_Admission of Tennessee._
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the report
of the committee to whom was referred the Message of the PRESIDENT,
relative to the Territory of the United States south of the river Ohio.
Mr. RUTHERFORD hoped the committee would concur in the report. He had no
idea of confining that Territory to the strict legal line. He did not
wish to cavil with this brave, generous people. He would have them taken
out of leading-strings, as they were now able to stand alone; it was
time to take them by the hand, and to say, we are glad to see you, stand
on your own feet. We should not, he said, be too nice about their
turning out their toes, or other trifles; they will soon march lustily
along. They had complied with every requisite for becoming a State of
the Union--they wished to form an additional star in the political
hemisphere of the United States--they have erected a State Government,
and wish to come into the Union, and to resist their claim would be out
of character. He hoped it would be agreed to.
Mr. DAYTON said, he disapproved of the report of the committee, and of
the terms in which the resolution they had recommended for the adoption
of the House was expressed. He could never give his assent to any
proposition which expressly or even impliedly admitted that the people
inhabiting either of the Territories of the United States could, at
their own mere will and pleasure, and without the declared consent of
Congress, erect themselves into a separate and independent State. Yet
this seemed to be the spirit of the report under consideration, and what
was still worse, it went, as he understood, to renounce any right in
Congress even to deliberate whether they should become a member of the
Union. He was by no means desirous of opposing the wishes of this
valuable and enterprising people who inhabit the South-western
Territory, nor of unnecessarily impeding the efforts they were making to
throw off the Territorial jurisdiction, and establish a system of
Government for themselves; but being aware that the steps now about to
be taken would be regarded and pursued hereafter as a precedent, he
conceived it important that they should, in this first instance of the
sort that had presented itself, proceed circumspectly and rightly. He
was willing to pass a law in the present session which should at the
same time provide for erecting and forming them into a State, and for
admitting them as such into the Union. They should thereby effectually
promote the views of the people of Tennessee, in a mode which, by
avoiding the violation of any just political principle, would entirely
reconciled and render consistent the interest of that district of
country and of the several United States.
Mr. D. acknowledged that he should have been much better satisfied if he
had found all the people comprehended within the Territorial line
petitioning for this measure, and if he had seen ingrafted in their
constitution the conditions and restrictions contained in the ordinance
upon which they found the right they were claiming; but he knew that
unanimity was in no instance to be expected amongst a people so numerous
and scattered; and he was convinced that they were bound by the
conditions and limitations he alluded to, without an acknowledgment and
repetition of them in their new charter.
Mr. DEARBORN said, as to the census relative to representation, it
appeared doubtful, that, because that Territory had now 66,000
inhabitants, they were entitled to two Representatives, as the other
States of the Union were represented according to the number of
inhabitants they contained in the year 1790. It might be doubtful
whether they should be entitled to an advantage which was not allowed to
other States. It had been his opinion (and he saw no reasons to change)
that if this Territory was admitted into the Union, it was not entitled
to more than one Representative; and therefore it was not necessary to
make another census. As to passing a previous law recognizing the
Territory as a State before it was admitted into the Union, he did not
think it necessary. They say they are now a State, and surely Congress
would not say to them, You shall not be a State, or dictate to them what
sort of a constitution they shall have, provided it be a Republican. The
method taken for ascertaining their number of inhabitants, he thought,
could not be objected to. He saw no reason to prevent them from
accepting the Territory as a State of the Union: what number of
Representatives they were entitled to, would turn upon another point.
Mr. BLOUNT said the House should have determined upon this question long
since, as the government of Tennessee had a month ago gone into
operation. The people there had chosen not only their State officers,
but their Senators, and perhaps their Representatives, to come to
Congress. The Governor had, from time to time, informed the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES of every step taken towards the proposed change of
government. In July, he sent him a copy of the law directing the census
to be taken; in November, when the census was completed, he sent him a
copy of it, and a copy of his Proclamation requiring the people to elect
members of Convention for the purpose of forming a constitution and
State Government; and on the 19th of February he sent him a copy of the
constitution, with notice that on the 28th of March, when the General
Assembly of the State of Tennessee would meet to act on the
constitution, the temporary government would cease; and this last
information was, to his knowledge, received on the 28th of
February--forty days before it was communicated by the PRESIDENT to
Congress, and eleven days after it must have been known to the Secretary
of State, if not to the PRESIDENT, that the State Government had gone
into operation.
What would be the consequence, said Mr. B., of refusing at this time,
and under these circumstances, to receive this State into the Union? Did
gentlemen wish to re-establish a temporary Territorial Government there?
If they did, he believed their wish would not easily be accomplished;
for the people there believed, that in changing their government, they
only exercised a right which had been secured to them by a sacred
compact; and under that belief, they will be disposed to defend it. That
right was, in his opinion, recognized by the Government of the United
States, when Mr. WHITE was permitted to take his seat in that House as
the Representative of the Territory; and from that circumstance they had
reason to expect that 67,000 inhabitants would have entitled them,
without scruple, to be a member of the Union. If the census was not a
just one, or if there had been any fraud used in taking it, an
impeachment would lie against the Governor, who, upon his responsibility
as an officer of the United States, sanctioned the law for taking it,
and acted under it after it was taken.
Mr. W. LYMAN said the subject presented itself in two points of view--as
it related to the Territory being admitted as a State into the Union, or
as giving them a right to send members to Congress. In his opinion,
according to the ordinance of Congress, they had a clear right to be
admitted as a State into the Union; for it was there said, that when
they had 60,000 inhabitants, they should be entitled. No mode is pointed
out how it shall be ascertained; but the Governor being expressly
mentioned in the case where 5,000 inhabitants were to entitle them to a
temporary Government, he thought there could be no doubt but the same
way was to be observed with respect to their qualification for becoming
one of the States of the Union. This fact, he said, came fully
ascertained, and being so, there could be no doubt the right was clear.
It was a right, indeed, which they could not deny, and, as a matter of
expediency, it was not worth while to oppose it. He saw no reason why
they should call in question the proceedings or the purity of the
government of that Territory, so as to doubt their return.
Mr. DAYTON said that he preferred the formation of the South-western
Territory into one State, to a division of it into two, and he therefore
did not agree with those gentlemen who had advocated the latter idea.
The people had requested to be united into one State, and he was for
complying with their request, and for taking them at their word, rather
than by subdividing to give them a double representation in the Senate.
Mr. SEDGWICK concurred in opinion with the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. DAYTON); and if any gentleman understood him to say that he did
not wish the State of Tennessee to be admitted into the Union, it must
have been an error, for he had no such desire. But he was still
persuaded that it was never intended that that Territory should have the
power of settling the way by which they were to become one of the
independent States.
What had been said by a gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) of their
being in a degraded situation, because controlled by laws which were
made by persons independent of them, would not only apply to 60,000, but
to six persons. The question was whether they were in a situation in
which they could claim to be a State? If they were, they ought to be
admitted; if not, they ought not to be admitted. If the idea of the
gentleman from New Jersey was adopted, they might be admitted at an
early period. He had no idea of charging Governor Blount with improper
conduct: he was entitled to his respect. If it was intended that these
people should decide upon their own situation, they ought to do it in
the way observed in cases directed by the constitution. Mr. S. proposed
two resolutions--one for laying out territory into a State or States,
and another for directing a census of the inhabitants to be taken.
It appeared to him that this was the way in which the subject should be
considered: they should determine whether the Territory should be in one
or two States, and before Representatives were sent to Congress, a
census would be taken by authority of Congress. Words could not, he
thought, have rendered more explicit the intention of the contracting
parties than the words of the compact; and all this might be done in
time for Representatives to be sent to the next session of Congress.
Mr. MACON said the chief differences in the opinions of gentlemen arose
upon a subject which was not before the committee, viz: the number of
Representatives to which this new State was entitled in that House. The
question before the committee was on admitting the Territory to be a
State of the Union. There appeared to him only two things as necessary
to be inquired into: First, Was the new Government Republican? It
appeared to him to be so. And, secondly, Were there 60,000 inhabitants
in the Territory? It appeared to him there were; and, if so, their
admission as a State should not be considered as a gift, but as a right.
Their temporary government (by whose authority the late census was
taken) had not only a Governor appointed by the Executive of the General
Government, but also a Legislative Council. To admit this Territory as a
member of the Union, appeared to him as a matter of course. It also
seemed as if the Executive was of that opinion. The PRESIDENT, having
been duly informed from time to time with the proceedings of that
Territory towards being admitted into the Union, if he had thought they
had been doing wrong, he would have set them right. It was also his
opinion, that if they had passed a law directing a census to be taken,
it would have been done exactly in the way the present had been taken.
He thought the subject of navigation was settled by the Constitution of
the United States; the waters in that country would be under the same
regulations with all other waters in the Union, nor did he think there
was any thing in the Constitution of Tennessee which had a contrary
tendency. It appeared clearly to him that every thing had been fairly
done, and that they had a right to claim an admission as a member of the
Union.
Mr. BALDWIN said, had he belonged to the Territory south of the Ohio, he
should probably have been for pursuing a different mode of conducting
this business, from that which it seems they have thought proper to
adopt. He should have thought it desirable, a year or two ago, to have
obtained from Congress an act pointing out the mode of taking the
census, and ascertaining the events on which they were entitled to
become a State. He said Congress ought also, of their own accord, to
have taken up that subject, and made those provisions, though not
requested by the Territory; and it had always been with surprise he had
observed that the first act for forming that Territory did not contain
those provisions. He thought, as to the principle in this case there
could be no doubt. Whenever the event happened of their having 60,000
inhabitants, as pointed out by law, their right to be a State took
place. It was to depend entirely on that contingency; when that was
proved to have taken place, they could not be debarred. There having
been no mode previously pointed out for ascertaining this fact, only
makes it more difficult for the Territory and for Congress to be
satisfied of the fact of their actually having so many inhabitants, but
does not affect their right. He thought it best for the House to proceed
to examine their census and the evidence which they had thought proper
to collect and bring forward in their own way. He was ready to allow
that, for himself, he should examine it more scrupulously than he should
have done, had it been taken under a law of Congress. But he had not
understood many objections had yet been made to it. Perhaps, on further
examination, it will be found fully satisfactory; if so, they must be
admitted to be a State as a matter of right. They might have waited
longer, and attempted to have formed two States; they have made their
election of the other alternative. He thought it wise for Congress to
avail itself of this opportunity of holding them to what they have
chosen, and thus prevent future difficulties and misunderstandings.
Mr. W. SMITH said he was glad to find the observations which he made
yesterday in some measure sanctioned to-day. He then recapitulated his
leading arguments. It was said yesterday by a gentleman from Virginia,
(Mr. MADISON,) that whilst the people of the Territory remained in their
colonial situation, they were in a state of degradation; but, he would
ask, at whose request they became so? Look at their request in the year
1790, as expressed in the cession act. And yet, in the course of a few
years, without consulting Congress, in consequence of a census taken by
their own authority, they proceed to erect themselves into a State,
create a new government, and claim to be admitted into the Union as
matter of right. Under their former government their member was admitted
to that House; yet, whilst he holds his seat under that government, they
have appointed other members to represent them under their new
Government. The most regular way would certainly have been to have
transmitted their request to Congress to be formed into a State.
Congress would then have passed a law for taking a census, have fixed
when the Territorial system should cease and the State Government
commence.
He thought the business was of considerable consequence, and he was
sorry it was taken up in so thin a House. There would certainly arise in
a few years other new States in the Western country yet uninhabited,
which might occasion considerable difficulties. They might make a census
and say they had 60,000 inhabitants, when they had not half that number.
He did not wish to keep the inhabitants of the South-western Territory
out of the Union, but he wished them to be admitted in a constitutional
mode.
Mr. GALLATIN was of opinion that the people of the South-western
Territory became _ipso facto_ a State the moment they amounted to 60,000
free inhabitants, and that it became the duty of Congress, as part of
the original compact, to recognize them as such, and to admit them into
the Union, whenever they had satisfactory proof of the fact.
It was objected that, previous to the proof of that fact being given, it
was necessary that Congress should have laid out and formed that
Territory into one or more States, and that the proof of their number
should have been given under direction and by order of Congress, the
people not being competent to give the proof themselves.
Both those objections suppose a construction of the original compact
between the people of that Territory and the United States, (of the act
of cession of North Carolina, and of the ordinance of Congress of 1787,)
which was inadmissible; for it rendered that compact binding upon one
party and not upon the other. It is supposed that that ordinance, whose
object it was to establish the principles of a free government, and to
ascertain a certainty of admission into the Union, had declared that the
time when those people were to enjoy that government, and were to be
admitted as a member of the Union, depended not on the contingency of
their having 60,000 free inhabitants, but on certain previous acts of
Congress--in other words, on the sole will of Congress. Either you must
acknowledge that their admission depends solely on the condition of the
compact being fulfilled, to wit: their having the number required; or
you declare that it rests upon another act, which may be done or refused
by the other party; that Congress have the power, by neglecting to lay
them out into one or more States, or by refusing to pass a law to take a
census, to keep them for ever in their colonial state. Nor did the
strictest interpretation of that contract justify the construction given
by the gentleman from South Carolina; for the only meaning that could
consistently be given to the words, "lay out and form into one or more
States," was, that Congress had power to fix the boundaries of the
Territory or Territories that were to become a State or States. They
could have declared that that Territory should be one or two States; but
if they had neglected to do it, their omission could not be plead
against the inhabitants of Tennessee. The power given by that clause to
Congress was merely to fix boundaries, and to choose whether there
should be more than one State; but if they had not made use of that
power, there must be one State, and its boundaries were fixed by the act
of cession, so that nothing remained now for Congress to operate upon.
Mr. BLOUNT said, there was an absolute necessity for the clause which
the gentleman last up objected to. Persons were daily coming to that
Territory in great numbers. If the census had been required to be taken
in one day all the people who had come into the Territory, with the
intention to reside permanently there, could by no means have been
numbered. It was not intended to give the officers power to take persons
in more places than one, nor did he believe it had been done. He
undertook to explain yesterday the reason why so long a time was given,
but he seemed not to have been understood, which was, the difficulties
attending the passage of the wilderness.
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SMITH) had said, that his
arguments of yesterday had been to-day admitted. If the gentleman had
supposed that he had admitted them, he was mistaken. That he might not
continue under the mistake, he would inform him, that what he had called
arguments, were, in his opinion, mere quibbles, such as could only have
been expected from a County Court lawyer, at the bar of a County Court.
Mr. COIT said, that as he had not heard it suggested from any quarter
that it would be expedient to divide the Territory into two States, he
did not think it important to inquire into the powers of Congress in
that respect. It is declared by the ordinance for the government of the
Territory, that when there should be sixty thousand inhabitants in any
one of the States there they should be admitted into the Union. If,
then, it is not in contemplation to divide the Territory into two
States, he considered that the right to be admitted was complete as soon
as there was the requisite number within the whole Territory. But it
appeared to him, that on examining the census and the law under which
it was taken, they could not be considered as furnishing proof that
there was that number there. He did not pretend to say that any fraud
had been committed in the execution of the law, but the law itself was
wholly defective. The same man might have been counted in several
counties, nay, in every county in the Territory, and that without any
fraud, but in strict compliance with the law; two months having been
allowed for taking the enumeration, and it being enjoined on the
sheriffs of the several counties to include in their enumeration all
persons within their respective districts within that period.
The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. BLOUNT) seemed to imagine that it
would have been impracticable to have followed a mode similar to the one
pointed out in the enumeration law of the United States, but he could
not see the reason. [He read the law.]
Mr. SITGREAVES said, he felt every disposition favorable to meet the
wishes of the people of the South-western Territory, and for a reason
which had been given, viz: that, as they were our fellow-citizens, it
was desirable they should equally participate with us in all the
advantages of the General Government, and suffer no longer than was
necessary the comparative humiliation of a Colonial or Territorial
administration; but, from obvious considerations, he thought it highly
important that they should be admitted to the enjoyment of these
advantages only in conformity with the promise made to them, and on the
terms of the compact entered into jointly by the United States and by
them. Two constructions of this compact had been contended for; one,
that so soon as sixty thousand free inhabitants should be collected
within the Territory, they should be entitled to a place in the Union,
as an independent State; the other, that Congress should first lay off
the Territory into one or more States, according to a just discretion,
defining the same by bounds and limits; and that the admission of such
States thus defined, should take place as their population respectively
amounted to the number of free inhabitants mentioned; that is, that the
sixty thousand inhabitants could not claim admission into the Union,
unless their number was comprised within a State whose Territorial
limits had been previously ascertained by an act of the United States.
He inclined to this latter construction, because it was conformable to
the letter, and, as he understood it, to the spirit of the instrument.
By the act of cession of the State of North Carolina, accepted by
Congress, it is provided that the ceded territory should be laid off
into one or more States, and that the people of the Territory should be
entitled to all the privileges secured to the inhabitants of the
Territory north-west of the Ohio, by the ordinance of 1787. The extent
of their privileges, therefore, is to be determined by this ordinance,
which may be called their charter. They have no other or greater
privileges than the inhabitants of the North-western Territory; and it
cannot be pretended that these would be entitled to admission into the
Union as one State, so soon as their whole number shall amount to sixty
thousand, because the ordinance itself divides that country into three
separate and distinct States, each of which must contain sixty thousand
free inhabitants before it can claim to be received. The actual
circumstances and situation of the South-western Territory evinced the
reasonableness and propriety of the construction; it is composed of two
settlements, the Hoston and the Mero districts, separated from each
other by the Cumberland Mountains and a wilderness of two hundred miles
in width, which has always been inhabited by the Indians, and the soil
and jurisdiction of which have been actually ceded to them by the United
States, by late Treaties; and by an examination of the documents on the
table it would appear, that when, agreeably to the act of the
Territorial Legislature, the officers who took the census put to the
people of the Territory the question whether they were desirous of
admission into the Union; the inhabitants of the Western or Mero
district almost universally answered in the negative. He would not
undertake positively to pronounce on the inexpediency of forming the
whole country into one State; but under the circumstances which he had
stated, and until they should be satisfactorily explained to his mind,
it did appear to him that the interest and the wishes of that people
required a division of the Territory. It looked somewhat absurd to
connect under one permanent Government, people separated from each other
by natural barriers, by a distance of two hundred miles, and by a
foreign jurisdiction. They had been told, by gentlemen who knew the
fact, that during the period of Indian hostility, the people emigrating
to the Mero district were obliged to stop five or six weeks at the
eastern boundary of the wilderness, until they could collect in
companies or caravans of sufficient number and force to pass in safety;
the time of hostility may again return, and even a state of peace with
Indians is not a state of such tranquillity or security as to preclude
the necessity of caution and vigilance on the frontiers. The people of
the Western district seem sensible of the inconvenience of an
arrangement so unnatural as the one proposed, and so far as their wishes
can be collected from the documents before the committee, they desire as
yet to preserve their connection with us in its present mode, and to
remain under the Territorial Government.
Mr. MACON said, he should be as unwilling to agree to the doctrine of
the gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. DAYTON,) as he was unwilling to
agree to his. As to the people of this Territory attaching themselves to
any other nation, he should not have thought it could have been
suggested. There was no more likelihood of their going over to any other
government than there was of any other State doing the same thing.
Mr. GALLATIN said, how the resolution on the table, or the doctrine he
had asserted, supported the idea that that Territory would have a right
to separate from the Union, he could not see, and he should be glad to
be informed. So far from it, his opinion was that if they were a State,
they were at the same time a member of the Union; that they could not
exist as a State without being one of the United States. The only
difference of opinion was whether an act of Congress was necessary
previous to their being recognized as such; and if any doctrine could
lead to the conclusion of the SPEAKER, it was that of those gentlemen
who thought that Congress must form them into a State, several months
before they were admitted into the Union. In that intermediary
situation, whilst declared a State and not one of the United States,
they might, perhaps, claim, as an independent State, a right to reject
an admission in the Union. But those consequences could only flow from
the doctrine he was combating; the principle he was supporting was that
no previous act was necessary, that there could not be two acts upon the
subject; but that one and the same act must recognize them as a State
and admit them in the Union.
Mr. BLOUNT hoped the original resolution would not be rejected for the
sake of the gentleman from New Jersey. He did not wish to give up the
right to which these people were entitled; though perhaps the law might
not pass the Senate.
Mr. HARPER objected to the mention of the Senate, as to what was likely
to be done there. He hoped they should adopt the resolution of the
gentleman from New Jersey.
The question was then taken on the original resolution reported by the
select committee, and carried by 41 to 35.
The committee rose and the House took up the consideration, when Mr.
KITCHELL proposed a resolution in the place of that which had been
agreed to in a Committee of the Whole, as he thought some law should be
passed by Congress recognizing the Territory as a State, before they
were admitted into the Union. It was negatived; and the original
resolution was agreed to by 43 to 30, as follows:
YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, David Bard,
Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan,
Dempsey Burges, Thomas Claiborne, John Clopton, Jeremiah
Crabb, William Findlay, Jesse Franklin, Albert Gallatin,
William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, Wade
Hampton, Robert Goodloe Harper, Carter B. Harrison,
Jonathan N. Havens, Daniel Heister, James Holland, George
Jackson, Matthew Locke, William Lyman, Samuel Maclay,
Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, Andrew Moore, Anthony New,
John Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Francis
Preston, John Read, Robert Rutherford, Israel Smith,
Richard Sprigg, jr., Thomas Sprigg, Absalom Tatom, Philip
Van Cortlandt, and Abraham Venable.
NAYS.--Benjamin Bourne, Theophilus Bradbury, Gabriel
Christie, Joshua Coit, George Dent, Abiel Foster, Dwight
Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich,
Roger Griswold, Thomas Hartley, Thomas Henderson, James
Hillhouse, William Hindman, Aaron Kitchell, George Leonard,
Samuel Lyman, Francis Malbone, Theodore Sedgwick, Samuel
Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, Isaac Smith,
William Smith, George Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, John E. Van
Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams.
SATURDAY, May 21.
_Military Establishment._
The amendments of the Senate to the bill fixing the Military
Establishment were read. They went to the retaining the whole number of
light dragoons and the Major General, and directing that men should be
enlisted for five instead of three years. The amendment respecting the
dragoons being under consideration----
Mr. BALDWIN informed the House that the amount of the amendments of the
Senate was this, to keep up 320 dragoons instead of 52, and to retain
the Major General. It appeared to him that the House, having determined
upon these subjects already, would be at no loss to form an opinion upon
these amendments.
Mr. WILLIAMS hoped that the amendment from the Senate would not be
agreed to. This House had taken great pains to mature the bill, and he
was of opinion that the number of troops agreed to was sufficient for a
peace establishment. No gentleman had observed to the contrary; any
addition would not only be an augmentation to the great expenses already
accrued by the late war, but be a mean of retaining in the army useful
citizens, who would be otherwise employed in pursuits of much more
benefit to the United States.
Mr. W. LYMAN hoped the amendment would be disagreed to.
Mr. S. SMITH said, the Senate seemed to contemplate these light
dragoons, on account of the officers, who were to do duty on horse or
foot, as necessity required. From this idea, he would suggest the
propriety of agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. KITTERA said, the army would be placed so widely from each other,
that the horse would prove very useful.
Mr. GILES had no idea of keeping up the horse for the sake of the
officers.
Mr. GILBERT was in favor of retaining the whole number of horses.
On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, the yeas and nays were taken, and the
amendment was negatived, 58 to 22.
The consideration of the propriety of retaining the Major General was
next taken up.
Mr. NICHOLAS could not conceive any use for generals. He believed if the
Senate had struck out the General they sent them, the amendment would
have been a good one.
Mr. GILES hoped they should not agree to the amendment. It would be a
commencement of sinecures in the Military Department. There would be
generals without men to command. He believed the bill, as sent from
that House, contained its full proportion of officers.
Mr. S. SMITH was in favor of the amendment. He said the expense would be
no great things, and the present Major General would be very necessary
in taking possession of the posts. Perhaps, at this time, it was
essential to keep this man in command, as, if he were discharged, it
might create a derangement in our Army which might be fatal. The command
of three thousand men, it was true, was too trifling for a Major
General. But, perhaps, as this General had been the victorious means of
procuring us peace with the Indians, immediately to discharge him would
appear like ingratitude, if not injustice.
Mr. RUTHERFORD concurred in opinion with the gentleman last up.
Mr. W. LYMAN said, they were not now called upon to reward the services
of Major General Wayne, but to provide proper officers for their Army.
If the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. S. SMITH) were to bring forward a
measure of that kind, they should know how to decide upon it. Nor did he
think the argument for making the office of a Major General, because the
posts were to be received, had much weight. Any other officer would
receive them as well as a Major General.
Mr. GILES said, he had no personal objections to the present commander
of our Army; but he considered the present proposition such a breach of
principle as he could not agree to. It was the making of an office for a
man; as the gentleman from Maryland seemed to think the taking
possession of the posts the principal business to be performed by him.
If the services of this gentleman were necessary on that occasion, he
would much rather pass a bill to make him a commissioner for that
purpose. All the arguments in favor of a Major General were in favor of
the man, and not of the propriety of the office.
Mr. MURRAY said, the gentleman last up must know that the gentleman who
had so successfully commanded our Western Army, was now in the service
of the United States, yet he would insinuate that there was an intention
of creating a new office. There was no disposition in those who wished
to retain this meritorious man in service to create new offices. They
were now about to make a regular Military Establishment; heretofore it
had rather been a nominal one. There had been hitherto a Major General
at the head of our corps, and he thought it would be proper to continue
the command. There appeared to him a great deal of danger from the
instability of their proceedings, an instability often charged upon a
Government like ours. He would not attribute this to any other motive
than such as were too apt to enter into large deliberative bodies. Was
it right that when a man had led our armies to victory, and returned,
that he should be immediately stripped of his commission? He thought
not. It was said that this was done, because the Army was reduced; but
he believed it was now as large as when General Wayne obtained his
victory by it, for it was not then more than three thousand men; and
yet, because they wished to retain this man in the service of the United
States, they were told that they were creating new offices for which
there was no necessity.
Mr. NICHOLAS said, with respect to the instability of their measures, he
was ready to take his own share of it as well as that of the gentleman
last up, for he never found him vary from one point; he was always
desirous to keep up every office which had been once established. Mr. N.
thought the conduct of gentlemen extraordinary. At one time they were to
make our Establishment as large as possible, and when more favorable
circumstances appeared, they were not to reduce it. Where were the
benefits of peace, if they were still to keep up our War Establishments?
Gentlemen tell you that the Army would be as large now as before the
reduction, yet the same gentlemen were opposed to its being reduced to
the number now contemplated. This appeared something like inconsistency.
Mr. N. said, if they did not seize every favorable opportunity of
lessening the expenses of Government, he believed their constituents
would have good reason to complain of their want of attention to their
duty.
Mr. MACON said, they ought to legislate on this subject as if there were
no Army in existence. They had no permanent Establishment, as their men
were discharged at the end of every three years. He believed our present
commander was a very respectable officer, but he could not vote for a
Major General in the Establishment, which he thought unnecessary,
because he thought him a deserving man.
Mr. BOURNE believed it was not necessary to have any appropriate number
of men for a Major General to command. It had often been thought that a
Major General was necessary. He believed they had thought so on former
occasions. If any necessity should arise for the militia to be called
out to aid the Army, such an officer would be highly necessary. He did
not think it would be true economy to reject him.
Mr. GALLATIN said it was not pleasing to give a vote which was in some
degree of a personal nature like the present. He was unacquainted with
the gentleman who now held the office of Major General in our Army, and,
therefore, was under no personal influence, and his opinion on the
subject was formed upon the information of those in whose judgment on
military affairs, he must necessarily confide, as it was a subject he
did not understand. It was supposed that a Major General was necessary
for a War Establishment, but not for a Peace Establishment. He drew this
conclusion from that grade ceasing with the war in 1783, and being again
introduced in 1791, when the Indian war had commenced, and he understood
it was more connected with the nature of the service than the number of
men. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. SMITH) said that the nature of
the service of this summer, required the service of General Wayne; but
as the act they were about to pass would not take place till the 31st of
October, as it was the opinion of all gentlemen of military knowledge,
that there was no necessity for retaining a Major General in our reduced
Army Establishment after the posts had been taken possession of, and as
the whole summer appeared sufficient for that service, he would vote
against the amendment.
Mr. HARTLEY thought it best to have a Major General. The expense was but
small, and in case of the militia being called out (as was mentioned by
the gentleman from Rhode Island) a Major General would be necessary;
besides, to reject him, would have the appearance of forcing this man
out of office in an ungenerous manner.
On motion of Mr. BAILEY, the yeas and nays were then taken, and the
Senate's amendment was lost, 49 to 34.
MONDAY, May 23.
_Widow of General Greene._
The House went into Committee of the Whole on the petition of Catharine
Greene, widow of the late General Greene, for indemnity against the
demands of Harris and Blachford, of London, merchants, on account of a
certain bond which had been given to them by General Greene, as was said
on account of the United States. The following was the report of the
Committee of Claims:
"That this petitioner prays for indemnity against the
demands of Messrs. Harris and Blachford, merchants, who
have obtained a judgment against the estate of the late
General Greene, for a large sum, in consequence of his
being security to the said Harris and Blachford, for the
debt of John Banks & Co., which debt, she states, was
incurred for, and in behalf of the United States; and that
General Greene gave security for no other purpose than to
forward the interests of the public.
"On a strict investigation of this claim, the committee
find, that in the fall of 1782, General Greene was
authorized by the Department of War to obtain supplies of
clothing for the Southern Army, then under his command;
and, not long after, he contracted with John Banks, a
partner in the house of Hunter, Banks & Co., for such
supplies.
"In February, 1783, General Greene, under authority of the
Superintendent of Finance, contracted with the same John
Banks, to furnish such provisions as the same army were in
want of; both of which contracts met the approbation of his
employers.
"Both these contracts required greater funds than the
contractors could command, and the last, which was to
supply rations for the army, was near being defeated,
because the creditors--for supplies on the former
contract--were about to deprive the contractors of their
means to fulfil the last. In this situation, Gen. Greene
had before him the alternative of turning the army loose
upon the inhabitants, to plunder for their necessary food,
or support, by his own credit, that of the contractors. He
preferred the latter, and gave, in addition to the security
of John Banks & Co., his own bond to Harris and Blachford,
to secure an eventual payment for articles which had gone
to the use of the United States in clothing the army.
"John Banks received of the United States the whole sum of
the contract, but diverted the money from its proper
channel, and left General Greene liable to pay the sum
secured by the bond mentioned above, and another to Messrs.
Newcomen and Collet. Banks & Co. became bankrupts, and,
soon after, Banks died.
"The committee find that General Greene, as soon as he was
apprised of any possible danger which might accrue to him,
took measures to procure some security; but his attempts
were ineffectual as to a complete indemnity. It appears he
effected some payments, and obtained partial indemnity, but
was left finally exposed to a large claim of Messrs.
Newcomen and Collet, and this bond about which the present
petition is conversant.
"Against the claim of Newcomen and Collet, Congress have
indemnified the estate of General Greene, by an act passed
April 27th, 1792.
"This act has served as a precedent to the committee, in
deciding on the present petition, as there are the same
reasons existing for the interference of Government now as
then; to which may now be added the weight of precedent.
"For further particulars as to the merits of the claim, the
committee ask leave to refer the House to a report of the
Secretary of the Treasury, made to Congress on this
subject, the 26th December, 1791, and which is herewith
laid before them. The bond given by Gen. Greene to Harris
and Blachford for J. Banks & Co., is dated 8th April, 1783,
for the sum of £18,473, 13s. 7d. South Carolina currency.
This sum, by a variety of negotiations and payments, has
been considerably reduced; the committee have not been able
to ascertain with precision the sum now due, but suppose it
to be between eleven and twelve thousand pounds.
"The committee are of opinion that General Greene gave this
bond with the sole and honorable motive of serving, to his
utmost ability, the then pressing interest of the United
States: and that the salvation of the Southern Army, and
success of our arms in that part of the Union, in a great
measure depended upon this timely interference of his
private credit.
"They think the honor and justice of Government is pledged
to indemnify the estate of General Greene, and by paying
the sum due to Harris and Blachford, save a deserving
family from indigence and ruin. They therefore report, for
the consideration of the House, the following resolution,
viz:
"_Resolved_, That the United States ought to indemnify the
estate of the late General Greene, for the sum due on a
bond, given by the said General Greene to Harris and
Blachford, bearing date April 8, 1783, for the sum of
£18,473, 13s. 7d., South Carolina currency, as surety for
John Banks & Co.: _Provided_, That it shall appear, upon
due investigation, by the officers of the Treasury, that
the said General Greene, in his lifetime, or his executors
since his decease, have not already been indemnified, for
the contents of the said bond: _And provided_, That the
said executors shall make over to the Comptroller of the
Treasury, and his successors, for the United States, all
mortgages, bonds, covenants, or other counter securities
whatsoever, if such there are, which were obtained by
General Greene in his lifetime, from the said Banks & Co.,
or either of them, on account of his being surety for
them, as aforesaid; to be sued for in the name of the said
executors, for the use of the United States: And the
officers of the Treasury are hereby authorized to liquidate
and settle the sum due to the estate of the said General
Greene, to indemnify the same as aforesaid, according to
the true intent and meaning of this resolution; and to pay
such sum as may be found due on the said bond, out of the
Treasury of the United States, to the said executors, to be
accounted for by them, as part of the said estate."
After some debate on this subject, in the course of which the SPEAKER
read, in his place, a letter he had received from the Secretary of the
War Department, in consequence of a resolution passed on Saturday,
calling for a letter which had been written by the late Colonel Burnett
to the late Secretary of War, declaring that no such letter could be
found in the War Office; and Mr. COIT spoke at considerable length
against the claim--at length the question was put and carried in favor
of the report, there being 51 members in the affirmative. The committee
then rose, and the House took up the consideration, when, on motion of
Mr. BLOUNT, who said he had intended to have made some observations on
this subject, but finding the majority so large in favor of the report,
he could not believe what he should say would have any effect, the yeas
and nays were taken and stood, yeas 56, nays 26, as follows:
YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel
Benton, Benjamin Bourne, Theophilus Bradbury, Richard
Brent, Dempsey Burges, Thomas Claiborne, William Cooper,
Jeremiah Crabb, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel
Gilbert, William B. Giles, Nicholas Gilman, Henry Glenn,
Chauncey Goodrich, Christopher Greenup, Robert Goodloe
Harper, Carter B. Harrison, John Hathorn, Jonathan N.
Havens, John Heath, Daniel Heister, William Hindman, George
Jackson, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, William Lyman,
Francis Malbone, John Milledge, Frederick A. Muhlenberg,
William Vans Murray, Anthony New, John Nicholas, John Read,
Robert Rutherford, Samuel Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith,
Israel Smith, Isaac Smith, Samuel Smith, William Smith,
Richard Sprigg, jr., John Swanwick, Zephaniah Swift, George
Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, Uriah Tracy, John
E. Van Allen, Philip Van Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, Peleg
Wadsworth, and John Williams.
NAYS.--Thomas Blount, Nathan Bryan, Samuel J. Cabell,
Gabriel Christie, Joshua Coit, Isaac Coles, George Dent,
Samuel Earle, Jesse Franklin, Albert Gallatin, James
Gillespie, Roger Griswold, William B. Grove, Wade Hampton,
George Hancock, Thomas Henderson, James Holland, Aaron
Kitchell, Matthew Locke, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel Macon,
Andrew Moore, Nathaniel Smith, Thomas Sprigg, Absalom
Tatom, and Richard Winn.
The resolution was referred to the Committee of Claims, to report a
bill.
[The facts, as stated in the course of debate, were as follows:
A little time before the evacuation of Charleston by the English, in the
fall of the year 1782, a number of merchants who had settled there,
under British authority, were under the necessity of leaving the city.
Thus situated, these merchants were willing to dispose of their goods in
a way that would secure their money, and enable them to leave the
country immediately. John Banks knowing of this, and being, it is said,
a man of a speculative disposition, determined to avail himself of this
offer. He therefore went into Charleston, at a time when General Greene
was lying not far from its walls, and there made a contract with Messrs.
Harris & Blachford for goods to the amount of £50,000, which were
delivered to him under the firm of Hunter, Banks & Co. After Banks had
made this purchase, he entered into contract with General Greene to
supply the Army with clothes. Some time after that contract had taken
place, the Army was in want of provisions, and the supplies were cut
off, and about to fail, when Banks came forward and made a contract to
supply the Army with provisions; but the funds which were to enable him
to fulfil this contract, were in the goods he had lately bought, and an
interference of his partners and creditors took place. The creditors
were afraid if these goods were disposed of for that purpose, their
security would be lessened, and his partners were not willing that he
should convert their joint property to his own particular benefit--for
they, it seems, were to have nothing to do with the provision contract.
To surmount these difficulties, security was required. The creditors of
Banks would be satisfied, if security was given. In this state of
things, General Greene became security for Banks, in his first purchase.
Banks afterwards received the whole sum of the contract, but diverted
the money from its proper channel, and left General Greene liable to pay
the sum secured by the bond to Harris & Blachford.
The question in the committee was, whether General Greene entered into
this security with the sole view of obtaining provisions for his Army in
a time of distress, or whether he had some concern or partnership in the
transaction. The following particulars were mentioned, to prove that the
security was given for no other purpose than that of obtaining food for
his men. The first purchase of Banks was made in September, 1782; the
evacuation of Charleston took place in December following. Banks's
clothing contract was made a few days previous to the evacuation; his
proposal for the provision contract was made about the same time, but
not actually entered into till the 18th of February, 1783, and not
completed till General Greene's security was given on the 8th of April.
On the 7th of May, General Greene got a counter security. It could not
be seen, as was observed, for what purpose General Greene entered into
this contract, if it were not for the relief of his army. Had General
Greene been a partner, would he have required security of Banks six
months after the contract, when business was going on extremely
well--when Banks was in good credit, and making money, and when no doubt
could be entertained of him? It was insisted he would not: but, having
no connection with him, he thought it prudent to obtain a counter
security.
On the other hand, various suggestions were thrown out which had
somewhat of a suspicious appearance--such as General Greene's forcing
his men to buy clothing, &c., of Banks, at an exorbitant price, reports
in the Army, a letter said to be written by the late Colonel Burnett,
who, it appears, was a partner of John Banks, intimating that General
Greene was a partner in the concern, though his name was never mentioned
in it; but nothing like proof appeared to the committee upon which to
ground any reliance. Indeed, if General Greene had any concern with
Banks, it seemed to be a matter which could not be proved, as, in
General Greene's lifetime, he brought an action against Mr. Ferry, one
of the partners with Banks, which was tried at Charleston, when every
thing in Mr. Ferry's cause depended on proving General Greene a partner;
but he failed in doing it, and having failed, it was said to be pretty
strong presumptive evidence that it could not be proved; because Mr.
Ferry might have brought a cross bill against General Greene, and oblige
him to declare on oath that he was in no way interested in the suit,
which he did not think it proper to do.
The report of the committee was at length agreed to, as before stated,
and a bill ordered to be brought in, which subsequently passed. By this
decision, between £11,000 and £12,000 sterling will be paid out of the
Treasury of the United States to the executors of General Greene. The
yeas and nays, on the passing of the bill, stood, 55 to 24.]
FRIDAY, May 27.
_Amy Dardin's Horse._[79]
On motion of Mr. CLAIBORNE, the House formed itself into a Committee of
the Whole on the report of the Committee of Claims on the petition of
Amy Dardin, who prayed for compensation for a very valuable horse which
had been impressed during the war. The report was against the
petitioner, on the ground of the act of limitation barring the claim.
The case appeared a hard one, as a widow and orphans were in want of the
money; and several members having suggested that application had been
made before the act of limitation took place, proof of which could be
substantiated, the committee rose, and the papers were recommitted to
the Committee of Claims.
MONDAY, May 30.
_Military and Naval Appropriations._[80]
The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill providing
appropriations for the Military and Naval Establishments; when,
On motion of Mr. W. SMITH, the blank for the sum for the payment of the
Army was filled with $273,666.
Mr. W. SMITH proposed to fill up the next blank, for the subsistence of
the officers of the Army, with $68,480.
Mr. GALLATIN said, he was not ready to vote for this object. It had been
usual to appropriate the subsistence of the officers and
non-commissioned officers and privates all in one sum. He did not know
what were the separate calculations.
Mr. W. SMITH believed that it had been usual to put the two subjects
together heretofore, but the Secretary of War had suggested the
propriety of placing them under different heads. It was therefore done.
Mr. GALLATIN said, when he objected to this plan of putting the two
objects together, it was not merely on account of the arrangement, but
because he did not know the amount calculated for the different
descriptions. He knew, however, the rations were calculated at 30 cents.
He would move to fill the blank with 20 cents, which would be two-thirds
of the amount proposed. He would give his reasons for thus filling the
blank. It would be found, by a communication from the Secretary of the
Treasury at the commencement of the session, that, in the estimate for
the Military Department, rations were charged 15 cents each, making the
whole subsistence for 6,000 men $367,061; notwithstanding the nominal
Army Establishment had been reduced one-half, the total amount of
expense was estimated as high as before. The items upon which an
increase had been made, were subsistence, hospital, ordnance, and
quartermaster's departments, and protection of frontiers. It would be
found that, in the second estimate of the Secretary, lately made,
rations were estimated at 30 cents each, which made the whole amount of
subsistence $437,762.
This difference in the estimate led the Committee of Ways and Means to
an inquiry into the business, because, as the nominal establishment was
decreased from 6,000 to 3,000 men, they had hoped there would have been
some decrease of expense also. They received for answer, that rations
could not be contracted at Detroit for less than 30 cents each; but
though this, by the contract, was the price of rations at that post,
they could not suppose they would cost the same at the other posts. It
also appeared, from the information received from the Secretary of the
Treasury, that the contract which had been made, was upon these
terms--to furnish rations either at Detroit at 30 cents, or at Pittsburg
at 11 cents, the place of delivery being at the option of Government. It
would be seen that there was a difference betwixt those two prices of
19 cents; and he would ask whether any gentleman in that House believed
that it would cost 19 cents per ration to transport them from Pittsburg
to Detroit? He did not think that transportation would, on an average,
cost 9 cents. The distance by land was not 200 miles; and water carriage
would reduce it to 20.
Mr. W. SMITH said, if agreeing to this motion would save the money, it
would deserve attention; but, if they were to make the appropriation so
small as to embarrass Government, it would be much worse than if they
were to vote for a little too much. There would be a certain number of
men who must be fed, and he thought they might rely upon the
Administration's not giving more for rations than was necessary. But, if
the sum voted was too small, what would be the consequence? The rations
must be got, be the prices what they may; the men must be fed.
Difficulties would arise if the fund appropriated should prove
inadequate. He did not see that there would be any real saving by
reducing the sum appropriated.
Mr. BOURNE hoped the blank would be filled up with the sum proposed by
the gentleman from South Carolina. It had been stated that rations might
be purchased at Pittsburg for 11 cents, but they could not be bought for
less than 30 at Detroit, and he thought they could not calculate upon
any other price than that, as it was uncertain whether or not the
contract would be fulfilled; and if it failed, and the Secretary of the
Treasury was obliged to purchase at Detroit, if they calculated the
rations at 20 cents only, he would not be able to purchase the necessary
provisions for their men; but if, on the contrary, 30 cents were agreed
to, there would be enough in any case, and if the ration could be bought
for 20 cents, he did not fear that the money would be expended
unnecessarily.
Mr. VENABLE said he should not feel himself justified in appropriating
more than was necessary for the object before them; for, if they were
not to be guided by a proper estimate, they might as well at once give
an unlimited power on the Treasury. All the expenses could not be
estimated to be made at Detroit. If one-third of our men were kept at
Detroit, he should think it a large number. Why, then fix the price as
if the whole Army was to be kept there? And, even in that case, 20 cents
would be a large appropriation. Why, then, embarrass themselves by
making a larger appropriation than was necessary? The Army would be
extended on the whole frontier, and at some places rations would be
bought cheaper than at Pittsburg.
Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) observed, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. GALLATIN) assumed as undeniable, and established as the foundation
of his arguments and objections, what he did not only not admit, but
absolutely denied, viz: that the rations of provisions would cost the
United States more when delivered at Detroit, than at any other post. He
believed there were two or three others at which the price would be
higher than at Detroit, and mentioned Michilimacinac in particular. The
gentlemen who were for reducing this item of appropriation, had referred
to the contract which had been made some time since, and had, at the
same time, acknowledged the extraordinary advance in the price of the
necessaries of life, even in the interior of the country. The latter
event, said Mr. D., was of a nature to excite much fear that the
contract would be thrown back upon the United States, owing to the
inability it would create in the individuals to fulfil it, and ought,
therefore, to prompt Congress to guard against such an exigency, by a
more ample provision than would otherwise have been requisite.
Mr. W. SMITH said there was one fact which he forgot to mention. The
Secretary of the Treasury informed the Committee of Ways and Means that
the contractor would lose money by the contract to deliver the rations
at 11 cents at Pittsburg, and it was possible, therefore, that it might
not be fulfilled. Gentlemen say--why provide the money if it be not
wanted? They seemed to mistake the business; the money was to be
borrowed, and if not wanted, it would not be taken. No more would be
expended because there was more than sufficient appropriated. There
would be no money lying unemployed in the Treasury.
Mr. GALLATIN believed the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SMITH)
would not deny that his information was correct. The contract was made
to deliver the rations either at Pittsburg or Detroit, at the option of
Government. To calculate the whole number of rations at 30 cents, was
considering the whole Army at Detroit; and, though it be true, that
there be one post more distant than Detroit, yet, the greater number
were far nearer, and consequently, where provisions would be got
cheaper. Therefore, considering the price at Detroit to be the general
price, was allowing too much. This, he believed, would not be
controverted.
Mr. NICHOLAS said, he should be glad to know what was the price of
rations in the Atlantic States. One half of the Establishment would be
upon the Eastern waters, and, therefore, the money necessary to be
appropriated would depend, in some degree, upon the price of rations
there. He thought 20 cents would be a full average price for the whole.
Mr. HAVENS said, that if they were to fix the price too high, it might
produce a combination amongst the contractors to advance the price--as
he believed there was a greater likelihood of combination than
competition amongst them. He knew this was no reason why they should fix
the price too low, but he thought it was a consideration which should
lead them to vote for the proposition of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
The original motion was put, and negatived, 34 to 31; and then Mr.
GALLATIN's, to fill the blank with $45,606, was put, and carried.
Mr. W. SMITH moved to fill the next blank, for the subsistence of
non-commissioned officers and privates, with $369,282, which was
calculating the rations at 30 cents each.
The question was put, and negatived, 33 to 30.
Mr. GALLATIN then moved to have the blank filled with $246,188, which
was calculating the rations at 20 cents each.
Mr. DAYTON hoped that the sum named would not be agreed to; if it were,
he believed that the soldiers of the Army would not be subsisted. He was
satisfied that gentlemen who proposed and advocated so scanty and
inadequate sums had the same views as he had; but he was, nevertheless,
convinced, that so far from promoting economy, they would eventually
produce profusion.
Mr. DAYTON concluded with saying, that he did not wish to appropriate
lavishly, but his sole aim was to avoid any of those serious
consequences which would inevitably flow from an ill-judged parsimony;
and he should sit down and console himself under any event, with the
reflection, that he had discharged his duty.
Mr. W. SMITH moved to fill the blank with $360,000, which was carried,
34 to 31.
On motion of Mr. W. SMITH, the blank for forage was filled with $16,592,
and that for clothing was filled with $70,000, without debate. He
proposed to fill the blank for providing horses for cavalry, with
$7,500; when
Mr. BLOUNT observed, that he thought it unnecessary to provide for the
purchase of horses, when they had resolved upon reducing the number of
troops.
Mr. GALLATIN said he would just notice, that when the full number of
horses was kept up, the appropriations for clothing were the same as
now, and those for horses were less. The former estimate was $6,000 for
horses; now, $7,500; so that the more they reduce the Army, the greater
was the expense.
Mr. MACON believed, there were as many horses now in the service as
would complete two companies, and they could not, with any propriety,
calculate upon one-half dying. He moved to strike out the item
altogether.
The motion was put and negatived, 33 to 26.
Mr. HAVENS said, he did not vote for striking out the item altogether,
as he supposed some money would be wanted, but could not think so much
as had been mentioned was necessary.
The motion for $7,509 was put and carried, 34 to 31.
On motion of Mr. W. SMITH, the blank for bounty was filled with $10,000,
and that for Hospital Department with $30,000, without objection. He
also proposed to fill the blank for the Ordnance Department with
$48,907, when
Mr. GALLATIN said, that this sum was $11,000 more than the former
estimate; $1,000 of which was owing to an increase of rent. The other
additional item of $10,000 was for contingent expenses; but, as they had
a distinct head for contingent expenses he thought that the
contingencies would be best, all of them, placed under that head. He
therefore moved to have the blank filled with $38,907.
Mr. WILLIAMS proposed $40,000, which was carried.
Mr. W. SMITH proposed to fill the blank for the Indian Department with
$70,000.
Mr. GALLATIN said, it would be recollected that they had already made
two appropriations under this head; the one for establishing
trading-houses with the Indian tribes, the other for carrying into
effect several treaties. On inquiry what reason there was for this
appropriation, he could only find one, viz: that a treaty was expected
to be held in Georgia, at which 3,000 Indians were to be present. He had
supposed this expense was to have been borne by Georgia, but it was
alleged that a part of it would fall on the United States.