Mr. RANDOLPH moved to strike out the words, "late judges of the circuit
courts of the United States."
Mr. GRISWOLD said he presumed it was not the object to expunge all
evidence of these gentlemen being judges, or late judges of the circuit
courts of the United States, and yet that would appear to be the effect
of the motion. He must, therefore, call for the yeas and nays, which
would make that fact be recorded on the journals.
Mr. RANDOLPH said he had made the motion that the resolution might
conform to the prayer of the petition. Had the memorialists called
themselves late judges, he should have had no objection to their being
so designated in the resolution. His wish was to style them in the
resolution as they had styled themselves.
Mr. GRISWOLD said, though they had not expressly styled themselves
circuit judges, yet they had stated that they had been appointed circuit
judges under a law of the United States. They had therefore virtually so
styled themselves.
A few words were added by Mr. EUSTIS against it, and by Messrs. RANDOLPH
and NICHOLSON in favor of striking out the words, when the question was
taken by yeas and nays and carried--yeas 50, nays 47.
And then the main question being taken, that the House do agree to the
resolution reported from the Committee of the whole House, amended to
read as follows:
_Resolved_, That the prayer of the 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,
ought not to be granted; and that the petitioners have
leave to withdraw their petitions.
It was resolved in the affirmative, yeas 61, nays 37, as follows:
YEAS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Phanuel
Bishop, Walter Bowie, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William
Butler, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, 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, James Mott, Anthony New,
Thomas Newton, jun., Joseph H. Nicholson, John Randolph,
jr., John Smilie, Israel Smith, John Smith, (of New York,)
John Smith, (of Virginia,) Josiah Smith, Samuel Smith,
Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, John
Stewart, John Taliaferro, jr., David Thomas, Philip R.
Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt,
Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, Robert Williams, Richard
Winn, and Thomas Wynns.
NAYS.--Thomas Boude, John Campbell, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel
W. Dana, John Davenport, John Dennis, Abiel Foster, Calvin
Goddard, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Seth
Hastings, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, William H.
Hill, Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer
Mattoon, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Morris, Elias Perkins,
Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, William Shepard,
John Cotton Smith, John Stanley, John Stratton, Benjamin
Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, Thomas
Tillinghast, George B. Upham, Killian K. Van Rensselaer,
Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.
FRIDAY, January 28.
_Presents to a Minister's Wife._
Mr. SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from Col. Humphreys, late
Minister at the Court of Madrid, stating that, when he was about to
leave that Court, the Minister of State urged his acceptance of the
customary present from His Majesty. Col. Humphreys informed him that he
could not, consistently with the constitution of his Government, accept
the present. The Minister continued to press the acceptance, and urged
that as he was no longer an officer of the United States, there could be
no impropriety in his receiving it. Col. H. replied that, though he was
then out of office, there would still, in his opinion, be an indelicacy
in the acceptance, and that if he should receive the present designed
for him, he should consider it as his duty to deliver it into the hands
of the President of the United States, to be disposed of at the pleasure
of the Government.
Under these circumstances he left the Court of Madrid; and upon his
arrival in the United States, he found a casket of valuable female
ornaments addressed to Mrs. Humphreys, which, though unaccompanied by
any letter, he presumed to be a present from the Queen of Spain.
Doubting the propriety of accepting it under such circumstances, Mrs.
Humphreys presented the casket to the President of the United States,
who put it into the hands of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of
State declining to decide the constitutional question, whether Mr.
Humphreys could with propriety retain it, ordered it to be returned to
him for the purpose of being sent back to Spain, or otherwise disposed
of as he may think proper. Mr. Humphreys refused to receive it back on
such terms: it consequently remains with the chief clerk in the
Department of State, and Mr. H. now requests Congress to give orders for
sending it back to Spain, or for disposing of it in such other way as
they may think proper. He makes the same request respecting a sword
presented him by the Dey of Algiers, which is also in the hands of the
chief clerk of the Department of State, under similar circumstances.
The subject, after considerable conversation in the House, was referred
to a select committee to report their opinion thereon.
_French Spoliations._
Mr. MITCHILL called up his resolution respecting French depredations, as
follows:
"_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
thereon to this House, to the end that indemnification be
made."
Mr. BAYARD offered an amendment, which was agreed to, striking out the
latter part of the resolution, and instructing the committee to report
their opinion whether indemnification shall be made.
After a very desultory debate on referring the resolution to a Committee
of the Whole, or to a select committee, and the rejection of a motion of
reference to a Committee of the Whole, the question was taken on the
resolution as amended, which was determined in the negative--ayes 34,
noes 39.
The House adjourned.
MONDAY, January 31.
Another member, to wit, JOHN FOWLER, from Kentucky, appeared, and took
his seat in the House.
_French Spoliations._
Mr. BAYARD observed that a resolution offered some days since by a
gentleman from New York, (Mr. MITCHILL,) of considerable national, and
of great individual importance to a large description of citizens,
appeared to him to have been disagreed to more from considerations of
form than substance; as the merits of the subject were not, on that
occasion, brought into discussion. In order to meet the ideas of
gentlemen who desired, in the first instance, to decide the principle
whether indemnity ought to be made to our merchants, he submitted the
following resolution:
_Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law, to
indemnify the citizens of the United States who, in
carrying on a lawful trade to foreign parts, suffered
losses by the seizure of their property made by
unauthorized French cruisers, or by any French cruiser,
without sufficient cause, in violation of the rights of
American commerce, during the late war between Great
Britain and the French Republic, and whose claims for
indemnity against the said Republic were renounced by the
United States, by their acceptance of the ratification of
the treaty lately made with France.
Mr. BAYARD moved the taking up the resolution for consideration; on
which the House divided--yeas 39, nays 45. Resolution ordered to lie on
the table.
About 3 o'clock the galleries were cleared, and the House remained with
closed doors till 4 o'clock, when they adjourned.
WEDNESDAY, February 2.
_French Spoliations._
Mr. HILL called for the order of the day on the bill to prohibit the
importation of certain persons, whose admission is prohibited by laws of
the States.
Mr. BAYARD requested the gentleman to waive his call for one moment, to
enable the House to take his resolution respecting French spoliations,
laid some days since on the table, into consideration for the sole
purpose of giving it a proper disposition. His object, some days since,
when he called it up, was to have it referred to a Committee of the
whole House, not to urge its discussion on that day. His object was now
the same, and his sole wish was that it should be referred, and a day
named for its consideration. As, however, said Mr. B., it may be voted
down now, as it then was, without any reasons being assigned, gentlemen
will excuse me for calling the yeas and nays. I hope gentlemen will so
far at least comply with the forms of justice as to suffer the case to
be considered, whatever may be their ultimate decision upon it.
Mr. RANDOLPH said he would ask the gentleman from Delaware, whether he
had seen any indisposition in that House to discuss the subject? For his
part he had seen none, either in the House or in any individual member.
He felt no objection to take up the subject at any time, and to discuss,
or rather to hear the gentleman from Delaware discuss it. He hoped,
therefore, the gentleman would not persist in taking up the time of the
House by calling the yeas and nays.
Mr. BAYARD said he had seen an indisposition in the House to discuss the
subject; and the reason why the gentleman from Virginia had not seen it
was, that he was not in his place on the day he had before moved that
the resolution should be taken up. Had he been in his place, he would
have seen that a motion to take it into consideration had been rejected
without a single reason being assigned. But under the assurance of the
gentleman, that there was no aversion to consider the subject, he would
waive his call for the yeas and nays.
Mr. RANDOLPH said he spoke only for himself.
Mr. BAYARD replied that he then persisted in the call.
The yeas and nays were then taken on taking up the resolution; and
were--yeas 65, nays 26.
The resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole without
opposition.
When Mr. BAYARD moved that it be made the order for Monday next.
Mr. R. WILLIAMS moved the 3d of March.
Mr. GREGG thought it was best to take the resolution up fairly and
decide it at once.
Mr. R. WILLIAMS said he was willing to meet it fairly, but he thought
one day sufficient for the investigation.
Mr. HUGER had no hesitation in saying this was a question of great
moment, and one well worthy of the deliberate attention of the House. To
be sure, if there was a great press of important business, he would
acquiesce in its postponement. But this was not the case. There was no
business before the House of pressing importance. He was in favor of a
fair and full investigation of the subject. The motion to make it the
order of the day for the last day of the session, when the press of
other business would absolutely preclude any attention to it, was
tantamount to a refusal of all investigation whatever. Unless the motion
was withdrawn, he would, therefore, call for the yeas and nays.
Mr. BACON said his mind preponderated against the claim. But to him it
appeared that a postponement to such a day, would be the same as
declaring the claim should not be attended to. If the claim should be
sustained by the vote of the House, it would surely require more than
one day to make the necessary arrangements for carrying it into the
shape of a law.
Mr. BAYARD.--No doubt the observation of the gentleman from
Massachusetts is correct, that a postponement to the last day of the
session is, in effect, precisely the same as to reject the claim
altogether. Gentlemen ought to consider that our sole object is to bring
into discussion the claims of our citizens. I do not undertake to
express any opinion of the validity of the claims. No member on the
floor is less personally or locally interested than I am. But I do think
that no claim whatever, of the meanest nature, should be decided upon
until the party is heard. Many of our citizens, who have incurred
losses, suppose they have an equitable claim on the Government. The
claims have been announced in the public papers, and in petitions on
the files of this House. Is it then for this House to say they will not
attend to the petitions of our citizens? For what do we ask? Simply for
a discussion, and that a decision shall not be made until those who
consider themselves aggrieved shall be heard. Are gentlemen unwilling to
trust themselves, lest their own consciences should compel them to an
act of justice? But I will abstain from going into the merits of the
subject. I will only repeat that there is no petition, however
worthless, but the House pays it a decent respect, by referring it, and
allowing time for its examination. Will they then, in a case of such
magnitude as this, where there are so many claims, so variously
characterized, will they refuse this ordinary measure of respect? I will
expect a different decision from the justice and candor of the House.
Mr. R. WILLIAMS said he would withdraw his motion, and move that the
subject be made the order of the day, for the first day of March, which
would allow sufficient time for a full and fair investigation.
Mr. SMILIE did not know what the gentleman from Delaware meant, when he
said we were not willing to trust our consciences. He hoped every
gentleman had as good a conscience as the gentleman himself. For his own
part, if there was time to discuss this subject, he would be willing to
hear it discussed, and it would then appear who brought the merchants
into their misfortunes, and who occasioned their losses. But, as he
believed there was not now time, he thought it best to postpone the
consideration of the subject until the next session, when it would fully
appear who had been the friends, and who the enemies of our merchants.
In the mean time he would only add that he would never be one of those
who would consent to tax the agricultural interests of the country to
pay the merchants.
Mr. RUTLEDGE observed that it was important that our merchants should be
extricated from their present embarrassments. They wish to know the
disposition of Congress on their claims. This cannot be done if the
present motion obtain; for the subject, in that event, will be disposed
of this session precisely as it was the last. It was then referred, at
an early period, to a committee with whom it slept until near the close
of the session, when a report, merely of facts, was made. The report was
then made at a late day of the session, and the House never took it up.
It is now proposed to be postponed until a very late day of this
session, and it will then not be taken up.
Whatever the opinions of some gentlemen may be, it is a fact that many
honorable and unfortunate merchants are now struggling with their
misfortunes, produced by French spoliations, whom the hope of relief
from Government has saved from ruin. They wish to know their fate, and
no longer to be kept in suspense. Let their claims then be decided at
once; and if gentlemen are ready to say they shall not be indemnified
for losses, which, but for the renunciation of the treaty, they would
have been indemnified for by France, let them say so. It is known that
France would have indemnified for these losses, but for the treaty. The
most respectable letters have been received from France to this effect;
and Mr. R. said the fact was within his own personal knowledge. Under
these circumstances the claims ought to be taken up and decided upon
speedily. If the gentlemen were serious in naming so late a day, the
House must be troubled with the calling of the yeas and nays; as it was
impossible to expect that any thing that would be effectual could be
done after the first of March, as all the measures adopted by the House
required the concurrence of the Senate and the details of a law.
Mr. R. WILLIAMS said he never permitted himself to propose any thing to
that House in which he was not serious. He was serious in his belief
that if his motion should be adopted there would be full time allowed
for an investigation of the subject. He was in favor of the distant day
he had named, inasmuch as he was convinced that it would protect the
House from the unnecessary consumption of a great deal of time, and
which, if taken up now, would interfere with the transaction of much
important business. Full time would still be allowed to decide the
question of indemnity. He did not know that more was required this
session by any body. He had not heard any member say that a law would be
necessary this session. All that was required was a decision preparatory
to a law. In his opinion this was an improper time to discuss the merits
of the subject; he should, therefore, make no reply to observations of
this nature, which, he thought, had been improperly offered at this
stage of the business.
Mr. BAYARD said he had not fallen into the same mistake with his
honorable friend from South Carolina, in considering the gentleman from
North Carolina in earnest in the motion he had made. He had not thought
him serious, as the day named by him was so late as not to allow time
sufficient for a fair discussion. The gentleman was not a new member,
and his experience could tell him how imperiously the House were
occupied, during the last two or three days of its sitting, in detail
indispensably necessary to complete business already begun. He had
seldom known the close of a session, when it had not been necessary to
sit on Sunday or till midnight. How then could it be expected that, at
such a period, even the semblance of justice could be done to the
subject? Whereas, if it were earlier attended to, they might consult
their own convenience. If it happened, as had heretofore been the case,
that they had more time than they knew what to do with, a much earlier
day could be fixed on. But should the subject be postponed till the
first day of March, it might be said, if the House should not then go
into committee on it, that a day so late had been named with a view of
deferring the subject to the next session. While, if the House, actuated
by magnanimity and justice, shall go into its consideration, it would
put it in the power of a minority, or even a few members, to prevent the
transaction of other important business. Mr. B. said he would not pledge
himself; but he rather thought the subject could be discussed in the
course of one day.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania had mistaken him on the point of
conscience. This was not astonishing, as that gentleman often made
mistakes. He had said nothing about the conscience of that gentleman, as
he knew nothing about it. He was asked whether gentlemen were unwilling
to trust themselves, lest their own consciences should compel them to do
an act of justice. This was all he had said, and it had not been said
with any view to impeach the conscience of any gentleman on the subject.
Mr. BACON hoped this business would be so conducted as to show a
disposition on the part of the House to meet these claims on honorable
and fair principles, and so as to manifest no indisposition to a fair
and full discussion. It was undoubtedly a serious question. There
were a number of respectable characters interested in the
decision--respectable, because citizens of the United States. He hoped
their claims would be treated with all the candor and liberality they
had a right to expect. He apprehended that two or three days were not
sufficient, amidst the crowd of other business at the end of a session,
for a fair and full examination. He should, therefore, vote against the
motion.
Mr. DAWSON hoped the motion would prevail. A resolution in a great
measure similar to that now proposed by the gentleman from Delaware had
been offered some time since by a gentleman from New York. It was moved
to refer that motion to a Committee of the Whole and negatived;
afterwards a motion was made to refer it to a select committee, which
was also negatived. He did conclude, from these decisions, that a
majority of the House were not disposed to discuss the merits of the
question this session. He believed this was still the sentiment of the
majority, who considered the subject as not yet ripe for decision. He,
therefore, thought the taking it up at an early day would only serve to
waste time.
Mr. GREGG said, that so far as his mind was made up, he was against the
claim; but he was, notwithstanding, in favor of a full discussion of it.
The subject had been attended to. The committee appointed last session
had gone into a laborious investigation of it; and had made a report
containing very important statements and facts. He wished the
consideration to be so far delayed, as to allow time for the printing of
this report. He was against a postponement to the first day of March;
but thought the second Monday in February would answer.
Mr. THATCHER said he felt gratified at the House manifesting more
liberality in giving an opportunity now to discuss the subject than had
been manifested before. Attempts made during the last session to
discuss the subject had ended in nothing. This session, when the
gentleman from New York (Mr. MITCHILL) had offered a resolution, it had
been negatived. The motion of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. BAYARD)
to take up the present resolution had also been negatived. But now a
considerable majority were for taking it into consideration. He was,
however, surprised at the motions for making the consideration of the
subject the order of the day for the first and third of March, as they
would in effect frustrate all discussion, from the press of other
business. The subject was of infinite importance; millions depend upon
the decision. The merchants were anxious to know the result. A state of
suspense was, of all states, most painful to them. Why then put off the
decision of a claim in his opinion just, and to which the House ought
not to shut their ears?
Mr. EUSTIS said, whatever may have been the intention of the mover to
postpone to the first of March, and of the intentions of gentlemen on
this or any other occasion, he had no disposition to inquire--the
tendency of the postponement will be to preclude a deliberate
discussion. Those more conversant with the course of business knew,
better than he did, the pressure of business which necessarily crowded
the last days of a session; and he was more averse to the motion from
the avowal of an honorable gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. DAWSON,) who
had risen to support the motion, and avowed his principal reason to be a
conviction that the present Congress ought not to take any decisive
measures on the subject of the claims. He differed widely from that
gentleman. Independently of the magnitude and extent of these claims,
and of the situation of those concerned, the House were called upon by a
sense of public duty to bestow upon them a cool and deliberate
consideration, which on ordinary occasions was extended to applications
of an individual and inferior nature. The common course of business
brings this subject to view. It will be recollected that, at the last
session of Congress, the memorials of the claimants were referred to the
consideration of a select committee. That committee reported a state of
facts, and closed their report with the following words:
"Upon the whole view of the case, the committee submit it
to the House, to determine whether the Government of the
United States are in any respect bound to indemnify the
memorialists; and whether there be any ground for
discrimination between the cases of losses sustained before
the acts of the 28th of May, 1798, the 7th of July, 1798,
and the 9th of July, 1798; and cases of losses sustained
after those periods."
From the late day of the session in which this report was made, no order
was taken on it, no discussion was had. By this part of the report facts
are offered for consideration; data are furnished; a discrimination, in
point of time, and of course in point of merit, is made; and the final
determination is submitted to the House.
A sense of justice to the memorialists and a strong sense of public duty
require that we meet the question and come to a decision. Those who
appear already to have judged the question may possibly see in the
statements which have been made, and the arguments by which the claim
will be supported, reasons to alter their opinions. In any event, and
especially after a discussion, in case of an adherence to those opinions
they appear already to have formed, if they fail to produce conviction
on others, the reasons on which they ground those opinions may be useful
to the House, and will accompany and justify the vote they shall finally
give. When the question shall be decided (and I hope it will be in favor
of an earlier day than that moved for) I shall move that the report of
the committee of the last winter shall be referred to the Committee of
the Whole, together with the resolution under consideration. It will be
also proper at that time to give a second reading to the memorials which
have been presented--the grounds on which they rest their claim will be
brought again into view, and by giving them a free discussion and
consideration we shall be better enabled to come to a just decision.
These claims, like conscience, are of no party; the misfortune has been
indiscriminate, and it is to be expected the final determination will be
just.
Mr. HOLLAND advocated a full discussion, and the assignment of an early
day.
When the yeas and nays were taken, on making it the order of the day for
the first of March, and it was decided in the negative--yeas 18, nays
74.
On motion of Mr. BAYARD it was made the order for the second Monday in
February.
THURSDAY, February 3.
_Amy Dardin's Claim._
A petition of Amy Dardin, of the county of Mecklenburg, in the State of
Virginia, widow and relict of David Dardin, deceased, was presented to
the House and read, praying compensation for the value of a stud horse,
called Romulus, the property of the deceased, which was impressed into
the service of the Southern army under the command of Major General
Greene, by order of James Gunn, captain in a regiment of Continental
cavalry, some time in the month of July, one thousand seven hundred and
eighty-one. Referred to the Committee of Claims.
TUESDAY, February 8.
_District of Columbia._
The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the following
resolutions, offered by Mr. BACON:
"_Resolved_, That it is expedient for Congress to recede to
the State of Virginia the jurisdiction of that part of the
Territory of Columbia, which was ceded to the United
States by the said State of Virginia, by an act passed the
third day of December in the year 1789, entitled, "An act
for the cession of ten miles square, or any lesser quantity
of territory, within this State, to the United States in
Congress assembled, for the permanent seat of the General
Government." _Provided_, the said State of Virginia shall
consent and agree thereto.
"_Resolved_, That it is expedient for Congress to recede to
the State of Maryland the jurisdiction of that part of
Columbia which was ceded to the United States by the said
State of Maryland, by an act passed the 19th day of
December, in the year 1791, entitled "An act concerning the
Territory of Columbia and the City of Washington:"
_Provided_, That said State of Maryland shall consent and
agree thereto."
The first resolution being read,
Mr. SMILIE said it was not his wish to take up the time of the House,
but barely to assign, in a few words, his reasons for the vote he should
give. In the last Congress he had voted against the assumption, and he
had heard no reasons since to change his opinion on the propriety of
that vote. He should, therefore, vote now for a retrocession. He never
could understand the reason for giving Congress an exclusive
jurisdiction over ten miles square. He believed there was but one
reason: It had been thought good policy to introduce this article into
the constitution to facilitate its adoption, as it was known that all
parts of the Union were anxious to have the seat of Government. It did
not appear to him, in any proper point of view, necessary that Congress
should possess such exclusive jurisdiction. There was no doubt that, let
Congress sit where they would, they would always have sufficient power
to protect themselves. Unfortunately, however, there was on this subject
an association of ideas in the minds of many persons, not in the least
connected, which was, that the residence of Congress in this place, and
their possessing exclusive jurisdiction, was the same thing. If the
exercise of exclusive jurisdiction could have any effect on his mind, as
to the other point, it would be directly opposite, as he would much
rather sit here without than with exclusive jurisdiction, as we cannot
possess this authority without depriving the citizens of rights which
were the most dear to them. When he looked around him, and saw no man,
unless a stranger, who was not a political slave, he felt the most
painful sensations. Under our exercise of exclusive jurisdiction the
citizens here are deprived of all political rights, nor can we confer
them. If Congress can derive no solid benefit from the exercise of this
power, why keep the people in this degraded situation? It is true, this
place may be settled by foreigners; but can we suppose that any native
citizen, who values his political rights, will come here? For the honor
of the country, he must suppose there would be none. Why not then
restore the people to their former condition? Mr. S. concluded by
declaring that the act of retrocession would have no effect upon his
mind as to staying here.
Mr. BACON said he would state, in a few words, the reasons that
influenced him in submitting these resolutions. In the first place, he
knew of no advantage which the United States derived from retaining the
exclusive jurisdiction of the District. Therefore, if the States to
which it originally belonged were disposed to take it back, there could
be no objection derived from this consideration. In the second place, it
appeared, from their short experience, that the exercise of exclusive
legislation would take up a great deal of time, and produce a great
expense to the nation; and it was probable that, in the course of
events, the trouble and expense would increase with the increasing
number of the inhabitants. Should justice be done to the exercise of
this power, it was likely that as much time would be spent in
legislating for this District as for the whole United States. It was
certain that very considerable time would be consumed. They would
likewise be subjected to other expenses than those attendant on
legislation. In the next place, the Government would be very diverse
from that in the other parts of the Union. He would rather see the
Government in the United States uniform. Here the citizens would be
governed by laws, in the making of which they have no voice--by laws not
made with their own consent, but by the United States for them--by men
who have not the interest in the laws made that legislators ought always
to possess--by men also not acquainted with the minute and local
interests of the place, coming, as they did, from distances of 500 to
1,000 miles. From these considerations, he inferred their incompetency
to legislate for this District, whatever their disposition might be.
These were the principal reasons that influenced his mind. They might
however, perhaps, be easily obviated by the reasons of other gentlemen,
which he would be glad to hear.
Mr. HUGER was opposed to the resolutions, first, because he was not
inclined hastily to make alterations in the great national compact that
held us together. It appeared to him that, though they might not always
understand the reasons on which a part of it was founded, yet it was
prudent not to change it until experience had clearly proved its
inconvenience. It must be obvious that it was easier to perceive its
present inconvenience than to foresee the effects that may ensue from a
change. The constitution contemplates the exercise by Congress of
exclusive legislation over ten miles square. It must impress itself upon
the mind of every gentleman that the wise men who framed the
constitution deemed it proper. Congress also had thought it proper, as
well as two of the most respectable States in the Union--the one by
receiving and the other by granting the territory. All these
considerations impressed his mind with a disinclination hastily to alter
the course that had been pursued.
Mr. DENNIS regretted that he had been called out of the House when this
subject was taken up, as, in the remarks which he considered it his duty
to make, he could not avail himself of the ideas suggested by other
gentlemen, and as he might repeat what had been perhaps already said. He
would undertake, however, to show that the proposed resolutions were
objectionable in every point of view that could be taken of them. They
presented two aspects. Admitting, in the first place, that they could be
carried into effect, so far as to restore the people of the territory to
the situation in which they were placed before the cession, yet it
appeared to him a strong objection that all the advantages of exclusive
jurisdiction would be thereby lost. He had always thought that part of
the constitution which gave Congress exclusive jurisdiction over a
district of ten miles square wise and proper, and that a government
whose laws were to pervade the whole United States ought not to be
subjected to the whim or caprice of any part of the United States.
By exclusive legislation, he understood the exclusion to the States of
all participation in legislation. He admitted that it was competent to
Congress to sanction the acts of Maryland and Virginia; but he believed
that no one would contend that Congress could divest themselves of an
ultimate control. They might admit the Legislatures of Maryland and
Virginia to legislate for the territory, but Congress possessed the
power of controlling or modifying their acts. He would wish to know what
advantage there could be in giving this legislative agency to those
States? If given, no doubt could be entertained of many acts passed by
them being disagreeable to the people of the territory, who would apply
to Congress to repeal them. The next Congress, too, would have the power
of resuming the jurisdiction, or, more properly speaking, the
jurisdiction would still remain in Congress. Under such a qualified
cession, he presumed the Legislatures of Virginia and Maryland would
refuse to act; for, why should they legislate for people not within
their limits? The power of legislation might as well be vested in the
Legislature of Massachusetts. The truth is, that our jurisdiction would
be paramount, and the acts of Maryland and Virginia would go into
operation merely by our permission, and Congress might repeal and amend
them whenever and howsoever they pleased. We should, therefore, be then
relieved from no trouble that we now experience. There would then be as
many applications to pass laws as there are now.
In another point of view he was astonished at these propositions, and at
the quarter from which they came. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
BACON) has told us that his resolutions are bottomed on the broad basis
of the rights of man; but he would ask how this could be, when the
resolutions went to transfer twenty thousand men, without their consent,
to a Government different from that under which they now live? Gentlemen
are going to imitate some of the extraordinary scenes that have lately
occurred in Europe, and propose to transfer this District with the same
facility that in that quarter of the globe they have transferred an
Italian dukedom or a German principality.
Mr. DENNIS thought the situation of Congress in relation to the people
of this Territory was not sufficiently understood. He knew that it was
always troublesome to legislate for any people: he foresaw these
inconveniences when they removed to this place. He had thought then, as
he thought now, that some legislative government must be provided for
the District. In this opinion he had never varied, but had, from
successive events, become more confirmed in its accuracy. But, if
gentlemen object to vesting the people with the power of government, he
thought he could suggest a plan better than that of retrocession, to
wit: to vest the President with the power to revise the laws of Maryland
and Virginia, and make a report to the next session of Congress. The
laws of Maryland and Virginia were generally agreeable to the people,
but they experienced many inconveniences from local and peculiar
circumstances.
WEDNESDAY, February 9.
_District of Columbia._
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
resolutions of Mr. BACON to recede to the States of Maryland and
Virginia the District of Columbia.
Mr. BAYARD hoped the committee would not agree to the resolutions. He
did not believe that a constitutional power existed enabling the
Government of the United States to recede the Territory. The Territory
had been acquired by the direction and under the permission of the
constitution. The constitution also allows the cession by particular
States. When, therefore, gentlemen say Congress has the power to recede,
he was at liberty to call upon them to exhibit that part of the
constitution that conferred the power. He had looked over the
constitution with a vigilant eye, and he could see nothing to this
effect. Can it be done without power? Do gentlemen recollect that the
Government of the United States is federative, and of course possessed
of limited powers; and what is not delegated does not exist; and that
there is an express provision that powers not expressly given shall not
be assumed by implication? It was difficult to point out a non-entity.
If gentlemen contend for an entity, they should distinguish it. If
Congress have the power to recede this Territory, they have also the
power to recede the others, the Indiana and Mississippi Territories. It
is an extremely different thing to receive a cession and to recede it
after it is received. Congress has the power to do the one, but not the
other. How can the retrocession be made? Gentlemen say, by law. That law
may be repealed. If receded, what would be the situation of the
Territory? It could be no affair of contract. For a contract cannot
exist without a consideration. Though, on the cession, there was a
consideration, in receding there would be none. Would there be a power
in Virginia and Maryland, if receded, to prevent a resumption? Such a
measure showed but little respect for the people of the Territory. As
far as he knew the sentiments of the people, it was not their wish to be
receded. They were willing to live under the protection of Congress. The
gentleman from Pennsylvania has called them slaves. They may not thank
him for the appellation. If they were slaves, there must be some
corollary; and if so, we must be their tyrants. But they are not slaves;
they are children, over whom it is not our wish to tyrannize, but whom
we would foster and nurture. Are we, in the character of Representatives
of the United States, to be considered as their tyrants, because they
are not immediately represented here? We ought not to decide this
question until the people express their desire to return to the States.
But there is a more serious consideration relative to the people of the
Territory. It is proposed to recede the District to Maryland and
Virginia. Once take that step, and what obligation was there in Congress
to remain here? He felt there was none. The obligation to remain arises,
in a great measure, from the cession, and by destroying that, you
extinguish the sense of the obligation to stay. This may be the object
of gentlemen. A number of the measures lately proposed appeared to have
that tendency. One motion had been made to concentrate the public
buildings. Violate one stipulation of the Government, or disappoint a
reasonable expectation that had been excited by the measures of the
Government, and the ruin of hundreds follows. Now, a motion is made to
recede. Combine these two operations. Unfix the Capitol, and recede the
District, and, believe me, Congress will soon take wings and fly to some
other place. It had been truly remarked, on a similar occasion, by those
interested, though these things may be sport to you, they are death to
us. Not a motion of this kind had been made, or could be made, that did
not depreciate the interests of the place, and frustrate the object
professed. By such means, our accommodations will be impaired, all
enterprise be subdued, and industry languish. He hoped, therefore, that
the House, by a decided vote, would reject these resolutions, and put
all similar ones to sleep.
Mr. GREGG said he had expected that this question would have been
decided by a silent vote. He, for his part, had no intention of having
troubled the committee with any observations of his on the subject, but
as other gentlemen had seen proper to enter into a discussion of it, he
would beg the indulgence of the committee while he assigned, as
concisely as possible, the reasons that would influence his vote. Having
been a member of the Legislature at the time the act was passed for
assuming the jurisdiction of the Territory, he foresaw pretty clearly
most of the difficulties in which we are now involved by that act, and
therefore had given it his opposition in every stage of its passage. A
majority of the Legislature, however, at that time, entertained a
different opinion, and made the assumption. From that moment he had
considered a contract to be fully complete and ratified between the
States of Maryland, Virginia, the people of the Territory of Columbia,
and the Government of the United States. That contract he considered as
of permanent obligation, not to be done away, but by the unanimous
consent of all the parties.
Mr. SMILIE could not agree either with the gentleman from Delaware or
with his colleague (Mr. GREGG) on the constitutional question. We had a
power to accept the cession, or not to accept it; from which necessarily
resulted the power of recession. Instead of arguing as the gentleman
from Delaware, he would call on him to point out in the constitution the
prohibition. His colleague talked of a moral obligation to keep the
Territory. This might exist, if it were proposed to force this Territory
on the States without their consent. The gentleman seems to have taken
offence at the expression which had fallen from him of slaves. For his
part, he had never been accustomed to courtly language, but to the
expression of his ideas plainly and openly as he conceived them. He
certainly had not used the expression with any intention to treat the
people of this Territory with disrespect; but to express his regret at
the degraded situation of those who were formerly in possession of the
full rights of citizenship. The gentleman seems also offended at the
epithet of tyrants applied to us.
Mr. S. would ask the gentleman from Delaware, if ever he knew a
government possessed of unlimited power, who had not abused it. This was
the condition of this Government, which he hoped, however, if continued,
would be moderate. He had expected that gentlemen opposed to the
retrocession would have shown the benefit to be derived to the United
States from retaining the jurisdiction. If there were none, it was
useless and dangerous, inasmuch as it could only be done at the expense
of the rights of the people. He was surprised yesterday at the remarks
of the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. DENNIS,) that this measure would
deprive twenty thousand people of their rights. How could this be, when
they had no right to be deprived of? You may give them a charter. But of
what avail will this be, when Congress may take it away at any moment?
They would continue for ever to be ultimately governed by a body over
whom they had no control. Mr. S. concluded by again observing that he
had always thought the assumption wrong; but that he had no idea of
connecting that consideration with the removal of the Government. It
could have no influence on his mind. He would go farther, and say that
he had no idea of removing; nor did he believe they could remove.
Mr. RANDOLPH said that, whatever reasons might be advanced on the ground
of expediency against the adoption of the resolution, he wished to say
a few words on the constitutional objections which had been offered to
them. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. BAYARD) told us, on a very late
occasion, that the power to create involved the power to destroy; and
although I may not be willing to adopt this maxim in all the latitude in
which it was urged by that gentleman, I have no hesitation in averring
my belief that Congress possess the right, with the assent of these
States, respectively, to cede the several portions of this territory to
Maryland and Virginia. Nor, in my opinion, does this doctrine militate
against that construction of the constitution, which regards that
instrument in the light of a limited grant of power. In this
construction I heartily concur with the gentleman from Delaware, or
rather, if he will permit me to say so, I am glad to find he agrees with
me, as I have retained my opinion, whilst he seems to have changed his.
I readily admit that Congress possesses no power but that which is
devolved on them by the constitution, explicitly, or which is evidently
included in, or deducible from its plain provisions. The constitution
nowhere gives Congress the express power of repealing laws; but the
repeal of laws is essentially connected with the power of passing them,
as, in this case, the right to recede is involved in the right to accept
the cession. The parties to this compact are the United States, of the
one part, and the States of Maryland and Virginia, of the other. We
speak the voice of the United States, and, among others, of Maryland and
Virginia, in their confederate capacity. The Legislatures of those
States answer for them in their individual capacity. If all these
parties are agreed to revoke their act, I wish to know who is to dissent
to it, or what obstacle can prevent its being rescinded?
Mr. R. said, that he was of the number of those who voted against
assuming the jurisdiction of this territory. He did it from a
predilection for those principles in which the American Revolution
originated; from the firm belief that men ought not to be bound by laws
in whose formation they had no influence. It was the violation of that
principle, and not the extent to which it was carried, which laid the
foundation of our independence. For, let it be remembered that the
demand of Great Britain went only to a peppercorn; but that we disdained
the admission of so odious a doctrine, and commenced a determined and
successful resistance. But it is denied that this territory is in a
state of slavery, because, says the gentleman, it implies that we are
tyrants. The term slavery, sir, excites in the mind of man an odious
idea. There are, however, various species of this wretched condition.
Domestic slavery, of all others the most oppressive; and political
slavery, which has been well defined to be that state in which any
community is divested of the power of self-government, and regulated by
laws to which its assent is not required, and may not be given. Nor have
I ever before understood that slavery, particularly of the last
description, necessarily implied tyranny, although it too frequently is
productive of it. But, so far from being slaves, the people within this
territory are, it seems, our children, who are to experience every
indulgence at our hands. Sir, the form of government, such as has been
described, however mild and beneficent it may be in its administration,
places those subjected to it in a state of political slavery, and they
are as completely divested of self-control as the infant who is dandled
on the knee of its parent. As to the existence, then, of this species of
slavery, it mattered not whether the people within the limits of this
District were regarded as the favorite son, and feasted on the fatted
calf, or were exposed to the cruel rigor of a step-mother.
An idea had been held out from a very respectable quarter that this
District might, in time, become a State. As to Congress, what difference
will they find between being under the jurisdiction of the State of
Columbia, or the State of Maryland. But, if this objection were removed,
it is impossible that this territory can become a State. The other
States can never be brought to consent that two Senators and, at least,
three electors of President, shall be chosen out of this small spot, and
by a handful of men.
The constitution seems to have intended, by its provision on this
subject, to guard the General Government against the undue influence of
any particular States wherein it might sit. An insurrection in
Philadelphia is mentioned by some gentleman as having given rise to this
clause in the constitution. The constitution, no doubt, had a wise end
in view, but it has failed in the means of attaining it. No man has a
higher respect than myself for the talents of the framers of that
instrument. But let it be remembered, that they were making a great
experiment, and to have failed in but a single object, is the highest
proof of their wisdom. The physical force of this small District would
prove but a poor defence against the aggression of large and powerful
States. Happily, our security is more amply provided for; it results
from the command which has been given us over the sword and the purse of
the Union. Our protection is not in a mathematical line--which would
oppose but a feeble resistance to an invading foe. But let gentlemen ask
themselves, why the inhabitants of this District should be less
formidable if disposed to insurrection because under our own
jurisdiction? Look at Paris! was the insurrection of the fourteenth of
July, which humbled into the dust the ancient monarchy of France, the
effect of a want of jurisdiction; of a want of power in the Government
over the lives and fortunes of the people? Did the city afford the
Government a defence? No, it was in insurrection. Did the military send
its aid? On the contrary, it joined the insurgents. What was the fact
at Philadelphia? That Congress was insulted by its own troops. Would the
civil jurisdiction of the town have repelled the bayonet? No, it was not
in parchment to afford this defence. It has left us an awful lesson
against standing armies; and if we shall ever be so infatuated as to
multiply armies about us, we may rely in vain on the lines of
circumvallation which the limits of our exclusive jurisdiction form. The
constitution, therefore, has failed in its endeavor to give to Congress
any other security than that which public opinion and the command of the
national resources afford.
But, whilst I have no doubt on the subject of our constitutional right,
I am opposed to the resolution on the ground of expediency. It appears
to have disseminated a great alarm among the people of our immediate
neighborhood. At a proper time, when great unanimity can be obtained, it
may be carried into effect. If now passed, it is irrevocable; and I have
no indisposition to give the question the most mature deliberation, and
to give it a fair operation on the public mind. I could wish, indeed, to
see the people within this District restored to their rights. Men in
such a situation are, as it had been wisely and eloquently said, fit
instruments to enslave their fellow-men. This species of Government is
an experiment how far freemen can be reconciled to live without rights;
an experiment dangerous to the liberties of these States. But, inasmuch
as it has been already made, inasmuch as I was not accessory to it, and
as, at some future time, its deleterious effects may be arrested, I am
disposed to vote against the resolutions. I view them as a fatal present
to this House, although I respect the motives in which I believe them to
have originated; as tending to disunite those who ought ever to act in
concert; and I have no hesitation on a question of expediency to declare
my disposition to concede something to the wishes and fears of those
around me. In their present shape, at least, I shall therefore vote
against the resolutions.
Mr. EUSTIS was opposed to the resolutions, for the reasons which had
been stated, and for other reasons not mentioned, though they might have
occurred to the minds of gentlemen. He thought it right to express a
difference of opinion with the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,)
on an important question, the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress to the
ten miles square. He was not prepared to pronounce the provision of the
constitution on this subject deficient or unwise. It rather appeared to
him to be founded in the nature of the Government. A Government on
parchment, and without force, was no Government at all. It had been
stated this provision grew out of a transaction at Philadelphia, and
asked what dependence was to be placed on a military force when that
force was itself the aggressor? But that transaction suggested a
different result. Had the militia been well equipped and ready for
service, and under the immediate control of Congress, would the military
force have been suffered to overawe them? This very case furnished an
argument for investing Congress with the complete command of the militia
force of the territory, to screen them from insult, and to protect them
from the application of force that might destroy deliberation. They had
already taken a course calculated to prove the soundness of this mode of
protection. Their laws had recognized the militia of the territory; and
some measures had been taken to organize them. The militia was the
physical force Congress must rely on. Suppose that militia were under
the command of Maryland, and Congress was about to pass a law obnoxious
to that State. Suppose the militia of Maryland to be mutinous, and to
surround these walls. Must you resort to Maryland for protection, and
wait on her measures? No; the situation of the territory and your
immediate power over the militia must furnish you with the means of
protection. He therefore thought it one of the best provisions of the
constitution, to submit the physical force near the Government to its
direction.
Mr. SOUTHARD rose only to make one observation, which had been touched
on but lightly in the course of the debate. It appeared to him that when
Congress assumed the exclusive jurisdiction of the ten miles square,
they had, in the first instance, entered into a contract with the
Legislatures of Virginia and Maryland. He had no doubt that, if the
contract had ended here, they might, with their consent, make a
retrocession. The second step, however, taken, was a contract between
the agents of Government and the proprietors, in order to obtain the
soil. This contract appeared to him to be solemn and binding. In
entering into the contract, the proprietors gave the General Government
sites for the public buildings, and half the residue of the land within
the city plot. He conceived that this was a contract founded on express
stipulations that Congress should exercise exclusive jurisdiction. The
proprietors had no idea, at the time they made the contract, that their
property would be retroceded and the Government had since received more
than one million's worth of real property which they now enjoyed. He
would ask, whether a retrocession, under such circumstances, would not
have a retrospective effect, and impair those obligations which the
United States were bound to observe? For this reason, he thought a
retrocession improper, as it would be a violation of contract with the
people of the territory. It appeared to him that, while they were
satisfied, the General Government ought to be satisfied.
Mr. VARNUM doubted the reality of the observation of the gentleman from
New Jersey. He suspected there was no such contract in existence. It was
not the interest of the Government of the United States to do any thing
that would injure this District. He therefore supposed that every
gentleman who voted on this occasion, would act for the interest of his
country. If he thought it possible for Congress to legislate for the
territory, he should have no objection to retaining the jurisdiction.
But, when he considered that Congress were appointed to legislate on
great objects, and not on minute local concerns, he did not think them
competent to legislate for the persons situated in the Territory of
Columbia. He did not know whether, if the jurisdiction was retained, it
would not be proper to indulge the citizens with a territorial
legislature. But to this the people themselves object. Virginia objects
to a union with Maryland. There were, manifestly, hostile interests
which could not easily be united. And if there shall be a territorial
legislature, still Congress has a right over their acts. Whether this
was the fit time to retrocede the territory he did not know; but he
believed the time would come when the citizens of the territory will be
in favor of it.
Mr. SMILIE stated the circumstances of the case at Philadelphia, which
had been so often alluded to by gentlemen. At the close of the late war
there had been a mutiny among the troops, who had surrounded Congress.
Not a drop of blood had, however, been spilt. This was the mighty
incident of which so liberal a use had been made. He would ask whether,
in countries over which the Government had complete jurisdiction, worse
things had not happened? He would ask, whether this menace of Congress
were to be compared with the mob of Lord George Gordon in a country over
which the Government had an entire jurisdiction.
The question was then taken on the first resolution, for receding to
Virginia the territory originally attached to that State, and lost--ayes
22.
When the question was taken on the second resolution, and lost, without
a division.
The committee rose, and reported their disagreement to the resolutions.
The House immediately took up their report.
Mr. NICHOLSON called for the yeas and nays.
Mr. RANDOLPH said, as he believed the House incompetent to legislate for
the people of Columbia; as he believed the interests of the several
parts of the territory were as hostile as any in the Union, as it was
manifest there was an Alexandria, a Georgetown, and a city interest; and
even, within the city, a Capitol-hill interest, and a President's-house
interest--which were irreconcilable; he should vote for the amendment of
his colleague, (Mr. DAWSON.) To attempt to legislate for the District
was, in effect, to constitute the chairman of the committee, or, at any
rate, the committee itself on the affairs of the territory, the Solon or
Lycurgus of the place. It was well known that the indolence of the other
members, or their indifference, inseparable from the situation in which
they were placed, would prevent Congress from legislating with a full
understanding of the objects before them. He, therefore, thought it
expedient to retrocede all the territory, excepting the City of
Washington. This disposition of the territory would leave entirely
untouched the question which arose from the interest of individuals who
had made purchases of property under the faith of Congress retaining the
jurisdiction. It was probable that, in such event, a corporation might
be established in the city that would answer the ends of Government,
without two-thirds of the time of the National Legislature being
consumed.
The question was then taken by yeas and nays, on concurring with the
Committee of the Whole, in their disagreement to the first resolution,
and carried--yeas 66, nays 26, as follows:
YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, James A. Bayard, Thomas Boude,
Richard Brent, Robert Brown, John Campbell, John Clopton,
John Condit, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John
Davenport, Thomas T. Davis, William Dickson, Peter Early,
William Eustis, Abiel Foster, Calvin Goddard, Edwin Gray,
Andrew Gregg, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, John A.
Hanna, Daniel Heister, William Helms, Joseph Hemphill,
Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, David Holmes,
Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, George Jackson, William Jones,
Ebenezer Mattoon, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill,
Thomas Moore, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Morris, Anthony New,
Thomas Newton, jun., Joseph H. Nicholson, Elias Perkins,
Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, William Shepard,
Israel Smith, John Cotton Smith, John Smith, (of Virginia,)
Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, John Stanley, John Stewart,
John Taliaferro, jr., Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher,
Thomas Tillinghast, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John
Trigg, George B. Upham, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg
Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, Richard Winn, and Thomas Wynns.
NAYS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Phanuel
Bishop, William Butler, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne,
Matthew Clay, Richard Cutts, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph,
Ebenezer Elmer, John Fowler, William Hoge, James Holland,
Michael Leib, James Mott, John Randolph, jr., John Smilie,
John Smith, (of New York,) Josiah Smith, Richard Stanford,
David Thomas, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, and Robert
Williams.
The second and last resolution to which the Committee of the Whole
reported their disagreement, being twice read, in the words following,
to wit:
_Resolved_, That it is expedient for Congress to recede to
the State of Maryland the jurisdiction of that part of the
Territory of Columbia, which was ceded to the United States
by the said State of Maryland, by an act passed the
nineteenth day of December, in the year one thousand seven
hundred and ninety-one, entitled "An act concerning the
Territory of Columbia and the City of Washington;" provided
the said State of Maryland shall consent and agree thereto:
The question was taken that the House do concur with the Committee of
the Whole in their disagreement to the same, and resolved in the
affirmative.[77]
THURSDAY, February 10.
_Ohio School Fund._
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report of
the committee of the second instant, to whom were referred, on the
twenty-third of December last, a letter from Edward Tiffin, President of
the Convention of Ohio, and a letter from Thomas Worthington, special
agent of the said State, enclosing a copy of the constitution thereof,
together with sundry propositions in addition to, and in modification
of, those contained in an act passed at the last session of Congress;
and after some time spent therein, the committee rose and reported to
the House their agreement to the resolutions contained therein, with two
amendments, which being severally read, the first amendment was, on the
question put thereupon, agreed to, and the other disagreed to by the
House.
The said resolutions, as amended, were again severally read at the
Clerk's table, and agreed to by the House, as follows:
1. _Resolved_, That a donation, equal to one thirty-sixth
part of the amount of the lands in the United States'
Military Tract, within the State of Ohio, be made for the
support of schools within that tract.
2. _Resolved_, That a donation equal to one thirty-sixth
part of the county of Trumbull, be made, out of the lands
within the United States' Military Tract, for the support
of schools within the said county of Trumbull.
3. _Resolved_, That a donation equal to one thirty-sixth
part of the Virginia reservation, so far as the unlocated
lands, within that reservation, (after the warrants issued
by that State shall have been first satisfied,) will supply
the same, be made for the support of schools in the
district contained between the Scioto and Little Miami
Rivers.
4. _Resolved_, That a like provision, for the use of
schools, be made, out of any lands which may hereafter be
acquired from the Indian tribes.
5. _Resolved_, That the lands which now are, or hereafter
may be, appropriated to the use of schools within the State
of Ohio, be vested in the Legislature thereof, in trust for
that object.
6. _Resolved_, That not less than three-fifths of the sum
offered to be appropriated by Congress for the opening of
roads, from the Western to the Atlantic waters, shall be
appropriated under the direction of the State of Ohio, for
the laying out of roads within that State.
7. _Resolved_, That, in lieu of the township proposed to be
granted for the use of an academy, by the act passed the
fifth day of May one thousand seven hundred and ninety-two,
there be granted to the State of Ohio, for the purposes
described in that act, one other entire township, within
the district of Cincinnati; provided that the State of Ohio
shall relinquish to the United States, all their claims,
under the act aforesaid, against the said John C. Symmes.
8. _Resolved_, That these propositions shall depend on the
compliance, by the State of Ohio, with the provisions of
the third proposition, and second section of the aforesaid
act, entitled "An act to enable the people of the eastern
division of the territory north-west of the river Ohio to
form a constitution and State government, and for the
admission of such State into the Union, on an equal
footing with the original States, and for other purposes,"
passed the thirtieth day of April, one thousand eight
hundred and two.
_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the said
resolutions; and that Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. ELMENDORPH, Mr. GODDARD, Mr.
HENDERSON, and Mr. ARCHER, do prepare and bring in the same.
THURSDAY, February 17.
_Emancipated Slaves from French West Indies._
An engrossed bill to prevent the importation of certain persons into
certain States, where, by the laws thereof, their admission is
prohibited, was read the third time.
And, on the question that the same do pass, it was resolved in the
affirmative--yeas 48, nays 15, as follows:
YEAS.--Willis Alston, John Bacon, Theodorus Bailey, James
A. Bayard, Phanuel Bishop, Thomas Boude, William Butler,
Samuel J. Cabell, John Campbell, Matthew Clay, John
Clopton, John Dawson, Peter Early, Lucas Elmendorph,
Ebenezer Elmer, Calvin Goddard, Edwin Gray, Daniel Heister,
Joseph Heister, William Helms, Archibald Henderson, William
H. Hill, William Hoge, James Holland, George Jackson,
Michael Leib, David Meriwether, Anthony New, Thomas Newton,
jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, Thomas Plater, John Rutledge,
William Shepard, John Smilie, Samuel Smith, Richard
Stanford, John Stewart, John Taliaferro, jr., Samuel
Tenney, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip
Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, Robert
Williams, Henry Woods, and Thomas Wynns.
NAYS.--Robert Brown, John Condit, Richard Cutts, John
Davenport, Abiel Foster, John A. Hanna, Seth Hastings,
Samuel L. Mitchill, James Mott, Israel Smith, Josiah Smith,
Henry Southard, Joseph Stanton, David Thomas, and Peleg
Wadsworth.
_Resolved_, That the title be, "An act to prevent the importation of
certain persons into certain States, where, by the laws thereof, their
admission is prohibited;" and that the Clerk of this House do carry the
said bill to the Senate, and desire their concurrence.
TUESDAY, February 22.
_Military Land Warrants._