MONDAY, February 12.
_Torpedoes._
Mr. DAWSON.--On hearing the Journal read, I find that on last Friday a
letter was received by the Speaker from Mr. Fulton. What merit is due
to his invention I will not pretend to say; but I know Mr. Fulton to
be a man of science and successful experiment; of which he has given
proofs, both in Europe and this country. It seems to me that some
attention ought to be paid to his communication. I therefore move you
that his letter be referred to a select committee.
Mr. Dawson's motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed,
consisting of Messrs. DAWSON, TAYLOR and BACON.
WEDNESDAY, February 14.
_Torpedoes._
Mr. DAWSON made the following report:
The committee to whom was referred a letter from Robert Fulton
to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, dated on the
9th instant, beg leave to report, in part, that at their
request Mr. Fulton attended the committee on this morning,
and explained to them his views of the uses and effects of
torpedoes, on which the committee forbear to give an opinion,
and offer the following resolution:
_Resolved_, That, when the House shall adjourn on Friday next,
it will adjourn to meet on Monday; and that Mr. Fulton have the
use of this Hall on Saturday, for the purpose of exhibiting
the torpedoes and delivering a lecture on their practice and
utility.
Mr. RHEA moved to recommit the report to the committee who reported
it, with a view to obtaining a report on the merits of it.--Motion
negatived.
Mr. LIVERMORE called for a division of the resolution reported by the
committee, so as to take a question separately on the words, "RESOLVED,
That, when the House shall adjourn, it adjourn to meet on Monday."
The question on this part of the resolution was decided by yeas and
nays--yeas 90, nays 29.
Mr. LIVERMORE moved to postpone the further consideration of the
subject indefinitely.
A desultory debate took place on these various questions. It was
said that the Hall of the House of Representatives was exclusively
appropriated to Legislative purposes, and that, at this time, to
appropriate it to the purpose of experimental lectures, would afford a
precedent which would be injurious; that such a measure, if admissible
at all, should not be taken unless the House were convinced of the
practicability of the system proposed to be illustrated, because
it would hold out the idea that the House of Representatives had
sanctioned it. It was also said that this system could quite as
conveniently be illustrated in one of the other apartments of the
Capitol, without spreading on the Journals a formal record allowing Mr.
Fulton the use of this House. In reply, it was said, that this was an
invention which promised to be of great public utility, and it was but
reasonable, as the inventor was known to be a scientific man, that he
should have an opportunity of demonstrating its efficacy, when he has
offered his services for that purpose. If it succeeded, it might be a
saving of many millions to the United States; and if it failed, the
House would, by paying attention to it, have shown their disposition to
encourage science. The argument against the report of the committee,
that this Hall was exclusively devoted to legislation, it was said,
would operate with equal force against permitting Divine service to be
performed there on Sundays.
Before any question was taken on the latter clause of the report of the
committee, the House adjourned.
THURSDAY, February 15.
_Torpedoes._
A motion was made by Mr. BURWELL, that the unfinished business of
yesterday do lie on the table; and the question being taken thereon, it
was determined in the negative.
The House then resumed the consideration of the said unfinished
business, and the question recurring on the motion to postpone
indefinitely the further consideration of the second member of the
resolution, Mr. SPEAKER decided that the said motion to postpone
indefinitely was, at the time the same was under consideration, out of
order.
A motion was then made by Mr. ROSS, to amend the said resolution by
striking out the words, _delivering a lecture on_, for the purpose of
inserting the word _explaining_. And the question being taken thereon,
it was resolved in the affirmative.
The question was then taken upon concurring in the second and last
member of the said resolution, and determined in the negative--yeas 55,
nays 61.
On motion of Mr. TROUP, the question was then stated on concurring in
the first and second members of the said resolution; when Mr. SPEAKER
decided that, a question being divided, one part affirmed and the other
rejected, a question cannot be put upon the whole of the resolution
as originally proposed. From which decision of the chair, an appeal
was made to the House by Mr. TROUP, and being seconded, the question
was taken, "Is the decision of the Chair correct?" and resolved in the
affirmative--yeas 78, nays 21.
FRIDAY, February 16.
_Mrs. Hamilton's Claim._
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report
of the Committee of Claims on the petition of Elizabeth Hamilton, widow
of Alexander Hamilton, praying for the compensation due to her deceased
husband.
[This report is one of the class of those favorable to the prayers of
the petitioners on grounds of equity, but declaring, because they are
barred by the statute of limitations, that they, therefore, ought not
to be granted.]
The resolution reported by the Committee of Claims is as follows:
"_Resolved_, That the prayer of the petitioner ought not to be
granted."
The report was supported by Messrs. MONTGOMERY, VARNUM, HELMS, and
BACON, on the ground that the late General Hamilton had no claim on
the Government under the resolutions of the old Congress; because he
was, on the 25th of November, 1782, a delegate in Congress, and, by
the 6th article of the Confederation, incapable of holding, at the
same time, a military commission. He was in that Congress, a member
(if not the chairman) of the committee which reported the resolutions
under which his heirs are now said to be entitled to compensation. Had
no statute of limitations ever been passed, therefore, it was said
that General Hamilton or his heirs had no claim on the Government;
because in accepting a seat in Congress, he had virtually resigned his
commission before the close of the war. The case might be a hard one;
but there were hundreds of cases at least equally so, and cases too
in which the sufferers had not, as General Hamilton had, subsequently
enjoyed lucrative employments by the favor of his country. It was
said that Congress ought to be just before they were generous. Before
they granted a claim of this doubtful character, influenced by the
character or standing of the individual, they should relieve the
impoverished old soldiers who daily begged of them for a pittance of
bread, whose claims were equally just and whose necessities were much
more pressing.
Mr. BOYD spoke in favor of the report of the committee. Either the
statute of limitations was just or it was unjust. If unjust, it ought
to be repealed; if just, Congress ought to be careful how they made
exceptions in favor of particular claims.
Messrs. JOHNSON, GHOLSON, DAWSON, SHEFFEY GOLD, KEY, PITKIN and
GARDENIER, oppose the report of the committee. It was said that General
Hamilton's having received a brevet commission at the close of the
war was evidence of his having been considered in service until the
end of the war; for unless he had, such a commission could not have
been issued to him. But a short time before the peace, he was seen at
the head of his regiment gallantly storming a redoubt at the siege
of York, and contributed not a little to the capture of Cornwallis
and his army. By accepting a seat in Congress he did not resign his
commission, but held himself liable to be called into service at any
time, if necessary. But if he had, from the best of motives, accepted
a seat in Congress, and thereby resigned his commission, it was said
that his heirs ought not, therefore, to be deprived of the compensation
equitably due to him. Congress had extended the hand of relief to the
daughters of Count de Grasse, who had no shadow of a legal claim; but
their father had assisted by sea, as General Hamilton did on the land,
at the capture of Cornwallis; they were in this country in distress,
and Congress had relieved them. Should the same relief be denied to the
representatives of a citizen who had served during the war, and whose
legal claim, if barred at all, (except by the statute of limitations,)
was only barred by his zeal in the service of his country, which
prompted him to accept a seat in Congress? The statute of limitations,
it was said, was never intended to bar Congress from discharging a just
claim, but merely to prevent the accounting officers of the Treasury
from allowing all the old, and perhaps fraudulent claims which might
have been pressed upon them. Every gentleman who spoke, dwelt upon the
obduracy of heart and injustice, as it was termed, which could refuse
to the claim of the war-worn soldier, the compensation due to him for
his assistance in achieving the liberties of his country.
Before the question was taken on the report, the committee rose,
reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.
And the House adjourned to Monday.
MONDAY, February 19.
_Bank of the United States._
Mr. MONTGOMERY, from the committee appointed, on the twenty-ninth
ultimo, on the memorial of the Stockholders of the Bank of the United
States, made a report thereon; which was read, and referred to a
Committee of the Whole to-morrow. The report is as follows:
That in proceeding to the consideration of the said petition,
your committee instructed their chairman to address a letter
to the Secretary of the Treasury, requesting him to furnish
such information or observations as he might think proper, in
relation to the subject-matter thereof, as connected with the
financial and commercial interests of the United States. In
reply to which, the Secretary, by his letter to the chairman,
referred your committee to his former report on the said
subject, made to the Senate of the United States, in obedience
to the order of that House.
Your committee have been attended by agents of the petitioners,
who, in addition to the matters contained in the petition,
have suggested to your committee that the object of the
petitioners was to obtain the renewal of the charter in its
present form; that, for this renewal, the bank is willing to
make compensation, either by loans at a rate of interest,
or by a sum of money to be agreed upon, or by an increase
of the capital stock, by a number of shares to be taken and
subscribed for by the United States, to an amount adequate to
the compensation to be agreed upon for such renewal.
These agents also suggested that they were fully authorized
and empowered to offer and conclude the terms specifically
connected with these propositions.
Your committee, not feeling themselves authorized to enter into
such terms, and judging that the extent of those propositions
would better apply to the details of a bill, than to the
adoption of a principle to be first settled by the House,
have, therefore forborne to inquire into the extent of the
propositions, and, without expressing an approbation or
rejection of these offers, or giving an opinion as to the plan
and reasoning of the Secretary of the Treasury, your committee
in order that the opinion of the House on this great national
question may be declared previous to entering into the details
connected with the subject, recommend the following resolution:
_Resolved_, That it is proper to make provision for continuing
the establishment of the Bank of the United States, with
offices of discount and deposit, under the regulations
necessary for the beneficial administration of the national
finances, during such time, and on such conditions, as may be
defined by law.
WEDNESDAY, Feb. 28.
_Amey Dardin._
Mr. GHOLSON, from the committee appointed on the seventh of December
last, on the petition of Amey Dardin, made a report thereon; which was
read, and referred to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.
The report is as follows:
That the petitioner claims compensation for a stud-horse,
known by the name of Romulus, taken from her husband, David
Dardin, in the year 1781, for the use of the army of the
United States. It appears that the said horse was impressed
from David Dardin for the public service by Lieutenant Rudder,
a Continental officer, on the 26th of February, in the year
aforesaid, and was then valued at the sum of £750 specie. The
horse was taken to the army in North Carolina, then commanded
by General Greene, who, upon hearing of the valuation, ordered
the said horse to be valued again, which valuation was still
higher than the first; whereupon General Greene ordered the
horse to be returned to his former owner, who called upon
three persons to ascertain the damages sustained by the use of
his horse, and they estimated the damages at £100. The said
Dardin then received the horse as his property, and continued
to use him as such until the 18th July, 1781, when another
Continental officer again took the horse and gave a receipt
for him, wherein the sum of £750 is mentioned as having been
before stated as the appraised value. This procedure attracted
the attention of the Executive of Virginia, and in December,
1782, Benjamin Harrison, then Governor, made a representation
to General Greene respecting this subject; but the horse being
by this time in the State of Georgia, and applied to the public
service, was continued therein, finally disposed of, and never
thereafter returned to the said owner. It also appears that
this claim of Dardin was referred to the Virginia Assembly
in 1782 by the court of Mecklenburg county; and, in a former
report it is stated, and believed to be true, that Dardin
accordingly petitioned the Legislature of that State; but his
claim being considered as coming more properly against the
Union than against any particular State, he did not succeed.
He, or the present petitioner, was then advised that redress
might be obtained against the officers who took the horse,
and a suit was instituted in the High Court of Chancery of
Virginia for that purpose, which suit was depending therein
until the month of June 1793, when it appears to have been
abandoned and was dismissed. With the exception of the fact
which the committee have extracted from a former report in
this case, that this claim was once presented to and rejected
by the Virginia Legislature, (which is deemed a circumstance
of no particular importance,) all the foregoing statement is
supported by written documents, which appear to be genuine and
authentic.
On the merits of this claim, your committee consider it almost
superfluous to comment. The facts are conclusive in its favor,
and no obstacle to its discharge can be conceived, except the
lapse of time on this subject. The committee beg leave to
state, that on the 23d July, 1787, Congress passed a resolution
providing that all persons having unliquidated claims against
the United States shall exhibit a particular abstract thereof
to the Comptroller of the Treasury of the United States
within one year. This was the first limitation that was
adopted in respect to any class of claims, except those for
personal services, which had been barred by the resolution
of 2d November, 1785. The committee are of opinion that this
claim was not included in the resolution of 23d July, 1787,
because that resolution mentions only unliquidated claims;
and the present claim was always liquidated and certain. The
certificate granted by the Continental officer states the
appraisement of the horse, made pursuant to the usage of the
army, at the specific sum of £750 specie.
The next limitation to claims against the United States, and
which it is believed by the committee embraces the claim of
the petitioner, is contained in the act of the 12th February,
1793, which took effect on the 1st of May, 1794. On the 28th of
February, 1794, the petitioner, instead of presenting her claim
to the Treasury, according to the requisition of the statute
of the 12th of February, 1793, presented it to Congress, who
took cognizance of it, and ordered it to lie on their table.
Her petition, and the only documents on which she could have
succeeded at the Treasury, were retained in the possession of
the House of Representatives until, and for some time after,
the statute of limitations began to operate. Your committee
have no hesitation in hazarding the opinion that in a case
like this, between A and B, before an intelligent and upright,
and equitable judge, the claim would be most undoubtedly
sanctioned, as not coming within the spirit, although it may
fall within the strict letter of the act of limitation.
Placing, however, this question out of view, the committee
are still of opinion that the claim of the petitioner ought
to be allowed. They believe that when a claim, founded in a
fair consideration, and supported by indisputable evidence, is
presented for payment, a proper self-respect on the part of the
Government, as well as justice to the claimant, requires its
discharge. They therefore submit the following resolution:
_Resolved_, That the prayer of the petitioner ought to be
granted.
FRIDAY, March 2.
_Mrs. Hamilton's Claim._
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
following resolution reported by the Committee of Claims on the
petition of Elizabeth Hamilton:
_Resolved_, That the prayer of the petitioner ought not to be
granted.
Messrs. NELSON and TAYLOR opposed, and Messrs. ROOT, BOYD, and
MONTGOMERY, supported the report--each at considerable extent.
At length the question was taken in committee, and the report disagreed
to, 60 to 52. The committee rose, and reported their disagreement.
The House concurred with the Committee of the Whole in their
disagreement--yeas 62, nays 52.
After some conversation as to the proper course now to be pursued,
Mr. GHOLSON moved that the Committee of Claims be instructed to report
a bill, pursuant to the prayer of Elizabeth Hamilton.
The motion was agreed to by yeas and nays--61 to 46.
FRIDAY, March 9.
The bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act for the relief of
Charles Minifie," was read twice, and committed to the Committee of
Claims.
_Torpedoes._
The bill from the Senate, entitled "An act making appropriation for
the purpose of trying the practical use of the torpedo, or submarine
explosion," was read the first time.
A motion was made by Mr. LIVERMORE, that the bill be rejected; and the
question being taken thereon, it was determined in the negative--yeas
27, nays 76.
The bill was then read the second time, and committed to a Committee of
the Whole on Monday next.
MONDAY, March 12.
Another member, to wit, from Virginia, JOHN RANDOLPH, appeared, and
took his seat in the House.
WEDNESDAY, March 14.
_Claim for Indian Depredations._
Mr. WITHERSPOON, from the committee appointed on the fourteenth ultimo,
on the petition of Alexander Scott, made a report thereon, which was
read, and referred to a Committee of the Whole on Friday next. The
report is as follows:
That in the month of February, 1794, William Scott, James
Pettigrew, and John Pettigrew, of South Carolina, left that
State, with a view of establishing themselves in the present
Mississippi Territory, and took with them twenty-one negro
slaves, with goods and chattels to the value of more than
one thousand dollars; that they proceeded in safety on their
journey as far as the Muscle Shoals, on the river Tennessee,
where they were attacked, about the 9th of June, 1794, by a
party of Cherokee Indians, who put to death all the white
people of the family, and took possession of and carried away
the negroes and other property. It appears, also, to your
committee, that repeated endeavors have been made, at very
great expense, to recover the aforesaid property, without
any other success than the recovery of a negro child; and
that the persons legally entitled to the said property are
forever foreclosed from any remedy by which to recover the
same, in consequence of the stipulations of the ninth article
of a treaty made with the Cherokee Indians on the 2d day of
October, 1798, which article is in the following words: "It is
mutually agreed between the parties that the horses stolen,
and not returned within ninety days, shall be paid for at
the rate of sixty dollars each. If stolen by a white man,
citizen of the United States, the Indian proprietor shall be
paid in cash; and if stolen by an Indian from a citizen, to
be deducted, as expressed in the fourth article of the Treaty
of Philadelphia. This article shall have retrospect to the
commencement of the first conferences at this place in the
present year, and no further. And all animosities, aggressions,
thefts, and plunderings, prior to that day, shall cease, and
be no longer remembered or demanded on either side." By the
above-recited article, the petitioners are wholly deprived
of redress in the premises. If there existed any tribunal of
justice before whom the case could be brought, the right of the
petitioners to the said negro slaves and their increase would
doubtless be established. But there is no court within the
United States having cognizance of an action for the recovery
of property held within the Indian boundary. Neither is it
in the power of the petitioners to avail themselves of force
or stratagem, whereby to regain possession of the aforesaid
slaves and their increase, because they would be liable to
punishment for a violation of the statute of the United States
regulating intercourse with the Indian tribes. From these
premises, it appeared to your committee that the petitioners
have an undoubted right to the above-mentioned slaves and their
increase, and that they have been deprived of all remedy for
their recovery by the acts of the Government of the United
States; that the voluntary renunciation of their rights by
the Government gives to the petitioners a fair claim on the
Government for indemnification. Your committee, therefore,
under an impression that the aforesaid slaves would be
delivered to the agent of the United States for Indian Affairs
among the Cherokee Indians upon conditions more favorable to
the United States than a full remuneration of their value to
the petitioners, respectfully submit the following resolution:
_Resolved_, That the prayer of the petitioner is reasonable,
and that the President of the United States be authorized and
requested to treat, by such commissioner as he shall appoint,
for the delivery to the rightful owners of the slaves and their
increase taken from William Scott, James Pettigrew, and John
Pettigrew, on or about the 9th of June, 1794, by a party of the
Cherokee nation of Indians, at or near the Muscle Shoals, on
the river Tennessee, upon such equitable conditions as to him
shall appear just and reasonable.
FRIDAY, March 16.
_Mrs. Hamilton's Claim._
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill
for the relief of Elizabeth Hamilton.
Messrs. SMILIE, ROOT, W. ALSTON, BACON, MACON, CLAY, and BOYD, opposed
the bill, and Messrs. JOHNSON, SHEFFEY, and NELSON, supported it.
The committee rose about four o'clock, and reported the bill.
Mr. MACON moved to amend the said bill by striking out the following
words: "five years' full pay for the services of her said deceased
husband as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Revolutionary war, which five
years' full pay is the commutation of his half-pay for life;" for the
purpose of inserting, "whatever may be due to her for his services as
an officer during the Revolutionary war."
Mr. GHOLSON called for a division of the question.
And the motion to strike out was negatived, yeas 57, nays 54.
Mr. W. ALSTON moved to amend the bill by adding the following proviso:
"_Provided_, That it shall be made to appear, to the
satisfaction of the accounting officers of the Treasury
Department, that the said Alexander Hamilton ever was entitled
to half pay or commutation."
The question on Mr. ALSTON'S amendment was decided in the
negative--yeas 55, nays 56.
And on motion, the House then adjourned, about five o'clock.
SATURDAY, March 17.
_Amey Dardin's Claim._
The bill for the relief of Amey Dardin was read a third time.
Mr. STANFORD moved to recommit the bill to obtain a more particular
report on the claim than had been made. Motion negatived.
The passage of the bill was opposed by Messrs. MACON, BACON, PICKMAN,
and STANFORD, and advocated by Messrs. GHOLSON, SMILIE, W. ALSTON, and
SHEFFEY.
[It was opposed on three grounds--the main objection being that it
opened the statute of limitations; 2, that the claim ought not to be
allowed, because the horse, for which compensation was asked, might
have been reclaimed if the deceased Mr. Dardin had chosen to have
received it; 3, that interest ought not to be allowed on the sum at
which the horse was valued.]
The bill was passed--yeas 82, nays 24.
_Mrs. Hamilton's Claim._
The consideration of the bill for the relief of Mrs. Hamilton was
called for.
Mr. WYNN moved to adjourn. For it, 23.
Mr. ROOT moved to postpone the further consideration of it till Friday
next. Negatived, 57 to 43.
Mr. ROOT opposed the bill at length, and Mr. FISK replied.
The question "Shall the bill be engrossed for a third reading?" was
then taken and carried, by yeas and nays.
On the question, when the bill should be read a third time, Mr. ROOT
named Friday, and Mr. NELSON to-day.
For Friday 44--For Monday 50.
To-day was fixed as the day; and a motion was made by Mr. T. MOORE to
adjourn. Lost, 63 to 50.
The bill was read a third time and passed, 63 to 53, the votes being
precisely the same as those last taken, except that Mr. R. BROWN was
absent on this vote.
MONDAY, March 26.
_Torpedo Experiment._
The bill making an appropriation for the purpose of making an
experiment on the practical use of the torpedo, or submarine explosion,
was taken up.
Mr. DANA, said that the question now before the House did not relate
to any degree of reputation which any individual might claim for any
invention, nor to any interest he might have in any discovery he had
made. The question was, whether this proposition now appeared before
the House under such circumstances that they should step out of the
ordinary course of encouragement, given by law to inventors, to provide
the means of making an experiment at the public expense. This, Mr.
D. said, was the simple inquiry to be made; and, however eminent or
distinguished in the walks of science, or however irradiated by the
splendor of genius, it belonged to no individual to demand of the
Legislature that they should adopt any system previous to its utility
being ascertained. No individual could arrogate it to himself; and,
when any individual pressed himself upon the Legislature, it was a
question whether this experiment was worthy to be made; whether the
invention promised any possible good worthy of this experiment.
Mr. D. said he had no wish to detain the House, but he had really
doubted, for himself, whether, with the views he entertained on this
subject, it was compatible with the respect due to the House to
withhold some of the sentiments which occurred to him in opposition to
this bill. In every instance in which a sum of money had heretofore
been appropriated to encourage inventions, it had been for some object
admitted to be of value, for something intended to be of use, and
which, prior to making the appropriation in relation to it, had been,
in a degree, examined. This, however, was a thing which, on the face of
it, appropriated a sum of money for the purpose of making experiments
to ascertain the use of the invention. It was therefore, perhaps, the
first appropriation of the kind ever proposed.
Mr. D. said he did not perceive that any experiment could be made, in
time of peace, to ascertain this thing, so as to decide the question of
the practical use of the torpedo; for, with respect to every question
stated in the publication laid on the table, with respect to any
principle which the inventor proposed to establish by any specific
experiment, with respect to any question which related to natural
agents or their physical effect, he thought it proper to admit the
whole.
In the first place, Mr. D. said that he admitted that the explosive
force of gunpowder, placed at the keel, might destroy any ship. Another
thing he would admit, that a person might deposit powder in a metallic
case, which should remain under water; that the case might be made
water-tight, and that the clock-work contained in it might be put in
motion. He would admit, also, that this machine might be balanced so
that its gravity should be nearly equal to that of the water; that
the action of the current or tide might bear such a magazine, so
specifically apportioned, beneath the bottom of the vessel.
But, when all these things were admitted, Mr. DANA said that he did not
perceive that any one point was gained as respected the object of the
experiment, for it must be considered that all this experiment could
only go to decide the action of natural physical powers, where the
efforts of genius were not combined.
As respects the whole of the thing itself, as far as I understand
it, I perceive nothing new in it. I do not conceive that, on this
subject, there is any thing very novel in point of principle. There
may be something in the modification of it; but, as respects the main
principle, there is nothing new. The idea was started during the war
of the American Revolution, and various experiments were made on it.
The Commander-in-Chief of the Army of the United States, at that time,
was not, as I have understood, impressed himself with much confidence
in the experiment. But a gentleman of his family, and an officer of
his army, who had more confidence in it, made the experiment; and,
ultimately, the experiment was pretty much given up.
As he did not speak at random, Mr. D. asked leave to call the attention
of the House to the principles of the invention of David Bushnell, of
Connecticut. [Mr. D. here read, from the _Philosophical Transactions_,
an account of a machine invented by Mr. Bushnell, in many respects
similar to that invented by Mr. Fulton.]
The principal difference between these two inventions, Mr. D. said,
appeared to be in the mode of conveying the machine to the keel of the
ship. The plan of Mr. Fulton was, instead of conveying it by means of
a diving-boat, to convey it by the action of the current to the place
where it was to operate. To do this he proposed two modes. As respected
the first, the action of the current on the torpedo placed obliquely,
Mr. D. said he had no doubt. It was the principle on which the helmsman
steers his ship, and the seaman manages his sails; the principle on
which boats are made to pass ferries by the oblique action of the
current. As respected the second mode, the use of the harpoon-gun,
there was no novelty in that certainly. It had been used in Europe
in the whale fishery, where they were not trained in this species of
fishing so as to produce dexterity in throwing the harpoon. Premiums
had been given, and attempts made to discharge a harpoon from a ring
and rope attached to it, at the distance of ten fathoms, which was a
greater distance than the most experienced and skilful could strike
with effect.
The question which Mr. D. said he proposed, was, whether obstacles
could not be interposed by naval men. As respected firing the
harpoon-gun, he should suppose it a want of skill or attention in the
experiment if it failed to take effect. That a harpoon might be fired
into a vessel, that the torpedo would go under her, and that a vessel
which could be bought for $5,000, might be blown up in this way, he
had no doubt; but when all this is done, what does it ascertain? As
respects making a torpedo, any person who is in the neighborhood of a
good gun and locksmith, and has good powder, can construct one. Mr. D.
said he did not see the necessity of spending this sum of money rather
for amusement than for any thing else. He did not see the necessity
of it, because he did not perceive any one thing to be learnt from an
experiment. He was, therefore, against the bill.
Mr. LYON said that the gentleman from Connecticut had shown his own
conviction of the utility of torpedoes, and it would be worth while to
give five thousand dollars to establish the same conviction in others.
If I had the twentieth part of the certainty on the subject which that
gentleman has, said Mr. L., I should not vote for the experiment. I
have no desire, in voting for any thing of this kind, to give up any
other kind of defence. I know it is all-important in us to defend our
ports and harbors. If it was not for our extensive seacoast, I should
not be so extremely averse to going to war. I would leave no means
untried to protect this seacoast. However little the hope might be,
if there was the least thing to hang hope on, I would give $5,000 for
the experiment. I have voted for the highest sum ever called for, for
the defence of New York; but still, when I look to the steeples of the
fine churches, and to the banks, &c., of that city, exposed as it is
and must be, I am struck with horror. Notwithstanding all the exertions
which have ever been made for them, they must still be insecure. If
$5,000 would carry conviction as far on the rest of the House as with
the gentleman from Connecticut, the money would be well laid out to
enable us to go on with a further experiment of this plan.
The gentleman from Connecticut read a long history of the torpedo
experiment made many years ago. I believe, sir, Mr. Fulton has but
little merit in originating the thing. Let gentlemen recollect what
an alarm this thing made, and how uneasy the British were during
the Revolutionary war, till they thought they had got rid of these
machines. I cannot forget the alarm which they excited, and will take
the liberty to quote Hopkinson on the subject, who was a witness to the
transaction:
"'T was early day, as poets say,
Just when the sun was rising,
A soldier stood on log of wood,
And saw a sight surprising.
"As in amaze he stood to gaze,
The truth can't be denied, sir,
He spied a score of kegs, or more,
Come floating down the tide, sir.
"A sailor, too, in jerkin blue,
The strange appearance viewing,
First damn'd his eyes, in great surprise,
Then said--'some mischief's brewing.'
"These kegs now hold the rebels bold,
Pack'd up like pickled herring,
And they 're come down, t' attack the town
In this new way of ferry'ng.
"The soldier flew--the sailor too,
And, scar'd almost to death, sir,
Wore out their shoes to spread the news,
And ran till out of breath, sir.
"Now up and down, throughout the town,
Most frantic scenes were acted;
And some ran here, and some ran there,
Like men almost distracted.
"Some fire cried, which some denied,
But said the earth had quaked;
And girls and boys, with hideous noise.
Ran through the town half naked." &c. &c.
If a parcel of kegs, in those days, alarmed them so much, what will
Fulton's torpedoes do now?
Mr. MCKIM said, that what had fallen from the gentleman from
Connecticut had operated powerfully on his mind to satisfy him of the
propriety of the appropriation. He says, observed Mr. MCK., that he
has no doubt they will produce the desired effect. Now, sir, when I am
informed, from so respectable a source, of their effect when properly
placed under the ship, I am induced to vote for this appropriation.
If one of these machines in a hundred should take effect, the object
would be perfectly gained. If we could only blow up one or two in a
squadron, we should not hereafter be disturbed by British squadrons in
our waters. I have listened with great pleasure to the lecture of the
gentleman on pneumatics, hydraulics, &c., for I know not where I could
have derived so much information as from that gentleman, and I take the
opportunity of returning my thanks to him.
Mr. FISK said he was against the bill, but from different reasons than
other gentlemen were. I do believe, said he, that in some cases, the
anchored torpedoes may be effectual; but I do not believe that any
thing to result from this bill will be of service to the country. I do
not entertain any doubt that a vessel may be blown up. The explosion
will take place, the wreck will be left in the bed of the river, and
it may cost $5,000 to raise it, or it may remain as an obstacle to
the invasion of the capital. If Congress are at this time seriously
to resort to the torpedo system of defence, let us do it in a more
serious manner; let us make a respectable provision to purchase torpedo
munition, and create a torpedo corps under certain regulations. We
have got military and naval armaments; let us make a torpedo armament.
At the same time, it was but justice to the inventor to say, that
he considered the anchored torpedo as a very useful invention. Mr.
F. moved to recommit the bill, to inquire into the propriety of
appropriating such a sum of money as the Secretary of the Navy should
deem adequate to the object, for the sum proposed certainly was not.
Mr. QUINCY said he agreed with the gentleman from New York in his
opposition to the bill, because, if a fair experiment was intended, the
appropriation was totally insufficient. This morning, in a conversation
with the Secretary of the Navy, I understood that this sum will not
enable a vessel to be placed in that situation which will give a fair
experiment. If we pass this bill, it will be utterly useless to the
purpose proposed. If the object be to have gentlemen who never saw such
a thing gratified with an explosion, that object will be attained, but
no other. Let us have an estimate from the Secretary of the Navy of the
probable expense, or the whole sum appropriated may be lost, and the
law will prove utterly disgraceful to those who passed it.
Mr. HOLLAND said he had understood from the torpedo inventor himself,
that $5,000 would be amply sufficient.
Mr. DANA said he had no belief that any vessel could be purchased
for five thousand dollars, on which a sufficient experiment could be
made. He conceived that the experiment could only be made in hostile
operations. We are told that these torpedoes would destroy the navy in
the British channel. Do we doubt the inveteracy of the French hatred of
the British navy when it has existed so many years? If this invention
would command the British Channel--and millions are but dust in the
balance for this object--to enable Bonaparte to strike at the British
soil, why has not the invention been patronized by France? It has
been rejected by France, and rejected by England after an expense of
hundreds of thousands of dollars--and now are we to take it up? It is
as a stationary resistance to be made to a naval force where there are
fortresses also, that the torpedo may be made use of, if they can be
used at all; where chains, or chevaux-de-frises are made use of, it
may be made use of as auxiliary to other aids in terrifying the enemy.
As to setting these machines afloat, firing harpoons into vessels,
calculating the chance of boats getting away when a single shot may
send them to the bottom, I have no opinion of it at all.
Mr. LYON said he would not vote for recommitment, not that he had not
rather that ten thousand dollars were appropriated than five thousand;
but the House had the Senate's opinion on that point before them. He
agreed with gentlemen entirely, that there never could be a complete
experiment until time of war. But that was no reason why we should not,
before war came, be in a fair state to try the experiment in war.
Mr. FISK said he had not seen the experiment which had been made
in New York, but he had conversed with hundreds who had. He had no
doubt but the invention might be useful, but how was its utility to
be ascertained, unless in the vessel to be attacked, there was a
crew prepared to resist the approach of the boats, or prevent the
operation of the torpedo? The nation would be no more convinced of
their utility after an expenditure of five thousand dollars than they
now are. It is because I have confidence in the effect of anchored
torpedoes, that I am for recommitting the bill. By passing the bill as
it is, we shall demonstrate nothing but the expenditure of money. I
am for making an actual experiment on an enemy's vessel. To attack a
well-manned frigate, is a very different thing from attacking an old
hulk, perfectly at the disposal of the projectors. If we were to pass a
bill constructing a torpedo corps, and offering a bounty on every ship
blown up, it would be much better calculated to make an impression of
our seriousness than this bill.
Mr. TALLMADGE said, that having been absent from the House at the
time this bill was first introduced, he knew not what arguments had
been offered in favor of it. He said he was always ready to encourage
inventions, &c., but when a measure was presented which had no novelty
in it, he could not be satisfied to give a silent vote on the bill for
encouraging it.
My honorable colleague stated fairly the principles on which the
submarine boat was constructed; and I believe, said Mr. T., that there
is no gentleman in this House who doubts the power of gunpowder, placed
under the bottom of a vessel, to destroy it. I have seen it tried
during the war in a great variety of ways. I became perfectly satisfied
that the principle was just; the only difficulty was to place the
magazine in such a situation that it should have the greatest possible
effect.
I well recollect that, in 1777, when Bushnell was called on to make
an experiment on a British brig of thirty-two guns, lying in North
river, a detachment of troops was directed to proceed down the river
to enable him to make the experiment free from interruption. I had the
honor to command the detachment, and continued there one month. The
object of the troops under my immediate command was to keep off all
hostile persons, whether of the enemy or persons unfriendly to the
invention, that he might have every opportunity to make his experiment
with success. His object was at ebb tide to get into the river a boat
constructed for the purpose, and pass down the river, and, if possible,
fix his magazine of powder to the bottom of the enemy's vessel. He
tried it over and over again. Sometimes he would entirely miss the
vessel; sometimes he would come so near that he would get intimidated
and retire again; till, sir, I became so heartily sick of the business,
and of that sort of duty, that I wished the boat and men were both at
the bottom of the ocean. I state this to show the difficulty, danger,
and what I myself conceive to be the impossibility of placing the
magazine under the vessel. So much for this; and I take Mr. Fulton's
machine to be bottomed precisely on the same principle, the difference
only being in the mode of application.
I have no idea of laughing the subject out of the House; but how can
gentlemen see the least probability of success in the invention?
Suppose a frigate at anchor, and a few boats endeavoring to harpoon
this vessel. Do gentlemen suppose that boats can approach without the
most imminent danger? And, granting that the harpoon strikes, where is
all the nautical skill of the men when they see this, if they do not
prevent it from taking effect. Suppose a perfectly sure shot, and that
the harpoon should be fastened in the bow, is it possible that the rope
to which the torpedo is attached would not be cut, and the torpedo left
to float below perfectly harmless? Do gentlemen consider harpooning a
vessel to be like harpooning a whale, which has no men on board of it
to take out the harpoon? I cannot bring myself to believe it possible
that a crew on board a ship could see all around her, and yet permit a
torpedo to be attached to her and place her in such a condition as to
be liable to be totally destroyed with every person on board.
It does seem to me that this sort of philosophical experiment ought
not to be gone into by this House. If it be necessary to employ
anything it would be vastly preferable that we should not go through
all this solemn farce of passing a law for the purpose of exhibiting
a sort of playful experiment, and there is probably a day of our time
to be devoted to it, when, in truth, no solid advantages can accrue
from it. I am unwilling on another ground, because the thing itself
would expose the Government to a sort of ridicule. If we pass this
bill, and the experiment be made; if a brig be bought for this money
and totally destroyed, there will still be as much proof wanting to
demonstrate that this is an experiment on which we can rely, as there
was before. I am against it on another ground: that if we trust to this
kind of doubtful defence, we shall get into the habit of giving up the
more substantial defence of the country. This is my solid reason for
voting against this bill. No one ever yet found any way of getting
along in solid defence but by solid preparation. I should rather come
into honorable combat than fight with this underhand explosion, when
especially there is so much doubt in it. If an experiment could be
made, however, without all this solemn farce, I do not, know that I
should have any objection to it.
The motion for recommitment was lost--50 to 45.
The question on the passage of the bill was then taken by yeas and
nays, and decided in the affirmative--yeas 65, nays 53.
WEDNESDAY, March 28.
_First Meridian._
Mr. PITKIN, from the committee to whom was referred, on the 25th of
January last, the memorial of William Lambert, made the following
report thereon:
That the memorialist states that, for the purpose of laying a
foundation for the establishment of a first meridian for the
United States of America, at the seat of Government, he has
made calculations to determine the longitude of the Capitol,
in the City of Washington, from Greenwich Observatory, in
England; and that he submits the same, together with the
data and elements on which his calculations are made, to the
consideration and patronage of the National Legislature.
The committee have deemed the subject worthy the attention of
Congress, and would, therefore, beg leave to observe, that the
necessity of the establishment of a first meridian, or meridian
which should pass through some particular place on the globe,
from which geographers and navigators could compute or reckon
longitude, is too obvious to need elucidation.
The ancient Greek geographers placed their first meridian to
pass through one of the islands, which were by them called the
Fortunate Islands, since called the Canaries. Those islands
were situated as far west as any lands that had then been
discovered, or were known by ancient navigators in that part of
the world.
They reckoned their longitude east, from Heria or Junonia, one
of these islands supposed to be the present Island of Teneriffe.
The Arabians, it is said, fixed their first meridian at
the most westerly part of the continent of Africa. In the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, when Europe was emerging
from the dark ages, and a spirit of enterprise and discovery
had arisen in the South of Europe, and various plans were
formed, and attempts made to find a new route to the East
Indies, geographers and navigators continued to calculate
longitude from Ferro, one of the same islands, though some of
them extended their first meridian as far west as the Azores or
Western islands.
In more modern times, however, most of the European nations,
and particularly England and France, have established a first
meridian to pass through the capital, or some place in their
respective countries, and to which they have lately adapted
their charts and astronomical tables.
It would perhaps have been fortunate for the science of
geography and navigation, that all nations had agreed upon
a first meridian, from which all geographers and navigators
might have calculated longitude; but as this has not been done,
and in all probability never will take place, the committee
are of opinion that, situated as we are in this Western
hemisphere, more than three thousand miles from any fixed or
known meridian, it would be proper, in a national point of
view, to establish a first meridian for ourselves; and that
measures should be taken for the eventual establishment of such
a meridian in the United States.
In examining the maps and charts of the United States, and
the particular States, or their seacoasts, which have been
published in this country, the committee find that the
publishers have assumed different places in the United States,
as first meridians.
This creates confusion, and renders it difficult, without
considerable calculation, to ascertain the relative situation
of places in this country. This difficulty is also increased,
by the circumstance that, in Louisiana, our newly-acquired
territory, longitude has heretofore been reckoned from Paris
the capital of the French Empire.
The exact longitude of any place in the United States being
ascertained from the meridian of the observatory at Greenwich,
in England, a meridian with which we have been conversant,
it would not be difficult to adapt all our maps, charts, and
astronomical tables, to the meridian of such a place. And no
place, perhaps, is more proper than the seat of Government.
It appears by the papers submitted to the consideration of the
committee, that Mr. Lambert has calculated the longitude of the
Capitol in the City of Washington, from the Royal observatory
at Greenwich, by one of the most approved methods now in use
for that purpose, viz: an occultation of a known fixed star by
the moon.
His calculations are founded on an occultation of n pleiadum,
(_Alcyone_,) one of the seven stars, on the night of the 20th
of October, 1804. By these calculations it appears, that
the longitude of the Capitol, in the city of Washington, as
reduced according to the true figure of the earth, (being that
of an oblate spheroid,) is 76° 53´ 6".920 degrees west. The
committee would observe, that Mr. Lambert appears to be well
acquainted with astronomical calculations; and that, so far
as the committee have had time to examine them, they appear
to be correct. In a question, however, of so much nicety, the
correct decision of which depends so much on the accuracy of
the observations made, and the goodness of the instruments
used, and when the smallest error in the data will necessarily
produce an erroneous result, full reliance ought not to be
placed on calculations made from a single observation.
Indeed, in order to be certain of a correct result, it may
be proper that more than one of the various methods of
ascertaining longitude should be used; that calculations
should be made from observations of the eclipses of Jupiter's
satellites, of solar eclipses, of the angular distances between
the sun and moon, or the moon and a fixed star, or other
methods, as well as from observations on occultations of fixed
stars.
The committee are, therefore, of opinion that, in order to
lay a foundation for the establishment of a first meridian in
this Western hemisphere, the President of the United States
should be authorized to cause the longitude of the city of
Washington, from the observatory at Greenwich, in England, to
be ascertained with the greatest possible degree of accuracy;
and that he also be authorized, for that purpose, to procure
the necessary astronomical instruments.
They, therefore, beg leave to submit to the consideration of
the House, the following resolution:
_Resolved_, That it is expedient to make provision, by law,
authorizing the President of the United States to cause the
longitude of the city of Washington from the observatory at
Greenwich, in England, to be ascertained with the greatest
degree of accuracy; and also authorizing him, for that purpose,
to procure the necessary astronomical instruments.
In presenting the above report, Mr. PITKIN observed that the object of
the committee was to have a first meridian established for the United
States, from which computations of longitude might be generally made,
that maps, charts, and nautical tables, might not, as heretofore, be
calculated from the observatory at Greenwich, or from the varying
points of Philadelphia, New York, Washington, or Charleston. Mr. P.
dilated upon the advantages of such a measure. Congress would fix upon
the place most proper for a first meridian; and, perhaps, as Washington
was the seat of Government, it would be as proper a place as any. As
the longitude must be taken very exactly, various instruments would be
necessary for the purpose of making astronomical observations. As he
was desirous that a bill should pass on the subject at this session, he
did not move a reference of the report to a Committee of the Whole, but
moved that it lie on the table, to give gentlemen time to consider it
before he asked a decision on it.
The report was accordingly ordered to lie on the table.
FRIDAY, March 30.
_Batture at New Orleans._
The House resumed the consideration of the bill providing the means to
ascertain the title to the batture near New Orleans.
Mr. BIBB's motion yet under consideration, and a division of the
question being called for,
The question on striking out the sections of the present bill
(providing for a judicial decision) was taken, and carried--yeas 95,
nays 22.
The question now recurred on Mr. BIBB'S amendment, to insert, in lieu
of those stricken out, several new sections.
[Mr. BIBB'S amendment proposes that the right of the United States
shall be vested in the Corporation of New Orleans, so as to enable them
to defend any suit which may be instituted for the recovery of the
batture, and that the batture shall be used and enjoyed as a public
highway and landing place, &c.; as well by citizens of the United
States as by the inhabitants of New Orleans.]
This motion was decided by yeas and nays and lost--yeas 36, nays 84.
SATURDAY March 31.
_The Batture at New Orleans._
The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business of
yesterday, on the bill providing the means to ascertain the title to
the batture in front of the suburb St. Mary, in the city of New Orleans.
The question having recurred on the amendment of Mr. PITKIN, the said
amendment was withdrawn by the mover.
The question was then taken on concurring with the Committee of the
Whole in their first amendment to the said bill, and carried in the
affirmative.
The question then recurred on concurring with the Committee of the
Whole House in their second amendment to the said bill, amended in the
House to read as follows:
"SEC. 4. _And be it further enacted_, That the President of
the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized, at any
time within one year, to make and execute such compromise with
the parties, or any of them, who were removed from the said
batture on the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand eight
hundred and eight, by order of the President of the United
States, and to procure a cession of their claims thereto, or
to any part thereof, for the use of the public, or to any body
politic or corporate, on such terms as may be agreed on with
the said parties, and deemed advisable by the President, and to
stipulate for a compensation, either in money or public lands,
in the city of New Orleans, or its territories, as he may think
proper."
Messrs. NELSON, SMILIE, HOLLAND, and BIBB, opposed the amendment; and
Messrs. SHEFFEY, KEY, and LYON, supported it.
The question being taken, it was determined in the negative--yeas 62,
nays 55.
MONDAY, April 9.
_Apportionment of Representation._
Mr. FISK said he rose to offer a resolution, which he had for some
time wished to present for the consideration of this House. It is to
provide for fixing the apportionment of the Representatives of the
several States according to the third census. The last ratio was one
Representative for every thirty-three thousand souls; which, gave one
hundred and forty-two members to this House--a number as large as may
be considered necessary for the despatch of legislation, or to preserve
the liberties of the people. It is estimated that the next census will
give seven millions two hundred thousand souls, which, according to the
present ratio of representation, would give to this House two hundred
and eighteen members--a greater number than could be accommodated
within these walls, and a greater body of men than could progress with
the business of the House.
After the census shall be taken, the amount in each State ascertained,
and the fractional numbers known, it will be much more difficult to
fix the ratio than at this time. I therefore beg leave to submit the
following resolution. And as it embraces a subject of great importance,
I have no objection that it lay on the table a few days for the
consideration of the members:
_Resolved_, That the apportionment of Representatives amongst
the several States, according to the third enumeration of the
people, ought to be in the ratio of one Representative for
every forty-five thousand persons in each State, and that a
committee be appointed to bring in a bill accordingly.
A motion was made that the resolution lie on the table.
A motion was also made to postpone it for a week.
Mr. PICKMAN moved to postpone the further consideration of the
resolution indefinitely. He thought the question could be decided to
much greater advantage in the two first months of the next session of
Congress than in the two weeks remaining of the present session.
Mr. MACON was against indefinite postponement. Every one, on
reflection, must be satisfied that it would be better to decide the
ratio of apportionment now than after the result of the census was
known. He thought the resolution had better have been in blank as to
the ratio. The ratio might be settled either by fixing the number of
Representatives of whom the House should consist after the next census,
or by fixing the number of souls which should entitle a district to a
Representative.
Mr. GOLD said, however desirable it might be at this time to fix
the ratio, he doubted very much whether a decision would now settle
the question. If a law were now to be passed, and there should be
several large fractions on any given ratio, there would be a strong
disposition to alter the ratio at the next session. He thought it would
be expedient also to postpone the apportionment, because it might
be affected by the proportion in which the population of the United
States may have increased since the last census, which could not be
ascertained till after the census.
Mr. QUINCY said he understood the object of the resolution to be to
settle a principle before the facts were ascertained. Now it was his
opinion that the House should know the facts first and settle the
principle afterwards. Suppose the principle to be adopted--perhaps one
or two States might be entitled to but one Representative, which, had
the ratio been fixed at forty thousand, might have been entitled to
two. This would appear to operate unjustly. The House must know the
facts in order fairly to apportion representation. The apportionment
ought to be made not merely in relation to population, but to the
weight of the different States in the Union--and these considerations
could not have their due weight till after the relative numbers were
ascertained.
Mr. W. ALSTON was in favor of deciding on the subject at this session.
He had no fear of difficulty resulting from fractions remaining
unrepresented. It would be recollected that at the last apportionment,
Delaware had a fraction of thirty-one thousand left, and Carolina
twenty-nine thousand. The small States could not object to the course
proposed; for if this question was postponed till after the census, and
a particular ratio should appear to suit the returns of the three large
States, they would support it and carry it too, notwithstanding the
large fractions it might leave to smaller States. A disadvantage would
therefore result to the small States from postponement rather than from
a decision now.
Mr. FISK said there was one other reason why an apportionment should be
made at this session, viz: that it would enable the State Legislatures
at their ordinary winter sessions to divide the States into districts,
and not subject them to the necessity of an extra session for the
purpose.
Mr. LIVERMORE was against indefinite postponement, because he was
inclined to the opinion that the subject ought to be acted on at this
session, but wished the resolution to lie on the table a day or two.
He said he was convinced, from his experience in the manner of doing
business in this House, that it would take nearly the whole of the next
session of Congress to make the apportionment, if it was postponed till
after the census was taken. He had rather the resolution had been blank
as to the ratio.
Mr. FISK modified his motion, so as to leave it blank as to the ratio.
Mr. BURWELL thought that the present was the proper time to fix the
proportion; because, after the respective numbers of each State were
received, it would be in the power of the larger States to fix the
ratio as they pleased, and at present none of the State jealousies
could be brought into action, which would, when the returns were
actually made. To get over the difficulty said to exist in settling a
principle before the facts were known, it was only necessary to say
that so many members should compose the House. If the population was
smaller than expected, there would still be the number deemed proper
to constitute the House; and if it was larger there would be no great
increase of members, to the detriment of public business. Mr. B. said
he was fully impressed with the necessity of acting on the subject at
the present session. If postponed till the result of the census was
known, and the particular interest of each member of the House became
implicated in the decision of it, there would be extreme difficulty in
coming to a decision.
Mr. SMILIE said he could not conceive any objection to passing
the resolution in its present shape. In this question there was
an inconvenience on one side and evil on the other. It was an
inconvenience that the House could not with precision ascertain the
population of the United States; but, from the increase in times past,
the increase for the last ten years might be estimated. The evil of
postponement on the other hand was great. Mr. S. said he had been in
Congress when the ratio of representation had been settled heretofore,
and he had never seen a more difficult question--and it ended at last
in a bargain between the members of the different States; and from
these bargains no good could arise. He much preferred deciding on the
subject at the present session.
Mr. RHEA of Tennessee was anxious that the subject should lie on
the table a day or two, the more especially as there was such a
disagreement of opinion as to the operation of the measure of fixing
the ratio beforehand. Coming from a small State himself, he feared
lest the principle should operate to the injury of the small States.
He said he had been much surprised at the declaration of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, that the question would be decided eventually (if
postponed) by individual interest. If on such a question the House was
to be governed by individual interests, what was the nation to expect
from them? This suggestion was another reason in his mind for the
resolution's lying on the table.
Mr. SMILIE had spoken of human nature as he found it, even in
the gentleman from Tennessee as well as all others--a degree of
self-concern always influenced individual conduct. Whoever had assisted
at settling the representation of a State would conceive the difficulty
of deciding these questions.
The motion for indefinite postponement was negatived, ayes 23. The
motion to postpone to Monday shared the same fate, ayes 33. The motion
to lie on the table was carried--53 to 41.
WEDNESDAY, April 11.
_Colonel Washington._
Mr. RANDOLPH said that the House was already apprised of the death of
Colonel William Washington, in whom our country had lost one of her
most illustrious sons. It is very far from my intention, sir, said he,
by any amplification of mine to lessen the impression of that merit
which the bare mention of his name is calculated to make on the mind
of every man who hears me. It is not the least unequivocal proof of
that worth that it was not extinguished by the effulgence of his great
kinsman's glory, with which it was daily brought into comparison.
The reputation which can stand such an ordeal as this, is far beyond
the praise or blame of an humble individual like me. If, to the
proposition which I am about to offer, an objection should arise in
the breast of any man who hears me on the score of the rank which that
gentleman bore in the late American army, permit me to suggest that
it is a testimony to valor and not to rank. It is not a mere respect
to rank which I wish the House to pay. It is not in rank to add to
the infamy of an Arnold, or to the glory of a WASHINGTON. I will,
therefore, move the following resolution:
_Resolved_, That the members of this House do wear crape on the
left arm during the remainder of the session, as a testimony of
respect for the memory of William Washington, late a Lieutenant
Colonel in the Revolutionary army.
Mr. SMILIE said he hoped there was no man who felt more respect
or gratitude to those men who served their country during the
Revolutionary war than he did, but this resolution appeared to be
improper on several grounds. I agree, said Mr. S., with the gentleman
from Virginia, that rank should have no effect on the opinions of
the members of this House on such a subject as this. But, is it not
singular that as to the many heroes who have served us during the
Revolution, who have now gone to their long home, no notice has
been taken of their merits by us, nor any step taken to confer upon
them the honor now proposed to be conferred on this officer, whom I
acknowledge to be meritorious? We have seen a Greene die, and certainly
no man exceeded him in rank or merit, the General-in-chief excepted.
We have seen a Wayne also die; and I do not recollect that such a
tribute was proposed to any man who served us during the Revolution.
Shall we, then, by passing this resolution, sanction an idea that
Lieutenant-Colonel Washington was entitled to more respect than others?
Would not the passage of this resolution be considered as an indirect
censure on the other Revolutionary characters who have gone from us?
When the other heroes fall that are still existing, we must, if we
pass this resolution, pay the same respect to their merits, or suppose
them to have been inferior. This would introduce into the Legislature
invidious comparisons, and, instead of legislating, we shall be sitting
as judges upon character. In every respect, I think the resolution
objectionable.
The question was taken on the resolution without further debate, and
passed in the negative--yeas 30.
THURSDAY, April 12.
_The Convoy System._
Mr. EPPES said that, some time ago, a bill had been reported by him to
the House, authorizing the President of the United States to employ
the public armed vessels to convoy the lawful commerce of the United
States. The motion to adjourn, which had been agreed to, would leave
but a small portion of the time of the House for the discussion of
the several subjects before them. As he was compelled by ill health
to leave the city at an early day, having already obtained leave of
absence, he was anxious to obtain a vote on this before he departed,
and therefore asked to discharge the Committee of the Whole from the
further consideration of the bill, in order to take the sense of the
House whether it should go to a third reading or lie on the table for
the present.
This motion was opposed by Messrs. MACON, TAYLOR, PICKMAN, RANDOLPH,
LIVERMORE, and WILSON, on the ground of its being out of the usual
course of proceedings; and it was objected to the more especially as
this was a subject involving very important principles, and one which,
of all others, ought to be discussed in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. EPPES expressed his willingness to take a silent vote on the
subject, and thought a vote might be obtained on the bill without much
debate.
Mr. JOHNSON expressed great anxiety to vote on the bill.
Mr. LIVERMORE intimated that he was strongly against the bill, and, if
it took every hour in the session, he was determined to expose what he
believed to be its injurious features.
On the question, Mr. EPPES' motion was negatived--yeas 50, nays 61, as
follows:
YEAS.--Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson, Ezekiel Bacon,
David Bard, Adam Boyd, John Brown, Robert Brown, William A.
Burwell, William Butler, Joseph Calhoun, Matthew Clay, John
Clopton, Howell Cobb, James Cox, William Crawford, John Dawson,
Joseph Desha, John W. Eppes, William Findlay, Meshack Franklin,
David S. Garland, Thomas Gholson, Peterson Goodwyn, James
Holland, Benjamin Howard, Jacob Hufty, Richard M. Johnson,
Walter Jones, Aaron Lyle, Samuel McKee, Nicholas R. Moore,
Jeremiah Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Roger Nelson, John Porter,
John Roane, Erastus Root, Ebenezer Sage, Thomas Sammons,
Ebenezer Seaver, Adam Seybert, Samuel Shaw, Dennis Smelt,
George Smith, John Smith, Henry Southard, Robert Weakley,
Robert Whitehall, Robert Witherspoon, and Richard Wynn.
NAYS.--William W. Bibb, Daniel Blaisdell, James Breckenridge,
William Chamberlin, Epaphroditus Champion, James Cochran,
Richard Cutts, John Davenport, junior, William Ely, James
Emott, Jonathan Fisk, Barzillai Gannett, Thos. R. Gold, William
Hale, Daniel Heister, Jonathan H. Hubbard, Richard Jackson,
jr., Robert Jenkins, William Kennedy, Herman Knickerbacker,
Joseph Lewis, jun., Edward St. Loe Livermore, Matthew Lyon,
Nathaniel Macon, Robt. Marion, Vincent Matthews, Archibald
McBryde, Pleasant M. Miller, William Milnor, Thomas Moore,
Jonathan O. Mosely, Joseph Pearson, Benjamin Pickman, jun.,
Timothy Pitkin, jun., Elisha R. Potter, Josiah Quincy, John
Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee,
Matthias Richards, Daniel Sheffey, John Smilie, Samuel Smith,
Richard Stanford, John Stanley, James Stephenson, Jacob Swoope,
Samuel Taggart, John Taylor, John Thompson, Uri Tracy, George
M. Troup, Charles Turner, jr., Jabez Upham, Nicholas Van Dyke,
Archibald Van Horne, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Laban Wheaton,
Ezekiel Whitman, and James Wilson.
FRIDAY, April 18.
_Colonel Washington._
Mr. QUINCY rose to move a resolution. He said he very deeply regretted
the situation in which this House had been placed in relation to the
memory of that distinguished officer of the Revolution, General William
Washington, in consequence of the resolution moved on the 11th instant.
He thought that the impression exhibited on the journals was not such
as either did justice to that individual or to the feelings of every
member of the House. He hoped that to the resolution which he was about
to offer, and which had for its object an explanation of the grounds
on which he knew a majority of the House had voted, would not find an
objection. It would take away the appearance that this House had not
that deep sense of the merits and services of that officer which he
knew they possessed. He then read the following resolution:
_Resolved_, That the House of Representatives are deeply
sensible of the loss this nation has sustained in the death of
General William Washington, late Lieutenant-Colonel in the Army
of the Revolution, and that the rejection of the resolution
offered on the 11th instant, in relation to that distinguished
officer, having been produced wholly by considerations of a
general nature, cannot be deemed to derogate from the high
sense which this House, in common with their fellow-citizens,
entertain of his civil and military virtues and services.
The House agreed to consider the resolution--58 to 13.
The resolution passed--ayes 63; about seventy-five members were present.
FRIDAY, April 20.
_General Wilkinson._
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following letter, which was read:
WASHINGTON, _April 19, 1810_.
SIR: After a tedious passage from New Orleans I arrived at
Baltimore on the 16th instant, and reached this city the
next day. My absence has been necessarily protracted by the
selection of papers, from a mass of twenty years' accumulation,
for the establishment of facts, to refute the multifarious and
diversified calumnies by which I have been assailed.
I now present myself to the Representative body of the nation,
the guardians of the public weal and the protectors of
individual rights, to express my earnest desire that they may
constitute some impartial tribunal, which may be governed with
strictness by the principles of the constitution and the laws
of evidence, to investigate the conduct of my whole life, civil
and military, whereby justice may be done, and my unexampled
persecution be terminated.
I aver my innocence of the foul offences which are imputed
to me, and declare my ability to support it before any
unprejudiced court. Through you, sir, I appeal to my
country, and I claim that right which is not refused to the
most profligate--the right of confronting my accusers. The
Representatives of the people will not, I am persuaded, suffer
a fellow-citizen who has been devoted to the public service
more than twenty-five years, and has nothing left him but
conscious fidelity and attachment to his native country, to sue
in vain for justice.
The enclosed letter to the Secretary of War was written
anterior to the receipt of my notification of recall from the
command on the Mississippi, and will evince my readiness and my
desire for a full investigation of my conduct.
With perfect respect, I have the honor to be, sir, your
obedient servant,