subject of a National University, as follows:
"The memorial of Samuel Blodget, late Supervisor of the
City of Washington, represents that, owing his appointment
chiefly to his zeal in forming several probationary plans
for a National University, he conceived it an indispensable
duty, after the death of WASHINGTON, to follow the
commanding advice and noble example of the common Father of
his Country, so irresistibly portrayed in his Farewell
Address, and in the clause of his will annexed to his
liberal donation therefor. In thus calling, most
respectfully, the attention of your honorable body to this
part of the will of WASHINGTON, he fulfils a promise made
in behalf of more than one thousand subscribers to the same
object, whose respectable names accompany this memorial,
with a request that a committee may be appointed to
consider what portion of the public lots and lands in the
Western Territory of the United States, shall be
appropriated by Congress to this important institution, in
addition to the contents of either of the sites already
contemplated therefor within the City of Washington, by
WASHINGTON himself, and by the Commissioners thereof. And
further to consider the expediency (should it comport with
the monumental plan to be adopted) of erecting the statue
of 1783, or in lieu thereof an appropriate and
characteristic equestrian statue of the original founder of
the National University, as a beautiful centre-piece for
the entire plan, to be surrounded by halls and colleges as
they may be built in succession, by the fund to which the
whole people of America are now so liberally and so
honorably contributing by voluntary subscriptions from
Maine to Georgia inclusive; thus virtually following the
ancient custom of the original Americans, who, men, women,
and children, carried a stone to the monumental pile of a
beloved chief."
The memorial was accompanied by a plan of the Equestrian Statue of
Washington, surrounded by halls and colleges regularly arranged, the
whole to be styled the Monument to Washington. Referred to a select
committee--ayes 42, nays 27.
The following members constitute the committee: Mr. VAN NESS, Mr.
TALIAFERRO, Mr. HILL, Mr. ELMENDORPH, and Mr. CUTLER.
TUESDAY, January 11.
The House proceeded to consider the amendment proposed by the Senate to
the bill entitled "An act for the relief of Charles Hyde;" Whereupon,
_Resolved_, That this House do agree to the said amendment.
_Cession of Louisiana to France._
Mr. GRISWOLD moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole on the state of the Union, intending, should he succeed, to call
up his resolution presented on the 5th instant, viz:
"_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 reports will, in the opinion of the President, divulge
to the House particular transactions not proper at this
time to be communicated."
I recollect, said Mr. G., when I proposed on a former day that the House
should go into Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering
this resolution, the principal arguments in opposition were drawn from
its supposed connection with a subject which had been referred to a
secret committee, and, therefore improper for previous or public
discussion. Those arguments have now lost their weight. The House have
decided on those confidential subjects, and their resolution was
published, and I believe it will appear that I was not incorrect in my
opinion, that this resolution has no concern with any confidential
communications. When before under consideration, the inquiry
contemplated was considered important. The information requested must be
in possession of the Executive; it cannot be supposed that such
documents as would be useful to the House, do not exist in the Executive
cabinet. We cannot legislate with a proper understanding, unless we are
informed of all the circumstances, conditions, and stipulations, under
which that territory is ceded to France. I will not believe that the
Executive has neglected to demand such explanations as the honor and
interest of the United States require. It is this official information
which we want. As we are unembarrassed by other subjects, either of a
public or secret nature, I hope the House will now come to a decision; I
shall call for the yeas and nays.
Mr. DAWSON moved a postponement of the resolution to a future day.
Mr. MOTT said he was opposed to the resolution, but was for going into
Committee of the Whole, and deciding upon it, rather than to be troubled
with it from day to day.
Mr. DANA.--I consider the refusal to go into a Committee of the Whole on
the state of the Union as a negative upon the resolution. We have been
told before by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) that it does
not amount to a refusal of the resolution. True, it may not be so harsh
a mode of putting it aside, but the effect is virtually the same. Will
it be made a question whether it is proper to ask for information? The
President has recommended the subject to our attention in his message.
It is not only proper, but of course becomes our duty, to deliberate,
and to request such information from the President, as will assist and
enlighten us in our proceedings. It is his constitutional province to do
this, and it would be a reflection on him to suppose that he would
withhold any information from the House, on a subject which he had
thought so important, as to form part of an official message. It could
not have been inserted merely for the sake of rounding off a period. No,
sir, the President has undoubtedly sufficient reasons for mentioning
this, as a subject worthy of our deliberations; he is designated by the
constitution as the proper person from whom information on subjects of
this nature is to be derived; he is supposed to combine the whole; it is
not proper to receive it but from an official source. The general
subject is mentioned in the following terms:
"The cession of the Spanish province of Louisiana to
France, which took place in the course of the late war,
will, if carried into effect, make a change in the aspect
of our foreign relations, which will doubtless have just
weight in any deliberations connected with that subject."
Are we to suppose the Executive has not been vigilant in ascertaining
the circumstances attending this event? No. Are we to suppose he is
unwilling to inform us what they are? No. He must be supposed willing to
give the information. Therefore, why should gentlemen prevent us from
obtaining that intelligence, which is presumed to exist, and which the
Executive must be willing to give?
Mr. RANDOLPH was averse to going into a Committee of the whole House on
the state of the Union, if it were understood that the resolution of the
gentleman from Connecticut was to be taken up. It was not very material
to him in what way the House signified their dissent to the measure;
but, preferring that which was least circuitous, he hoped they would
refuse to take it up in committee. Much pains having been taken to
impress a belief that the President had communicated to the House a fact
of which he possessed no official information, Mr. R. begged the House
to recollect that the tortured ingenuity of gentlemen had been unable
fairly to infer the fact from the Executive communications; nor could
it be implied from a refusal to concur in the proposed resolution. His
opposition to it grew out of the resolution itself. It conveys the
suspicion that Spain has ceded Louisiana to France indefinitely, thereby
giving to France some color of claim to the countries formerly comprised
under that appellation; or that she has made the cession by limits
incompatible with her engagements to us; and that in either case our
right to the navigation of the Mississippi may have been impaired. For,
if you suppose in this transfer of her property that Spain has paid due
regard to her stipulations with us, the resolution ceases to have an
object. Now, sir, wherefore cast this imputation on Spain?--especially
at this crisis, when, as I am informed from a respectable source, one of
the first characters in the Union is recently nominated Minister to that
Court, for the purpose of adjusting all differences on this subject?
I should have supposed another reason would have deterred the gentleman
from persisting in this call. That gentleman and his friends had
recorded on the journals of this House their solemn determination,
however sensibly they might feel the injuries inflicted on the rights
and interests of these States, to refuse all co-operation in the support
of those rights and interests so long as the direction of the Government
should be retained by those who now possess it. For, after having
expressed their disapprobation of that clause in a resolution lately
adopted by the House to affect our rights of limits and of navigation
through the Mississippi, objecting to no other part of it, they had,
nevertheless, refused to give their assent to it because of this
objectionable passage. There was a time, sir, when such conduct would
have been denounced by a portion of this House as the essence of
Jacobinism and disorganization. Mr. R. concluded by saying that he
thought it unwise at this time, in the very cradle of the negotiation,
to throw out insinuations which would have a tendency to irritate or
disgust the Spanish Court.
Mr. GRISWOLD.--I did not expect that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
RANDOLPH) would, in the face of the journal now on the table, in
contradiction to the knowledge of every gentleman in this House, have
made the declaration we have just heard. Have we given our vote that we
would not defend the free navigation of the Mississippi? Have we not
been ready to unite in adopting those measures which the infraction of
treaties and our violated rights demand? I appeal to our journals. What
has been done, there appears, and will contradict the assertions of that
gentleman. When the resolution was under consideration in the secret
committee, which the gentleman (Mr. RANDOLPH) emphatically called HIS
OFFSPRING, there were two votes taken on certain parts or members of it,
previous to the main question. A motion was made to strike out the
following clause:
"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."
I voted against this part of the resolution for two reasons: first,
because I could not express a confidence which I did not feel; and
secondly, because I was not satisfied with a resolution to do nothing. I
thought we ought to do something; that it was not proper for the
Legislature to sit as idle spectators of an important political
transaction, which required legislative interference. I thought we ought
to prepare for the worst. These were the reasons, Mr. Speaker, which
influenced my conduct upon the motion for striking out. But how did we
vote on the motion for agreeing to the following clause?
"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."
Did we refuse our assent? Did we object to a syllable contained in this
part of the resolution? No, sir, the vote was unanimous. Every member of
the House stands pledged to support the sentiments therein expressed. On
this point there was no difference of opinion. I appeal to your
journals, sir, and to the recollection of every gentleman who was on
that secret committee, whether I am not correct. It is true that there
was a difference of opinion in the secret committee upon the other part
of the resolution; on one side of the House it appeared proper to
express great confidence in the present Executive, and, leaving every
thing to that department, to do nothing ourselves; whilst on the other
side, as we did not feel that confidence, we could not express it, and
believing the occasion demanded legislative interference, we thought it
necessary to prepare for the worst. How, then, can we be charged by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) with having recorded our
determination not to protect the rights and interests of these States,
when our votes, appearing on your journal, not only prove our
unalterable determination to defend those rights, but likewise prove
that we were willing to leave the vindicating of those rights entirely
to the Executive, and were earnestly desirous of adding thereto all the
aid which the Legislature could contribute, and that we have been
prevented from pursuing this course by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr.
RANDOLPH,) and his friends? I must be permitted again to express my
astonishment that the gentleman can with any face make these charges,
and again to appeal to your journal, and the recollection of every
gentleman, for a contradiction of these unmerited aspersions.
When the main question was taken we refused our assent. Not because we
were unwilling to adopt such measures as circumstances might require;
but because we could not sanction those expressions of unbounded
confidence in the Executive, and that determination to do nothing which
the resolution contained.
As another argument against this resolution, we are told it is
calculated to irritate and impede a negotiation, which the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) has informed us is about to commence, and,
I must say, about to commence at a very late period; after an expiration
of one year since the cession of that territory to France. Let us recur
to the resolution:
"_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 reports will, in the opinion of the President, divulge
to the House particular transactions, not proper at this
time to be communicated."
Is this the language of irritation? Is there an offensive sentence
either to the Court of Spain or the Republic of France? Not one. So far
from impeding negotiation, it might lead to measures which would
accelerate the agency, and ensure terms more advantageous. To be ready
for any and every event, would evince on our part a disposition to
demand, and the power to enforce reparation if refused. Inactivity and
silence in the Legislative Department will indeed retard successful
negotiation, by depriving a Minister of powerful and unanswerable
arguments.
Mr. S. SMITH said, it would be recollected, that on the first day the
resolution of the gentleman from Connecticut was offered, it struck him
as improper, and that it was at his instance it had been ordered to lie
on the table. The more he had considered the nature of that resolution,
the more averse to it had he become. So far from his original dislike to
it having been removed by the arguments advanced, it had been confirmed,
and particularly by what had fallen from the gentleman from Virginia.
The gentleman from Connecticut does not perceive, or is unwilling to
acknowledge, that there is any thing in his resolution that implies
unfairness on the part of Spain, or that derogates from the honor of her
character; but let him read the resolution. Mr. S. then read as follows:
"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 the province is
to be delivered up."
Does not the gentleman who drew this resolution seem to believe, from
the express words of it, that the conduct of Spain has been unfair, and
that she may have adopted measures derogatory to her character and
honor? Shall we send a Minister hampered by such a resolution?
Let the gentleman recollect the conduct of this House on a similar
occasion. When an order of the British Court issued to seize all
American vessels, wherever found, certain spirited resolutions were
proposed in that House to show the dissatisfaction of the Government at
this unjust measure, and its disposition, if necessary, to resist it.
The gentleman will recollect, that at that crisis, and pending those
very resolutions, a Minister was appointed. Did not the gentleman's
friends immediately state the impropriety of passing those resolutions?
The fact was, that gentlemen on both sides felt the force of the
suggestion, and the resolutions were withdrawn. Mr. S. thought it wise,
prudent, and proper, to pursue on this occasion the same course. He
could conceive of no good end which could be answered by the resolution.
Is the gentleman really in earnest in his inquiries at this time? and if
the effect of his resolution should be to show that the stipulations are
injurious to our rights, would he know how to act? He would be for
acting spiritedly, no doubt; and yet, at this very moment, when he
professed such a declaration, he declares to the world, that he has no
confidence in the Executive, who is now pursuing the proper measures! I
cannot, therefore, conceive that the gentleman is in earnest, after the
vote which he and his friends have given of a want of confidence in the
Executive. I cannot consider their conduct as intended to promote the
real interests of their country; but as calculated to bring the country
into a situation from which it cannot withdraw, without pursuing
measures attended with expense and blood.
Mr. RANDOLPH.--I trust neither this House, nor the American people, can
be deceived as to this transaction. What I have stated the journals
confirm, and I should call for the reading of them, if I were not
informed by the Clerk that they were at the printer's. A resolution
passed this House, expressing its disposition to assert the rights of
the United States, in relation to their established limits, and to the
navigation of the Mississippi. That resolution contained an expression
of confidence in the Executive. Gentlemen moved to strike it out and
failed. In every other part they concurred, separately and distinctly.
But to the whole they gave their negative. What is the inference? That
they will not assert our rights because they have no confidence in the
Executive. Liken this to a bill: A clause is moved to be stricken out;
it is retained. Those who object to that clause vote against the final
passage of the bill. It is nevertheless carried; it becomes law. Are not
those who voted against it fairly to be considered as enemies to the
law? So have I a right to enumerate that gentleman and his friends,
opponents to the measure which I submitted to the House; and yet, sir,
although I stated every fact mentioned by the gentleman himself, (Mr.
GRISWOLD,) except the final vote, which he took care to keep out of
sight; although I mentioned expressly their concurrence in every other
part of the resolution, it is asked with what face I can make such a
statement in the teeth of your journals? Sir, let me tell that
gentleman, not with the face of a prevaricator, but with the face of a
man of honor and a gentleman; not with the face of one using terms
intended to convey more than meets the ear, with a view of explaining
them away when convenient; not with a design of simulating what I do not
believe, or of dissembling my real purpose. The House will recollect,
sir, that in the committee, the objection of the gentleman from
Connecticut was confined solely to the expression of confidence in the
Executive, there was then no reason to believe that there was any other.
After protesting against this expression, and suffering it even to
prevent his concurrence in any measures for the common good, he comes
forward with another resolution, whether to benefit that cause which he
has refused to espouse, or to diminish that confidence which appears so
much to have disturbed him, I leave the House to determine. But
Louisiana is ceded to France. It is so. Of this fact we have official
information. But let it be remembered that it is yet in the hands of
Spain. The injury which we have received is from officers of that Crown.
The reparation is to be demanded from the same quarter. Now what has the
information desired by gentlemen to do with any such negotiation? When
France shall have taken possession of this province; when she shall have
made pretensions inconsistent with our honor, or with our rights in that
quarter, then will it be time enough to take up this subject. This is a
transaction, which, if it ever does take place, must pass under the
immediate cognizance and control of this House. Let gentlemen recollect
that the treaty of cession is of an old date, and Louisiana is,
notwithstanding, still in the possession of Spain. Shall we then suggest
to France our expectation that she will set up a claim inconsistent with
our rights; that she may have received a colorable pretence for
violating them? Shall we thereby invite her aggressions? In whatever
hands this country may be eventually placed, or by whomsoever our rights
may be invaded, I doubt not a disposition will always be found to defend
them. But it is with the actual possessors that we must negotiate; it is
from them we must demand redress, and not from any nation who may
possess a reversionary right to the province of Louisiana.
Mr. BACON said that there was one question before the House, and they
were debating upon another, in an animated manner and on an extensive
scale, before they come to it. It would be recollected, he hoped, that
this question was not then before the House. To what point, therefore,
could these discussions lead? He was for going into a Committee of the
Whole, and meeting the resolution face to face.
Mr. DANA said that the observations of the gentleman from Massachusetts
would be correct, were it not for the objections made to the resolution.
That question is, therefore, fairly before the House; and the real point
is, whether the House will, or will not, adopt the resolution requesting
information. To adopting this resolution, one objection is urged by the
gentleman from Virginia, and enforced by the gentleman from Maryland.
This resolution, say they, may irritate the Court of Spain, and this
will be improper. One gentleman has said that the language of propriety
is uniform and consistent. Let gentlemen look then at the resolution
long since offered by the gentleman from Virginia, requesting papers in
relation to a violation of compact on the part of Spain in the late
proceedings at New Orleans. Let me ask, is there any thing in this
calculated to gratify the courtly delicacy of a Castilian? Here Spain is
explicitly charged with a violation of her engagement with us. Look at
the resolution that took its birth in secret committee, and which might
be termed the offspring of the intellectual energies of the gentleman
from Virginia. It is willing 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. If this were not the
style of direct complaint, it was, at least, harsh, and in no wise
courtly. Look now at the resolution proposed by my colleague. Compare
them, and if there is not a revolution in the force of language as well
as in other things, say if the language of my colleague's resolution is
not that of civility, moderation, and even flattery, compared with the
language of the other two?
[Mr. DANA having read Mr. GRISWOLD'S resolution proceeded.]
What is there here that implicates the character of Spain? If there is
any fault in mentioning the cession, if that is calculated to irritate
Spain, the fault lies with the President; for he first mentioned it.
This argument, then, must be abandoned. There is nothing in this
resolution that can impede negotiations; it is not my intention that
this House should take any measures to impede, but that we should take
measures to give additional force to negotiation. If I understand what
will give most efficacy to Executive negotiations, it is when the world
are assured that this House will support the President in all proper and
necessary measures for vindicating our rights. But, say the gentlemen,
is it possible that we can be for vindicating the rights of the citizens
when we have withdrawn our confidence from the Executive? It is true we
could not agree with gentlemen in their terms when they avowed "a
perfect confidence in the vigilance and wisdom of the Executive." The
gentleman from Virginia represented this as the theory of the
Government. We could not agree with him. We voted for striking this out.
It is unnecessary to mention our motives for this in detail. This might
be to imitate. What! "relying with perfect confidence in the
Executive"--is this the language of the constitution, as it respects any
man? The resolution does not limit the confidence reposed to any degree,
but ascribes a perfection of wisdom and vigor, which ought not to be
reposed in any being subject to the ordinary frailties of human nature.
Besides, there is an expression of confidence resulting from the
constitutional powers of the Executive, which may be correct. But it
will be recollected that the powers of the Executive are not competent
to ulterior measures. He has only the power of negotiation; he has no
other. Though he may prevent an aggression by employing force, he cannot
enforce compensation for injuries received. It was, therefore, improper
to agree to a resolution that pledged ourselves to abstain from doing
any thing.
The allusion to the case with Great Britain was not correct. Will it be
said that less success attended the measures of our negotiation then,
because the House manifested a disposition to adopt spirited measures?
Or, that there were in that case no measures adopted? Measures were
adopted. But here, not a single measure had been.
Mr. RANDOLPH said it was extremely painful to him to be obliged so often
to explain what appeared to him almost self-evident. The journals have
been quoted, sir, to show that I have cast an imputation on the Spanish
Court more injurious than that contained in the resolution of the
gentleman from Connecticut. I am perfectly willing that the decision of
the question before us should depend upon that fact. The resolution,
sir, which I had the honor to submit to you, spoke of a fact notorious
to the whole world, of a breach of compact, of a violation of treaty, on
the part of Spain, which could be neither denied nor justified. It
contained an inquiry into this circumstance, and, information having
been received respecting it, was followed by a declaration of our
willingness to ascribe it to the unauthorized misconduct of their agents
rather than to the Court of Spain. The resolution of the gentleman from
Connecticut implies a fact highly dishonorable to the Spanish
nation--that the Government, and not subordinate, unauthorized persons,
has secretly entered into stipulations repugnant to its engagements with
us. Put the case between two individuals; suppose a gentleman of this
House to receive an injury from either of the gentlemen from
Connecticut. In an open and manly manner he speaks of this injury, and
in undignified terms of resentment. He inquires into it; having found
that it was the act of a subordinate agent, and, no proof being
exhibited that it was at the instigation of the principal, he frankly
says: There is a violation on your part of your engagements with me, but
I am willing to ascribe it to the unauthorized misconduct of your agent.
On the contrary, suppose him to insinuate strongly that his opponent has
covertly taken steps to injure him by treacherously entering into
engagements incompatible with those previously made with him. Sir, that
honor which would feel itself wounded by the first of these proceedings,
while it was insensible to the other, is very little allied to the
Castilian.
But, sir, it seems that this unfortunate resolution betrays so entire an
ignorance of the distribution of the powers of our Government as to
clothe the Executive with an authority not only not devolved upon it by
the constitution, but which is the peculiar province of this and the
other branch of the Legislature. The gentleman (Mr. DANA) denies the
power of the Executive to redress injuries received from foreign
nations. The resolution, however, speaks only of a disposition to
redress those injuries. But let us examine into the fact. Have I,
indeed, so far mistaken, and, contrary to my own avowed principles, am
so disposed to augment the Executive powers at the expense of the other
departments of the Government? Suppose, on the representations of the
Executive to the Court of Spain, that Court, which is more than
probable, should restore the rights of navigation and deposit, disavow
the conduct of their officers in violating those rights, and moreover,
punish them for it? Would any person deny that, through the agency of
the Executive, constitutionally exercised, the injury was redressed?
There were other criticisms of the gentleman which I well remember, and
to which he seems willing to call the recollection of the House. They
were chiefly of a verbal nature. The gentleman objected to the
expression "vindicating the injuries," which he contended implied the
justifying, and not the redressing, of them. I could only reply, that I
had been in the habit of hearing that word used in the sense in which I
applied it as well as in that contended for by the gentleman. That the
meaning of terms in our copious and flexible language should not be
settled by provincial acceptation; and that by the only authority then
accessible to us (knowing the disposition of the gentleman to bow to
authority) it was decided that the word "vindicate" extended as well to
the avenging of an injury as to the assertion of a right. I am, however,
willing to confess that I have never attended to the technical structure
of language with a precision so minute as that of the gentleman from
Connecticut; and if the House are again to go to school to become
acquainted with it, if again we are to be subjected to the lash of the
pedagogue, no man shall have my vote for that high office so soon as the
gentleman from Connecticut.
When the resolution which I submitted to you was under consideration, I
did defend the expression contained in it, of confidence in the
Executive, on the theory of our Government. I am still ready to defend
it on the same principle. By the Constitution of the United States, the
Executive is the representative of the United States to foreign nations.
It is furnished with organs by which to receive their propositions, and
to communicate our own. The constitution, therefore, presumes that to
this department may be entirely confided our negotiations with foreign
States. To this House is given the sole power to originate money bills,
and the constitution supposes that a perfect reliance may be had upon it
for executing this all-important trust. On the Senate, in like manner,
is devolved the right of trying impeachments, and perfect confidence is
placed in the wisdom and justice of their decision. The same confidence
is reposed in the Executive with respect to exterior relations. Without
adverting, therefore, to the character of the individual, we had the
same right to presume that the constituted authority would take the
proper steps in relation to his department, that he has to presume that
we will raise the necessary revenue and pass the proper laws. Until,
then, it could be shown that some specific act of the Executive had
rendered that department unworthy of our confidence, we might
consistently express it: and, even if proof of such misconduct could be
established, it would not alter the tenor of the constitution, however
the individual might be affected by it. For your constitution, sir, is
not of that precarious nature which depends on the fluctuating
characters of particular men. Mr. R. concluded by declaring his
reluctance, then increased by indisposition, to be so frequently called
upon the floor, but he felt himself in honor bound to defend a motion
made by himself, and which had called forth such repeated animadversions
from the other side of the House.
Mr. GODDARD.--The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) has complained
so much of the objections to which his _secret_ resolution was exposed,
that I feel myself called upon to sustain a part of that complaint which
he has seen fit to place to the account of my colleague. The motion,
sir, to strike out the word "vindicating," which gave the gentleman the
trouble of producing his pocket dictionary, came from me. He attempted
to show, by the authority of his dictionary, that the word is sometimes
used to signify _revenge_. Admitting it, I asked then, and I ask now,
with what propriety it could be used, even in that sense, in the
resolution referred to? We were then speaking of measures which had
before that time been taken by the President, regarding the subject to
which the resolution referred. Were we to suppose that the President had
already taken measures to _revenge_ the injuries of the United States? I
had heard of no such intimation. Besides, has he the power to do so, in
the manner then suggested by the gentleman from Virginia by taking
possession of New Orleans? I believe not, without the concurrence of
Congress. It was therefore absurd, in the highest degree, to use the
expression in that resolution; and we had more than one reason for
striking out that part of the resolution which contained it.
But this, as well as every other word and letter of this favorite
resolution, was pertinaciously adhered to. The gentleman who framed the
resolution seemed determined to compel us to eulogize the President--to
extort from us a little praise of _the man_--or reduce us to the
necessity of voting against the principle of the resolution, which
asserted our right to the free navigation of the Mississippi. This part
of the resolution could have been introduced for no other purpose. It
also called upon us to pledge ourselves to wait the issue of such
measures as the President might have taken, without any knowledge of the
nature of those measures, if any had been taken. And this, the gentleman
(Mr. RANDOLPH) now tells us, we might well enough have done, on the
ground of the _theory of our Government_. I did not know, sir, that it
belonged to the theory of Government to eulogize the President on all
occasions, or express a confidence we do not feel. Nor does it make a
part of the theory of our Government, that the President, without the
concurrence of Congress, should avenge the injuries of the country. But,
sir, we determined not to express a confidence we did not feel, or vote
against the principle of a resolution which was agreeable to us; and the
rules of the House, notwithstanding all the efforts to the contrary,
protected us in carrying that determination into effect. We recorded our
votes in favor of such parts of the resolution as we liked, and against
that which we deemed exceptionable; and the final vote which was given
upon the whole resolution was sufficiently explained by those upon its
different parts. But, sir, because we did not vote that we had "perfect
confidence" in the Executive, are we now to be told that we are not
entitled to the information called for by the resolution on your table?
Are those who do not express entire approbation of all the measures of
the Administration to be refused all information respecting the most
important interests of the country?
Another objection is raised to agreeing to this resolution. Gentlemen
say it will offend foreign nations. What does the resolution call for?
It calls for information of a _fact_ which we are told in the
President's Message exists. Louisiana, says the President, has been
ceded by Spain to France. We ask for such documents as he may possess in
evidence of that fact. We wish to know the terms and conditions upon
which that province is to be delivered up. When this is asked, by the
resolution on your table, the right is at the same time reserved to the
President to withhold such parts of it (if any such there be) as, _in
his opinion_, ought not to be communicated. And the passage of this
resolution is to offend France or Spain! For fear of _offending_ foreign
nations we are not to ask or know what is our relative situation with
such nations? If, sir, we hold this language, we may indeed avoid the
_anger_ of foreign nations, but we shall merit their _contempt_. But
when, in answer to the suggestion that we may offend Spain, the
gentleman from Virginia is reminded of his resolution, which charges
Spain directly with a violation of treaty, he replies that this language
is palliated by our saying that we are "willing to ascribe this
violation to the unauthorized conduct of certain individuals rather than
to the want of good faith on the part of His Catholic Majesty." But, in
making out this apology, the gentleman has blended two resolutions
together. The one to which my colleague referred passed early in the
session. In that, Spain was charged directly with a violation of treaty.
Nothing was then said about unauthorized conduct of individuals. This
reluctance at charging Spain with this violation of treaty was not
expressed until a long time after, and is found in the resolution which
passed in secret. Indeed, this, as well as all the objections which have
been offered to the passage of the resolution on your table, appear to
me equally fallacious.
Mr. HUGER said, that having, on a former occasion, had an opportunity of
delivering his sentiments in favor of the present resolution,
"requesting the Executive to direct the proper officer to lay before the
House such official documents, as were in possession of the Government,
relative to the cession of Louisiana to France," he felt no disposition
to enter at this time into a further discussion of the merits of that
resolution, nor should he have again troubled the House on the subject,
but for the assertion repeated more than once by the gentleman from
Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) that those gentlemen who thought and voted
with himself in the secret committee, had recorded, on the journals of
the House, their solemn determination (however sensibly they might feel
the injuries inflicted on the rights and interests of these States) to
refuse all co-operation in support of those rights and interests so long
as the direction of the Government should remain in the hands of the
present Chief Magistrate. This imputation had already, it was true, been
very properly repelled by his friend from Connecticut, and it had been
triumphantly shown from the journals themselves, with how little justice
the insinuation had been made against those who agreed and voted with
him on the different parts of the resolution lately adopted in the
secret committee. The gentleman from Virginia had, nevertheless, thought
proper again to make the assertion; Mr. H. must, therefore, beg leave
again to meet it, and to declare that it was neither authorized by a
fair construction of the different votes given on the occasion by yeas
and nays, nor to be inferred from any thing which had fallen in debate
either from himself or any of his political friends. The very contrary,
continued Mr. H., is in truth the fact; and had the resolution in
question been debated with open doors, it would have been very evident
to every one, that the utmost pains had been taken by the other side of
the House to place us in this very predicament, and by availing
themselves of a point of order, to oblige us by our votes, not only to
declare an implicit and entire confidence in the present Chief
Magistrate, but to tie up our hands and bind ourselves not to take a
single step in this important business until the Executive was
graciously pleased to authorize us to do so. If the doors had been
allowed, I say, to remain open during the debate, it would have been
evident to every one how much pains were taken to oblige us to commit
ourselves on these two points, or to submit to be presented to the world
as unwilling to co-operate in any way in the support of the just rights
of the nation, and be deprived of an opportunity of showing, as we were
anxious to do, our approbation of, and concurrence in, other parts of
the resolution; the last sentence in particular, which holds forth our
unalterable determination to maintain, in every event, the boundaries
and right of commerce and navigation through the Mississippi, as
established by existing treaties. Fortunately, however, the point of
order was determined in our favor, and we have had an opportunity to
show, and did actually show, by our votes, in the most unequivocal
manner, that we were, as well as our political opponents, decidedly in
favor of every other part of the resolution, save only that which called
on us so unnecessarily to declare ourselves the blind and passive tools
of the Executive. Nay, more, he recollected to have declared himself,
again and again, in the course of the debate, that, although he was not
willing at the present moment unnecessarily to express an entire and
implicit confidence in the political infallibility of the Executive, yet
he certainly had not the smallest hesitation in saying, that he was as
ready as any gentleman on the other side, to devote his life and
fortune, even under the auspices of the present Chief Magistrate, to the
defence of our common country against any and every foreign aggression
whatever. He was not, it was true, one of the warm and enthusiastic
devotees of the present Administration, and he must honestly acknowledge
that he should greatly prefer seeing the reins of Government, at this
critical juncture, in the hands of a WASHINGTON! He, nevertheless,
recollected that the present Chief Magistrate was placed at the head of
affairs by the constitutional voice of the majority of the American
people. He acquiesced, therefore, in their decision, and hoped he might
be permitted to avail himself of the advantage of having the doors now
open, to repeat again, in the most unequivocal language, that he was as
ready as any of the most devoted friends of the Administration, to risk
his life and his all, (even under its auspices,) in asserting the rights
and vindicating the injuries of the United States.
He was the more anxious to make a public and open avowal of his
sentiments on this subject, because, although it might suit the party
purposes for the moment to hold up one side of the House, as so
forgetful of their duty, and so hurried away by their political zeal, as
to pledge themselves in the face of the world, to give up the most
important rights of the nation without a struggle, rather than
co-operate with those now at the head of affairs in support of them, yet
he thought it all-important that foreign nations at least should be
convinced the fact was not so; and that whatever difference of opinion
may exist amongst us with respect to our local politics, when called
upon to meet and repel the encroachments of any foreign power, we would
have but one sentiment on the subject. To bring about, indeed, a
unanimous vote and present to the American people the agreeable and
consoling spectacle of the National Legislature acting with one mind and
with mutual confidence in each other on this great national question,
big with such important consequences, had been his sincere wish, as well
as that, he was confident, of every member on his side of the House.
They had, consequently, left no stone unturned to effect the desirable
end: they had called upon and conjured the majority to waive for the
moment all party questions; to meet them on such fair and honorable
grounds as might enable them to act with perfect unanimity in support of
such measures, as it might be found expedient to adopt. Nor could
gentlemen have forgotten the eloquent and conciliating speech of the
member from Connecticut, and the ardent desire he had evinced, in common
with all his friends, to bury the hatchet and lay aside every other
consideration but the public good. It was scarcely necessary, however,
to remind the House of the manner in which these proffers of
conciliation and the anxiety on our part to obtain a unanimous vote on
this important occasion were received. It is in the memory of every one,
that they were treated with the most sovereign contempt, hooted and
spurned at, and the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) in
particular, went so far as to declare, that he neither wanted nor wished
any thing like unanimity to appear in support of the measures which
might be adopted; nay, that unanimity, however attainable, was not
desirable. Mr. H. said he would make no comment on these sentiments and
this conduct on the part of the majority; and as he did not rise for the
purpose of entering into a further discussion of the main question, he
should no longer encroach on the time or patience of the House, but
leave them and the world to determine whether he or his political
friends had, by their votes or conduct, in the course of the transaction
alluded to, afforded any just ground for the imputation of the gentleman
from Virginia, whatever plausibility he had ingeniously endeavored to
give it.
The question was then taken, on the requisition of Mr. GRISWOLD, by yeas
and nays, and carried in the negative--yeas 38, nays 52, as follows:
YEAS.--John Archer, John Bacon, James A. Bayard, Phanuel
Bishop, John Campbell, Thomas Claiborne, Manasseh Cutler,
Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, John Dennis, Abiel Foster,
Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove,
Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill,
Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer
Matoon, Lewis R. Morris, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater,
Nathan Read, John Rutledge, John C. Smith, John Stanley,
John Stratton, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, Thomas
Tillinghast, George B. Upham, Joseph B. Varnum, Killian K.
Van Rensselaer, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, and Henry
Woods.
NAYS.--Willis Alston, Theodorus Bailey, Richard Brent,
Robert Brown, William Butler, Matthew Clay, John Clopton,
John Condit, Richard Cutts, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson,
William Dickson, Peter Early, Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer
Elmer, William Eustis, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A.
Hanna, Daniel Heister, 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, Israel Smith,
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,
John P. Van Ness, Isaac Van Horne, and Thomas Wynns.
Mr. S. SMITH said he had a communication to make, which, in his opinion,
required secrecy; whereupon the galleries were cleared.
After a short time they were opened; when the House resumed the
consideration of Mr. GRISWOLD'S resolution which lay on the table.
_Ordered_, That the Committee of the whole House, on the State of the
Union, to whom was referred, on the fifth instant, a motion respecting
official information of the cession of Louisiana to France, be
discharged from the consideration thereof; and that the said motion do
lie on the table.
Mr. BAYARD said he lamented much, that unavoidable occurrences had
prevented his attending in his place when the resolution was under
consideration upon the motion to go into a Committee of the whole House.
Having no knowledge of the arguments then employed to induce the
adoption of the resolution, he should abstain from many remarks which
obviously presented themselves on the subject, lest he should fall into
repetitions of what was familiar to the minds of the House from the
observations of other gentlemen. He must, however, be allowed to state
that it was a practice little known heretofore, but one which had
alarmingly increased of late, to resist a call for information from any
branch of the Executive Government. It cannot be on the ground of
secrecy, required by the state of affairs, for we have been often told
that a Government like ours ought to have no secrets. Though the present
times have assumed the character of _economical_, yet an honorable
member of great weight in the House, and whom he did not then observe in
his place, had remarked at the last session, with great emphasis and
effect, that no disposition to economy should ever induce him to
economize information. A stronger case than the present could not exist.
The House had been called on to act upon a question touching our
foreign relations. On such subjects, it was among the chief duties of
the Executive to acquire information. It was for this purpose that
Ministers were sent abroad, and their communications were made to the
Cabinet, to which we had a right to look upon all occasions for
information respecting the proceedings of foreign Governments which
implicated the national interest.
It is stated in the Presidential Message, that Louisiana is ceded by
Spain to France. This is an important fact. The statement in the Message
shows that the President has obtained information relative to the
cession after the fact is disclosed, which is the extent of any
indiscretion which can be committed on the subject; why conceal from us
the circumstances? The naked fact did not furnish sufficient light to
enable us to judge of the steps which it would be proper for us to
pursue. Though the country had been ceded, yet the possession remained
with the Spaniards. This created a presumption that it was not a simple,
absolute cession. If the cession be conditional or qualified, or to take
effect upon some future contingency, it is extremely material that the
House should be informed of the existence of the circumstances.
Mr. B. repeated his regret that he was not present at the discussion of
the subject which had taken place, as it was beyond his powers to
imagine a ground upon which the information requested by the resolution
could be denied. But after the resolution had been in effect negatived
on the motion to go into a Committee of the Whole, and, as he
understood, by a large majority, he should not have risen to trouble the
House but for an occurrence which had taken place since the House had
made their determination upon the resolution. An honorable member from
Maryland (Mr. S. SMITH) has just laid upon our table a resolution
calling upon the House to place two millions of dollars at the
discretion of the Executive. [The SPEAKER here remarked to Mr. BAYARD,
that as the doors were no longer closed, it was not in order to refer to
what had been done when the doors were closed.] Mr. B. said he had no
disposition to transgress the rules of the House; but it was an awkward
situation, when, arguing in support of a measure, he was not at liberty
to state the strongest reason in favor of it. He would not repeat what
had escaped him; but alluding to what was in the knowledge of every
member, he considered himself allowed to urge the probability that the
House would be called upon for a grant of money. Now, sir, can gentlemen
expect that either we or the nation will in any case be satisfied to
make a large grant of money, while no information is given of the
grounds upon which the grant is required? When money is asked for,
information ought never to be denied; and, for his part, he never would
consent to give a cent, while information, which ought to be
communicated, was withheld.
Mr. B. concluded by observing, that he hoped he might still flatter
himself with the expectation, that what had recently occurred, would
induce the House to vary from the determination they had made, and adopt
the resolution.
The question was taken, that the House do agree to the resolution of Mr.
GRISWOLD, and passed in the negative--yeas 35, nays 51.
WEDNESDAY, January 12.
_Purchase of Louisiana._
[The injunction of secrecy having been removed from the following
proceedings, had in secret session, they are here inserted under the
proper date.]
_Ordered_, That the Committee of the whole House, to whom was yesterday
committed a motion in the words following, to wit:
"_Resolved_, That a sum of two millions of dollars, in
addition to the provision heretofore made, be appropriated
to defray any expenses which may be incurred in relation to
the intercourse between the United States and foreign
nations, to be paid out of any money that may be in the
Treasury, not otherwise appropriated, and to be applied
under the direction of the President of the United States,
who, if necessary, is hereby authorized to borrow the whole
or any part thereof; an account whereof, as soon as may be,
shall be laid before Congress:"
be discharged from the consideration thereof, and that the motion be
referred to Mr. NICHOLSON, Mr. EUSTIS, Mr. BAYARD, Mr. DICKSON, Mr.
LOWNDES, Mr. THOMPSON, and Mr. GREGG; that they do examine the matter
thereof, and report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the
House.
The committee to whom was referred a resolution proposing
an appropriation of two millions of dollars, in addition to
the sum usually appropriated for the purposes of
intercourse between the United States and foreign nations,
submit the following report:
The object of this resolution is to enable the Executive to
commence, with more effect, a negotiation with the French
and Spanish Governments relative to the purchase from them
of the island of New Orleans, and the provinces of East and
West Florida. This object is deemed highly important and
has received the attentive consideration of the committee.
The free and unmolested navigation of the river Mississippi
is a point to which the attention of the General Government
has been directed, ever since the peace of 1783, by which
our independence as a nation was finally acknowledged. The
immense tract of country owned by the United States, which
lies immediately on the Mississippi, or communicates with
it by means of large navigable rivers rising within our
boundaries, renders its free navigation an object, not only
of inestimable advantage, but of the very first necessity.
The Mississippi forms the western boundary of the United
States, from its source to the 31st degree of north
latitude, and empties itself into the Gulf of Mexico, about
the 29th degree of north latitude. It furnishes the only
outlet through which the produce of the Indiana Territory,
of the States of Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, and of the
western parts of Pennsylvania and Virginia, and a portion
of the Mississippi Territory, can be transported to a
foreign market, or to the ports of the Atlantic States.
From the 31st degree of north latitude, which is the
southern boundary of the United States, to the mouth of the
river, the territory on each side has heretofore been in
possession of the Spanish Government; the province of
Louisiana lying to the west, and those of East Florida,
with the island of New Orleans, to the east. Although the
United States have insisted on an uncontrollable right to
pass up and down the river, from its source to the sea, yet
this right, if admitted in its most ample latitude, will
not secure to them the full advantages of navigation. The
strength and rapidity of the current of the Mississippi are
known to render its ascent so extremely difficult, that few
vessels of burden have attempted to go as far as our
boundary. This circumstance obliges the citizens of the
Western country to carry their produce down the river in
boats, from which it is put on board of ships capable of
sustaining a sea voyage. It follows, therefore, that to
enjoy the full benefits of navigation, some place should be
fixed which sea vessels can approach without great
inconvenience, where the American produce may be deposited
until it is again shipped to be carried abroad. This great
point was secured to us in the year 1795, by the Spanish
Government, who agreed, in the treaty of San Lorenzo el
Real, that Americans should have the right to deposit at
New Orleans. This right has been used from that time till a
late period; but the conduct of the Intendant at that place
shows how liable the advantageous navigation of the river
is to interruption, and strongly points out the impolicy of
relying on a foreign nation for benefits, which our
citizens have a right to expect should be secured to them
by their own Government It is hoped that the port of New
Orleans may again be opened before any very material
injuries arise; but should this be the case, or if, as the
treaty provides, a new place of deposit should be assigned,
the late occurrence shows the uncertainty of its
continuance. Experience proves that the caprice or the
interested views of a single officer may perpetually
subject us to the alternative of submitting to injury, or
of resorting to war.
The late violation of our treaty with Spain necessarily
leads to the inquiry, how far the Western country may be
affected in other points, not connected with New Orleans?
The Mississippi Territory extends from the confines of
Georgia to the river Mississippi, and from the 31st to the
35th degree of north latitude. It is estimated to contain
more than fifty millions of acres, and, from its numerous
advantages, must, one day or other, possess an immense
population. The variety, richness, and abundance of its
productions, hold out to settlers the strongest inducements
to resort thither, and the United States may safely
calculate on drawing a considerable revenue from the sale
of lands in this, as well as in other quarters of the
Western country. The value of these, however, may be
diminished or increased, and the sale impeded or advanced
by the impression made on the public mind, by shutting the
port of New Orleans, and by eventual measures which may be
adopted to guard against similar injuries.
West Florida is bounded on the north by the Mississippi
Territory, from which it is separated by no natural
boundary; on the east by the river Appalachicola, which
divides it from East Florida; on the west by the river
Mississippi, and on the south by the Gulf of Mexico. The
Mississippi Territory is intersected by many large and
valuable rivers, which rise within its own boundaries and
meander through it in a general direction, from north to
south, but empty themselves into the Gulf of Mexico through
the province of West Florida. In fact, with the exception
of that part of the Territory which lies immediately on the
Mississippi, the whole must depend on the Mobile and the
Appalachicola, with their numerous branches, and on some
other rivers of inferior note, for the means of sending its
produce to market, and of returning to itself such foreign
supplies as the necessities or convenience of its
inhabitants may require. In these rivers, too, the Eastern
parts of the State of Tennessee are deeply interested, as
some of the great branches of the Mobile approach very near
to some of those branches of the Tennessee river, which lie
above the great Muscle shoals. Even if it should prove
difficult to connect them, yet the land carriage will be
shorter, and the route to the sea more direct than the
river Tennessee furnishes. These rivers possess, likewise,
an advantage which is denied to the Mississippi. As their
sources are not in the mountains, and their course is
through a level country, their currents are gentle, and the
tide flows considerably above our boundary. This
circumstance, together with the depth of water, which many
of them afford, renders them accessible to sea vessels, and
ships of two hundred tons burden may ascend for several
hundred miles into the heart of the Mississippi Territory.
These rivers, however, which run almost exclusively within
our own limits, and which it would seem as if nature had
intended for our own benefit, we must be indebted to others
for the beneficial use of, so long as the province of West
Florida shall continue in the possession of a foreign
nation. If the province of West Florida were of itself an
independent empire, it would be the interest of its
Government to promote the freedom of trade, by laying open
the mouths of the rivers to all nations; this having been
the policy of those powers who possess the mouths of the
Rhine, the Danube, the Po, and the Tagus, with some others.
But the system of colonization which has always heretofore
prevailed proves that the mother country is ever anxious to
engross to itself the trade of its colonies, and affords us
every reason to apprehend that Spain will not readily admit
us to pass through her territory to carry on a trade either
with each other or with foreign nations. This right we may
insist on, and perhaps it may be conceded to us; but it is
possible that it may be denied. At all events it may prove
the source of endless disagreement and perpetual hostility.
In this respect East Florida may not perhaps be so
important, but its acquisition is nevertheless deemed
desirable. From its junction with the State of Georgia, at
the river St. Mary's, it stretches nearly four hundred
miles into the sea, forming a large peninsula, and has some
very fine harbors. The southern point, Cape Florida, is not
more than one hundred miles distant from the Havana, and
the possession of it may be beneficial to us in relation to
our trade with the West Indies. It would likewise make our
whole territory compact, would add considerably to our
sea-coast, and by giving us the Gulf of Mexico for our
southern boundary, would render us less liable to attack,
in what is now deemed the most vulnerable part of the
Union.
From the foregoing view of facts, it must be seen that the
possession of New Orleans and the Floridas will not only be
required for the convenience of the United States, but
will be demanded by their most imperious necessities. The
Mississippi and its branches, with those of other rivers
above referred to, drain an extent of country, not less,
perhaps, than one half of our whole territory, containing
at this time one-eighth of our population and progressing
with a rapidity beyond the experience of any former time,
or of any other nation. The Floridas and New Orleans
command the only outlets to the sea, and our best interests
require that we should get possession of them. This
requisition, however, arises not from a disposition to
increase our territory; for neither the Floridas nor New
Orleans offer any other inducements than their mere
geographical relation to the United States. But if we look
forward to the free use of the Mississippi, the Mobile, the
Appalachicola, and the other rivers of the West, by
ourselves and our posterity, New Orleans and the Floridas
must become a part of the United States, either by purchase
or by conquest.
The great question, then, which presents itself is, shall
we at this time lay the foundation for future peace by
offering a fair and equivalent consideration; or shall we
hereafter incur the hazards and the horrors of war? The
Government of the United States is differently organized
from any other in the world. Its object is the happiness of
man: its policy and its interest, to pursue right by right
means. War is the great scourge of the human race, and
should never be resorted to but in cases of the most
imperious necessity. A wise government will avoid it, when
its views can be attained by peaceful measures. Princes
fight for glory, and the blood and treasure of their
subjects is the price they pay. In all nations the people
bear the burden of war, and in the United States the people
rule. Their Representatives are the guardians of their
rights, and it is the duty of those Representatives to
provide against any event which may, even at a distant day,
involve the interests and the happiness of the nation. We
may, indeed, have our rights restored to us by treaty, but
there is a want of fortitude in applying temporary remedies
to permanent evils; thereby imposing on our posterity a
burden which we ourselves ought to bear. If the purchase
can be made, we ought not to hesitate. If the attempt
should fail, we shall have discharged an important duty.
War may be the result, but the American nation, satisfied
with our conduct, will be animated by one soul, and will
unite all its energies in the contest. Foreign powers will
be convinced that it is not a war of aggrandizement on our
part, and will feel no unreasonable jealousies towards us.
We shall have proved that our object was justice; it will
be seen that our propositions were fair: and it will be
acknowledged that our cause is honorable. Should alliances
be necessary they may be advantageously formed. We shall
have merited, and shall therefore possess, general
confidence. Our measures will stand justified, not only to
ourselves and our country, but to the world.
In another point of view, perhaps, it would be preferable
to make the purchase, as it is believed that a smaller sum
would be required for this subject, than would necessarily
be expended, if we should attempt to take possession by
force; the expenses of a war being, indeed, almost
incalculable. The committee have no information before
them, to ascertain the amount for which the purchase can be
made, but it is hoped, that with the assistance of two
millions of dollars in hand, this will not be unreasonable.
A similar course was pursued for the purpose of settling
our differences with the Regency of Algiers, by an
appropriation of one million of dollars, prior to the
commencement of the negotiation, and we have since
experienced its beneficial effects.
Under these impressions, therefore, the committee recommend
the adoption of the resolution referred to them in the
following words, viz:
_Resolved_, That a sum of two millions of dollars in
addition to the provision heretofore made, be appropriated
to defray the expenses which may be incurred in relation to
the intercourse between the United States and foreign
nations; to be paid out of any money that may be in the
treasury not otherwise appropriated, and to be applied
under the direction of the President of the United States;
who, if necessary is hereby authorized to borrow the same,
or any part thereof, an account whereof, as soon as may be,
shall be laid before Congress.[76]
THURSDAY, January 13.
Another member, to wit, WILLIAM JONES, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and
took his seat in the House.
_Franking Privilege._
Mr. RANDOLPH moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole, on the amendments offered by the Senate to the bill making
appropriations for the Military Establishment for the year 1803.
The first amendment, applying an addition of two thousand dollars for
the purchase of books, maps, and instruments for the use of the War
Department, was agreed to.
On the second, adding $4,500 for the payment of postage on letters to
and from the inspector, paymaster, &c., a lengthy debate ensued.
It was opposed on another ground--as being the duty of the Secretary of
War to frank all letters going from the offices attached to the War
Department, and, therefore, an appropriation was unnecessary.
In answer, it was observed, that the Government must, and ought, in some
way, to support the expense of transporting returns, orders, and
letters, relating to the military service; and, if they would not make
an appropriation, it was proposed to extend the privilege of franking to
the paymaster and inspector, through whom most of the details for the
Army passed. That it was not the duty of the Secretary to frank letters
and packages going from other offices--it was making a clerk of
him--obliging him to do that which neither the law nor the constitution
contemplated as being attached to his office; that it would encroach
upon the time which, must necessarily be devoted to more important
concerns. Besides, were he able and willing to perform the drudgery of
that service, it was doubtful whether he had any legal or constitutional
right to frank any packages, except those going immediately and directly
from his own particular office, and that he might be liable to a
penalty, though he should frank letters on public business, relating to
the Army and War Department generally.
The extension of the privilege of franking was opposed by the Speaker,
(Mr. MACON,) and others. They considered all franking as wrong, and
liable to abuse--they would rather restrict than extend this privilege.
In reply, it was said that, if confidence could not be placed in those
officers, as to the privilege of franking, the imposition could not be
prevented by referring their packets to the Secretary of War, or by
paying their account current with the postmasters. It was evident the
Government must pay those expenses; that it could make no difference as
to the revenue, whether the Postmaster General's Department received and
paid to the Treasury the money which was drawn from the contingent fund
of the War Department, or from a special appropriation to defray the
expenses of postage on military letters and packets, or whether they
extended the privilege of franking to those officers from and through
whom the military details must pass. In the former case, it was but
taking from one pocket and putting in the other--in the latter, much
trouble was saved; and, if the characters employed in those departments
were worthy of a confidence which should entitle them to the places they
hold, it could never be supposed that they would abuse the privilege of
franking.
On motion of Mr. GRISWOLD, seconded by Mr. EUSTIS, the committee rose
and the amendments from the Senate were recommitted to the Committee of
Ways and Means.
_Amendment of the Bankrupt Act._
Mr. RANDOLPH hoped the act would not be amended, but repealed. When it
passed, he was one of those who entered his protest against it. He
considered it in the nature of an _ex post facto_ law--an allurement to
fraud--tending to corrupt the morals of the community--to change the
nature of contracts--to discharge men, not only for their obligations
and their solemn promises, but to violate their oaths. And, because
Congress had a right to enact such a law, would gentlemen say it was for
the benefit of trade? Its operations had been the reverse. He had been
waiting, ever since its establishment, for the merchants themselves to
come forward and urge the repeal. A portion of them had petitioned for
amendments, which, in fact, amounted to a request for a repeal.
Mr. S. SMITH thought any arguments on the merits of the question were
premature. It was a subject of too much importance to be hurried in that
manner. He hoped it would be recommitted.
Mr. NICHOLSON.--Many gentlemen appeared to wish a repeal, because there
were some injurious provisions in the law; others wished it might be
amended, believing it was capable of such alterations as would remove
their objections. He thought it in some respects defective, and in
others beneficial. If the evils to which it was subjected could be
remedied, he should be for retaining, if not, for repealing the law.
Mr. SMILIE.--Considering the situation of the United States, he thought
there never should have been a bankrupt law; but he doubted whether it
would be expedient to repeal it at this time, but let it expire of
itself. He believed much mischief had been produced by it, and if it was
repealed now, he apprehended much more would ensue. Its natural life was
but five years, and he thought it had better exist for that period than
be repealed. He was for recommitment.
Mr. BAYARD agreed with the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. NICHOLSON,) and
thought the committee should have inquired what amendments were
expedient. He was also forcibly impressed with the remarks of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. SMILIE,) that it was better to suffer
the law to expire of itself than repeal it now. He did not think that
the House were prepared to go into a discussion. The argument of the
gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) that the bankrupt law was _ex
post facto_, would not apply; but an act to repeal would in reality be
an _ex post facto_ law. Many merchants had entered into contracts,
having an eye to the bankrupt law; many had embarked in perilous
enterprises, knowing, that if they had made unfortunate calculations,
that by a surrender of their effects they might again engage in
commercial pursuits. And though a man might be discharged from his
contracts, the sense of moral obligation was not impaired--in _foro
conscientiæ_ he was still answerable. He would not deny that frauds were
committed, but for this should the honest debtor be eternally fettered
with his debts? Should he, from unavoidable accidents, be cast into
prison, and his family reduced to misery and distress? He was sure that
the gentleman would revolt at the idea. Were the bankrupt law repealed,
they must substitute the insolvent laws of the different States. Did not
the insolvent laws of the Southern States hold out the same allurements
to fraud as the general bankrupt law? By a repeal, they would increase
the evils, and destroy the benefits of the general system. We were, said
Mr. B., a great commercial Republic; the connection between merchants of
the different States was increasing; therefore, the merchant of Georgia
and the merchant of New Hampshire should be subjected to general
regulations. Now, the merchant of Pennsylvania trusting the merchant of
Virginia knew that his whole estate, real and personal, was liable for
the payment of his debts; whereas, by the insolvent laws of that State,
(Virginia,) the former might give an extensive credit; the latter might
vest it all in land, which was untangible for the payment of his demand.
The bankrupt act was a commercial law, extending equal benefits
throughout the Union. If it was suffered to go back to the select
committee, they would be able to give a clearer view of its advantages
and defects. It was a subject of incalculable importance, both as it
respected the debtor and creditor, and he hoped it would meet a candid
and deliberate investigation.
Mr. RANDOLPH said that the affairs of the world had been found to suffer
more from being put in the hands of those who were superior to the
management of them, than from those who were inadequate to the execution
of those objects intrusted to them. It had been allowed a sound rule of
construction, that all general powers must be confined to particular
exceptions. The constitution gave Congress the right of making a
bankrupt law, but it did not give the power of impairing contracts. He
would exonerate the person, but never the property. It was the case in
Virginia, when a man had surrendered all his property, his person was
liberated, but his property never. And though we were a commercial
Republic, was it not necessary to take care of the agricultural
interest? How did the bankrupt law operate upon the planter? He knew by
experience that it had been in many instances ruinous; that many
planters had been _choused_ out of their property by the operations of
this very law. He had known from experience that many men had been
buoyed up and supported by their friends till those friends were made
good, and then suffered to fail, to the great injury of the former.
Mr. BACON was in favor of a reference to a Committee of the whole House.
Mr. S. SMITH said, gentlemen seemed to consider the bankrupt law as made
entirely for the benefit of the debtor. That was an erroneous opinion.
It was made also for the creditor: as such he advocated it. It enabled
the creditor to secure his property, if he found the debtor was disposed
to be fraudulent: he could apply for a commission of bankruptcy, and
make the debtor account for the property in his possession. Besides, it
reduced the creditors to an equality--a debtor could not secure his
friends, and leave the rest of his creditors without a dollar. An
instance of that kind had lately come within his knowledge. To the
agricultural interest it held out still greater advantages. The farmer
who brought his produce to market could always get _cash_, if he would
sell for _cash_; if he chose to sell on a credit, he received a higher
price in proportion; that increase of price was his insurance for
selling on credit. He was for examining the subject, and endeavoring to
remedy defects, rather than repealing.
Mr. HOLLAND moved that it be referred to a Committee of the whole House.
Carried.
FRIDAY, January 14.
_Monument to Gen. Gates._
Mr. VAN NESS moved the following resolution:
_Resolved_, That a monument be erected in commemoration of
the patriotism, valor, and good conduct of Major General
Horatio Gates, who, in the late Revolutionary war,
commanded the American forces that captured General
Burgoyne and the British army under his command, at
Saratoga, in the State of New York.
_Ordered_, That the said motion be referred to the committee to whom was
committed, on the tenth instant, 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."
MONDAY, January 17.
Two other members, to wit: from Virginia SAMUEL J. CABELL, and from
North Carolina ROBERT WILLIAMS, appeared, and took their seats in the
House.
_Emancipated Slaves from French West Indies._
A memorial of sundry inhabitants of the town of Wilmington, in the State
of North Carolina, was presented to the House and read, stating that a
certain number of negroes or mulattoes, to whom emancipation has been
granted by the Executive of the French Government in the Island of
Guadaloupe, had been recently landed at the said town of Wilmington;
that, in the opinion of the memorialists, much danger to the peace and
safety of the people of the Southern States of the Union in particular,
is justly to be apprehended from the admission of persons of that
description into the United States, from the West India Islands; and
praying that Congress will be pleased to take the premises into
consideration, and adopt such effectual measures for prevention thereof,
as they in their wisdom may deem proper.
_Ordered_, That the said memorial be referred to Mr. HILL, Mr. EARLY,
Mr. HUGER, Mr. RANDOLPH, and Mr. CAMPBELL, to report their opinion
thereupon to the House.
_Case of John P. Van Ness._
Mr. DAVIS called up the report of the Committee of Elections on the case
of John P. Van Ness.
The House went into Committee of the Whole on the report, as follows:
"That, from the free concessions and agreement of the said
member, it appears to your committee that he has accepted
and exercised the office of a major of the militia, under
the authority of the United States, within the Territory of
Columbia; and that a paragraph in the sixth section of the
first article of the constitution, which expressly
provides, that 'No person holding any office under the
United States, shall be a member of either House during his
continuance in office,' does, in the opinion of your
committee, render the acceptance and exercise of the office
aforesaid incompatible with the holding, at the same time,
of a seat in the House.
"Your committee, therefore, ask leave to submit to the
House the following resolution, to wit:
"_Resolved_, That John. P. Van Ness, one of the members of
this House, having accepted and exercised the office of
major of militia, under the authority of the United States,
within the Territory of Columbia, has thereby forfeited his
right to a seat as a member of this House."
Mr. VAN NESS said he would make a remark or two that would, perhaps,
remove any impressions of indelicacy on his part in retaining his seat
under the circumstances in which he was placed. He considered himself as
standing on that floor, not as a private individual, but as a
Representative of New York; and as holding a trust which he was not
authorized to abandon before a constitutional decision should be made.
His constituents had placed him there as the guardian of their rights;
and that trust he could not desert without a constitutional decision
being made. If that decision should be adverse to his retaining his
seat, in retiring from the House he should feel no regret but at leaving
his constituents unrepresented during the remainder of the session, at
not having discharged all the business assigned him by the Chair, and at
ceasing to associate with gentlemen whom, for the most part, he
respected. In a pecuniary view, the relinquishing his seat could not in
the least affect him; nor should he consider it disreputable to leave a
body without any imputation of dishonor or impropriety.
The reasons he should offer to the committee for retaining his seat,
were few and simple. He thought the fair, liberal, and sound
construction of the constitution did not affect his case; that the
incapacitating provision only applied to civil offices. The constitution
was only a digest of the most approved principles of the constitutions
of the several States, in which the spirit of those constitutions were
combined. Not one of those constitutions excluded from office those who
had accepted military appointments, except in the regular service. He,
therefore, felt a full conviction that it was never the intention of the
framers of the Constitution of the United States to exclude militia
officers from holding a seat in Congress. And however important it might
be to adhere to the letter of the constitution, yet, when the spirit of
it was so clear as it appeared to him, it ought to have weight in the
decision of the question before the committee, which might affect
objects of great importance. The right of every portion of the Union to
a representation in that House was very important, and ought to be
respected in all cases which may either directly or indirectly affect
it. Gentlemen, therefore, ought to reflect before they deprive a part of
the Union of this important right.
Had he supposed that the acceptance of an office in the militia would
have interfered with his seat in that House, he would never have
accepted it. He had never entertained a doubt on this point until
broached in the House. Since then, he had heard various opinions. By
what he had heard, his own opinion was not changed, as he believed that
a true construction of the constitution would exclude his case. Should,
however, a decision against his holding his seat be made, he should
retire without any other regret than that which he had expressed. He had
not risen to argue the case as an advocate, but merely to assign the
grounds on which he had acted.
The question was then taken on the report of the Committee of Elections,
which was agreed to without a division.
The committee rose, and the House immediately took up their report.
Mr. RANDOLPH observed that, on a precedent so important as was about to
be established by the vote of the House, it was unnecessary to say a
word. He wished, however, that the disposition of the House to exclude,
by a unanimous vote, even the shadow of Executive influence, should be
recorded on their journals; for which purpose he called the yeas and
nays; which were taken, and were unanimously in favor of the resolution.
MONDAY, January 24.
A new member, to wit, RICHARD WINN, returned to serve in this House as a
member from South Carolina, in the room of Thomas Sumter, appointed a
Senator of the United States, appeared, produced his credentials, and
took his seat in the House.
_Ohio Territorial Delegate unseated._
On a motion made and seconded that the House do come to the following
resolution:
_Resolved_, That, inasmuch as the late Territory of the
United States north-west of the river Ohio have, by virtue
of an act of Congress passed on the first day of May, one
thousand eight hundred and two, formed a Constitution and
State Government, and have thereby, and by virtue of an act
of Congress aforesaid, become a separate and independent
State, by the name of "Ohio," that PAUL FEARING, a member
of this House, who was elected by the late Territorial
Government of the Territory north-west of the river Ohio,
is no longer entitled to a seat in this House:
_Ordered_, That the said motion be referred to the Committee of
Elections: that they do examine the matter thereof, and report the same,
with their opinion thereupon, to the House.
_French Spoliations._
Mr. MITCHILL rose to address the House on a subject of a commercial
nature. He alluded to the depredations committed upon the commerce of
the United States, by French armed vessels, during the late war in
Europe. The gentlemen of the House would, he hoped, turn their
attention, for a few minutes, to the numerous memorials received from
our merchants during the last session, praying compensation for those
losses. These papers were numerous and respectful, and came from a most
valuable portion of our fellow-citizens. Their grievances had not
hitherto been redressed, nor even inquired into with the minuteness
which it appeared to him to deserve. It was true a committee, numerous
and intelligent, had been appointed during the last session, to examine
the matter of these applications. A report had been made to the House.
This report was full of information concerning the political and
commercial connection between the United States and France. It comprised
a concise and correct history of what had been done on both sides, since
the mutual misunderstandings arose. It was a valuable document, as far
as it went; but it did not conclude with any recommendation of a mode of
relief, or even of investigation. It stopped short with the historical
narrative, without proposing even a mode of further inquiry. During the
present session, nothing further had been done or attempted. Early after
the Congress assembled, he had himself given notice of an intention to
revive the subject. It was confessedly of magnitude enough to merit
investigation. This notice, he remembered, was given previous to the
receipt of the message from the Executive. But the multitude of public
business that had grown out of that communication, added to other
subjects, had so completely occupied his mind, that he had hitherto
suffered it to pass on without bestowing on it the consideration which
he owned that it deserved. He was now ready to make amends for this
inadvertent or necessary, certainly not intentional, delay. He had
heard, with satisfaction, the call of the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. LOWNDES) for his (Mr. MITCHILL'S) promised motion. He acknowledged
the hint of that gentleman to be seasonable, and felt himself obliged to
him for acting the part of a good prompter. To show that gentleman that
he had profited by the suggestion made on Friday last, he had now risen
with an intention to lay a resolve upon the table. The object of the
resolve was to cause an inquiry to be entered upon, by a special
Committee of the House, as to what amount of property, or its value in
current money, had been taken from the Americans during the late war by
the cruisers of France. The committee could devise some mode of
ascertaining the magnitude of the sufferings complained of. This he
considered as the first step that ought to be taken, towards the
procuring of redress for the petitioners. And, until this was taken, he
believed nothing was likely to be done. Another object of the resolve he
was about to offer, was to instruct the same committee to inquire into
the different classes of captures and claims. He did not suppose that
all the petitioners were entitled to compensation. Some of them, he
knew, were not; but it was equally clear that some of them were. This
complicated mass of applications could be examined by a committee, who
could draw some distinctions that would be useful. They could tell, for
instance, that one sort were lawful captures for and on account of
contraband, others for want of a _rôle d'équipage_, others were taken
wrongfully, without any cause whatever, and the like. Some judgment
might be formed in this way of the probable amount that might be
contemplated as bona fide claims. He suspected this amount would be but
an inconsiderable part of the gross amount of captures. But whether it
was large or small, he hoped an examination would be attempted; and, for
that purpose, he moved the following resolution:
_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire by
what means the value or amount of property taken from
citizens of the United States by the French, during the
late war in Europe, can be best ascertained, and the
several sorts of captures distinguished and classed, and
report their opinion thereon to this House, to the end that
indemnification may be made.
Mr. MITCHILL then said, that he did not press an instant decision upon
it; but wished it to lie a day or two on the table for consideration.
THURSDAY, January 27.
_United States Judges._
The several petitions of William Tilghman, Oliver Wolcott, Richard
Bassett, Charles Magill, Samuel Hitchcock, Benjamin Bourne, Egbert
Benson, Philip B. Key, William Griffith, Jeremiah Smith, and George K.
Taylor, were presented to the House and read, respectively representing,
that, by an act of Congress, passed on the thirteenth day of February,
one thousand eight hundred and one, entitled "An act for the more
convenient organization of the courts of the United States," certain
judicial offices were created, and courts established, called Circuit
Courts of the United States: That, in virtue of appointments made under
the Constitution of the United States, the petitioners became vested
with the offices so created, and received commissions, authorizing them
to hold the same, with the emoluments thereunto appertaining, during
their good behavior: That, during the last session, an act of Congress
passed, by which the above-mentioned law was declared to be repealed;
since which no law has been made for assigning to the petitioners the
execution of any judicial function, nor has any provision been made for
the payment of their stipulated compensations: That, under these
circumstances, and finding it expressly declared in the Constitution of
the United States that "the Judges both of the Supreme and Inferior
Courts shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at
stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not
be diminished during their continuance in office," that petitioners are
compelled to represent it as their opinion, that the rights secured to
them by the constitution, as members of the Judicial Department, have
been impaired: That, "with this sincere conviction, and influenced by a
sense of public duty, they most respectfully request of Congress to
review the existing laws, which respect the offices in question, and to
define the duties to be performed by the petitioners, by such provisions
as shall be consistent with the constitution, and the convenient
administration of justice:" That "the right of the petitioners to their
compensations, they sincerely believe to be secured by the constitution,
notwithstanding any modification of the Judicial Department, which, in
the opinion of Congress, public convenience may recommend. This right,
however, involving a personal interest, will cheerfully be submitted to
Judicial examination and decision, in such manner as the wisdom and
impartiality of Congress may prescribe: That judges should not be
deprived of their offices or compensations, without misbehavior,
appears, to the petitioners, to be among the first and best established
principles of the American constitutions; and, in the various reforms
they have undergone, it has been preserved and guarded with increased
solicitude: That, on this basis, the Constitution of the United States
has laid the foundation of the Judicial Department, and expressed its
meaning in terms equally plain and peremptory:" That, "this being the
deliberate and solemn opinion of the petitioners, the duty of their
stations requires that they should express it to the Legislative body.
They regret the necessity which compels them to make the representation;
and they confide, that it will be attributed to a conviction that they
ought not, voluntarily, to surrender rights and authorities intrusted to
their protection, not for their personal advantage, but for the benefit
of the community."
Mr. GRISWOLD moved a reference of the foregoing memorial to a select
committee.
Mr. GREGG observed that, according to the usual mode of transacting
business, it ought to go to the Committee of Claims. He, therefore, made
that motion.
Mr. RANDOLPH did not think a select committee, or the Committee of
Claims, a proper committee to whom to refer this memorial. What is its
nature? Does it embrace any point of fact on which a committee is to
make inquiry? No. It is a broad constitutional question. He was,
therefore, in favor of having it examined, where it must eventually be
settled, in the House. If, therefore, the memorial had any reference, it
ought to be referred to a Committee of the whole House; to which effect
he made a motion.
Mr. BACON hoped this last motion would not obtain. He did not know what
there was in this petition to distinguish it from any other petition
from any citizens of the United States. It was suggested that it
involved a great constitutional question. He did not know that this was
the case. Any thing might be made a constitutional question. But he
thought this question had been already determined by the whole
Legislature on the most mature deliberation. He saw nothing to
distinguish this petition from other petitions. He would not say that
it would be doing it too much honor, but it would be making too wide a
difference between similar applications to adopt this course. He was,
therefore, for pursuing the common course.
Mr. GRISWOLD had no objection to a reference of the memorial to a
Committee of the Whole. Perhaps that would be the better mode. It was
true, as the gentleman from Virginia had stated, that a very important
constitutional question may arise on this memorial. Nor did he know, as
represented by the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. BACON,) that all
the constitutional questions involved in the subject had been settled by
the decision of the last session. He had understood the gentleman
himself, in his speech, during the last session, to have said that the
question of compensation was a very different question from that then
under discussion. He was not absolutely certain that that gentleman
expressed such an opinion, but he was certain that some gentlemen of the
majority did. As the memorial was couched in terms of great respect, he
trusted there would be no objection on the part of the House to give it
a proper attention.
Mr. RANDOLPH would concisely answer the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Does this question involve an inquiry either into matter of expediency
or of fact? With respect to fact, they were all agreed. The judges make
the question turn on a construction given to the constitution; it was,
therefore, indubitably a constitutional question, on which a committee
could not decide. The House, then, must decide. It appeared to him to be
the plainest case on earth. No doubt constitutional questions may arise
on many points. He hoped, therefore, the House would itself decide it.
For his part, he considered the decision as already made. He hoped the
memorial would be taken up that day.
Mr. SMILIE was against referring the memorial to a Committee of the
Whole. If the subject had not been already maturely considered and
discussed at the greatest length, he should be in favor of such a
reference. But it had been most fully discussed. If they meant to sit
there to the neglect of the important business, they ought to go into
Committee of the Whole; but if they meant to do the public business,
they ought not. Gentlemen should recollect the time spent in this
discussion the last session.
Mr. DANA thought the gentleman from Pennsylvania did not calculate
correctly. The same object, as to debate, would be attained in the House
as in a Committee of the Whole. For he would recollect, that
notwithstanding the length of the debate of the last session, and though
the House were in Committee, no gentleman had spoken more than once;
and, according to the rules of the House, every member had a right to
speak twice.
Mr. DANA said that he agreed with the gentleman from Virginia in the
ideas he had expressed.
The question was then taken on Mr. RANDOLPH'S motion to refer the
memorial to a Committee of the whole House, and carried--ayes 53.
The SPEAKER inquired for what day it should be made the order.
Mr. RANDOLPH said, to-day.
Mr. GRISWOLD, to-morrow.
The question was taken on Mr. GRISWOLD'S motion, and lost--ayes 38, noes
51.
Mr. HUGER moved that it should be the order for Monday. It must be
evident, that the members had not yet sufficiently attended to the
subject to be prepared for a decision. It was a very different question
from that decided the last session. It certainly required some little
time to enable gentlemen to revolve it in their minds. It was not usual
to force decisions in that way. If it was the object of gentlemen merely
to vote it out, a majority must do as they please; but if they were
disposed to pay it ordinary respect, they certainly could not urge so
precipitate a discussion.
Mr. RANDOLPH asked if it were in order, after the question had been
taken, to name another day. He said he would not have urged an immediate
consideration of the memorial, but for the conviction that the subject,
in all its bearings, had undergone the maturest investigation, not only
of every member on that floor, but of every thinking man in the United
States.
The SPEAKER decided that the moving another day was not in order.
The question on going into a Committee of the Whole this day, was then
carried without a division. Whereupon,
Mr. RANDOLPH moved that the House should go into committee immediately.
The SPEAKER said the unfinished business of yesterday would be the first
acted upon unless postponed.
Mr. RANDOLPH moved the postponement of the unfinished business till
to-morrow. Carried.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
memorial--Mr. DAWSON in the chair.
The memorial of William Tilghman was read; which was accompanied by ten
other _verbatim_ memorials, signed by Oliver Wolcott, Jeremiah Smith,
Richard Bassett, Philip B. Key, George K. Taylor, Charles Magill, Samuel
Hitchcock, Benjamin Bourne, Egbert Benson, and William Griffiths.
Mr. GRISWOLD said, he did not think it proper to enter into an extensive
discussion of the memorial. The haste with which the consideration of it
was urged, appeared to him indicative of a disposition to reject it
altogether. Under such circumstances discussion would be useless. At the
same time, he would remark, that it involved a question very different
from that decided at the last session. It had, then, been decided that
the Legislature had the constitutional right to deprive the judges of
all Judicial power; but the question never was settled, that,
notwithstanding the judges should be deprived of all their Judicial
powers, they were not entitled to the compensation guaranteed by the
constitution. This involved a distinct point, which ought not to be
hastily acted upon. The judges had never been heard before Congress on
this question. They had a right by the constitution to be heard, and to
be heard by counsel, he presumed, if they desired it. He had thought the
House would have given time for them to be heard. But they had
determined to proceed immediately. He should, therefore, be content with
moving two resolutions.
Mr. GRISWOLD here read his resolutions as follows:
_Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law to
define the powers to be exercised by the judges of the
circuit courts of the United States, who were appointed
under an act, entitled "An act to provide for the more
convenient organization of the courts of the United
States."
_Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law for
submitting to judicial decision the right of the judges of
the circuit court to their compensations.
Mr. RANDOLPH said, the provision desired by the gentleman from
Connecticut already exists. The Legislature has defined the powers of
the late circuit judges, and has decided that they shall not execute any
powers. Those powers are transferred to other courts. Unless the House
had changed their opinion, it was not necessary to go into any
discussion on this point. The readiest and fairest course for gentlemen
would be to propose to repeal the law of the last session, and restore
the judges.
The question was then taken on the first resolution, and lost--ayes 34,
noes 56.
The CHAIRMAN then read the second resolution, as follows:
_Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law for
submitting to judicial decision the right of the judges of
the circuit court to their compensations.
Mr. RANDOLPH said he was not ready for the question. He had one or two
remarks to offer, which had suggested themselves during the reading of
the resolution. It had been repeatedly decided that the United States
would not permit themselves to be brought into their own courts.
Wherefore grant to a particular class of persons, in a single case, that
which had ever been refused to the war-worn soldier of the Revolution;
especially when it should be recollected that this case, involving the
interests of judges, as a _caste_, could not be decided by any judicial
tribunal free from bias?
A doctrine is advanced new to this House, which I have been told
originated with an eminent character on the bench of the United States;
I did not hear the gentleman from Connecticut distinctly, but I
understand him as subscribing to it; that Congress may,
constitutionally, deprive a judge of all authority, and transfer to
another his powers and duties, but that the office nevertheless remains,
and the judge, of course, entitled to his compensation. The constitution
says that "the judges shall hold their offices during good behavior, and
shall, for their services, receive a compensation." Without entering
into a question which has already been so fully discussed, he would
barely remark, that if the position just advanced be correct, the words
"compensation" and "office," which the constitution supposes, and every
one believes, to have distinct and different meanings, must be
convertible terms. For when the powers and duties are taken away, what,
let me ask, is left but a salary? The word office must be rendered by
the word salary.
Mr. DANA.--The question of compensation to the judges involved
considerations very distinct from those ordinarily decided upon in that
House. Most of the individual cases brought here were made in pursuance
of some particular law, and did not call in question the authority of
Congress. If the case of the judges were to be referred to any tribunal,
the right to refer was founded on the principle of controlling the
decisions of the Legislature in case those decisions should appear to
the tribunal to be unconstitutional. It was, therefore, in this view not
proper to refer the question to a tribunal dependent on the body to be
controlled. This was the only course that would probably be deemed
impartial by all the parties concerned.
Mr. BACON said the true question was on the constitutionality of the
repealing law. One Congress had passed a law constituting certain
courts, which at the last session had been repealed. Now of what do
courts consist? Of judges, who are officers of the court. The question
is, whether by abolishing the courts, these officers are abolished. He
supposed they were. He considered the terms as synonymous. Now the
question is whether, if the offices are abolished, those who filled them
before they were abolished are entitled to salaries? That is the only
question that remains undetermined. What does the constitution say?
Admitting the offices abolished, it says: "The judges, both of the
supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good
behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a
compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in
office."
Does it not follow that if they continue in office they are entitled to
a salary for the services they perform. If they do not continue in
office they are entitled to nothing, and the constitution has no
reference to them. This is the true question.
Mr. SMILIE would ask whether the Supreme Court in such a case as this
could be denominated an impartial tribunal? He asked if they had not
seen the time when, during the disputes between the clergy and laity, no
wise man, not of the clerical order, would have trusted himself in the
hands of the clergy? The same remark applied to the military, and also,
with equal force, to the Judges of the Supreme Court. He really,
however, thought that the judges would not receive the salaries, even if
they were offered to them, as it would be contrary to every idea of
patriotism. He, therefore, considered the application as a mere matter
of form.
Mr. NICHOLSON.--The resolution contemplated giving the power to try the
right of the judges to their claims; but the great object in reality was
to authorize the judges of the Supreme Court to decide upon the
constitutionality of the repealing act. Let this object, then, be
avowed; let it be so declared openly, and not introduced in this
incidental manner. From the remarks made last year by gentlemen on the
other side of the House, it was a little surprising that this
application should be made, for it was then strenuously contended that
the Supreme Court had the right to decide upon the constitutionality of
all laws. Why, then, ask for it? If they have this right we need not
confer it; if they have it not, we cannot give it them. If the
petitioning judges can bring their case before the Supreme Court, let
them do so; my consent shall never authorize it. If the Supreme Court
shall arrogate this power to themselves, and declare our law to be
unconstitutional, it will then behoove us to act. Our duty is defined.
Mr. EUSTIS said when the office of judge was abolished all his duties
ceased. The salary allowed was a compensation for services. Now when
there were no services to be performed, what salary could there be
allowed, or what retribution demanded? on what did this claim rest? On
the opinion of the judges. But by the decision of the last winter their
offices were abolished; it followed, therefore, of consequence, that
their salaries ceased too. This was a plain and simple question. He
considered the memorial as the protest of the judges against this
decision. As such, he was willing that it should rest on the files of
the House, and instead of being offended at this treatment the judges
ought to be thankful.
Mr. DANA said the ideas of the gentleman from Massachusetts were in one
respect correct. The memorial of the judges was a protest against the
law passed by Congress. It was proper they should make it, so far as
they confined themselves to language not indecorous or disrespectful. He
would admit likewise that the question of powers decided the question of
salary; others however entertained a different opinion. Why object then,
in a case where there was a difference of opinion, to refer the decision
to an impartial tribunal? The only question is whether in a contest for
power, you, the Legislature, will claim the exclusive exercise of power,
and whether, even if you shall exceed the constitutional limits, you
will assert the entire right of saying so, or whether you will refer it
to a tribunal which shall be an umpire between those who hold different
opinions?
Mr. ALSTON said the resolution required amendment. As it now stood, it
would appear that all the late judges of the circuit court claimed a
compensation for services not rendered. He believed this was not the
case. There were some of those judges who had made no such request. He,
therefore, moved to insert the name of those who had presented
memorials; also to insert the word "late" before the word "judges."
Carried without a division.
The resolution as amended stood thus:
_Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law for
submitting to judicial decision the right of William
Tilghman, Oliver Wolcott, Jeremiah Smith, Richard Bassett,
Philip B. Key, George K. Taylor, Charles Magill, Samuel
Hitchcock, Benjamin Bourne, Egbert Benson, and William
Griffiths, late judges of the circuit court appointed under
an act entitled "An act to provide for the more convenient
organization of the courts of the United States passed on
the thirteenth day of February, 1801;" which said act was
repealed at the last session of Congress, to their
compensations.
On which the question being put, it was lost--ayes 35 noes 57.
Mr. VARNUM observed that the memorial contained two principles, both of
which had been negatived. To draw the attention to a final decision he
would move another resolution, to wit:
_Resolved_, That the prayer of the petition of William
Tilghman and others, (naming them,) late judges of the
circuit courts of the United States, ought not to be
granted, and that the petitioners have leave to withdraw
their petitions.
Mr. T. MORRIS moved that the committee should rise and report progress,
that the petition might be printed. Negatived without a division.
The resolution was then carried without a division, when the committee
rose and reported it.