MONDAY, February 19.
_Amy Dardin._
Upon motion of Mr. T. CLAIBORNE, the following resolution was agreed
to--45 to 40:
"_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to bring in a
bill for the relief of Amy Dardin."
[This claim has been long before Congress, and been several times the
subject of discussion. It is for the value of the famous horse Romulus,
the property of the husband of the petitioner, pressed into the service
of the United States during the war. The case of the widow is evidently
a hard one, and this is the second time a vote has been obtained in her
favor, which has afterwards been reversed.]
The committee rose, reported their agreement to the three resolutions,
and had leave to sit again. The House took up the two first, agreed to
them, and directed the Committee of Claims to bring in a bill or bills
accordingly. When the third resolution came to be considered, the yeas
and nays were called for, and its adoption was strongly opposed by
Messrs. HARPER, NICHOLAS, and BAYARD, on the ground of its throwing open
a door to every claim which had heretofore been determined as barred, as
cutting up by the root all the acts of limitation; that it was also
setting aside these laws in the most objectionable way, by inviting
every person, who had an unsatisfied claim, to petition Congress for
relief, which would of course engage much of their time. If the acts
were to be set aside, it would be much better and less expensive
therefore to authorize the proper department to settle these claims,
than that the time of the House should be engaged in investigating and
settling them.
On the other hand, its adoption was advocated by Messrs. GALLATIN and T.
CLAIBORNE. This was stated as a hard case; that this determination would
not open the acts of limitation to any but such as Congress might deem
extremely hard cases; that it would give the Treasury no power whatever
to settle any claim: the power, therefore, could not be abused, except
they themselves abused it; that whatever policy there might be in acts
of limitation, they were certainly liable to strong objections; they
knew they were honorably indebted a sum of money, but they determine not
to pay it, merely because the paying it might render the accounts at
the Treasury less simple, or because they would be liable to pay more
than is convenient. This policy might be justifiable, but it bore very
hard upon individual sufferers. It was argued, therefore, that without
opening the acts generally, when a strong, unequivocal claim was
presented, which was in the hands of the original holder, and where, of
course, there could be no possibility of fraud, relief might and ought
to be granted.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS was an enemy to acts of limitation, as he thought a debt
once due must always be due until paid; but he would either have them
opened generally, or not at all.
The yeas and nays upon agreeing to this proposition for setting aside
the act of limitation in this case were taken, and decided, yeas 35,
nays 55, as follows:
YEAS.--David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas
Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne, Matthew Clay,
John Clopton, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, George Dent,
Lucas Elmendorph, John Fowler, Albert Gallatin, James
Gillespie, William Barry Grove, Carter B. Harrison, David
Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke,
Matthew Lyon, James Machir, Blair McClenachan, Joseph
McDowell, John Milledge, Anthony New, John Rutledge, jr.,
William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., Thomas Sumter, Abraham
Trigg, John Trigg, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and
Robert Williams.
NAYS.--John Allen, George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, James
A. Bayard, Thomas Blount, David Brooks, Nathan Bryan,
Stephen Bullock, Dempsey Burges, Christopher G. Champlin,
John Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, William Craik,
Samuel W. Dana, Thomas Evans, William Findlay, Abiel
Foster, Dwight Foster, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich,
William Gordon, Andrew Gregg, Roger Griswold, John A.
Hanna, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, Jonathan N.
Havens, Wm. Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay,
John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, Nathaniel Macon, Wm.
Matthews, Daniel Morgan, Lewis R. Morris, John Nicholas,
Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, John Read, James Schureman,
Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Samuel Sitgreaves,
Nathaniel Smith, Samuel Smith, Peleg Sprague, Richard
Stanford, George Thatcher, Mark Thompson, Thomas
Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John
Williams.
Mr. HARPER then proposed the following resolution, which was agreed to:
_Resolved_, That the prayer of the petition of Amy Dardin
ought not to be granted.
TUESDAY, February 20.
_Case of Griswold and Lyon._
Mr. VENABLE, from the Committee of Privileges, laid the following report
upon the table, together with the evidence relative thereto:
The Committee of Privileges, to whom was referred a
resolution in the following words: "_Resolved_, That Roger
Griswold and Matthew Lyon, members of this House, for
violent and disorderly behavior committed in the House, be
expelled therefrom," with instructions to report the
evidence in writing, have, according to the orders of the
House, proceeded to take the evidence, which they herewith
report; and they report further, that it is their opinion
that the said resolution ought to be disagreed to.
THURSDAY, February 22.
The usual time of calling the House to order being arrived, the Clerk
desired members to take their seats; which being done,
Mr. KITTERA said, the SPEAKER had desired him to inform the House that
he was so much indisposed as to be unable to attend the House to-day.
Mr. K. suggested the propriety, therefore, of adjourning the orders of
to-day till to-morrow.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS did not see a necessity for this. He thought the House
might informally go into a Committee of the Whole on the report of the
Committee of Privileges. He had seen this course taken in other
Legislative bodies, and as it would be the means of saving a day, he
hoped this mode would now be adopted.
Mr. THATCHER hoped gentlemen would not consent to go on with business in
an informal manner, since it was evident they were sufficiently informal
with all their forms.
Mr. HARRISON inquired if there was any probability that the SPEAKER
would be able to attend the House to-morrow. If not, he should be for
choosing a temporary Speaker.
Mr. KITTERA said, the indisposition of the SPEAKER was occasioned by a
severe headache, to which he was subject; that it generally continued
for six or eight hours, and afterwards he was perfectly well.
The question for postponement of the orders of the day till to-morrow
was then put by the Clerk, and carried; and then the House adjourned
till to-morrow.
FRIDAY, February 23.
The bill providing for the widows and orphans of certain deceased
officers, was read the third time, and passed.
_Revenue Statements._
A communication was laid before the House by the SPEAKER, from the
Secretary of the Treasury, enclosing sundry documents prepared by the
late Commissioner of the Revenue, in consequence of a resolution of the
House of the 6th of January, 1798, requiring to be laid before the House
every session, within ten days after its meeting, a statement of the net
produce of the internal revenues, the salaries of the Collectors, &c.,
for the year preceding. The Secretary apologizes for not having made the
communication sooner. It was ordered to be printed.
_Case of Griswold and Lyon._
The House proceeded to consider the report of the Committee of
Privileges, of the twentieth instant; and the same being again read in
the words following, to wit:
The Committee of Privileges, to whom was referred a
resolution in the following words, to wit: "_Resolved_,
That Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon, members of this
House, for riotous and disorderly behavior, committed in
the House, be expelled therefrom," with instructions to
report the evidence in writing, have, according to the
order of the House, proceeded to take the evidence, which
they herewith report; and they report further, that it is
their opinion that the said resolution be disagreed to.
Mr. DAVIS said he hoped the House would disagree to the report of their
Committee of Privileges; after this was done, the resolution could be
altered in such a manner as gentlemen might think proper.
Mr. DENT called for the yeas and nays. Agreed to be taken.
Mr. SITGREAVES said there were many considerations which should incline
the House to come to a decision upon the present business without
entering into any unnecessary discussion; and there were others which
should lead them to avoid coming to an immediate decision. He should,
therefore, move that the further consideration of this subject be
postponed until the 4th of March, 1799.
Mr. NICHOLAS called for the yeas and nays upon this question; which
being agreed to, were taken, and stood--yeas 38, nays 53.
The motion for postponement being lost, the question on agreeing to the
report of the committee recurred.
Mr. BAYARD believed it would not be in order to call for a division of
the question. The resolution implicated two persons, which he thought
improper. If the report of the committee was, however, disagreed to, he
supposed it would then be in order to move for a division of the
question. He should, therefore, vote against the report, as he wished
the cases to be separately considered, as they stood on distinct ground,
and were not attended with the same circumstances; and, reasoning from
analogy, he knew of no instance in a court of justice, where two persons
had ever been included in the same charge when their crimes were
different. If the situation of both these gentlemen had been the same,
there might have been propriety in coupling them together; but as this
was not the case, he was opposed to taking an opinion upon both
together.
Mr. MCDOWELL thought it would be proper to take the same course in this
business as was taken in a former case. He moved, therefore, that the
report be read a second time, for the purpose of committing it to a
committee of the whole House.
Mr. GORDON was opposed to this mode of proceeding. Every one knew the
question, and were as well prepared to decide upon it now, as they would
be after going into a committee upon it.
Mr. GILES thought it would comport more with the dignity of the House to
decide this business without going into a Committee of the Whole, as he
believed every one had made up his mind upon it. If gentlemen intended
by the course heretofore taken to raise the dignity of the House, he
thought they had deceived themselves; for he believed the House was
never in a less dignified attitude than during that discussion.
Mr. MCDOWELL thought the mode he had pointed out necessary, for the sake
of uniformity; but, as other gentlemen seemed to think it unnecessary,
he would withdraw his motion.
Mr. R. WILLIAMS wished to know whether it would be in order to amend the
report of the Committee of Privileges, or to suggest the propriety of
disagreeing to it, for the purpose of substituting a different
punishment from that proposed, viz: that the offending members should be
reprimanded by the Speaker in the presence of the House? He believed
that a punishment of this kind would satisfy many gentlemen who did not
wish to expel the members, but who, at the same time, did not wish they
should go unpunished.
The SPEAKER said that motion would be in order after the report of the
committee was decided upon.
Mr. GALLATIN remarked, that if the report was agreed to, the resolution
for an expulsion would of course be negatived, and then any other
proposition would be in order; and, on the other hand, if the report was
disagreed to, the resolution would be before them, and open to
amendment. Mr. G. said he rose to make an observation upon what fell
from the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. BAYARD.) That gentleman had said
he would vote against the report, because he wished to distinguish
between the two members. The reason which he gave, though he might have
good reasons for his vote, did not appear to him to be correct. That
gentleman seemed to suppose that the facts for which the two members
were to be expelled, were facts committed at different times, and of a
different nature; whereas the facts for which both were proposed to be
expelled, were offences of the same nature, and committed on the same
day. What related to the previous conduct of the member from Vermont,
was not now under consideration. In order to have that conduct before
them, it would be necessary that a reconsideration of it should be moved
by a member who voted against that member's expulsion, and seconded by
another member who voted on the same side of the question. The argument
of the gentleman from Delaware, therefore, did not apply. He said he
should himself vote in favor of the report of the Committee of
Privileges. He was against expelling either of the gentlemen.
Mr. DANA agreed with the gentleman last up, in his conclusions; but he
did not seem rightly to have understood the argument of the gentleman
from Delaware. If the gentleman from Pennsylvania was acquainted with
legal principles, with established principles relative to punishment, he
must know that no persons can be charged jointly with an offence, except
jointly guilty, and except they had mutually agreed to commit the
offence. The resolution, in its present form, therefore, offended
against established maxims of propriety.
Mr. BAYARD said, the statement of the gentleman from Pennsylvania was
not correct. He had stated that the offences of the two members were the
same in circumstances, and committed at the same time. He apprehended
the two cases were very distinct; as, by the depositions before the
House, it appeared that the offence of the member from Connecticut was
committed _before_ the House was called to order, and that the offence
of the member from Vermont was committed _after_ the House was called to
order. The argument most depended upon in a former case, against the
expulsion of the member from Vermont, was that which insisted that the
act of violence complained of being committed when the House was not in
session, was not a cause of expulsion. If this argument had weight at
that time, it ought also to have weight in the present case. It would,
therefore, be the height of injustice to blend the two cases together;
since there might be cause for expelling one member and not the other.
The SPEAKER observed that every thing which had been said with respect
to a division of the question was out of order, as it could not be
divided. He would also remark, in order to shorten the debate, that the
House was not called to order when the stroke was made by the member
from Vermont upon the member from Connecticut without the bar of the
House.
Mr. HARPER asked, if the report of the committee should not be agreed
to, whether the resolution might not then be agreed to?
The SPEAKER replied, it could not be divided; but a separate resolution
might be brought forward.
The question on agreeing to the report of the committee, which
recommended a disagreement to the resolution for an expulsion of the two
members was then taken, and stood--yeas 73, nays 21.
The resolution for an expulsion having been disagreed to,
Mr. R. WILLIAMS proposed a resolution in the following words:
"_Resolved_, That Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon, for
riotous and disorderly behavior in this House, are highly
censurable, and that they be reprimanded by the Speaker in
the presence of this House."
Mr. HARPER moved the previous question upon this resolution. He did it,
he said, upon this ground. The House had just decided, and they had
lately decided in another instance, that disorderly conduct shall not be
punished by expulsion; and it was his opinion that no less punishment
than expulsion ought to be inflicted, as he was unwilling to diminish
the reprehensive power of the House, by inflicting what he thought
inadequate punishment for offences of this nature. If there were any
gentlemen who thought this conduct excusable, and that it ought not to
be punished, they would, of course, vote in favor of the previous
question; and those who thought with him, that both ought to be
expelled, would also vote in favor of it.
Mr. NICHOLAS called for the yeas and nays upon this question. Agreed to
be taken.
Mr. GALLATIN said, by the gentleman from South Carolina having moved the
previous question, he had excluded any discussion upon the merits of the
main question. Mr. G. wished some reasons might be given why the main
question ought not to be put. Those given by the gentleman from South
Carolina were applicable to the resolution itself: they were reasons why
he should vote against the resolution, but they did not strike him as
reasons why the question should not at all be taken.
The previous question was then put in this form: "Shall the main
question (viz: the resolution for reprimanding the offending members)
now be put?" And the yeas and nays were taken, and stood--yeas 47, nays
48, as follows:
YEAS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas
Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Samuel
J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole
Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Thomas T. Davis,
John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, William Findlay, John
Fowler, Nathaniel Freeman, jun., Albert Gallatin, William
B. Giles, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna,
Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister,
David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew
Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell,
John Milledge, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Thompson J.
Skinner, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Sprigg,
Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg,
Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.
NAYS.--John Allen, George Baer, jun., Bailey Bartlett,
James A. Bayard, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher
G. Champlin, John Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit,
William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, George Dent, Thos. Evans,
Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn,
Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, William Barry Grove,
Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman,
Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera,
Samuel Lyman, James Machir, William Matthews, Lewis R.
Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, John Read, John
Rutledge, jun., Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas
Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Peleg
Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thomson,
Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and
John Williams.
MONDAY, March 5.
_Diplomatic Intercourse._
[After a protracted discussion the question was taken on Mr. Nicholson's
amendment, to wit, to limit the ministers of the highest grade to the
two Courts of London and Paris, and it was negatived--52 to 48.]
A motion was then made for the committee to rise and ask leave to sit
again, which was negatived.
The bill was proceeded with.
Mr. S. Smith moved, to strike out certain words, and to insert others to
this effect:
"That the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES shall not allow to
any Minister Plenipotentiary to France, Great Britain, or
Spain, more than $9,000 per annum, nor to any other
Minister Plenipotentiary more than $6,000."
This amendment was negatived, there being only 48 votes in its favor.
The blanks in the bill were next to be filled; the first, which was the
permanent allowance, was filled with $40,000; the next, which was an
extraordinary appropriation for this year, with $28,650. Before the
latter sum was agreed upon,
Mr. LIVINGSTON inquired whether the sum of between two and three
thousand dollars, which he thought had been lavished away, said to be
expended on persons taking leave from this country, was included in the
incidental expenses which were contained under this head? He thought
such an expenditure of money forbidden by the constitution.
Mr. HARPER believed the incidental expenses mentioned in the estimate
were expenses of our Ministers abroad.
Mr. NICHOLAS understood that three Secretaries were allowed the mission
at present in France. He thought this was as novel as it was
unnecessary; as he believed one Secretary was sufficient for the whole.
The United States had employed a number of missions at different times,
but never allowed more than one Secretary to each. He had thought the
law would not have warranted the practice; but on examining it, he
supposed it did.
Mr. HARPER said every Minister employed was entitled to a Secretary; the
PRESIDENT had accordingly appointed one to each, and he could not see
upon what ground the House could object to appropriating for their
salaries.
Mr. NICHOLAS answered, that as the law admitted of it, he should not
object to the appropriation but he should move an amendment to prevent
more than one secretary to a mission in future.
The committee then rose and reported the bill with the amendments; which
being taken up in the House and agreed to, Mr. NICHOLAS renewed his
amendment to limit the salaries of Ministers Plenipotentiary to London,
Paris, and Madrid, to nine thousand dollars a year, and all others to
four thousand five hundred dollars, and called the yeas and nays upon
it, which were taken and resulted, yeas 48, nays 52.
Mr. S. SMITH then renewed his motion for limiting the salaries of
Ministers to London, Paris, and Madrid, to nine thousand dollars, and
others to six thousand dollars, and called the yeas and nays upon it,
which were taken, and were exactly the same as upon the former question.
Mr. NICHOLAS then made his motion to confine future missions to one
Secretary, which was negatived--50 to 45.
The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading
to-morrow.
MONDAY, March 19.
_Relations with France._
The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:
_Gentlemen of the Senate_, _and Gentlemen of the House of
Representatives_:
The despatches from the Envoys Extraordinary of the United
States to the French Republic, which were mentioned in my
Message to both Houses of Congress, of the fifth instant,
have been examined and maturely considered.
While I feel a satisfaction in informing you that their
exertions for the adjustment of the differences between the
two nations have been sincere and unremitted, it is
incumbent on me to declare that I perceive no ground of
expectation that the objects of their mission can be
accomplished on terms compatible with the safety, honor, or
the essential interests of the nation.
This result cannot, with justice, be attributed to any want
of moderation on the part of this Government, or to any
indisposition to forego secondary interests for the
preservation of peace. Knowing it to be my duty, and
believing it to be your wish, as well as that of the great
body of the people, to avoid, by all reasonable
concessions, any participation in the contentions of
Europe, the powers vested in our Envoys were commensurate
with a liberal and pacific policy, and that high confidence
which might justly be reposed in the patriotism, abilities,
and integrity, of the characters to whom the negotiation
was committed. After a careful review of the whole subject,
with the aid of all the information I have received, I can
discern nothing which could have ensured or contributed to
success that has been omitted on my part; and nothing
further which can be attempted, consistently with maxims
for which our country has contended, at every hazard, and
which constitute the basis of our national sovereignty.
Under these circumstances, I cannot forbear to reiterate
the recommendations which have been formerly made, and to
exhort you to adopt with promptitude, decision, and
unanimity, such measures as the ample resources of the
country afford, for the protection of our commercial and
seafaring citizens; for the defence of any exposed portions
of our territory; for replenishing our arsenals,
establishing foundries and military manufactures; and to
provide such efficient revenue as will be necessary to
defray extraordinary expenses, and supply the deficiencies
which may be occasioned by depredations on our commerce.
The present state of things is so essentially different
from that in which instructions were given to collectors to
restrain vessels of the United States from sailing in an
armed condition, that the principle on which those orders
were issued has ceased to exist. I therefore deem it proper
to inform Congress that I no longer conceive myself
justifiable in continuing them, unless in particular cases,
where there may be reasonable ground of suspicion that such
vessels are intended to be employed contrary to law.
In all your proceedings it will be important to manifest a
zeal, vigor, and concert, in defence of the national
rights, proportioned to the danger with which they are
threatened.