I will give him another, from the same authority, viz:

"A wit's a feather, a chiefs a rod;[18]

An honest man's the noblest work of God."

But, apart from this, let us suppose war, and admit that it will be

successful, so far as proposed--the British driven from the Canadas

and Halifax, and their trade intercepted for years to an extensive

amount--what then has she to hope or fear from us? Nothing. Will she

then respect our rights? No. But I will suppose that we force her

to a treaty of amity and commerce, acknowledging our rights to the

utmost of our wishes; how long will she keep it? Not an hour longer

than suits her convenience or interest. There is no trust to be put

in her compacts. Witness Erskine's arrangement. I say, keep on your

restrictions; keep the country in peace, if possible, under all your

privations, and they are many. Has not our country increased in wealth

and population, in a superior degree to any country on earth? Are we

not at this moment in the enjoyment of peace and plenty at home--every

man under his own vine and fig-tree, and none to make him afraid--with

complete protection for person and property? Yes. But our merchants

must be protected--they have a right to our protection, say some--it

is the merchant that gives life and spring to agriculture. I deny it.

It is the planter--the cultivator--that is the foundation on which

every other branch of our associated population depends; and it is the

surplus of his productions that makes the merchant, and his profits

that make the banks. You have made many laws for their protection;

they have disobeyed them all, and will disobey them. Have they not

told you, continually, to let them alone; that they knew their own

business best? Sir, before I would engage in a war, to which I could

not see a prospect of a favorable issue, I would let them alone. Sir,

the President is made, by the constitution, the treaty-making power;

he is also to give us the state of the Union. He is the Executive.

He has given us the state of the Union, and made his requisitions;

and if I give him what he asks, I give him enough; and _that_ I am

willing to give, and more, when he shall require it. But I am not to

be forced further yet. It appears to me that the honorable committee

has a mind to _Gideonize_ us--rejecting the fearful and faint-hearted.

Will they prove us by the _waters_, and reject all such as will not lap

as the dog lappeth? For, sir, they have told us that all that did not

intend to vote for such ulterior measures as they might have occasion

hereafter to bring forward, ought not to vote for the resolutions. Now,

sir, it remains for me to tell them and the House, that I will not

leave the ranks of my country. I will vote for the resolutions, and

consider myself at liberty to vote hereafter as the nature of the case

may require, and my conscience shall direct. I have no more to say at

this time.

MONDAY, December 16.

_Foreign Relations._

The House then resumed the consideration of the unfinished business,

being the report of the Committee of Foreign Relations.

Mr. RANDOLPH said that he could not express his deep sense of the

politeness of the House, except by the regret he felt at the very

poor return which they were about to receive for their indulgence. He

lamented that it was not in his power to thank, in the name of all

the old Republicans of 1798 and 1799, his worthy friend from North

Carolina, (Mr. STANFORD,) for the sound, sensible, pertinent, and

constitutional speech, which he had delivered the other day against

this resolution. But he feared, if a writ were to issue against that

old party--as had been facetiously said, in another body, of our

valiant Army--it would be impossible for a constable with a search

warrant to find it. There must be a return of _non est inventus_.

Death, resignation, and desertion had thinned their ranks. They

had disappeared. New men and new doctrines had succeeded. He was

astonished at the frailty of some memories; or rather, at their aptness

to remember to forget every thing but what subserved their present

purposes.

The nation had been brought into its present alarming and unprecedented

situation by means in nowise unaccountable--by steps as direct and

successive as Hogarth's celebrated series of prints, "The Rake's

Progress," beginning at the gaming table and ending in a jail, or in

bedlam. Our difficulties began to show themselves in 1805 and 1806,

when _a wise man from the East_ (Bidwell) was sent to govern the

American House of Commons, in quality of manager. With what degree of

fidelity he had discharged this duty, we might judge from that which

he had since displayed in far inferior trusts. We had commenced our

system somewhat on the plan of Catharine of Russia, when she lent her

nominal aid to the coalition; we had dealt even more profusely than

she in manifestoes; we began, under the instigation of mercantile

cupidity, to contend by proclamations and resolutions for the empire of

the ocean. But, instead of confining ourselves as she had done to this

bloodless warfare, we must copy the wise example of her successors,

and after our battle of Friedland, he supposed, we also should have

our peace of Tilsit. He gave the little minority praise for having

kept the Administration in check, under the salutary restraint of a

rigorous examination of their acts--although the Administration had

run away with the credit of wishing to take a strong attitude, and had

thrown the blame of thwarting their measures on the opposition. That

opposition had been composed of all sects and persuasions; but he now

perceived that the greater part of them (the Federalists) had gone over

to the Court party, for a very obvious reason--because they foresee at

the end of the journey, Mr. Speaker, that your defeat will secure their

triumph. I wish the gentlemen on my left (the majority) joy of their

new travelling companions.

The gentleman from Maryland had expressed surprise at Mr. RANDOLPH'S

manner of speaking of our origin from an English stock. Could that

gentleman repose his head upon his pillow without returning thanks to

God that he was descended from English parentage? Whence but from that

origin came all the blessings of life, so far as political privileges

are concerned? To what is it owing that we are at this moment

deliberating under the forms of a free representative government?

Suppose we had been colonies of any other European nation--compare our

condition with that of the Spanish, Portuguese, or French settlements

in America? To what was our superiority owing? To our Anglo-Saxon race.

Suppose we had descended from those nations--from the last, especially,

which stood self-condemned, on her own confession, as incapable of free

government, hugging her chains, glorying in her shame, priding herself

in the slave's last poor distinction, the splendor of her tyrant

master? Had we sprung from the loins of Frenchmen, (he shuddered at

the thought!) where would have been that proud spirit of resistance to

Ministerial encroachment on our rights and liberties, which achieved

our independence? We should have submitted to the tea tax, the stamp

act, and the whole train of Grenville and North ministerial oppression.

That which we lifted our hands against in determined scorn, would

have been deemed an indulgence. Look at the province of New Spain, or

Mexico, as it is, not with strict propriety, called. With a physical

force greatly superior to ours in 1776, she had not dared to burst the

chains of Spanish despotism, divided, weakened, almost extinct as was

the Spanish monarchy. Mr. R. adverted to historical documents to show

that America ought to be proud of her Anglo-Saxon descent. We were

vastly particular about the breed of our horses, cattle, and sheep,

but careless of the breed of human nature. And yet to our Anglo-Saxon

origin we owed our resistance to British tyranny. Who were the members

of our first Congress? From Massachusetts, Samuel Adams, (and t'other

Adams too,) Robert Treat Paine, not _Tom_. From Connecticut, Roger

Sherman, a man of the most profound political wisdom. From New York,

James Duane, John Jay. From New Jersey, William Livingston. From

Pennsylvania, Thomas Mifflin. From Delaware, Cæsar Rodney, Thomas

McKean. From Maryland, William Paca. From Virginia, Peyton Randolph,

George Washington, Patrick Henry, Richard Bland, Edmund Pendleton. From

South Carolina, Henry Middleton, John Rutledge, Christopher Gadsden,

Edward Rutledge. In what school had these illustrious men formed

those noble principles of civil liberty asserted by their eloquence

and maintained by their arms? Among the grievances stated in their

remonstrance to the King, a "standing army" met us at the threshold. It

was curious to see in that list of wrongs, so many that had since been

self-inflicted by us.

It had been asked, why was the country unprepared for defence? Was

he expected to answer this question? The Administration and their

overwhelming majorities must answer it. They had wantoned in the

plenitude of their power. Who could say them nay? Was it Mr. RANDOLPH'S

fault that the gentleman from South Carolina had never, in the course

of his extensive experience, heard of a proposition to arm the whole

body of the militia? which had been damned with a faint appropriation

of two hundred thousand dollars, when millions were lavished upon

miserable _oyster_ boats. The Clerk of the Senate could not forbear a

sneer when he read the title of the bill, at the recollection of the

means to enforce it. Mr. R. had proposed himself an annual million

until the work should be accomplished. He would forever stand up for

the militia. It was not in the scoffs of the epaulette gentry, who, for

any service they have seen, are the _rawest militia_, to degrade them

in his eyes. Who were they? Ourselves--the country. Arm them and you

are safe, beyond the possibility of danger. Yearly did the standing

army sweep off the money, while the militia received empty praise.

He would rather see the thing reversed. But there will forever be a

Court and Country party. The standing army is the devoted creature

of the Court. It must forever be so. Can we wonder that it should be

cherished by its master? He spoke of a mercenary soldier in terms of

the strongest abhorrence. He would ever uphold the militia; and he

detested standing armies, as the profligate instruments of despotism,

as the bloodhounds of hell. They would support any and every existing

Government. In all history he remembered only one instance of their

deserting their Government and taking part with the people; and that

was when the Duke of Orleans had bribed the army of the last of the

Bourbon Kings. A mercenary soldier was disgusting to our senses;

was odious and detestable to the eye of reason, republicanism and

religion. Yet, that "mere machine of murder," rude as it is, was the

manufacturer of all the Cæsars, and Cromwells, and Bonapartes, of

the earth; consecrated by a people's curse, not loud but deep, to

the infernal gods. As from the filth of the kennel and common sewer,

spread the pestilence that carried havoc through a great city, so from

this squalid, outcast, homeless wretch sprung the scourge of military

despotism. And yet we are told that there was no danger from an army

of 30,000 or 40,000 men. With 5,000 Cæsar had passed the Rubicon. With

22,000 he fought the battle of Pharsalia, which rendered him master

of the world. To come to later times--what number had Bonaparte, when,

deserting his companions in arms, he returned a solitary fugitive from

Egypt, to overturn that Government, which if it had possessed one

particle of energy, if it had been possible for the civil authority

to cope with military power, would have cashiered him for having

ruined one of the best-appointed fleets and armies that ever sailed

from a European port? Well might the father of political wisdom (Lord

Chatham) say to the Parliament of England, "entrench yourselves in

parchment to the teeth, the sword will find a passage to the vitals

of the constitution." As good a Republican as ever sat on that floor,

(Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun,) had dissolved his political friendship

with the Earl of Sunderland, when he found him supporting an army; and

the event justified his sagacity. Cromwell, the affected patron of

liberty, always encouraged the army. We know the consequence. It was

a fundamental principle of free Government that a Legislature which

would preserve its liberty must avoid that canker, a standing army.

Are we to forget, as chimerical, our notions of this institution,

which we imbibed from our very cradles, which are imprinted on our

Bills of Rights and Constitutions, which we avowed under the reign

of John Adams? Are they to be scourged out of us by the birch of the

unfledged political pedagogues of the day? If he were the enemy of this

Government, could he reconcile it to his principles, he would follow

the example set him in another quarter, and say to the majority, _go_

to your inevitable destruction! He likened the people under this joint

operation of the two parties, Ministerial and Federal, to the poor

client between two lawyers, or the cloth between the tailor's shears.

He was glad to hear from his venerable friend that this was not to be

a party war. When the last additional force bill was raised, to which

this was about to be superadded, it was an indispensable preliminary

to an appointment, to sign, or to promise to sign, the thirty-nine

articles of the creed of the reigning political church. But now the

political millennium was at hand--already had John Adams and Citizen

Genet laid down, like the lion and the lamb, in the same fold. And if

they were not joined by their fellow-laborer in Newgate, it was his

keeper's fault, not that of his inclination. Citizen _Genet_, now an

American patriot of the first order, who extols "_our_ WASHINGTON;"

the champion of the laws of nations; the vindicator of American rights

against foreign (and, of course, French) aggression! He was glad to

hear that it was not to be a war for the protection of manufactures.

To domestic manufactures, in the true sense of the term, he had always

been, and ever should be, a friend; he had taken a pride in clothing

himself in them until it was attempted to be made a political test. He

abhorred tests of all sorts, political and religious, and never would

submit to them. He was sick of this cant of patriotism, which extended

to a man's victuals, drink, and clothes. He had, from a sort of

obstinacy that belonged to him, laid aside the _external_ use of these

manufactures; but he was their firm friend, and of the manufacturers

also. They were no new things to him; no Merino hobby of the day; he

had known them from his infancy. He had been almost tempted to believe,

from the similarity of character and avocations, that Hector had a

Virginian wife; that Lucretia herself--for she had displayed the spirit

of a Virginian matron--was a Virginian lady. Where were they found?

Spinning among their handmaids! What was the occupation of a Virginian

wife--her highest ambition? To attend to her domestic and household

cares; to dispense medicine and food to the sick; to minister to the

comfort of her family, her servants, and her poor neighbors, where she

had any. At the sight of such a woman his heart bowed down, and did her

reverence. Compare with such a being your gad-about card-players. Mr.

RANDOLPH said that if the Empress Queen had presented herself decked in

the spoils of a ravaged world, at the late exhibition, in contrast with

our American matrons, bearing the triumphs of their own ingenuity and

industry, we should have looked upon her, and all her splendor, with

scorn and contempt in our hearts, although, from politeness to the sex,

as gentlemen, we should have suppressed the sentiment.

He could not conclude without noticing the parallel attempted to be

drawn by the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr, CALHOUN--not quite

indeed after the manner of Plutarch--between himself and an illustrious

statesman, (Lord Chatham.) The gentleman had been pleased to say,

that at the mention of his name, Mr. RANDOLPH'S heart had seemed

to smite him. It had indeed smitten him: from a sensation which he

trusted that gentleman might never feel: against which he seemed well

secured. It was a consciousness of his own unworthiness to sustain the

high duties imposed upon him by his country, which the recollection

of that great man's name had, at the moment, called up. He felt

humbled in the contemplation of his worth. Would to God! he possessed

some portion of his powers; that he could borrow his eagle-eye, his

withering look, the unrivalled majesty of his manner, the magic of his

voice, at once the music and the thunder of the spheres, to rouse the

House to a sense of their country's danger. In one respect, however,

he might boast that he possessed some qualities in common with that

immortal statesman. He might assert as lofty a spirit, as unyielding an

adherence to the deliberate convictions of his own understanding, as

Lord Chatham himself; who, because he set his face against corruption,

and had the art of making every coward scoundrel in the nation his

foe--concentrating upon himself the "rays of royal indignation, which

might illumine but could not consume him;" who, because with intuitive

glance he penetrated, resolved and combined every interest of his

country, and each design of her enemies, and reached his object "by

the flashes of his mind, which, like those of his eye, might be felt

but could not be followed," was by the plodding, purblind, groping

politicians of the day, attempted to be held up as an empty declaimer,

a theatrical gesticulator. Gentlemen must not expect him to quit the

anchorage of his own judgment in order to pursue the _ignes fatui_

that wander about Goose Creek.[19] Mr. Speaker, my heart is full--the

recollection of that matchless orator and statesman has filled me with

unspeakable feelings. To excite them there was no need of the cruel

and insulting comparison which the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.

CALHOUN) had attempted to draw between that gigantic statesman and the

pigmy who now addresses you.

The question was now taken on concurring with the Committee of the

Whole in their agreement to the second resolution, which is in the

following words:

"That an additional force of ---- thousand regular troops ought

to be immediately raised, to serve for three years; and that a

bounty in lands ought to be given to encourage enlistment."

And carried as follows:

YEAS.--Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson, Stevenson

Archer, Daniel Avery, Ezekiel Bacon, John Baker, David Bard,

Josiah Bartlett, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, William

Blackledge, Harmanus Bleecker, Thomas Blount, Adam Boyd,

James Breckenridge, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William

Butler, John C. Calhoun, Langdon Cheves, James Cochran, John

Clopton, Thomas B. Cooke, Lewis Condit, William Crawford,

Roger Davis, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, Samuel Dinsmoor, Elias

Earle, James Emott, William Findlay, James Fisk, Asa Fitch,

Meshack Franklin, Thomas Gholson, Thomas R. Gold, Charles

Goldsborough, Peterson Goodwyn, Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy,

Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, John A. Harper, Aylett Hawes, Jacob

Hufty, John M. Hyneman, Richard M. Johnson, Joseph Kent, Philip

B. Key, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Joseph Lefever, Peter

Little, Robert Le Roy Livingston, William Lowndes, Aaron Lyle,

Nathaniel Macon, George C. Maxwell, Thomas Moore, Archibald

McBryde, William McCoy, Samuel McKee, Alexander McKim, Arunah

Metcalf, James Milnor, Samuel L. Mitchill, James Morgan,

Jeremiah Morrow, Hugh Nelson, Anthony New, Thomas Newbold,

Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, William Paulding, jr., Israel

Pickens, William Piper, Benjamin Pond, Peter B. Porter, Josiah

Quincy, William Reed, Henry M. Ridgely, Samuel Ringgold, John

Rhea, John Roane, Jonathan Roberts, William Rodman, Ebenezer

Sage, Thomas Sammons, Ebenezer Seaver, John Sevier, Adam

Seybert, Samuel Shaw, John Smilie, George Smith, John Smith,

Silas Stow, William Strong, George Sullivan, Peter Tallman,

Uri Tracy, George M. Troup, Charles Turner, jr., Pierre Van

Cortlandt, jr., Robert Whitehall, David R. Williams, William

Widgery, Thomas Wilson, Robert Wright, and Richard Wynn--110.

NAYS.--Abijah Bigelow, Elijah Brigham, Epaphroditus Champion,

Martin Chittenden, John Davenport, jr., William Ely, Edwin

Gray, Richard Jackson, jr., Lyman Law, Joseph Lewis, jr.,

Jonathan O. Mosely, Joseph Pearson, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Elisha

R. Potter, John Randolph, Daniel Sheffey, Richard Stanford,

Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Laban

Wheaton, and Leonard White--22.

The question was then taken on the third resolution, in the following

words:

"That it is expedient to authorize the President, under proper

regulations, to accept the service of any number of volunteers,

not exceeding fifty thousand; to be organized, trained, and

held in readiness to act on such service as the exigencies of

the Government may require."

And carried: yeas 113--nays 16.

The question was next taken on the fourth resolution, in the following

words:

"That the President be authorized to order out from time to

time such detachments of the militia, as in his opinion the

public service may require."

And carried: yeas 120--nays 8.

The question was then taken on the fifth resolution, in the words

following:

"That all the vessels not now in service belonging to the Navy,

and worthy of repair, be immediately fitted up and put in

commission."

And carried: yeas 111--nays 15.

The question was put from the Chair on the sixth resolution, in these

words:

"6. That it is expedient to permit our merchant vessels, owned

exclusively by resident citizens, and commanded and navigated

solely by citizens, to arm under proper regulations, to be

prescribed by law, in self-defence, against all unlawful

proceedings towards them on the high seas."

When the resolution was, on motion, ordered to lie on the table.

The three first resolutions, for filling up the present establishment,

for raising an additional number of regulars, and authorizing the

acceptance of volunteers' services, were referred to the committee who

reported them, with instructions to bring in bills in pursuance thereof.

TUESDAY, December 17.

_Mississippi Territory--Ordinance of 1787._

Mr. POINDEXTER, from the committee to whom the said report was

committed, reported the same with an amendment; which was read, and

referred to the Committee of the Whole on Monday next. The report is as

follows:

The committee, to whom was referred the memorial of the

Legislative Council and House of Representatives of the

Mississippi Territory, and the petition of sundry citizens

thereof, praying to be admitted into the Union of the United

States on an equal footing with the original States; and also

the petition of the inhabitants of West Florida, setting

forth their desire to be annexed to said Territory, for

reasons therein contained, have had these subjects under

consideration, and beg leave to submit the following report:

That there has existed in the Mississippi Territory a temporary

government, founded on the ordinance for the government of the

Territory Northwest of the river Ohio, since the eleventh day

of April, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight. That,

although this ordinance has undergone some modifications,

extending, in a limited degree, the rights and privileges of

the citizens, it still contains provisions incompatible with

political liberty, and unfavorable to a due and impartial

administration of justice, in the redress of private wrongs

and injuries. The Chief Executive Magistrate is charged with

the execution of the laws; is commander-in-chief of the

militia; has the sole power of appointment to offices, civil

and military, within the Territory, and the removal of these

officers at pleasure; is vested with an unqualified veto on

all bills passed by the other co-ordinate branches of the

Legislature; and is, moreover, clothed with the odious and

arbitrary authority to prorogue and dissolve the General

Assembly whenever, in his opinion, it shall be expedient. These

high and regal prerogatives, constituting some of the most

obvious characteristics which distinguish an absolute monarchy

from the constitution of a free State, are confided to the

discretionary exercise of a Governor, who is neither chosen by,

nor responsible to, the people. He is often a total stranger

to the local interests and circumstances of the country over

which he possesses such unlimited control, and is accountable

only for malconduct or corruption in office to the President

of the United States. The only security which exists against

the frequent and wanton abuse of these powers is to be found in

the mild and conciliatory disposition uniformly manifested by

the General Government towards its territories. But experience

has shown that, in all colonial governments, officers situated

at a remote distance from the tribunal to which they are

responsible, too frequently "feel power and forget right;" and,

by eluding the vigilance of rigid investigation, are enabled to

practise acts of oppression with impunity.

The above summary of Executive powers, so opposite in their

nature to those principles which form the basis of the Federal

Constitution, and which are transfused through the constitution

of the several States, is sufficient to show that the people

are deprived of all participation in the choice of those who

administer the laws, and that public functionaries are rendered

independent of the community whose interests are confided

to their management and discretion. These restrictions on

the rights of the people can be justified only by the most

evident necessity, resulting from peculiar and unavoidable

circumstances. Your committee, therefore, consider it an

act both of strict justice and sound policy to advance the

respective territories of the United States to the grade of a

separate commonwealth, whenever they shall contain the number

of inhabitants necessary to entitle them, under the ratio

established by law, to a Representative in the Congress of the

United States. On the subject of population, there exists no

difficulty, whether the territory be taken in connection with

West Florida or with its present limits. From the official

returns of the census, taken during the summer of the past

year, it appears that there were, in the Mississippi Territory,

the number of forty thousand three hundred and fifty-two souls.

This enumeration, it is alleged, fell considerably short of

the actual population of the Territory at that time; and,

without casting the most remote censure on the officers who

were employed in that service, such a suggestion is strongly

supported by the vast extent of country over which the

settlements are dispersed. It also appears to your committee

that the progressive emigration from the old States to this

section of the Union, added to the length of time which it will

require to form a constitution, and put the same in operation,

afford satisfactory pledges that, anterior to the final

admission of the Territory to the rights of State sovereignty,

the number of its inhabitants will amount to at least sixty

thousand, whereby they will possess the unqualified right, in

conformity with articles of cession and agreement between the

United States and Georgia, to be admitted into the Union on an

equal footing with the original States.

Your committee cannot forbear to express their decided opinion,

that, where no constitutional difficulty occurs, the formation

of new States on the southern extremity of the United States

ought not to be delayed.

Under these impressions, your committee submit the following

resolution:

_Resolved_, That it is expedient to admit all that tract of

country, bounded north by a line drawn due east from the river

Yazoo, where it unites with the Mississippi, to the river

Chatahouchy, and down said river to the thirty-first degree of

latitude; thence, along said degree of latitude, to a point

opposite the river Perdido; thence to the confluence of said

last mentioned river, with the Gulf of Mexico; and thence, in

a direct line through the middle of the Lakes Maurepas and

Pontchartrain, to the junction of the Iberville with the river

Mississippi, and up said river to the above-mentioned river

Yazoo, into the Union of the United States, on an equal footing

with the original States.

WEDNESDAY, December 18.

Mr. RHEA presented petitions from Louisiana Territory, in favor of the

second grade of Government.--Referred.

_Battle on the Wabash._

Mr. ORMSBY moved the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire whether

any, and if any, what provision ought to be made by law for

paying the officers and soldiers of the militia who served

under Governor Harrison, in the late expedition against the

Indians on the Wabash, to compensate them for the loss of

horses, and for the relief of the widows and orphans of those

who fell in the action of the seventh November last; and that

they have leave to report by bill or otherwise.

The said resolution was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. MCKEE moved the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be

requested to cause to be laid before this House such

information as may be in the possession of the Government, and

proper to be communicated, on the following points:

1. Any evidence tending to show whether any and what agency the

subjects, either public or private, of any foreign power, may

have had in exciting the Indians on the Western frontier to

hostility against the United States;

2. The evidence of hostility towards the United States, on the

part of the Shawanee Prophet and his adherents, anterior to

the commencement of the late campaign against them, under the

command of Governor Harrison;

3. The orders and authority vested in Governor Harrison by the

United States, under which the late expedition against the

Indians was carried on; and such other information relating to

the subject, as, in the opinion of the President, may be proper

to be communicated to this House.

The resolution was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

THURSDAY, December 19.

_Battle of Tippecanoe._

A Message was received from the President of the United States,

transmitting two letters received from Governor Harrison, of the

Indiana Territory, reporting the particulars of the issue of the

expedition under his command on the Wabash. The Message and letters

were read, and referred to Mr. MCKEE, Mr. SEVIER, Mr. BRECKENRIDGE,

Mr. MORROW, Mr. ALSTON, Mr. LEFEVRE, and Mr. MAXWELL, to consider and

report thereon to the House.

_Foreign Relations._

The House resumed the consideration of the sixth resolution, reported

by the Committee of Foreign Relations, in the following words:

"6. That it is expedient to permit our merchant vessels,

owned exclusively by resident citizens, to arm, under proper

regulations, to be prescribed by law, in self-defence, against

all unlawful proceedings towards them on the high seas."

Mr. ARCHER.--The sixth resolution of the Committee of Foreign Relations

being now on its passage, I must express my sorrow that I am compelled

to obtrude my humble observations upon the fatigued patience of the

House, and the more exhausted patience of the nation. As I shall vote

against the resolution, I feel it to be my indispensable duty to detail

to the House the reasons by which my vote shall be actuated. Many

honorable members may, perhaps, conceive that it would be more proper

for me to reserve my remarks for the bill, when it shall be reported;

but, sir, I have ever held it to be my sacred duty to oppose, even in

its incipient state, every measure which may be hostile to the rights,

or dangerous to the interests of my country, lest, by not seeming to

oppose, my conduct should be construed into an encouragement of such a

measure.

For what purpose, sir, let me ask, have we adopted the resolution

preceding this? Was it for the purpose of destroying the Government?

Was it that the members of that Army should sheath their swords in

the bowels of the liberties of their country? Who will impute to this

body so disgraceful a motive? Are you about to raise a standing army,

not for the purpose of making preparations for war, but with a view

of intimidating Great Britain to recede from her unjust infractions

of our neutral rights? Do not think that she will be intimidated by

any preparations which you can make, however formidable they may be.

She knows, too well, your conduct heretofore, to believe you are in

earnest. She knows that, many years ago, you resolved to resist, but

that this honorable determination terminated in an empty resolution.

She knows, too well, that you have been, heretofore, prodigal in words,

and parsimonious in spirited action. I do not set myself up for a

prophet; but, mark me, if it be not true, that Great Britain will not

do you justice till you carry the war out of this hall into the heart

of her colonial territories.

Under the firmest conviction, then, as I am, that war between the

United States and Great Britain--if we have any respect for our honor

as a nation--will be an event of inevitable consequence, I have in

vain searched for the reasons which would induce us to authorize our

merchant vessels to arm against all unlawful molestations on the high

seas. As the resolution is, in its nature, general, every man must see,

on the contrary, the dangers necessarily attendant upon the adoption

of such a measure. You are now on the very verge of war, and you

should, therefore, be careful not to multiply your enemies. You may,

by passing this resolution, make France your enemy. You may enlist

Denmark and other powers of Europe against you. This is an event which

would be deeply deprecated; and, that it should happen, is nothing

improbable; for your merchants, armed as they will be, in defence of

their commerce, may select the nation who is to be your enemy. If they

are molested in their commerce, whether lawful or unlawful, they will

be disposed to resist. At any rate, they will be the judges of the

juncture when their interests may call for the interposition of force,

and will exercise that force according to their own whims and caprices.

They sail on the ocean clothed with national authority, and for their

actions, whether lawful or unlawful, you will be compelled to answer.

Sir, I respect the highly honorable occupation of a merchant, but am

not disposed to carry that respect so far as to give my sanction to

the adoption of a measure which may jeopardize the peace, and endanger

the interests of my country. If this resolution were to authorize an

arming against Great Britain alone, this argument would have no effect;

but as it has a view to a general arming against all nations, this

reasoning is conclusive on my mind, and must operate in the same way

upon all men who will give the subject a dispassionate consideration.

The consequences of such a measure are plain and obvious. Now, let

us examine whether there exists any reason sufficiently powerful to

outweigh these considerations.

What is the object, and the only one too, as stated by the honorable

chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations, (Mr. PORTER,) for the

adoption of this measure? Your vessels will be armed and prepared for

privateering the moment war shall be declared. Why, sir, do you think

the merchants will believe that you really intend to go to war? And, if

they doubt upon this subject, do you suppose they will be so regardless

of their own interests as to expend their capital in fitting out

privateers, when no absolute certainty exists that war is your object,

or your serious intention? It would, certainly, be an object of no

inconsiderable moment to have privateers prepared to harass and disturb

the commerce of Great Britain in the event of war. If this be your

object, you are taking a very improper course to obtain it. If such be

your object, take some decided and energetic step which will convince

even the incredulous that you will resort to the sword to obtain

justice, and your end will soon be effected. But, do not depress the

hopes of the nation by sanctioning this tame, imbecile, and temporizing

system.

What is the spirit that breathes in the five resolutions which have

been adopted--resolutions which were in entire accordance with my

feelings? Is it not a spirit of war? Do they not bear a hostile

aspect? Are they not calculated to induce Great Britain to believe

that forbearance on our part has terminated, and that we are resolved,

unless she speedily extend to us full and ample justice, to decide the

contest by the sword? Have you any thing to hope, by operating upon the

minds of the rulers of that nation, a conviction that you are boasting

no longer? If you do entertain such a hope, I pray you, do not adopt

this measure--a measure which will show her the fluctuation of our

opinions, and the repugnancy of our plans; a measure which will lull to

sleep her fears of war, and convince her not only of your indecision,

but of your timidity to unsheath your sword in defence of rights clear

and undisputed, and in avenging injuries too glaring for the dignity

and honor of a nation to submit to. Are the wishes of this nation to

be unattended to? Ought we not to relieve its anxieties? Or, are we to

tantalize their hopes with energy in one law and imbecility in another?

Are the merchants to be told we will protect their commerce? By what?

By granting them a right which nature has already given to them? Is

commerce to be protected by abridging the natural rights of the people?

Is this measure no abridgment of their rights? Does it not confine the

legality of arming to resident citizens alone? Look at the measure as

you please, it is a dead letter. Is this the period of all others to

be selected to incorporate unmeaning laws in the body of your statute

book? Do not satirize, by such an act, the manly sensibility of the

people. Do not paralyze the national arm. No; let us do justice to the

nation by the adoption of such measures as will renovate the depressed

spirits of our constituents; which will prevent them from falling into

that destructive and deadly languor which this resolution is calculated

to produce.

The question was then taken to concur with the Committee of the whole

House on the state of the Union in their agreement to the said sixth

resolution, as reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations; and

resolved in the affirmative--yeas 97, nays 22.

SATURDAY, December 21.

_Statutes of Limitation._

Mr. GHOLSON, from the Committee of Claims, who were instructed by

a resolution of the House of the 11th ultimo, to inquire into the

expediency of repealing or suspending the various acts of limitation,

so far as they operate to bar the payment of certain descriptions of

claims, made a report thereon.--Referred to the Committee of the Whole

on the report of the Committee of Claims on the petition of Rees Nanna

and others. The report is as follows:

That they have bestowed on the resolution that full

consideration to which it was entitled. They felt, on the one

hand, sincere solicitude to devise some just and adequate

method of satisfying the claims in question; while, on the

other, they were forcibly struck with the unavoidable scenes

of speculation and fraud which would ensue the repeal or

suspension of any of the acts of limitation, whereby those

claims are barred. If the old soldier, his widow, or his

orphan, were alone to be benefited by such suspension, your

committee would not hesitate to recommend it. Past experience,

however, hath evidently shown that similar legislative

indulgences have enured almost exclusively to the advantage of

the unprincipled speculator, and those who avail themselves

of the ignorance and subsist upon the misfortunes of others.

We have innumerable examples of the truth of this position,

in the consequences that resulted not only from the various

suspensions of these acts which have hitherto taken place, but

more especially from the adoption of the Funding System. It is

deemed unnecessary to enlarge upon the consequences; they are

too well known.

Although a communication received from the Treasury at a

former session holds out an opinion that there are in the

possession of that Department sufficient checks and guards to

protect the United States from imposition and fraud in the

payment of a certain part of those claims, the committee are

differently impressed. They have seen a transcript from the

books of the Treasury, published to the world, exhibiting the

names of a certain class of claimants; and to suppose that a

facility of this kind, thus offered to speculative artifice and

management, would not be seized upon and used by the speculator

to impose upon Government, is to suppose a thing contrary to

all experience. The committee feel themselves by no means able

to draw a line of distinction between a just claim liquidated

and a just one unliquidated; and to attempt the invidious

task of distinction in point of merit, where there can be no

difference, and to open the statutes of limitation in order to

relieve a part or a few favorite classes of claims, does not

comport, in the view of your committee, with any principle of

fairness, or with that equal system of distributive justice

which ought to be dispensed toward all. When they take a

retrospective view of the subject, and find that most of those

statutes were first passed in the times and under the patriot

counsels of the old Congress, and that the more general one

which took effect in 1794 was passed under the Administration

of General Washington, who was himself the chief of soldiers

as he was the chief of their patrons and friends in every

station; but he was equally the friend of his country, and

gave that act the sanction of his name, as founded, at least,

in a policy of general justice and right, which the Government

had been at length obliged to resort to and maintain in

self-defence; that every Congress since has invariably adhered

to the general policy of those laws; and, after the lapse of so

many years, when the difficulty of doing justice has increased

with the increase of time, and when a partial repeal would but

tend to increase the discontent and dissatisfaction of every

class of claimants which should remain unprovided for, the

committee cannot, from any view they have been able to take

of the subject, recommend the repeal or suspension of any of

those statutes. They would, therefore, beg leave to submit the

following resolution:

_Resolved_, That it is not expedient to repeal or suspend any

of the acts of limitation, whereby the aforesaid descriptions

of claims are barred.[20]

The report was ordered to lie on the table.

MONDAY, December 23.

_Rules and Orders--Previous Question._

The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business of

Saturday. The amendment proposed by Mr. NELSON being again read, as

follows:

"That when the previous question is ordered to be taken, upon

the main question being put, every member, who has not already

spoken, shall have liberty to speak once:"

Mr. GOLD said the amendment now offered to the rules of the House,

secures to every member the right of speaking at least once on every

question before the House. The liberty of speech, and freedom of

debate, are sacred by the constitution; and to refuse _all_ debate,

to deny us the privilege of speaking _at all_, on the most important

questions of peace and war, is a subversion of the first principles

of the constitution. And what is to justify this measure of imposing

silence? It is said, the right of debate has been abused. Let

gentlemen beware how, for an occasional _abuse of a right_, they _take

away--destroy the right itself_. What right, in the whole charter of

our rights, has not at some time been abused? Man is frail, and why

should not, at times of public agitation and concussion of parties,

abuses arise? debate become angry and be prolonged? And for this,

is the principle to be adopted, that the right shall be forever

suppressed and destroyed?--the principle that absolute silence shall

be imposed on a minority? Sir, Philip, the tyrant of Macedon, disliked

the freedom of speech and debate in Athens: it annoyed him; for this

cause, Demosthenes was pursued to the altar, where he expired. The

principle contended for by the majority (supposed abuse) will be found

to justify the most odious usurpations recorded in history; liberty is

abused, and chains are forged to restrain it.

Gentlemen of the majority insist, that the rule will not be abused;

that the majority will not execute the rule arbitrarily. The amendment,

now offered to the rules, stipulates only for liberty to each member to

speak once. Now, sir, if this be denied, and the rule is ever executed,

the abuse is inevitable, it is necessarily involved in the very

execution of the rule.

Neither the journals of our State Legislatures nor the laws of the

Parliament of Great Britain afford examples for thus arbitrarily

proceeding. Debate is admitted in the British Parliament on the

previous question; our rules exclude it on both the previous and main

question. Beside, sir, I need only refer gentlemen to the manual of

parliamentary law, from the hand of the third President of the United

States, to show that the previous question was confined to subjects

of delicacy, which a due regard to the interests of the State or its

Government forbade to be agitated. How much, sir, has this question

been perverted from its proper province, to silence all debate and

force the question, the passage of the law! Such measures are dangerous

to freedom, and afford, in evil times, the most fatal examples.

Mr. SMILIE said he was a friend to freedom of debate, but that there

was a difference between this, and that abuse of it when you cannot

get a decision without an exertion of physical strength. This has been

our case several times. The rule now proposed to be altered is the old

rule, and is only restored. We very well know, that a debate has been

often prolonged merely to prevent a decision. We have been kept till

ten and twelve o'clock at night, and sometimes till daylight. It is an

inconvenience which he at his time of life had seriously felt. There

can be no evil from the rule as now established. The responsibility of

the majority is such to the people, that, if they should abuse it, as

the minority have their privilege, the people will correct it, when the

minority shall fairly state it to them. He said the majority were also

responsible to the people to transact the public business.

Mr. STANFORD, in reply to Mr. SMILIE, said he did not think it

proper to give this dispensing power to the majority, if they by the

constitution did not possess it, as he contended they did not. He said

we have heard of a _sedition law_, and _the reign of terror_. The

bill, when first introduced for that law, went to prevent freedom of

speech. This rule, in his opinion, much more deserved the character of

a "_Gag-law_," than the Sedition law did.

Mr. WRIGHT mentioned the great abuses of this privilege of the

minority the last winter. He said, if we don't establish a written,

decent rule, we must have a common law rule, such as they have in the

British House of Commons, to shuffle and put down, when the abuse of

this privilege becomes enormous.

Mr. QUINCY.--Mr. Speaker, I do not regard this question in the light

in which some of its advocates, as well as its opponents, have

considered it; as a mere contest for power between the majority and

the minority. It is of a higher character. It affects the essential

principles of civil liberty, and saps its hopes at its very foundation.

I rejoice that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. NELSON) has limited his

proposition, so as to preclude any mistake concerning the object of

it. We are not now advocating an unrestrained privilege of debate. The

inquiry is, shall a main question ever be taken in this deliberative

body, until every member, who has not already spoken, shall have had

an opportunity, if he wishes to avail himself of it, to speak at least

_once upon the question_? The ground taken by those who oppose the

proposition, is that of necessity and convenience. These are the very

points, which, in a free country, ought most vigilantly to be guarded.

For it is here that the spirit of despotism always lies in ambush.

Under the cover of necessity, or convenience, it steals upon the

liberties of a people, and never fails, sooner or later, to make them

its prey.

It is not to be denied, that the subject is in some respects difficult

to manage, with any hope of convincing. There is a state of feeling,

both within this House and out of it, very unpropitious to an impartial

debate. In this House it is argued as a question concerning who shall

have the power, a majority, or a minority. And as it is agreed, on

all hands, that, in the exercise of the power, abuse may happen,

the present majority, like all other majorities, have a prevailing

inclination to reserve, in their own hands, the exclusive privilege of

abuse. And without doors, the subject is of less difficulty. For, of

late years, the popular ear has been so vexed with speech upon speech,

wind upon wind, the public patience has been so exhausted, in hunting

up the solitary grain of sense, hidden in the bushels of chaff, that it

is ready to submit to any limitation of a privilege, which subjects it

to so irksome a labor. The people are almost ready to exclaim, "do what

you will with the liberty of speech, provided you will save us from

that _fresh_ of words, with which we are periodically inundated."

Now, this is the very state of the public mind in which the corruption

of essential principles commences. Through apparent necessity, or

temporary convenience, or disgust at abuse, the popular sentiment is

made to acquiesce in the introduction of doctrines vitally inconsistent

with the perpetuity of liberty.

I ask the House to consider what is that principle of civil liberty,

which is amalgamated and identified with the very existence of a

legislative body. In what does it consist? And what is its character?

It consists in the right of deliberation. And its character is, that it

belongs not to the body, but the individual members constituting the

body. The body has the power to control and to regulate its exercise.

But it has not the power to take away that right altogether, by the

operation of any general principle. An individual member may render

himself unworthy of the privilege. He may be set down; he may be denied

the right, because he has abused it. But whenever a legislative body

assumes to itself the power of stopping, at its will, all debate, at

any stage of deliberation, it assumes a power wholly inconsistent with

the essential right of deliberation, and totally destructive of that

principle of civil liberty which exists, and is identified with the

exercise of that right.

The right of every individual member is, in fact, the right of his

constituents. He is but their Representative. It is in their majesty,

that he appears. It is their right that he reflects. The right of being

heard by their Representative is the _inherent_ and _absolute_ right

of the people. Now, it is in the essential character of such a right,

that it exists, independent, and in despite of any man, or body of men,

whatsoever. It is absurd to say, that any right is independent, which

depends upon the will of another. It is absurd to say, that any right

is absolute, which is wholly relative to the inclination of another;

which lasts only as long as he chooses, and terminates at his nod.

Now, whether this power be exercised by one, or many, it matters not.

The principle of civil liberty is gone, when the inherent and absolute

nature of the right is gone.

Apply this reasoning to the case before us. It is impossible to

conceal the fact, that as our rules and orders stand, independent

of the proposition now offered as an amendment, it is in the power

of a majority to preclude all debate, upon any question, and force

every member of the House to vote, upon any proposition, without

giving him the opportunity of explaining his own reasons, or stating

the interests of his constituents. This is undeniable. Is it not,

then, plain and conclusive, that, as our rules and orders now stand,

according to recent construction, every member of this House holds his

right of speaking, not on the principle of his constituents, whose

Representative he is, but upon the will of the majority of this House?

For that which another may at any time take away from me, I hold not

by my own right, but at his will. Can any thing be more obviously at

variance with the spirit of the constitution and the first principles

of civil liberty?

Let not any man say this power will not be abused. In the nature of

things it must be abused. This is the favorite argument of every

despotism, and, of course, will not fail to be urged when it is about

to plant itself in the very temple of liberty.

I have chosen to consider this subject in relation to the right of

the whole body, and of one of its individual members, rather than to

that of a majority and minority. The right to speak is an individual

right. Limit it as you please, consistent with a single exercise of

that right. But when this is taken away, or, which is precisely the

same thing so far as it respects the principle of civil liberty, when

it is in the power of one or many, at its sovereign will and pleasure,

to take it away, there is no longer any right. We have our tenure of

speech as the slave has his--at the will of a master.

But it is said that the Legislature must sometimes "act," and that

individuals, by an abuse of this liberty of speech, prevent the whole

body from "acting." All I say is, limit the exercise of the right as

you please, only do not assume to yourselves the power of taking away

the whole right, at your pleasure.

It is in this doctrine, of "the necessity of acting," that lies the

whole mystery of that error which we are now combating. Strictly

speaking, a Legislative body never "acts." Its province is to

deliberate and decide. "Action" is, alone, correctly attributable

to the Executive. And it will be found, that all the cases in which

this necessity of "action" has been urged, have been cases in which

the Legislative body has departed from its appropriate duties of

deliberation and decision, and descended to be an instrument, or

engine, of the Executive. I hesitate not to say, that this position may

be proved by almost every instance in which this necessity of action

has been urged. It was an Executive haste to its own purposes, which

prevailed upon the Legislative body to deny, to its own members, their

privileges.

It has been asserted, that "if this amendment passes, this will be the

only deliberative body in the world which cannot stop debate." On the

other hand I assert, that if this amendment does not pass, this will

be the only deliberative body in the world, pretending to be free, in

which it is in the power of a majority to force a decision, without

any deliberation. It is not true that, in the British Parliament, the

previous question stops debate and forces decision on the main question

without deliberation. The previous question there, if decided in the

negative, suppresses debate, by postponing the main question. And until

1807, the practice and rules of this House permitted debate of the main

question, after an affirmative decision of a previous question. Whoever

undertakes to examine the subject will find it as I have stated.

It is not true, that this power ever was, or ever can be _necessary_,

in a Legislative body. In every case in which the previous question,

according to recent construction, has been pressed upon the House,

it will be found that there was no _National or State necessity_ for

an immediate decision. That is to say, in every instance it will be

found, that it was of no sort of public importance whether the main

question were taken on this day, on the next, or on a third day. Always

the question might have been taken in a reasonable time; and every

individual member, who chose to speak, might have had the privilege, if

he pleased, of speaking, at least once. As far as I observed, all these

pretences of necessity have been easily resolvable into party cunning.

The subject was one difficult to maintain. It had popular bearings,

which it suited not the pleasure of the majority to have investigated.

They pressed the minority to instant decision, by refusing adjournment.

And as it happens in all such cases, reaction is equal to action. The

minority were put upon their mettle, and they put to trial the mettle

of the majority.

It is undoubtedly true, that this power may be sometimes convenient.

And this is the whole strength of the argument of those who oppose

this proposition. The weak and aged members of the majority have been

kept all night from their slumbers, by a hale and sturdy minority;

which slumbers they might, by the way, at any moment have enjoyed,

if that very majority had yielded the point of adjournment. And is

this reason of convenience sufficient, in the estimation of this

House, to justify it, in depriving this people, in the person of their

Representatives, of the essential right of speaking upon this floor?

Is this a justification for such an atrocious and exorbitant grasp at

power? Our patriotism, nowadays, can submit to no sacrifices. We are

not content with sleeping, if we please, every day in our seats, unless

we can sleep also every night of the session in our feather beds. And

these feather-bed patriots, as I understand, are all agog for a march

into Canada; and, if we believe them, are desirous of nothing so much

as showing how those can meet privation and watchfulness in the field,

who think of nothing but comfort and sleep upon this floor.

I know there is another argument urged in favor of the assumption of

this power by the majority, and that is, the haste and clatter which

always attend the end of a session. Let our session be long or short,

the event is, in this respect, always nearly the same. What with

speeches and postponements, and laying down one piece of business half

finished, and taking up another, the latter end of a session is a

political chaos. The work of this and the other House, and that of the

Palace into the bargain, is in fact sometimes to be washed up, in a

night--and the members of all branches are knee-deep and shoulder-deep

in the suds. Now, this shows the necessity, not of this unlimited

power of the previous question, but of conducting public business

with more prospective intelligence. The House is just like all other

spendthrifts. It first wastes what is its own, and then seeks how it

may make up its deficiency out of the property of other people. We

pillage the public liberty, in order to compensate for legislative

negligence.

I have often been puzzled to imagine a necessity, which could even

apologize for such an assumption of power as the majority, by this

new construction of the previous question, are attempting; and, until

lately, I did not believe that it could possibly exist. The only case,

in which there seemed to me to be an apology for resorting to it, was,

the other day, when the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. TROUP) threatened

to call the previous question upon the majority themselves. I admired

both his manner and the occasion on which he introduced that idea.

And really there was something like a necessity. If I understood the

view of that honorable gentleman, it was, that he thought there was

not fighting matter to spare in the stomachs of the majority; and he

threatened them with the previous question, lest, peradventure, the

whole war spirit should ooze away through the mouth. In this there was

both discretion and patriotism.

Mr. BRIGHAM said, that although he was forward in life, he was but

of yesterday of this House, and that the rules and orders were not

familiar with him. But he exceedingly regretted that this House, in

their wisdom, ever found it expedient or proper to adopt a rule to

deprive a minority, or an individual member of this House, of the

freedom of debate, the freedom of speech, a privilege so much boasted

of in this land of liberty. He observed that he had his rights in

common with the other members of the House, and that he had his

duties to perform. He was not ambitious to become a public speaker,

nor would he say that he supposed he could speak to the edification

or satisfaction of the House. But should he, on great questions,

be denied the privilege of speaking? Suppose the question of peace

or war should assume the aspect of solemnity, and it should become

necessary and important that this House be made acquainted with the

circumstances and disposition of the citizens of the several sections

of the country--and suppose a member who is not much accustomed to

speaking, silently sits until those gentlemen who are in the habit, and

are fond of speaking, shall have exhausted themselves in debate--shall

he, in that case, be denied the right of speaking--shall he be deprived

of his constitutional privileges and his constituents of the right of

representation on the floor of this House?

He said that he was bound by the oath of God to support the

constitution, and to promote the welfare of his country; but, if his

mouth is stopped, how can he execute his trust or perform his vows?

For this House by a rule to interdict the freedom of speech, is an

assumption of power, and a violation of right. He hoped, that the rule

under consideration would be modified, and that the proposed amendment

would be adopted. He wished that each individual member might be

permitted to exercise his right of speaking to any question before the

House, at least once, if he chooses.

Mr. NELSON spoke in favor of the amendment. He said he had no

hesitation in declaring, that whenever right and expediency shall

come in competition, that he should prefer right. He remarked,

that the constitution secured the freedom of speech to the citizen.

And are we, he asked, to be deprived of it when we come to this

House--when we enter this temple of liberty? The attempt is not

to suspend merely, but to destroy this right, and because we have

experienced some inconvenience from this exercise. He agreed with the

gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. QUINCY,) that if the House would

do their duty, and get the business along in the early part of the

session, we should never be in the dilemma the House were in, the

last session of Congress; and that an inconvenience was a very poor

reason for destroying this right of offering our sentiments. He would

rather recommend the turning out of doors a member who should become

troublesome in speaking too long, than to suffer him to stay in the

House and prevent his uttering his sentiments. Even expulsion would not

be a greater infringement of his right. The right of the people is the

right of their Representatives to speak, deliberate, and decide. As to

the plea of necessity, he protested against it as the plea of tyrants.

Mr. ALSTON, of North Carolina, expressed his astonishment, that the

gentleman from Virginia (Mr. NELSON) had assumed the ground he had. He

said, there were two parties in this House; and asked, is it ever known

how a question will be decided, until it is taken?

Mr. BASSETT said, if a stranger was present, and should hear this

debate, he would suppose that the question was now for the first time

brought forward for the establishment of the rule, against which so

much had been said, when it is well known that it has always been the

practice.

Mr. PITKIN said, the amendment now under consideration was proposed

in consequence of a decision of the House, at the close of the

last session, that when the previous question was decided in the

affirmative, there could be no debate on the main question; the

amendment, if adopted, allows a member, who has not previously spoken,

to speak at least once on the main question, before he is called upon

to give his vote upon it.

The principle adopted by the majority, during the last days of the last

session, and now supported in the House, is this, that a majority, who

may happen to be present, at any time, have it in their power, by means

of a previous question, as it is called, to prevent all debate on every

question before the House, however important it may be; to seal up the

lips of every member, and compel him to vote upon the question without

an opportunity of expressing his sentiments upon it, or explaining the

reasons of his vote. This, Mr. Speaker, is a principle to which I never

_have_, and to which I never _will_ give my assent. What, sir, let me

ask, and where is the rule under which the majority claim to exercise

this enormous power--the power of imposing silence upon any member, on

this floor?

The rule, under which this power is claimed, is in the following

words: "The _previous question_ shall be in this form: Shall the main

question be now put?" It shall only be admitted when demanded by five

members; and, until it is decided, shall preclude all amendment and

further debate of the main question, and that "on a previous question

there shall be no debate." By a new construction, which a majority of

the House thought proper to give to this rule, at the close of the

last session, all debate may be prohibited on any question; for five

members alone can demand the previous question, and then, of course,

all debate must cease, until a decision be had on that question, and

if the previous question be decided in the affirmative, by this new

construction of the rule, there can be no debate or amendment of the

main question. Thus, sir, unless the amendment now proposed be adopted,

if a proposition for a declaration of war against Great Britain, or any

other nation, should be laid upon your table to-morrow, it will be in

the power of a majority of the House, and that majority may consist of

less than forty members, to impose silence upon every member of this

House; and we must be compelled to vote on a proposition so interesting

to the prosperity, happiness, and perhaps the final destiny of this

country, without the poor privilege (if we might choose so to do) of

raising our voices against it. But, sir, the opponents of the amendment

say, that the construction given to the rule the last session, was

in conformity with the universal practice of the House, from the

establishment of the Government, except in two or three instances.

I deny, sir, that this has been the practice, and I believe I may

venture to assert, without fear of contradiction, that no such power

has ever been exercised over the members of this House, since its

organization, until the last session. I have, sir, examined the

journals, with some attention, and have not been able to find a

solitary instance of the kind. On the contrary, many cases are to be

found when the previous question has been decided in the affirmative,

and that, immediately after the main question has not only been

_amended_ but has been _debated_. And here, sir, permit me to observe,

that the rule itself, with respect to the previous question, was

adopted the first session of the First Congress, and has ever since

remained precisely in the same form; and no construction was ever given

to it, so as to prevent debate on the main question, until the last

session.

Permit me to refer the House to the Journal of the first session of

the Third Congress, for the proof of what I have stated. During this

session, the difficulties then subsisting between this country and

Great Britain, became the subject of discussion, and a proposition for

prohibiting all intercourse with Great Britain, in case justice was not

done us, was then submitted to the House, and the previous question

was called upon it, and decided in the affirmative, after which the

subject was not only postponed, but, as appears by the Journal, was

both _amended_ and _debated_. It appears also from the Journal in

1795, that a proposition was amended after an affirmative decision of

the previous question. In the year 1798, when a resolution was before

the House for publishing the instructions to, and the despatches from

our Ministers to the French Republic, the previous question was moved

and determined in the affirmative; and it appears by the Journal that

immediately after such decision, on the same day, debate was had on the

main question.

But, sir, to come to our own times: on the 15th of December, 1807, a

construction was given to the rule, after mature deliberation, by a

large majority of the House, that the main question might be debated,

after an affirmative decision of the previous question. This was done

on an appeal from the decision of the Speaker, "that after the previous

question is called for and determined in the affirmative, it precludes

all debate on the main question." The House reversed the decision of

the Chair by 103 to 14. A similar decision took place on the 2d of

December, 1803, in the House--101 to 18. And, sir, I have been unable

to find a single decision of the House to the contrary, from the first

organization of the Government until the close of the last session.

Indeed, sir, the words of the rule itself, show that the construction,

which had so long prevailed, was the only true construction which

could be given to it. The words are, and until it (viz: the previous

question) is decided, "shall preclude all amendment and further debate

on the main question." By which it is evident, that amendment and

debate of the main question is only _precluded_, until the previous

question is decided, but that after such decision, it was not precluded.

The gentleman from New York, (Mr. GOLD,) and the gentleman from

Virginia, (Mr. NELSON,) have truly stated that the previous question

was taken from the rules of the British Parliament, and they have

likewise stated the reason of its introduction into that body. It was,

sir, to prevent debate in the House of Commons upon questions of a

_delicate nature_ with respect to high personages, &c. Yes, sir, it

was introduced there to enable the Ministry to prevent the _Commons_

from opening their lips on subjects relating to the Royal Family and

the great men of the realm. But, sir, we have gone further than the

Ministry and their majorities, despotic and tyrannical as they have

been, have ever dared to go in Parliament. For even there members

are now, and always have been, permitted to debate on the previous

question; but which members on this floor are not now permitted

to do. Mr. Speaker, the nature of our Government forbids that the

majority should have the power to prohibit all debate on questions

which may come before this House. We have not, as yet, I trust, any

high personages in this country about whom it would be indelicate or

improper for the members on this floor to speak; and let me ask what

subject of national importance can be proposed for adoption, on which

a member should be deprived of the privilege of speaking at least

once before he gives his vote? Nay, sir, let me ask gentlemen whether

this House has a right to compel me, or any other member, to vote on

any question, without giving me an opportunity of explaining my reason

for that vote. I deny, sir, that they have this right; as a member of

this body, I claim the privilege of delivering my sentiments, or what I

may consider the sentiments of my constituents, on any subject, before

I give my vote upon it. I claim it not, sir, for myself personally,

but I claim it in the capacity of a Representative of a free people,

sent here, not like a member of the French Council of Five Hundred,

for the purpose of voting merely, but for the purpose of deliberating

on subjects of high concern to their peace, their prosperity, their

happiness. For what, sir, are we assembled here under a constitution

the purest in the world? Is it not for the purpose of promoting "the

general welfare" of the nation which we represent? And how is this

to be done, except by a free communication of our sentiments to each

other, on the various plans which may be proposed for that object? The

peace, the honor, and interest of this country is confided to our care,

and while we are here deliberating on the best means of preserving

the one or securing and promoting the other, the constitution has

very wisely thrown around us a shield of complete indemnity--"for any

speech or debate in this House," we are "not to be questioned in any

other place." Will then the majority claim the right of depriving a

member of this privilege of speech, a privilege not only thus secured

to him by the constitution itself, but for the due exercise of which

he is not to be questioned elsewhere? But, sir, those who oppose the

amendment say that the construction is founded in necessity; that

individual members have abused the privilege of speech; that they have

heretofore, and probably will again, make long speeches merely for the

purpose of delay, and of embarrassing the proceedings of the House;

and that therefore the majority must have it in their power to stop

debate, whenever they think proper, and that this power will always be

exercised with a sound discretion.

I deny, sir, that any such necessity exists; it is a plea easily made,

but generally difficult and in this case impossible to be supported.

Why has it so happened that this necessity has never existed until

the last session of Congress? Was it then for the first time, that a

division of sentiment appeared on this floor? were parties never before

heard of in this country? Were not parties arrayed against each other

in 1796 on the subject of the British Treaty, and in 1798-'9, on the

question of a war with France? Were not the disputes in this House,

in those times, as long and as bitter as they have ever been since?

Those were times, which have been so often quoted in this House as

hard, and unconstitutional; times when the reign of terror prevailed,

when corrupt majorities, as has been often said on this floor, passed

alien and sedition laws. And, yet, sir, with all the political sins

which have been heaped upon those majorities, the sin of having taken

away the privilege of speech on this floor never has been, and as I

have proved from the journals, never can be laid to their charge. This

House, by the constitution, has the power to "determine the rules

of its proceedings;" and in making those rules, it has the right of

regulating, but not of entirely preventing debate.

It would indeed be a strange anomaly in politics, as well as in law,

that under a general power of making rules of proceeding, we should

make a rule to prevent all proceedings whatever. Gentlemen may as well

assume the power of preventing a member from voting, as they now do

that of preventing him from speaking. I am willing to agree, sir, that

the privilege of debate, on this floor, may have been and will again

be abused; that on particular subjects individual members have spoken

much longer than was necessary, and I may add, also, with much less

sense than a majority might have wished; and in some instances they may

have prolonged their speeches, merely for the purposes of delay. But,

sir, will you deprive a member of the right of speaking at all, because

he is unable to convey his ideas in few words, or because he may have

very few or no ideas to convey? Or because some may have spoken merely

to delay the proceedings of the House, will you make a general rule,

by which a member may be wholly deprived of the right of speaking? If

indeed, sir, evils do arise in consequence of the liberty of speech in

this house, if the business of the nation does not progress with as

much rapidity as in countries under the control of an individual; they

are evils which flow from the very nature of our Government, from that

freedom which we so highly prize, and from that very constitution which

we have sworn to support. So long as we are men we shall be imperfect,

we shall bring with us on this floor different views, different ideas

on political as well as on other subjects; and it would be strange

indeed if, on the various topics of national importance brought before

us for discussion, we should not at times come into strong collision

with each other.

The question on the amendment was determined in the negative--yeas 36,

nays 76.

Mr. STANFORD moved to amend the rules by adding to the end of the

paragraph relating to priority of business, the words "but no question

of consideration shall be required upon an original motion;" which was

also determined in the negative--yeas 30, nays 68.

On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS the said rules were amended by striking out

the word "five," in the paragraph prescribing the manner in which the

previous question shall be taken, and inserting the words "one-fifth of

the."

The question was then taken to concur in the said rules as amended, and

determined in the affirmative.[21]

FRIDAY, December 27.

Mr. NELSON presented a petition of sundry inhabitants of the Territory

of Louisiana, praying that the second grade of Territorial government

may be extended to the inhabitants of said Territory.

MONDAY, December 30.

_Burning of the Richmond Theatre._

Soon after the Journal was read,

Mr. DAWSON rose and addressed the chair. The lowness of his voice,

owing to recent indisposition prevented his being heard distinctly; but

his observations were nearly as follows:

Mr. Speaker--Virginia, my parent State, has long to mourn the loss of

some of her most valuable sons and estimable daughters, who on the

night of the 26th of the present month, met their untimely end.[22]

Among those who perished in the flames, in the metropolis of that

State, on that sad night, were the Chief Magistrate of the State, and

a gentleman[23] well known to many of us, and who, for years, held

an honorable station in this House. Some of the most valuable and

prominent characters in their professions, and others who promised ere

long to be ornaments to their country. With these, sir, was the rising

offspring[24] of one of our present most valuable members, and many

other amiable and virtuous women who adorned and improved society.

These, sir, with many others, have fallen victims to that unrelenting

element, notwithstanding the bold and generous efforts which were made

to save them.

Their ashes are now mingled with the dust, and their spirits have

ascended to Heaven.

It is to us a great national calamity.

I well know, that on such occasions grief, although keen, is

unavailing--that the decrees of fate are irrevocable and ought to be

submitted to with humility. In order, however, to testify the respect

and sorrow which this nation feels for the deceased, and to prove that

we sympathize with the afflicted, without further comment on this

painful subject, I beg leave to offer the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That the members of this House will wear crape

on the left arm for one month, in testimony of the respect

and sorrow which they feel for those unfortunate persons who

perished in the fire in the city of Richmond, in Virginia, on

the night of the 26th of the present month.

This resolution was unanimously adopted.

TUESDAY, January 7, 1812.

_Statute of Limitations._

On motion of Mr. GHOLSON, the House resolved itself into a committee,

on a report of the Committee of Claims on the subject of excepting

certain claims from the act of limitations. The report of the committee

being read, which concluded with a resolve that it is inexpedient to

open the act of limitations for the claims in question:

Mr. GHOLSON hoped the committee would not agree to this report.

Information had been received from the Treasury Department, stating

in a distinct and unequivocal manner, that all this description of

claims (which were all liquidated claims, such as indents of interest,

certificates, &c.,) might be allowed by the Government, without danger

of fraud or imposition; and, said Mr. G., if justice can be extended

to this description of claimants, without danger, why should it be

deferred? Only one solitary reason had been offered--that the persons

really entitled to these claims upon Government might not get the

money. He hoped this would not be sufficient to prevent Congress from

doing what was just on the occasion.

Mr. CLAY (the Speaker) hoped the committee would disagree to this

resolution. It appears that the officers of the Treasury are of

opinion that provision may be made for this description of claims

without that danger of fraud, which might possibly arise from a total

repeal of the statute of limitations; that their whole amount does not

exceed $300,000, and the probability is, that one-fifth will never

be applied for, should they be authorized to be paid. What, said Mr.

C, is this statute of limitations, which, whenever mentioned in this

House, seems to make everybody tremble? It is a general rule prescribed

by the Government for the direction of its accounting officers in

order to exclude unjust claims. What are statutes of limitation as

applicable to individual cases? A rule under which individuals claim

protection whenever they choose to do so, and when, from the lapse of

time, or loss of evidence, they would be injured, were they not to

take this advantage. But in these statutes of limitation there are

always exceptions in favor of cases of disability, infancy, coverture,

insanity, absence beyond sea, &c. But what is the course which an

individual would take who found himself protected by a statute of

limitation? He would examine the justice of the claim brought against

him; if the claim were just, if he had been deprived of no evidence

by the delay, if as able to pay it as if it had been presented at an

earlier day, he will not hesitate to discharge the claim, and scorn to

take advantage of the statute. And, said Mr. O., shall the Government

be less willing to discharge its just debts than an honest individual?

Shall we turn a deaf ear to the claims of individuals upon Government

because of this statute? He trusted not. The Committee of Claims ought

to examine the merit of every claim which comes before it, and if

it be just, decide in its favor. But what, said Mr. C, has been the

history of claims for four or five years past? When a solitary claim

was presented the House would say, we cannot legislate upon individual

cases. They occupy too much of our time. The claim is put aside. The

same individual some time after, appears in company with others. We

then say there are too many of these claims--their amount is too

large, and the Treasury too poor--that there are a great many other

claims equally well founded--that justice cannot be done to them all.

Sometimes there is a division between the two Houses. This House passes

a bill in favor of some particular claim--the other tells you they

will not legislate for particular cases; that if they act, they wish

to take up the subject generally. Mr. C. said it was his wish, both in

his public and private character, as far as possible, to do justice; he

therefore hoped the course proposed by the Chairman of the Committee of

Claims would be agreed to.