The SECRETARY OF STATE.
On Saturday night the 25th instant, the Committee of Ways and Means
received an answer to this letter, which I will deliver to the Clerk, in
order that it may go to the new committee, to which this business has
been referred. It is unnecessary for me to add any thing more. The House
must be sensible that while the Committee of Ways and Means were in the
dark they could not proceed in the discharge of the duties assigned them,
and that after receiving information from the Secretary of State so late
in the day, it was impossible for them to have made a report by this
day; and if I am not mistaken, the motion to discharge the Committee of
Ways and Means was made before the answer of the Secretary of State was
received.
The Clerk accordingly read the letter of the Secretary of State, as
follows:
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, _Jan. 25, 1806_.
The Secretary of State presents his respects to Mr. Randolph,
and has the honor to transmit him a copy of a report this
day made to the President of the United States, respecting
interpolations by foreign powers, of new and injurious
principles in the law of nations. This report, which the
communications made by the President to Congress, particularly
that of the 17th instant, will, it is hoped, afford the
information requested, for the Committee of Ways and Means, by
Mr. Randolph’s letter of the 11th ultimo.
When, on motion of Mr. J. RANDOLPH, the papers laid by him on the table
were referred to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.
FRIDAY, January 31.
Another member, to wit, WILLIAM BLACKLEDGE, from North Carolina,
appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in
the House.
_Bridge across the Potomac._
The House then again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
resolution in favor of authorizing the erection of a bridge across the
Potomac.
Mr. LEWIS.--Mr. Chairman: There is but one point to which, in my
opinion, the attention of this committee ought to be directed: Will
the erection of the contemplated bridge injure the navigation of the
river Potomac? This is the only question applicable to the subject,
and the only pivot upon which it ought to turn. Let us, Mr. Chairman,
examine the objections and reasoning of the anti-memorialists upon this
point. They say in their memorial that “they consider their natural and
political rights will be infringed by the adoption of this measure, as
the navigation of the river will be injured and obstructed thereby;
that from the meeting of the stream and tide-water, at the place where
the bridge is contemplated, a tendency will be produced in the impeded
stream-water to deposit the earthy particles with which it is charged in
time of freshes, and by which they apprehend the present, entire, main
and deep channel may be divided into many small and narrow passages, to
the great injury of the navigation.” This, sir, is the bare assertion
of the counter-memorialists; they have not deigned to state one single
fact, or adduce the smallest proof in support of a result which they
have taken for granted will be inevitable. Although the proof rests
upon the opponents to this measure, and not upon its friends, yet I am
willing and prepared to prove, by the best evidence the nature of the
case will admit, that the navigation of the Potomac, instead of being
injured, will be greatly benefited by the erection of this bridge. Sir,
the evidence I shall offer is drawn from experience. It is known that
in Europe, as well as in this country, piers have been sunk for the
express purpose of deepening the channel, and improving the navigation
of rivers, and if this experiment has succeeded in all other countries
and rivers, surely it will not fail in the Potomac. It is not to be
believed that the Potomac is unlike every other river in the world. But,
sir, if we had not the aid of experience before us, common sense and
common reason would revolt at the idea of injuring the navigation in the
manner stated by the counter-memorialists. If you oblige vessels of all
descriptions to pass through your draw and of course pursue the same
channel, will it not have a tendency to deepen and clean the channel,
by agitating the sediment which may have settled there, and which will
by that means be swept away by the current? and instead of a number
of small channels, will it not have the opposite effect of improving
and deepening the only main channel? Surely this must be the effect.
But, Mr. Chairman, whilst I am unwilling to believe that the erection
of this bridge can in any manner whatever injure the navigation of the
Potomac; yet I will candidly admit that the vessels passing to and from
Georgetown will experience some little inconvenience at the draw; but
that inconvenience will be so very trifling that it will be entirely
lost in a comparison with the great general good which will result to
the community. Having proved, as I trust, satisfactorily, that the
navigation of the Potomac cannot possibly be injured by the adoption
of this measure, let us now examine the inconvenience to which vessels
passing the draw will be subjected, for this appears now to be the only
remaining ground of investigation. We have been told by gentlemen on
this floor well acquainted with the building of bridges and of their
effects, that little or no detention is experienced in passing the draws.
That it frequently happens that vessels pass through without lowering
a sail or being detained a single instant when they have a fair wind,
and that at no time is it necessary to detain them longer than from
five to fifteen minutes. If this information is correct, (and we cannot
possibly doubt it,) where, let me ask, is the very great injury to the
very few vessels that will have to pass this draw? When I say very few,
Mr. Chairman, I have reference to the statement made the other day by
my honorable colleague, the chairman of the committee, whose report is
now the subject of discussion. He then told us that his statement was
taken from absolute entries made at the collector’s office at Georgetown
for the last seven years, and in that time only twenty-one ships, six
brigs, one hundred and thirty-two schooners, and fifty-two sloops had
been entered there, making in the whole two hundred and eleven vessels
of all descriptions. My colleague at that time omitted to mention, or
was not apprised of the fact, that of the vessels entered at Georgetown,
a very considerable proportion never went there, but were destined for,
and actually loaded at the Eastern Branch. It is very well known that
within the last seven years a number of large vessels were loaded at the
Eastern Branch by Mr. Barry alone, who was at that time engaged in making
large shipments of flour and biscuit to the West Indies; yet all these
vessels, as well as a great number employed in removing from Philadelphia
the furniture of Congress, of the President, and of the public officers,
together with those employed in bringing stores, &c., for the navy yard
on the Eastern Branch, were all entered at Georgetown, that being the
only port of entry for Georgetown and the city of Washington, thereby
giving to Georgetown an appearance of commerce which she is not really
entitled to. I have ascertained that some years ago several foreign
vessels resorted to the port of Georgetown to carry away the tobacco of
that town and Bladensburg, and that the ships used to lie in the Eastern
Branch to obtain their cargo from both places. That this trade has
declined cannot be denied, for it is an incontrovertible fact that the
only ship destined for Georgetown last year, called the William Murdock,
Captain Tom, was loaded at Barry’s wharf, on the Eastern Branch, because
there was not sufficient water over the bar below Georgetown to admit
her passage to and from that place. Now, sir, from the whole number of
vessels of all descriptions entered at Georgetown for the last seven
years, we may fairly deduct one-fourth for those which never went there;
there will then remain 158 as having actually passed up the river to
that place during that time; which, divided by seven, will be something
less than twenty-three vessels in each year, and not quite one for each
fortnight. Thus, then, sir, this mighty obstacle--these great delays by
a drawbridge--after investigation become very inconsiderable. Indeed,
the first is proven to be nothing, and the last too trifling to deserve
serious consideration. But, Mr. Chairman, in order to remove every
objection, or even doubt, which can possibly exist with any part of the
committee, I am willing to insert a clause in the bill obliging the
Bridge Company to compensate for any loss by detention at the draw.
We have been told by the counter-memorialists, and it has been reiterated
here, “that natural advantages ought not to be injured by artificial
means.” Upon this subject, Mr. Chairman, the people of Georgetown ought
to have been silent; they are not aware of a retort which this objection
will force upon them. Will they recollect, sir, that to artificial means
alone they are indebted for the greatest part of their commerce? Will
they recollect that from artificial means alone the towns of Baltimore
and Alexandria have been deprived of their natural advantages to the
exclusive benefit of Georgetown? Do they not know that the improvement of
the Potomac above them has diverted from its natural course a commerce
which belonged to others and which now enriches them? And will they
permit me to remind them that even to the erection of a bridge they owe
no inconsiderable share of their commerce? Yes, sir, I will remind the
people of Georgetown of advantages from artificial means which they ought
not to have forgotten, because to them, in a great measure, they owe
their present commercial standing. The bridge below the Little Falls,
at the head of the navigation of the Potomac, has given to Georgetown a
considerable quantity of produce from Virginia which must otherwise have
gone to Alexandria. I am very far from objecting to the means by which
the importance of Georgetown has been acquired. I was pleased with the
erection of a bridge at the Little Falls, because it was a convenience
generally, and particularly so to that part of the country from which I
come, and from the same principle I should be glad to see a number of
other bridges erected, both above and below the Falls. I have always
thought, and still think, there ought to be a bridge at Georgetown, and
if the people of that place are of the same opinion, and will propose
it, I will promise to vote for it. Is it necessary already to remind the
people of Georgetown that for their exclusive benefit one arm of the
river Potomac has been entirely closed, by authorizing a dam from Mason’s
Island to the Virginia shore, which gives to them, in some measure, a
monopoly of the flour which comes down the Potomac? and are we now to
be told by the same people that we possess no constitutional right to
authorize a bridge across the Potomac for the public good, even with a
free passage to vessels of all descriptions, and that even if we possess
the right, it would be a wanton and cruel exercise of it? The erection
of the dam will certainly prevent flour boats from going to Alexandria
at particular seasons of the year, when high winds are frequent, as they
will be obliged to go a considerable distance round Mason’s Island,
exposed to a wide and unprotected sheet of water, which will subject them
to considerable danger, even when the wind is moderate; but before the
erection of this dam, the boats could go down to Alexandria at almost any
season, and with almost any wind, as they could, and did, always keep
close to the Virginia shore, and covered by its banks were perfectly
secure. This measure, as well as the erection of the bridge at the Falls,
was evidently injurious to the interests of Alexandria. Yet, sir, had we
any complaints from that quarter? Were our rights questioned by them,
and our motives censured? Were we told by them that “no place should
calculate on artificial advantages, which cannot be afforded without
depriving other places of their natural advantages?” No, sir, they were
silent; not even a murmur escaped them; they had no wish to deprive
their neighbors of any advantages they could derive from “artificial
means,” although their interests should in some measure be affected by
it; they felt none of those jealousies which appear now to influence
their neighbors. It is well known that at the last session of Congress I
was in favor of the causeway from Mason’s Island to the Virginia shore.
I did not believe at that time it could do any injury to the public,
and as the people of Georgetown supposed it would benefit them by
reclaiming a channel considerably injured by natural causes, I could have
no reasonable objection to the experiment, and of course gave to it my
support.
Mr. QUINCY supported; and Messrs. DAWSON, G. W. CAMPBELL, MAGRUDER,
VARNUM, and MASTERS, opposed the resolution; when the question was taken,
and the resolution carried--yeas 60, nays 51. The committee immediately
rose and reported their agreement to the resolution. The House took the
report into consideration. On concurring in the resolution the yeas and
nays were called; and were--yeas 61, nays 49, as follows:
YEAS.--Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, George M. Bedinger,
Silas Betton, William Butler, Levi Casey, Martin Chittenden,
John Claiborne, Christopher Clark, Frederick Conrad, Orchard
Cook, Leonard Covington, Jacob Crowninshield, Ezra Darby,
Elias Earle, Ebenezer Elmer, William Ely, James Fisk, James
M. Garnett, Peterson Goodwyn, Silas Halsey, Seth Hastings,
Wm. Helmes, David Hough, Walter Jones, James Kelly, Thomas
Kenan, John Lambert, Joseph Lewis, jun., Henry W. Livingston,
Matthew Lyon, David Meriwether, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas
Moore, Jonathan O. Mosely, Thos. Newton, jr., John Pugh, Josiah
Quincy, Thomas M. Randolph, Jacob Richards, John Russell, Peter
Sailly, Martin G. Schuneman, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford,
Joseph Stanton, William Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel
Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson,
Uri Tracy, Abram Trigg, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg
Wadsworth, Eliphalet Wickes, Nathan Williams, Alexander Wilson,
Joseph Winston, and Thomas Wynns.
NAYS.--Willis Alston, junior, Isaac Anderson, John Archer,
David Bard, Barnabas Bidwell, John Blake, jr., Thomas Blount,
Robert Brown, Joseph Bryan, George W. Campbell, John Campbell,
John Chandler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, jun., John
Dawson, Peter Early, James Elliot, John Fowler, Charles
Goldsborough, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Isaiah L. Green, John
Hamilton, James Holland, David Holmes, Patrick Magruder, Robert
Marion, Josiah Masters, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Jeremiah
Nelson, Roger Nelson, Gideon Olin, Timothy Pitkin, jun., John
Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Thomas Sanford,
James Sloan, John Cotton Smith, John Smith, O’Brien Smith,
Samuel Smith, Samuel Tenny, Joseph B. Varnum, Matthew Walton,
John Whitehill, Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, and
Marmaduke Williams.
_Ordered_, That a bill, or bills, be brought in, pursuant to the
foregoing resolution; and that Mr. THOMPSON of Virginia, Mr. CAMPBELL of
Maryland, Mr. LEWIS, Mr. MAGRUDER, and Mr. BUTLER, do prepare and bring
in the same.
MONDAY, February 3.
A memorial of the merchants of the town of Boston, in the State of
Massachusetts, was presented to the House and read, stating that they
have witnessed, with mingled feelings of indignation towards the
perpetrators, and of commiseration for their unfortunate countrymen,
the insults and barbarities which the commerce of these States has
sustained from the cruisers of France and Spain; but that it is their
object, in the present memorial, to confine their animadversions to
the more alarming, because more numerous and extensive detentions and
condemnations of American vessels, by Great Britain, and to advert to the
principles recently avowed and adopted by her courts, relative to neutral
trade in articles of colonial produce: principles which, if admitted,
or practised upon in all the latitude which may fairly be inferred to
be intended, would be destructive of the navigation, and radically
impair the most lucrative commerce of our country; and praying that such
measures may be adopted, by negotiation, or otherwise, in the wisdom of
the Government, as will tend to disembarrass our commerce, assert our
rights, and support the dignity of the United States.--Referred to the
Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.
_Intercourse with Great Britain._
Mr. J. RANDOLPH said the House would recollect better than he did, for
he was not present at the time, the very important resolution referred
on the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. GREGG,) whom
he saw in his place, to the Committee of the Whole on the state of
the Union. It was no part of his purpose at this time to discuss the
merits of that resolution, and it was still further from his purpose
to throw any impediment, or create any delay in bringing forward that
discussion; the more so, as he considered the whole country south of the
seat of Government, and more particularly that part of the country in
which he resided, decidedly interested in a speedy and prompt reception
or rejection of the proposition. Indeed, such was his opinion of the
necessity of its being speedily acted upon, that as soon as he saw the
resolution which had been offered, which was not until Friday, when it
was laid on their table, the first suggestion of his mind was to move the
going immediately into a Committee of the Whole on it; as those gentlemen
with whom he had the honor of holding personal and political intercourse
would testify. But a more mature reflection had convinced him that before
the resolution could receive that ultimate decision which he trusted it
would receive, the House stood in need of material information, which,
however it might be in the possession of this or that individual, was
not possessed by the body of the House. His object in addressing the
House was to obtain this information from the proper authority, from
the Head of a Department, which was the only way in which information
of a satisfactory nature, such as ought to influence the decision of
the House, ought to be obtained. Mr. R. then submitted the following
resolution:
_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to
lay before this House a statement of the exports and imports
of the United States, to and from Great Britain and Ireland,
and the American colonies of the same, for the two last years,
distinguishing the colonial trade from that of the mother
country, and specifying the various articles of export and
import, with the amount of duties payable on the latter.
Mr. SMILIE expressed himself in favor of the resolution, and observed
that the species of information called for, had not been received by the
House later than 1803.
Mr. CROWNINSHIELD was of opinion that it would be best to extend the
resolution so as to embrace the British Provinces of Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick, and the provinces beyond the Cape of Good Hope.
A conversation of some length ensued between Messrs. CROWNINSHIELD,
BIDWELL, and ALSTON, on the one side; and Messrs. J. RANDOLPH and J.
CLAY, on the other, on amending the resolution. The former gentlemen
were for amending the resolution so as to embrace a period of peace as
well as war, and to obtain information from “all the dependencies of
Great Britain,” which the latter gentlemen opposed on various grounds,
one of which was, that if this additional information were desirable, it
could be obtained by a distinct resolution.
On Mr. CROWNINSHIELD’s motion to amend the resolution, so as to extend it
to “British dependencies,” generally, the House divided--ayes 43, noes 67.
Mr. NICHOLSON suggested the propriety of adding the following words to
the resolution, in which the mover acquiescing, they were incorporated
into it:
“And also a statement showing in detail the quantity and value
of the like articles of import brought into the United States,
from other nations respectively, with the rate and amount of
duty thereon.”
The resolution, thus modified, was agreed to without a division.
Mr. CROWNINSHIELD then moved the following resolution. He said, in
substance it was the same with the amendment which he had proposed to the
resolution of the gentleman from Virginia:
_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to
lay before this House a statement of the amount of the exports
and imports to and from the British dependencies, other than
those of America, for the last two years.
This resolution was likewise agreed to without a division.
WEDNESDAY, February 5.
_Non-Intercourse with Great Britain._
Mr. CLAY.--The gentleman from Massachusetts having laid on the table a
resolution arising out of the present state of our foreign relations,
and as that subject is one on which I think there cannot be too much
deliberation before we act, or of which too many views cannot be taken, I
will take the liberty of submitting some resolutions which I have drawn
up, and to which I ask the attention of the House. In the present state
of our relations with foreign powers, it appears to me that a system of
commercial regulations, mild and yet firm, one which can be carried into
permanent effect without much inconvenience to ourselves, will be more
effectual than any temporary expedients. If we are disposed to adopt
such a system, it will be looked upon by foreign nations as one in which
we are likely to persevere. They will consider its probable effects in
time of peace upon their colonial possessions, and they may be induced
to enter into permanent regulations opening to us a trade with their
colonies. The distinction attempted to be made between a war trade and
an accustomed trade will be destroyed, and with it the only pretext upon
which are founded the vexations and depredations committed on American
commerce. The present is a favorable moment for the adoption of such
a plan. At this time the ports of the belligerent powers are open, and
the effect of the measures, which I am about to propose, will not have
an immediate distressing effect upon the West Indies. If these measures
are taken, the powers of Europe will find that, unless they admit our
ships into their colonial ports in time of peace, the trade between
their colonies and us will be cut off by a system which will be but
slightly injurious to ourselves. I think, I repeat it, that a permanent
system, mild but firm, will be more likely to induce Great Britain, in
particular, to recede from the unjust pretensions she has set up, than
more violent and extreme measures, which, from their very nature and
their injurious consequences to ourselves, must be necessarily temporary.
Mr. C. concluded, with offering the following resolutions:
_Resolved_, That, after the ---- day of ---- next, no trade or
intercourse in any ship or vessel owned in whole or in part
by any citizen or subject of any foreign Government, shall be
permitted between the United States or their Territories, and
any port or place in the colonies or dominions of any European
power, which trade or intercourse is not permanently permitted
by the laws or regulations of such European power, to be
carried on in ships or vessels of the United States.
_Resolved_, That, after the ---- day of ---- aforesaid, no
goods, wares, or merchandise, shall be exported from the United
States or their Territories, in any ship or vessel owned in
whole or in part by any citizen or subject of any foreign
Government, to any port or place in the colonies or dominions
of any European power, the importation of which into such
port or place, in ships or vessels of the United States, is
not permanently permitted by the laws or regulations of such
European power.
_Resolved_, That, after the ---- day of ---- aforesaid, no
goods, wares, or merchandise, shall be imported into the United
States or their Territories, in any ship or vessel owned in
whole or in part by any citizen or subject of any foreign
Government, from any port or place in the colonies or dominions
of any European power, the exportation of which from such
port or place, in ships or vessels of the United States, is
not permanently permitted by the laws or regulations of such
European power.
_Resolved_, That, after the ---- day of ---- aforesaid, no
goods, wares, or merchandise, shall be imported into the United
States, in any ship or vessel owned in whole or in part by
any citizen or subject of any foreign Government, excepting
articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of the
colonies or dominions of such foreign Government, unless such
importation be expressly permitted by treaty between the United
States and such foreign Government, or unless during a war in
which the United States may be a party.
The House immediately considered these resolutions, and referred them to
a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.
_Importation of Slaves._
The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the
bill imposing a duty of ten dollars on every slave imported into the
United States.
Mr. JACKSON offered a new section, the object of which was to prohibit
the importation into the United States of all slaves, brought either from
abroad or from any State, except, in the latter case, by citizens of the
United States removing to a Territory, to settle therein.
Mr. JACKSON viewed this provision as necessary, in consequence of a legal
construction given to an act of the last session, which allowed the
importation of slaves from abroad into Louisiana.
This motion was opposed by Messrs. ALSTON, ELY, MORROW, SPALDING, and
SLOAN, who either viewed it as inexpedient in itself, or as proper to be
introduced into a distinct bill.
Mr. JACKSON said, as it was the wish of his friends, he would withdraw
the motion, and offer it on another occasion.
No farther amendments having been offered the committee rose, and
reported their agreement to the bill.
The House immediately considered the report.
The amendment limiting the imposition of the tax to the first day of
January, 1808, was disagreed to; and the other amendments agreed to.
Mr. JACKSON inquired what the effects would be of the forfeiture of the
cargo, in case slaves were smuggled into the United States? Would they
be kept in the service of the United States? He did not wish to have any
thing to do with them.
Mr. JOHN C. SMITH said, he had voted for the resolution; but the
defects in the details of the bill were so glaring, that he hoped it
would be referred to a select committee, that it might be so modified
as to cure these defects; or, that in case it were found insusceptible
of modification, it might be rejected. Mr. S. accordingly moved the
recommitment of the bill to a select committee.
Mr. JACKSON advocated this motion, and remarked that the proviso of
the bill that declared the duty should not be construed as giving a
sanction to the importation of slaves, offered an additional reason for
either rejecting or recommitting it. How could this language be used
with propriety in a law, when the constitution, the highest authority,
authorized the trade?
Mr. QUINCY spoke to the like effect, and further inquired, whether it was
the intention of gentlemen to apply the provisions of the bill to slaves
navigating the ships of the United States.
Messrs. HASTINGS and SLOAN defended the provisions of the bill as
perfectly correct. They observed that slaves were considered as property,
as merchandise, and could only, therefore, in the bill be treated as such.
The motion to recommit was lost--ayes 39, noes 61.
Mr. CROWNINSHIELD spoke against the bill, and moved its postponement to
an indefinite day.
Messrs. JOHN C. SMITH, TAGGART, and RHEA of Tennessee, supported; and
Messrs. SLOAN, ELMER, and SMILIE, opposed the motion; when the yeas and
nays were called on it, and were--yeas 42, nays 69, as follows:
YEAS.--Willis Alston, jr., George M. Bedinger, Silas Betton,
Phanuel Bishop, William Blackledge, Joseph Bryan, William
Butler, Levi Casey, Martin Chittenden, Christopher Clark,
Matthew Clay, Frederick Conrad, Jacob Crowninshield, Samuel
W. Dana, John Davenport, junior, John Dawson, Elias Earle,
Peter Early, James Elliot, James M. Garnett, Edwin Gray, James
Holland, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, Thomas Kenan, Robert
Marion, Josiah Masters, William McCreery, David Meriwether,
Thomas Moore, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Thomas M. Randolph, John
Rhea of Tennessee, Thomas Sanford, O’Brien Smith, Thomas
Spalding, Samuel Taggart, Samuel Tenney, David Thomas, Thomas
W. Thompson, David R. Williams, and Thomas Wynns.
NAYS.--Isaac Anderson, John Archer, Joseph Barker, John
Blake, jr., Thomas Blount, Robert Brown, John Chandler, John
Claiborne, Joseph Clay, Leonard Covington, Richard Cutts, Ezra
Darby, Ebenezer Elmer, William Ely, John W. Eppes, William
Findlay, James Fisk, John Fowler, Peterson Goodwyn, Andrew
Gregg, Isaiah L. Green, Silas Halsey, John Hamilton, Seth
Hastings, David Holmes, David Hough, Nehemiah Knight, John
Lambert, Michael Leib, Joseph Lewis, junior, Matthew Lyon,
Patrick Magruder, Nicholas R. Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, Jonathan
O. Mosely, Jeremiah Nelson, Thomas Newton, junior, Joseph H.
Nicholson, Gideon Olin, John Pugh, John Rea of Pennsylvania,
Jacob Richards, John Russell, Peter Sailly, Thomas Sammons,
Martin G. Schuneman, Ebenezer Seaver, James Sloan, John Smilie,
John Cotton Smith, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard,
Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, Lewis B. Sturges, Philip R.
Thompson, Uri Tracy, Abram Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph
B. Varnum, Peleg Wadsworth, John Whitehill, Robert Whitehill,
Eliphalet Wickes, Marmaduke Williams, Alexander Wilson, and
John Winston.
Mr. JACKSON moved to strike out the proviso of the bill, which motion
was disagreed to; when the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third
reading to-morrow--ayes 69.
THURSDAY, February 6.
Another member, to wit, from South Carolina, RICHARD WYNN, appeared,
produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.
FRIDAY, February 7.
_Non-Importation of Slaves, into Territories._[32]
On motion of Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS the House came to the following
resolution:
_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire whether
any, and if any, what additional provisions are necessary to
prevent the importation of slaves into the Territories of the
United States.
A committee of five members were appointed.
_Removal of Federal Judges on the Address of Congress._