SEDITION.

A bill was received from the Senate in addition to the act for the

punishment of certain crimes against the United States, which was read

the first time.

[This bill provides, that if any persons shall unlawfully combine or

conspire together, with intent to oppose any measures of the Government

of the United States, or to impede the operation of any law, or to

intimidate or prevent any person holding an office under the Government

from exercising his trust. And if any person shall, by writing,

printing, or speaking, threaten such officer with any damage to his

character, person, or estate, or shall counsel, advise, or attempt to

procure any insurrection, riot, &c., whether such attempt shall have the

desired effect, or not, he shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor,

and punished by a fine, on conviction, not exceeding $5,000, and by

imprisonment not less than six months, nor exceeding five years. And if

any person shall, by any libellous or scandalous writing, printing,

publishing, or speaking, traduce or defame the Legislature of the United

States, by seditious or inflammatory declarations or expressions, with

intent to create a belief in the citizens thereof, that the said

Legislature in enacting any law, was induced thereto by motives hostile

to the constitution, or liberties and happiness of the people thereof;

or shall in manner aforesaid, traduce or defame the PRESIDENT OF THE

UNITED STATES, or any Court, or Judge thereof, by declarations tending

to criminate their motives in any official transaction, the persons so

offending, being convicted shall be punished by a fine not exceeding

$2,000 and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.]

Mr. OTIS moved that it be read a second time.

Mr. HARRISON called for the reading of the amendments to the

constitution.

The SPEAKER said, the only motion in order, if objections were made to

the second reading of the bill, would be to reject the bill.

Mr. LIVINGSTON made that motion.

Mr. ALLEN.--I hope this bill will not be rejected. If ever there was a

nation which required a law of this kind, it is this. Let gentlemen look

at certain papers printed in this city and elsewhere, and ask themselves

whether an unwarrantable and dangerous combination does not exist to

overturn and ruin the Government by publishing the most shameless

falsehoods against the Representatives of the people of all

denominations, that they are hostile to free Governments and genuine

liberty, and of course to the welfare of this country; that they ought,

therefore, to be displaced, and that the people ought to raise an

_insurrection_ against the Government.

In the _Aurora_, of the 28th of June last, we see this paragraph: "It is

a curious fact, America is making war with France for _not_ treating, at

the very moment the Minister for Foreign Affairs fixed upon the very day

for opening a negotiation with Mr. GERRY. What think you of this,

Americans!"

Such paragraphs need but little comment. The public agents are charged

with crimes, for which, if true, they ought to be hung. The intention

here is to persuade the people that peace with France is in our power;

nay, that she is sincerely desirous of it, on proper terms, but that we

reject her offers, and proceed to plunge our country into a destructive

war.

This combination against our peace is extensive; it embraces characters

whose stations demand a different course. Is this House free from it?

Recollect what a few days ago fell from the very gentleman (Mr.

LIVINGSTON) who now so boldly and violently calls on us to reject this

bill at the instant of its coming before us, without suffering it to be

read a second time. The gentleman proposed a resolution requesting the

PRESIDENT to instruct Mr. Gerry to conclude a treaty with the French

Government; and declared that "he believed a negotiation might be

opened, and that it was probable a treaty might be concluded which it

would be honorable to the United States to accept. He did not wish to

frustrate so happy an event by any punctilio, because they had refused

to treat with three Envoys, but were willing to treat with one." This is

in the very spirit of the malicious paragraph I just now read. It is

pursuing the same systematic course of operations. The gentleman also

said, (what has not been published, however,) that "the commission of

the Envoys being joint and several, Mr. Gerry had unquestionably ample

powers to treat alone." Here are circumstances of what I call _a

combination against the Government_, in attempts to persuade the people

of certain facts, which a majority of this House, at least, and of the

people at large, I believe, know to be unfounded. Who can say that Mr.

Gerry has power to treat alone, or that the French Government is willing

to treat with him on fair and honorable terms? Gentlemen do not believe

either, let them say what they will. Does such a commission empower one

to exercise the functions of the whole in opposition to the opinions of

his colleagues? It would produce the most inextricable confusion. The

severalty of the powers is well known always to be a provision against

such accidents as may prevent or disable a part of the Commissioners

from acting. I mention these things to show what false ideas gentlemen

endeavor to impress the public mind with on this subject.

The gentleman (Mr. LIVINGSTON) makes his proclamation of war on the

Government in the House on Monday, and this infamous printer (Bache)

follows it up with the tocsin of insurrection on Tuesday. While this

bill was under consideration in the Senate, an attempt is made to render

it odious among the people. "Is there any alternative," says this

printer, "between an abandonment of the constitution and resistance?" He

declares what is unconstitutional, and then invites the people to

"resistance." This is an awful, horrible example of "the liberty of

opinion and freedom of the press." Can gentlemen hear these things and

lie quietly on their pillows? Are we to see all these acts practised

against the repose of our country, and remain passive? Are we bound hand

and foot that we must be witnesses of these deadly thrusts at our

liberty? Are we to be the unresisting spectators of these exertions to

destroy all that we hold dear? Are these approaches to revolution and

Jacobinic domination, to be observed with the eye of meek submission?

No, sir, they are indeed terrible; they are calculated to freeze the

very blood in our veins. Such liberty of the press and of opinion is

calculated to destroy all confidence between man and man; it leads to a

dissolution of every bond of union; it cuts asunder every ligament that

unites man to his family, man to his neighbor, man to society, and to

Government. God deliver us from such liberty, the liberty of vomiting on

the public floods of falsehood and hatred to every thing sacred, human,

and divine! If any gentleman doubts the effects of such a liberty, let

me direct his attention across the water; it has there made slaves of

thirty millions of men.

At the commencement of the Revolution in France those loud and

enthusiastic advocates for liberty and equality took special care to

occupy and command all the presses in the nation; they well knew the

powerful influence to be obtained on the public mind by that engine; its

operations are on the poor, the ignorant, the passionate, and the

vicious; over all these classes of men the freedom of the press shed its

baneful effects, and they all became the tools of faction and ambition,

and the virtuous, the pacific, and the rich, were their victims. The

Jacobins of our country, too, sir, are determined to preserve in their

hands the same weapon; it is our business to wrest it from them. Hence

this motion so suddenly made, and so violently supported by the mover,

to reject this bill without even suffering it to have a second reading;

hence this alarm for the safety of "the freedom of speech and of the

press."

Mr. HARPER said, if, in voting against the rejection of this bill, his

vote should be considered as giving his assent to all its provisions, it

would be misunderstood. He thought it right and necessary to make a law

on the subject; but not exactly such a law as the present, his

particular objections to which he should make known when the subject was

fully before him. He should vote against a rejection of the bill,

because to vote for it, would be to declare that no law ought to be

passed to restrict seditious writing and speaking, which was not his

opinion.

He had often heard in this place, and elsewhere, harangues on the

liberty of the press, as if it were to swallow up all other liberties;

as if all law and reason, and every right, human and divine, was to fall

prostrate before the liberty of the press; whereas, the true meaning of

it is no more than that a man shall be at liberty to print what he

pleases, provided he does not offend against the laws, and not that no

law shall be passed to regulate this liberty of the press. He admitted

that a law which should say a man shall not slander his neighbor would

be unnecessary; but it is perfectly within the constitution to say, that

a man shall not do this, or the other, which shall be injurious to the

well-being of society; in the same way that Congress had a right to make

laws to restrain the personal liberty of man, when that liberty is

abused by acts of violence on his neighbor.

Mr. H. knew the liberty of the press had been carried to a very

considerable extent in this country. He had frequently seen private

character vilely calumniated; he had himself come in for a share of

abuse, but he had always despised the base calumniators, believing that

a man's propriety of conduct would always be sufficient to shield him

against these slanders. When he saw the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

and the Government of the Union defamed, he still despised them, and he

believed also that the people were not affected by them, because he saw

they did not rise in insurrection against the Government; and if they

had not believed that all the things which were said respecting the

Government were vile falsehoods, he should have thought the people the

most wretched fools, had they not risen against it.

Mr. NICHOLAS was sorry this motion had been made, because it prevents

members from going into the modification of the bill, which he was

convinced would completely exemplify the folly of the principle; but

until gentlemen saw what form the bill was finally to take, it was

impossible to speak with precision on its merits; because if the

declarations of the gentlemen from Connecticut and South Carolina were

attended to, it would be found they are most afraid of the speeches and

letters of gentlemen in this House. They acknowledge, however, they

cannot prevent members from speaking what they please here. What, then,

is their aim? Do they mean to prevent the publication of their

sentiments to their constituents and to the world? If this was not their

intention, he could not tell what it was.

There was one general view of this subject, which Mr. N. took to be the

most momentous that this country ever saw. He was ready to go with

gentlemen into measures for affording a liberal support to the war,

which it appears must be gone into; but he was not ready to create a

_domestic tyranny_. The people of this country are competent judges of

their own interests, and he was desirous that the press should remain

perfectly free to give them every information relative to them; and to

restrict it, would be to create a suspicion that there is something in

our measures which ought to be kept from the light. It was striking at

the root of free republican Government, to restrict the use of speaking

and writing. He wished, however, to see the bill put into such a shape

as the friends of it themselves might approve.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said, after receiving the chastisement of the gentleman

from Connecticut on one cheek, he, like a good Christian, had turned

the other to the gentleman from South Carolina, and received the stripes

of both. He expressed his acknowledgments to these gentlemen, however,

if not for their chastisement, for the insight which they had given the

House into this bill. They have said, its design is not only to restrict

the liberty of the press, which is secured by the constitution, but the

liberty of speech on this floor. The gentleman from South Carolina did

not say explicitly that he wished this; but he said he was regardless of

what was said in the public papers, either of private or personal

slander, or of a slander on the Government, until he heard a certain

speech delivered in this House; and though he said he did not intend to

restrict the liberty of speech in this House, he must have had something

of the kind in view. [Mr. HARPER said it was not his intention to

restrict the freedom of speech on that floor, but the consequences of it

out of doors.] Then, said Mr. L., he will either restrict the members

from speaking, or, in some way, prevent the people from knowing what has

been said. How is this to be done? By shackling newspapers, and

preventing that free communication of sentiment which has heretofore

been expressed on public topics.

The gentleman from Connecticut had been pleased to read a quotation from

some observations which he had made on a former occasion, which that

gentleman thought highly blamable. Mr. L. said, what he had read he

avowed to be his sentiments. He avowed them with pride, and he trusted

he should always avow them with pride. Nor could he see how acts made

contrary to the constitution could be binding upon the people; unless

gentlemen say Congress may act in contravention to the constitution.

[Mr. OTIS asked who were to be the judges?] Mr. L. answered, the people

of the United States. We, said he, are their servants, when we exceed

our powers, we become their _tyrants_!

This is one object of complaint; the other is against newspaper

publications. The gentleman from South Carolina has said, that provided

the law is clear and well defined, and the trial by jury is preserved,

he knew of no law which could infringe the liberty of the press. If this

be true, Congress might restrict all printing at once. We have, said he,

nothing to do but to make the law precise, and then we may forbid a

newspaper to be printed, and make it death for any man to attempt it!

If this be the extent to which this bill goes, it is not only an

abridgment of the liberty of the press, which the constitution has said

shall not be abridged; but it is a total annihilation of the press. Were

he then to withdraw his motion, he should consider himself guilty of

treason; by his consent, so unconstitutional a measure should not

progress an inch. However unsuccessful he might be, he would oppose it

in every stage.

Mr. OTIS supposed the opposition to this bill arose chiefly from

prejudice, as gentlemen could not be so well acquainted with the bill

from hearing it once read, as to say there are no parts of it which

ought to become law. He had not nicely examined the merits of this bill,

but he heard that it contained several important provisions, and he

should certainly be opposed to a rejection of it without a perusal. To

vote for such a motion, would be to say, we will not examine the bill;

and yet he believed there was nothing in it contrary to the common law

of the several States of the Union.

Mr. MACON had no doubt on his mind that this bill was in direct

opposition to the constitution; and that if a law like this was passed,

to abridge the liberty of the press, Congress would have the same right

to pass a law making an establishment of religion, or to prohibit its

free exercise, as all are contained in the same clause of the

constitution; and, if it be violated in one respect, it may as well be

violated in others. Several laws had been passed which he thought

violated the spirit, but none before this which directly violated the

letter of the constitution; and, if this bill was passed, he should

hardly think it worth while in future to allege against any measure that

it is in direct contradiction to the constitution.

Laws of restraint, like this, Mr. M. said, always operate in a contrary

direction from that which they were intended to take. The people suspect

something is not right, when free discussion is feared by government.

They know that truth is not afraid of investigation.

If, said Mr. M., the people are so dissatisfied with Government as some

gentlemen would have it believed, but which he did not credit, by

passing a law like the present you will force them to combine together;

they will establish corresponding societies throughout the Union, and

communications will be made in secret, instead of publicly, as had been

the case in other countries. He believed the people might be as safely

trusted with free discussion, as they whom they have chosen to do their

business.

It was a most extraordinary thing, Mr. M. said, that at a time like

this, when some gentlemen say we are at war, and when all believe we

must have war, that Congress are about to pass a law which will produce

more uneasiness, more irritation, than any act which ever passed the

Legislature of the Union.

No gentleman, in support of the bill, has gone into the constitutional

question; no one has shown what part of the constitution will authorize

the passage of a law like this. He believed none such could be adduced.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. OTIS) has said, this bill is

conformable to the common law. He knew persons might be prosecuted for a

libel under the State Governments; but if this power exists in full

force at present, what necessity can there be for this bill?

Mr. MCDOWELL was in hopes that when the third article of the amendments

to the constitution had been read, that the unconstitutionality of this

bill would have been so evident, that it would have been rejected

without debate.

Mr. McD. was sorry that the gentleman from Connecticut should have

thought it necessary to have taken up so much of the time of the House

by reading paragraphs from newspapers, which every body had seen; but it

might have been expected after the gentleman had taken so much pains to

vilify and abuse the printer of one of the papers of this city, a

citizen of respectable character and connections, that he should have

taken at least some notice of another, called the British printer, who

boasts of being a subject of King George, and who is generally supposed

to be in the pay of the British Minister--whose paper contains more

libels and lies than any other in the United States, and who,

notwithstanding, is countenanced by characters whom he was sorry to see

have any connection with such a man; whose constant daily business it is

to abuse, and render ridiculous, every member of our Government who does

not in every thing fall in with the British views.

As to what had been said with respect to the circular and other letters

of members which have been published, he had seen some of them and heard

of others. It was not any thing which the gentleman from South Carolina

could say, which would prevent him from speaking and writing his

sentiments freely. The gentleman from South Carolina said he had seen a

letter in the papers the signature of which he knew. He should be glad

to know where he saw the signature to know it? He had seen a letter in

Fenno's paper, signed _McDowell_, followed by some violent strictures on

the letter, and on the author. The letter he owned to be his, but the

insinuations contained in the observations upon it were as false as they

were malicious.

Mr. HARPER said, he knew the gentleman wrote the letter in question; but

he would assure him he did not see it under seal, nor did he break the

seal, or write the strictures upon it.

Mr. GALLATIN wished that the bill had been committed before any debate

had taken place, as in its present stage, any observations on details

susceptible of amendment would be out of order; and he must now confine

himself to the general question "Does the situation of the country, at

this time, require that any law of this kind should pass? Do there exist

such new and alarming symptoms of sedition, as render it necessary to

adopt, in addition to the existing laws, any extraordinary measure for

the purpose of suppressing unlawful combinations, and of restricting the

freedom of speech and of the press?" For such were the objects of the

bill, whatever modifications it might hereafter receive.

The manner in which the principle of the bill had been supported, was

perhaps more extraordinary still than the bill itself. The gentleman

from Connecticut, (Mr. ALLEN,) in order to prove the existence of a

combination against the constitution and government, he communicated to

the House--what? a number of newspaper paragraphs; and even most of

those were such as would not be punishable by the bill as it now stands.

The object of that gentleman in wishing a bill of this nature to pass,

extended far beyond the intention of the Senate who had sent down this

bill; far beyond, he would venture to say, the idea of any other member

upon this floor, besides himself. His idea was to punish men for stating

facts which he happened to disbelieve, or for enacting and avowing

opinions, not criminal, but perhaps erroneous. Thus one of the

paragraphs most obnoxious to the gentleman from Connecticut, was that in

which the writer expresses his belief that Mr. Gerry may yet make a

treaty with the French Government, his powers being sufficient for that

purpose. [Mr. ALLEN said, his charge was against persons making this

assertion, when they knew it to be unfounded.] Mr. G. said, he did not

understand the gentleman's explanation. He now says that the act he

condemns is the assertion of a fact, which may be true, but which the

writer himself disbelieves; and thus he wished to punish such men as,

according to his caprice, he may suppose guilty of expressing opinions

not consonant with their own sentiments. For by what rule of evidence

could he discover and know what was really the writer's belief? But, to

return, was there any thing criminal in that paragraph? It asserted that

Mr. Gerry had powers sufficient to treat. The gentleman from Connecticut

denies this to be true. Mr. G. would aver that it was an undeniable

fact, as appears evidently from the documents now on the table. They

showed that the powers given to the Envoys were joint and several. And,

if Mr. Gerry had powers to treat, how could it be criminal to say that

he might treat? Or supposing the writer of the paragraph to have said,

that he believed Mr. Gerry would treat, could the opinion be charged

with any thing but being erroneous? When a paragraph of this nature was

held out as criminal, what writings, what opinions could escape the

severity of the intended law, which did not coincide with the opinions,

and which might counteract the secret views of a prevailing party?

The gentleman from Connecticut had also quoted an extract of a letter

said to be written by a member of Congress from Virginia, and published

in last Saturday's Aurora. The style and composition of that letter did

the highest honor to its writer. It contained more information and more

sense, and gave more proofs of a sound understanding and strong mind,

than ever the gentleman from Connecticut had displayed, or could display

on this floor. So far he would venture to say, although he had given but

a cursory reading to the letter, and he was altogether at a loss to know

what was criminal in it, though he might easily see why it was

obnoxious. Was it erroneous or criminal to say that debts and taxes

were the ruinous consequences of war? Or that some members in both

Houses of Congress uniformly voted in favor of an extension of the

powers of the Executive, and of every proposed expenditure of money? Was

it not true? Gentlemen of that description avow that, in their opinion,

the Executive is the weakest branch of government; and they act upon the

ostensible principle that, on that account, its influence and powers

must be increased. Look at the laws passed during this session. Look at

the alien bill, at the provisional army bill, look at the prodigious

influence acquired by so many new officers, and then deny that the

powers of the Executive have not been greatly increased. As to the

increased rate of expenditure, and the propensity of these gentlemen to

vote money, they would not themselves deny it. Was it criminal to say

that the Executive is supported by a party? when gentlemen declared that

it must be supported by a party. When the doctrine had been avowed on

this floor that men of a certain political opinion, alone ought to be

appointed to offices; and when the Executive had now adopted and carried

into practice that doctrine in its fullest extent?

Mr. DANA did not propose to enter into any controversy respecting the

honor which some gentlemen seemed disposed to arrogate to themselves, on

account of certain sentiments which they have avowed. If any members of

that House were ambitious of being distinguished as heralds of calumny

and apostles of insurrection, it might serve to show how incorrect were

their ideas of what is truly honorable.

The bill has two objects in view--it proposed to punish conspiracies and

calumnies against the Government. Against this bill, the freedom of

speech and of the press has been insisted on; and the bill has been

condemned as violating one of the articles adopted as amendments to the

constitution. Why is the gentleman from Pennsylvania so very anxious on

the subject? Or is it abridged by a law to restrain lying? Could the

framers of the constitution intend to guarantee, as a sacred principle,

the liberty of lying against the Government? What do gentlemen

understand by "the freedom of speech and of the press?" Is it a license

to injure others or the Government, by calumnies, with impunity?

Let it be remembered, that the uttering of malicious falsehoods, to the

injury of the Government, is the offence which it is now intended to

restrain; for, if what is uttered can be proved true, it will not,

according to this bill, be punished as libellous. What, then, is the

rational, the honest, the constitutional idea of freedom of language or

of conduct? Can it be any thing more than the right of uttering and

doing what is not injurious to others? This limitation of doing no

injury to the rights of others, undoubtedly belongs to the true

character of real liberty. Indeed, can it, in the nature of things, be

one of the rights of freemen to do injury? Let gentlemen consult any

writer of established reputation on this subject; let them examine the

constitution of their own favorite "terrible" Republic! they will not

find the ideas of liberty extended to that indefinite latitude which

they advocate on this floor.

However, if there are gentlemen who seriously and conscientiously

believe that it would be violating the constitution to restrain abuses

of the press, by punishing the guilty; if there are gentlemen who

believe that malicious calumnies against the Government ought to be

uttered and published with impunity, such gentlemen ought certainly not

to consent to act further upon this subject. Mr. D. was of a different

opinion. He believed that the editor of a newspaper, like the writer of

a public history, in the execution of his office, should dare to utter

what is true, and dread to utter any thing that is false. Considering,

therefore, that the liberty of lying, the privilege of vice, is what is

truly intended to be corrected by this bill, how is it possible that

gentlemen should appear so anxious to excite clamor against it? For

himself, Mr. D. wanted not the liberty of calumny or of conspiracy, and

was in favor of the principle of the bill.

The question on rejecting the bill, was taken by yeas and nays--yeas 36,

nays 47, as follows:

YEAS.--David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Dempsey

Burges, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne,

John Clopton, John Dawson, John Fowler, Albert Gallatin,

James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Carter B.

Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes,

Walter Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, Matthew

Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell,

Anthony New, John Nicholas, Samuel Smith, William Smith,

Richard Sprigg, jun., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, John

Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham

Venable, and Robert Williams.

NAYS.--John Allen, George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, Jas.

A. Bayard, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher G.

Champlin, John Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, William

Craik, Samuel W. Dana, George Dent, William Edmond, Thomas

Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry

Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold,

William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, William

Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes

Kittera, Samuel Lyman, William Matthews, Harrison G. Otis,

Isaac Parker, John Read, John Rutledge, jr., James

Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thos.

Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Peleg

Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson,

Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, and Peleg Wadsworth.

FRIDAY, July 6.

_Abrogation of Treaty with France._

Mr. SEWALL called up the bill from the Senate, declaring the treaty

between France and the United States void, and of no effect.

Mr. ALLEN wished the resolution that he laid upon the table yesterday,

respecting the condition and relation of this country with respect to

France, first to be taken up.

Mr. SITGREAVES thought it would be proper first to go into a

consideration of this resolution. We are, said he, now in a state of

war. The House know that, by the distribution of powers under this

Government, it is only competent for Congress to declare the country in

war; therefore, until that declaration is made by this department, the

Executive and Judiciary cannot act in the same way as if the country was

at war. In other countries, the Executive Department can create war; but

here it cannot. If it shall be considered expedient to declare war in

consequence of the repeated aggressions and injuries we have received

from the French Republic, and the hostility urged against us, and the

necessity there exists of making defence against them, there can be no

occasion for declaring the treaties void; because, if war is declared,

it is the major proposition, and, of course, includes all the minor

propositions. If discussed at all, therefore, it would be proper to

discuss the major proposition first. He supposed it was a subject on

which the minds of members were made up. Whether, therefore, the vote is

affirmative or negative, it would be best to declare, in the first

instance, the state of the country.

Mr. NICHOLAS hoped, if we are to come to this question of war at all, it

might be so taken up as to occupy the least time of the Legislature. The

question of setting aside the treaties is evidently included in the

other; he hoped, therefore, the proposition of the gentleman from

Connecticut, if to be taken up at all, would have a preference.

Mr. SEWALL said, if the question of annulling the treaties with France

was included in the resolution of the gentleman from Connecticut, he

should think it ought first to be taken up; but he did not think this

was the case. The gentleman from Connecticut wishes a committee to state

what is our relation with respect to the French Republic. How could we

say what our relation is, except we determine what is our relation with

respect to the treaties subsisting between the two countries? He took

the two things to be perfectly distinct. The gentleman from Pennsylvania

(Mr. SITGREAVES) seems to conceive that the question whether it will be

proper to make a declaration of war against France, is included in this

resolution, as he could not be so anxious for the declaration of an

historical fact, which, in his opinion, the report on this resolution

could only be; for gentlemen could not consider that the constitutional

power, placed in Congress to declare war, meant no more than a mere

report, whether or not the country is in war. A number of acts have been

done, which are indicative of war, and if a report was made as to our

situation with the French Republic, it must be reckoned at least a state

of hostility. But this would be doing nothing. If it was the intention

of any gentleman to propose a declaration of war, such a motion would

supersede the necessity of taking up the bill from the Senate; but, as

the resolution of the gentleman from Connecticut did by no means go to

this, he hoped the bill he had mentioned would be first considered. If

he were to give an opinion on the subject, it would be clearly against

declaring war at present. As to the Judicial Courts, they would find no

difficulty in acting according to the situation of things, without

troubling themselves with the nice distinctions which gentlemen seemed

inclined to make between a state of war, and a state of hostility.

Mr. GALLATIN wished to know, if the House were to go into a Committee of

the Whole on the bill from the Senate, whether a declaration of war

might not be moved as an amendment to the bill. To his mind, there

seemed to be but little difference between saying the treaties are at an

end, and declaring war. If such a motion could be received, it would be

desirable to know the will of the House upon it. The shortest way of

coming at this question would be the best. He wished the SPEAKER to say

whether he thought such a motion would be in order.

[No answer was given to the inquiry.]

Mr. ALLEN considered it best to act always with frankness. He wished, by

his resolution, that a committee should inquire into, and declare to the

House, and to the country, the true state of our situation with respect

to France; and if they should report any measures which should supersede

the bill from the Senate, it would be the most fair and open way of

getting at the business.

The question on taking up the bill from the Senate was put, and

negatived--41 to 35.

Mr. ALLEN then called up his resolution. It had been said that our

negotiation with France is yet carrying on, which he denied, and he

wished this resolution to go to a numerous committee to report as to

that fact, and as to our situation generally with respect to France.

Mr. HARRISON hoped the House would go into a Committee of the Whole on

the state of the Union, in order to inquire into what is the state of

the country? Those gentlemen who wish war, and are determined to have

it, ought to speak out. The world should understand them, and the people

ought not to be deceived. He hoped gentlemen would bring forward their

declaration of war at once. He had always been, and should now be,

opposed to war, but he wanted to put his negative upon it.

Mr. HARPER had no objection to go into a Committee of the Whole on the

state of the Union, if the gentleman from Virginia had any motion to

make, when the House got into that situation.

Mr. HARTLEY hoped the resolution before the House would be referred to a

select committee, that the House might have a report upon it. He

wondered that gentlemen who were against going to war, should wish to

press the question of a declaration of it upon the House.

Mr. DANA observed that, from what had been now said upon the

resolution, he saw no necessity for voting upon it at all.

Mr. OTIS spoke in favor of referring the resolution to a select

committee, and saw no reason why the House should go into a Committee of

the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. HARRISON said, every one would know he had no proposition to bring

forward with respect to war; he wished to remain at peace; but he wished

his constituents and the country at large to be informed as to what was

to be the state of the country. Seeing, however, that no member is ready

to make the declaration which had been so often spoken of, he should

withdraw his motion for going into a Committee of the Whole.

Mr. SITGREAVES observed, with respect to the allusions of the gentleman

last up, as to being prepared for a declaration of war, he confessed he

felt no hesitation in saying, that he thought this declaration ought to

be made in some form or other. He believed it was the duty of the

Legislature to make it. He had thought so for some time; but certain

considerations with respect to our Envoys, had prevented its being

proposed. Such, he said, was his individual opinion; but he owned he had

some scruples about bringing it forward, unless he should be assured,

from a comparison of the opinions of gentlemen, such a proposition would

receive a respectable and firm support. If he supposed this would be the

case, he would make the motion at this moment; and it was because the

motion of the gentleman from Connecticut looked towards a declaration,

that he was in favor of it.

Mr. S. said he had heard it said for months past, by gentlemen of

different opinions, that the aggressions of France against this country

were lawful cause of war, and all have admitted that it has become a

single question of expediency whether we shall declare war, or not. It

was said no consideration but that of interest, would prevent its being

done, and he did not believe there was any such. We have, said he, for a

long time suffered all the mischiefs that can be inflicted upon us in a

state of war, and, therefore, the single question is now, whether we

will avail ourselves of the advantages which might be derived from

declaring war; for, however trifling gentlemen may deem the distinction

which he made between a state of hostility and war, he looked upon that

distinction as real and material. In case of an invasion taking place

before a declaration of war has been made, certain limited authorities

are placed in the PRESIDENT, and in the Executives of the several

States, with respect to the armed force; but, if a declaration of war

has previously taken place, the direction of that force is placed wholly

in the hands of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. If this declaration

should be made, he should still deem it a war of defence on our part.

Mr. S. said he rose to declare his opinion on this point, and to say he

was in favor of the motion of the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. NICHOLAS supposed there could have been no doubt as to the

intentions of the gentleman from Connecticut in bringing forward this

resolution, though he expected it would have been found necessary to

have made it more explicit. If the object was, as he had no doubt it

was, to procure a proposition for a declaration of war, he hoped the

resolution would be so amended as to embrace that object. At present, it

was quite an unmeaning thing.

Mr. GALLATIN said, if he understood the resolution, it proposed the

appointment of a committee, to declare what is the state of things

between this country and France. He could not see with what propriety

Congress could declare a statement of facts by a legislative act. It

would be a little curious to pass a law to declare Mr. Gerry has no

authority to treat with the French Government; or to declare that this

room is sixty feet long, or any other fact. If the committee were to

report what was necessary to be done, he could see the use of such a

report.

Mr. LYON observed, that though this resolution was not so explicit as

gentlemen might wish, yet such as it was, he was desirous it should

pass. He wished to know the state of the country. Some say we are at

war; others that we are in a state of hostility; others at peace. He

wished to see a report on the subject. He had considered the country as

in war for some time; if he was mistaken, he was desirous his mistake

should be rectified. If we are at war, it would be well to request the

PRESIDENT to get us peace as soon as he can.

The question on the resolution was put and negatived, without a

division.

On motion of Mr. OTIS, the House went into a Committee of the Whole on

the state of the Union, to take into consideration the bill from the

Senate declaring our treaties with France void and of no effect. The

committee being formed, and the bill having been read,

Mr. LIVINGSTON called for the reading of the treaties.

Mr. GALLATIN thought it would be sufficient to have certain parts of the

treaties, which he mentioned, read. Mr. LIVINGSTON consented; but Mr.

LYON persisted in the motion for reading the whole. On the question

being taken, he only rose in favor of it. The parts of the treaties

called for by Mr. G. were read.

Mr. SEWALL said, some doubts might be entertained, perhaps, as to the

propriety of this measure. It is certainly a novel doctrine to pass a

law declaring a treaty void; but the necessity arose from the peculiar

situation of this country. In most countries, it is in the power of the

Chief Magistrate to suspend a treaty whenever he thinks proper; here

Congress only has that power. We have, said he, during this session, in

a variety of cases, suspended the treaties in question, by authorizing

measures of hostility against France, contrary to the stipulations

contained therein. He believed it would be proper, therefore, to set

aside these treaties by legal authority. But he confessed to do this,

in the manner proposed by the Senate, would, at least, be inconvenient.

He could not conceive that the Senate meant to go so far as this bill

goes. We ought not to say the treaties are void and of no effect. They

must have effect as historical facts; they must have effect, in our

appeal to the world, on the ground of their having been violated, and in

our claim upon France on account of those violations. There are also

other articles which must have effect in case of war. He alluded to the

articles which respect the situation of French citizens in this country,

or American citizens in France, after war shall have been declared by

either power. Mr. S., therefore, proposed a new form of a bill, more

simple and with a much shorter preface, viz: "that, whereas the treaties

have been in numerous instances violated, they are no longer to be

considered as law within the United States," &c. It also proposed that

any claim or restraint, stipulated by the said treaties, shall be

abrogated and annulled.

The CHAIRMAN said this motion was not in order, and could not be

received.

Mr. NICHOLAS saw no difference between the substitute proposed and the

original bill. The gentleman from Massachusetts wished to retain the

provision relative to the residence of the citizens of either country,

after the declaration of war shall have taken place; but could that

gentleman for a moment suppose that he could annul one part of a treaty

and preserve other parts? The idea appeared to him a very extraordinary

one.

Mr. RUTLEDGE hoped the committee would rise, and that the bill would be

referred to a select committee. He believed it would be better to

declare a part of the treaties void than the whole, which he thought

might with propriety be done.

Mr. NICHOLAS had no objection to the committee's rising; but he could

not believe we could take such parts of a treaty as we liked, and

declare the rest void.

Mr. DANA believed that the gentleman from Virginia did not rightly

apprehend what had been said by the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. D.

admitted the impropriety of declaring void and of no effect a legal

instrument which was originally valid. In his opinion, this impropriety

might be avoided, and the object of the bill attained, by a different

phraseology. He believed a proper mode of acting upon this business

would be, to declare the stipulations of the French treaties no longer

obligatory on the United States. This we may justly do, in consequence

of their being disregarded by France.

As to the effect of such a declaration, he acknowledged that it must be

regarded as abrogating all those articles of the treaties which are

executory, such as stipulate for the future conduct of the parties.

Agreeing thus far with the gentleman from Virginia, he would consent

most cheerfully that all such articles should be set aside, as they

respect both countries. But the declaration would not have any effect

on articles which are executed, such as contain cessions or

renunciations of territorial claims, and where a corresponding

possession has taken place. The operation of these articles is

completed, and cannot be reversed by the declaration now proposed.

Mr. D. then moved to amend the enacting clause, by expunging all the

words after "That," and substituting "the United States are, of right,

freed and exonerated from the stipulations of the treaties heretofore

concluded between the United States and France, and that the same shall

not henceforth be regarded as legally obligatory on the Government or

citizens of the United States."

Mr. OTIS approved of this motion, and, after a few observations by him

in favor of it, the question was put and carried upon it without a

division.

Mr. O. then moved to strike out the whole of this preamble; which motion

being carried,

Mr. DANA proposed that the reasons for passing this bill should be

condensed in the preamble, to read as follows: "Whereas, the treaties

concluded between the United States and France have been repeatedly

violated on the part of the French Government, and the just claims of

the United States for reparation of the injuries so committed have been

refused; and their attempts to negotiate an amicable adjustment of all

complaints between the two nations have been repelled with indignity;

and whereas, under the authority of the French Government, there is yet

pursued against the United States a system of predatory violence

infracting the said treaties, and hostile to the rights of a free and

independent nation, therefore," &c.

The question on the preamble was put and carried--41 to 38.

The committee then rose, and the House took up the amendments. On the

question being put on agreeing to the new preamble,

Mr. BAYARD said he thought it more in detail than was necessary. He

thought it more like a State paper than the preamble of a law. He

thought the preamble ought to go no further than to state sufficient

ground for the act, which was about to be done; and he took it for

granted that whenever a nation violates an essential article of a

treaty, it is competent for the other party to declare the treaty no

longer binding upon them. He, therefore, moved to strike out all the

preamble after saying the treaties have been frequently violated. As to

the French having committed depredations upon our commerce, and refused

to negotiate with our Commissioners, though these circumstances may be a

just cause of war, he did not know whether they were sufficient ground

upon which to declare a treaty void.

Mr. KITTERA was against striking out. He could not agree that there

could be causes for a declaration of war, which are not also causes for

setting aside a treaty. The reverse of this position appeared to him to

be true, viz: that there might be causes for declaring a treaty void,

which would not be causes of war.

Mr. CRAIK was in favor of the preamble as it stood.

Mr. GORDON hoped the amendment would not prevail. It ought to be

considered that if this bill passed into a law, it would be considered

as a novel thing. It will be tantamount to a State declaration to annul

a treaty, and there ought to be the grounds annexed to it which had led

to the measure; and though the gentleman from Delaware is desirous of

stating a sufficient cause, he did not think his motion went far enough.

The practice of nations is, that when injuries are done, reparation is

demanded; and it was necessary, in his opinion, to state that this

demand had been made in vain, and that the injuries complained of are

still continued.

Mr. S. SMITH hoped the amendment would be adopted. He disliked preambles

very much. The reasons given by the gentleman from Delaware in favor of

his motion he thought well founded. It would be much better to give one

good reason for declaring the treaties no longer binding, than several

doubtful ones. In his opinion there were some of this description as the

preamble stands at present. He did not know that a reparation for

injuries had been refused by France. He had seen nothing like an

absolute demand made upon the French Government. The Envoys were

empowered to make the demand; but, from their not having been duly

received, the demand was never made. If it were made, it is clear it has

not been complied with; but we have no evidence of its having been

refused to be complied with. On the contrary, we see that on the 3d of

April, Talleyrand had fixed a day on which he proposed to treat with Mr.

Gerry on the subject of the disputes between the two countries. We have

not heard the result of the conference; but it may have happened that

Mr. Talleyrand has offered to make complete reparation for the injuries

committed on our commerce, and this intelligence may arrive here a

fortnight hence, and then a declaration of this sort would not have a

good appearance. He thought, therefore, it would be better to strike

these words out than to retain them.

Mr. S. presumed it was not yet _sedition_ for him to say that he

believed proposals to treat would be made to our Commissioners,

independent of any tribute, and such as this country might with honor

accept. He hoped, therefore, no difficulty would be placed in the way,

by passing the preamble as it now stands.

Mr. DANA was not generally in favor of fixing preambles to laws.

Whenever the subject is such that it is obviously competent for the

Legislature to act upon it; whenever the act proposed is, from its

nature, completely within the usual Legislative powers, and, without any

explanation, appears perfectly consistent with national honor and

propriety, a preamble is unnecessary. But ought this to be said of the

subject under consideration? Whence is it that the United States may

abrogate the treaties with France? Is it because the Legislature may, at

pleasure, set aside a treaty? If it is proper to do this, without any

external cause, a preamble is needless in the present instance.

According to his view of the subject, the act was founded on a different

principle. France has violated the faith pledged by her treaties with

America: this, by the law of nations, puts it within the option of the

Legislature to decide, as a question of expediency, whether the United

States shall any longer continue to observe their stipulations. It is

owing to the perfidy of the French Government that the abrogation of our

treaties with that nation has become justifiable and necessary. As an

American, he hoped the United States would always regard the faith due

to treaties, and that all their acts would, on the face of them, appear

consistent with it. In this respect, he wished the conduct of the

American Government to exhibit a marked contrast to French perfidy. It

is of importance to the fairness of our national character. Therefore it

is that the facts should be stated which have led to this measure.

The gentleman from Delaware, in support of the amendment which he has

moved, supposes it sufficient to state one cause for setting aside the

treaties. He is understood to admit that a sufficient cause should be

stated. In this principle, said Mr. D., we are agreed. But the question

arises, whether a violation of the treaties on the part of France is, of

itself, sufficient for setting them aside? The idea of Mr. D. was, that

it would not be sufficient, according to the liberal principles which

should be cherished in the United States. A treaty might be violated by

the imprudence of some person in authority, or by persons acting without

authority; and yet the foreign Government, on proper representations,

might be willing to redress the injury. In such case, it would ill

become the Government of the injured party immediately to dissolve

friendly connections. Why is it now deemed requisite to abrogate the

treaties by which this country has been connected with France? It is

because France has not only violated them, but has also refused that

attention which was due to our representations on the subject, and

persists in the violation. On this account, and in order to show that

the United States were completely justifiable in taking the measure, he

was against the amendment of the gentleman from Delaware, and in favor

of retaining the several clauses of the preamble.

A gentleman from Maryland (Mr. SMITH) has declared himself in favor of

this amendment, because, in his view, there is no proof that our claim

for the injuries committed on our rights, as a neutral nation, have been

refused to be adjusted by France. The reason assigned for this opinion

is so extraordinary that it may astonish every man acquainted with

subjects of this nature. It is, that the French would not receive the

Envoys charged with this business, or permit their speaking to them,

although they waited for months at the palace-gate of Directorial

Arrogance supplicating in vain for an audience. Were the gentleman from

Maryland to go himself, or send one of his clerks, to present a demand

for a sum justly due to him, if his debtor, instead of discharging or

attending to the account, would not consent even to hear him on the

subject, but should kick him from the door, or order a servant to do it,

would not the gentleman consider such conduct as a refusal to satisfy

the demand. He who knows that claims of justice merit the respect of

Governments, as well as of individuals, and ought never to be neglected

without reasonable cause, must know that evasions, intentional

procrastination, and affected delays, are equivalent to a refusal of

satisfaction. This is the doctrine of reason, of common sense, of

municipal law, and of the law of nations. The facts stated in the

preamble, therefore, are strictly true; they are established by the very

statement which the gentleman has made to disprove them. And since he

has made a question on the subject, it is of additional importance for

the Legislature to declare its conviction of their truth.

Mr. CRAIK believed with the gentleman from Connecticut, last up, that

from the declaration of his colleague this question was of consequence.

He believed gentlemen were now called upon to testify to the truth of

this statement, since it had been doubted. The people ought not to be

left in doubt on this subject.

Mr. OTIS said, exactly the same effect which had been produced upon the

mind of the gentleman last up, was also produced upon his. Before he had

heard the arguments of the gentleman from Maryland in its favor, he

intended to vote for the motion of the gentleman from Delaware, as being

more concise, and as he thought stating sufficient ground for the act

about to be passed; but when that gentleman says we have no evidence of

reparation for the injuries committed upon our commerce being refused to

be made, the abhorrence he felt at the idea of being ranked among

members of this opinion would lead him to vote against it. He believed

the facts stated in the preamble unquestionably true, and he did not

think there could have been a man in the United States who had a doubt

on the subject. He believed there could be no doubt that when a sum of

money is neglected to be paid, when due, though the debtor may refuse to

see any person authorized to make the demand, that it is legally refused

to be paid.

If the documents on the table were examined, Mr. O. said it would be

found, that so far from Mr. Talleyrand having listened to the claims of

our Commissioners, he had expressed his surprise that they should have

been made, alleging that the priority of claim was on the part of the

French Government. Mr. O. made several other observations, when he

concluded by saying, that if any offers of pacification were made by men

of the description of those at present in power in the French Directory,

he should have no confidence in them: he should think them insidious,

and that they originated in their fears, and were intended to effect our

ruin.

Mr. HARPER said he would say only a few words in justification of his

vote in favor of the present motion. He disliked preambles altogether.

He voted against the one from the Senate, and he should be in favor of

reducing this; for, if we must have a preamble, he thought the less the

better. It is the business of the Legislature, Mr. H. said, to pass

laws; if a manifesto is proper to be published on this occasion, it

would more probably fall under the Executive Department. It is his

business to issue State papers, and he could do it much better than it

could be done in this House. He was sorry it should be thought necessary

to have any preface at all to the law, as it was departing from a good

old rule laid down by Congress.

Mr. S. SMITH was not convinced, by any thing that had been said against

this motion, that what he had before stated was ill-founded. It had been

asked whether, if he sent three persons to demand a debt, and the debtor

ordered them away without seeing them, he should not consider the act as

a refusal to pay. He answered, he should. But he would put a case, which

he thought more in point. Were he to send three persons to settle an

account with a debtor, and he were to send two of them home again, but

keep one, and promise to adjust the business with him, he should

naturally expect he would do so, and should not think of proceeding to

any rigorous measures with him, until he heard the result.

The gentleman from Massachusetts has said that he can never consent to

accept of any terms from the present Executive Directory, as he shall

consider them insidious, and not to be relied upon. After a two years'

war, perhaps, he may be of a different opinion. Mr. S. said he should be

as unwilling as any man to accept of any terms from the French

Government which would be derogatory to the United States; but if the

Directory will engage that all the depredations upon our commerce shall

cease, and will offer to treat with us on equitable terms, (which he did

not think improbable,) he should be for acceding, most cheerfully, to

the proposal.

Mr. GALLATIN said he should vote against the motion to strike out a part

of the preamble agreed to in the Committee of the Whole. He was of

opinion with gentlemen, that it was better to pass laws in general,

without preambles; but this proceeding is altogether of a novel nature.

He knew of no precedent of a Legislature repealing a treaty. It is

therefore an act of a peculiar kind, and it appeared to him necessary

that Congress should justify it by a declaration of their reasons. Nor

could he understand the argument of the gentleman from South Carolina,

when he said the Executive Department was better calculated for the

publishing of a manifesto than the Legislature, or, in other words,

could assign the reasons that influenced Congress better than Congress

themselves. If, then, a preamble is to be adopted, it ought to contain

those reasons which operated in producing the law. He thought this would

be more correctly stated by leaving the preamble as it is, than by

adopting the amendment.

There was also another reason for preserving the preamble as at present.

The French have violated the Treaty of Commerce made with this country;

but it would be rather difficult for any gentleman to show that repeated

violations have taken place of our Treaty of Alliance with France. The

ground of complaint is, that France has violated the Treaty of Commerce

between the two countries, and the laws of nations, and not the Treaty

of Alliance; and, therefore, a breach of that treaty is not the reason

why it is set aside. Besides, if repeated violations of a treaty are

sufficient reasons for setting it aside, it could not be forgotten that

certain orders had been issued by another country, which are not

conformable to our treaty with that power. So, that it is not sufficient

to say, that because a treaty has been violated, we will repeal it; but

we ought to show to the world that repeated attempts have been made, in

vain, to obtain redress.

But the gentleman from Maryland is apprehensive that the statement of

the French Government having refused to make reparation for the injuries

committed upon our commerce could not be correct, from the possibility

of Mr. Gerry having succeeded in making a treaty since the date of our

last despatches. He acknowledged there was a bare possibility of the

fact being so; but this ought to operate as a reason against passing the

bill at all, and not against the preamble.

Mr. EDMOND said, he voted for rejecting the Senate's preamble. It

appeared to him that no preamble was necessary. For, if it were

necessary to state the reasons which induced the passing of this act, it

would be proper to state all the reasons, and to do that would be a work

of considerable time; and, upon the facts stated, there might probably

be a considerable difference of opinion. If reasons were stated for

passing this law, and, at a future day, when an adjustment of

differences should take place, the negotiator on the part of the United

States were to adduce other reasons for passing this act than are stated

in this preamble, it might be stated by the negotiator, on the part of

France, why do you muster up complaints now, which you did not think of

when the law passed? He therefore thought it would be best to pass the

law without a preamble at all.

No question in the laws of nations, Mr. E. said, was more clear, than

that, when a treaty is violated by one nation, the other party, who has

maintained good faith, may either discharge themselves from the

obligations of it, or, if kindly disposed, they may set on foot a

negotiation, or they may declare war, without doing either of the other

two. He laid it down as a further principle, that where there are

several treaties in existence between two countries, and one of them is

violated, the injured party may demand satisfaction; and if it be not

given, they may declare the whole of the treaties void. He therefore was

of opinion that France having violated our treaty with her, we have a

right, without assigning any reason for it, to set it aside; and as we

have repeatedly applied to them for redress, and they have refused to

grant it, we have a right to reject the whole or to declare war, without

assigning any reason whatever. However, if we wish to appear fair in the

eyes of the world, we may, if we please, assign a reason for our act;

but, in this case, he would either give all the reasons which exist, or

make them as precise as possible. He should, therefore, vote in favor of

striking out the words in question.

The question to strike out was negatived; and the question being taken

on the preamble, it was carried--there being 53 votes for it.

The bill was ordered for a third reading this day. It afterwards

received its third reading, and was passed--yeas 47, nays 37, as

follows:

YEAS.--John Allen, George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, Jas

A. Bayard, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher G.

Champlin, John Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, William

Craik, Samuel W. Dana, George Dent, William Edmond, Abiel

Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn,

Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold, William

Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, William

Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, Jas. H. Imlay, John Wilkes

Kittera, Samuel Lyman, William Matthews, Harrison G. Otis,

Isaac Parker, John Read, John Rutledge, jr., James

Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thos.

Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Peleg

Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson,

Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, and Peleg Wadsworth.

NAYS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Thos. Blount, Dempsey

Burges, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne,

John Clopton, John Dawson, Thomas Evans, John Fowler,

Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A.

Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph

Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston,

Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair

McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, Anthony New, John Nicholas,

Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., Richard

Stanford, Thomas Sumter, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt,

Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.

TUESDAY, July 10.

_Punishment of Crimes._

The bill, in addition to the act for punishing crimes against the United

States, and for other purposes, was read the third time; when

Mr. SITGREAVES wished the bill to be recommitted. It had been suggested

to him that great inconvenience arises in the Federal Courts, from its

having been conceived that they have not the power to bind to good

behavior, and he was desirous of removing this defect, by adding a

section to this bill for the purpose.

Mr. BAYARD thought the gentleman from Pennsylvania had better bring this

subject forward by itself, than have this bill recommitted, as it was no

way connected with it.

Mr. SITGREAVES consented.

The question was now on the passing of the bill.

Mr. MCDOWELL called for the yeas and nays upon it.

Mr. NICHOLAS rose, he said, to ask an explanation of the principles upon

which this bill is founded. He confessed it was strongly impressed upon

his mind, that it was not within the powers of the House to act upon

this subject. He looked in vain amongst the enumerated powers given to

Congress in the constitution, for an authority to pass a law like the

present; but he found what he considered as an express prohibition

against passing it. He found that, in order to quiet the alarms of the

people of the United States with respect to the silence of the

constitution as to the liberty of the press, not being perfectly

satisfied that the powers not vested in Congress remained with the

people, that one of the first acts of this Government was to propose

certain amendments to the constitution, to put this matter beyond doubt,

which amendments are now become a part of the constitution. It is now

expressly declared by that instrument, "that the powers not delegated to

the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the

States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;" and,

also, "that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech,

or of the press."

Mr. N. asked whether this bill did not go to the abridgment of the

freedom of speech and of the press? If it did not, he would be glad if

gentlemen would define wherein the freedom of speech and of the press

consists.

Mr. N. wished gentlemen, before they give a final vote on this bill, to

consider its effects; and, if they do this, he thought they would

consent to stop here. He desired them to reflect on the nature of our

Government; that all its officers are elective, and that the people have

no other means of examining their conduct but by means of the press, and

an unrestrained investigation through them of the conduct of the

Government. Indeed, the heart and life of a free Government, is a free

press; take away this, and you take away its main support. You might as

well say to the people, we, your Representatives, are faithful servants,

you need not look into our conduct; we will keep our seats for a little

longer time than that for which you have given them to us. To restrict

the press, would be to destroy the elective principle, by taking away

the information necessary to election, and there would be no difference

between it and a total denial of the right of election, but in the

degree of usurpation.

Mr. OTIS said, the professions of attachment to the constitution, made

by the gentleman from Virginia, are certainly honorable to him; and he

could not believe that an attachment so deeply engrafted, as he states

his to be, would be shaken by this bill. The gentleman had caught an

alarm on the first suggestion of a sedition bill, which had not yet

subsided; and though the present bill is perfectly harmless, and

contains no provision which is not practised upon under the laws of the

several States in which gentlemen had been educated, and from which they

had drawn most of their ideas of jurisprudence, yet the gentleman

continues to be dissatisfied with it.

The objections of the gentleman from Virginia, he believed, might be

reduced to two inquiries. In the first place, had the constitution given

Congress cognizance over the offences described in this bill prior to

the adoption of the amendments to the constitution? and, if Congress had

that cognizance before that time, have those amendments taken it away?

With respect to the first question, it must be allowed that every

independent Government has a right to preserve and defend itself against

injuries and outrages which endanger its existence; for, unless it has

this power, it is unworthy the name of a free Government, and must

either fall or be subordinate to some other protection. Now some of the

offences delineated in this bill are of this description. Unlawful

combinations to oppose the measures of Government, to intimidate its

officers, and to excite insurrections, are acts which tend directly to

the destruction of the constitution, and there could be no doubt that

the guardians of that constitution are bound to provide against them.

And if gentlemen would agree that these were acts of a criminal nature,

it follows that all means calculated to produce these effects, whether

by speaking, writing, or printing, were also criminal. From the nature

of things, therefore, the National Government is invested with a power

to protect itself against outrages of this kind, or it must be indebted

to and dependent on an individual State for its protection, which is

absurd. This essential right resulting from the spirit of the

constitution, was still more evident in the language of that instrument.

The people of the individual States brought with them as a birthright

into this country the common law of England, upon which all of them have

founded their statute law. If it were not for this common law, many

crimes which are committed in the United States would go unpunished. No

State has enacted statutes for the punishment of all crimes which may be

committed; yet in every State he presumed there was a Superior Court

which claimed cognizance of all offences against good morals, and which

restrained misdemeanors and opposition to the constituted authorities,

under the sanction merely of the common law. When the people of the

United States convened for the purpose of framing a federal compact,

they were all habituated to this common law, to its usages, its maxims,

and its definitions. It had been more or less explicitly recognized in

the constitution of every State, and in that of Maryland it was

declared to be the law of the land. If, then, we find in an instrument

digested by men who were all familiarized to the common law, not only

that the distribution of power, and the great objects to be provided for

are congenial to that law, but that the terms and definitions by which

those powers are described, have an evident allusion to it, and must

otherwise be quite inexplicable, or at best of a very uncertain meaning,

it will be natural to conclude that, in forming the constitution, they

kept in view the model of the common law, and that a safe recourse may

be had to it in all cases that would otherwise be doubtful. Thus we

shall find that one great end of this compact, as appears in the

preamble, is the establishment of justice, and for this purpose a

Judicial department is erected, whose powers are declared "to extend to

all cases in law and equity, arising under the constitution, the laws of

the United States," &c. Justice, if the common law ideas of it are

rejected, is susceptible of various constructions, but agreeably to the

principles of that law, it affords redress for every injury, and

provides a punishment for every crime that threatens to disturb the

lawful operations of Government. Again, what is intended by "cases at

law and equity arising under the constitution," as distinguished from

cases "arising under the laws of the United States?" What other law can

be contemplated but common law; what sort of equity but that legal

discretion which has been exercised in England from time immemorial, and

is to be learnt from the books and reports of that country? If it be

answered that these words comprise civil controversies only, though no

reason appears for this distinction, yet what is to be done with other

terms, with trial, jury, impeachment, &c., for an explanation of all

which, the common law alone can furnish a standard? It has been said by

the gentleman that the constitution has specified the only crimes that

are cognizable under it; but other crimes had been made penal at an

early period of the Government, by express statute, to which no

exception had been taken. For example, stealing public records, perjury,

obstructing the officers of justice, bribery in a Judge, and even a

contract to give a bribe, (which last was a restraint upon the liberty

of writing and speaking,) were all punishable, and why? Not because they

are described in the constitution, but because they are crimes against

the United States--because laws against them are necessary to carry

other laws into effect; because they tend to subvert the constitution.

The same reasons applied to the offences mentioned in the bill.

Mr. MACON said, the same section of the constitution which forbids any

interference with the freedom of speech and of the press, extends also

to religious establishments, and says, "Congress shall make no law

respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free

exercise thereof." This bill ought to be considered, therefore, as the

commencement of a system which might as well be extended to the

establishment of a national religion, as to a "restraint of speech, and

of the press." He acknowledged the bill was less exceptionable than when

it came from the Senate; but it yet contained the principle which he

considered as violating the constitution.

Mr. M. said, he had attended to all that had been said in support of

this bill; but could find nothing like argument in it. When the words of

the constitution were so express, it seems impossible they could be

understood as the gentleman from Massachusetts had represented them.

Several authorities, Mr. M. said, had been read to show that this bill

will form a constitutional law. He believed, however, far more might be

adduced to show the reverse. He believed the best way of coming at the

truth of the construction of any part of the constitution, was, by

examining the opinions that were held respecting it when it was under

discussion in the different States.

Mr. M. then proceeded to quote the opinions of the leading members in

several of the State conventions, in order to show, from the opinions of

the friends of the constitution, that it was never understood that

prosecutions for libels could take place under the General Government;

but that they must be carried on in the State courts, as the

constitution gave no power to Congress to pass laws on this subject. Not

a single member in any of the conventions gave an opinion to the

contrary. The following are the words of Judge Iredell, of North

Carolina, on the occasion. Judge Wilson, of this State, and several

others, were equally strong; but we have them not at hand, and if we

had, to give extracts from the whole would occupy too much room. In the

Convention of North Carolina, in reply to a member who had said that the

General Government might make it treason to write against the most

arbitrary proceedings, but who, it appears, afterwards corrected

himself, and said he meant only misprision of treason, and only that it

might be done within the ten miles square, where they were to have

exclusive legislation, Judge Iredell, thus spoke:

"Where is the power given them to do this? They (Congress)

have power to define and punish piracies and felonies

committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of

nations; but they have no power to define _any other crime

whatever_. This shows how apt gentlemen are to commit

mistakes. The powers of the Government are particularly

enumerated and defined. They can claim no others but such

as are so enumerated. In my opinion, they are excluded as

much from the exercise of any other authority, as they

could be by the strongest negative clause that could be

framed."

Gentlemen, Mr. M. said, might call this a harmless bill; but however

harmless it may be, it is a beginning to act upon forbidden ground, and

no one can say to what extent it may hereafter be carried. He thought

this subject of the liberty of the press was sacred, and ought to be

left where the constitution had left it. The States have complete power

on the subject, and when Congress legislates, it ought to have

confidence in the States, as the States ought also to have confidence in

Congress, or our Government is gone. This Government depends upon the

State Legislatures for existence. They have only to refuse to elect

Senators to Congress, and all is gone. He believed there was nowhere any

complaint of a want of proper laws under the State Governments; and

though there may not be remedies found for every grievance in the

General Government, what it wants of power will be found in the State

Governments, and there can be no doubt but that power will be duly

exercised when necessity calls for it.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said, that notwithstanding the sarcasms which had been

thrown out against those who oppose this measure; notwithstanding that

kind of accommodating principle which has been set up and reiterated,

that the powers of this constitution extend to every possible case--a

principle which goes to the destruction of State authorities, and makes

that instrument mean any thing or nothing--notwithstanding this, he

should again venture to engage the attention of the House while he

endeavored to show that this bill is not only contrary to the spirit,

but to the direct letter of the constitution.

The constitution declares that "no law shall be passed to abridge the

liberty of speech or of the press." Let us inquire, said Mr. L., what

was the liberty enjoyed at the time this declaration was agreed to, and

see whether citizens will enjoy the same liberty after this law passes

that they then enjoyed. Will gentlemen say that the same liberty of

writing and speaking did not exist then that now exists? If they will

not say this, must they not allow that the constitution is positive in

prohibiting any change in this respect? Gentlemen may call this liberty

an evil, if they please; if it be an evil, (which he was far from

believing,) it is an evil perpetrated by the constitution.

The constitution seems to have contemplated cases which might arise at a

future day. It seems to have foreseen that majorities (far be it from

him to believe the present majority is of the number) might be actuated

by dispositions hostile to the Government; that it might wish to pass

laws to suppress the only means by which its corrupt views might be made

known to the people, and therefore says, _no_ law shall be passed to

abridge the liberty of speech and of the press. This privilege is

connected with another dear and valuable privilege--the liberty of

conscience. What is liberty of conscience? Gentlemen may to-morrow

establish a national religion agreeably to the opinion of a majority of

this House, on the ground of a uniformity of worship being more

consistent with public happiness than a diversity of worship. The doing

of this is not less forbidden than the act which the House are about to

do. But, it is said, will you suffer a printer to abuse his

fellow-citizens with impunity, ascribing his conduct to the very worst

of motives? Is no punishment to be inflicted on such a person? Yes.

There is a remedy for offences of this kind in the laws of every State

in the Union. Every man's character is protected by law, and every man

who shall publish a libel on any part of the Government, is liable to

punishment. Not, said Mr. L., by laws which we ourselves have made, but

by laws passed by the several States. And is not this most proper?

Suppose a libel were written against the PRESIDENT, where is it most

probable that such an offence would receive an impartial trial? In a

court, the judges of which are appointed by the PRESIDENT, by a jury

selected by an officer holding his office at the will of the PRESIDENT?

or in a court independent of any influence whatever? The States are as

much interested in the preservation of the General Government as we are.

We do wrong when we attempt to set up interests independent of the

States. They are all desirous of preserving the constitution as it now

stands; and it is, therefore, much more probable that justice will be

found in a court in which neither of the parties have influence, than in

one which is wholly in the power of the PRESIDENT.

The bill was then passed--yeas 44, nays 41, as follows:

YEAS.--John Allen, George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, James

A. Bayard, David Brooks, Christopher G. Champlin, John

Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, Samuel W. Dana,

William Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster,

Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William

Gordon, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe

Harper, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L.

Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman,

Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, John Read, John Rutledge,

jun., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard,

Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith,

Peleg Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark

Thompson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, and Peleg

Wadsworth.

NAYS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas

Blount, Richard Brent, Stephen Bullock, Dempsey Burges,

Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne, John

Clopton, John Dawson, George Dent, John Fowler, Albert

Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna,

Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister,

David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew

Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, William Matthews,

Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, Anthony New, John

Nicholas, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Sprigg,

jun., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, John Trigg, Philip

Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and

Robert Williams.

FRIDAY, July 13.

_Capture of French armed vessels._

The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for encouraging

the capture of French armed vessels by armed vessels belonging to

citizens of the United States; which was agreed to without debate or

amendment, and ordered to be read a third time to-day. It was

accordingly immediately read a third time; when

Mr. MCDOWELL said, he hoped this bill would not pass. Congress had

already passed laws authorizing public and private armed vessels to

attack and take French vessels; but they are now called upon to give a

bounty upon the guns that are brought in, according to their size. He

was not willing to allow this. It would open a door to innumerable

frauds. Plans would be laid between the owners of privateers here and

their friends in the West Indies, and vessels and arms would be thrown

in their way for the purpose of capture, and in this manner our Treasury

would be drained to an extent which no man could at present foresee. He

could see no use in the provision, as it would not induce merchant

vessels to go in search of French vessels; and, without some unfair

play, it would never be worth the while of persons fitting out

privateers for the purpose. He called the yeas and nays upon it. They

were taken accordingly, and were, yeas 34, nays 36, as follows:

YEAS.--John Allen, Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard, David

Brooks, Christopher G. Champlin, Joshua Coit, William

Craik, Samuel W. Dana, William Edmond, Abiel Foster, Dwight

Foster, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon,

Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley,

William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John

Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac

Parker, John Read, John Rutledge, jun., James Schureman,

Samuel Sewall, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves,

Nathaniel Smith, George Thatcher, Mark Thompson, and John

E. Van Allen.

NAYS.--David Bard, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Dempsey

Burges, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne,

John Clopton, John Dawson, George Dent, Albert Gallatin,

James Gillespie, William Barry Grove, Carter B. Harrison,

Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter

Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon,

Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell,

Anthony New, John Nicholas, Samuel Smith, William Smith,

Richard Sprigg, jr., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter,

Thomas Tillinghast, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt,

Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.

And so the said bill was rejected.

SATURDAY, July 14.

The hour having arrived, at which the call of the House was to be made,

the names of the members were called over, eighty-two members (including

the Speaker) appeared in their seats, twenty-three absent, twenty of

whom have leave, one sick, and two for whom excuses were made, and

received by the House.

_Capture of French vessels._

Mr. SITGREAVES, called up for decision the resolution he laid on the

table yesterday, viz:

_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to prepare and

bring in a bill for giving a bounty on the capture of

French armed ships or vessels, by armed ships or vessels

owned by a citizen or citizens of the United States.

The question on the resolution, was then put and negatived--yeas 40,

nays 41.

And so the motion was rejected.

MONDAY, July 16.

_Intercourse with France._

Another bill was received from the Senate, to amend the act for

suspending the commercial intercourse between the United States and

France and her dependencies.

Mr. NICHOLAS moved to postpone this bill till next session.

Mr. HARPER hoped not. This bill, he said, was very different from the

one which had been negatived. That proposed to dispense with sureties

altogether; this only to lower the amount of the bond. Instead of the

owner giving security in a sum equal to the amount of vessel and cargo,

and finding two sureties in half the sum, this bill proposes that the

owner and master shall be bound in a sum equal to the amount of the

value of the vessel, and a surety in from one to ten thousand dollars.

To exact a bond equal to the amount of the vessel and cargo in every

case, would be very inconvenient. They are sometimes very valuable.

There is now, he said, a vessel in this port ready to sail, whose cargo

is worth $300,000. To exact from the owner a bond to the full amount,

and two sureties in half the sum, would be requiring a very heavy

security from them. It would be sufficient, he thought, to require a

bond equal to the profit which it is probable would be derived from any

voyage.

Mr. S. SMITH said, this bill was certainly very different from that

which had been rejected by this House, though it did not meet with his

approbation at present. It was capable, however, of amendment. The

security at present proposed was not worthy of the name. Had he a ship

ready to sail such as the gentleman last up had named, he would

willingly forfeit the sum proposed, to have the privilege of sending her

to a French market. The difference in price between a French and a

Hamburg market would make it well worth his while to do so. In many

cases, such a voyage would afford 50 per cent. A regulation something

like the present could only secure the fair trader; but the surety must

be a much larger sum than $10,000.

The committee rose, however, and Mr. SMITH renewed his amendment in the

House, when it was agreed to, after some objections to it from Mr.

BAYARD--36 to 28. The bill was then ordered to be read a third time,

received its third reading, and passed.

The House having received all the bills from the PRESIDENT, and the

business of the two Houses being finished, the SPEAKER adjourned the

House till the first Monday in December next.