After disposing of the morning business--

Robert Randall was then brought to the bar, attended by his two counsel;

the Judge of the District of Pennsylvania likewise took his seat, as

yesterday, at the Clerk's table. The SPEAKER then addressed the prisoner

as follows: "Robert Randall, this is the day and hour, to which your

farther examination was postponed; you are now at liberty to proceed

with your defence."

Mr. GILES then moved that Mr. CHRISTIE should be sworn. This was done.

The member then stated that he had been at Philadelphia, about the month

of October last. He met with Mr. Randall, who made up to him, and

observed that he had this summer been in Canada. He had missed the

object for which he went; but he had met with another which he thought

would prove advantageous. He at first advised Mr. Randall to apply to

the Secretary of State. Mr. Randolph had just then resigned his office;

and no other person was appointed in his stead. Mr. C. then advised him

to lay the affair before the PRESIDENT. When he came back to town at the

sitting down of Congress, Randall came again to him, and said that by

good advice he had altered his plan. He complained that Mr. C. was the

only member who had not been ready to assist him. A considerable

majority of the House of Representatives were secured to the scheme. Mr.

C. said, that he never would advise Congress to sell their lands under a

dollar per acre; and as Mr. Randall wanted the lands so much cheaper, he

must in the course of his duty oppose the plan. Mr. C. inquired who were

his advisers. He answered, that Mr. Whitney had told him that Mr.

SEDGWICK recommended this way of proceeding, and was to draw up a

memorial to be laid before the House upon the subject.

Mr. SEDGWICK finding his name thus unexpectedly introduced, wished to be

allowed to give oath in order that he should tell all he knew.

The oath was administered to Mr. SEDGWICK, who gave information to the

following effect: He had never in his life seen Randall, till he was

produced at the bar. Whitney he had seen two or three times. The Mr.

Jones mentioned by Whitney, in his declaration lives within about

thirty-four miles of Mr. SEDGWICK's house. Whitney, with Mr. Jones,

came, a considerable time ago, to him one morning, while he was at

breakfast. They asked his opinion; which was, that Government would not

sell any lands, till the Indian claim was first extinguished. Mr. Jones

endeavored to convince Mr. SEDGWICK of the benefits which would result

to the United States from this sale. Mr. SEDGWICK accompanied them to

the door of his house, where Mr. Jones asked him whether there would be

any thing improper in a member of the Legislature being concerned in

such a purchase? Mr. SEDGWICK said, that this would depend entirely on

the mode of application. If it was to the Land Office, there would be

nothing wrong in it; if to Congress, then it would be a man making a

bargain with himself. Whitney, since Mr. SEDGWICK came to town, had

called two or three times on him. He got his servant for more than once

to deny him, as he was busy. Once, however, he did see him; the first

question of Mr. SEDGWICK was, from what State did he come? He said he

resided in Vermont. He then spoke of the matter in a general way; and

Mr. SEDGWICK, whose object it was to shake him off, advised his calling

on Mr. BUCK, a member from that State, as it would be more proper to

call on him. Mr. SEDGWICK believed that he was more teazed with

applications of this private kind than any member in the House. During

the conference with Whitney, he did not remember that Randall's name was

ever introduced. Mr. SEDGWICK heard, with astonishment, the name of

Colonel Pepune mentioned. He lived opposite to Mr. SEDGWICK's house, in

the town of Stockbridge. He rode down from that place to New York, along

with Mr. SEDGWICK, and never spoke one word of the matter to him.

Randall had, among other stories, told Mr. SAMUEL SMITH that Mr. WM.

SMITH _should_ bring forward this land business, in the House. He

positively said so to Mr. S. SMITH on the 13th of December, and it would

be proved that he had never exchanged a word with Mr. W. SMITH, nor ever

seen him till the 22d of that month, viz: _about nine days after_. This

is the substance of a short explanation which took place between some of

the members, after Mr. SEDGWICK had ended his declaration. Mr. W. SMITH

then asked Randall, whether it was not true, that he spoke to Mr. SAMUEL

SMITH before he spoke to himself? Mr. Tilghman, in reply, said that he

was authorized to answer in the affirmative. This puts to rest the story

related by Randall to the member from Baltimore.

WEDNESDAY, January 6.

_Case of Robert Randall._

Mr. SEDGWICK laid before the House some additions to his evidence,

delivered yesterday. He gave in a written copy of the whole, and wished

that it might be added to the declaration already made. The paper was

read, and, on motion, ordered to be inserted in the journals. Mr.

SEDGWICK said he had yesterday mentioned Col. Pepune being in

Philadelphia, but he had not seen him. He has since done so. The

Colonel lodges at the sign of the Drover, in Third street, and is

ready, when called upon by the House, to tell every circumstance which

he knows about the transaction of Randall or Whitney.

Mr. W. SMITH submitted, whether it would be proper to proceed any

farther in the case of Randall, till some hearing had been given to

Whitney.

It was then moved by a member that the case of Randall should be

postponed. After some conversation as to the point of order, the motion

was negatived.

Mr. HARPER then read two resolutions. Of the first, the following is the

substance:

"_Resolved_, That any attempt to influence the conduct of

this House, or its members, on subjects appertaining to

their Legislative functions, by motives other than the

public advantage, is a high contempt of this House, and a

breach of its privileges."

The second resolution was, in substance, that Randall having committed

such an offence, was guilty of such a contempt, &c.

Mr. HARPER thought it proper, before deciding as to Randall, to lay down

certain principles, and decide whether the offence was in itself

criminal or not, before determining the conduct of the prisoner.

Mr. KITCHELL thought these resolutions unnecessary. The only thing

before the House was to call on the prisoner, and pronounce him either

innocent or guilty.

Mr. HARPER, in defence of his resolutions, said, that one misfortune

attending privileges was, that they could not be exactly defined; but,

as far as they could be ascertained, it was the business of the House to

do so. If this offence is a breach of privilege, we are entitled to

declare it such, that the people of the United States may be informed

that it is so.

Mr. W. SMITH could not conceive how any member would vote against this

first resolution. If we refuse to say that the act itself is a crime,

how can we condemn Randall as criminal? We are, in every sense of the

word, bound to vote for the proposition. We have declared the attempt of

Randall to be a high offence and contempt. If any member thinks it not

so, then, to be sure, he will vote against it. Mr. SMITH said that

Legislative bodies had frequently, while a prisoner was on trial before

them, laid down rules to guide them, previous to their pronouncing

sentence. A former member had suggested that it was better to make the

resolution a preamble to the sentence, and introduce it with a

_whereas_. As it stands at present, it is agreeable to what had been

done already.

Mr. NICHOLAS hoped that members were not to be bound by any thing yet

done. At the first embarking of the House in this affair, he had felt

doubts. His scruples had gradually augmented, and he was now of opinion

that Randall should not have been meddled with at all, in the present

way. The right of privilege had been given up, unless in cases of

absolute necessity. He did not think that any resolution had yet passed

the House, upon due consideration, whether they had a right to proceed

or not. Mr. NICHOLAS recommended lenity, rather than a parade of

integrity, where there was no ground of suspicion--a parade which would

not have been made if there had been any real danger.

Mr. WILLIAMS thought the resolutions altogether unnecessary. The

principle is already entered on the journals. All that the House have to

do is to declare Randall guilty or not.

Mr. HILLHOUSE agreed with Mr. WILLIAMS, but he was astonished at the

doctrine held up by the gentleman from Virginia. We had been told

yesterday, at the bar, that the offence is not punishable by the common

law. We are not to do so by privilege. The consequence is, that an

attempt to corrupt members cannot be punished at all. It would not be

proper to tell this to the public. Any body may then come here and bid

for votes.

Mr. HILLHOUSE thought that the counsel yesterday had fairly given up the

point, for they admitted that improper violence without doors was a

breach of privilege. Mr. H. argued that this was as great a violence as

could be. He was for inflicting a punishment.

Mr. LIVINGSTON thought the wording of the first clause too broad. Any

member spoken to without doors might come into the House and complain of

a breach of privilege on trifling grounds.

Mr. GILES would not at present enter into the question whether there had

been a breach of privilege or not. From any thing yet seen, he was

doubtful. He was against the preamble. Privilege was of an insinuating

nature. Mr. LIVINGSTON had taken up a thought which occurred to Mr.

GILES. Any man meeting on the street a member of this House, may say to

him, "Sir, by voting for such a thing in the House, you will destroy

your popularity in your district." This argument was not on motives of

public good, and a member might by this resolution be warranted to come

into the House and complain of it as a breach of privilege. He wished

for the previous question, which was taken, and by a great majority the

resolution was negatived.

Mr. LIVINGSTON then read two resolutions. Their tenor was, that it

appears to this House that Robert Randall has been guilty of a contempt

and a breach of the privileges of this House, by attempting to corrupt

the integrity of its members, in the manner laid to his charge, and that

Randall should be called up to the bar, reprimanded by the SPEAKER, and

recommitted to custody, till further orders from this House.

On the first resolution the yeas and nays were called for--yeas 78, nays

17.

After some conversation, the second resolution was likewise agreed to.

Randall was then brought to the bar, and in a few words reprimanded by

the SPEAKER. To call his offence indiscretion, impropriety, or

indelicacy, was too mild a name. His conduct was _crime_. His apparent

ignorance of the nature and extent of his guilt had induced the House to

be more indulgent than they otherwise would have been. The SPEAKER

informed him that he was recommitted to custody till further orders from

the House.

THURSDAY, January 7.

_Case of Charles Whitney._

Mr. WHITNEY was now brought in. The SPEAKER addressed him as follows:

"Charles Whitney, the information lodged against you on the journals of

the House will now be read to you by the Clerk." This was accordingly

done.

Mr. WHITNEY was next asked at what time he would be ready to proceed

with his defence? He replied that he thought he could be ready to go on

just now, if he had counsel. If he could get them to-morrow, he should

be glad to go on then, in order to get the thing over. If counsel could

not be got, he would request a delay till Monday. He was sure Mr. BUCK

had mistaken his meaning. He was told that he would be called on again

to-morrow, and if he had not been able to obtain counsel then, there was

a probability of his being allowed a delay till Monday.

Mr. BOURNE stated the hardship of obliging the prisoner to fee counsel;

no probability existing of any thing farther being brought against him.

There was but little in the charge, admitting it to be true. Mr. B. made

a distinction of the conversation having passed in Vermont, not in

Philadelphia. It was before Mr. BUCK came to Congress at all.

Mr. GILES had yesterday expressed but little satisfaction at the mode of

conducting this business, nor had his satisfaction been since augmented

by further reflection. He read a motion, which was seconded, for

dismissing Whitney immediately. Admitting all which stood charged, Mr.

GILES did not consider it as containing any breach of privilege.

Mr. W. SMITH regarded this resolution as premature; he wished to have

the regular forms of trial gone through, as in the other case. When the

trial was finished, the House could then decide on the guilt or

innocence of the prisoner. He thought that Mr. BUCK ought to be sworn.

When the offer was made in Vermont, he was looked upon as a member of

Congress, and the temptation which had been held out to him was a

contempt of the House. There was not yet a sufficient explanation to

justify his discharge.

Mr. HILLHOUSE supposed corruption to be equally criminal in Vermont as

in Philadelphia. It would commit the dignity of the House to say that we

have kept a man in jail for a week, and then have dismissed him without

a trial. It implies that we never had any right to arrest him. Mr. H.

had not formed his ultimate opinion on the subject. He wished the trial

to be gone through, and then, if the prisoner proved innocent, dismiss

him. He had made application to a member in this town, besides Mr. BUCK

in Vermont. [Mr. GOODHUE, on whom Mr. Whitney called, after he came to

Philadelphia.]

Mr. BUCK objected to the immediate dismission of Whitney. It struck him

as an impropriety to dismiss the prisoner by an unqualified resolution.

It would be better to state, as a reason, that the attempt to corrupt

the integrity of a member had happened in Vermont, before the sitting

down of Congress. Then let the question come forward and be tried.

Mr. SEDGWICK had, more than was usual with him, avoided speaking on this

question. He early entertained an idea that an application to a member

of Congress, before it sat, was not a breach of privilege. It was an

unfortunate circumstance when the same persons were to be both judges

and parties. People were apt to get into a passion when one came to them

and said, "I consider you as rascals, and I want to purchase a portion

of your rascality."

Mr. MADISON said, it appeared to him that the House could have no

privileges, unless what arises from the necessity of the case. He

differed from the opinion formed by the House, but he wished them to act

in conformity to their own principle. The object at present before the

House is, to keep its members free from corruption. Whether a proposal

is made in town or country, if we dismiss names and circumstances, and

look only to the substance of the thing, there is no distinction between

the two cases.

Mr. PAGE said, that if the motion for dismissing had come on a week ago,

he would have voted for it. He wished to get rid of the matter as fast

as possible. He alluded, though not in direct terms, to the idea of Mr.

Lewis, that it would have been better to have kicked some people down

stairs, than to have made them objects of prosecution.

Mr. HARPER considered it as a material distinction between a member

being attacked and beaten, for example, in Philadelphia, during his

attendance on Congress, and the same accident occurring during the

recess, in a distant part of the country. It was admitted that the

doctrine of privilege violated the rights of the people, and could be

justified only upon the plea of necessity: it being so liable to

misapprehension and misconstruction, he wished to see as little of it as

possible. He gave his hearty concurrence to the resolution of Mr. GILES.

He had been desirous of seeing such a thing brought forward. He adverted

to the delicate situation of the House, at once accusers, judges, and

witnesses.

Mr. GALLATIN spoke a few words in favor of the motion.

Mr. ISAAC SMITH was persuaded that the House possesses privileges, and

has a right to exert them. They are pointed out by the constitution. Mr.

S. wished to dismiss the prisoner. It had been said that dismissing him

without a trial, after having apprehended and confined him, would be

casting a reflection on the House. No such thing! There existed probable

grounds of suspicion. We have waited full time, and no proof has come

forward. Then let him go, and the sooner that we do it the better.

When Mr. ISAAC SMITH sat down, Mr. GILES rose to offer a resolution, in

place of his former one:

"_Resolved_, That it appears to this House that the

information lodged against Charles Whitney does not amount

to a breach of the privileges of this House, and that he

therefore be discharged from custody."

Mr. FREEMAN voted yesterday in a minority for dismissing Randall. He

would this day vote for discharging Whitney. As to the dignity of the

House, even an outrage upon it could be as well punished by a Justice of

the Peace as by ourselves. He stated the extreme difficulty of adopting,

in practice, the doctrine laid down, that an improper offer made to a

member when in the country, was to be punished as a breach of privilege.

A member, suppose from Georgia, comes here, and tells a story of

somebody in that State who has made him an unsuitable proposal: the

Sergeant-at-Arms is instantly despatched a thousand miles to bring this

person to the bar for contempt of the House. What kind of a business

would this be?

Mr. HARTLEY thought the resolution last offered by Mr. GILES had too

much narrowed the ground of dismissing Whitney. He had been taken up as

an associate with Randall. The charge had not been properly supported by

evidence. Dismiss him, and let the want of proof be your reason for it.

Mr. H. cordially agreed with the substance of the resolution, but he

objected to the wording of it.

Mr. KITCHELL pointed out the wide distinction between the cases of

Randall and Whitney. It had been said that the latter must be criminal,

for he was an associate with Randall. Mr. K. saw no such thing. There

was no criminality in the bond. Keep a man in jail week after week upon

idle suspicion! Injustice, Whitney ought to have been tried at first,

when he declared himself ready for trial. Mr. K. was for discharging him

this day.

Mr. HARPER now moved an amendment to the resolution before the House: it

was in these words:

"Inasmuch as the proposals made by the said Whitney took

place before the member to whom they were addressed had

taken his seat in the House."

Mr. GILES.--If the amendment succeeded, he would vote against the whole

proposition. This was a renewal of the attempt to define privilege. It

was not practicable. Every case of the kind must stand upon its own

merits. Mr. G. would vote against the amendment.

Mr. MACON read a resolution, that Charles Whitney be discharged from the

custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. This was, in fact, reducing the second

resolution offered by Mr. GILES back into his first one.

Mr. SEDGWICK thought it an awkward thing to attempt giving any reasons.

If gentlemen are willing to agree to discharge Mr. Whitney, they ought

to discharge him. They assign different reasons for the same

proceedings, and will not consent to it, but each in his own particular

mode.

Mr. HARPER was astonished to hear so many invincible objections to

telling the motives why we agree in a measure. It had been complained

that privilege was undefined; that it was an assuming, creeping monster.

An attempt had been made to define it, in part, and this also had been

objected to.

Mr. MACON said, that he would vote to discharge Whitney, for a

particular reason alleged by Mr. GILES.

Now, replied Mr. GILES, if the gentleman is to vote for the dismission

because that is my reason, I desire him to vote against the dismission.

My reason for discharging Whitney is totally different. I argue, that

all which we have entered on the journals, admitting it proved, does not

amount to any breach of our privileges. That is my motive for dismissing

the prisoner.

An amendment was proposed to strike out of the resolution of Mr. GILES

the following words: "That it appears to this House, that the

information lodged against Charles Whitney, does not amount to a breach

of the privileges of this House; and." The amendment was agreed to--ayes

43, noes 41.

It was then moved to alter the remainder of the resolution, by striking

out the word "he," and inserting "Charles Whitney." The amendment was

adopted; and the resolution so amended, stood thus:

_Resolved_, That Charles Whitney be discharged from the

custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.

This, also, was agreed to.

FRIDAY, January 8.

JEREMIAH CRABB, from Maryland, appeared, was qualified, and took his

seat.

_Indian Trading Houses._

The House went into Committee of the Whole, Mr. MUHLENBERG in the chair,

on the bill to establish trading houses for the Indian tribes.

Mr. DAYTON objected to the bill, so far as it empowers those who are to

sell the goods to the Indians, to procure or purchase the goods. He

considered the uniting these powers in the same persons as highly

exceptionable and liable to great abuse. He moved to strike out the

words "procure or."

Mr. PARKER said that the objection was misapplied, for subsequent

clauses placed the business under the special direction of the PRESIDENT

OF THE UNITED STATES. He should not, however, object to striking out the

words. His view in rising was merely to justify the committee who

reported the bill, as they had supposed that sufficient guards were

provided.

Mr. GILES did not think the reason given for retaining the words

sufficient. The PRESIDENT cannot be supposed to have such cognizance of

every part of this business as will enable him to secure the public, or

Indians, from imposition. He was for increasing the checks against

abuse.

The motion for striking out was agreed to.

In the third section, Mr. SEDGWICK objected to the words "laying aside

all view of gain by the trade." They might operate disadvantageously to

the people of the United States, if Government should enter into this

trade on a principle that would preclude all private adventures in the

same line by citizens. The words were expunged.

Mr. PARKER presented a substitute. It relates to compensation of agents

and clerks to be employed. The sum of ---- dollars was to be

appropriated. The substitute was adopted by the committee.

In the seventh section, Mr. SEDGWICK moved an amendment, providing for

the forfeiture of licenses in case of contravening the provisions of the

law. This motion was withdrawn in order to introduce the provision

elsewhere.

Mr. MILLEDGE moved to strike out the whole of this seventh section. It

appeared to him to involve provisions which would be proper in another

law, but in this bill blended two different subjects.

Mr. SEDGWICK considered the provisions in this section referring to

certain rules for regulating the public trade with the Indians, as

proper, since similar rules would be made in regulating the trade of

individuals with Indians. On this ground he was for retaining the

section.

It was moved to modify the section by confining the provisions to "the

agents or clerks," specially employed by the United States. This

amendment was agreed to.

On the motion of Mr. SEDGWICK, the last clause of the seventh section,

relative to the oath or affirmation, was expunged.

The committee then rose; the Chairman reported the bill with the

amendments, which were taken up, and agreed to by the House, with one

verbal amendment.

Mr. SWIFT expressed his disapprobation of the bill. He thought the

object unattainable to any important extent. He disapproved of public

bodies being concerned in trade. It is always managed better by

individuals. Great loss and dilapidation are the consequence; nor is it

possible to guard against frauds and abuses. The public have no money to

spare. It is the opinion of the Committee of Ways and Means, that

additional taxes will be necessary for the public service. We must not

tax our constituents for the sake of trading with the Indians. He hoped

not. Mr. S. concluded by a motion for striking out the first section.

Mr. PARKER supported the principle of the bill; he wished a fair

experiment to be made. The plan is founded on humanity and benevolence.

It has been recommended by the PRESIDENT from year to year. Mr. P., on

this subject, had been in sentiment with him. It was well-known he had

never lightly advocated a disbursement of public money; on this

occasion, it would be a saving of public money. It will cost much less

to conciliate the good opinion of the Indians than to pay men for

destroying them.

Mr. HILLHOUSE was in favor of an experiment. Much had been anticipated

from the plan; a beginning had been made, and he thought it best to try

it for such a length of time as would afford a fair experiment of what

could be done.

Mr. SWANWICK said he was in favor of the principles of the bill, were it

merely as a change from our usual system of Indian affairs. We have

hitherto pursued war at an expense of a million and a half of dollars

nearly annually; let us now try the fruits of commerce, that beneficent

power which cements and civilizes so many nations; barbarous till they

became acquainted with its influence. To encourage us, indeed, a fact

has come to our knowledge on the investigation of the case of Randall.

Gentlemen will remember his assertions to them, and the deed read in the

House, in which so much was stated of the influence of the Canada

traders over the Indians: well, let us try to balance or countervail

this influence; but it has been observed, our private citizens will do

this sufficiently in the way of their private trade. In general I am

friendly to let commerce take its own level without Governmental

interference; but the little influence our traders have yet obtained,

shows plainly enough defective capital or a defective extent of trade;

both are to be apprehended. So many objects of speculation offer in this

country, that individuals may not pay sufficient attention to this

branch, in which they have so powerful a British interest to contend

with. Government, alone, can do this in the infancy of the commerce. Let

the experiment be made; we can lose little by it; we may gain a great

deal. It has been observed, that this act has been rejected in three

different sessions of Congress already; and this is argued as a proof of

its want of merit; but this has been the fate in England of the

navigation act; it was hundreds of years struggling to get into

existence, but was not the less acceptable when at last it succeeded.

Perhaps we may find this bill, on experience, none the worse for the

difficulties, which, as an untried step, it has hitherto had to

encounter: it is recommended by general reasoning; let us try it; we can

only repeal it if we find it does not answer the sanguine expectations

entertained of it.

Mr. MACON[64] was opposed to the bill. He thought the circumstance of

the business having been so long in agitation, was a reason why it

should be longer considered. The reason for delay was certainly not

weakened by that. The business was highly improper for Government to

embark in.

Mr. MURRAY had but one idea to suggest, as it was unnecessary to go over

the general policy, which had been amply stated by other gentlemen.

There appeared to him two objects; first, the securing the Indian

friendship by a supply of their wants; second, the supplanting the

British traders in their influence over the tribes whose hostilities

might embarrass us. To the last object, therefore, the meditated mode of

supply by public agency was peculiarly well adapted. The Indians are now

supplied by a great company long established, very wealthy, and

possessing this influence, in which we must supplant them. We are to

consider whether, if private individuals are left to be the only

competitors with the Canada company, this influence and this trade will

be transferred agreeably to sound policy. He thought they would not.

Small capitalists, and adventurers young in this trade, would certainly

prove unequal to a competition with so well established and rich a

company as the Canada company. It was no uncommon thing for great

companies, when they were apprehensive of what they would call

interlopers, to crush all competition by making a voluntary sacrifice of

a few thousand pounds sterling. By underselling, on a large scale, for a

time, and even a certain loss, they secured themselves in future from

competition. This great company can afford to pay this price for the

perpetuity of this trade and influence. In order to meet the capital of

this company, we must not trust to individual small capitalists. By a

sum appropriated by Government to the object, however large the capital

in competition in Canada, the Government will be able to beat down the

trade of this company and place it in American hands; and in a few years

after the competition has ceased, the Government may then withdraw its

agency, and leave it to private capitals, to which the field will then

have been rendered easy.

The motion of Mr. SWIFT was negatived; and the bill was ordered to be

engrossed for a third reading.

WEDNESDAY, January 19.

_Appropriations for 1796._

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the bill making

appropriations for the support of Government in the year 1796.

Mr. WILLIAMS, agreeably to notice given on a former day, moved to strike

out all that gross sum appropriated for the officers of the Mint.[65]

Mr. W. SMITH said that a great proportion of the sum was for salaries

established by law. They must be paid, till the law is repealed. If the

gentleman means to suspend the whole appropriation bill till an inquiry

is gone through with respect to the Mint, the bill may be delayed for

two months, and the consequence be the greatest embarrassment in

Government.

Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH had never been much in favor of the Mint, nor had

experience increased his good opinion of it. But passing this

appropriation bill would not prevent a full investigation of this

subject hereafter. He was for deferring any proceeding about the Mint

till the select committee made their report. He opposed the motion.

Mr. SEDGWICK thought that the course which the gentleman is pursuing had

never been adopted before. It is incorrect to discuss the merits of the

Mint in passing this bill. We might as well take up the salary of the

Chief Justice, or any other article in the bill, as the Mint. We never

should have done, at this rate. We are now only to vote for the bill, as

agreeable to the laws already made. Mr. SEDGWICK said that if the

gentleman from New York (Mr. WILLIAMS) would bring forward any

proposition for the regulation, or even the abolition of the

establishment of the Mint, if it could be proved productive of public

benefit, he, with every other gentleman, would give him their aid to

effect the object; but that now, he conceived, it could not regularly be

brought forward. He thought an appropriation bill should be conformed

exactly to the state of the public engagements, and that where

establishments had been formed and salaries provided, the amount of them

should be the principle of calculating the amount of appropriations; and

that the House ought not, by withholding appropriations, to break in

upon and destroy establishments formed by the whole Legislature. That

these observations had hitherto been sanctioned by the practice on this

subject. He observed, that if the House was to investigate, in the

discussion of an appropriation bill, the amount of salaries and the

legal establishments of Government, the public service would be

dangerously destroyed. He remarked, that it was to be observed that no

appropriation was made, for any purpose, since the commencement of the

year.

Mr. GALLATIN felt alarmed at the principle advanced by Mr. SEDGWICK,

for, if admitted, it might be applied in future on some other and

important occasion. The motion made by the member from New York ought

not, perhaps, to be adopted; but there was certainly a discretionary

power in the House to appropriate or not to appropriate for any object

whatever, whether that object was authorized by law or not. It was a

power which, however inexpedient on the present occasion, was vested in

this House for the purpose of checking the other branches of Government

whenever necessary. That such a right was reserved by this body,

appeared from their making only yearly appropriations for the support of

the Civil List and of the Military Establishment. Had they meant to give

up the right, they would have such appropriations _permanent_. There was

one instance in which this House had thought it proper to abandon the

right. In order to strengthen public credit, they had consented that

the payment of interest on the debt should not depend on their sole

will, and they had rendered the appropriation for that object not a

yearly, but a permanent one. Whenever that was not the case, and the

right had been reserved, it was contradictory to suppose that the House

were bound to do a certain act, at the same time that they were

exercising the discretionary power of voting upon it.

Mr. SEDGWICK said that he certainly had no intention to have given

occasion to the observations which had been made; but, as the general

principle which he had laid down had been denied, and as it had some

relation, either intimate or remote, to the subject before the

committee, he would take the liberty to repeat the principle, and say a

few words in support of it.

The principle, then, which he had assumed, was, that when legal

establishments were made, it was the duty of the Legislature to make

appropriations conformably to the public engagements; and that neither

branch had a right to withhold its assent. He observed that the whole

Legislature, and not a part, were competent to form contracts, and to

establish and alter compensations and salaries. The Legislature, and not

either branch of it, had the power of expressing the public will, and

pledging the public faith; that when a salary is ascertained, the public

faith is pledged that it shall be paid, according to the stipulation;

and that, therefore, the public credit is involved in making the

necessary appropriations, without which it could not be paid. He asked,

if, in such a case, it was competent to the House rightfully to withhold

the means necessary for the performance of the public engagement?

He said he had always supposed that the power of the House, in the case

of appropriations, did not give a power to yield or withhold assent on

such a subject. He believed, in every such instance, the exercise of

discretion was restrained. To illustrate his ideas, he could mention a

similar instance. The constitution had declared that the PRESIDENT

should receive a stated compensation for his services, to be ascertained

by law, which could neither be diminished nor enlarged during the term

for which he should have been elected. Here was a duty imposed on the

Legislature, with the performance of which they could not, they had no

power to dispense. Yet, after the compensation was stated, no payment

could be made in consequence of appropriating. He asked, if, in this

case, when the public will was expressed, the engagement and the

national faith pledged, the Legislature could of right withhold the

necessary appropriation? The same observations might, he said, be

applied to every instance where public contracts were formed. The public

faith was pledged, the necessary appropriation must be made to prevent a

violation of it; and if withheld, such violation might justly be charged

on the Legislature.

Mr. NICHOLAS was for the resolution. It had been urged that the House

were to pass the appropriation bill as a matter of course. He thought

otherwise. The House, in enacting a law, were entitled to consider all

its consequences.

Mr. GILES adverted to a fact stated by Mr. WILLIAMS, viz: that the cents

are issued from the Mint at a cheaper rate than the price of the copper

itself; so that, if a person chooses to melt down a pound weight of

cents into a lump of copper, and takes this lump back again to the Mint,

he will receive more money for it than what it was worth in cents. Thus

the whole expense of workmanship is cast away. Mr. GILES described the

ridiculous and wasteful effects to be looked for from such a way of

coining money.

The amendment of Mr. WILLIAMS was agreed to by a very large majority.

Mr. NICHOLAS moved to strike out some of the subsequent clauses, for

payments to mechanics, for stationery, &c.

Mr. ISAAC SMITH wanted to know if it was meant to stop the whole

operations of the Mint.

Mr. PAGE objected to dispersing the workmen, who could not easily be

collected again; at least it would require an immense expense to

re-assemble them. It has been stated, in the course of this discussion,

that _every cent coined in the Mint_ has cost the public TEN; but if the

workmen are to be dispersed, and if at any future time assembled again,

the cents may come to cost _A HUNDRED CENTS_ apiece. Mr. P. recited

various reasons for hoping that the business of the Mint will in future

be conducted with more expedition, economy, and success. He stated the

immense benefit arising to the country from the plenty of copper money,

and especially to the poorer classes of people. A Mint was of more

consequence than gentlemen seemed to think it was. He said that private

mints were reported to be setting up. He wished to refer the amendment

of his colleague from Virginia to the third reading of the bill. By that

time the House would be better informed.

Mr. NICHOLAS did not wish to abolish, but merely to suspend the

operations of the Mint till nearer the end of the session. This

amendment was negatived.

The committee rose, the Chairman reported, and the House took up the

bill as reported.

The House adhered to the amendment of the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. LIVINGSTON next moved that the whole appropriation for the Mint

should be struck out.

Mr. MURRAY said, that had the gentleman from New York moved for delay,

for the purpose of introducing a motion to repeal the law which rendered

this appropriation necessary, he would not have troubled the House with

a single remark; but his motion to strike out an appropriation for the

purpose of bringing the policy of the law itself into discussion,

contained a principle in his mind so repugnant to the great Legislative

duties of the House that he would oppose it. The object of the

appropriation is not a temporary one, but a part of the machinery of

our Government, under the express authority of the constitution by law.

The doctrine now contended for by the gentlemen from New York and

Pennsylvania (Mr. LIVINGSTON and Mr. GALLATIN) was that this House have

a discretionary power of appropriating or not. To this doctrine, taken

in the extent which he conceived they contended for, he could not give

his support. On the contrary, he thought that in all cases where an

appropriation flowed from a law to make good a contract, or to erect a

permanent organ in the Government, and from any law whose object was

permanent, the true doctrine was, that it was the duty of the House to

vote an appropriation. A law is the will of a nation. The same powers

only that formed it can repeal it. If it be a constitutional act, no

power can lawfully obstruct its operation or its existence. But

attending to the doctrine maintained to-day, it would follow, that

though this House had not the power of repealing a law made by all the

branches of Government, it may obstruct its operations and render it a

dead letter; though it cannot repeal, it may do what shall amount to a

repeal, which is the assumption of a power almost equal to that of

exclusive legislation. He thought he saw in this an evil of great

extent, and an anarchy of theoretic principles. It appeared to him that

though we originate money bills, we had no right to refuse an

appropriation to existing laws that either secured a debt or any

contract, or that related to objects permanent by the law that created

or acknowledged them, as long as the law itself remained unrepealed. We

had but a share of Legislative power. Where a law relative to such

objects as he had alluded to existed, from which an appropriation

followed, till the law ceased by repeal or by other constitutional

means, it was obligatory upon us as well as upon our constituents, and

the only powers we could exercise of a discretionary sort resolved

themselves either into this mode of making good the appropriation, or of

voting for its repeal. The other branches would then judge of the

propriety of our proceeding; but till they who assisted in its enacting,

judged with us the necessity of doing it away, a duty resulted that we

should give it the energy intended by its enaction.

Mr. DAYTON conceived the question brought under discussion of too

delicate a nature to be decided at the present time. He, however,

expressed it as his opinion that the power of making appropriations was

intended and ought to be a check on establishments.

Mr. NICHOLAS conceived the House bound to weigh the merits of every law

when an appropriation was to be passed to carry it into effect, and no

appropriations should obtain the sanction of the House, unless they were

convinced of the propriety of the law.

Mr. GILES said he did not expect to hear a doctrine so novel broached in

the House as that advanced by the member from Massachusetts, (Mr.

SEDGWICK.) He had declared that he conceived the House could exercise

no discretionary power when about to pass an appropriation bill.

Mr. SEDGWICK rose to explain. The principle he advocated was, that when

a law was made pledging the public faith, the House had no discretion to

withhold, or not, an appropriation; at least as long as common honesty

was more than a name.

Mr. GILES said that if this doctrine was admitted in its full latitude,

the House would become a mere office for the registering of edicts. He

contended that the House had a right, by withholding appropriations, to

put an end to an institution without the concurrence of the Senate. He

would not say that the present was a case that called for the exercise

of that right, but they had in all cases of this nature a right to

exercise their discretion.

Mr. MURRAY considered the laws of the land as depending upon two other

branches of the Government besides this House, and conceived it highly

improper in the House to attempt to obstruct them by withholding

necessary appropriations. What would be the effect of a contrary

doctrine? It must contain the seeds of governmental anarchy. While a law

remained in force it was the duty of the House to do what was needful to

carry it into operation. He made some allusion to the British House of

Commons, who, by privilege, contend for the right of withholding

supplies to be a check on the patronage of the Crown. But such a

principle, he contended, could not apply here; our Government could not

proceed if it were admitted. As long as a law exists, it is the duty of

the House to make the needful appropriations. The whole wisdom of the

Government is not in this House. The same power is required to repeal

laws as to make them. It is true the constitution has given to the House

the more immediate command of the purse-strings; but they were under an

obligation to open them when necessity required. There is a

constitutional way of repealing laws; but the House has no right to

obstruct their operation while in force. A member from Pennsylvania,

(Mr. GALLATIN,) he observed, appeared on a former occasion to coincide

with his opinions on this subject; for he argued that the House was

bound to pass such an appropriation, as a law existed giving the salary

to the officer which it was meant to provide for.

Mr. GALLATIN said, in answer, that his observation had simply been, that

the Committee of Ways and Means, and not the House, conceived itself

bound to report an appropriation for an item established by law; but he

never doubted the power of the House to pass, or not, an appropriation.

In such cases the line of duty must remain to be drawn by opinion. With

what degree of consistency can the House be called on for a vote if, as

some members contend, they cannot have an opinion? Why are they called

upon to say, yea or nay, if they are obliged to say yea?

Mr. MURRAY conceded that a member might say yea or nay, but his duty

must in cases of this nature clearly point to one of the two; for he

could not mistake the black and white marks in the court of conscience.

He has the physical power to say yea or nay; but if he does his duty he

must say yea. The contrary principle would go to this, that the House

had a right to refuse an appropriation to pay a just debt.

Mr. GALLATIN observed, in reply, that each member will be the sole judge

whether it was or was not his duty to say yea, or the contrary. The

constitution, he said, declared that no money should be drawn from the

Treasury but by appropriations made by law: this did not look as if the

voting of appropriations was intended to be merely a matter of form. In

the second place, the constitution declares, that no appropriation for

the support of an armed force shall be made for more than two years.

Thus, though a Military Establishment may be formed by enlistments for

three or more years, yet the constitution provides that the question

shall be submitted to the House every two years; and this surely is not

as a matter of form; but in order, at such short periods, by voting on

an appropriation bill, to determine whether such an establishment should

exist longer or not. He conceived the power which he advocated as

residing in the House of great consequence, and to be used on important

occasions only.

Mr. NICHOLAS, who had risen at the same time with Mr. GALLATIN, and had

given way to him, observed, that when he first rose, he was going to

read the clause of the constitution which the member last up had

referred to. As to the black and white marks the member from Maryland

spoke of, they were differently placed in different persons; in matters

of opinion men will differ; but the constitution is a guide not to be

departed from. The power of appropriation was vested by that instrument

chiefly in the House, and no power on earth would prevent his exercising

his discretion when that power was to be put in activity.

Mr. GILES observed, that the member from Maryland had got into the

doctrine of checks, and seemed to think that if the House exercised its

constitutional check it would produce governmental anarchy.

Mr. MURRAY explained. He had alluded to the mode of getting rid of an

establishment by refusing appropriations to carry it into effect. The

constitutional mode of procuring the repeal of the law should always be

had recourse to; but he insisted that the House could not, as they were

bound by their duty, obstruct a law in force by refusing an

appropriation.

Mr. GILES conceived that the checks provided by the constitution might

be used by each of the powers of government to their full extent,

limited in every particular case only by their own discretion. If the

harmony of the branches was to be made an argument to prevent the

exercise of checks, what, he asked, became of the checks provided by the

constitution? Each branch of the government (if he understood what was

meant by constitutional checks) was to exercise its own opinions and

use its discretions within constitutional limits, without a reference to

the opinions of other branches. He next adverted to the powers of

appropriation, which he contended were in a greater degree vested in the

immediate representatives of the people, to be a wholesome check. In

case of an army establishment, for example, suppose the PRESIDENT or

Senate were to refuse their assent to the repeal of a law establishing

it? Will it be said that the clause of the constitution empowering the

House to make a biennial appropriation for the object, does not vest in

them a discretionary power in such instances of overturning the

establishment by its own will? for it cannot be kept up without an

appropriation. Is the House to be told that, for the sake of harmony,

they must give up their own powers and opinions? He maintained that, in

cases of appropriations, they had a discretionary power, to be

exercised, as in all cases, discretionarily. Was one branch to be judges

of discretion for another? No; each should judge for itself.

Mr. MURRAY said, it was known to every one that an appropriation for the

support of a military establishment could not be made for a longer term

than two years; but that case was widely different from the present. It

was known that, by the constitution, a military appropriation cannot

exist more than two years; but the doctrine he supported was in cases of

debt or obligation under a law; and, in such cases, he still contended

that, though the House had the physical power to refuse an appropriation

to satisfy a claim thus founded, they had not the right.

Here the debate was interrupted by a motion for adjournment; which was

carried, and the House adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, January 20.

_Appropriations for 1796._

The amendments from the committee being thus gone through, the bill was

ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.[66]

SATURDAY, January 30.

_Stenographer to the House._

The House then went into a Committee of the Whole on the report from the

stenographical committee. The report was read.

Mr. SWANWICK: then rose for the sake of asking information. He inquired

whether the House were to sanction and authorize the reports of the

proposed stenographer? He had very considerable apprehensions about the

propriety of entering into the subject in any mode.

Mr. W. SMITH replied, that the gentleman engaged by the committee had

undertaken to have his reports ready for Mr. Brown, printer of the

Philadelphia Gazette, in the morning of the succeeding day.

Mr. SWANWICK rose again. He observed, that to give universal

satisfaction was impracticable. So many gentlemen were to be satisfied,

that it never could be accomplished. He observed that one of the

principal causes of complaint against reporters was of a nature that did

not admit a remedy. Gentlemen rose, in the ardor of discussion, and

suffered many remarks to escape from them, which, neither in thought nor

expression, were perfectly correct. If the reporter, as was his duty,

took them down, and stated them exactly, gentlemen were irritated by

seeing themselves exhibited in this shape, and then blame was cast on

the reporter. Every degree of praise was due to the editor of a

Philadelphia daily newspaper, whom Mr. S. named, and who had not only

done every thing in his power to obtain the debates of the House at full

length, but had frequently advertised, that if errors were committed by

his reporter, they should, on application, be instantly rectified. More

than this it was impossible to desire, for no mode of conduct could be

more liberal or candid. But Mr. S. did not see the propriety of blending

the House of Representatives and the editor of a newspaper in this

business. The stenographer is to be called an officer of the House,

while he receives eleven hundred dollars from the printer of a

Philadelphia newspaper. He is thus also the officer of the printer, as

well as ours. If we give the gentleman the proposed salary, we are to

depend on him alone, whereas at present we have different reporters, and

two or three of them frequently and mutually both corroborate and

correct each other. What has escaped one reporter, or what he has

misunderstood, is often observed by his competitor. The error is

amended, or the defect supplied. Mr. S. farther observed, that as far as

he had read or heard of, such an institution as the one now proposed,

was never known under any Government, or in any country, that had

hitherto existed. [It was observed, in some part of the debate, that an

attempt of this kind was once made by the National Assembly of France.]

Mr. S. expressed himself warmly against Government making any

composition of the nature now proposed with a printer, and against any

attempt for giving one newspaper an advantage over another, by any

preference as to the copy. If Mr. S. wanted any person to be sure of

dismission and disgrace, he could not name any other situation where

that dismission and disgrace were so absolutely certain, as to a person

accepting the proposed office of stenographer. If he did his duty,

gentlemen would frequently not like to see their speeches exactly as

delivered. If he altered them, his utility was at an end. It would

therefore be much better to let the gentleman stay at his own business.

Mr. GILES objected particularly to the opposition made in this late

stage of the business. He admitted that it was a delicate step, but he

complained in strong terms of the inaccuracy of the reports now given.

He observed that the object was not merely to find a stenographer who

would satisfy the members of that House, but who would also give

satisfactory information to the public at large.

Mr. SHERBURNE agreed with the gentleman last up, that the object of the

resolution could not be merely to give satisfaction to members, but

information to the public; though if it was important that the public

should be informed of what was said in that House, the proposed

resolution would be inadequate to its objects. But he conceived it more

important for the public to be informed of what was done, and that, he

observed, was not always to be inferred from what was said; as (the mind

being always open to conviction) it had not been unusual in a former--he

would not say the present--House, for gentlemen to argue one way, and

vote another. As therefore, no certain inferences of the conduct of

members would be drawn from their speeches, and as the public were more

interested in their actions than their sayings, (a knowledge of which

the present resolution was not, in his opinion, calculated to promote,)

it would not meet his concurrence. But, Mr. S. further observed, that if

the speech was to be considered as the infallible _inditium_ of the

subsequent conduct, as the avowed object of the resolution was to

diffuse, through the various parts of the States a knowledge of that

conduct, he should oppose it from a conviction that the means were not

competent to the end. The resolution proposed a publication of the

debates in a daily Philadelphia paper. These debates would necessarily

be so voluminous as to engross the greater part of such a publication.

Except in Philadelphia, New York, and one or two other large cities,

there were no daily papers; in all other places, they were not published

oftener than once, or, at most, twice, a week. The daily papers, in

comparison with others, were few. If, therefore, a daily paper was

engrossed by a detail of the debates, when would the public arrive at a

knowledge of them through the more common medium of a weekly paper? The

inhabitants of this, and a few other large towns, might be gratified,

perhaps benefited, by a speedy perusal of them; but when would the

citizens of more distant parts of the Union, through their usual weekly

channels, be indulged with the like opportunities? The difference would

be as one to six; and what the inhabitants of Philadelphia might become

acquainted with in one year, the people of New England and Georgia would

not be informed of in six years, unless they relinquished their own

weekly publications for a Philadelphia paper.

Mr. SEDGWICK said, that he would candidly confess that the House had put

itself in a delicate situation on this subject; yet if, on the whole,

gentlemen be of opinion that the measure was improper, it ought not, by

reason of any antecedent conduct, to be now further pursued to the

public detriment. It was also but just to say, that if the measure was

proper, a more competent and more impartial agent than the one proposed

could not be obtained. He said that the printers had much merit from

their endeavors to communicate to the public the debates of the House,

yet it must be allowed that their endeavors had been too unsuccessful;

that, in consequence, much injury had been done, not only to the

characters of gentlemen as men of talents, but also in some instances,

to the motives which had produced public measures. These were evils to

which a remedy should be applied, if it did not involve those which

would be more injurious. It ought to be remembered that the man

appointed would be an officer of the House, responsible to it for his

fidelity and accuracy. The debates would then be published under

authority of the House, and it of consequence was responsible for his

precise execution of the trust. It was impossible to conceive that at

some times, with the best intention, he should not mistake, and of

course misrepresent. The member in such a situation, would feel the

injury, but redress would be obtained only by the interposition of the

House. This would afford ground for numerous appeals, and endless

litigation; and, in the end, might be ruinous to many valuable and

respectable characters. It was of importance that no constraint should

exist which would prevent gentlemen from expressing freely and without

fear their own feelings and opinions and those of their constituents.

How far the fear of misrepresentation, and the difficulty of correcting

it, under such a system, would produce such an effect, gentlemen he

hoped would consider before they assented to this proposition.

There was one other consideration, which had great weight on the mind.

Whatever opinion we might entertain on the subject at present, all would

remember the powerful influence of party and faction, and their intimate

connection with free governments. From hence it might be easy to

conceive, that hereafter this might be rendered the most powerful engine

of an unprincipled majority, to overawe and to prostrate and destroy a

virtuous minority. For no character was so established as to withstand

for any length of time constant misrepresentation supported by the

authority of the House of Representatives.

Mr. HARPER rose in reply to Mr. SEDGWICK, who, immediately after he

began speaking, observed that the gentleman had mistaken his meaning.

Mr. H. said that he perfectly understood the member, and proceeded to

recommend the object of the report. He gave credit to the present

reporters for diligence and good intention, but thought them far

inferior to what might be done. Great attainments had been made, he

admitted, but more might be done. He thought it of the highest

consequence that the speeches of members should be correctly published

and disseminated among the people. As to the sum now proposed, a London

newspaper would give, he had no doubt, five thousand dollars a year for

such a reporter. He questioned not that Woodfall would receive ten

thousand pounds a year from the printer for his reports. It had been

objected that daily papers alone could hold such debates; but weekly and

semi-weekly papers could select the most interesting passages of them

from the daily papers. Mr. H. recommended either that this report or a

similar one should be adopted, or that the business of reporting should

at once be put to an end. He spoke of _atrocious_ mistakes. The debates,

as now published, held up the House to the scorn of the world. He would

rather have the doors shut up altogether. He would, if the present

resolution was rejected, make a motion to that effect. He was sorry to

learn that the debates had been collected into a book, entitled "The

Political Register," of which he doubted not that immense numbers would

be sent to Europe, and this book he reprobated in the strongest terms.

Mr. SEDGWICK observed, if gentlemen were misrepresented, in one of the

newspapers, where debates were reported, the editor of that paper had

advertised that he was ready to publish any corrections which might be

offered. This notice had been long and frequently given, and gentlemen

had it in their power to do themselves justice.

The first resolution in the report was then read, and the question going

to be put, when

Mr. BALDWIN said, that the more the House advanced into this affair, the

greater was the number of difficulties which occurred. The resolutions

had the less weight with him because they were hurried through at the

close of last session. The institution was unprecedented in any other

Government. He knew that members might be misrepresented, but this

scheme would not cure the evil. He repeatedly declared, that on all

great questions, where talents found an object worth exertion, the

debates in that House were very well represented. He had seen many

speeches, sketched by printers in this city, that he would not wish to

see better done. He did not know of any recent or particular complaints

about inaccuracy. We have now been in session for seven or eight weeks,

and there has not occurred much interesting matter, to make any

remarkable debate out of He said that the debates, if taken at full

length, would far exceed the limits of any newspaper. As to the expense

of printing, that of the laws of this session would cost twenty thousand

dollars, and he conjectured that to print the speeches, would require a

hundred thousand dollars; and even after they were printed, it would be

necessary to pay people for being at the trouble to read them, for

otherwise nobody would go through a perusal of every word spoken in the

House.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, that the reports at present published were full of

notorious falsehoods, and the characters of members with their

constituents would have been sunk, if it had not been known that this

kind of things deserved no credit. He was in favor of the report. He

complained that even when pieces were sent to the printers, they were

embodied in the sketch, by Which means the reporter got the full credit

of them, which had pernicious consequences. One of his objections to the

present mode of reporting was, that the speeches of members were often

much improved. He mentioned an instance from his own experience. A

speech was once made for him by a person who reports in this House, and

who has a very good style of writing. The style, said Mr. N., was above

mine. There was not a sentiment in it which I would have disavowed. It

was a better speech than mine; but, in an entire column, there was

nothing that I said. As for sending corrections to the printers, Mr. N.

was above it.

Mr. HILLHOUSE was against the report. The loss of four thousand dollars

would be a much greater harm to the public than any injury arising from

inaccurate reports. He did not see that the characters of members with

their constituents depended on these publications.

Mr. SWANWICK.--The gentleman from Virginia last up has suggested that

the House have somehow committed themselves to appoint a stenographer,

by their previous resolution on this subject; but that resolution goes

only to the committee receiving proposals. It therefore remains with

this House whether to accept them or not when made. As to the gentleman

who is the subject of the resolution, if I have more strenuously than

usual opposed the motion, it is from a desire to keep him from quitting

the lucrative situation he is said to find himself in, to embark on the

stormy sea he is contemplating. To be the organ of the members of this

House to their constituents is indeed a very delicate task; one for

which, considering the danger he might be in of an Orpheus's fate--that

of being torn to pieces--the salary is but a poor compensation. He is to

do justice to the eloquence of some members; he is to clothe in an

elegant dress the uncouth, yet well-meaning expressions of others; but

what will he do with the silent members, who never speak at all? What

will their constituents think of them? Indeed, sir, if he has the idea I

have formed of his danger, he will not undertake it at all. Faction and

party have been mentioned: happy stenographer, if he can keep clear of

these! If he fall into their power, insensibly he will represent one

side in clouds and darkness, the other as ornamented with the brightest

beams of light. How will he please both? Misrepresentation is complained

of: alas, sir, how quick is error--how slow is the progress of truth in

almost all things! Our stenographer must indeed be a wonder-working man,

if he can revert this tide, and make every where light and correct

reasoning prevail. The best mode of informing our constituents is, by

the yeas and nays on our acts; this truly shows, as a gentleman from new

Hampshire has observed, our doings, which are much more interesting to

them than our abstract reasonings; these our constituents will easily

form to themselves ideas of, when they know our votes; as the celebrated

Dr. Johnson is said to have written speeches for members of Parliament

whose general political sentiments he knew; by knowing these he applied

arguments pretty accurately, as he supposed them to bear on every

question offered. But, it has been observed, if we do not agree to have

an official stenographer, a motion will be made to clear the House of

those who now take down debates. These persons are tolerated only on the

principle that our galleries are open. Woodfall, a celebrated printer,

took down debates from memory: could we prevent this being done here? Or

should we drive all printers from us who take notes, for the

inaccuracies of some? I hope not. The liberty of the press has great

title to respect. How can we agree by a miscellaneous union, the most

strange, to commute with Mr. Brown, the printer, the salary of four

thousand dollars, so as to possess him first of the proof-sheets,

without supposing other printers will become rivals of this business,

and complain if they are thwarted in an equal pursuit of their own

livelihood? The best way is, to leave this business, like others, to

regulate itself. Mr. Brown, by his labor in this way, has already widely

extended the circulation of his paper--evident in his present

overture--and, by the by, this is no mean proof of correctness on the

whole in his success; he or others will still go on to improve the

business, if left to themselves. If he or they fall into errors, they

are their own. Members may correct them, or write their own speeches

out, if they please. But what has the House to do with this; or why

should it become the censor and promulgator of the speeches of its own

members? Our time is wasted often, already, by too many long discussions

on unimportant objects; but what would it be if we were to be every

morning saluted with motions to correct the performances of the

stenographers of the preceding day? All the advantage of the motion is

to obtain more accuracy; but, it is said, the House means not to pledge

itself for this accuracy: if so, why employ an officer under its

authority for this purpose? On the whole, sir, we shall in vain seek to

escape abuse and misrepresentation; these are by far too much in vogue.

All the consolation left is, what I usually apply in such cases--that

is, the consciousness of not deserving them.

Mr. GILBERT was against the report. He thought the publication of the

laws and the yeas and nays, a sufficient means to communicate the

proceedings of the House.

Mr. WM. LYMAN said that the debates in one of the newspapers (he either

named or plainly alluded to the Philadelphia Gazette) had, for the two

last sessions, been altogether exceptionable. He was sorry to learn,

that these debates had been collected by a person who comes here, so

that they would now, perhaps, descend to posterity. If they were as

incorrect in the volume (the Political Register) as they were in the

newspaper, they were a libel on that House, and would disgrace it with

the world. If this resolution was rejected, it would be advisable to

send all the printers to the gallery.

Mr. KITCHELL was entirely against the object of the report.

Mr. GILES said, that he might have taken up wrong impressions, but he

thought the matter worth trying. It was a thing of experiment, by which

he believed that the printer would make money. He acknowledged that, for

some time past, several of the reports had been pretty correct. It is

better to let them go out as they are, than to stop them altogether. He

would not wish to press the motion, if it was to meet with opposition

from several gentlemen who had this day spoken against it. He moved that

the committee should rise, and the further consideration of the report

be deferred till Monday.

Mr. W. SMITH said, it was admitted on all sides, that it was highly

important for the people to receive the most accurate information of the

proceedings of the House, and that the debates were, in general,

extremely misrepresented. Was it not, then, the duty of the House to

remedy this evil, and to adopt such measures as would transmit to the

people in every part of the United States the most accurate information

of the conduct of their Representatives? The House had now an

opportunity of obtaining the services of a gentleman peculiarly

distinguished for the rare talent of reporting with accuracy public

debates; the compensation which would be adequate to such useful and

laborious service, was beyond the ability of any printer; the House

ought therefore to contribute towards it; the sum required was a trifle,

when compared with the advantages; it was no object. The only question,

then, was, whether the stenographer ought to be an officer of the House;

in that capacity he certainly would be more easily restrained from the

commission of any wilful misrepresentation. Mr. S. did not feel the

force of the objections against the report. It had been said that,

although the members were now misrepresented, yet, they had it in their

power to publish corrections; but these corrections were often

overlooked, while the misrepresentation was operating very injuriously

to the character of the member; this was generally the case in places

remote from the seat of Government; the mangled account of a debate was

republished in a distant paper, and the correction, if it reached the

distant printer, was generally disregarded. Among the opponents to this

report, Mr. S. said he was surprised to find the gentleman who

represented this city, (Mr. SWANWICK,) who, more than any other member,

should have withdrawn his opposition to the measure proposed; that

gentleman's constituents had it in their power, at any time, to hear the

debates of Congress; they were on the spot; ought he not, then, in

candor, to assist in facilitating to the remote citizens the means of

obtaining the best knowledge of the proceedings, and the most correct

statement of the discussions of the House? Ought they, from their

remoteness, to be kept in the dark, or to be furnished with such light

as would only mislead? Had they not a claim on the House to adopt such

means as would enable the citizens in every State to judge of the

propriety of public measures? The member from this city had another

exclusive advantage; if misrepresented, he could correct the error, and

the correction would be read; that was not the case with the members

from the remoter States, whose reputation might be injured by

misrepresentation, without a similar advantage: the member from this

city was in the midst of his constituents; he had daily opportunities of

setting right any misstatement by personal explanation.

Mr. SMITH said, he did not agree with some gentlemen, that it was

sufficient for the people to know what laws were passed, without knowing

the previous discussions; he thought, on the contrary, the favorable or

unfavorable impression of a law on the public mind, would depend, in a

great degree, on the reasons assigned for and against it in debate, and

the people ought to know those reasons. When a law passes, imposing a

tax, would not the people be reconciled if they saw, from the

discussions of the House, that such tax was unavoidable, and that the

particular mode of taxation was the best which could be devised? And

ought this information to depend entirely on the caprice or convenience

of the reporters, who attended when it pleased them, and who published

just as much of the debate as they found leisure or patience to

accomplish? Mr. S. said he was convinced that the errors which had

excited so much complaint, were not the effect of design, but merely of

inadequacy to the task. Very few were competent to such a business,

which required peculiar skill in stenography, very laborious

application, and a clear comprehension of the subject-matter of debate.

It could not be expected that persons thus qualified would devote their

whole time to this business, without an ample reward. The report was

objected to because there was novelty in the plan; it was true the House

of Commons of England had no such officer, but their practice was not a

fit precedent for us on this occasion, for they admitted no person to

write down, in the House, their proceedings; their debates were taken

from memory. This House, on the contrary, had, from its first

institution, facilitated, by every accommodation, the reporting their

proceedings. The thing was not altogether, however, without precedent.

During the existence of the National Assembly of France, there were

officers of the House who composed a daily work called the Logography,

which was an exact account of the debates of that body. It had been

asked, what control the House were to have over this officer? He

answered that the stenographer would be liable to be censured or

displaced, if he should be guilty of wilful misrepresentation. It would

be always easy to discriminate between a casual inadvertence and a

criminal misstatement; the officer's character and talents, his

responsibility to the House, and his oath to report with impartiality,

would be a sufficient pledge of his accuracy. Mr. S. seriously believed

that the character of the House had suffered from the erroneous

statements which had gone abroad. He wished to guard against this evil

in future; he was willing, for himself, that every syllable he uttered

within those walls should be carried to every part of the Union, but he

deprecated misrepresentation. He was anxious that the truth should be

known in relation to every act of the Government; for he was as

satisfied that the affection and confidence of the people in this

Government would increase with the promulgation of truth, as that

whatever it had lost of that affection and confidence, was owing

altogether to the propagation of detraction and calumny. It was under

these impressions that he had originally brought forward the proposition

and that he now recommended the report, and having heard no reasons to

change his sentiments of the expediency of the measure, he should

persist in supporting it.

The motion by Mr. GILES was agreed to. The committee rose, and, a few

minutes after, the House adjourned to Monday.

MONDAY, February 1.

_Indian Trading Houses._

The engrossed bill for establishing trading houses for the Indian tribes

was taken into consideration. The first blank was for the gross sum to

be appropriated for the general objects of the bill. It was moved to

fill this blank with $150,000.

Mr. WILLIAMS spoke in favor of the bill.

Mr. PARKER supported the general provision of the bill, and urged the

necessity of an immediate attention to the subject. He calculated on a

surplus in the appropriation for the War Department to provide for this

object.

Mr. HARPER moved that the bill should be recommitted. He then entered

into a general consideration of the principles of the bill, which he

reprobated altogether. Alluding to the general objects of commerce, he

said that public bodies never manage these matters without loss. He

adverted to the repairs of roads, construction of canals, &c.; all these

objects prosper under private individual direction, but when entered

into by public bodies nothing is ever brought to perfection, and the

public money is lost. He applied these ideas to the plan of the bill.

Persons at fifteen hundred or two thousand miles distance, are to be

intrusted with public property to a large amount. It is not in human

wisdom to guard against frauds and impositions; no check or control can

be devised which will be found adequate to repressing private rapacity.

Mr. H., therefore, wished the bill recommitted, for the purpose of an

entire new modification. If the motion should obtain, he should then

move a resolution providing for a loan to individuals for the purpose.

Mr. SWANWICK supported the general principle of the bill, and reprobated

the idea of loans to individuals; he considered such a plan as one of

the worst kind of sinking funds. The plan is an experiment; it is not,

perhaps, possible to predict what will be the result; but the object is

worth the trial and worthy the attention of the Legislature. He

considered the objections against the plan of the bill as applying with

greater force against the proposed substitute.

Mr. S. SMITH said, when the gentleman from South Carolina made his

motion for a recommitment, he had supposed he would have accompanied the

motion with some reasons; but since he had heard what he offered as

reasons, he found himself confirmed in his opinion of the inexpediency

of his motion. Mr. S. said, the only reason for the commitment was, that

the principle of the bill might be changed, by individuals being

substituted for the Government, that is, by loaning the money to private

persons for the purposes of the trade. He was entirely opposed to this

principle. Public debtors are the worst kind of citizens. These persons,

after having expended or lost the money, will be coming forward with

their petitions to be released from their bonds. He did not wish to

increase the business of the Committee of Claims.

Mr. SWIFT enlarged on the idea suggested by Mr. HARPER. He thought it

infinitely preferable to leave the business to the enterprise and

resources of individuals.

Mr. HARPER rose in reply to Mr. SMITH. He entered into a further

consideration and defence of the plan he had proposed as a substitute.

Mr. DEARBORN objected to Mr. HARPER's idea; he saw no sufficient reason

to support the preference that gentleman gave to a loan to individuals.

He was in favor of the general principle of the bill; he thought it

economical to appropriate money for the object of cultivating good

understanding and harmony with the Indians, but should vote for the bill

only on the condition of a reduction of the Military Establishment.

Mr. GILES entered more largely into a consideration of the principle of

the bill. He had no opinion of governmental bargains--he believed they

always turned out losing bargains.[67] The clause which provides that

the original stock shall not be diminished, he conceived, would operate

against the general object of the bill, if adhered to; but this he did

not contemplate; he supposed that it would terminate in an annual

provision. Mr. G. alluded to the PRESIDENT's Speech, a clause of which

had been recited; he did not consider that, or a former recommendation

of this matter, as binding on the House. If the PRESIDENT's Speech is

considered as the political Bible of the Government, the case is

different; but he presumed no person was disposed to assert this. He

considered the House as perfectly free to adopt or reject the

proposition. With respect to the effects of the measure, gentlemen had

differed in their predictions. Predictions which were the nearest to the

effects produced, may be considered as the result of the greater

political sagacity. He would venture to predict that the whole sum

proposed to be appropriated would be sunk in three years. With respect

to the fund contemplated from the surplus of the War Department

appropriation, he considered it as altogether illusory; there is no such

surplus, none had heretofore been found, and he presumed none ever

would. For though the number of troops voted had never been raised, yet

the whole of the money appropriated was always expended.

Some further remarks were made by several members, and then the motion

for recommitting the bill being put, was lost--52 to 34.

Mr. SWIFT then renewed his motion for a postponement. This, after a few

remarks from that gentleman, and a short reply from Mr. GILBERT, in

support of the bill, was negatived.

The motion for filling the blank with $150,000, was then put and agreed

to, fifty-six members rising in the affirmative.

On reading the section in which the blank for the penalty is included,

Mr. VENABLE moved for a partial recommitment of the bill, for the

purpose of new-modifying the section. This motion gave rise to a variety

of observations, in the course of which the motion was extended to a

general commitment. This motion being put, was lost.

The motion then was, to recommit the second, fourth, and sixth sections.

The second section was recommitted. The fourth section provides that the

capital stock of the United States embarked in this business shall not

be diminished. Mr. VENABLE's object was to have the section so modified

as to blend the interest of the individual who is to conduct the

business with that of the public. Mr. S. SMITH said the motion went to

destroy the bill, for no person would engage in the business on such a

plan. The motion for committing the fourth section was lost. The sixth

section assigns the sum of $150,000 to be appropriated for the general

objects of the bill. The motion to recommit this section was negatived.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the

second section, Mr. MUHLENBERG in the chair.

Mr. VENABLE moved that the section should be altered to read, that the

agent should give bonds to the amount in value of the goods committed to

his charge.

Mr. J. SMITH supposed that the sum should be sufficient to cover the

amount of the goods which may at any time be found in the hands of the

agents; from ten to fifteen or twenty thousand dollars, he supposed,

might be sufficient for this purpose.

Mr. DEARBORN suggested the idea of leaving this part of the business to

the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. He moved to amend the clause

accordingly.

Mr. VENABLE's motion was lost. Mr. DEARBORN's motion was agreed to.

The committee then rose, and the Chairman reported the amendment, which

was adopted by the House. It was then ordered that the bill be again

engrossed and read the third time to-day.

[The bill was subsequently read a third time and passed--58 members

rising in the affirmative.]

TUESDAY, February 2.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

STATES:

_Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of

Representatives:_

I transmit herewith the copy of a letter, dated the 19th of

December last, from Governor Blount to the Secretary of

War, stating the avowed and daring designs of certain

persons to take possession of lands belonging to the

Cherokees, and which the United States have, by treaty,

solemnly guaranteed to that nation. The injustice of such

intrusions, and the mischievous consequences which must

necessarily result therefrom, demand that effectual

provision be made to prevent them.