
whole House, in their disagreement to the said third resolution, and
resolved in the affirmative.
A motion was then made, and the question being put, that the House do
agree to the following resolution:
"_Resolved_, That such persons as have entered lands
agreeably to the laws of North Carolina, in the territory
ceded by that State to the United States, and on the Indian
side of the line established by the Treaty of Holston,
ought to be reimbursed by the United States the amount of
the purchase-money actually paid for the same, and the
necessary expense of locating and surveying, where the
survey has been made; such persons first relinquishing
their right thereto, to the United States:"
It passed in the negative--yeas 14, nays 56, as follows:
YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, Thomas Blount, William B. Grove,
George Hancock, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Joseph
McDowell, Alexander Mebane, John Page, Robert Rutherford,
William Smith, Benjamin Wiliams, Richard Winn, and Joseph
Winston.
NAYS.--Fisher Ames, John Beatty, Elias Boudinot,
Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Lambert Cadwalader,
Thomas Claiborne, David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Joshua Coit,
Jonathan Dayton, Henry Dearborn, George Dent, Gabriel
Duvall, Benjamin Edwards, Thomas Fitzsimons, Dwight Foster,
Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas Gilman, Henry Glenn, Benjamin
Goodhue, Andrew Gregg, Thomas Hartley, John Heath, James
Hillhouse, William Hindman, Samuel Holten, John Hunter,
William Irvine, Aaron Kitchell; Amasa Learned, William
Lyman, James Madison, William Montgomery, Andrew Moore,
Peter Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, Anthony New, John
Nicholas, Nathaniel Niles, Alexander D. Orr, Josiah Parker,
Andrew Pickens, Francis Preston, Thomas Scott, John S.
Sherburne, Jeremiah Smith, Samuel Smith, Zephaniah Swift,
George Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, John E.
Van Allen, Peter Van Gaasbeck, Artemas Ward, and Paine
Wingate.
Another motion was then made and seconded, that the House do come to the
following resolution:
"RESOLVED, That the President of the United States be
requested to cause a treaty to be entered into with any
Indian tribes who may claim, hold, possess, or be entitled,
to any lands within the territory ceded by the State of
North Carolina to the United States; and to endeavor to
obtain, by such treaty, an extinguishment of the Indian
claims to all lands, the pre-emptive right to which has
been sold by the said State, in pursuance of the act of one
thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, opening an office
for the sale of the said lands."
_Ordered_, That the said motion be committed to Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, Mr.
DAYTON, Mr. SWIFT, Mr. MCDOWELL, and Mr. PAGE.
MONDAY, February 9.
ROBERT GOODLOE HARPER, returned to serve in this House as a member for
the State of South Carolina, in the room of ALEXANDER GILLON, deceased,
appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in
the House.
FRIDAY, February 13.
_Heirs of Count de Grasse._
A memorial of Amelie, Adelaide, Melanie, and Silvie de Grasse, four
daughters of the late Count de Grasse, now residing at Salem in the
State of Massachusetts, was presented to the House and read, praying a
loan of money for their present subsistence; the effects which they
brought from France being exhausted, and having no other means of
support, but in property in the Island of St. Domingo, from which, under
present circumstances, no supplies can be drawn.
_Ordered_, That the said memorial be referred to Mr. AMES, Mr. MADISON,
and Mr. GILMAN, with instruction to examine the matter thereof, and
report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the House.
WEDNESDAY, February 18.
_Count de Grasses Heirs._
The House then went into a committee on a memorial from the four
daughters of the late Admiral Count de Grasse. It was read with the
report from a select committee, which proposed to give each of these
ladies, who are now residing in Boston, and in indigent circumstances, a
thousand dollars, in consideration of the important services rendered by
their father to the United States. To this proposal the committee
agreed, and the Chairman reported the resolution.
The House then took up the report.
Mr. MACON objected that though the claims of the petitioners were
strong, yet they were not more so than those of multitudes of others. On
the very day when we have come to a resolution to receive no more
petitions from our fellow-citizens, we are going to give so large a sum
at once to foreigners. He was aware that the Count de Grasse had done
eminent services to America, and he felt them as much as any person, but
he still saw no reason for preferring these petitioners, when there were
likely a hundred of the officers of De Grasse, or of Rochambeau's army,
that were in this country, and in want.
Mr. DEXTER said, that if ever there was a case where it would be proper
to act first, and thereafter try to find reasons for what had been done,
this was such a case.
The report was, on a division, agreed to by a great majority--sixty-one
gentlemen rising in the affirmative. The resolution is in the following
words:
_Resolved_, That, in consideration of the extraordinary services
rendered the United States by the late Count de Grasse in the year one
thousand seven hundred and eighty-one, on the urgent request of the
Commander-in-chief of the American forces, beyond the term limited for
his co-operation with the troops of the United States, there be allowed
and paid to Amelie, Adelaide, Melanie, and Silvie de Grasse, daughters
of the late Count de Grasse, respectively the sum of one thousand
dollars each.
_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the said
resolution, and that Mr. AMES, Mr. MADISON, and Mr. GILMAN, do prepare
and bring in the same.
SATURDAY, February 21.
An engrossed bill authorizing the payment of four thousand dollars for
the use of the daughters of the late Count de Grasse, was read the third
time and passed.
TUESDAY, February 24.
_Case of Thomas Person and others._
It was moved that the House should go into consideration of the report
of the select committee to whom had been referred a resolution of the
House in relation to the back lands of North Carolina. The following is
the resolution of the select committee:
"_Resolved_, That in case the President of the United
States shall think proper to enter into a treaty or
treaties with all or any of the Indian tribes claiming
lands within the territory south of the river Ohio, for the
extinguishment of their claims to all or any of the said
lands, the sum of ---- dollars be, and the same is hereby,
appropriated to the purpose of defraying the expenses of
any such treaty or treaties."
Mr. GOODHUE did not see that the United States had any concern to
interfere in such a purchase: it was private property.
Mr. DAYTON explained that the petition of Thomas Person and others
comprehended only two millions of acres. The resolution contemplated
twenty millions. It will, when completed, enable the United States to
protect the Choctaws and Chickasaws from the Creeks and Cherokees, if
the latter should happen to attack them; and that they will attack the
Chickasaws is not improbable, from assistance which the latter have
given to the white people. Besides, the frontier will be capable of
defence, at a much cheaper rate, in this way than at present it can be.
It is now an irregular line. A peculiar circumstance, besides, will make
the lands easy to be purchased. No Indian tribes reside on them. When
the gentleman from Massachusetts considers these things, he will not
object, since the United States will gain eighteen millions of acres by
the transaction.
Mr. GOODHUE admitted the reasoning as to the eighteen millions, but
still scrupled as to the rest.
Mr. SWIFT recommended that the Indian claim should in the mean time be
extinguished.
Mr. MCDOWELL, in reply to Mr. GOODHUE, said that if the gentleman had
attended to the reasonings formerly used on this subject, and which had
occupied considerable time of the House during the present session, he
could have been at no loss for understanding the propriety of this
purchase being made by the United States.
A committee were named to bring in a bill, in terms of the resolution
recommended by the select committee.
WEDNESDAY, February 25.
_Indian Lands in Georgia._
The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the report of the committee to whom was referred so much of the message
from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of the seventeenth instant, as
relates to the disposition of Indian lands by the Legislature of the
State of Georgia.
Mr. AMES said, that during the time when the National Debt bill was
under discussion, he had attempted to get something introduced in favor
of the new emission money creditors, but gentlemen always rose _en
masse_ against any proposal that would tend to obstruct the progress of
the bill. He now again urged that this affair might be taken into
consideration. He knew he should be told of a standing rule of the House
that the unfinished business must first be taken up. These creditors had
waited for four years without redress, and the rules of the House ought
to give way to common feeling and common sense. He therefore moved that
the rule in question should be suspended.
The motion was negatived, and the House then went into a committee upon
the second and remaining resolutions in the report of the select
committee on the Message of the PRESIDENT.
The following is a copy of the third and fourth resolutions in this
report:
"_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
authorized, whenever claims under prior contracts may cease
to exist, to obtain a cession of the State of Georgia, of
their claim to the whole or any part of the land within the
present Indian boundaries; and that ---- dollars ought to
be appropriated to enable him to effect the same.
"_Resolved_, 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 river 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."
After some discussion, the committee rose; the Chairman reported
progress, and asked leave to sit again. This was negatived--yeas 33,
nays 35.
The House then took up the resolutions. Various amendments were
proposed; and the last resolution, in particular, was objected to, as
subjecting people to martial law.
Mr. WADSWORTH said, that from a trial by jury he had no hopes. There
never had been one instance of a white man condemned and hanged by white
men, on the frontier, for the murder of an Indian, since the first
landing in America. There might be such a thing for the murder of an
Indian, when they lived among the whites. That there ever had been such
a thing he did not know. He had been told by judges, upon the frontier,
that it was no matter what evidence of a murder of an Indian was
brought. No jury would bring the criminal in guilty. It was but very
lately that a cool and unprovoked murder had been committed on the
borders of this State upon an Indian. The evidence was clear. Nobody
pretended to doubt it. The judge gave an earnest charge to the jury; but
all to no purpose; they found "not guilty."
Mr. SEDGWICK proposed an amendment to the last resolution, as follows:
"_Resolved_, 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 river Ohio, for the purpose of warring against
the Indians, or of committing depredations against any
Indian town, or persons, or property, shall thereby become
liable and subject to be taken and confined by the military
force of the United States, in such manner as to be made
amenable to, and triable by law."
_Ordered_, That the said motion be committed to Mr. SEDGWICK, Mr.
MADISON, and Mr. HILLHOUSE.
FRIDAY, February 27.
_Indian Lands in Georgia._
The House then went into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. SHERBURNE in the
chair, on the report of the select committee to whom had been referred
the motion of the 25th instant, respecting such persons as 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 of the
United States south of the river Ohio. The resolutions are as follow:
"_Resolved_, That all persons who, unauthorized by law, may
be found in arms on any lands westward of the lines
established by treaties with the Indian tribes, shall, on
conviction thereof, forfeit a sum not exceeding ----
dollars, and be imprisoned not exceeding ---- months.
"_Resolved_, That it shall be lawful for the military force
of the United States to apprehend every person or persons
found in arms, as aforesaid, and him or them to convey to
the civil authority of the United States, within some of
the States, who shall, by such authority, be secured, to be
tried in manner hereafter expressed.
"_Resolved_, That every person apprehended, as aforesaid,
shall be tried in manner and form as is expressed in and by
the act, entitled, 'An act to regulate trade and
intercourse with the Indian tribes.'"
Several amendments were proposed and agreed to. At last Mr. VENABLE
proposed one, which was, in substance, that persons should not be liable
to the operation of the law who were in pursuit of Indians that had
committed actual hostilities on the frontier.
Mr. SEDGWICK paid many compliments to Mr. VENABLE, as a sound lawyer,
who certainly knew that, by the inherent rights of nature, every man was
to pursue and punish those who had robbed him. This was implied in the
bill, and was a part of the law of nature, so that there could be no use
for its insertion.
Mr. VENABLE, in reply, declared that he was not so sound a lawyer as the
gentleman supposed him to be. He was not so sound a lawyer as to
discover that there was any such implication in the bill as the
gentleman stated. Neither was he a sound enough lawyer to see, that, if
his amendment was really implied in the bill, there could be any harm in
having it expressed. At present he could discover no such implication.
On the contrary, he saw very plainly, that, by the resolution as it now
stood, a man whose family had been murdered or carried off by the
savages, might, while pursuing them, be stopped and sent to jail. Mr.
V., from the admission of Mr. SEDGWICK himself, insisted on the
propriety of adopting his amendment.
Mr. HILLHOUSE objected to the permission of armed individuals crossing
the line, upon any pretence whatever. What use was there for expending
millions every year in defence of the frontier people, if they were to
be at liberty to cross the Indian line as often as they pleased, and to
do what was to all intents and purposes carrying on war? If they will
fight, let us recall our forces and leave them to fight for themselves.
Are they, for the stealing of a horse, or some such thing, to cross the
line in armed bodies, and act just as they please? Mr. H. utterly denied
the doctrine admitted by Mr. SEDGWICK, that a man was authorized to
chastise by his own hand those who had injured him. Was he to be both
judge and executioner in his own case? No such thing.
Mr. GREENUP said, that, in coming to Congress every year, he was obliged
to pass over territories belonging to Indians, and he always thought it
necessary to carry a gun. He did not see, by the resolution as it stood,
why the military officers of the United States might not stop him, as
well as other people.
Mr. MOORE objected to the clause altogether. It is usual for people on
the frontiers to send out parties over the line to watch the Indians,
and when they are coming to give notice, that the country may be
prepared for their reception. Now, these people may be seized by your
officers.
Mr. FINDLAY imagined it would be the best way to declare that there
shall be no frontier. It had been said by Mr. HILLHOUSE that the United
States might withdraw their forces, and leave the frontier settlers to
defend themselves. Did he imagine that, as it is, they are not kept in a
perpetual state of alarm, of exertion, and of danger? There has not been
a harvest for many years past where the people have not been called off
from their labors, and, to their very great loss, to protect the
frontier. This resolution not to allow pursuit, would be inviting the
Indians with a witness.
Mr. SEDGWICK said, that this amendment, in reality, destroyed all that
had been done or intended. No military officer, after such an amendment,
will run the risk of taking a man up. The prisoner has only to say, "I
am in pursuit of Indians," and then he must be set at liberty; for, in
the wilderness, no evidence can be had to contradict him. The amendment,
therefore, was a _coup de grace_ to the whole affair. Mr. S. said he was
personally extremely hurt at the constant complaints of the inefficiency
of the defence afforded on the frontier, which cost annually so much to
Government.
Mr. BLOUNT thought that the best way would be, to let it be known that
the whites were authorized to pursue the Indians into their own country,
and then they would stand more in awe. He mentioned a circumstance that
happened within memory, to prove how much the Indians feared a serious
attack, and how well they remembered a serious chastisement. Mr. B.
stated that some Indians had made an incursion, and were stealing cattle
belonging to the army, at a block-house. One of them was most deservedly
shot, and the soldier had his pay stopped.
Mr. HILLHOUSE said, the more that he thought of this amendment, the more
he saw its mischievous consequences. It went to invert all the laws that
had been made for the protection of the Indians; and, instead of being a
bill to protect them from the whites, the resolutions would produce a
bill to protect the whites from them.
Mr. SMILIE objected to Mr. SEDGWICK's having threatened that the army of
the United States should be withdrawn from the frontiers. [He had made
some other advances against that gentleman, to which Mr. SEDGWICK
answered not loud enough to be heard; but at this last, he arose, and
said that he would not sit still to hear himself thus quoted for
affirmations of which he had never uttered a single word.]
Mr. FITZSIMONS really hoped that the House would not agree to this
amendment. It would totally defeat all the effects proposed by the bill.
It had been said, that if a man had his family murdered, and he was in
pursuit of the murderers, he might be stopped by a military officer, and
sent to jail. The answer was, that if the officer refused to join him in
the pursuit, he would lose his commission. He should be sorry if those
resolutions, which had cost so much time and labor to the House, were
thus to be thrown away.
The amendment was, on a division, carried--yeas 36, nays 28. The
committee then rose.
SATURDAY, February 28.
_Indian Trading Houses._
It was moved that the House should resolve itself into a committee on
the bill for establishing trading houses for the purpose of supplying
the Indian nations within the territory of the United States. This was
done accordingly, Mr. SHERBURNE in the chair.
Mr. GILES then moved to strike out the first section.
Mr. GOODHUE wished to move that the committee rise; to which Mr. GILES
agreed. Mr. GOODHUE then said, that his reason for this motion was, the
inattention of members to the business before them. To attempt going
through the bill at present was a perfect farce. He was satisfied that
the bill would never go through this session. He did not, for his own
part, yet know whether it was proper or not.
Mr. PARKER said, that the bill had been long enough before the House for
the gentleman from Massachusetts to have made himself acquainted with
its contents and its merits. He vindicated the principle of the bill, as
tending to conciliate the affections of a distressed and unhappy people,
and as it might likewise prevent the expenses of a war with them.
France, Britain, and Spain, had adopted this policy, and found the good
effects of it. He considered the bill as of the utmost consequence, and,
thinking so, he should use his utmost influence to get it passed. The
expense proposed was not great, as the affair was only experimental.
Mr. MONTGOMERY was of the same opinion with the gentleman who spoke
last. He thought that the Indians had common sense enough not to quit
allies who supplied them with articles which they wanted, till we also
made some effectual establishment of that kind. The member went on the
same ground with the gentleman who spoke last.
Mr. BOUDINOT thought that the reason given by Mr. GOODHUE for moving
that the committee should rise, viz: that gentlemen would not attend to
their duty, was the worst imaginable. What did the House meet for at
all? It was the duty of the Chair to compel them to mind their business.
Mr. B. then referred to something which had been said by Mr. SWIFT, who
had been up just before Mr. BOUDINOT. Mr. B. in reply to this gentleman,
said, that he would not wish to press the bill this session if members
did not think it proper. He was willing, if agreeable, to refer the
matter for one year to the PRESIDENT. But there never would nor could be
a complete peace till something of this kind was done. The PRESIDENT
himself had told us as much.
Mr. GILES said, that the bill could not be got through this session. He
was willing to take the question either in the first way that he had
moved it, or in any other. This was a most improper time of the session
to bring it in.
Mr. MURRAY hoped that the committee would seriously attend to the first
clause in the bill, and would not rise. He felt the shortness of the
time, but he was willing to devote to-morrow (Sunday) to this subject,
and he trusted that the importance of it would give the employment a
solemnity not inconsistent with the day. Without a bill to establish a
well-guarded intercourse with the Indians, the frontier policy will be
unsystematic and despicable. To complete the system, it appeared to him
that three great objects are to be embraced: 1st. Force to protect the
frontier from Indian invasion--for this the Military Establishment is
made. 2d. A regulation, by law, that shall restrain the frontier people
from predatory invasion into the Indian country, carrying law and
settlement hand in hand. 3d. The establishment of trading houses under
the influence of the two first parts of the system, for the purpose of
conciliating the Indians by supplying their wants, and detaching their
habits of trade and their affections from a foreign nation. With these
three points embraced in one system, he had no doubt but their
co-operation would produce the great object, peace on the frontier.
Without the last, the other parts of the system would be totally
inefficient.
Mr. HILLHOUSE said, that the House ought to begin at the right end of
the subject, by reversing the vote which the committee passed
yesterday, authorizing the frontier people to pass the line in pursuit
of the Indians as often as they pleased. If this was allowed, it would
be impossible ever to keep peace.
On a division, shall the committee now rise? it was determined in the
affirmative--yeas 35, nays 31.
The question was then put by the SPEAKER, Shall the committee have leave
to sit again? It passed in the affirmative--yeas 34, nays 33.
But it was presently remarked, that some gentlemen had risen both in the
yeas and nays; others had been without the bar. The question was,
therefore, taken over again, and determined in the negative--yeas 36,
nays 41. The bill is, therefore, thrown out.
_Indian Lands in Georgia._
The House proceeded to consider the resolution and amendments thereto,
reported yesterday from the Committee of the whole House on the report
of the committee to whom was referred a motion of the 25th instant,
respecting such persons as 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 of the United States south of the river Ohio:
Whereupon,
The first resolution being read, in the words following, to wit:
"_Resolved_, That all persons who, unauthorized by law, and
with hostile intent, may be found in arms on any lands
allotted or secured to the Indians by treaties between the
United States and any Indian tribes, shall, on conviction
thereof, forfeit a sum not exceeding ---- dollars, and be
imprisoned not exceeding ---- months."
And the amendment thereto, reported by the Committee of the whole House,
to add to the end thereof the words, "unless it shall be in immediate
pursuit of Indians, who shall have recently committed hostilities."
When the question was about to be taken on it, Mr. VENABLE rose and
pointed out the difference of opinion between two gentlemen who were
both opposed to his amendment. One of them (Mr. SEDGWICK) had maintained
that, when individual Indians, unauthorized by the rest of their tribe,
crossed the line and committed depredations, a settler was, by the law
of nations, authorized to pursue them across the line and to retaliate,
and that this was implied in the bill. Mr. HILLHOUSE had materially
differed from him, and agreed with Mr. VENABLE, in supposing that the
person so pursuing across the line was punishable by the resolution as
it stood, without the amendment. He then reminded the House that this
frontier line was, perhaps, fifteen hundred miles long. The Indians may
come over any part of it, while the citizens of the United States are
not to be allowed to cross it one mile in pursuit. Even a man in pursuit
of savages who may have carried off his wife and children, may be
stopped. The amendment he regarded as essential. Military officers may
judge on the spot whether such persons whom they meet beyond the line,
in pursuit of Indians, are within the sense of the act or not.
Mr. AMES denied that the resolution as it first stood took away the
right of a man to pursue the Indians, in order to recover his wife and
children. But the amendment of Mr. VENABLE went to legalize all those
acts of violence and revenge, that, for a century past, have deluged the
frontier with blood.
Mr. LYMAN vindicated the inhabitants of the frontier. If the Indians are
so unfortunate as to be the dupes of other nations, (viz: the Spaniards
and British,) that is not our fault. The frontier people, from time to
time, have done every thing in their power to keep them in peace.
Mr. HILLHOUSE opposed the amendment.
Mr. MCDOWELL said, that weekly and daily murders were committed by the
Creeks in the district of Mero and in the South-western Territory. Do
the United States avenge these murders? No. Do they demand back the
property carried off? No. Instead of any satisfaction to the people,
their characters are abused on this floor. The frontier people know that
their happiness consists in peace, and, therefore, cultivate it as much
as they can. He took a general view of the subject, and explained the
insignificance of the posts as at present held by the troops of the
United States for any purpose of protection. He noticed the inveterate
hatred of the Indians against the whites, and their innate thirst of
blood.
Mr. MOORE went on the same grounds.
Mr. GILES did not like the harsh style assumed by some gentlemen in
speaking of the frontier settlers. A hundred years hence these people
would preponderate over this part of the Continent. He represented an
Atlantic part of the Union, but, at the same time, he would carefully
avoid any thing that might offend the Western people. The first settlers
in this country were, when they first landed, frontier settlers. For his
own part, he believed that the war between the whites and the Indians
would be eternal. He said, that, from some intelligence received this
day, there was reason to believe that a war with the Creeks might soon
be expected.
Mr. WADSWORTH.--Gentlemen have a great disposition to husband our little
time, and I need not mention their manner of doing it. He said that he
was willing to grant protection to the frontiers, but not to give leave,
as by the amendment proposed, for an eternal war. He thought it
calculated to drive the gentlemen on each side of this question into
such opposite extremes, that they would never meet again upon the
subject. He was willing to grant any degree of protection, but nothing
for conquest. He said that the ancestors of the people now in the
Atlantic part of the country were once frontier people, and he believed
them to have been neither worse nor better than the present settlers,
who are in the same situation. We are told of murders and robberies
committed by the Indians; but the accounts of some of the officers
employed by Government vary a little from this, and give room to suspect
that there may be some error on both sides. He did not believe that this
amendment would pass; but, if it should do so, it would widen the
difference of opinion in the House.
Mr. PAGE was for the amendment.
Mr. CARNES could not conceive the reason why all regulations made in
this House were for Indians only, as if the whites were constantly the
aggressors. He asked if the Creeks performed a single tittle of the
treaty of New York, about which there had been so much parade? No. The
only design of Indians in making a peace is to get presents, for these
they always get. As soon as these are spent they commit a new set of
murders, in the hopes of another treaty. Thus they always have gone on,
and always will go on, from murders to treaties, and from treaties to
murders. Mr. C. complained that a gentleman from Maryland (Mr. MURRAY)
had some days ago called the frontier people semi-savages. He hoped that
such an expression would never again be used in that House. As to the
treaty of New York, he might be told that the Creeks restored a number
of women and children. He knew that; but he also knew that, before they
did so, the relations of those people were obliged to put their hands in
their pockets and pay large sums for their redemption, as the prisoners
would not have been delivered up in consequence of the treaty of New
York. This bill, without the amendment of Mr. VENABLE, would be an
encouragement to the savages to come over the line and murder with
impunity.
Mr. SCOTT was entirely in favor of the amendment. If the resolution
passes without the amendment houses will soon be smoking and blood
running. He believed that the subject in question was beyond the reach
of human wisdom to regulate. He thought that striking out the amendment
would only encourage the Indians to come in a body across the line. This
they were never afraid of doing. The only thing which they feared was a
pursuit, and this was to be effectually prevented by striking out the
amendment. Was there ever such a thing heard of before as that, when the
savages have carried off a man's wife and children, he must not be at
liberty to pursue them? It would be the most frightful thing imaginable
for the House to pass a law declaring such a pursuit criminal. Mr. S.
could figure a case where the farm of a settler might come close to the
Indian line, and the Indian might stand on the other side of the line
and shoot him, and his neighbors would not be at liberty to pursue the
murderer. Mr. S. said, that in that part of the country where he resided
(Washington county) nothing of this kind was to be feared, as the line
was at a sufficient distance from the cultivated lands, but there were
other places on the frontier of the United States where this might
happen. He said that no Christian nation had a right to ask better terms
than this amendment offered to the savages. Stay upon your own side of
the line and you are safe, but, if you cross over to us, we shall cross
over in pursuit of you. This was fair play. If the resolution passed
without the amendment, Mr. S. said that the Indians would immediately
encamp close on their side of the line, and lie in watch there for whole
months together, till they found a safe opportunity of crossing.
Mr. MURRAY said, he would make a remark or two on the criticism of the
gentleman from Georgia, who had felt affected by an expression of his a
few days since, when he called some of the people of the frontier
"semi-savages." He did so, and he felt the expression not inapplicable.
He confined the import of this expression exclusively to those upon the
frontier who lead an unstationary life--who press forward into the
deeper wilderness, by the new waves of advancing population, and live
the life of savages without their virtues. He begged leave to call the
gentleman's attention to a declaration of his own, last session, to
justify this expression, which he used more to designate a peculiar than
a general character of the people in the region to which he applied it.
The gentleman said, he did not value the lives of one hundred Indians as
much as the life of one white man, or words to that extent. [This was in
a debate just before the close of the last session. The words of Mr.
CARNES were, "I would not give the life of one white man for that of
fifty Indians."] Mr. MURRAY said, he had two points always in his view
when the frontier was a subject in that House--protection to the
frontier against the hostility of the Indians, and restraint upon the
whites to prevent the occasions of war against the savages. He had given
every testimony to the first by supporting every measure for their
defence; that he represented a district perfectly beyond the danger of
the Indians, was proof that he was actuated in his votes for
appropriation and force by no other motive than that which belonged to
every man there who supported the great principle of Government, that
the whole must protect the parts. He wished to see such a system
established, combining these two points, as would give complete
protection against the Indians, and yet restrain the whites from
violating peace. He wished to see the day when the arms of the
Government might, without a crime, strike a whole tribe, if that tribe
or its members waged war on the frontiers. But, to do this, it was
necessary to place our relative situation so as that justice might be
secured. He wished to adopt a regulation like the present, to prevent
our fellow-citizens from the gratification of private revenge, the
source from whence so much blood is shed. In order to justify exemplary
punishment on Indian tribes, you must first be in a situation to
restrain the whites from doing injustice to them. You must do what all
nations have done, when, from the general or local state of
civilization, private war disturbs public tranquillity--you must
restrain the right of private war, by placing the power of vengeance out
of the reach of individuals, and in the hands of Government. Nor did
this idea go at all to restrain that inalienable right of resistance
against imminent danger, which was sanctioned by the law of nature. The
picture drawn by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. SCOTT,) with his
accustomed ability and force, was certainly an interesting one--were an
encampment of Indians to be heard in the woods near a settlement, after
any evidence of hostility, he did not doubt but the neighbors would be
perfectly justifiable in changing the scene of blood from the cottage to
the camp--if the amendment which actually arms all the passions of
revenge with the rights of law, be rejected, you will attain one of the
great objects of frontier policy--the ability to restrain the right of
private war, from which public war arises as a consequence. The
Government will, when this ability to restrain is complete, become
responsible for the protection of the whites against the savages. Until
that is accomplished, he did not believe Government could, either in
justice or policy, expend treasure or use force, when uncertain of the
justice of the cause. He therefore hoped that the amendment would be
rejected.
Mr. FINDLAY was for the amendment, and mentioned several examples to
prove the cruelty and perfidy of the Indians.
The amendment itself was in these words: "Unless it shall be in
immediate pursuit of the Indians who have recently committed
hostilities."
Mr. MADISON did not think the question explicit; he therefore proposed
another, which was to prevent the pursuers from coming within a certain
number of miles of an Indian town. He was extremely doubtful whether his
amendment or any other would effectually answer the end proposed. He was
convinced that no law of any kind would be able to hinder people from
crossing the line in pursuit of Indians, who might have carried off
their families.
Mr. HARPER said, that however little time the House had to spare, and
however long the discussion might have been, he could not help
trespassing on their patience for a short time to deliver his
sentiments, as he thought himself tolerably acquainted with the subject.
He expressly denied that the Indians ever committed any murder without
previous provocation. The process is shortly this: An Indian crosses the
line and steals a horse. And as long as Indians exist they will always
steal horses. The man to whom the horse belonged collects as many of his
neighbors as he thinks sufficient, pursues the Indian, and, not
contented with recovering his horse, he kills the thief. The Indians,
who have no such sacred ideas of property, immediately come over the
line, and in revenge murder a number of innocent people. Indian murders
are not unprovoked. They are not of that stamp. Mr. H. considered the
amendment of Mr. VENABLE as a source of endless confusion. Any man, if
it passed, might cross the Indian line as often as he thought proper,
and say that he was in pursuit of Indians with prisoners. I undertake,
(said he,) if you will give me a hundred dollars, to go to the frontier
and get a witness who will come into a Court of Justice and swear that
on such a day ten Indians came over the line in arms. Mr. H. said he was
personally acquainted with the frontiers. He had a high respect for the
inhabitants, there were many very worthy people among them; but likewise
many others of a very different kind. This amendment will set open a
door to all sorts of fraud and mischief. Mr. H. honored the sentiments
of patriotism that gave rise to it, but he could not possibly agree to
the propriety of its insertion.
Mr. WHITE, the member from the South-western Territory, said, that he
had to complain of the slaughter of near four hundred citizens under the
auspices of your Government. He felt himself much affected, and as to
the doctrine of Indian killing, only in retaliation, he denied it
altogether. The love of blood was hereditary in them. When the gentleman
says that with a hundred dollars in his pocket, he can find ten men on
the frontiers--[Mr. HARPER explained, that he only said he could find a
witness.] Well, (said Mr. W.) if the gentleman did not mean a reflection
on the frontiers, he meant nothing at all. I know not how well the
gentleman may be practised in the arts of subornation, but I myself know
of no such man. [Mr. HARPER.--I expected the gentleman would confine
himself to a decent answer.] Mr. W. proceeded to observe that no man
acquainted with the frontiers would have made any such assertion as the
gentleman had done. He was likewise extremely surprised at the gentleman
from Maryland, for having persisted in affirming that many of the
frontier people were semi-savages.
The yeas and nays were now taken on the amendment, which was lost by a
majority of 7--yeas 39, nays 46, as follows:
YEAS.--James Armstrong, Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin,
Thomas Blount, Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel Christie, Thomas
Claiborne, William J. Dawson, George Dent, Samuel Dexter,
Gabriel Duvall, Benjamin Edwards, William Findlay,
Christopher Greenup, William B. Grove, George Hancock,
Carter B. Harrison, John Heath, William Irvine, Matthew
Locke, William Lyman, Nathaniel Macon, Joseph Mcdowell,
Alexander Mebane, William Montgomery, Andrew Moore, Peter
Muhlenberg, Joseph Neville, Anthony New, Alexander D. Orr,
John Page, Thomas Scott, John Smilie, Thomas Sprigg, Thos.
Tredwell, Philip Van Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, Francis
Walker, Richard Winn, and Joseph Winston.
NAYS.--Fisher Ames, John Beatty, Elias Boudinot,
Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Lambert Cadwalader,
David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Joshua Coit, Henry Dearborn,
Thomas Fitzsimons, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas
Gilman, Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Robert
Goodloe Harper, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Samuel
Holten, John Hunter, Aaron Kitchell, John Wilkes Kittera,
Amasa Learned, James Madison, Francis Malbone, William Vans
Murray, Nathaniel Niles, Andrew Pickens, Theodore Sedgwick,
John S. Sherburne, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, Wm. Smith,
Zephaniah Swift, George Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, Jonathan
Trumbull, John E. Van Allen, Peter Van Gaasbeck, Peleg
Wadsworth, Jeremiah Wadsworth, John Watts, Benjamin
Williams, and Paine Wingate.
Mr. GILES, who had been in the House during the whole debate, had gone
out just before the question was put, and returning immediately after
the names had been called, asked leave to vote. The rule of the House
was read by the SPEAKER, which is that no member shall vote who was not
present at putting of the question. Mr. G., on this account, was not
allowed a vote.
Mr. CARNES then moved to amend the said resolution by adding to the end
thereof the following words:
"Unless it shall be in continuation of a pursuit to a
distance not exceeding ---- miles beyond the line of the
particular Indians who shall have recently committed
murder, or may be carrying off captives or plunder."
It was resolved in the affirmative.
The said resolution, as amended, was then again read, and agreed to by
the House, as follows:
_Resolved_, That all persons who, unauthorized by law, and with hostile
intent, may be found in arms on any lands allotted or secured to the
Indians by treaties between the United States and any Indian tribes,
shall, on conviction thereof, forfeit a sum not exceeding ---- dollars,
and be imprisoned not exceeding ---- months, unless it shall be in
continuation of a pursuit to a distance not exceeding ---- miles beyond
the line of the particular Indians who shall have recently committed
murder, or may be carrying off captives or plunder.
The second resolution being again read, and amended, was, on the
question put thereupon, agreed to by the House, as follows:
_Resolved_, That it shall be lawful for the military force of the United
States to apprehend every person or persons found in arms as aforesaid,
and him or them to convey to the civil authority of the United States,
within some one of the States, who shall, by such authority, be secured
to be tried in manner and form as is provided in and by the act
entitled, "An act to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian
tribes:" _Provided_, that no person shall be confined after his arrest,
and before his removal, more than ---- days.
_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the said
resolutions, and that Mr. SEDGWICK, Mr. MADISON, and Mr. HILLHOUSE, do
prepare, and bring in the same.
TUESDAY, March 3.
_Adjournment._
_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that this
House, having completed the business before them, are now about to
adjourn without day; and that the Clerk of this House do go with the
said message.
A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have
appointed a committee, on their part, jointly, with such committee as
may be appointed on the part of this House, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, and inform him that Congress is ready to adjourn
without day, unless he may have any further communications to make to
them.
The House proceeded to consider the said message: Whereupon,
_Resolved_, That this House doth agree to the resolution of the Senate
for the appointment of a joint committee of the two Houses, to wait on
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and inform him of the intended
recess of Congress; and that Mr. BOUDINOT, Mr. SEDGWICK, and Mr.
TRUMBULL, be of the committee appointed on the part of this House.
On a motion made and seconded,
"That the thanks of this House be presented to Frederick
Augustus Muhlenberg, in testimony of their approbation of
his conduct in discharging the arduous and important duties
assigned him while in the chair:"
It was resolved unanimously: Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER made his
acknowledgments to the House in manner following:
"GENTLEMEN: I feel myself highly honored by this
distinguished mark of your approbation of my conduct in the
station you were pleased to assign unto me; and although I
am conscious that my feeble efforts do not merit so
precious a reward, yet permit me to assure you that it has
made a lasting impression on my mind, and I shall ever
esteem it with the most unfeigned satisfaction.
"Gentlemen, I sincerely thank you; may every happiness
attend you; may you long continue to enjoy the confidence
of your fellow-citizens; and may you meet with their just
applause of having deserved well of your country."
Mr. BOUDINOT, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and inform him of the intended recess of
Congress, reported that the committee had performed that service, and
that the PRESIDENT signified to them that he had no further
communication to make during the present session: Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER
adjourned the House _sine die_.