On motion, it was

_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to take order for

superintending the funeral of NARSWORTHY HUNTER, late a Delegate from

the Mississippi Territory; and that this House will attend the same.

_Resolved_, That the members testify their respect for the memory of the

said NARSWORTHY HUNTER, by wearing a crape on the left arm, for one

month.

_Resolved_, That the SPEAKER of this House address a letter to the

Governor of the Mississippi Territory, to inform him of the death of

NARSWORTHY HUNTER, the Delegate from the said Territory in this House,

in order that measures may be taken to supply the vacancy occasioned

thereby.

_Ordered_, That Mr. LEIB, Mr. DAVIS, Mr. HOLLAND, Mr. RUTLEDGE, and Mr.

LEWIS R. MORRIS, be appointed a committee, pursuant to the first

resolution.

_State Balances._

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

extinguish the claims of the United States for balances reported against

certain States by Commissioners appointed to settle the accounts

between the United States and the individual States.

Mr. THOMAS.--Mr. Chairman, I rise, with a great deal of diffidence, to

deliver my sentiments on this floor, as I have not been accustomed to

public speaking; however, a sense of my duty as a Representative of the

United States, as well as the immediate Representative from the State of

New York, impels me, on this occasion, to ask the indulgence of the

Committee while I make a few remarks on the subject of the bill now

under consideration.

Sir, a number of the debtor States, and particularly the one which I

have the honor to represent, have always believed that they were

prodigiously injured in the settlement that was made; they have always

believed that there was something radically wrong, grossly unequal, in

the accounts exhibited by the individual States, and allowed by the

Board of Commissioners; in this belief, they have frequently called for

information on the subject, for a re-examination of that settlement, and

have as often been denied it.

Much might be said to prove that the very economical system adopted and

adhered to by the State of New York in limiting the prices of produce,

and in liquidating the accounts of her citizens for supplies furnished

during the Revolutionary war, operated particularly prejudicial to that

State in the settlement. I shall, however, waive any remarks on this for

the present, and confine myself principally to the rule which was

adopted for apportioning the expenses of the war among the several

States. Sir, the committee will recollect that by an act of Congress

passed in the year 1789, the enumeration of inhabitants made in the year

1791 was adopted as the rule for apportioning this debt among the

thirteen States.

I shall in the first place examine the original contract entered into by

these States, and under which these expenses were incurred, and then

endeavor to show the effect which, adopting an enumeration made seven or

eight years after the close of the war, had upon the several States

different from what the same rule would have produced had the

apportionment been made according to the numbers in each State at that

period, say 1784.

In the year 1778, the people of these States entered into a

confederation for various purposes, one of which was, to prosecute the

war against Great Britain. In the eighth article of this compact it was

expressly agreed that--

"All charges of the war, and all other expenses that should

be incurred for the common defence, and general welfare,

and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled,

should be defrayed out of a common treasury, which should

be supplied by the several States in proportion to the

value of all lands within each State granted to or surveyed

for any person as such lands and the building and

improvements thereon should be estimated, according to such

mode as the United States in Congress assembled, should

from time to time direct and appoint."

This, Mr. Chairman, was the agreement under which this debt was

incurred; and here allow me to ask the honorable gentleman from

Massachusetts (Mr. BACON) whether he was correct when he told us the

other day that this settlement had been made agreeably to the articles

of Confederation; and, further, whether, agreeably to that compact, the

State which he represents would have been allowed for her losses in the

Penobscot expedition, which has enabled her to become a creditor State

of upwards of one million two hundred thousand dollars, and more than

one-third of the whole amount of the balances. Sir, had the original

agreement under which these expenses were incurred been adhered to in

the settlement, no one ought now to complain; but, in order to comply

with it, the expenses of the war ought to have been apportioned among

the several States according to the value of the lands and buildings at

the time these expenses were incurred, and I do contend that the period

immediately after the termination of the war was the only proper one for

carrying into effect this stipulation. I am persuaded that no gentleman

on this floor will deny that the existing circumstances of the several

States at that period were the most proper to determine the just

proportion which each State ought to pay of these expenses, by whatever

rule might be adopted. Admitting, then, that Congress had the power, and

it was judged expedient to deviate from the original contract, and adopt

as the rule of apportionment the enumeration of inhabitants as a more

practicable one, ought it not to have had reference to the numbers in

each State at the close of the war? Most unquestionably, Mr. Chairman,

no gentleman will deny this, and that the year 1784 was the proper time.

It may, however, be said that no enumeration was made till the year

1791, seven years afterwards. I grant it. But will this alter the

justness of my position? Not at all. It must be obvious in the mind of

every gentleman who has reflected on the subject, that the relative

numbers in each State had changed materially between the year 1784, when

this settlement ought to have been made, and the year 1791, when it was

made. In order to establish this fact, I have adopted this method; I

have admitted what I believe every gentleman who hears me will, without

hesitation: that there has been no material variation in the increase of

population in the several States since the year 1784; that the increase

was nearly, if not correctly, in the same ratio between the years 1784

and 1791, with the increase between the years 1791 and 1801; that is,

that the relative increase of population in the several States was

nearly, if not correctly, in the same proportion for the seven years

previous to the year 1791 that it was for the ten years subsequent to

that period.

This I have established as my data, by which I have ascertained the

numbers in each State in the year 1784, and having apportioned the

whole debt among the several States, according to the enumeration, I

find the following to be the result:

That the State of Massachusetts, instead of being a creditor of

$1,248,801, she would have been a creditor for only $863,267; that the

State of Connecticut, instead of being a creditor State of $619,121, she

would have been a debtor State for $235,419; that the State of Rhode

Island, instead of being a creditor State for $299,611, she would have

been a debtor State for $13,212; that the State of New Jersey, instead

of being a creditor for $49,030, she would have been a debtor State for

$300,201; that the State of New York, instead of being a debtor State

for $2,074,846, she would have been a creditor State for $965,921, &c.

This, Mr. Chairman, would have been the situation of these States had

the apportionment been made according to the numbers in each State in

the year 1784. As for the accuracy of this statement I think I can with

safety pledge myself; it is, however, open for any gentleman who will

give himself the trouble to examine it for himself. The principles on

which it has been made cannot be disputed, as it respects the State of

New York; if any thing, it does not make enough in her favor, for it is

evident that the emigration into that State from the neighboring States

was greater for the first seven years after the close of the war than it

has been for any subsequent seven years.

Will, then, Mr. Chairman, any gentleman hesitate a moment to pronounce

the rule of apportionment which was adopted unjust, unequal, and

erroneous? Will any gentleman say, sir, that the rule of apportionment

was a just one, or as just as the nature of the case would admit of,

which brought the State of New York in debt upwards of two

millions--two-thirds of the whole amount of the balances--when, on the

principles of righteousness, on the principles of legal contract, or any

other principles, but an unauthorized act of Congress, that State would

have been a creditor State for nearly a million?

Mr. Chairman, I admit, as the settlement has been made, and the creditor

States have received their balances, that it would be improper now to

take up this subject _de novo_, and endeavor to compel those States to

refund what they have received more than they were entitled to; this is

not expected--it is not asked; all that is asked of you is, that you

render such justice to those injured States as the present situation of

this transaction will admit of; this is all that is contemplated in the

bill now before us.

Sir, as to the present situation of the State of New York with respect

to this subject, she has not acknowledged the justice of this claim, as

was stated by some gentlemen when this question was under consideration

the other day; she has uniformly denied it. It is true she did comply

with the act of Congress passed in February, 1799, and has expended and

been credited on the books of your Treasury for $223,810 under that

act; she did this, not from a conviction of the justice of the claim,

but from motives which have always actuated her conduct, as well during

the Revolutionary war as since, to do every thing in her power for the

general welfare of the nation, whenever its exigencies required it, and

also from an expectation that the other States called debtor States

would do the same, and thereby get rid of an evil which she considers as

having a tendency to alienate the good will and cordial affection so

necessary to be cherished between these States--a cause, sir, which has

and will, while it is suffered to exist, occasion perpetual irritation

and disquiet, as well to the creditor as to the debtor States, and which

may at some future period produce consequences more fatal.

I say, sir, these were her motives in agreeing to that measure; and did

she not evince a magnanimous spirit by doing it? a willingness to suffer

an additional injury herself, rather than not remove a cause which might

put in jeopardy the peace and harmony of these United States? But, Mr.

Chairman, as it can answer no useful purpose to have the remainder of

the money expended in the manner directed by the act--and this I am

warranted in stating to the committee, not only as my own opinion, but

as the opinion of the gentleman who was employed under Government as an

agent or commissioner to superintend the expenditure already made--as no

other State has evinced a disposition to extinguish these balances by

paying any part of them, or by complying with any of the terms

heretofore offered by Congress; and as it must be admitted on all hands

that Congress have no power to effect it by eviction, I ask gentlemen if

it would be just or reasonable that the State of New York, who has been

injured more in the settlement than any other State in the Union; who

has already paid upwards of $220,000 towards these balances, and who is

the only State that has, or in all probability ever will, pay a cent

towards them--I say, I ask gentlemen of the committee whether it would

be just that that State should now be driven to one of two alternatives;

either to draw near a million of dollars from her citizens and expend it

where it will answer no useful purpose to the State nor to the nation,

or to withhold any further appropriations, and thereby incur the

imputation of having violated her faith? I call upon gentlemen seriously

to consider whether it would not be prodigiously unjust to hold that

State in this predicament; whether it would not be adding injury to

injustice to do it?

Mr. Chairman, I do flatter myself that the representatives of this

nation, convened here to legislate on fair and equitable principles,

will not suffer a new wound to be inflicted on that State, but that they

will unite with one accord in passing the bill now before us, and

thereby not only heal the one already made on that, as well as several

of her sister States, but remove a rock which may endanger our Federal

ship.

The bill was supported by Messrs. RANDOLPH, VAN RENSSELAER, HILL, VAN

NESS, GREGG, BAYARD, SMILIE, MACON, S. SMITH, CLAIBORNE, and

HOLLAND--and opposed by Messrs. ELMER, BACON, EUSTIS, HASTINGS, and

BUTLER.

The question was then taken on the committee rising, and reporting the

bill without amendment, and carried--yeas 47, nays 33.

A motion was then made that the bill be engrossed for a third reading on

Tuesday, and carried--yeas 47, nays 35.

A motion was then made by Mr. LEIB to recommit the report of the select

committee on which the above bill was founded, in order to correct an

erroneous statement in relation to Pennsylvania.

MONDAY, March 15.

_French Spoliations._

Mr. GRISWOLD said, that he hoped the resolution which he had laid on the

table for indemnifying for French spoliations would be first taken up.

It was important, before a decision was made on the repeal of the

internal taxes, that the extent of indemnities made by Government should

be known. He therefore moved a postponement of the bill on internal

taxes till to-morrow, that, in the mean time, his motion might be acted

upon. He concluded by desiring the yeas and nays.

The motion of Mr. GRISWOLD is as follows:

"_Resolved_, That it is proper to make provision by law

towards indemnifying the merchants of the United States for

losses sustained by them from French spoliations, the

claims for which losses have been renounced by the final

ratification of the Convention with France, as published by

proclamation of the President of the United States."

Mr. LOWNDES observed, that it was nearly two months since the committee

was raised, to whom had been committed the petitions of merchants

praying indemnities; notwithstanding this length of time, the committee

had not yet met. He hoped this resolution would induce the committee to

meet.

Mr. S. SMITH said, that he had presented the first petition on the

subject of French spoliations, and that it had been immediately referred

to a select committee, who, though they had made progress in the

business committed to them, had not considered it fair to decide until

all the petitions expected on the subject had been received. One indeed

had been presented only this morning. Mr. S. asked if this mode was not

perfectly just and fair? For himself, on this subject, he was precluded

from voting, as he was deeply interested in the decision of the House.

He mentioned this circumstance that the reason might be understood why

particular gentlemen from different parts of the Union did not vote on

this question in its several stages.

Mr. LOWNDES said he did not consider the right of deciding the principle

delegated to the select committee. That must be decided in the House.

It was the duty of the committee barely to make arrangements to protect

the House from imposition on the score of facts. If it shall be

determined by the Government, that it is improper to make

compensation--though he thought such a decision scarcely possible--the

select committee may be discharged. If, on the other hand, it is thought

proper to compensate, the committee may go into the investigation of

details.

Mr. MITCHILL felt it an obligation, that the case of those whom he had

the honor to represent, and that of the other merchants in the United

States, should be taken up and receive from this House the most

deliberate and serious consideration. He had before submitted to the

House his ideas on the proper course to be pursued, which it was not

necessary for him to repeat. He would, however, observe, that the

resolution now made was so broad as entirely to defeat its object. The

first reference of this business was to a select committee instructed to

examine all the papers and documents in relation to it, with an

instruction to report their opinion to the House; on receiving which the

House might be able to come to a decision. On the other hand, the

present proposition goes to commit the House on the whole extent of the

subject without any examination whatever.

Mr. M. said, he would suggest a few reasons, which satisfied his mind

that a decision should not be too rapidly pressed. The vessels taken by

the French admitted of various classifications. One class consisted of

those that were captured before the dissolution of our treaty with

France; another class, of those which were captured after that event;

another class, of those that were captured by picaroons without

commissions; and another class, where captures were made on account of

contraband goods. All these classes involved distinct considerations;

and when the subject was presented to the House in a form so

complicated, was it proper precipitately to decide a principle that

might bind the Government to make indemnity for all cases whatever?

Mr. M. said he had no doubt but that such property of the citizens of

the United States as came fairly under the character of spoliated

property, would be considered as a fit subject of indemnity. He was one

of those who thought that in such cases payment ought to be made. He

considered the merchants as a very important class of citizens, and that

their interests ought to be protected. This he thought the more

necessary from the consideration of the bill on the table, which, when

passed, will render the Government very dependent on mercantile credit.

Mr. M. was of opinion that the best way of accomplishing the object of

the merchants was not to precipitate the subject. On the other hand, he

was of opinion that the best chance of success would arise from an

examination of the various classes of spoliations, from separating them

from each other, thereby enabling the House to act understandingly upon

them. The resolution of the gentleman from Connecticut was so vague as

not to be susceptible of any distinct meaning. He hoped, therefore, the

subject would be suffered to undergo a full and deliberate investigation

in the select committee, which he, as a member of that committee,

assured the House was progressing as fast as a sense of justice and a

regard to our merchants require.

Mr. DANA.--The object of the present motion is to take up the resolution

of my colleague, and to take order upon it--not to decide definitely

upon it. This being the true question, I hope the gentleman from New

York will not think it improper in me to say that many of his remarks do

not apply to it. As the question is not whether we shall immediately

decide the point, but only place it in a train for decision, it must be

discussed either in a Committee of the Whole, or in a select committee;

and we ask the House now to decide which, that it may be progressing

towards a final decision.

The resolution states a general principle. If it is the fixed

determination of the majority, without an inquiry, not to grant any

relief whatever, there is an end of the business. But if you agree to

grant any relief, the resolution ought to be adopted. The principle is

then established of indemnifying; after which you may discriminate.

The principle on which the resolution is founded is not that Government

has declined to insist upon the claims of its citizens against the

French; but that it has undertaken to abandon their claims, so that no

citizen can now come forward with his claim either against the French

Government or any citizen of France. For this is the construction of the

treaty as finally ratified by the Government. It is a complete surrender

and renunciation of all demands. Among the first claims of our citizens

are some of private right, which were it not for the treaty, could be

recovered in the courts of France, but which the treaty bars. This

constitutes a class of claims which the Government cannot refuse to

indemnify. There are other descriptions of claims which might require

discrimination; in some of which the degree of compensation should be

varied, and others in which there should be no compensation whatever. I

think, therefore, it is proper for the Government to say the business

shall be attended to; at some future time an inquiry may be made into

the nature of the various claims. This is all we ask.

Mr. GRISWOLD said that the gentleman from New York had misapprehended

the order of proceeding in that House. He supposes the present

resolution so vaguely worded as to be improper to be passed. But, if

taken up, that very gentleman may offer any amendment he pleases. I do,

however, apprehend that it is so worded as to bring the subject fairly

before the House. It is worded even with caution. Its sole object is to

bring the principle of indemnity before the House, unfettered, that its

decision might not be embarrassed by any details; supposing there would

be an indisposition in the House to pledge the nation to an unlimited

extent, the words used are, "towards indemnifying." Gentlemen,

therefore, who are disposed to do any thing, can feel no objection to a

resolution so qualified. Other parts of the resolution are worded with

equal caution, so as to extend only to cases where losses are renounced

by treaty. Are gentlemen unwilling to indemnify for such losses?

This is a principle proper for decision in Committee of the Whole. Why

take it to a select committee? It involves no details; it requires the

elucidation of no facts. We know the losses of our merchants, and we

know the treaty has renounced them. The House is, therefore, prepared to

say whether it will or will not indemnify. When the principle is

decided, it may be sent to a select committee to settle the details. I

hope that it will be taken up, and an early day fixed for consideration.

The gentleman says the committee are progressing. It may be so. Though I

observe the gentleman from South Carolina says the committee has not yet

met. How progressing? Without meeting? I do not understand this new

mode, though I will not say that it is not a very correct mode. The

gentleman further says the committee have not progressed because they

wished to have first all the petitions before them; but the principle to

be settled is as much involved in one petition as in all.

Mr. GREGG said he should not have risen but for the remarks of the

gentleman from South Carolina, and after him those of the gentleman from

Connecticut, who had stated that the committee had not met. Being a

member of the committee he would inform those gentlemen that the

committee had met; that they had perused a number of the papers, and had

determined that it was improper to proceed until they had received

documents that would show the extent of the claims.

As the business now stands, we find it referred to a select committee,

instructed to examine the papers, and report their opinion thereupon.

This report will form the grounds of decision for the House. Now the

gentleman would wrest the business from the committee, and urge the

House into a decision without any of the necessary information. The

attempt was unprecedented. Mr. G. said he never knew a similar instance

where the select committee had not been previously discharged.

Mr. LOWNDES rose to explain. He said that when he informed the House

that the committee had never been called together, he had been induced

to say so, from never having been himself notified, though a member of

the committee.

Mr. BAYARD thought the motion ought to prevail for the reason assigned

by the honorable gentleman from Connecticut. He has properly remarked

that we are not now called on to decide the abstract question, but only

to say what course of proceeding shall be pursued. The point ought now

to be decided whether the business shall be sent to a select committee,

or to a Committee of the Whole. The gentleman from Pennsylvania says it

is altogether unprecedented to take a subject out of the hands of a

select committee. But this will not be the effect of the resolution;

which will only facilitate the business before the committee, and shed

additional light on the path they ought to pursue. We do not wish to

interfere with the operations of the committee, but to decide a question

that will greatly facilitate their proceedings, and which question ought

to be settled in a Committee of the Whole. It is peculiarly and

strikingly proper to postpone the question of repealing the internal

taxes until a decision shall have been made on these claims. Not that we

are anxious to decide upon them immediately, but because we are

solicitous not to prejudge all claims to indemnity by repealing the very

taxes on which the indemnity must depend. Do gentlemen mean to decide at

once thus precipitately against all indemnity whatever? If they are not

in favor of so deciding, surely they will not be for immediately

deciding on the internal taxes.

Let the gentleman from New York classify the claims as he pleases, can

he tell the extent of the demands? May they not amount to five million

or ten million of dollars? And if to either sum, can we with propriety

dispense with the internal taxes? It appears from the report of the

Secretary of the Treasury that the whole of the revenue for the year

1803 and 1804 will be wanted. If, then, these claims shall be allowed,

and shall produce an increase of the public debt, the fund derived from

the internal revenue will be required.

It is cruel to decide at once against the claims of our merchants. If it

is predetermined not to give them relief, at least allow them the

consolation of a hearing. Whoever votes for now taking up the question

of the repeal of the internal taxes, votes, not only against

indemnifying, but also against hearing the merchants; because he votes

away all means of indemnification. It is hard, peculiarly hard, that at

the moment when you are about to throw the whole burdens of the

Government upon the merchants, you should deny them a hearing, an

impartial hearing, of their claims. Suppose there should be a

combination of these men, seeing the Government act towards them with

such flagrant injustice, to refuse all importations. I ask, if you do

not, by such treatment, put the Government entirely into their hands?

If gentlemen will agree to postpone the question of internal taxes, we

will agree to postpone this question, if they are not prepared to decide

upon it. The subject of the internal taxes is the least pressing of all

the subjects before the House. The bill, indeed, ought not to pass until

we know the appropriations that are necessary to be made for the present

year. Have gentlemen shown, can they show, that with propriety these

taxes can be dispensed with from any retrenchments that can be made in

our expenditures? I do not know any official document on this point,

except that of the Secretary of War, who, in his very correct report,

says there will be a saving in his department of a little more or less

than $500,000; which report I confess I do not understand. The Committee

of Ways and Means say there will be a retrenchment in the War Department

of a sum not exceeding $400,000; which mode of expression I do not

precisely comprehend. Surely we ought to know with precision the sums

that will be required for the objects of the Government before we

abandon our resources.

Mr. EUSTIS thought the object of indemnity to our merchants very

important both in its nature and its consequences. And, first, as to its

amount, it was known to be great. The consequence of these applications

will be a hearing, and procedure thereon. And the amount of the claims,

as well as the nature of them, ought to have great influence on the

deliberations of the House. And yet we talk of deciding the abstract

question, when the very facts on which we are to decide are not before

us. For it will be perceived by the public prints that the claims of the

merchants of the State of Massachusetts are not yet brought forward. The

necessary evidence is not before the House. I appeal to the gentlemen to

know how we are to act, understandingly, if the subject be taken up now.

What is the abstract question? Will gentlemen say they will pay all

demands before they know any thing of their nature or amount?

The claims of our merchants are very serious, and merit great

consideration. But the revenue, which gentlemen are so anxious to

retain, to them will be but as the light dust in the balance. I presume

that the losses of the merchants of Massachusetts alone are not less

than five to ten millions of dollars. But to act understandingly upon

them we must have evidence as well of their amount as their nature, both

of which we at present want.

Mr. RUTLEDGE.--I am sorry the resolution of my honorable friend from

Connecticut is not acceptable to the gentleman from New York. It is not

the least indelicate to that committee. On the contrary, were I a member

of that committee, I should feel infinitely gratified by it. I would ask

solicitously, whether it were possible that Congress would agree to this

principle before the details were gone into. We are now for giving that

information to the committee.

The honorable gentleman says this resolution conveys no light. But I

will say, that, if adopted, it will confer not only light, but comfort

to our merchants. It will foster their hopes, and animate them to meet

the difficulties under which they are staggering.

The gentleman from Massachusetts says there is no evidence of fact. What

fact? Surely he will not say there is no evidence of the French having

condemned our vessels, and of their having committed vast spoliation.

If this were so, how happens it that an American embassy had demanded

compensation; and that, on the ulterior negotiations of the Government,

the Government had said we will abandon it, that we may release

ourselves from guaranteeing to France her colonial possessions. Had this

not been so, France might have called upon us to guarantee her West

India possessions, and to supply her with men and money. From this

situation we have been kept by those negotiations which terminated in an

abandonment of the just Claims of your merchants on the French

Government or her citizens. And this constitutes your good bargains.

If these are facts, we possess sufficient evidence not only to justify,

but to compel our paying the merchants, if under the influence of common

honesty. The amount is perfectly immaterial. Whatever it is we must pay

it. It is true that of the millions claimed, Government may not in law

or equity be compelled to pay more than a small part. But if you

establish the principle that there shall be an indemnity made, you

enable your committee to devise the mode of collecting evidences of and

settling the validity of the claims.

But the gentleman from Massachusetts says these taxes, right or wrong,

must be repealed. For, he says, the public expectation has already

decided the question; and that, indeed, the public officers could not

now collect them. But I hope, for the honor of the Government, and of

the American people, this opinion is not correct.

Mr. MITCHILL begged to be indulged in making a few observations on what

had fallen from the gentleman from South Carolina. I do not know that

these observations will satisfy his mind, but they will at least serve

to justify my own character as a Representative of a portion of the

Union respectable for its mercantile opulence. I believe the subject of

indemnities, in the contemplation of gentlemen, has swelled much beyond

its real magnitude. _I believe that a large portion of losses were so

covered by insurance that Government will not be obliged to pay for

them._ I feel as sincerely for the merchants as any gentleman; yet I do

not wish to swell the subject to an improper magnitude. Suppose, as the

gentlemen wish, we say we will indemnify, does that pay the claims?

Besides, it is not so evident, as some gentlemen assert, that our

merchants have been deprived of valuable rights by the mode in which the

French Convention has been ratified. Let gentlemen recollect the mass of

depredations committed by Great Britain, and the engagements, under

treaty, of the British Government to make reparation for them. Yet,

notwithstanding this engagement, reparation has been to this day evaded,

under the pretext that the claims under one article depend on the

construction given to a preceding article. Now, suppose in the French

Treaty there were the same provisions as in the British Treaty, would

this have produced payment? No. The operations under the treaty might

have gone on as long as under the British Treaty, with the like effect,

and without any substantial provision being made. I state these

circumstances barely to show that the renunciation in the French Treaty

is not so grievous as some gentlemen imagine.

It is manifest that an inattention to similar claims has been considered

as less a departure from right among nations than among individuals.

And, judging of the future by the past, my opinion is that a retention

of the article stricken out of the French Convention, would not have

benefited the claims of our merchants, or afforded them any adequate

eventual compensation. In France, as on the other side of the Channel,

there would have been claim raised against claim, pretext against

pretext, and the boards for adjusting the several claims might have

been, in this case, as in the other, dissolved.

It is said by the gentleman from Delaware, that it is the object of

gentlemen on his side of the House to prevent a repeal of the internal

taxes. Though I admire the gentleman's candor, I believe it is needful

to repeal these laws. I believe, too, the people wish them repealed. But

I further believe, that if future events shall show the necessity of

restoring these taxes, the good sense of the people will restore them;

and if the indemnities agreed to be made shall require them, I believe

they will be restored. The work of examining these claims will be the

work of years. What is the consequence? Will the present repeal of the

internal taxes interfere with the doing substantial justice to our

merchants? Suppose these taxes are removed, are not the products of the

country increasing? and are not our resources increasing with our

population? The truth is, whenever your Treasury wants a fresh supply of

resources, the people will submit to what their Representatives desire.

Are we to legislate for succeeding ages? No. We are to suffer our

successors to act for themselves; and I have no doubt either of their

ability or their inclination to do justice.

Mr. DANA.--If I understood the honorable member from New York, he

admitted the propriety of making some indemnity; and if so, I could not

understand why he dwelt so elaborately upon the minutiæ of detail, to

show why we ought not to indemnify. Nor can I yet understand him, unless

his object be to let the subject sleep, and to say that the longer it is

delayed, the less chance of reparation.

The gentleman says, property _insured_ cannot be recovered. But is that

gentleman, coming as he does from the first commercial city in the

Union, yet to learn that, in the case of loss, the _insurer_ stands

precisely in the place of the _insured_? Is he so ignorant of this fact

as not to know that the underwriter, in such circumstances, becomes

entitled to the same indemnity with him who is underwritten?

With regard to the analogy attempted between the British Treaty and the

French Convention, it is totally incorrect. For, in the British Treaty,

we had insisted upon the claims of our merchants to reparation by

Britain, or her subjects; whereas, in the French Convention, we had

renounced all claim. Nor were the remarks of the honorable member more

fortunate respecting the operations under the British Treaty; for he

must know that our merchants have, in many cases, received compensation

under it.

One concession has been made which I did not expect would be avowed so

early, either by the gentleman from Massachusetts or the gentleman from

New York; a confession that is founded on the principle that the House,

before examining the important details which ought to regulate their

decision, are so placed by the head of the Executive ministry, that

certain taxes, recommended to be abrogated, must be repealed. You must

repeal them. The public clamor is excited, and you must obey it. I did

not suppose it would so soon have been avowed that we are under the

absolute rule of Executive influence, and that, to obey it, we are

compelled to perjure our understandings.

Mr. BAYARD.--The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts has thanked me

for the candor of my avowal that I am opposed to the repeal of these

taxes. But I do not wish to be thanked for more than I really said. It

is true, that I do not think this the proper time to repeal all of those

taxes, because I do not know that Government may not want them.

The gentleman from Massachusetts has broached a new species of ethics.

He says, if the amount of claims shall be small, we may pay, but if

large we cannot. But I will tell that gentleman I have never

acknowledged such a principle of morality. I believe if the merchants

have a just demand for one dollar, we must pay it; and if they have a

just demand for one hundred millions, we must pay that too. Nor can I

too forcibly express my astonishment at an opposite principle avowed by

this House.

The gentleman says you want evidence, and therefore ought not to act.

But can you examine each distinct case? If the subject goes to a select

committee, and they shall be allowed years to decide, still they will

have to establish some principle; for instance, that a certain

description of vessels was captured unjustly by the French; that the

injured merchants had a moral claim on the French Government for

reparation; that the United States had bartered away their rights, and

that Government, in consequence, is bound to indemnify. If the House

decide that the Government is bound to relieve in one case, are they not

bound to afford relief in all similar cases? Will you not, then, be

obliged to make a general provision that all claims, so circumstanced,

shall be allowed? Here is a great mass of claims; some made now, and

some not likely to be made for years. What more, then, can you do, than

decide the principle which shall be applied to them?

My opinion as to indemnity is, that whoever had a valid claim against

the French Government, which the United States extinguished, has a

demand against the United States, which she must satisfy. Put the case

to its consequence: Will gentlemen tell me whether, according to any

principle of morality, where you have taken from your citizens all

chance of recovery, you are not bound to indemnify for that of which you

have deprived them? Where the French Government was not bound to pay

before the convention, you are not now bound to pay. So, in the case of

war, you are not bound. But where the claim on the French Government was

perfect, and you destroyed that claim, your obligation to pay cannot be

evaded. I wish to know if the establishment of this principle requires

facts?

With respect to the circumstances of particular cases, this House cannot

act. On those numerous grades of credibility that will be attached to

the various claims that shall be made, you cannot decide. To effect this

you must establish some competent tribunal. You can establish the

principle; but the details could not be settled by Congress, even if

their attention were exclusively directed to that subject, in three

years. Having decided the principle, it will be proper to leave the

application of it to your courts of law.

Mr. BACON hoped that a great deal of time would not be spent in

exploring the secret motives of individual members. He supposed they

should all stand or fall on their own consciences. He hoped, therefore,

they should have the question.

Mr. S. SMITH.--I am against the proposition of the gentleman from

Connecticut, because to act now upon it will be in direct opposition to

the uniform order of the House. If our attention is thus to be withdrawn

from every important object before us, I do not know how we are possibly

to progress with the public business. I know of no case, where a

particular subject has been referred to a select committee, and it has

afterward been taken up in the House, while it remained with the

committee. I should have understood the motion, if it had been to

discharge the select committee, and to refer the subject to a Committee

of the Whole.

As gentlemen, however, have taken so wide a range in the field of

debate, I hope their course will produce a saving of time, and that we

shall not have their speeches over again on repealing the internal

taxes.

It is not my purpose, at this time, to enter into a discussion of the

claims of our merchants, because I think this is not the proper

occasion. But I will tell gentlemen, that if they were disposed to

destroy those claims, they could not have pursued a plan more

effectually calculated to do it. Had such been my intention, I would

have offered a resolution so broad and vague as to alarm the whole

community as to the amount of indemnity. I would have endeavored to

throw the censure attached to their losses on the present

Administration. I would have opposed their claims to the wish of the

nation to repeal the internal taxes. All these steps I would have taken

to frustrate any indemnity; and they are just the steps taken by

gentlemen who profess so strong a regard for the merchants. Let me tell

those gentlemen until they shall pursue a far different plan, we must

doubt whether they are in earnest to pay the merchants for their losses.

If the public business is to be thus perpetually procrastinated, I hope

the gentlemen with whom I act will be firm enough, after rejecting this

motion, to pursue the other business even to a late hour.

The yeas and nays were then taken on Mr. GRISWOLD'S motion, to postpone

taking up the bill on internal taxes till to-morrow, in order to take up

his resolution on French spoliations; and decided in the negative--yeas

33, nays 54.

TUESDAY, March 16.

_State Balances._

The bill for extinguishing State balances was read a third time, when

Mr. DAVIS moved its postponement to the first Monday in November.

This motion was supported by Messrs. DAVIS, BACON, ELMER, and GODDARD,

who declared themselves adverse to the passage of the bill; and opposed

by Messrs. BAYARD, T. MORRIS, RANDOLPH, and NICHOLAS, who declared

themselves in favor of the bill.

Mr. GRISWOLD delivered his sentiments against the postponement,

declaring, however, his determination to vote against the passage of the

bill.

The question of postponement was taken by yeas and nays, and

carried--yeas 48, nays 42.

WEDNESDAY, March 24.

A new member, to wit, WALTER BOWIE, from the State of Maryland, returned

to serve in this House as a member for the said State, in the room of

Richard Sprigg, who has resigned his seat, appeared, produced his

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

MONDAY, March 29.

An engrossed bill, making a partial appropriation for the support of

Government, during the year 1802, was read the third time and passed.

Previous to its passage, conversation took place respecting an alleged

looseness of appropriation. This objection was made by Mr. GRISWOLD, and

supported by Mr. DANA, who were of opinion that the sum in the bill

should be more specifically appropriated.

The objection was repelled by Messrs. MILLEDGE, GILES, ELMENDORPH,

RANDOLPH, and ALSTON, who contended that the objection did not apply,

and that no inconvenience could arise from a partial appropriation made

in the bill and contemplated for a definitive object.

A motion made to recommit the bill was lost; when the bill passed--yeas

45.

TUESDAY, March 30.

_Funeral Expenses of Members._

On a motion made and seconded that the House do come to the following

resolution:

_Resolved_, That, in case of the death of a member of the

House of Representatives at the seat of Government, while

Congress is in session, the expenses accruing, in

conformity to an order of the House, made to testify their

respect for the deceased member, shall be paid out of the

contingent funds of the House, and not out of his wages for

travelling home, as is now allowed by law:

_Ordered_, That the said motion be referred to Mr. DAVIS, Mr. LEWIS R.

MORRIS, and Mr. NICHOLSON, to consider and report thereon to the House.

WEDNESDAY, March 31.

_Funeral Expenses of Members._

Mr. DAVIS, from the committee to whom was yesterday referred a motion

respecting "members of this House dying at the seat of Government during

a session, of Congress," made a report thereon; which was read and

considered: Whereupon,

_Resolved_, That the expenses accruing by order of the House, in

attending the funeral of NARSWORTHY HUNTER, a member from the

Mississippi Territory, be paid out of the contingent funds of the House.

_Resolved_, That the legal representatives of a member of this House,

who shall die at the seat of Government during the session, shall be

entitled to receive the same allowance for his itinerant expenses, as

the member would have been entitled to, had he returned to his place of

abode.

_Ohio State Government._

The House went again into Committee of the Whole on the report of a

select committee respecting the admission of the North-western Territory

as a State into the Union.

The second resolution being under consideration,

Mr. FEARING referred to the provisions of the ordinance empowering

Congress to divide the Territory, from which he inferred that Congress

had not the right to divide the Territory so as to form one part of it

into a State, while the remaining section was not made a State, without

the consent of the Territory; he conceived that Congress must, in such

event, form this section also into a State. He, therefore, was of

opinion that Congress must consult the people of the Territory before

they shall divide the Territory.

As to the expediency of the resolution, he thought it very expedient to

make the division therein marked out. The effect of it would be that the

whole of Lake Erie would be thrown out of the State to be formed, and

the inconvenience to the section of the Territory not incorporated in

the new State would be very great, if it should be attached to the

Indiana Territory, from its great distance, which he understood was

contemplated.

Mr. GILES said that the committee who reported these resolutions, so far

from entertaining a disposition to change the ordinance, had strictly

observed the conditions therein prescribed. [Mr. G. here quoted the

ordinance.] It appeared therefrom that Congress was under an obligation,

after laying off one State, to form the remainder into a State. But

when? Hereafter, whenever they shall think it expedient to do so.

Mr. BAYARD agreed that there was no obligation imposed upon Congress to

decide definitively the boundary of a State. If the ultimate right of

Congress, after the formation of a new State, to alter the boundary be

doubted, they have a right to remove all doubts by so declaring at this

time. It is certain that at present great inconvenience would arise from

drawing the boundary as fixed in the resolution.

The population of the Territory does not amount to that which is

sufficient to give it admission into the Union. He had, however, no

disposition to oppose its admission, notwithstanding this circumstance.

The population in the Eastern State does not exceed forty-five thousand.

We are now about to pare off five or six thousand inhabitants, which

will bring it down to thirty-nine thousand. A population of forty-five

thousand is quite small enough for an independent State. It is a smaller

population than exists in any of the present States in the Union. From

this consideration, it might have been expected that Congress would take

no step whose effect would be a diminution of that population.

The division, as made in the resolution, is manifestly unjust, as far as

it relates to the people north of the dividing line. By it they are

about to be severed from their connection with the other portion of the

Territory. Mr. B. wished to know to whom they are to be attached? If

attached to the Indiana Territory, the inhabitants, to arrive at the

seat of Government, will be obliged to go across the new State, a

distance of two or three hundred miles. Besides, after having advanced

them to the second grade of territorial government, you will consign

them back again to the first, and thereby give them a system of

government extremely odious, and which we ought to get rid of as soon as

possible. Thus, after having held out to them the flattering prospect of

being elevated to the high rank of a State, you degrade them, contrary

to their expectations, to the humblest condition in the Union. Mr. B.,

therefore, thought it would be most just and politic to include this

population of five or six thousand in the bounds of the new State,

subject to the reserved right of Congress to alter the boundary

hereafter.

Mr. GILES said he was not tenacious of his opinions; but it was

necessary to justify the contents of the report by stating some

considerations that might not be generally known to the members of the

House.

Mr. G. said he supposed the section of the Territory, not embraced in

the new State, would be attached to the Indiana Territory; nor would any

great hardship result from this disposition; and such as did result

would arise from their local situation and not from any circumstances

over which the National Legislature had a controlling power. He believed

that people, to reach the seat of Government, had as far to go now as

they will then have. His object was to reserve in future to Congress the

right of determining the boundary of the States in the Territory. If

this section should once be admitted, he believed it would be very

difficult, however proper, to detach it from the State to which it had

become attached.

The report contemplates the forming a constitution. Should the people on

the northwardly side of the line be admitted as a part of the State,

they will participate in the formation of the constitution--a

constitution which will not be ultimately for themselves, but after a

short time exclusively for others. This participation would be unjust.

The question then is, whether you will suffer those to form a

constitution who are not to be permanently affected by it; and whether,

if you once constitute a State, you will be able hereafter to alter its

boundaries? For if this section be now admitted, gentlemen, by looking

at the map, will see that the boundary now fixed cannot be permanent.

As to the remarks made by the gentleman from Delaware, Mr. G. said he

was extremely glad that gentleman was for giving to the Territory the

right of a State. If, however, he had attended to the report, he would

have found that his calculation of numbers was incorrect. The population

of five thousand had been deducted by the committee, and after that

deduction forty-five thousand remained. Though the numbers in the

Territory proposed to be formed into a State amounted, a year ago, to no

more than forty thousand, yet it might be stated upon strong ground,

that, before the new government can get into operation, there will be a

sufficient population to demand admission as a matter of right. By

attaching the inhabitants on the north of the line to the Indiana

Territory, they will remain in the same grade of government they now

are, and not be degraded, as stated by the gentleman from Delaware, to a

lower state. This disposition appeared to Mr. G. the best that could be

made. But if, when gentlemen came to the details of the bill, it should

be thought best to introduce into the new State the population north of

the line, he said he might have no objection.

Mr. FEARING stated the great inconveniences that would be felt by the

inhabitants north of the line, if attached to the Indiana Territory. He

considered the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. GILES,)

respecting the participation of this description of citizens in forming

a constitution for others, as entitled to little weight. Such a measure

was by no means uncommon. It had been done in the case of Kentucky, and

other States.

Mr. F. conceived that the people of the Territory had all equal rights

under the ordinance; they had been virtually promised that they should

not be attached to any other Western Territory, and Congress had only

reserved to themselves the right of admitting them into the Union as

States. More they could not do, without their consent.

Mr. BAYARD moved to strike out of the resolution the words that fix the

boundary, for the purpose of introducing words that should prescribe

that the new State be circumscribed by the original boundaries of the

Eastern State, referring to Congress the right of making one or more

States in said State at any future time.

Mr. GILES said that the State, as formed in the report, was one of the

most compact and convenient in the Union. The amendment would materially

change its character. Besides, it would in fact impair the right of

Congress to accommodate the boundaries to future circumstances. It was

well known, and sensibly felt, that there were many inconvenient

boundaries to several of the States now in the Union; yet so great was

the difficulty attending their alteration, that they could not be

changed.

Mr. BAYARD was not so sensible of the difficulty of altering the

boundaries as the gentleman from Virginia, who had stated that Congress

would not have power to alter them when once fixed. This difficulty

might exist as to the States now in the Union, because Congress had not

the constitutional power to alter them without the consent of the

adjacent States. But if this power be referred to Congress, which will

be a disinterested tribunal, there will be no difficulty in varying the

boundaries as circumstances shall dictate.

Mr. B. asked, if, while gentlemen are attending to the interests and

wishes of one part of the people, they are disposed to disregard the

interests and wishes of another part? If they were not, they ought to

admit the section, proposed by the resolution to be cut off, to a

participation in State rights.

Mr. BACON objected to the amendment. He said that Congress were vested

by the constitution with certain powers which they cannot increase, or

diminish, or delegate. By the constitution likewise, the several States

are vested with certain powers which they cannot increase, diminish, or

divest themselves of. By the third section of the fourth article of the

constitution, "new States may be admitted by the Congress into the

Union." This act proposes to make this Territory a State with State

powers under the constitution. How, then, can these people, once a

State, divest themselves of these powers. This is a question that does

not interest simply the State proposed to be formed, but every State in

the Union. All are equally interested in preserving the powers vested in

them by the constitution.

Mr. BAYARD said he did not see any occasion for striking out the

proviso. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. BACON) goes on the

principle that Congress has only a right to admit, without any

reservation. Mr. B. said he had always believed the greater included the

smaller. If you are vested with the greater power of admitting, you have

certainly the minor powers included in the greater power. From the

nature of the ordinance, it constitutes the fundamental principle on

which the States are admitted--they are not admitted under the

constitution. They are to be admitted exclusively under the provision of

the ordinance. You may, therefore, say that you will not now exercise

the whole power committed to you, but reserve the right of exercising it

hereafter.

Mr. SMILIE did not consider the principle laid down by the gentleman

from Delaware as constitutional. We must be governed by the

constitution. If the Territory be admitted as a State into the Union,

when admitted it must be bound down by the constitution, which says the

boundaries of States shall not be altered but with the express

permission of the State.

Mr. GILES--The gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. GRISWOLD,) affects

lately to have discovered a great deal of disguise in the proceedings of

this House. What disguise? What were the committee to do? This country

is placed in a certain peculiar situation. We have waters running to the

East--then to the West; and the committee thought it was desirable to

connect these by good roads. With the committee, State principles or

interests had no influence--they were governed entirely by general

principles and the common interest.

The gentleman has also insinuated that the Secretary of the Treasury

holds lands that will be benefited by these roads. It may be so. Mr. G.

had not inquired; but he supposed he did not hold all the lands.

Congress may lay out these roads as they please. He could foresee how

Congress would lay them out, and it is a million to one that they will

not touch his lands.

The United States are about making a new contract. These propositions

are made as additional securities for the national property. The

Secretary of the Treasury having estimated the annual product of these

lands at four hundred thousand dollars, Mr. G. said, as chairman of the

committee, he had applied to him to know his opinion of the manner in

which this sum could be best secured, and he gave his opinion that this

provision would be most likely to effect that object. This is all the

mystery and disguise attending the resolution.

Mr. SMILIE said when gentlemen charge particular States with injustice,

they ought to be prepared to prove what they advance. If there had been

any co-operation between the delegations of Virginia and Pennsylvania on

this occasion, he had never heard of it. The fact was, that no peculiar

good could result to Pennsylvania from this measure. The great object

was to keep up that intercourse which will attach the people of the

Territory to you. When the Territory shall become a State, she will have

a right to tax your lands. This benefit, together with the salt-springs,

as I understand, is proposed as a substitution far the relinquishment of

those rights.

Mr. FEARING said he considered a part of the rights of the Territory

given up by this resolution; and though the Territory would be highly

benefited by the projected roads, and the cession of the salt-springs,

yet he conceived they would be much more benefited by laying out the

roads within the Territory.

Mr. GRISWOLD said he was glad the honorable gentleman from Virginia had

assured the House there was no disguise in this business. If the object

be to make an advantageous contract with the Territory to secure our

Western lands, let us offer them five per cent. of the proceeds of those

lands, to be paid into their treasury. If they shall be disposed to make

roads through Pennsylvania and Virginia, he should have no objection.

He was as sensible as the gentleman from Virginia, that whatever

improves a part of the Union improves the whole; though this was

undoubtedly the case, he was not of opinion that a sum of money should

be taken from the public treasury, and specially applied to local

purposes. Under this resolution, according to the calculation of the

Secretary of the Treasury, forty thousand dollars was the smallest sum

that would be annually applied to the laying out of those roads. Mr. G.

said he thought the sum too large to be withdrawn from the national

treasury, and directed to local objects.

The allusion of the gentlemen to light-houses raised on the Connecticut

shore does not apply. There was but one light-house in Connecticut,

ordered to be built by this House, for which the _enormous_ sum of

twenty-five hundred dollars had been appropriated. Yet this solitary

measure had been rejected by the Senate. This is the great boon given to

Connecticut!

For these reasons Mr. G. hoped the article would be stricken out, and

that, if it was necessary to make terms with the new State, they might

receive five per cent. on the receipts of the land, to be paid into

their own treasury, disposable by themselves as they saw fit.

Messrs. R. WILLIAMS, JACKSON, and HOLLAND, said a few words in favor of

retaining the article; when the question was taken on striking it out,

and lost--yeas 17.

Mr. FEARING, wishing that half the proceeds of the Western lands should

be laid out on roads within the Territory, made a motion to that effect;

lost--yeas 25.

The report of the select committee, without further amendment, was then

agreed to, and a bill ordered in conformity thereto.

WEDNESDAY, April 7.

An engrossed bill for the relief of Thomas K. Jones was read the third

time, and passed.

The Speaker laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of State,

accompanying his report on the memorial of Fulwar Skipwith, referred to

him by order of the House on the nineteenth of January last; which were

read, and ordered to be committed to a Committee of the whole House on

Friday next.

Mr. JOHN C. SMITH, from the Committee of Claims, to whom was

recommitted, on the fifteenth ultimo, their report on the memorial of

Paul Coulon, a French citizen, made a supplementary report thereon;

which was read, and ordered to be referred to a Committee of the whole

House to-day.

On motion it was _Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to examine

and report the state of the office of the Clerk of this House.

_Ordered_, That Mr. CLAY, Mr. HUGER, and Mr. SOUTHARD, be appointed a

committee pursuant to the said resolution.

Mr. MITCHILL, from the committee to whom were referred, on the fifth

instant, the amendments proposed by the Senate to the bill, entitled "An

act for revising and amending the acts concerning naturalization,"

reported that the committee had had the said amendments under

consideration, and directed him to report to the House their agreement

to the same.

_North-western Territory._

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

enable the people of the eastern division of the Territory north-west of

the river Ohio to form a constitution and State Government, and for the

admission of such State into the Union, on an equal footing with the

original States, and for other purposes.

Mr. FEARING moved to amend the bill so as to embrace the population of

the eastern division as bounded by the articles of the ordinance, the

effect of which motion would be to include about thirty thousand

inhabitants of that division, that are excluded by the provisions of the

bill, and respecting whom it is provided in the bill, that they may

hereafter be added by Congress to the new State, or disposed of

otherwise, as provided by the fifth article of the compact.

This motion gave rise to a debate of considerable length, in which

Messrs. FEARING, BAYARD, GRISWOLD, GODDARD, HENDERSON, and RANDOLPH,

supported; and Messrs. GILES, BACON, and R. WILLIAMS, opposed the

amendment.

Those who supported the amendment contended that the exclusion of that

portion of territory occupied by about three thousand inhabitants was

both unconstitutional and inexpedient. On the ground of

constitutionality, they contended, that under the articles of the

compact, which were to be considered as the constitution of the

territory, Congress had only the right of forming the eastern division

into one, two, or three States; and that under this power, no right

existed to form one part of the division into a State, and leave the

remaining section in a Territorial condition; that the rights of the

whole of the inhabitants of the eastern division were equal, and if one

part was, so also must the remaining part be, admitted to the privilege

of a State.

On the ground of expediency, it was contended that the situation of the

excluded inhabitants would be peculiarly hard; that, if attached to the

Indiana Territory, they would be placed two or three hundred miles from

it; that they would be furthermore degraded from the second to the first

branch of Territorial government, and that they would be deprived, by

the reduction of their numbers, from the prospect of being admitted for

a great number of years, to State rights.

On the contrary, the opponents of the amendment contended that the

provisions of the bill were both constitutional and expedient; that

under the compact the right was given to Congress of admitting the

eastern division into the Union, in the form of one, two, or three

States; that this right involved a discretion to admit a part of that

division at one time, and the remaining part at a subsequent period;

that if the whole division were once admitted into the Union, Congress

would be prohibited from dividing hereafter, when it was acknowledged

such division would be expedient, the said division into two or more

States, without the consent of the State now formed.

That, as to considerations of expediency, the hardships likely to be

felt by the excluded inhabitants were such as arose, not from the

provisions of the bill, but from their local situation; and that it was

not true that they would be degraded by annexation to the Indiana

Territory; to a lower grade of Territorial character than they at

present enjoyed--the grade being the same.

Mr. RANDOLPH supported the amendment on peculiar ground, declaring that

if the amendment should not prevail, he would still vote for the

admission. He declared himself in favor of the amendment, principally

from a desire to avoid the introduction of too many small States into

the Union.

The question was then taken on Mr. FEARING'S amendment, and lost--yeas

34, nays 38.

Mr. FEARING moved so to amend the bill as to leave to the new State the

right of naming itself. Agreed to.

After some discussion of the details of the bill, the committee rose and

repeated the bill, with amendments.

_Ordered_, That the said bill, with the amendments, do lie on the table.

THURSDAY, April 8.

Mr. JOHN TALIAFERRO, Jun., from the committee to whom was referred, on

the fifth instant, the petition of sundry citizens of Georgetown, in

the District of Columbia, with instruction to report thereon by bill or

otherwise, presented a bill to incorporate the Directors of the

Columbian Library Company; which was read twice, and committed to a

Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

Mr. DENNIS, from the committee to whom was referred, on the fifth of

February last, a motion, in the form of two resolutions of the House,

"respecting the adjustment of the existing disputes between the

Commissioners of the City of Washington, and other persons who may

conceive themselves injured by the several alterations made in the plan

of the said city; also, relative to a plan of the said City of

Washington, conformably, as nearly as may be, to the original design

thereof, with certain exceptions," made a report thereon; which was

read, and ordered to be referred to a Committee of the whole House on

Monday next.

Mr. JOHN TALIAFERRO, Jun., from the committee appointed, presented a

bill to incorporate the inhabitants of the city of Washington, in the

District of Columbia; which was read twice and committed to a Committee

of the whole House on Monday next.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the

Treasury, enclosing a statement prepared by the Register, of the

application of the appropriations made by Congress for clerk-hire, in

the several offices of the Treasury Department, specifying the names of

the persons, and the salaries allowed to each, for the three last years,

in pursuance of a resolution of this House, of the twenty-fifth ultimo;

which were read, and ordered to lie on the table.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the

Treasury, accompanying two statements, marked A and B, relative to

expenses incurred by the United States in the exercise of jurisdiction

over the territory of Columbia, since the assumption of jurisdiction by

Congress, prepared in pursuance of a resolution of this House of the

first instant; which were read, and ordered to be referred to the

committee appointed, on the eighth of December last, to inquire whether

any, and, if any, what alterations or amendments may be necessary in the

existing government and laws of the District of Columbia.

The House proceeded to consider the report of the select committee to

whom were referred, on the fifth instant, the amendments of the Senate

to the bill, entitled "An act for revising and amending the acts

concerning naturalization," which lay on the table: Whereupon,

_Resolved_, That this House doth agree to the said amendments, with

amendments, to the section proposed to be substituted by the Senate in

lieu of the first and second sections of the original bill.

Mr. NICHOLSON, from the committee appointed on the second instant,

presented a bill to abolish the Board of Commissioners in the city of

Washington, and to make provision for the repayment of loans made by

the State of Maryland for the use of the city; which was read twice and

committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

Mr. NICHOLSON, from the committee appointed, presented a bill to provide

more effectually for the due application of public money, and for the

accountability of persons intrusted therewith; which was read twice and

committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

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

supplementary report of the Committee on Claims, of the seventh instant,

to whom was recommitted, on the fifteenth ultimo, their report on the

memorial of Paul Coulon, a French citizen; and after some time spent

therein, the committee rose and reported a resolution, which was twice

read, and agreed to by the House, as follows:

_Resolved_, That there be paid to Paul Coulon, as agent for the captors

of the ship Betty Cathcart and brig Aaron, prizes to the French

privateer La Bellone, out of any moneys in the Treasury, not otherwise

appropriated, the sum of six thousand two hundred and forty-one dollars

and forty-four cents, being the amount retained by the Treasury

Department, from the sales of the ship Betty Cathcart, and for duties on

the cargo of the brig Aaron.

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

resolution; and that the Committee on Claims do prepare and bring in the

same.

_North-western Territory._

The House proceeded to consider the amendments reported yesterday from

the Committee of the Whole to the bill to enable the people of the

Eastern division of the Territory north-west of the river Ohio to form a

constitution and State Government, and for the admission of such State

into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and for

other purposes, which lay on the table; and the same being severally

twice read, were, on the question put thereupon, agreed to by the House.

A motion was then made, further to amend the said bill, at the Clerk's

table, by striking out, in the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth

lines of the second section thereof, the following words: "and on the

north, by an east and west line, drawn through the southerly extreme of

Lake Michigan, running east, after intersecting the due north line

aforesaid, from the mouth of the Great Miami, until it shall intersect

Lake Erie or"--and inserting in lieu thereof, the word "to."

It passed in the negative--yeas 27, nays 44, as follows:

YEAS.--James A. Bayard, Thomas Boude, Manasseh Cutler, John

Davenport, Thomas T. Davis, John Dennis, Ebenezer Elmer,

Abiel Foster, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, William

Helms, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, William H.

Hill, Benjamin Huger, Thomas Lowndes, Lewis R. Morris,

James Mott, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Cotton Smith,

John Stanley, John Stratton, Samuel Tenney, Thomas

Tillinghast, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

NAYS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus

Bailey, Phanuel Bishop, Richard Brent, Robert Brown,

William Butler, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew

Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard Cutts, John

Dawson, William Dickson, Lucas Elmendorph, William Eustis,

John Fowler, William B. Giles, John A. Hanna, Daniel

Heister, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George

Jackson, Charles Johnson, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore,

Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, John

Smilie, Israel Smith, John Smith, (of Virginia,) Samuel

Smith, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jr., John

Taliaferro, jr., Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John

Trigg, Isaac Van Horne, and Robert Williams.

Mr. JOHN C. SMITH moved further to amend the bill, by striking out the

third section thereof, in the words following, to wit:

_And be it further enacted_, That all male citizens of the

United States, who shall have arrived at full age, and

resided within the said Territory at least one year

previous to the day of election, and shall have paid a

territorial or county tax, and all persons having, in other

respects, the legal qualifications to vote for

Representatives in the General Assembly of the Territory,

be, and they are hereby, authorized to choose

Representatives to form a Convention, who shall be

apportioned amongst the several counties within the Eastern

division aforesaid, in a ratio of one Representative to

every ---- inhabitants of each county, according to the

enumeration taken under the authority of the United States,

as near as may be, that is to say: from the county of

Trumbull, ---- Representatives; from the county of

Jefferson, ---- Representatives, ---- of the ---- to be

elected within what is now known by the county of Belmont,

taken from Jefferson and Washington Counties; from the

county of Washington, ---- Representatives; from the county

of Ross, ---- Representatives, ---- of the ---- to be

elected in what is now known by Fairfield County, taken

from Ross and Washington Counties; from the county of

Adams, ---- Representatives; from the county of Hamilton,

---- Representatives, ---- of the ---- to be elected in

what is now known by Clermont County, taken entirely from

Hamilton County: and the elections for the Representatives

aforesaid, shall take place on the second Tuesday of

October next, the time fixed by a law of the Territory,

entitled "An act to ascertain the number of free male

inhabitants of the age of twenty-one, in the Territory of

the United States north-west of the river Ohio, and to

regulate the elections of Representatives for the same,"

for electing Representatives to the General Assembly, and

shall be held and conducted in the same manner as is

provided by the aforesaid act, except that the

qualifications of electors shall be as herein specified.

The motion to strike out was supported by Messrs. JOHN C. SMITH,

GODDARD, FEARING, and HENDERSON, and opposed by Messrs. GILES, MITCHILL,

R. WILLIAMS, ELMER, and HOLLAND, on the ground that the right of the

United States to admit necessarily involved the power of prescribing a

convention.

The yeas and nays were taken, and it passed in the negative--yeas 26,

nays 48, as follows:

YEAS.--Thomas Boude, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John

Davenport, Abiel Foster, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold,

Seth Hastings, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson,

Benjamin Huger, Thomas Lowndes, Thomas Morris, Thomas

Plater, Nathan Read, William Shepard, John Cotton Smith,

John Stratton, Samuel Tenney, Thomas Tillinghast, George B.

Upham, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel

Williams, and Henry Woods.

NAYS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Phanuel

Bishop, Richard Brent, William Butler, Samuel J. Cabell,

Thomas Claiborne, John Clopton, John Condit, Thomas T.

Davis, John Dawson, William Dickson, Lucas Elmendorph,

Ebenezer Elmer, John Fowler, William B. Giles, Edwin Gray,

John A. Hanna, Daniel Heister, William Helms, William Hoge,

James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Charles

Johnson, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, James Mott,

Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, John

Smilie, Israel Smith, John Smith, (of Virginia,) Josiah

Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford,

Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stewart, John Taliaferro, jr.,

David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg,

Isaac Van Horne, and Robert Williams.

Mr. FEARING said he was of opinion that some provision ought to be made

for the inhabitants excluded from the new State, and the continuance of

suits from the old to the new Government; for these purposes he moved

the recommitment of the bill. Lost.

Mr. DANA proposed so to amend the fourth section, as that a majority of

the whole number of delegates elected in the Convention, instead of a

majority of those present, should first determine whether it be or be

not expedient to form a constitution, &c.

The yeas and nays were called, and the motion carried--yeas 38, nays 33,

as follows:

YEAS.--Thomas Boude, William Brent, John Condit, Manasseh

Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Thomas T. Davis,

Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Abiel

Foster, John Fowler, Calvin Goddard, Edwin Gray, Roger

Griswold, John A. Hanna, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald

Henderson, William Hoge, Benjamin Huger, Lewis R. Morris,

Thomas Morris, James Mott, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read,

William Shepard, John Cotton Smith, Henry Southard, Richard

Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stewart, John Stratton,

Samuel Tenney, Thomas Tillinghast, John Trigg, George B.

Upham, Peleg Wadsworth, and Lemuel Williams.

NAYS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Robert

Brown, William Butler, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne,

Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Richard Cutts, John Dawson,

William Dickson, William B. Giles, William Helms, James

Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Charles Johnson,

Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, Anthony New, Thomas

Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, John Smilie, Israel

Smith, John Smith, (of Virginia,) Samuel Smith, John

Taliaferro, jr., David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram

Trigg, Isaac Van Horne, and Robert Williams.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading

to-morrow.

FRIDAY, April 9.

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

a bill, entitled "An act to amend the Judicial System of the United

States;" to which they desire the concurrence of this House.

[The chief alterations made from the old system consist in the holding

the Supreme Court only once a year by four justices, and the

establishment of six circuits, within each district of which circuit

courts are to be holden twice a year, composed of one justice of the

Supreme Court and the judge of the district, in which said court is

held.]

The bill was read twice, and referred to a select committee.

_Ohio State Government._

An engrossed bill to enable the people of the Eastern division of the

Territory north-west of the river Ohio to form a constitution and State

Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an

equal footing with the original States, and for other purposes, was read

the third time, and the blanks therein filled up: And, on the question

that the same do pass, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 47, nays

29, as follows:

YEAS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus

Bailey, Phanuel Bishop, Richard Brent, Robert Brown,

William Butler, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew

Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Thomas T. Davis, John

Dawson, William Dickson, Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer,

William Eustis, John Fowler, William B. Giles, William

Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Samuel

L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, James Mott, Anthony New, Thomas

Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, John Smilie, Israel

Smith, John Smith, (of New York,) Josiah Smith, Samuel

Smith, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stewart,

John Taliaferro, jr., David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson,

Abram Trigg, John Trigg, John P. Van Ness, Isaac Van Horne,

and Robert Williams.

NAYS.--Thomas Boude, John Campbell, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel

W. Dana, John Davenport, John Dennis, Abiel Foster, Calvin

Goddard, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Seth

Hastings, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, Benjamin

Huger, Thomas Lowndes, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Morris,

Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, William Shepard, John Cotton

Smith, John Stanley, John Stratton, Samuel Tenney, Thomas

Tillinghast, George B. Upham, Killian K. Van Rensselaer,

Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

MONDAY, April 12.

An engrossed bill for the relief of Theodosius Fowler, was read the

third time, and passed.

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the bill for the relief of

Paul Coulon, which was reported without amendment, and ordered to be

engrossed and read the third time to-day.

Mr. S. SMITH, from the committee appointed, presented a bill for the

relief of Lewis Tousard; which was read twice and committed to the

Committee of the Whole for to-morrow.

Mr. CLAY, from the committee appointed on the seventh instant, to

examine and report on the state of the office of the Clerk of this

House, made a report: which was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

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

provide for the establishment of certain districts, and therein to amend

an act, entitled "An act to regulate the collection of duties on imports

and tonnage," and for other purposes; and, after some time spent

therein, the committee rose and reported several amendments thereto;

which were severally twice read, and agreed to by the House.

_Ordered_, That the said bill, with the amendments, be engrossed, and

read the third time to-morrow.

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

the Secretary of State, of the seventh instant, to whom was referred, on

the nineteenth of January last, the memorial of Fulwar Skipwith; and

after some time spent therein, the committee rose and reported two

resolutions thereupon; which were severally twice read and agreed to by

the House, as follows:

_Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law, for the

payment of four thousand five hundred and fifty dollars,

unto Fulwar Skipwith, (which sum was advanced by him to the

United States,) with an interest of ---- per centum, from

the first of November, one thousand seven hundred and

ninety-five.

_Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law, for

compensating the said Fulwar Skipwith, for his services

from the first of November, one thousand seven hundred and

ninety-six, to the first of May, one thousand seven hundred

and ninety-nine, at the rate of ---- dollars, per annum.

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

resolutions; and that Mr. DAWSON, Mr. VAN CORTLANDT, and Mr. STANTON, do

prepare and bring in the same.

The House then went into Committee of the Whole on the report of the

committee of the twenty-second of January, on the petition of Sarah

Fletcher and Jane Ingraham, referred to them on the tenth of December

last, and, after some time spent therein, the committee rose and

reported several resolutions thereupon; which were severally twice read,

and agreed to by the House, as follows:

_Resolved_, That it is expedient to grant to the widows and

children, as the case may be, of the officers, seamen, and

marines, who were lost at sea, on board the ship Insurgent

and brigantine Pickering, lately in the service of the

United States, four months' pay of their respective

husbands or fathers.

_Resolved_, That it is expedient to provide by law for the

payment of five years' half pay to the widows and children,

as the case may be, of such officers in the naval service

of the United States as shall be slain in battle, or die,

when in the actual line of their duty.

_Resolved_, That the widows and children of those officers

who were lost at sea in the ship Insurgent and brigantine

Pickering, shall be entitled to this provision.

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

resolutions; and that Mr. EUSTIS, Mr. GODDARD, and Mr. STANTON, do

prepare and bring in the same.

An engrossed bill for the relief of Paul Coulon was read the third time

and passed.

Mr. S. SMITH, from the committee appointed the ninth instant, on the

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

the Senate, "to consider and report what business is necessary to be

done by Congress in their present session, and when it may be expedient

to close the same," made a report thereon; which was read, and ordered

to lie on the table.

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the bill for the relief of

sick and disabled seamen.

Mr. EUSTIS moved to strike out the first section which forms the moneys

devoted to the above object into a general fund, to be applied according

to the discretion of the President, instead of suffering it to remain,

as heretofore, applied to the particular ports, (or those in the

vicinity,) from which the moneys are derived.

This motion was supported by Messrs. EUSTIS, MITCHILL, and DANA, and

opposed by Messrs. S. SMITH, MILLEDGE, DAVIS, MACON, and HUGER.

The question was then taken on striking out the first section, and lost;

when the committee rose, and reported the bill with amendments.

MONDAY, April 19.

_Navy Pensions._

An engrossed bill for the relief of widows and orphans of certain

persons who have died, or may hereafter die, in the naval service of the

United States, was read the third time; and, on the question that the

same do pass, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 34, nays 29.

_Compensation of Collectors._

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the bill to amend the act

fixing the compensation of officers employed in the collection of duties

on imposts and tonnage.

This bill allows certain compensations to collectors of ports, provided

the clear annual receipt does not exceed $5,000. A motion was made to

strike out $5,000, for the purpose of introducing $4,000.

It was contended that this latter sum was sufficient compensation to any

collector; that it greatly exceeded most of the compensations allowed to

the Federal officers; and that as money was appreciating, it became

necessary to reduce the salaries of officers generally.

In reply it was observed that very few collectors would receive so large

a sum as $5,000--none other than those of New York, Philadelphia,

Baltimore, and perhaps Charleston; that the responsibility attached to

these officers was greater than that attached to any other, as in some

instances two million of dollars passed through their hands; that the

temptation to violate duty was proportionably great; and that, from

these considerations, it became the Government to afford them a liberal

compensation; and that the sum was considerably below that heretofore

allowed.

The question was taken on striking out $5,000, and lost--yeas 26.

Mr. STANLEY moved to strike out that part of the bill which deducted

from the compensations made to the collectors of Newbern and Edenton,

the sum of $250, heretofore allowed beyond their fees.

For this motion he assigned several reasons: among which were the

inadequacy of the compensations, viz: about $1,600 to the duties

performed, which were, notwithstanding the small amount of duties, very

burdensome, owing to the smallness of the cargoes imported, and theirs

being greatly inferior to the compensations allowed to the collectors of

Wilmington and Petersburg.

Mr. S. SMITH informed the committee that the principle on which the

several compensations had been graduated was, that when the gross

emoluments exceed $2,000, the salary heretofore allowed by law, in

addition to the emoluments, should be withdrawn. This was the fact in

relation to the ports of Newbern and Edenton; and as the duties in each

of these ports did not exceed $45,000, the compensation seemed adequate;

he was, however, far from being tenacious, and would have little

objection to a vote of the House which should increase it. Motion

lost--yeas 25.

The committee rose, and reported the bill without amendment.

Mr. SOUTHARD renewed the motion to strike out $5,000, for the purpose of

inserting $4,000, (the same motion made in committee,) and assigned

substantially the same reasons above stated.

Messrs. STANLEY, BACON, and SMILIE, delivered a few observations for,

and Mr. HUGER against the motion, which was taken by yeas and nays, on

the call of Mr. SOUTHARD, and lost--yeas 31, nays 40.

THURSDAY, April 22.

_French Spoliations._

Mr. GILES, from the committee appointed on the fifth of February last,

to whom were referred the memorials and petitions of sundry citizens of

the United States, and resident merchants therein, praying relief in the

case of depredations committed on their vessels and cargoes, while in

pursuit of lawful commerce, by the cruisers of the French Republic,

during the late European war, made a report thereon; which was read, and

ordered to lie on the table.

FRIDAY, April 23.

_Judiciary System._

The question was then put on the passage of the bill.

Mr. BAYARD called for the yeas and nays, which were taken, and

stood--yeas 46, nays 30, as follows:

YEAS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus

Bailey, Phanuel Bishop, Walter Bowie, Richard Brent, Robert

Brown, William Butler, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John

Clopton, John Condit, Richard Cutts, John Dawson, William

Dickson, Lucas Elmendorph, John Fowler, William B. Giles,

Edwin Gray, John A. Hanna, Daniel Heister, William Helms,

James Holland, David Holmes, Michael Leib, John Milledge,

Anthony New, Joseph H. Nicholson, John Smilie, Israel

Smith, John Smith, (of New York,) John Smith, (of

Virginia,) Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford,

Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stewart, John Taliaferro, jr.,

Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van

Cortlandt, John P. Van Ness, Isaac Van Horne, and Robert

Williams.

NAYS.--James A. Bayard, Thomas Boude, John Campbell,

Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Thomas T.

Davis, John Dennis, Ebenezer Elmer, Abiel Foster, Calvin

Goddard, Roger Griswold, Seth Hastings, Archibald

Henderson, Thomas Lowndes, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Morris,

James Mott, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Stanley, John

Stratton, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Thomas

Tillinghast, George P. Upham, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel

Williams, and Henry Woods.

TUESDAY, April 27.

_Naval Sites._