_New Hampshire._--Peter Carlton, Daniel M. Durell, Francis Gardner,
Jedediah K. Smith, Clement Storer.
_Massachusetts._--Joseph Barker, John Chandler, Ezekiel Bacon, Orchard
Cook, Richard Cutts, Jacob Crowninshield, Josiah Deane, William Ely,
Isaiah L. Green, Edward St. Loe Livermore, Daniel Ilsley, Josiah Quincy,
Ebenezer Seaver, William Stedman, Samuel Taggart, Joseph B. Varnum, Jabez
Upham.
_Vermont._--Martin Chittenden, James Elliot, James Fisk, James Witherall.
_Rhode Island._--Nehemiah Knight, Isaac Wilbour.
_Connecticut._--Epaphroditus Champion, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport,
Jonathan O. Mosely, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Lewis B. Sturges, Benjamin
Tallmadge.
_New York._--John Blake, jr., George Clinton, Barent Gardenier, John
Harris, Reuben Humphreys, William Kirkpatrick, Gurdon S. Mumford, Josiah
Masters, Samuel Riker, John Russell, Peter Swart, David Thomas, John
Thompson, James J. Van Allen, Philip Van Cortlandt, Killian K. Van
Rensselaer, Daniel C. Verplanck.
_New Jersey._--Ezra Darby, William Helms, Adam Boyd, John Lambert, Thomas
Newbold, James Sloan, Henry Southard.
_Pennsylvania._--David Bard, Robert Brown, Joseph Clay, William Findlay,
John Heister, William Hoge, Robert Jenkins, James Kelly, William Milnor,
Daniel Montgomery, jr., John Porter, John Pugh, John Rea, Jacob Richards,
Matthias Richards, John Smilie, Samuel Smith, Robert Whitehill.
_Delaware._--Nicholas Van Dyke.
_Maryland._--John Campbell, Charles Goldsborough, Philip Barton Key,
Edward Lloyd, Wm. McCreery, John Montgomery, Nicholas R. Moore, Roger
Nelson, Archibald Van Herne.
_Virginia._--Burwell Bassett, Wm. A. Burwell, Matthew Clay, John Clopton,
John Dawson, John W. Eppes, James M. Garnett, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin
Gray, David Holmes, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, Joseph Lewis, jr.,
John Love, John Morrow, Thomas Newton, jr., John Randolph, Abram Trigg,
John Smith, Alexander Wilson.
_North Carolina._--Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jr., Wm. Blackledge,
Thomas Blount, John Culpepper, Nathaniel Macon, Thomas Kenan, Lemuel
Sawyer, James Holland, Richard Stanford, Meshack Franklin, Marmaduke
Williams.
_South Carolina._--Lemuel J. Alston, jr., William Butler, Joseph Calhoun,
John Taylor, Robert Marion, David R. Williams, Richard Wynn.
_Georgia._--William W. Bibb, Howell Cobb, Dennis Smelt, George M. Troup.
_Ohio._--Jeremiah Morrow.
_Kentucky._--Joseph Desha, Matthew Lyon, Benjamin Howard, Richard M.
Johnson.
_Tennessee._--John Rhea, G. W. Campbell, Jesse Wharton.
_Orleans Territory._--Delegate; Daniel Clark.
MONDAY, October 26, 1807.
This being the day appointed by Proclamation of the President of the
United States, of the thirtieth day of July last, for the meeting of the
Congress, the following members of the House of Representatives appeared,
produced their credentials, and took their seats, to wit:
_From New Hampshire_--Peter Carlton, Daniel M. Durell, Francis
Gardner, Jedediah K. Smith, and Clement Storer.
_From Massachusetts_--Joseph Barker, John Chandler, Orchard
Cook, Richard Cutts, Josiah Deane, William Ely, Isaiah L.
Green, Daniel Ilsley, Josiah Quincy, Ebenezer Seaver, William
Stedman, Samuel Taggart, Joseph B. Varnum, and Jabez Upham.
_From Vermont_--Martin Chittenden, James Elliot, James Fisk,
and James Witherall.
_From Rhode Island_--Nehemiah Knight, and Isaac Wilbour.
_From Connecticut_--Epaphroditus Champion, Samuel W. Dana, John
Davenport, Jonathan O. Mosely, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Lewis B.
Sturges, and Benjamin Tallmadge.
_From New York_--John Blake, junior, Barent Gardenier, John
Harris, Reuben Humphreys, William Kirkpatrick, Josiah Masters,
Samuel Riker, John Russell, Peter Swart, David Thomas, John
Thompson, James J. Van Allen, Philip Van Cortlandt, Killian K.
Van Rensselaer, and Daniel C. Verplanck.
_From New Jersey_--Ezra Darby, William Helms, John Lambert,
Thomas Newbold, James Sloan, and Henry Southard.
_From Pennsylvania_--David Bard, Robert Brown, William Findlay,
John Heister, Robert Jenkins, James Kelly, William Milnor,
Daniel Montgomery, jr., John Porter, John Pugh, John Rea, Jacob
Richards, Matthias Richards, John Smilie, Samuel Smith, and
Robert Whitehill.
_From Maryland_--John Campbell, Charles Goldsborough, Philip
B. Key, Edward Lloyd, William McCreery, John Montgomery,
Nicholas R. Moore, Roger Nelson, and Archibald Van Horne.
_From Virginia_--Burwell Bassett, William A. Burwell, Matthew
Clay, John Clopton, John Dawson, John W. Eppes, James M.
Garnett, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, David Holmes, Walter
Jones, Joseph Lewis, jr., John Love, John Morrow, Thomas
Newton, jr., John Randolph, and John Smith.
_From North Carolina_--Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jr.,
Thomas Blount, John Culpepper, Thomas Kenan, Lemuel Sawyer,
Richard Stanford, and Meshack Franklin.
_From South Carolina_--Lemuel J. Alston, jr., Wm. Butler,
Joseph Calhoun, Thomas Moore, John Taylor, and David R.
Williams.
_From Georgia_--William W. Bibb, Howell Cobb, Dennis Smelt, and
George M. Troup.
_From Ohio_--Jeremiah Morrow.
_From Kentucky_--Joseph Desha, Benjamin Howard, and Richard M.
Johnson.
_From Tennessee_--John Rhea, and Jesse Wharton.
The Assistant Clerk of the House announced 117 members and one delegate
to be present, being a majority of the whole number. He then inquired
if it were the pleasure of the House to proceed to the appointment of a
Speaker, which being determined in the affirmative, the members proceeded
to ballot for that officer, Messrs. CUTTS, HELMS, and JOHN CAMPBELL,
being named tellers.
The tellers, after examining the votes, reported that 117 were received,
and JOSEPH B. VARNUM, a Representative from the State of Massachusetts,
having fifty-nine of them, was declared to be duly elected.
The votes were given as follows, viz:
Joseph B. Varnum, 59; Charles Goldsborough, 17; Burwell Bassett, 17;
Josiah Masters, 8; Thomas Blount, 7; John Dawson, 4; John Smilie, 2;
Benjamin Tallmadge, 1; Timothy Pitkin, 1; and R. Nelson, 1.
The Speaker being conducted to the Chair, by Mr. VAN CORTLANDT and Mr.
ALSTON, addressed the House as follows:
_Gentlemen of the House of Representatives_:
You will please to accept my most grateful acknowledgments for
the honor which by your suffrages on this occasion you have
conferred upon me. I am sensible of my own inability to perform
the important duties you have been pleased to assign me, in the
most desirable manner; but relying on your candor and readiness
to afford me your aid, I accept the trust. And be assured,
gentlemen, that it will be my assiduous endeavor to discharge
the duties of the office faithfully and impartially; and in
a manner which, in my opinion, shall be best calculated to
meet your wishes and afford me the consolation of an approving
conscience.
The oath to support the Constitution of the United States, as prescribed
by the act, entitled “An act to regulate the time and manner of
administering certain oaths,” was administered by Mr. VAN CORTLANDT, one
of the Representatives for the State of New York, to the SPEAKER; and
then the same oath, or affirmation, was administered by Mr. SPEAKER to
all the members present.
GEORGE POINDEXTER, Esq., having also appeared as the delegate from
the Mississippi Territory of the United States, the said oath was
administered to him by the SPEAKER. The same oath, together with the oath
of office prescribed by the said recited act, were also administered by
Mr. SPEAKER to the Clerk.
A message from the Senate informed the House that a quorum of the Senate
is assembled, and ready to proceed to business. Also, that the Senate
have appointed a committee on their part, jointly with such committee
as may be appointed on the part of this House, to wait on the President
of the United States, and inform him that a quorum of the two Houses is
assembled, and ready to receive any communications he may be pleased to
make to them.
_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate, to inform them that a
quorum of this House is assembled, and have elected JOSEPH B. VARNUM,
Esq., one of the Representatives for the State of Massachusetts, their
Speaker; and that the Clerk of this House do go with the said message.
Mr. BASSETT, Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH, and Mr. MASTERS, were appointed a
committee on the part of this House, jointly with the committee appointed
on the part of the Senate, to wait on the President of the United States,
and inform him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled, and ready to
receive any communication that he may be pleased to make to them.
_Election of Clerk, &c._
The House next proceeded to the election of a Clerk. The same tellers
which had been appointed on the former election having been named by the
Speaker on this, the members proceeded to ballot, and Patrick Magruder
having received 72 votes was declared duly elected.
TUESDAY, October 27.
Several other members, to wit: from Virginia, ABRAM TRIGG and ALEXANDER
WILSON; from South Carolina, ROBERT MARION; and from Tennessee, GEORGE W.
CAMPBELL, appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took
their seats in the House.
WEDNESDAY, October 28.
Another member, to wit, WILLIAM HOGE, from Pennsylvania, appeared,
produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.
THURSDAY, October 29.
Another member, to wit, WILLIAM BLACKLEDGE, from North Carolina,
appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in
the House.
FRIDAY, October 30.
The House proceeded, by ballot, to the appointment of a Chaplain to
Congress, on the part of this House; and, upon examining the ballots, a
majority of the votes of the whole House was found in favor of the Rev.
OBADIAH B. BROWN.
MONDAY, November 2.
Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, EZEKIEL BACON; from
New York, GURDON S. MUMFORD; from North Carolina, JAMES HOLLAND; from
Kentucky, MATTHEW LYON; and from South Carolina, RICHARD WYNN, appeared,
produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats in the
House.
THURSDAY, November 5.
_Revolutionary Pensions._
Mr. DANA said it was well known, that during the last Congress, an act
was passed for the relief of persons claiming pensions. The object of the
act was, to grant relief to some whose cases were not embraced by the
former act, and to grant an increased allowance to others who had not, as
yet, received sufficient. This act provides for taking depositions before
the district judge, in cases where the claimants have never been placed
on the pension list, as well as for examination of the claims of those
who apply to have their pensions increased. Whether any compensation
should be allowed for issuing commissions, or for making the examinations
required, is not declared by the act. A difference of practice, he
understood, had taken place. In some cases, commissions were issued
gratuitously by the district judge; in other cases, these poor solicitors
were obliged, from their small pittance, to pay for these services. If
any compensation were to be allowed for this service, he thought it
should be paid from the public treasury. Whatever might be the mode
adopted, he wished it to be fixed by law. For this purpose he offered the
following resolution:
“_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire what
compensation shall be allowed for issuing commissions giving
authority for taking testimony, or examining evidence relative
to claims or applications under the act to provide for persons
who have been disabled by known wounds received in the
Revolutionary war, and that the committee have leave to report
by bill or otherwise.”
_Frigate Chesapeake._
Mr. QUINCY said the House would recollect that when in Committee of the
Whole on the state of the Union, some days ago, he submitted an amendment
to a resolution of the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. DAWSON,) which went
to an inquiry into the circumstances of the attack on the Chesapeake,
and the causes assigned for it, as well as the manner in which it was
repelled. At that time two objections of some apparent validity were
urged against this motion; the one was that it might have an improper
effect upon a pending trial, the other was as to its form. To obviate
these objections, he had modified the resolution, which he should now
offer to the House.
Mr. Q. read his motion, as follows:
“_Resolved_, That the committee to whom was referred so
much of the Message of the President of the United States as
relates to aggressions committed within our ports and waters,
by foreign armed vessels, to violations of our jurisdiction,
and to measures necessary for the protection of our ports and
harbors, be instructed to inquire into the circumstances of the
attack made on the frigate Chesapeake in June last, and the
pretexts or causes assigned for making it, and to report the
same in detail to the House.”
Mr. Q. would lay before the House his reasons for offering this
resolution. He could not acquiesce in the course which had been given to
that part of the President’s Message which relates to the attack on the
Chesapeake. He could not reconcile it with the sense of justice or with
the honor of this House. He asked gentlemen to consider our situation
in relation to this subject. A violent attack is made upon one of our
public ships of war, in a manner undeniably hostile. A great degree of
excitement has taken place in the public mind throughout the continent.
Our newspapers have teemed with every species of information, a part
of which has been correct, and a part incorrect; which has sometimes
fallen short of the truth, and sometimes exceeded it; has been sometimes
official, and sometimes unofficial. In this situation of things, the
President of the United States deemed it wise and prudent to call an
extraordinary session of this Legislature. We are now assembled. He has
made a communication to us, and this attack is a striking feature in
it. This is our situation. What have we done? The House has gone into a
Committee of the Whole, taken up the Message of the President, cut it up
into parts, according to Parliamentary custom; and we have taken as many
of those parts as we pleased and referred them to particular committees;
some of which are a kind of patchwork committees. In all of these
references, notwithstanding it was the very object which occasioned the
early meeting of the present session, no mention is made of the attack
on the Chesapeake. The committee, which he proposed to instruct on this
subject, had what related to aggressions committed within our ports and
waters submitted to them generally, but they have no compass by which to
steer; no prominent object is placed before them. He could not reconcile
this manner of acting with his duty. He deemed it necessary to obtain a
full development of all the circumstances relative to this affair, in
order that Congress, and the people at large, may form a correct judgment
of our situation. The course adopted is not the course to gain the
information so desirable. It is a course of Parliamentary ignorance, not
a course of development. It is a course of concealment. He spoke as to
the general effect of measures, and not as to gentlemen’s motives.
He inquired of gentlemen what method they would pursue, if they wanted
to understand any particular subject? Would they not refer it to a
distinct committee, and not mix it up with extraneous matter? And if
you give a committee two or three distinct objects to act upon, but
wish them to attend more especially to one, it is proper to give them
specific instructions to that point. This is the way to come at the
proper understanding of a subject. But, on the contrary, if it were the
wish of any member of this House to promote concealment, to prevent a
knowledge of facts, the way is obvious. It would be to place three or
four subjects together, and to suffer the committee to which they are
referred to act as they please upon them. We know that committees thus
left to themselves, will never do too much.
It was because the people of the United States wish to know something
on this subject, that he made this motion. It may be said that this
committee have already the power, and that they may make the necessary
inquiries without this instruction. But it is the duty of this House
to be certain that they will do so. Indeed, if the committee were now
proceeding in this inquiry, this would be no good reason why this motion
ought not to be adopted. If, without being instructed by this House, the
committee should report the facts now called for, the honor of the act
would rest upon that committee; whereas it ought to rest upon this House.
Perhaps it may be said, as on a former occasion, that every man, woman,
and child, in the United States is acquainted with these facts; but what
is known from popular report, or newspaper information, is not the kind
of knowledge we want. We want facts from the proper authority.
An objection had been made to this course, that it would be casting a
censure upon the committee. Not so; it would be no more than drawing
the attention of an organ of the House to a particular subject. It may
be objected to, because a negotiation is pending; but what is done by
Congress, at this time, can have no effect on a negotiation carrying on
across the Atlantic. The House is at present calm and tranquil, and this
is therefore a proper time to undertake an investigation of the facts
required. Let the negotiation terminate as it may, we shall never have
a fair inquiry into these facts, unless we enter upon it at present.
Suppose, said he, the negotiation has a favorable issue, and no inquiry
has been made, is there a member present who will say the inquiry would
then be entered upon? No, it would be said to be an old wound, which
ought not to be probed, but forgotten. But suppose, on the other hand,
that the negotiation should be abruptly broken off, and this House should
be called upon to put the nation in hostile array, would that be a proper
time for entering upon the proposed inquiry? Would the House be in a
fit state for deliberating upon the facts required? Indeed, the subject
appeared to him so clear, and the duty to bring forward this motion so
impressive, that he could not refrain from making it.
Mr. BURWELL said he had hoped he should have been able to have satisfied
the gentleman from Massachusetts, as to the attention of the committee
to whom this duty was assigned; but after an expression which had dropped
from him, he despaired of doing it. He would, however, inform the House
that the committee to whom the subject was referred were engaged in a
course of investigation on the very part of it now agitated, and had
come to a determination to obtain, from the proper authority, a correct
detail of the circumstances attending this particular attack; not content
with this, they were about to call on the Government for a detail of all
aggressions that had been committed within our ports and waters.
Mr. BLOUNT said, that, at the moment the gentleman from Massachusetts
had moved this resolution, he was in the committee-room, in the act of
addressing a note to the Secretary of State on this subject, according to
the direction of the committee, calling for a full and correct statement
of all the facts relative to the aggression committed on the frigate
Chesapeake. For the satisfaction of the gentleman, he would read the note
which he had written. [Mr. B. then opened and read the note.]
THURSDAY, November 12.
Two other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, JACOB CROWNINSHIELD; and
from Pennsylvania, JOSEPH CLAY, appeared, produced their credentials,
were qualified, and took their seats in the House.
The SPEAKER laid before the House sundry documents, transmitted to him by
Duncan McFarland, of the State of North Carolina, relative to his claim
to a seat in this House, as a Representative for said State, in the room
of John Culpepper; which were referred to the Committee of Elections.
_Maryland Contested Election_.[55]
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
report of the Committee of Elections, to whom was referred the memorial
of Joshua Barney, of the State of Maryland. The report of the Committee
of Elections is as follows:
The Committee of Elections, to whom was committed the petition
of Joshua Barney, of the city of Baltimore, praying to be
admitted to a seat in the House, he having, in his opinion,
the highest number of votes given to a candidate legally
qualified to represent the city of Baltimore, having carefully
examined the facts stated on both sides, and compared the laws
of Maryland under which the said election was held, with the
Constitution of the United States, report--
That, by an act of the Assembly of Maryland, passed in
November, 1790, it is required that the member shall be an
inhabitant of his district at the time of his election, and
shall have resided therein twelve calendar months immediately
before.
By another act of the Assembly of Maryland, passed in November,
1802, it is enacted that Baltimore town and county shall be the
fifth district, which district shall be entitled to send two
Representatives to Congress, one of which shall be a resident
of Baltimore county, and the other a resident of Baltimore city.
That Joshua Barney is a citizen of Maryland, and has been a
resident of Baltimore city for many years.
That William McCreery has been for many years a citizen of
Maryland, and a resident of the city of Baltimore; but that, in
the year 1803, he removed himself and his family to his estate
in Baltimore county; that, from that time, though he himself
has occasionally resided in Baltimore, yet he, with his wife
and family, have not made the city their settled residence.
That William McCreery states that his intention was, and still
is, to reside with his family on his country estate in summer,
and in the city of Baltimore in winter; but that, ever since he
has removed his family to his farm, he has been obliged every
winter, in the public service, to reside, and frequently with
his family, in the city of Washington, which prevented him from
removing his family, agreeably to his intention, to the city of
Baltimore; but he resided himself in the city of Baltimore five
or six days before the election; that he and his family were
residing in the same situation, when he was elected to serve in
the ninth Congress, that they were when he was elected into the
present Congress; that, however, not wishing to have been taken
up as a candidate at the last election, he expressed to some of
his friends some apprehensions that exceptions might be made on
account of his constant family residence not being in the city
of Baltimore.
At the election in that district for the Congress now in
session, Nicholas R. Moore had 6,164 votes; he is a resident in
Baltimore county; and William McCreery, against whose right to
a seat in this House objection is made on account of residence,
had 3,559 votes; and Joshua Barney, who claims a seat in this
House, and it is admitted is a resident of Baltimore city, had
2,063 votes; and John Seat, also a resident in Baltimore city,
had 353 votes. The above statement of facts being admitted by
the parties, further evidence was not required. No question was
taken on the legal residence of William McCreery in the city of
Baltimore.
The committee proceeded to examine the constitution, with
relation to the case submitted to them, and find that
qualifications of members are therein determined, without
reserving any authority to the State Legislatures to change,
add to, or diminish those qualifications; and that, by
that instrument, Congress is constituted the sole judge of
the qualifications prescribed by it, and are obliged to
decide agreeably to the constitutional rules; but the State
Legislatures being, by the constitution, authorized to
prescribe the time, place and manner of holding the elections,
in controversies arising under this authority, Congress are
obliged to decide agreeably to the laws of the respective
States.
On the most mature consideration of the case submitted to
them, the committee are of opinion that William McCreery is
duly qualified to represent the fifth district of the State
of Maryland, and that the law of that State, restricting the
residence of the members of Congress to any particular part of
the district for which they may be chosen, is contrary to the
Constitution of the United States: therefore,
“_Resolved_, That William McCreery is entitled to his seat in
this House.”
TUESDAY, November 17.
Another member, to wit, MARMADUKE WILLIAMS, from North Carolina,
appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in
the House.
_Frigate Chesapeake._
Mr. BLOUNT, from the committee to whom was referred so much of the
Message of the President as relates to aggressions, &c., made a report.
The report commences with an expression of sensibility at the outrage
committed on the Chesapeake; states the receipt of information relative
thereto from the State and Navy Departments; presents a general view
of the circumstances; observes that it might be said to have been
incontestably proved that William Ware, John Strachan, and Daniel Martin
are citizens of the United States. But the committee add, that they
conceive it unnecessary for them or the House to go into any inquiry
on that part of the subject, as in their opinion whether the men taken
from the Chesapeake were or were not citizens of the United States, and
whether the Chesapeake was or was not within the acknowledged limits of
the United States at the time they were taken, the character of the act
of taking them remains the same.
“From the foregoing facts, it appears to your committee that
the outrage committed on the frigate Chesapeake has been
stamped with circumstances of indignity and insult of which
there is scarcely to be found a parallel in the history of
civilized nations, and requires only the sanction of the
Government under color of whose authority it was perpetrated
to make it just cause of, if not an irresistible call for,
instant and severe retaliation. Whether it will receive that
sanction, or be disavowed, and declared an unauthorized act
of a subordinate officer, remains to be determined by the
answer which shall be given to the demand of explanation. That
answer (now daily expected) will either sink the detestable
act into piracy, or expand it to the magnitude of premeditated
hostility against the sovereignty and independence of this
nation; and until its true character shall be fixed and known,
your committee deem it expedient to decline expressing any
opinion as to the measures proper to be adopted in relation
to it. But, as other acts of aggression have been committed
within our ports and waters by British ships of war, as well
anterior as posterior to this, some of them manifesting the
same disregard of our national rights, and seeming to flow
from the same contempt for the authority of our laws; and
especially as the British squadron, of which the Leopard was
one, after being notified of the President’s proclamation,
ordering them to depart from the waters of the United States
which they knew had been published in conformity to an act
of Congress, anchored within the capes of Chesapeake Bay, and
in that situation remained, capturing American vessels, even
within our acknowledged territorial limits, and sending them to
Halifax for adjudication--impressing seamen on board American
vessels--firing on vessels and boats of all descriptions,
having occasion to pass near them in pursuit of their lawful
trade, and occasionally denouncing threats, calculated to alarm
and irritate the good people of the United States, particularly
the inhabitants of Norfolk and Hampton--all which facts are
substantiated by the accompanying documents, Nos. 1 to 6--the
committee are of opinion that it is expedient to provide more
effectually for the protection of our ports and harbors; but
not being prepared to report specifically on that subject, they
ask further indulgence of the House, and beg leave to submit
for their consideration the following resolution:
“_Resolved_, That the attack of the British ship of war
Leopard on the United States frigate Chesapeake was a flagrant
violation of the jurisdiction of the United States, and
that the continuance of the British squadron (of which the
Leopard was one) in their waters, after being notified of the
proclamation of the President of the United States, ordering
them to depart the same, was a further violation thereof.”
The report was referred to a Committee of the Whole on Monday.
On a motion of Mr. BASSETT, that the proceedings of this day, with closed
doors, ought to be kept secret, the question being taken thereupon, it
passed in the negative--yeas 22, nays 104.