The Message and papers therein referred to were read.
_Erection of Louisiana into two Territories._
The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill erecting Louisiana into
two Territories, and providing for the temporary government thereof.
On motion to amend the fourth section of the bill, by inserting the
following words at the end thereof:
“The Legislative Council, a majority of the whole number
concurring therein, shall have power to elect, by ballot, a
delegate to Congress, who shall have a seat in the House of
Representatives, and shall have the right of debating, but not
of voting:”
It passed in the negative--yeas 12, nays 18, as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Breckenridge, Cocke, Ellery, Logan,
Nicholas, Potter, Israel Smith, John Smith, Samuel Smith,
Venable, and Worthington.
NAYS.--Messrs. Adams, Armstrong, Baldwin, Bradley, Brown,
Condit, Dayton, Franklin, Hillhouse, Jackson, Maclay, Olcott,
Pickering, Plumer, Stone, Tracy, Wells, and White.
On motion to strike out the fourth section of the bill, as follows:
“SEC. 4. The legislative powers shall be vested in the
Governor, and in twenty-four of the most fit and discreet
persons of the Territory, to be called the Legislative Council,
who shall be selected annually by the Governor from among those
holding real estate therein, and who shall have resided one
year at least in the said Territory, and hold no office of
profit under the Territory, or the United States. The Governor,
by and with the advice and consent of the said Legislative
Council, or of a majority of them, shall have power to alter,
modify, or repeal, the laws which may be in force at the
commencement of this act. Their legislative powers shall also
extend to all the rightful subjects of legislation; but no law
shall be valid which is inconsistent with the Constitution of
the United States, with the laws of Congress, or which shall
lay any person under restraint, burden, or disability, on
account of his religious opinions, declarations, or worship;
in all which he shall be free to maintain his own, and not
be burdened for those of another. The Governor shall publish
throughout the said Territory all the laws which shall be
made, and shall, from time to time, report the same to the
President of the United States, to be laid before Congress;
which, if disapproved of by Congress, shall thenceforth be of
no force. The Governor or Legislative Council shall have no
power over the primary disposal of the soil, nor to tax the
lands of the United States, nor to interfere with the claims
to land within the said Territory. The Governor shall convene,
prorogue, and dissolve the Legislative Council whenever he
may deem it expedient. It shall be his duty to obtain all the
information in his power in relation to the customs, habits,
and dispositions, of the inhabitants of the said Territory, and
communicate the same, from time to time, to the President of
the United States.”
It passed in the negative--yeas 12, nays 18, as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Cocke, Hillhouse, Olcott,
Plumer, Stone, Tracy, Venable, Wells, White, and Worthington.
NAYS.--Messrs. Armstrong, Baldwin, Bradley, Breckenridge,
Brown, Condit, Dayton, Ellery, Franklin, Jackson, Logan,
Maclay, Nicholas, Pickering, Potter, Israel Smith, John Smith,
and Samuel Smith.
TUESDAY, January 17.
_Erection of Louisiana into two Territories._
The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill erecting Louisiana into
two Territories, and providing for the temporary government thereof; and
on the question to amend the following clause of the fifth section:
“In all criminal prosecutions which are capital, the trial shall be by a
jury of twelve good and lawful men of the vicinage,” by striking out the
words “which are capital.”
It passed in the negative--yeas 11, nays 16, as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Cocke, Logan, Maclay, Plumer,
Stone, Tracy, Wells, White, and Worthington.
NAYS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bradley, Breckenridge, Condit, Dayton,
Ellery, Franklin, Jackson, Nicholas, Olcott, Pickering, Potter,
Israel Smith, John Smith, Samuel Smith, and Venable.
And after progress, on motion,
_Ordered_, That the consideration of this bill be further postponed.
After the adjournment of the High Court of Impeachments, the Senate
adjourned.
MONDAY, January 23.
The VICE PRESIDENT being absent on account of the ill state of his
health, the Senate proceeded to the election of a President _pro
tempore_, as the constitution provides; and the ballots having been
collected and counted, a majority thereof was for the Honorable JOHN
BROWN, who was accordingly elected President of the Senate _pro tempore_.
Mr. LOGAN presented the memorial of the American Convention for promoting
the abolition of slavery, and improving the condition of the African
race, signed Matthew Franklin, president, praying that such laws may be
enacted as shall prohibit the introduction of slaves into the Territory
of Louisiana, lately ceded to the United States; and the petition was
read.
TUESDAY, January 24.
_Erection of Louisiana into two Territories._
The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill erecting Louisiana into
two Territories, and providing for the temporary government thereof; and
on motion to strike out of the fourth section, from the word “annually,”
line fourth, to the words “United States,” line seventh, the words, “by
the Governor, from among those holding real estate therein, and who
shall have resided one year, at least, in the said Territory, and hold
no office of profit under the Territory or the United States,” for the
purpose of inserting the words following:
“The Governor shall lay off and divide the territory aforesaid
into twenty-four convenient districts, from each of which
districts there shall be chosen, annually, by the housekeepers
resident therein, two of the most fit and discreet persons, who
shall also be residents therein and landholders, and holding
no office of profit under the territorial government, or that
of the United States, and make a return of their names to
the Governor, out of which number the Governor shall select
twenty-four, to wit, one from each district. But if any of the
districts should refuse or neglect to make such appointment for
one month after the time appointed by the Governor for making
the said elections, he shall then have the power of selecting
from each district, so refusing or neglecting, one fit person
for the purposes aforesaid.”
On this, a division on the question was called for, and that it be taken
on striking out.
Whereupon, the yeas and nays being required by one-fifth of the Senators
present, on striking out, it passed in the negative--yeas 15, nays 14, as
follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Breckenridge, Cocke, Condit,
Hillhouse, Logan, Maclay, Plumer, John Smith, Stone, Tracy,
Venable, and Worthington.
NAYS.--Messrs. Armstrong, Baldwin, Bradley, Brown, Dayton,
Ellery, Franklin, Jackson, Nicholas, Olcott, Pickering, Potter,
Israel Smith, and Samuel Smith.
THURSDAY, January 26.
_Erection of Louisiana into two Territories._
The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill erecting Louisiana into
two Territories, and providing for the temporary government thereof;
and a motion was made to amend the bill, by inserting the following as
section eighth:
“That it shall not be lawful for any person or persons to
import or bring into the said Territory, from any port or place
without the limits of the United States, or to cause or procure
to be so imported or brought, or knowingly to aid or assist
in so importing or bringing any slave or slaves; and every
person so offending, and being thereof convicted, before any
court within the said Territory, having competent jurisdiction,
shall forfeit and pay, for each and every slave so imported or
brought, the sum of ---- dollars, one moiety for the use of the
United States, and the other moiety for the use of the person
who shall sue for the same; and every slave so imported or
brought shall thereupon become entitled to, and receive his or
her freedom.”
Whereupon, a motion was made to amend the amendment by striking out,
after the words “port or place,” the words “without the limits of the
United States,” and insert in lieu thereof, “for sale.”
A division of the question was called for, and that it be taken on
striking out; and, on the question, Shall the words be struck out? it
passed in the negative,--yeas 6, nays 22, as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bradley, Ellery, Jackson, Israel Smith,
and Samuel Smith.
NAYS.--Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Armstrong, Breckenridge, Brown,
Cocke, Condit, Franklin, Hillhouse, Logan, Maclay, Nicholas,
Olcott, Pickering, Plumer, Potter, John Smith, Stone, Venable,
Wells, White, and Worthington.
On motion to agree to the original amendment, it passed in the
affirmative--yeas 21, nays 6, as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Breckenridge, Brown, Cocke,
Condit, Franklin, Hillhouse, Logan, Maclay, Nicholas, Olcott,
Pickering, Plumer, Potter, John Smith, Stone, Venable, Wells,
White, and Worthington.
NAYS.--Messrs. Adams, Baldwin, Bradley, Ellery, Jackson, and
Israel Smith.
MONDAY, January 30.
_Erection of Louisiana into two Territories._
The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill erecting Louisiana into
two Territories, and providing for the temporary government thereof; and
a motion was made to amend the bill, by adding the following to the new
section, adopted as section eighth:
“_And be it further enacted_, That no male person brought into
said Territory of Louisiana, from any parts of the United
States or Territories thereof, or from any province or colony
of America belonging to any foreign Prince or State, after the
---- day of ---- next, ought or can be holden by law to serve
for more than the term of one year, any person as a servant,
slave, or apprentice, after he attains the age of twenty-one
years; nor female in like manner, after she attains the age of
eighteen years, unless they are bound by their own voluntary
act, after they arrive to such age, or bound by law for the
payment of debts, damages, fines, or costs: _Provided_, That
no person held to service or labor in either of the States or
Territories aforesaid, under the laws thereof, escaping into
said Territory of Louisiana, shall, by any thing contained
herein, he discharged from such service or labor, but shall be
delivered up in the manner prescribed by law.”
It passed in the negative--yeas 11, nays 17, as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, Ellery, Hillhouse, Logan,
Olcott, Plumer, Potter, Israel Smith, Wells, and Worthington.
NAYS.--Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin,
Breckenridge, Cocke, Condit, Dayton, Franklin, Jackson, Maclay,
Nicholas, Pickering, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Venable, and
White.
A motion was made to amend the bill, by adding to the end of section
eighth, last adopted, the following:
“That it shall not be lawful for any person or persons to
import or bring into the said Territory, from any port or place
within the limits of the United States, or cause to, or procure
to be so imported or brought, or knowingly to aid or assist in
so importing or bringing any slave or slaves, which shall have
been imported since the ---- day of ---- into any port or place
within the limits of the United States, from any port or place
without the limits of the United States; and every person so
offending and being thereof convicted, before any court within
the said Territory having competent jurisdiction, shall forfeit
and pay, for each and every such slave so imported or brought,
the sum of ---- dollars; one moiety for the use of the person
or persons who shall sue for the same. And no slave or slaves
shall directly or indirectly be introduced into said Territory,
except by a person or persons removing into said territory for
actual settlement, and being at the time of such removal _bona
fide_ owner of such slave or slaves; and every slave imported
or brought into the said Territory, contrary to the provisions
of this act, shall thereupon be entitled to and receive his or
her freedom.”
And a division was called for, and that the question be taken on the
first proposition, ending with the words, “sue for the same:” and, on the
question to agree to this first division of the amendment, it passed in
the affirmative--yeas 21, nays 7, as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Bradley, Breckenridge,
Brown, Cocke, Franklin, Hillhouse, Logan, Maclay, Nicholas,
Olcott, Pickering, Plumer, Potter, I. Smith, John Smith,
Venable, Wells, White, and Worthington.
NAYS.--Messrs. Adams, Baldwin, Condit, Dayton, Ellery, Jackson,
and Samuel Smith.
A motion was made to strike out all that follows the word “and,” in the
second division of the amendment, for the purpose of a further amendment;
and after debate, the consideration of the subject was postponed.
TUESDAY, January 31.
_Erection of Louisiana into two Territories._
The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill erecting Louisiana into
two Territories, and providing for the temporary government thereof;
and a motion was made to strike out the last division of the amendment
proposed yesterday, to wit:
“And no slave or slaves shall, directly or indirectly, be
introduced into said Territory except by a person or persons
removing into said Territory for actual settlement, and being,
at the time of such removal, _bona fide_ owner of such slave
or slaves; and every slave imported or brought into the said
Territory, contrary to the provisions of this act, shall,
thereupon, be entitled to, and receive, his or her freedom;”
and to insert the following:
“No slave shall be admitted into the said Territory from the
United States or their Territories, who shall not be the
property of some person _bona fide_ removing from the United
States into the said Territory, and making an actual settlement
therein, or who shall not have passed by descent or devise to
the person or persons claiming the same, and residing within
the said Territory, from some person or persons deceased in
some one of the United States or their Territories; and every
slave who shall be brought into said Territory, otherwise than
is hereby permitted, shall be forfeited, and may be recovered
by any person who shall sue for the same; and the person or
persons offending herein shall moreover forfeit and pay ----
dollars for every slave so brought in, to be recovered by
action of debt in any court having jurisdiction thereof; one
moiety to the use of the United States, and the other moiety to
the use of the person who shall sue for the same. And in any
action instituted for the recovery of the penalty aforesaid,
the person or persons sued may be held to special bail:”
And a division on the question was called for, and that it be taken on
striking out; and, on the question, Shall the words be stricken out? it
passed in the negative--yeas 13, nays 15, as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Breckenridge,
Cocke, Condit, Jackson, Nicholas, John Smith, Samuel Smith,
Stone, Venable, and Wells.
NAYS.--Messrs. Adams, Bradley, Brown, Ellery, Franklin,
Hillhouse, Logan, Maclay, Olcott, Pickering, Plumer, Potter,
Israel Smith, Worthington, and Wright.
WEDNESDAY, February 1.
_Erection of Louisiana into two Territories._
The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill erecting Louisiana into
two Territories, and providing for the temporary government thereof; and
on motion, to agree to the last division of the amendment proposed on the
30th ultimo, amended as follows:
“And no slave or slaves shall, directly or indirectly, be
introduced into the said Territory except by a citizen of
the United States, removing into said Territory for actual
settlement, and being, at the time of such removal, _bona fide_
owner of such slave or slaves; and every slave imported or
brought into the said Territory, contrary to the provisions of
this act, shall thereupon be entitled to, and receive, his or
her freedom:”
It passed in the affirmative--yeas 18, nays 11, as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Armstrong, Bradley, Breckenridge, Brown, Cocke, Condit,
Franklin, Hillhouse, Logan, Maclay, Olcott, Plumer, Potter, S. Smith,
Wells, White, Worthington, and Wright.
NAYS.--Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Baldwin, Dayton, Ellery, Jackson,
Nicholas, Pickering, J. Smith, Stone, and Venable.
THURSDAY, February 2.
_Erection of Louisiana into two Territories._
The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill erecting Louisiana
into two Territories, and making provision for the temporary government
thereof; and on motion to strike out the eighth section of the original
bill, amended as follows:
“SEC. 8. The residue of the province of Louisiana, ceded to
the United States, shall remain under the same name and form
of government as heretofore, save only that the executive
and judicial powers exercised by the former government of
the province shall now be transferred to a Governor, to be
appointed by the President of the United States: and that the
powers exercised by the commandant of a post or district shall
be hereafter vested in a civil officer, to be appointed by the
President in the recess of the Senate, but to be nominated
at the next meeting thereof for their advice and consent;
under the orders of which commandant the officers, troops,
and militia of his station shall be; who, in cases where the
military have been used, under the laws heretofore existing,
shall act by written orders and not in person; and the salary
of the said officers, respectively, shall not exceed the rate
of ---- dollars per annum. The President of the United States,
however, may unite the districts of two or more commandants of
posts into one, where their proximity or ease of intercourse
will permit without injury to the inhabitants thereof. The
Governor shall receive an annual salary of ---- dollars,
payable quarter-yearly at the Treasury of the United States:”
It passed in the affirmative--yeas 16, nays 9, as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Armstrong, Breckenridge, Cocke, Condit,
Franklin, Hillhouse, Maclay, Olcott, Pickering, Plumer, J. Smith, Stone,
Venable, and Worthington.
NAYS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Brown, Dayton, Ellery, Jackson, Nicholas, Potter,
S. Smith, and Wright.
TUESDAY, February 7.
_Erection of Louisiana into two Territories._
The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill erecting Louisiana
into two Territories, and making provision for the temporary government
thereof, and agreed to sundry amendments; and on motion to agree to a
further amendment, as follows:
“SEC. 7. All free male white persons, who are housekeepers,
and who shall have resided one year at least in the said
Territory, shall be qualified to serve as grand or petit jurors
in the courts of the said Territory; and they shall, until the
Legislature thereof shall otherwise direct, be selected in such
manner as the judges of the said courts, respectively, shall
prescribe, so as to be most conducive to an impartial trial,
and to be least burdensome to the inhabitants of the said
Territory:”
A motion was made to strike out from the beginning, to the words “and
they,” inclusive, for the purpose of inserting, “persons to serve as
grand and petit jurors in the courts of the said Territory.”
A division of the question was called for, and that it first be taken on
striking out; and on the question, Shall these words be struck out? it
was passed in the negative--yeas 10, nays 18, as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Adams, Bradley, Brown, Hillhouse, Logan, Olcott,
Pickering, Plumer, John Smith, and Stone.
NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Breckenridge, Baldwin,
Cocke, Condit, Ellery, Franklin, Jackson, Maclay, Nicholas,
Potter, Samuel Smith, Sumter, Venable, Wells, Worthington, and
Wright.
On the question to agree to the original motion, it passed in the
affirmative--yeas 21, nays 7, as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Breckenridge, Baldwin,
Cocke, Condit, Ellery, Franklin, Jackson, Logan, Maclay,
Nicholas, Potter, Samuel Smith, Stone, Sumter, Venable, Wells,
Worthington, and Wright.
NAYS.--Messrs. Adams, Bradley, Hillhouse, Olcott, Pickering,
Plumer, and John Smith.
FRIDAY, February 17.
_Erection of Louisiana into two Territories._
The Senate resumed the third reading of the bill erecting Louisiana
into two Territories, and making provision for the temporary government
thereof; and on motion to amend the bill, by striking out of section
10th, the words:
“And no slave or slaves shall, directly or indirectly, be
introduced into said Territory, except by a citizen of
the United States removing into said Territory for actual
settlement, and being at the time of such removal _bona fide_
owner of such slave or slaves:”
It passed in the negative--yeas 9, nays 19, as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Cocke, Dayton, Nicholas, John
Smith, Stone, Venable, and Wright.
NAYS.--Messrs. Armstrong, Bradley, Breckenridge, Brown, Condit,
Ellery, Franklin, Hillhouse, Jackson, Logan, Maclay, Olcott,
Plumer, Potter, Israel Smith, Samuel Smith, Sumter, Wells, and
White.
On motion to expunge from the same section, after the word “slaves,” the
words “and every slave imported or brought into said Territory, contrary
to the provisions of this act, shall thereupon be entitled to and receive
his or her freedom:”
It passed in the negative--yeas 11, nays 17, as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Breckenridge,
Cocke, Dayton, Jackson, Nicholas, Stone, Sumter, and Venable.
NAYS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, Condit, Ellery, Franklin,
Hillhouse, Logan, Maclay, Olcott, Plumer, Potter, Israel Smith,
John Smith, Samuel Smith, Wells, White, and Wright.
On motion to insert, in the same section, line 3d, after the word
“States,” the words “or from any State authorizing the importation of
slaves from any foreign port or place:”
It passed in the negative--yeas 8, nays 13, as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Brown, Hillhouse, Logan, Olcott, Plumer, John
Smith, White, and Wright.
NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Bradley,
Breckenridge, Cocke, Condit, Dayton, Ellery, Franklin, Jackson,
Maclay, Nicholas, Potter, Israel Smith, Samuel Smith, Sumter,
and Venable.
And having further amended the bill, and filled the blanks, it was agreed
that the question on its final passage be postponed until to-morrow.
SATURDAY, February 18.
_Erection of Louisiana into two Territories._
The Senate resumed the third reading of the bill erecting Louisiana
into two Territories, and making provision for the temporary government
thereof; and on the question to agree to the final passage of this bill,
it was determined in the affirmative--yeas 20, nays 5, as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Bradley,
Breckenridge, Brown, Cocke, Condit, Ellery, Franklin, Jackson,
Logan, Maclay, Nicholas, Potter, John Smith, Samuel Smith,
Sumter, Venable, and Wright.
NAYS.--Messrs. Adams, Hillhouse, Olcott, Plumer, and Stone.
So it was _Resolved_, That this bill pass, that it be engrossed, and that
the title thereof be “An act erecting Louisiana into two Territories, and
making provision for the temporary government thereof.”[6]
THURSDAY, February 23.
JOHN SMITH, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of New
York, in the room of De Witt Clinton, took his seat in the Senate,
and his credentials were read, and the oath prescribed by law was
administered to him by the President.
FRIDAY, February 24.
Agreeably to the resolution of yesterday, the Senate proceeded to elect
a doorkeeper, or assistant to James Mathers, Sergeant-at-Arms; and Henry
Timms was appointed.
SATURDAY, February 25.
JOHN ARMSTRONG, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of
New York, in the room of Theodorus Bailey, took his seat in the Senate,
and his credentials were read, and the oath prescribed by law was
administered to him by the President.
SATURDAY, March 10.
_Election of President of the Senate, pro tem._
The VICE PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceeded to the election
of a President _pro tempore_, as the constitution prescribes, and the
ballots having been collected and counted, a majority thereof was for the
Honorable JESSE FRANKLIN, who was accordingly elected President of the
Senate _pro tempore_.
_Ordered_, That the Secretary wait on the President of the United States,
and acquaint him that the Senate have, in the absence of the VICE
PRESIDENT, elected the honorable JESSE FRANKLIN President of the Senate
_pro tempore_.
_Ordered_, That the Secretary make a like communication to the House of
Representatives.
TUESDAY, March 13.
_Impeachment of Judge Chase._
A message from the House of Representatives, by Messrs. J. RANDOLPH and
EARLY, two of their members, was received, as follows:
“_Mr. President_: We are ordered, in the name of the House of
Representatives and of all the People of the United States, to impeach
Samuel Chase, one of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the
United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors; and to acquaint the
Senate that the House of Representatives will, in due time, exhibit
particular articles of impeachment against him, and make good the same.
“We are also ordered to demand that the Senate take order for the
appearance of the said Samuel Chase, to answer to the said impeachment.”
_Turnpike Road to the Ohio._
The Senate took into consideration the amendment reported by the
committee to the bill, entitled “An act authorizing the appointment of
Commissioners to explore the routes most eligible for opening certain
public roads;” and on the question to agree to the said amendment, as
follows:
Strike out, in the first section, after the word “proceed,” in the fourth
line, to the word “and,” in the seventh line, and insert, “to explore and
designate the most eligible route for a turnpike road, to lead from Fort
Cumberland, on the Potomac, to Wheeling, on the Ohio.”
It passed in the negative--yeas 13, nays 15, as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Breckenridge, Cocke, Dayton, Franklin,
Pickering, Israel Smith, John Smith of Ohio, Samuel Smith,
Stone, Sumter, Worthington, and Wright.
NAYS.--Messrs. Adams, Armstrong, Baldwin, Bradley, Ellery,
Hillhouse, Jackson, Logan, Maclay, Nicholas, Olcott, Plumer,
John Smith of New York, Venable, and White.
_Ordered_, That the bill be recommitted, and that Messrs. NICHOLAS,
WORTHINGTON, and DAYTON be the committee further to consider and report
thereon to the Senate.
WEDNESDAY, March 14.
_Impeachment of Judge Chase._
Mr. BALDWIN, from the committee to whom yesterday was referred the
message from the House of Representatives relative to the impeachment of
Samuel Chase, made report; which was read and adopted, as follows:
“Whereas, the House of Representatives, on the 13th day of the
present month, by two of their members, Messrs. John Randolph
and Early, at the bar of the Senate, impeached Samuel Chase,
one of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the
United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors, and acquainted
the Senate that the House of Representatives will, in due time,
exhibit particular articles of impeachment against him, and
make good the same;
“And likewise demanded that the Senate take order for the
appearance of the said Samuel Chase to answer to the said
impeachment. Therefore,
“_Resolved_, That the Senate will take proper order
thereon, of which due notice shall be given to the House of
Representatives.”
_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Senate notify the House
of this resolution.
MONDAY, March 19.
_Post Roads in States._
The Senate resumed the third reading of the bill, entitled “An act to
alter and establish certain post roads.”
On motion, to add the following after section third:
“_And be it further enacted_, That two post roads shall be laid
out, under the inspection of commissioners to be appointed by
the President of the United States, one to lead from Tellico
block-house, in the State of Tennessee, and the other from
Jackson court-house, in the State of Georgia, by routes the
most eligible, and as nearly direct as the nature of the ground
will admit, to New Orleans.”
It passed in the affirmative--yeas 17, nays 10, as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Breckenridge,
Cocke, Dayton, Franklin, Jackson, Maclay, Nicholas, John Smith
of Ohio, John Smith of New York, Samuel Smith, Stone, Sumter,
Venable, and Worthington.
NAYS.--Messrs. Adams, Bradley, Hillhouse, Logan, Olcott,
Pickering, Plumer, Israel Smith, Tracy, and White.
And, sundry other amendments having been agreed to,
_Resolved_, That this bill do pass as amended.
_Seat of Government._
The bill for the temporary removal of the seat of Government of the
United States to the city of Baltimore was taken up for its second
reading.
[The debate which took place on this occasion, had progressed to some
length before the reporter entered the House. Mr. WRIGHT was then on the
floor, and had made a motion to postpone the further consideration of the
bill until the first Monday in May.]
Mr. W. assigned as reasons for this motion, that it was not his intention
in presenting the bill, that it should pass; but that it had been offered
with the view of acting as a spur to the inhabitants of Washington to
effect a more complete accommodation of Congress. He trusted and believed
it would have that effect; and the operation of the postponement would,
by hanging the bill over their heads, most powerfully tend to produce the
desirable result of a concentration of the city, and an augmentation of
accommodation.
Mr. JACKSON followed, and, in terms of appropriate energy, condemned
the proposition of removal. He said he should not have believed, but for
the express declaration of the gentleman from Maryland, that he would
have brought forward a bill the sole object of which was to frighten the
women and children of Washington. So far from the measure having the
desired effect avowed by the gentleman, if it had any effect whatever, it
would be to shake all confidence in the Government, to repress the very
accommodation desired.
Mr. J. denied the moral right of Congress to remove the seat of
Government; it had been fixed under the constitution, and without its
violation could not be changed.
Such a measure would indicate a prostration of plighted faith; would
destroy all confidence in the Government, from one end of the continent
to the other.
Gentlemen, in favor of this measure, should know its cost. Already had
the present seat of Government, in its origination and consequences, cost
the nation the assumption of the State debts to the amount of twenty-one
millions, and between one and two millions for public accommodation.
Would gentlemen be willing not only to lose all that had been expended,
but likewise to indemnify the proprietors in the city, whose assessed
property amounted to two and a half millions of dollars, and the
proprietors of property in the whole District, the amount of which he was
unable to state?
Mr. J. concluded by saying, he should vote against the postponement,
under the expectation that the Senate would take up the bill and reject
it by a majority so great, that no similar proposition should ever again
be brought before them.
Mr. ANDERSON declared himself hostile to the postponement, as he was
in favor of the passage of the bill, under certain modifications. He
considered Congress possessed the constitutional power of altering
the seat of Government; and he believed, from an experience of the
inconveniences attending the existing seat, it was their duty to change
it. He allowed that, in such an event, an obligation would arise to
indemnify the proprietors for the losses they would thereby sustain.
This, however, he considered the lesser evil; as the sum required to
make an indemnity would be less than that required for the improvements
contemplated, and which are necessary to accommodate the Government.
Mr. COCKE declared himself decidedly inimical to the bill. The permanent
seat of Government was fixed under the constitution, and the power did
not belong to Congress to alter it.
Mr. ADAMS strenuously contended against the right of Congress to
remove the seat of Government. To do so, would be to prostrate the
national faith, and to shake the confidence of the nation in the
Government. He considered the proposed measure as inexpedient as it was
unconstitutional; as it tended directly to defeat the object of the mover.
Mr. S. SMITH said, he should vote in favor of the postponement, because
he believed, if the bill were not postponed, it would consume more time
than could, at this late period of the session, be spared, without a
serious neglect of important business before Congress. He expressed his
regret at its introduction.
The question was then taken on the motion of postponement, and decided in
the negative--yeas 3, nays 24, as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. I. Smith, S. Smith, and Wright.
NAYS.--Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Bradley,
Breckenridge, Cocke, Dayton, Franklin, Jackson, Logan, Maclay,
Nicholas, Olcott, Pickering, Plumer, John Smith of Ohio, John
Smith of New York, Stone, Sumter, Tracy, Venable, White, and
Worthington.
The bill was then read a second time.
Mr. DAYTON said, he had been instructed by the Legislature of New
Jersey, in case any prospect presented itself of a removal of the seat
of Government, to offer, in their name, the public buildings in Trenton
for their accommodation. He, therefore, gave notice that, in case the
bill went to a third reading, he should produce his instructions, and
move the substitution of Trenton in the room of Baltimore. At the same
time, he was free to declare his opinion of the impolicy of the proposed
measure. The provision of the constitution had arisen from an experience
of the necessity of establishing a permanent seat for the Government. To
avert the evils arising from a perpetual state of mutation, and from the
agitation of the public mind whenever it is discussed, the constitution
had wisely provided for the establishment of a permanent seat, vesting
in Congress exclusive legislation over it. While he declared this as his
creed, he begged it to be understood that there were, in his opinion,
some rightful grounds of removal. There were four such, two of which
were the following: if the place should be found a grave-yard for those
who resided in it, or if the inconveniences of conducting the machine of
government should be so great as to prevent the due transaction of the
public business. For the existence of these, no fault could be attached
to the District. If, therefore, a removal took place on their account,
Congress were bound to indemnify the proprietors. There were two other
grounds of removal, which would justify a removal without indemnity, as
they would be the effect of the misconduct of the inhabitants of the
District. These were, the evidence of a turbulent spirit, endangering
the safety of Congress, and of a determined resolution, arising from a
dissatisfaction which the Government or Congress expressed in favor of a
recession.
When he stated these grounds for removal, Mr. D. said, it was not from
any apprehension of their occurrence. On the contrary, he believed the
Government in perfect safety, and he was convinced, if any hostile arm
should be raised against it, the inhabitants of Columbia would be ready
to shed their blood in its defence.
Nothing could exceed his surprise at the motives expressed by the
gentleman from Maryland for bringing forward this measure. He should
have expected, if the gentleman wished to promote the interests of the
city, he would have imitated the example of the Athenians, who, in order
to make a particular fund devoted to theatrical exhibitions sacred, had
passed a law punishing with death any man who should move to divert it
from its allotted purpose; and that the honorable gentleman, instead of
bringing forward this bill, would have introduced one punishing with
death the man who should move a change of the seat of Government; so that
he who made the attempt might know that he did it with a halter around
his neck.
Mr. MACLAY moved to strike out the words “Baltimore,” and “Maryland,” in
the first section.
Motion agreed to--ayes 14, noes 10.
Mr. M. then observed, that he would concisely state the ideas which
influenced him on this subject. For the existing inconveniences of this
place, and the want of accommodation to which Congress was exposed, he
did not consider the inhabitants of Washington in the least to blame. The
causes from which these flowed, it was not in their power to control.
They arose, in a great measure, from the city being surrounded by seats
of trade, which naturally repressed its rise here. Those inconveniences
were, he believed, of a nature not to be cured by time, and, if there
was no constitutional obstacle, it would be the best policy to remove
immediately. He contended that no constitutional obstacle did exist. On
the contrary, he was of opinion that it was the duty of the Legislature,
in case the public good required it, to remove the seat of Government.
He believed that this place would not long remain the seat. The members
of the Government will become tired of remaining here, when they are
convinced that the inconveniences which they experience will not
promote the advantage even of their posterity. The single question then
is, whether less inconvenience will be produced by an immediate or a
protracted removal. He was clearly of opinion that the inconvenience of
removing, at this time, would be less than at a future day. He concluded
by saying, that he should not, himself, have brought forward this measure
at the present time. He would have waited for more conclusive proofs of
the insuperable inconveniences attending a residence at this place, when
opinions, at present variant, would be more united.
Mr. JACKSON said, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MACLAY) had picked
a hole in the bill, and what effect it would produce, he could not
pretend to say. If the word “Baltimore” had been suffered to remain, it
would have been rejected by a large majority.
Mr. J. then went at some length into a view of the unconstitutionality
of a removal, and the happy situation of Washington for the seat of the
Government. He said that he was far from being friendly, in the first
instance, to this measure, which might be called the hobby-horse of,
perhaps, the most illustrious man that ever lived. But, once adopted, it
became sacred in his eyes; and nothing short of an act of God, in the
shape of an earthquake, a plague, or some other fatal scourge, would
justify a removal; and, he trusted, that unless some such act occurred,
this would be the last time the measure was proposed.
The time would come, though he hoped to God neither his children nor
his children’s children would live to see it, when the population on
this side of the Mississippi would pass that river, and when the seat of
Government would be translated to its banks. Centuries would, however,
elapse before that period arrived.
Mr. ANDERSON said, there was no such word in the constitution as
“permanent,” applied to the seat of Government; nor did the constitution
prohibit the removal of it when the public interest should require it.
Believing that such would be the experience of the inconveniences of the
place, that Congress would certainly remove within five years, he was for
taking that step now. The ill accommodation of the place was manifest to
every man; nor did he believe that time would cure the evil. Such losses,
however, as should be sustained by the proprietors, he was ready to
remunerate. This was the least expensive course which could be pursued,
as to make the necessary improvements in this place will require at least
the annual sum of fifty thousand dollars for twenty years to come, and at
least thirty thousand dollars a year to keep the public buildings in a
state of repair. In addition to this immense expense was to be added, the
great loss of time which arose from the inconvenient arrangements of the
place, and the consequent expenditure of public money. For these reasons,
Mr. A. said, he should give a decided vote in favor of the bill.
Mr. JACKSON remarked, that the gentleman from Tennessee ought, in forming
his opinion of the constitutionality of removing the seat of Government,
to attend as well to the laws passed by Congress on the subject, as
to the provisions of the constitution itself. [Mr. J. here read the
article of the constitution on the subject.] He said that, according
to the rigid construction of this provision, it excluded altogether a
_temporary_ seat, after this part of the constitution was carried into
effect. Under this constitutional provision, Congress passed an act on
the 6th of July, 1790, not more than a year and a half after the first
meeting of the Legislature, and when many of the members of that body
had been members of the convention, and might, therefore, be presumed to
be the best acquainted with the true meaning of the constitution. This
act fixed a temporary and a permanent seat of Government. [Mr. J. read
it.] He then asked, can any thing be more clear and explicit? Does it not
show, in terms of unequivocal meaning, that it was the opinion of the men
best qualified to decide, that the seat of Government, once fixed under
the provision of the constitution, must be permanent? It was not then
imagined that the Government ought to be travelling about from post to
pillar, according to the prevalence of this or that party or faction. All
the ideas of that day were hostile to this wheelbarrow kind of Government.
Mr. WRIGHT contended that, while the constitution had sacredly and
irrevocably fixed the permanent seat of Government in this place,
Congress might make some other place the temporary seat.
Mr. ANDERSON said, that all that the law passed by Congress proved was,
that Congress, and not the constitution, had declared this place the
permanent seat. This law, like other laws, was subject to repeal.
Mr. ADAMS wished, on this subject, to be explicit. He asked what was the
meaning of the article of the constitution on this point, and all the
laws of Congress passed under it? From the formation of the constitution
until the removal of the Government to this place, but one sentiment
had existed, which was, that the seat of the Government once fixed
under the constitution, became the permanent seat. As to the idea of
the gentleman from Maryland, who says this is the permanent seat while
Congress are going from one place to another, he could not understand it.
The constitution says, the place fixed on by Congress, on the cession
of jurisdiction by the States, shall be the seat of Government. The
idea of a temporary seat implies, necessarily, two seats of Government.
But the expression in the constitution is “seat,” and that implies only
one seat. The reason of this provision of the constitution is obvious.
As the gentleman from Georgia has very justly observed, the Government
had been driven from post to pillar. The question, what place should be
the seat of Government, had never presented itself without enkindling
violent feelings; and it was supposed that the question would continue to
distract our public councils, until some permanent seat of Government was
fixed. To carry this into effect, the constitution interposed, and said,
ten miles square shall be given to Congress, where their power shall
be sovereign, and that shall be the seat of Government. Why give this
exclusive legislation, if their residence is not to be permanent? Would
it not be the acme of the ridiculous, for Congress to go to Philadelphia,
and still continue to exercise exclusive legislation here? Let us now
turn to the acts of Congress, and the proceedings had under them. [Mr.
A. here read the act of Congress fixing the seat of Government.] It will
appear that it was the intention of Congress that this should be the
permanent seat of the Government, from the public buildings erected. Thus
much as to the understanding of the Government. Now, as to the meaning
of Maryland and Virginia, who gave up the territory, and also gave
considerable sums of money for its improvement. Could this have possibly
been done under the contemplation that Congress would come here, and,
after staying three or four years, run off to different quarters of the
Union?
Now then, after this uniform opinion, entertained by Congress, by the
States of Maryland and Virginia, and by every man who has expressed an
opinion on the subject, until within a few years past, are we to be told
that it is possible to give a different construction to the constitution?
If any thing can fix a meaning to words, every thing which has occurred
to this day, unites to decide this the permanent seat of the Government.
These, said Mr. A., are my ideas. On the ground of expediency, if it were
admitted as applicable to the present question, I would not undertake
to say whether this is the most proper place for the residence of the
Government. Nor will I say that Congress could not, consistently, remove
in consequence of an act of God; that implies force, to which all human
institutions must give way. But, say gentlemen, if we remove, we must
indemnify the proprietors. But why indemnify if the constitution does not
make this the permanent seat of Government, as it has been understood to
be by every body until this day? Where is the propriety of indemnifying
the holders of property here, if this is not the permanent seat, more
than proprietors in Philadelphia or New York, where Congress formerly
met? This very argument, urged by the advocates of the bill, shows that
the constitution has made this the permanent seat. As to the idea of
some gentlemen, of granting millions for an indemnity, the thing is
impossible; it cannot be done; the people will not suffer it.
Mr. DAYTON replied to some of the remarks made in the course of
the debate, principally for the purpose of explaining his previous
observations.
When the question was taken, on ordering the bill to a third reading, and
passed in the negative--yeas 9, nays 19, as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Breckenridge, Bradley,
Maclay, Plumer, Stone, Tracy, and Worthington.
NAYS.--Messrs. Adams, Baldwin, Cocke, Dayton, Franklin,
Hillhouse, Jackson, Logan, Nicholas, Olcott, Pickering, I.
Smith, S. Smith, J. Smith of Ohio, J. Smith of New York,
Sumter, Venable, White, and Wright.
So the bill was lost.
TUESDAY, March 20.
_Wreck and Capture of the Frigate Philadelphia._
The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:
_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States_:
I communicate to Congress a letter from Captain Bainbridge,
commander of the Philadelphia frigate, informing us of the
wreck of that vessel on the coast of Tripoli, and that himself,
his officers, and men, had fallen into the hands of the
Tripolitans. This accident renders it expedient to increase
our force and enlarge our expenses in the Mediterranean
beyond what the last appropriation contemplated. I recommend,
therefore, to the consideration of Congress, such an addition
to that appropriation as they may think the exigency requires.