[1] Of this talent, Mr. Gales has lately given a most remarkable
instance, in drawing out from notes which had remained as lost for near
forty years, a most important speech of Mr. Randolph, delivered shortly
before the late war with Great Britain, and in relation to the then
condition of public affairs, both with Great Britain and the Emperor
Napoleon the First. Mr. Gales had taken down the speech: the notes of it
got into the bottom of a trunk, and lay there till a year ago, when Mr.
Gales, searching high and low for matter for the Annals, chanced to find
them; and immediately drew out the full speech with the freshness and
vigor of a morning report of a previous day's debate.
[2] In the first five years of the existence of the Federal Government,
there was no publication of debates in the Senate, that body having sat
with closed doors, in its legislative as well as in its executive
capacity, until the 20th of February, 1794. Until that time there will
be no Senate debates to be abridged; but the proceedings of the body
were fully kept in journals, and selections from these proceedings will
afford much curious and instructive information to the student of
American political history, as showing the manner in which the founders
of the government put it into operation, their views in relation to
important points, and the changes which the constitution of the Senate
has undergone.
[3] A list of the Senators and Representatives who composed the First
Congress is inserted at page 20.
[4] his address being in the nature of an Inaugural, and confined to
general recommendations, only the beginning and the ending, so
characteristic of the father of his country, have been given.
[5] These entries in relation to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs show
the early method of communicating with the Secretaries, being called
before the Senate to give explanations and bring papers--a method now
superseded by reports. The early Senators lamented the change, believing
the old way to be the best for getting the information that was wanted,
and also the best security against the appointment of incompetent
Secretaries.
[6] Another instance of the early practice of the government. The
President consults the Senate beforehand upon the negotiation of Indian
treaties, and sends the Secretary at War in person to give the necessary
explanations: this mode of consulting the Senate since so far departed
from that that body has no knowledge of the treaty until sent in for
ratification.
[7] This message of President Washington is a strong instance of his
deference for the Senate, thus giving up upon its objection the
nomination of a citizen which he knew to be fit and meritorious. It was
also a strong instance of the deference of the Senate to the Senators of
the State interested in the nomination, Col. Fishbourn having been
rejected simply because the Georgia Senators preferred another.
[8] These proceedings of President Washington and the Senate, in fixing
on the mode of communication between them when treaties were to be
formed, or appointments to be made, was their interpretation of the
clause in the constitution which requires the advice and consent of the
Senate on such occasions. Their interpretation was (according to the
obvious meaning of language) that the advice and consent should be
obtained beforehand; and the practice was in conformity to that
interpretation, as will be seen in the proceedings of the next day, when
the President and Secretary at War attended the Senate, and the
President gave in a statement of facts, which, in his opinion, rendered
treaties with the Southern Indian tribes necessary, and asked the advice
and consent of the Senate upon their formation. These proceedings will
be read with interest by all who study the working of our government,
and observe the changes which its practice has undergone. The change has
been great in the mode of obtaining this advice and consent, and greatly
to the prejudice of the free and independent action of the Senate in
such cases. Instead of consultation and concurrence beforehand, as the
words of the constitution imply, and as the practice under Washington
required (even to the minute provisions of an Indian treaty), the most
important, and even unusual and extraordinary treaties, and with foreign
powers, have come to be negotiated (oftentimes) without even the
knowledge of the Senate, concealed from it until concluded, and then
laid before the body for ratification, as an administration measure--the
ratification to be pressed under all the influences of an executive
measure, and upon all the considerations of inconvenience and danger to
attend the rejection of a measure executively concluded with a foreign
power. Under such circumstances treaties are often ratified, and
appointments often confirmed, under a moral duress of the Senate, the
weight of the executive and the inconveniences of rejection leaving no
chance for the free action of the body. President Polk revived the
Washingtonian mode of consulting the Senate, in the formation of the
Oregon Treaty in 1846, asking the advice of the Senate beforehand on the
point of establishing the boundary line with Great Britain on the
parallel of 49 degrees; whereof the secret as well as the public history
may be seen in the "Thirty Years' View," under the proper year. The
personal attendance of the President and Secretaries being found to be
inconvenient, that part of the mode of communication was dispensed with
in Washington's time.
[9] The question in relation to North Carolina arose out of the
circumstance that she had not then accepted the Federal Constitution,
and was not at that time a member of the Union.
[10] North Carolina was not represented in the _first_ Session of this
Congress, not having at that time accepted the Constitution.
[11] Rhode Island, for the same cause, did not appear till the _third_
Session.
[12] Mr. Bland deceased during the second recess of Congress, and was
succeeded at the third Session by William B. Giles.
[13] See notes to list of Senators.
[14] Ibid.
[15] For a list of the Representatives in the first Congress, see p. 20.
[16] For this list see the Senate Journal.
[17] This scale of duties, thus offered by the Continental Congress of
1783, and agreed to by the States, after proposing small specific duties
on a few enumerated articles, (wines, spirits, teas, coffee, cocoa,
molasses, sugars and pepper,) proposed an _ad valorem_ duty of five per
centum upon all other goods, computed on the value of the article at the
time and place of importation.
[18] In bringing forward the measure for imposing impost and tonnage
duties, Mr. Madison proceeded in the approved parliamentary form, of
first discussing and agreeing upon the provisions of the measure, and
then appointing a committee to bring in a bill according to what had
been agreed upon. Long experience had proved that to be the safest mode
of legislation, giving full scope to the whole intelligence of the
House, before the measure had taken a form which it might be difficult
to alter, as is always the case when a committee brings in a detailed
bill, (without previous instructions from the House,) and which, as an
act of a committee, and as a matured plan, (though done by a few,) has
an authority which resists alteration, and renders amendments, at the
instance of a member, most difficult to obtain. This wise and safe
practice, of settling the provisions of a bill beforehand, has been
nearly abandoned by our Congress--to the great prejudice of beneficial
legislation.
[19] Not additional. The enumerated articles were not to be subject to
the _ad valorem_ duty of five per centum.
[20] The delegates from that State were gone to meet the Vice-President,
who was expected in town this day.
[21] The members of the two Houses of Congress began to assemble on the
4th day of March, but a quorum did not appear in the House of
Representatives until the 1st of April, nor in the Senate until the 6th
of that month. The organization of the two Houses necessarily preceded
the inauguration of the President, which took place on the 30th of
April. Some of the ceremonies observed on that occasion, and for some
time afterwards, have since been discontinued: as, the proclamation for
the long life of the President--his repairing to church to attend divine
service, accompanied by the two Houses--his re-conducting to his own
house by a committee of the two Houses--the answer to the inaugural
address by each House.
[22] In this measure of the tonnage duties the House, as in the case of
the impost duties, (and in fact in all other cases in which a law was
wanted,) first settled the provisions of the bill in discussing the
propositions on which it was to be founded, and then directed a
committee to bring in a bill accordingly: but the bill, when brought in,
still open to debate and amendment. This was the safe mode of
legislation, approved by long experience in the British Parliament, and
still more commended by the evils which have grown out of its
abandonment in our Congress.
[23] The legislative and diplomatic history of the United States affords
abundant evidence of the wisdom of the objection taken in this debate
against the indefinite duration of public acts. To repeal such laws, or
to terminate such treaties, is almost impossible. Besides the difficulty
of getting the three legislative branches to agree at the same time upon
the repeal, or the termination, an interest grows up under the measure
which becomes identified with its existence, and works for its
perpetuity; and when it has been continued for some years, and the
temporary circumstances in which it originated have been forgotten, it
becomes invested with the sanctity of age, and finds protection in the
spirit which dreads change as innovation. Of this character, two acts of
Congress, and two conventions with foreign powers, may be mentioned as
samples of many in our history, to wit: 1. The Factory system of
supplying the Indians with cheap goods through Government agents,
established as a temporary experimental measure for three years, &c.,
under Washington, and which was soon found to be working badly both for
the Indians and for the Government, and yet which could not be got rid
of for thirty years! nor until after the whole capital had disappeared.
2. The salt tax, and the fishing bounties and allowances founded upon
it, revived as a temporary war-tax during the late war with Great
Britain in 1812, and now continued forty years after the war has been
finished! successfully resisting all attempts at repeal, while
burthening the people with an odious tax, and enabling the fishing
interest to take some $300,000 annually (near five millions up to this
time) out of the public treasury, most of it unduly. Of treaties may be
considered as instances the convention with Great Britain for the joint
occupation of the Columbia, where the stipulated right of each party to
terminate it at pleasure upon a year's notice, could not be exercised
for twenty years! and then, with alarms of war and great disturbance to
the country. And also the convention of 1842, with the same power for
keeping up each a squadron on the coast of Africa, (for the suppression
of the slave trade,) for five years; and until either party should give
notice for its abrogation. The five years have been out three times
over! yet the notice cannot be given; and a temporary measure becomes
permanent through an illusory limitation.
[24] The preamble to this act, and the speeches in favor of it, have
been greatly relied upon in support of a protective tariff, but without
reason, as the speeches themselves, and the rate of duties established,
fully show. Every speech showed revenue to be the object of every
proposed duty--protection to domestic industry being an incident to
result from the accomplishment of that object, and from such moderate
duties as were then imposed--the _ad valorems_ being five per centum,
7-1/2 and 12-1/2; and only a single class going as high as fifteen per
centum, and that class confined to an article of luxury, to wit:
imported pleasure carriages. The specific duties were on the like
moderate scale; yet these moderate duties, thus laid for revenue, gave
all the protection which was then asked, and to the satisfaction of
every part of the Union, and cannot be quoted as any argument for the
protective system which so much disturbed the country.
[25] This call to order, and enforcement of it, for so slight a
deviation from the point in debate, is a striking illustration of the
business habits of our early Congresses, and accounts for the reason
(_inter alia_) why the debates of that early time were so pithy,
pointed, sententious, instructive and beautiful.
[26] It is presumable he alluded to Mr. GERRY, a member of a Committee
of Congress, appointed to superintend the Treasury.
[27] The questions of contested elections, generally depending upon
personal and temporary circumstances, are usually omitted in this
abridgment; but where they rise higher and reach the principles of
Government, or connect themselves with the national history, then they
become questions of general and permanent interest, adding to the stock
of political knowledge; and as such are entitled to historical
commemoration. Upon this view of such questions the debate on the
contested election of William Smith, of South Carolina, is here given;
and that on the contested election of Albert Gallatin, and some others,
will be given hereafter.
[28] This remark of Mr. MADISON shows the true reason for instituting
the previous question, which was to prevent debate in cases in which
there ought not to be any; cases in which it was necessary to guard the
House against improper discussion. What a departure from that reason has
since taken place in the House of Representatives! for the Senate has,
thus far, been shielded from the introduction of that question and its
consequent abuse.
[29] It was afterwards renewed and carried, and in that form the
amendments were made, twelve in number, and form additional articles to
the constitution, leaving the text of that instrument unaltered, but
controlled by the amendment where they differ, as in the twelfth
amendment.
[30] By taking the hour of 5 o'clock for the funeral, the adjournment of
the two Houses, and the loss of a day was obviated, while becoming
respect was shown to the memory of the deceased member.
[31] Having found a personal attendance on such occasions inconvenient,
President Washington adopted the form of a written message in asking the
advice and consent of the Senate to the formation of the treaties which
he judged to be necessary. Mr. Polk followed this form in consulting the
Senate on the Oregon treaty of 1846.
[32] The galleries were unusually crowded.
[33] The committee reported in favor of a residence of two years, and
with that provision the bill was passed.
[34] Estimated at twenty-one millions of dollars, and distributed among
the States thus:
New Hampshire, $300,000
Massachusetts, 4,000,000
Rhode Island, 200,000
Connecticut, 1,600,000
New York, 1,200,000
New Jersey, 800,000
Pennsylvania, 2,200,000
Delaware, 200,000
Maryland, 800,000
Virginia, 3,200,000
North Carolina, 2,200,000
South Carolina, 4,000,000
Georgia, 300,000
-----------
$21,000,000
[35] The motion of Mr. Madison was lost, and with it the largest door
was opened to the pillage of original creditors, the plunder of the
public Treasury and the corruption of Congress which the history of any
Government has ever seen. The immediate mischief was some thirty
millions: it was only the beginning. Assignees of claims have since been
the great suitors to Congress--purchasing for a trifle, and upon
speculation--pursuing the recovery by indirect means--taking no
denial--and gaining in the end what was scouted at the start. It has
given rise to a new profession--a new industrial pursuit, still more
industrious by night than by day--hunting up claims, pressing them upon
Congress; and by organization, skill, perseverance, appliances, and
seductions carrying through the most unfounded demands. By the common
law a _chose in action_ (an executory contract) was not assignable; and
the whole experience of our Government from the assumption of the State
debts, and funding of the revolutionary certificates in 1790 down to the
present day, shows that the interest of the original creditor, the
safety of the Treasury, and the purity of Congress require this wise
common law principle to be applied to all claims upon the Government.
[36] These proceedings put an end to abolition petitions in Congress.
The Society of which Dr. Franklin was president was purely philanthropic
in its character, and having got the answer to their petition, "that
Congress had no right to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or
their treatment in any of the States," acquiesced in the decision and
did not repeat their application.
[37] This measure became combined with the Assumption Bill. Each had
failed by small majorities: both were afterwards passed. There was a
strong sectional party for each, but not a majority. The Eastern and
Middle States were for the assumption--the Southern States against it:
these latter were for the Potomac for the seat of Government--the former
for the Susquehannah. The discontent was extreme on each side at losing
its favorite measure. At last the two measures were combined. Two
members from the Potomac who had voted against the assumption, agreed to
change their votes: a few from the Eastern and Middle States who had
voted against the Potomac, agreed to change in its favor; and so the two
measures were passed. Mr. Jefferson gives this account of it, omitting
his strictures: "This measure (the assumption) produced the most bitter
and angry contest ever known in Congress, before or since the union of
the States. I arrived in the midst of it: but a stranger to the ground,
a stranger to the actors in it, so long absent as to have lost all
familiarity with the subject, and as yet unaware of its object, I took
no concern in it. The great and trying question, however, was lost in
the House of Representatives. So high were the feuds excited on this
subject that, on its rejection, business was suspended. Congress met and
adjourned from day to day without doing any thing, the parties being too
much out of temper to do business together. The Eastern members
threatened secession and dissolution. Hamilton was in despair. As I was
going to the President's one day, I met him in the street. He walked me
backwards and forwards before the President's door for half an hour. He
painted pathetically the temper into which the Legislature had been
wrought--the disgust of those who were called the creditor States--the
danger of the secession of their members, and of the separation of the
States. He observed that the members of the administration ought to act
in concert--that though this question was not of my department, yet a
common duty should make it a common concern--that the President was the
centre on which all administrative questions ultimately rested, and that
all of us should rally around him, and support, with joint efforts,
measures approved by him; and that the question having been lost by a
small majority only, it was probable that an appeal from me to the
judgment and discretion of some of my friends, might effect change in
the vote, and the machine of government, now suspended, might be again
set in motion. I told him that I was really a stranger to the whole
subject; that not having yet informed myself of the system of finances
adopted, I knew not how far this was a necessary sequence; that
undoubtedly, if its rejection endangered a dissolution of our Union at
this incipient stage, I should deem that the most unfortunate of all
consequences, to avert which all partial and temporary evils should be
yielded. I proposed to him, however, to dine with me the next day, and I
would invite another friend or two, bring them into conference together,
and I thought it impossible that reasonable men, consulting together
coolly, could fail, by some mutual sacrifices of opinion, to form a
compromise which would save the Union. The discussion took place. I
could take no part in it but an exhortatory one, because I was a
stranger to the circumstances which should govern it. But it was finally
agreed, that whatever importance had been attached to the rejection of
this proposition, the preservation of the Union, and of concord among
the States, was more important, and that therefore it would be better
that the vote of rejection should be rescinded--to effect which some
members should change their votes. But it was observed that this pill
would be peculiarly bitter to the Southern States, and that some
concomitant measure should be adopted to sweeten it a little to them.
There had before been propositions to fix the seat of Government either
at Philadelphia, or at Georgetown on the Potomac; and it was thought
that by giving it to Philadelphia for ten years, and to Georgetown
permanently afterwards, this might, as an anodyne, calm in some degree
the ferment which might be excited by the other measure alone: so two of
the Potomac members (White and Lee, but the former with a revulsion of
stomach almost convulsive) agreed to change their votes; and Hamilton
undertook to carry the other point."
[38] Could the extent to which the evil has since been carried, have
been foreseen at the time, the state of the vote might have been very
different.
[39] Topics of temporary interest omitted.
[40] At this commencement of the second Congress, being in the third
year of Washington's administration, and when the finances had been
brought to order and system by General Hamilton, and the machinery of
government put into fair and full operation, a proper point presents
itself to look at the expenses of the new Government, both as a fact at
the time, and as a point of comparison in the future. In the annual
speech which the President delivered to the two Houses, he congratulated
Congress on the adequacy of the revenues which had been provided, and on
the prospect that no new burthens would be required to be laid upon the
people. This was a gratifying announcement, and makes it desirable to
see what was the revenue at that time, and to what objects applied. The
first inquiry is answered by a recurrence to the two tariff acts which
had been passed--one at the first, the other at the second session of
the first Congress. The first act had produced near two millions of
dollars, which, though five times beyond what was necessary for the
support of the Government, was not sufficient for the demands of the
public debt and the Indian war raging in the North-west. An augmentation
of the duties became necessary, and was accomplished in the second act,
but still on a scale of moderation. The _ad valorems_ were 5 per centum,
7-1/2, 10, 12-1/2, 15; but in counting their product, only the two first
may be considered, as the mass of the importations fell under those
rates; to wit, above 16 millions under the two first, and less than one
million under the three last; so that the 5 and the 7-1/2 _ad valorems_
may be considered as the effective duties, and the actual levy upon the
imports. The list of specific duties was enlarged in the second bill,
(the Secretary of the Treasury wisely saying that the experience of the
world showed that duties upon quantities, ascertainable by weight and
measure, were the only ones capable of safe and cheap collection, and
therefore to be preferred as far as possible.) and their rate increased,
but still in moderate proportion. The produce of the whole was about
3-1/2 millions, which was nearly nine times as much as the support of
the Government required, leaving nearly eight parts out of nine to go to
the public debt, the Indian war, and other extraordinary objects. This
important statement requires to be verified, which is done by referring
to General Hamilton's estimate of appropriations at the commencement of
this first session of the second Congress; to wit, CIVIL LIST,
comprehending compensation to the President and Vice President--the
Departments of State, Treasury and War--the Board of Commissioners--the
government of the North-western Territory--the Judiciary--the two Houses
of Congress--contingencies incident to the civil list: in all
$328,653.00; to which was afterwards added $87,000 for diplomatic
intercourse, increasing the amount of the annual estimate to $415,000.
The public debt, the Indian war, and other extraordinaries took all the
rest, amounting to about three millions; so that this small revenue,
produced by such moderate duties upon the small importation of that day,
sufficed for the support of the Government, for carrying on an Indian
war as far off, (the distance measured by time and cost of march and
transportation,) and with Indians far more formidable than any now in
the world; and also for the interest of the public debt. This is a
result for statesmen to consider, and to bring into comparison with the
present state of things; and the reflection may be, that with the same
spirit of economy which, then prevailed, the same knowledge of the
objects for which the Federal Government was created, and the same
determination to confine its action to those objects, the same moderate
rate of duties on the large importations of this day would be entirely
sufficient, both for the support of the Government and for all
extraordinary objects. The cost of collecting the revenue in that early
period also presents a point for retrospect and comparison; it was then
about 3 and 1/3 per cent., and according to the principle of such
collections, should become less in proportion to the larger amount
collected. On the contrary, the increase has been inordinate! and is,
perhaps, now hardly ascertainable, but cutting deep into the national
income.
[41] The case of Pennsylvania goes far to sustain this view. The policy
of William Penn was that of justice and humanity to the Indians, and his
colony was long exempt from its calamity of savage hostility. It had
been settled seventy years--from 1680 to 1753--before an Indian killed
one of its inhabitants, and then in consequence of a disturbance in a
neighboring province. Such an exemption, for so long a time, and while
all the other colonies were involved in Indian wars from their early
settlement, while so honorable to Penn's government and to the
inoffensive manners of the inhabitants, goes far to show that the
Indians were manageable by good treatment, and that, although savage,
their savageism was not of a kind to resist the effects of justice and
kindness.
[42] This speech, of Cornplanter, the famous chief of the Seneca tribe,
(one of the Six Nations,) does not appear in the debates, having been
confidentially read to the House; but it is found in the State papers of
the time, and is, as the allusions to it implied, a plea in behalf of
the Indians against the wrongs of the whites. Intrusion upon their
lands, fraudulent purchases, and killing unoffending Indians, are the
subjects of complaint. The speech opens with a characteristic appeal to
Washington.
"Father: The voice of the Seneca nation speaks to you, the great
councillor in whose heart the wise men of all the Thirteen Fires
(Thirteen United States) have placed their wisdom. It may be very small
in your ears, and we therefore entreat you to hearken with attention:
for we are about to speak of things which are to us very great. When
your army entered the country of the Six Nations, we called you the town
destroyer; and to this day, when that name is heard, our women look
behind them and turn pale, and our children cling close to the necks of
their mothers. Our councillors and warriors are men, and cannot be
afraid; but their hearts are grieved with the fears of our women and
children, and desire it to be buried so deep as to be heard no more.
When you gave us peace, we called you Father, because you promised to
secure us in the possession of our lands. Do this, and, so long as the
lands shall remain, that beloved name will live in the heart of every
Seneca."
Then followed a complaint for wrongs done them in their lands; to which
Washington replied that that wrong was done before the new Government
was established and the management of Indian affairs given up to it; but
that they would now be protected. This reply fell short of his
expectations, and the Cornplanter rejoined:
"Father: Your speech written on the great paper, is to us like the first
light of the morning to a sick man, whose pulse beats too strongly in
his temples, and prevents him from sleep. He sees it and rejoices, but
is not cured."
Of killing and robbing their people he said:
"Three men and one woman have been killed at Big Beaver Creek, and they
were good people, and some of the white people will testify this.
Twenty-seven men came from another State, and murdered these men in the
Quaker State where they had come to trade, and took away all the horses,
and all the goods they had purchased from the traders."
The President answers to this complaint that he is very angry to hear of
this murder and robbery--that he will have it inquired into, and will
comfort the friends and relations of the persons who were killed, and
make them compensation for the horses and property taken; and do all in
his power to bring the murderers to justice, and that he will consider
the crime as bad, exactly, as if committed against so many white people,
and will use the same endeavors to bring them to punishment. Satisfied
with the assurances which the President gave them, the Cornplanter, and
the other chiefs with him, took a formal and affectionate leave in
writing; in which they say:
"Father: No Seneca ever goes from the fire of his friend until he has
said to him 'I am going.' We therefore now tell you, that we are setting
out for our own country. Father: We thank you from our hearts, that we
now know there is a country we may call our own, and on which we may lie
down in peace. We see that there will be peace between your children and
our children, and our hearts are very glad."
On arriving at Pittsburg on their way home, for these interviews with
Washington took place in Philadelphia, these children of the forest with
a native sentiment of graceful politeness, wrote back to him to let him
know how they were getting along, the whole expressed in two brief
sentences.
"Through the whole Quaker State, as we came up the road, we were treated
well, and they took good care of us until we came here. One misfortune
happened only, that one of our wagons is not yet arrived here, the one
we first engaged, and with the goods you presented to us."
They always speak affectionately of the Quaker State, and in one of the
speeches to President Washington, having occasion to mention a promise
made to them by the State, said:
"The Quaker State will do what it promises."
[43] Mr. JEFFERSON, Secretary of State, in his Report on the fisheries.
[44] Letters of the Secretary of War and Quartermaster General.
[45] For an authorized establishment of 5,120 men, of all arms, the
actual establishment being about 3,600. It would be curious to compare
the army expenses of that day with those of this day, and the
comparative care with which Congress looked into these expenses at the
two different periods. The United States were engaged in Indian wars
then as now, and upon a theatre (time and cost of getting to it
considered) as far off as our Indian wars are at present; for, the
distance estimated in that way, is less now to California than it was
then to the Miami of the Lakes: yet a cost of something like $200 a head
was considered extravagant, and such as to call upon Congress for an
inquiry.
[46] The bill came down from the Senate where debates were not
published, and seems to have passed the House without debate, and almost
without division, there being but seven votes against it, and two of
these (Messrs. Mercer and Parker) from slave States. Nor does it appear
to what part of the bill they objected, whether to the part in relation
to fugitives from justice, or to those who fled from service, for both
classes of fugitives were comprehended in the same bill. It was passed
on a message from President Washington, founded on a communication from
the Governor of Pennsylvania in relation to a fugitive from justice who
had taken refuge in Virginia, and because it was necessary to have an
act of Congress to give effect to the rendition clause in the
constitution. There was but little necessity in those times, nor for
long after, for an act of Congress to authorize the recovery of fugitive
slaves. The laws of the free States, and still more the force of public
opinion, were the owners' best safeguards. Public opinion was against
the abduction of slaves; and if any one was seduced from his owner, it
was done furtively and secretly, without show or force, and as any other
moral offence would be committed. State laws favored the owner, and to a
greater extent than the act of Congress did, or could. In Pennsylvania
there was an act (it was passed in 1780, and only repealed in 1847)
discriminating between the traveller and sojourner, and the permanent
resident, allowing the former to remain six months in the State before
his slaves would become subject to the emancipation laws; and, in the
case of a federal government officer, allowing as much more time as his
duties required him to remain. New York had the same act, only varying
in time, which was nine months. While these two acts were in force, and
supported by public opinion, the traveller and sojourner was safe with
his slaves in those States, and the same in the other free States. There
was no trouble about fugitive slaves in those times. This act of 1793
did not grow out of any such trouble, but out of the case of a fugitive
from justice. It was that case which brought the subject before
Congress; and, in the act that was passed, the case of fugitives from
justice was first provided for, the first and second sections of the act
being given to that branch of the subject, and the third and fourth to
the other--all brief and plain, and executable without expense or fuss.
In the case of a slave the owner was allowed to seize him wherever he
saw him, by day or by night, Sundays or week-days, just as if he was in
his own State, and a penalty of $500 attached to any person who resisted
or obstructed him in this seizure. The only authority he wanted was
after the seizure, and to justify the carrying back, and for that
purpose, the affidavit of the owner, or his agent was sufficient. This
act was perfect, except in relying upon State officers, as well as
federal officers to execute it, these State officers not being subject
to the federal law, and being forbid to act after slavery became a
subject of political agitation.
[47] This was a party election, and as such conducted on both sides.
Marshall, in his Life of Washington, says of it: "By each party a
candidate for the chair was brought forward; and Mr. Muhlenberg, who was
supported by the opposition, was elected by a majority of ten votes
against Mr. Sedgwick whom the Federalists supported."
[48] The debate on this subject was one of the most elaborate, and most
replete with knowledge of commercial principles and statistics, which
our Congress has furnished. It grew out of the clause in the
constitution which gave Congress power to regulate commerce with foreign
nations, and gives the interpretation of that clause by its authors,
which was wholly different in its nature, as well as distinct in its
grant, from the power to lay and collect duties on imports. The latter
was to raise revenue: the former to coerce nations into reciprocity of
liberal trade with us by making a discrimination in the trade of nations
to the disadvantage of the nations which refused to come into reciprocal
arrangements with us. The discrimination proposed by Mr. Madison was 5
per centum, and was levelled against Britain, and was only defeated by
five votes. In this great debate, as in that upon the Bank of the United
States, the genius of Hamilton and Jefferson were pitted against each
other, each having made opposite reports on each question, which were
the magazines from which the opposing speakers in Congress chiefly armed
themselves--Mr. Madison being the chief exponent of the Jeffersonian
side, and Mr. William Smith, of South Carolina, that of General
Hamilton. It is curious that while this power to regulate foreign
commerce by Congress, was one of the chief causes for forming the
Federal Government, yet it has never been exercised by Congress, and
seems to be a power overlooked, or confounded with that to lay duties
and imposts for revenue. Though not yet exercised, it is a power which
has found need for its exercise, and will find it again. Our immense
commerce, if all articles are taxed even moderately, will produce far
more revenue than the economical and fair administration of the
Government would require: a large part of it would be left free, as
after the payment of the public debt in President Jackson's time; and as
may be again after the extinction of the public debt, and the
introduction of economy into the expenditures. A moderate duty on
two-thirds of the importations may then be sufficient for the
expenditures of the Government, leaving (say) one-third to go upon the
free list. Now the nations which receive the chief benefit of that large
free importation ought to reciprocate the favor by taking something
free, or at a moderate duty, from us. "_Free commerce is not to be given
in exchange for burthens and impositions_;" and that was the principle
of Mr. Madison's resolutions, which were barely defeated, and that by
the influence of the mercantile class engaged in commerce with Great
Britain. A full view of this subject is given in the first volume of the
Thirty Years' View, in giving an account of the effort of the author to
revive Mr. Madison's plan.
[49] It is grateful to behold the immense progress which the humanity of
nations has made. Great Britain is no longer subject to the imputation
of exciting pirates and savages against us. She has long since ceased to
instigate Indian hostilities, and long ago joined us in humbling
Algiers. Far from stimulating barbarian war, she even interposes to save
us from civilized war with great nations--witness the proffered
mediation of William the Fourth to settle the difficulty between France
and the United States, in General Jackson's time: a beautiful instance
of old animosity extinct under time, and former evil deeds succeeded by
works of kindness and respect.
[50] This seventh, article stipulated indemnity to the owners of the
deported slaves.
[51] Mr. Jefferson resigned his place of Secretary of State at the end
of this session, and was succeeded by Mr. Edmund Randolph, of Virginia.
Of the resignation and character of Mr. Jefferson, Marshall thus speaks:
"This gentleman withdrew from political station at a moment when he
stood particularly high in the esteem of his countrymen. His fixed
opposition to the financial schemes which had been proposed by the
Secretary of the Treasury, and approved by the Legislative and Executive
Departments of the Government; his ardent and undisguised attachment to
the revolutionary party in France; the dispositions which he was
declared to possess in regard to Great Britain; and the popularity of
his opinions respecting the Constitution of the United States; had
devoted to him that immense party whose sentiments were supposed to
comport with his on most or all of these interesting subjects. To the
opposite party he had, of course, become particularly unacceptable. But
the publication of his correspondence with the French minister, _Genet_,
dissipated much of the prejudice which had been excited against him. He
had, in that correspondence, maintained, with great ability, the
opinions embraced by the Federalists on those points of difference which
had arisen between the two Republics, and which, having become
universally the subjects of discussion, had in some measure dissipated
those topics on which parties had previously divided."
[52] The ratification of the Treaty, with the exception of the 12th
article, was by the following vote: YEAS--_Messrs._ Bingham, Bradford,
Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster, Frelinghuysen, Gunn, Henry, King, Latimer,
Livermore, Marshall, Paine, Potts, Read, Ross, Rutherford, Strong,
Trumbull, and Vining--20. NAYS--_Messrs._ Bloodworth, Brown, Burr,
Butler, Jackson, Langdon, Martin, Mason, Robinson, and Tazewell--10.
This excepted article related to the direct trade with the British West
Indies; and the recommendation added to the clause of ratification was
with a view to obtain the full enjoyment of that trade. This was in the
year 1795, and the object of the recommendation was not obtained until
above thirty years thereafter, and under the administration of General
Jackson.
[53] This recommendation to treat further for obtaining indemnity for
the slaves carried off by the British during the Revolution, remained
without effect, and all claim to that indemnification was relinquished
by the treaty of 1796. But the same deportation of slaves took place in
the war of 1812, followed by the same stipulation for indemnity in the
treaty which closed that war, which was contained in the treaty which
closed the war of the Revolution; and attended by the same refusal to
comply with it. It was not until after twelve years of further
negotiation, and under the administration of Mr. John Quincy Adams, and
under the arbitrament of the Emperor Alexander, of Russia, that
indemnity for these deported slaves of 1812 was received.
[54] This was the first instance of any heated debate in answering an
address from Washington. It became a party discussion on some points,
especially in relation to what was said of the Democratic societies.
Marshall says of it: "A very eloquent and animated debate ensued, which
terminated in the Committee of the Whole by striking out the words,
"self-created societies"--47 voting for, and 45 against expunging them."
The question was renewed in the House; and the Chairman of the committee
being opposed in sentiment to the Speaker, who was now placed in the
chair, the majority was precisely changed, and the words were
reinstated. This was a victory for the Administration, but soon lost,
the next being in favor of the opposition.
[55] He resigned accordingly, no further investigation being moved with
respect to him. Recording the event, Marshall says: "Seldom has any
minister excited in a higher, or more extensive degree than General
Hamilton, the opposite passions of love and hate. His talents were of a
grade too exalted not to receive from all the tribute of profound
respect; and his integrity and honor as a man, not less than his
official rectitude, though slandered at a distance, were admitted to be
superior to reproach by those enemies who knew him."
[56] A celebrated painter who died in 1554. Speaking of this artist,
Henry the Eighth once said, "Out of seven ploughmen I can make seven
Lords, but out of seven Lords I cannot make even one Holbein."
[57] Col. Timothy Pickering, in place of Gen. Knox, resigned.
[58] The distinction was invidious, and soon fell under the ban of
public opinion; but the mode of making it was commendable, and freed the
Senators voting for the increase from the imputation of a personal
motive.
[59] This was nominally a private petition, but in reality a question
between the State of North Carolina and the Federal Government in
relation to their relative rights over Indian lands within the chartered
limits of the State.
[60] This was the first discussion with open doors, except on the
contested election of Mr. Gallatin.
[61] This was the first formal opposition to the mode of answering the
President's Speech at the opening of the Sessions of Congress, though
many members had from the first been repugnant to it as being too close
an imitation of the British mode of opening the Sessions of Parliament
by an Address from the sovereign in person, an answer to it, and the
presentation of the answer by the House in a body.
[62] DESCRIPTION OF THE FLAG.--It is tricolor, made of the richest silk,
and highly ornamented with allegorical paintings. In the middle, a cock
is represented, the emblem of France, standing on a thunderbolt. At two
corners, diagonally opposite, are represented two bombshells bursting;
at the other two corners, other military emblems. Round the whole is a
rich border of oak leaves, alternately yellow and green; the first
shaded with brown and heightened with gold; the latter shaded with black
and relieved with silver; in this border are entwined warlike musical
instruments. The edge is ornamented with a rich gold fringe. The staff
is covered with black velvet, crowned with a golden pike, and enriched
with the tricolor cravatte and a pair of tassels worked in gold, and the
three national colors. The flag is to be deposited in the archives of
the United States.
[63] Counsel for the prisoner.
[64] Of all the members who opposed this trading establishment from the
commencement, Mr. Macon was the only one that remained in Congress until
it was abolished in 1822.
[65] This motion, going to the destruction of the Mint itself, brought
up an incidental debate on the right of Congress to withhold
appropriations for the support of existing establishments--which is the
only part of the debate on the bill which retains a surviving interest.
[66] This being the last year of Washington's administration, it
presents a proper occasion for seeing what the support of the Government
then cost, both as an inquiry pertinent in itself, and as furnishing a
point of comparison for the future. This is shown in the introductory
clause to the appropriations, stating, "That for defraying the
expenditure of the civil list of the United States for the year 1796,
together with the incidental and contingent expenses of the several
departments and officers thereof, there be appropriated a sum not
exceeding $530,392 85 cents." The objects to which this expenditure
went, were, 1. Salary to President and Vice President. 2. Compensation
to the members of Congress, with all the incidental expenses of that
body. 3. The federal judiciary, with all its contingent expenses. 4. The
Executive departments, with all their subordinate offices and expenses
of every kind. 5. The Mint establishment. 6. The light-house
establishment. 7. North-western and South-western territorial
governments; with a few other small objects. For each of these items a
specific sum was appropriated, of which, the appropriations for Congress
were, for the pay of the members and all the officers and attendants,
(estimated for a session of six months,) $193,460; and the expenses,
fuel, stationery, printing, and all other contingencies of the two
Houses, were $11,500. For diplomatic intercourse, $40,000.
[67] And proved to be so in this case, though it required thirty years'
experience to show it. When the system was brought to a close in 1822,
it was found that the whole capital was gone.
[68] This was the first attempt to pay members of Congress as salaried
officers.
[69] This resolution would seem to embody Mr. Madison's interpretation
of the clause in the constitution which authorizes Congress to establish
post roads.
[70] This explanatory note was written by Mr. Gales, editor of the
Annals of Congress, who has rendered a valuable service to the student
of political history in bringing these two great debates, each by
itself, into a single and connected form. They are the groundwork of
high constitutional knowledge; and, whether for the intrinsic importance
of their matter, the close acquaintance of the speakers with their
subject, or as fine specimens of parliamentary debating, they stand
forth as debates of the first class which our congressional history has
afforded. Marshall, in his history, says of them: "Never had a greater
display been made of argument, of eloquence, and of passion; and never
had a subject been discussed in which all classes of their
fellow-citizens took a deeper interest." The first debate related to the
Treaty-making power, and how far the House of Representatives had the
right to refuse assent to a treaty which required an appropriation of
money, or which regulated commerce, or which required the exercise of
any other power specifically granted to Congress. The second applied to
the execution of the commercial Treaty of 1794, with Great Britain; one
party contending that the Congress was bound to make the appropriation
to carry it into effect--the other denying the obligation and claiming
the right of a discretionary power. The two debates were upon kindred
subjects, and before the House at the same time, yet kept distinct, in
the discussion, neither sliding into the other, and one finished before
the other began; such was the closeness with which members then adhered
to the subject, even in Committee of the Whole, and which gave to these
early debates of our Congress so much point and power, and so much
attraction to the hearer then and to the reader now. An abridgment can
only present a part of these great debates, which cover above 300 pages
of the Annals of Congress; but the whole argument will be seen on both
sides, as the pith and marrow of each main speech will be given.
[71] This course was long followed, no Indian Treaty being held except
authorized by an act of Congress, which was the Legislative consent to
the grants of money which such Treaties usually contain, and for the
payment of which an Act of Congress would be necessary. And in the two
great cases of acquiring foreign territory, (Louisiana and Florida,)
under Presidents contemporary with the formation of the constitution,
and which required large appropriations to carry them into effect, the
consent of the Legislative branch of the Government was sought and
obtained before the Executive began to act--the law in both cases
originating in the House of Representatives as the proper initiatory
branch when money was to be paid which the people would have to raise.
[72] Thus the House, by a majority of 25, passed the call upon the
President for the papers, and upon the declared ground of a _right_ to
judge the Treaty, as it contained a regulation of commerce, and also
required an appropriation of money. President Washington received the
call in the sense in which it was made, and although he had no objection
to furnishing the papers, and had laid them before the Senate, (whence
they became public,) yet he deemed it his duty to resist the claim of
right asserted by the House, and therefore to refuse the papers--which
he did in a closely reasoned Message, an epitome of the arguments used
in the House on that side.
[73] It is seen in this answer of President Washington, that he holds
the assent of the House to be unnecessary to the validity of any Treaty
whatever, which, of course, includes the class contended for by the
House, but makes the question broader than the one presented by its
limited claim.
[74] In this resolution the House specifies the class of Treaties over
which it claims a right of judgment, and limits it to those which
involve a matter which has been specially granted to Congress--as an
appropriation of money, or the regulation of commerce.
[75] And thus the President and the House were completely at issue--the
House having expressly asserted, by a majority of 27, a right to judge,
not every Treaty, or Treaties generally, but those which involved the
exercise of any power granted by the constitution to itself. Trained in
the school of this majority, the author of this Abridgment, as often as
the occasion required, has maintained the same right for the House; and
especially in the case of the territorial purchase from Mexico in 1854.
[76] Mr. Hillhouse had submitted a resolution in favor of carrying the
Treaty into effect, and afterwards Mr. Maclay submitted one, declaring
the contrary; and the question was, which should be taken up? Mr.
Madison, as a skilful parliamentary tactician, preferred that of Mr.
Hillhouse, as putting the burden of the affirmative upon the adversary,
always an advantage in the debate, and, in an even vote, always decisive
for the negative side.
[77] The following is the letter received by the committee appointed to
inquire into the situation of the son of General LAFAYETTE:
[TRANSLATION.]
"RAMAPAGH, (New Jersey,) March 28, 1796.
"SIR: I have just received the honorable resolution which the merits of
my father have procured for me. Deign to express to the Representatives
of the people of America his gratitude--my youth forbids me yet to speak
of mine. Every day recalls to me what he taught me, at every period of
his life, so full of vicissitudes, and what he has repeated in a letter,
written from the depth of his prison. 'I am convinced (he says) that the
goodness of the United States and the tenderness of my paternal friend
will need nothing to excite them.
"Arrived in America some months since, I live in the country, in New
Jersey, occupied in the pursuits of my education. I have no wants; if I
had felt any, I should have answered to the paternal solicitude of the
President of the United States, either by confiding them to him, or by
accepting his offers. I shall hereafter consider it a duty, to impart
them to the House of Representatives, which deigns to inquire into my
situation.
"I am as happy as a continual inquietude relative to the object of my
first affections will permit. I have found benevolence wherever I have
been known, and have often had the satisfaction of hearing those, who
were ignorant of my connections, speak of their interest in the fate of
my father, express their admiration of, and partake the gratitude I
feel, for the generous Dr. Bollman, who has done so much to break his
chains.
"It is amid all these motives of emulation, that I shall continue my
studies. Every day more convinced of the duties which are imposed by the
goodness of Congress, and the names I have the honor to bear.
"GEO. WASHINGTON MOTIER LAFAYETTE.
The Hon. EDWARD LIVINGSTON, Chairman," &c.
[78] This vote of the House to carry the Treaty into effect, was no
abandonment of the right it had asserted to judge its merits, and to
grant or withhold the appropriation according to its discretion. The
discussion sufficiently shows this, and that many members took care to
save their votes from any misconstruction on this head. A sense of
expediency, and not the force of obligation, carried the vote; and
certainly the inducements to let the Treaty stand were very great.
Marshall sums them up thus: "If Congress refused to perform the Treaty
on the part of the United States, a compliance on the part of Great
Britain could not be expected. The posts on the great lakes would still
be occupied by British garrisons: no compensation would be made for
American vessels illegally captured: the hostile dispositions which had
been excited, would be restored with increased aggravation: and that
these dispositions must infallibly lead to war, was implicitly
believed." The amount to be appropriated was only $90,000, a sum
entirely insignificant, and only to be contested on account of the
principle its appropriation would involve. Yet the insignificance of the
sum, and with all the inducements to let the Treaty stand, and under
such a President as Washington, barely saved it from defeat! so jealous
was the Democratic party of that day of the rights of Congress, and so
determined was the House to remain master of the public purse. Ninety
thousand dollars was all the money at stake; but what has since been
seen? An Executive offering fifty millions for a slip of territory! and
one hundred millions, and afterwards two hundred, for an island!
Actually negotiating a Treaty of twenty millions, which the Senate
reduced to ten! and all, not only without the sanction, but without the
knowledge of the Legislative power. To admit that Congress would be
bound to appropriate such sums if the offers had ripened into Treaty
stipulations, would be to admit that the President, Senate, and a
foreign potentate were masters of the appropriating power; and, of
course, of the taxing and borrowing power, and of all the means by which
money was to be raised. Even a discretionary power over the
appropriation, after the Treaty has been made, is but a slight defence
for the treasury, there being always in Congress, as in all public
bodies, men to yield to circumstances,--good easy men to be persuaded;
timid men to be scared; venal men to be purchased. And out of these
classes enough are usually found to turn the scale, when upright men
divide upon a large measure. The only safe way is that of consultation
beforehand, as practised by Washington in the early part of his
Administration, and by the Presidents under whom Louisiana, Florida, and
California were acquired.
[79] The claim was renewed continually, and fruitlessly, until the year
1832, when it was allowed, and the horse paid for according to his
certificated specie value at the time he was taken in the year
1781--$1,500.
[80] Up to this time and afterwards, until the year 1798, there was no
Naval Department, or Secretary of the Navy, and the marine, as well as
the land force, was under the charge of the Secretary of War--which
accounts for the appropriations of the two branches of the service
appearing in the same bill.
[81] The whole sum appropriated for the Military and Naval
Establishments of the year, was, $1,318,873--the strength of the army
being 3000 men, and the debate is given as an instance of the closeness
with which appropriations were scrutinized in the early ages of the
Government, and also as showing the expense of maintaining troops in the
north-west--then as far off (time and cost considered) as our Pacific
possessions now are.