_Clerk to the meeting this year_.
The memorial having been read by the Clerk,
Mr. GALLATIN moved that it be read a second time.
Mr. HARPER hoped not. This was not the first, second, or third time,
that the House had been troubled with similar applications, which had a
tendency to stir up a class of persons to inflict calamities which would
be of greater consequence than any evils which were at present suffered;
and this, and every other Legislature, ought to set their faces against
remonstrances complaining of what it was utterly impossible to alter.
Mr. THATCHER hoped the petition would have a second reading, and be
committed. It appeared to him that this would be the regular way of
getting rid of the difficulty which was apprehended. The gentleman who
had just sat down said, that this was not the first, second, or third
time, that the House had been troubled with similar petitions. This, he
said, was natural. If any number of persons considered themselves
aggrieved, it was not likely they should leave off petitioning, until
the House should act upon their petition. He thought this was what they
ought to do. If the Quakers thought themselves aggrieved, it was their
duty to present their petition, not only three, five, or seven times,
but seventy times, until it was attended to.
Mr. RUTLEDGE should not be opposed to the second reading and reference
of this memorial, if he thought the strong censure they deserved would
be the report of a committee. This censure, he thought, this body of men
ought to have; a set of men who attempt to seduce the servants of
gentlemen travelling to the seat of Government, who were incessantly
importuning Congress to interfere in a business with which the
constitution had said they had no concern. If he was sure this conduct
would be reprobated, he would cheerfully vote for a reference of the
present petition; but not believing this would be the case, he should be
for its laying on the table, or under the table, that they might not
only have done with the business for to-day, but finally. At a time when
some nations were witnesses of the most barbarous and horrid scenes,
these petitioners are endeavoring to incite a class of persons to the
commission of similar enormities. He thought the matter of the greatest
importance, and that the reference ought by no means to be made.
Mr. SWANWICK was sorry to see so much heat produced by the introduction
of this petition. He himself could see no reason why the petition should
not be dealt with in the ordinary way. If the petitioners asked for any
thing which it was not in the power of the House to grant, it would be
of course refused; but this was no reason why their petition should not
be treated with ordinary respect. In this memorial, he said, sundry
things were complained of; not only slavery, but several other
grievances. For instance, play-houses were complained of, whether justly
or not, he was not about to decide. With respect to the grievance
mentioned in North Carolina, something perhaps might be done to remedy
it, without affecting the property which gentlemen seemed so much
alarmed about. He could not suppose there was a disposition in the
House to violate the property of any man; there was certainly as strong
a disposition in the Middle States as in the Southern, to hold
inviolable the right of property; nor could he see any reasonable ground
for throwing this petition under the table. If these people were wrong
in their understanding of this subject, it would be best to appoint a
committee to set them right.
Mr. GALLATIN said it was the practice of the House, whenever a memorial
was presented, to have it read a first and a second time, and then to
commit it, unless it were expressed in such indecent terms as to induce
the House to reject it, or upon a subject upon which petitions had been
lately rejected by a large majority of the House. In no other case were
petitions rejected without examination and without discussion. He said,
without examination and without discussion, because it was impossible,
upon a single reading of a petition, to be able to form a sound judgment
upon it. Indeed, seeing the way in which the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. RUTLEDGE) had treated the subject, no cool examination
could be expected at present; in the moment of passion it would be best
not to decide, but to send the petition to a committee. What was the
objection to this mode of proceeding? It was that the subject would
shake a certain kind of property. How so? A petition that reminds us of
the fate of certain blacks in this country, which did not refer to
slaves, but to free men. This petition was to shake property! In the
same manner it might be said that the law of Pennsylvania for the
gradual abolition of slavery had also a tendency to destroy that
property; or that the Legislative decision of the State of Massachusetts
that there shall be no slaves under their Government, would have that
effect. But it was said the characters of the petitioners was such as
they ought to brand with the mark of disapprobation.
In support of this charge, it was alleged that they were not satisfied
with petitioning, but they attempted to debauch and seduce servants--to
rob gentlemen of their property. He did not know to what the gentleman
who made this assertion alluded; but he believed, if the matter was
fairly stated, whatever may have been done in the State of Pennsylvania,
has been no more than an endeavor to carry into full effect the laws of
the State, which say, that "all men are free when they set their foot
within the State," excepting only the servants of Members of
Congress.[25] As to the moral character of this body of people, though a
number of their principles were different from those which he professed,
he believed it could not be said, with truth, that they were friends to
any kind of disorder; and he was surprised to hear gentlemen suppose
that they could or would do any thing which would throw into disorder
any part of the Union. On the contrary, he believed them to be good
friends of order. Mr. G. said he wished to have avoided a discussion of
the merits of the memorial; but when they were told it was improper to
do any thing on the subject, it became necessary. He knew it was in
their power to do something. They might lay a duty of ten dollars a head
on the importation of slaves; he knew a memorial had been presented at a
former session respecting the kidnapping of negroes, which had been
favorably reported upon. Finally, the present memorial did not apply
only to the blacks, but to other objects. With respect to plays, they
had a motion last session before them for laying a tax upon them, which
had a reference to the subject. By committing this memorial, they should
give no decision. If the committee reported they could do nothing in the
business, and the House agreed to the report, the matter would be closed
in a much more respectful way than by throwing the petition under the
table.
Mr. SEWALL said, the gentleman last up had stated two cases in which
petitions had been received without a commitment. He might have added a
third, more applicable to the present memorial. This was when a petition
was upon matter over which this House had no cognizance, especially if
it were of such a nature as to excite disagreeable sensations in one
part of the House, who were concerned in property which was already held
under circumstances sufficiently disagreeable. In such cases, they ought
at once to reject the memorial, as it would be misspending time to
commit it. If, for instance, a petition should be presented, complaining
that a person had refused to discharge an obligation to another, it
would be at once acknowledged that the House could not enforce the
obligation; but application must be made to a court of justice. So in
this case; the petitioners complain of a law of North Carolina. This
House, he said, could not change that law. If any thing was done there
contrary to right, the courts of that State, as well as those of the
United States, were open to afford redress. It was their business, and
not the business of that House. They did not come there to act upon
subjects agreeable to their feelings, but upon such as the constitution
had placed in their hands.
Mr. MACON said, there was not a gentleman in North Carolina who did not
wish there were no blacks in the country. It was a misfortune--he
considered it as a curse; but there was no way of getting rid of them.
Instead of peace-makers, he looked upon the Quakers as war-makers, as
they were continually endeavoring in the Southern States to stir up
insurrections amongst the negroes.[26] It was unconstitutional, he said,
in these men to desire the House to do what they had no power to do; as
well might they ask the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to come and take
the SPEAKER'S chair. There was a law in North Carolina, he said, which
forbade any person from holding either a black or white person as a
slave after he had been set at liberty. The one hundred and thirty-four
negroes alluded to in the petition, he knew nothing of. In the war, he
said, the Quakers in their State were generally Tories. They began to
set free their negroes, when the State passed a law that they should not
set them free. If these people were dissatisfied with the law, they had
nothing to do but transport their negroes into Pennsylvania, where, the
gentleman from that State had told them, they would be immediately free.
This subject had already been before the House, but they declined doing
any thing in it. It was extraordinary that these people should come,
session after session, with their petitions on this subject. They had
put play-houses into their memorial; but they had nothing to do with
them. In this State, he believed, the Legislature had passed a law
authorizing them. It was altogether a matter of State policy. The whole
petition was, indeed, unnecessary. The only object seemed to be to sow
dissension. A petition could not come there touching any subject on
which they had power to act, which he should not be in favor of
committing; but this thing being wrong in itself, it was needless to
commit it, as no single purpose could be answered by it.
Mr. ISAAC PARKER was of opinion with the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
(Mr. GALLATIN,) with respect to the disposal of petitions. But it
appeared to him that the subject matter of all petitions should be
within the view and authority of the House; if not, to refer them would
certainly be a waste of time. He had attended to the petition, and he
did not think there was a single object upon which it was in their power
to act. Nothing was prayed for. The petitioners speak of the slave
trade, and, in general terms, of the immorality of the times, as
injurious to the state of society; and wish some means may be taken to
prevent the growth of them. To refer a petition of this sort, therefore,
to a committee would answer no purpose. He did not think they were more
obliged to take up the business than if they had read the address in a
newspaper.
Mr. BAYARD said it might be inferred, from the anxiety and warmth of
gentlemen, that the question before them was, whether slavery should or
should not be abolished. The present was, however, very remote from such
a question, as it was merely whether a memorial should be read a second
time. The contents of this memorial, he said, were right or wrong,
reasonable or unreasonable; if right, it was proper it should go to a
committee; and if wrong, if so clearly absurd as it had been
represented, where would be the evil of a reference for a report
thereon? He did not like things to be decided in the moment of passion,
but from the fullest consideration. In some countries they knew persons
accused of crimes were condemned without a hearing; but there could be
but one sentiment as to the injustice of such a proceeding. There could
be no objection, therefore, upon general principles, to the reference of
this petition. But it was said it was not to be sent, because of the
general habits of this society. He believed there was no body of men
more respectable; they were obedient, and contributed cheerfully to the
support of Government; and, either politically or civilly speaking, as
few crimes could be imputed to that body as to any other.
This memorial, he said, had been treated as coming from an Abolition
Society--it was a memorial of the General Meeting of the people called
Quakers; and if only out of respect to that body, it ought to be
referred. But it was said it did not contain matter upon which the House
could act. Gentlemen seemed not to have attended to the subject-matter
of the petition. He did not believe that the House had the power to
manumit slaves, but he believed there was not a word in the petition
which had a reference to slavery. The petitioners state, indeed, that a
number of negroes, not slaves, for negroes may be free, had been taken
again into slavery, after they had been freed by their masters. He
wished to know whether the House had not jurisdiction over this matter?
He was warranted by the constitution in saying they had, because that
instrument says that no State shall make _ex post facto_ laws. It
belonged to that House, therefore, to see that the constitution was
respected, as it could not be expected from the justice of the
individual States, that they would repeal such laws. It rested,
therefore, with the Government of the United States to do it. Mr. B.
read the clause of the constitution touching this matter, and concluded
by reminding the House that this was not an ultimate decision, but
merely a reference.
Mr. JOSIAH PARKER said he was always inclined to lend a favorable ear to
petitioners of every kind, but when a memorial was presented to the
House contrary to the nature of the government, he should consent to its
lying on the table or under it. No one, he said, could say they had a
right to legislate respecting the proceedings of any individual State;
they, therefore, had no power to decide on the conduct of the citizens
of North Carolina in the matter complained of. Petitions had frequently
come from Quakers and others on the subject; whereas this Government had
nothing to do with negro slavery, except that they might lay a tax upon
the importation of slaves. He recollected, when the subject was brought
before the House in the first Congress held at New York, wishing to put
a stop to the slave trade as much as possible, being a friend of
liberty, he took every step in his power, and brought forward a
proposition for laying a tax of ten dollars upon every slave imported.
It was not agreed to; but there was only one State (Georgia) in which
the importation of slaves was admitted. Since the establishment of this
Government, Mr. P. said, the situation of slaves was much ameliorated,
and any interference now might have the effect to make their masters
more severe. He knew of no part of the constitution which gave them
power over horse-racing and cock-fighting, nor could they interfere with
respect to play-houses; and where they had no right to legislate, they
had no right to speak at all. As the session had begun harmoniously, he
hoped that harmony would not be broken in upon by such applications as
the present. Mr. P. produced a precedent from the journals of 1792,
where a memorial of Warner Mifflin, a Quaker, after being read, was
ordered to lie on the table, and two days afterwards returned to the
memorialist.
Mr. NICHOLAS felt as much as other gentlemen from the Southern States on
the subject of the present petition, but his feelings did not produce
the same effect. He was not afraid of an interference from the United
States with their property, nor of any investigations or discussions
respecting it. He believed it would be to the honor of people holding
property in slaves, that the business should be looked into. He thought
such an inquiry would rather secure than injure their property. He did
not think it was the interest of slaveholders to cover improper
practices. He was satisfied, that in the part of the country where he
lived, there was no disposition to protect injuries--no disposition to
reject an inquiry, or to refuse to understand a complaint. They had been
told that the state of the negroes, whose cases were mentioned in the
memorial, might be produced by the fugitive law; they had before heard
that this law had operated mischievously. It ought, therefore, to be
inquired into. On inquiry, Mr. N. said, it would not be found the fault
of the Southern States that slavery was tolerated, but their misfortune;
but to liberate their slaves at once, would be to act like madmen; it
would be to injure all parts of the United States as well as those who
possess slaves. It was their duty, however, to remedy evils; they were
unfortunately placed in a situation which obliged them to hold slaves,
but they did not wish to extend the mischief. He should, indeed, be
sorry if his possessing property of this kind, obliged him to cover the
violation of another man's right; if this were the case, he should think
it necessary that his property should be taken from him. He did not
think it necessary, and he doubted not, if a fair investigation took
place, that this kind of property would be brought into the situation in
which every man of sense would place it. He was firmly of an opinion,
that to appear to be afraid of an inquiry would do more harm to this
property than a fair investigation. He trusted, therefore, the petition
would be committed.
Mr. BLOUNT hoped this memorial would not be committed. As this was not
the first time the society of Quakers had come forward with petitions to
the House, seemingly with no other view than to fix an odium on the
State of North Carolina, he thought it his duty positively to contradict
a fact stated in this memorial. It was stated that 134 persons, set free
from slavery in North Carolina, had been since enslaved by cruel
retrospective, or _ex post facto_ laws; they alleged that certain
members of their society had done what no person was permitted to do.
Mr. B. read part of a law of North Carolina, stating "that no negro or
mulatto slave shall be set free, except for meritorious services,
acknowledged by a license of the court; and when any person shall be set
free contrary to this law, he may be seized and sold as a slave," &c. He
also read a clause from another law, passed afterwards, stating that
several persons having set at liberty their slaves contrary to law, and
persons having taken up and sold them, are doubtful of the validity of
the sale, and that this law is passed to do away all doubts of such
validity. Mr. B. said these extracts proved the assertion untrue.
Mr. GORDON lamented that this discussion had taken place, as it was
certain that wherever interest is concerned, some degree of warmth will
be produced; and when a petition was brought forward which might affect
the property of many gentlemen in this House, and their constituents, it
could not be expected they would hear it with the same calmness with
persons wholly unconcerned about it. All that had been advanced in favor
of the second reading of the petition was, the respectability of the
persons presenting it, the opinion that would be entertained of the
petitioners, if their petition was not referred, and the merits of the
petition itself.
With respect to the persons of the petitioners, he felt inclined to do
them every justice; but he did not think this any reason for acting upon
their memorial, unless some good consequence could arise from it, any
more than if they were the vilest persons on earth. As to the opinion
that might be entertained out of doors, as the petition was not
examined, he was not afraid that the citizens of the United States would
believe that the House could be so far lost to its duty as not to look
into a question of this kind, but that it would be conceived, if
rejected, that they had nothing to do with it. The other reason, the
only material one, was to the merits of the petition. The gentleman from
Delaware, (Mr. BAYARD,) who had examined the business with much coolness
and ability, had stated that a certain _ex post facto_ law of North
Carolina had occasioned grievances. Admitting there was such a law, what
could the House do? Could they declare a law of North Carolina null and
void? There would be no utility in this; but if there was a law in North
Carolina that violated the constitution, there was a clear remedy in the
law which organizes the Judical department of the United States, in
which it is said, if any law of an individual State interferes with a
law of the United States, a person has a right to take advantage of the
law of the United States. There was no necessity, therefore, to call
upon Congress for a remedy against this law. Indeed, he saw nothing in
this memorial which called for their interference, and he was therefore
against a reference, as a further discussion of it would only produce
uneasiness in certain parts of the United States, without producing any
good.
Mr. RUTLEDGE observed, that notwithstanding all that had been said,
considering the present extraordinary state of the West India Islands
and of Europe, he should insist that "sufficient for the day is the evil
thereof," and that they ought to shut their doors against any thing
which had a tendency to produce the like confusion in this country. If
this were not done, the confidence of a great part of the Union in the
General Government would be weakened. In the Southern States, where most
of their property consisted of slaves, and where the rest was of no
value without them, there was already a prejudice existing that the
Northern and Eastern States were inimical to this kind of property,
though they were bound by the constitution from an interference with it;
but when they heard of the House giving countenance to a petition like
the present, it would increase their uneasiness. He referred to what had
fallen from the gentleman from Delaware respecting _ex post facto_ law,
and thought a court of justice the proper tribunal to settle that
business. Mr. R. said he was indisposed, notwithstanding the high
panegyrics which had been passed upon the body of Quakers, to withdraw
the censures he had cast upon them. The gentleman from New York had
doubted the charges which he had produced, and said such things could
never be attempted by the body. It was true, they did not come in a body
into his lodging to seduce his servant, but individuals did it. But why,
he asked, do these men come here in a body? Because they believe that
their presence will give more weight to their petition; so that they
appeared in bodies, or as individuals, to answer their purposes.
Gentlemen had charged the opposers of the petition with heat; he thought
there was as much heat on one side as the other.
Mr. EDMOND did not believe there was any real ground of irritation in
the question; as no gentleman could suppose they were about to do any
thing which was either unconstitutional, or which would affect their
property. Whether the persons who presented the memorial are virtuous or
vicious, was of no consequence, since justice was due to both classes of
men. They had brought a petition before them, and they ought to consider
it. It was addressed to their honesty or justice; if the facts were
claims upon their honesty or justice they should be attended to; and not
only attended to, but, if possible, relief granted. It was stated that
there were a number of persons held in bondage who were justly entitled
to liberty.
This fact called for examination; and a question arose, if it were
established, whether that House could afford redress. A gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. BLOUNT) had stated that the fact was not true; it
was certainly, therefore, worth while to be inquired into. Another
gentleman had said, if the fact were as stated, they had no power to
act; and a third was of opinion that, by the constitution, redress might
be afforded. This diversity of opinion showed the necessity of an
investigation of the subject, in order to determine the jurisdiction of
the House. He wished it for another reason. It had been stated, that if
this petition were attended to, it would open a door to faction and
mischief. Can it have this effect? These people bring forward a petition
stating a number of facts; they certainly do not come forward for the
mere design of exciting disorder in any quarter. If the House say they
will throw their petition under the table, would not such treatment give
the factious some ground of clamor by which to sow dissension? But if,
on the contrary, they coolly looked into the petition, and reported
thereon, would it not stop the mouths of these people? It certainly
would; since they could not then say common justice was refused to the
petitioners. Again; having once investigated the subject fully, if
petitions of a similar kind should hereafter come forward, it would be
reasonably said, this matter has already been taken up and fully decided
upon; and, therefore, we will not again go into it. Until this was done,
the factious would doubtless have cause of complaint.
Mr. BLOUNT said, several gentlemen who had spoken on this subject seemed
to express themselves as if they believed there was no punishment for
individuals reducing to slavery persons who had been manumitted. He read
an extract from a law, passed in 1779, in North Carolina, by which the
punishment of death is awarded against such an offence.
Mr. MACON read the proceedings of the House on the petition respecting
the kidnapping of negroes, in order to show that the gentleman from New
York (Mr. LIVINGSTON) had misstated the issue of the business. The last
report on the subject was that it would be best to leave the regulation
of the subject to the Legislatures of the several States. Mr. M. allowed
that his reflections upon the whole body of Quakers were too general,
and he had no hesitation in retracting them; but he believed a number of
them were guilty of the charges brought against them by the gentleman
from South Carolina.
Mr. THATCHER said, if, when the motion was first made, he had been
against it, from what had fallen from gentlemen on the subject, he
should now be in favor of it; for, notwithstanding they opposed the
second reading of the petition, they were filing off in squads to read
it, and ready to fight for a sight of it. He believed, therefore, they
had some reasons for opposing the second reading, which did not appear.
He referred to what had been said by the gentleman from North Carolina,
as to the fact stated in the petition, and said that, notwithstanding
the laws which he had read, the fact might be true; but that this very
doubt about the fact was an additional reason for going into the
inquiry.
Gentlemen had said, however good and virtuous the petitioners might be,
it ought to have no effect upon the petition; if this were true, he
hoped when they were represented as the worst of men, that
representation was not meant to influence their decision on the
question. Mr. T. could not conceive for what purpose they were carried
to Europe, to witness the scenes which had taken place there for the
last ten years. Was this, he asked, the state of society? If he thought
so, if it had the faintest resemblance of what was taking place there,
he would fly from it to the uttermost parts of the earth, and there make
his habitation. Mr. T. wished an inquiry to take place; there was a part
of the United States in which slavery was tolerated--some of the members
from those parts thought it not right; there were other parts of the
Union which disclaimed it. These two opposing principles were like two
opposite powers in mechanism, which produced rest; but, the more
frequently the subject was looked into, the more mitigated would be its
effects.
The question was taken for the second reading of the petition, and
carried--53 votes being in the affirmative.
Mr. GALLATIN moved that it be referred to a select committee.
Mr. COIT wished it to be referred to the Committee of the Whole, to whom
was referred the petition on the subject of kidnapping negroes, &c.
Mr. RUTLEDGE thought a select committee would be best, as stage-plays,
cock-fighting, horse-racing, and other evils, would, of course, be
considered.
The question for reference to a select committee was put and carried--59
members being in the affirmative.
Five members being agreed upon to form the committee, the SPEAKER named
Messrs. SITGREAVES, NICHOLAS, DANA, SCHUREMAN, and S. SMITH, for the
purpose.
The House adjourned.
FRIDAY, December 1.
A new member, to wit: JOSEPH HEISTER, returned to serve in this House as
a member for the State of Pennsylvania, in the room of George Ege, who
has resigned his seat, appeared, produced his credentials, and took his
seat in the House.
Several other members, to wit: from Pennsylvania, ANDREW GREGG; from
Kentucky, THOMAS T. DAVIS; and from North Carolina, NATHAN BRYAN, and
DEMPSEY BURGES, appeared and took their seats in the House.
The Clerk then informed the House that he had heard from a member of the
Senate that the SPEAKER was indisposed; so much so that he was not able
to communicate his indisposition to the House in writing.
Mr. DENT said, this being the case, he should move that the orders for
this day be further postponed till Monday; which motion being agreed to,
the Clerk, on motion, adjourned the House till Monday morning, at 11
o'clock.
MONDAY, December 4.
THOMAS SUMTER, from South Carolina, appeared, and took his seat.
_Publication of Debates._
Mr. DWIGHT FOSTER presented the petition of Thomas Carpenter, stating
that he was the editor of the _American Senator_, published during the
session of Congress ending in March last; that, at the commencement of
that session, he presented a memorial to the House, praying its support
of his work; that the House had declined supporting it as a body, but
receiving individual assurances of support from many of the members, he
had been induced to engage in the work; but the event had proved
unfavorable to him. He hoped now, therefore, that he should be
recompensed, by the House engaging to take three copies for each member
of the work he proposed to publish this session, (provided he met with
the support he prayed for,) which, computing the session at eighteen
weeks, he supposed would not amount to more than $2,250.
Mr. D. FOSTER moved that this petition be referred to a select
committee.
Mr. COIT objected to a reference. The House, he said, had so often
determined to have nothing to do with the publication of the debates,
that he thought it time to have done with the subject. He hoped,
therefore, the petition might lie upon the table.
Mr. FOSTER and Mr. THATCHER spoke in favor of the committal; and the
motion was put and carried, and a committee of three members appointed
to report thereon.
THURSDAY, December 7.
_Amy Dardin._
Mr. T. CLAIBORNE said, that during the last Winter, a report had been
made by the Committee of Claims, on the petition of Amy Dardin,
unfavorable to the petitioner, which, after full discussion, had been
disagreed to by the House; and on the 24th of February a motion for
appointing a committee to bring in a bill for her relief was made and
committed to a Committee of the Whole, but for want of time had not been
acted upon. He now wished to bring the matter before the House, and for
that purpose moved that a committee be appointed to bring in a bill for
the relief of Amy Dardin.
This motion met with opposition. It will, perhaps, be recollected that
this, though a strong claim, in point of justice, is directly in the
face of the Limitation Act. Messrs. MACON, SITGREAVES, and HARPER,
wished the matter to go again to the Committee of Claims, as many
members now in the House were unacquainted with the merits of the claim;
and the latter gentleman, because he thought the House had been
surprised into a decision, contrary to fifty other determinations on
similar questions, which ought now to be reversed.
Mr. CLAIBORNE opposed this course, and trusted the House would again be
influenced by the justice of the claim, to act as they had heretofore
done, by passing a bill for the relief of the petitioner.
Mr. GALLATIN thought it would be best to commit the business to the same
Committee of the Whole to which they had yesterday referred a report of
the Committee of Claims on the subject of excepting a certain
description of claims from the operation of that act.
The business was, however, closed by Mr. CLAIBORNE'S withdrawing his
motion for the present.
MONDAY, December 11.
Two other members, to wit: JAMES GILLESPIE and JOSEPH MCDOWELL, from the
State of North Carolina, appeared and took their seats.
TUESDAY, December 12.
_Acts of Limitation._
Mr. GALLATIN called for the order of the day on the report of the
Committee of Claims, to whom it was referred to inquire into and report
on the expediency or inexpediency of designating certain claims against
the United States to be excepted from the operation of the acts of
limitation; which being agreed to, the House accordingly resolved itself
into a Committee of the Whole on the subject, Mr. DENT in the chair. The
report was read, as follows:
The Committee of Claims who were "instructed to inquire
into, and report on, the expediency or inexpediency of
designating certain claims against the United States, to be
excepted from the operation of the acts of limitation,"
report:
That, in obedience to the orders of the House, they have
made all the inquiries which to them appear necessary; that
they have attentively and deliberately considered the
subject referred to them; and are of opinion that it would
not be expedient to designate any species of claims against
the United States which are now affected by the acts of
limitation, to be excepted from the operation of those
acts.
In considering this subject, a review of the situation of
the United States, as respected their finances, during the
period when most of the demands originated, was requisite.
It was also necessary to ascertain what measures had been
adopted by Congress, both under the old and under the
present government, to bring all the demands against the
States to a liquidation and settlement.
It will be recollected, that, at the commencement of the
war, the United States were destitute of money; and during
a long period of years afterwards, were obliged to rely
principally on credit, for carrying on all their important
operations.
Having, at that time, no settled National Government, a
regular system for conducting public business, especially
money transactions, depending on credit, was not to be
expected.
Great numbers of individuals were necessarily invested with
the power of binding the public by their contracts. Almost
every officer of the Army, whether in the Commissary's
Department or otherwise, in different stages of the war,
had it in his power to contract debts legally or equitably
binding upon the United States. We find Congress, at
various times, during the war, endeavoring to make
arrangements which should prevent an undue use of the
powers vested in individuals, and the dangerous
consequences to which the Government was thereby
necessarily exposed. The acts of the 5th of March, 1779,
and of the 23d of August, 1780, were calculated to limit
the public responsibility in such cases. After the peace,
and under the old Government, periods were prescribed,
within which claims of certain descriptions, and finally
all unliquidated claims, were to be exhibited for
settlement, or to be for ever thereafter barred.
It must be acknowledged by all, that during those periods
every provision which could rationally have been expected
was made for the accommodation of individuals having claims
against the public, to enable them to obtain proper
settlements of their demands. The journals of Congress
under the confederation will abundantly justify this
remark.
Commissioners were appointed, with special or general
powers, to settle the claims of individuals in all the
departments; and, in every instance, the powers given were
plenary and explicit. Sufficient time was given for every
one to obtain information and pursue his remedy; and ample
opportunity was given for all to substantiate their claims,
or, at least, to present abstracts of them, which would
have prevented their being foreclosed by the acts designed
eventually to operate upon them. The cases cannot be
numerous, in which the want of opportunity to bring forward
claims can be justly pleaded as an excuse for the omission.
By the act of the 17th of March, 1785, all persons having
unliquidated claims against the United States were
required, within twelve months, to exhibit particular
abstracts of such claims, to some of the Commissioners in
the State in which they respectively resided, who were sent
and empowered to settle accounts against the United States,
under the penalty or condition that accounts not so
presented, should be thereafter settled only at the
Treasury.
By another act of Congress, of the same year, viz: November
2d, 1785, all persons having claims for services performed
in the military department, were directed to exhibit the
same for liquidation to the Commissioners of Army accounts,
on or before the first day of August, then ensuing. By that
act it was expressly resolved, that all claims, under the
description above mentioned, which might be exhibited after
that period, should be for ever thereafter precluded from
adjustment and allowance.
And it was provided, by the act of July 23d, 1787, that all
persons having unliquidated claims against the United
States, pertaining to the late Commissaries',
Quartermaster's, Hospital, Clothier's, or Marine
department, should exhibit particular abstracts of such
claims to the proper Commissioner appointed to settle the
accounts of those departments, within eight months from the
date of the said act; and all persons having other
unliquidated claims against the United States, were to
exhibit particular abstracts thereof to the Comptroller of
the Treasury of the United States, within one year from the
date thereof; and all accounts not exhibited as aforesaid,
were to be precluded from settlement or allowance.
These regulations were adopted by Congress under the old
Government. Great care was taken to have them extensively
published, so that every individual who was interested
might be informed of their existence and operation.
Under the present constitution there has not been wanting a
disposition to relieve certain individuals whose claims
were considered as peculiarly meritorious, which had been
affected by the acts above recorded.
With this view, in March, 1792, two several acts of
Congress were passed, suspending for two years the
operation of the resolutions of Congress of November 2d,
1785, and July 27th, 1787, so far as they had barred or
might be construed to bar the claims of the widow or
orphans of any officer of the late army, to the seven
years' half pay of such officer; or the claims of any
officer, soldier, artificer, sailor, and marine, of the
Army of the United States, for personal services rendered
to the United States in the military or naval departments.
In consequence of these suspensions, many claims were
exhibited, and allowed against the Government. There is
reason to apprehend, in some instances, the public were
defrauded for want of proper pre-existing checks and
evidences of payments being made. This suspension continued
for the term of two years, which was till March, 1794. In
the mean time, viz: on the 12th of February, 1793, the act
"relative to claims against the United States, not barred
by any act of limitation, and which had not been already
adjusted," was passed by Congress, after a serious and
attentive consideration of the subject.
By that law it was provided, "that all claims upon the
United States for services or supplies, or for other cause,
matter, or thing, furnished or done, previous to the 4th
day of March, 1789, whether founded upon certificates,
written documents from public officers, or otherwise, which
had not already been barred by any act of limitation, and
which should not be presented at the Treasury before the
first day of May, 1794, should for ever after be barred and
precluded from settlement or allowance." But this was not
to be construed as affecting Loan Office certificates,
certificates of final settlements, indents of interest,
balances entered on the books of the Register of the
Treasury, registered certificates, foreign loans, or
certificates issued under the act making provision for the
public debt of the United States.
One other act, passed the 3d day of March, 1795, provided
that Loan Office certificates, final settlements, and
indents of interest, then outstanding, should be presented
at the office of the Auditor of the Treasury, on or before
the first day of January, in the present year, 1797, or be
for ever after barred or precluded from settlement or
allowance.
The summary contains a general view of the principal acts
of limitation, by which claims against the public have been
affected.
From an attentive consideration of them, and of the
circumstances under which they were enacted, the committee
are fully impressed with an opinion that it would not be
expedient to suspend their operation.
Some remarks extracted from a report heretofore made to
Congress, are subjoined by the committee, as pertinent to
the subject.
It was essential to the public administration that the
extent of just demands upon the Government should be,
within a reasonable period, definitely ascertained. It was
essential to public safety and to right, in relation to the
whole community, that all unsettled claims should be made
known within a time when there were yet means of proper
investigation, and after which the public responsibility
should terminate, and the possibility of charging the
Government by collusive and fictitious contracts, should be
at an end.
The justice as well as policy of acts of limitation, under
such circumstances, cannot be doubted.[27]
The situation of no country ever presented a more clear
necessity for, or a more competent justification of,
precautions of that nature. And all the reasons for
adopting them operate to recommend unusual caution in
departing from them, with the additional force of this
circumstance, that the subsequent lapse of time has
increased the difficulties of a due examination.
The accounts of a considerable number of officers, who had
it in their power to bind the public by their contracts,
and who were intrusted with large sums of money for
fulfilling their engagements, remain unsettled. Some of
those persons are dead; others have absconded; the business
has been conducted by others with so little order as to
put it out of their power to render a proper statement of
their transactions. The books and papers of others, who had
extensive trusts, have been destroyed, so as to preclude
the possibility of settlement. Hence it must appear that
the Government would, in a great number of cases, be
destitute of the means of repelling unfounded and even
satisfied claims, for want of documents and vouchers, which
only could have resulted from a due settlement with those
officers, and from the possession of their books and
papers.
It might be inferred without proof, and it has appeared in
the course of business at the Treasury, that it was a
practice with certain public officers, on obtaining
supplies, to give receipts and certificates for them, and
when they made payments, either partially or totally, to
take distinct receipts from the parties, without either
endorsing the payment upon the original vouchers or
requiring a surrender of them.
Hence it would often happen that parties could produce
satisfactory vouchers of their having performed services
and furnished supplies, for which, though satisfaction may
have been made, the evidences of it would not be in the
possession of the Government. And hence, from relaxations
of the limitation acts, there would be great danger that
much more injustice would be done to the United States than
justice to individuals.
The principles of self-defence, therefore, require and
justify an adherence to those acts generally; and there are
not any particular species of claims, which, in view of the
committee, ought to be exempted from their operation.
Those which have been most frequently referred to by some
members of the House, are such claims as include the
arrearages of pay and other emoluments to officers and
soldiers of the late army, &c.
Pursuant to an order of the House at the first session of
the present Congress, a report was made to them, having
special reference to this subject. It was considered in
Committee of the Whole, and agreed to by the House on the
fifth day of February, 1796. To that report and the
documents accompanying the same, the committee ask leave to
refer the House, and respectfully submit the whole subject
to their consideration.
WEDNESDAY, December 13.
JOHN WILKES KITTERA, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and took his seat in
the House.
FRIDAY, December 15.
A new member, to wit, PELEG SPRAGUE, from New Hampshire, in place of
Jeremiah Smith, resigned, appeared, produced his credentials, was
qualified, and took his seat.
THURSDAY, December 24.
_Amy Dardin._
Mr. T. CLAIBORNE moved that the report of the Committee of Claims, on
the petition of Amy Dardin, be referred to a Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER said, that the report having been negatived at a former
session, and a bill brought in for her relief, but not decided upon, the
proper motion would be to appoint a committee to bring in a bill.
Mr. CLAIBORNE made that motion, which Mr. COIT moved to be referred to
the Committee of Claims, in order that they might report the facts
relative to the case, which were not generally known.