Mr. SITGREAVES agreed that a very useless and improper latitude had been

assumed in the discussion, and he thought that a few moments would not

be misspent in recalling the attention of the committee to the real

question before them. The assertion that we are the freest and most

enlightened nation in the world was found fault with, and while some

gentlemen moved to strike it out altogether, others proposed to qualify

it in different ways. Mr. S. believed that, in any modification of the

expression, the criticism was, in itself, extremely unimportant; and if,

as some gentlemen had treated it, it was a mere question of decorum, he

should feel perfectly indifferent whether it was rejected or retained.

But when he heard one member deny that we are the most free, and another

that we are enlightened; and most especially when he heard that the

expression was contended to be improper in relation to the acts and the

administration of the Government, he confessed it did appear to him to

be of some consequence not to part with the expression, lest, by doing

so, the House should give countenance to these objections. For his own

part, he believed the proposition to be true; he conceived the word

"enlightened," as applicable to political illumination; and not to our

rank in arts, sciences, or literature; and he considered the sentence as

equivalent to an assertion that we enjoy the most enlightened system of

political freedom extant. In this view of it, he thought it literally

true; and, if true, he could not discern the indecorum of declaring so

on the present occasion. He was strongly impressed with the propriety of

the idea which he had suggested yesterday, that this should be

considered as an act of intercourse purely domestic, an expression of

self-gratulation on our superior happiness, which, by the forms of

society, ought not to be noticed by any other nation. We may be deemed,

without too bold a figure, to be speaking in soliloquy; and to listen to

what we say would be no better than eavesdropping: the indecorum would

rest with those who overhear us, and not with ourselves. It could not be

denied that such a belief of the superiority of our political situation

ought to be cherished among us. If we did not believe it, we should take

shame to ourselves, because our Government is the work of our own hands.

If the belief that we are free and enlightened is valuable, the

expression of it is also valuable, because it tends to preserve us so;

it is a sentiment which we cannot dwell upon too much.

But, he contended, the propriety of this or any other expression could

not be justly estimated by considering it in the abstract--it ought to

be viewed in its application and use. We are about to lose the services

of the PRESIDENT, who is admitted on all hands to have been a useful and

patriotic officer. The House of Representatives are desirous that he

should take with him to his honorable retirement the only reward which

the nature and spirit of our political institutions admit of--the

approbation of his country. It will surely be admitted that we ought to

give to the expression of this approbation all the value of which it is

susceptible; and it is obvious, from the slightest perusal of this

paragraph in the Address, that the words in question give to it all its

force and energy, and that without them, it would be an unmeaning

compliment. The spectacle of a nation, neither free nor enlightened,

offering to its first Magistrate the tribute of approbation and

applause, would neither be "novel nor interesting," since the days of

history are stained with numberless instances of prostituted praise and

courtly adulation; but when it is the voluntary homage of a free and

enlightened people, offered with sincerity to an illustrious

fellow-citizen, it is truly a precious reward for patriotic labors.

Those who object to this expression, therefore, ought to move to strike

out the whole paragraph. To reject the words would totally defeat the

intended compliment; to qualify them would spoil it. Mr. S., therefore,

wished to retain them as they were reported.

Mr. THATCHER said, he did not think the object of the present question

of much consequence, nor did he care much about it; however, he would

wish to see the members more unanimous on the subject; he would,

therefore, propose an amendment, which he thought would have some

tendency towards it, which was to leave out the superlative, and let the

passage read, "The spectacle of a free and enlightened nation."

Mr. HENDERSON commended the ingenuity of the last motion, as he thought

it would more concentrate the ideas of the members. He would vote for

it.

Mr. CHRISTIE's motion was then put, and negatived.

Mr. THATCHER's motion was put, and passed in the affirmative.

Mr. LIVINGSTON then moved to strike out the words from the next

paragraph, "Wise, firm, and patriotic Administration," and insert in

their place, "Your wisdom, firmness, and patriotism has been." He could

not say that all the acts of the Administration had been wise and firm;

but he would say, that he believed the wisdom, firmness, and patriotism

of the PRESIDENT had been signally conducive to the success of the

present form of government. He was willing to give him every mark of

respect possible, but he believed some of his public acts of late

rendered the present motion necessary.

Mr. W. SMITH opposed the amendment, as he thought the gentleman who

proposed it conceived the words to imply more than was meant by

them--they are not meant to include every act of the Executive. He

thought that the Administration in general had been wise, firm, and

patriotic; that the wisdom and firmness of the PRESIDENT had been

conducive to the success of the present form of government. Had not the

words been put in the reported Address, he thought it would not have

been of consequence whether they were ever inserted; but the difference

is very great. Now they are inserted, they are made public, and, to

erase them now, and substitute words in any manner deficient in

sentiment to them, would be to carry censure and not respect. That the

Administration of that valuable man had been wise and conducive to the

good of this country, will not admit of a doubt; and for us to rob him

of that honor which is his due, would be insult. And any thing short of

the words in the Address he thought would not carry a proper mark of

respect.

Mr. GILES observed, that he thought the Administration had been very

deficient in wisdom. Many gentlemen, he said, were very particularly

opposed to the British Treaty and to the great emission of transferable

paper. Could it then be supposed these gentlemen could, in this

instance, so change their opinion? The gentleman last up had said, that

because the words were in the reported Address they ought not to be

struck out. He thought that the House had now as much power to act as

though the committee had made no report. He thought they ought not in

any way to be influenced by the report of the select committee, but act

as though they had to form the Address themselves. He believed that the

PRESIDENT possessed both wisdom and firmness. He was willing to

compliment the PRESIDENT as much as possible in his personal character,

but he could not think it applicable to his Administration. He thought

the amendment proposed would meet his concurrence, and he hoped it would

be agreed to.

Mr. GILBERT hoped and presumed that the motion of his colleague would

not obtain. He understood that the House addressed the PRESIDENT in

answer to his Speech, always as a public man, and not in his private

capacity. How extraordinary, then, will it appear in this House to refer

only to his private conduct! It is, in substance, complimenting him as a

private man, while the very words reprobate him in his public station.

We are now to address him as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. We may tell

him of his wisdom and his firmness, but what of all that unless we

connect it with his Administration?

Mr. ISAAC SMITH.--The sin of ingratitude is worse than the sin of

witchcraft; and we shall damn ourselves to everlasting fame if we

withhold the mighty tribute due to the excellent man whom we pretend to

address. Posterity, throughout all future generations, will cry out

shame on us. Our sons will blush that their fathers were his foes. If

excess were possible on this occasion, it would be a glorious fault, and

worth a dozen of little, sneaking, frigid virtues. I abhor a grudging

bankrupt payment, where the debtor is much more benefited than the

creditor. The gentleman from Virginia misrepresents his own

constituents--I am sure he does all the rest of the Union. On the

present occasion we ought not to consult our own little feelings and

sensibilities. We should speak with the heart and in the voice of

millions, and then we should speak warm and loud. What! "Damn with faint

praise:" and suppress or freeze the warm, energetic, grateful sensations

of almost every honest heart from Maine to Tennessee! I will not do it!

Every line shall burn! This is a left-handed way of adoring the people.

Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) said, the motion then before them was of great

importance, and every man who thought favorably of the PRESIDENT's

Administration should there make a stand. For, if the words were struck

out, it would convey an idea to the world that it was the opinion of

that House that the Administration of the PRESIDENT had neither been

wise nor patriotic. Gentlemen might very well concur in the Address in

its present form, who did not think that every single act of the

PRESIDENT had been wise and firm, since it was his Administration in

general which was referred to, and not each individual act. He hoped,

therefore, the amendment offered would be decidedly opposed, and that

the words proposed to be struck out would be retained.

Mr. GALLATIN thought the words objected to were conceived to mean more

than they really did mean by gentlemen who supported the present motion;

nor could he conceive how the words "firmness and patriotism," proposed

to be inserted, could apply to any thing but the public character of the

PRESIDENT. On the first view of the Address, Mr. G. said, he thought

with the gentlemen from New York and Virginia, and it was not without

considerable hesitation that he brought himself to agree to this part of

the Address. He found, however, on further examination, that they did

not go so far as he at first thought they did. Had they approved of

every measure of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, he should have

voted against them. But, in the first place, he would observe, that his

Administration did not include Legislative acts; so that whatever evils

had arisen from the funding or banking systems were not to be charged to

the PRESIDENT. They did not mean to pay compliments to themselves but to

the PRESIDENT: therefore, the words in question related only to the

Administration of the PRESIDENT alone, and not to those officers of

State which had been supposed by some gentlemen. The first question was,

then, whether that Administration had been marked with wisdom, firmness,

and patriotism? And, he would briefly say, so far as related to the

internal situation of the country, it had borne these marks. He did not

recollect any instance where he could say here was any want of wisdom,

or there of firmness or patriotism. If they proceeded to foreign

affairs, a great number of members were found (he for one) who wished

that certain acts had not taken place; and, if he thought, in giving

approbation to this Address, he was approving of these measures, he

would certainly vote against it. But, as the gentlemen from South

Carolina and New Jersey (Mr. SMITH and the SPEAKER) had observed, as the

approbation went to the Administration in toto, it had respect to no

particular act. Nor did he believe the literal sense of the words would

apply to the business of the late treaty. [He read the words.] The most

clear meaning of these words related to the present Government and

constitution; and the word "success" could apply to those parts of the

Administration only which had had time to be matured. He did not believe

that at the present period it could be said that the Treaty with Great

Britain had been successful, and, therefore, could not be included

within the meaning of the expression. Not meaning to pledge an

approbation of that act, and not conceiving that the sentence could have

such a meaning, he would vote against the proposed amendment, and for

the original.

The question was put on the amendment and negatived. The committee then

rose, reported the Address with the amendments, when the House took them

up, and having gone through them--

On the question being about to be put on the answer as amended, Mr.

BLOUNT wished the yeas and nays might be taken, that posterity might see

that he did not consent to the Address.

The main question being put, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas

67, nays 12, as follows:

YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin,

David Bard, Theophilus Bradbury, Nathan Bryan, Gabriel

Christie, Thomas Claiborne, John Clopton, Joshua Coit,

William Cooper, William Craik, James Davenport, Henry

Dearborn, George Dent, George Ege, Abiel Foster, Dwight

Foster, Jesse Franklin, Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Albert

Gallatin, Ezekiel Gilbert, James Gillespie, Nicholas

Gilman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, Andrew Gregg, Roger

Griswold, William B. Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, Carter

B. Harrison, Thomas Hartley, Jonathan N. Havens, John

Heath, Thomas Henderson, William Hindman, George Jackson,

Aaron Kitchell, Samuel Lyman, James Madison, Francis

Malbone, Andrew Moore, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, John

Nicholas, John Page, Josiah Parker, John Patton, John Read,

John Richards, Samuel Sewall, John S. Sherburne, Samuel

Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Israel Smith, Isaac Smith,

William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., William Strudwick, John

Swanwick, Zephaniah Swift, George Thatcher, Mark Thompson,

John E. Van Allen, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum,

Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams.

NAYS.--Thomas Blount, Isaac Coles, William B. Giles,

Christopher Greenup, James Holland, Andrew Jackson, Edward

Livingston, Matthew Locke, William Lyman, Samuel Maclay,

Nathaniel Macon, and Abraham Venable.

_Resolved_, That the SPEAKER, attended by the House, do present the said

Address; and that Mr. AMES, Mr. MADISON, and Mr. SITGREAVES, be a

committee to wait on the PRESIDENT to know when and where it will be

convenient for him to receive the same.

FRIDAY, December 16.

Mr. AMES, from the committee appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT to know

when and where he would receive the answer of this House to his Address,

reported that he had appointed to receive it at his house this day at

two o'clock.

_Address to the President._

The SPEAKER informed the House that the hour was nearly at hand, which

the PRESIDENT had appointed for receiving the Address of the House, in

answer to his Speech. The members, in a body, accordingly waited upon

the PRESIDENT, at his house; and the SPEAKER pronounced the following

Address:

"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 Western

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 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 present period with that 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 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 free and enlightened nation 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 our 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."

To which the PRESIDENT made the following Reply:

"GENTLEMEN: To a citizen whose views were unambitious, who

preferred the shade and tranquillity of private life, to

the splendor and solicitude of elevated stations, and whom

the voice of duty and his country could alone have drawn

from his chosen retreat, no reward for his public services

can be so grateful as public approbation, accompanied by a

consciousness that to render those services useful to that

country has been his single aim: and when this approbation

is expressed by the Representatives of a free and enlighted

nation, the reward will admit of no addition. Receive,

gentlemen, my sincere and affectionate thanks for this

signal testimony that my services have been acceptable and

useful to my country. The strong confidence of my

fellow-citizens, while it animated all my actions, ensured

their zealous co-operation, which rendered those services

successful. The virtue and wisdom of my successors, joined

with the patriotism and intelligence of the citizens who

compose the other branches of Government, I firmly trust,

will lead them to the adoption of measures which, by the

beneficence of Providence, will give stability to our

system of Government, add to its success, and secure to

ourselves and to posterity that liberty which is to all of

us so dear.

"While I acknowledge, with pleasure, the sincere and

uniform disposition of the House of Representatives to

preserve our neutral relations inviolate, and, with them,

deeply regret any degree of interruption of our good

understanding with the French Republic, I beg you,

gentlemen, to rest assured that my endeavors will be

earnest and unceasing, by all honorable means, to preserve

peace, and to restore that harmony and affection which have

heretofore so happily subsisted between our two nations;

and with you, I cherish the pleasing hope that a mutual

spirit of justice and moderation will crown those endeavors

with success.

"I shall cheerfully concur in the beneficial measures which

your deliberations shall mature on the various subjects

demanding your attention. And while directing your labors

to advance the real interests of our country, you receive

its blessings; with perfect sincerity my individual wishes

will be offered for your present and future felicity.

"G. WASHINGTON."

The members then returned to the House, and having resumed their places,

the SPEAKER presented a copy of the PRESIDENT's Answer to the Clerk;

which he read.

MONDAY, December 19.

JOHN HATHORN, from New York, and JOHN MILLEDGE, from Georgia, appeared

and took their seats.

A new member, to wit, ELISHA R. POTTER, from Rhode Island, in the place

of BENJAMIN BOURNE, resigned, appeared, produced his credentials, was

qualified, and took his seat in the House.

MONDAY, December 26.

_National University._

Mr. HARPER moved the order of the day, for the House to go into a

committee on the establishment of a National University. The House

accordingly formed itself into a committee--Mr. COIT in the chair.

When the report was read, Mr. MACON said there was the word

"appropriation" in the report. He did not recollect any having been made

for that purpose. He wished to know what was meant?

Mr. CRAIK said, authority was given for the PRESIDENT to appropriate

about twenty acres of land for the erection of this building; this he

supposed to be what was meant.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, that some time or other the institution of a Seminary

in this District may be of use, but at present, and in the manner

contemplated in this report, it would not do. If carried into effect

thus, it will sometime need an appropriation. We are now, said Mr. N.,

going into the subject, but we know not to what lengths it may carry us;

we do not know where it will end. He did not think the time had arrived

to incorporate a company for building a National University. It would be

taking money from those districts of country which can do for

themselves, and would receive no benefit from this institution. It would

be inconvenient and inconsistent for people living at a considerable

distance to send their children to this University; besides, he thought,

the further children are from home, by being less under the eye of their

parents, the more their morals would be injured. If it be a National

University, it must be for the use of the nation. It will then be

necessary to open funds for the purpose of its support. It is

recommended by the PRESIDENT, it is true; but this is no argument why we

should precipitate the business: it is the last time he will have an

opportunity to address this House, and it being an object he should like

to see encouraged when it was practicable, he took that opportunity to

express it. We are not now in a situation to forward its establishment.

It may be done at some time, but Mr. N. thought it would be many years

first. That district of country would be many years before it could

encourage the hope of such a plan prospering. He thought gentlemen from

other parts of the Union would not say they wanted it for their youth.

He thought if the House once entered into the subject, the

responsibility would fall on it to keep up the institution.

Mr. HARPER said, it did not appear to him that the gentleman last up had

attended sufficiently to this report, for he seemed to be much mistaken

as to its principle. There was nothing in it that contemplated pledging

the United States to find funds for its support; nor was it the object

of the report to establish a National University. He agreed with the

gentleman, that we were not arrived at a period for such an institution.

But gentlemen would see that the object of the commissioners was not to

establish a National University or obtain money from the United States,

but their direct object was, to be incorporated, so as to be enabled to

receive such legacies and donations as may be presented to the

institution, and hold it in trust for that purpose. The PRESIDENT had

already given nineteen acres of land, and signified his intention to

give fifty shares in the Potomac canal whenever there was proper

authority to receive endowments. It appears that there is no authority

at present. The memorial goes no further than to authorize them to

receive such benefactions as may be made, and hold them in trust. How

far, then, this went towards involving this House in its support, he

should leave the good sense of gentlemen to judge. Mr. H. thought the

amount of this memorial could not have any evil tendency, but it may

have a good one; for which reason he hoped it would be agreed to.

Mr. BALDWIN did not know any thing, according to his present views,

which could be injurious in the report. At present it seemed favorable

to him. He had two principal ideas in his mind, which made it appear so;

if neither of which was cleared up otherwise, he should vote for it. The

first thing he should ask was, Is such a thing desirable? And then, Is

there a Seminary so near the spot contemplated, as to make it hostile in

this House to encourage this University? He believed there was none that

this will injure, but that an establishment like this would be very

agreeable in that District. If it was desirable, who could undertake it,

who encourage it, like this House? They could not do it themselves. If,

then, the step is a proper one, it can never be too soon to commence it,

although it may be many years before it may be wanted. The objection may

be, that it would be wrong to incorporate a Literary Society; but we

have frequent instances of incorporation, and nothing can prove it

improper, since no pecuniary aid is required, no grant of money is

asked. If it was, I should, like the gentleman before me, (Mr.

NICHOLAS,) disapprove of it, but not now seeing reason to object, I

shall vote for the report.

Mr. CRAIK.--After the caution the committee had observed in forming

their report, to prevent objections, I am sorry they should be charged

with things they do not in the least merit. If the report contemplated

the raising a fund for the support of this institution from the United

States, there might have been some ground for gentlemen's objections;

but, as there is not the most distant view of such a thing, I am

surprised to hear it objected to. I did not expect it from that

gentleman, (Mr. NICHOLAS.) I did not expect to hear him say, that

institutions of this kind were not wanted there; it might have come

better from gentlemen residing in more distant parts of the United

States.

If this subject was now before the House, sir, I should not be against

proving, at this time, that it is the duty of the United States to

establish a University, and that the sooner it was done the better. But,

as this is not the case, as we are only asked to permit its

encouragement, by allowing these people to receive benefactions, how can

we refuse? Shall we shut the door against individual benevolence? There

are appropriations already made to this institution. There is a fund now

of fifty shares in the canal, which is now valuable and increasing in

value daily. I think the situation for this purpose very good; and the

probable increase of the city of Washington will induce many persons to

benevolence for this purpose. I know of no situation more central, and

believe there is no place of the kind in its neighborhood; and from an

established knowledge it would be a very useful and desirable

institution, shall vote for it.

Mr. W. LYMAN.--As far as I can understand, the land which is now to be

appropriated for this University is the property of the United States.

Does not this look as though the United States are to patronize and

support the establishment? If we take this step, I shall very much

wonder if our next is not to be called upon to produce money. I do not

expect much from the liberality of individuals; and can it be expected

that people from the remote parts of the United States will send their

children to this Seminary? Surely not; and consequently their money will

be lost. It will be a natural source of discontent to them to pay their

money merely for others to obtain the advantage. It may be very good for

people thereabout, but remote parts cannot derive the least advantage

from the institution. We are going quite too fast into this business,

without attending to probable consequences.

I think it would have been more proper, if these people had only wanted

this power, for them to have applied to the State Legislature of

Maryland; it would be more to their interest and duty to encourage a

Seminary if one is wanted in that place. They have sufficient power

vested in them to encourage all such laudable undertakings. For us to

encourage this would be to do injury, instead of having a number of

schools planted in various parts, they are now all to centre in one; and

the people are to neglect all to support this one; as others would

become very weak.

I flatter myself to have as liberal sentiments on such institutions as

other gentlemen, but I do sincerely think small academies are as useful

as this institution for a University. The large institutions are

generally out of the reach of people in general, and of the middling

class in particular. These small academies have produced many eminent

literary characters in the country. If it should be necessary at any

time to form a Seminary for the use of that District, Congress would not

refuse its encouragement; but to draw money for a National University I

hope they never will agree. But gentlemen say this is not asked; true it

is not at this time, but there is that in the principle that will most

certainly lead to it.

Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) said, if it should ever be the policy of the

United States to establish a National University, he was of opinion this

was an improper time for making the decision. He did not believe the

committee who made the report meant to do more than had been stated; but

the effect, he said, would be what he predicted; this measure would be

looked upon as an entering wedge, and they should hereafter be told they

must go through with it. If gentlemen were prepared to sanction an

institution of this kind they would of course do it; he was not prepared

to vote for the measure, but should give it his negative.

Mr. NICHOLAS said he had not been convinced by the observations of

gentlemen who had spoken in favor of this report that all the mischiefs

would not follow this measure which he before predicted. He inquired

into the purpose of establishing a National University. The PRESIDENT

had said (and the commissioners after him) it was to establish a

uniformity of principles and manners throughout the Union. This, he

believed, could not be effected by any institution. If, said he, you

incorporate men to build a University, are you not pledging yourselves

to make up any deficiency? and, as the building must be commensurate

with the object, they would have an enormous empty house continually

calling upon them for contributions to its support. Whatever moderation

had been observed in framing this report, Mr. N. said it was like many

others which came before them: it was so covered as not to show half the

mischiefs which would attend it. If a plan of education was wanted for

that District, let members from that part of the country say so, and he

would be ready to afford them every necessary assistance; but he would

not think of going into the scheme of a National University.

The district of country from whence it came might stand in great need of

seminaries of learning, as had been hinted by the gentleman from

Maryland, (Mr. CRAIK,) but their ignorance must continue until they were

sensible of their want of instruction. He believed there was no Federal

quality in knowledge, and no Federal aid was necessary to the spreading

of it. Every district of country was competent to provide for the

education of its own citizens, and he should not give his countenance to

the national plan proposed, because the expense would be enormous, and

because he did not think it would be attended with any good effect, but

with much evil.

If a University is wanted for the use of that District, or any other

part, Mr. N. said he would give it all the encouragement possible, but

he could not agree to go to such great lengths--lengths which were not

yet explored.

Mr. R. SPRIGG considered the report before them as of a very harmless

nature. The PRESIDENT, he said, had appropriated land upon which to

erect the University in question. They were not called upon to sanction

that appropriation. His power to give it was full and ample. The thing

was done, and he had promised a future donation. The apprehensions of

the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. NICHOLAS) seemed to arise from his

conceiving they were about to sanction a National University, such as

had been recommended by the PRESIDENT. If this were the case, although

the Representative of that District, he should not give his vote in

support of the measure. On the contrary, he said, they were called upon

merely to authorize proper persons to receive donations for a

University. What sort of institution this should be, would be for the

future consideration of Congress. Mr. S. said he should always be ready

to give his support to every measure which had a tendency to spread

knowledge throughout the United States, as he believed the progress of

knowledge and liberty would accompany each other. The gentleman from

Virginia seemed to think this institution would only benefit a small

circle. He did not think the State of Maryland would be much benefited

by it, as they had already two good universities; but he thought it

doing no more than justice to the owners of property in the Federal City

that this institution should be encouraged. What was asked of them would

not commit them at all for any thing further, and it would be a mean of

turning the attention of the people to the support of an institution of

this kind. For these reasons, he hoped the House would agree to the

report.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said he had thought, like the gentleman last up, that

there was nothing in it but what was perfectly harmless, until,

recurring to the law for establishing the permanent seat of Government,

that something more might be intended than the eye could at first

discover. Mr. L. said, he turned the thing a variety of ways in his

mind, and could not account for some of its obscurities. If nothing was

intended but a mere incorporation, why not apply to the State that could

incorporate such a body? Something further seemed to be intended: public

patronage was wanted to support this institution. They were called upon,

at a moment's notice, to give their encouragement to this National

Institution. It is true, they were called upon from very respectable

authority. They were not called upon to appropriate the public funds to

this purpose; but how far the commissioners are justifiable in laying

out public lands for that purpose, he knew not. He had not the law

itself at hand, but he was doubtful about the just disposal of it, if in

this manner. This land was for public use. The use of this land was to

erect buildings on for the benefit of Congress; and if these

commissioners had power to appropriate it for building a National

University on, they had the same power to give it or make use of it for

any other purpose. Such institutions are not public, but private

concerns.

This, said Mr. L., I view as the effects of the resolution, were it to

be adopted; but I would not be thought as in the least reflecting on the

motives of the gentleman who brought it forward. I believe it will

operate (as a gentleman has justly said) as an "entering-wedge;" and at

some future time we shall be told, we must go on--now we have encouraged

its institution, we must support it. We shall hear more about it at a

future day. Gentlemen tell you, sir, that nothing is intended, but

merely to permit its institution. Why cannot they obtain this power

which is asked of us of the State where it is wanted? The laws there

will permit it, and, most likely, it could be obtained. If this report

is agreed to, the time will arrive when this institution will pretend to

a just claim on this House for its support; and the reasons they will

then urge will have a force which will not be easily repelled.

Mr. MADISON said he was very far from considering, with some gentlemen,

that this is a question of right or policy. These ideas are not

comprehended in the present question. It is not whether Congress ought

to interpose in behalf of this institution or not; it is whether

Congress will encourage an establishment which is to be supported

entirely independent of them. He did not consider it would ask a single

farthing from us, nor that it would pledge Congress to endow the

establishment with any support. The State of Virginia thought proper,

during the war, to present the PRESIDENT with fifty shares in the

Potomac canal, in consideration of his services, which he refused

accepting for his own use. He has now offered to give it to this

Seminary.[4] Some other individuals have likewise destined part of their

land for its support, and other benefactions may be expected. The amount

of this motion before the committee is whether we will grant power and

security to persons to receive such donations in trust for the

institution? He conceived it only in this simple point of view, and he

thought if it was worthy of patronage, it ought to be from the United

States.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. LIVINGSTON) seems to say it is not

necessary for Congress to interpose, as the laws of Maryland allow that

Legislature power to do it, and they are the most proper. Congress has

the sole jurisdiction over that District: it is not with the power of

that Legislature. Their power in that District could only operate by

virtue of a grant from the United States; although it is necessary,

until that District becomes the permanent seat of Government, the laws

of Maryland should be in force there. This being the situation, the

commissioners applied to Congress to give them the power to receive

benefactions.

Another thing which gentlemen had objected to, is its being called a

National University. The report does not call it so; it calls it "A

University in the District of Columbia;" which, he thought, was

materially different. Congress may form regulations for institutions

which may be very good, and yet, not be viewed as national institutions.

It was in this qualified light (for he wished not to consider it a

burden on the nation) he meant to vote for the report.

Mr. SPRIGGS said it had been inquired why the Legislature of Maryland

could not have granted the commissioners what they now pray for? He

answered that they could make no law for that District which should

extend beyond the time at which the seat of Government was to be removed

there. He mentioned some instances that had taken place while he was a

member of that Legislature. This, he said, accounted for the application

of the commissioners to Congress.

On motion, the committee rose, and had leave to sit again.

TUESDAY, December 27.

DEMPSEY BURGES, from North Carolina, appeared, and took his seat.

_National University._

The order of the day was called for on the report of the committee to

whom was referred the memorial of the commissioners of the Federal City,

and that part of the PRESIDENT's Speech, which referred to the

establishment of a National University. The House accordingly resolved

itself into a Committee of the Whole on that subject, when the

resolution, reported by the select committee, having been read, no

gentleman rising on the subject, the Chairman inquired if the committee

were ready for the question, and on being answered in the affirmative,

the question was put and negatived by a great majority.

The committee rose, and the Chairman reported their disagreement with

the select committee.

The House then took up the subject.

Mr. MURRAY rose, expressing his great surprise at the unexpected

decision on the question in the committee. He was very much surprised to

see the committee so changed, no opposition, and yet the report so

quickly negatived; surely gentlemen must have mistaken the question. It

is matter of regret such an important subject should have so little

consideration. The language of the report is perfectly moderate and

just. The gentleman from Virginia, yesterday, gave us to understand that

this institution was to draw its support from the National Treasury; but

on examining the report I can find no such idea held out or intended;

and also he told us this was a National University. The gentleman's

observations are grounded in mistake, or it was effected by an

imagination of evils, of which there could not be the most distant

apprehension. If we refer to the memorial of the commissioners we shall

see they ask no money from Congress; they only ask you to erect a number

of gentlemen into a corporate capacity to enable them to receive

donations from those who are well disposed towards instituting a useful

Seminary in that District; this is no more than they have a right to

expect from Congress, and is the duty of Congress to grant. Yet the

determination of the Committee of the whole House has been carried

against this very desirable and reasonable request. I would again repeat

that the language of the memorial is only to enable them to support a

seminary of learning in that place, and not a single shilling is asked

from the nation. They only want a medium to act upon--an act of

incorporation.

The PRESIDENT has generously signified his intention to make a valuable

benefaction, not less than £5000 sterling, and the wise and good in all

parts of the United States would probably follow his example,

particularly in that neighborhood, if Congress would put them in a way

to receive it; a building would then be begun and some advances made

towards the execution of the institution, in proportion to the fund.

Instead of allowing this to be the case, every possible view has been

given unfavorable to the plan, and every possible supposition formed,

though without grounds, which could tend to blast it. The ideas of

gentlemen have been inferred that a large empty house would arise;--that

it would draw from the United States funds for its support. It may be

possible, but it is no way probable. Is it not more probable that these

gentlemen, knowing they cannot expect national support, will keep

themselves within the bounds of their funds, if they mean to carry on

the institution? Certainly this seems most consistent with the wisdom

and prudence of men in that capacity. Nothing is asked of the public in

the report of the select committee:--nothing they have a right to ask. I

therefore hope, as the request is perfectly reasonable, gentlemen will

not be too hasty to oppose such a measure without due consideration.

Mr. CRAIK.--I must confess I feel as much surprised as my colleague on

the decision which has just been given in the Committee of the Whole.

Some gentlemen who opposed the report yesterday conceived there was some

secret poison lurking within it--some dangerous principle not to be

discovered on its face, which would some time produce baneful

influences--this has been insinuated though not directly said. If so it

must come there by accident, or of itself, which those gentlemen must

allow if they will give themselves the trouble to examine the true

principle of it, and give it a just decision. When we examine the

materials of which this report has been formed, viz: the PRESIDENT's

communication on this subject in his Speech, and the memorial of the

commissioners;--we should be led by those gentlemen to believe, that

this, which is the groundwork of the report, is connected to convey

something which may extend further than it seems to carry its object;

this perhaps is the secret poison hinted at. Were I in the situation of

the PRESIDENT, I am free to confess, had I studied my own feelings and

the great use of the institution, I should have recommended it. It has

been justly said, that the PRESIDENT, from the impulsive importance of

it, has taken this opportunity--this last opportunity to recommend it.

He has recommended it with earnestness; which gives an additional proof

of his sincere regard for the welfare of his country. I hope this will

not be conceived in favor of the idea suggested. The commissioners

seemed to have anticipated the objections which have been made to a

National University, and have purposely avoided inserting it in their

memorial. They have cherished similar ideas which I have, of the

eligibility of such an institution, but foreseeing that plan would not

be approved, they have relinquished that, and only requested

incorporation to enable them to act in trust for the institution. They

do not call upon this House to put their hand into the Public Treasury;

they seem to have possessed somewhat of the prophetic, to see the

necessity of forming their memorial so little objectionable; and yet

there is supposed to be danger in this simple request.

Gentlemen have supposed a responsibility, a peculiar obligation to

support it, would be attached to the United States, were they to give

this privilege. As well might it be said that Congress, by allowing a

bridge to be built, or a road to be cut, would incur the expense, or if

it could not otherwise be done for want of money in the applicants,

would be engaged to do it for them at the national expense. If there are

objections of force in one instance they will apply to the other. If

this is denied it proves that District to be wretched outcasts, being

denied a request the most reasonable, natural, and just that can be

contemplated. Many of the objections urged, indeed most of them, against

the admission of this report, do not go so much to the exclusion of the

measure, as to the danger of Legislative interference. Gentlemen say, if

we move in it--if we put our hands at all to it, we pledge ourselves to

effect it. If this is the situation with the people of Columbia, the

year 1800 will be a woful year to them; this is an unhappy presage of

the jurisdiction to be exercised on that country. If it is inexpedient

for that District to have a Seminary of Learning, let gentlemen who

could state it with truth, come forward and say so. If the objections of

gentlemen are not grounded on the danger of this House pledging itself

to support the institution nor on the inexpediency of such a thing in

that District, I am at a loss, for my soul, to conceive on what ground

their objections are formed. I was surprised yesterday to hear the

opposition come from the quarter it did; and am equally surprised to

find such an opposition now. In my view there is a very great want of

Seminaries of Learning in that District.

If we take a view on the south side of the Potomac, for a considerable

extent of country, there is no institution to answer any desirable

purpose. There is the greatest probability of a rapid increase in the

population. Is it not reasonable, then, that an institution of this kind

should be established in that place? And if reasonable at all, are we to

wait till the period arrives when the country is thickly inhabited

before we commence a building and project the plan? I have long thought

that in this young country such a thing was necessary. It should be now

begun, to grow up with its growth and strengthen with its strength. We

should now lay the corner-stone--the foundation to build upon. Though

such a Seminary cannot be established now, it may fifty years hence; and

it can never be too soon to commence a good institution. We are not

called upon to travel into the fields of speculation for the purpose of

finding funds to support this plan; there are funds which present

themselves to view. We only want a grant to secure the benefactions in

prospect. The PRESIDENT has employed a handsome benefaction for this

purpose; and I much wonder that gentlemen from that part of the Union

should oppose measures that would only encourage its reception. When I

take a view of the extent of country which lies much in want of a

Seminary, I feel surprised that such measures towards its growth should

be denied.

If there are any gentlemen here who oppose the advancement and growth of

that District which they have taken under their wing, they should come

forward and declare it; we then should have ground to account for their

conduct. If we are determined to deny these people common justice, we

dispirit them. There is no circumstance which can occur that will tend

so much to discourage the growth of that State; if we forbear to do them

this justice, we exclude them looking up for those common rights which

could be enjoyed in any other Territory of the United States. I hope

this House will never deny to that people, rising into existence, this

small privilege. Is it a strange thing, I would ask gentlemen, for a

State to grant charters? I answer, no. And for this State to be denied

this privilege only to secure a fund for such an excellent institution,

I believe is quite a novel idea. I hope if there are any doubts on this

subject, they will lie over for future consideration; and I hope we

shall be careful not to damp the attempts of that people by a conduct

which could not be refused by any State in the Union; and that Congress

should refuse it without assigning a sufficient reason is unprecedented.

I hope it will lie over for future consideration, and not be refused so

quickly.

It was moved that the subject should lie over until the second Monday in

January.

The question for postponement was put and carried--ayes 37, noes 36.

WEDNESDAY, December 28.

_Relief to Savannah._

Mr. W. SMITH wished the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the

Whole on the resolution, which he had the other day laid upon the table,

proposing to afford some relief to the sufferers by the late fire at

Savannah. For his part, he said, he could see no reasonable objection

which could be made to so benevolent a proposition. A gentleman in the

House had got a plan of the ruins of the city; it was, indeed, a most

distressful scene. There had never occurred so calamitous an event of

the kind in the United States, or which had so strong a claim upon the

General Government for relief. He said they had granted assistance to

the sufferers by fire at St. Domingo; and surely if it were justifiable

to grant relief to foreigners in distress, it was at least equally so

when the objects were our own citizens. If gentlemen had objections to

the measure, he wished they would state them. The sum with which he

should think of filling up the blank would not be such as to materially

affect our finances.

Mr. MILLEDGE said, if the unfortunate had any claim upon the Government

for relief, none could have greater than the citizens of Savannah. Few

houses, he said, were remaining of that city, and those few were the

least valuable. Not a public building, not a place of public worship, or

of public justice--all was a wide waste of ruin and desolation, such as

scarcely could be conceived, and as it were impossible to describe. He

hoped some relief would be afforded to distress so unexampled.

Mr. COOPER said, it was a very unpleasant thing to come forward to

oppose a measure of this sort; but, when they looked into different

parts of the Union, and saw the losses which had been sustained at New

York, Charleston, &c., it would appear only reasonable that, if relief

was afforded in one case, it ought to be extended to another; and, if

this resolution were agreed to, he should certainly move to have some

relief afforded to New York. He hoped, however, the business would not

be proceeded with. If the principle were a good one, it would bear going

through with; but it would be seen this would, on the contrary, prove a

dangerous one. What they did to-day, he said, should bear repeating

to-morrow. If they were to make good losses by fire, there would be no

occasion for insurance companies, nor any inducement to build with brick

in preference to wood. He felt as much as others for the distresses of

the people of Savannah, but was of opinion it was not a proper business

for the interference of that House.

Mr. W. SMITH agreed with the gentleman last up that this would be

considered as a precedent; he agreed that they ought not to do that

to-day which ought not to be done to-morrow. It might be brought forward

as a principle upon which we should be bound to relieve New York or

Charleston; but the question is, whether this is not a distinct case?

This is a case awfully distinguishable from all others; and if a case

like the present will not be often found, this House are certainly not

bound to grant relief in others, though in this. He trusted such a case

would not be again found to solicit relief. Charleston, he said, had

experienced a great calamity by fire, but had not asked relief of that

House; and it was probable if it had it would not have been granted,

because its distresses are not so great. In a distressing situation like

that now before us aid can be afforded by the many towards alleviating

the distresses of the few. Hence arises the advantages from public

contributions; and would that House, he asked, refuse their assistance?

It would not be felt by the public purse. It has been said, to adopt

this resolution would have a dangerous tendency, inasmuch as it would

encourage a neglect of insurance. But the evil has come; the unfortunate

circumstance has occurred; four-fifths of that unfortunate city has been

destroyed, and their distress is great. Such a circumstance may not

again happen for a century. The amazing value of £500,000 sterling

damages is done; and shall we refuse to give a trifle to assist, with

others, towards removing the present distressed situation of some of the

unfortunate inhabitants? I trust not. It is not asked of the House to

indemnify the loss of these sufferers. No, sir; it is only asked that

the General Government should give the trifling sum of fifteen or twenty

thousand dollars to afford these people some relief.

The question was then put for the House to resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole on the subject, and lost--yeas 38, nays 39.

It was then moved that the committee be discharged from the further

consideration of the subject.

Mr. W. LYMAN hoped the business would not be disposed of without going

into a Committee of the Whole. He thought more respect was due to the

feelings of the sufferers than to dispose of the subject without

discussion. He hoped the committee would not, therefore, be discharged.

Mr. HARTLEY trusted the committee would not be discharged. He believed

the destruction of Lisbon by an earthquake did not occasion greater

mischiefs than the late fire had done to Savannah. The Legislature of

Pennsylvania, which had no greater power than the General Government to

afford relief to these sufferers, had given $15,000. Indeed, he thought

it more the province of the General Government than of State Governments

to afford relief in such cases.

Shall we, said he, treat the citizens of Savannah with more disrespect

than the people of St. Domingo? This House then gave $10,000 or more for

the relief of those people, and shall we not now have liberty to discuss

the subject, whether to give or not to our own citizens? Although, he

said, he would not wish to draw a precedent from English transactions,

yet he would observe that their generous benevolence to the unfortunate

sufferers by the earthquake at Lisbon, though only commercially

acquainted was worth imitation, to whom they gave £100,000. Mr. H. was

sorry gentlemen should endeavor to prevent this by bringing in the

calamities in New York and Charleston. Those were only personal losses;

this was a general conflagration, a catastrophe unprecedented; and he

hoped, for the sake of humanity and national honor, this House would

never withhold relief.

Mr. SPRIGG hoped the committee would not be discharged, but that they

would go into the business at an early day. He said, he had not made up

his mind how far they had power to afford relief in a case like the

present. There was an instance in the relief afforded to the daughters

of the Count de Grasse, as well as that given to the sufferers at St.

Domingo. He wished for further time to make inquiry on the subject. If

there were not insuperable objections to the measure, he hoped relief

would be afforded.

Mr. HARPER acknowledged that it was sound policy in Government to keep a

strict eye over its Treasury; but this watchfulness ought not to go to

the rejection of all claims, however just and proper. He thought the

tenaciousness of approaching the Treasury was carried too far in the

present instance. He would ask, what was the use of society if it were

not to lessen the evils of such calamities as the present, by spreading

them over the whole community, instead of suffering them to fall upon

the heads of a few individuals? He thought it the duty of Government to

alleviate such peculiar distress as the present. It was said this would

prove a dangerous precedent, and prevent necessary provisions against

fire. If they were about to make good the whole of the £500,000

destroyed, there might be some ground for the alarm; but when fifteen or

twenty thousand dollars only were contemplated to be given, no great

danger could surely be apprehended. The fires at New York, Baltimore,

and Charleston, had been mentioned; but what were the means of Savannah

when compared with New York? Not as one to twenty. New York was rich

enough to bear her loss, but this could not be said of Savannah, all the

inhabitants of which were reduced to poverty and distress. They could

not, therefore, get relief from their fellow-citizens; and to whom could

they look for protection and relief with so much propriety as to the

General Government? When compared to Charleston, the loss of Savannah

was of ten times the magnitude as that experienced by it. The loss of

Charleston was alleviated by a subscription of $30,000 from its own

citizens, besides the handsome contributions which were made in other

parts of the Union; but there was no property left in Georgia to afford

relief to the sufferers. Suppose, said Mr. H., we were to give thirty

thousand dollars towards this loss, what would it be when divided among

the whole Union? And yet it would be enough to draw down countless

blessings upon us from these objects of distress. He hoped, therefore,

the committee would not be discharged. It was a case of peculiar and

almost unprecedented affliction, such as he hoped would not again occur;

and a decision in their favor would be applauded by every man, woman,

and child in the Union.

The question was then taken for going into a Committee of the Whole on

the subject, and carried by a considerable majority, there being 45

votes for it.

The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole,

when

Mr. W. SMITH said, he did not propose to fill up the blank at that time.

If the resolution was agreed to, the sum could be put in when the bill

came into the House. He himself should not think of proposing to fill

the blank with more than 15,000 dollars. This, it was true, was but a

small sum, but it would afford relief to the poorer class of sufferers,

and others could not expect to receive the amount of their losses. He

should move that the committee might rise and report the resolution.

Mr. HARTLEY called for the reading of the act allowing relief to the

sufferers by fire at St. Domingo. [It was read. It allowed 15,000

dollars for their relief, which sum was to be charged to the French

Republic, and if not allowed in six months, the relief was to be stopped

after that time.]

Mr. MACON wished the act allowing a sum of money to the daughters of

Count de Grasse to be read also. He did not think either of them in

point. The sufferings of the people of Savannah were doubtless very

great; no one could help feeling for them. But he wished gentlemen to

put their finger upon that part of the constitution which gave that

House power to afford them relief. Many other towns had suffered very

considerably by fire. He believed he knew one that had suffered more

than Savannah in proportion to its size: he alluded to Lexington in

Virginia, as every house in the place was burnt. If the United States

were to become underwriters to the whole Union, where must the line be

drawn when their assistance might be claimed? Was it when three-fourths

or four-fifths of a town was destroyed, or what other proportion?

Insurance offices were the proper securities against fire. If the

Government were to come forward in one instance, it must come forward in

all, since every sufferer's claim stood upon the same footing. The sum

which had been given to the sufferers at St. Domingo was to be charged

to the French Republic, and that given to Count de Grasse's daughters

was in consideration of their father's services. But New York had as

great right to come forward and expect relief as Savannah. He felt for

the sufferers in all these cases, but he felt as tenderly for the

constitution; he had examined it, and it did not authorize any such

grant. He should, therefore, be very unwilling to act contrary to it.

Mr. RUTHERFORD said, he felt a great deal of force on what gentlemen had

said. There were two circumstances which were perfectly conclusive in

his mind. He saw it our duty to grant relief from humanity and from

policy. Savannah was a city of a minor, helpless State; it was a very

young State, yet it was a part of the Union, and as such, was as much

entitled to protection as any State under such a direct misfortune; and

it became Congress to alleviate their great distress. They have lost

much; they have, many of them, lost their all. To say we will not assist

to relieve, when almost every State in the Union is putting their

shoulders to support these people's burden, is wrong. The State of

Pennsylvania has done itself immortal honor in the relief it has

afforded, and shall we not help to support this part of the family in

their distress? This State is a branch of the great family of the Union;

it would be, in my idea, extremely inconsistent to neglect them. He

hoped the motion would be adopted, and he hoped it would never be said

that the General Government refused to provide help in such a poignant

distress occurring in one of its principal towns.

Mr. HARTLEY said, that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. MACON) had

voted against both of the bills which had been referred to. He knew no

difference between the Constitution of the United States and that of

Pennsylvania, yet a vote in their House had been carried unanimously. He

thought the law for the relief of the sufferers of St. Domingo perfectly

in point; for, notwithstanding what was said about negotiation, the

distress of those people had consumed all the money before the six

months were expired. If ever there was a case in which they could grant

relief, this was one. The losses at New York and Charleston would bear

no comparison with that of Savannah; they were rich and flourishing

places, whilst Savannah was a small city of a new State, and the

sufferers generally poor. He hoped, therefore, the resolution would be

agreed to.

Mr. MOORE said, the laws which had been adduced as precedents were not

in point; for the one sum we were to have credit with the French

Republic, and the other was in consideration of past services. The

distress of the people of Savannah was not an object of legislation;

every individual citizen could, if he pleased, show his individual

humanity by subscribing to their relief; but it was not constitutional

for them to afford relief from the Treasury. If, however, the principle

was adopted, it should be general. Every sufferer had an equal claim.

Lexington, in Virginia, contained only one hundred houses, and all

except two had been destroyed by fire. He should therefore move to add

Lexington to Savannah in the resolution before them; though he would

observe, as he did not approve of the principle, he should vote against

them both.

Mr. VENABLE did not see the difference between the two cases which was

so distinguishable to the gentleman last up. Because Savannah was a

commercial city, its distress, according to that gentleman, was

indescribable, but when a like scene was exhibited in a small town, it

was no longer an object which touched his feelings. His humanity went no

where but where commerce was to be found. He asked whether the United

States might not as well lose revenue in the first instance, as put

money into the people's pockets to pay it with? Humanity was the same

every where. A person who lost his all in a village, felt the misfortune

as heavily as he who had a like loss in a city, and perhaps more so,

since the citizen would have a better opportunity by means of commerce

of retrieving his loss. He was against the general principle, as he

believed, if acted upon, it would bring such claims upon the Treasury as

it would not be able to answer.

Mr. MURRAY thought the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. VENABLE) carried his

idea of relief too far. He had no idea that that House, or any

Legislature, could undertake to make good individual misfortunes. He was

of opinion that the lines which separated individual from national

cases, were very observable; the one was happening every day, the other

seldom occurred. When a large town is burnt down, and that town is an

important Southern frontier town, it is surely a national calamity, and

has a claim upon the humanity of the country. It was true, the claim was

not of such a nature as to be brought into a Court of Justice, but it

was a calamity in which the whole nation sympathized. It was not only a

claim upon the humanity of the nation, but also upon its policy, as, by

restoring it to its former situation, it would be able to bear its

wonted part in contributing to the revenue of the country, and would

continue to carry population, arts, and wealth to that distant part of

the Union. In case of war, Savannah was a most important place. It was

necessary the Union should have a town in that situation, and he could

not consider any money which might now be advanced as given away, but as

lent to that town, which might enable it, in a few years, to resume its

former situation, whilst the withholding of it might prevent its ever

rising from its present ruins.

Mr. KITCHELL was opposed to the amendment and to the resolution itself.

He had doubts if even they were to give the citizens 15,000 dollars, as

was proposed by the gentleman from South Carolina, whether they should

not, instead of service, be doing them an injury; because, if the

General Government were only to give this sum, the State Legislatures

would proportion their donations accordingly, and probably give much

less than they would otherwise have done, if they had not had this

example before them. He had doubts as to the constitutionality of the

measure; he thought the constitution did not authorize them to make such

use of public money; however, he thought it might be a very flexible

instrument; it would bend to every situation, and every situation to

that. He thought, in this instance, if we grant money, while we attempt

to serve, we shall eventually injure. As to what the gentleman from

Virginia says of Lexington, Mr. K. thought it had been fully relieved;

however he should vote against both propositions.

Mr. PAGE said, that he was sorry that his colleague had made this

amendment, as he had done it with a view to defeat the original

resolution. If humanity alone were to direct his vote upon this

question, and if the amendment had been proposed more early and singly,

he might have voted for it. But that not being the case, it, as well as

motives of general policy, influenced him in favor of the original

motion. He had reasons which could not apply to the amendment. He should

vote against it. He was bound by order to confine himself to the single

question before the committee. This is, Shall the amendment be received

or not? He declared it as his opinion that the case of Lexington ought

not to be connected with that of Savannah, which had been, as stated by

the member from South Carolina, materially different. He was restrained

by order from entering into the merits of the original resolution, but

he thought that he had a right to hint at the motive of policy which

would apply to the resolution, and not to the amendment. This was, that

Savannah being an important place, it would be wise and politic to

prevent its revival from being owing to any other aid than that of the

General Government of the United States. It ought not to be under

obligations to individuals, or single States, and much less to a foreign

power.

Mr. HARTLEY hoped the amendment would not prevail. If the loss of the

people at Lexington had been greater than they could support, they would

doubtless have applied to the Legislature of Virginia, but he had not

heard of any such application having been made. He agreed with the

gentleman last up, that the General Government ought to relieve

distresses of this kind.

Mr. MURRAY inquired when the fire happened at Lexington?

Mr. MOORE answered, about nine months ago. He thought it was the duty of

the United States first to pay the claims which were made upon them by

distressed soldiers and others for past services, who were denied

justice because they had passed an act of limitation. If they were to

act from generosity, he said that generosity ought to be extended

universally. It was a new doctrine that because a sufferer by fire did

not live in a commercial city he was not equally entitled to relief with

the inhabitants of a city, and that though such persons were called upon

to contribute to the losses of others, they could have no redress for

their own. This seemed as if favorite spots were to be selected upon

which special favor was to be shown. He was opposed to all such

humanity.

Mr. CLAIBORNE was against the amendment, but he hoped the resolution

would be agreed to. He was sorry any gentleman should propose an

amendment like this, purposely to defeat a motion which would tend to

relieve such sufferers as those of Georgia must be. He was not certain

whether he could vote upon constitutional grounds or not. It was a sharp

conflict between humanity to that suffering country and the

constitution. If any case could be admissible, he thought this could; it

ought to be remembered, that that part of the Union has suffered much.

Georgia was a slaughter-pen during the war, besides being continually

harassed by the hostile Indians. He thought 15,000 dollars would not be

ill-spent, as from motives of policy it would be of more advantage to

the United States from the quick return the revenue would gain. Indeed,

if constitutional, he hoped the sum would be made more than proposed.

These are your fellow-citizens who are suffering, and if not speedily

relieved, the whole interest will be involved. If in order, he would

vote that the committee rise, to enable him and, perhaps, many others,

to consult whether relief could be constitutionally granted? He said he

felt a great propensity to do it.

The question was put on the amendment and negatived--there being only 26

in favor of it.

Mr. BALDWIN said, he had doubted whether to make any observations on

this motion; not that he was insensible to the calamitous situation

which had been the cause of it, but from an apprehension that it might

be thought he was too strongly affected by it. Though it might be

disagreeable to one to give his judgment and urge his opinions, when his

own relation to the question was different from that of others, yet some

of the reflections might not be useless to those who were to determine

it. He was sure it was not a want of disposition to relieve the unhappy

sufferers that had or would draw forth an observation on this occasion,

but merely doubts as to the powers of the Federal Government in money

matters. The use of a written constitution, and of that provision in it

which declared that no money should be drawn from the Treasury but under

appropriations made by law, was very manifest from the caution which it

gave in the expenditure of public money and in laying burdens on the

people; yet he believed it impossible to obtain absolute directions from

it in every case. The objection is, that Congress is empowered to raise

money only to pay the debts and to provide for the common defence, and

the other purposes, exactly as specified in the 8th section. The

objection has often been made, but many laws have passed not exactly

specified in that section. He mentioned the private acts before alluded

to, the law for establishing light-houses, to aid navigation in the

improvement of harbors, beacons, buoys, and public piers, establishing

trading-houses with the Indians, and some others, to show that though

the constitution was very useful in giving general directions, yet it

was not capable of being administered under so rigorous and mechanical a

construction as had been sometimes contended for.

Mr. GILES said, if the present resolution passed it would make them

answerable for all future losses by fire. The small sum of $15,000 was

not of any consequence when compared with the establishment of a

principle of that House acting upon generosity. He believed that

neither the money nor humanity, but the establishment of the principle,

was the thing aimed at. The unanimity with which a resolution had passed

the Pennsylvania Legislature, was a proof that they believed they had

the power to pass such a law. It was said the General Government

possessed the authority. The gentleman from Georgia had said that

"affairs of men" made it necessary to depart from the strict

constitutional power. For his part, he did not think they ought to

attend to what "the affairs of men" or what generosity and humanity

required, but what the constitution and their duty required.

The authority of that House, he said, was specified, beyond which they

ought not to go. This was a principle not within the constitution, but

opposed to it.

There had, he said, been several cases introduced. That of the sufferers

of St. Domingo was not a case in point. They looked for a reimbursement

of the money. He believed it had been repaid. And when the daughters of

the Count de Grasse had $4,000 given them, it was thought to be

necessary to introduce their father's services as a consideration. His

feelings, he said, were not less alive to the calls of humanity than

those of other gentlemen; but, by granting the money required, they

should go beyond their powers, and do more real injury than good.

Mr. CLAIBORNE said, the more he heard, the more he found himself in

favor of the resolution. By the discussion it had undergone, he was

inclined to think it was, perhaps, reconcilable with the constitution;

perhaps it was, he said, for he was not certain. The annual revenue, he

said, of that place, was seventy thousand dollars to the United States,

besides the great consideration of it as a frontier town. He had

compared the advantages and disadvantages with respect to its relief in

his own mind, and thought it would be highly consistent with policy to

grant relief. It was a place which had been in great distress, and had

great struggles with enemies in times past. Can it be possible to

suppose that we have not power to assist in erecting that place again,

and putting it upon a footing to do good to the United States by a

return of her revenue? Certainly not. Would the committee be willing

that Savannah should be erased from the revenue? Are they willing to let

it rest, and lose it? This is impossible. Then, surely, it becomes

policy to give aid towards its re-erection. Unless the people do receive

some aid, it will be a long time before seventy thousand dollars will be

again produced from the revenue of that place.

The committee then rose and reported their disagreement, when the House

took it up.

The question was then taken, and the yeas and nays demanded, "that the

House do agree with the Committee of the whole House in their

disagreement to the motion," and resolved in the affirmative--yeas 55,

nays 24, as follows:

YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, David Bard, Thomas Blount,

Theophilus Bradbury, Richard Brent, Samuel J. Cabell,

Gabriel Christie, John Clopton, Joshua Coit, Isaac Coles,

James Davenport, George Dent, Abiel Foster, Jesse Franklin,

Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Ezekiel Gilbert, William B. Giles,

James Gillespie, Nicholas Gilman, Chauncey Goodrich,

Christopher Greenup, Roger Griswold, William B. Grove,

Carter B. Harrison, John Hathorn, Jonathan N. Havens, James

Holland, Andrew Jackson, George Jackson, Aaron Kitchell,

John Wilkes Kittera, Edward Livingston, Samuel Lyman,

William Lyman, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel Macon, Andrew

Moore, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Josiah Parker, Francis

Preston, John Read, Samuel Sewall, Nathaniel Smith, Israel

Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., William Strudwick, John

Swanwick, Zephaniah Swift, Richard Thomas, Philip Van

Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, Peleg

Wadsworth, and John Williams.

NAYS.--Abraham Baldwin, Dempsey Burges, Thomas Claiborne,

William Craik, George Ege, Dwight Foster, Henry Glenn,

Andrew Gregg, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley,

William Hindman, Francis Malbone, John Milledge, Frederick

A. Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, John Page, Elisha R.

Potter, John Richards, Robert Rutherford, John S.

Sherburne, Samuel Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, Isaac Smith,

and William Smith.

THURSDAY, December 29.

GEORGE HANCOCK, from Virginia, appeared, and took his seat.

_Canadian Refugees._

Mr. WILLIAMS moved for the order of the day, that the House resolve

itself into a committee on the reports of committees to whom were

referred the petitions of sundry refugees from Canada and Nova Scotia.

The first resolution read from the last report of the select committee

on this subject, was in these words:

"_Resolved_, That the prayer of the Petitioners, Joseph

Green and others, from Canada, praying a bounty in lands

and other pay, for services rendered in the late war with

Great Britain, ought not to be granted."

This resolution was agreed to. The second was thus:

"_Resolved_, That a tract of land, not exceeding ----

acres, be laid off north-west of the Ohio River, beginning

at the mouth of the Great Miami, and extending down the

Ohio, not exceeding three times the breadth in length, be

immediately appropriated to compensate the refugees from

the British provinces of Canada and Nova Scotia, pursuant

to the resolves of Congress of the 23d of April, 1783, and

the 13th April, 1785."

Mr. WILLIAMS hoped the situation of the land would not be mentioned in

the resolution; there were many circumstances that would render it

unnecessary and improper.

Mr. HARTLEY wished to know where the land was to be, because the value

of the land in different places was various; he thought they ought to

have land: he would not be thought to object to the resolution.

Mr. VENABLE did not think it necessary to mention at this time what land

should be appropriated for this purpose. A bill would be introduced in a

few days, it could then be determined. If there were objections to

appropriate the land mentioned, he hoped gentlemen would then propose a

spot that would suit every conveniency better. These people, he said,

ought to be satisfied: it was time they were.

Mr. DAYTON said, that the Chairman of the committee said there was no

land near Lake Erie of that description belonging to the United States;

he wished to know what foundation the assertion had?

Mr. GREENUP said, the committee had made what inquiry they could on the

subject, of persons well informed, who told them there was no land

belonging to the United States of that description.

Mr. SITGREAVES would vote for striking out the clause as it stood, not

from any knowledge he had on the justice of the claims, but, if just,

satisfaction should be given. The committee had not reported as to the

value of land necessary to be given; the value of land was proportioned

to its different qualities and location; he thought it would be as well

for these people, to give them military land warrants, and let them

locate by lot: this had heretofore been the method, and he thought it

would be as advantageous to them as any, and avoid many difficulties

with respect to the grant.

Mr. MACON hoped the question would be divided; he liked the proposition

of the gentleman last up, to strike out, and insert the words proposed;

he therefore would wish the committee to rise, and report progress; or,

if the House do not adopt the substitute, he hoped it would be

recommitted.

Mr. DAYTON moved to strike out the words relative to location, and

substitute the following resolution:

"_Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law for

granting donations of land to Canadian and Nova Scotia

refugees, in conformity to the resolves of Congress of the

23d of April, 1783, and the 13th of April, 1785."

This resolution was adopted.