THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

MONDAY, December 7, 1801.

This being the day appointed by the constitution for the annual meeting

of Congress, the following members of the House of Representatives

appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats in the House,

to wit:

_From New Hampshire._--Abiel Foster, George P. Upham, and

Samuel Tenney.

_From Massachusetts._--William Eustis, John Bacon, Phanuel

Bishop, Joseph B. Varnum, Richard Cutts, Lemuel Williams,

William Shepard, Ebenezer Mattoon, Nathan Read, Josiah

Smith, and Manasseh Cutler.

_From Rhode Island._--Thomas Tillinghast, and Joseph

Stanton, jr.

_From Connecticut._--Roger Griswold, Samuel W. Dana, John

Davenport, Calvin Goddard, Benjamin Tallmadge, Elias

Perkins, and John C. Smith.

_From Vermont._--Israel Smith.

_From New York._--Samuel L. Mitchill, Philip Van Cortlandt,

Theodorus Bailey, John Smith, Benjamin Walker, Thomas

Morris, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Lucas Elmendorph, David

Thomas, and John P. Van Ness.

_From New Jersey._--John Condit, James Mott, William Helms,

Henry Southard, and Ebenezer Elmer.

_From Pennsylvania._--William Jones, Michael Leib, John

Smilie, William Hoge, Isaac Vanhorne, Joseph Heister,

Robert Brown, Henry Woods, John A. Hanna, John Stewart,

Thomas Boude, and Joseph Hemphill.

_From Delaware._--James A. Bayard.

_From Maryland._--John Archer, Joseph H. Nicholson, Samuel

Smith, Richard Sprigg, John Dennis, and Thomas Plater.

_From Virginia._--Thomas Newton, jr., John Randolph, jr.,

George Jackson, Philip R. Thompson, John Taliaferro, John

Stratton, William B. Giles, Abram Trigg, John Trigg,

Anthony New, John Smith, David Holmes, Richard Brent, Edwin

Gray, and Matthew Clay.

_From Kentucky._--Thomas T. Davis, and John Fowler.

_From North Carolina._--Nathaniel Macon, Willis Alston,

Richard Stanford, Charles Johnson, Archibald Henderson, and

John Stanley.

_From Tennessee._--William Dickson.

_From South Carolina._--Thomas Sumter, Thomas Moore, and

Thomas Lowndes.

_From Georgia._--John Milledge.

_From the North-west Territory._--Paul Fearing.

_From Mississippi Territory._--Narsworthy Hunter.

A quorum, consisting of a majority, being present, the House proceeded,

by ballot, to the choice of a Speaker; and, upon examining the ballots,

a majority of the votes of the whole House was found in favor of

NATHANIEL MACON, one of the Representatives for the State of North

Carolina: Whereupon, Mr. MACON was conducted to the chair, and he made

his acknowledgments to the House as follows:

"GENTLEMEN: Accept my sincere thanks for the honor you have

conferred on me, in the choice just made. The duties of the

chair will be undertaken with great diffidence indeed; but

it shall be my constant endeavor to discharge them with

fidelity and impartiality."

The House proceeded, in the same manner, to the appointment of a Clerk;

and, upon examining the ballots, a majority of the whole House was found

in favor of JOHN BECKLEY.

The oath to support the Constitution of the United States, as prescribed

by law, was then administered by Mr. GRISWOLD, one of the

Representatives for the State of Connecticut, to the SPEAKER; and then

the same oath, or affirmation, was administered, by Mr. SPEAKER, to each

of the members present.

A message from the Senate informed the House that a quorum of the Senate

is assembled, and ready to proceed to business; and that, in the absence

of the Vice President, they have elected the honorable ABRAHAM BALDWIN,

President of the Senate, _pro tempore_.

_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that a

quorum of this House is assembled, and have elected NATHANIEL MACON, one

of the Representatives of the State of North Carolina, their Speaker,

and are ready to proceed to business; and that the Clerk of this House

do go with the said message.

The House proceeded, by ballot, to the choice of a Sergeant-at-Arms,

Doorkeeper, and Assistant Doorkeeper; and upon examining the ballots, a

majority of the votes of the whole House was found in favor of JOSEPH

WHEATON, as Sergeant-at-Arms, and, also, a unanimous vote in favor of

THOMAS CLAXTON, and THOMAS DUNN, severally, the former as Doorkeeper,

and the latter as Assistant Doorkeeper.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have

appointed a committee on their part, jointly, with such committee as may

be appointed on the part of this House, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE

UNITED STATES, and inform him that a quorum of the two Houses is

assembled, and ready to receive any communications he may think proper

to make to them.

Mr. SAMUEL SMITH, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and notify him that a quorum of the two

Houses is assembled and ready to receive any communication he may think

proper to make to them, reported that the committee had performed that

service, and that the PRESIDENT signified to them that he would make a

communication to this House, to-morrow, by message.

TUESDAY, December 8.

Several other members, to wit: from Pennsylvania, ANDREW GREGG; from

Virginia, SAMUEL J. CABELL; from North Carolina, JAMES HOLLAND; and from

South Carolina, WILLIAM BUTLER; appeared, produced their credentials,

and took their seats in the House; the oath to support the Constitution

of the United States being first administered to them by Mr. SPEAKER,

according to law.

A petition of John McDonald, late of the city of Philadelphia, was

presented to the House and read, praying that he may be employed to

superintend the arrangement and safe-keeping of the books intended for

the library of the two Houses of Congress; and that he may receive such

compensation for his services, in that capacity, as to the wisdom of

Congress shall seem meet.

_Ordered_, That the said petition be referred to the committee appointed

yesterday, on the part of this House, jointly with the committee

appointed by the Senate, to take into consideration a statement made by

the Secretary of the Senate, respecting books and maps purchased

pursuant to a late act of Congress, and to make report respecting the

future arrangement of the same.

The following committees were appointed pursuant to the standing rules

and orders of the House, viz:

_Committee of Elections._--Mr. MILLEDGE, Mr. TENNEY, Mr. CONDIT, Mr.

DENNIS, Mr. HANNA, Mr. STANLEY, and Mr. JOHN TALIAFERRO.

_Committee of Revised and Unfinished Business._--Mr. DAVENPORT, Mr.

CLAY, and Mr. ALSTON.

_Committee of Claims._--JOHN COTTON SMITH, Mr. GREGG, Mr. HOLMES, Mr.

MATTOON, Mr. JOHN SMITH, of New York, Mr. PLATER, and Mr. MOORE.

_Committee of Commerce and Manufactures._--Mr. SAMUEL SMITH, Mr. EUSTIS,

Mr. DANA, Mr. MITCHILL, Mr. JONES, Mr. NEWTON, and Mr. LOWNDES.

_Resolved_, That a standing Committee of Ways and Means be appointed,

whose duty it shall be to take into consideration all such reports of

the Treasury Department, and all such propositions, relative to the

revenue, as may be referred to them by the House; to inquire into the

state of the public debt, of the revenue, and of the expenditures; and

to report, from time to time, their opinion thereon.

_Ordered_, That Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. GRISWOLD, Mr. ISRAEL SMITH, Mr.

BAYARD, Mr. SMILIE, Mr. READ, Mr. NICHOLSON, Mr. VAN RENSSELAER, and Mr.

DICKSON, be appointed a committee, pursuant to the said resolution.

WEDNESDAY, December 9.

Another member, to wit, JOHN CAMPBELL, from Maryland, appeared, produced

his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

THURSDAY, December 10.

Mr. ELMENDORPH, from the committee to whom was referred, on the eighth

instant, a letter from THOMAS CLAXTON, the Doorkeeper of this House,

relative to certain expenditures, and further assistance necessary to be

allowed for enabling him to execute the duties of his station, made a

report; which was read and considered: Whereupon,

_Resolved_, That THOMAS CLAXTON be, and is hereby, authorized to employ,

under his immediate direction, one additional assistant, two servants,

and two horses, for the purpose of performing such services and duties

as are usually required by the House of Representatives, during the

present session, and for four days thereafter; and the sum of five

dollars and seventy-five cents per day be allowed to him for that

purpose; and that he be paid therefor out of the fund appropriated for

the contingent expenses of the House.

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 Rev. Mr. GANTT has been duly elected.

FRIDAY, December 11.

Several other members, to wit: from New Hampshire, JOSEPH PEIRCE; from

Massachusetts, PELEG WADSWORTH; from Virginia, THOMAS CLAIBORNE and JOHN

CLOPTON; and, from North Carolina, WILLIAM H. HILL, appeared, produced

their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats in the House.

MONDAY, December 14.

Another member, to wit, LEWIS R. MORRIS, from the State of Vermont,

appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in

the House.

TUESDAY, December 15.

_Barbary Powers._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the State of

the Union, the following resolution being under consideration:

"_Resolved_, That it is expedient that the President be

authorized by law, further and more effectually to protect

the commerce of the United States against the Barbary

Powers."

Mr. NICHOLSON said, that when this resolution was yesterday laid on the

table, he had moved, for reasons that he had assigned, to strike out the

words "further and more." He was, on reflection, more and more persuaded

of the accuracy of his objections to the unqualified terms of the

original motion. If we adopt it, we pledge ourselves to increase the

naval force at present at the disposition of the President. But if his

modification were agreed to, every gentleman would remain at liberty to

put his own construction on the words "effectual force." Uninformed as

we were as to the necessity of increasing the force, it would be highly

improper to commit ourselves by any precipitate decision. He, therefore,

moved to strike out the words "further and more."

Mr. GILES opposed the striking out the words, which, in his opinion, did

not relate to the quantum of force placed under Executive disposition,

but to the measures proposed to be taken by the Executive. He should

vote for the motion unamended, though he had been, and still was, as

averse as any gentleman in that House to an improper augmentation of the

Army or Navy. With respect to the Navy, he was friendly to it as it now

stood, or to an augmentation of it to meet any particular emergency.

Mr. S. SMITH said that as he understood the resolution, it went not to

pledge any man to augment the Navy, but to authorize the President, with

the present force, to take measures for the defence of our trade. We

were at war with Tripoli. Against that power, therefore, the President

felt himself at liberty to act efficiently. But gentlemen should advert

to our situation with regard to Algiers and Tunis. Those powers may

become hostile. They may become so in the recess of Congress. It may be

necessary without delay to protect our trade against them. Will you then

confine the President, in relation to these powers, to a Peace

Establishment? Certainly, when these circumstances were duly weighed, no

gentleman will refuse the power which this resolution is intended to

confer.

Mr. SMILIE was in favor of the amendment for one reason. He was ready at

all times to grant commerce every necessary protection. But by adopting

this resolution, we pledge ourselves, without inquiring into the

necessity, to extend further protection. No doubt further protection

will be required. But he thought it premature to make any pledge until

all the documents connected with the subject were before the House.

Mr. MITCHILL suggested the propriety of amending the original resolution

by inserting after the word "law," "if necessary." This would render the

resolution conditional. To the resolution he was a friend. For when the

aspect and extent of the United States were considered, it must be

evident to every man that we were a commercial people. The bulk and

extensiveness of our produce required vessels to carry it to foreign

countries. The carriage required protection. The Government must of

course give protection. With respect to the Mediterranean expedition, no

plan under the Government had been better devised; and he had no

hesitation to say, that if the Mediterranean trade required further

protection, he would be for making further appropriations of the public

moneys.

Mr. NICHOLSON said he could not agree to the suggestion of the gentleman

from New York, as by adopting it we should do nothing. How does the

matter now stand? Congress has put into the hands of the President six

frigates, which he had used for the public service in the Mediterranean.

This was not a fit time to express his opinion on the propriety of the

measures of the Executive. But when a fit occasion did offer, he would

have no hesitation to say the President had done right.

To return to the point--The President had now six frigates. If we agree

to the resolution, do we not pledge ourselves to increase this force?

One squadron had been sent to the Mediterranean; another was in

operation to go there, he understood. This was all right. But there

followed no necessity from these circumstances to pledge ourselves to

increase the force.

We were not even acquainted with the sentiments of the President on this

point. His communications did not inform us that he desired a larger

force. If he did desire it, he would say so. He had, on the contrary,

recommended a reduction of the Army and Navy; and to desire an

augmentation of the latter, would be, in the same breath, to say one

thing and mean another.

Mr. EUSTIS.--The President, in his communications, has informed us that

he has hitherto acted on the defensive. The simple question now is,

whether he shall be empowered to take offensive steps. This has no

relation, therefore, to an increase of the force; nor shall we, by

adopting it, pledge ourselves to such effect.

Mr. GILES was happy that the discussion was one more of words than of

principles. He perfectly coincided with the gentleman from Maryland, who

had moved the amendment, in his general sentiments. It would be wrong in

this House prematurely to pledge itself for an increase of naval force.

But the words of the resolution do not relate to the quantum of force,

but entirely to the measures to be taken with any force. When the

President is authorized further and more effectually to protect our

trade, it was not said that we will give him four or six additional

frigates; but merely that he is to have means, more or less, which shall

be adequate to make offensive operations against those who shall make

offensive operations against us.

It was well understood that he was for keeping the Navy within proper

bounds; but if ever there was a case where it was required, this was the

case, and he acknowledged that he was for empowering the President to

authorize not merely a dismantlement of a vessel, but her capture.

The question was then taken on Mr. NICHOLSON'S amendment and lost.

When the original motion of Mr. SMITH was carried.

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the said

resolution; and that Mr. EUSTIS, Mr. SAMUEL SMITH, Mr. DANA, Mr.

MITCHILL, and Mr. JONES, do prepare and bring in the same.

WEDNESDAY, December 16.

Another member, to wit, BENJAMIN HUGER, from South Carolina, appeared,

produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

_Ratio of Representation._

The House, according to the order of the day, proceeded to consider the

first resolution reported yesterday from the Committee of the whole

House on the state of the Union, in the words following, to wit:

"_Resolved_, That the apportionment of Representatives

amongst the several States, according to the second

enumeration of the people, ought to be in a ratio of one

Representative for every thirty-three thousand persons in

each State."

Mr. GRISWOLD remarked, that the effect of adopting this resolution would

be an increase of members in that House; that the number would amount to

nearly one hundred and fifty. He was of opinion that the present House

was sufficiently numerous for every correct purpose, as well of

legislation, as for obtaining all desirable information from the people.

Should an augmentation be made, the consequences would be an increase of

expense, and business would inevitably be protracted. He moved,

therefore, to strike out the words "thirty-three," meaning, if they were

stricken out, to propose the substitution of a larger number.

On this motion a desultory debate ensued, in which Messrs. GRISWOLD, S.

SMITH, NICHOLSON, GILES, BAYARD, ALSTON, ELMER, EUSTIS, SPRIGG, and

other gentlemen, took part.

Mr. GRISWOLD stood alone in advocating an apportionment of one member to

every 40,000 persons.

Messrs. GILES and BAYARD were for one member for every 30,000.

Messrs. S. SMITH, NICHOLSON, and EUSTIS, were for one member for 33,000.

Mr. ALSTON was in favor of one representative for every 31,000.

The preferences avowed by the several speakers, appeared to arise from

the application of that divisor to the State from which each member

came, which left the least fraction.

Some gentlemen, however, declared, and particularly Mr. GILES, that he

had made no calculation, and that his preference of the smallest ratio

proposed was the preference of principle.

Those in favor of a small ratio argued that, though the expense

attending the compensation of the members might be somewhat increased,

yet that it would be trifling compared with the great advantages that

would result from a larger representation; that such a representation

would be productive of true economy, as it would oppose all extravagant

expenditure of money; that the weight of expense incurred by the

Government, did not arise from the expense of the civil list, which

formed but a speck in the mass of expenditure; that it was important to

this Government to adopt those measures which would ensure the respect

and the confidence of the people; that this end would be best attained

by each Representative being familiarly acquainted with the interests of

his constituents; and that this could only be the case when the number

of his constituents were limited within certain bounds. It was true that

it had been said that a body of more than one hundred, even though it be

composed of philosophers, was a mob; but it was replied that the long

experience of this country had proved the reverse, for that many of the

State Legislatures consisted of more members.

These ideas were but feebly opposed. The diversity of opinion expressed

chiefly arose from a division of the House on the ratios of thirty

thousand and thirty-three thousand. The former was advocated principally

from a regard to Delaware and Rhode Island, which, by its adoption,

would have each two Representatives instead of one, if a higher ratio

were preferred.

During the discussion, it was moved to strike out the word "three;"

leaving thirty thousand as the ratio. This motion was lost--yeas 43,

nays 46.

Mr. BAYARD then moved to strike out "thirty-three," leaving the

resolution blank, in order that it might be filled up with such number

as should be agreeable to the House.

This motion was opposed chiefly by Mr. NICHOLSON and Mr. EUSTIS, who

were of opinion that the progressive increase of the members would be

sufficiently large on the ratio of thirty-three thousand persons to a

member. They were also further in favor of this number as it left the

fewest fractions. The only two States much injured by it would be

Delaware and North Carolina; whereas, if the ratio was increased to

thirty-five thousand, New Jersey would have a fraction of 31,000;

Delaware of 26,000; Maryland of 30,000; Georgia of 23,000; and Kentucky

of 29,000.

On the question being taken for striking out "thirty-three," there rose

only thirty-one members. It was therefore declared to be lost.

The question was then taken on the original motion, and carried without

a division, and a committee of three members appointed to bring in a

bill conformably thereto.

THURSDAY, December 17.

Another member, to wit, DANIEL HEISTER, from Maryland, appeared,

produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

FRIDAY, December 18.

_Public Printing._

Mr. RANDOLPH, chairman of the committee appointed to see what

alterations were necessary to expedite the printing business of the

House, reported that the committee thought it expedient to request the

Heads of the Departments to attend and inspect the printing of all such

documents, reports, and statements, as are directed by law to be

annually laid before the House; and that it was necessary that a printer

to the House be appointed, who shall be responsible for the faithful and

prompt execution of all business confided to him by order of the House.

Mr. GRISWOLD wished the report altered to a resolution; to the first

part of it he should agree, but doubted whether the latter part would be

concurred in. He did not think it sufficient or expedient to appoint but

one; the business would require more, particularly at the close of the

session. He could see no reason for altering the mode in which the

printing business was now and had ever been done; it now lies with the

Clerk, who is empowered to employ as many persons as he pleases or deems

expedient. If such printer should be appointed, he will become an

officer of the House; he will not be responsible to the Speaker. We have

officers enough already; it is needless to multiply.

Mr. RANDOLPH said, the committee had considered these objections; but,

he believed, sufficient reasons might be offered to convince the House

of the expediency of this measure. If one be appointed, he will know his

duty and be prepared; he will employ as many hands as he wishes. Had

there been one appointed by the House last session, he would have been

on the spot now, fully prepared promptly to execute the orders of the

House; nor should we have such delay as that by which we are now

unfortunately troubled.

Mr. NICHOLSON.--We have but few printers in this vicinity, nor is it

probable their number will be soon increased. The printing for the House

is said to be worth $4,000 per annum; if one be appointed for that

purpose, he will have every thing in readiness, and be responsible for

his faithful duty.

Mr. S. SMITH thought a printer thus appointed might perform a

considerable part of his duty previous to each session; to many

documents he might attend. Mr. S. wished such printer appointed as a

permanent officer.

Mr. LOWNDES.--If he thought such officer necessary he should not oppose

the measure, but at present he did not think such appointment necessary.

He conceived the Clerk to be responsible to the House; that it was his

duty to attend to the printing; that he could employ whom and as many as

he pleased. Whence, then, the necessity of such appointment? Besides,

such printer will become an officer of this House, must have a salary,

and will be called the printer of the House: and, if printer of a paper,

whatever sentiments might be advanced in such paper would perhaps be

considered as the sentiments of the House.

Mr. EUSTIS considered it altogether unnecessary, disadvantageous, and

troublesome.

The first was carried: that relating to the appointment of a printer not

carried; about twenty only rising in favor of it.

_Apportionment Bill._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for

the apportionment of Representatives among the several States, according

to the second enumeration.

Mr. MACON (Speaker) moved to strike out "thirty-three," the ratio fixed

by the bill, for the purpose of inserting "thirty."

Mr. M. observed that it did not appear, from the different ideas

expressed by different gentlemen, that any material inconvenience would

result from the increased number of members that would be created by the

ratio of thirty thousand being adopted. Whereas on the ground of

principle a great benefit would flow from it. In his opinion, to secure

the confidence of the people in the Government, it was essential to

lessen the districts as much as possible, that the elector might know

the elected. At present, particularly in North Carolina, they were so

large that a voter depended more upon the opinions of others than upon

his own information. The ratio of thirty thousand would not introduce

into the House more than one hundred and sixty members, which number did

not equal that of the members in several of the State Legislatures, of

which no complaints had been made, and from which no inconvenience had

arisen. He felt particularly for Delaware, which would be severely

affected by the ratio in the bill.

Mr. GILES hoped the motion would obtain. As far as respected the State

of Virginia, he felt little or no anxiety. But he, on general

principles, preferred the smallest ratio. It was an essential principle

of a Republican Government that the people voting should know whom they

vote for; that the elector should be well acquainted with the elected.

To ensure this effect the districts should be small. He was aware of the

impossibility of reaching this point precisely: but it was our duty to

approach it as nearly as possible. Though, in relation to the situation

of Delaware, he did not subscribe fully to the ideas of some gentlemen,

as the case was an extreme one, and he knew the impropriety of relying

upon such cases, as the reasoning from an extreme generally led to an

extreme, yet he thought the relative circumstances of Delaware and

Virginia, as stated, to be correct; for it was a fact that Virginia,

entitled to twenty-two Representatives, was not so much affected by any

given fraction, as Delaware, entitled to but one Representative.

But the reply to the inequality of her representation here is, that she

has two Representatives in the Senate; and it is inferred that she will

hence derive a larger weight in the Union. Such was the theory of the

thing. But what was the result of experience? Mr. G. said, he had once

supposed that the small States would have an undue advantage over the

large States. His opinion had since altered. All the small States were

surrounded and compressed by large States, and derived their political

sympathies from them. It was true, the small States had each two votes

in the Senate. Yet, what superior advantage have they in the Government

generally? He was, therefore, clearly of opinion that the claims of the

small States to the largest representation that could be

constitutionally given them, ought not to be affected by their

representation in the Senate. The fact was that this House was the basis

of confidence in the Government. We had heard much about an alarm, about

disorganization, and the disposition of large States to swallow up the

rights of all the other States. He would ask, whether the adoption of a

large ratio would lessen this clamor, promote the general confidence,

and increase the stability of the Government?

Mr. JONES hoped the amendment would prevail. There was not a doubt but

that the small States would be materially affected by the ratio in the

bill. It was true, that, according to the theory of our Government, the

members of that House did not represent the States. But, what was the

fact? In truth, our representation was that of absolute locality. Can I,

said Mr. J., represent as effectually Massachusetts, or Vermont, as

Pennsylvania?

Mr. VAN NESS declared himself to be uninfluenced by local

considerations, or particular inconveniences. If we attempted to avoid

them by the adoption of any ratio, we should be mistaken. The inequality

of States could not be remedied. If a remedy was sought, it must be

found in the Senate. The large States had not that exclusive weight

which had been stated. If the number of the large States in this House

should overbear the smaller States, they would find their protection in

the Senate. The fractional loss, so much dwelt on, was not a loss to the

State, it was only a loss to that part of the State which was

unrepresented, and the loss would be the same to a larger State, if its

unrepresented fraction was equally great.

Mr. V. N. said, it had always been his desire to consult the wishes of

the people and to conform to them. He considered those wishes as

solemnly expressed in the constitution, which had decided that the ratio

should not be less than thirty thousand, and in the law passed

immediately after the adoption of the constitution, fixing the ratio at

thirty-three thousand.

As to the experience of the State, so often appealed to, he would state

that of his own. The constitution of New York originally fixed the

representation in one branch at three hundred, and in the other at one

hundred and fifty. After suffering the inconveniences of so large a

legislative body, a convention had been called, which reduced the one

branch to one hundred and fifty, and the other to thirty-two members.

It was the opinion of some gentlemen that the essential principle of our

Government was the equal representation of the States in the Senate.

This was a mistaken opinion. The federalism of the Government might have

been as well preserved by an unequal representation in the Senate. The

feature was not the offspring of principle, but of concession. If we

looked to antiquity, we would observe the smaller States of a

Confederation always inferior to the larger; and he recollected one case

of a Confederation, in which one State was entitled to three, another to

two, and the third to one representative.

Mr. SMILIE heartily concurred in opinion with the gentleman from New

York, that we ought not to respect local feelings, but that we ought to

go upon general grounds. Possessing these principles, we still know how

difficult it is to do complete justice. For himself he would be

satisfied with the ratio of thirty-three, if he could not obtain that of

thirty thousand. He was in favor of a large representation, because he

relied on that for safety and economy. For, when he considered the great

powers of the other branches of the Government, (powers, in the opinion

of some men, too great,) he thought it was their duty to impart to that

House all the constitutional power that could be conferred. This would

enable the House to resist all encroachments attempted to be made upon

it.

Mr. BACON said that, for himself, he was satisfied with the present

ratio, as it stood in the bill. This was the ratio which had been

adopted when our numbers were much less than they now are; that it did

not appear but that it had given general satisfaction; and that no other

inconveniences had accrued than such as might be expected to follow from

the adoption of any other ratio whatever. It would seem to be rather

unnatural, and the reverse of what was contemplated by those who enacted

the constitution, as our numbers increase, to lessen the ratio of

representation. He was, therefore, against striking out the number

thirty-three, with a view to insert a lower number.

A divisor of thirty-three thousand would now give a House consisting of

at least one hundred and forty members, which, even on the present

ratio, must soon become not only too expensive, but unwieldy. It had

been repeatedly urged that the present ratio leaves a very large

fraction to the State of Delaware. This, it was admitted, was matter of

regret; but that, let what ratio might be adopted, such fractional

parts must be expected to fall somewhere; that such fractions would be

likely to vary, from time to time, and shift from State to State, as the

population may increase and vary in the several States. And Mr. B. did

not conceive that the particular case of Delaware, hard as it might

seem, furnished a sufficient reason for altering an entire system.

As to what had been urged of the disadvantage to which Electors were

subjected in large districts, of not knowing the characters of their

Representatives and candidates, Mr. B. observed that this was a

disadvantage which was lessening with rapidity from year to year, and

from one election to another; that to whatever inconvenience electors

may heretofore have been subjected by the want of a knowledge of their

candidate, from this inconvenience they are already in a great measure

relieved; and it must, in a very short time, entirely cease to exist. If

any inconvenience of this kind still remains, by an election or two

more, it would be entirely removed. It had been urged that Delaware had

but one Representative, and every State ought to have two. But, why two,

Mr. B. queried, rather than three? It is true, that two are better than

one; and three are better than either one or two; for, as we have long

since been told, "a three-fold cord is not easily broken."

Mr. B. concluded by saying that, as thirty-three thousand was the ratio

which had been adopted when our population was much less than it now is;

and as it has been practised upon without any inconvenience or general

dissatisfaction, he was unwilling to risk the uncertain consequences of

an innovation at this particular time.

Mr. T. MORRIS was of opinion that the arguments drawn from the

representation in the Senate had nothing to do with this question. The

House had a constitutional duty to perform, that was highly interesting.

The only question is, How it shall be performed? The people ought to be

fully represented; that is, the number of their representatives should

be increased until that number became inconvenient for the transaction

of business. He had never been a friend to an enormous Legislature; such

as that in France, a mob convention. He thought the idea incorrect that

this House should acquire a weight that might cause it to bear down the

other branch of the Legislature. He hoped, if any such attempt should be

made, that body would have sufficient spirit to resist it; and he

trusted there would always be firmness enough here to resist any

encroachment attempted.

As to the present ratio guiding, he did not think that the House should

be governed by any uniform rule. They ought, on the contrary, to be

governed by the existing circumstances. Not believing that any

inconvenience would arise from the augmented representation on the ratio

of thirty thousand, he would be in favor of it from the reasons he had

assigned.

Mr. DENNIS did not rise to say any thing new on the subject; but merely,

as he had altered his mind since the business was before the House, to

assign some of the reasons which had influenced him. He was now in favor

of the ratio of thirty thousand. His first impressions were against it

from an apprehension that the increased numbers of the House would

increase expense, and produce disorder. But he acknowledged himself

convinced by the arguments which had fallen from the gentleman from

Virginia, which he thought counterbalanced his previous apprehension.

Mr. D. thought it all-important to preserve an equilibrium between the

different departments of the Government, and he was convinced that this

would be best effected by making the representation in this House as

large as the constitution permitted, and convenience justified. If we

expected to retain the confidence of the people, it was necessary to

increase the Representative branch; for it would be in vain to look for

that confidence necessary to give it a proper portion of energy, unless

there existed a sympathy between the elector and the elected.

Mr. RANDOLPH hoped the amendment would not obtain. The difference

between the effects of the two ratios was not very important; but it was

highly important that a doctrine so heretical and improper as that which

had been avowed, should be exploded on its first annunciation. He meant

that doctrine which considered this House as the Representatives of the

people. When the constitution was formed, two great difficulties

presented themselves. The large States refused to confer on the

Government greater powers than those it enjoyed, which deeply affected

their wealth and their numbers, unless, according to the ratio of their

numbers, they should participate in the administration of it; while the

smaller States withheld their concurrence, unless their sovereignties

were guarantied and protected. These two difficulties were surmounted by

the plan of the present constitution; according to which the members of

this House were the Representatives, not of the people, but of the

States in proportion to their numbers. This was the theory of the

Government for which he must contend.

Mr. R. believed that the strongest objection urged against the adoption

of the constitution, was, that it tended to a consolidation of the

States. But when he looked into it with a Federal eye, (and with no

other eye could he ever look at it,) he saw the State sovereignties in

all its parts acknowledged and protected. Of this, the very bill was

itself a proof. For the apportionment was not among the people, but

among the States, according to the numbers of each. Believing that this

House is the representative of States, it was his opinion that so long

as the relative weight of States could be preserved, it was immaterial

that each State should be represented by a large number of members.

It was with extreme regret, and some diffidence, Mr. R. said, that he

differed from his colleague on this subject. His colleague wished to

increase the House to such an extent as to make it the depository of the

whole confidence of the people. Mr. R. wished it to possess that

confidence so far as related to Federal objects, but no further.

Increase it, according to the theory of gentlemen, make it in point of

numbers, a British Parliament, or a French convention, and you will

proportionably diminish the confidence of the people in the State

governments. They will become feeble barriers against the powers of the

General Government; and the people will inquire for what purpose they

elect their State Legislatures. Mr. R. believed it to be of infinite

importance that the poises of the Government should be preserved; that

it should confine itself to Federal objects. His object, therefore, was

to preserve on that floor the proportionate weight between the several

States which the constitution had fixed.

Had any objection been made to the old Congress under the Confederation,

that was federally organized, for the want of talents or integrity? No.

The only objection was, that they wanted power. Had the public affairs

been conducted with less ability than they are at present? He had

neither heard, nor did he believe that they had.

Mr. R. concluded, by making some remarks on the score of convenience,

similar to those already stated.

Mr. MITCHILL, in a speech of some length, supported the ratio of thirty

thousand.

Mr. S. SMITH felt indifferent whether the ratio of thirty-three, or that

of thirty thousand, were adopted; but felt anxious that justice should

be done to the State of Maryland. He understood that radical errors

existed in the numbers given to that State; that in Harford County there

were returned only three thousand slaves, whereas there ought to have

been returned eighteen thousand; and that in Cecil there had been

returned nine thousand, instead of fifteen thousand. He hoped, in order

to have these errors corrected, the committee would rise, that the

original returns in the office of State might be examined.

This motion gave rise to a conversation of some length, in which on one

side the impropriety and injustice of making an apportionment under the

existing errors, and without the return from Tennessee, were argued;

and, on the other side, the great inconvenience of delay, and the

inability of the House to obtain a correction of errors, which, if

attempted in one instance, might be attempted in many.

Mr. VAN NESS informed the committee that the return from Tennessee was

received at the office of State, and that it made the population of that

State amount to ninety-two thousand free inhabitants, and thirteen

thousand slaves.

It was ultimately agreed that the committee rise, report progress, and

ask leave to sit again; which was granted.

MONDAY, December 21.

_Georgia Limits, and Delegate from Mississippi._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the

report of the Committee of Elections, to whom were referred the

credentials of Narsworthy Hunter, who has appeared as a Delegate from

the Territory of the United States known by the name of the Mississippi

Territory.

Mr. MILLEDGE spoke forcibly, and with considerable eloquence against

agreeing to the report of the committee; he said it was not a matter of

private but of general concern--that Georgia had jurisdiction over that

territory; to prove this, he called for the reading of the memorial of

Georgia to the Legislature of the Union.

[The memorial was extremely long, and was read but in part.]

Mr. M. insisted on the right of Georgia to the soil; he would assert to

that body and to the world that she had never given up that right; and

that therefore the laws that had been passed by Congress for the

government of that territory were void, and the gentleman elected as a

delegate to Congress by the Legislature of that territory had no right

to a seat in the House. Gentlemen might say what they please of the

expediency of Congress making laws for the government of that territory,

yet that expediency must yield to justice and to just claims; depriving

Georgia of her command over that soil and over the people of that soil,

was a glaring violation of right. Commissioners had been appointed to

settle the dispute between the United States and Georgia; those

commissioners are here, and probably it will not be long before those

claims are adjusted; he hoped and trusted no farther proceedings would

take place till the dispute was completely settled.

Mr. BAYARD.--The gentleman from Georgia appeared to mistake the object

of the report of the select committee; that committee was appointed to

examine the credentials of Mr. Hunter, and to see whether the

Legislature of the Mississippi territory had a right, by the law of

Congress regulating that government, to send a delegate, to exercise

here the right of debating, but not of voting; it was not to admit into

the Union a new State, or to erect a new State within the bounds of

another. The law of Congress, establishing the government of that

territory, declares that when in that territory there shall be such a

number of inhabitants, they shall have a House of Representatives and a

Legislature; and that when their inhabitants shall have increased to

such a number, the Legislature may appoint a delegate to Congress, with

the right of debating, but not of voting. It is not now a question

whether a new State shall be erected, but whether this member be duly

chosen. Nor are the interests of Georgia at all affected: the fifth

section of the law establishing this Government expressly declares that

nothing in the law for establishing a temporary government there, shall

in any manner affect any claims of the State of Georgia to that soil.

Commissioners are appointed on the part of the United States and Georgia

to settle the dispute between the two Governments; but till those

disputes shall be settled, shall the inhabitants of that territory be

without a government? No, sir, it is not a matter of discretion with us;

we are bound by a positive law of Congress. If the gentleman was urgent

against Mr. HUNTER'S taking his seat, the only way to effect it is, by

repealing the law of Congress establishing the Government of the

Mississippi Territory.

Mr. DAVIS.--The House have no business to meddle, in this case, with the

claims of the United States, or of Georgia, to that territory; we have

only to examine the credentials of the member, and to see whether the

Legislature, in conformity to the act of Congress, were authorized, or

not, to send a delegate. If that act of Congress be unconstitutional, it

must be repealed by the Senate and House; yet, as it now is, we are

bound to but one decision on this subject.

Mr. RANDOLPH.--He thought gentlemen did not treat the member from

Georgia with due candor and respect. It should be remembered that

Georgia had ever protested against the laws relative to the Mississippi

Territory. It was the duty of that gentleman, as a member from the State

of Georgia, to dissent; constructions might be put on silence. The

United States had arrogated the power of governing that territory, at

the same time saying that such assumption of power should not affect any

claims of Georgia; but did not this very assumption of a right to

govern, prejudge claims? We are told the commissioners are on the eve of

settling the dispute; let us wait till this be accomplished. Mr. R.

motioned that the committee rise.

Mr. CLAIBORNE.--He thought it right in the gentleman from Georgia to

dissent; it was to be expected; he did not rise to censure him. He did

not conceive that any gentleman in the House wished, in this matter, to

do any thing that would prejudice the interest or claims of Georgia. The

assumption of a power to give laws to the Mississippi Territory arose

from the necessity of the thing, and from benevolence to the

inhabitants; he would not suffer an infraction of the constitution for

the world; no, not to save a world. [The Chairman called him to order:

the question was now on the committee's rising.] Mr. C. said he did not

know but he might be out of order, but if he was, he believed others had

been in the same situation. He wished to express his opinions on the

subject in common with others. It should be considered that the delegate

from the Mississippi territory would have no right to vote, but only to

debate; he would be only a sting, but without poison. We ought,

moreover, to oblige our brethren of that Southern hemisphere; we ought

to hear their statements, attend to their wants, &c.

Mr. DANA.--He was for the committee's rising. It had been usual to

suffer the reports of the Committee of Elections to lie on the table,

and if no protest or complaint were entered, nothing further was done

with them, and the members kept their seats. In the case of the

North-western and Indiana Territories, they were obliged to inquire, if

it was the first time, whether there was a right to send a delegate;

such is the situation now of the member from the Mississippi Territory;

the records show their right to send, the report states that this

delegate is duly chosen. Let the report lie on the table, and the member

keep his seat.

Mr. GRISWOLD.--He was not in favor of the committee's rising. It was

extremely unpleasant to the delegate from the Mississippi Territory to

remain in this situation; he himself claimed a seat in that House, not

as a matter of favor but of right; and this House had not the power of

depriving him of this right, without repealing the act of Congress

establishing a government over that Territory. Some gentlemen have said

that the rights of Georgia will be affected by the admittance of this

member to a seat; such certainly could not be the case; if the claims of

Georgia are at all affected, it is done already by act of Congress; yet,

for his part, he did not consider the claims of Georgia as affected or

injured. Nor ought we to wait the decision of the commissioners: that

decision may take place in a month, and perhaps will not these six

months.

Mr. MACON.--There ought to be some petition or statement of facts

presented by the member from Georgia, or some other person, to justify a

discussion at this time, or to prevent the delegate from taking his

seat. He wished his right and his credentials treated as those of any

other member. He agreed with the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. DANA,)

that it were better for the committee to rise, without leave to sit

again; the member would then be entitled to his seat and his pay, till

it should be shown that he has no claim to them.

Mr. BAYARD.--He did not agree with the Speaker; the face of the report

of the select committee gives sufficient cause for a decision of the

Committee of the Whole. The gentleman from Georgia opposes the decision

of the select committee; and it is due to the member from Georgia, and

to the delegate, to have the opinion of the House--to have a prompt

decision. The mere question is, whether he has been duly elected; not

whether the Legislature of the Mississippi Territory had a right to

elect him. Gentlemen have said we are prejudicing the claims of Georgia,

that their rights are implicated in this step; they have said that the

act of Congress establishing a government was an assumption of power;

not so: by the Spanish treaty that territory was ceded to the United

States; the inhabitants were without a government; they petitioned

Congress for some form of government. What was to be done? The

interposition of Congress arose _ex necessitate rei_. It was no

assumption of power or assertion of claims. It was a necessary

establishment of a temporary government, to continue while there was

necessity. He was for an immediate decision.

Messrs. RANDOLPH, DAVIS, BAYARD, S. SMITH, MACON, and GRISWOLD,

continued the debate.

The report of the select committee was agreed to. Mr. MILLEDGE wished

the yeas and nays, even if he stood alone. They were taken, and stood,

yeas 77, nays 8.

TUESDAY, December 22.

Another member, to wit, JOHN RUTLEDGE, from South Carolina, appeared,

produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

TUESDAY, December 29.

_Library of Congress._

Mr. RANDOLPH reported a "bill concerning the library for the use of both

Houses of Congress;" which, after being twice read, was committed to a

Committee of the whole House: Mr. RUTLEDGE in the chair.

The bill provided that the members of both Houses, the President and

Vice President of the United States, and the Judges of the Supreme

Court, should have liberty to take any book from the library to read.

Mr. SPRIGG moved, to add the Judges of the District of Columbia. He was

supported in argument by Mr. DENNIS, upon the ground of the importance

of the causes which this especial district would present, and the great

expense and extreme scarcity of some most valuable and necessary law

books.

Mr. BAYARD objected to the motion, because he could discover no reason

for distinguishing the judges of the district from others; but Judges of

the Supreme Court being far from their libraries, required such

references. He hoped the Congressional Library would never be subjected

to the abuse which books used in courts of justice were too liable to.

The motion was not agreed to.

Some observations were made as to the time which the library was to

remain open.

Mr. GRISWOLD moved to confine it to the time of the session of Congress.

It was carried, with an exception moved by Mr. SOUTHARD, in favor of the

Judges of the Supreme Court, whose sessions do not accord with those of

Congress.

A blank was left as to the sum to be appropriated, in addition to the

remaining part of the five thousand dollars heretofore appropriated, for

the purchase of books.

On the Chairman's asking the sum with which to fill the blank, Mr.

RANDOLPH moved to strike out the sections, observing that, of that sum,

not more than $2,200 had been used, and $2,800 remained unexpended. He

entertained no doubt but Congress would aid the institution by every

timely grant.

WEDNESDAY, December 30.

_Internal Taxes._

Mr. DAVIS moved the appointment of a committee to inquire into the

expediency of repealing the acts imposing duties on stills and distilled

spirits, on refined sugars, on sales at auction, and on pleasure

carriages.

Mr. DAVIS said his object, in making this motion, was, that the House

should accomplish that directly, which had been this session attempted

in so circuitous a way as to embarrass and delay its proceedings. He saw

no reason for going into a Committee of the Whole, in order to arrive at

decisions that might better be made directly by the House itself.

On this motion a debate of considerable length ensued, in which, on the

one side, the reference to a select committee, and on the other a

reference to a Committee of the whole House was advocated. No decision

was had, and of course the motion of Mr. D. was ordered to lie on the

table.

_Army Reduction._

Mr. BAYARD, during the course of the debate--in allusion to the adoption

yesterday of the resolution of Mr. RANDOLPH for reducing the Military

Establishment, which he thought premature, not considering the House as

sufficiently acquainted with the details of the subject, to act upon

it--said, that if gentlemen were for reducing the Army in whatever

degree, or for abandoning it altogether, he should go with them. He

would, on such occasion, be governed by the same principles which had

hitherto guided him. He had heretofore been disposed to repose a liberal

confidence in the Executive of the United States; and when an increase

of our military force had been recommended by the President, he had

invariably been for it; much more would he be disposed, when a reduction

was recommended from the same quarter, to sanction it by his vote. With

the Executive rested the responsibility of the exterior defence of the

nation; and if the Executive was of opinion that the nation was secure

with a force of three, two, or one thousand, or without even a single

man, he would concur with him in giving effect to such a conviction.

Mr. RANDOLPH was called up by these remarks. He had little thought that

his motion, agreed to yesterday _sub silentio_, and without the least

hesitation, would have been made the topic of such animated

animadversion as he had heard to-day. He would tell the gentleman from

Delaware, that his motion had neither been immature in substance, nor

premature as to time. It would be recollected, that previous to its

adoption, the Secretary of War had been called upon to furnish

information to the House. He had furnished information, to his mind

completely satisfactory. He had stated the establishment to be five

thousand men; and his opinion that all the garrisons required only three

thousand men. Could it, then, with any reason be called premature to act

upon such information? If the gentleman from Delaware, or other

gentlemen thought so, why not combat a decision at the time? Did they

imagine that, without the expression of a murmur by them, the mover

would himself rise and oppose his own motion?

As to the delay which had been noticed, as having taken place in the

transaction of business, it was not to be ascribed to any particular

mode of procedure; but to the unusual languor of the season; to the

absence of several members of great weight; to the augmentation of new

members not yet fully acquainted with the forms of business, and to the

unusual mass of information presented to the House, which enlarged the

field of action, and to the delays of printing arising from the unusual

quantity of matter submitted.

_Internal Taxes._

Mr. BAYARD moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the

Whole on the state of the Union, for the purpose of enabling him to

offer a resolution to the following effect:

"_Resolved_, That the Committee of Ways and Means be

instructed to inquire into the expediency of repealing the

laws laying duties on stills and distilled spirits, on

refined sugar, on sales at auction, on pleasurable

carriages, on stamps, and on postage of letters."

Mr. BAYARD made this motion for the purpose of placing the important

subject contemplated by it in a train for decision. He thought it full

time to commence our proceedings upon it; and in his opinion, it was fit

that the consideration of the subject, generally, should go before the

Committee of Ways and Means. The subject was so important as to strike

at the vital principles of our revenue. The repeal of the internal taxes

involved a reduction of six hundred thousand dollars in our receipts.

The propriety of such a reduction did not constitute a distinct subject

for consideration, but depended upon the deductions made on a

comprehensive view of our finances, which could only be taken by the

Committee of Ways and Means, to whom was committed generally whatever

regarded revenue.

If the minds of gentlemen, said Mr. B., were made up to abolish all the

internal taxes, it must be to them perfectly immaterial to what

committee a reference was made. He knew the flattering prospects held

out by the President, and he hoped they would all be verified. But his

own mind was not made up, nor did he know that the minds of other

gentlemen were made up on the propriety of dispensing with these taxes.

He was led to this inference by observing no official notice to such

effect in the communications made by the Secretary of the Treasury. On

the contrary, the Secretary had so made his calculations, predicated as

they were upon the continuance of these taxes, that his calculations

would be greatly deranged by dispensing with them. Mr. B. knew not that

we were prepared to leap this precipice. If the public burdens could be

reduced, he would be delighted with the act of reduction. Yet still, if

the sum of six hundred thousand dollars, derived from these taxes, could

be dispensed with, doubts might be entertained whether the internal

taxes were those which should be first either reduced or abolished. He

held it to be a correct principle, that taxation should be equal, and

that no one class of citizens should be burdened to the exemption of all

other classes. From a slight consideration of the subject, he had found

no other way of enabling our brethren to the westward to participate in

the public burdens than by affording them an opportunity of paying their

portion of internal revenue. It might appear, on investigation, that

more substantial relief would be afforded to the various descriptions of

our citizens, by continuing the internal taxes, and reducing those on

imports; and if it should be thought proper to diminish the burden

imposed on our western citizens, he would ask whether that effect would

not be more substantially accomplished by reducing the tax upon salt? It

would be recollected that great opposition had been made to the

imposition of this tax, which had been denominated oppressive, as it

fell upon an article of necessity.

Attention ought, also, to be paid to the liability of several articles

to be smuggled, the only mode of preventing which was well known to be a

reduction of the duties.

Mr. B. stated these circumstances, not as evidences of having matured

his own ideas; but to show the necessity of referring the subject to a

committee, whose special duty it was to take a general view of the

resources and expenses of the nation, and who, therefore, in the present

stage of the session, were alone in a situation to make the requisite

inquiry.

Mr. EUSTIS said that the reasons offered by the gentleman from Delaware

were with him conclusive that this was not the proper time for

considering the subject. Until we know the reductions in the

expenditures of the Government that are to be made, it is impossible

that we can say how far it will be expedient to reduce or abolish our

taxes. We had not determined to what extent the Army or the Navy should

be reduced, nor had we come to any ultimate decision on any reduction

whatever. For these reasons he must oppose a decision at this time upon

the subject, whether that decision was in this or any other shape.

Mr. BACON concurred with Mr. EUSTIS in considering any decision as at

present premature.

Mr. RUTLEDGE viewed the subject as of great importance. He could not

figure to his imagination one likely to occur this session of equal

importance. The President contemplated a repeal of all the internal

revenues, and the imposition of all taxes upon imported articles. The

Secretary of the Treasury appears, by implication, to be of a different

opinion, and contemplates a continuance of these duties. What is the

object of the gentleman from Delaware? Why, delay; time for

consideration, by reference of the subject to a committee most competent

to inquire. As to the public burdens, every member on the floor had a

common feeling. We do not wish to lay unnecessary taxes. But when taxes

are laid, when they are uncomplained of, it was indeed deeply

interesting without consideration to decide on their abolition. Mr. R.

said, for himself, he should be embarrassed by being forced into an

immediate decision. We want information before we are called upon to

decide. The motion seeks that information. It sends the business to the

Committee of Ways and Means, to whom it belongs of right. It is their

duty to consider it, for whatever relates to revenue must go to them.

Gentlemen cannot say that they are surprised. By the resolution, they

are not called upon to decide upon the subject; they are only called

upon to place it in a train for decision.

Mr. MACON hoped the business would be taken up, and the sooner it was

done, the better. It was certainly of great importance, and the earlier

the House proceeded to consider it, the sooner would they be prepared

for deciding upon it. If the vote of reference was final, the arguments

of the gentleman from Massachusetts would apply. But this was not the

case.

It had been said that the President had declared his opinion that we can

dispense with these taxes. The statement was not correct. His opinion

was contingent. He had said, we may dispense with these taxes in case we

proportionably reduce the expenses.

As to the remarks made respecting the different opinions of the

President and Secretary of the Treasury, they likewise were erroneous.

Distinct views were taken by each. The President, contemplating a

reduction in the expenses, intimates the expediency of repealing the

internal taxes; whereas the Secretary of the Treasury, taking things as

they are, states the effects of their continuance. From these

circumstances, no diversity of opinion could be inferred.

Mr. M. concluded by expressing a hope that the expenses of the

Government would be reduced, that the internal taxes would be taken off,

and that immediate measures would be pursued for preparing the House for

a final decision.

Mr. EUSTIS was alike hostile to the present motion and to that which had

been made by the gentleman from Kentucky, who had yesterday introduced

the subject. He had heard the motion with a sensation of uncommon

surprise; for he was of opinion that the public attention should not be

attracted, or the public sensation excited, till we should be able to

determine the course proper to be pursued. He felt himself unprepared to

decide, and believed other gentlemen were equally unprepared. He hoped

that he cherished a suitable respect for the President of the United

States, though he did not know that he would go so far as the gentleman

from Delaware, and disband a whole army at his word.

The wisest course was to wait until information was obtained. This would

in fact be gaining time. If the Committee of Ways and Means were to

consider the subject, it must be under the present state of things. They

could not take for granted what might or might not be done by Congress;

and before Congress could decide, they must have information which they

do not yet possess. He who, under present circumstance, attempted to say

to what length our retrenchments would go, and what taxes we could

spare, might indeed be called a prophet.

We ought not, said Mr. E., to stir the public sensibility improperly or

prematurely. By exciting that sensibility before we had determined how

to act in future, impressions may be raised which we shall not be able

to satisfy.

Mr. SMILIE concurred in opinion with Mr. E., and moved, as the best mode

of disposing of the subject, that the committee rise.

Mr. GRISWOLD declared himself against delay. He knew not why the House

were not prepared to decide immediately. The President had introduced

the subject, and if any sensibility had been excited, it must be

ascribed to him, and not to us. Nor did he think that any ill effects

would flow from attracting the public attention. The President did not

know, when he addressed us, that we would be for a reduction of the

expenses; yet, thinking as he did, it was highly proper in him to give

his opinion to the House. So proposed to us, it would exhibit a want of

respect to that Magistrate not to take it up immediately. Not to act

upon it promptly would be subversive of the national tranquillity after

the attention of the public had been directed to it.

Mr. SMILIE had thought the gentleman from Connecticut was too well

acquainted with the proceedings of that House to say that the Committee

of Ways and Means were prepared to act upon this subject. Did they know

how far we would reduce the Army, the Navy, or the Judiciary?

Mr. VARNUM hoped the committee would rise. Any disposition of the

subject was at present premature. As to the calculations of the

Secretary alluded to, they were made from the existing revenue, and all

his deductions were made therefrom. The President had taken another view

of the subject. Contemplating the probability of a reduction in our

expenses, he had stated that, in such event, we could dispense with the

internal taxes. But whether the contemplated reduction could be made,

the House were not prepared to say. Of one thing he was sure, that not a

single necessary tax would be abandoned.

Mr. DANA said, that more than three weeks have elapsed since the

President's communication has been laid before us, and, during that

time, a sense of decorum has not induced us to take up one of the most

important parts of it. He certainly agreed with gentlemen that we ought

to take up the subject and decide for ourselves. If we concur with the

President, we shall repeal the laws; if we do not concur, we may, it is

true, risk our popularity by opposing so favorite a measure with the

people. But placed as we shall be between popularity on the one hand,

and duty on the other, as honest men we should do our duty. But

certainly it is our duty now to examine the subject. Grant that the

reduction in our expenses may extend to a million, though scarcely half

that sum could be hoped for; still the question remains what taxes shall

be diminished. He could not, for his part, feel all that horror of

public sensibility that had been portrayed by the gentleman from

Massachusetts. What have we to fear, suppose we interfere with that

sensibility? If we do so in the discharge of our duty, he was perfectly

willing it should be excited; nay, it would be useful to the people

themselves.

Mr. EUSTIS was perfectly ready to meet the public sensibility, whether

for or against us. We had already tried it both ways. He was much

pleased with the respect professed by gentlemen for the public

sensibility, and also for the communications of the President. But there

were parts of those communications, which, notwithstanding the

impatience of gentlemen, they would not be displeased at laying unacted

upon, not merely three weeks, but three months.

Mr. BAYARD did not expect an opposition to his motion from the quarter

from which it came; for he had a right to expect as much deference to

the President from the opposite, as from his own side. For his part he

felt no terrors at meeting the whole, or any part of the President's

communications. Whatever he recommended that was right, he would vote

for, and whatever was wrong, he would oppose. Though his former habits

had led him to cherish a respect for the President, of which he did not

repent, yet he felt no servility that would lead him to repress an

expression of his sentiments.

A gentleman from Pennsylvania had talked about reducing the Army, the

Navy, and the Judiciary. But there were other expenses which the

gentleman might have dwelt on. Why silent on the Legislature? Let us

reduce the length of our sessions. It did not appear consistent in that

gentleman to strike at the Judiciary, and other departments, and leave

untouched whatever affected himself.

Mr. RANDOLPH did not desire to occupy much of the time of the committee,

as he thought it immaterial whether the committee rise or not. But he

wished, for the information, and perhaps for the satisfaction, of the

gentleman from Massachusetts, to state that, among other members, he was

one who had not decided whether Government could dispense with the

internal taxes. He hoped, and was inclined to believe, that they might

be dispensed with. The Secretary of the Treasury had expressly stated

that part of his report was speculative, viz: that part which inferred

the effects of peace. The correctness of the opinion of the Secretary

on this point must decide the House as to the propriety of giving up

these taxes. He was one who, though he did not think a state of peace

would materially affect the revenue, had not decided whether a reduction

of the public impositions in this or that species of revenue should be

made. He noticed these things, to prevent an impression being made on

the public mind that the House were for precipitating a decision. As to

the public sensation, he felt no alarm. He knew that our measures must

depend upon the reductions we shall make.

Mr. R., for these reasons, was against any decision now; and had the

gentleman from Kentucky pressed his motion yesterday, he was prepared to

move a postponement of it. In the mean time, there were other important

topics involved in the Message that might be referred and acted upon.

Mr. DANA presumed that the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts had

done him the honor of alluding to him in his remarks. He was not very

solicitous that the subject should be inquired into, but since it was

brought up, he must say that nothing short of the talents of the

honorable gentleman could furnish a semblance of reason for not going

immediately into the inquiry. That gentleman errs egregiously, if he

imagines that I can dread an investigation of any point involved in the

President's Message. He would add, that whatever his particular opinion

might be of the person to whom had been confided the Government of the

nation, it became him only to see in him the First Magistrate of the

country, and to treat him with correspondent respect, and to see in what

he did, not the man, but the measure.

The question was then taken on the committee rising, and lost--yeas 29,

nays 48.

The reference to the Committee of Ways and Means was then carried, both

in committee and in the House, without a division.

The House adjourned till Monday.

MONDAY, January 4, 1802.

WILLIAM BARRY GROVE, from North Carolina, appeared, produced his

credentials, and took his seat in the House.

_Ordered_, That Mr. MILLEDGE be appointed to the Committee of Ways and

Means, in the room of Mr. DICKSON, who is sick and unable to attend.

_Judiciary System._

Mr. RANDOLPH moved that the House should go into a Committee of the

Whole on the state of the Union, with the view of submitting three

resolutions to the committee, viz:

"_Resolved_, That it is expedient to inquire whether any,

and what, alterations should be made in the Judicial

Establishment of the United States.

"_Resolved_, That provision ought to be made for the

impartial selection of juries.

"_Resolved_, That it is expedient to inquire whether any,

and what, reductions can be made in the civil expenses of

the Government of the United States."

The House accordingly went into committee.

Mr. BAYARD presumed an agreement to these resolutions would, in their

present shape, meet with no opposition. It was impossible to determine

what shape they would ultimately assume. The Judiciary system was

doubtless susceptible of amendment, and if any proper amendments should

be proposed, he would concur in their adoption. With respect to the

second resolution, though he did not know that there was any necessity

for altering the mode at present practised of selecting juries, not

having heard of any complaints under it, yet, as the resolution only led

to an inquiry into the subject, he would not object.

With regard to the last resolution, it was one in which we must all

concur. The object, if attainable, would be extremely grateful to all of

us.

The three resolutions were agreed to without a division. The committee

then rose, and reported them to the House.

On the report being taken up, Mr. RANDOLPH moved that the consideration

of the two first resolutions be postponed till the third Monday of

January.

Mr. BAYARD hoped the motion for postponement would not prevail. The

propositions were abstract ones, leading to inquiry, and the sooner they

were acted upon, the better. The mode pursued by the gentleman from

Virginia, if his simple object was to give notice, was the least happy

that he could have devised, for it gave to gentlemen no opportunity to

prepare themselves, as they were totally unacquainted, in the present

stage of the business, as to what would be the alterations proposed. If

a committee were now appointed, they would have time to deliberate on a

subject of the utmost importance--one so complicated as to require great

attention. When their report was made, he would be one of those who

would ask from the candor of the House time to consider it.

Mr. RANDOLPH said, he was at all times willing to accommodate gentlemen

of every political description on proper occasions. Apprehending that

his resolutions, if taken up in the House, would give rise to

discussion, he had moved for their postponement, from a wish not to

interfere with the desire of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and other

gentlemen, to act on the apportionment bill. As his motion for

postponement appeared likely to be itself productive of discussion, by

which the time of the House would be exhausted, and the means he used

defeat the end he had in view, he would withdraw his motion.

The House then agreed to the resolutions without a division.

Mr. RANDOLPH moved the reference of the two first resolutions to the

same committee.

He said, in reply to the gentleman from Delaware, that he made the

motion respecting juries not because any complaint did at present exist

of the exercise of the powers under which jurors were selected, but

because they had not long since existed, and because in similar

circumstances they might again exist. He was glad the gentleman from

Delaware had no reason to complain of their present abuse. But this was

no security against the future.

Mr. BAYARD said, that he had spoken as he had done, not for the purpose

of expressing any opinion that any abuse respecting juries had been

recently removed under the present state of things; but to state that he

had never heard of any complaints on this subject in the part of the

Union from which he came; and he had particularly alluded to the mode of

designating jurors in his State, which was by ballot. But if there were

complaints in other parts of the Union, he would co-operate in any means

that could be devised for removing them.

Mr. SMILIE said, that since the gentleman from Delaware had introduced

the subject, and had declared that no complaints existed, he would say

that complaints had existed, that just grounds for them existed, and

that they had been expressed in the loudest tone. And he would appeal to

the gentleman from Delaware whether any man could be safe who was at the

mercy of a marshal, who was the mere creature of the President.

Mr. BAYARD.--While man continues as he is, there will be complaints on

this subject. We are divided into parties. The people, as well as the

President, must belong to one side or the other; and whether we have

sheriffs chosen by the people, or marshals appointed by the President,

the evil will still exist. He had no objection, if it were the wish of

gentlemen, that the marshals should be appointed by the people; though

we know that the people are as apt, nay more apt, to be infected with

violent political feelings, than an Executive officer.

Mr. RANDOLPH said, that without desiring to exhaust the time of the

House on a point where there was no difference of opinion, he could not

permit the observation of the gentleman from Delaware to pass unnoticed;

that an officer, holding a lucrative office, appointed by the President,

and dependent upon his will, is as independent as a sheriff, elected in

some States annually by the people, and in other States appointed in a

manner calculated to ensure his independence. He would instance the

State of Virginia, in which the sheriffs were nominated by the justices

of the county courts, who, it was understood, were to hold the office of

sheriff in rotation. Will the gentleman say that these men, who are

independent of the pleasure of any man, are liable to be made the same

tools, with officers who hold their appointments at the absolute will of

one man?

Mr. R. would further say, that the remark of the gentleman from

Delaware, that the existence of no complaints had ever come to his ears,

had excited his extreme astonishment. In North Carolina, he believed, no

legal jury had been selected since the establishment of the Federal

Government. In that State, in the State courts, all juries are first

selected in the inferior courts, and then sent to the superior courts.

He would ask, how, under these circumstances, a jury could be struck in

a federal court in that State agreeably to law? In Virginia and

Pennsylvania, the independence of sheriffs is secured; therefore, no

restrictions are imposed upon them in selecting juries; whereas, in the

federal courts the marshal is the abject creature of the Executive--and

yet we are told the security is the same! Mr. R. did not wish to consume

the time of the House; but when views are taken by gentlemen calculated,

either as to fact or sentiment, to lead the public mind astray, if other

gentlemen did not, he would invariably notice them.

Mr. BAYARD desired to explain. He had not meant to contend that sheriffs

chosen for three years by the people were as dependent as similar

officers appointed by the President. He had alluded to the effects which

flowed from a marked division of parties. We were in all events subject

to that evil. It was a truth that men deeply infected with party were

more apt to be chosen by the people than by an Executive magistrate;

because the people felt more strongly a degree of political fanaticism.

After some further debate, it was determined to refer the two first

resolutions to a committee of seven, and the last to a committee of five

members.

_Ordered_, That Mr. NICHOLSON, Mr. JOHN TALIAFERRO, Jr., Mr. GODDARD,

Mr. RUTLEDGE, Mr. ISRAEL SMITH, Mr. HENDERSON, and Mr. BAILEY, be

appointed a committee, pursuant to the first and second resolutions.

_Ordered_, That Mr. BACON, Mr. GROVE, Mr. ELMENDORPH, Mr. HEMPHILL, and

Mr. ABRAM TRIGG, be appointed a committee, pursuant to the third

resolution.

TUESDAY, January 5.

_Apportionment Bill._

On the question being taken for striking out thirty-three, it was

lost--yeas 42, nays 48.

Mr. DENNIS moved to strike out eight, the number of Representatives

allotted to Maryland, and insert nine; which amendment had been rendered

necessary by the supplementary return received from Maryland.

On this motion a very desultory debate took place, which was twice

interrupted by motions for the committee to rise, which were both lost.

Much personal recrimination, chiefly on the charge of delay on the one

side, and precipitation on the other, was exchanged.

The amendment was at last agreed to--yeas 57.

The committee then rose and reported the bill as amended.

The House immediately took up the report of the committee, agreed to the

amendments, and ordered the bill to be engrossed for a third reading

to-morrow.

THURSDAY, January 7.

_Stenographers._

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the standing rules of the

House.

Mr. LEIB moved the addition of the following rule:

"The Speaker shall assign such places to the stenographers

on the floor, as shall not interfere with the convenience

of the House."

Mr. LEIB prefaced his motion, by observing that, in the standing rules

proposed, no provision appeared to be made for the admission of

stenographers. They had heretofore been subject to the will of the

Speaker. However great his respect for the present Speaker, he was of

opinion, that they should not depend for their accommodation upon the

will of any man; and he thought it became the House, on this occasion,

to establish a precedent which would place those who took the debates

above the caprice of any individual.

Mr. HUGER moved to amend the motion so as to read as follows;

"Stenographers shall be admitted, and the Speaker shall

assign to them such places on the floor as shall not

interfere with the convenience of the House."

Mr. LEIB agreed to this modification.

The motion was opposed by Mr. GRISWOLD, Mr. RUTLEDGE, Mr. VARNUM, Mr.

HEMPHILL, Mr. T. MORRIS, Mr. EUSTIS, Mr. DANA, Mr. ELMER, and Mr.

GODDARD; and supported by Mr. LEIB, Mr. S. SMITH, Mr. NICHOLSON, Mr.

CLAIBORNE, Mr. SMILIE, Mr. HOLLAND, and Mr. SPRIGG.

Mr. HUGER opposed the original motion of Mr. LEIB, but supported the

motion, as amended by himself.

The opponents of the motion declared, that it did not relate to

substance, but merely to form; that it was allowed on all hands, that

the debates should be taken, and that stenographers should,

consequently, be admitted. But the single question was, how, and under

what authority, they should be admitted. They remarked, that they had

heretofore been admitted by the Speaker, under whose direction they had

remained; that the Speaker was the only proper authority under whose

direction they ought still to remain; that, as the preservation of order

and decorum rested with him, the stenographers, as well as other

persons, should be permitted by him to enter the House, and be by him

excluded, whenever, in his opinion, the order and a respect for the

House required it. That, in case stenographers deported themselves in a

disrespectful manner, or grossly misrepresented the ideas of members,

the Speaker was the only person who could effectually cure the evil;

that there had been, and might again be, instances of such misconduct;

that, in one case, a stenographer had entered the House in a state of

intoxication; another case, a speech of a gentleman from South Carolina,

had been perversely misrepresented, and the stenographer had refused to

correct his errors, for which he had been expelled the House; and that,

in another case, the Speaker, considering himself as misrepresented, had

expelled the stenographer.

Among the opponents of the motion, a great diversity of opinion

prevailed. Mr. EUSTIS, Mr. VARNUM, and Mr. ELMER, objected to it, merely

on the ground that it was improper to come to any solemn decision, which

was the less necessary, as the stenographers already occupied convenient

seats, from which there was no probability of their being extruded by

the Speaker.

Those who supported the motion, considered its decision as involving an

important point; a point no less important, than, whether the debates of

that House should be taken with accuracy, and published without fear or

partiality. They averred it as a fact, that, owing to the unwarrantable

conduct of the Speaker, this had heretofore, at many periods, not been

the case. The public had sought information without being able to get

it. It was true, that a stenographer had been expelled for publishing a

speech of a gentleman from South Carolina; but it was not for

misrepresenting that speech, but for faithfully publishing it; and in

the other case alluded to, a stenographer had been expelled by the

Speaker, for stating, with correctness, what the Speaker had himself

said. These were alarming facts, not to be forgotten, and which claimed

the interposition of the House. If stenographers should be guilty of

indecorum, they could still (this rule notwithstanding) be expelled the

House. It was acknowledged that the gentleman who at present filled the

chair, was entitled to the full confidence of the House, but it was

dangerous to vest arbitrary power in the hands of any man, and it was

peculiarly proper to provide in fair, for foul weather; and it was

added, that though the proposed rule would not be obligatory upon a

future House, yet it would form a precedent, which they might see fit to

respect.

The motion, as modified by Mr. HUGER, was then agreed to--yeas 47, nays

32.

The committee then rose, and reported the rules with the above

amendment.