Mr. D. FOSTER moved the following resolution: |

"_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this committee, that

a respectful Address ought to be presented from the House

of Representatives, to the President of the United States,

in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress, at the

commencement of the session, containing assurances that

this House will take into consideration the many important

matters recommended to their attention."

Which was unanimously agreed to, and Mr. AMES, Mr. BALDWIN, Mr. MADISON,

Mr. SITGREAVES, and Mr. W. SMITH were appointed a committee to draw up

the Address. The committee rose, and the resolution was adopted by the

House.

FRIDAY, December 9.

DAVID BARD, from Pennsylvania, JOSIAH PARKER, from Virginia, and NATHAN

BRYAN, from North Carolina, appeared and took their seats in the House.

_Address to the President._

The SPEAKER said, that it had been usual for the House to come to some

order on the PRESIDENT's Address, which was to refer it to a Committee

of the Whole on the state of the Union. On which Mr. WILLIAMS moved,

that it be committed to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the

Union, which was done accordingly.

Mr. BAYLEY moved, that a Committee of Commerce and Manufactures be

appointed, when Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, Mr. SEWALL, Mr. COIT, Mr. PARKER, Mr.

BLOUNT, and Mr. DENT, were named for that committee.

Mr. BAYLEY then moved, that when this House adjourn, it adjourn till

Monday at eleven o'clock.

[The reason stated during the last session for the House not meeting to

do business on Saturdays was, that the standing committees were

numerous, besides many special committees for different purposes, whose

business was frequently very important and troublesome, it was therefore

necessary that Saturday be allowed for the committees to sit, else

business would be much protracted, and become too burdensome on

gentlemen in committees.]

MONDAY, December 12.

Several other members, to wit: from New York, EDWARD LIVINGSTON; from

Pennsylvania, ANDREW GREGG; from Maryland, GABRIEL CHRISTIE; from

Virginia, WILLIAM B. GILES, ANDREW MOORE, and JOHN NICHOLAS; and from

South Carolina, ROBERT GOODLOE HARPER, appeared, and took their seats in

the House.

TUESDAY, December 13.

Two other members, to wit, THOMAS CLAIBORNE and JOHN PAGE, from

Virginia, appeared and took their seats in the House.

A new member, viz: WILLIAM STRUDWICK, from North Carolina, in place of

ABSALOM TATOM resigned, appeared, produced his credentials, was

qualified, and took his seat.

_Address to the President._

Mr. W. SMITH then moved for the order of the day on the report of the

committee in answer to the PRESIDENT's Address.

Mr. GILES said, that as the printed copy of the answer was but just laid

before the House, he hoped the gentleman would not insist on his motion,

as he declared he had not had time to read it; he would therefore move

that it be deferred till to-morrow.

Mr. PARKER seconded the motion. He said he was not able to judge whether

the answer would meet his approbation or not; he wished time to be given

for the consideration of it.

Mr. W. SMITH said he knew no instance in which the answer to the

PRESIDENT's Address had been laid over, and he thought it ought to be

despatched with all possible speed.

Mr. HEATH said, he hoped his colleague would not insist on his motion

for letting it lie over till to-morrow; he thought it could as well be

acted on to-day.

Mr. AMES observed, that it would look very awkward to let it lie over

till to-morrow, as it was very unusual, if not unprecedented, so to do;

he thought gentlemen might make up their minds about it if laid on the

table about an hour; they could, in the mean time, despatch other

business, which would come before them.

Mr. GILES said, he had experienced extreme inconvenience from gentlemen

pressing for a subject before it had been matured in the minds of

members; he thought it would be extremely improper and unusual, and in

its consequences disagreeable, to go into the subject before gentlemen

had time to reflect on it.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, that the more expeditious the House were on the

answer to the PRESIDENT's Address the greater the effect of it would be.

He hoped, therefore, that there would be no delay. He had in

recollection a Message which was received from the PRESIDENT respecting

the Colors of the French Republic, at the last session. Those very

gentlemen who now wished a delay, then thought that, to let the subject

lie over, would lose its principal effect, although several of the

members wished it to lie over, and but for one day. Surely we have as

much respect for the PRESIDENT as we have for the French Republic. He

really hoped the business would not lie over.

Mr. W. LYMAN hoped gentlemen did not look upon this answer to the

PRESIDENT's Address as merely complimentary. He declared he took it up

in a very different light; he viewed it as of the most extensive

consequence; it related to the subjects recommended to the notice of the

House by the PRESIDENT, which might relate to the alteration of the

laws, and, perhaps, to the forming new laws; and could gentlemen have

time to form their minds on such an important part of their business? He

had only seen the report this morning, and hoped he should have time to

consider it before it passed through the House.

The SPEAKER said, that the subject before the House now was, whether the

unfinished business should be postponed in order to make room for a

Committee of the Whole to sit on the report of the committee on the

answer?

Mr. PARKER observed, that he could not say whether he approved or

disapproved of the answer before the House. He had not read the report;

he therefore hoped that the unfinished business would be taken up and

this postponed: he thought it was too important to be hastened. He

wished gentlemen to be very careful how they committed themselves at a

juncture so critical, and on business so momentous. We had just been

told by the PRESIDENT that we did not stand well with the French nation;

and the Senate, in their answer, had accorded with his observations on

that subject. [Mr. P. was here informed that the business of the Senate

ought not to be introduced here.[3]] He therefore hoped a day might be

allowed to take the subject into consideration.

Mr. WILLIAMS said, he had searched and could find no precedent in the

journal to encourage a delay of this business. He found that when a

report was made by the committee on such an occasion, it was usual to be

taken up by a Committee of the whole House; and if gentlemen disagreed

on the subject, it should be recommitted to the same committee who

formed it, to make such alterations whereby it may meet more general

approbation, or be amended by the House and passed. He hoped no new

precedent would be made.

The SPEAKER again observed, that the question was on postponing the

unfinished business to take up this report.

Mr. W. SMITH said, that if this business was delayed, it ought to be for

substantial reasons. The principal reason gentlemen had urged was, that

they had not had time to acquaint themselves with the answer. How, then,

he asked, could they make their observations on it as they had done? The

committee had, he thought, drafted it in such general terms that it

could not be generally disapproved. There are but two parts in which he

thought there would be differences of opinion, viz: that which related

to the French Republic, and that which complimented the PRESIDENT for

his services. As to the first, he thought it so expressed as to need no

delay in the answer. With respect to the latter, he hoped no gentleman

would refuse to pay a due regard to the PRESIDENT's services.

The SPEAKER again informed the House what was the question.

Mr. W. SMITH said, we ought not now to reflect on any thing we may judge

has not been done as we could wish. Could we refuse a tribute of respect

to a man who had served his country so much? He thought a delay at

present would have a very unpleasant appearance. He hoped we should go

into this business immediately, agreeably to the former practice of the

House on similar occasions. The unfinished business was yesterday

postponed for want of proper information, and he thought the same reason

was yet in force with respect to it. He hoped nothing would impede this

business, lest it should appear like a want of respect in us. He hoped

to see a unanimous vote in favor of a respectful answer to the Chief

Magistrate, whose services we ought zealously to acknowledge.

Mr. GILBERT saw no reason to depart from a practice which had been

usual; he therefore hoped the report might come under consideration

to-day. He thought if it laid on the table an hour or an hour and a

half, gentlemen could then be prepared to consider it.

The SPEAKER again put the House in mind of the question.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, if the business was pressed too precipitately,

gentlemen may be sensible of their error when it was too late. Many bad

consequences might attend hastening the subject before it was well

matured. He could see no reason why the business should be precipitated

upon the House--a proper delay would not show any want of respect to the

PRESIDENT, as some gentlemen think. Would it be more respectful that an

answer should be sent by this House, which, for want of time, had not

been sufficiently considered? Certainly not. Far more so will it appear

that after mature deliberation the members are unanimous in their

answer. I therefore think the object of respect which the gentleman from

North Carolina has in view will be completely answered by the delay.

Gentlemen talk about precedent. I am ashamed to hear them. There may be

no precedent on the subject. But are we always to act by precedent?

There is scarcely a circumstance occurs in this House but what is

different from any that was before it. The PRESIDENT's Addresses to this

House are always different. They relate to the circumstances of things

that are, have been, and may be. Then, to talk of precedents where

things cannot be alike, is to trammel men down by rules which would be

injurious in the issue.

The Message of the PRESIDENT respecting the French Colors had been

referred to. If gentlemen were then wrong, is that a reason why they

should continue to act wrong? But this circumstance materially differs

from that. That was merely an expression of sentiment, which could at

once be determined, but this of sentiment, accompanied with deep and

solemn reflection--it is so interwoven with the politics of the country

as to require great circumspection. I hope gentlemen will not go into it

until they are properly prepared. I wish to pay all possible respect to

the Chief Magistrate, and cannot prove it better than by a sincere

desire for an unanimous vote to the answer, which is only to be obtained

by proper deliberation; and thus let him depart from his office with

credit, and the enjoyment of our best wishes in his retirement.

The question for postponing the unfinished business to take up this

report was then put and negatived--43 to 31.

WEDNESDAY, December 14.

THOMAS HENDERSON, from New Jersey, and THOMAS HARTLEY, from

Pennsylvania, appeared and took their seats in the House.

_Reporting of the Debates._

Mr. W. SMITH moved for the order of the day on the petitions of Thomas

Lloyd and Thomas Carpenter, whereupon the House resolved itself into a

Committee of the Whole, when, having read the report of the committee to

whom it was referred,

Mr. MACON wished some gentleman who was in that committee, would be so

good as to inform the House what would be the probable expense, and for

what reason the House should go into the business. He thought the

expense altogether unnecessary, whatever it may be.

If the debates of this House were to be printed, and four or five copies

given to each member, they would employ all the mails of the United

States. He also adverted to the attempt at the last session to introduce

a stenographer into the House, which failed.

Mr. SMITH informed the gentleman that Mr. Lloyd's estimate of the

expenses is, that he will supply the House with his reports at the rate

of three cents per half sheet. His calculation is that he can supply the

members at the expense of about $1,600 for the session. With respect to

the gentleman's reference to last session, this was materially different

from that: that motion was to make the person an officer of this House,

and at an expense much greater. He thought this attempt would be of

great use to the House. Regular and accurate information of the debates

in the House would be a very desirable thing; he therefore hoped the

resolution would prove agreeable to the House.

Mr. WILLIAMS said, that the House need not go into unnecessary expense:

the members were now furnished, morning and evening, with newspapers,

which contained the debates; then why should the House wish for more? If

one person in particular has the sale of his debates to this House,

will it not destroy the advantages any other can derive from it? We

ought not to encourage an undertaking of this kind, but let us encourage

any gentleman to come here and take down the debates. Last year they

were taken down very accurately and dispersed throughout the Union.

By passing this resolution you will destroy the use of the privilege to

any other than the person favored by this House. Why give one a

privilege more than another? He observed, it had been common to give

gentlemen the privilege to come into the House and take down the

debates, which had been, last year, delivered time enough to give

satisfaction to the members.

Mr. THATCHER said, he should wish for information from the committee how

many persons there were to publish debates, as he understood there were

several, and the members were to supply themselves from whom they

pleased. He should likewise wish for information, how many each member

was to have to amount to the value of $1,600.

Mr. W. SMITH said, there had been petitions received from only two

persons--Thomas Lloyd and Thomas Carpenter. They intended, each of them,

to publish the debates. There might be others; he knew not. There was no

intention of giving any one a preference--gentlemen could subscribe for

that they approved of most. At the calculation of Mr. Lloyd the members

would have five copies each for the $1,600.

Mr. W. LYMAN said, the question was, whether the House would incur the

expense of $1,600 to supply the members with copies or not? He thought

there was no need of the expense. If the House do not think proper to

furnish the members, they can supply themselves. A publication of them

is going on at present, and many gentlemen had subscribed to it already.

Mr. DEARBORN did not think that $1,600 thus laid out would be expended

to the best possible advantage. From the number of persons which we see

here daily taking down debates, he thought we might expect to see a good

report of the occurrences in the House. There was a book going about for

subscriptions, which appeared to be well encouraged; he saw many of the

members' names in it. He thought that, by a plan like that, the reports

may be as accurately taken as we may have any reason to expect if the

House incurs this expense.

Mr. NICHOLAS observed, that members were now served with three

newspapers. He thought to vote for this resolution on account of

obtaining a more full and complete report than was to be had in the

newspapers; thus it would supersede the necessity of taking so many

papers. He thought this plan more useful to the members, and generally

of more advantage to their constituents, as they could disperse those

debates where otherwise they would not be seen.

Mr. THATCHER said, if the object of the motion was to supersede the

receiving of newspapers, he certainly should vote against it. He did

not consider the main reason why members were served with the newspapers

was, that they may obtain the debates. No. He thought it more important,

in their stations, that they should know the occurrences of the day from

the various parts of the United States as well as from foreign nations.

Though he might favor an undertaking of this kind, yet he would give

preference to a newspaper, if they were to have the one without the

other.

Mr. HEATH did not wish that the members, being furnished with debates

agreeably to the motion, should supersede the receiving of newspapers,

yet he should vote for it. Gentlemen had said the debates were taken

more correctly last session than before, yet he had heard a whisper

which was going from North to South, that our debates are not

represented impartially. He wished the House and the people to be

furnished with a true report; such a thing would be very useful:

however, he did not wish to encourage a monopoly to those two persons.

No. He would wish to give an equal chance to all who choose to come and

take them. Shall we repress truth? I hope not; but disseminate it as

much as possible. Last session, when I was, under the act of God's

providence, prevented from attending the House, a member sent for a

gentleman from Virginia, who was to act as stenographer, with whom the

House and a printer in this city were to combine. Warm debates ensued on

the propriety of the measure, and the gentleman returned home after the

motion was negatived. I hope gentlemen will not grudge 1,600 dollars

towards the support of truth. What we see now in the newspapers is taken

from the memory, and not by a stenographer. The people will thank you

that you have taken means to investigate truth. If any gentleman can

point out a better mode to obtain this object, I hope he will do it that

it may be adopted; till then I shall support the resolution.

Mr. SHERBURNE did not think, with the gentleman last up, that the

interest of the country was concerned; the only thing they were

concerned in was the payment of the money. The printing of this work did

not depend on the motion of this House. Whether the House adopt it or

not, the book will be published. It is a matter of private interest; a

speculation in the adventurer, like other publications. The question, he

conceived, meant only this: Should the members be supplied with these

pamphlets at the expense of the public, or should they put their hands

in their own pockets and pay for them individually? He thought the House

had no greater reasons to supply the members with this work than other

publications; they might as well be furnished with the works of _Peter

Porcupine_, or the _Rights of Man_, at the public expense.

Mr. W. SMITH said, the gentleman was mistaken with respect to the work

going on, whether supported by the House or not. It was true as it

respected the work proposed by Mr. Carpenter; but, with respect to Mr.

Lloyd, he declared he could not undertake it, except the House would

subscribe for five copies for each member.

Mr. SWANWICK considered the question to be to this effect: whether the

debates be under the sanction of the House or not? A gentleman had said,

it will be a great service to the public to have a correct statement of

the debates. I think the most likely way to obtain it correctly is to

let it rest on the footing of private industry. We have a work, entitled

_The Senator_, in circulation. I have no doubt but the publisher will

find good account in the undertaking. Why should the House trouble

itself to sanction any particular work? Gentlemen would then have enough

to do every morning in putting the debates to rights before they were

published, as they would be pledged to the accuracy of the reports. I

never heard that, in the British House of Commons or Lords, such a

motion was ever made, nor have I ever heard of such in any other

country; then why should we give our sanction and incur a responsibility

for the accuracy of it. He said he should vote against the motion, but

would encourage such a work while it rested on the footing of private

adventure.

Mr. THATCHER said, he differed much from the gentleman last up, as it

respected the responsibility of the House on such a publication. He

thought it might as well be said, that because there had been a

resolution for the Clerk to furnish the members of this House with three

newspapers, the House was responsible for the truth of what those

newspapers contained; if it was so, he should erase his name from his

supply of them, as he thought, in general, they contained more lies than

truth. Two considerations might recommend the resolution. It would

encourage the undertaking, and also add to the stock of public

information: on either of these, he would give it his assent. Soon after

he came into the city, a paper was handed him with proposals for a

publication of this kind (_The Senator_). He, with pleasure, subscribed

to its support; as to general information, that was given already by

newspapers, and though each member was to be supplied with five copies,

yet very few would fall into hands where the newspapers did not reach.

The work would go forward at any rate. If he thought the work depended

on the motion, he should rejoice to give his vote toward its aid. On the

question being put, only nineteen gentlemen voted in favor of the

resolution; it was therefore negatived.

The committee then rose, and the House took up the resolution.

Mr. THATCHER observed, the question was put while he was inattentive: he

wished it to lie over till to-morrow.

Mr. GILES wished to indulge the gentleman in his desire.

Mr. THATCHER then moved for the vote of the House, whether the report of

the Committee of the Whole be postponed. Twenty-four members only

appearing for the postponement, it was negatived.

The question was then put, whether the House agreed to the report of the

Committee of the Whole and disagreed with the report of the select

committee; which appeared in the affirmative. The motion was therefore

lost.

_Address to the President._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the

Answer to the PRESIDENT's Address; when the Answer reported by the

select committee was read by the Clerk, and then in paragraphs by the

Chairman, which is as follows:

SIR: The House of Representatives have attended to your

communication respecting the state of our country, with all

the sensibility that the contemplation of the subject and a

sense of duty can inspire.

We are gratified by the information that measures

calculated to ensure a continuance of the friendship of the

Indians, and to maintain the tranquillity of the _interior_

frontier, have been adopted; and we indulge the hope that

these, by impressing the Indian tribes with more correct

conceptions of the justice, as well as power of the United

States, will be attended with success.

While we notice, with satisfaction, the steps that you have

taken in pursuance of the late treaties with several

foreign nations, the liberation of our citizens who were

prisoners at Algiers is a subject of peculiar felicitation.

We shall cheerfully co-operate in any further measures that

shall appear, on consideration, to be requisite.

We have ever concurred with you in the most sincere and

uniform disposition to preserve our neutral relations

inviolate; and it is, of course, with anxiety and deep

regret we hear that any interruption of our harmony with

the French Republic has occurred; for we feel with you and

with our constituents the cordial and unabated wish to

maintain a perfectly friendly understanding with that

nation. Your endeavors to fulfil that wish, (_and by all

honorable means to preserve peace, and to restore that

harmony and affection which have heretofore so happily

subsisted between the French Republic and the United

States_,) cannot fail, therefore, to interest our

attention. And while we participate in the full reliance

you have expressed on the patriotism, self-respect, and

fortitude of our countrymen, we cherish the pleasing hope

that a _mutual_ spirit of justice and moderation _on the

part of the Republic_ will ensure the success of your

perseverance.

The various subjects of your communication will,

respectively, meet with the attention that is due to their

importance.

When we advert to the internal situation of the United

States, we deem it equally natural and becoming to compare

the tranquil prosperity of the citizens with the period

immediately antecedent to the operation of the Government,

and to contrast it with the calamities in which the state

of war still involves several of the European nations, as

the reflections deduced from both tend to justify, as well

as to excite, a warmer admiration of our free constitution,

and to exalt our minds to a more fervent and grateful sense

of piety towards Almighty God for the beneficence of His

providence, by which its administration has been hitherto

so remarkably distinguished.

And while we entertain a grateful conviction that your

wise, firm, and patriotic Administration has been signally

conducive to the success of the present form of Government,

we cannot forbear to express the deep sensations of regret

with which we contemplate your intended retirement from

office.

As no other suitable occasion may occur, we cannot suffer

the present to pass without attempting to disclose some of

the emotions which it cannot fail to awaken.

The gratitude and admiration of your countrymen are still

drawn to the recollection of those resplendent virtues and

talents which were so eminently instrumental to the

achievement of the Revolution, and of which that glorious

event will ever be the memorial. Your obedience to the

voice of duty and your country, when you quitted

reluctantly a second time the retreat you had chosen, and

first accepted the Presidency, afforded a new proof of the

devotedness of your zeal in its service, and an earnest of

the patriotism and success which have characterized your

Administration. As the grateful confidence of the citizens

in the virtues of their Chief Magistrate has essentially

contributed to that success, we persuade ourselves that the

millions whom we represent participate with us in the

anxious solicitude of the present occasion.

Yet we cannot be unmindful that your moderation and

magnanimity, twice displayed by retiring from your exalted

stations, afford examples no less rare and instructive to

mankind than valuable to a Republic.

Although we are sensible that this event, of itself,

completes the lustre of a character already conspicuously

unrivalled by the coincidence of virtue, talents, success,

and public estimation, yet we conceive that we owe it to

you, sir, and still more emphatically to ourselves and to

our nation (of the language of whose hearts we presume to

think ourselves at this moment the faithful interpreters)

to express the sentiments with which it is contemplated.

The spectacle of a whole nation, the freest and most

enlightened in the world, offering by its Representatives

the tribute of unfeigned approbation to its first citizen,

however novel and interesting it may be, derives all its

lustre--a lustre which accident or enthusiasm could not

bestow, and which adulation would tarnish--from the

transcendent merit of which it is the voluntary testimony.

May you long enjoy that liberty which is so dear to you,

and to which your name will ever be so dear. May your own

virtues and a nation's prayers obtain the happiest sunshine

for the decline of your days and the choicest of future

blessings. For your country's sake--for the sake of

Republican liberty--it is our earnest wish that your

example may be the guide of your successors; and thus,

after being the ornament and safeguard of the present age,

become the patrimony of our descendants.

Mr. VENABLE observed, on a paragraph wherein it speaks of the

"tranquillity of the interior frontier," he did not know what was the

meaning of the expression: he moved to insert "Western frontier" in its

stead.

Mr. AMES observed that the words of the report are in the PRESIDENT's

Speech; however, he thought the amendment a good one. It then passed.

In the fourth paragraph are these words: "Your endeavors to fulfil that

wish cannot fail, therefore, to interest our attention." At the word

"wish," Mr. GILES proposed to insert these words: "and by all honorable

means to preserve peace, and restore that harmony and affection which

have heretofore so happily subsisted between the French Republic and

this country;" and strike out the words that follow "wish" in that

paragraph. He said, his reasons for moving this amendment were to avoid

its consequences. He really wished the report entirely recommitted, as

there were many objectionable parts in it. He had been very seriously

impressed with the consequences that would result from a war with the

French Republic. When I reflect, said Mr. G., on the calamities of war

in general, I shudder at the thought; but, to conceive of the danger of

a French war in particular, it cuts me still closer. When I think what

many gentlemen in mercantile situations now feel, and the dreadful stop

put to commerce, I feel the most sincere desire to cultivate harmony and

good understanding. I see redoubled motives to show the world that we

are in favor of a preservation of peace and harmony.

Mr. W. SMITH said, he should not object to the amendment; but he thought

it only an amplification of a sentiment just before expressed. He did

not see any advantage in the sentiment as dilated, nor could he see any

injury which could accrue from it. He hoped every gentleman in the House

wished as sincerely for the preservation of peace as that gentleman did.

Mr. AMES wished to know of the gentleman from Virginia, whether he meant

to strike out the latter part of this paragraph; if he did, he would

object to it.

Mr. GILES said, he did not mean to strike out any more of this

paragraph.

Mr. AMES wished it not to be struck out. By the amendment to strike out,

we show the dependence we place on the power and protection of the

French. While we declare ourselves weak by the act, we lose the recourse

to our own patriotism, and fly, acknowledging an offence never

committed, to the French for peace. He hoped the gentleman would be

candid upon this occasion.

Mr. GILES said, he only wished this House to express their most sincere

and unequivocal desire in favor of peace, and not merely to leave it to

the PRESIDENT. He said, he had spoken upon this occasion as he always

had done on this floor. He always had, and he hoped always should state

his opinions upon every subject with plainness and candor.

The amendment passed unanimously.

Mr. GILES then proposed an amendment to the latter part of the same

paragraph which would make it read thus: "We cherish the pleasing hope

that a spirit of mutual justice and moderation will ensure the success

of your perseverance." The amendment was to insert the word "mutual." He

thought we ought to display a spirit of justice and moderation as well

as the French. This amendment, he thought, would soften the expression,

and, acting with that spirit of justice and moderation, accomplish a

reconciliation. The amendment was adopted.

On the Chairman's reading the last paragraph except one in the report,

which reads thus: "The spectacle of a whole nation, the _freest and most

enlightened in the world_," Mr. PARKER moved to strike out the words in

italic. Although, said he, I wish to believe that we are the freest

people, and the most enlightened people in the world, it is enough that

we think ourselves so; it is not becoming in us to make the declaration

to the world; and if we are not so, it is still worse for us to suppose

ourselves what we are not.

Mr. HARPER said he had a motion of amendment in his hand which would

supersede the necessity of the last made, which, if in order, he would

propose: it was to insert words more simple. He thought the more simple,

the more agreeable to the public ear. His amendment, he thought, would

add to the elegance and conciseness of the expression. He did not

disapprove of the Address as it now stood, but he thought it might be

amended. This, he said, would add to the dignity, as well as to the

simplicity of the expression. He thought it would be improper to give

too much scope to feeling: amplitude of expression frequently weakens an

idea.

Mr. GILES said he saw many objectionable parts in the amendments

proposed by the gentleman just sat down. He wished to strike out two

paragraphs more than Mr. HARPER had proposed; indeed, he wished the

whole to be recommitted, that it might be formed more congenial to the

wishes of the House in general, and not less agreeable to the person to

be addressed.

Mr. SMITH observed, that as the answer had been read by paragraphs

nearly to the close, he thought it very much out of order to return to

parts so distant.

The Chairman said that no paragraph on which an amendment had been made

could be returned to; but where no amendment had been made, it was quite

consistent with order to propose any one gentlemen may think proper.

Mr. W. SMITH opposed striking out any paragraph. It was, he said, the

last occasion we should have to address that great man, who had done so

much service to his country. The warmth of expression in the answer was

only an evidence of the gratitude of this House for his character. When

we reflect on the glowing language used at the time when he accepted of

the office of PRESIDENT, and at his re-election to that office, why,

asked he, ought not the language of this House to be as full of respect

and gratitude now as then? particularly when we consider the addresses

now flowing in from all parts of the country. I object to the manner of

gentlemen's amendments as proposed, to strike out all in a mass. If the

sentiments were agreeable to the minds of the House, why waste our time

to alter mere expressions while the sentiment is preserved? No doubt

every gentleman's manner of expression differed, while their general

ideas might be the same. He hoped mere form of expression would not

cause its recommitment.

Mr. GILES did not object to a respectful and complimentary Address being

sent to the PRESIDENT, yet he thought we ought not to carry our

expressions out of the bounds of moderation; he hoped we should adhere

to truth. He objected to some of the expressions in those paragraphs,

for which reason he moved to have the paragraphs struck out, in order to

be amended by the committee. He wished to act as respectful to the

PRESIDENT as any gentleman, but he observed many parts of the Address

which were objectionable. It is unnatural and unbecoming in us to exult

in our superior happiness, light, or wisdom. It is not at all necessary

that we should exult in our advantages, and thus reflect on the unhappy

situation of nations in their troubles; it is insulting to them. If we

are thus happy it is well for us; it is necessary that we should enjoy

our happiness, but not boast of it to all the world, and insult their

unhappy situation.

As to those parts of the Address which speak of the wisdom and firmness

of the PRESIDENT, he must object to them. On reflection, he could see a

want of wisdom and firmness in the Administration for the last six

years. I may be singular in my ideas, said he, but I believe our

Administration has been neither wise nor firm. I believe, sir, a want of

wisdom and firmness has brought this country into the present alarming

situation. If after such a view of the Administration, I was to come

into this House and show the contrary by a quiet acquiescence, gentlemen

would think me a very inconsistent character. If we take a view of our

foreign relations, we shall see no reason to exult in the wisdom or

firmness of our Administration. He thought nothing so much as a want of

that wisdom and firmness had brought us to the critical situation in

which we now stand.

If it had been the will of gentlemen to have been satisfied with placing

the PRESIDENT in the highest possible point of respect amongst men, the

vote of the House would have been unanimous, but the proposal of such

adulation could never expect success. If we take a view into our

internal situation, and behold the ruined state of public and private

credit, less now than perhaps at any former period however, he never

could recollect it so deranged. If we survey this city, what a shameful

scene it alone exhibits, owing, as he supposed, to the immense quantity

of paper issued. Surely this could afford no ground for admiration of

the Administration that caused it.

I must acknowledge, said Mr. GILES, that I am one of those who do not

think so much of the PRESIDENT as some others do. When the PRESIDENT

retires from his present station, I wish him to enjoy all possible

happiness. I wish him to retire, and that this was the moment of his

retirement. He thought the Government of the United States could go on

very well without him; and he thought he would enjoy more happiness in

his retirement than he possibly could in his present situation. What

calamities would attend the United States, and how short the duration of

its Independence, if one man alone can be found to fill that capacity!

He thought there were thousands of citizens in the United States able to

fill that high office, and he doubted not that many may be found whose

talents would enable them to fill it with credit and advantage. Although

much had been said, and that by many people, about his intended

retirement, yet he must acknowledge he felt no uncomfortable sensations

about it; he must express his own feelings, he was perfectly easy in

prospect of the event. He wished the PRESIDENT as much happiness as any

man. He declared he did not regret his retreat; he wished him quietly at

his seat at Mount Vernon; he thought he would enjoy more happiness there

than in public life. It will be very extraordinary if gentlemen, whose

names in the yeas and nays are found in opposition to certain prominent

measures of the Administration, should come forward and approve those

measures: this we could not expect. He retained an opinion he had always

seen reason to support, and no influence under Heaven should prevent him

expressing his established sentiments; and he thought the same opinions

would soon meet general concurrence. He hoped gentlemen would compliment

the PRESIDENT privately, as individuals; at the same time, he hoped such

adulation would never pervade that House.

I must make some observation, said Mr. G., on the last paragraph but

one, where we call ourselves "the freest and most enlightened nation in

the world:" indeed, the whole of that paragraph is objectionable; I

disapprove the whole of it. If I am free, if I am happy, if I am

enlightened more than others, I wish not to proclaim it on the house

top; if we are free, it is not prudent to declare it; if enlightened, it

is not our duty in this House to trumpet it to the world; it is no

Legislative concern. If gentlemen will examine the paragraph, [referring

to that contained in the parenthesis,] it seems to prove that the

gentleman who drew it up was going into the field of adulation; which

would tarnish a private character. I do think this kind of affection the

PRESIDENT gains nothing from. The many long Addresses we hear of, add

nothing to the lustre of his character. In the honor we may attempt to

give to others we may hurt ourselves. This may prove a self-destroyer;

by relying too much on administration, we may rely too little on our own

strength.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, that whatever division of the question gentlemen

would propose, was indifferent to him; the words of the answer were

perfectly congenial with his wishes, and he was prepared to give his

opposition to any of the amendments proposed. On mature deliberation,

there was not a sentiment in the report but he highly approved. He could

not see any thing unnatural or unbecoming in drawing just comparisons of

our situation with that of our neighbors; this is the only way we can

form a just view of our own happiness. It is a very necessary way to

come to a right knowledge of our own situation by comparing it with that

of other nations. He would not reproach another people because they are

not so happy as we are; but he thought drawing simple comparisons in the

way of the report was no reproach. He was not against bringing the

comparison down to private life, as the gentleman from Virginia had

done; he should think it wrong in a man to exult over his neighbor who

was distressed or ignorant, because himself was wealthy or wise. Yet he

saw no impropriety in his own family of speaking of their happiness and

advantages, compared with that of others; it would awaken in them a

grateful sense of their superior enjoyments, while it pointed out the

faults and follies of others, only in order that those he had the care

of may learn to avoid them: thus while our happiness is pointed out, the

miseries of nations involved in distress are delineated to serve as

beacons for the United States to steer clear of. He did not, with the

gentleman from Virginia, in any degree, doubt of the wisdom or firmness

of the Administration of America. In the language of the Address, he

entertained a very high opinion of it, "a grateful conviction that the

wise, firm, and patriotic Administration of the PRESIDENT had been

signally conducive to the success of the present form of Government."

Such language as this is the only reward which can be given by a

grateful people for labors so eminently useful as those of the PRESIDENT

had been. This was not his sentiment merely, it was the sentiment of the

people of America. Every public body were conveying their sentiments of

gratitude throughout the whole extent of the Union. Why then should this

House affect a singularity, when our silence on these points would only

convey reproach instead of respect. If these sentiments were true, why

not express them? But if, on the contrary, what the gentleman asserted,

that the Administration of the PRESIDENT had been neither wise, firm,

nor patriotic, then he would concur with the motion for striking out;

but he was not convinced of the truth of this assertion; and while this

is not proved, he should vote against the motion.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, he could not agree with the motion of the gentleman

from South Carolina, (Mr. HARPER,) because his motion was for

substituting other words in the place of those in the report, without

any reason whatever. If the gentleman, by altering the phraseology, can

make the sentiment any better, by all means let it be done: but if the

sentiment is not to be changed, why alter it merely to substitute other

words? On the whole, Mr. S. observed, that he did not see the answer

could in any degree be reproached. There are no sentiments in it but

what are justifiable on the ground of truth; they are free from

adulation. It is such an expression of national regret and gratitude as

the circumstance calls for; a regret at the retirement of a faithful and

patriotic Chief Magistrate from office. A regret and gratitude which he

believed to be the sentiment of Americans.

Mr. SWANWICK began by observing that there were points in the Address in

which all gentlemen seemed to agree, while on other parts they cannot

agree. We all agree in our desire to pay the PRESIDENT every possible

mark of respect; but we very materially disagree wherein a comparison is

drawn between this and foreign nations. If we are happy and other

nations are not so, it is but well for us; but he thought it would be

much more prudent in us to let other nations discover it, and not make a

boast of it ourselves. It is very likely that those nations whom we

commiserate may think themselves as happy as we are: they may feel

offended to hear of our comparisons. If we refer to the British

Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speeches, he would tell us that is

the happiest and most prosperous nation upon earth. How then can we

commiserate with it as an unfortunate country? If, again, we look to

France, that country which we have pointed out as full of wretchedness

and distress, yet we hear them boast of their superiority of light and

freedom, and we have reason to believe not without foundation. A

gentleman had talked about the flourishing state of our agriculture, and

asserted that our late commercial calamities were not proofs of our want

of prosperity, which the gentleman compared to specks in the sun. That

gentleman speaks as though he lived at a distance. Has he heard of no

commercial distresses, when violations so unprecedented have of late

occurred? One merchant has to look for his property at Halifax, another

at Bermuda, another at Cape Françoise, another at Gonaives, &c.; all

agree that they have suffered, and that by the war. These are distresses

gentlemen would not like to feel themselves. Mr. S. said he had felt for

these occurrences. We are not exempt from troubles: probably we may have

suffered as much as other nations who are involved in the war. It is a

question whether France has been distressed at all by the war. She has

collected gold and silver in immense quantities by her conquests,

together with the most valuable stores of the productions of the arts;

as statues, paintings, and manuscripts of inestimable worth; and at sea

has taken far more in value than she has lost: besides, her armies are

subsisting on the requisitions her victories obtain. And has England

gained nothing by the war? If we hearken to Mr. Pitt, we may believe

they are very great gainers. Surely the islands in the West and East

Indies, Ceylon, and the Cape of Good Hope, the key to the East Indies,

are advantages gained; besides the quantity of shipping taken from our

merchants. Mr. S. thought if we were to compare, we should find those

nations had gained by the war, while we had lost; and of course there

was no reason for us to boast of our advantages.

Mr. W. SMITH next rose, and observed that gentlemen wished to compliment

the PRESIDENT, but took away every point on which encomium could be

grounded. One denies the prosperity of the country, another the free and

enlightened state of the country, and another refuses the PRESIDENT the

epithet of wise and patriotic.

Mr. GILES here rose to explain. If he was meant, he must think the

gentleman was wrong in his application. He said he had never harbored a

suspicion of the good intentions of the PRESIDENT, nor did he deny his

patriotism; but the wisdom and firmness of his Administration he had

doubted. He thought him a good meaning man, but often misled.

Mr. SMITH again rose, and said, he must confess himself at a loss for

that refinement to discover between the wisdom and patriotism of the

PRESIDENT, and that of his Administration. It was moved to strike out

this acknowledgment of wisdom and firmness. What were we to substitute

as complimentary to him in its place? The first paragraph proposed to be

struck out related to our speaking of the tranquillity of this country,

compared to nations involved in war. Could this give offence, because we

feel pleasure in being at peace? It was only congratulating our own

constituents on the happiness we enjoy. To appreciate the value of

peace, it was necessary to compare it with a state of war. It was the

wisdom of this country to keep from war, and other nations hold it up as

exemplary in us. The gentleman himself has declared his wish for the

preservation of peace; and though he admires it, and nations admire it

in us, yet we are not to compare our state with nations involved in the

calamities of war, in order to estimate our enjoyments. The words of

this Address are not a communication to a foreign minister, it is a

congratulation to our own Chief Magistrate of the blessings he, in

common with us, enjoys. Mr. S. hoped the words would not be struck out.

Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker), said, that he did not rise to accept the

challenge given by the gentleman who spoke last from South Carolina, and

to point out a nation more free and enlightened than ours; nor did he

mean to contest the fact of ours being the freest and most enlightened

in the world, as declared in the reported Address, but he was

nevertheless of opinion that it did not become them to make that

declaration, and thus to extol themselves by a comparison with, and at

the expense of all others. Although those words were in his view

objectionable, he was far from assenting to the motion for striking out

the seven or eight last clauses of the Address. The question of order

having been decided, Mr. D. said he would remind the committee, that if

they wished to retain, or even to amend, any section or sentence of all

that was proposed to be struck out, they ought to give their negatives

to this motion, as the only means of accomplishing their purpose. It was

sufficient, therefore, for those who were opposed to the question for

striking out the whole, to show that any part included within it ought

to be preserved. Not unnecessarily to waste time, by lengthening the

debate, he would take the clause first in order, and confine his remarks

to that alone. This part of the Address had certainly not been read, or

had been misunderstood and misrepresented by the member from

Pennsylvania.

Mr. AMES said, if gentlemen meant to agree to strike out the whole as

proposed, in order to adopt those words substituted by the gentleman

from South Carolina (Mr. HARPER), he must observe that he thought this

would be as far from giving satisfaction to others, who, it appeared,

wanted no substitute. He, therefore, hoped that kind of influence would

not prevail on this occasion. The gentleman who made the motion did it

to accommodate matters, and not because he himself objected to the

answer reported.

It is well known that a committee of five members, opposite in

sentiment, was appointed to prepare a respectful Address in answer to

the PRESIDENT's Speech. [Here the original instructions were read.] As

it was the duty of the committee to prepare a respectful Address, it

cannot be matter of surprise, although it may of disapprobation with

some, that the committee did their duty, and have taken notice of the

several matters recommended to the House in that Speech. Respecting the

particular notice they have taken, it might have been thought that some

difficulty would occur. He said he need not observe, that the committee

had reason to imagine that the form of the report would be agreeable to

the House, as they were unanimous; although there had been in the

wording some little difference of opinion, yet all agreed substantially

in the Address, from a conviction of the delicacy of the subject. For

that reason, if that only, unless the sentiments in the report of the

Address should be found inconsistent with truth, he hoped no substitute

of a form of words merely would prevail, as it would no longer be that

agreed to in the committee, nor could come under their consideration

equal to the printed report. He therefore trusted that when the

committee came to the question, whether to strike out or not, gentlemen

would be guided by no other motive to vote for striking out, than an

impropriety in the sentiments through an evident want of truth in them;

and if such cannot be discovered, why strike out the expressions?

It had been observed by some gentleman, that the cry of foreign

influence is in the country. He did not see such a thing exist. He would

not be rudely explicit as to the foundation there was for such a cry;

but when it was once raised, the people would judge whether it was fact

or not. He could not tell how this influence was produced, but the world

would draw a view how far we were under foreign influence. Mr. A. here

alluded to the influence which foreign agents wished to have over the

minds of the people of this country, in order to support a factious

spirit, probably to the appeal lately made to the people. He also

alluded to a circumstance when the Imperial Envoy, M. Palm, in 1727, at

London, published a rescript, complaining of the conduct of that Court;

the spirit of the nation rose, and discord was sown. In consequence of

which the Parliament petitioned the King to send the Envoy out of the

country for meddling with the concerns of their nation. That is the

nation which we call corrupted. Yet a similar affair has occurred here,

and it is not to be reprobated; we are not to complain of it, nor even

hear it, according to this doctrine. Independence is afraid of injuries,

and almost of insults. We must forbear to exult in our peace, our light,

our freedom, lest we should give offence to other nations who are not

so. This may be the high tone of independence in the views of some

people, but I must confess it is not so in mine; but it is probable

those people may be wiser than I am, and their views extend farther.

Foreign influence exists, and is disgraceful indeed, when we dare admire

our own constitution, nor adore God for giving us to feel its happy

effects. He thought, respecting the recent complaints of the French

Minister, that there was not even a pretext for the accusation.

It had been observed by a gentleman, that the PRESIDENT, no doubt, is a

very honest man, and a patriot, but he did not think him a wise man.

Mr. GILES here rose to explain. He said that, in his assertions, he

meant not to reflect on his private character. He referred to his

Administration. No doubt but the gentleman possessed both.

Mr. AMES said, he considered well what the gentleman had said. As a

private man, his integrity and goodness cannot be doubted; but in his

Administration--here we are to stop short; not a word about that; it

won't bear looking into; it has been neither firm nor wise. If the

House, in their Address to him, were to say, we think you a very honest,

well-designing man, but you have been led astray, sometimes to act

treacherously, and even dishonest in your Administration--we think you a

peaceful man, and though much iniquity may have been practised in your

Government, yet we think you are not in fault; on the whole, sir, we

wish you snugly in Virginia. Such sentiments as these I do not like. Is

this an Address or an insult? Is this the mark of respect we ought to

show to the first man in the nation? Mr. A. observed, that he did not

agree with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SMITH), who said, that

the President would carry daggers in his heart with him into his retreat

from public life, if we refuse him our testimony of gratitude. No, he

bears in his breast a testimony of his purity of motive; a conscious

rectitude, while in public life, which daggers could not pierce. He

would retire with a good conscience; perhaps it would be said this was

adulation, but let it be remembered this was truth; this was not

flattery; let gentlemen deny this; let them prove that this is not the

will of their constituents. The country would judge our opinions when we

come to give our yeas or nays; then the real friends of that man would

be known.

The gentleman wishes him back to Virginia, was glad he designed to go;

he did not regret his resignation. His name will appear in that opinion.

The whole of the PRESIDENT's life would stamp his character. His

country, and the admiring world knew it; and history keeps his fame, and

will continue to keep it. We may be singular in our opinions of him, but

that will not make his character with the world the less illustrious. We

now are to accept of his resignation without a tribute of respect. We

are not to speak of him as either wise or firm. We can only say he is an

honest man: this would scarcely be singular; many a man is honest

without any other good qualifications. What circle would gentlemen fix

the committee in to amend this Address, if they are not to give scope to

these sentiments? Better appoint no committee at all. If we address the

PRESIDENT at all, I hope it will be respectfully, for loth respect is

insult in disguise. I hope we shall not alter the original draft of the

Address, but agree according to our former intentions to present a

respectful and cordial Address.

Mr. SWANWICK rose to explain to those parts of the observations of some

gentlemen who had lately spoken (Mr. DAYTON and Mr. AMES) on that part

of the paragraph, which speaks of our gratitude to Providence. He should

be sorry if such an idea was entertained from any thing he had observed.

It was not that part of the paragraph, but the part where we are

contrasted with other nations, that he objected to principally.

Although, he must observe, it was not spoken in a style common to

devotion, to tell Providence how wise and enlightened we were. It does

not boast of our philanthropy, to say how much wiser and better we are

than other nations. He thought the gentleman's reference to a clergyman

very curious. It would not be right in us to say to God, we thank thee,

we are wiser or more enlightened than others! If we are so, let us

rejoice in it, and not offend others by our boasting. Gentlemen say, we

are happier than though we were at war; are we at peace? No: we are

involved in the worst of wars. Witness our spoliations from Algerine,

English, and French cruisers, from some of which he himself had suffered

materially. The PRESIDENT does not think we are at peace: he recommends

a navy as the only efficient security to our commerce. How could that

little island (England) command such influence in foreign dominions? It

is by her navy. We cannot boast of such power. While we think ourselves

much happier and stronger than others, others think us more diminutive;

let us not boast. He feared that the revenues of this country would

suffer materially through the great stagnation of commerce. He did not

think they would be as productive as formerly. He feared it was too

generally known, that this was not a time of very great prosperity. As

he did not, for one, feel the prosperous situation of the country, he

could not consent to violate his feelings by speaking contrary to them.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. AMES) last session, spoke with

great eloquence and at great length of the horror of war; which he

considered as inevitable if the British Treaty (then the subject of

debate) was not carried into effect.

Mr. CHRISTIE moved for the committee to rise. The House divided on the

motion; 43 members appeared against it, 31 only in favor of it. It was

lost.

Mr. GILES rose and observed that he should not have troubled the

committee with any further observations, but his ideas had been

misrepresented; although he endeavored to prevent a possibility of

misconstruction, yet it seems he had not been able to accomplish his

wish. It was not wonderful, he said, that the PRESIDENT's popularity

should be introduced into the debate when it had been so long in

question. It had been too commonly done, he thought, but he hoped the

influence of it would not be very great. As to the unanimity of the

committee who drew up the Address, he cared very little about it; he

should be extremely sorry to see it have any influence on the members of

that House.

Gentlemen have said, that if we take out the expressions of our sense of

the wisdom and firmness of the Administration of the PRESIDENT, they

cannot find any ground on which to compliment him; if so, he for one

would not be willing to present an Address at all. But his views were

quite different; he thought it could be effectually done without

adulation. He could not consent to acknowledge the wisdom and firmness

of his Administration. Gentlemen had inquired for instances in evidence

of this assertion. He said, that without seeking for more instances,

that of the British Treaty was a standing proof in support of the

assertion. Though many gentlemen believe nothing has been done injurious

to the United States through that treaty, yet I acknowledge I see very

great danger; we are not now in that state of security which could be

wished. It is well known that the operation of the British Treaty is the

groundwork of all the recent complaints of the French Government. It may

be said that many of the complaints of the French Minister originated

from actions previous to the British Treaty. It may be so, but that was

the means of calling forth complaints which, perhaps, would otherwise

never have been made; else why did not this calamity befall us before?

It certainly may be ascribed to that instrument. Gentlemen may talk as

they please about the law of nations; but the law of nations is, that a

neutral nation shall not do any thing to benefit one belligerent power

to the injury of another. Mr. G. said, he thought matters carried a

serious aspect, and he very much disapproved of the declaration of a

gentleman (Mr. AMES) who says, now is the time of danger; we are on the

eve of a war with France, now let us boldly assert our rights. At the

time the British Treaty was debating on, that gentleman was overcome

with the prospect of a war; he then depicted it in horrible forms; but

now how different his language! He now seems not afraid to embrace all

its horrors, and was zealously calling out for the nation to support the

Administration. Why did we not hear this when the British spoliated on

our commerce! If we are upon the eve of a war with France, as the

gentleman supposes, it will be disastrous to this country; we have

reason to deplore it; it will be calamitous indeed. France has more

power to injure this country than any nation besides, and none we can

injure less. What an influence can she command over our commerce? She

can exclude us from our own ports; spoil our trade with Great Britain,

and from her own extensive country; she can shut us out from the East

Indies, as well as the West Indies; ruin our trade in the Mediterranean,

which, owing to the late conquests of the French, may be rendered very

flourishing and important to us; and by her alliance, offensive and

defensive, with Spain, we not only have another enemy, but lose our late

advantages in the navigation of the Mississippi. Suppose, by the

influence of her politics, the doctrine of liberty and equality were to

be preached on the other side of the Alleghany mountains, what numerous

enemies may they breed in our own country? France can wound us most, and

we have the least reason to provoke her. It would be policy in her to go

to war with us; by ruining our trade with England, she could give a

violent wound to her enemy; yet that gentleman says, now is the time to

assert our rights, now we are in danger. The war-whoop and the hatchet,

of which the gentleman spoke so feelingly last session, is no longer in

his thoughts. If this was the only reason he had, it would be enough to

influence his vote against an acknowledgment of the wisdom and firmness

that has dictated our Administration.

Mr. WILLIAMS rose and said, he was sorry to trouble the committee at

such a late hour, but he could not be satisfied with giving a silent

vote on an occasion when the PRESIDENT's popularity was doubted. He

thought members ought to speak the will of the people they represent. He

could assert that it was not merely his own opinion he spoke, but that

of his constituents, when he voted for the Address as reported. He was

sorry to hear the gentleman last up speak in the style he had done,

although he owned it was not altogether new to him. The gentleman

wished the first clause to be struck out. Mr. W. thought it was the duty

of every pious man to thank God for the benefits he enjoys. And shall

not we, as a nation, thank him for keeping us from a state of war?

Gentlemen's ideas were to strike the whole out in a mass; but he hoped

they would not be gratified. Mr. W. said, he was very sorry to hear the

gentleman speak against the wisdom and firmness of the PRESIDENT, which

assertion seemed to have its foundation in the Treaty concluded with

Great Britain. He would ask the gentleman whether that act of ours

should have any influence on our situation with France? Wherein have we

differed from the compact made with France by our treaty made with that

country? We surely had a right to treat with Great Britain, else we

could not be an independent nation; and France will not deny this. In

1778, the Ambassador of France informed the British Court that his

nation had entered into a treaty with the United States, and at the same

time informed them that great attention had been paid by the contracting

parties not to stipulate any exclusive advantage in favor of the French

nation, and that there was reserved, on the part of the United States,

the liberty of treating with any nation whatsoever upon the same footing

of equality and reciprocity. But the gentleman (Mr. GILES) says, we

ought not to give an advantage to an enemy. Mr. W. said, that no

advantage was given to Britain, but, on the contrary, the article

complained of must be of advantage to France; it is an encouragement for

American vessels to go to their ports; it insures them against loss, if

they are interrupted in their voyage. It had been said that it would be

to the interest of France to go to war with us; if they consider it so,

all that gentleman can say will not prevent it. When we reflect on a

Treaty entered into on this principle with Great Britain, should France

complain?

THURSDAY, December 15.

_Address to the President._

The House, according to the order of the day, resolved itself into a

Committee of the Whole on the answer to the PRESIDENT's Address, Mr.

MUHLENBERG in the chair.

The question before the committee was Mr. GILES' motion for striking

out.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, he sincerely wished that such an answer might be

agreed to, as would give a general satisfaction. He hoped some mode

would be adopted to unite the wishes of every gentleman; his

disposition, he said, led him to vote for the paragraph; he thought

himself at liberty so to do, as he was satisfied the Administration had

been, in many instances, wise and firm. He thought it improper that such

debate should take place at the present time. He could see no

inconvenience that could arise from voting for the Address. The words on

which most stress had been laid, were those expressive of the wisdom

and firmness of the PRESIDENT's administration. He declared he thought

it had much contributed to the success of this country; and if success

had attended his measures, there could be nothing inconsistent in their

acknowledging it; which was all the compliment necessary to give

satisfaction.

Mr. RUTHERFORD.--My colleague has in a great measure anticipated my

sentiments on this occasion. I am sorry for the mistaken zeal the

gentlemen of the committee should have shown for the PRESIDENT, by

introducing expressions into the Address so exceptionable, and which

should be subject to such an uncomfortable exposure of that character.

I was able yesterday only to attend a part of the debate, through

indisposition, but what I did stay to hear, hurt me very much. I heard

gentlemen speak ill of the common parent of our country, whom we all

revere; and was a slip, but one criminal slip, to rob the PRESIDENT of

his good name? We have seen the goodness of the heart of that man, and

with satisfaction. We have seen him wrestling with his own feelings to

continue in the important and weighty business of Government; we have

seen him contending with two great rival nations, and yet preserved

peace. When he had made a slip, the people of America have stepped

forward to assist him, and dropped the generous tear, sensible that to

err is human, and that we are all liable to do wrong. I am sure that my

colleagues and every one in the House hold the character and virtue of

that man in high esteem. I am sorry to see that division of sentiment

which has taken place; it would make the world believe that we wish to

rob him of those qualifications. It is the justice and duty of this

House to do that man, that patriot, all the honor they can, whilst it is

the interest of this nation to hold in view those great points with

generous satisfaction, and good wishes to the man who has stepped

forward, and not in vain, to the support of our Republic in the war, and

under Divine assistance was made our deliverer. And now for gentlemen to

come here and speak of the troubles of the country, ascribing all our

adversity to him, it is like applying cold water where the strongest

energy is necessary. Again I would repeat, that if that man, our common

parent, has committed errors, it is no more than we all may do--it is

the general lot of all. If there have been faults in the Administration,

I do not think they lie at his door, but at his counsellors'; he has had

bad counsellors; his advisers are to blame, and not him. I never saw how

he could have done otherwise than he did. And now, sir, said Mr. R., it

is our duty to bear those great actions and generous sentiments in our

view, that, on his retirement from his public station, we may render him

all the respect due to his character. Nor would I less remember our

situation with France, that great and generous Republic, under whom we

owe our liberty. Let us not give offence to her, but by every mark of

gratitude and respect, act a part consistent with a just sense of our

peaceable intention. Let us act with the greatest circumspection and

deliberation.

Mr. LIVINGSTON was sorry the answer was not drafted so as to avoid this

debate. He said it was his sincere desire and hope that the candor of

gentlemen who advocated the Address in its present form, and those who

wished it amended, would so combine as to make it agreeable to all. He

said he intended to oppose the amendments which had been proposed,

although he did not see the Address every way right; with a view to

reconcile parties, when the present motion was disposed of, he should

move to strike out some words, in order to insert others. He could not,

like some gentlemen, draw consolation from the misfortunes of other

nations; their distresses were rather matter of regret; nor did he see a

propriety, as another gentleman had done, of likening our affairs with

those of the members of a family; but, even if it would bear, he could

not see that tranquillity in this family as was expressed. His only

objection, he said, to the paragraph in question, was the words

"tranquil prosperity." He believed the United States did not enjoy that

tranquil prosperity; on the contrary, he thought this was a time of

great calamity in the country, and he thought that it was owing,

principally, to the measures of the Government. There were other clauses

in the Address, he said, he should, when they came to be considered,

make objections to, and he thought they could be all easily removed by

motions suitable; however, he said there were many sentiments in the

Address in which he heartily concurred. He should vote against the

striking out the eight clauses in question, as he thought such

amendments could be proposed as would make the Address meet his hearty

concurrence, and he believed give general satisfaction.

Mr. GILES' motion was then put, to strike out those clauses, and

negatived.

Mr. PARKER renewed the motion he made yesterday, to strike out the words

"freest and most enlightened in the world."

Mr. AMES hoped that the motion to strike out would not prevail; for,

without being over tenacious on the subject, he must give a preference

to the copy of the report which was printed; the members had the

advantage of weighing it in their minds, which they would lose by

adopting the substitute; besides, he thought the ideas were so crowded

in that proposed, as to render it heavy; he hoped the reported Address

would be agreed to.

Mr. HARPER's motion was then put and negatived. Twenty-five members only

voting for the motion.

Mr. PARKER again moved to strike out "freest and most enlightened," &c.

Mr. W. SMITH said yesterday, in the discussion on the subject, gentlemen

had assigned for their reason to strike out those words that other

nations would be offended at us. It was usual, he said, for nations to

applaud themselves, and he thought it could give no offence to any. He

did not hear gentlemen mention what nation was meant. He presumed the

only nation that could be alluded to was the French Republic. If,

however, it can be proved that they have used similar language, he

supposed it would give gentlemen some ease as to this particular. In

looking over some papers, he had seen several bombastical expressions in

a note of Barthelemy, a report to the Convention of Laviere, and of

Cambaceres, in the name of the three committees. In one are these words,

"a Government so powerful as the French." In another, he calls it "the

most enlightened in the civilized world." In another, "the first in the

universe." He hoped that while that nation could use expressions like

these, the gentlemen of this House would not think the expressions

referred to would give offence to that or any other nation.

Mr. PARKER said, when he made the motion he did not refer to any

particular nation; he had neither France nor England in view; he did not

wish to see us contrast our political situation with that of any other

country. His objections to the words, he said, arose from our making the

declaration ourselves. Our Government, he acknowledged, was free; it was

the best, in his opinion, any where. He wished to believe the people as

enlightened as any other; he believed they were, and if they were not,

they had only themselves to blame; but however enlightened or free we

were, in his opinion, we were not the proper organs to declare it;

however enlightened we might be, he thought the last four years

Administration had convinced many, as well as himself, that the

Administration was not the most enlightened; if they had, they would not

have suffered such shameful spoliations on our commerce, and shameful

acts of cruelty to our seamen. He said the two little monarchies of

Denmark and Sweden, neither of which, in point of extent, can be

compared with the United States, more (to use the comparison of the

gentleman from Pennsylvania yesterday) than a speck is to the sun; nor

are they either of them in population nearly equal to the United States;

and although they are surrounded by the greatest warlike powers in a

belligerent state, yet they have preserved their neutrality inviolate;

their ships have not been wantonly seized, nor have their seamen been

torn from their ships, or whipped at the gang-way of British

ships-of-war, or been shot by their press-gangs. To mention the

instances of British cruelty towards our seamen in every instance that

could be adduced, would take up time unnecessarily; one alone, that

recently happened, I shall relate:

The brother of a member of this House (Mr. FRANKLIN, of N. C.) was

impressed on board a British ship-of-war in the West Indies; he was

unacquainted with seamanship, having only made a passage from North

Carolina to the Islands; being awkward and not being a seaman, he was

discharged. The same evening, a press-gang of the same ship fell in

with him and made him a prisoner; in attempting to make his escape, he

was shot at. The ball was aimed at his body; it was not winged with

death, but the young man was wounded in the hand.

Mr. AMES said, if any man were to call himself more free and enlightened

than his fellows, it would be considered as arrogant self-praise. His

very declaration would prove that he wanted sense as well as modesty,

but a nation might be called so, by a citizen of that nation, without

impropriety; because, in doing so, he bestows no praise of superiority

on himself; he may be in fact, and may be sensible that he is less

enlightened than the wise of other nations. This sort of national

eulogium may, no doubt, be fostered by vanity, and grounded in mistake;

it is sometimes just, it is certainly common, and not always either

ridiculous or offensive. It did not say that France or England had not

been remarkable for enlightened men; their literati are more numerous

and distinguished than our own. The character, with respect to this

country, he said, was strictly true. Our countrymen, almost universally,

possess some property and some pretensions of learning--two distinctions

so remarkably in their favor, as to vindicate the expression objected

to. But go through France, Germany, and most countries of Europe, and it

will be found that, out of fifty millions of people, not more than two

or three had any pretensions to knowledge, the rest being, comparatively

with Americans, ignorant. In France, which contains twenty-five millions

of people, only one was calculated to be in any respect enlightened,

and, perhaps, under the old system, there was not a greater proportion

possessed property; whilst in America, out of four millions of people,

scarcely any part of them could be classed upon the same ground with the

rabble of Europe. That class called vulgar, canaille, rabble, so

numerous there, does not exist here as a class, though our towns have

many individuals of it. Look at the lazzaroni of Naples; there are

twenty thousand or more houseless people, wretched, and in want! He

asked whether, where men wanted every thing, and were in proportion of

29 to 1, it was possible they could be trusted with power? Wanting

wisdom and morals, how would they use it? It was, therefore, that the

iron-hand of despotism was called in by the few who had any thing, to

preserve any kind of control over the many. This evil, as it truly was,

and which he did not propose to commend, rendered true liberty hopeless.

In America, out of four millions of people, the proportion which cannot

read and write, and who, having nothing, are interested in plunder and

confusion, and disposed for both, is small. In the Southern States, he

knew there were people well-informed; he disclaimed all design of

invidious comparison; the members from the South would be more capable

of doing justice to their constituents, but in the Eastern States he was

more particularly conversant, and knew the people in them could

generally read and write, and were well-informed as to public affairs.

In such a country, liberty is likely to be permanent. They are

enlightened enough to be free. It is possible to plant it in such a

soil, and reasonable to hope that it will take root and flourish long,

as we see it does. But can liberty, such as we understand and enjoy,

exist in societies where the few only have property, and the many are

both ignorant and licentious?

Mr. CHRISTIE wished to make an amendment to the paragraph, which he

thought would answer the end equally as well as striking it out; if

agreeable to the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. PARKER,) he would move to

put the word "among" after the word "freest," which would read "the

freest and _among_ the most enlightened." He could not say we were the

most enlightened, but he did think us the most free; not that he was

afraid of offending any nation, but he thought this a more consistent

declaration.

Mr. SWANWICK said, nobody doubted but we were free and enlightened, but

he thought their declaration was no evidence of the truth of it. He

thought the last amendment very good, but it would be still better if

the gentleman would put the word "among" a little further back, so as to

read "among the freest and most enlightened." A pacific disposition

could not be proved by any thing so well as treating others with respect

as well as ourselves; we may not be exclusively free or enlightened. He

hoped it would be thus altered.

Mr. CHRISTIE thought we were the freest people in the world; he,

therefore, could not agree to the amendment last proposed.

Mr. COIT could not say with the gentleman last up, that we were the

freest, but he was very willing to agree with the amendment of a

gentleman, that we were among the freest and most enlightened; he

thought the first amendment much improved by this; he said it removed

great part of the difficulty from the minds of many gentlemen; however,

he hoped no unnecessary time would be taken up with such trifles.

Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) said, that some of the observations which had

been brought into the present debate, were of too delicate a nature to

be commented upon or even repeated; he should not, therefore, follow the

gentleman who spoke last, in his inquiry, how far this country was

exposed to be annoyed by France in the possible, though happily not

probable, event of a rupture with France?

As to the words "freest and most enlightened," which were more

immediately the subject of discussion, he did not object against them on

the ground of fact, but he considered the expression as resolving itself

into a question of decorum and delicacy, the rules of which appeared to

him to be violated, in their ascribing to themselves such a superlative

preference, however true, in a comparison with every other people. The

amendment of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. CHRISTIE) very much

softened the terms and rendered them more palatable.

Mr. KITCHELL thought we had given a very good proof that we are not the

most enlightened people in the world, by this discussion; and if we

declare to the world that we are, that declaration will be a still more

glaring proof. It appeared to him quite unnecessary; he thought it

spending a great deal of time to no purpose; it was not important enough

for that waste of time, when the session was to be so short; he

therefore wished the question to be put.