WASHINGTON, _Nov. 27, 1800_.
The members then returned to their Chamber.
A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have
proceeded to the appointment of a Chaplain to Congress, on their part,
and the Right Reverend Bishop CLAGETT has been duly elected.
The House proceeded, by ballot, to the appointment of a Chaplain to
Congress on the part of this House; and upon examining the ballots, a
majority of the votes of the whole House was found in favor of the
Reverend THOMAS LYELL.
FRIDAY, November 28.
Another member, to wit, ABRAHAM NOTT, from South Carolina, appeared, and
took his seat in the House.
MONDAY, December 1.
Several other members, to wit: from Maryland, JOHN DENNIS; from
Virginia, JOSEPH EGGLESTON; from North Carolina, WILLIAM H. HILL; and
from Georgia, JAMES JONES, appeared, and took their seats in the House.
TUESDAY, December 2.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the
Navy, accompanying a report of the Commissioners of the fund for navy
pensions and half-pay, pursuant to the act for the better government of
the Navy of the United States; which was read, and ordered to lie on the
table.
Mr. LEE, from the committee appointed for that purpose, reported a bill
for erecting a Mausoleum to GEORGE WASHINGTON, which was read twice and
referred to a Committee of the Whole to-morrow.
The bill directs that the mausoleum shall be of marble, to be erected in
the City of Washington, under the superintendence of the four
Secretaries.
_Trade with the Indians._
Mr. CLAIBORNE stated that during the last session a committee was
appointed to inquire into the state of the trade, authorized by law,
with the Indian nations. That committee had reported unfavorably to the
trade. But desirous of maturing with deliberation a new plan before the
old one was supplanted, they had reported a bill for continuing the
existing system for one year. The bill had passed the House of
Representatives unanimously, but had been postponed by the Senate to
this session.
For his own part, he was altogether unfavorable to the trade; for he
believed that it answered no good purpose in relation to the Indians,
while it was a loss to the United States.[59] It was, however, proper
that some Legislative provision should be made immediately. The old law
regulating the officers who had the superintendence of the trade, had
expired, and they were of consequence under no legal control.
He, therefore, moved the appointment of a committee, to inquire into the
expediency of carrying on any further trade on a capital furnished by
the United States, to report by bill or otherwise; which motion being
read a second time, was agreed to, and a committee of three appointed.
THURSDAY, December 4.
Another member, to wit, SAMUEL GOODE, from Virginia, appeared, and took
his seat in the House.
The SPEAKER informed the House that the Chaplains had proposed, if
agreeable to the House, to hold Divine service every Sunday in their
Chamber.
_Reporting the Debates._
Mr. HILL presented a memorial from Samuel Harrison Smith and Thomas
Carpenter, representing that they had undertaken to report the debates
of the House; that, contrary to their expectation--on the suggestion of
inconvenience to the members--they had not received permission to occupy
a situation within the bar, without which they were unable to state with
fidelity the proceedings and debates; and praying the permission of the
House to be admitted within the bar.
As soon as the memorial was read, the SPEAKER rose and observed, that
feeling himself responsible to the House for the faithful discharge of
the duties attached to his situation, he thought it proper to state the
line of conduct he had pursued in this business. He stated that he was
applied to by letter on the first day of the session, by Mr. Stewart,
requesting permission to occupy a place within the bar; that he
immediately took the request into consideration; that, in the mean time,
similar requests were made by other individuals; that, on observing the
structure of the room and the arrangement of the furniture, it at once
appeared to him inconsistent with the dignity of the House or the
convenience of the members to grant the permission asked; that the area
was too small to afford the necessary accommodation; that the position
considered as the least inconvenient to the House was within the
window-frames; that, in his opinion, this position would not be
agreeable to the stenographers, as the view of the members on the
opposite side of the House from either window would be obstructed; that,
if a position was assigned in any other part of the House, the
stenographers would be between the chair and some of the members, which
would render the preservation of order impossible; that he had stated
these reasons, and informed the applicants that, if agreeable to them,
he would assign a place in the gallery, which should be set apart for
their exclusive use; and that he considered that to be the most eligible
position. He concluded by repeating, that it was, in his opinion,
absolutely impossible to preserve the dignity of the House and to
maintain the convenience of the members, if the requested permission
were given. Such was his first, his invariable opinion--it was
unaltered--it was still the same.
Mr. NICHOLAS said, that the members of the House must feel a common
interest in having the debates taken with fidelity. If the debates were
taken, they ought to be taken with precision. Those who took them should
not be debarred from the best means of hearing with accuracy. For his
part he could not discern the inconvenience alleged to exist. The desk,
which it was necessary to admit within the bar, would not project beyond
the window-frame; and as to the remark of the Speaker respecting the
inconvenience of such a position to the stenographers, it was easily
obviated by the consideration, that any inaccuracy which might occur in
the report of the individual who took them on one side of the chair,
would be checked by the reporter situated on the other side.
He thought the desire of the memorialists ought not to be passed over
lightly. They had a right to the best place the House could assign. He
moved the reference of the memorial to a select committee.
Mr. HILL observed that as the memorial contained no facts that required
the investigation of a committee, and as the House possessed all the
information that could guide their decision, he did not discern the
propriety of the proposed reference. He had prepared a resolution,
which, if the motion for a reference were withdrawn, he would offer.
Mr. NICHOLAS immediately withdrew his motion. Mr. HILL then proposed a
resolution substantially to this effect: that Mr. SPEAKER be requested
to assign places within the bar for the stenographers.
Mr. OTIS was sorry the gentleman from Virginia had withdrawn his motion
to refer the memorial to a select committee, as he thought the subject
required examination before a decision was made. There appeared to him
much weight in the ideas of the Speaker. Grant, for the sake of
argument, that four persons may be accommodated at the windows. Might
there not be other applications? Was any gentleman prepared to say how
many would be made? If the permission were once granted to one, would it
not be necessary to extend it to all? Would the House suffer any
individual to have an exclusive benefit whereby a stamp of authenticity
would be fixed on his statements.
This business, in one shape or other, had often been before the House,
and all conversation respecting it had always issued in leaving it to
the regulation of the Speaker. This appeared to him the best termination
it could receive.
From the attention he had paid to the debates reported this session, he
believed them to be better and more accurately taken, than they had been
on former occasions. This to him was a proof that the present situation
of the stenographers was a good one. He acknowledged, at the same time,
that the ability with which the debates were taken entitled those who
took them to the best accommodation the House could afford. He concluded
with renewing the motion for a reference to a select committee.
Mr. NICHOLAS replied, that no debate had taken place which could test
the accuracy of the stenographers. From his own experience he pronounced
the situation at present occupied utterly inconvenient. What he had some
days since remarked had been misstated. He well knew that this did not
arise from the inability of the reporter to state correctly what
occurred. He knew him to be intelligent, and fully capable of conceiving
and conveying the meaning of any remarks which could be made in that
House. But it arose from his situation, from which it was impossible to
hear distinctly.
He declared the objections of Mr. OTIS, in relation to the number of
applicants, perfectly chimerical. Did the gentleman suppose that the
number would be so great as to make a demand on their seats? As well
might he imagine this, as that they would swell to the ideal compass he
had given them. It was known to the House, that at Philadelphia the
number was small; seldom more than two, and often not more than one
persevered during the session, though a greater number appeared on its
earliest days. Fact and experience, therefore, demonstrated the fallacy
of the danger apprehended from this source.
The question was then taken on the reference to a select committee, and
carried--ayes 42, noes 34.
And a committee of five, viz: Messrs. OTIS, NICHOLAS, PLATT, MORRIS, and
HILL, was appointed.
FRIDAY, December 5.
Several members, to wit: from North Carolina, WILLIAM BARRY GROVE; from
Kentucky, THOMAS T. DAVIS; and from Rhode Island, CHRISTOPHER G.
CHAMPLIN, appeared, and took their seats in the House.
_Mausoleum to Washington._
Mr. H. LEE moved that the House do go into a Committee of the Whole on
the bill "directing the erection of a mausoleum to GEORGE WASHINGTON."
On which motion the House divided--yeas 36, nays 34. Mr. MORRIS took the
chair.
The Chairman, after reading the bill through, proceeded to read it by
paragraphs. The first section is as follows:
"SEC. 1. _Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled_, That a mausoleum of American granite and
marble, in a pyramidal form, one hundred feet square at the
base, and of a proportionate height, shall be erected, in
testimony of the love and gratitude of the citizens of the
United States, to GEORGE WASHINGTON."
Mr. ALSTON moved an amendment to the first section, which was, in
substance, "that a monument of marble be erected in the Capitol, at the
city of Washington, commemorative of the great events of the military
and political life of GEORGE WASHINGTON."
Mr. H. LEE said, that during the last session the House, after a long
debate, had declared itself in favor of a mausoleum, and that as no
reasons had been assigned for a change of opinion, he hoped they would
persevere in the deliberate result of their judgment.
Mr. OTIS was ready to acknowledge himself unacquainted with many of the
circumstances embraced by the subject. He therefore wished additional
information to that which he had received. His present opinion was, that
a mausoleum was preferable to a monument. He acknowledged that, in
forming this opinion, he had felt great deference for the judgment of
the committee which had recommended it. It was undoubtedly a subject but
little understood. The formation of a proper decision depended upon a
concurrence of several circumstances--upon a comparison of the expense
with the value of the object to be accomplished. Besides this, it had
many peculiar features not comprehended by every gentleman. He thought
these considerations sufficient to induce the House to decline voting
for the amendment, whereby the plan of the committee, who had maturely
considered the subject in all its relations, would be frustrated, unless
stronger reasons were assigned than he had yet heard.
Mr. NICHOLAS observed, that the bill directed the erection of a
mausoleum of certain dimensions, to ascertain the expense of which an
estimate had been made. But that estimate was not satisfactory. It was
made without information. The sum to be expended was not fixed. It might
vastly exceed any sum now contemplated. The mausoleum was to consist of
a huge, ugly mass of stones heaped upon one another, to raise which a
heavy and useless expense would be incurred. And what was the object?
It was to perpetuate the memory of GEORGE WASHINGTON. Was the memory of
that great man to be perpetuated by a heap of large inanimate objects?
The best way in which his fame could be preserved would be by bringing
his ashes from the place where they now lie, by depositing them in the
Capitol at the will of the nation, in interring them in such a manner as
had never before been done, in placing over them a plain tablet, on
which every man could write what his heart dictated. This, and this only
was the basis of his fame. It was not to be blazoned by figures or
representations of any other sort. It consisted in the undecaying
recollection of his virtues. It must live in the national feeling, and
this called not for useless expense. Twenty thousand dollars was as
competent to its expression as two hundred thousand. He hoped,
therefore, the amendment would be adopted, and that the terms which
related to military and political achievements would be omitted. He
hoped a plain monument would be erected.
His preference of a monument to a mausoleum arose not from any
indisposition to celebrate the memory of our American hero. He could say
as much in his praise as any man. Neither a committee of Congress nor
the four Secretaries, on whom the bill devolved the superintendence,
felt more zeal for the character of this great man than he did.
Mr. NOTT did not rise to consume the time of the committee by going at
large into an examination of the subject, but to explain the reasons for
the vote he meant to give. He had, last session, co-operated most
cheerfully in all those measures which had been pursued to express the
national sensibility at the loss of that great and immortal character.
In the feelings of gratitude which his services excited, no man could
outdo him. Among other measures, he had been friendly to the erection of
a mausoleum. But, on more reflection, he had changed his opinion. He did
not believe that a huge mass of stones would add to the reputation of
WASHINGTON, or be more expressive of national affection, than a marble
monument. This being the case, he preferred the latter, because it was
the least expensive.
Mr. GRISWOLD hoped the amendment would not prevail. It was the object of
the bill to raise a monument which would last for ages, and which should
be a perpetual memorial of the gratitude of America. Such would not be
the case if the proposition made by the gentleman from North Carolina
should be adopted. The monument proposed by him might be broken and
destroyed by a lawless mob or by a set of schoolboys. For his part, he
would not consent to raise such a monument to the memory of a man who
had deserved so well of his country.
The bill proposed the erection of a monument that would stand unimpaired
for ages. It is true that it will not perpetuate the fame of WASHINGTON:
his fame required nothing which we could do to give it perpetuity; but
it will perpetuate the gratitude of the country. It would be a structure
that will command respect; it will be pointed out to our children; they
will enter it with reverence, as the spot in which the ashes of this
great man are deposited.
It was undoubtedly a subject of sentiment; and subjects of such a kind
must be guided by feeling. Various opinions, therefore, may naturally be
expected. His opinion was, that the national sentiment called for the
erection of a structure correspondent in size to the character of the
man to whom it was raised.
The general outlines of the bill might now be adopted; and if there
existed a variance of opinion, the subordinate members of it might be
modified.
Mr. H. LEE said, if it were the wish of gentlemen to avoid the adoption
of measures commemorative of the talents of the great man we have lost,
it would be candid to tell us so at once. For his part, he saw little
difference between the adoption of the amendment and the rejection of
every plan proposed that was adequate to the occasion. Sir, said Mr. L.,
there is not a rich man in Europe who loses his mistress that does not
raise a trophy to her memory; and shall it be said that we, who have
sustained the most irreparable loss in the death of our Chief--shall it
be said that we refuse to pay him those honors which are lavished so
liberally upon such inferior objects? If you do not mean to come forward
on the occasion, say so. Then we shall understand the reasons of
opposition to the ground taken by this House last session. As yet no
reasons had been assigned for abandoning it. We then declared that we
would act. We exhibited a spirit worthy of the immortal
WASHINGTON--worthy of the distinguished character of this House.
But should this honorable spirit, kindled by an enthusiasm in the
virtues and talents of our departed benefactor, subside and be chilled
by the adoption of the proposed amendments, he would condole with the
House, and would rather they would be silent for ever than disgrace
themselves and their country by so subordinate an act.
It is true, sir, that the celebrity and the glory of WASHINGTON hang not
on our plaudits. History will transmit to posterity the lustre of his
fame, glittering with untarnished purity. It is not in our power either
to increase or diminish it. But, sir, we may imitate his virtues and his
great example. We are deeply interested in holding them forth as
illustrious models to our sons. Is there, then, I ask you, any other
mode for perpetuating the memory of such transcendent virtues so strong,
so impressive as that which we propose? The grandeur of the pile we wish
to raise will impress a sublime awe in all who behold it. It will
survive the present generation. It will receive the homage of our
children's children; and they will learn that the truest way to gain
honor amidst a free people is to be useful, to be virtuous.
This will not be the act of an individual. It will be the act of a
Government expressing the will of a great nation. Seize then, I pray
you, seize with rapture, the occasion that is now presented, thankful to
the Supreme Disposer of events for giving you an opportunity of rearing
some future WASHINGTON. This is a great object; frown, then, upon all
the little efforts made to defeat it.
It is certainly true, that if you erect a mausoleum, you must expend
some public money. But are you not the guardians of the public treasure?
Does not the selection of the best objects to which to appropriate it
devolve on you? And can there be a greater, a more patriotic purpose
than this? Is it not your great duty to promote the public good; and can
that be more completely promoted in any other way? The sum asked is
seventy thousand dollars. Who can show me in what other manner the same
good can be effected by so small a sum?
But it is said that the bill vests a discretion in the Secretaries, and
they may exceed the estimate. But, sir, are the Secretaries unworthy of
confidence? Do not we know that we may safely rely upon them? Besides,
if thought expedient, the expenditure may be limited. Thus, surely,
without prodigality on the one hand or parsimony on the other, you may
do honor to yourselves and your country.
Mr. MACON did not pretend to know much about that kind of things
proposed by the bill; but he believed, from the little he did know, that
such a thing had not been attempted for a thousand years. The expense
attending the proposed measure had been treated lightly. For himself, he
was not disposed to consider seventy thousand dollars a trifling sum. He
thought it a great sum, and believed every man in the country thought as
he did. In forming his idea of any particular sum, he was not carried
away by the visionary notions of speculation; he looked at the labor it
required to produce it; and he well knew how hardly earned was the money
from which this enormous sum must proceed.
He further believed that no man could tell how much the mausoleum would
cost. The seventy thousand dollars was only a beginning; and when the
object was once begun, experience tells us that we must finish it at all
events, let it cost what it might. The base was fixed at a hundred feet.
Why not decide its other proportions? Did not the silence of the bill on
this point show the ignorance of gentlemen? All was doubt. What
strengthened his opinion of the total want of information, was the
exhibition last session of two estimates: one of which was predicated on
a base of sixty feet, and required sixty-seven thousand dollars; the
other was predicated on a base of one hundred feet, making the structure
nearly three times as large, and requiring only seventy thousand
dollars. Could this be correct? Both estimates certainly could not be
true. The probability was that neither could be depended upon.
For what purpose was this great mass to be raised? He saw no good
purpose likely to be answered by it under the sun. Can stones show
gratitude? If the nation wished to show its gratitude, let them do it by
making a history of the life of WASHINGTON a school-book. Our children
then will learn and imitate his virtues. This will be rendering the
highest tribute to his fame, by making it the instrument of enlightening
the mind and improving the heart.
While there are such rational modes of distinguishing the memory of
WASHINGTON, can Congress so far forget the interest of the nation; can
they so far forget their own duty, as to expend millions in acts of
useless and pernicious ostentation? Since the invention of types,
monuments are good for nothing. The records of history will remain long
after their decay or destruction.
We are told that the best mode of perpetuating the memory of WASHINGTON
is to erect a mausoleum. I have heard, said Mr. M., of Aristides, I have
heard of Hampden, but I have never heard of monuments raised to their
memories. Yet their virtues shine as bright now as they did while they
lived. I have heard of a place called Westminster Abbey, full of the
monuments of kings; yet, notwithstanding these grand memorials, I have
heard very little of them after they left this world, and I question
very much whether any man, let him have heard what he may, if he were to
go there could tell one of them from the other.
But, it is said that the monument, proposed by the amendment, may be
thrown down and destroyed by mobs or schoolboys. God forbid that this
should ever be the case! I do not believe, said Mr. M., this to be
possible. If it were made of glass, frail as it is, it would be safe;
all would revere, all would respect it.
The House is told by one gentleman, who advocates the mausoleum, that a
rich man in Europe cannot lose his mistress without raising a monument
to her memory. Was the gentleman serious when he made this remark? Would
he place the memory of WASHINGTON on a footing with that of a rich man's
mistress? Better, sir, said Mr. M., far better would it be, more
honorable to the Government, and more conformable to the wish of our
deceased friend, to devote the seventy thousand dollars, designed for a
mausoleum, to the education of the poor. Then, indeed, we might flatter
ourselves with having extended the empire of his virtues, by making
those understand and imitate them, who, uninstructed, could not
comprehend them.
If he thought that by raising a magnificent monument to WASHINGTON, he
could give duration to his fame, or carry his name into a single country
which it had not yet reached, he would give the measure his support. But
no such effect would be produced. It might indeed adorn this city; and
that was the only plausible argument in favor of it.
Before gentlemen act in this business, let them look to Egypt; there
they will behold precedents in profusion; men made gods, and statues and
monuments and mausolea covering the whole face of the country; but where
will they find the virtues or the talents of the men they were meant to
commemorate? Now is the time to make a stand against this monument
mania. WASHINGTON is admired and beloved by all. No one can be charged
with a desire to diminish his fame by opposing a useless expenditure of
money. The precedent we now establish will be auspicious to our future
measures. If we decline raising a mausoleum to WASHINGTON, no man who
succeeds him can expect one reared to his memory. On the other hand, if
we now raise one to WASHINGTON, every pretender to greatness will aim at
the same distinction.
Mr. MACON concluded by declaring himself hostile to the bill, and
friendly to the amendment, because it proposed a plan that was more
rational, more economical, and more conformable to the resolve of the
old Congress, than that contained in the bill.
The committee then rose without coming to any decision, reported
progress, and obtained leave to sit again.
MONDAY, December 8.
Several other members, to wit: from Connecticut, CHAUNCEY GOODRICH, and
SAMUEL W. DANA; and from Rhode Island, JOHN BROWN, appeared, and took
their seats in the House.
A new member, to wit, SAMUEL TENNEY, returned to serve in this House as
a member for New Hampshire, in the room of William Gordon, who has
resigned his seat, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified,
and took his seat in the House.
TUESDAY, December 9.
Another member, to wit, JOHN RUTLEDGE, Jr., from South Carolina,
appeared, and took his seat in the House.
_Reporting the Debates._
The House proceeded to consider the report of the committee to whom was
referred the memorial of Samuel Harrison Smith and Thomas Carpenter,
made yesterday, and which lay on the table; and, the same being again
read, in the words following, to wit:
"The committee to whom was referred the memorial of Samuel
Harrison Smith and Thomas Carpenter, report the following
resolution, which they recommend to the House:
"_Resolved_, That it is not expedient for this House to
make any order upon the subject of the memorial of Samuel
Harrison Smith and Thomas Carpenter, presented on the
fourth day of December instant."
Mr. CHRISTIE moved the reference of the report to a Committee of the
Whole.
Mr. GRISWOLD opposed the reference.
The House divided--for the reference 43, against it, 46.
Mr. JACKSON made several remarks, and concluded by calling for the yeas
and nays, which were ordered.
Mr. NICHOLAS said, in a Government like ours, the theory of which is
republican, and the practice of which he hoped would always continue to
be republican, he considered the representatives of the people
responsible to the people, by whom they were created. It was necessary,
to give efficacy to this responsibility, that the people, who were to
judge, should possess the purest information, as to not only the acts,
but the motives of the public agents. It was of little consequence to
them to know what laws are enacted, compared with a knowledge of
projects that were attempted or prevented, and the grounds on which they
were supported or opposed. Nor could the merits of the acts themselves
be understood, unless the reasons for them were stated. It was,
therefore, of the highest consequence that the reasons for our conduct
should be clearly understood, that our measures may be comprehended, and
our motives also known, that our constituents may judge whether we have
faithfully discharged our duty.
Under this view of the subject, he thought it extremely indelicate to
resist the admission within the bar of those persons who thought
themselves qualified to take the debates and proceedings of the House.
But what rendered the attempt still more improper, was, its being an
innovation on the practice of the House. For, since he had been a member
of the Legislature, individuals of this description had been placed by
the House at their ease, in a situation convenient for hearing what
passed. Why is this practice, hitherto unopposed, now to be broken in
upon? For such an innovation and departure from the established practice
of the House, there ought to be the strongest reasons; particularly when
the attempted innovation respected, and was made by, those whose conduct
was to be scrutinized.
It was not without deliberation that the practice of the House had been
instituted and adhered to. Some gentlemen had, some time since,
contemplated the employment of a particular individual, whose services
were to be paid for by the House. But the idea was abandoned, from the
supposed sanction given by such an act to his statements; whereby the
House might be made responsible for his accuracy and talents.
The difficulty attending the business he acknowledged to be great. But,
for the reasons he had assigned, he thought the House had acted right in
forbearing to interfere, further than by merely assigning a convenient
place to the stenographers. It was deemed safest to confide the business
to persons not known officially to the House, whose own individual
interest would constitute the best pledge for their fidelity. Though no
precise resolve had been passed to this effect, it was well understood
that this was the course the House meant to pursue, after having given
the subject a deliberate and solemn consideration.
Shall we now, said Mr. N., after this mature consideration, on the mere
suggestion of personal inconvenience, on a subject of such importance as
to invite a gentleman from a considerable distance, [referring to some
old plan,] shall we, after the sanction of a uniform practice, fortified
by the long period for which it has been observed, on the suggestion of
a trifling inconvenience, which, he believed, on examination, would not
be found to exist at all, adopt the innovation proposed by the report of
the committee? For his part, he thought they were all deeply interested
in having the debates well taken, as it was not in their power
altogether to prohibit their being taken.
He had heard but two objections made to the old plan. The first was,
that by passing a resolve admitting stenographers within the bar, the
House gave a sanction to the reports published by them. The second was,
that as the Speaker had heretofore had the management of the business,
it would be wrong to take it out of his hands.
As to the first objection, he thought it altogether incorrect. The
resolution, submitted by the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. HILL,)
which he wished the House to adopt, does not propose the selection of
any particular person. It admits, generally, those individuals who wish
to take the debates. Can this admission make us responsible for the
conduct of men we do not know, and over whom we have no control? Have we
heretofore been considered as responsible? And wherein consists the
difference between our past situation and the situation we shall be in,
if the motion of the gentleman from North Carolina be adopted? We shall
then only have done that which before had been done by the Speaker.
Governed by a sense of duty, the Speaker had refused admission within
the bar. It became, therefore, necessary, in order to admit, for the
House to pass a resolution. But it did not follow that the least
responsibility would arise from such an act.
Indeed, by admitting the stenographers within the bar, the
responsibility of the House would be diminished; for, if the House
admitted them, no one could then say that it had done any thing that
interfered with a faithful report of the debates; whereas, by excluding
the stenographers, the unavoidable inaccuracies committed, might be
charged to the House.
The second objection made to the resolution of the gentleman from North
Carolina, was that, as the Speaker had heretofore had the management of
the business, it would be wrong to take it out of his hands.
Mr. N. in reply to this objection, observed, that the power, heretofore
exercised by the Speaker on this subject, had not been expressly
delegated to him by the House. It had often been thought of, but no
decision had heretofore been made. As the object asked related to the
convenience of the members, he thought they were the best judges of the
propriety of granting it. The inconvenience alleged to exist was
entirely a matter of opinion. He thought it either had no existence or a
very limited one. As he had remarked before, the subject was extremely
delicate. He would not consent to furnish room for being charged with a
wish to suppress the means of making an inquiry into his conduct. He
believed that the innovation contended for, would be so viewed; so far,
therefore, from considering it as innocent, he viewed it as wrong in
itself, and likely to be mischievous in its effects.
Mr. OTIS was one of those who was not disposed to make a strong stand
against the resolution offered by the gentleman from North Carolina. He
did not view the point in so interesting a light as did the gentleman
who had preceded him. It appeared to him in the shape of a question of
convenience; and as to his own situation, it could not be affected by
any permission given to stenographers to come within the bar. Many of
the arguments he had heard, implied that the situation at present
occupied by the stenographers was exclusive of all others; whereas if
that were inconvenient they might take any other, so that they did not
come within the bar.
It is true that the stenographers have hitherto been admitted within the
bar. They were admitted because there was room. But, in our present
chamber, the room was less; nor could they occupy a part of that little,
without materially interfering with the convenience of the members.
In his opinion, the proper question for the House to consider was,
whether an admission should take place independent of the Speaker, or
whether he should decide its propriety. It did not follow, if the
Speaker retained the management, that the exclusion would apply to all
occasions. It was true, that the places desired by the stenographers
were generally assigned to the high Executive officers of the
Government, and the foreign Ministers. But if, in consistence with their
accommodation, the indulgence could be granted, during any important
debate, he had no doubt of the Speaker's readiness to admit them, and
they might thus obtain a temporary place within the bar.
Mr. O. thought the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia covered too
much ground. They ascribed to the friends of the report an attempt to
preclude the people from obtaining all information of what passed in the
House. No such design existed. For his part, he wished the people to
know every thing that occurred within these walls. There was no doubt of
the debates, as heretofore given, being an inadequate organ of the ideas
of the members; they had been taken for nearly twelve years, and
sometimes they had been accurate, and at other times very inaccurate;
and so complete had the distortion of sentiments often been, that had
it not been for the name that was attached to a particular speech, the
member, to whom it was ascribed, would not have known it to be his. Mr.
O. would, notwithstanding, not deny the ability of a person who read the
debates, to form a tolerable idea of the arguments used on a particular
subject.
The charge of innovation, Mr. O. thought unjust. He proposed to leave
the business as it had heretofore been left, free from any resolve of
the House, to the control of the Speaker. By this conduct, no sanction
would be given to the performances of any reporter; but, on the other
hand, if the House passed a resolve, divesting the Speaker of his
previous power, they would render themselves responsible, and would
virtually give a sanction.
If it were resolved that the House should interfere, he would much
rather select and pay an individual competent to the business, and
appeal, for the faithful discharge of his trust, to his candor and
impartiality.
If the House passed the resolution admitting the stenographers within
the bar, Mr. O. asked whether they would not in fact be officers of the
House. The only difference between them and the other officers would be
that one would be paid and the others would not.
Mr. O. said that, in his opinion, the most inconvenient position in the
House had been taken by the stenographers. It was near the Clerk's
office, between which and the bar there was a perpetual passage of the
members. If an experiment were made of a position on the other side, or
in the upper gallery, he was persuaded it would be found very
convenient. Are not, said Mr. O., the galleries constructed for the
express purpose of hearing? Are they not intended for the good people of
the United States? And if they can hear in them, cannot the
stenographers also?
Mr. O. concluded by stating the extreme inconvenience that would arise
from admitting the stenographers; the interference it would produce with
the assignation of seats to the Secretaries of our Government and the
foreign Ministers; and with declaring his opinion that it was most
expedient to adopt the report of the committee.
Mr. NICHOLSON said, that if he understood the objections made by the
gentleman from Massachusetts to granting an admission of the
stenographers within the bar, they might be classed under three heads:
1. It will be against precedent; 2. It would prevent the members from
having elbow room; 3. There is a possibility that the Speaker may
indulge the stenographers.
As to the first objection, he would ask whether the House had not a
right to exercise any power themselves that was exercised by the
Speaker. Hitherto the Speaker has exercised the power, and admitted the
stenographers within the bar; he now refuses to do it, and we are called
upon to perform what he refuses. If we think it proper to admit them, we
have a right to do it. The power heretofore exercised by the Speaker
was derived from us, according to the well-known maxim, _Qui facit per
alium, facit per se_.
But we are told that the admission would interfere with the
accommodation of the four Secretaries and the foreign Ministers. Suppose
it should, said Mr. N.; I ask whether the convenience and the interest
of the people of the United States are to be prostrated by our
complaisance to the Secretaries and foreign agents? It is our duty to
enable the people to obtain the best information of what is doing here,
that we can supply. Shall we abandon our duty? Shall we sacrifice the
interests of our constituents to a sense of politeness to these
gentlemen? It would be much better to submit to the inconvenience
experienced by the Secretaries and the foreign Ministers, if there is
not room for them within the bar, than to conceal from the people the
knowledge they have a right to possess. Let, then, the foreign
Ministers, if there be such a competition, retire into the galleries.
He considered the subject as of high importance both to the country and
the members themselves. They all ought to desire their conduct to be
rigidly inspected.
Gentlemen say that the debates have been heretofore imperfectly taken.
Will they remedy the evil by excluding the stenographers from places
within the bar? If, heretofore, notwithstanding the favorableness of
their position, when stillness and silence reigned, they have been
unable to take the debates with precision, can it be expected that,
driven to a distance from most of the members, surrounded by a crowd in
perpetual motion, they will be able more successfully to accomplish
their object? Sir, said Mr. N., the expectation is absurd. It cannot be
done. I have placed myself without the bar, and I declare it impossible
to hear correctly. If, then, you are determined to exclude them from
their usual places, you had infinitely better turn them out of the House
altogether.
As to the convenience of the galleries for hearing, Mr. N. was not able,
from a trial made by himself, to decide upon it. But he had heard but
one uniform opinion, which was, that owing to the constant passage of
persons, and the frequent crowd it would contain, it was impossible to
hear there with any distinctness. With respect to the remarks made by
the gentleman from Massachusetts on this point, he thought them
altogether inapposite. The gallery was not constructed by us, and if it
were a bad place for hearing, it arose not from any fault to be ascribed
to us. All that we did was to open our doors to all citizens who
conducted themselves with decorum.
The personal inconvenience to members alleged, did not, in the opinion
of Mr. N., exist. He thought there was ample room. The chamber they
occupied was similar to that in Philadelphia, and the positions desired
by the stenographers were relatively the same as those in Philadelphia.
By advancing the Clerk's table three feet, every difficulty would be
removed.
Mr. RUTLEDGE said, that the members who had preceded him had talked much
about the necessity of giving the people correct information of the
transactions of that House. He believed there was not a single member
who did not wish to impart to the people all the knowledge they could
receive, and who did not highly prize the means of information furnished
by the proceedings of that House. On this point there was no division.
No one was desirous of excluding the stenographers, or prohibiting the
publication of debates. The only question really before the House was,
whether they should persevere in the old plan; whether they should
confide in the integrity and the talents of the Speaker, who had
hitherto merited their confidence, or whether, divesting him of his
power, they should exercise a right themselves hitherto attached to his
office.
Such a mode of procedure as had been pursued on this occasion was not
conformable to that heretofore practised. An application somewhat
similar had been, some time since, made to the Speaker. The Speaker
decided, and the House, without debate, acquiesced in his decision. A
stenographer had grossly misrepresented a member, and when required to
correct his false statement, had insolently refused to do it, and added
to the previous injury of misstatement insult of the most contumelious
kind. The Speaker dismissed him from his place for this barefaced
misconduct. Some of his friends made an appeal to the House. The House
acted wisely, and, with becoming dignity, refused to interpose.
Now, said Mr. R., if any other stenographer, like the one I have alluded
to, shall make it his systematic practice to misrepresent, and he
continue as heretofore to hold his place at the tenure of the Speaker's
permission, he may be dismissed by the Speaker without troubling the
House. But should the motion made by the gentleman from North Carolina
prevail, we shall be perpetually appealed to, and occupied in debate.
For these reasons he trusted the report would be agreed to.
Mr. HILL said he considered the subject as simply involving an address
to the sentiments of the members on the ground of personal convenience,
and that on that ground he was ready to sacrifice any little
inconvenience to the accommodation of the stenographers; stating at the
same time his entire reliance upon the integrity and talents of the
Speaker.
Mr. GRISWOLD said, this is nothing less than an appeal from the Chair.
To the Speaker has heretofore been committed the regulation of the
admission of all persons whatever within the bar. This is the only
correct mode in which such an object can be accomplished. The Speaker
must exercise the discretion hitherto vested in him, otherwise the order
of the House cannot be preserved. The object now is to take this power
from the Speaker, and to open the area of the House to the
stenographers, without the Speaker's approbation. It is said that only
two persons at present apply. But if the door be once opened to
admission in this way, there may be no end to intrusion. The Speaker
being divested of power to act, and the necessity of acting being
evident, the House will be perpetually troubled with appeals.
In his opinion, the power confided to the Speaker had been exercised in
this case with great propriety. It must be apparent to every body that
the area was too small to justify the admission of the stenographers. He
believed it to be an idle pretence that the stenographers could not
hear. He believed it to be a mere matter of pride, which would be
gratified by an appeal from the Chair, and a reversal of the decision of
the Speaker by the House.
Mr. THATCHER, persuaded that all the information derived from the
debates of this House was of little comparative importance when viewed
in relation to the general mass of information possessed by the people,
cared but little for the event of the resolution before the House. Upon
this ground he felt no anxiety whatever. As a matter of order, it might
perhaps be of some importance. As to the convenience of position, he
doubted whether a more correct account of the debates could not be given
from a situation without the bar than within it. His reasons were these:
It was well known that for four or five sessions after the organization
of the Federal Government stenographers never came within the bar, and
their positions during that period were as remote from the members as at
present. Yet if any man would appeal to the debates then taken, he would
find them as correctly taken as they have been at any time since. It is
true, there were complaints of inaccuracy, but the debate takers never
assigned, as a justification of their errors, the inconvenience of their
situations; on the contrary, they declared that they did as well as they
could, and contended that their reports were as correct as the nature of
the case permitted.
When the seat of Government was transferred to Philadelphia, and the
stenographers occupied places within the bar, complaints increased, the
debates were taken more incorrectly, and two or three of the
stenographers were actually turned out of the area within the bar; one
of whom, he believed, was sent into the upper gallery.
The incorrectness of the published debates did not arise so much from an
inability to hear as from an inability to take down a rapid speech.
Mr. T. said he believed the debates as taken down by Mr. Lloyd, were as
accurately taken as any taken before or since. The conclusion he drew
from these facts was, that if the stenographers were admitted by the
House within the bar, the public would gain nothing by it. He had,
however, no objection to their admission, if the Speaker approved it.
They might, as far as he cared, take any place in the House; even seats
alongside of the Speaker.
Mr. DAVIS had expected to hear substantial reasons in support of the
report of the committee. None such had been offered. It was said that
the stenographers could hear very well from their present positions. He
denied it. The reporter could not possibly hear. Though himself nearer
the gentleman, he had not heard a word that fell from the gentleman from
North Carolina.
He trusted the House would admit the stenographers within the bar. If
not admitted, the conversation and passage of the members around them
will at once prevent the debates from being well taken, and be a
perpetual excuse for their errors. But if admitted, they will have no
such apology, and they will be within the power of the House.
The great mass of our citizens are too remote to attend your debates.
They rely on those who report them. Not more than forty or fifty persons
transiently appear in the galleries, who are not equal to diffusing a
knowledge of your proceedings. Exclude the stenographers, and you may as
well shut your doors. It may be said that you print your journals; but
who reads them? They are scarcely read by the members themselves. On
great national questions the people ought to know, not only what you do,
but also the principles that guide you.
The gentleman from South Carolina was willing to place the stenographers
under the coercion of the Speaker, but was unwilling to place them under
the coercion of the House. For his part, he thought differently. He did
not wish to see them at the mercy of the Speaker.
Several allusions had been made to the treatment of a reporter at
Philadelphia, who had been driven from the House by the Speaker. He
recollected the affair, and, in his opinion, the Speaker had in this
case been actuated more by personal enmity, than by any other motive.
Mr. H. LEE next rose. He said he put it upon the candor of his colleague
from Virginia to declare whether, in his opinion, any gentleman in that
House wished to suppress his sentiments, or was disposed to shrink from
an avowal of them. If an individual were to judge from the debate of
to-day he would infer that it was the desire of some members on that
floor to conceal their sentiments from the people. No such thing was the
case. We are as anxious as those who differ with us that the people
should know what we think, say, and do.
The only question was, whether the Speaker shall exercise a certain
power which he can conveniently, and which he has hitherto honorably
exercised, or whether we shall assume it with all its inconveniences. He
hoped we should not. He feared no inaccuracy so long as the debates
published received no sanction from the House.
Have you, said Mr. L., no greater objects to engage your attention than
whether this man or that man shall go out of your bar, or remain within
it? He thought the House might be better employed.
Mr. MACON understood the subject before the House very much as his
colleague did. The question was simply whether we will take upon
ourselves inconveniences alleged to exist, or keep the stenographers
without the bar. He was convinced that the situations occupied by the
stenographers were badly calculated for hearing, as even within the bar
the members could scarcely hear each other.
One reason had great weight with him. It was, that if the House made a
rule in relation to the admission of the stenographers, it would be
placing law in the room of discretion. He preferred a certain rule to a
vague discretion.
The danger apprehended from a crowd of stenographers was farcical. Since
he had been in Congress he had never seen more than three or four. And
if the number admitted should prove inconvenient, it would be time
enough, when the inconvenience was experienced, to remedy it.
Mr. S. SMITH said the question was entirely one of inconvenience. He
would not ascribe to any member a desire to suppress his sentiments. The
speeches never went forth as delivered. Yet it was desirable to assign
to the stenographers the most convenient places. He had heard gentlemen
on both sides of the chair declare they would experience no
inconvenience from the admission of the stenographers. For himself, from
his situation, he could experience none. He believed, indeed, that the
members could be heard from any part of the House, and nearly as well in
one place as in another. But as other gentlemen hold a different
opinion, and the stenographers had hitherto been admitted within the
bar, he had not the least objection, and would vote for their admission.
In this stage of the debate, the SPEAKER arose, not, he said, to inquire
into the consequences of the House acting in the business, but again to
repeat the line of conduct he had pursued, and the motives which had
influenced his conduct; he did this for the information of members not
in the House at the time he had before addressed the House. The SPEAKER
then repeated what he had before stated, viz: that on being appealed to
by Mr. Stewart, he had declared to him his decision before any other
application had been made; that he had spoken to many members, all of
whom, without a single exception, had approved his ideas, and concluded
with again declaring, as he had before declared, that the stenographers
could not be admitted within the bar without violating the order of the
House and the convenience of the members. It was, he said, for the House
to decide--to them only was he responsible.
Mr. NICHOLAS understood it to be the object of those who supported the
admission of the stenographers within the bar to place them upon the
same footing they had heretofore held. This was his object. All the
remarks, therefore, made respecting their independence of the Chair,
were inapplicable. They would still be subject to his control, except as
to the single point of situation. In short, the business would be
restored to its old form.
His colleague had made an appeal to his candor. He wished to know
whether he (Mr. N.) thought that he or any other gentleman in that House
wished to suppress his sentiments, or was disposed to shrink from an
avowal of them? He would answer the appeal made by his colleague, and
would tell him that he did not feel himself at liberty to form
conjectures respecting the opinions of others, but decided from facts.
If he heard gentlemen make use of arguments so weak as those he had
heard that day in defence of their sentiments, he would say that their
feelings differed essentially from his. He would say that, judging them
by their arguments, they do not wish publicity to be given to the
debates of this House.
What do the gentlemen tell us? Does it not amount to this: that their
complaisance for the Speaker suffers him to judge for them in a case
where they are the best judges; and would not this complaisance go to
this length, that if the Speaker should judge wrong, they will not
interfere to correct his error?
We are told by a gentleman just up, that the application made proceeds
from pride, and that it can proceed from nothing else. But the gentleman
has not assigned his reasons for this extraordinary charge.
It is contended that any place without the bar will be convenient for
the stenographers. Let the place be pointed out. Let the gentlemen who
urge this show us a place without the bar inaccessible to the whispers
of the members and the pressure of a crowd. Do they imagine that any
particular place can be assigned to which they can ensure a profound
silence, and from which every person can be withheld? Do they not know,
have they not experienced, that when business presses, when subjects of
importance are discussed, a crowd is produced, noise ensues, and
interposing obstacles render it impossible either to hear or see the
members? In such cases, by far the most interesting that can occur, a
recess within the bar can be their only protection.
The gentleman from Massachusetts had put the business upon a very
extraordinary footing--a footing that he did not expect from him. He
represented that it would be safe to trust the reporters to the
Speaker's indulgence. For his part, he did not think it would be safe in
such hands. Shall the Speaker have the discretion of saying what debates
shall be taken and what shall not? Shall he, and he only, have the
public ear? Could the Speaker desire this? Surely he could not. He ought
rather to desire the House to decide generally than thus impose upon him
such an invidious task.
Mr. N. said, he considered those who report the debates as appearing in
this House on behalf of the people of the United States, to whom they
communicated what passed here. The people were entitled to this
information; and if, as observed by the gentleman from Massachusetts,
either foreign Ministers or Secretaries, or any other gentleman in long
robes, interfered with such an object, they ought to give way. He knew
not wherein consisted the propriety of assigning them particular seats.
What right had they to exclusive seats? He knew no connection that
subsisted between them and this House. Be the right as it may, he was
not for sacrificing a solid benefit to mere complaisance.
But a gentleman has told us that one stenographer, for his
misrepresentation and insolence, had been discharged by the Speaker. In
the course of debate, Mr. N. said, he had studiously avoided any
allusion to this circumstance. Nor would he now say any thing about it,
as he thought it altogether foreign from the present question.
The respect which gentlemen expressed for the Speaker appeared to him to
lead them from the object they professed to have in view. For, at
present, the stenographers are not under the control of the Speaker. But
admit them within the bar, and if they are guilty of misconduct, if they
infringe any of the rules of the House, the Speaker has them within his
power.
Some gentlemen apprehend the admission of a crowd of stenographers. The
thing is morally impossible. When Congress met in a large populous city,
where several daily papers were printed, we saw but two reporters. Here,
removed from the busy world, where the demand for that description of
labor which arose from publishing the debates was not nearly so great,
and, of consequence, the profit less, it could not be expected that
there could be more.
Mr. N. concluded by declaring that, in his opinion, it was the duty of
the House to decide in this case. The Speaker had changed the
established practice of the House. It became, therefore, the House to
inquire whether he had done what he ought to have done; which, if he had
omitted to do, it devolved on them to see effected.
Mr. WALN spoke in favor of the adoption of the report.
The question was then taken by yeas and nays, on agreeing to the report
of the select committee, and carried by the casting vote of the Speaker.
There being yeas 45, nays 45, as follows:
YEAS.--Theodore Sedgwick, (Speaker,) George Baer, Bailey
Bartlett, John Bird, John Brown, Christopher G. Champlin,
William Cooper, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, John
Davenport, Franklin Davenport, John Dennis, William Edmond,
Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn,
Chauncey Goodrich, Elizur Goodrich, Roger Griswold, William
Barry Grove, Archibald Henderson, Benjamin Huger, James H.
Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Henry Lee, Silas Lee, James
Linn, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Robert Page,
Josiah Parker, Jonas Platt, Levin Powell, John Read, Nathan
Read, John Rutledge, jr., John C. Smith, Samuel Tenney,
George Thatcher, John Chew Thomas, Richard Thomas, Peleg
Wadsworth, Robert Waln, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.
NAYS.--Willis Alston, Theodorus Bailey, Phanuel Bishop,
Robert Brown, Gabriel Christie, Matthew Clay, William C. C.
Claiborne, John Condit, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson,
George Dent, Joseph Dickson, Joseph Eggleston, Lucas
Elmendorph, Samuel Goode, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A.
Hanna, Joseph Heister, William H. Hill, David Holmes,
George Jackson, James Jones, Aaron Kitchell, Michael Leib,
Nathaniel Macon, Peter Muhlenberg, Anthony New, John
Nicholas, Joseph H. Nicholson, John Randolph, John Smilie,
John Smith, Samuel Smith, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Richard
Stanford, David Stone, Thomas Sumter, Benjamin Taliaferro,
John Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Lyttleton W.
Tazewell, Philip Van Cortlandt, and Joseph B. Varnum.
WEDNESDAY, December 10.
Another member, to wit, MATTHEW LYON, from Vermont, appeared, and took
his seat in the House.
_Mausoleum to Washington._
The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for erecting a
Mausoleum to the memory of GEORGE WASHINGTON.
Mr. ALSTON was in hopes, when he first made the motion now under
consideration, that a question would have been taken upon the amendment
without debate; but, as his wish upon that subject had not been complied
with, he held it to be his duty to give to the House the reasons which
actuated him.
He said that he by no means wished to detract any thing from the merit
of that illustrious character whose memory we were now about to
perpetuate; that it was his wish that his character might be handed to
the latest posterity unimpaired, and that he really thought the
amendment equally calculated to effect that desirable purpose with the
bill; that the difference of expense was a matter of importance to the
people of this country; that the expense of a mausoleum, from the best
information he had been able to collect, would amount to at least 150 or
$200,000; that a monument, such as was contemplated by the amendment,
would not cost more than one tenth as much as a mausoleum, as
contemplated by the bill as it now stood. Indeed, he believed that the
bare expense of interring the remains of General WASHINGTON in a
mausoleum would cost as much as the proposed monument.
Mr. A. said he considered Congress pledged, as far as the resolution of
the last session went; that the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr.
OTIS,) who was up a few day ago upon this subject, had requested
information; in answer to which he had only to observe that if that
gentleman would have given himself the trouble to have examined the
proceedings of the last session of Congress he would have been better
informed than he appeared to be; that a committee equally respectable
with that which had reported the bill at the present time, had then
fully investigated the subject, and had made a report, which was to be
found upon the journals of the last session of Congress, recommending a
monument such as was contemplated by the proposed amendment, and that
the request made by the President of the United States to Mrs.
Washington, in conformity to the report of that committee, was for a
monument; to which request she had consented; he, therefore, considered
Congress as pledged thus far and no farther; that a motion was made in
this House to change the monument to a mausoleum; that the recent death
of General WASHINGTON at that time, prevented any person from opposing
any measure which was offered, let the expense be what it would; but
that the time which had elapsed since, had enabled the public mind the
better to judge.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. LEE) and the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. GRISWOLD) had dwelt a great deal upon the subject of public
gratitude. It was by no means his wish or intention to lessen that
sentiment, but he said that he could not give his consent to an
expensive measure like that contemplated in the bill, when a measure far
less expensive, in his opinion, would answer every purpose as well.
Mr. ALSTON was followed by Mr. HUGER, who advocated the erection of a
mausoleum.
Mr. SMILIE replied. He considered the erection of a mausoleum as
productive of unnecessary expense, as a monument would answer every
rational purpose contemplated in the bill.
Mr. H. LEE next spoke at some length in favor of a mausoleum, and read a
letter received from Mr. King, our Ambassador at London enclosing a
plan, presented to him by an eminent foreign artist, for a mausoleum of
one hundred and fifty feet base, and the same height, the expense of
which was estimated at $170,000.
Mr. CHAMPLIN, after some remarks, moved that the committee rise, report
progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Which motion being carried without a division, the committee rose; and
on the question to grant them leave to sit again, only three members
rose in the affirmative.
Mr. CHAMPLIN then moved the recommitment of the bill to the same
committee that reported it, with the addition of two members, which was
carried, and Messrs. CLAIBORNE and CHAMPLIN appointed.
After Mr. CHAMPLIN'S motion for a recommitment of the bill to a select
committee was carried,
Mr. CLAIBORNE said he had risen to move that the committee just
appointed be instructed to inquire into the expediency of carrying into
effect a resolution passed by the old Congress, on the 7th of August,
1783, directing an equestrian statue of General WASHINGTON to be erected
at the place where the residence of Congress shall be established.
Mr. C. said, that on a question which could not fail to excite the
sensibility of every American heart, it was a subject of great regret
that a division of sentiment should arise. The memory of our departed
patriot lives in the affections of a grateful country, and will triumph
over time. During a long life, so usefully and honorably employed,
WASHINGTON had reared to himself a fabric of fame, the lustre of which
can neither be diminished nor heightened by any measure that we can
take. But, sir, from a respect for our own, as well as for the feelings
of the nation, we should endeavor to unite in the last act of attention
which we propose to show this venerable character.
Mr. C. said that the proposition for a mausoleum was calculated to
create division. The expense of such a monument would be immense, and
would be viewed by many as a profuse and useless expenditure of the
public money. He believed that the statue recommended by the old
Congress could be better justified upon principles of economy, and would
meet with more general support. Here Mr. C. read from the journals of
the old Congress the following resolutions:
"_Resolved_, (unanimously, ten States being present,) That
an equestrian statue of General WASHINGTON be erected at
the place where the residence of Congress shall be
established.
"_Resolved_, That the statue be of bronze--the General to
be represented in a Roman dress, holding a truncheon in his
right hand, and his head encircled with a laurel wreath.
The statue to be supported by a marble pedestal, on which
are to be represented, in basso relievo, the following
principal events of the war, in which General WASHINGTON
commanded in person, viz: The evacuation of Boston--the
capture of the Hessians at Trenton--the battle of
Princeton--the action of Monmouth--and the surrender of
York. On the upper part of the front of the pedestal, to be
engraved as follows: 'The United States in Congress
assembled ordered this statue to be erected, in the year of
our Lord, 1783, in honor of GEORGE WASHINGTON, the
illustrious Commander-in-chief of the Armies of the United
States of America, during the war which vindicated and
secured their liberty, sovereignty, and independence."'
A monument thus designed, (continued Mr. C.,) would portray in lively
colors the military achievements of our late illustrious Chief, and is
calculated to impress upon our posterity a grateful recollection of his
eminent services. Mr. C. was the more interested in support of a
monument of this kind, because it had been sanctioned by a unanimous
vote of those venerable philosophers and statesmen who presided in our
councils, at a time of the greatest danger, directed the storm of war,
and tamed the rage of tyranny.
It was true, that this equestrian statue would not express any of the
great events of WASHINGTON's civil life, but, of these, we have already
many honorable testimonials; the first in order, and which he hoped
would be the last in durability, was the Constitution of the United
States; to this instrument his name was annexed, and would be noticed
with gratitude by the lovers of freedom in every age and every clime;
this city is another memento of his civil life, and, if it should be the
residence of all that piety, wisdom, and magnanimity, which was so
devoutly prayed for by each branch of the Legislature, at the
commencement of the present session, this city would remain an honorable
testimonial of the civil virtues of its great founder.
There was no doubt, said Mr. C., but that many gentlemen were also
solicitous that the body of General WASHINGTON should be deposited
within the walls of the Capitol; of this number Mr. C. was one, and was
desirous that a plain but neat apartment should be speedily prepared for
its reception. But over his remains, instead of an expensive monument,
Mr. C. thought it most advisable to place a plain but neat tomb-stone,
of American marble, and prepared by an American artist. And in order to
convey to posterity, in impressive language, the feelings of the
American nation, when the loss of our patriot, sage, and hero, was first
announced, Mr. C. wished to see engraved upon this tomb the addresses of
each House of Congress upon this occasion to the President of the United
States, together with the President's replies thereto.
Mr. C. concluded by moving the instructions stated in the commencement
of his speech.
Mr. CLAIBORNE was followed by Messrs. CRAIK and NOTT.
The instruction to the committee, moved by Mr. CLAIBORNE, with a slight
modification, was agreed to.
MONDAY, December 15.
Another member, to wit, THOMAS PINCKNEY, from South Carolina, appeared,
and took his seat in the House.
THURSDAY, December 18.
Another member, to wit, JAMES SHEAFE, from New Hampshire, appeared, and
took his seat in the House.
FRIDAY, December 19.
_Mausoleum to Washington._
Mr. H. LEE, from the committee to whom was referred the several
propositions made commemorative of the services of GEORGE WASHINGTON,
reported a bill for the erection of a mausoleum, differing in no other
respects from the former bill reported, except as to the materials of
which the mausoleum is to be constructed; the present bill directing it
to be made of stone, the former one directing it to be made of marble.
He said that the committee, after maturely considering the relative
merits of all the plans proposed, had preferred the mausoleum, as well
from its superior durability as cheapness, to any other.
TUESDAY, December 23.
_Mausoleum to Washington._
Mr. H. LEE moved the going into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for
erecting a mausoleum to GEORGE WASHINGTON.
On this question the House divided--yeas 42, nays 34.
Mr. MORRIS took the chair, and read the bill by paragraphs.
Mr. H. LEE said the merits of the bill had been so often discussed, and
the subject was so delicate, that he would not again offer his
sentiments generally on it. As it was the opinion of several members,
that the dimensions of the mausoleum should not be fixed in the law, but
that they should be governed by the sum appropriated, he moved to strike
out "100 feet at the base and of proportionate dimensions."
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. H. LEE then moved an amendment confining the ground on which the
mausoleum should be erected to public property.
Mr. HARPER opposed the amendment, which was lost, only 31 members rising
in favor of it.
Mr. H. LEE then moved to fill the blank, fixing the sum to be
appropriated for erecting the mausoleum, with $200,000.
Mr. SMILIE said he hoped the House would not with its eyes open go into
a measure that might involve incalculable expense. It was proposed to
appropriate $200,000. This was probably but a small part of what would
be ultimately required; and when the thing was once begun, it must be
completed, cost what it would. If the architect would give security for
accomplishing the work for $200,000 he would not be so much opposed to
it. But, as it stood, he was opposed to it, as a useless expenditure of
public money.
Mr. HARPER said the old story was again rung in their ears. An object,
in itself highly important, was proposed, and, forsooth, because it cost
some money, on the ground of economy it must be rejected.
He would ask the gentleman just up whether he knew any thing about the
expense of a mausoleum? And yet not professing to be informed,
professing indeed to know little, he had put his vague conjectures in
the room of estimates formed with deliberation by artists of the first
eminence. These clamorous objections were well understood. Their sole
object was _ad captandum vulgus_; to create alarm about what was termed
useless expense. They were intended for nothing else.
To satisfy the solicitude of gentlemen an artist of talents universally
acknowledged had been desired to furnish an estimate; which estimate
stated that a pyramid of 100 feet base would cost $67,000. This was the
estimate of an artist of such accuracy that in the greatest work ever
undertaken in America, and the greatest, perhaps, of its kind, ever
undertaken in the world, (he alluded to the water works of
Philadelphia,) the expense actually incurred had fallen short of the
estimate. The same accuracy had characterized his plan and execution of
the Bank of Pennsylvania, which was probably the greatest work of the
kind executed in this country. And yet the gentleman from Pennsylvania
will place his vague doubts, and (Mr. HARPER begged pardon for the
expression) his total want of knowledge against the calculations of a
man of practical science.
The gentleman had asked whether any one could be found, who would be
responsible for the execution of the work for the proposed sum. Mr.
HARPER said, if it were proper for a member of that House to say so, he
would undertake himself to erect a mausoleum of 150 feet base, and 150
feet high, for $200,000; and for the performance of his engagement he
could give the most unquestionable security, such as every member of
that House would approve. He further believed that the artist before
alluded to, if required, would give the necessary security. The accuracy
of the estimate had been tested by every circumstance that the nature of
the case admitted. The same course had been pursued, in this case, that
every reasonable man was accustomed to take in his own private concerns.
Every such individual, who designed building a house obtained first an
estimate from a skilful workman, which satisfied him. If men acted not
in this way, there could be no progress in human improvements.
After this information, furnished by such an artist, gentlemen ought to
be satisfied without opposing to it their own crude conceptions; and Mr.
HARPER said he hoped they would cease to talk on a subject on which they
were so ignorant, until they became better informed.
Mr. MACON did not see the subject in the same light with the gentleman
from South Carolina. He was disposed to pay the greatest respect to his
talents, but he could not give up his own opinion. The estimates made by
the artist amounted to $140,000; yet the gentleman from Virginia
required $200,000. Does not this show that the gentlemen themselves have
not confided in the estimate of the artist?
Mr. H. LEE explained, and said that he thought the most proper plan for
adoption was that of Mr. West; pursuing that plan, $200,000 might be
required, as there would be interior arrangements to make, additional to
those contemplated by the estimate.
Mr. MACON said he thought $140,000 would be sufficient. He knew not how
to reconcile the difference between the estimate made in Philadelphia
and that made in Washington; the first was only $67,000; which was a sum
much below any calculated here. He did not pretend to any information on
this subject, and the various modifications the bill had undergone,
convinced him that no member was well acquainted with it. The estimates
differed materially from each other. They could not therefore all be
correct. He could not, from these considerations, feel confidence in the
estimates of the gentleman from South Carolina, or the other gentleman;
for if they really possessed correct information, how came they so
radically to differ; and the committee itself to propose so many
alterations in the original bill?
Mr. SMILIE replied to Mr. HARPER. The object of his remarks was, to show
that Mr. H. possessed as little information on the subject as himself.
Mr. RUTLEDGE.--The substance of what the gentleman says, is that he
wants to do nothing. He had long thought so, and he was now confirmed in
his opinion. When the man, whose loss the world deplored, departed from
us, we were all shrouded with sorrow; the mournful event awakened our
deepest regrets; and resolutions expressive of the national affliction
at his death, and commemorative of his services, were unanimously passed
by both Houses of Congress. Those resolutions were not carried into
immediate effect, owing to the disagreement of the two branches of the
Legislature. Now, when we propose to carry them into effect, objections
are started to every measure offered; objections that rise eternally in
our horizon; which, whenever we pursue, fly from our reach, and which,
always moving in a circle, we can never overtake.
Gentlemen tell us they are unaccustomed to spend public money without
estimates. To satisfy the vigilance of their economy we obtain them.
They then tell us they are inaccurate; their objection arises from a
want of detail; they wish a minute statement of each separate charge.
Again, we consent to gratify their wishes, anxious for their sanction to
our measures, that they may express the unanimous sentiment of Congress.
We produce an estimate as minute as was ever furnished by an artist on
any occasion. The total amount of estimated expense is $140,000, and to
avoid the necessity of calling on Congress again, the gentleman from
Virginia asks for $200,000.
Still, after all our trouble and solicitude to satisfy the scruples of
gentlemen, they continue to urge objections. One gentleman says the
estimate made at Philadelphia differs from that made here; another
gentleman will not confide in any estimate, and another wants security.
Does it become the dignity of the House thus to be occupied with
trifling objections on such a subject; and, in the spirit of bargaining,
to waste its time in saving a few dollars?
Many gentlemen, anxious for this measure, had agreed to postpone the
consideration of it, hoping thereby to accommodate other gentlemen in
their views, and expecting ultimately a unanimous vote. But he now
abandoned it. He saw no period to objections. Much time had already been
idly wasted. They had delayed too long to do what ought to have been
done at once. Let us then take the question at once, and get rid of it,
though a veto should be passed upon the bill.
The question was then taken on filling up the blank with $200,000, and
carried--yeas 41, nays 38.
Mr. DENT moved to amend the section appropriating the sum, by
substituting the word "for," in the room of the word "towards," which
would fix the whole sum to be appropriated, instead of leaving it
uncertain. Agreed to.
The committee then rose and reported the bill as amended. On the
question to agree to the $200,000 appropriated, the House divided--yeas
41, nays 38.
The SPEAKER then put the question on engrossing the bill for a third
reading.
Mr. CLAIBORNE was opposed to the engrossing of the bill. He hoped no
gentleman would ascribe his opposition to a want of respect to the
memory of our great patriot. His respect for this illustrious character
had been almost coeval with his life, and would follow him to his grave.
He was opposed to a mausoleum, because it would not be so respectful to
the memory of WASHINGTON, as the equestrian statue directed by the old
Congress, who had directed the battle during our Revolutionary struggle,
and for whose character he felt the highest veneration. The present
Government could not refuse to carry into effect this act of the old
Congress, without a violation of moral principle. He preferred a statue
to a mausoleum, because the former, from representing the form and the
features, would inspire the beholder with more lively emotions than a
mass of stones formed into a pyramid.
Were the expense of a statue greater than that of a mausoleum, he would,
notwithstanding, prefer it; but he believed the reverse would be the
fact. He not only wished a statue raised, but also was in favor of an
immediate appropriation for depositing the remains of our departed
friend within these very walls, in such a manner as would not disgrace
them.
Mr. CHAMPLIN had heretofore voted from a spirit of conciliation. He was
now not a little surprised to find the gentlemen from Tennessee and
South Carolina (Mr. CLAIBORNE and Mr. ALSTON) opposed to a mausoleum,
though their names appeared, from an inspection of the journals of last
session, among those who were then in favor of it.
He considered a mausoleum as preferable to a statue, because the first
was calculated to celebrate all the virtues of the statesman, as well as
the hero, while the latter would be limited to his military exploits.
Great opposition had been made to the erection of a mausoleum, with the
professed view of avoiding expense, and I admit generally that economy
ought to be observed, in the expenditure of public money. But on an
occasion highly interesting to the feelings, and deeply involving the
character of the nation, even the appearance of parsimony should be
carefully avoided. It is necessary to consider the nature and magnitude
of the object for which money is required. It is not asked for, in the
present instance, to commemorate a man distinguished only on the field
of battle. It is not wanted to gratify family pride, or to raise a
monument of despotic power and slavish submission. It is to be furnished
by a great and free people, to record, in a manner worthy of themselves,
their gratitude for the important services rendered to them by one of
their fellow-citizens; the fruits of which I cannot but hope will be
enjoyed and recognized by future generations. We are called upon by the
public voice to erect a monument suited to the character of WASHINGTON,
who has been emphatically styled, _the man of the age_, and whose
virtues may, by the record we shall make of them, become the property of
distant ages.
These virtues will doubtless be the theme of some able biographer, and
it is wished that posterity may not search in vain for some striking
evidence of our acknowledgment of them. It is indeed of infinite
importance to civil society, that the memory of that great man should be
perpetuated by every means in our power. We may thus sow the seeds of
virtue, honor, and patriotism, in our country. He will be held up a
model, to which the finger of wisdom will constantly point, to which the
attention of youth will be irresistibly drawn, and the mind of every man
aspiring to pre-eminence among a free people, will be riveted. The
proposed mausoleum would be a structure well calculated to resist the
ravages of time. As to the hand of man, at least of civilized man, we
need not guard against it. The depository of the ashes of WASHINGTON
will never be assailed by it. It may indeed be attacked by the ruthless
hand of some invading barbarian. But its only security against such an
attack must be derived from the courage and fortitude of the people of
the United States. And I trust they will never tamely yield up the land
of their forefathers.
Mr. BIRD was against the bill, because it proposed the erection of a
mausoleum, which would not be equal to the object for which it was
raised without the expenditure of a vast sum of money; whereas a statue
could be made, somewhat correspondent to the occasion, for a moderate
sum. It was in vain for gentlemen to talk about a structure commensurate
to the object. Such a thing was impossible. He moved the recommitment of
the bill to a Committee of the whole House.
The question being put, the House divided--ayes 39, noes 39; and it
passed in the negative by the casting vote of the SPEAKER.
Mr. SHEPARD said, I will do as much as any man to honor the memory of
WASHINGTON. I have fought and bled with him several times. I have always
supported and will continue to support him. But on the score of expense,
I think we are going too far. I will go so far as to have his remains
placed decently within these walls. Further I will not go; for I do not
think we have a right to throw away the public money.
Mr. MACON delivered his reasons against a mausoleum, and in favor of an
equestrian statue; and among other remarks, said, the idea that a
mausoleum would be equal to the character of WASHINGTON, was
preposterous. Few individuals in the world were capable of drawing his
character. In a few words, he would say that no character that had ever
lived was equal to him, and it was his firm belief, that the world would
never see his equal.
Mr. BROWN thought General WASHINGTON the best man that had ever lived;
and he was surprised at the ideas of gentlemen on the ground of expense.
If the mausoleum were agreed to, it would not cost each person in the
United States four cents; and if the equestrian statue were also made,
(which he hoped would also be done, for the sake of general
accommodation,) it would not cost more than two cents. It seemed to him
that some gentlemen were averse to doing any thing, though they did not
wish the people to think so.
Mr. ALSTON would not have risen, had he not been marked by the gentleman
from Rhode Island as an object of inconsistency.
Mr. CHAMPLIN explained by saying he did not mean to censure the
gentleman for his change of opinion, for which he doubtless had good
reasons.