Mr. J. RANDOLPH, agreeably to notice given by him yesterday, made the
following motion:
_Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds
of both Houses concurring_, That the following article
be submitted to the Legislatures of the several States,
which, when ratified and confirmed by the Legislatures of
three-fourths of the said States, shall be valid and binding as
a part of the Constitution of the United States:
The Judges of the Supreme, and all other courts of the United
States, shall be removed from office by the President, on the
joint address of both Houses of Congress requesting the same.
The House having agreed to consider the motion, it was, at the instance
of Mr. J. RANDOLPH, referred to a Committee of the Whole on the state of
the Union.
Mr. J. RANDOLPH gave notice that he should call up this motion on
Thursday.
_Naval Peace Establishment._
The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill relative to a
Naval Peace Establishment.
Mr. GREGG explained at some length the provisions of the bill. The bill,
he said, corresponded with the intimations of the President relative to
giving an opening to the promotion of several officers who had greatly
distinguished themselves in the Mediterranean service. He stated that
the bill contemplated giving the President power to keep in service
nine hundred and twenty-five able and ordinary seamen and boys, making
two-thirds of the full complement of six frigates, two of forty-four
guns, two of thirty-six, and two of thirty-two; that it contemplated the
increasing the number of captains from ten to thirteen; the creation of
nine masters-commandant, and the increase of lieutenants from thirty-six
to seventy-two. This arrangement was proposed, in order to give to the
young officers in the navy that rank and reward merited by them, and to
enable the doing this, without interfering with the rules of promotion
usual in the naval service.
Mr. LEIB spoke against the feature of the bill that augmented the number
of officers. It appeared to him, indeed, a pension bill, and to make
large allowances without services rendered. It also contemplated the
keeping six frigates in service, and provides for them thirteen captains,
nine masters-commandant, and seventy-two lieutenants. He did not consider
the Treasury in such a state of overflow as to justify this liberality.
Mr. GREGG said the gentleman had misunderstood his remarks as well as the
nature of the bill, which, so far from directing six frigates to be kept
in actual service, repealed that part of a former law which contained
this provision.
No motion having been made to amend the bill, the Chairman proceeded in
the reading of the remaining sections; when
Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH expressed his opinion that the bill required
considerable amendment, and that he had understood from the Secretary
of the Navy that its provisions were not consonant to that system which
he considered the most conducive to the public service. With a view to
obtain fuller information relative to the subject, he moved that the
committee should rise and ask leave to sit again.
This motion obtained, without opposition, when the committee rose and
received leave to sit again.
MONDAY, February 10.
Another member, to wit, DUNCAN MCFARLAND, from North Carolina, appeared,
produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.
_Importations from Great Britain._
Mr. NICHOLSON said he wished to lay on the table a resolution relative to
the subsisting differences between the United States and Great Britain,
on which several resolutions had already been offered.
Mr. N. said he had seen two propositions, neither of which he liked. One
was a resolution offered by a gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. GREGG.)
When he considered that our importations from Great Britain amounted
annually to about twenty-five millions of dollars, and that the whole
of this trade was, according to the proposition of the gentleman, to be
prohibited; and it was also considered that the average amount of duties
on articles imported from Great Britain was twenty per cent., it would at
once be seen that the measure would affect the revenue to the amount of
five millions annually.
Nor did it, in offering these resolutions, appear to have been taken into
view, that while the measure had a very material effect on the revenue,
it had likewise an immediate effect on the habits of our citizens who
consumed goods imported from Britain. With regard to the single article
of cotton, its prohibition would operate in three different ways. In the
first place, the wants of our people will be increased in proportion to
the prohibition of cotton goods; in the second place, the revenue would
be affected by it; and in the last place, it was extremely probable that
the foreign demand for the raw material we furnish would be considerably
diminished. A single fact would evince this with some force. In the
year 1791, there were exported to Liverpool 64 bales of cotton; and in
the first nine months of 1805 there had been exported to the same place
93,000 bales. This would show what the effect might be of the prohibition
of the importation of articles manufactured from cotton in Great Britain
on the demand for the raw material we furnish.
Mr. N. then submitted the following resolution:
_Resolved_, That, from and after the ---- day of ---- next,
the following articles, being of the growth, or manufactures
of Great Britain or Ireland, or of any of the colonies or
dependencies of Great Britain, ought to be prohibited by
law from being imported into the United States, or into the
territories thereof, viz:
All articles of which leather is the material of chief value;
all articles of which tin or brass is the material of chief
value, tin in sheets excepted; all articles of which hemp or
flax is the material of chief value; all articles of which silk
is the material of chief value; woollen cloths, whose invoice
prices shall exceed ----; woollen hosiery of all kinds; window
glass, and all other manufactures of glass; silver and plated
wares; paper of every description; nails and spikes; hats;
clothing ready made; millinery of all kinds; playing cards;
beer, ale, and porter; and pictures and prints.
This resolution was immediately considered by the House, and referred to
a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and ordered to be
printed.
_West India Trade._
Mr. CROWNINSHIELD said, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. NICHOLSON)
had offered several resolutions prohibiting the importation of
sundry articles of British manufactures into the United States. Mr.
C. observed that he had another project which he wished to submit,
relative to our trade with the British West Indies. He did not mean at
this time to discuss the subject, either so far as it was connected
with the propositions of the gentleman from Maryland, or with that of
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, which went to a much greater extent.
But with regard to one idea expressed by the gentleman from Maryland,
he thought it proper to say a few words. That gentleman had observed
that the proposition offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania would
affect the revenue to the amount of five millions of dollars; and
therefore impressed upon the House the duty of being extremely cautious
in taking such a step. Mr. C. said he did not believe the adoption of
that proposition would affect the revenue to any such extent. He did
not believe it would affect the revenue to the amount of a million of
dollars. Because, although we should prohibit the importation of British
goods, we could get most of the same articles from other countries. We
get salt from Cadiz, and Lisbon, and from several other places. Rum could
be got from every island in the West Indies; and if we should not be
able to get a sufficient quantity to supply our wants, we could import
from France brandies, which will be a good substitute. We may also get
woollens from the continent of Europe, and every article on the list,
perhaps at higher prices. It was not, however, Mr. C. said, his object at
this time to discuss the merits of either proposition. His chief object
was to offer his own project, which related to the West Indies. Every
one knows that those islands are dependent on the United States for the
necessaries of life; that they cannot get many important articles they
absolutely want from other countries. Every one knows that for fish,
beef, pork, and lumber, they are dependent on us, inasmuch as they
cannot get them elsewhere. How is the trade carried on? Great Britain has
adopted a curious commercial principle, bottomed on the principle of her
navigation act; which in time of peace almost amounts to a prohibition
to introduce into her islands any articles of ours; and which in time
of war opens the ports of a few of her islands for the introduction of
particular articles for three or six months. Mr. C. said he wished to
see this trade permanently open to the citizens of the United States.
He thought it probable this might be done by the adoption of his plan.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania had offered a proposition which was
calculated to meet in part the practices of Great Britain. The first
resolution related to trading to the West Indies in foreign vessels, and
not in vessels of the United States. Every one knew that in the trade
between the United States and the West Indies there were either none, or
very few foreign vessels.
Mr. C. then offered the following resolution:
_Resolved_, That, from and after the ---- day of ---- next,
no goods, wares, or merchandise, shall be exported from, or
imported into, the United States or the territories thereof,
in any ship or vessel whatever, to or from any European
colonies or settlements, situated on the eastern side of the
continent of America, or its adjacent seas, northward of
the Equator, unless the importation of all articles of the
growth, product, or manufacture of the United States and their
territories, in American bottoms, is at all times admitted into
the said colonies, or settlements, and unless the exportation
of the productions of the said colonies, or settlements, is
permanently allowed in American bottoms from the same to the
United States, and the territories thereof.
WEDNESDAY, February 12.
_Limits of Georgia._
Mr. SPALDING, from the committee to whom was referred, on the thirteenth
ultimo, the memorial of the Legislature of the State of Georgia, made a
report thereon, which was read, as follows:
The committee to whom was referred the memorial of the
Legislature of the State of Georgia, respecting disputed limits
between that State and the State of North Carolina, having
taken into consideration the matter of the said memorial, as
well as such information as the documents attached to the
memorial and former reports made to this House afford, beg
leave to submit the following report:
Between the latitude of 35 degrees north, which is the southern
boundary claimed by North Carolina, and the northern boundary
of Georgia, as settled by a convention between that State and
South Carolina, intervenes a tract of country supposed to be
about twelve miles wide, from north to south, and extending in
length from the western boundary of Georgia, at Nicajack on the
Tennessee, to her north-eastern limits, on the Tugalo. This
tract was consequently within the limits of South Carolina,
and in the year 1787 it was ceded to the United States, who
accepted the cession. This territory remained in possession of
the United States until 1802, when it was ceded to the State
of Georgia. From the most correct information relative to the
said territory, it appears that it is inhabited by about 800
souls, and (to adopt the words of a former report) it is not
shown at what period they made the settlement, nor had they any
title to the land on which they settled and made improvements.
No such title indeed could have been created, as those lands
remained within the boundary of the Cherokees until the year
1798, when a part of this territory was purchased by a treaty
held at Tellico. It does not appear that the lines that bound
the tract of land in question, and divide it from Carolina,
have ever been established by public authority.
After the transfer of this territory by the United States to
Georgia, the Legislature of that State, in compliance with
the earnest request of those self-governed people, praying
that they might be allowed to participate in the civil rights
enjoyed in common by the people of the United States, passed
an act in the year 1803 to organize the inhabited part of the
territory, and to form it into a county, authorizing, at the
same time, the Governor to appoint commissioners, to meet such
commissioners as should be appointed by the Government of North
Carolina to ascertain and plainly mark the line dividing this
territory from North Carolina. The Governor of North Carolina
expressed a readiness to accede to the proposition, under the
provisions of a former act of the Legislature of that State,
but clogged with a condition which the Legislature of North
Carolina refused to depart from, and which the Legislature
of Georgia refused to accede to. Her reason may be found
in a letter from General Pickens, of the State of South
Carolina, attached to a report made to the House respecting
that territory while the property of the United States. The
letter states, that before the people inhabiting that territory
settled on the lands, it was surveyed, and grants obtained for
most part of it from the State of North Carolina, and probably
by men who cared little whether the land was within the
Indian claim or the limits of South Carolina. Your committee
conceive that they have no right to enter into the feelings
of either of the parties, or to pronounce upon the justice of
the condition made by North Carolina on the one part, or its
rejection by Georgia on the other, and have therefore confined
their attention to that part of the memorial which calls upon
Congress to define and mark out the thirty-fifth degree of
latitude--the line which North Carolina admits to bound her
State--upon the south and north of which Georgia can have no
claim of territory. Your committee, after giving to this point
the most deliberate consideration, are of opinion that the
United States are bound, in good faith, to use their friendly
offices with the State of North Carolina for obtaining an
amicable adjustment of the limits of the territory, which they
have transferred to Georgia, in all parts where such limits may
be disputed.
Your committee, therefore, beg leave to offer the following
resolution:
_Resolved_, That the President of the United States
be authorized to appoint a commissioner, to meet such
commissioners as may be appointed by the States of North
Carolina and Georgia, for the purpose of ascertaining and
running the line which divides the territory transferred by the
United States to Georgia, from North Carolina.
The report was read, and referred to a Committee of the whole House on
Friday next.
THURSDAY, February 13.
_Society of Harmony._
The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill received
from the Senate, the object of which is to authorize the location of
a quantity of land in the Indiana Territory by George Rapp and his
associates, they paying two dollars therefor, and giving them a credit,
without the payment of interest, for six years, when they are to pay
one-fourth of the purchase money, and the residue in six annual payments,
on condition that, agreeably to prescribed terms, the vine shall be
cultivated.
Mr. MCCREERY stated that George Rapp and his associates, amounting to
about 3,000 persons, were natives of the Electorate of Wirtemberg; that
they were Lutherans, who had fled from oppression in that country; that
they were mostly cultivators of the vine, and wished an extension of the
usual time for paying for public lands, they not having the means of the
common payment; they wished to live together, and to cultivate the vine
for their principal support, for their prosperity, and for the good of
the community, in introducing its culture into this country.
Mr. ELY observed that the bill appeared to give a preference in the
sale of the public lands; that the bill was presented from the Senate
without the documents or testimony which might justify this preference;
he therefore moved that it should be committed to the Committee on Public
Lands.
Mr. GREGG.--They obtain a whole township of the best land at only two
dollars per acre, and it is proposed to extend to them an unusual
indulgence in the time of payment. He would not agree to it.
Mr. FINDLAY spoke in favor of the bill.
Mr. CONRAD.--The indulgence of time for payment is not unprecedented. He
showed an act granting twelve years for payment where land was purchased
for the same purpose, and that act does not bind the purchasers to plant
the vine, whereas this does. It were better to make a present of the land
than not have the settlement among us of such persons. If not thus sold,
it is more than probable that the land will lie waste and unsold more
than the six years.
Mr. OLIN.--If we can be justified in a sale of this kind, why oblige
foreigners instead of our own countrymen? We have citizens enough of our
own who would be glad to purchase on such terms.
Mr. SLOAN.--Though I drink no wine myself, I have no wish to prevent
others, for I think it may often be serviceable. I consider the
indulgence as to the time of payment in the light of an encouragement or
bounty, that may prove useful to us as well as the applicants.
Mr. SMILIE.--I cannot say with the gentleman from New Jersey that I drink
no wine, for I certainly do when I can get it. I do not consider it as
a valid objection that the petitioners are foreigners. I am myself a
European, who have fled from oppression in the country where I was born.
How great a part of Pennsylvania is settled by such characters!
Mr. MCCREERY.--The applicants are men of piety and industry. Let us give
them a good chance, for our own sakes as well as theirs, to introduce the
culture of the grape here.
Mr. FINDLAY.--If this indulgence be not given, the land will lie waste.
We wish to populate the territory. Their settlement will enhance the
value of the public lands around them.
Mr. ELY.--I am sorry my motion has occasioned so much debate. I was
ignorant of the circumstances relating to this society, and to the
character of it; my object was information, not an intention to defeat
the bill. We deviate from the usual mode, which is to have the report of
a committee in cases of this sort.
Mr. GREGG.--This bill very improperly authorizes a deviation from
the established practice of selling public lands--it is a change of
principle. I do not wish to see so great a body of foreigners settled
together; we shall have a little Wirtemberg; we must legislate for them;
they cannot speak our language; they cannot serve as jurymen, and from
the information I have received, I am confident they will not succeed in
cultivating the vine in that country.
Mr. BEDINGER.--I am a shareholder in a vineyard in Kentucky, and our
success has exceeded our most sanguine expectations.
Mr. MACON.--In order to try the sense of the committee, I move to strike
out the words “George Rapp and his associates.” Why should we not grant
bounties for raising wheat or corn as well as the vine? If wine can be
made here to advantage, there is no need of the encouragement of this
House. A few years since we raised no cotton, but the profit of this
culture once known, it has become an article of vast exportation. What
claim have these aliens over our own citizens? They have been oppressed;
put your finger on any spot of Europe that is not under oppression. If
you commence this new system, all the best sections of land will be taken
up in this manner. Who will not purchase on such terms?
Mr. LYON.--Lands not belonging to the public may be had for less than one
dollar an acre in many places.
Mr. OLIN.--We have men that can cultivate the vine as well as those
foreigners. It is a plain, simple thing.
Mr. JACKSON.--If disposed to grant favors, let us grant to those who have
the greatest claim. There are many old soldiers of the Revolution, who
would rejoice to purchase land on these terms. Why encourage the making
of wines? They are luxuries, not necessaries. Lands on the Ohio are from
six to eight dollars in many places; this bill gives the petitioners
their choice of the best, and they pay no interest for their purchase, at
two dollars.
Mr. SLOAN.--This bill will enhance the value of lands adjoining. It will
be a humane act.
Mr. JACKSON.--I rise merely to state a fact I have just now learned.
There are at this very time men waiting for the passage of this bill, who
are ready to give six dollars per acre for much of the very land the bill
contemplates.
Mr. HOLLAND.--Some small tracts only may sell for six dollars. We bind
the purchasers to plant the first year 9,000 plants, and 3,000 annually
after.
Mr. MORROW, of Ohio.--I rise only to reply to the gentleman from
Virginia, (Mr. JACKSON.) I never seek for information in the lobby, nor
the gallery, nor Pennsylvania avenue. The gentleman is misinformed.
Mr. JACKSON.--My authority is an honorable member near me--an authority
at least as respectable as any the gentleman from Ohio can have.
The question was taken--50 for striking out, 51 against it. The committee
rose, and the House considered the bill.
Mr. CROWNINSHIELD.--There is no interest to be received. I have made a
calculation that, considering the want of interest to the time of the
last payment, we now get only ninety-seven cents per acre. I move to
strike out two, and insert three dollars per acre.
The motion was lost--44 only for it.
Mr. CROWNINSHIELD.--There are in a section about 23,000 acres, making
about 46,000 dollars. I move to insert six per cent. interest till paid.
Mr. NICHOLSON.--Public lands are sold without interest for a certain
time. If the money be not punctually paid, I am willing the debt should
be on interest after.
Mr. JACKSON.--I move to postpone the consideration of the bill
indefinitely.
The ayes and nays were called for, and taken on this motion--ayes 53,
nays 59.
Mr. CROWNINSHIELD’s motion for the insertion of interest was lost--52 to
49.
Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS moved the insertion of two instead of six years for
payment of the land. Motion lost--54 to 45. The bill passed to a third
reading for to-morrow.
FRIDAY, February 14.
_Indiana Territory._
Mr. GARNETT, from the committee appointed on the eighteenth of December
last, to whom were referred the report of a select committee on the
letter of William H. Harrison, made the seventeenth of February, eighteen
hundred and four; a memorial of the Legislative Council and House of
Representatives of the Indiana Territory, and several petitions of sundry
inhabitants of the said Territory; made the following report:
That, having attentively considered the facts stated in the
said petitions and memorials, they are of opinion that a
qualified suspension, for a limited time, of the sixth article
of compact between the original States and the people and
States west of the river Ohio, would be beneficial to the
people of the Indiana Territory. The suspension of this
article is an object almost universally desired in that
Territory. It appears to your committee to be a question
entirely different from that between slavery and freedom,
inasmuch as it would merely occasion the removal of persons,
already slaves, from one part of the country to another. The
good effects of this suspension, in the present instance, would
be to accelerate the population of that Territory, hitherto
retarded by the operation of that article of compact, as
slaveholders emigrating into the Western country might then
indulge any preference which they might feel for a settlement
in the Indiana Territory, instead of seeking, as they are now
compelled to do, settlements in other States or countries
permitting the introduction of slaves. The condition of the
slaves themselves would be much ameliorated by it, as it is
evident, from experience, that the more they are separated and
diffused, the more care and attention are bestowed on them
by their masters, each proprietor having it in his power to
increase their comforts and conveniences in proportion to the
smallness of their numbers. The dangers, too, (if any are to
be apprehended,) from too large a black population existing
in any one section of country, would certainly be very much
diminished, if not entirely removed. But whether dangers are
to be feared from this source or not, it is certainly an
obvious dictate of sound policy to guard against them, as far
as possible. If this danger does exist, or there is any cause
to apprehend it, and our Western brethren are not only willing
but desirous to aid us in taking precautions against it, would
it not be wise to accept their assistance? We should benefit
ourselves, without injuring them, as their population must
always so far exceed any black population which can ever exist
in that country, as to render the idea of danger from that
source chimerical.
Your committee consider the regulation contained in the
ordinance for the government of the Territory of the United
States, which requires a freehold of fifty acres of land as
a qualification for an elector of the General Assembly, as
limiting too much the elective franchise. Some restrictions,
however, being necessary, your committee conceive that a
residence continued long enough to evince a determination to
become a permanent inhabitant, should entitle a person to the
rights of suffrage. This probationary period need not extend
beyond twelve months.
The petition of certain settlers in the Indiana Territory,
praying to be annexed to the State of Ohio, ought not, in the
opinion of your committee, to be granted.
After attentively considering the various objects desired in
the memorials and petitions, the committee respectfully submit
to the House the following resolutions:
1. _Resolved_, That the sixth article of the ordinance of
1787, which prohibits slavery within the Indiana Territory,
be suspended for ten years, so as to permit the introduction
of slaves, born within the United States, from any of the
individual States.
2. _Resolved_, That every white freeman of the age of
twenty-one years, who has resided within the Territory twelve
months, and within the county in which he claims a vote, six
months immediately preceding the election, shall enjoy the
rights of an Elector of the General Assembly.
3. _Resolved_, That the petition of certain settlers in the
Indiana Territory, praying to be annexed to the State of Ohio,
ought not to be granted.
4. _Resolved_, That it is inexpedient, at this time, to grant
that part of the petition of the people of Randolph and St.
Clair which prays for a division of the Indiana Territory.
Referred to a Committee of the Whole on Thursday next.
_Society of Harmony._
The bill allowing George Rapp and his associates to locate a township of
land in the Indiana Territory on certain conditions, was read a third
time.
Mr. CLARK moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on Public Lands.
The bill wants several amendments. There is no penalty, should the
petitioners neglect to plant the vines.
Mr. JACKSON.--I second the motion of my colleague. These public lands
formerly belonged to the State of Virginia; when ceded by that State,
the Government of the United States were made trustees “for the common
benefit of the Union; faithfully and _bona fide_ for that use, and for
no other,” to use the words of the act granting the cession. This is a
contract between Virginia and the United States; we are in the place
of trustees; we cannot violate the trust, yet this mode of selling
the land for the benefit of individual foreigners is a violation of
the trust. This precedent will be quoted hereafter, and will operate
most injuriously. Notwithstanding what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
MORROW) has said, I cannot help saying, that there are men ready at this
time to give six dollars per acre for this very land, or land of this
description. This bill will give them a whole township, 23,000 acres of
land of the first quality. I cannot conceive the cultivation of the vine
as a national benefit, as being “for the common benefit of the Union.”
It will diminish the revenue, should vines be raised in abundance here.
Wine is heavily taxed, and the tax is paid by the rich. I am altogether
opposed to the bill.
Mr. SMILIE.--A new argument indeed is brought forward by the gentleman
from Virginia. We can hardly turn round without somehow invading the
rights of Virginia. If we talk of building a bridge or erecting a dam, at
once the rights of Virginia are invaded. If we wish to dispose of some of
our public land in the West as we think proper, the rights of Virginia
are invaded. Virginia claimed lands stretching to the north pole; she
took what she wanted, and gave a quit claim to the United States for the
rest. Some of the House think this sale, this indulgence in the payment
for the purpose of introducing the cultivation of the vine, and of
serving these worthy foreigners, will be “for the common benefit of the
Union;” some think otherwise; it is merely a matter of opinion, and a
majority of opinion must decide.
Mr. MORROW.--There are some small tracts of land, on which what are
called _squatters_ are settled, and where already improvements have been
made, which would sell for four or six dollars per acre; but I doubt
whether any township of land would sell for two dollars, even with the
usual instalments.
Mr. PARKE, of the Indiana Territory.--Even in the settled parts of the
Territory, lands are not above three dollars.
Mr. ELY.--Gentlemen have said that poor lands were proper for the vine.
It may be so; but the petitioner and his associates mention also the
raising of hemp, which requires the best bottom lands. I am far from
wishing to discourage these settlers; but they are already among us, and
will not leave this country. They are represented to be (and I fully
believe the representation) men of piety and morality; the United States
are not beyond improvement in piety and morality; instead of putting them
in one, and that a far-distant place, let them be scattered over the
Union, that all parts may be benefited. Such a body of men, of one sect,
of one language, will wish to seclude itself from the rest of the Union;
they will wish what this bill gives them, and what I think injurious,
an exclusive territory. We are deviating from our common usage in the
sale of land. Is the deviation necessary or proper? Gentlemen have said
they were flying from oppression to this land of liberty; liberty was
their object; a republican Government; yet it appears that when they left
Wirtemberg, their expectation and intention was to settle in Louisiana,
then under the Spanish Government. The bill obliges them to plant a
certain number of vines; perhaps the expense of this will not be $100,
and there is no forfeiture even if they should refuse to comply. It may
prove a fine speculation for them; they may get perhaps the finest land
and the best salt lick in the territory.
Mr. NICHOLSON, (after recapitulating the arguments previously
adduced.)--I have no objection to the settlement of the applicants in one
body; nor can I see any probable evil resulting from it. The gentleman
from Massachusetts has informed us that the people of the United States
are bad enough, and that the distribution of this society over the whole
States might prove advantageous to the Union; if not in one body, they
must settle on lands for sale in different parts of Kentucky, Tennessee,
Ohio, &c. This distribution would be unfair, as Massachusetts has not
lands for sale, except perhaps in the district of Maine; hence that State
would be deprived of the advantage it might obtain by an improvement of
its piety and morality from a distribution of a part of this society
among the citizens of that State. I know not why the sale of this land,
according to the terms of the bill, should be considered as not conducing
to the good of the nation. We have given lands for colleges and schools,
and for the support of clergymen; we have also sold lands, the proceeds
of which were to be expended for the improvement of roads--roads by which
the public at large would be benefited, though the citizens of Maine or
Georgia might never travel them.
The bill was recommitted to a Committee of the Whole--62 to 53, and made
the order of the day for Monday next.
MONDAY, February 17.
_Non-Importation of Slaves into Territories._
Mr. DAVID R. WILLIAMS, from the committee appointed, on the seventh
instant, “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,” made the following report:
That the act of Congress, passed the 7th April, 1798,
authorizing the establishment of a Government in the
Mississippi Territory, permits slavery within that Territory,
by excluding the last article of the ordinance of 13th July,
1787. The seventh section of this act prohibits, after the
establishment of a Government, the importation of slaves from
any port or place without the limits of the United States; of
course, the right to import slaves from any place within the
limits of the United States is not restricted.
The act of 2d March, 1805, further providing for the Government
of the Territory of Orleans, secures to its inhabitants
“all the rights, privileges, and advantages, secured by the
ordinance of 13th July, 1787, and now enjoyed by the people of
the Mississippi Territory.” The importation of slaves, from
any place within the limits of the United States, is one of
those rights; consequently, the inhabitants of the Territory of
Orleans may exercise it also.
The tenth section of the act of 26th March, 1804, “erecting
Louisiana into two Territories, and providing for the temporary
government thereof,” prohibits the introduction of slaves
into that Territory, from any place, “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.” This tenth section,
being repugnant to the first section of the act of 2d March,
1805, was repealed by the last section of said act, which
declares: “that so much of an act, entitled ‘An act erecting
Louisiana into two Territories, and providing for the temporary
government thereof,’ as is repugnant with this act, shall, from
and after the first Monday of November next, be repealed.”
The committee are in the possession of the fact, that African
slaves, lately imported into Charleston, have been thence
conveyed into the Territory of Orleans; and, in their opinion,
this practice will be continued to a very great extent while
there is no law to prevent it.
Upon this view of the subject, the committee believe it is
expedient to prohibit any slave or slaves, who may be hereafter
imported into the United States, from being carried into any
of the Territories thereof; they, therefore, respectfully
recommend the following resolution:
_Resolved_, That it shall not be lawful for any person or
persons to import or bring into any of the Territories of
the United States any slave or slaves that may hereafter be
imported into the United States.
The report was referred to the Committee of the Whole to-morrow.
TUESDAY, February 18.
_Society of Harmony._
The House resumed the consideration of the bill sent from the Senate,
entitled “An act to empower George Rapp and his associates, of the
Society of Harmony, to purchase certain lands;” and a motion being made
further to amend the said bill by inserting, at the end thereof, the
words following:
“And interest, at the rate of six per cent, per annum,
commencing from the end of the four years aforesaid, shall be
charged on the whole of the six last payments, until the same
shall be received into the public Treasury:”
The question was taken that the House do agree to the said amendment, and
resolved in the affirmative--yeas 62, nays 44.
_Ordered_, That the said amendments, together with the bill, be read the
third time to-day.
The said bill, together with the amendments thereto, was read the third
time; and, on the question that the bill, as amended, do pass, it passed
in the negative--yeas 46, nays 46.
Mr. SPEAKER declaring himself with the nays. And so the said bill was
rejected.
_Church in Georgetown._
Mr. FINDLAY called up the bill for incorporating the Presbyterian Society
in Georgetown. The bill was long, and was read by sections. One section
authorized a lottery for finishing the church.
Mr. CLARK moved to strike out the section; you would not convert your
church into a gambling house. I never considered that religion of the
best kind which was supported by lotteries.
Mr. SLOAN.--I am for striking out. I never will consent to an act
authorizing public gambling.
Mr. CLARK.--Corporations of all kinds, but more particularly
ecclesiastical corporations, are objects of my particular hatred.
Religion I do not consider of this world. I am no enemy to it, however;
I adore it. To try the principle of the bill, I move to strike out the
first section.
Mr. SOUTHARD.--I can see no possible objection to an act of incorporation
in this as well as other cases. There are many advantages a society
of this nature cannot enjoy without incorporation. Donations from the
wealthy, who often bequeath sums for the benefit of religion, cannot be
held without such incorporation.
Mr. SLOAN.--We have no acts of incorporation in the society in which
I was brought up, (the Quakers,) yet we find no difficulty in the
management of our affairs--no difficulty in receiving gifts. I abhor all
ecclesiastical corporations. Congress never has, and I hope never will,
stain its pages with an act of this sort.
Mr. SMILIE.--I hope the gentleman from New Jersey will not frighten
himself with the echo of his own words. No evil can result from this
act. The opinion of the Quakers is, that no money ought to assist them
in their passage to heaven; others believe that money is employed to the
best advantage in this way; hence the Quakers never pay those who preach
for them, while almost all other classes of Christians do. The gentleman
from New Jersey surely does not wish to forbid a clergyman’s payment. I
hope that citizens of different persuasions may all have a full enjoyment
of their modes of religious worship.
Mr. ELMER.--There never was a nation without religious establishments.
All sects, except the Quakers, pay their preachers; and if the preachers
among the Quakers have not a direct salary, they find means to obtain
something of that kind indirectly, though not from direct funds.
Considered in a moral, political, and religious view, these acts of
incorporation are highly necessary and proper for the well-being of
society.
Mr. CLARK.--This is the first request that has been made to Congress for
a religious incorporation; if we check it now, we may check what may
hereafter prove an immense evil. It is from small beginnings that great
disasters usually rise. Should this bill pass, I foresee what may perhaps
in time come to pass. I can foresee the practice of pious frauds. The
priests dressed in their canonicals, attending the rich man on his dying
bed, and urging the repenting sinner to part with a portion of his wealth
for the good of the church, and for the obtainment of a certain passport
to heaven.
Mr. FINDLAY.--This is an accommodation Congress only can grant, and which
is enjoyed in all the States.
Mr. NICHOLSON.--I never knew an application of this kind to be refused
in the State, a part of which I have the honor to represent. In the
Legislature of that State, half a dozen applications of this sort would
have been granted in the time we have already spent in this unnecessary
and shameful debate. Why should we refuse? If a society of Hindoos in the
District should make such an application, I should not think of refusing
them. If the dying rich man believes the bestowment of a part of his
wealth for the benefit of religion will be a deed rendering him more
acceptable to heaven, shall he be deprived of this right to give, because
another thinks otherwise?
Mr. RHEA, of Tennessee, moved to postpone the consideration of the bill
till the 1st of May.
Mr. SMILIE spoke against postponement.
Mr. QUINCY.--I had not intended to open my mouth on a subject that
appeared to me so plain; where our duty was so apparent; but the debate
has taken so strange a turn that I must make a few remarks. This is a
mere civil affair--religion has nothing to do with it, so far as we
are concerned in granting or refusing the application. I never knew an
application of this kind to be refused--it is an application for the
grant of certain powers to a certain number of persons; it is like an
application for the incorporation of a bank, or any thing similar.
Congress have only to inquire whether or not the ends are proper; whether
the powers asked are or are not likely to be injurious. The gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. CLARK) says, that incorporations of all kinds,
particularly ecclesiastical, are objects of his great abhorrence. The
objects of his abhorrence must then be very numerous, for they almost
every where abound. In Massachusetts nothing can be more common. The
incorporation of a religious society is not for the mere purpose of
enabling such a society to receive the gifts that may be bequeathed them;
the incorporation is for the purpose of enabling a society, or number
of persons, to transact their business, to hold property, to sue and
be sued, &c. Property they must hold, and, if not held as a corporate
body, they must hold it as joint tenants--tenants in common--or they
must have trustees to hold it for them, or a part must hold as trustees
for the rest; and hence arise innumerable difficulties, litigations, and
disagreements--difficulties that will not arise in corporate bodies. You
have only to take care, when an act of incorporation is granted, that no
powers be granted that may have an injurious effect.
Mr. SOUTHARD.--The incorporation of almost all societies is for the
advantage of the public; the incorporation of religious bodies has ever
been beneficial to morals and to society at large. It enables them to
give and to receive justice; to sue and to be sued. The benefits of
incorporation are innumerable; what were society without them? what are
we but a corporate body?
The bill passed to a third reading by a large majority.
WEDNESDAY, February 19.
_Church in Georgetown._
The bill to incorporate the Trustees of a Presbyterian Church in
Georgetown was read a third time.
Mr. ELMER supported, and Messrs. JACKSON, SLOAN, HOLLAND, and RHEA,
opposed the bill.
The question was taken by yeas and nays, and the bill passed--yeas 72,
nays 40.
THURSDAY, February 20.
_Charlestown, (Kanawha,) Virginia._
Mr. CROWNINSHIELD, from the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures, made
a report on the petition of sundry inhabitants of Charlestown, Virginia,
praying that said place may be made a port of entry and delivery.
The report is detailed, and assigns a variety of reasons against the
expediency of granting the prayer of the petitioners, and concludes with
a resolution that they have leave to withdraw their petition.