MARCH 31.--Mr. BLOUNT moved that the Message be referred to a Committee
of the Whole on the state of the Union.
Mr. GILES was of opinion it had better be referred to a Committee of the
Whole simply.
Mr. SEDGWICK saw no reason for such a reference. He wished gentlemen
would point out the object of the motion.
Mr. THATCHER saw no good to be obtained by referring it. The House had
requested the PRESIDENT to lay certain papers before them; the
PRESIDENT answers, that he has none for them. Why a reference? The House
asked a question; the PRESIDENT answered in the negative--for what
purpose refer the answer? what would be gained by it?
Mr. BLOUNT observed, that the PRESIDENT's Message stands upon the
journals of the House; he wished, also, that the House should state upon
their journals the reasons which influenced them to make the request.
Perhaps, also, he said, a consideration of the Message might lead to
some further measure proper to be adopted. He was indifferent whether it
was referred to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, or a
Committee of the Whole, simply.
Mr. NICHOLAS remarked that it was prejudging the question to say that
nothing could arise out of a consideration of the Message. The present
is a crisis important in the affairs of the country, independently of
the Treaty. If the Message was a proper subject of discussion, it was
proper to refer it to a Committee of the Whole. He did not think a
reference to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union
proper; because the Message points to a subject differing from that
referred to that committee. The investigation at any rate could produce
nothing wrong.
Mr. GILES said, that the member from North Carolina (Mr. BLOUNT) had
explained the object he had in view by a reference. He preferred a
reference to a Committee of the Whole, independently; because the
Message itself would furnish matter enough for consideration by itself.
He should object to its being referred to the Committee of the Whole,
who are to take into consideration the British Treaty; because he never
would consent to act upon that subject till the papers deemed material
to the investigation were laid upon the table. He hoped the reference to
a Committee of the Whole, generally, would be agreed to. It certainly
would be proper for the House to state their reasons for the call. This
call had given rise to a great constitutional question; the PRESIDENT
had stated the reasons of his opinion; if the House were not convinced
by them, (and he owned that, for one, he was not,) then it would be
proper that they should present to the public their reasons for
differing with him.
Mr. THATCHER argued, that the reasons of the House were contained in the
speeches of members in favor of the motion; the papers had been filled
with them, and a pamphlet was going to be published containing them all.
If this was not sufficient, the gentlemen had better direct the pamphlet
to be copied on the journals.
Mr. WILLIAMS considered this a new question, and wished for time to
consider. The PRESIDENT's Message is only an answer to a request of the
House. It does not call for any thing to be done, then why a reference?
Such a reference would be unprecedented. Entering the reasons of the
House on the journals could produce no good. The House could not call
for the papers more than they had done. He reminded the House that
three weeks had already been spent in agreeing to the call; if they
agreed to the present motion, they would spend as much more in agreeing
to the reasons. The PRESIDENT, in his Message, had mentioned the
proceedings of the grand Convention; this was a new topic to him not
started in debate; when the Treaty is before the House, perhaps they
might wish to have the Message before them on that ground. He should
vote for the reference if gentlemen could assign (what they had not yet
done) a proper motive for it.
Mr. SEDGWICK urged that the reasons of the majority would make a large
book. Were the Committee of the Whole to turn authors and write a
dissertation on part of the constitution? The people did not send their
Representatives here for any such purpose, and he hoped it would not be
persisted in. If the reasons of the House were to be drafted, he
ventured to predict, that they would reach the end of their political
career before the discussion that must necessarily arise upon them would
be brought to a close. Such a measure would be unprecedented, and lead
to a great waste of time, and continually defeat the real objects of
their mission. The session had been long enough already, and it must be
lengthened to accomplish the necessary business of it. If the gentlemen
would write books, he was confident every body would buy them; but he
could not see the propriety of the present motion.
Mr. BLOUNT observed, that the PRESIDENT refers, in his Message, to the
debate in the House, and insinuates that the House contend for a right
not given them by the constitution. This was the first instance of any
importance of a difference between the House of Representatives and the
Executive respecting a great constitutional point; it was then proper to
make such a disposal of the Message as to enable the House to state
their reasons in support of their opinion, that the people may be
rightly informed, that they may see the House is attempting no
encroachment.
Mr. HEATH hoped the Message would not be passed over in silence. The
PRESIDENT surely is not infallible. A very important constitutional
question is involved; he hoped the reference would be agreed to.
Mr. SITGREAVES was against the motion. The House have made a demand on
the PRESIDENT; the PRESIDENT refused it; this must naturally put an end
to the correspondence on this subject. The difference of sentiment
between the two branches is not sufficient reason for converting the
journals of the House into a volume of debates. If the majority are to
place their reasons, the minority cannot be denied the same indulgence;
then for a rejoinder, rebutters, surrebutters, without end. From the
practice of the House, in a case analogous, a rule of conduct for the
present case may be drawn. When a bill is sent to the PRESIDENT, if he
dislikes it, he negatives and sends it to the House with his reasons.
Those reasons are put on the journals, as directed by the constitution;
but it contains nothing to direct or authorize the majority to register
their reasons, and thus to enter into a controversy. The return bill is
put to vote, and if two-thirds of each House agree to it, it passes; if
not, it falls to the ground, but no reasons are entered on the part of
the House.
Mr. GALLATIN said he did not expect the motion for a reference would
have met with any opposition. Some members are of opinion, that the
Message should be passed over in silence; others had resolved to ground
some act upon it. There exists a difference, then, on this first point.
The natural course is, then, a reference to a Committee of the Whole, to
determine whether the House would act further on the business.
In Committee of the Whole a discussion could be had concerning the
propriety of acting further on the Message. When the House made the call
for papers, they did not give their reasons in the resolution; it was
but a bare request. The PRESIDENT decided he could not comply with it.
If he had stopped here, perhaps there might be grounds for ending the
correspondence here; but he was not satisfied with this, but has entered
into his motives for refusing. Indeed, he had gone further; he had
adverted to the debates had in the House. He may be mistaken as to the
motives he ascribes to the House. In this delicate situation it is
certainly right to notice the Message, and to explain the real motives
of the House in support of the motion. If it is a novelty to reply to an
answer of the PRESIDENT's, it was equally a novelty, also, in making an
answer to notice a debate in support of a resolution. It is necessary to
refer the Message to a Committee of the Whole, to determine how to act.
He declared his mind was not made up upon this point, and therefore he
wished it referred to a Committee of the Whole. Not, however, to the
Committee on the state of the Union, because there exists no connection
with the subject referred to that committee. Referring to a Committee of
the Whole is deciding nothing, but only determining to examine; it could
not decide on the propriety of acting.
Mr. COOPER said, that the further the gentlemen travelled a wrong road,
the further they would get out of a true course, and the more difficult
it would be to return.
Mr. HARPER observed, that this was not the first attempt to get the
House to do something, to commit them to do something further. A motion
is now made to refer the Message to a Committee of the Whole, and the
House are told, that if the motion be carried, it is nothing, it is
deciding nothing, but will only lead to an inquiry whether the House
ought to act. He insisted that such a reference would in fact be
determining that they would act, and then, in committee, they would
determine how, and in that committee, he said they would be asked, why
did the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole if not to
act? So, when the Indian Treaty was ratified, a motion was made to
request the PRESIDENT to lay it before the House. When it was laid
before them, it was then contended that the House had a right to
interfere in the Treaty, or why ask for it? It could not be supposed
that gentlemen of any understanding could be imposed upon by such a
flimsy sophistry. It was now the proper time, and the House the proper
place, he contended, to settle the principle whether the House would
sanction any further proceedings on the Message. What reason could be
adduced for acting? It is said that the PRESIDENT has not only refused
the papers, but given his reasons for the refusal, and that his
reference to the debate, and the statement he made about the motives of
the House, might be found incorrect; that the PRESIDENT may have
attributed to the majority motives they were not willing to avow. The
motives had been avowed by the gentleman who led the business from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. HARPER was called to order. He concluded by declaring that he would
vote against the reference.
Mr. VARNUM observed, that a great constitutional question was to be
decided; two branches of the Government differed, and they had joined
issue. The PRESIDENT had given the reasons of his opinion; it was right,
also, that the people should know the sense of the House. Shall the
House take no further measures on the subject, and receive the answer of
the PRESIDENT as obligatory with regard to the question? He believed
every member of the House has, as well as the PRESIDENT, the right to
avow his principles, and to judge of the import of the different parts
of the constitution. The House he conceived under an obligation to
consider the question: if they found, upon consideration, reason to
recede from their opinions, he hoped they would. He wished the subject
examined with temper and candor.
Mr. KITTERA chiefly dwelt on the length of time, which, if the motion
was agreed to, would be consumed in the business. He also touched on the
impropriety of entering into a disquisition on the merits of this
question on the journals.
Mr. CRABB.--Mr. SPEAKER, I hope the Message received from the PRESIDENT,
in answer to the resolution of this House, calling for certain papers
relative to the British Treaty, will be referred to a Committee of the
whole House. My reasons for this wish are, because the PRESIDENT has
refused the papers on constitutional principles, and has thought proper
to go into a detail of the reasons which led to a formation of his
opinion; therefore I apprehend it proper to make the reference, in
order, that if the reasons urged by the PRESIDENT are such as to
convince this House that he is right as to the constitutional question,
that they may have an opportunity to acknowledge it, that it may be so
known and understood abroad, inasmuch as the contrary opinion has been
promulgated; and again, I wish the reference, that this House may, with
respect and calm deliberation, consider the PRESIDENT's Message, and the
reasons on which his refusal to send the papers is grounded, that if
those reasons are not such as to convince or change the opinion of this
House, they, in that case, may have an opportunity so to express
themselves, and to introduce resolutions to that effect, that the
opinion of this House, on this great constitutional question, after the
receipt and consideration of the PRESIDENT's Message, may be fully
known, clearly understood, and stamped on your journals. I think this a
necessary measure, inasmuch as sundry Treaties lately negotiated are now
before this House, and by a declaratory resolution, as before stated,
this House may save the constitutional principle, and feel themselves at
perfect liberty to pass the necessary laws to carry these Treaties into
complete effect, without conveying the implication, that they think they
are bound so to do, and have not a constitutional right to reject and
refuse, when even they shall judge the general prosperity of the Union,
and the interest of their constituents, may be promoted by that refusal.
Mr. GILES said, he had not expected the subject would have been treated
with ridicule, and that members in reply should advise others to go and
write pamphlets. The motives of a branch of Government must necessarily
differ from the motives of individuals expressed in their speeches. A
majority of the House, when their sentiments are collected, speak the
sense of the House. He adverted to the practice of the House when the
PRESIDENT returns a bill, which had been mentioned by the opposers of
the motion, and observed, that in cases of that kind the message of the
PRESIDENT was acted upon. He observed on the importance of the subject,
and insisted on the propriety of the House expressing their reasons for
their vote. They owe it to themselves, to the United States, to the
whole world, to exhibit their reasons for what the PRESIDENT has
declared to be an unconstitutional call. For this purpose, the Message
should be referred to a Committee of the Whole, where a proper motion
would be brought forward, and could be freely discussed. If it had been
proposed to refer the Message to a select committee, to place the
business into a few hands, there might have been an objection, but a
reference to a Committee of the Whole he considered quite
unexceptionable.
Mr. N. SMITH said the present was a most singular motion; and, after
noticing the several reasons which had been given for the measure,
thought none of them had any weight. He said the referring of the
Message could only have one effect; it would engage three weeks more of
their time; and yet, gentlemen who had been very economical with respect
to time, on the late great constitutional point, by calling for the
question from day to day, now proposed to consume it in the way
proposed. He should, however, now show that economy on account of time,
which had been so much insisted upon on a former occasion.
The yeas and nays were now taken on the question of a reference of the
PRESIDENT's Message to a Committee of the Whole; and the motion was
agreed to--yeas 55, nays 37.