GRENVILLE.

DOWNING STREET, _November 27, 1798_.

Mr. LIVINGSTON moved that this communication be printed.

Mr. ALLEN objected to the motion as it would delay the consideration of

the bill proposing to vest the PRESIDENT with the power of retaliation

in certain cases; and it was clear, from this communication, it ought to

have no effect upon that bill.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said he was not possessed of that intuitive faculty which

the gentleman from Connecticut seemed to have, as he seems prepared to

act on the bill alluded to, without scarcely hearing this communication

read; and, perhaps, without knowing the dates of the different decrees.

The PRESIDENT has told the House that though the obnoxious decree has

been repealed, there is still left in force another decree. Does the

gentleman from Connecticut recollect the words of that decree? Or has he

had time to examine whether that decree is really in force, or not? If

he had done this, Mr. L. said he had not done it. It would appear, from

what happened the other day, that the House ought not to move quite so

rapidly in this business. The House was then told by the gentleman from

South Carolina, that it was impossible that this information could have

been received by the PRESIDENT, because, if it had been received, the

PRESIDENT would undoubtedly have immediately sent it to the House. [Mr.

RUTLEDGE said, he did not use the word impossible, but improbable.] Mr.

L. admitted this might be the word. But it now appears, that the

PRESIDENT has not only received the information then alluded to, but

received it officially.

Mr. ALLEN interrupted Mr. L. by withdrawing his motion. The

communication was ordered to be printed, and was committed to the same

Committee of the Whole to whom was referred the bill vesting the power

of retaliation in the PRESIDENT.

MONDAY, February 18.

_Army Increase._

A bill from the Senate giving eventual authority to the PRESIDENT OF THE

UNITED STATES to augment the army. [This bill gives the PRESIDENT

authority, in case a war shall break out between the United States and

any foreign power, or in case of imminent danger of such war, in his

opinion to exist, to organize and raise twenty-four regiments of

infantry, one regiment of riflemen, and three regiments of cavalry. The

PRESIDENT is also authorized to call out the volunteer corps, on all

occasions in which he is at present authorized to call out the militia,

provided that he does not call a greater proportion from any one State,

than he is authorized to call out of the militia, by the law which

directs the 80,000 militia to be held in readiness. If it be necessary

to carry this law into effect, two millions of dollars are appropriated

for the purpose.]

On the question for reading this bill a second time, it was carried--45

to 37.

_Capture of French Vessels._

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

RUTLEDGE in the chair, on the bill encouraging the capture of French

armed vessels, by armed ships or vessels, owned by a citizen or citizens

of the United States, and for allowing salvage in certain cases. The

bill, which proposes a bounty on guns, according to their sizes, having

been read,

Mr. MCDOWELL observed, that this bill is similar to the one which was

two or three different times negatived at the last session. At that

time, he considered the situation of this country more alarming than at

present, and the conduct of France more likely to drive us to

extremities than it has since been. Knowing this, he did not expect

gentlemen would have introduced a bill of this kind. Finding however

that gentlemen are not satisfied with things as they are, but are

desirous of hiring the people of the United States to make war upon

France, though they are unwilling to declare war, and not being willing

to give his vote to any such measure, he should move to strike out the

first section of the bill.

The question was put, when there appeared 43 votes for it, and 42

against it, and the Chairman said "it is carried," before he declared

his vote to be in the negative.

A motion was made for the committee to rise, and negatived--43 to 42.

WEDNESDAY, February 20.

MATTHEW LYON, from Vermont, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

_Alien and Sedition laws._

Mr. LIVINGSTON said, he had received, under cover, a number of petitions

from the State of Vermont, praying for a repeal of the alien and

sedition laws, which he begged leave to present to the House. One of

which having been read, in which, among their other objections to the

laws, the petitioners complain of having been deprived, by the sedition

law, of their Representative in Congress for the greater part of the

present session; Mr. L. moved to have the whole referred to the select

committee to whom was referred the other petitions relative to this

subject; but on Mr. GALLATIN's suggesting that he understood that

committee is ready to report, and that it would therefore be better to

suffer the petitions to lie on the table until that report is made, and

then have the whole referred to the same Committee of the Whole; that

course was taken.

_Capture of French Vessels._

The House took up the report of the Committee of the Whole on the bill

for encouraging the capture of French privateers, by allowing a bounty

on guns, and the motion being to concur in the agreement of the

committee to strike out the first section of the bill,

Mr. MACON said, there were some other observations made the other day,

when this subject was under consideration, which he thought very foreign

to the subject. The history of this bill during the last session was

given. The House was told it was three times rejected--once by trick. He

was surprised to hear two gentlemen make use of this expression. If

there was any trick, it certainly was among those gentlemen who had so

frequently brought the subject before the House. It had been said, also,

that it was once rejected by accident. It was the first time he had ever

heard it urged as a reason for reconsidering a subject, that certain

members had before voted accidentally upon it. Another reason was given,

that the vote in the Committee of the Whole had been improperly

obtained, by taking advantage of a mistake of the Chairman. By the rules

of the House, Mr. M. said, the Speaker, or Chairman of a Committee of

the Whole, has a casting vote, or they may tie a vote; but, after the

Chairman had declared the question carried, it might be supposed he did

not mean to vote, or if he did that he meant to vote with the majority.

Mr. M. said, he had seen a letter printed in the papers from one of our

naval commanders in the West Indies, wherein he says, that American

vessels sail into the neighborhood of the French islands, in order to be

carried in; that they afterwards get away, pretending to have made their

escape, and soon return with another cargo. He also mentions having

fallen in with one of these vessels evidently steering for a French

island, but the vessel's papers were so well managed, and the captain

and mate understood each other so well, that he could make nothing of

them. If, said Mr. M., the laws for suspending our intercourse with

France and her possessions can be so easily evaded, might it not be

expected that this law would be evaded, and that privateers might be

fitted out in the West Indies, and brought to a certain latitude, for

the purpose of being taken? He had no doubt this would be the case.

Mr. MCDOWELL said, that when this bill was before under discussion, he

had stated that our situation with respect to France appeared to be more

favorable than last year. This was denied by the gentleman from

Massachusetts (Mr. OTIS.) He considers our danger greater, and this bill

more necessary than at that time; and has gone on to remark, that all

that was said about our improved situation with respect to France, were

songs only fit for children, and not for the people of America. He was

of a different opinion; they were the songs of peace, and as such, he

believed, suited to the people of this country, who wish to live in

peace. And if that gentleman knew more of the evils attendant on war

than he does, he certainly would not be so ready to embrace them as he

appears to be.

But he thought the gentleman from Massachusetts mistaken as to our

situation; he believed it to be much better than it was at the last

session. He formed this opinion from the despatches of Mr. Gerry, who

declares it to be his opinion, that France is sincerely disposed to make

peace; and more particularly from the PRESIDENT having nominated a

Minister to treat with France, though he had declared he never would

send another Minister until he should receive assurances that he would

be received as the Minister of a great, free, and powerful nation. He

supposed, therefore, that the PRESIDENT has received these assurances,

and that we have, on this account, some reason to hope, that a

reconciliation between the two Governments will take place.

He was opposed to this bill, because it might be the means of bringing

the country into difficulties and war; it was giving to one part of our

citizens the power to embroil the whole. No necessity has been shown to

exist for this law; it is, indeed, said to be necessary to keep down the

privateers of France, but we find by letters which have just been

published, from the commanders of our armed vessels, that there are very

few to be seen. But supposing there are yet a number of them, what

better use can our public armed vessels be put to than to go after them?

They must either be employed in doing this, or sent where he did not

wish them to go, to the European seas, or kept useless at home.

Mr. GALLATIN would not have troubled the House on this subject, had it

not been for the remark of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. OTIS)

immediately before the adjournment took place on Monday. He told the

House that the vote on this subject ought not to be influenced by the

nomination of a minister to go to France; and he precluded any answer

being then given to the remark, by moving an adjournment.

For my part, said Mr. G., I do not consider this bill as very important

in itself, and I have always been at a loss to know why there appeared

to be so great an anxiety to have it passed. It is said, we ought not to

recede from the ground we have taken; and really, from the arguments of

the gentleman from Massachusetts, it would appear that there was a

motion before the House to prevent our merchants from arming their

vessels, or our public vessels from taking French privateers. This

measure brings us to the question, not whether we will recede, but

whether we will progress. The object of this bill is not to authorize

any new measure, but it is to give a bounty to merchants to do what they

are already authorized to do. The only question is, whether it will

promote the taking of French privateers? He believed it would produce no

effect at all, except the blanks in the bill are to be filled with sums

which would produce a very serious demand on our treasury. The object of

merchants is to make a safe and quick voyage, and if privateers will

keep out of their way, they will never go in search of them: and if they

should fall in with a privateer, their aim would be self-defence, and

not capture, since to attempt this might hazard the loss of their vessel

and valuable cargo, and take from them means of defence against any

other attack, since they must put their own men on board the captured

privateer.

It is clear, therefore, said Mr. G., that one of two things must take

place, either we must give such a bounty on the guns of privateers as

will make the expense of taking them greater than the benefit, or else

it will become a mere matter of speculation, or small vessels will be

fitted out on purpose to obtain the bounty. When privateers are taken by

other countries, they are always taken by their vessels of war, and

seldom by letters of marque.

But it is said this measure ought to be taken, in order to strengthen

the hands of our Minister, by showing our determination to resist, in

case an accommodation does not take place. On the same grounds, Mr. G.

said, a declaration of war might be urged.

As to the effect to be expected from the appointment of a Minister to

treat with France, he considered it merely as opening a door to

negotiation. He agreed with the gentleman from Massachusetts, that it

ought by no means to be considered as putting an end to the dispute

between the two countries. It may succeed, or not. But this step having

been taken, he did not think proper to go into a measure of this kind,

especially since it can be attended with so little good effect.

Mr. JOSIAH PARKER said, when he gave notice to the House on Monday of

the nomination of a Minister to go to France, and declared that, on that

account, he should vote against this bill, he did not do so because he

was willing to relax from any of our measures of defence or offence

against the French; but because he thought the measure proposed by this

bill puerile and ineffectual, and therefore unnecessary. When he made

this declaration, he was sorry to differ in opinion from the gentleman

from Massachusetts, with whom he had had the honor to vote very

frequently. At the same time that he said this, he declared himself

ready to abide by every measure of defence yet adopted, and even to take

higher ground than has yet been taken: for he had no opinion either of

the magnanimity or sincerity of the French Republic. He believed they

had no desire for peace, except such as arose from their changed

situation. He thought it better, however, not to go into any little,

irritating measure, like this. The PRESIDENT had heretofore told the

House that he would never send another Minister to France until he

received assurances that he would be properly received; he believed the

PRESIDENT had received these assurances from the French Minister at the

Hague, through our Minister there.

Mr. P. thought the second section of this bill, allowing a salvage on

the retaking of any of our vessels, ought to pass; the first he hoped

would be struck out.

Mr. PINCKNEY was sorry to differ in opinion from the gentleman just sat

down as to the expediency of passing this bill. He did not think it a

measure of great importance; but, as an additional measure of defence,

it may have some effect, and he was therefore for agreeing to it. He

thought the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GALLATIN) had put the

prospect of a negotiation with France upon a proper footing; and he

agreed with that gentleman that we ought not to vary the ground we have

already taken; but he did not think that any augmentation of force would

be going off the ground originally taken.

What, asked Mr. P., was the ground taken at the last session, and acted

upon at this? It was, that we should, by all means in our power, prepare

for our defence, more especially that we should add to every measure of

defence to which our revenue is adequate, on the ocean. We have shown

this to be our determination both at the last session and this, and our

preparations have only been limited by our ability to make them. This

measure, therefore, is a continuance of the same ground.

This bill reverts, therefore, altogether upon the question of

expediency, and this he thought the proper footing on which to place

it. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has objected to its expediency,

because he says it will be inefficacious. Mr. P. would give a short

answer to this, which was, that its expense will be commensurate with

its utility. There is no doubt, if it has any effect at all; if it

induces any private armed vessels of the United States to bring into our

ports privateers which are depredating on our commerce, no moderate

reward could be too great to be given for this advantage. And if there

is nothing done; if the law proves ineffectual, then the public is

nothing out of pocket. It is one of those cheap expedients which may be

beneficial, but which can have no bad consequences.

Mr. HARPER believed that gentlemen, in their deliberations on this

subject, have fallen into some mistakes as to the course which this bill

took at the last session. Mr. H. gave the history of this bill, and also

spoke of the decision which had taken place in Committee of the Whole as

by no means conclusive. On the general policy of the measure, he was not

inclined to make any observations. He believed it was well understood;

but he would not omit this occasion of declaring, that, in his opinion,

its policy had not been changed by the nomination which has taken place

of a Minister to treat with the French Republic.

It is said that an intimation has been made, not through the Dutch

Minister, but through the Secretary of Legation at the Hague, to our

Minister there, that the French government is disposed to receive any

Minister Plenipotentiary which we may choose to appoint, suitable to the

dignity due to the representative of a great, free, and independent

nation. This intimation having been given to the PRESIDENT, he has

thought it proper to meet the advance so far as to nominate a Minister,

which Minister is to go to France, provided he shall receive assurances

of being properly received, and a Minister of equal rank appointed to

treat with him.

This change, Mr. H. said, from haughty insolence; from the expulsion of

our Minister; from a demand of tribute; from requiring apologies for

speeches; from outrage and insult, to the mild language of supplication,

must certainly have been owing to the measures of this Government, and

therefore clearly evinced the policy and propriety of these measures. We

have thus far, said Mr. H., seen the good effects of buckling on our

armor, at the same time that we hold out the olive branch. And instead

of relaxing, we ought now to brace up the system; not that he would wish

to take any new ground but merely reinforce and invigorate the system

already established. This he thought the true policy of this country.

Whether this application for a negotiation on the part of the French

Republic may arise from sincerity, or from a wish to wheedle this

country to their own advantage, or because they perceive we are not to

be bullied into submission, and therefore it is best to live on

friendly terms with us, he held it wise policy in us to enlarge our

means both of defence and offence, until our dispute with France is

brought to a close. He, therefore, thought it of more importance to

adopt this measure now than heretofore; because, if it is not carried,

it may be supposed that we have forborne to adopt it, because we are

disposed to relax the instant we have information that a negotiation is

likely to be opened, and that they may at any time unnerve our arm by a

proposition to negotiate. Therefore, if he had before been against this

measure, he should now be in favor of it, because, if it had no other

good effect, it would convince the government with which we are about to

treat, that the same vigorous measures which have produced this

negotiation will still be continued, and that though we are treating for

peace, we are preparing for war, and that we are determined to do

ourselves justice, if they refuse to do us justice. For these reasons he

hoped the bill would pass.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said, that considering how great a favorite this measure

had been of its partial parents, it was the most unlucky child that ever

showed its face in the House. It had scarcely seen the light at the last

session, when it was lost in the short passage from its nursery in the

committee to the House, because those who were most interested in its

preservation, by accident, did not happen to vote for it. Another

accident of the same nature prevented its passage when it was again

attempted in the same session. At the interval of a year, the same ill

fortune seemed to pursue this unlucky bantling. It had scarcely taken

its first step into existence when the same forgetfulness seemed to

seize all those who had the care of it. Again, it was lost in the

committee; again it accidentally expired; and all the efforts to revive

it, he believed, would be in vain. Mr. L. then went into a history of

the bill to show that it was lost, not by accident, but because a

majority were opposed to it.

Mr. L. said, he understood that France proposes to receive a Minister

from this country on the very terms upon which only the PRESIDENT OF THE

UNITED STATES has heretofore said he would ever send one. It was said to

be improper to recede from the ground we have taken on this account,

because the French may not be sincere. He had heard no such idea

suggested, and gentlemen certainly do wrong in imputing motives to

others without foundation. But when gentlemen come to the merits of the

bill, they touch them very lightly. They tell you it is part of our

general system of defence. Is this the case? How is it to operate? It is

to operate as a measure of aggression, not of preservation, or

self-defence; and though he was perfectly willing to preserve our

present ground, he did not wish to progress in any measures of

hostility, especially when so little advantage can be derived from it as

is proposed by this bill.

Mr. DANA said that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in his Message

to both Houses of the 21st of June last, declared, "that he would never

send another Minister to France until he had assurances that he would be

received as the Minister of a great, free, and powerful nation." The

character of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES for integrity and

political fortitude, is well known and established, and that character

is pledged for an adherence to the declaration above recited. Nor had he

any idea of his receding from it. With a knowledge of this fact, we are

to inquire what is the purport of the information which has been given

to this House of a Minister having been appointed to negotiate with the

French Republic. For his own part he did not consider the French

Government sincere; and he was authorized to think so by the declaration

of this House in answer to the PRESIDENT'S Speech. Nor did he think the

PRESIDENT believed them to be sincere, and he was authorized in thinking

so, from his communication to both Houses at the opening of the session.

How, then, is the nomination of a Minister to be understood? It was to

be understood in the same light in which we used to appoint

Commissioners during our Revolutionary war, who were sent to Europe to

treat with Great Britain long before we expected she would be willing to

treat for peace; but they were possessed of eventual authority. So, in

the present case, the authority proposed to be given to our Minister at

the Hague, is only to be an eventual authority, that when he receives

sufficient evidence of the sincerity of the French Government, he may

proceed to treat with them. Nor did he believe that the Senate possessed

any document informing them that the PRESIDENT has already received

these assurances.

[Mr. D. here read extracts from the PRESIDENT'S Address to both Houses,

from the address of this House in answer to it, and from his reply; in

which the PRESIDENT states he can have no confidence in the sincerity of

the French Government, while the decree which condemns our vessels as

prizes, on account of having articles of British growth or manufacture

on board, is in force.]

We know, said Mr. D., that this decree is, however, yet in force; and

yet gentlemen pretend to say that the nomination which has taken place

is a proof that the PRESIDENT has now some reliance on the sincerity of

the French Government; whereas it is nothing more than a conditional

appointment, such as he had already stated. No gentleman will hazard his

political sagacity by saying, a negotiation is likely to take place

whilst that decree is in existence; nor can any gentleman be found who

will apologize for it, if it is so atrocious that its repeal must be an

indispensable preliminary to any negotiation which may take place.

Believing this nomination, therefore, to be nothing more than the naming

of a person to treat with the French Government when it shall condescend

to do us justice, the arguments of gentlemen built upon it fall to the

ground. And if they attend to the declaration of this House, in the

address already alluded to, they will find that we ought to advance in

our defensive measures instead of receding, or even remaining

stationary.

Mr. NICHOLAS supposed during the first half of the speech, of the

gentleman who had just sat down, that he meant to vote against this

bill, for he could not have supposed that he had quoted the PRESIDENT'S

Message to Congress, in June last, for the purpose of making a

declaration such as he has made with respect to it. He supposes that the

PRESIDENT has received no assurances from the French Republic that our

Minister will be received, though he has heretofore said he never would

send a Minister until he had assurances he would be properly received;

but that he has appointed a Minister to wait, as it were, at the door of

France, for a declaration that he will be properly received. And he

supposes that the declaration of the PRESIDENT will in this way be

satisfied. Mr. N. believed, if the PRESIDENT has appointed a Minister,

he will be received, because he did not believe he would have appointed

him until he had good assurances that this would be the case; or, if he

has, that he has certainly forgotten his declaration.

The gentleman last up had made use of a very extraordinary argument. He

says the French nation is governed by different principles from any

other. When we entreat them to be at peace, he says, they insult us; but

when we give them cause to wage eternal war against us, they become

humble and submissive. Mr. N. believed that this was not the first time

that such measures have had this tendency; but it is the first time it

has been acknowledged that the measure alluded to (the publication of

the despatches containing the unauthorized negotiations of X, Y, and Z,

he supposed was meant) was calculated to produce these direful effects.

He did fear they were intended to have these mischievous consequences;

but he hoped and believed that their being so notorious and palpable

have been the means of defeating the intention, and of saving the nation

from war, as it showed that the Government of this country had no desire

to be at peace. The French saw that a war between the United States and

them would have been a war of passion, in which they could have had no

possible interest, and which would, above all other things, have proved

agreeable to their enemy. They saw that there was a party in this

country who wished for this state of things, and he believed the

extremity to which things had been carried has defeated the object in

view. I do believe, said Mr. N., that France is now disposed to make

peace; that she is calling upon us to enter into negotiation, in order

that the party in this country who are desirous of war may have no

pretext for carrying their wishes into effect.

Mr. N. was astonished, that after a Minister of respectable character, a

Minister chosen by the PRESIDENT, and who declared he accepted of the

employment from a desire to support his administration, being well

acquainted with the disposition of France, from his having resided there

a considerable time--has asserted that, previous to their knowledge of

the publication of the negotiations of X, Y, and Z, in this country, the

French Government were desirous of negotiating a peace; that after

having rejected two of our Ministers, and retained a third, the

resentments appeared to be satisfied; and that, though, after they had

received information of the publication of these despatches, their

displeasure was for a while excited, yet before Mr. Gerry left France,

the same disposition for peace had returned; though, from the

disposition which appeared in this country, they were doubtful how their

overtures would be received. And after we have now proofs that they have

made overtures, in conformity to the sentiments exhibited in Mr. Gerry's

despatches, it was astonishing, he said, that gentlemen should ascribe

this offer to negotiate to the effect which the small force we raised

has had upon them--a force which could not possibly have availed any

thing against such a force as it might be expected would be sent against

us, if it was the purpose of France to invade this country.

Mr. RUTLEDGE observed, that the effect of the measures which were taken

at the two last sessions of Congress have been so different from what

was predicted by the gentleman from Virginia that he was no longer

inclined to give credit to his predictions. He has constantly been

prophesying, but time and experience have shown his prophesies to be

wholly unfounded. It was doubtless in the recollection of the House,

that that gentleman thought it would be weak to rely upon a navy; he

thought and said that many of the measures formerly taken would plunge

the country in war, by causing a declaration of war on the part of

France. The gentleman apologized for the length of his speeches, because

he thought the measures of the last importance; and that if they were

adopted, the scabbard would be thrown away, and it would not be in our

power to resume it. But, instead of war, it is now found these measures

have obtained for us peace--at least gentlemen say so. The gentleman

from Virginia now predicts we shall have peace; but as all the former

predictions of that gentleman have fallen to the ground, he trusted a

majority of this House will not be inclined to give credit to his

present prediction.

Much had been said about the diplomatic skill of France; and he thought

her present conduct more deserving of this epithet than any of her

former measures with respect to this country. Let gentlemen review the

conduct of that country. She first attempted to bully us; but finding

that we were not to be frightened, her next object was to obtain delay,

in order to afford time for the spirit which had been roused by her

injuries, to spend its force. When our Minister, Mr. Pinckney, first

arrived in France, he was assured he would be received; but the French

had an agent in this country feeling the pulse of the people, and

finding that there existed a great deal of French mania, and a party

upon whom they could rely, the French Government refused to receive our

Minister. This country, still desirous of preserving peace, sent three

Commissioners. What was then the conduct of the French Government? Our

Ministers remained for months at Paris an unique spectacle, waiting in

vain to be received. France has endeavored to palsy our Government--to

produce delay--to give time for that noble spirit which has done so much

honor to our country to spend itself. When she finds that our efforts to

negotiate having failed, we buckled on our armor, and were determined to

resist her injustice, the French Secretary of Legation at the Hague is

directed to have some conversation with our Minister there; and assure

him, notwithstanding this country had done acts enough to justify the

most offensive measures, that if he will send another Minister to

France, he would be received as an agent of a great, independent, and

powerful nation. Gentlemen catch at this; but what is it but an attempt

to arrest the arm of the Government of this country, just when it was

about to strike a blow? And yet gentlemen are the dupes of this

diplomatic skill.

Mr. LIVINGSTON was not surprised that gentlemen who had always been the

advocates of war, at this critical moment, when all the horrors of peace

stare them in the face, should seize every opportunity of postponing

that dreaded event by questioning the sincerity of the offer to

negotiate. [Mr. RUTLEDGE asked whether this had been done? The SPEAKER

answered in the negative.] From those gentlemen this was naturally to

have been expected, and he therefore excused their vexation and dismay.

But Mr. L. said he was not a little astonished that others, who at least

professed an attachment to peace, should betray such evident anxiety and

uneasiness at its approach. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.

RUTLEDGE) has said that he wishes for peace; that no class of men are

more exposed than his constituents, and that he himself would be a great

sufferer by war. Such wishes and such motives he was however inclined to

believe would have prompted language very different from that which had

just been heard. A gentleman really desirous of peace would not, he

should have supposed, travel out of the argument to pronounce philippics

against those with whom we were treating, or to question the sincerity

of overtures which were made in the mode we ourselves had prescribed.

He would not ask gentlemen who pronounce so decisively on the subject;

who tell us that no reliance is to be placed in French professions; that

they promise only to betray; that, unlike all other nations, they treat

us with disdain when we ask for peace, but like spaniels, crouch and

fawn upon us when we use them ill, whether they had calculated the

consequences of their doctrine? That would be demanding more from them

than their conduct had given him a right to expect; but he would ask

whether they had attended to dates, when they arrogated to their

measures the credit of producing the present disposition for peace in

the Government of France? Let it be remembered, said Mr. L., that the

most earnest and pressing solicitations for an accommodation were

expressed to Mr. Gerry; that he was repeatedly urged to negotiate a

treaty, which it was more than intimated he might have on his own terms;

and that, after his repeated refusals to treat, a Minister was

designated to carry these pacific intentions to America--and all this

before any account of those measures on which gentlemen so much pride

themselves had arrived in France. Let it not be forgotten, too, that

when the account of these measures did arrive, so far from having a

beneficial effect, they were very near producing the one for which

gentlemen now tell us they were intended, and for which they were indeed

admirably calculated--that of provoking on the part of France, a

declaration which could not be obtained here. Mr. Gerry very

expressively gives us these important facts. He states the evident

desire to accommodate before the arrival of the despatches, and the turn

which their contents gave to the negotiation. The discussion was turned

to unimportant points; the design of sending a Minister was

relinquished; and every thing showed a design to protract the business,

until it could be ascertained whether the United States were desirous of

peace, or would receive a Minister if he should be sent. In this state

of things, Mr. Gerry received orders to return. All further intercourse

with France then ceased, until the PRESIDENT, by his Message to this

House, declared the terms on which alone he would send a Minister to

France. No sooner were these terms known, than the assurance is sent in

the very words prescribed by the PRESIDENT, accompanied by expressions

of an earnest desire to treat. In all this history, subsequent to the

departure of Messrs. Pinckney and Marshall, he thought an evident desire

had been shown for an accommodation, the sincerity of which he believed

it was our duty to test--not by reproachful speeches and hostile

measures, but by meeting their overtures for negotiation in good faith;

and while we showed our desire for peace, not to trust too much to our

wishes, but retain every measure of defence.

The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. RUTLEDGE) had mentioned delay.

France, he said, always conquered by producing delays. This he thought

not a very applicable expression to the rapidity with which gentlemen

traced their conquests. But on this occasion it was particularly

unfortunate. It appears that the overtures which have now been acted

upon were communicated by the Minister for Foreign Relations at Paris,

to Mr. Pichon at the Hague, and by him to Mr. Murray, on the 28th of

September; and we hear nothing of them until the close of February. He

did not know when the communication was received here; but there was at

least a probability, from the date, that it was before the opening of

the session; before the adoption of all the expensive measures we have

undertaken; before the loan was opened at eight per cent.; before the

intemperate commentary was written on Mr. Gerry's despatches, with which

we have been favored by the Secretary of State. Let gentlemen compare

the language of that singular State paper with these proposals made to

Mr. Murray; let them examine the respective dates, and then let them

talk to us of delay.

Mr. SHEPARD could not think, with the gentleman from New York, that

France is serious in her proposals to negotiate; he believed she meant

to deceive us; and sooner than be deceived by them, he would fight the

ungodly nation. After some other observations, he sat down, with hoping

the question would be taken.

The question was put on agreeing to the report of the Committee of the

Whole, and carried--52 to 48, as follows:

YEAS.--George Baer, jr., Abraham Baldwin, David Bard,

Richard Brent, Robert Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, John

Chapman, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne,

Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson,

George Dent, Joseph Eggleston, Lucas Elmendorph, William

Findlay, John Fowler, Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Albert

Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, William Barry

Grove, 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, Josiah Parker, Thompson J. Skinner, Samuel Smith,

William Smith, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Peleg Sprague,

Richard Sprigg, Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram

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

Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.

NAYS.--John Allen, Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard,

Jonathan Brace, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher

G. Champlin, James Cochran, Wm. Craik, Samuel W. Dana, John

Dennis, William Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight

Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich,

William Gordon, Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper,

Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, Jas.

H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, James Machir,

William Matthews, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac

Parker, Thomas Pinckney, John Read, John Rutledge, jr.,

James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas

Sinnickson, Nathaniel Smith, George Thatcher, Richard

Thomas, Mark Thompson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van

Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, Robert Waln, and John Williams.

The second section was then amended by adding to it the usual enacting

clause; but after some observations against passing it by Mr. SEWALL,

since the first section had been stricken out on the motion for its

going to a third reading, it was negatived. And so the bill was

rejected.

_Expulsion of Matthew Lyon._

Mr. BAYARD proposed the following resolution to the House:

"_Resolved_, That Matthew Lyon, a member of this House,

having been convicted of being a notorious and seditious

person, and of a depraved mind, and wicked and diabolical

disposition; and of wickedly, deceitfully, and maliciously,

contriving to defame the Government of the United States;

and having, with intent and design to defame the Government

of the United States, and John Adams, the PRESIDENT OF THE

UNITED STATES, and to bring the said Government and

PRESIDENT into contempt and disrepute, and with intent and

design to excite against the said Government and PRESIDENT

the hatred of the good people of the United States, and to

stir up sedition in the United States--wickedly, knowingly,

and maliciously, written and published certain scandalous

and seditious writings, or libels, be therefor expelled

this House."

Mr. B. said he had only to remark that this resolution is copied from

the record of the trial, which he had in his possession.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, if this had been a candid statement of the business,

he should have been willing to have come to an immediate vote upon it;

but words are introduced into this resolution (which are words of course

in every indictment) which do not particularly belong to this offence,

and the truth of which is never inquired into upon a trial. As he wished

the nature of the offence to be clearly stated, he hoped the motion

would lie for the present.

Mr. BAYARD observed he had already said the terms used are copied from

the record itself, and he did not think the gentleman from Virginia had

been wiser than the law. He had himself no doubt that all the charges on

the record are pertinent to the subject; if not, it would be extremely

improper to introduce them. They are charges upon which a jury of the

country have decided.

Mr. NICHOLAS appealed to the gentleman from Delaware, and to all other

gentlemen of the law who heard him, whether the words here used are not

the mere form of the indictment, and unconnected with the act here

charged. He moved to adjourn, which motion was carried without a

division.

FRIDAY, February 22.

_Alien and Sedition Laws._

Mr. BARD presented several petitions and remonstrances from 1,487

inhabitants of the county of Franklin, in Pennsylvania, praying for the

repeal of the alien and sedition laws; which having been read,

Mr. BARD moved to have this petition referred as usual.

Mr. HARPER inquired whether it would be in order to strike out a part of

this petition. On being answered in the negative by the SPEAKER, Mr. H.

said, he was always unwilling to object to the reference of petitions;

but, on this occasion he could not help protesting against an atrocious

libel contained in these petitions against the courts and juries of this

country. Some time ago a great deal had been said on the subject of

courts and juries in this House, and now we find the sentiments, as many

others have been, reverberated in the form of petitions. It is here

said, "that the sedition law had, in its execution, been used as a means

of private vengeance, personal enmity, and party resentment." A charge

so unjustifiable, and so untrue, upon the courts and juries of this

country, he could not suffer to be referred without his protest.

Mr. GALLATIN observed, that the reference of these petitions is objected

to, on account of what the gentleman from South Carolina calls a libel,

which makes a part of these petitions. This, said Mr. G., is going upon

the ground, which the greatest enemies of these laws have barely

suggested might be taken, but which they thought scarcely possible, viz:

that the right of petitioning might next be restricted, since the

liberty of writing and speaking on the measures of Government was by law

restricted: and now, taking it for granted, that the allegation

contained in these petitions is untrue, the gentleman from South

Carolina wishes to refuse these petitions a reference, without examining

whether it is true or not. The petitioners say that the sedition law has

been carried into effect under the operation of party spirit and

personal revenge. The gentleman says that this is not true; but he does

not want to have the allegation examined, in order to discover whether

it be true or not, but to dismiss the subject at once; to tell the

people, "You shall not be permitted to lay your petitions before us, if

you dare to say that laws are carried into operation to gratify party

spirit or private revenge, (for nothing is said of courts and juries,)

if they contain such allegations, we will reject your petitions." Mr. G.

hoped, on examination of the fact, the House would be convinced that

though the charge is not a libel, that it is at least a gross mistake;

that no such personal enmity, party spirit, or private revenge, has

taken place, either in the commencement of any prosecution under this

law, or in any decision which has taken place. But thus to object to the

reference of petitions, would be to say that we have the power of

defining the nature of petitions; that they may apply to this and that

object, but that there are certain points which the people may not

touch. He wished to know whether the people have not a right to say, if

they choose, that the administration of justice is corrupt? and whether,

if they do say so, the fact ought not to be inquired into? It certainly

ought, and he was surprised to hear such an objection made. It must have

arisen, because these petitions are grating to the feelings of gentlemen

who are favorable to these laws. He hoped, on recollection, that the

reference of petitions does not imply an approbation of the sentiments

contained in them, that the gentleman from South Carolina would permit

these petitions to be referred.

Mr. HARPER was not surprised that the gentleman from Pennsylvania should

defend these petitions, for reasons which every man must know. What he

has said upon the subject is no more than a repetition of some things

which we have before heard. He agreed that, when grievances are

complained of, they ought to be examined; and if the people were to

complain of a maladministration of justice, the fact ought to be

inquired into; but when the repeal of a law is prayed for, it certainly

cannot be proper for petitioners to go into charges against the

administration of courts and juries, by saying that prosecutions are

carried on under party malice and party revenge. To do this is to strike

at the vitals of our constitution. The gentleman from Pennsylvania likes

this, perhaps, from party motives, but he ought to remember that it is

an instrument which will cut both ways; and the use of which, if he has

any respect for the laws and rights of his country, he may live to

regret having countenanced. Mr. H. said, if in order, he would move to

refer this part of the memorial to a select committee, with a view of

inquiring into the subject-matter, and report their opinion thereon to

the House.

The SPEAKER declared such a motion out of order; and, after some

observations from Mr. NICHOLAS, in which he said the gentleman from

South Carolina had answered himself, by allowing the propriety of a

reference at all; and observed, if because these petitions complained of

the administration of one part of our Government (which, however, he did

not allow they do) they were to be rejected, it might be expected that,

hereafter, no petition would be received that complained of the

maladministration of any department of the Government.

The reference was carried, there being 55 votes for it.

Mr. GALLATIN presented petitions from six hundred and seventy-eight

inhabitants of Chester County, praying for the repeal of the alien and

sedition laws, in the same words with those presented yesterday.

_On expelling Matthew Lyon._

Mr. BAYARD called up for consideration the following resolution, which

he had laid upon the table a day or two ago:

The resolution having been read, Mr. B. presented to the House a copy of

the record of Mr. Lyon's trial, which was read by the Clerk, after

which,

Mr. B. observed, it would not be necessary to trouble the House with

many observations in support of this resolution. The facts upon which

the resolution is founded, are proved to be incontrovertibly true, by

the record which had just been read. The only question, therefore,

before the House was, as to the consequence of the fact, or whether the

crime of which the member in question had been convicted, is a

sufficient cause for expulsion. Mr. B. referred the House to that

clause of the constitution which gives the House the power of expulsion.

The power, said he, is unlimited. The House has the power to expel a

member for any crime, or for any cause, which, in their discretion, they

conceive has rendered him unfit to remain a member of the body. Perhaps

some gentlemen may think that it is improper for the House to take

notice of acts done by its members out of the House, but he believed the

fallacy of such a doctrine would be easily seen. It was certainly

possible, and might, therefore, be imagined, that a member of this

House, might be guilty of murder, treason, perjury, or other infamous

crime, and would it be asserted that a man, defiled by crimes of this

kind, ought to be suffered to represent a portion of the people of the

United States in the National Legislature? He trusted that no gentleman,

who valued reputation, would contend for such a point. The question,

then is, said Mr. B., whether the act in question is an act of that

description, the commission of which ought to induce the House to expel

the convicted member? In his opinion, the crime was of the first

political magnitude. A crime not only affecting the members of this

House, but the whole community, as its consequences go to the subversion

of the Government. This Government, said Mr. B., depends for its

existence upon the good will of the people. That good will is maintained

by their good opinion. But, how is that good opinion to be preserved, if

wicked and unprincipled men, men of inordinate and desperate ambition,

are allowed to state facts to the people which are not true, which they

know at the time to be false, and which are stated with the criminal

intention of bringing the Government into disrepute among the people.

This was falsely and deceitfully stealing the public opinion; it was a

felony of the worst and most dangerous nature. The member from Vermont

has been convicted of doing this, with a view of exciting the hatred of

the people against the PRESIDENT and Senate, and of stirring up sedition

in the country. This, in his opinion, was a crime of the greatest

magnitude, since it is all-important that the channel by which

information is conveyed to the people should be preserved as pure as

possible; for, if men are allowed to state things as facts, which they

know to be false, what will be the consequence? However upright the

Government, or however correct the First Magistrate may be, the hatred

of the people may be excited against them by means of false information;

and when a foreign foe, or domestic traitors, join the standard of

rebellion, the best constitution and government may be subverted.

Therefore, that falsehood which deprives men of the means of forming a

true judgment of public affairs, in this country, where the Government

is elective, is a crime of the first magnitude. The member from Vermont

has been convicted, under aggravated circumstances. He was on this floor

when the law, against which he has offended, was passed. He, therefore,

was well acquainted with the law; yet, with this knowledge, he has

falsely, scandalously and maliciously, defamed the PRESIDENT OF THE

UNITED STATES, with a view of exciting hatred, and stirring up sedition.

These facts are recorded and incontrovertible; and he conceived it would

be out of order to call them in question.

Mr. B. concluded with appealing to the candor and honor which he

expected to find in the House, whether a member, the malice of whose

heart, and the falsehood of whose pen, stood recorded; who had, from the

worst and basest motives, violated a law which he had himself assisted

to make, was fit to hold a seat in that House. Will any one say that a

man who does not keep the laws ought to be allowed to make them?

Certainly, nothing was more repugnant to principle and propriety; and,

as he conceived the member from Vermont was notoriously and exemplarily

guilty in this respect, an obligation rested on the House to expel him.

Mr. B. said he brought forward this resolution from a sense only of

public duty, from a strong feeling for national character. He knew but

little, and should be happy if it were less, of the member who was the

object of it. He could not be suspected of having been induced to the

step he had taken by the miserable gratification of offering violence to

the feelings of the member. He believed that nothing he had said, nor

any thing which could be said, would awaken a single feeling. His

sensations were of another sort, and excited in another manner. Mr. B.

conceived he had done his duty, and if the House refused to purify

itself by the expulsion of the member, it was a satisfaction to him to

reflect that it would appear to the world that he had no share in the

disgrace.

Mr. NICHOLAS had hoped that the gentleman from Delaware would have shown

to the House something in this transaction which made the character of

the member alluded to so infamous as to have rendered him unfit to hold

a seat in this House. He should have thought that, after a member of

this House had suffered so severely as the member from Vermont has

suffered by fine and imprisonment, it would have been thought necessary

to go into a consideration of the nature of the offence of which he is

said to have been guilty, and to have shown that the guilt attaching to

him was such as to defile the characters of the rest of the members to

sit with him, before a vote of expulsion was taken. Indeed, Mr. N. had

supposed that there had been but one opinion on this subject, and that

no attempt would have been made to have inflicted a second punishment.

The gentleman from Delaware, Mr. N. said, had confined himself in his

declaration about this offence, to its being an offence against one of

the laws of the United States, without showing the House what the

offence was, or wishing them to form a judgment upon it.

Mr. N. was surprised at this second prosecution, because, if gentlemen

will speak candidly according to the opinions which they formerly

delivered in justification of the law, they will acknowledge that the

whole of the charges brought against the member from Vermont ought not

to have been inquired into under the sedition law; since two of the

counts contained in the indictment are mere matters of opinion, not

containing the least suggestion of fact; and the third rests so much on

matter of opinion, that it is impossible, according to a sound

construction of the law, for any guilt to be incurred by the act.

Mr. N. wished the House to attend to the nature of the charges exhibited

against the member from Vermont, and to say whether they were not of

such a nature as to render it difficult to say whether they are well

founded, and, if they are well founded, then they are innocent. In the

record from which he had copied the charges, there are three counts; two

of them are founded on extracts taken from a letter, called "Barlow's

Letter;" the third is for sentiments contained in a letter of the

member's own writing. The two first turn on mere matters of opinion. Mr.

N. read the counts as follows:

"The misunderstanding between the two Governments has

become extremely alarming, confidence is completely

destroyed, mistrusts, jealousy, and a disposition to a

wrong attribution of motives, are so apparent as to require

the utmost caution in every word and action that are to

come before your Executive--I mean if your object is to

avoid hostilities. Had this truth been understood with you

before the recall of Monroe, before the coming and second

coming of Pinckney; had it guided the pens that wrote the

bullying Speech of your President, and stupid answer of

your Senate, at the opening of Congress in November last, I

should probably have had no occasion to address you this

letter. But we found him borrowing the language of Great

Britain, and telling the world that, although he should

succeed in treating with the French, there was no

dependence to be placed on any of their engagements; that

their religion and morality were at an end; that they had

turned pirates and plunderers; and it would be necessary to

be perpetually armed against them, though they are at

peace. We wondered that the answer of both Houses had not

been an order to send him to a mad-house. Instead of this,

the Senate had echoed the Speech with more servility than

ever George III. experienced from either House of

Parliament.

"As to the Executive, when I shall see the efforts of that

power bent on the promotion of the comfort, the happiness,

and accommodation of the people, that Executive shall have

my zealous and uniform support. But, when I see every

consideration of the public welfare swallowed up in a

continual grasp for power, in an unbounded thirst for

ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, or selfish avarice;

when I shall behold men of real merit daily turned out of

office for no other cause but independence of sentiment;

when I shall see men of firmness, merit, years, abilities,

and experience, discarded on their application for office,

for fear they possess that independence; and men of

meanness preferred for the ease with which they take up and

advocate opinions, the consequence of which they know but

little of; when I shall see the sacred name of religion

employed as a State engine to make mankind hate and

persecute one another, I shall not be their humble

advocate."

The two first counts contain the opinions of the writer on public and

notorious acts. No act is charged upon the PRESIDENT and Senate which is

not notorious. It is not an attempt to impose upon the world a belief of

facts which do not exist. He called upon gentlemen of the law and others

to say whether this law was ever intended to extend to matters of

opinion. He was astonished that a record of this kind should ever come

from a court of the United States. The law declares that the

publications which it proposes to punish, shall be false and scandalous.

Do gentlemen say opinions can be false which do not contain matter of

fact? Another part of the law gives to the party accused the privilege

of giving the truth of the fact charged in evidence; but it is

impossible that this can be done, where the matter charged consists of

mere opinion; and juries could not possibly say whether an opinion be

true or false. They can only determine whether or not it is their own

opinion.

If a man is to be subject to a prosecution for his opinions, what will

be the consequence? We are, said Mr. N., sent here to form an opinion,

and, when we return home, we are expected to deliver that opinion to our

constituents: but, if the propriety of our opinions are not to be judged

of by ourselves, but by others, what will become of us? No man will be

safe; for, though he may have formed his opinion as correctly as

possible, if twelve men are to sit upon it, and, if it should not happen

to be their opinion, or if they should not believe it to be his upon

whom it is charged, he will be liable to a severe fine and imprisonment.

Is it proper, Mr. N. asked, for legislators to be placed on this ground?

Or, will gentlemen say it was their intention to place themselves in

this situation? They certainly will not; for who would consent to sit

here, or of what use would it be, under such conditions?

The third count is somewhat of a different nature. Mr. N. said, in

speaking on this subject, he was not giving his own opinion. If he were

to give it, he should say he had no foundation for the fact here stated.

There is no mode, however, of ascertaining whether or not it was the

opinion of the member from Vermont, and if it were his opinion, there

being no mode of determining whether the opinion is correct or

otherwise, it was impossible to act upon it.

With respect to the first part of the third count, which speaks of

"every consideration of the public welfare being swallowed up in a

continual grasp of power, &c.," he supposed it would be agreed that it

was an expression of the affection of the mind--an opinion upon the

disposition discovered by actions. That part of it which relates to "men

of real merit being turned out of office for no other cause but

independence of sentiment, &c.," suggests a fact, but if this was his

opinion, it is a matter so much connected with opinion, as to be

scarcely distinguishable from it. And shall we be told, said Mr. N.,

that a member ought to be banished from his seat for uttering a

sentiment of this kind, after having been told by the gentleman from

Delaware, and others, that it was a complete disqualification for office

for a man to hold a different political opinion from that of the

Executive? He trusted gentlemen could not seriously think so. For, since

if the fact were true, and the member from Vermont had adduced (as he

believed he might have done) two or three instances of men being turned

out of office merely on account of their political opinions, still the

jury might have asked, "how do you know that the men displaced possessed

superior talents to those who succeeded them?" This, though true, could

not be proved, therefore the member from Vermont could not have availed

himself of the advantage held out by the law. Gentlemen may say this is

not necessary, as this law goes to many offences not capable of this

proof; they may say that the British law on this subject goes to many

others. But our law is not the same with the British law; there, though

the libel be true, it is not less a libel, which is not the case under

our law, which is an important distinction.

It was clear, Mr. N. said, that such parts of the counts as went to

insinuate fact, were so connected with opinion, that it was impossible

to separate them. It could not be said that the jury were competent to

decide upon the truth of the case. The decision of twelve honest men on

a point of fact, is, perhaps, the best security that can be devised for

the security of justice; but if a man is to be convicted because his

opinions and those of a jury are at variance, there is an end to all

security. Men's opinions are as various as their faces, and the truth or

falsehood of those opinions are not fit subjects for the decision of a

jury.

Upon what ground does the member from Vermont stand? He is a

representative of the people; and gentlemen could not shut their eyes

against a notorious fact, viz: that the constituents of this member,

with a full knowledge of this prosecution, have re-elected him; and if

the people of Vermont choose to have a person possessing these opinions

to represent them, who have a right to say they shall not? Indeed, if

they are to be represented at all, they must be represented by the man

whom they choose to elect.

The gentleman from Delaware had said, that all the offences of Mr. LYON

were greatly aggravated from his being a member of this House. Mr. N.

was of a different opinion. He thought it incumbent on a Representative

to disclose his opinions on public affairs to his constituents; and this

disclosure will become more necessary, in proportion as such opinions

may be offensive to the administrators of the Government; as, when all

goes on smoothly and well, there will be no necessity for calling the

attention of the people to public concerns.

The gentleman has also said, that it would be out of order to contest

the truth of any thing contained in this record. He thought

differently, and that if it was proper to act upon the subject at all,

it would be proper to assign a day to have a fair hearing of the

business, to enable the House to judge of the facts. For gentlemen will

not say, that courts and juries are so infallible, that there is no case

in which the decision of a court ought to be revised. If the member from

Vermont should think it necessary to demand this investigation, the

House ought to submit to it.

There was something in that record, Mr. N. said, which was very singular

indeed; something which requires investigation; for unless the fact is

different from what his information made it, a most extraordinary

circumstance was connected with the third count. It will be seen, from

the showing of the record, that the letter upon which the charge is

founded, was written before the passage of the law on which the offence

was tried. If he was not misinformed, no evidence was adduced in court

to show that Mr. LYON did any act subsequent to the writing of his

letter in the publication, and that though the thing appeared in print

after the law took its effect, all that was done by the writer was done

before the law was passed. He thought, therefore, before the House acted

upon this subject, an inquiry ought to be had upon it. He did not know

what were the wishes of the member from Vermont himself on this subject;

he had not put the question to him, because he thought there was no

offence contained in the record of which the House ought to take notice.

He would say farther, that believing most religiously that the law

against which the member from Vermont is said to have offended, is a

violation of the constitution of this country, he could not without a

breach of his oath, do any act to punish a breach of that law.

Mr. LYON said, he did expect that if he was to have had a second trial,

he should have been at liberty to have adduced the evidence upon which a

jury had already decided. Gentlemen who have been able to obtain a copy

of the record, which he, notwithstanding all his earnest desires to

obtain it, had not been able to procure, might also have obtained a copy

of the testimony on which this judgment was founded.

Mr. L. thought he had received an unjust trial and a hard sentence. He

said unjust, because he was frowned upon by the Judge in a very abrupt

manner when he challenged two of the jury, which he had a right to do by

a law of the State. The Judge answered me, said Mr. L., "You are

unacquainted with the laws of the State." Mr. L. observed that there is

a law in the State of Vermont for punishing persons who speak against

the public authorities, which gives to the accused the privilege of

challenging six of his jury. This privilege, said Mr. L., I was denied,

exclusive of the political packing of the jury who tried me. This is the

kind of treatment I have received: but I shall submit to the decision of

the House without occupying their time on my account, further than my

enemies are desirous of so occupying it.

Mr. ALLEN said, nothing but the respect which he entertained for the

character who presided at the trial of the member from Vermont would

have drawn him from his seat on that occasion. But if he understood the

member from Vermont, he said he was frowned upon by the court when he

challenged two of his jury, and having been present at the trial, he was

able to speak to that fact. He understood the member to make a

challenge, and the Judge told him he did not know the laws of Vermont;

but so far from any harshness being used towards the member, he must say

he never saw a trial more fairly conducted. He thought it did honor to

Judge Paterson, who presided. When the member persisted in his opinion,

that a law of the State gave him a right to challenge his jury, the

Judge replied, "if that was the law, it would require consideration;"

and he inquired of the district judge if that was the law, who said it

was not. As to the member's being precipitately tried, [Mr. LYON

observed, he did say so,] if ever there was a case deliberately tried,

or in which unexampled indulgence was shown to the accused, it was this.

The member from Vermont had spoken of the jury being packed. He had seen

this asserted in the papers, and the public ought to be informed that

the charge is wholly untrue. The member from Vermont must know it is

untrue. The jury was drawn from the boxes as is usual, in consequence of

an order made by the court in May, which pointed out the particular

towns from whence the jury were to be drawn. Mr. A. concluded by saying,

he was sorry to find any man base enough to attack the gentleman who

presided on this trial, as he believed his conduct to be unimpeachable.

Mr. BAYARD said, considering the lateness of the hour, he should limit

his reply to a few observations. He did not know what would bind the

gentleman from Virginia; he denies the obligation of the law, and the

credibility of the record. He could not expect, therefore, that he would

be bound by the obligation of reason.

The gentleman from Virginia, in his defence of the member from Vermont,

has gone upon the ground that mere matter of opinion cannot be construed

into a libel. He begged leave to differ from that opinion, for which

there was not the least ground. Four things, Mr. B. said, are necessary

to constitute a crime under the law in question: it is necessary that a

publication should be seditious, false, scandalous, and malicious. When

these four things appear, whether the publication consists in the

assertion of matter of opinion, or matter of fact, it will be within the

law, which makes no discrimination on the subject.

Mr. B. did not think it altogether in order to question in this place

the regularity of the proceedings of a court of justice. According to

the organization of this Government, the powers of it are distributed,

and the Judiciary in its department is as sovereign as the Legislature;

and it is as improper for the Legislature to question the proceedings of

a court as it would be for a court in common cases, to question the

obligation of a law. What has the fact been? The judgment of a court has

decided, on the verdict of a jury given upon oath, that this case was

within the law; and, after a judicial determination, is it for a member

of this House to say that the case was not within the law?

But Mr. B. could conceive no idea more groundless than that of the

gentleman from Virginia, that mere matters of opinion are not grounds of

charges under this law. This the gentleman had made his _alpha_ and

_omega_. He wished to know how a distinction was to be made on this

subject? If an opinion upon a fact be expressed, and that opinion is

false, scandalous, and malicious, ought it not to be subject to

prosecution? Does the gentleman say opinions cannot be false? Mr. B.

said, he would put a case to the gentleman from Virginia, without any

intention of personal reflection, but merely for the sake of the

argument. Suppose any person were to say, that in _his opinion_, that

gentleman was a _rogue_, or any other _opinion_ casting a gross

imputation, would the offence be less, because he had, instead of saying

expressly he was a rogue, merely given it as his opinion? But if the

gentleman insisted opinions could not be false, how would he get rid of

the conclusion? This, Mr. B. conceived, might be sufficient to show that

opinions may be false. Or, suppose a man were to say that, in his

opinion, another was a traitor, ought he not to be punished as severely

as if he had asserted the thing as a fact? The intention and wisdom of

this law was, Mr. B. said, to caution men to be guarded in the

publication of their opinions; since, by the expression of false

opinions the minds of the people may be alienated from their Government.

Suppose, for instance, that the gentleman from Virginia, or the member

from Vermont, were to harangue the people, and say, in their _opinion_,

this law is unconstitutional, and, therefore, not binding; that it ought

not to be obeyed, but opposed by force; that it was made by men grasping

after power, in defiance of the best interests of their country, in

order to answer their own private views. Although this all might be mere

matter of opinion, would it not come within the meaning of the law in

question? No man on earth, Mr. B. said, would be more opposed to any

measure for restraining the expression of honest and well-intentioned

opinions, than himself. All that this law does, is to restrain false,

malicious, and scandalous opinions. And will the gentleman from Virginia

say, that the good of the country, or its liberty, will be promoted by

indulging in an expression of what is false, scandalous, and malicious?

Could this be liberty? He thought not. Every man, under this law, has

the liberty of publishing what he pleases, taking the responsibility

upon himself for the truth of what he writes. If he writes only what is

true, he is not liable to punishment; if what is false, and that

maliciously, it is only reasonable he should be punished for his

falsehood and malice.

Suppose a common case, that a man were to say that, in his opinion,

another was insolvent, a bankrupt, or a thief, would he not be

answerable for this opinion? He certainly would. And ought a man to be

permitted to slander the Government and not an individual? If the

licentiousness of the press be allowed to go thus far, there will be

nothing safe in character; it will always be in the power of a malicious

person to rob the best men of their reputation with impunity. He

presumed, therefore, that there was no ground for the distinction which

the gentleman had attempted to draw.

The gentleman from Virginia had called upon the advocates of this

resolution to show, that the member from Vermont could be punished a

second time. Mr. B. did not know that the expulsion of a member from his

seat could be considered in the light of a punishment. It was merely

lopping off from the Legislative body a rotten member who contaminates

the whole system. This was done without regard to the member himself,

but with a view solely to the health and purity of the body of which he

is a member. The constitution, however, left no doubt on the subject.

It is said that the member from Vermont has been re-elected, since his

offences were known. He wished the gentleman from Virginia to say, how

this fact was ascertained. At one moment he disputes the truth of the

record, and says it cannot be considered as conclusive or creditable;

yet, at another, he asserts a fact, upon the grounds of an extract of a

letter, or a paragraph in a newspaper, of which this House could take no

notice. The member was not re-elected to the present Congress, nor was

any return made of his re-election to the next. Suppose he had a

majority of votes at the late election, may it not hereafter appear that

the election was carried by corruption or fraud, and that the member is

not entitled to his seat?

It is suggested as a fact that the letter of the member from Vermont was

written before the law passed; but the crime is not in the writing of

the letter, but in the publication of it. There would have been no crime

in scandalously writing, if he had not published the letter. The crime

consisted not in the wickedness of his own heart, but the intention to

corrupt others; the design to scatter firebrands through the community,

with a view of exciting insurrections. If, therefore, he could have

proved before the court and jury that he was not accessory to the

publication after the passing of the law, he would doubtless have been

acquitted; and though he did not think highly of the talents of that

member, he supposed, if this had been the case, he would have had wit

enough to have availed himself of it.

He would say a word with respect to the consequences of the crime upon a

member. In England, a member of the House of Commons may be expelled for

libellous matter. Such was the case with Mr. Wilkes; though in this

case, the transaction was afterwards expunged from the journals, it was

not done upon the principle that the original expulsion was not

justifiable, but because he had been expelled for the same offence,

after he had been re-elected to the same Parliament.

Believing, as he did, that the member in question disgraced the body to

which at present he belonged, he hoped the resolution would be allowed

to wash away the blot which marked and disfigured this branch of the

Government.

Mr. GALLATIN confessed that, though there were some reasons which

diminished his surprise at seeing this resolution on the table, he did

not expect to have heard it defended on the ground which the gentleman

from Delaware had taken in his last speech. He did not expect that when

a judgment, awarded under the sedition law, was under consideration, a

gentleman should rise and tell the House that this law applies to the

publication of opinions as well as to that of facts; and it was less to

be expected from the very gentleman who introduced an amendment into

that law, providing that the truth of a charge may be given in evidence.

His present declaration amounted to this: that those words were

introduced in order to deceive the public, since they could be of no

real use.

The gentleman from Delaware had constantly confounded matter of fact

expressed, not positively, but only as the belief of the writer, and

opinions or deduction from facts. If a man, with a view of defaming the

government, publishes that, in his opinion, according to his belief, a

certain fact does exist, which is susceptible of proof, and is found to

be false, the publication, by the law, is undoubtedly a libel. Thus, if

a man says that, in his opinion, a man is a thief, a bankrupt, or

insolvent, it is not less a libel, than if he said such a person was

positively so, because these things are susceptible of proof. But, when

we speak of opinion, as distinct from fact, we speak of opinions not

susceptible of proof, because they depend upon reasoning, and different

opinions may be deduced from the same facts; therefore, we say that such

opinions are not matter for prosecution even under this law. But, the

gentleman from Delaware says that all opinions are liable to be

prosecuted, provided that they can be proved to be false, scandalous,

and malicious. Proved false! And who are the judges? To be sure, twelve

jurymen, who are sworn to give a verdict according to evidence. And how

can the truth of things which cannot be proved by evidence, be

determined by evidence? An opinion may be incorrect; and, if judged

incorrect by the gentleman from Delaware, it is, according to his

reasoning, to be deemed false, and liable to prosecution.

The House had been told by the gentleman from Delaware, that it has

nothing to do with this trial, any further than the record; that it

ought to be taken as complete evidence of the facts which it contains,

which ought not to be disputed. He also tells the House that courts of

justice are as independent of the Legislature, as the Legislature of

them; that this House has nothing to do with the crime; that it is the

conviction only which they ought to take cognizance of. If, said Mr. G.,

the gentleman from Delaware had not brought forward the resolution now

under discussion, we would have had nothing to do with the business. We

did not bring forward the subject; we have nothing to do with it. Mr. G.

added, I believe I go too far when I say we have nothing to do with it;

for I believe it was the duty of the House to have sent the

Sergeant-at-Arms for the member from Vermont, and demanded him from

confinement, that he might have attended to his duty in this House.

[The SPEAKER said this was not now the question.]

Mr. G. knew this was not the question; he mentioned this to show that

the House might have had something to do with the business. But we did

not, said he, bring the subject before the House; and, if we have

nothing to do with the decision of a court, that decision has nothing to

do with us. If the member from Vermont is to be expelled, he ought to be

expelled, not because he has been convicted, but because he has

committed a crime which renders him unfit to retain his seat. What is

that crime? It is stated in the record: and, stated as it is, he did not

believe it was sufficient to ground a motion of this kind upon. Whatever

is contained in these charges, which is capable of proof, ought to be

taken into consideration, but not what is mere matter of opinion. It was

generally allowed, he believed, that the paragraphs from what is called

Barlow's letter, are of this last description. With respect to the other

part of the charge, viz: the extract from a letter said to be written by

the member from Vermont himself, to which he meant to confine his

observations, he would beg leave to state it. [Mr. G. read it.]

Mr. G. said, the whole of the paragraph was hypothetical; but, supposing

that the member from Vermont had declared it as his opinion "that the

efforts of the Executive power were not bent on the promotion of the

comfort, the happiness, and the accommodation of the people," he wished

to know whether this could be considered as a declaration of fact or

opinion? There is, perhaps, no measure passed by Congress, which one or

other may not think will be contrary to the happiness, comfort, and

accommodation of the people of the United States. We had, said he, the

other day, the question of a navy before us, the establishment of which

many believe is necessary for the promotion of the comfort, happiness,

and accommodation of the people; whereas, in my opinion, and in the

opinion of many others, it will produce the very reverse. How is this

question to be decided? And yet it is known that the President, in his

writings and speaking, has recommended the establishment of a navy; and

persons writing and speaking against this system, which they ought to

do, if they believe the system inimical to the United States, might be

charged with bringing the Congress and PRESIDENT into contempt. But,

doubtless, this is a mere matter of opinion, and not susceptible of

proof by evidence. In order to prove the truth of either assertion, you

must bring forward a dissertation _pro_ and _con_.