MONDAY, November 18

_Expenditure of Public Money._

Mr. RANDOLPH asked for the consideration of the resolution which

he laid on the table some days ago, directing the appointment of a

committee to inquire into the expenditure of public money; which, being

agreed to, Mr. R. trusted there would be no difference of opinion

as to the propriety of agreeing to this resolution. But, before the

vote was taken, he would state to the House, by way of explanation,

the result of a former inquiry. At the first session of the 11th

Congress, a report of a committee was made, in part, on this subject.

[This report Mr. R. read. It states that, owing to the shortness

of the session, complete information on the subject could not be

obtained.] As the session lasted but six weeks, the committee had no

reason to complain that the information required was not obtained. An

expectation was entertained that it would be given at the next session.

But the committee have reason to complain that the information which

was given was altogether different from that which was asked. This

was represented to the departments, and a more satisfactory report

was promised at the ensuing session. Mr. R. said, the course pursued

at the first session, under the present President, had been the same

which was adopted at the close of Mr. Adams's Administration. At the

following session of Congress, the person who was appointed chairman of

the committee of the first session, was unable to attend; but it was

a gratification to him to find, that the subject was taken up by an

honorable colleague of his, to whom the State of Virginia had been more

than once indebted for the luminous reports on her fiscal concerns; but

nothing was effected. To show how different the information received

was, from that asked for, Mr. R. proposed to read a short letter. The

object of the committee was, to know in what way the Pursers of the

Navy received their money, and what was the amount of their emoluments.

The answer they received, stated "that the advances made to Pursers are

by warrants drawn on the Treasury, sometimes by Navy agents," &c. We

inquired, said he, what were their emoluments, other than those allowed

by law? Answer: "they arise from a certain percentage upon _slops_

detailed to the seamen." It may not be amiss, said Mr. R., to inform

country gentlemen that, by _slops_, are meant ready-made clothing, &c.

It was scarcely possible to have given a more evasive answer. We asked,

What were the emoluments? They answer, "a certain percentage fixed by

the department;" but what that per cent. was, the committee was left to

find out by instinct. It had been understood that large sums of money

were advanced to these Pursers, who laid it out in slops, which they

retailed to the seamen at an advance, in some instances, of twenty per

cent.! This was a fact, Mr. R. said, which ought to be looked into.

It was essential to the reputation of the Government, essential to

its honor, indispensable to the fair fame of those who administer the

finances of the United States, that abuses, such as these, should be

probed to the quick, to show to the world that, if we cannot govern

the great beasts, the mammoths of the forest, we can, at least, poison

the _rats_. And whose money, asked Mr. R., is this? It is the people's

money; it comes from the pockets of the people of the United States.

When he spoke of this abuse of public money, he wished no gentleman

to understand him as speaking of the abuse under this, that, or the

other President of the United States. He considered them all as of one

description of people; and it was not less necessary to guard against

abuses in a country where the President is elected by the people, than

in a country where he is put over them. He would dare to question the

infallibility of all, and look upon all with jealousy and distrust.

He wished not, however, to be charged with that mistaken opposition

to the Government, which determines to exhibit abuses for the sake of

doing so; or with shutting his eyes to the abuses of _Thomas_, while

they are open to the abuses of _John_. Mr. R. said he had no interest

distinct from the interest of his country. With respect to princes and

potentates, the only favor he had to ask of them was, that they would

keep their hands out of his pocket and off his person, and, to use a

homely phrase, "if they would let him alone, he would let them alone."

Under these circumstances, Mr. R. asked the House if it were not

necessary for a committee to be appointed to probe into this business?

He wished to state, before he sat down, that he had learnt, soon after

the present Secretary of the Navy came into office, the percentage of

the Pursers was reduced from twenty to four or five per cent.

The resolution was unanimously agreed to, and a committee of seven

appointed, as follows: Messrs. RANDOLPH, GOLD, MCKIM, ROBERTS, JOHNSON,

LAW, and WIDGERY.

TUESDAY, November 19.

_Territory of Louisiana._

On motion of Mr. RHEA, the House went into a Committee of the Whole,

on the bill for the government of the Territory of Louisiana. The bill

being read by paragraphs, Mr. FISK moved to strike out the words in

the fifth section of the bill, which makes it necessary for persons to

be in possession of a freehold to have a right to vote. This motion

was opposed by Mr. RANDOLPH, on principle, in a speech of considerable

length, in which he advocated the freehold qualification for voters.

The motion was opposed also by Mr. RHEA, as unnecessary for the

attainment of the mover's object; as he stated the qualification for

voters was twofold--one was the possession of a freehold, the other a

residence of a year previous to the time of election.

Mr. POINDEXTER made a motion, which superseded that of the gentleman

from Vermont, to strike out all that part of the section which defined

the qualification of voters, and insert, "every free white male citizen

residing in the said Territory, who shall have attained the age of

twenty-one years, and paid a tax."

This amendment was debated till the usual hour of adjournment, when the

committee rose without taking the question, and obtained leave to sit

again.

This debate, though protracted to considerable length, embraced a very

narrow question, viz: whether it is better to require voters to hold

freehold property, or to suffer every man to possess the privilege

of voting who has arrived to the age of twenty-one years. As already

stated, Mr. RANDOLPH took the first ground, and introduced the practice

of Virginia to show that it was attended with the best effects. Mr.

FISK, Mr. WRIGHT, Mr. SMILIE, and Mr. POINDEXTER, took the opposite

side of the question. They argued that life and liberty are superior to

property--that these are dearer to the poor man than all the property

of the rich. Mr. WRIGHT said, that the State of Maryland had tried

the property qualification for voting, had found it attended with bad

effects, and had now abandoned it. It was formerly required that a

voter should be possessed of property to the value of thirty pounds;

so that if a man possessed a horse of that value, he was entitled to

a vote; but if the horse happened to die before the election, he lost

his privilege, which was placing the right in the _horse_ instead of

the _man_. As to freehold qualifications, they were evaded too by deeds

made for the occasion, which were afterwards cancelled.

Mr. RANDOLPH, in combating the principle of universal suffrage,

said that it was impossible for the gentleman himself, (alluding to

Mr. SMILIE,) or any piping-hot member from a Jacobin club--for any

disciple of _Tom Paine_ or of the _Devil_--to carry this principle

of equality to its full extent; for even they must exclude from its

operation minors and females. He also took occasion to pronounce a

strong philippic against foreigners having any part in the Government.

Mr. SMILIE, in his reply, paid a tribute of respect to the memory

of Paine, on account of his valuable political writings, which had

been considered as highly serviceable in the Revolution, and which

would always be esteemed wherever the _rights of man_ are understood,

and reminded him of the foreigners who had assisted in fighting our

Revolutionary battles. Mr. RANDOLPH justified his allusion to Paine;

said he was sorry the gentleman had not recollected his "Age of

Reason," as well as his "Rights of Man;" and as to any services which

he rendered by his writings, he thought little of them. The heroes

engaged in that great cause did not need the assistance of an English

_staymaker_. In reply, Mr. SMILIE said, he never interfered with a

man's religious opinion; that was a private concern, which lay between

God and a man's own conscience; and as to the profession of Paine,

that, he apprehended, would never lessen the value of his writings.

WEDNESDAY, November 20.

Another member, to wit, ARCHIBALD MCBRYDE, from North Carolina,

appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

THURSDAY, November 21.

Another member, to wit, ELISHA R. POTTER, from Rhode Island, appeared,

produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

_Additional Duties._

On motion of Mr. RHEA, the House took up for consideration the

resolution which he had submitted some days ago, proposing to instruct

the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures to inquire into the

expediency of laying an additional duty on coarse manufactures of hemp,

flax, and cotton.

This resolution produced a long desultory debate, which occupied the

House the whole of the day, without coming to any decision upon it.

Mr. STANFORD, on the ground that the Committee of Commerce and

Manufactures had already this subject under consideration, moved an

indefinite postponement of the resolution.

This motion was negatived, 58 to 48.

Mr. KING proposed an amendment. He expressed himself friendly to the

resolution of the gentleman from Tennessee, and to the encouragement

of domestic manufactures generally. His amendment was in the following

words:

"And also into the expediency of laying a duty on the

importation of salt, with authority to report by bill or

otherwise."

Mr. K. observed, that this was an article of general consumption,

and its manufacture ought to be encouraged; as it was known what

difficulties this country had experienced, and might again experience,

when placed in a situation in which a sufficiency of salt could not be

obtained. He hoped, therefore, his amendment would be agreed to.

Mr. SMILIE was afraid the House was getting into a practice that would

produce great trouble and confusion, by departing from the usual and

settled mode of proceeding. It had always been deemed irregular, when

a subject was committed, to bring it forward in the House before the

committee made its report. Look at our situation, said he. A gentleman

proposes a tax on manufactures of cotton, another on salt. Every

gentleman has his favorite manufacture which he wishes encouraged,

so that an armful of resolutions will be thrown into the hands of

this committee. Mr. S. said he was friendly to the manufactures of

our country, and was willing to give them every aid; but he did not

wish, in doing this, to break through established rules. If gentlemen

would suspend their remarks on the subject until the Committee of

Commerce and Manufactures make their report, they will then have a fair

opportunity of delivering their sentiments fully, and of supporting

such particular manufactures as they may deem of most importance to the

country. He hoped that neither the amendment nor the resolution would

be agreed to.

Mr. ALSTON considered the gentleman from Pennsylvania mistaken as to

the rule and practice of the House. If the doctrine which he maintains

were correct, gentlemen might be defeated in effecting the objects

which they have in view. It was only to refer a subject to a committee;

and if a majority of that committee were unfriendly, and either failed

to report, or reported inimically, the friends of the measure might

be defeated, though there were a majority in the House in its favor.

It was a common practice, Mr. A. said, to refer a subject generally

to a committee, and afterwards instruct them, by resolution, as to

particular branches of the subject.

Mr. NEWTON (the Chairman of the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures)

said, the subject of manufactures was considered as being generally

before them, and he knew it to be the intention of the committee to

take up the matter comprehensively; and if any gentleman shall think

proper to give them information respecting any particular manufacture,

either orally or in writing, they will be glad to receive it. Mr. N.

thought the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. ALSTON) was mistaken,

when he said that a committee had the power of defeating the purposes

of members; because, whenever a report was made, it was in the power of

a majority of the House to amend it, and make it just what they please.

Mr. QUINCY was in favor of the amendment offered by the gentleman from

North Carolina, (Mr. KING,) and thanked him for bringing it forward.

Some of his constituents, men who lived on the sandbanks of the

country, were deeply interested in the manufacture of salt, and had

been nearly ruined by the repeal of the duty on that article. He was

friendly to a duty on salt, as it was more equal and less felt in the

payment than any other, and he had always thought it strange that the

duty had been repealed.

Mr. MACON thought the proposition to tax this necessary of life, at a

time when it is probable we may find a difficulty in procuring it in

sufficient quantity, was very ill-timed. The repeal of this duty had

been called strange. He thought it would have been more strange had

Congress continued the duty when the Treasury was not in need of the

money arising from it. If there was any thing strange in the business,

it was that there should have been any opposition to the repeal. Mr. M.

agreed with the remark made by a gentleman from Massachusetts some days

ago, that taxes, to be just, ought to be equal. Would a tax on salt,

he asked, be equal? It certainly would not. People on the seacoast

would not feel it. Their cattle would refuse it, if given to them. The

interior of the country, the people from East to West, would have to

bear the weight of this tax. But the gentleman from Massachusetts says

the repealing of this duty ruined his constituents, who live on the

sandbanks of the country. He would not consent, however, to tax the

people of his part of the country, living on sandhills, to support that

gentleman's sandbank constituents.

But this duty, it is said, is to be laid to encourage manufactures.

Why this great cry about domestic manufactures? He thought they had

already sufficient encouragement from the present situation of things.

The President had recommended the subject to the consideration of the

House, and he had no doubt the committee, to whom it had been referred,

would do what is proper on the subject. Mr. M. wished to know for what

purpose this additional duty is wanted. If, said he, it be wanted for

going to war, let us know it. For his part, he had heard so much about

war formerly, that he hardly thought we should get at it now.

Mr. M. said on a former occasion, when the country was in a situation

something like the present, a gentleman from Virginia was so alarmed

lest salt sufficient could not be had, that he proposed a bounty on its

importation. What, said Mr. M., will be the effect of a proposition

for taxing salt in the country? He had no doubt that, in the Southern

States, it would immediately raise the price of the article at

Petersburg and Fayetteville. On this account, he hoped, if the House

did not mean to lay a tax on salt, that the proposition would be

immediately discarded. For himself, he would sooner consent to a land

or poll tax than a tax on salt.

Mr. SMILIE moved a postponement of the resolution until the first

Monday in February next.

This motion was debated at some length. Some who wished to vote for it,

wished the proposition for a tax on salt to be disconnected with the

original proposition.

FRIDAY, November 22.

Another member, to wit, EDWIN GRAY, from Virginia, appeared, produced

his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

_Apportionment of Representatives._

On motion of Mr. DAWSON, the House resolved itself into a Committee of

the Whole, on the bill for apportioning the Representatives among the

several States, according to the third enumeration.

The bill having been read, the question on filling the blanks occurred.

The first was in relation to the number of inhabitants for each

Representative; when

Mr. DAWSON observed, that he was instructed by the committee who

directed him to report this bill, to propose filling the blank with the

words _forty thousand_; but he should himself vote against filling the

blank with this number, because it would deprive the State of Rhode

Island of one-half of her present Representatives; it would deprive

Connecticut and Maryland each of one member, and Virginia of two. He

should, therefore, be in favor of filling the blank with 37,000, as

this number would not deprive any State of a Representative, and it

would only increase the present number of Representatives from 142 to

180.

Mr. DAWSON then moved, that the said blank be filled with the words

"thirty-seven thousand;" and the question thereon being taken, was

resolved in the affirmative--yeas 102, nays 18.

Mr. DAWSON moved to fill the other blanks in the bill, as follows: New

Hampshire, five members; Massachusetts, eighteen; Vermont, five; Rhode

Island, two; Connecticut, seven; New York, twenty-five; New Jersey,

six; Pennsylvania, twenty-one; Delaware, one; Maryland, nine; Virginia,

twenty-two; North Carolina, thirteen; South Carolina, nine; Georgia,

five; Kentucky, ten; Ohio, six; and Tennessee, six.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and the House

adjourned.

MONDAY, December 2.

JOHN TALIAFERRO, who has been declared entitled to a seat in this

House, as one of the members for Virginia, in the place of John P.

Hungerford, who has been declared not entitled to a seat in this House,

appeared, was qualified, and took his seat.

FRIDAY, December 6.

Mr. EMOTT presented a petition of Harrison and Lewis, of the city of

New York, merchants, praying permission to import from the British West

India Islands, goods to the amount of debts owing to them by certain

inhabitants in said islands.--Referred to the Committee of Commerce and

Manufactures.

Mr. SMILIE presented a memorial of the President and Managers of the

Union Canal Company of Pennsylvania, praying the aid and patronage of

the General Government in accomplishing the extensive and useful works

in which they are engaged; which was read, and referred to a select

committee.

Messrs. SMILIE, RIDGELY, RINGGOLD, BAKER, and BLEECKER, were appointed

the committee.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate _insist_

on their amendments, disagreed to by this House, to the bill "for the

apportionment of Representatives among the several States according

to the third enumeration;" agree to the proposed conference, and have

appointed managers on their part at the same.

_Foreign Relations._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of

the Union, to which Committee of the Whole was committed the report of

the Committee on Foreign Relations, made some days ago.

Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856, Vol. 4 (of 16) · 第 146 / 377 题