FOURTH CONGRESS.—FIRST SESSION. (continued 2)

Mr. Sedgwick finding his name thus unexpectedly introduced, wished to be allowed to give oath in order that he should tell all he knew.

The oath was administered to Mr. Sedgwick, who gave information to the following effect: He had never in his life seen Randall, till he was produced at the bar. Whitney he had seen two or three times. The Mr. Jones mentioned by Whitney, in his declaration lives within about thirty-four miles of Mr. Sedgwick's house. Whitney, with Mr. Jones, came, a considerable time ago, to him one morning, while he was at breakfast. They asked his opinion; which was, that Government would not sell any lands, till the Indian claim was first extinguished. Mr. Jones endeavored to convince Mr. Sedgwick of the benefits which would result to the United States from this sale. Mr. Sedgwick accompanied them to the door of his house, where Mr. Jones asked him whether there would be any thing improper in a member of the Legislature being concerned in such a purchase? Mr. Sedgwick said, that this would depend entirely on the mode of application. If it was to the Land Office, there would be nothing wrong in it; if to Congress, then it would be a man making a bargain with himself. Whitney, since Mr. Sedgwick came to town, had called two or three times on him. He got his servant for more than once to deny him, as he was busy. Once, however, he did see him; the first question of Mr. Sedgwick was, from what State did he come? He said he resided in Vermont. He then spoke of the matter in a general way; and Mr. Sedgwick, whose object it was to shake him off, advised his calling on Mr. Buck, a member from that State, as it would be more proper to call on him. Mr. Sedgwick believed that he was more teazed with applications of this private kind than any member in the House. During the conference with Whitney, he did not remember that Randall's name was ever introduced. Mr. Sedgwick heard, with astonishment, the name of Colonel Pepune mentioned. He lived opposite to Mr. Sedgwick's house, in the town of Stockbridge. He rode down from that place to New York, along with Mr. Sedgwick, and never spoke one word of the matter to him.

Randall had, among other stories, told Mr. Samuel Smith that Mr. Wm. Smith should bring forward this land business, in the House. He positively said so to Mr. S. Smith on the 13th of December, and it would be proved that he had never exchanged a word with Mr. W. Smith, nor ever seen him till the 22d of that month, viz: about nine days after. This is the substance of a short explanation which took place between some of the members, after Mr. Sedgwick had ended his declaration. Mr. W. Smith then asked Randall, whether it was not true, that he spoke to Mr. Samuel Smith before he spoke to himself? Mr. Tilghman, in reply, said that he was authorized to answer in the affirmative. This puts to rest the story related by Randall to the member from Baltimore.

Wednesday, January 6.

Case of Robert Randall.

Mr. Sedgwick laid before the House some additions to his evidence, delivered yesterday. He gave in a written copy of the whole, and wished that it might be added to the declaration already made. The paper was read, and, on motion, ordered to be inserted in the journals. Mr. Sedgwick said he had yesterday mentioned Col. Pepune being in Philadelphia, but he had not seen him. He has since done so. The Colonel lodges at the sign of the Drover, in Third street, and is ready, when called upon by the House, to tell every circumstance which he knows about the transaction of Randall or Whitney.

Mr. W. Smith submitted, whether it would be proper to proceed any farther in the case of Randall, till some hearing had been given to Whitney.

It was then moved by a member that the case of Randall should be postponed. After some conversation as to the point of order, the motion was negatived.

Mr. Harper then read two resolutions. Of the first, the following is the substance:

"Resolved, That any attempt to influence the conduct of this House, or its members, on subjects appertaining to their Legislative functions, by motives other than the public advantage, is a high contempt of this House, and a breach of its privileges."

The second resolution was, in substance, that Randall having committed such an offence, was guilty of such a contempt, &c.

Mr. Harper thought it proper, before deciding as to Randall, to lay down certain principles, and decide whether the offence was in itself criminal or not, before determining the conduct of the prisoner.

Mr. Kitchell thought these resolutions unnecessary. The only thing before the House was to call on the prisoner, and pronounce him either innocent or guilty.

Mr. Harper, in defence of his resolutions, said, that one misfortune attending privileges was, that they could not be exactly defined; but, as far as they could be ascertained, it was the business of the House to do so. If this offence is a breach of privilege, we are entitled to declare it such, that the people of the United States may be informed that it is so.

Mr. W. Smith could not conceive how any member would vote against this first resolution. If we refuse to say that the act itself is a crime, how can we condemn Randall as criminal? We are, in every sense of the word, bound to vote for the proposition. We have declared the attempt of Randall to be a high offence and contempt. If any member thinks it not so, then, to be sure, he will vote against it. Mr. Smith said that Legislative bodies had frequently, while a prisoner was on trial before them, laid down rules to guide them, previous to their pronouncing sentence. A former member had suggested that it was better to make the resolution a preamble to the sentence, and introduce it with a whereas. As it stands at present, it is agreeable to what had been done already.

Mr. Nicholas hoped that members were not to be bound by any thing yet done. At the first embarking of the House in this affair, he had felt doubts. His scruples had gradually augmented, and he was now of opinion that Randall should not have been meddled with at all, in the present way. The right of privilege had been given up, unless in cases of absolute necessity. He did not think that any resolution had yet passed the House, upon due consideration, whether they had a right to proceed or not. Mr. Nicholas recommended lenity, rather than a parade of integrity, where there was no ground of suspicion—a parade which would not have been made if there had been any real danger.

Mr. Williams thought the resolutions altogether unnecessary. The principle is already entered on the journals. All that the House have to do is to declare Randall guilty or not.

Mr. Hillhouse agreed with Mr. Williams, but he was astonished at the doctrine held up by the gentleman from Virginia. We had been told yesterday, at the bar, that the offence is not punishable by the common law. We are not to do so by privilege. The consequence is, that an attempt to corrupt members cannot be punished at all. It would not be proper to tell this to the public. Any body may then come here and bid for votes.

Mr. Hillhouse thought that the counsel yesterday had fairly given up the point, for they admitted that improper violence without doors was a breach of privilege. Mr. H. argued that this was as great a violence as could be. He was for inflicting a punishment.

Mr. Livingston thought the wording of the first clause too broad. Any member spoken to without doors might come into the House and complain of a breach of privilege on trifling grounds.

Mr. Giles would not at present enter into the question whether there had been a breach of privilege or not. From any thing yet seen, he was doubtful. He was against the preamble. Privilege was of an insinuating nature. Mr. Livingston had taken up a thought which occurred to Mr. Giles. Any man meeting on the street a member of this House, may say to him, "Sir, by voting for such a thing in the House, you will destroy your popularity in your district." This argument was not on motives of public good, and a member might by this resolution be warranted to come into the House and complain of it as a breach of privilege. He wished for the previous question, which was taken, and by a great majority the resolution was negatived.

Mr. Livingston then read two resolutions. Their tenor was, that it appears to this House that Robert Randall has been guilty of a contempt and a breach of the privileges of this House, by attempting to corrupt the integrity of its members, in the manner laid to his charge, and that Randall should be called up to the bar, reprimanded by the Speaker, and recommitted to custody, till further orders from this House.

On the first resolution the yeas and nays were called for—yeas 78, nays 17.

After some conversation, the second resolution was likewise agreed to.

Randall was then brought to the bar, and in a few words reprimanded by the Speaker. To call his offence indiscretion, impropriety, or indelicacy, was too mild a name. His conduct was crime. His apparent ignorance of the nature and extent of his guilt had induced the House to be more indulgent than they otherwise would have been. The Speaker informed him that he was recommitted to custody till further orders from the House.

Thursday, January 7.

Case of Charles Whitney.

Mr. Whitney was now brought in. The Speaker addressed him as follows: "Charles Whitney, the information lodged against you on the journals of the House will now be read to you by the Clerk." This was accordingly done.

Mr. Whitney was next asked at what time he would be ready to proceed with his defence? He replied that he thought he could be ready to go on just now, if he had counsel. If he could get them to-morrow, he should be glad to go on then, in order to get the thing over. If counsel could not be got, he would request a delay till Monday. He was sure Mr. Buck had mistaken his meaning. He was told that he would be called on again to-morrow, and if he had not been able to obtain counsel then, there was a probability of his being allowed a delay till Monday.

Mr. Bourne stated the hardship of obliging the prisoner to fee counsel; no probability existing of any thing farther being brought against him. There was but little in the charge, admitting it to be true. Mr. B. made a distinction of the conversation having passed in Vermont, not in Philadelphia. It was before Mr. Buck came to Congress at all.

Mr. Giles had yesterday expressed but little satisfaction at the mode of conducting this business, nor had his satisfaction been since augmented by further reflection. He read a motion, which was seconded, for dismissing Whitney immediately. Admitting all which stood charged, Mr. Giles did not consider it as containing any breach of privilege.

Mr. W. Smith regarded this resolution as premature; he wished to have the regular forms of trial gone through, as in the other case. When the trial was finished, the House could then decide on the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. He thought that Mr. Buck ought to be sworn. When the offer was made in Vermont, he was looked upon as a member of Congress, and the temptation which had been held out to him was a contempt of the House. There was not yet a sufficient explanation to justify his discharge.

Mr. Hillhouse supposed corruption to be equally criminal in Vermont as in Philadelphia. It would commit the dignity of the House to say that we have kept a man in jail for a week, and then have dismissed him without a trial. It implies that we never had any right to arrest him. Mr. H. had not formed his ultimate opinion on the subject. He wished the trial to be gone through, and then, if the prisoner proved innocent, dismiss him. He had made application to a member in this town, besides Mr. Buck in Vermont. [Mr. Goodhue, on whom Mr. Whitney called, after he came to Philadelphia.]

Mr. Buck objected to the immediate dismission of Whitney. It struck him as an impropriety to dismiss the prisoner by an unqualified resolution. It would be better to state, as a reason, that the attempt to corrupt the integrity of a member had happened in Vermont, before the sitting down of Congress. Then let the question come forward and be tried.

Mr. Sedgwick had, more than was usual with him, avoided speaking on this question. He early entertained an idea that an application to a member of Congress, before it sat, was not a breach of privilege. It was an unfortunate circumstance when the same persons were to be both judges and parties. People were apt to get into a passion when one came to them and said, "I consider you as rascals, and I want to purchase a portion of your rascality."

Mr. Madison said, it appeared to him that the House could have no privileges, unless what arises from the necessity of the case. He differed from the opinion formed by the House, but he wished them to act in conformity to their own principle. The object at present before the House is, to keep its members free from corruption. Whether a proposal is made in town or country, if we dismiss names and circumstances, and look only to the substance of the thing, there is no distinction between the two cases.

Mr. Page said, that if the motion for dismissing had come on a week ago, he would have voted for it. He wished to get rid of the matter as fast as possible. He alluded, though not in direct terms, to the idea of Mr. Lewis, that it would have been better to have kicked some people down stairs, than to have made them objects of prosecution.

Mr. Harper considered it as a material distinction between a member being attacked and beaten, for example, in Philadelphia, during his attendance on Congress, and the same accident occurring during the recess, in a distant part of the country. It was admitted that the doctrine of privilege violated the rights of the people, and could be justified only upon the plea of necessity: it being so liable to misapprehension and misconstruction, he wished to see as little of it as possible. He gave his hearty concurrence to the resolution of Mr. Giles. He had been desirous of seeing such a thing brought forward. He adverted to the delicate situation of the House, at once accusers, judges, and witnesses.

Mr. Gallatin spoke a few words in favor of the motion.

Mr. Isaac Smith was persuaded that the House possesses privileges, and has a right to exert them. They are pointed out by the constitution. Mr. S. wished to dismiss the prisoner. It had been said that dismissing him without a trial, after having apprehended and confined him, would be casting a reflection on the House. No such thing! There existed probable grounds of suspicion. We have waited full time, and no proof has come forward. Then let him go, and the sooner that we do it the better.

When Mr. Isaac Smith sat down, Mr. Giles rose to offer a resolution, in place of his former one:

"Resolved, That it appears to this House that the information lodged against Charles Whitney does not amount to a breach of the privileges of this House, and that he therefore be discharged from custody."

Mr. Freeman voted yesterday in a minority for dismissing Randall. He would this day vote for discharging Whitney. As to the dignity of the House, even an outrage upon it could be as well punished by a Justice of the Peace as by ourselves. He stated the extreme difficulty of adopting, in practice, the doctrine laid down, that an improper offer made to a member when in the country, was to be punished as a breach of privilege. A member, suppose from Georgia, comes here, and tells a story of somebody in that State who has made him an unsuitable proposal: the Sergeant-at-Arms is instantly despatched a thousand miles to bring this person to the bar for contempt of the House. What kind of a business would this be?

Mr. Hartley thought the resolution last offered by Mr. Giles had too much narrowed the ground of dismissing Whitney. He had been taken up as an associate with Randall. The charge had not been properly supported by evidence. Dismiss him, and let the want of proof be your reason for it. Mr. H. cordially agreed with the substance of the resolution, but he objected to the wording of it.

Mr. Kitchell pointed out the wide distinction between the cases of Randall and Whitney. It had been said that the latter must be criminal, for he was an associate with Randall. Mr. K. saw no such thing. There was no criminality in the bond. Keep a man in jail week after week upon idle suspicion! Injustice, Whitney ought to have been tried at first, when he declared himself ready for trial. Mr. K. was for discharging him this day.

Mr. Harper now moved an amendment to the resolution before the House: it was in these words:

"Inasmuch as the proposals made by the said Whitney took place before the member to whom they were addressed had taken his seat in the House."

Mr. Giles.—If the amendment succeeded, he would vote against the whole proposition. This was a renewal of the attempt to define privilege. It was not practicable. Every case of the kind must stand upon its own merits. Mr. G. would vote against the amendment.

Mr. Macon read a resolution, that Charles Whitney be discharged from the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. This was, in fact, reducing the second resolution offered by Mr. Giles back into his first one.

Mr. Sedgwick thought it an awkward thing to attempt giving any reasons. If gentlemen are willing to agree to discharge Mr. Whitney, they ought to discharge him. They assign different reasons for the same proceedings, and will not consent to it, but each in his own particular mode.

Mr. Harper was astonished to hear so many invincible objections to telling the motives why we agree in a measure. It had been complained that privilege was undefined; that it was an assuming, creeping monster. An attempt had been made to define it, in part, and this also had been objected to.

Mr. Macon said, that he would vote to discharge Whitney, for a particular reason alleged by Mr. Giles.

Now, replied Mr. Giles, if the gentleman is to vote for the dismission because that is my reason, I desire him to vote against the dismission. My reason for discharging Whitney is totally different. I argue, that all which we have entered on the journals, admitting it proved, does not amount to any breach of our privileges. That is my motive for dismissing the prisoner.

An amendment was proposed to strike out of the resolution of Mr. Giles the following words: "That it appears to this House, that the information lodged against Charles Whitney, does not amount to a breach of the privileges of this House; and." The amendment was agreed to—ayes 43, noes 41.

It was then moved to alter the remainder of the resolution, by striking out the word "he," and inserting "Charles Whitney." The amendment was adopted; and the resolution so amended, stood thus:

Resolved, That Charles Whitney be discharged from the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.

This, also, was agreed to.

Friday, January 8.

Jeremiah Crabb, from Maryland, appeared, was qualified, and took his seat.

Indian Trading Houses.

The House went into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Muhlenberg in the chair, on the bill to establish trading houses for the Indian tribes.

Mr. Dayton objected to the bill, so far as it empowers those who are to sell the goods to the Indians, to procure or purchase the goods. He considered the uniting these powers in the same persons as highly exceptionable and liable to great abuse. He moved to strike out the words "procure or."

Mr. Parker said that the objection was misapplied, for subsequent clauses placed the business under the special direction of the President of the United States. He should not, however, object to striking out the words. His view in rising was merely to justify the committee who reported the bill, as they had supposed that sufficient guards were provided.

Mr. Giles did not think the reason given for retaining the words sufficient. The President cannot be supposed to have such cognizance of every part of this business as will enable him to secure the public, or Indians, from imposition. He was for increasing the checks against abuse.

The motion for striking out was agreed to.

In the third section, Mr. Sedgwick objected to the words "laying aside all view of gain by the trade." They might operate disadvantageously to the people of the United States, if Government should enter into this trade on a principle that would preclude all private adventures in the same line by citizens. The words were expunged.

Mr. Parker presented a substitute. It relates to compensation of agents and clerks to be employed. The sum of —— dollars was to be appropriated. The substitute was adopted by the committee.

In the seventh section, Mr. Sedgwick moved an amendment, providing for the forfeiture of licenses in case of contravening the provisions of the law. This motion was withdrawn in order to introduce the provision elsewhere.

Mr. Milledge moved to strike out the whole of this seventh section. It appeared to him to involve provisions which would be proper in another law, but in this bill blended two different subjects.

Mr. Sedgwick considered the provisions in this section referring to certain rules for regulating the public trade with the Indians, as proper, since similar rules would be made in regulating the trade of individuals with Indians. On this ground he was for retaining the section.

It was moved to modify the section by confining the provisions to "the agents or clerks," specially employed by the United States. This amendment was agreed to.

On the motion of Mr. Sedgwick, the last clause of the seventh section, relative to the oath or affirmation, was expunged.

The committee then rose; the Chairman reported the bill with the amendments, which were taken up, and agreed to by the House, with one verbal amendment.

Mr. Swift expressed his disapprobation of the bill. He thought the object unattainable to any important extent. He disapproved of public bodies being concerned in trade. It is always managed better by individuals. Great loss and dilapidation are the consequence; nor is it possible to guard against frauds and abuses. The public have no money to spare. It is the opinion of the Committee of Ways and Means, that additional taxes will be necessary for the public service. We must not tax our constituents for the sake of trading with the Indians. He hoped not. Mr. S. concluded by a motion for striking out the first section.

Mr. Parker supported the principle of the bill; he wished a fair experiment to be made. The plan is founded on humanity and benevolence. It has been recommended by the President from year to year. Mr. P., on this subject, had been in sentiment with him. It was well-known he had never lightly advocated a disbursement of public money; on this occasion, it would be a saving of public money. It will cost much less to conciliate the good opinion of the Indians than to pay men for destroying them.

Mr. Hillhouse was in favor of an experiment. Much had been anticipated from the plan; a beginning had been made, and he thought it best to try it for such a length of time as would afford a fair experiment of what could be done.

Mr. Swanwick said he was in favor of the principles of the bill, were it merely as a change from our usual system of Indian affairs. We have hitherto pursued war at an expense of a million and a half of dollars nearly annually; let us now try the fruits of commerce, that beneficent power which cements and civilizes so many nations; barbarous till they became acquainted with its influence. To encourage us, indeed, a fact has come to our knowledge on the investigation of the case of Randall. Gentlemen will remember his assertions to them, and the deed read in the House, in which so much was stated of the influence of the Canada traders over the Indians: well, let us try to balance or countervail this influence; but it has been observed, our private citizens will do this sufficiently in the way of their private trade. In general I am friendly to let commerce take its own level without Governmental interference; but the little influence our traders have yet obtained, shows plainly enough defective capital or a defective extent of trade; both are to be apprehended. So many objects of speculation offer in this country, that individuals may not pay sufficient attention to this branch, in which they have so powerful a British interest to contend with. Government, alone, can do this in the infancy of the commerce. Let the experiment be made; we can lose little by it; we may gain a great deal. It has been observed, that this act has been rejected in three different sessions of Congress already; and this is argued as a proof of its want of merit; but this has been the fate in England of the navigation act; it was hundreds of years struggling to get into existence, but was not the less acceptable when at last it succeeded. Perhaps we may find this bill, on experience, none the worse for the difficulties, which, as an untried step, it has hitherto had to encounter: it is recommended by general reasoning; let us try it; we can only repeal it if we find it does not answer the sanguine expectations entertained of it.

Mr. Macon[64] was opposed to the bill. He thought the circumstance of the business having been so long in agitation, was a reason why it should be longer considered. The reason for delay was certainly not weakened by that. The business was highly improper for Government to embark in.

Mr. Murray had but one idea to suggest, as it was unnecessary to go over the general policy, which had been amply stated by other gentlemen. There appeared to him two objects; first, the securing the Indian friendship by a supply of their wants; second, the supplanting the British traders in their influence over the tribes whose hostilities might embarrass us. To the last object, therefore, the meditated mode of supply by public agency was peculiarly well adapted. The Indians are now supplied by a great company long established, very wealthy, and possessing this influence, in which we must supplant them. We are to consider whether, if private individuals are left to be the only competitors with the Canada company, this influence and this trade will be transferred agreeably to sound policy. He thought they would not. Small capitalists, and adventurers young in this trade, would certainly prove unequal to a competition with so well established and rich a company as the Canada company. It was no uncommon thing for great companies, when they were apprehensive of what they would call interlopers, to crush all competition by making a voluntary sacrifice of a few thousand pounds sterling. By underselling, on a large scale, for a time, and even a certain loss, they secured themselves in future from competition. This great company can afford to pay this price for the perpetuity of this trade and influence. In order to meet the capital of this company, we must not trust to individual small capitalists. By a sum appropriated by Government to the object, however large the capital in competition in Canada, the Government will be able to beat down the trade of this company and place it in American hands; and in a few years after the competition has ceased, the Government may then withdraw its agency, and leave it to private capitals, to which the field will then have been rendered easy.

The motion of Mr. Swift was negatived; and the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

Wednesday, January 19.

Appropriations for 1796.

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the bill making appropriations for the support of Government in the year 1796.

Mr. Williams, agreeably to notice given on a former day, moved to strike out all that gross sum appropriated for the officers of the Mint.[65]

Mr. W. Smith said that a great proportion of the sum was for salaries established by law. They must be paid, till the law is repealed. If the gentleman means to suspend the whole appropriation bill till an inquiry is gone through with respect to the Mint, the bill may be delayed for two months, and the consequence be the greatest embarrassment in Government.

Mr. Jeremiah Smith had never been much in favor of the Mint, nor had experience increased his good opinion of it. But passing this appropriation bill would not prevent a full investigation of this subject hereafter. He was for deferring any proceeding about the Mint till the select committee made their report. He opposed the motion.

Mr. Sedgwick thought that the course which the gentleman is pursuing had never been adopted before. It is incorrect to discuss the merits of the Mint in passing this bill. We might as well take up the salary of the Chief Justice, or any other article in the bill, as the Mint. We never should have done, at this rate. We are now only to vote for the bill, as agreeable to the laws already made. Mr. Sedgwick said that if the gentleman from New York (Mr. Williams) would bring forward any proposition for the regulation, or even the abolition of the establishment of the Mint, if it could be proved productive of public benefit, he, with every other gentleman, would give him their aid to effect the object; but that now, he conceived, it could not regularly be brought forward. He thought an appropriation bill should be conformed exactly to the state of the public engagements, and that where establishments had been formed and salaries provided, the amount of them should be the principle of calculating the amount of appropriations; and that the House ought not, by withholding appropriations, to break in upon and destroy establishments formed by the whole Legislature. That these observations had hitherto been sanctioned by the practice on this subject. He observed, that if the House was to investigate, in the discussion of an appropriation bill, the amount of salaries and the legal establishments of Government, the public service would be dangerously destroyed. He remarked, that it was to be observed that no appropriation was made, for any purpose, since the commencement of the year.

Mr. Gallatin felt alarmed at the principle advanced by Mr. Sedgwick, for, if admitted, it might be applied in future on some other and important occasion. The motion made by the member from New York ought not, perhaps, to be adopted; but there was certainly a discretionary power in the House to appropriate or not to appropriate for any object whatever, whether that object was authorized by law or not. It was a power which, however inexpedient on the present occasion, was vested in this House for the purpose of checking the other branches of Government whenever necessary. That such a right was reserved by this body, appeared from their making only yearly appropriations for the support of the Civil List and of the Military Establishment. Had they meant to give up the right, they would have such appropriations permanent. There was one instance in which this House had thought it proper to abandon the right. In order to strengthen public credit, they had consented that the payment of interest on the debt should not depend on their sole will, and they had rendered the appropriation for that object not a yearly, but a permanent one. Whenever that was not the case, and the right had been reserved, it was contradictory to suppose that the House were bound to do a certain act, at the same time that they were exercising the discretionary power of voting upon it.

Mr. Sedgwick said that he certainly had no intention to have given occasion to the observations which had been made; but, as the general principle which he had laid down had been denied, and as it had some relation, either intimate or remote, to the subject before the committee, he would take the liberty to repeat the principle, and say a few words in support of it.

The principle, then, which he had assumed, was, that when legal establishments were made, it was the duty of the Legislature to make appropriations conformably to the public engagements; and that neither branch had a right to withhold its assent. He observed that the whole Legislature, and not a part, were competent to form contracts, and to establish and alter compensations and salaries. The Legislature, and not either branch of it, had the power of expressing the public will, and pledging the public faith; that when a salary is ascertained, the public faith is pledged that it shall be paid, according to the stipulation; and that, therefore, the public credit is involved in making the necessary appropriations, without which it could not be paid. He asked, if, in such a case, it was competent to the House rightfully to withhold the means necessary for the performance of the public engagement?

He said he had always supposed that the power of the House, in the case of appropriations, did not give a power to yield or withhold assent on such a subject. He believed, in every such instance, the exercise of discretion was restrained. To illustrate his ideas, he could mention a similar instance. The constitution had declared that the President should receive a stated compensation for his services, to be ascertained by law, which could neither be diminished nor enlarged during the term for which he should have been elected. Here was a duty imposed on the Legislature, with the performance of which they could not, they had no power to dispense. Yet, after the compensation was stated, no payment could be made in consequence of appropriating. He asked, if, in this case, when the public will was expressed, the engagement and the national faith pledged, the Legislature could of right withhold the necessary appropriation? The same observations might, he said, be applied to every instance where public contracts were formed. The public faith was pledged, the necessary appropriation must be made to prevent a violation of it; and if withheld, such violation might justly be charged on the Legislature.

Mr. Nicholas was for the resolution. It had been urged that the House were to pass the appropriation bill as a matter of course. He thought otherwise. The House, in enacting a law, were entitled to consider all its consequences.

Mr. Giles adverted to a fact stated by Mr. Williams, viz: that the cents are issued from the Mint at a cheaper rate than the price of the copper itself; so that, if a person chooses to melt down a pound weight of cents into a lump of copper, and takes this lump back again to the Mint, he will receive more money for it than what it was worth in cents. Thus the whole expense of workmanship is cast away. Mr. Giles described the ridiculous and wasteful effects to be looked for from such a way of coining money.

The amendment of Mr. Williams was agreed to by a very large majority.

Mr. Nicholas moved to strike out some of the subsequent clauses, for payments to mechanics, for stationery, &c.

Mr. Isaac Smith wanted to know if it was meant to stop the whole operations of the Mint.

Mr. Page objected to dispersing the workmen, who could not easily be collected again; at least it would require an immense expense to re-assemble them. It has been stated, in the course of this discussion, that every cent coined in the Mint has cost the public TEN; but if the workmen are to be dispersed, and if at any future time assembled again, the cents may come to cost A HUNDRED CENTS apiece. Mr. P. recited various reasons for hoping that the business of the Mint will in future be conducted with more expedition, economy, and success. He stated the immense benefit arising to the country from the plenty of copper money, and especially to the poorer classes of people. A Mint was of more consequence than gentlemen seemed to think it was. He said that private mints were reported to be setting up. He wished to refer the amendment of his colleague from Virginia to the third reading of the bill. By that time the House would be better informed.

Mr. Nicholas did not wish to abolish, but merely to suspend the operations of the Mint till nearer the end of the session. This amendment was negatived.

The committee rose, the Chairman reported, and the House took up the bill as reported.

The House adhered to the amendment of the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. Livingston next moved that the whole appropriation for the Mint should be struck out.

Mr. Murray said, that had the gentleman from New York moved for delay, for the purpose of introducing a motion to repeal the law which rendered this appropriation necessary, he would not have troubled the House with a single remark; but his motion to strike out an appropriation for the purpose of bringing the policy of the law itself into discussion, contained a principle in his mind so repugnant to the great Legislative duties of the House that he would oppose it. The object of the appropriation is not a temporary one, but a part of the machinery of our Government, under the express authority of the constitution by law. The doctrine now contended for by the gentlemen from New York and Pennsylvania (Mr. Livingston and Mr. Gallatin) was that this House have a discretionary power of appropriating or not. To this doctrine, taken in the extent which he conceived they contended for, he could not give his support. On the contrary, he thought that in all cases where an appropriation flowed from a law to make good a contract, or to erect a permanent organ in the Government, and from any law whose object was permanent, the true doctrine was, that it was the duty of the House to vote an appropriation. A law is the will of a nation. The same powers only that formed it can repeal it. If it be a constitutional act, no power can lawfully obstruct its operation or its existence. But attending to the doctrine maintained to-day, it would follow, that though this House had not the power of repealing a law made by all the branches of Government, it may obstruct its operations and render it a dead letter; though it cannot repeal, it may do what shall amount to a repeal, which is the assumption of a power almost equal to that of exclusive legislation. He thought he saw in this an evil of great extent, and an anarchy of theoretic principles. It appeared to him that though we originate money bills, we had no right to refuse an appropriation to existing laws that either secured a debt or any contract, or that related to objects permanent by the law that created or acknowledged them, as long as the law itself remained unrepealed. We had but a share of Legislative power. Where a law relative to such objects as he had alluded to existed, from which an appropriation followed, till the law ceased by repeal or by other constitutional means, it was obligatory upon us as well as upon our constituents, and the only powers we could exercise of a discretionary sort resolved themselves either into this mode of making good the appropriation, or of voting for its repeal. The other branches would then judge of the propriety of our proceeding; but till they who assisted in its enacting, judged with us the necessity of doing it away, a duty resulted that we should give it the energy intended by its enaction.

Mr. Dayton conceived the question brought under discussion of too delicate a nature to be decided at the present time. He, however, expressed it as his opinion that the power of making appropriations was intended and ought to be a check on establishments.

Mr. Nicholas conceived the House bound to weigh the merits of every law when an appropriation was to be passed to carry it into effect, and no appropriations should obtain the sanction of the House, unless they were convinced of the propriety of the law.

Mr. Giles said he did not expect to hear a doctrine so novel broached in the House as that advanced by the member from Massachusetts, (Mr. Sedgwick.) He had declared that he conceived the House could exercise no discretionary power when about to pass an appropriation bill.

Mr. Sedgwick rose to explain. The principle he advocated was, that when a law was made pledging the public faith, the House had no discretion to withhold, or not, an appropriation; at least as long as common honesty was more than a name.

Mr. Giles said that if this doctrine was admitted in its full latitude, the House would become a mere office for the registering of edicts. He contended that the House had a right, by withholding appropriations, to put an end to an institution without the concurrence of the Senate. He would not say that the present was a case that called for the exercise of that right, but they had in all cases of this nature a right to exercise their discretion.

Mr. Murray considered the laws of the land as depending upon two other branches of the Government besides this House, and conceived it highly improper in the House to attempt to obstruct them by withholding necessary appropriations. What would be the effect of a contrary doctrine? It must contain the seeds of governmental anarchy. While a law remained in force it was the duty of the House to do what was needful to carry it into operation. He made some allusion to the British House of Commons, who, by privilege, contend for the right of withholding supplies to be a check on the patronage of the Crown. But such a principle, he contended, could not apply here; our Government could not proceed if it were admitted. As long as a law exists, it is the duty of the House to make the needful appropriations. The whole wisdom of the Government is not in this House. The same power is required to repeal laws as to make them. It is true the constitution has given to the House the more immediate command of the purse-strings; but they were under an obligation to open them when necessity required. There is a constitutional way of repealing laws; but the House has no right to obstruct their operation while in force. A member from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Gallatin,) he observed, appeared on a former occasion to coincide with his opinions on this subject; for he argued that the House was bound to pass such an appropriation, as a law existed giving the salary to the officer which it was meant to provide for.

Mr. Gallatin said, in answer, that his observation had simply been, that the Committee of Ways and Means, and not the House, conceived itself bound to report an appropriation for an item established by law; but he never doubted the power of the House to pass, or not, an appropriation. In such cases the line of duty must remain to be drawn by opinion. With what degree of consistency can the House be called on for a vote if, as some members contend, they cannot have an opinion? Why are they called upon to say, yea or nay, if they are obliged to say yea?

Mr. Murray conceded that a member might say yea or nay, but his duty must in cases of this nature clearly point to one of the two; for he could not mistake the black and white marks in the court of conscience. He has the physical power to say yea or nay; but if he does his duty he must say yea. The contrary principle would go to this, that the House had a right to refuse an appropriation to pay a just debt.

Mr. Gallatin observed, in reply, that each member will be the sole judge whether it was or was not his duty to say yea, or the contrary. The constitution, he said, declared that no money should be drawn from the Treasury but by appropriations made by law: this did not look as if the voting of appropriations was intended to be merely a matter of form. In the second place, the constitution declares, that no appropriation for the support of an armed force shall be made for more than two years. Thus, though a Military Establishment may be formed by enlistments for three or more years, yet the constitution provides that the question shall be submitted to the House every two years; and this surely is not as a matter of form; but in order, at such short periods, by voting on an appropriation bill, to determine whether such an establishment should exist longer or not. He conceived the power which he advocated as residing in the House of great consequence, and to be used on important occasions only.

Mr. Nicholas, who had risen at the same time with Mr. Gallatin, and had given way to him, observed, that when he first rose, he was going to read the clause of the constitution which the member last up had referred to. As to the black and white marks the member from Maryland spoke of, they were differently placed in different persons; in matters of opinion men will differ; but the constitution is a guide not to be departed from. The power of appropriation was vested by that instrument chiefly in the House, and no power on earth would prevent his exercising his discretion when that power was to be put in activity.

Mr. Giles observed, that the member from Maryland had got into the doctrine of checks, and seemed to think that if the House exercised its constitutional check it would produce governmental anarchy.

Mr. Murray explained. He had alluded to the mode of getting rid of an establishment by refusing appropriations to carry it into effect. The constitutional mode of procuring the repeal of the law should always be had recourse to; but he insisted that the House could not, as they were bound by their duty, obstruct a law in force by refusing an appropriation.

Mr. Giles conceived that the checks provided by the constitution might be used by each of the powers of government to their full extent, limited in every particular case only by their own discretion. If the harmony of the branches was to be made an argument to prevent the exercise of checks, what, he asked, became of the checks provided by the constitution? Each branch of the government (if he understood what was meant by constitutional checks) was to exercise its own opinions and use its discretions within constitutional limits, without a reference to the opinions of other branches. He next adverted to the powers of appropriation, which he contended were in a greater degree vested in the immediate representatives of the people, to be a wholesome check. In case of an army establishment, for example, suppose the President or Senate were to refuse their assent to the repeal of a law establishing it? Will it be said that the clause of the constitution empowering the House to make a biennial appropriation for the object, does not vest in them a discretionary power in such instances of overturning the establishment by its own will? for it cannot be kept up without an appropriation. Is the House to be told that, for the sake of harmony, they must give up their own powers and opinions? He maintained that, in cases of appropriations, they had a discretionary power, to be exercised, as in all cases, discretionarily. Was one branch to be judges of discretion for another? No; each should judge for itself.

Mr. Murray said, it was known to every one that an appropriation for the support of a military establishment could not be made for a longer term than two years; but that case was widely different from the present. It was known that, by the constitution, a military appropriation cannot exist more than two years; but the doctrine he supported was in cases of debt or obligation under a law; and, in such cases, he still contended that, though the House had the physical power to refuse an appropriation to satisfy a claim thus founded, they had not the right.

Here the debate was interrupted by a motion for adjournment; which was carried, and the House adjourned.

Wednesday, January 20.

Appropriations for 1796.

The amendments from the committee being thus gone through, the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.[66]

Saturday, January 30.

Stenographer to the House.

The House then went into a Committee of the Whole on the report from the stenographical committee. The report was read.

Mr. Swanwick: then rose for the sake of asking information. He inquired whether the House were to sanction and authorize the reports of the proposed stenographer? He had very considerable apprehensions about the propriety of entering into the subject in any mode.

Mr. W. Smith replied, that the gentleman engaged by the committee had undertaken to have his reports ready for Mr. Brown, printer of the Philadelphia Gazette, in the morning of the succeeding day.

Mr. Swanwick rose again. He observed, that to give universal satisfaction was impracticable. So many gentlemen were to be satisfied, that it never could be accomplished. He observed that one of the principal causes of complaint against reporters was of a nature that did not admit a remedy. Gentlemen rose, in the ardor of discussion, and suffered many remarks to escape from them, which, neither in thought nor expression, were perfectly correct. If the reporter, as was his duty, took them down, and stated them exactly, gentlemen were irritated by seeing themselves exhibited in this shape, and then blame was cast on the reporter. Every degree of praise was due to the editor of a Philadelphia daily newspaper, whom Mr. S. named, and who had not only done every thing in his power to obtain the debates of the House at full length, but had frequently advertised, that if errors were committed by his reporter, they should, on application, be instantly rectified. More than this it was impossible to desire, for no mode of conduct could be more liberal or candid. But Mr. S. did not see the propriety of blending the House of Representatives and the editor of a newspaper in this business. The stenographer is to be called an officer of the House, while he receives eleven hundred dollars from the printer of a Philadelphia newspaper. He is thus also the officer of the printer, as well as ours. If we give the gentleman the proposed salary, we are to depend on him alone, whereas at present we have different reporters, and two or three of them frequently and mutually both corroborate and correct each other. What has escaped one reporter, or what he has misunderstood, is often observed by his competitor. The error is amended, or the defect supplied. Mr. S. farther observed, that as far as he had read or heard of, such an institution as the one now proposed, was never known under any Government, or in any country, that had hitherto existed. [It was observed, in some part of the debate, that an attempt of this kind was once made by the National Assembly of France.] Mr. S. expressed himself warmly against Government making any composition of the nature now proposed with a printer, and against any attempt for giving one newspaper an advantage over another, by any preference as to the copy. If Mr. S. wanted any person to be sure of dismission and disgrace, he could not name any other situation where that dismission and disgrace were so absolutely certain, as to a person accepting the proposed office of stenographer. If he did his duty, gentlemen would frequently not like to see their speeches exactly as delivered. If he altered them, his utility was at an end. It would therefore be much better to let the gentleman stay at his own business.

Mr. Giles objected particularly to the opposition made in this late stage of the business. He admitted that it was a delicate step, but he complained in strong terms of the inaccuracy of the reports now given. He observed that the object was not merely to find a stenographer who would satisfy the members of that House, but who would also give satisfactory information to the public at large.

Mr. Sherburne agreed with the gentleman last up, that the object of the resolution could not be merely to give satisfaction to members, but information to the public; though if it was important that the public should be informed of what was said in that House, the proposed resolution would be inadequate to its objects. But he conceived it more important for the public to be informed of what was done, and that, he observed, was not always to be inferred from what was said; as (the mind being always open to conviction) it had not been unusual in a former—he would not say the present—House, for gentlemen to argue one way, and vote another. As therefore, no certain inferences of the conduct of members would be drawn from their speeches, and as the public were more interested in their actions than their sayings, (a knowledge of which the present resolution was not, in his opinion, calculated to promote,) it would not meet his concurrence. But, Mr. S. further observed, that if the speech was to be considered as the infallible inditium of the subsequent conduct, as the avowed object of the resolution was to diffuse, through the various parts of the States a knowledge of that conduct, he should oppose it from a conviction that the means were not competent to the end. The resolution proposed a publication of the debates in a daily Philadelphia paper. These debates would necessarily be so voluminous as to engross the greater part of such a publication. Except in Philadelphia, New York, and one or two other large cities, there were no daily papers; in all other places, they were not published oftener than once, or, at most, twice, a week. The daily papers, in comparison with others, were few. If, therefore, a daily paper was engrossed by a detail of the debates, when would the public arrive at a knowledge of them through the more common medium of a weekly paper? The inhabitants of this, and a few other large towns, might be gratified, perhaps benefited, by a speedy perusal of them; but when would the citizens of more distant parts of the Union, through their usual weekly channels, be indulged with the like opportunities? The difference would be as one to six; and what the inhabitants of Philadelphia might become acquainted with in one year, the people of New England and Georgia would not be informed of in six years, unless they relinquished their own weekly publications for a Philadelphia paper.

Mr. Sedgwick said, that he would candidly confess that the House had put itself in a delicate situation on this subject; yet if, on the whole, gentlemen be of opinion that the measure was improper, it ought not, by reason of any antecedent conduct, to be now further pursued to the public detriment. It was also but just to say, that if the measure was proper, a more competent and more impartial agent than the one proposed could not be obtained. He said that the printers had much merit from their endeavors to communicate to the public the debates of the House, yet it must be allowed that their endeavors had been too unsuccessful; that, in consequence, much injury had been done, not only to the characters of gentlemen as men of talents, but also in some instances, to the motives which had produced public measures. These were evils to which a remedy should be applied, if it did not involve those which would be more injurious. It ought to be remembered that the man appointed would be an officer of the House, responsible to it for his fidelity and accuracy. The debates would then be published under authority of the House, and it of consequence was responsible for his precise execution of the trust. It was impossible to conceive that at some times, with the best intention, he should not mistake, and of course misrepresent. The member in such a situation, would feel the injury, but redress would be obtained only by the interposition of the House. This would afford ground for numerous appeals, and endless litigation; and, in the end, might be ruinous to many valuable and respectable characters. It was of importance that no constraint should exist which would prevent gentlemen from expressing freely and without fear their own feelings and opinions and those of their constituents. How far the fear of misrepresentation, and the difficulty of correcting it, under such a system, would produce such an effect, gentlemen he hoped would consider before they assented to this proposition.

There was one other consideration, which had great weight on the mind. Whatever opinion we might entertain on the subject at present, all would remember the powerful influence of party and faction, and their intimate connection with free governments. From hence it might be easy to conceive, that hereafter this might be rendered the most powerful engine of an unprincipled majority, to overawe and to prostrate and destroy a virtuous minority. For no character was so established as to withstand for any length of time constant misrepresentation supported by the authority of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Harper rose in reply to Mr. Sedgwick, who, immediately after he began speaking, observed that the gentleman had mistaken his meaning. Mr. H. said that he perfectly understood the member, and proceeded to recommend the object of the report. He gave credit to the present reporters for diligence and good intention, but thought them far inferior to what might be done. Great attainments had been made, he admitted, but more might be done. He thought it of the highest consequence that the speeches of members should be correctly published and disseminated among the people. As to the sum now proposed, a London newspaper would give, he had no doubt, five thousand dollars a year for such a reporter. He questioned not that Woodfall would receive ten thousand pounds a year from the printer for his reports. It had been objected that daily papers alone could hold such debates; but weekly and semi-weekly papers could select the most interesting passages of them from the daily papers. Mr. H. recommended either that this report or a similar one should be adopted, or that the business of reporting should at once be put to an end. He spoke of atrocious mistakes. The debates, as now published, held up the House to the scorn of the world. He would rather have the doors shut up altogether. He would, if the present resolution was rejected, make a motion to that effect. He was sorry to learn that the debates had been collected into a book, entitled "The Political Register," of which he doubted not that immense numbers would be sent to Europe, and this book he reprobated in the strongest terms.

Mr. Sedgwick observed, if gentlemen were misrepresented, in one of the newspapers, where debates were reported, the editor of that paper had advertised that he was ready to publish any corrections which might be offered. This notice had been long and frequently given, and gentlemen had it in their power to do themselves justice.

The first resolution in the report was then read, and the question going to be put, when

Mr. Baldwin said, that the more the House advanced into this affair, the greater was the number of difficulties which occurred. The resolutions had the less weight with him because they were hurried through at the close of last session. The institution was unprecedented in any other Government. He knew that members might be misrepresented, but this scheme would not cure the evil. He repeatedly declared, that on all great questions, where talents found an object worth exertion, the debates in that House were very well represented. He had seen many speeches, sketched by printers in this city, that he would not wish to see better done. He did not know of any recent or particular complaints about inaccuracy. We have now been in session for seven or eight weeks, and there has not occurred much interesting matter, to make any remarkable debate out of He said that the debates, if taken at full length, would far exceed the limits of any newspaper. As to the expense of printing, that of the laws of this session would cost twenty thousand dollars, and he conjectured that to print the speeches, would require a hundred thousand dollars; and even after they were printed, it would be necessary to pay people for being at the trouble to read them, for otherwise nobody would go through a perusal of every word spoken in the House.

Mr. Nicholas said, that the reports at present published were full of notorious falsehoods, and the characters of members with their constituents would have been sunk, if it had not been known that this kind of things deserved no credit. He was in favor of the report. He complained that even when pieces were sent to the printers, they were embodied in the sketch, by Which means the reporter got the full credit of them, which had pernicious consequences. One of his objections to the present mode of reporting was, that the speeches of members were often much improved. He mentioned an instance from his own experience. A speech was once made for him by a person who reports in this House, and who has a very good style of writing. The style, said Mr. N., was above mine. There was not a sentiment in it which I would have disavowed. It was a better speech than mine; but, in an entire column, there was nothing that I said. As for sending corrections to the printers, Mr. N. was above it.

Mr. Hillhouse was against the report. The loss of four thousand dollars would be a much greater harm to the public than any injury arising from inaccurate reports. He did not see that the characters of members with their constituents depended on these publications.

Mr. Swanwick.—The gentleman from Virginia last up has suggested that the House have somehow committed themselves to appoint a stenographer, by their previous resolution on this subject; but that resolution goes only to the committee receiving proposals. It therefore remains with this House whether to accept them or not when made. As to the gentleman who is the subject of the resolution, if I have more strenuously than usual opposed the motion, it is from a desire to keep him from quitting the lucrative situation he is said to find himself in, to embark on the stormy sea he is contemplating. To be the organ of the members of this House to their constituents is indeed a very delicate task; one for which, considering the danger he might be in of an Orpheus's fate—that of being torn to pieces—the salary is but a poor compensation. He is to do justice to the eloquence of some members; he is to clothe in an elegant dress the uncouth, yet well-meaning expressions of others; but what will he do with the silent members, who never speak at all? What will their constituents think of them? Indeed, sir, if he has the idea I have formed of his danger, he will not undertake it at all. Faction and party have been mentioned: happy stenographer, if he can keep clear of these! If he fall into their power, insensibly he will represent one side in clouds and darkness, the other as ornamented with the brightest beams of light. How will he please both? Misrepresentation is complained of: alas, sir, how quick is error—how slow is the progress of truth in almost all things! Our stenographer must indeed be a wonder-working man, if he can revert this tide, and make every where light and correct reasoning prevail. The best mode of informing our constituents is, by the yeas and nays on our acts; this truly shows, as a gentleman from new Hampshire has observed, our doings, which are much more interesting to them than our abstract reasonings; these our constituents will easily form to themselves ideas of, when they know our votes; as the celebrated Dr. Johnson is said to have written speeches for members of Parliament whose general political sentiments he knew; by knowing these he applied arguments pretty accurately, as he supposed them to bear on every question offered. But, it has been observed, if we do not agree to have an official stenographer, a motion will be made to clear the House of those who now take down debates. These persons are tolerated only on the principle that our galleries are open. Woodfall, a celebrated printer, took down debates from memory: could we prevent this being done here? Or should we drive all printers from us who take notes, for the inaccuracies of some? I hope not. The liberty of the press has great title to respect. How can we agree by a miscellaneous union, the most strange, to commute with Mr. Brown, the printer, the salary of four thousand dollars, so as to possess him first of the proof-sheets, without supposing other printers will become rivals of this business, and complain if they are thwarted in an equal pursuit of their own livelihood? The best way is, to leave this business, like others, to regulate itself. Mr. Brown, by his labor in this way, has already widely extended the circulation of his paper—evident in his present overture—and, by the by, this is no mean proof of correctness on the whole in his success; he or others will still go on to improve the business, if left to themselves. If he or they fall into errors, they are their own. Members may correct them, or write their own speeches out, if they please. But what has the House to do with this; or why should it become the censor and promulgator of the speeches of its own members? Our time is wasted often, already, by too many long discussions on unimportant objects; but what would it be if we were to be every morning saluted with motions to correct the performances of the stenographers of the preceding day? All the advantage of the motion is to obtain more accuracy; but, it is said, the House means not to pledge itself for this accuracy: if so, why employ an officer under its authority for this purpose? On the whole, sir, we shall in vain seek to escape abuse and misrepresentation; these are by far too much in vogue. All the consolation left is, what I usually apply in such cases—that is, the consciousness of not deserving them.

Mr. Gilbert was against the report. He thought the publication of the laws and the yeas and nays, a sufficient means to communicate the proceedings of the House.

Mr. Wm. Lyman said that the debates in one of the newspapers (he either named or plainly alluded to the Philadelphia Gazette) had, for the two last sessions, been altogether exceptionable. He was sorry to learn, that these debates had been collected by a person who comes here, so that they would now, perhaps, descend to posterity. If they were as incorrect in the volume (the Political Register) as they were in the newspaper, they were a libel on that House, and would disgrace it with the world. If this resolution was rejected, it would be advisable to send all the printers to the gallery.

Mr. Kitchell was entirely against the object of the report.

Mr. Giles said, that he might have taken up wrong impressions, but he thought the matter worth trying. It was a thing of experiment, by which he believed that the printer would make money. He acknowledged that, for some time past, several of the reports had been pretty correct. It is better to let them go out as they are, than to stop them altogether. He would not wish to press the motion, if it was to meet with opposition from several gentlemen who had this day spoken against it. He moved that the committee should rise, and the further consideration of the report be deferred till Monday.

Mr. W. Smith said, it was admitted on all sides, that it was highly important for the people to receive the most accurate information of the proceedings of the House, and that the debates were, in general, extremely misrepresented. Was it not, then, the duty of the House to remedy this evil, and to adopt such measures as would transmit to the people in every part of the United States the most accurate information of the conduct of their Representatives? The House had now an opportunity of obtaining the services of a gentleman peculiarly distinguished for the rare talent of reporting with accuracy public debates; the compensation which would be adequate to such useful and laborious service, was beyond the ability of any printer; the House ought therefore to contribute towards it; the sum required was a trifle, when compared with the advantages; it was no object. The only question, then, was, whether the stenographer ought to be an officer of the House; in that capacity he certainly would be more easily restrained from the commission of any wilful misrepresentation. Mr. S. did not feel the force of the objections against the report. It had been said that, although the members were now misrepresented, yet, they had it in their power to publish corrections; but these corrections were often overlooked, while the misrepresentation was operating very injuriously to the character of the member; this was generally the case in places remote from the seat of Government; the mangled account of a debate was republished in a distant paper, and the correction, if it reached the distant printer, was generally disregarded. Among the opponents to this report, Mr. S. said he was surprised to find the gentleman who represented this city, (Mr. Swanwick,) who, more than any other member, should have withdrawn his opposition to the measure proposed; that gentleman's constituents had it in their power, at any time, to hear the debates of Congress; they were on the spot; ought he not, then, in candor, to assist in facilitating to the remote citizens the means of obtaining the best knowledge of the proceedings, and the most correct statement of the discussions of the House? Ought they, from their remoteness, to be kept in the dark, or to be furnished with such light as would only mislead? Had they not a claim on the House to adopt such means as would enable the citizens in every State to judge of the propriety of public measures? The member from this city had another exclusive advantage; if misrepresented, he could correct the error, and the correction would be read; that was not the case with the members from the remoter States, whose reputation might be injured by misrepresentation, without a similar advantage: the member from this city was in the midst of his constituents; he had daily opportunities of setting right any misstatement by personal explanation.

Mr. Smith said, he did not agree with some gentlemen, that it was sufficient for the people to know what laws were passed, without knowing the previous discussions; he thought, on the contrary, the favorable or unfavorable impression of a law on the public mind, would depend, in a great degree, on the reasons assigned for and against it in debate, and the people ought to know those reasons. When a law passes, imposing a tax, would not the people be reconciled if they saw, from the discussions of the House, that such tax was unavoidable, and that the particular mode of taxation was the best which could be devised? And ought this information to depend entirely on the caprice or convenience of the reporters, who attended when it pleased them, and who published just as much of the debate as they found leisure or patience to accomplish? Mr. S. said he was convinced that the errors which had excited so much complaint, were not the effect of design, but merely of inadequacy to the task. Very few were competent to such a business, which required peculiar skill in stenography, very laborious application, and a clear comprehension of the subject-matter of debate. It could not be expected that persons thus qualified would devote their whole time to this business, without an ample reward. The report was objected to because there was novelty in the plan; it was true the House of Commons of England had no such officer, but their practice was not a fit precedent for us on this occasion, for they admitted no person to write down, in the House, their proceedings; their debates were taken from memory. This House, on the contrary, had, from its first institution, facilitated, by every accommodation, the reporting their proceedings. The thing was not altogether, however, without precedent. During the existence of the National Assembly of France, there were officers of the House who composed a daily work called the Logography, which was an exact account of the debates of that body. It had been asked, what control the House were to have over this officer? He answered that the stenographer would be liable to be censured or displaced, if he should be guilty of wilful misrepresentation. It would be always easy to discriminate between a casual inadvertence and a criminal misstatement; the officer's character and talents, his responsibility to the House, and his oath to report with impartiality, would be a sufficient pledge of his accuracy. Mr. S. seriously believed that the character of the House had suffered from the erroneous statements which had gone abroad. He wished to guard against this evil in future; he was willing, for himself, that every syllable he uttered within those walls should be carried to every part of the Union, but he deprecated misrepresentation. He was anxious that the truth should be known in relation to every act of the Government; for he was as satisfied that the affection and confidence of the people in this Government would increase with the promulgation of truth, as that whatever it had lost of that affection and confidence, was owing altogether to the propagation of detraction and calumny. It was under these impressions that he had originally brought forward the proposition and that he now recommended the report, and having heard no reasons to change his sentiments of the expediency of the measure, he should persist in supporting it.

The motion by Mr. Giles was agreed to. The committee rose, and, a few minutes after, the House adjourned to Monday.

Monday, February 1.

Indian Trading Houses.

The engrossed bill for establishing trading houses for the Indian tribes was taken into consideration. The first blank was for the gross sum to be appropriated for the general objects of the bill. It was moved to fill this blank with $150,000.

Mr. Williams spoke in favor of the bill.

Mr. Parker supported the general provision of the bill, and urged the necessity of an immediate attention to the subject. He calculated on a surplus in the appropriation for the War Department to provide for this object.

Mr. Harper moved that the bill should be recommitted. He then entered into a general consideration of the principles of the bill, which he reprobated altogether. Alluding to the general objects of commerce, he said that public bodies never manage these matters without loss. He adverted to the repairs of roads, construction of canals, &c.; all these objects prosper under private individual direction, but when entered into by public bodies nothing is ever brought to perfection, and the public money is lost. He applied these ideas to the plan of the bill. Persons at fifteen hundred or two thousand miles distance, are to be intrusted with public property to a large amount. It is not in human wisdom to guard against frauds and impositions; no check or control can be devised which will be found adequate to repressing private rapacity. Mr. H., therefore, wished the bill recommitted, for the purpose of an entire new modification. If the motion should obtain, he should then move a resolution providing for a loan to individuals for the purpose.

Mr. Swanwick supported the general principle of the bill, and reprobated the idea of loans to individuals; he considered such a plan as one of the worst kind of sinking funds. The plan is an experiment; it is not, perhaps, possible to predict what will be the result; but the object is worth the trial and worthy the attention of the Legislature. He considered the objections against the plan of the bill as applying with greater force against the proposed substitute.

Mr. S. Smith said, when the gentleman from South Carolina made his motion for a recommitment, he had supposed he would have accompanied the motion with some reasons; but since he had heard what he offered as reasons, he found himself confirmed in his opinion of the inexpediency of his motion. Mr. S. said, the only reason for the commitment was, that the principle of the bill might be changed, by individuals being substituted for the Government, that is, by loaning the money to private persons for the purposes of the trade. He was entirely opposed to this principle. Public debtors are the worst kind of citizens. These persons, after having expended or lost the money, will be coming forward with their petitions to be released from their bonds. He did not wish to increase the business of the Committee of Claims.

Mr. Swift enlarged on the idea suggested by Mr. Harper. He thought it infinitely preferable to leave the business to the enterprise and resources of individuals.

Mr. Harper rose in reply to Mr. Smith. He entered into a further consideration and defence of the plan he had proposed as a substitute.

Mr. Dearborn objected to Mr. Harper's idea; he saw no sufficient reason to support the preference that gentleman gave to a loan to individuals. He was in favor of the general principle of the bill; he thought it economical to appropriate money for the object of cultivating good understanding and harmony with the Indians, but should vote for the bill only on the condition of a reduction of the Military Establishment.

Mr. Giles entered more largely into a consideration of the principle of the bill. He had no opinion of governmental bargains—he believed they always turned out losing bargains.[67] The clause which provides that the original stock shall not be diminished, he conceived, would operate against the general object of the bill, if adhered to; but this he did not contemplate; he supposed that it would terminate in an annual provision. Mr. G. alluded to the President's Speech, a clause of which had been recited; he did not consider that, or a former recommendation of this matter, as binding on the House. If the President's Speech is considered as the political Bible of the Government, the case is different; but he presumed no person was disposed to assert this. He considered the House as perfectly free to adopt or reject the proposition. With respect to the effects of the measure, gentlemen had differed in their predictions. Predictions which were the nearest to the effects produced, may be considered as the result of the greater political sagacity. He would venture to predict that the whole sum proposed to be appropriated would be sunk in three years. With respect to the fund contemplated from the surplus of the War Department appropriation, he considered it as altogether illusory; there is no such surplus, none had heretofore been found, and he presumed none ever would. For though the number of troops voted had never been raised, yet the whole of the money appropriated was always expended.

Some further remarks were made by several members, and then the motion for recommitting the bill being put, was lost—52 to 34.

Mr. Swift then renewed his motion for a postponement. This, after a few remarks from that gentleman, and a short reply from Mr. Gilbert, in support of the bill, was negatived.

The motion for filling the blank with $150,000, was then put and agreed to, fifty-six members rising in the affirmative.

On reading the section in which the blank for the penalty is included, Mr. Venable moved for a partial recommitment of the bill, for the purpose of new-modifying the section. This motion gave rise to a variety of observations, in the course of which the motion was extended to a general commitment. This motion being put, was lost.

The motion then was, to recommit the second, fourth, and sixth sections. The second section was recommitted. The fourth section provides that the capital stock of the United States embarked in this business shall not be diminished. Mr. Venable's object was to have the section so modified as to blend the interest of the individual who is to conduct the business with that of the public. Mr. S. Smith said the motion went to destroy the bill, for no person would engage in the business on such a plan. The motion for committing the fourth section was lost. The sixth section assigns the sum of $150,000 to be appropriated for the general objects of the bill. The motion to recommit this section was negatived.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the second section, Mr. Muhlenberg in the chair.

Mr. Venable moved that the section should be altered to read, that the agent should give bonds to the amount in value of the goods committed to his charge.

Mr. J. Smith supposed that the sum should be sufficient to cover the amount of the goods which may at any time be found in the hands of the agents; from ten to fifteen or twenty thousand dollars, he supposed, might be sufficient for this purpose.

Mr. Dearborn suggested the idea of leaving this part of the business to the President of the United States. He moved to amend the clause accordingly.

Mr. Venable's motion was lost. Mr. Dearborn's motion was agreed to.

The committee then rose, and the Chairman reported the amendment, which was adopted by the House. It was then ordered that the bill be again engrossed and read the third time to-day.

[The bill was subsequently read a third time and passed—58 members rising in the affirmative.]

Tuesday, February 2.

The following Message was received from the President of the United States:

Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith the copy of a letter, dated the 19th of December last, from Governor Blount to the Secretary of War, stating the avowed and daring designs of certain persons to take possession of lands belonging to the Cherokees, and which the United States have, by treaty, solemnly guaranteed to that nation. The injustice of such intrusions, and the mischievous consequences which must necessarily result therefrom, demand that effectual provision be made to prevent them.

G. WASHINGTON.

United States, February 2, 1796.

The said Message and letter were read, and ordered to be referred to the Committee of the whole House, to whom is committed the bill to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and to preserve peace on the frontiers.

Wednesday, February 3.

Lemuel Benton, from South Carolina, appeared, was qualified, and took his seat.

Monday, February 8.

Compensation of Members.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill for allowing a compensation to the members of both Houses, which proposes an annual salary of one thousand dollars to each member, instead of six dollars per day.

Mr. Giles moved that the word "annually" be expunged from the bill. He thought the present mode of compensating the members of the Legislature a good one, and could not conceive why an alteration should be made. Such a mode of payment as was now proposed ought to be sanctioned only upon the maturest deliberation.

Mr. Goodhue explained the reasons which induced the committee to propose an annual instead of a daily payment to members, which was, that members might be induced to greater despatch in business, and to do away an idea which had gone abroad amongst many people, that, being paid by the day, the members of that House protracted their session to an unreasonable length.

Mr. Giles thought there ought to be no pecuniary inducement to members to push forward business in too rapid a manner, or to shorten their sessions. An annual salary would doubtless have this effect, and business, in consequence, would most certainly be neglected. It would be an evil of the greatest importance; it would be a constant temptation to members to neglect their duty; it would tend to embarrass all their deliberations. Indeed, it was a perfectly new mode of requiting Representatives, and would be supposed to be introduced for the purpose of advancing their pay—an idea which he did not wish to prevail, as he thought the present allowance sufficient. He therefore hoped the principle would not be agreed to.

Mr. Swanwick was against the bill, and said, that to pay members in the way proposed would be to offer them a bounty to neglect the business of the Legislature.

Mr. Hillhouse was in favor of the bill. He said, that the constitution had provided that Congress should meet once a year, and that more time was spent during their sitting than was taken up by the Circuits of the Judges. Yet the Judges had a salary allowed them, and it was not found to have any bad effect. Complaints are now made out of doors that their sessions are protracted for the sake of the daily allowance paid to them. Persons who said this, said he, do not know that we are all the time deeply engaged in business, which is much lengthened by clashing interests of different States. A yearly salary would do away this idea, without making any real difference in the amount paid by the Treasury for their services. If he thought the mode of payment would cause members to neglect their duty, as has been observed, he too would be against the adoption of it; but surely it cannot be supposed that members would not sit as long as business should require them. He observed, they had now been in session two months, and but very little important business had been done. He thought the mode proposed would tend to remedy this evil: it was an experiment at least worth trying.

Mr. Findlay did not object to the bill merely as a novelty, but because it offered no advantage. Many persons, no doubt, would think one thousand dollars a year too much; but he believed it best for members to do their duty, without regarding the misapprehensions and prejudices of they know not whom. He did not think the pay of members influenced their sittings. The greatest difficulty, towards the close of the session, was to keep members together. If, indeed, members would attend better at the beginning of a session, and take up less time in speaking, sessions might be shorter; but there must, however, be full liberty given to every member to express his sentiments in his own way. No law can regulate people's conceptions. He thought it best that the members should be paid by the day. He should never boast of passing laws in a short time, but of passing good laws.

Mr. Nicholas was in favor of the present mode of compensating members, as the period of their sessions was uncertain, and wherever salaries were paid, they were for certain business. Give members one thousand dollars, and he did not doubt but some of them would wish to return home sooner than if they had been paid in proportion to the time spent in business. Water, though insensibly, wears away stones; and such an influence, he feared, would have a tendency to undermine the integrity of members. It was better to be slow than too hasty in business. He hoped this bill would not pass as an experiment, for the effect must be corruption; and when once this enemy of all governments is suffered to take root, it is difficult to eradicate it. Indeed, this bill would be supposed by many as a cover to advance the pay of members. If there were any such view, he wished members to propose the measure openly. He thought the present pay too much, and if the people thought it influenced the length of their sittings, they were of the same opinion.

Mr. Williams was against the bill, though he believed it to be brought in by the committee from the best of motives. It was their opinion it would shorten the sessions, and, if carried into effect, it might do so. If our wages were lowered, the measure would shorten our sessions. Every penny beyond expenses is too much: a medium salary was desirable. If the pay of members was increased, officers of Government will do the same. At present, it was true, all the necessaries of life were at a high price; but when the war in Europe ceases, the case will be different. Whenever we adjourn our sessions, (said he,) much business is necessarily left unfinished; and if members were paid by the year instead of by the day, all those whose business was not completed would be ready to say that members were hastened away to enjoy their salary at home.

Mr. Sedgwick did not think the business before the House important. He was inclined, however, to favor the bill, not that he would grant a larger amount in that way than the amount of the present allowance per day. The argument of novelty, he said, would not apply: we are in the business of experiment. He would observe a fact well known, that every member in the House was deprived of the opportunity of pursuing his occupations at home, and of the emoluments arising therefrom, by his attendance to public business. He did not believe a yearly allowance would shorten the sessions, but it would remove the charge brought against members of protracting the sessions for the sake of their pay. Whether it is necessary to increase or diminish the present pay is not the question.

Mr. Livingston expected stronger motives for the bill than he had heard. It is acknowledged a perfect novelty. This, though by no means decisive, is an objection against the measure, and there is nothing else to recommend it. It has, indeed, been said, it will shorten our sessions; but would this be a benefit? If to continue in session be an evil, why are we here? If it could have been proved that expense would have been saved by the measure, that would have been a real advantage; but this has not been hinted at. It has, indeed, been said, it will remove from our constituents a suspicion that we are living here too long. It has been said, that an idea has gone abroad that we receive six dollars a day through the year. Few, he believed, were so ill informed; but this bill, if passed, will cause much more discontent than the present pay occasions. Deliberation in a Legislative body is necessary. The dearest interests of the people, he said, were committed to their charge, and he trusted they would watch over them, and never suffer them to be injured; and then, it was his opinion their constituents would not think much of their pay.

Mr. Baldwin said, that it was a disagreeable business to be employed in discussing the subject of paying themselves for their services: it would be a desirable thing to supersede the necessity of doing so. The committee doubtless thought one thousand per annum would be an improvement upon the present mode of paying members, but he could not think so. He thought it best that the allowance should be paid in the old way.

Mr. Gilbert was willing to try the experiment of the bill proposed. He did not believe that either the present daily allowance lengthened, or that an annual salary would shorten, the sessions. He thought to say the contrary was a base insinuation.

Mr. Bourne never heard it was the wish of their constituents that their payment should be annual instead of per day. He had heard it complained that their pay was too high; but now, since the price of living is so much advanced, he believed the people were satisfied. He saw no advantages from the proposed change. It cannot be thought that the pay is an inducement to members to prolong their sessions: he had not heard such a complaint. He was in favor of striking out the word "annually," and for recommitting the bill.

Mr. Madison observed, that the present bill proposed no alteration with respect to the amount of money to be drawn from the Treasury, and it can make but little difference to members. What had been mentioned as the advantages of this bill, in his opinion, would operate against it. A novelty, he said, always called for hesitation.

Mr. Swanwick thought, if they enacted good laws—laws that should encourage agriculture and commerce—their constituents would not trouble themselves about their salary.

Mr. Giles rose to remark upon an expression which fell from Mr. Gilbert, viz: that, to say members were likely to be influenced by the proposed salary, was a vile insinuation. He declared that it was a recommendation of the bill in the committee, that it would tend to shorten their sessions.

Mr. Gilbert explained, and justified the expression.

The motion for striking out the word "annually" was called for, and passed.[68]

Tuesday, February 9.