Mr. BUCK hoped it would not prevail. The only reason he saw to object,
(and he thought that very forcible,) was, that it discovered a jealousy
in that House of another branch of the Government, which he thought very
unjustifiable. He had voted for the repeal, but should not vote for the
appropriation. He thought they ought to act for themselves, without
reference to the other branch. Any member may vote which way he pleased,
but to say he would not vote for one without they go to the other, was
unfair. He could see no justice in such a mistrust from this branch of
the Legislature. Suppose, he said, the bills go to the Senate
separately, they may concur in the appropriation, and reject the appeal.
Even in that situation, were it to be left, the Executive could not man
the frigates, unless they could obtain further appropriations--to
obstruct which would be preferable, and would put it out of the power of
the Senate to embarrass the House.
Mr. VENABLE said his vote was given without any relation whatever to the
Senate. He thought any act passed by this House could not, when sent up
to the Senate, be termed disrespectful, for each branch had a right to
act for themselves. He was surprised to hear the gentleman last up say
he should not vote this appropriation; for he had heard him say, on a
former occasion, that he would vote an appropriation for any treaty,
law, or whatever should exist to call for it. Mr. V. confessed himself
to be of a very different opinion; for he always thought the House had a
discretionary power to grant it or not, but that gentleman had long said
it had none.
Mr. BUCK said, as his doctrines had been called in question, he must beg
indulgence to explain. He never said that the House had not a right to
judge on the propriety of appropriation in an existing law. He conceived
a treaty quite another thing. The PRESIDENT and Senate have a
constitutional power to make a treaty; in that, he said, he did advocate
that that House had no right to withhold appropriations; but in laws,
where the power of making appropriations rests partly in that House,
they had a right to grant or withhold. This, he said, he had always
held.
Mr. NICHOLAS said, this appeared to him a very unreasonable clamor in
behalf of the Senate. The gentleman last up seemed very careful not to
awaken the jealousy of the Senate. How could he know what part would
awaken that idea of disrespect? He had formed his mind to vote on the
subject, and surely every member might do so, without a fear of showing
disrespect to another branch. The gentleman had said that this House may
refuse to appropriate for a law. Now, suppose the Senate refuse to
repeal without we appropriate, we are then forced to choose one of two
evils. Very often, Mr. N. said, the House were obliged to appropriate
for a law, it may be, so far executed that they could not refuse.
Suppose the PRESIDENT should, after this, appoint officers to enlist men
for the frigates, how could the House refuse to pay them? While a law
existed to man these ships, it would be difficult to prevent it: it
would enable those who were friendly to the measure to carry it into
effect. He hoped, therefore, the House would not run the risk by leaving
it open to such possible intrusion.
Mr. S. SMITH thought this was a very unfair way of doing business, but
he had been used to such things. He thought this form of _tacking_ was
very improper and unfair. It had been observed that we were the most
free and enlightened people, but he thought those who advocated these
measures proved the very contrary.
Mr. SWANWICK said, it appeared to him a kind of Legislative stratagem.
The whole intention of the business could be easily discovered. If there
was nothing improper, why should they fear to trust the Senate with it?
Having the yeas and nays on both bills, gentlemen could not easily
excuse them for voting for the repeal, as it would go out into the
country that many had voted contrary to their arguments. Thus we are
forced to vote against our own opinion, or not have the frigates
finished. He could plainly see that gentlemen meant to defeat the
object, and, he thought, in a very unfair way.
Mr. W. LYMAN spoke much of the impolicy and impropriety of the measures
of those gentlemen who supported naval preparations. Some time back, he
said, those very gentlemen were advising us to cultivate our land, and
not regard commerce--it was a broken reed to depend on; but now, they
want to put the nation to an enormous expense to protect that commerce
they thought so lightly of! The frigates would cost more than double
the money which was at first estimated: this would be a disgrace to any
nation. The whole process of the business had been bad, and he had no
doubt but the estimate now before the House would be found deficient.
Though he thought a small Navy would be useful, yet, until he saw its
process conducted more fairly, and with more discretion, he should not
vote a shilling to it: for the waste of money which had been discovered
in this, had given him a distaste to it.
A remark having fallen from Mr. L., on the constitutionality of this
appropriation--
Mr. W. SMITH said, that, what the gentleman observed, only respected an
Army. The constitution says, an appropriation for the Army shall not be
made for more than two years, but it said not a word about restricting a
Navy; and it is certain that the framers of the constitution had a view
to a Navy, as in three different parts it makes mention of it. [Here Mr.
S. read those parts from the constitution.] The question was not whether
to repeal the law or not, but whether the appropriation bill was to be
_tacked_ to the repeal. When before taken up, a majority voted for two
bills, and they are accordingly reported, and now the two are to be
united. This, said he, is directing the Senate to vote a certain way,
because this House saw it right. This was a kind of coercion which would
oblige them (if they support their independence, which they certainly
will) to reject the repeal. This, he said, was a spirit which every
gentleman in the House felt. He therefore hoped there would be two
bills.
Mr. GALLATIN did not conceive this a question on the constitution; it
was not on the power of the House as to the subject of appropriation,
but merely on connecting the two bills. He conceived it perfectly right
and proper to connect them, because the subject of them was the same. It
was not novel: appropriation and repeal had before been connected.
Indeed, he thought it improper to hold the Senate in any consideration
at all. He should not be guided by any apprehensions of what they would
do. The gentleman last up had said, it was unfair to connect them, as it
would oblige members who opposed one to vote for both. Now, a majority
will always decide, and those in the minority will always be affected.
That gentleman would rather take a question on each; but Mr. G. said he
would rather on both together. But both will not be material, more than
in a certain degree. He further observed that a decision had been come
to to keep the subjects apart. This, Mr. G. said, was only in order to
give leave to the committee to report one or two bills. But that could
not now affect the decision. The House might now do as they pleased. He
looked upon the first act of the law as rather explanatory of the other.
A law passed last year for the equipment of the frigates. The first law
expired as to the manning them. It is therefore only for fear the word
"equipment" should be so construed as to mean "manning," that we wish a
connection of these bills.
He thought it more candid and fair to have both the objects before the
Senate at one time than to separate them. If they think it an attack
upon their privileges they would act consistently therewith.
Mr. WILLIAMS could not see where the difference was, whether the bills
were apart or not. He was sorry any jealousy should be discovered
towards another branch; if the amendment were to go to the Senate they
had power to reject any part. The next Congress would take a view of the
subject, and do what they thought right, as the frigates would not be
fit to be manned till then.
Mr. BUCK again repeated his objections to uniting the bills.
Mr. N. SMITH thought there could be no good reasons for uniting the
bills. There had not yet been any appropriation made, and the money was
nearly expended; he thought the appropriation should be passed
immediately, as he had no doubt but both Houses would ultimately unite
in this object. If, therefore, any money was to be appropriated, let it
be done, and then if the House thought proper to agree to the repeal, it
could be done, as no delay ought to be made.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GALLATIN) said the other day, that
he would not, under any situation, vote the supply until he knew whether
there was any intention to fit them for sea or not. This, Mr. S. thought
the principal point; but except that gentleman, with others, thought the
ships were to remain in the same situation as at present, it certainly
was necessary to agree to the appropriations; this was voted on all
hands, though some could not agree to go all lengths. He did not believe
many could be found in the House who would wish them to remain and rot
on the stocks; but for gentlemen to say they would not agree to grant
the supply except the other part was repealed, he thought wrong. It was
true, they had the power to withhold even appropriations for the
PRESIDENT's salary, Senate, &c., but if such opposition was supported,
Government could not long exist. That House had power over the Senate,
and, _vice versa_, the Senate over that House--each had a right to think
and do as they pleased, but it would be wrong in one to curtail the
privilege of the other by an ill-timed opposition; this was merely to
show a spleen which could not but be to the detriment and delay of
business.
Mr. W. SMITH rose to answer some observations made by Mr. GALLATIN and
Mr. VENABLE, and proceeded to show the impropriety of tacking the bills;
he said it would produce insurmountable difficulties. He never could
agree to this _tortus discordans_ being sent up to the Senate.
Mr. VENABLE answered. The question was then put for tacking the two
bills, and carried, ayes 41, noes 36.
The committee then rose, and the House took up the amendments reported
by the Committee of the Whole. Whereupon, the first amendment reported
by the Committee of the Whole House, for adding a new section, to be the
second section of the said bill, being read, in the words following, to
wit:
"_And be it further enacted_, That the sum of ---- dollars
be, and the same is hereby appropriated for the purpose of
finishing the frigates now building, called the United
States, Constitution, and Constellation; and that the same
be paid out of the surplus of revenue and income, which may
accrue to the end of the year one thousand seven hundred
and ninety-seven, after satisfying the objects for which
appropriations have been heretofore made."
Mr. W. SMITH said, as the question would first be taken on the amendment
and then upon the resolution as amended, a member who wished to vote for
the finishing of the frigates, but not for the repeal, would not have an
opportunity of showing his sentiments by the yeas and nays. In order
that members who thought with him might have an opportunity of showing
their vote, he called for the previous question upon the proposition.
The SPEAKER declaring that this motion was not in order, Mr. W. SMITH
called for the yeas and nays upon the amendment.
Mr. SITGREAVES said, rather than not obtain an appropriation for
finishing the frigates, he should vote in favor of the amendment, though
he was of the same opinion with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
W. SMITH) as to the unfairness of the proceeding.
Mr. DENT was of the same opinion.
Mr. MUHLENBERG said as the amendment stood annexed to the other bill, he
should vote against it; though, if the subject had continued in a
separate bill, he should have voted in favor of it.
The question was then taken on the amendment, and decided in the
affirmative, 59 to 25, as follows:
YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, David Bard,
Thomas Blount, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Thomas
Claiborne, John Clopton, Joshua Coit, Isaac Coles, William
Cooper, Henry Dearborn, George Dent, William Findlay, Jesse
Franklin, Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Albert Gallatin, Ezekiel
Gilbert, James Gillespie, Henry Glenn, Christopher Greenup,
Andrew Gregg, Carter B. Harrison, John Hathorn, Jonathan N.
Havens, James Holland, Andrew Jackson, John Wilkes Kittera,
George Leonard, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, Samuel
Lyman, William Lyman, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel Macon, James
Madison, John Milledge, Andrew Moore, Anthony New, John
Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, John Patton, John
Richards, Robert Rutherford, John S. Sherburne, Samuel
Sitgreaves, Thompson J. Skinner, Jeremiah Smith, Israel
Smith, Isaac Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., Thomas Sprigg,
Zephaniah Swift, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum,
Abraham Venable, John Williams, and Richard Winn.
NAYS.--Theophilus Bradbury, Daniel Buck, Samuel W. Dana,
James Davenport, George Ege, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster,
Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper,
Thomas Hartley, John Heath, William Hindman, Francis
Malbone, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray,
Josiah Parker, John Read, Samuel Sewall, Nathaniel Smith,
Samuel Smith, William Smith, John Swanwick, George
Thatcher, and Peleg Wadsworth.
The bill was then recommitted to a Committee of the Whole, in order to
have the blank for the sum to be appropriated for finishing the vessels
inserted, and was filled with $172,000.
TUESDAY, February 21.
_Negotiation with the Mediterranean Powers._
Mr. W. SMITH moved that the House should go into a committee on the
business, which would require the galleries to be closed; the SPEAKER
accordingly put the question for going into a Committee of the Whole on
the bill to authorize a negotiation with the Mediterranean Powers,
which, being carried, the galleries were cleared accordingly.
After the galleries were cleared, the bill was agreed to with
amendments, and ordered for a third reading to-morrow.
On motion that the House come to the following resolution:
"_Resolved_, That the injunction of secrecy upon the
members of this House, so far as it relates to that part of
the communication made by the President, by his Message of
January 9, which has been printed, be taken off, and that
all future debates and proceedings thereon be had with open
doors."
A motion was made to insert, after the words "be taken off," "together
with the letter of Messrs. Barlow and Donaldson, of April 5, 1796." The
question on the amendment was taken by yeas and nays, and lost--yeas 19,
nays 65.
The main question was then taken by yeas and nays, and resulted--yeas
53, nays 36.
Reports of the Secretary of State, relative to the present
situation of affairs with the Dey and Regency of Algiers,
accompanying the following confidential Message from the
President of the United States, received the 9th of
January, 1797:
_Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of
Representatives_:
Herewith I lay before you, in confidence, reports from the
Departments of State and the Treasury, by which you will
see the present situation of our affairs with the Dey and
Regency of Algiers.