Pay of four regiments and artillery corps, $256,450
Subsistence, 236,900
Clothing, 75,000
Bounties, 16,000
Hospital Department, 25,000
Ordnance 40,000
-----------
649,350
Amount brought forward, $649,350
Two instructors, 1,450
Quartermaster's Department, 150,000
Defensive protection, 60,000
Indian Department, 90,000
Contingencies of War Department, 15,000
Repairing fortifications, 20,000
Military Pensions, 93,350
Naval Department, 190,000
Balance due on Algerine business, 376,505
----------
Internal expenses of 1797, $2,255,255
The expenses of the Quartermaster's Department would in future be
considerably lessened; for, said Mr. S., heretofore great expense had
been incurred by land carriage, which in future would be avoided, as the
forage would all be conveyed by water. Indeed it had not been an unusual
thing for the horses employed in conveying forage from one post to
another, to eat the whole of it in their journey to and from their
destination, and some horses had been known to die from want on the
road. The conveyance being now by water, a great destruction of horses
would be prevented, and he doubted not that one hundred thousand dollars
would be saved under this head.
FRIDAY, February 24.
_Amy Dardin._
The House proceeded to consider the report of the Committee of Claims,
of the sixth ultimo, to whom was referred the petition of Amy Dardin,
which lay on the table; whereupon, the said report was read at the
Clerk's table, in the words following, to wit:
"That the most important, and all the material facts
respecting this claim, are stated in the former report of
the committee appointed to consider the said petition. To
that report the committee now ask leave to refer. Whatever
justice there might originally have been in this claim
against the United States, it is now, and for many years
past has been, as clearly within the statutes of
limitation, as a multitude of others, which have been
rejected. The committee regret that no relief can, with
propriety, be granted to the petitioner, upon her
application. So many evils would result from a suspension
of the limitation act, for the admission of claims similar
to the one under consideration, the committee cannot
recommend that measure to be adopted. They are of opinion
the prayer of the petition ought not to be granted."
The question was taken that the House do agree to the said report, and
passed in the negative--34 to 27; when Mr. GALLATIN moved that a
committee be appointed to bring in a bill in favor of the petitioner.
This motion occasioned some debate.
Mr. GALLATIN said, he rejoiced in the vote which had passed in respect
to the report before them, as it was a precedent against the act of
limitation. When a claim was clear, it was a denial of justice not to
pay the debt. He did not think it was more justifiable in a Government
to refuse to pay its debts, than it was in individuals to do so. Though
an act of limitation had been passed, they ought only to consider it, in
a modified sense, as a guard against fraud; but, in cases where they
were convinced a debt was justly due, he did not see upon good
principles they could refuse to pay it. He was sure there was not a
member on that floor that would do so in his individual capacity. Nor
did he believe they needed to be operated on by the fear of a number of
these claims being brought: he believed their number was small. But,
said he, shall we fear that we shall be called upon to pay a few more
just debts? He trusted so unworthy an apprehension would not prevent
them from doing what was right. The act of limitation was produced, he
said, by an incapacity to pay the claims which were made upon
Government, and now they took advantage of that capacity, by refusing to
pay the just demands which were made upon them. The certificates which
had been given, not worth more than one-eighth of their nominal value,
had been scattered all over the United States, and the distance from the
seat of Government had been the reason application had not been made for
payment. He spoke from his own knowledge. He had some of them put into
his hands. Some of them he was fortunate enough to get paid before the
act of limitation passed; others were yet unsettled. It was only since
the erection of this Government, which had given them the ability to
pay, that these claims were brought forward; for six or seven years
every kind of claim was mustered, and the public debt was considerably
swelled by them, but now a contrary extreme was observed, and no claim,
however just, had a chance of being satisfied. He had never troubled the
House on a subject of this kind before, but he had taken advantage of
the fortunate decision of this morning to say a few words on the
subject.
Messrs. HEATH, MACON, WILLIAMS, and D. FOSTER, were against a committee
being appointed to bring in a bill; they hoped no partial regulation
would take place, but that if any exception was made, from the operation
of the act of limitation, it would be done in a general way, as there
was a great number of claims equally well entitled, with Mrs. Dardin's,
to payment. Indeed, Mr. D. FOSTER, Chairman of the Committee of Claims,
(who was not present when the question was taken upon the report,) said,
if this claim was granted, it would bring forward a thousand others.
The report, petition, and papers, were committed to the whole House on
Monday.
SATURDAY, February 25.
_Suability of States._
On motion of Mr. HARPER, the House then resolved itself into a Committee
of the Whole, on the report of the select committee on the resolution
sent from the Senate, authorizing the PRESIDENT to make inquiry of
certain States whether they had adopted the proposed amendment to the
constitution with respect to the suability of States.
The select committee did not confine themselves to this single
amendment, as reported from the Senate, but went back to the year 1789,
when twelve amendments were proposed by Congress; for though they state
eleven States out of fourteen had ratified ten of these amendments in
the year 1791, yet they were of opinion that a doubt might arise whether
eleven States ought to be considered as the three-fourths of fourteen;
they therefore wished the PRESIDENT to be requested to make inquiry also
from the non-ratifying States on the subject of these ten amendments.
Mr. NICHOLAS said, the resolution of itself was only exceptionable as it
had connection with the statement which went before it, in which it was
made a question whether the ten last amendments of the twelve proposed
by Congress to the States in March, 1789, were ever made part of the
constitution. He did not wish a doubt to be expressed on this subject.
This doubt, in the opinion of the committee, it seemed, rested on a
supposition that eleven were not three-fourths of fourteen. He could not
conceive how any doubt could arise on this subject, since it must be
acknowledged by every one that eleven was more than three-fourths of
fourteen. If the objection arose from fourteen not being divisible in
equal fourth parts, it was an objection to the constitution as
originally made. It was formed by thirteen States, which was no more
divisible into fourths than fourteen. On this ground, an amendment could
never have been made to the constitution. He hoped the Chairman of the
committee would give them some information on the subject.
Mr. HARPER said, it was not of much importance whether the committee had
doubts, or whether those doubts were well founded. The committee stated
they had these doubts. He had them; not whether eleven was three-fourths
of fourteen, according to arithmetical calculation--every school boy
knew, that, in that view, eleven was more than three-fourths of
fourteen; but it was, whether you could make a division of States. He
believed it could not be done; he believed there must be twelve
ratifying States to be three-fourths, as intended by the constitution,
because that number would be three-fourths of sixteen, which was the
nearest number to fourteen capable of four equal divisions. Whether this
doubt was well founded or not, there could be no harm in directing the
inquiry to be made; it would be made as soon for thirteen amendments as
for one, and if any other State should have ratified the ten amendments
in question, all doubt would be removed. Mr. H. noticed an error or two
which had escaped the committee in their report.
Mr. GALLATIN said, the resolution under consideration went to direct the
PRESIDENT to apply to all those States, by whom, as far as can be known
from the official documents heretofore transmitted, all or any of the
amendments at any time proposed by Congress still remained to be
ratified. There could be no occasion to make the inquiry with respect to
all these amendments, unless it were taken for granted that none of them
had yet been ratified. He was, therefore, of opinion, with the gentleman
from Virginia, that such an application would be very improper, as
bringing the ten last amendments into doubt, which he believed to be as
much a part of the constitution as any other article in it; he also
thought them a very valuable part, and not to be trifled with.
But, upon what ground, said Mr. G., do the advocates of this report
prove that 11 is not three-fourths of 14? The idea was so novel that he
could scarcely understand what principle they adopted in order to create
a doubt on their minds on this subject. To him the position that 11 was
more than three-fourths of fourteen appeared to be one of those
self-evident axioms which hardly admit of a proof. The principle on
which the doubt arose must be so very nice, so abstract, that he did not
know whether he was capable of comprehending it. Anxious as he was to
avoid saying any thing which might be construed as misstatement, he
would, however, attempt to analyze what he conceived to be the ground of
the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. HARPER.)
It appeared to him that that gentleman thought three-fourths in itself
was not a fraction of the unit, was not a number conveying to the mind
the simple idea of a fraction; but that it was a compound of fractions,
and that the only way by which the idea of three-fourths could be
conceived was by a decomposition. Because the idea of three-fourths was
by our numerical arithmetic expressed by the two figures 3/4, that
gentleman was unable to conceive what it meant except by decomposition,
by dividing the unit into four equal parts and multiplying the result by
3. And if that idea of three-fourths had happened to be expressed by the
fraction nine-twelfths, (which was the same thing as three-fourths,)
that gentleman could not have conceived it except by dividing in the
first place the unit into twelve parts and then multiplying the result
by nine. In fact he denied the existence of any number, part of a unit,
except as it consisted of an aggregate of such parts as the unit could
exactly be divided into.
Thus, when speaking of fourteen States, although he (Mr. GALLATIN) could
at once understand that three-fourths of fourteen was ten-and-a-half,
and, therefore, (admitting, as he did together with that gentleman, that
the vote of a State was indivisible) that eleven States were more than
three-fourths of fourteen, the gentleman from South Carolina proceeded
in a different way. The fourth part of fourteen being three-and-a-half,
he says that, as a State cannot be divided, you must take four States
instead of three-and-a-half for the fourth part of fourteen, and then
multiplying these four States by three, in order to get the
three-fourths, he concludes that twelve States are three-quarters of
fourteen--that the twelve States out of fourteen are necessary to ratify
the amendments. He believed the gentleman would allow that he had not
misstated his opinion.
Let us now see, said Mr. G., how this doctrine will operate. It would go
to prove, in some instances, that three-fourths of a number is greater
than the whole. Suppose, for instance, the case of five States.
One-fourth of five is 1-1/4; but as the vote of a State cannot be
divided, you must call it two; or, as the gentleman expressed it, five
not being divisible into four equal parts, you must take the nearest
number to five capable of such division, that is to say 8, the fourth
part of which is two; two, therefore, must be considered as the fourth
part of five States, and as three multiplied by two is six, it follows,
according to that gentleman's doctrine, that the three-fourths of five
is six! Suppose that, in the constitution, instead of the expression
three-fourths, it had been said that nine-twelfths were necessary. The
number of States when the constitution was framed was thirteen. In that
case one-twelfth of thirteen being one and one-twelfth, you must, the
vote of a State being indivisible, call it two; so that in that way of
reckoning, nine-twelfths (which is the same thing as three-fourths) of
13 is 18! Consequently, the consent of eighteen States would have been
necessary in order to ratify any amendment to the constitution of a
nation consisting only of 13 States.
Let us, said he, examine a little farther. The same part of the
constitution which provides for amendments of the constitution, says,
that an amendment shall be proposed by two-thirds of both Houses of
Congress; but he supposed the vote of a man was no more divisible than
that of a State. He wished to know, therefore, how the gentleman would,
on his principle, calculate what were two-thirds of the members present
when their whole number was not divisible by three?
In making treaties he wished to know what was meant by two-thirds of the
members of the Senate present? If the number present happened not to be
divisible by three, would that gentleman say, that, in that case, the
next number above the number present must be taken, which would be
divisible by three, and that if two-thirds of that number did not concur
in the vote for the treaty, no treaty should be ratified? On that
principle, in some instances, a greater proportion of the Senate would
be necessary to ratify a treaty than had been usually understood,
according to the generally received opinion of the sense of the
constitution in this respect.
Upon the whole, he believed it would be best to reject the report, as,
besides the objections alluded to, it was confessedly inaccurate in some
of its parts, and adopt the resolution sent from the Senate, which
applied only to the amendment respecting the suability of States. If the
House meant to go any further, they might introduce the first and second
amendments proposed at the same time with the other ten, but which had
not yet been ratified.
Mr. HARPER said, he would add a word or two to what he had already
offered on this subject. He did not know whether the House thought with
him on this subject, that it was a doubtful point whether the ten
amendments in question had been ratified according to the sense of the
constitution. If they did, they would of course, vote for the report.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, he acknowledged, had not only shown his
knowledge in arithmetic, but also his wit, which had not until now been
brought before them. In the enjoyment of the last he had participated in
common with the House.
Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) was in favor of rejecting the resolution
reported by the select committee, as it embraced too many objects, and
held out a kind of invitation for States to come forward and propose
amendments to the constitution. He trusted the first of the amendments,
proposed in 1789, relative to the proportion of representation, never
would be agreed to, as it would have extremely mischievous effects.
Indeed, if any thing were done with respect to that amendment, he should
think it ought to be to request those States which have not adopted it,
not to do it, and those who have agreed to it, to revoke their vote in
favor of it.
The question was then taken on the resolution reported, and negatived,
without division.
The resolution was as follows:
"_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
requested to apply, as speedily as may be, to all those
States, by which, as far as can be known from the official
documents heretofore transmitted, all or any of the
amendments, at any time proposed by Congress, still remains
to be ratified; and to obtain from them authentic
information of the proceedings had by them, respectively,
on the subject of those amendments, or any of them."
The question was then taken on the resolution of the Senate, and agreed
to. It was as follows:
"_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That
the President be requested to adopt some speedy and
effectual means of obtaining information from the States of
Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia,
Kentucky, Tennessee, and South Carolina, whether they have
ratified the amendment proposed by Congress to the
constitution, concerning the suability of States: If they
have, to obtain the proper evidences thereof."
_Accommodation of the President._
On motion of Mr. GALLATIN, the House resolved itself into a Committee of
the Whole on the bill to accommodate the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES;
when
Mr. HENDERSON said, he wished for information on this subject, as he had
not sufficient to convince him of the propriety of granting 14,000
dollars, in addition to the furniture now in possession of the
PRESIDENT; he therefore moved to strike out the 14,000, for the purpose
of inserting 5,000. The bill informed them that this sum, in addition to
what might arise from the sale of such of the present furniture as may
be decayed, out of repair, or unfit for use, was to be laid out in
furnishing the household for the PRESIDENT. It was very lately that they
had received a proposition from the Senate to advance the salary of the
PRESIDENT 5,000 dollars; the bill was rejected by that House. It
appeared to him that this bill went to effect the same thing in a
different way. If the object was merely to furnish the household of the
PRESIDENT, he thought a much less sum would be adequate to that purpose.
He thought 5,000, with the proceeds of the sale of such of the present
furniture as was unfit for service, might be sufficient. He had no doubt
that the sum would make the furniture of the PRESIDENT for four years to
come equal to what it had been for four years past.
Mr. NICHOLAS wished the gentleman would leave the sum blank, instead of
inserting 5,000.
Mr. HENDERSON consented.
The question was taken, and negatived--42 to 39.