The report having been read, was, on motion of Mr. PORTER ordered to
lie on the table.
FRIDAY, March 20.
_Admission of Louisiana._
The bill for the admission of the State of Louisiana into the Union,
and to extend the laws of the United States thereto, was read a third
time, and passed, without debate--yeas 79, nays 23, as follows:
YEAS.--William Anderson, Stevenson Archer, Ezekiel Bacon, David
Bard, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, William Blackledge,
Adam Boyd, James Breckenridge, Robert Brown, William A.
Burwell, William Butler, Matthew Clay, Lewis Condict, William
Crawford, Roger Davis, John Dawson, Samuel Dinsmoor, William
Findlay, James Fisk, Meshack Franklin, Thomas Gholson, Thomas
R. Gold, Peterson Goodwin, Edwin Gray, Isaiah L. Green, Felix
Grundy, Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, John A. Harper, Aylett Hawes,
Jacob Hufty, John M. Hyneman, Richard M. Johnson, Philip B.
Key, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Peter Little, William
Lowndes, Aaron Lyle, William McCoy, Samuel McKee, Alexander
McKim, Arunah Metcalf, Samuel L. Mitchill, Jeremiah Morrow,
Hugh Nelson, Anthony New, Thomas Newbold, Thomas Newton,
Stephen Ormsby, Israel Pickens, James Pleasants, jr., Benjamin
Pond, William M. Richardson, Henry M. Ridgely, Samuel Ringgold,
John Rhea, John Roane, William Rodman, Ebenezer Sage, Ebenezer
Seaver, Samuel Shaw, Daniel Sheffey, John Smilie, George Smith,
John Smith, Richard Stanford, Samuel Taggart, John Taliaferro,
Uri Tracy, George M. Troup, Charles Turner, junior, Pierre Van
Cortlandt, junior, Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, Thomas
Wilson, Robert Wright, and Richard Wynn.
NAYS.--Harmanus Bleecker, Epaphroditus Champion, Martin
Chittenden, William Ely, James Emott, Asa Fitch, Richard
Jackson, junior, Lyman Law, Joseph Lewis, junior, Robert Le Roy
Livingston, James Milnor, Jonathan O. Mosely, Joseph Pearson,
Timothy Pitkin, junior, Josiah Quincy, William Reed, Thomas
Sammons, Adam Seybert, Philip Stuart, Lewis B. Sturges,
Benjamin Tallmadge, Laban Wheaton, and Leonard White.
TUESDAY, March 24.
_Limitation of Claims on the Government._
The House proceeded to consider the report of the Committee of the
Whole on the following resolution:
"_Resolved_, That it is expedient to make provision by law
for the payment of the following descriptions of claims,
to wit:--1. Loan office certificates; 2. Indents of
interest on public debt; 3. Final settlement certificates;
4. Commissioners' certificates; 5. Army certificates; 6.
Credits given in lieu of army certificates cancelled; 7.
Credits for the pay of the army for which no certificates
were issued; 8. Invalid pensions; 9. Lost or destroyed
certificates--notwithstanding any statute of limitation to
the contrary, under such restrictions as shall insure payment
only to the original claimant, his heirs, executors, or
administrators."
The resolution was agreed to, and referred to the Committee of Claims
to bring in a bill pursuant thereto.
_French Spoliations._
Mr. PITKIN said that he held in his hand a statement and
representation, on oath, of Captain Samuel Chew, of New Haven, in
the State of Connecticut, which he would beg leave to present to the
House. Captain Chew states, that he was supercargo on board the brig
Thames, and on the 19th of January, 1812, sailed from St. Ubes, bound
to New Haven, with a cargo of salt and fruit; that on the 2d of July
following, the brig was taken possession of by a French squadron,
consisting of two frigates of forty-four guns each, and a sloop of war
of sixteen guns, under the command of Commodore Forretin, and that he
was told by the officer boarding him, that the brig would be burnt the
next morning. That the officers of the squadron informed him that they
sailed from Nantes on the 8th of January. That on board the French
vessels were the crews of the ship Asia, from Philadelphia, bound to
Lisbon, and of the brig Gershom, of Duxbury, last from Boston, bound
to Oporto, both laden with corn and flour. That the officers of the
squadron informed him, that, on the 17th and 23d of January, they had
captured and burnt the ship Asia and brig Gershom. He also states that
he inquired of the Commodore the reasons of burning them, and was
informed by him that he had orders from the Government to burn all
American vessels sailing to or from an enemy's port. That, on the 3d of
February, the Commodore put on board the Thames the captains and crews
of the vessels burnt, being thirty-seven in number, to be landed in the
first port, and that, on the 16th day of July, he landed them at St.
Bartholomews. Captain Chew states likewise, that when the Commodore
released the Thames, he gave him a document or writing, subscribed with
his own hand, and written in the French language, and which is annexed
to his statement. This document contains a list of names of the men
composing the crews of the vessels captured; it also states that they
were captured on voyages from Philadelphia and Boston to Lisbon, laden
with grain and flour, by the division under the command of Monsieur
Forretin, Member of the Legion of Honor, and that they were captured
in pursuance of the instructions of the Minister of Marine and the
Colonies.
Mr. P. said that this statement, with the original document annexed,
in the French language, and under the hand of the commodore of
the squadron, had been forwarded here, for the information of the
Government; that the character of Captain Chew was such as to entitle
him to full credit wherever he was known. Believing, therefore, as he
did, in the truth of these statements, and that the document annexed is
genuine, he thought it his duty to present it to the House for their
information. The House, after hearing them read, can dispose of them
by referring them to the Secretary of State, or otherwise, as they may
think proper.
The papers presented by Mr. PITKIN having been read,
Mr. MCKIM moved that they lie on the table until time should be
afforded for the arrival of those persons in the United States whose
testimony might confirm the facts stated.
Mr. PITKIN also wished them to lie on the table, that they might
be examined by gentlemen, and receive that attention to which the
importance of their contents might entitle them.
The papers were accordingly ordered to lie on the table.
THURSDAY, April 2.
_Virginia Military Bounty Land._
Mr. NELSON, from the committee to whom the subject had been referred,
made a report, concluding with the following resolution:
_Resolved_, That provision should be made for securing to both
officers and soldiers of the Revolutionary army of Virginia
on that establishment, in the land or sea service of the said
State, the county lands which were promised to them, either by
law or resolution of the said Commonwealth, out of the lands
not otherwise appropriated, and lying on the northwest of the
river Ohio, within the Virginia cession, to be of good quality,
according to the true intent and meaning of the promises made
on the part of Virginia; and that if a sufficiency of good
land, within the meaning aforesaid, cannot there be found, that
these bounties shall be satisfied out of any other public lands
of the United States not otherwise appropriated.
The report was referred to a Committee of the Whole.
MONDAY, April 6.
_Publication of Secret Proceedings._
Mr. GRUNDY, from a committee which had been appointed while the House
was sitting with closed doors, made the following report:
The committee, to whom was referred the resolution directing
an inquiry to be made, whether there has been any, and if any,
what violation of the secrecy imposed by this House, during
the present session, as to certain of its proceedings, have,
according to order, proceeded in said inquiry, and beg leave to
state, that, under the authority with which they were invested
by the House, they have caused to come before them four
witnesses, whose testimony on oath is as follows, to wit:
Charles Prentiss states that he furnished to the editors of
the "Spirit of Seventy-six," a paper printed in Georgetown,
the paragraph giving an account of the proceedings of the
House of Representatives, while sitting with closed doors,
on the subject of the embargo; and he further says, that he
did not receive the information, or any part thereof, which
enabled him to write said paragraph, from any member of
Congress or officer of the House. Upon being interrogated,
he states that he received the whole of his information from
Nathaniel Rounsavell, one of the editors of the Alexandria
Herald; that he received it on Wednesday late at night, and he
asked of Mr. Rounsavell whether the injunction of secrecy had
been removed. Rounsavell replied that he had not inquired. On
Thursday morning the witness spoke to some of the members on
the subject, and from their conduct he was satisfied that the
injunction of secrecy had not been removed; notwithstanding
which, the witness sent the paragraph above alluded to, to the
editors of the Spirit of Seventy-Six on Thursday.
John M. Carter and James B. Carter, editors of the "Spirit of
Seventy-Six," state that they received from Mr. Prentiss, in
writing, the statement which appeared in their paper; that
they received no information on the subject from any member or
officer of the House.
Nathaniel Rounsavell, upon being interrogated, says he composed
the paragraph which appeared in the Alexandria Herald of Friday
last, containing a statement of the secret proceedings of the
House of Representatives upon the subject of the embargo; that
he on Wednesday night, after the adjournment of the House,
derived a part of the information, on which he was enabled to
give the detailed account, from the conversation of members of
the House with whom he accidentally fell in company; that he
was acquainted with the members, and they with him; they knew
he was present; he partook in some degree in the conversation.
Question by the committee--From the conversation of what
members did you collect the information of which you have
spoken?
The witness refused to answer the interrogatory.
Question 2--At what place was the conversation held?
Witness refused to answer.
Question 3--Have you seen the members alluded to, or any
of them, since you first appeared before this committee on
Saturday last?
Witness likewise refused to answer this interrogatory.
Whereupon it is ordered by the committee that the
Sergeant-at-Arms detain said Rounsavell in his custody until
the pleasure of the House of Representatives relative to the
conduct of said witness can be ascertained.
After the report was read, Mr. GRUNDY offered the following resolution
for consideration:
"_Resolved_, That the Sergeant-at-Arms be directed to bring
the said Nathaniel Rounsavell to the bar of the House, there
to answer such questions as may be propounded to him by the
Speaker, under the direction of the House."
Much desultory discussion took place as to the mode of proceeding in
this case, the form of the proposed order, its conformity to precedent,
&c., in which Messrs. PITKIN, LACOCK, SHEFFEY, TROUP, TALLMADGE,
GRUNDY, FISK, and WIDGERY, took part. This discussion resulted in the
proposition of a preamble to the motion, by Mr. GRUNDY, reciting the
grounds of the order.
The motion was then agreed to.
On motion of Mr. GRUNDY, the select committee were then discharged from
the further consideration of the subject.
On motion of Mr. GRUNDY, it was resolved that several interrogatories
contained in a paper which he offered to the House, should be proposed
to the witness.
Mr. BURWELL suggested the propriety of allowing this person counsel;
but withdrew the suggestion, on its being remarked, that this person
appeared before the House in the character of a witness, not a
criminal, and that it was not usual for a witness to appear by counsel.
Mr. Rounsavell was then brought to the bar of the House by the
Sergeant-at-Arms.
After some hesitation on the part of the witness to take the oath
required, he was sworn, in the usual form of oath administered to
witnesses.
The first interrogatory agreed to by the House was put to him by the
Speaker, in the following words: "From the conversation of what members
did you collect the information of which you have spoken in your
deposition before the committee?"
To this question the witness answered in these words: "I refused
to answer that question when before the committee, and I continue
steadfast in that refusal."
The witness was ordered to withdraw, and the Speaker reported his
answer to the House; having deemed it unnecessary, on his refusal to
answer the first, to propound any other of the questions.
Mr. SEYBERT, after stating his indisposition to encroach on the rights
of the citizen, which, however, must yield to the superior rights
of the nation, which required them to act in this case, suggested
the propriety of recommitting this person to the custody of the
Sergeant-at-Arms until further order should be taken by the House, and
preventing him in the mean time from communicating with those from
whose conversation he might have derived his information. With this
view he offered the following resolution:
_Resolved_, That Nathaniel Rounsavell be committed to the
custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms until further order, and
that in the mean time he be precluded from all intercourse
or conversation with any person or persons other than the
Sergeant-at-Arms.
The question on striking out so much of the motion as precludes the
witness from conversation with any one unless in the presence and
hearing of the Sergeant-at-Arms, was decided as follows--yeas 62; nays
22.
The question was then stated on the motion as just amended, viz:
"That Nathaniel Rounsavell be committed to the custody of the
Sergeant-at-Arms until the further orders of the House."
The question was taken on the resolution, and it passed by a very large
majority.
TUESDAY, April 7.
_Publication of Secret Proceedings._
A letter was laid before the House from Nathaniel Rounsavell, the
witness now in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. The letter
disclaims any intention to have violated the respect due to the House
by the publication which he had made; it declares that the conversation
which the writer had was inadvertent, as he believes, on the part of
the members who partook in it, and entirely without any intention on
their part, as he believes, to violate the order of the House; that
he had been refused by the committee an opportunity to explain his
testimony; and that his only motive for refusing to answer was, that if
he were to answer the question as propounded to him, it might have the
effect of criminating those who had committed no crime, and from whose
conversation, but for previous and subsequent knowledge, he could not
have ascertained that an embargo had been the subject of discussion, &c.
Mr. SMILIE said it was in his power, he believed, to make a statement
to the House which would procure a discharge of this man. Had the
original motion succeeded yesterday, he should then have risen and
stated what he was now about to say, because he had been determined
that the man should not suffer. I do believe, said Mr. S., that
the substance of the information which Mr. Rounsavell published in
his paper, he did derive from conversation of myself with others;
whether he got other particulars from other members, I know not. The
circumstance was this: The night the embargo law passed this House,
I met with a member who was absent, and ignorant of what had passed.
Upon meeting with this gentleman he inquired of me what had been done?
I briefly told him, and I have reason to believe Mr. Rounsavell was in
such a situation as to hear what I said. Having made this statement,
I will make a few other remarks. I had a seat in Congress when each
of the former embargoes under this constitution were laid. The mode
in which they came before the House was in those cases such as to
enable us to keep them secret. In every instance except the present,
the first intimation relative to the embargo came from the President
to the House in a confidential shape, and the doors were immediately
closed. What was the fact in this case? The measure originated in the
Committee of Foreign Relations. It was proposed there that it should
be kept secret; when a member of the committee rose and declared he
would not be bound--he would not keep it a secret. This destroyed
at once the efficacy of any such determination on the part of the
committee; we might as well have discussed the subject with open doors
as with closed doors, had it not been from respect to the Message of
the President recommending a different course. What was published in
the _Herald_, therefore, was of no importance; when the subject of
discussion was known to all, it was of very little consequence to know
who was chairman, and who spoke, and how many voted. If the House
must have a victim, and it appears to me some gentlemen would be very
willing to have one, I offer myself in the room of this man; he has
suffered too much already. The _quo animo_ constitutes the essence
of every crime; it cannot then be supposed, after the warm support I
have given to this measure, that I could have any unfriendly intention
towards it. I well know the powers of this House; and I know the limits
of those powers. The House will take such steps as they think proper.
I have taken my ground; I am prepared for the event. He would further
observe that in relation to the suspicion of members having influenced
Rounsavell to refuse to answer, that he had not seen him from the time
of the conversation he had stated until after his appearing before the
committee and refusing to answer.
Mr. Smilie was asked to name the member of the Committee of Foreign
Relations, to whom he had just alluded, and replied that his name was
no secret--it was Mr. Randolph.
Mr. CALHOUN said that the member of the Committee of Foreign Relations,
(Mr. RANDOLPH,) to whom allusion had been made, not being in his seat,
he would state how the fact just stated had occurred in the committee.
That gentleman stated (said Mr. C.) that he had doubts of the power of
the committee to compel him to secrecy; but the gentleman also stated
that he had just returned from Baltimore, where he found the British
Consul possessed the knowledge of an intended embargo, and that a great
commercial house was acting on it, and therefore he did not feel it
his duty to keep it secret. I, sir, was the one who made the motion
that our proceeding should be confidential. After the statement made
by the gentleman from Virginia, that he should feel it his duty to
proclaim the fact, combined with other circumstances, I did not feel so
strongly the obligation, and the motion for secrecy was waived. Under
the impression that it was no longer a duty to confine the knowledge
of this transaction to the bosom of the committee, I mentioned it to
the gentleman from Boston and other commercial cities, that they might
be aware of the transaction; I did it from a sense of duty, that they
might be as well informed on this head as other members of the House.
Mr. QUINCY rose to state the circumstances as they had occurred on
the day alluded to, and he had it in his power to do so, because,
anticipating that some difficulty might arise, and wishing to relieve
himself from blame, he had on the morning after the occurrence,
committed it to paper, as follows:
"MARCH 31, 1812.
"MEMORANDUM.--Mr. Calhoun, of South Carolina, a member of the
committee of Foreign Relations, this day informed me that 'the
Committee of Foreign Relations had come to a determination that
an embargo should be proposed to Congress for its adoption
to-morrow.' I asked him if I was at liberty to mention this as
a fact from him. He replied that 'I was at liberty.' He said
'that the gentlemen of the committee were generally of opinion
that the subject should be kept secret. But Mr. Randolph,[28]
one of the committee, had declared that he would not consider
himself bound to any such obligation. The committee, therefore,
had thought that it was but fair to give an equal chance to
all the gentlemen in Congress. And that he informed me of the
fact, as a member from a commercial town, in order that I might
communicate it to my mercantile friends.'
"I soon after went to him and asked him, 'whether the embargo
would come as an Executive recommendation.' He replied, 'I do
not deem myself authorized to answer that question.'
"I find the same information has been communicated by other
members of the committee to various members of Congress.
"JOSIAH QUINCY."
Mr. SEYBERT said, after what had been stated by his colleague, it was
very evident that the information which had found its way to the public
had been inadvertently communicated by a member; and he hoped the
House was satisfied with the result. When he made the original motion,
yesterday, for detaining this person, Mr. S. said he was desirous of a
modification of it; he had not contemplated so rigorous a confinement
as it would perhaps have comprehended. He was now perfectly satisfied,
and considered it his duty to move that the witness be discharged from
the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Mr. ROBERTS was opposed to discharging the witness until he had
explained a sentence of his letter to the Speaker, in which he had
asserted that he was not permitted to explain his testimony. The fact
was, that the committee had acted with the greatest patience and
liberality towards the witness, and extended to him every indulgence in
their power, and his assertion was therefore unwarranted.
Mr. MACON, in the absence of Mr. RANDOLPH, thought proper to remark
that he had heard of the embargo in Baltimore, and the report had
brought him here. It appeared, then, it was no secret at all. This was
the first instance, indeed, Mr. M. said, in this Government in which a
committee had undertaken to make a secret for itself. No such power of
a committee was recognized by the House. Being confidentially referred
by the House to a committee, they must in that case act on it in the
same manner; otherwise there was, perhaps, no obligation. He did not
believe there was a man in the nation who would be farther from doing a
dishonorable act than the gentleman from Virginia, whose name had been
called in question.
Mr. SEYBERT said, after what had passed, he presumed every one was
satisfied there was no occasion to pursue the inquiry, and as the
witness had submitted to the authority of the House, he moved the
following resolution:
"_Resolved_, That Nathaniel Rounsavell, now in the custody of
the Sergeant-at-Arms of this House, for a contempt of its
authority in not answering the questions propounded to him by
order of the House, having submitted to answer, and purged
himself from the contempt, be discharged from said confinement."
The question was then taken on Mr. SEYBERT'S motion, and carried
without opposition; and the Sergeant-at-Arms was ordered to discharge
the witnesses from confinement; and then, on motion, the House
adjourned until to-morrow.
THURSDAY, April 9.
_Importation of British Goods._
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill
to authorize the importation of goods, wares, and merchandise, under
certain circumstances, from Great Britain, her colonies or dependencies.
_Removal of Federal Judges on Address of
Congress._