TH. JEFFERSON.

_Dec. 22, 1802._

The Message, and the papers referred to therein, were read, and ordered

to lie on the table.

_The Mint._

Mr. RANDOLPH rose, in order to renew a motion which he had made

yesterday, and on which--being called to the door when some objections

were urged against it--he was surprised to find himself in a small

minority. Understanding that the refusal to resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole on his motion for abolishing the Mint, was the

effect of a desire on the part of the House to receive the report of the

Director of that institution, for the past year, he would endeavor to

show that the House were already in possession of competent information,

and that it could not be affected by any communication which the head of

that department might make. If this were a subject novel to the House,

and of an undigested nature, he should readily acknowledge his motion to

have been premature; nor would it, under those circumstances, have been

submitted to the House. But, on examination, it would appear that the

subject had been matured during the last session; that information of

the most satisfactory nature had been received from the Director; and a

bill actually passed the House. That information, if it were not in the

recollection of every member of the House, was accessible to all of

them. It stated explicitly that the machinery would not last, without

repair, longer than another year--this, he presumed, had not renewed

itself; that the horses were so old that it would be necessary, at the

end of the year, to replace them by others--these had not, he supposed,

grown younger; that the lot was too circumscribed, and this, he

imagined, had not enlarged its limits; that the expense of the

institution could not, by any new arrangements, be reduced below twenty

thousand dollars. The Director had not only recommended a change of the

site, but of the _modus operandi_ of the machinery of the Mint, by

supplying the labor of horses by steam. Upon this information the House

had acted last session. No general election having intervened, he must

presume that no change of sentiment had taken place. He, therefore,

thought he had a right to consider this subject as perfectly matured,

and there being no other business before the House, hoped it would be

taken up; although he was not surprised at the reluctance of those

gentlemen who cherished the institution as one of the insignia of

sovereignty, to act upon it. This aspect of the subject could not,

however, be changed by any report of the detailed operations of the

Mint. He, therefore, moved that the House, agreeably to the order of the

day, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the resolution to

repeal so much of the laws on the subject of the Mint as relate to the

establishing of a Mint.

Mr. SOUTHARD was in favor of the postponement. There were now present a

number of gentlemen not members at the period of discussion during the

last session. They have no documents, and cannot be correctly informed.

He saw no advantage in entering upon the discussion at this time, as

new and additional information may be received from the report of the

Director. It had been said there was no business before the House; but

there was business; there was a bill upon their table, why not take that

up and act upon it?

Mr. RANDOLPH called for the reading of a document that would throw clear

and full light upon the subject; not light of that fleeting kind that

may be derived from an annual report. From this document sufficient

information could be had to convince any member that we might act as

well now as at any other time.

[The Clerk read a report from the Director of the Mint, received during

the last session, stating the real and personal property attached to the

Mint; that the machinery might last for one year; that the horses may

last a year; that to conduct the operations of the Mint to advantage,

steam should be used instead of horses; that the lot on which the Mint

is erected was too small; and that a less annual sum than seventeen or

eighteen thousand dollars would not provide for the establishment.]

Mr. RANDOLPH said he would state a fact, which was, that notwithstanding

all the issues from the Mint, no member sees a coin. For himself he had

not seen a piece of gold coined in the Mint for two years.

Mr. LOWNDES said the remark of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.

RANDOLPH) was not correct, as he had seen many pieces of American coin.

But he could assign a satisfactory reason for the appearance of so

little gold in ordinary circulation. It was the practice of the banks to

count over once a month the specie in their vaults. This trouble was

considerably lessened by depositing gold instead of silver. He had been

credibly assured that there was now in the vaults of the banks of the

United States gold, in eagles and half eagles, to the amount of two

millions of dollars.[72]

Mr. DENNIS said that, if, on full inquiry, the establishment appeared to

be a drain on the Treasury, he should be for abolishing it; but he

should not, on immature information, be for abolishing an institution,

coeval with the Government, and founded on good reasons. The reasons

adduced by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) were insufficient.

So far as related to the horses, he believed there were only four

employed, and the purchase of four fresh ones would be a very

unimportant consideration. Another argument was drawn from the smallness

of the lot on which the Mint stands. Though it might be better conducted

on a more extensive lot, yet he was not satisfied, notwithstanding

present disadvantages, that it might not be profitably conducted, at

least so far as regarded a copper coinage. For these reasons he thought

it proper to wait a few days, in order to receive information that would

enable them to understand the points on which their decision may

ultimately turn.

The question was then taken on Mr. GREGG'S motion to postpone the

subject till the second Monday in January, and carried--ayes 47, noes

28.

THURSDAY, December 23.

Another member, to wit, LEWIS R. MORRIS, from Vermont, appeared, and

took his seat in the House.

FRIDAY, December 24.

Another member, to wit, WILLIAM H. HILL, from North Carolina, appeared,

and took his seat in the House.

MONDAY, December 27.

_Case of J. P. Van Ness._

Mr. DAVIS observed that he was of opinion that a member of the House

retained his seat contrary to the spirit and sense of the constitution.

It therefore became his duty to offer a resolution for instituting an

inquiry into the subject, in doing which he disclaimed all personal

view. He then made the following motion:

_Resolved_, That the Committee of Elections be, and they

are hereby, instructed to inquire whether John P. Van Ness,

one of the members of this House from the State of New

York, returned by said State to serve as one of its members

in the seventh Congress of the United States, has not,

since his election as a member of this House, and since he

occupied a seat as a member, accepted of, and exercised the

office of a major of militia, under the authority of the

United States, within the Territory of Columbia, and

thereby forfeited his right to a seat as a member of this

House.

Mr. MITCHILL considered the point as interesting in two relations; that

which involved the decision of a principle, and that which went to

deprive the State, (New York,) one of whose representatives he was, of a

member. For these reasons he hoped the business would not be immediately

pressed. He acknowledged this was not the first intimation he had

received of the contemplation of such a motion; but he had entertained a

hope that the gentleman with whom it originated, had, on reflection,

considered it not inconsistent with his duty to abandon it.

Mr. DAVIS replied, that he felt no disposition to press a decision. He

had communicated, the first day he took his seat, his ideas on the

subject to certain members, the friends of the gentleman implicated by

the resolution, in hopes that he would resign. He now entertained no

wish to push the business. He supposed, however, that the resolution

would, of course, go to the Committee of Elections. He repeated that he

was governed by no personal prejudice, but entirely by a sense of duty.

He concluded with saying he was in favor of the question of reference

being immediately taken.

But on Mr. MITCHILL repeating his desire for some delay, Mr. DAVIS

agreed to let the resolution lie till to-morrow.

TUESDAY, December 28.

Two other members, to wit: from Virginia, JOHN STRATTON; and from North

Carolina, WILLIAM BARRY GROVE, appeared, and took their seats in the

House.

_Letter of James McHenry._

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter addressed to him from James

McHenry, late Secretary for the War Department, containing a variety of

observations on the subject-matter of a report presented to the House,

on the twenty-ninth day of April last, from the committee appointed to

inquire and report, whether moneys drawn from the Treasury have been

faithfully applied to the objects for which they were appropriated, and

whether the same have been regularly accounted for; and to report,

likewise, whether any further arrangements are necessary to promote

economy, enforce adherence to Legislative restrictions, and secure the

accountability of persons intrusted with the public money, together with

an appendix, comprising sundry explanatory statements in defence of the

official conduct of the said James McHenry, whilst acting in the

capacity aforesaid: the House proceeded in the reading of the said

letter, and having made some progress therein,

Mr. ALSTON said that the paper which the Clerk was reading appeared to

him to be a very voluminous one, and that he did not think the House

were bound to listen to the reading of it. He conceived them only bound

to attend to such documents as might be received from public officers,

or to petitions for a redress of grievances. He did not believe the

paper now before the House to be one of that description, or that the

House ought to take any notice of it. If the House were bound to take

notice of every letter any individual might think proper to write and

address to the Speaker, very little time might be left to do any other

business. He concluded by saying he thought they ought to take no more

notice of it than they should of any paragraph in a newspaper which

might be enclosed to the Speaker. He therefore moved that the paper

should not be read.

Mr. STANLEY observed that he did not perceive the difference stated by

his colleague; nor did he know how the gentleman could anticipate the

contents of a communication before read. We shall be enabled to judge

better of it when we hear it. By what inspiration could the gentleman

form a judgment now? The communication appeared to him of the utmost

importance. He hoped, therefore, it would be read.

Mr. MORRIS could not omit making a remark or two. From the

communication, so far as read, it appeared that it was charged that the

character of a former public officer had been aspersed. The House ought,

therefore, not only to read the communication, but also to inquire into

the complaint. There was not an indecent expression in it. The writer

complains that his character has been attacked; he thinks unjustly

attacked. It will be the height of injustice to refuse him an

opportunity of being heard.

The SPEAKER said that it was a rule of the House that when the reading

of a paper is called for, it shall be read, unless dispensed with by

general consent.

Mr. RANDOLPH said he wished only to observe, that there was but one

principle (and that had been stated by the Speaker) on which these

papers ought to be read. Any member had a right to call for the reading

of papers. To him, however, it appeared that there was no occasion for

inspiration to perceive that the papers, so far as read, were in a high

degree indecent, unworthy of any man who had held, or ought to hold, an

office under Government, and derogatory from the dignity of the House.

Members were cited by name; insults were offered to individual members;

a committee was divided into different sects; on one class illiberal

calumnies were thrown, while the other class was shielded from

reflection. Was this decent or indecent? He congratulated himself that

he differed as widely on this subject as he did on others from

gentlemen.

Mr. MORRIS said, however widely he might differ on this as well as other

subjects from the gentleman from Virginia, he believed his own ideas of

what was decent or indecent as correct as those of that gentleman. The

letter states that a report had been made during the last session

implicating the character of the writer. It further states that certain

gentlemen on the committee did not concur in the report. This the writer

knew from the debates upon the report. He therefore thought it his duty,

in vindicating himself, to exonerate those members from censure. Was

this indecent? He conceived not.

Mr. M. said that when he had observed that there was not an indecent

expression in the letter, he meant that there was no such expression

applied to the House collectively. He did not mean to say there were no

charges against individual members. But if there were charges against

individual members, that was no reason for the House refusing to hear

it. That could only be done when charges were made against the House in

its collective character.

The SPEAKER read the rules of the House that applied to the case before

them.

Mr. ALSTON said he only rose to notice the observation of his colleague,

(Mr. STANLEY,) who supposed he saw the inside of the communication

before it was presented. This he denied. He had grounded his motion

exclusively on what he had heard read.

Mr. BACON was at a loss to decide on the propriety of reading or not

reading these papers. He perceived that they contained not only a

complaint, but a high charge against a committee of the House, stating

that the major part assumed to act exclusively upon the business

assigned to the whole committee, without consulting the other members.

This was a high charge. Whether proper, or regularly made, he did not

know. It was rather his opinion that the House ought to proceed in

reading the papers, and afterwards to pass proper order on them.

The SPEAKER declared the rule for reading imperative, and Mr. ALSTON

withdrew his motion; on which the Clerk proceeded in the reading, which

was continued for more than an hour.

WEDNESDAY, December 29.

_Case of John P. Van Ness._

Mr. DAVIS called up his resolution instructing the Committee of

Elections to inquire whether Mr. VAN NESS had not forfeited his seat, by

accepting the appointment of Major in the Militia of the Territory of

Columbia.

Mr. VAN NESS said that, so far as the decision of the House might affect

him personally, he felt little concern; but, so far as it affected him

as a representative of an important State, he was not so indifferent. He

had no objection whatever to the proposed inquiry being made. As it

involved the decision of an important principle, it deserved great

attention. He had no doubt of the inquiry being made with that candor

and fairness which, in most cases, characterized the proceedings of the

House. He was far from imputing any impure motives to the mover or

seconder of the resolution. It would be as derogatory to him to impute,

as in them to entertain, any views dishonorable or base. He had risen

barely to state his wish that an inquiry might be made.

Mr. ELMENDORPH proposed a verbal amendment, which was not agreed to.

The resolution was then adopted without a division.

WEDNESDAY, January 5, 1803.

_Cession of Louisiana to France._

Mr. GRISWOLD called up his resolution respecting Louisiana, laid on the

table yesterday, as follows:

_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be

requested to direct the proper officer to lay before this

House copies of such official documents as have been

received by this Government, announcing the cession of

Louisiana to France, together with a report explaining the

stipulations, circumstances, and conditions, under which

that province is to be delivered up: unless such documents

and report will, in the opinion of the President, divulge

to the House particular transactions not proper at this

time to be communicated.

The question was put on taking it into consideration, and carried--yeas

35, nays 32.

Mr. RANDOLPH observed that the discussion on this motion might embrace

points nearly connected with the subject referred to a committee of the

Whole on the state of the Union, and which had been discussed with

closed doors. He therefore thought it would be expedient to commit this

motion also to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, to

whom had been committed the Message of the President respecting New

Orleans.

Mr. GRISWOLD hoped the motion would not prevail. He did not see what

argument could be urged in favor of it. The resolution related to a

public transaction stated on their journal. He did not think that any

thing which ought to be kept secret could be involved in the discussion

of it. What is its purport? It only requests the President to furnish

documents respecting "the cession of the Spanish province of Louisiana

to France, which took place in the course of the late war," and which

the President says "will, if carried into effect, make a change in the

aspect of our foreign relations, which will doubtless have just weight

in any deliberations of the Legislature connected with this subject."

Are not, said Mr. G., these papers important to the House? Does not the

President refer to them as important to enlighten us? He speaks of the

cession as a fact. He took it for granted the President would not make

the declaration unless he had official information of its truth. Ought

not the House to be possessed of all the important information in the

power of the Executive to give? It certainly ought. Every gentleman

would agree that the House ought to have all the information. If the

information is confidential, it will be received with closed doors. But

the question, whether the House shall obtain this information is a

public question; and there was not a man within those walls, or in the

United States, who would not say that the Legislature ought to possess

every information on a subject so deeply interesting. Why, then, refer

this resolution calling for information to a committee? Why postpone it?

They had but a short time to sit. More than half the session was already

elapsed. Is it not time to gain information? Mr. G. said, he would

venture to declare that no subject so important could be brought before

the Legislature this session. Ought we not, therefore, on such a

subject, to take immediate means to gain information? He hoped the House

would not agree to the reference, which could have no effect but to put

the resolution asleep, and deprive the Legislature of information they

ought to possess.

Mr. RANDOLPH said, as he had expressed his disinclination to discuss a

proposition with open doors which would trench on the decision of the

House to discuss a subject to which it intimately related with closed

doors, it could scarcely be expected that he should indulge the

gentleman in entering into arguments calculated to carry him from his

purpose. But he denied that the adoption of his motion would be a

refusal to give information. He well knew that there was nothing easier

than to declare the subject vastly important, and to make an eloquent

harangue upon it, and to infer that those who did not immediately agree

to the resolution were averse to giving information, and to going into a

discussion of the merits of the main subject. It would, however, not be

expected that he should enter upon these on a preliminary resolution.

But he would assure the gentleman who had submitted this resolution,

that, so far from indulging any disposition to be dilatory in his

attention to this important subject, he came yesterday prepared to make

a motion that the House should go into a Committee of the Whole on the

subject, which motion he should have then made but for that offered by

the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. RUTLEDGE said that, did he consider that the giving publicity to any

information on this subject would in the least interfere with the

constitutional functions of the President, he would be the last man to

support the resolution of his friend from Connecticut. But he could not

conceive that this could be its effect. What were they about to ask?

They were about to ask, in respectful terms, the President for

information relative to what he states as a fact; so much information as

he may think it expedient to give. Surely there would be no impropriety

in this. The cession of Louisiana had been stated in all the public

prints of Europe and this country, and on the floor of the British

Parliament. This cession had been made a year ago, and, notwithstanding

the elapse of this time, we have received no official information on

this subject. Is it not natural for the people to ask why Congress do

not call for this information? Will they not say the President has done

his duty in stating the fact? Upon this subject, so very important, are

they to be kept in the dark? Mr. R. could not conceive any turn of the

debate on this resolution that could produce a discussion of the merits

of the Message referred to the Committee of the Whole. If the President

shall say the information he gives us ought not to be made public, he

would answer for himself, and he believed he could answer for his

friends, that they would not seek a public discussion. And if the

information is imparted without confidence, the House, if it see fit,

can itself control a public discussion. Mr. R. concluded with saying

that, in the present case, he was for deciding on the resolution with

open doors.

Mr. S. SMITH thought this point ought in a great measure to be

determined by the custom of the House in similar cases. He did not

assert it as a fact, but, from recollection, he believed it was so, that

when a call was made for papers in the case of the British Treaty, the

question was referred to a Committee of the Whole, and there fully

discussed. According to his recollection, one side of the House called

for papers on the principle that, after negotiations were terminated,

the House had a right to information before they made a grant of money

under a treaty, but acknowledging that a call for such information

might be improper during a pending negotiation. He was one of those who

thought it proper, on that occasion, that the House should have the

papers; but he also thought it improper, and had then so declared, to

call for papers during a pending negotiation. Whether in the present

instance a negotiation was pending or was not, he did not know. He was,

therefore, for postponing the resolution till this was known to the

House.

Mr. DANA said that he did not know, nor had he heard from any quarter,

that there was any negotiation depending respecting the cession of

Louisiana. The President has informed us of the fact. All that the

resolution asks are official documents respecting the cession, with the

stipulations, circumstances, and conditions, under which it is to be

delivered up. He could not see the impropriety of such a request. But if

the President deem it improper to furnish the information, we do not

assert our right to demand it. There are two views in which this

information may be important; that which may throw light on the

boundaries of the province as ceded; and another, whether the province

is to be ceded to the French in the condition it shall be in when

actually delivered up, or whether subject to the conditions in which it

was held according to treaty by Spain. This is important information to

guide our deliberations; information not depending upon an existing

negotiation, but upon a negotiation decided.

Mr. GRISWOLD called for the taking of the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMILIE was in favor of the widest publicity in every case where it

would not prove injurious; and there were, in his opinion, very few

cases in which it ought not to take place. He could not, however,

withhold one remark; that gentlemen should object to the mode now

proposed, a mode similar to that adopted in like cases, greatly

surprised him. [He here quoted the proceedings of the House on a call

for papers in the case of the British Treaty.] That case furnished a

precedent, by which it appeared that a motion for information was

referred to a Committee of the Whole for a more full discussion.

Mr. DAVIS observed that, as he lived in that district of country most

materially affected by the subject before the House, he thought it

proper to express his opinion on the motion. He said he did not know

what reason could be assigned for the motion, but that expressed by the

gentleman from Virginia, to go into a Committee of the Whole in private,

to propose certain resolutions that required secrecy.

Mr. D. said it had been his purpose yesterday to have submitted certain

resolutions, which he should have done, but for the motion of the

gentleman from Connecticut calling for information; after it was made he

was willing to wait until all information was obtained that could be

furnished. Suppose we go into a Committee of the Whole, what light can

we expect from their deliberation? We can gain nothing. But let the

call for information prevail; let us draw from the President such

information as he may think it proper to give; and let us then refer

that information to a Committee of the Whole, and they will be able to

deliberate wisely. What use can it be to take a step from which no

benefit can be derived? As to the call on the President, he will not

give us any thing that is improper. How does the gentleman from Virginia

know what light this information may throw on the subject? Is he

prepared to say it will throw no light on this subject? If he is, Mr. D.

said he himself was not. He might have ways of acquiring the secrets of

the Cabinet; but for himself he had no such opportunities. Mr. D.

concluded by declaring himself against the motion.

Mr. RANDOLPH was compelled again reluctantly to trespass on the

indulgence of the House, to assure them, and the gentleman from

Kentucky, that his motion did not comprehend a refusal to agree to the

call for information made by the gentleman from Connecticut. After going

into committee, they might, perhaps, either by a unanimous vote, or by

that of a majority, agree to the resolution. Benefit might arise, and no

mischief possibly could, from going into a Committee of the Whole.

Mr. HUGER must acknowledge that he could not understand the object of

those who were for refusing this information. If they had any objection

to asking the information, let them inform us what it is. And if they

have no objection, why go into a Committee of the Whole; which, if gone

into, must be with closed doors? The question alluded to in the British

Treaty was very different from this. In that case, one part of the House

thought they had a right to demand the information of the Executive, and

that he was bound to deliver it; while the other part of the House

neither acknowledged the right to demand, nor the obligation to obey.

The present case was entirely different. We ask nothing but what the

Executive shall think proper to furnish, we are as cautious as we can

possibly be; we even go so far as to put words in the President's mouth,

if he shall think there is any impropriety in giving the information.

Gentlemen certainly have confidence in the Executive, that he will tell

us if the information is improper to be furnished.

Mr. H. could not but express his surprise that the House had received no

official documents on this important subject. He could not comprehend

why Congress should not know the contents of the convention. If proper,

we ought to have these documents; and if not proper, we ought to have a

reason for it. The country was in a state of serious alarm; and it might

have a bad effect if something was not immediately done, and a

disposition exhibited to act, in case it should prove necessary.

Mr. SMILIE said the gentleman, from South Carolina (Mr. HUGER) was

incorrect, when he stated that, in the case of the British Treaty one

set of gentlemen had contended for the right of the House to demand

papers. If this had been so, the resolution then proposed would have

been peremptory; whereas the fact was that it was qualified by an

exception of such papers as the President might consider it improper to

furnish. [Mr. SMILIE here quoted the journals, which confirmed his

remark.]

Mr. GREGG said it would be allowed that this was an important

resolution, which related to an important subject. This was, he

believed, the first instance in which a resolution allowed to be

important, had been refused a reference to a Committee of the Whole. On

this principle his vote would be decided. If the motion did not prevail

he should then move that the resolution should be printed before it was

acted upon.

Mr. GRISWOLD would not object to the reference if the object were to

obtain a more full discussion of the resolution. He was generally in

favor of such references, as the discussion was conducted in a Committee

of the Whole on a freer scale than in the House. On this principle it

was, that the call for papers respecting the British Treaty was referred

to a Committee of the Whole. But it had not been referred to a Committee

of the Whole on the state of the Union.

He, however, understood the object of gentlemen to be to refer the

resolution to a Committee of the Whole, for the purpose of discussing it

with closed doors. If that were the object, he should oppose it. For, he

would say, nothing of secrecy could arise out of the discussion of this

resolution. He did not wish that a resolution so important should be

referred to a secret committee. If gentlemen mean to deny us this

information, let them deny it in public. Let them not do it in a secret

committee. Surely they can have no such unworthy motives.

As to the case of 1796, under the British Treaty, the ground of

opposition was this: It was claimed that the House had a right to decide

upon a treaty, and to establish this point papers were called for. And

on the decision of the question, on the granting or refusing the

application, depended the establishment of the right of the House to

participate in the treaty-making power. This right was denied by those

who voted against the call. But in this case there was no difference as

to the power of the House. The President in his Message had expressly

stated that the cession would have weight in the deliberations of the

Legislature. This, then, being a case in which it is proper to

legislate, shall we go to work blindfold, without having all the

information possessed by the Executive, that it is proper we should

possess? What do we know respecting the cession? Though made for more

than one year, we have no information, except that contained in the

Message, which barely mentions the fact. For these reasons Mr. G. hoped

the motion would not prevail, as its avowed object was not for a more

full discussion, but for the purpose of going into a secret committee.

If gentlemen mean to deny us the information we ask, let the denial be

public; and if they grant it, there is no reason against their doing it

publicly.

Mr. RANDOLPH.--The gentleman from Connecticut tells us that this subject

is referred to in the Message of the President, and that on it we are

called by him to legislate. That subject has been referred to a

Committee of the Whole; and yet, he says, it is improper to refer this

resolution to the same committee. This may be logic; but I confess, if

it is, I do not understand it. He says if the object of reference be for

a more ample discussion, he will be in favor of it; but not so, if it be

to send it to a secret committee. Does the gentleman mean to insinuate

that the debates of this body are for the entertainment of the ladies

who honor us with their presence; or that as soon as our doors are shut,

our ears also are shut to all useful and necessary information? If the

doors shall be closed, cannot we still agree to the resolution? However

gentlemen may persist in the course they have taken, I shall not permit

the warmth of their remarks, or that of my own feelings, to betray me

into a debate on points which the House have determined shall be

discussed with closed doors. For my own part, I am ready to declare that

I have arguments to advance, that it is not my wish to advance with open

doors.

Mr. BACON said the resolution simply called for information respecting

the cession of the province of Louisiana to the French. He did not see

the end to be answered by committing it. Is there any doubt that we

shall not stand in need of information when we come to discuss points

connected with this subject? It appeared to him they would. He was

therefore against the reference.

Mr. S. SMITH.--The gentleman from Connecticut has candidly admitted that

it is customary in such cases to make a reference; that he is not in

favor of the reference being made to a committee with shut doors; but if

the object were to obtain a free discussion, he would not object to it.

He is told that a full and free discussion cannot be had without such a

reference, and yet he persists in his hostility to the motion. He had

been told so by the mover, and common sense would have told him so at

first; yet he is for taking advantage of the mover, and for shutting out

the arguments he has to urge. The gentleman is mistaken in his statement

of the motives of the different sides of the House in the discussion on

a call for papers, in 1796, when he represents one side as claiming a

right to participate in the treaty-making power. He recollected it had

been charged upon them; but they had denied it. We contended, said Mr.

S., that when a treaty was formed, appropriating a large sum of money,

we had a right to appropriate or not to appropriate the money; but we

never assumed the right to say whether the treaty was concluded or not.

Afterwards, gentlemen themselves, if he recollected right, moved a

resolution that it was expedient to carry the treaty into effect, by

which they did admit the right of the House. Mr. S. said he had no

previous knowledge of what the gentleman from Virginia meant by his

motion; he might perhaps wish to amend the resolution; but when he says

he has arguments that he cannot urge without shut doors, he trusted that

indulgence would be allowed him, or there would be a denial of justice.

Mr. DANA said, there was a magic of language, to those unaccustomed to

parliamentary language, in the House resolving itself into a committee,

and that committee returning itself back into the House, both composed

of the same members, that made the proceedings of public bodies appear

ridiculous. But there were substantial benefits derived from the

observance of these forms. There was a fuller and freer discussion;

every member spoke as often as he chose, and they enjoyed the Speaker's

advice. There were, besides, two discussions and decisions, instead of

one. He admitted, therefore, the propriety of such procedure in all

cases where there was an important principle involved. But in this

instance there was no important principle to discuss. There was an

important principle involved in the famous question of 1796. It was

therefore right to refer it to a Committee of the Whole. He did not know

what principle was to be discussed on this reference, unless it was the

want of information. This he most sensibly felt; and those gentlemen who

also felt it, might, he thought, be indulged by those who possess all

information on the subject. If any gentleman, however, will say that any

important principle is involved in the resolution, he was ready to go

into Committee of the Whole, though not with closed doors.

The question was then taken by yeas and nays on Mr. RANDOLPH'S motion,

to refer the resolution of Mr. GRISWOLD to a Committee of the Whole on

the state of the Union, and carried--yeas 49, nays 39, as follows:

YEAS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, Theodorus Bailey,

Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William Butler, Thomas

Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard

Cutts, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer,

William Eustis, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna,

Joseph Heister, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes,

George Jackson, Michael Leib, David Meriwether, Samuel L.

Mitchill, Thomas Moore, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr.,

Joseph H. Nicholson, John Randolph, jr., John Smilie, John

Smith, (of New York,) 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, Abraham Trigg, John

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

Horne, and Thomas Wynns.

NAYS.--John Bacon, Phanuel Bishop, Thos. Boude, John

Campbell, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport,

Thomas T. Davis, John Dennis, Wm. Dickson, Calvin Goddard,

Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Seth Hastings,

William Helms, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson,

Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer

Mattoon, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Morris, James Mott, Elias

Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, William

Shepard, John Cotton Smith, John Stanley, Benjamin

Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, Thos.

Tillinghast, George B. Upham, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel

Williams, and Henry Woods.

On motion of Mr. GRISWOLD, the House immediately went into Committee of

the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. RANDOLPH rose, and observed that he held in his hands certain

resolutions connected with the Message of the President, relative to the

late proceedings at New Orleans, the discussion of which had been

ordered to be carried on with closed doors. He asked the decision of the

question, whether, previously to offering his resolutions, the doors

ought not to be closed? The resolutions he meant to submit grew out of

the Message. If the House, however, insisted upon their being then read,

he had no indisposition to read them.

The CHAIRMAN considered the committee as incompetent to clearing the

galleries. He thought it must be the act of the House.

Mr. DAWSON inquired if the same rules that applied to the House, did not

also apply to Committees of the Whole?

Mr. RANDOLPH called for the reading of the President's Message

respecting New Orleans.

Mr. GRISWOLD said there was other business, not requiring secrecy,

referred to the committee.

Mr. RANDOLPH repeated his call for the reading of the President's

Message.

The CHAIRMAN asked what Message?

Mr. RANDOLPH replied, the confidential Message.

Mr. GRISWOLD said that could not be read with open doors.

The CHAIRMAN said the doors could not be closed without an order of the

House.

Mr. S. SMITH observed that it had been customary to clear the galleries

before the House went into committee. To save time, he would move that

the committee should rise, in order to obtain an order of the House to

that effect.

Mr. GRISWOLD hoped the committee would not rise. The business he had

proposed was of a public, not of a private nature. It was also of a

pressing nature, and ought not to be postponed for any other business.

Mr. DANA hoped, indeed, for the honor of the House, they would not

exhibit the spectacle of wasting time in going into committee and then

coming out of it without doing any thing, but would proceed to the

public business.

Mr. RUTLEDGE.--The gentleman from Virginia holds in his hands

resolutions that require secrecy. After deciding on the motion of the

gentleman from Connecticut, he will not be precluded from offering these

resolutions.

Mr. EUSTIS said if the House had resolved itself into a committee for

the express purpose of taking into consideration the resolution of the

gentleman from Connecticut, it would be proper to give it the preference

over any other business; and in that case he should have been as ready

at this moment as at any other to offer his objections to it. But if it

were understood that the House had resolved itself generally into a

Committee on the state of the Union, one gentleman from Virginia having

made a motion, and another gentleman from Connecticut having afterwards

made another motion, that made by the last gentleman being junior in

point of time ought to be last attended to. The other gentleman's motion

was first in course; and if the gentleman who offered it desired the

galleries to be cleared, he had an undoubted right to an order to that

effect.

Mr. MACON (Speaker) remarked that a Committee of the whole House was one

committee, and a Committee of the whole House on the state of the Union

another committee. They were distinct committees. The last was never

formed for special purposes. He did not recollect that this had ever

been done. Whereas the other committee was always formed for a special

purpose. The difficulty in this case had arisen from referring the

confidential Message to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the

Union. He believed it would be well to rise, and separate the two

subjects that had been referred to the Committee on the state of the

Union.

Mr. GRISWOLD did not understand what the gentleman from Massachusetts

meant by priority of motion. The Chairman had determined that the motion

of the gentleman from Virginia was not in order, as it could not be

submitted to a public committee. After this disposition of that motion,

none remained before the committee other than his own. In point of

priority, he rose, therefore, to have his resolution then decided upon.

With regard to the proposition of the honorable Speaker, he did not see

any reason for it. Was it not as well to decide on this resolution in

this committee as in any other committee? Why, then, rise for the

purpose of referring it to a secret committee?

Mr. S. SMITH said, the gentleman from Massachusetts meant by his remarks

that the Message of the President had precedence. The gentleman from

Connecticut was only now urging what had been decided against him in the

House. He thinks he has now an advantage, and presses it.

Mr. S. said, he had not a doubt that the gentleman from South Carolina

(Mr. RUTLEDGE) is very sincere in his opinion, that, if we will agree to

submit all power to them, they will indulge us by agreeing to certain

subordinate points. But gentlemen will excuse us. We have already taken

great pains to divest them of power, and we are not yet disposed to

return it into their hands.

We are of opinion that the Message ought to be discussed with closed

doors; that is the intention of the motion; let us not take advantage of

those who have arguments to offer which they wish not to submit with

open doors; let the committee rise, and the galleries be cleared.

Mr. DANA, in one point, fully agreed with the gentleman from Maryland.

They had taken great pains to get power. But he regretted that any

political party allusion whatever had been made on this subject. He had

supposed it so important, so deeply interesting to all America, that he

had hoped all spirit of party would have slept during our deliberations

on it; and that we should have shown that we entertained but one

sentiment, and were ready, if necessary, to extend one arm in defence of

our invaded rights.

Mr. L. R. MORRIS expressed his disagreement with the Speaker on a point

of order--

When the question was taken on the rising of the committee, and carried

in the affirmative--ayes 49, noes 37.

The committee accordingly rose, and the Chairman reported that they had

come to no resolution.

A motion was made to adjourn, on which Mr. GRISWOLD called the yeas and

nays; which were--yeas 38, nays 51.

_Navigation of the Mississippi._

[SECRET SESSION.]

The House was then cleared of all persons, except the members and the

Clerk: Whereupon the House resumed the consideration of a confidential

communication from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, received the

thirty-first ultimo.

_Ordered_, That the Committee of the whole House on the state of the

Union, to whom was referred the Message of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

STATES of the twenty-second and thirtieth ultimo, be discharged from the

consideration thereof; and that the said Message, together with the

documents transmitted therewith, be committed to a Committee of the

whole House to-morrow.

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

resolution:

_Resolved_, That this House receive, with great

sensibility, the information of a disposition in certain

officers of the Spanish Government at New Orleans, to

obstruct the navigation of the river Mississippi, as

secured to the United States by the most solemn

stipulations.

That, adhering to the humane and wise policy which ought

ever to characterize a free people, and by which the United

States have always professed to be governed; willing, at

the same time, to ascribe this breach of compact to the

unauthorized misconduct of certain individuals, rather than

to a want of good faith on the part of His Catholic

Majesty; and relying with perfect confidence on the

vigilance and wisdom of the Executive, they will wait the

issue of such measures as that department of the Government

shall have pursued for asserting the rights and vindicating

the injuries of the United States; holding it to be their

duty, at the same time, to express their unalterable

determination to maintain the boundaries, and the rights of

navigation and commerce through the river Mississippi, as

established by existing treaties.

_Ordered_, That the said motion be referred to the Committee of the

whole House last appointed.

THURSDAY, January 6.

_Cession of Louisiana._

[PUBLIC SESSION.]

Mr. GRISWOLD moved that the House should resolve itself into a Committee

of the Whole on his resolution respecting Louisiana.

Mr. DAWSON was opposed to the motion, for reasons before assigned.

Mr. GRISWOLD said the gentleman did not understand what he had proposed.

It had been the wish of gentlemen to separate the consideration of his

resolution from other subjects referred to the Committee of the Whole on

the state of the Union. For which purpose he had been willing to refer

it to a Committee of the Whole. But he was averse to referring it to a

secret committee; as he did not perceive its connection with any subject

that required secrecy. The discussion on it ought, in his opinion, to be

public. It was not necessary for him to repeat that it was of a pressing

nature. It respected the obtaining information on a subject, he would

say, of greater importance than any which could come before Congress

that session. One third of the session was gone, and yet the Legislature

had no information before them. He hoped there was no disposition

entertained by gentlemen to embarrass this proposition with points

unconnected with it. The proposition was extremely simple. Called upon

by the President to legislate on the subject of the cession of

Louisiana, we do not know the precise state of that cession. To

legislate correctly, we want to be informed of all the circumstances. If

gentlemen are disposed to deny us this information, let the denial be

public. Do not let them refer this motion to a secret committee, where

they may deny us the information we ask on reasons which we cannot

divulge. Mr. G. concluded by calling for the yeas and nays.

Mr. S. SMITH asked if this were not the precise motion decided yesterday

by the House? He thought it had been referred to a Committee of the

Whole. He had considered it as having taken that course. When we go into

committee the gentlemen will see whether we shall refuse them the

information. Perhaps we shall see that it is of such a nature as we

ought to possess. He did not himself know how that was; nor did he mean

to commit himself by any remarks which he had made. He trusted gentlemen

would remember their vote yesterday, and not suffer themselves to be put

out of their course by this extraordinary mode of conducting business.

Mr. LOWNDES demanded whether, even if the motion were the same, there

was any impropriety in putting it again to-day; and whether it were not

perfectly consistent with the rules of order to go into a committee, and

take up the resolution? If there ever was a resolution offered to that

House which ought to obtain a unanimous vote, it was that of his

honorable friend from Connecticut; which proposes simply the calling for

such information as the President might see fit to give on a most

important subject that had excited the sensibility of the whole nation.

The President himself, in his Message, alludes to the subject as one

which may require Legislative interposition, and gentlemen persist in

refusing us this information. It was a most extraordinary circumstance

in the annals of the United States, that, notwithstanding the magnitude

of the cession of Louisiana, the length of time since it was made, and

the necessary consequence of having a new and powerful neighbor on our

frontier, we had yet no official information on the subject. The

President in his Message really tells us nothing. He says "the cession

of the Spanish province of Louisiana to France, which took place in the

course of the late war,"--this we had been told long before by the

public prints, and in a discussion before the British Parliament--but he

goes on and says--"will, if carried into effect, make a change in the

aspect of our foreign relations, which will doubtless have just weight

in any deliberations of the Legislature connected with that subject." To

this the understanding of every schoolboy is competent. It was really

surprising that gentlemen should wish to reject such a call as this. It

was not probable that the President had been so unmindful of his duty as

not to have demanded an explanation through our Ministers at the Court

of Spain, or at Paris. If he has this information, and it is of a nature

proper to be known to us, we ought immediately to obtain it, that we may

not be slumbering at our posts on an infraction of our rights.

Mr. L. suspected gentlemen had not correctly attended to the resolution.

It only requests the President to lay such information before the House

as he may think proper. Are gentlemen then afraid to trust to the

discretion of the President? Are they apprehensive lest he should

communicate that which is improper? He hoped they had more confidence in

the Executive. He thought this call should precede any resolutions. He

could not disconnect the shutting of the port of New Orleans from the

cession of Louisiana. There appeared to be a natural connection between

these two events. He was afraid that the shutting the port was ominous

of the disposition of Spain to cede the province to France,

independently of any encumbrances she may have imposed upon herself. He

was afraid France in this transaction would consult her interests and

convenience, and not our rights. We well knew the grounds on which that

nation interpreted treaties, and we had no reason from that knowledge to

repress our fears. An observation of the gentleman from Virginia had

given him great uneasiness. That gentleman had told us, if Spain had

ceded Louisiana to France she had a right to cede it. This Mr. L. was

not prepared to say. He did not think Spain had a right to give to

America what she pleased; much less give her a new neighbor, under

circumstances different from those by which she held the province. He

was not, however, then disposed to discuss the abstract question

involved in this subject. He trusted the resolution calling for

information would be agreed to. The House need not fear that, in asking

this information, they would not speak the sense of the people; and, if

other measures were necessary, they would also, in adopting them, speak

the sense of the nation.

Mr. BACON said it was not uncommon to hear of extraordinary occurrences

in that House. One mode of reasoning yesterday had great weight, that

asserted a connection between the resolution and the subject of New

Orleans, which had been taken up and referred to a committee with closed

doors. One subject appeared to him to be not only nearly connected, but

to form an essential part of the other. For what purpose this resolution

should be separated from the general subject, he could not conceive. Why

do we want information, but that we may have a more clear view of the

general subject? He could not see any detached purpose for which it was

required. Why then divide it into little detached parts? Until he could

hear reasons for such a division, he should be against the reference.

Mr. HEMPHILL observed that the gentleman was mistaken in what passed

yesterday. The gentleman from Maryland had first stated the subjects as

similar; that ground was afterwards abandoned, and they were considered

as distinct. There were only two points connected with the subject

before the House in which documents could be required or secrecy

necessary. The one related to the cession of Louisiana; the other to the

shutting the port of New Orleans. The former, though not referred to a

committee, was as important as the latter, which had been referred. In

the last case we deemed it important to have and request papers. The

resolution before them related to the first point; it had been deemed of

sufficient importance to refer it to a committee, and this afforded good

reasons for calling for papers respecting the cession. He begged leave

to refer to the Message, which says the cession "will, if carried into

effect, make a change in the aspect of our foreign relations, which will

doubtless have just weight in any deliberations of the Legislature

connected with that subject." The House will perceive that the language

of the Message is hypothetical--the words are, "if carried into effect."

How then can we deliberate on this subject, unless we know the degree of

probability there is, that it will be carried into effect? A knowledge

of the circumstances necessary to ascertain this, appeared to be

absolutely indispensable.

If likely to be carried into effect, the next question is, as to the

time when it will be carried into effect. When these two inquiries were

solved, another naturally offered itself: Is France to take the province

subject to existing treaties, or as she shall receive it at the time of

delivery? All these circumstances it was necessary for Congress to know,

before they could act correctly.

What necessity there was for secrecy in the discussion of this

resolution, Mr. HEMPHILL could not conceive. All the information we have

on the subject is contained in the President's Message, which every

person in the United States knows as well as we do. It appeared to him

that when their deliberations turned on facts which every body knew,

they ought to be public. His ideas of secrecy were these: that policy

might require certain facts to be kept secret for a time; but, when made

known, their arguments on them ought not to be secret. In this opinion

he was strengthened by the rule of the House. [Mr. H. here read the rule

on that point, which prescribes that the galleries shall be cleared

whenever a confidential communication shall be received from the

President, or whenever the Speaker or any other member shall inform the

House that he has communications to make which he conceives ought to be

kept secret.] Mr. H. asked on which branch of this rule could the

arguments of gentlemen be predicated? The President had not sent them a

confidential communication, nor had any member said he had

communications to make which he conceived ought to be kept secret. The

information referred to in the rule meant facts, and not arguments drawn

from facts. He concluded by saying he saw no occasion whatever for

discussing this proposition with closed doors.

Mr. DAWSON.--The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. LOWNDES) says there

is a material connection between the shutting the port of New Orleans

and the cession of Louisiana. After, then, that part of the discussion

which related to New Orleans had been ordered to be conducted with shut

doors, how proper was it in him to introduce into debate a subject

intimately connected with it? His opposition to the present motion did

not arise from an indisposition fully to discuss the subject to which it

referred; but from an indisposition to delay the discussion of the

motion offered by his colleague. Against the present motion he should

vote, because it promised nothing useful, and might be mischievous. We

have been told that this subject is important and pressing. That it was

important he felt; but he did not believe it was pressing. He could say,

if the time should ever arrive when it became that House to act, this

was not the time. When the time did arrive, he was prepared to act.

Gentlemen were very anxious on this subject. He rejoiced to witness

their anxiety. But he and his friends were not now to hear who were the

friends of the Western country. The people of that country doubted not

the protection of the Government. They were warmly attached to the

Government, and knew that every thing would be done, that ought to be

done, to protect and defend their rights.

Mr. BACON said, if he understood the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr.

HEMPHILL,) he perfectly agreed with him in opinion, that this resolution

was connected with the subject of New Orleans. He agreed with him as to

their inseparable connection. But the only difference was that they

inferred opposite consequences from the same premises. He, Mr. B.,

contended that the resolution made a part of the same general subject,

and ought not to be divided from it. They say it ought to be divided.

Mr. HEMPHILL, replied that he had spoken as plainly as he could. He had

said the subjects were distinct.

Mr. GODDARD.--The gentleman from Massachusetts yesterday told us the

call for information ought to be public, though the information itself

should be secret. This reasoning had been satisfactory to him then; he

had hoped it would have also proved so to-day. But it appears that he is

now for sending us to a secret committee. Mr. G. said in his opinion,

the call ought to be public, whatever the nature of the information

might be. This information gentlemen will either deny or grant. They say

it is not to be denied. Why then go into a committee? And if granted,

why not grant it without assigning reasons, as well as with assigning

them? Are we to be told by the gentleman from Virginia, there is no

occasion for this call; that we have information enough? How does that

honorable gentleman get his information? If from the cabinet, are we,

the representatives of the people, to obtain it from him? Surely this

will be degrading to our characters. We may believe it is true as coming

from him, but, as representatives, we should spurn at receiving it in

such a channel. We want official information, but gentlemen say they

want to go into secret committee on this resolution. What will be the

good of this? Though he could not say what was done in secret yesterday,

he might say what had not been done. They had done nothing; and if they

went into secret session again, the consequence would be the same.

Mr. RANDOLPH felt extremely reluctant to rise in this stage of the

discussion, but he deemed it time to repel insinuations so frequently

thrown out as perhaps to gain some credit, if they were permitted to

pass entirely unnoticed. We are averse to take up the motion of the

gentleman from Connecticut, and wherefore? Because, as our opponents

would fain have it believed, we are insensible to the vast interest

affected by the obstruction of the Mississippi? No, sir, because we are

alive to this delicate and momentous subject; because we wish to act

upon it; because we wish to go into committee on the confidential

Message of the Executive; because the information required by the motion

before you is not necessary to determine us in the course which we

ought, and, I trust, will pursue; and because these preliminary

questions, whatever be their object, are, in effect, only calculated to

retard and to embarrass the decision of this House on this great

question. Sir, I am content that gentlemen should repeat after each

other the trite observations which have been so often reiterated of the

magnitude of the object in question. I am content that they should make

the best possible display of their ardor on this occasion. But wherefore

this exhibition of a zeal so inordinate as to arrogate to itself all

sensibility to the national welfare? Since gentlemen insist upon it,

since they provoke the discussion, I must request to be indulged in some

remarks on the history of this subject. And in reply to the gentleman

from Connecticut, (Mr. GODDARD,) I must be permitted to observe that

such of my information as may have been derived from the Executive is

equally accessible to every member of this House, and I believe to every

reputable citizen in the Union, who chooses to apply for it. That,

however, which I am about to present, is derived from a source

accessible to the whole world. It is to be found in a document of

inestimable value, (the debates of the Virginia Convention in 1788,) and

might truly be said to be official. It is an account given in his

official character of member of Congress, and under the old

confederation, by that able and eminent man, that faithful and

illustrious public servant, the late Governor of Virginia, to the

Convention of that State, at their requisition. At his own suggestion

the Legislature of the State had declined to insist upon it. To the

Convention it was given, (however reluctantly,) as to a paramount

authority. [Here Mr. E. read Mr. Monroe's speech.][73]

"After some desultory conversation, Mr. MONROE spoke as

follows: Mr. Chairman--My conduct respecting the

transactions of Congress upon this interesting subject,

since my return to the State, has been well known to many

worthy gentlemen here. I have been often called upon before

this, in a public line, and particularly in the last

Assembly, whilst I was present, for information in regard

to these transactions; but have heretofore declined it, and

for reasons that were held satisfactory. Being amenable,

upon the principles of the Federal compact, to the

Legislature, for my conduct in Congress, it cannot be

doubted, if required, it was my duty to obey their

directions; but that honorable body thought it best to

dispense with such demand. The right in this Assembly is

unquestionably more complete, having power paramount to

that; but even here I could wish it had not been exerted as

I understand it to be, by going into committee for that

purpose. Before, however, I enter into this subject, I

cannot but observe, it has given me pain to hear it treated

by honorable gentlemen in a manner that has appeared not

altogether free from exception. For they have not gone into

it fully, and given a proper view of the transaction in

every part, but of those only which preceded, and were

subsequent to that, which had been the particular object of

inquiry; a conduct that has seemed too much calculated to

make an impression favorable to their wishes in the present

instance. But, in making this observation, I owe it to

those gentlemen to declare, that it is my opinion such

omission has proceeded, not from intention, but their

having forgotten facts, or to some cause not obvious to me,

and which I make no doubt they will readily explain.

"The policy of this State, respecting this river, has

always been the same. It has contemplated but one object,

the opening it for the use of the inhabitants, whose

interest depended on it; and in this she has, in my

opinion, shown her wisdom and magnanimity. I may, I

believe, with propriety say, that all the measures that

have at any time been taken by Congress for that purpose,

were adopted at the instance of this State. There was a

time, it is true, sir, when even this State, in some

measure, abandoned the object, by authorizing its cession

to the Court of Spain. But let us take all circumstances

into view, as they were at that time, and I am persuaded it

will by no means show a departure from this liberal and

enlightened system of policy, although it may manifest an

accommodation to the exigencies which pressed on us at the

time. The Southern States were overrun, and in possession

of the enemy. The governments of South Carolina and Georgia

were prostrate, and opposition there at an end. North

Carolina made but a feeble resistance; and Virginia herself

was greatly harassed by the enemy in force at that time in

the heart of the country, and by impressments for her own

and the defence of the Southern States. In addition to

this, the finances of the United States were in a

deplorable condition, if not totally exhausted; and France,

our ally, seemed anxious for peace; and as the means of

bringing the war to a more happy and speedy conclusion, the

object of this cession was the hopes of uniting Spain in it

with all her forces. If I recollect aright, too, at this

moment, the Minister of the United States, at the Court of

Madrid, informed Congress of the difficulty he found in

prevailing upon that Court to acknowledge our independence,

or take any measure in our favor, suggested the jealousy

with which it viewed our settlements in the Western

country, and the probability of better success, provided we

would cede the navigation of this river, as the

consideration. The latter circumstances were made known to

the Legislature, and they had their weight. All inferior

objects must yield to the safety of the society itself. A

resolution passed to that effect. An act of Congress

likewise passed; and the Minister of the United States had

full authority to relinquish this valuable right to that

Court, upon the condition above stated. But what was the

issue of this proposition? Was any treaty made with Spain

that obtained any acknowledgment of our independence,

although at war with Great Britain; and such acknowledgment

would have cost her nothing? Was a loan of money

accomplished? In short, does it appear that even Spain

herself thought it an object of any importance? So soon as

the war ended, this resolution was rescinded. The power to

make such a treaty was revoked. So that this system of

policy was departed from, only for a short time, for the

most important object that can be conceived, and resumed

again as soon as it possibly could be.

"After the peace, it became the business of Congress to

investigate the relation of these States to the different

powers of the earth, in a more extensive view than they had

hitherto done, and particularly in the commercial line; and

to make arrangements for entering into treaties with them

on such terms as might be mutually beneficial for each

party. As the result of the deliberations of that day, it

was resolved, 'That commercial treaties be formed, if

possible, with said powers, those of Europe in particular,

Spain included, upon similar principles; and three

Commissioners, Mr. Adams, Mr. Franklin, and Mr. Jefferson,

be appointed for that purpose.' So that an arrangement for

a treaty of commerce with Spain had already been taken.

Whilst these powers were in force, a representative from

Spain arrived, authorized to treat with the United States

on the interfering claims of the two nations, respecting

the Mississippi, and the boundaries, and other concerns,

wherein they were respectively interested. A similar

commission was given to the honorable Secretary of Foreign

Affairs, on the part of the United States, with these

ultimata, 'That he enter into no treaty, compact, or

convention whatever, with the said representative of Spain,

which did not stipulate our right to the navigation of the

Mississippi, and the boundaries as established in our

treaty with Great Britain.' And thus the late negotiation

commenced, under auspices, as I supposed, very favorable to

the wishes of the United States; for Spain had become

sensible of the propriety of cultivating the friendship of

these States. Knowing our claim to the navigation of the

river, she had sent a Minister hither principally to treat

on that point; and the time would not be remote when, under

the increasing population of the country, the inhabitants

would be able to open it without our assistance or her

consent. These circumstances being considered, was it not

presumable she intended to make a merit of her concession

to our wishes, and to agree to an accommodation upon that

subject, that would not only be satisfactory, but highly

pleasing to the United States? But what was the issue of

this negotiation? How was it terminated? Has it forwarded

the particular object in view, or otherwise promoted the

interests and the harmony of the States, or any of them!

Eight or ten months elapsed without any communications of

its progress to Congress. At length a letter was received

from the Secretary, stating that difficulties had arisen in

his negotiation with the representative of Spain, which, in

his opinion, should be so managed as that even their

existence should remain a secret for the present; and

proposing that a committee be appointed with full power to

direct and instruct him in every case relative to the

proposed treaty. As the only ultimata appointed in his

instructions respected the Mississippi and the boundaries,

it readily occurred that these occasioned the difficulties

alluded to, and were those he wished to remove. And, for

many reasons, this appeared, at least to me, an

extraordinary proposition. By the Articles of Confederation

nine States are necessary to enter into treaties. The

instruction is the foundation of the treaty; for if it is

formed agreeable thereto, good faith requires that it be

ratified. The practice of Congress has also been always, I

believe, in conformity to this idea. The instructions under

which our commercial treaties have been made, were carried

by nine States. Those under which the Secretary now acted

were passed by nine States. The proposition, then, would

be, that the powers which, under the constitution, nine

States only were competent to, should be transferred to a

committee, and the object thereby to disengage himself from

the ultimata already mentioned in his existing

instructions. In this light the subject was taken up, and

on these principles discussed. The Secretary, Mr. Jay,

being called before Congress to explain the difficulties

mentioned in his letter, presented to their view the

project of a treaty of commerce, containing, as he

supposed, advantageous stipulations in our favor, in that

line; in consideration for which we were to contract to

forbear the use of the navigation of the river Mississippi

for the term of 25 or 30 years, and earnestly advised our

adopting it. The subject now took a decided form; there was

no further ambiguity in it, and we were surprised, for

reasons that have been already given, that he had taken up

the subject of commerce at all. We were greatly surprised

it should form the principal object of the project, and

that a partial or temporary sacrifice of that interest, for

the advancement of which the negotiation was set on foot,

should be the consideration proposed to be given for it.

But the honorable Secretary urged, that it was necessary to

stand well with Spain; that the commercial project was a

beneficial one, and should not be neglected; that a

stipulation to forbear the use contained an acknowledgment,

on her part, of the right in the United States; that we

were in no condition to take the river, and therefore gave

nothing for it; with other reasons which, perhaps, I have

forgotten; for the subject in detail has nearly escaped my

memory. We differed with the honorable Secretary, almost in

every respect. We admitted, indeed, the propriety of

standing well with Spain, but supposed we might accomplish

that end, at least, on equal terms. We considered the

stipulation to forbear the use, as a species of barter,

that should never be countenanced in the councils of the

American States, since it might tend to the destruction of

the society itself; for a forbearance of the use of one

river, might lead to more extensive consequences; to that

of the Chesapeake, the Potomac, or any other of the rivers

that emptied into it. In short, that the councils of the

confederacy should be conducted with more magnanimity and

candor, should contemplate the benefit of all parts upon

common principles, and not the sacrifice of one part for

that of another. There appeared to us a material difference

between stipulating by treaty to forbear the use, and not

being able to open the river. The former would be

considered by the inhabitants of the Western country as an

act of hostility; the latter might be justified by our

inability. And, with respect to the commercial part of the

project, we really thought it an ill-advised one on its own

merits solely.

"Thus was this project brought before Congress, and so far

as I recollect, in this form, and upon these principles. It

was the subject of tedious and lengthy discussion in that

honorable body. Every distinct measure that was taken I do

not now remember, nor do I suppose it of consequence. I

have shown the outlines of the transaction, which is, if I

apprehend rightly, all that the committee wish to possess.

The communications of the Secretary were referred to a

Committee of the whole House. The Delegates of the seven

easternmost States voted that the ultimata in the

Secretary's instructions be repealed; which was reported to

the House, and entered on the journal by the Secretary of

Congress, that the question was carried. Upon this entry, a

constitutional question arose to this effect: 'Nine States

being necessary, by the Federal Constitution, to give an

instruction; and seven having repealed a part of an

instruction so given, for the formation of a treaty with a

foreign power, so as to alter its import, and authorize,

under the remaining part thereof, the formation of a

treaty, on principles altogether different from what the

said instruction originally contemplated, can such

remaining part be considered as in force, and

constitutionally obligatory?' We pressed on Congress for a

decision on this point often, but without effect.

Notwithstanding this, I understood it was the intention of

the Secretary to proceed and conclude a treaty, in

conformity to his project, with the Minister of Spain. In

this situation I left Congress. What I have since heard,

belongs not to me to discover. Other gentlemen have more

ample information of this business, in the course it has

taken, than I can possibly have been able to obtain; for,

having done my duty whilst there, I left it for others who

succeeded me to perform theirs, and I have made but little

further inquiry respecting it. The animated pursuit that

was made of this object, required, and, I believe,

received, as firm an opposition. The Southern States were

on their guard, and warmly opposed it. For my part, I

thought it my duty to use every effort in Congress for the

interest of the Southern States. But so far as it depended

on me, with my official character, it ceased. With many of

those gentlemen, to whom I always considered it as my

particular misfortune to be opposed, I am now in habits of

correspondence and friendship; and I am concerned for the

necessity which has given birth to this relation.

"Whether the Delegates of those States spoke the language

of their constituents; whether it may be considered as the

permanent interest of such States to depress the growth and

increasing population of the Western country, are points

which I cannot pretend to determine. I must observe,

however, that I always supposed it would, for a variety of

reasons, prove injurious to every part of the Confederacy.

These are well understood, and need not be dilated on here.

If, however, such should be the interest of seven States,

let gentlemen contemplate the consequences in the operation

of the Government, as it applies to this subject. I have

always been of opinion, sir, that the American States, to

all national objects, had, in every respect, a common

interest. Few persons would be willing to bind them

together by a stronger or more indissoluble bond, or give

the National Government more power than myself. I only wish

to prevent it from doing harm, either to States or

individuals; and the rights and interests of both, in a

variety of instances, in which they are now left

unprotected, might, in my opinion, be better guarded. If I

have mistaken any facts, honorable gentlemen will correct

me. If I omitted any, and it has not been intentional, so I

shall be happy with their assistance to supply the defect.

"Mr. Monroe added several other observations, the purport

of which was, that the interest of the Western country

would not be as secure under the proposed constitution as

under the Confederation; because, under the latter system,

the Mississippi could not be relinquished without the

consent of nine States, whereas by the former, he said, a

majority of seven States could yield it. His own opinion

was, that it would be given up by a majority of the

Senators present in the Senate, with the President, which

would put it in the power of less than seven States to

surrender it. That the Northern States were inclined to

yield it. That it was their interest to prevent an

augmentation of the Southern influence and power; and that

as mankind in general, and States in particular, were

governed by interest, the Northern States would not fail of

availing themselves of the opportunity given them by the

constitution of relinquishing that river, in order to

depress the Western country, and prevent the Southern

interest from preponderating.

"Mr. HENRY[74] then rose and requested that the honorable

gentleman (Mr. Monroe) would discover the rest of the

project, and what Spain was to do on her part, as an

equivalent for the cession of the Mississippi.

"Mr. MONROE.--Mr. Chairman, I do not thoroughly recollect

every circumstance relative to this project. But there was

to be a commercial intercourse between the United States

and Spain. We were to be allowed to carry our produce to

the ports of Spain, and the Spaniards to have an equal

right of trading hither. It was stipulated that there

should be a reciprocity of commercial intercourse and

benefits between the subjects of Spain and the citizens of

the United States. The manufactures of Spain were to be

freely imported and vended in this country, and our

manufactures to be carried to Spain, &c., without

obstruction, and both parties were to have mutual

privileges in point of commercial intercourse and

connection. This, sir, is the amount of the project of

Spain, which was looked upon as advantageous to us. I

thought myself that it was not. I considered Spain as being

without manufactures, as the most slow in the progress of

arts, and the most unwise, with respect to commerce, of all

nations under the sun, (in which respect I thought Great

Britain the wisest.) Their gentlemen and nobles look on

commerce with contempt. No man of character among them will

undertake it. They make little discrimination with any

nation. Their character is to shut out all nations, and

exclude every intercourse with them, and this would be the

case with respect to us. Nothing is given to us by this

project, but what is given to all other nations. It is bad

policy, and unjustifiable on such terms to yield that

valuable right. Their merchants have great stocks in trade.

It is not so with our merchants. Our people require

encouragement. Mariners must be encouraged. On a review of

these circumstances, I thought the project unwise and

impolitic."

Haying completed the reading, Mr. R. resumed his remarks. I have, said

he, to ask pardon of the House for detaining them with the reading of so

lengthy a document. That it contains perhaps the only correct historical

detail extant of this truly curious transaction, must constitute my

apology.

I will now ask, Mr. Speaker, who ever have been, and still are, the

unshaken friends of the navigation of the Mississippi, and of the

Western interests of this Union? It is not my wish, sir, on this

occasion, to cast gentlemen opposed to us into the shade--to throw them

into the background. All we ask is an equal share of confidence in our

zeal to assert this great right, until we shall have proved ourselves

unworthy of it. What is there then exhibited from the earliest period of

our history? What fact has transpired which renders us undeserving of

that confidence, or which entitles gentlemen on the other side of the

House exclusively to it? Shall we then silently submit to the intolerant

assumption on their part of all feeling for this important right,

involving the vital interests of our country? Shall we sit down

contented under the imputation of lukewarmness in this cause? or, shall

we tell those gentlemen that under every circumstance, and in all

situations, with closed doors, as well as with open doors, we have been,

are, and ever will be, the unalterable supporters of the free navigation

of the Mississippi?

The sentiments which have been displayed in the course of this

proceeding, present a phenomenon in the history of what are termed

regular Governments. When an Administration have formed the design of

subverting the public liberties--of enriching themselves or their

adherents out of the public purse, or of crushing all opposition beneath

the strong hand of power--war has ever been the favorite ministerial

specific. Hence have we seen men in power too generally inclined to

hostile measures, and hence the opposition have been, as uniformly, the

champions of peace--not choosing to nerve with new vigor (the natural

consequence of war) hands, on whose hearts or heads they were unwilling

to bestow their confidence. But how shall we account for the exception

which is now exhibited to this hitherto received maxim? On the one part

the solution is easy. An Administration under which our country

flourishes beyond all former example--with no sinister views--seeking to

pay off the public encumbrances, to lessen the public burdens, and to

leave to each man the enjoyment of the fruits of his own labor, are,

therefore, desirous of peace, so long as it can be preserved

consistently with the interests and honor of the country. On the other

hand, what do you see? Shall I say an opposition sickening at the sight

of the public prosperity, seeking through war, confusion, and a

consequent derangement of our finances, that aggrandizement which the

public felicity must for ever forbid? No, sir, my respect for this House

and for those gentlemen forbids this declaration, whilst, at the same

time, I am unable to account on any other principle for their conduct.

Mr. R. concluded by saying, that he had forborne these observations

until they were extorted from him. He had hoped that gentlemen would

have let the business take its course, after the decision of yesterday,

and that the House would have gone into committee on the confidential

Message; but gentlemen had insisted on discussing the merits of the

navigation on a preliminary question. The business having taken that

turn, he thought it due to himself and friends to repel the odium which

it was endeavored to attach to them.

Mr. DANA thought it was not necessary on this subject to enter into a

history of political parties in this country. And when the gentleman

from Virginia undertook to give a history, he had no idea that he was

about giving details of secret history. He had supposed he was about

offering a general view of the subject. He did not know that it was to

be stated who were friendly or unfriendly to the rights of our Western

citizens, much less that there was an established hereditary hostility

to them. He had supposed that all the gentlemen on that floor had

expressed the wishes of the people; he had supposed there was but one

opinion; he had heard of no insinuation of difference. The only

difference which he had thought existed was as to the means to be used,

and the time when those means should be carried into effect. But as to

the natural right, and the ultimate enjoyment of the nation to the free

navigation of the Mississippi, he asked what gentleman had charged

another with any doubts on that? And when we all agree in this, whence

the necessity of calling up the animosities of party? May not gentlemen

express their opinions in favor of decided measures, when the voice of

the nation had been so audibly expressed, without such expression being

construed into a censure upon others? When, too, the opinions of other

gentlemen on fundamental points coincided with your own? Is it

necessary, when the whole nation is alive, to be moderate in the

expression of our ideas? If we do not come from that part of the Union

more immediately affected by the late measures at New Orleans, are we

therefore to be indifferent and unconcerned spectators of events? If,

standing here as Representatives of the United States, we are not at

liberty to attend to any thing not confined to the trifling district of

country we may each of us represent, miserable is the ground on which we

stand, and humble indeed our condition! But let me say, even on this

ground, the ship-owners and the merchants on the Atlantic are deeply

interested. Our Western citizens are certainly more deeply interested in

the freedom of the Mississippi; but it goes to the great interests of

navigation generally. They feel it most; but we feel it much.

This is all I deem it necessary, said Mr. D., to observe on the remarks

of the gentleman from Virginia on his historical detail. Sir, this ought

not to be made a party question. With respect to the motion before the

House, my colleague has drawn it in terms the most respectful. Gentlemen

propose to refer it to a Committee of the Whole. To this we object,

because we want the information promptly. But the votes of gentlemen

prevail, and it is referred. Our next step is to refer it immediately,

to avoid delay. To obtain information, full and prompt, is the end of

our endeavors. Why are we told of the inconsistency of our means? The

course we pursue is plain and direct; that which carries us steadily to

our obtaining information; and if the House will not give it to us in

the way we wish, we are for taking it in the best way we can. Let it be

remarked, that, if no obstacles had taken place at New Orleans, the

subject of the cession of Louisiana is referred to in the Message of the

President. Is not the information, we ask, important, in the general

view, of who are to be our neighbors; where, from the dispersed

population of our citizens, the Union is most vulnerable? And in this

light it would have been proper to get the information, even if the

measures at New Orleans had not occurred. It makes no difference whether

those measures are the measures of Spain or of France. The two points

were not necessarily connected, though I admit that the proceedings at

New Orleans have a bearing on the general subject. With regard to the

measures at New Orleans, we have information, and have obtained it. That

information has been referred to a Committee of the Whole. We now ask

information respecting the cession; and having got it, let us refer that

also, and deliberate on the measures proper to be taken. Cannot the

logical talents of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. BACON)

distinguish between information and measures? Will he say that premises

and conclusions are the same thing? This information is that on which we

are to deliberate. I had supposed facts necessary to legislate on. I had

thought there was, to be sure, a connection between one step and another

which follows. But will the gentleman say, that whenever we ask

information, we conclude upon measures?

The yeas and nays were then taken on the call of Mr. GRISWOLD, on going

into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, which was

lost--yeas 38, nays 48, as follows:

YEAS.--Phanuel Bishop, Thomas Boude, John Campbell,

Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Thomas T.

Davis, William Dickson, William Eustis, Calvin Goddard,

Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Seth Hastings, William

Helms, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, Benjamin

Huger, Samuel Hunt, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer Mattoon,

Samuel L. Mitchill, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Morris, Elias

Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, John

Cotton Smith, John Stanley, John Stratton, Samuel Tenney,

Samuel Thatcher, Thomas Tillinghast, George B. Upham,

Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel

Williams, and Henry Woods.

NAYS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus

Bailey, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William Butler, Thomas

Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard

Cutts, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, Edwin

Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Joseph Heister, William

Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Michael

Leib, David Meriwether, Thomas Moore, Anthony New, Thomas

Newton, jun., Joseph H. Nicholson, John Randolph, jun.,

John Smilie, John Smith, (of New York,) John Smith, (of

Virginia,) Josiah Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard,

Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jun., John Stewart, John

Taliaferro, jun., David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram

Trigg, John Trigg, John P. Van Ness, Joseph B. Varnum,

Isaac Van Horne, and Thomas Wynns.

Mr. GRISWOLD said, that notwithstanding the unfortunate situation they

were placed in by the refusal of the House, he still deemed it his duty

to move other resolutions, which he would read, and move to be referred

to a Committee of the Whole.

Mr. G. then moved the following resolutions:

_Resolved_, That the people of the United States are

entitled to the free navigation of the river Mississippi.

_Resolved_, That the navigation of the river Mississippi

has been obstructed by the regulations recently carried

into effect at New Orleans.

_Resolved_, That the right of freely navigating the river

Mississippi ought never to be abandoned by the United

States.

_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire

whether any, and, if any, what, Legislative measures are

necessary to secure to the people of the United States the

free navigation of the river Mississippi.

Mr. DAWSON asked if these resolutions were not necessarily connected

with a subject which the House had determined should be discussed in

private? If, by this arrangement, other gentlemen had been precluded

from offering resolutions, he would ask if it were right in the

gentleman from Connecticut to violate a general injunction laid upon all

the members?

Mr. GRISWOLD.--There is a Message from the President, of the 22d of

December, on this subject that is publicly entered on the journals.[75]

It is on this Message that these resolutions are predicated. I trust I

understand the rules of the House well enough to know that I am not to

bring forward what it has been enjoined shall be secret.

The question was then taken without further debate, on taking up the

above resolutions for consideration, and lost--yeas 32, nays 50.

Mr. RANDOLPH then called for the consideration of the President's

confidential Message, when the galleries were cleared.

FRIDAY, January 7.

_Navigation of the Mississippi._

(SECRET SESSION.)

On a motion made and seconded, the House was cleared of all persons

present, except the members and the Clerk: Whereupon,

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

the Messages from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of the

twenty-second and thirtieth ultimo, and the documents transmitted

therewith; and, after some time spent therein, Mr. SPEAKER resumed the

Chair, and Mr. VARNUM reported that the committee had again had the said

Messages and documents under consideration, and come to a resolution

thereupon; which he delivered in at the Clerk's table, where the same

was read as follows:

"_Resolved_, That this House receive with great sensibility

the information of a disposition in certain officers of the

Spanish Government, at New Orleans, to obstruct the

navigation of the river Mississippi, as secured to the

United States by the most solemn stipulations.

"That, adhering to that humane and wise policy which ought

ever to characterize a free people, and by which the United

States have always professed to be governed; willing, at

the same time, to ascribe this breach of compact to the

unauthorized misconduct of certain individuals, rather than

to a want of good faith on the part of His Catholic

Majesty; and relying, with perfect confidence, on the

vigilance and wisdom of the Executive, they will wait the

issue of such measures as that department of the Government

shall have pursued for asserting the rights and vindicating

the injuries of the United States; holding it to be their

duty, at the same time, to express their unalterable

determination to maintain the boundaries and the rights of

navigation and commerce through the river Mississippi, as

established by existing treaties."

The House proceeded to consider the said resolution at the Clerk's

table: Whereupon, so much as is contained in the first clause thereof,

being again read, in the words following, to wit:

"_Resolved_, That this House receive with great sensibility

the information of a disposition in certain officers of the

Spanish Government, at New Orleans, to obstruct the

navigation of the river Mississippi, as secured to the

United States by the most solemn stipulations."

The question was taken that the House do concur with the Committee of

the whole House in their agreement to the same; and resolved in the

affirmative.

The last clause of the said resolution being again read, in the words

following, to wit:

"That, adhering to that humane and wise policy which ought

ever to characterize a free people, and by which the United

States have always professed to be governed; willing, at

the same time, to ascribe this breach of compact to the

unauthorized misconduct of certain individuals, rather than

to a want of good faith on the part of His Catholic

Majesty; and relying, with perfect confidence, on the

vigilance and wisdom of the Executive, they will wait the

issue of such measures as that department of the Government

shall have pursued for asserting the rights and vindicating

the injuries of the United States; holding it to be their

duty, at the same time, to express their unalterable

determination to maintain the boundaries and the rights of

navigation and commerce through the river Mississippi, as

established by existing treaties:"

A motion was made, and the question being put to amend the said last

clause of the resolution, by striking out therefrom the words following,

to wit:

"And relying, with perfect confidence, on the vigilance and

wisdom of the Executive, they will wait the issue of such

measures as that department of the Government shall have

pursued for asserting the rights, and vindicating the

injuries of the United States:"

It passed in the negative--yeas 30, nays 53, as follows:

YEAS.--Thos. Boude, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John

Davenport, John Dennis, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold,

William Barry Grove, Seth Hastings, Joseph Hemphill,

Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, Benjamin Huger,

Samuel Hunt, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer Mattoon, Lewis R.

Morris, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John

Rutledge, John Cotton Smith, John Stanley, John Stratton,

Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, George B. Upham, Killian K.

Van Rensselaer, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

NAYS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus

Bailey, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William Butler, Thomas

Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard

Cutts, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, William Dickson, Lucas

Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Edwin Gray,

Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Joseph Heister, William Helms,

William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson,

Michael Leib, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas

Moore, James Mott, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph

H. Nicholson, John Randolph, jr., John Smilie, John Smith,

(of New York,) 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, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum,

Isaac Van Horne, and Thomas Wynns.

Another motion was then made, and the question being put, to amend the

said last clause of the resolution, by striking out therefrom the word

"vindicating," next before the words "the injuries of the United

States," and inserting the word "redressing," in lieu thereof, it passed

in the negative.

The question was then taken that the House do concur with the Committee

of the whole House in their agreement to the said last clause of the

resolution, and resolved in the affirmative.

A motion was then made and seconded that the House reconsider their

decision on the said last clause of the resolution; and the question

being put thereupon, it was resolved in the affirmative.

A division of the question was then called for: whereupon the first

member of the said last clause of the resolution being again read, in

the words following, to wit:

"That adhering to that humane and wise policy which ought

ever to characterize a free people, and by which the United

States have always professed to be governed; willing, at

the same time, to ascribe this breach of compact to the

unauthorized misconduct of certain individuals, rather than

to a want of good faith on the part of His Catholic

Majesty:"

The said division of the question was objected to, as not being in

order, and the SPEAKER having decided the same was in order, an appeal

was made to the House from the decision of the Chair; and on the

question, "Is the decision of the Chair in order?" it was resolved in

the affirmative.

On the question that the House do agree to the said first member of the

last clause of the resolution, it was unanimously resolved in the

affirmative, by yeas and nays, every member present voting in the

affirmative, to wit:

YEAS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus

Bailey, Thomas Boude, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William

Butler, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John

Condit, Richard Cutts, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, John

Dawson, John Dennis, William Dickson, Lucas Elmendorph,

Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Calvin Goddard, Edwin Gray,

Andrew Gregg, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, John A.

Hanna, Seth Hastings, Joseph Heister, William Helms, Joseph

Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, William

Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, Benjamin Huger, Samuel

Hunt, George Jackson, Michael Leib, Thomas Lowndes,

Ebenezer Mattoon, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill,

Thomas Moore, Lewis R. Morris, Anthony New, Thomas Newton,

jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater,

John Randolph, jr., Nathan Read, John Rutledge, John

Smilie, John Cotton Smith, John Smith, (of New York,)

Josiah Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard

Stanford, John Stanley, Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stratton,

John Taliaferro, jr., Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, David

Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, Philip Van

Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, Killian K.

Van Rensselaer, and Thomas Wynns.

The third member of the said last clause of the resolution being again

read, in the words following, to wit:

"Holding it to be their duty, at the same time, to express

their unalterable determination to maintain the boundaries,

and the rights of navigation and commerce through the river

Mississippi, as established by existing treaties:"

A motion was made, and the question being put, to amend the same by

striking therefrom the words "existing treaties," and inserting the word

"treaty" in lieu thereof, it passed in the negative.

On the question that the House do agree to the said third member of the

last clause of the resolution, it was unanimously resolved in the

affirmative, by yeas and nays, every member present voting in the

affirmative.

And then the main question being taken, that the House do agree to the

said resolution, as reported from the Committee of the whole House, it

was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 50, nays 25, as follows:

YEAS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus

Bailey, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William Butler, Thomas

Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard

Cutts, John Dawson, William Dickson, Lucas Elmendorph,

Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg,

John A. Hanna, Joseph Heister, William Helms, William Hoge,

James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Michael Leib,

David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, Anthony

New, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, John

Randolph, jr., John Smilie, John Smith, (of New York,)

Josiah Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph

Stanton, jr., John Taliaferro, jr., David Thomas, Philip R.

Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt,

Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, and Thomas Wynns.

NAYS.--Thomas Boude, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, John

Dennis, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, Seth Hastings,

Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, Benjamin Huger,

Samuel Hunt, Thos. Lowndes, Ebenezer Mattoon, Lewis R.

Morris, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John

Rutledge, John Cotton Smith, John Stanley, John Stratton,

Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, Killian K. Van Rensselaer,

and Lemuel Williams.

_Resolved_, That the injunction of secrecy upon the members of this

House, so far as relates to the resolution last recited, and the

proceedings of the House on the Messages from the PRESIDENT OF THE

UNITED STATES, of the twenty-second and thirtieth ultimo, be taken off.

MONDAY, January 10.

Another member, to wit, JAMES A. BAYARD, from Delaware, appeared, and

took his seat in the House.

A new member, to wit, PETER EARLY, returned to serve in this House, as a

member from the State of Georgia, in the room of John Milledge, who hath

resigned, appeared, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

_Monuments to Generals, and to the Captors of Andre._

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

the bill entitled "An act to carry into effect several resolutions of

Congress, for erecting monuments to the memories of the late Generals

Wooster, Herkimer, Davidson, and Scriven," to which they desire the

concurrence of this House.

The said bill was read twice and committed to the committee appointed

the fourth instant, to prepare and bring in a bill for erecting a

monument to the memory of General Herkimer, pursuant to a resolution of

Congress, passed the fourth day of October, one thousand seven hundred

and seventy-seven.

Sundry motions being made and seconded, that the House do come to the

following resolutions respectively, to wit:

_Resolved_, That a monument be erected to the memory of

Major General Joseph Warren, who was slain on Bunker's Hill

on the seventeenth day of June, one thousand seven hundred

and seventy-five; and that the sum of ---- be appropriated

therefor.

_Resolved_, That a monument be erected to the memory of

General Hugh Mercer, who was slain at Princeton, on the

third day of January, one thousand seven hundred and

seventy-seven; and that the sum of ---- dollars be

appropriated for that purpose.

_Resolved_, That a monument be erected to the memory of

General Francis Nash, who was slain at the battle of

Germantown; and that the sum of ---- dollars be

appropriated for that purpose.

_Resolved_, That a monument be erected to the memory of

General Richard Butler, who was killed gallantly fighting

in an action with the Indians, on the fourth day of

November, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one; and

that ---- dollars be appropriated for that purpose.

_Resolved_, That a monument be erected to the memory of

General Nathaniel Woodhull, who commanded the militia on

Long Island, in the year one thousand seven hundred and

seventy-six, and was then taken prisoner and most cruelly

put to death by the enemy; and that ---- dollars be

appropriated for that purpose.

_Resolved_, That a monument be erected to commemorate the

virtuous and patriotic conduct of John Paulding, David

Williams, and Isaac Van Wert, who, on the twenty-third day

of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty,

intercepted Major John Andre, Adjutant General of the

British Army, returning from the American lines in the

character of a spy; and that the sum of ---- dollars be

appropriated for that purpose.

_Ordered_, That the said motions, severally, be referred to the

committee to whom was this day committed the bill sent from the Senate,

entitled "An act to carry into effect several resolutions of Congress

for erecting monuments to the memories of the late Generals Wooster,

Herkimer, Davidson and Scriven."

_National University._