FIFTH CONGRESS.—SECOND SESSION. (continued 2)

The question being on the bill being engrossed for a third reading, Mr. Blount called for the yeas and nays upon it. It was carried—55 to 25.

Monday, January 15.

Lemuel Benton, from the State of South Carolina, appeared, and took his seat.

Expenditure for Naval Service.

Mr. Livingston called up for consideration and decision the resolution which he had laid upon the table a few days ago, for the appointment of a committee of inquiry into the expenditure of money which had been appropriated for the naval service.

The House having agreed to take up this business—

Mr. Harper said, he believed that the appointment of such a committee was very unusual, without having some ground stated to the House for the proceeding. A vote of this kind would imply a censure upon the conduct of our public officers, which certainly ought not to be done hastily, or without first having, at least, some ground of suspicion laid before them upon which to act. The House had not yet received the statements which had been called for relative to this business; they were directed to be laid before the House in the last week in January, and might, therefore, be soon expected.

[Several gentlemen said it was the first, and not the last week in January, in which the accounts had been ordered to be laid before the House.]

Mr. H. said the delay, he supposed, had been occasioned by the officers having been obliged to remove from the city during the fever. He had, however, been informed that these statements would be ready in a few days. And would it not be extraordinary, he asked, if, before they received these statements, they were to appoint a committee of inquiry? He thought it would. He believed the officers of this department of Government were very desirous of the inquiry taking place; but this was not a sufficient reason for the House to proceed in the business without having first some ground to suppose the money had been misapplied, and this he believed could not be ascertained until the expected statements were before the House. When these were looked into, it was possible the House might be satisfied with respect to the expenditure of the money, and it would, therefore, be improper to appoint a committee to inquire into a matter which might so shortly appear satisfactory. If, on the other hand, these accounts should not be satisfactory, he would readily concur in the appointment of a committee of inquiry.

Mr. J. Williams said, the gentleman from South Carolina ought to recollect that the inquiry was produced by a further appropriation being called for. It might be best to defer the inquiry until the accounts which had been called for were laid before the House; and he should have been satisfied with the business taking that course, if a further appropriation had not been called for in the mean time. But when they are called upon to appropriate a further sum of money for any object, it was natural to inquire what was become of that already voted; and the only way of doing this was to appoint a committee who would look into all the different statements which had from time to time been laid before the House, and those which might shortly be communicated, and state their opinion thereon to the House. He thought those gentlemen who were most friendly to the frigates ought not to oppose the appointment of a committee; because, if it should appear that the money had been justly expended, there would be little objection to a further appropriation.

Mr. Livingston said, from the full discussion of this subject, which, though incidentally produced, had taken place on a former occasion, he did not think it would either have been becoming or necessary to have again stated the reasons which gave rise to this resolution, especially as he felt an aversion to say any thing which might be unnecessary, or which might tire those who heard him. Mr. L. said, that he had before observed that the patience of the House had been worn out by the repeated applications which had been made for money for this object; that the expense had exceeded all belief; that the most extended imagination could not have conceived an amount like that which Congress had from time to time been blindly led to appropriate. But the proposition was objected to, because it would cast an odium upon our officers. This he was perfectly indifferent about. Whatever might be the private opinion he had of the characters of these officers, however incapable he might believe them of doing wrong, or of acting corruptly, yet, when his duty called upon him to make an inquiry into the expenditure of public money, he was deaf to all considerations of a private nature. But, in this case, he did not see the necessity for this remark. The House had been told (he believed by the gentleman from South Carolina himself) that the extraordinary expense had been occasioned by our inexperience in business of this kind, by the high price of labor, materials, &c. If this were the case, the result of the inquiry would be honorable to those concerned, and highly satisfactory to the House. It was a proceeding which our public officers ought to wish for; nay, gentlemen say they do wish for it.

But, Mr. L. said, it had been alleged, that the statements ordered a year ago to be laid before the House during the first week in this month, should be waited for before any inquiry took place. He would reply, if these officers had not, in the mean time, called upon the House for a fresh supply of money, this inquiry would not have been thought of. Besides, the accounts asked for last year would not give the satisfaction required. The request only extended to all the expenditures previous to the 1st of January, 1797. The House would wish to know what had been expended since, and they had no reason to expect further information than was asked for. Mr. L. said every member who was present at the time must remember that whenever the House had been applied to for further appropriations, they had been told that the frigates would be ready for sea at such and such a time; and that they would then bear our flag triumphantly over the ocean. And yet, though the House had been four or five times deceived by these representations, they were told there was no ground for inquiry. For his part, he should consider himself as neglecting his duty were he not to call for this inquiry immediately; for, if the House were to wait a week for the statements called for, they might wait another for their being printed; they might then be found to be deficient, fresh statements might be necessary, and the session might expire without effecting the wished-for inquiry. He thought all parts of the House ought to favor the inquiry; for, he believed, if it should appear that frigates could not be built for less than $500,000 a piece, the project of a navy ought to be given up; but if, on the other hand, difficulties and expenses had occurred in the commencement of this business, which would not return, and their frigates may in future be built for half the sum, (which was his opinion,) there would be some encouragement to proceed in the business.

Mr. Sewall was sorry that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Harper) had given the occasion, and that the gentleman last up had so eagerly seized it, to thwart any measures which might be necessary for the general defence, by ridiculing the resources of the country. The present, he said, was a time of danger and apprehension, and thus to talk of the resources of the United States added to the apprehension and the danger. The gentleman from South Carolina had said, that to pass this resolution would be to pass an odium upon our public officers. He did not think so. He thought an inquiry of this kind at all times proper where there was any doubt as to the expenditure of money. He agreed with the gentleman from New York, that the inquiry (if it had a favorable issue, which he did not doubt) would forward the design of providing a navy; as it would appear that the extraordinary expenses had been such as it would not be necessary to incur in future. He was, therefore, sorry to hear the gentleman from New York first up (Mr. Williams) say he should be disinclined to vote any further appropriation until he saw how the last had been expended. However improvidently the money already appropriated had been expended, yet, in order to secure what had been voted, and to keep the work in progress, they ought to vote a further sum, as soon as wanted, whether the statements called for were received or not.

Mr. Livingston desired to know wherein he had attempted to ridicule the resources of this country? The gentleman from Massachusetts must excuse him when he asserted he had never made a more hasty or unfounded charge. If he had either ridiculed the resources, or thwarted any measures for the general defence of the United States, it must have arisen from a weak judgment, and not from any intention of doing so. But he was certain nothing which had fallen from him could be so construed.

Mr. Sewall acquitted the gentleman from New York of any intention of lowering the appearances of the resources of this country; but he appealed to the House whether he had not spoken of this fleet with a degree of ridicule, when he represented it as governing the ocean. It appeared so to him at least.

Mr. Harper again insisted upon the impropriety of going into this measure, from reasons similar to those which he had already given.

Mr. Gallatin said, that the ground taken by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Harper) would prevent any inquiry whatever; for he stated that the House ought not to pass the present resolution, because certain statements had not been received, and because to pass it would be to imply a censure on our officers. So that on this ground no inquiry could be gone into without statements, as the House could not obtain statements without passing a resolution, that resolution would be construed into a censure, and therefore ought not to be passed. This Mr. G. thought a very improper doctrine. It would never be in the power of the House to decide upon the propriety of statements by barely having them laid upon the table.

Monday, January 15.

Naval Expenditure.

Mr. Gallatin stated the different estimates which had been made to the House. In 1794, he said, they were told that $688,000 would be sufficient to build six frigates. In 1796, they were informed there had been a mistake in the matter, but that with $80,000 more three would be finished. In January, 1797, the House was again called upon for $172,000; in July, in the same year, for $200,000, and now for $150,000 more. Such calculations, he thought, wholly unaccountable.

Mr. Nicholas did not understand what the gentleman from Connecticut meant by saying that this was wholly Executive business. He did not believe, because the President had told the House that he was about to hold a treaty, that the money must be granted, and that the House had no choice whether they would appropriate it or not. From what had already been said upon the subject, he doubted not there was a pretty general disposition to grant the money; but it was not proper that the Message should be sent to the Committee of Ways and Means, as if an appropriation was a thing of course; to do this, would be to act at the command of the President of the United States; whereas the House could only act upon the full exercise of its discretion. He therefore moved that the Message be referred to the Committee of the Whole, which had already this subject under consideration.

Mr. Gallatin believed the gentleman from Connecticut had not considered this subject with his usual correctness. That gentleman had said that the Message before them ought to go to the Committee of Ways and Means, and that an appropriation should follow as a thing of course. It must be known that this was contrary to the practice of that House, or of any former Legislature of the United States. On the contrary, it was usual, first to authorize an expense, and in the next place to appropriate; and in no case had the business been reversed. If the Message were referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, all they could do, would be to bring it back to the House, and ask for an authority for the expense. He believed the gentleman from Connecticut had been led into this mistake by considering the Message announcing the intention of the President to hold a treaty as a treaty made; and had that been the case, according to that gentleman's known opinion, he would consider the House as bound to make the necessary appropriation; but he desired him to recollect that no treaty was yet made; and, therefore, that that doctrine could not apply in the present case.

Mr. Rutledge did not believe it was necessary or proper for that House to authorize the President to hold a treaty; but if it were necessary for him to hold a treaty, the concurrence of that House was necessary to enable him to do it, as it could not be done without money. It was requisite, therefore, to pass a bill, not to authorize the President to hold a treaty, but to enable him to do it. It was best, therefore, for the communication first to go to the Committee of the Whole, and afterwards to the Committee of Ways and Means, in order for them to say where the money could be got. There was something in this case which pointed out this mode as peculiarly proper, as there seemed to be a disposition in the House, if the treaty should not succeed agreeably to the wishes of the President, to afford temporary relief to the persons now suffering from being driven from their land. The gentleman from Connecticut had said, that the Committee of Ways and Means could report an estimate of the probable expense which would be incurred in holding the treaty; but if he attended to the Message of the President, he would find that this estimate was to be laid before the House by the proper department, so that there was no necessity of a reference to any committee for that purpose.

The motion for a reference to the Committee of the Whole was carried, without a division.

William Alexander.

On motion of Mr. Gregg, the House went into a Committee of the Whole on the report of the Committee of Claims on the petition of William Alexander, surveyor of Army lands. After reading a number of papers relative to the subject, the report, which went to authorize the Treasury to settle the accounts of the petitioner, was agreed to, the committee rose, the House concurred, and a bill was directed to be brought in accordingly.

General Kosciusko.

Mr. Pinckney, from the committee appointed to confer with the Senate on the disagreement between the two Houses on the bill for the payment of interest to General Kosciusko, reported, that finding the business could be settled in a manner equally advantageous to the General, by agreeing to the amendment of the Senate, as by the mode originally proposed, the committee recommend it to the House to recede from their disagreement to the Senate's amendment.

The recommendation was concurred in by the House.

Civil Appropriation for 1798.

On motion of Mr. Harper, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report of the Committee of Ways and Means for providing for the expenses of the civil department for the year 1798, and the blanks being filled (except in a few cases, in which they were left in blank) according to the estimate which had been laid before the House, the committee rose, the House concurred, and the bill was ordered to be reported accordingly.

Thursday, January 18.

The Speaker laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of War, enclosing an estimate of the appropriations necessary for holding a treaty with the Cherokee Indians, which was in substance as follows:

For three commissioners, ninety days, at eight dollars per day$2,160

Incidental expenses of do.360

Secretary, at four dollars per day360

Rations of two thousand Indians15,000

Presents to the Indians5,000

Stores for the commissioners2,000

Incidental expenses1,200

———

25,880

======

This statement was referred to the Committee of the Whole to whom was referred the former Message of the President on this subject.

Persons Imprisoned for Debt.

The following Message, with the papers to which they refer, was received from the President of the United States:

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

A representation has been made to me, by the Judge of the Pennsylvania district of the United States, of certain inconveniences and disagreeable circumstances, which have occurred in the execution of the law passed on the 28th day of May, 1786, entitled "An act for the relief of persons imprisoned for debt," as well as of certain doubts which have been raised concerning its construction; this representation, together with a report of the Attorney General on the same subject, I now transmit to Congress, for their consideration, that if any amendments or explanations of that law may be thought advisable, they may be adopted.

JOHN ADAMS.

United States, January 18, 1798.

This Message, with the papers accompanying it, was referred to the same Committee of the Whole to whom was referred the report on the petition of William Bell.

Diplomatic Intercourse Bill.

Mr. Nicholas inquired with what sums the blanks in the bill were to be filled.

Mr. Harper said he proposed to fill the first with $40,000, and the last with $28,650.

Mr. Nicholas conceived this to be a good time for the House to attempt to bring back the establishment of the diplomatic corps to the footing on which it was settled at the commencement of the Government, and continued down till the year 1796; and to prevent in future the probable increase which he apprehended from the recent examples, he thought it necessary to take a view of this subject, not only from the increase of expense, but from a variety of other considerations. It is not the manner in which a Government is constituted which makes its operations easy and certain. But the execution of the powers of the Government itself is no more to be considered than the nature of its formation; for I do believe there is a tendency in all Governments like ours to produce a union and consolidation of all its parts into the Executive department; and that the limitation and connection of the parts with each other, as settled in the constitution, would be destroyed by the influence I have mentioned, unless there is a constant operation on the part of the Legislature to resist this overwhelming power. I think we have the most convincing proofs that a representative Government can be made most oppressive and burdensome, and yet preserve all the forms which are given to it by a constitution; and the Legislature shall appear to act upon its own discretion, whilst that discretion shall have ceased to exist. Where the Executive has an influence over the Legislature, and the Government is a representative one, the Executive is capable of carrying its views into effect in a manner superior to what can be accomplished even in the most despotic monarchy; the mischief will be carried farther in the former case than in the latter, because the people will be more inclined to submit to the decisions of a Government of its own choosing than to one which rules them by hereditary right; monarchs cannot carry their oppressions so far, without resistance, as republics. Under this general view of the subject, he conceived it to be the duty of the Legislature to guard cautiously its own independence, and to limit, as far as consistent with the general welfare, the influence of Executive patronage.

He conceived that this extension of influence of one branch of the Government over another was strictly guarded by the constitution, which was framed on the principle of checks and balances—of departments acting and controlling each other; but he was sorry to see the idea of patronage drawn into a closer compass than it had formerly been, as it increased the evil. He was sorry for it, because it tended to manifest a circumstance which had been sought to be concealed. Every insinuation that there was a division between the Government and the people had been repelled as an insidious and malignant design; but the Administration, by acting on a new principle, which he was too well assured was the fact, had established the idea that there was a division between it and a considerable portion of the people. The evidence of this fact had been long shown, and he feared the operation of circumstances of this nature on the public mind.

He gave it as his opinion on our foreign intercourse, that the United States would be benefited by having no Ministers at all. He did not think that we could be benefited by any sort of compact these foreign agents could form for us, for we only bound ourselves by any treaty we entered into, as we are totally incapable of enforcing the execution of the stipulations made by other nations by any offensive measures. It might be thought necessary to make commercial arrangements with some European powers; but, he asked, if they had the force to make a foreign country conform to its engagements? No gentleman would say that they had; therefore such regulations only tended to entangle ourselves, without rendering commerce any efficient aid. He would, therefore, leave our commerce to seek its own markets totally disembarrassed. All the protection we could furnish it with, consisted in officers of another grade than those mentioned in this bill: Consuls who should reside in the seaports, and not Ministers Plenipotentiary residing in the interior.

He did not intend by the motion he was about to make, that the whole diplomatic establishment should be destroyed at this time, but merely to reduce it to what it had been before the late increase. With this view he proposed to alter the bill so as to direct that there should be appropriated $9,000 for a Minister Plenipotentiary at London, and $9,000 more for another near the French Republic, and that the President be left at liberty to reduce the Ministers Plenipotentiary at Berlin, Madrid, and Lisbon, to Ministers resident, which would diminish their salaries one-half—a resident Minister being of a lower grade has only $4,500 per annum. He then went into a detail of the proceedings of the first Congress, in order to show that it was admitted on all sides by that body, that the constitution vested the power of specifying and limiting the salaries of foreign Ministers and Consuls; he read the speeches of Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Sherman, Mr. W. Smith, of South Carolina, Mr. Sedgwick, Mr. Huntington, and several others, from the Congressional Register, by which it appeared, that there was but one opinion on their powers under the Constitution; and showed from hence, that the only reason why the House did not undertake to enumerate and fix the salaries of foreign Ministers in detail, arose merely from the want of information as to the places where they should be fixed, and the sum necessary to cover their expenses. As his construction corresponded with that of the gentleman who fixed the principles upon which the Government was put in motion, he was encouraged to expect his motion would succeed, seeing that the House had now had sufficient experience to enable them to say what were the regulations proper to be made.

Mr. Harper supposed it would be remembered by all those gentlemen who had attended to the business of Congress for several years past, that the doctrine of the gentleman from Virginia was by no means new. The subject of foreign intercourse was never taken up, without that gentleman, or some other who agreed with him in sentiment, advancing these opinions; they never failed to speak of the danger to be apprehended from Executive influence, from its power to appoint foreign Ministers; that foreign intercourse was unnecessary; that our public affairs abroad were not to be attended to, and that commerce ought to be given up, or left to shift for itself. Nor was this a doctrine confined to this country, or this age. Whenever a set of gentlemen in any country found their views opposed by the measures of Government, they became vexed, and attributed the proceedings of those who differed from them in opinion to any motive rather than the public good. The desire of Executive favor, or Executive offices, was an usual charge, and it was at this day well understood. It would also be remembered, that whenever the subject of foreign intercourse had been discussed, though these objections had been constantly made to it, they had been as constantly disregarded by the Congress of the United States. The good sense of the country had weighed these objections in the balance, and declared them wanting; and he trusted the same fate would now meet them as heretofore.

In aid of the $40,000 per annum, originally granted for this purpose, Mr. H. said, various supplementary appropriations had been made. First, a sum of $20,000, then a sum of $23,000, and, in March last, $17,000, and, in addition to this, $14,000 for a particular appointment. The House had, therefore, not only deemed it expedient to continue the original act, but to make additional appropriations from year to year. He thought the good sense of the country had never been more firmly shown than on this subject. But now a new course was to be taken, and all former proceedings declared to have been wrong. But it was said this country had no need of foreign ministers, and that commerce might be left to itself. He did not believe the House would think so. Did not the United States trade with all the nations of the earth? How, then, was it possible to do without accredited agents to attend to our concerns in foreign countries? Were we to give up our commerce? There were gentlemen, he knew, who would answer, Yes. They would tell the House, commerce was a bad thing, and that it rather ought to be outlawed than protected. But was this the sense of the country? Was it the sense of that House? Would they discard the property of that class of citizens who depended upon it for their support and their wealth? Or would they be ready to forfeit the revenue arising from it? Mr. H. said he had often heard of the dangerous nature of foreign intercourse; but it was the discovery of a few men who believed that every thing which had been done by this Government had been radically wrong. He trusted, however, the House would adhere to what it had so frequently sanctioned, and that the proposed amendment would not be agreed to.

Mr. Gallatin believed that there were a number of people in the United States—people otherwise enlightened, and who, upon all common subjects, possessed sound understandings—who were fully convinced that there was a faction existing within the United States, and even within the walls of that House, who wished to demolish the Government; and he further believed that this opinion was supported by such declarations as had been made by the gentleman from Connecticut. He should be sorry that such a belief should be considered as dangerous to the safety of the community. Nor could he consider the determination of the Executive to employ only such persons as are of the same political opinions with themselves, as of such a nature as to produce fatal consequences, and that Government, on that account, was unworthy of confidence. He believed that such a line of conduct must flow from the present state of parties in America, divided as the people were upon many important occasions. To say, therefore, that the Executive employed persons of consonant political opinions to its own, was not to say the Government did not deserve confidence. But if the committee turned their attention to the amendment proposed, it only went to declare that ministers to London and Paris should not have a salary of more than $9,000 a year; and that ministers to other parts of Europe should not have more than $4,500. In support of this amendment, it was said that this was the ground upon which this Government first fixed the business of foreign intercourse. He believed this statement correct. Until the year 1796, there was no minister plenipotentiary except at Paris and London; at other places there were no higher grades than ministers resident. Hence the committee might be led to argue the propriety of bringing back our foreign political intercourse to what it was before that period. He said foreign political intercourse; because he thought the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Harper) had blended two subjects together, viz: foreign commercial intercourse, and foreign political intercourse. He did not believe it was the opinion of any gentleman in that House that commerce ought to be left to shift for itself, unattended to. He believed it was well understood that our commerce in foreign countries was attended to by our consuls and not by our ministers plenipotentiary; and consuls would exist if we had no ministers at all. Therefore, all that gentleman's arguments, which tended to show that the amendment would affect our commercial intercourse, had no foundation whatever.

Returning to the question of foreign political intercourse: Was it proper to bring it back to what it was eighteen months ago? And, before he proceeded further, he would observe that, though the gentleman from South Carolina had been tolerably correct in his statements of the business, he was mistaken in one point, in which he would set him right. He had stated that the first additional appropriation was $20,000; but this sum was not appropriated for foreign intercourse, but for defraying the expense of the suits of our merchants in London. On the first of January, 1796, there remained a balance of unexpended appropriation for this object, of $30,000. To that day no extraordinary appropriation had been made; the whole allowance was $40,000 a year, which was found to be more than sufficient. On the 28th of May, 1796, an estimate was sent by the President of the United States, stating the sums already appropriated for foreign intercourse, and that $23,500 were yet wanting, in order to change the establishment which had till that day existed, by sending Ministers Plenipotentiary to Madrid and Lisbon, instead of Ministers Resident. This estimate, he just stated, was received on the 28th of May, and the law received the signature of the President on the first of June, so that it could not have received a very full discussion (being passed just as the session was about to close) and he thought there was good reason for examining the thing again. The next appropriation was made in the second session of the fourth Congress. In that session, he allowed, the additional appropriation was passed after full discussion. It was made upon an estimate stating $17,900 wanted; and, during last session, an appropriation was made for a Minister to Berlin, of $13,500.

The committee had been told that it would evince great versatility if they were all at once to change what had already been done. But it must be recollected, than when the change in the system was first made, it underwent little discussion; and he would venture to say, that our business abroad was as well done from the year 1786 to 1796, as it had been done since. As the question was whether a larger or a smaller sum of money should be appropriated, he would call upon gentlemen in favor of the larger sum, to show what benefit was derived from Madrid and Lisbon by the change; what necessity there was for a Minister at Berlin, and what good was to be derived from giving a larger salary than $4,500. The gentleman from Connecticut had said, why send a Minister Plenipotentiary to London or Paris, any more than the other Courts? This was done at first, and the mover, he supposed, wished not to innovate upon the law as originally passed.

But they were told it was improper, upon this floor, to say any thing about patronage, and that all arguments of that kind are well understood, and are by no means novel in their nature; that such complaints are made under all forms of Government by discontented people out of office. To say that these complaints are well understood, was the same as to say that the ground upon which they complained was also well understood: it was to acknowledge, that persons who were in the favor of the Executive had some advantages which persons in the other party desired or envied. To admit of one position, was to admit of the other. But, if no particular advantage was to be derived from Governmental patronage, then the cause of jealousy, according to this doctrine, must cease.

Our Government, he said, was in its child-hood; and if this patronage had any existence, it could not of course be as yet alarming. But he desired gentlemen to look at all Governments where this power was placed in the Executive, and see if the greatest evil of the Government was not the excessive influence of that department. Did not this corruption exist in the Government which was constituted most similarly to ours, to such a degree as to have become a part of the system itself, and without which, it is said, the Government could not go on? Was it not, therefore, prudent to keep a watchful eye in this respect? He did not, however, speak against the power itself; it was necessary to be placed somewhere. The constitution had placed it in the Executive power. If the same power had been placed in the Legislature, he believed they would have been more corrupt than the Executive. He thought, therefore, the trust was wisely placed in the Executive; and though it was right to keep grants of money within proper bounds, in order to prevent the abuse of power, yet it was proper to grant all that was necessary.

Mr. G. concluded, by saying, that if he thought it was proper that our political intercourse should be extended, he should not support the amendment; but as the conviction was strong upon his mind that our foreign political intercourse had at least been as expensive as it ought to be; that it was owing, in a great degree, to our political intercourse with foreign nations, that our present critical situation was produced; that this intercourse produced more evil than good to us; that he wished to bring the business back to the state in which it stood in 1796. If the wisdom of future Legislatures shall think proper to abolish the establishment of foreign political intercourse altogether, it must be left to them to decide. He himself thought it would be going too far to do so at present. He believed, situated as we were, it was necessary to have some political intercourse; but he believed it would be best, by degrees, to decline it altogether.

Mr. Sitgreaves.—The constitution and laws of the country had made certain offices necessary, and left it to the Executive to fill them as he pleased; and was it for that House to attempt to control this discretion? If it were executed to the injury of the people, the constitution had pointed out the remedy to be by impeachment. But where was the crime, the offence, or the impropriety, of the conduct ascribed to the Executive, if it had been adopted? Would gentlemen say that the Executive ought to appoint persons to office who professed an opinion contrary to its own? Did gentlemen suppose that there was such a want of integrity in this department of Government, that it adopted a political opinion which it did not believe to be right? And, if it were believed to act from principle, would it be prudent or right to admit to a participation in the execution of the important duties of Government persons whose sentiments were not in unison with those of the Executive, and who could only create discord and confusion, where nothing but harmony and union ought to prevail? If the Executive acted upon just principles, it would endeavor to give singleness of design to its operations, and it could only do this by admitting persons into the Government who thought with it. This would be a right, prudent, and honorable conduct; and where it had been deviated from (as he had before observed), Government had received an awful lesson for its future conduct.

The question whether that House had the power to interfere with the Executive authority, by withholding appropriations, had been fully discussed in a former Congress, and the opinion of the country was not now to be fixed on this subject. For that part of the House who thought the constitution had not vested them with the authority of controlling the Executive, it was sufficient to say that the Executive had thought it necessary to introduce the change in the diplomatic department, which was complained of, and that they felt themselves bound to carry his determination into effect; but those who think that the House of Representatives may control the Executive in this respect, will of course act accordingly.

Mr. Baldwin said he perceived there was a real difference of opinion between the gentleman last up and himself. The gentleman supposed the diplomatic establishment was fixed by the Executive, and the Legislature had nothing to do with it but to provide the money. Every person must see, even from a cursory view of the constitution, that this was designed to be a Government of departments, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, to be kept distinct as far as possible. It was the business of the Legislature to establish offices by law; it was the business of the Executive to fill those offices. It would appear, from tracing back the law, now proposed to be continued, that it originated in this manner. He had not been notified of the subject as being likely to be called up to-day, and was not prepared to be as particular as he could wish as to facts. He had endeavored to refresh his recollection since it had been under discussion, and he found that it originated from the Speech of the President, at the opening of the second session of the first Congress, in which he said, "that the interests of the United States required that our intercourse with other nations should be facilitated by such provisions as will enable me to fulfil my duty in that respect; and to this end, that the compensations to be made to the persons who may be employed, should, according to the nature of their appointments, be defined by law." This part of the Speech was referred to a committee, and from that originated this law. Want of information, at that early time in the Government, prevented their being as particular as they wished. They fixed a sum to each grade, and a sum beyond which the whole amount should not extend; limited the law to a short period, that it might be open to be corrected by experience. The present motion, if he had understood it, proposed now to be a little more particular in the establishment, by fixing the sum for particular places—to do the very thing then recommended by the President. The same has always been the intention of every succeeding Congress, which was the reason why they continued it only for short periods, leaving it open to such amendments as should be suggested by experience. These ideas of the offices being first to be established by law, appeared not only to be the sense of the former President, and of each succeeding Congress, as he had stated, but appeared also to be the opinion of the present President. At the last session he thought that a higher grade of office was necessary at Algiers: this he stated in a message to Congress—that as there were great expenditures of money on that coast, he thought it necessary that an establishment should be made which would enable him to appoint a very confidential person, on whom the other officers there should be dependent, and who should control their proceedings and expenditures. Congress concurred in this opinion, passed a law for the establishment of the office, and then the Executive appointed the officer. For these reasons he considered the question within their proper powers, and fairly open to their deliberation.

At the close of the revolutionary war, the disposition of forming many treaties, and having extensive diplomatic connections with European powers, was carried even further than it has been since. It was among their first national acts, and discovered marks of youth and inexperience; a few years convinced them that they had gone too far, that this country had little to expect from treaties, and much to lose, and that many diplomatic connections were more frequently the cause of perplexity and embarrassment, than of any national advantage. The Congress under the articles of confederation were extricating themselves from that policy as fast as possible; as these expired in course, they were careful not to renew them. For several of the last years of that Congress he well recollected that clusters of candidates for these appointments, supported by powerful interests and connections, were uniformly resisted; and, if he mistook not, when this Government came into operation, this country had but one Minister in Europe. The conviction on this subject was so strong, and experience had so fully settled it as the true policy, that it remained immoveable for some time after organizing the present Government. All appropriations for foreign Ministers were refused at the first session, as far as he recollected. At the second session it was urged, in the Speech of the President, as before stated, and enforced by more particular explanations to individuals, as designed to be for temporary purposes, respecting the Northern forts and the property that was withheld. Under these explanations a law passed, as before explained. It was true, this policy had been of late, in some measure, departed from. He thought experience had already been useful to them in this course also, and ought to administer caution to them in seeking to intermingle in European politics. Ambassadors and Ministers cannot be entirely indifferent to the characters and events with which they are constantly surrounded; the share they take is very apt to be exchanged between the countries to which they belong. He did not wish to be too particular on that point; he was persuaded facts enough presented themselves to the recollection of every member, to confirm his remark. It might be said that on this also we have an awful lesson. If evil had been experienced from this cause, he hoped it would operate as a reason to endeavor to diminish it. He thought it not unreasonable for the House to interpose their restraining power as to granting money, and the more particular establishment of the officers, and thus aid the other departments of the Government in bringing back, by degrees, this part of our policy to its former principles, so well sanctioned by experience. Whether the present motion was well timed, or whether it was best to give it another short limitation, before we went into a definite establishment, was another question, on which he was willing to hear more remarks. Informed as he was at present, he should vote for the motion, and thought they might make some amendments to the former bill, already suggested by experience, and which would be useful.

The committee rose, and had leave to sit again.

Friday, January 19.

Foreign Intercourse.

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill providing the means of foreign intercourse, when

Mr. Pinckney rose. He understood the amendment was intended to confine our Ministers Plenipotentiary to London and Paris, and that no higher grade than Ministers Resident should be employed in any other country. He was opposed to this change at this time, and to the mode proposed of doing the business, if the time were seasonable. It was proper that at this juncture our Ministers should remain as they were, as it was prudent to derive all the influence and advantage we could from the situation of our agents in Europe, who would not only be enabled to communicate more correct information from thence, than could be derived from any other source, but who could also explain the motives and objects of this Government, and by that means remove any unfavorable impressions which may be attempted to be given with respect to this country; and thereby put our business in the best train for securing the neutral standing which we have taken. He was against it for another reason. To change the diplomatic intercourse in the way proposed, would be forcing upon the Executive a measure contrary to its wishes. It would also be affording testimony to the charge heretofore made, that there was a division in the Government and the people—a situation in which many wished to see us. He should be sorry to afford the appearance of one department of Government having forced upon another a change of measures of which they are the competent judges, and upon which they have acted. As it was well known that there was a very intimate connection between Spain and Holland, and the country with whom we have at present a misunderstanding, he should be unwilling to deprive this country of the advantages to be derived from having Ministers at those places; besides, if our Ministers were to be recalled from thence, it would be considered as an extraordinary proceeding; and might be construed as intended to be hostile to them. Whatever influence Spain or Holland may have in the councils of the country which he had alluded to, by continuing our Ministers there, it was probable that weight would operate in our favor. There was an additional reason with respect to Spain. It was well known that we had points yet to settle with that country. Our treaty with that power was not yet carried into effect, and negotiations might at this time be going on in relation to it, which might be frustrated by the recall of our Ministers.

Mr. Nicholas wished to explain his intentions in bringing forward this amendment. He believed the gentleman last up would find they nearly corresponded with his own. He had no idea of putting an immediate veto upon the Ministers at present employed. He considered this bill, though passed with a limitation, as a permanent system, and a subsequent clause of the bill would enable the committee to fix the time at which the salaries of Ministers should cease. His wish was to put a limit to this extension of Executive power. He reminded the gentleman from South Carolina that Holland was not concerned in this bill, as we had only a Minister Resident there. If the subject were further dilated upon, he should offer some further remarks upon it.

Mr. N. Smith was surprised to hear the gentleman last up considered that as a permanent provision which was limited to a duration of two years. This law was merely temporary in its nature, and if he only contemplated some future regulations in our foreign intercourse, his amendment was not now necessary. However competent it was for the Legislature to settle the salary of Ministers, it was clear the Legislature had no power, by the constitution either to determine the number of foreign Ministers to be employed, where they should be sent, or what should be their grade. Under the general power of making treaties, vested in the President, he had the power of sending Ministers where he pleased; also in the power intrusted to him of executing the law (not only the municipal, but the law of nations) it was necessary he should have this power.

In a word, all relations were in the hands of the Executive; all our foreign intercourse was to him, and from him. Of course, he was the only judge of what was proper in this business. This being the case, it should seem as if that House had nothing to do with respect to the propriety of sending a Minister to Berlin, or in relation to other grades of Ministers, though they had the power of fixing their salaries. But it was contended by the gentleman from Georgia and others, that, by regulating these salaries, the Legislature had the power of preventing the extension of their establishment. This brought up an old question; but it was a very important one, and he did not regret that it was frequently drawn into discussion. He thought the great landmarks of our constitution could not be too well understood. He did not mean, however, to extend his observations on this subject. It was said, this was a Government of departments and checks, and of course, that the Legislature ought to check the Executive in its operations. That this was a Government of departments and checks, to a certain extent, he should readily allow; but that it was so to the extent which had been represented, he did deny. Our Government was divided into three departments, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial; each of these had checks and balances in its own department. The President was checked by the Senate; the Legislature was checked by the President and Senate; the Judiciary was checked by having certain appeals, writs of error, &c. So far from one department checking the other, it was necessary that all the parts should act in unison like a clock, and the moment one part declined to act, the Government could not proceed. It was not in the power of the Legislature to reverse the decision of the lowest court, and should it then be said that they could judge over the head of the Executive? This remark was applicable to all the departments. No one department was a favorite of the constitution. Every act of a department ought to be considered as well done. This being the case, whenever the President had appointed a Minister, and done it constitutionally, when he informed the Legislature thereof, they might do any thing and every thing but doubt the propriety of establishing the Minister.

Mr. Harper.—As to the general policy of the present motion, as connected with the foreign relations of this country, Mr. H. said that he would add two or three remarks on that subject, and then conclude.

The motion went, he said, to reduce the appointments and salaries of three ministers: those to Madrid, Lisbon, and Berlin; and in support of the motion, it was alleged that the last of these Ministers was entirely unnecessary, and that the other two had been improperly, because unnecessarily, raised from Ministers Resident to Ministers Plenipotentiary. To him it was a sufficient answer to these allegations to say, that the President had thought otherwise; because, the President, being charged by the constitution with the foreign relations of the country, must be invested with the means necessary for conducting them with effect; and was infinitely better qualified by this situation to judge what those means were, and how they ought to be used, than the House can pretend to be. One of these means was the appointment of foreign Ministers, which was expressly vested in the President by the constitution. When the President, therefore, had thought fit to appoint foreign Ministers, or to alter their grades, he had exercised a constitutional power, and it did not lie with the House of Representatives to object or judge. To him, therefore, Mr. H. said, it was a sufficient answer to all those objections to say that the President had thought otherwise. To others, who might hold different opinions from him on this subject, he thought it was a sufficient answer to be told that the House of Representatives, as well as the President, had thought differently, and had sanctioned the changes which he had thought proper to make in this respect, by voting money to carry them into effect. This the House had done expressly in all the three cases contemplated by the present motion.

Mr. Gallatin said the committee had been told, in the course of the debate, by some gentlemen, that this attempt to reduce the number of our Ministers was unconstitutional; by others, that it was inexpedient; and even some gentlemen, who agreed to the general expediency of the measure, believed it would be attended with inconvenience from our present foreign relations.

In relation to the constitutionality of the thing, he did not believe, whatever doctrine was supported with respect to treaties, that upon this occasion the committee should be told that they were interfering with the constitutional power vested in the President. It was true that he had the general power of appointing Ambassadors, but it was not less true that the Legislature had the sole and exclusive power to provide for all the expenses of the Union. Hence arose the idea of ours being a Government of departments, so formed as to be a check upon each other. But the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. N. Smith) said there was no such thing as a check of departments; that each was distinct; and, though each had checks within itself, none of them checked the other. And to illustrate his position, he introduced the simile of a clock, at the same time that he told them that the Executive Department was the main-spring which put the clock in motion, whilst Mr. G. supposed he meant that the other branches were merely the hands, which moved as they were directed. But if there was any act which could not be done but by all the branches, each had its share in deciding upon the propriety of it. When a treaty was made it had been argued that that House had nothing to do but carry it into effect; but here it was said that the House were bound to provide for every Ambassador appointed; and if, by withholding salaries, they obliged the President to send Ministers Resident where he wished to send Ministers Plenipotentiary, they would act inconsistently with the constitution. Though gentlemen might make speeches on this subject, they must know that where the Legislature had a right to act, it had a right to deliberate and to use its discretion.

It was true treaties had been made, but no treaty had been made since the adoption of the present Government, by Ministers Resident at any Court at the time. If any benefits were derived to the country from the British treaty, they must be attributed to the Envoy Extraordinary, and not to our Minister at that court. And when our treaty with Spain was concluded, it was necessary to send a Minister Resident to another Court to do the business. Since our treaties were always made by special Envoys, what advantage could it be to have numerous Ministers Plenipotentiary in Europe? In the present critical situation of the country, agitated as it was to the centre, was it not to be apprehended that our Ministers would participate, in some degree, in the party spirit which there abounded, and rank themselves on one side or the other, which would have a tendency to draw this country into a vortex from which we were so happily separated by the Atlantic? We were the only nation, he said, who possessed a Government on a firm foundation, in which civil and religious liberty was fully recognized; we, therefore, enjoyed what the people of Europe were seeking after. We have nothing to wish, except to remain in our present situation. Why, then, should we hazard the being involved in European broils? He had before stated that Consuls were equal to every commercial regulation, and he had heard nothing to change his opinion. Seeing, therefore, that these diplomatic agents were rather dangerous than useful, he thought it time to put a stop to their increase.

Mr. Bayard began his observations by remarking, that the gentleman from Virginia had said that it was not his design that his motion should have an immediate effect upon the Ministers at present employed. If the gentleman was sincere in his avowal, it was clear that he did not understand his own motion; for whatever amendment was introduced into the third section, which the gentleman had intimated might be so amended as to give the regulation a distant operation, as it only related to the sum of money to be appropriated, it would not enable the President to employ a Minister Plenipotentiary, besides those at London and Paris, at a higher salary than $4,500.

Some gentlemen have said, it was idle talk about this House having the power to appropriate, without having the power at the same time to use their discretion. He contended that the power of appointing Ministers was vested in the President, and the House had no right to believe he would abuse this power. It had been supposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that he might appoint an indefinite number of Ministers; and were the House, in that case, he asked, blindly to appropriate for them? This question was predicated upon an abuse of power, whilst the constitution supposed it would be executed with fidelity. Suppose he were to state the question in an opposite light. Let it be imagined that this country has a misunderstanding with some foreign power, and that the Executive should appoint a Minister, but the House, in the plenitude of its powers, should refuse an appropriation. What might be the consequence? Would not the House have contravened the constitution, by taking from the President the power which by it is placed in him? It certainly would. So that this supposition of the abuse of power would go to the destruction of all authority. The Legislature was bound to appropriate for the salary of the Chief Justice of the United States, and though the President might appoint a chimney-sweeper to that office, they would still be bound. The constitution had trusted the President, as well as it had trusted that House. Indeed it was not conceivable that the House could act upon the subject of foreign Ministers. Our interests with foreign countries came wholly under the jurisdiction of the Executive. The duties of that House related to the internal affairs of the country; but what related to foreign countries and foreign agents was vested in the Executive Department. The President was responsible for the manner in which this business was conducted. He was bound to communicate, from time to time, our situation with foreign powers; and if plans were carried on abroad for dividing or subjecting us, if he were not to make due communication of the design, he would be answerable for the neglect.

Tuesday, January 30.

Breach of Privilege.

Mr. Sewall then said, he believed the business which he had to lay before the House would require secrecy, as it was a subject which would considerably affect the feelings of the members of the House. He therefore moved that the galleries might be cleared; which was accordingly done, excepting the members and Clerk.

Mr. Sewall then said, that he had been informed, in a manner which left no doubt of the truth of the fact, that, in the presence of the House whilst sitting, Matthew Lyon, a member from the State of Vermont, did this day commit a violent attack and gross indecency upon the person of Roger Griswold, another member of this House; and in order to bring the subject before the House, that he had prepared a resolution, which he read in his place, and delivered in at the Clerk's table. A question was then taken in the following words: Does the matter so communicated require secrecy?

This motion passed unanimously in the negative, and the galleries were opened.

The House then proceeded to consider the motion made by the member from Massachusetts, which was read, as follows:

"Resolved, That Matthew Lyon, a member of this House, for a violent attack and gross indecency committed upon the person of Roger Griswold, another member, in the presence of the House, whilst sitting, be, for this disorderly behavior, expelled therefrom."

It was moved that this resolution be referred to a committee to be denominated a Committee of Privileges, with instruction to inquire into the whole matter of the said resolution, and to report the same with their opinion thereon to the House.

The question was taken by yeas and nays, and decided in the affirmative, 49 to 44.

Ordered, That Messrs. Pinckney, Venable, Kittera, Isaac Parker, R. Williams, Cochran, and Dent, be a committee for the purpose.

A motion was then made that the House come to the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the House will consider it a high breach of privilege if either of the members shall enter into any personal contest until a decision of the House shall be had thereon."

A motion was made to add the following words to the end thereof:

"And that the said Matthew Lyon be considered in the custody of the Sergeant-at-arms until the further order of the House."

The yeas and nays were taken upon this question and decided in the negative—29 to 62.

Thursday, February 1.

Breach of Privilege.

The Speaker informed the House that he had received a letter from a member from Vermont, which he was requested to lay before them.

Mr. Rutledge thought, that in all cases, when letters were sent to the Speaker to be laid before the House, it would be proper for him to state the substance of such communications before they are read, otherwise improper matters might be brought before them.

The Speaker allowed that the suggestion was a proper one, and proceeded to state the contents of the letter in his hand; which having done, the reading of it was called for, and it was read as follow:

To the Speaker of the House of Representatives:

Sir:—As the attention of the House of Representatives has been called to my conduct in a dispute with Mr. Griswold on a suggestion of its being a violation of the order of the House, and the respect due to it from all its members, I feel it incumbent on me to obviate the imputation of intentional disrespect. Permit me, sir, through you, to assure the House of Representatives that I feel as much as any of its members the necessity of preserving the utmost decorum in its proceedings; that I am incapable of an intentional violation of its rule; and that, if, in the present instance, I am chargeable with a disregard of them, it is owing wholly to my ignorance of their extent, and that the House of Representatives claimed any superintendence over its members when not formally constituted, and when they are not engaged in actual business. If I have been mistaken in my understanding on this subject, I beg the House to believe that my fault has been without intention, and that I am very sorry that I have deserved its censure. I am, sir, your obedient servant,

MATTHEW LYON.

February 1, 1798.

The reading of the letter having been gone through, a member proposed that it should lie on the table, when

Mr. Macon said, that as it was an acknowledgment of improper conduct, he thought it ought to be entered upon the journals.

Mr. Nicholas moved that the letter be referred to the committee who have this subject under consideration. Gentlemen would recollect, he said, that, on a former occasion, when an offence of the same nature was committed, a letter written by the offending member was not only referred, but was also deemed a sufficient apology to the House. He did not know that this would be the case in the present instance; but that it might be, was evinced by the case to which he alluded. He hoped, therefore, it would be referred. Agreed to.

Friday, February 2.

Breach of Privilege.

Mr. Venable from the Committee of Privileges, made the following report:

The Committee of Privileges, to whom was referred a resolution on the 30th of January, charging Matthew Lyon with disorderly behavior, with instructions to inquire into the whole matter thereof, and to report the same, with their opinion thereon, to the House, having examined several witnesses on oath touching the subject, report: That, during the sitting of the House of Representatives on the 30th day of January, 1798, the tellers of the House being engaged in counting the ballots for Managers of the impeachment against William Blount, the Speaker had left his chair, and many members their seats, as is usual on such occasions; the Speaker was sitting in one of the member's seats, next to the bar of the House, and several members near him, of whom Mr. Griswold was one.

Mr. Lyon was standing without the bar of the House, leaning on the same, and holding a conversation with the Speaker. He spoke loud enough to be heard by all those who were near him, as if he intended to be heard by them. The subject of his conversation was, the conduct of the Representatives of the State of Connecticut, (of whom Mr. Griswold was one.) Mr. Lyon declared that they acted in opposition to the interests and opinion of nine-tenths of their constituents; that they were pursuing their own private views, without regarding the interests of the people; that they were seeking offices, which they were willing to accept, whether yielding $9,000 or $1,000. He further observed that the people of that State were blinded or deceived by those Representatives; that they were permitted to see but one side of the question in politics, being lulled asleep by the opiates which the members from that State administered to them; with other expressions equally tending to derogate from the political integrity of the Representatives of Connecticut.

On Mr. Lyon's observing, that if he should go into Connecticut, and manage a press there six months, although the people of that State were not fond of revolutionary principles, he could effect a revolution, and turn out the present Representatives—Mr. Griswold replied to these remarks, and, amongst other things, said that, "If you go into Connecticut, you had better wear your wooden sword," or words to that effect, alluding to Mr. Lyon's having been cashiered in the army.

Mr. Lyon did not notice the allusion at this time, but continued the conversation on the same subject. Mr. Griswold then left his seat, and stood next to Mr. Lyon, leaning on the bar, being outside the same.

On Mr. Lyon's saying he knew the people of Connecticut well, having lived among them many years—that he had frequent occasion to fight them in his own district, and that he never failed to convince them—Mr. Griswold asked, if he fought them with his wooden sword, on which Mr. Lyon spat in his face.

The Committee having attentively considered the foregoing state of facts, and having heard Mr. Lyon in his defence, are of opinion that his conduct in this transaction was highly indecorous, and unworthy of a member of this House.

They, therefore, recommend the adoption of the resolution submitted to their consideration by the House, in the words following, to wit:

"Resolved, That Matthew Lyon, a member of this House, for a violent attack and gross indecency, committed upon the person of Roger Griswold, another member, in the presence of the House while sitting, be for this disorderly behavior expelled therefrom."

The report having been read,

Mr. Lyon said, he did not think the evidence was stated in its full extent in this report. He wished, therefore, before the House proceeded in the business, they would hear the evidence themselves.

Mr. Harper inquired of the Speaker whether that was the usual mode of proceeding?

The Speaker said, it was necessary first to take up the report for a second reading.

Mr. Macon observed that this was a very delicate and a very serious question, as it related to one of the members of that House, and as it respected the dignity of the House itself. He hoped, therefore, the report would be printed, that some time would be given to consider it, and that the House would themselves hear the testimony. The punishment which the report proposed was equal to death itself. He hoped, therefore, it would not be acted upon hastily, but made the order of the day for Monday.

Mr. Harper did not wish to press the business in an improper manner, as it was certainly of great importance to a member of that House, to the House itself, and to the dignity of the country. It was usual to have all reports of any consequence printed, and a day or two given for consideration. He was not himself desirous of delay, as he was at present ready to vote upon the question; but, if other members wished it, he should not object to the motion proposed by the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Nicholas took it for granted, that, whenever this subject came up, the House would think it necessary to go into an examination of the witnesses themselves, and not rely upon the manner in which their testimony had struck others. He thought it would be best, therefore, whilst the report was printing, to go on in the examination of witnesses.

The question for postponing till Monday was put and carried.

Mr. Nicholas said, he had no objection to wait for the printing of the report, before the House proceeded to examine the witnesses, but he should not waive the right of having them re-examined before the House.

Monday, February 5.

Mr. D. Foster reported a bill for the relief of Oliver Pollock, which was committed for Wednesday.

French Outrages.

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

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

I have received a letter from his Excellency Charles Pinckney, Esq., Governor of the State of South Carolina, dated the 22d October, 1797, enclosing a number of depositions and witnesses to several captures and outrages committed within and near the limits of the United States, by a French privateer belonging to Cape Francois, or Monte Christo, called the Vertitude or Fortitude, and commanded by a person of the name of Jordon or Jourdain, and particularly upon an English merchant ship named the Oracabissa, which he first plundered and then burned, with the rest of her cargo, of great value, within the territory of the United States, in the harbor of Charleston, on the 17th of October last. Copies of which letter and depositions, and also of several other depositions relative to the same subject, received from the Collector of Charleston, are herewith communicated.

Whenever the channel of diplomatical communication between the United States and France shall be opened, I shall demand satisfaction for the insult and reparation for the injury.

I have transmitted these papers to Congress, not so much for the purpose of communicating an account of so daring a violation of the territory of the United States, as to show the propriety and necessity of enabling the Executive authority of Government to take measures for protecting the citizens of the United States and such foreigners as have a right to enjoy their peace, and the protection of their laws, within their limits, in that as well as some other harbors which are equally exposed.

JOHN ADAMS.

United States, February 5, 1798.

This Message, with the documents accompanying it, was referred to the committee for considering on proper measures for the protection and defence of the country.

Breach of Privilege.

Mr. Sewall moved the House to take up the report of the Committee of Privileges, in order that it might be committed to a Committee of the Whole.

Mr. R. Williams wished to know whether evidence could be heard in a Committee of the Whole.

The Speaker said, the House might authorize the Committee of the Whole to hear evidence.

Mr. Sewall moved the report to be committed. If gentlemen wished evidence to be heard before the committee, they would, of course, make an addition to his motion. For his own part he thought it unnecessary.

Mr. Nicholas had no objection to evidence being heard before a Committee of the Whole, except that it might involve the subject in some embarrassment; as it was possible that a majority of the committee might come to a decision which, according to the constitution, it would require two-thirds of the House to confirm. He saw no reason for going into a committee, except that the Speaker would have to give his testimony; but he did not see why the Speaker might not give his testimony from his seat, as well as from any other place. By going into a committee, the subject would take up a longer time than it otherwise would do, as they should have twice to go over the same ground.

Mr. R. Williams was in favor of hearing the evidence before the committee.

Mr. Thatcher was not of opinion, with the gentleman from Virginia, that this matter should be run over as soon as possible. He thought it of infinite importance, as it respected the dignity of the House and the people at large, and he hoped it would go through every form of the House.

The question for a commitment was put and carried, and it was made the order for this day.

Mr. Nicholas then moved that the Committee of the Whole be authorized to examine testimony, and called for the yeas and nays upon the question; which being agreed upon, they were taken, and, so little opposition was there to this mode of proceeding that the question was carried, 88 to 4. The negatives were Messrs. Gordon, Sewall, Sitgreaves, and Thatcher.

Mr. D. Foster moved that the committee should be authorized to report the whole of the evidence, as he thought it was important it should be entered upon the journals. Carried.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Dent in the chair, on this subject.

Mr. Thatcher said it would be necessary that a Judge should attend to administer an oath to the members who should be called upon to give their testimony.

The Chairman informed the committee that the Judge of the District Court was in the House.

Judge Peters was accordingly called upon.

Mr. Rutledge desired an oath might be administered to the Speaker, Messrs. S. Smith, Brooks, Hosmer, Coit, Dana, Goodrich, and Champlin; which was accordingly done.

Mr. Rutledge said, if there should be occasion, he should also call upon Judge Chipman, a Senator from Vermont, as an evidence.

Mr. Chipman was, towards the close of the sitting, also sworn.

Some conversation took place as to the best mode of taking the evidence, whether, as it was to be reported to the House, it should be received from the witnesses in writing, leaving them to be questioned afterwards by the members of the committee, or whether it should be given viva voce, deliberately, and taken down by the Clerk. The latter mode was at length adopted, and the Speaker proceeded to give his testimony.

[Taking the testimony in this case, and the debates upon it, occupied the House until the 12th of February, when, a motion having been made to amend the resolution of expulsion, by substituting a reprimand, a vote was taken on that question, and negatived—52 to 44. The vote was then taken on the resolution of expulsion, and stood yeas 52, nays 44. The constitution requiring two-thirds of the members present to carry a vote of expulsion, the Resolution was declared by the Speaker to be not carried. The following were the yeas and nays:]

Yeas.—George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, Jas. A. Bayard, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher G. Champlin, John Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, Thomas T. Davis, John Dennis, George Dent, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, David Holmes, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, James Machir, William Matthews, Daniel Morgan, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, Josiah Parker, John Read, John Rutledge, jr., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, Wm. Shepard, Thos. Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Peleg Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, and Peleg Wadsworth.

Nays.—Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Wm. Charles Cole Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, Wm. Findlay, John Fowler, Nathaniel Freeman, jun., Albert Gallatin, William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Walter Jones, Edw. Livingston, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Thompson J. Skinner, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jun., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.

Wednesday, February 14.

Quakers' Memorial.

Mr. Sitgreaves moved the order of the day on the report of a select committee on the memorial of the people called Quakers; which motion being agreed to, the House went into a Committee of the Whole on the subject, Mr. Dent in the chair. The report having been read as follows:

"That, inasmuch as the said memorial and address presents, in general terms only, certain subjects to the consideration of the Legislature, without containing any definite state of facts, or any specific application for its interposition, the memorialists were desired to exhibit a particular view of the grievances of which they complained, in order that the attention of the House might be directed to precise objects, and that it might be better discerned whether the complaints of the memorialists were of a nature to justify Legislative interference:

"That, in consequence of this request, the memorialists laid before the committee the representation and documents which accompany this report:

"That, on the subject of this representation, the memorialists were invited to confer with the committee, and were solicited to suggest the remedy which they conceived it to be in the power of Congress to apply to the case, as stated by them:

"That the committee, after several conferences with the memorialists, and an attentive consideration of the subject, are very clearly of opinion that the facts disclosed in the said representation are exclusively of judicial cognizance; and that it is not competent to the Legislative authority of Congress to do any act in relation to the matter thereof:

"Wherefore the committee recommend the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the memorialists have leave to withdraw the said memorial and address."

Mr. Thatcher could not say that he was perfectly satisfied with the report of the committee in all its parts. He wished the business disposed of without coming to any decisive resolution upon it, so as either to approve or disapprove of it. He was not ready to say that the facts disclosed in that memorial were exclusively of judicial cognizance, and that the Legislature of the Union was incompetent to do any thing in it. It might, however, be true, but it was not clear to him. He would rather that the subject should not now be acted upon: he would, therefore, propose an amendment to the report, which might conclude the business without coming to any resolution upon it, which had been the course heretofore taken with similar applications. He moved, therefore, to strike out the resolution giving the petitioners leave to withdraw their petition; and if his motion was agreed to, he should wish the committee to rise, and that the House would not act further upon it at present.

Mr. Rutledge said, he, as well as the gentleman from Massachusetts, was dissatisfied with the report of the select committee. He thought the report ought to have stated that the peace of certain States in the Union had been much disturbed by applications of this kind. He had prepared a resolution to this effect, which he would read in his place. It was as follows:

"Resolved, That part of the memorial of the people called Quakers has a tendency to disturb the tranquillity of some of the States of the Union; that this House is not competent to act upon it, and therefore they have leave to withdraw their memorial."

There could be little difference of opinion on the assertion that the internal tranquillity of several States had been disturbed by these applications; and he believed there would be no difficulty in obtaining a majority of the House to declare it; as, if the Representatives of three or four States were to rise and declare the fact, it must have sufficient weight to carry a declaration of this kind. He had, however, mentioned the matter to some of his friends, and found it was not very agreeable to them, as they wished to get rid of the business without debate. But if the present motion were to obtain, he should afterwards bring forward this resolution.

The Chairman declared the motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts out of order.

The question on the resolution, as reported, was put and carried, there being 74 votes in the affirmative. The committee then rose, and the House concurred in the report.

Thursday, February 15.

Fracas in the House.

[About a quarter past eleven o'clock, after prayers, whilst the Speaker was in his chair, and many members in their places, but before the House had been called to order, and before the journal had been read, Mr. Griswold entered the House, and observing Mr. Lyon in his place (who was writing) he went up to him with a pretty strong walking stick in his hand, with which he immediately began to beat him with great violence. Mr. G.'s approach was observed by Mr. Lyon, but before he could get from behind his desk he had received some severe blows. As soon as he got on the floor of the House he endeavored to lay hold of Mr. G. (having no stick or weapon in his hand) but he was prevented from doing so by Mr. G.'s falling back, and the continual blows with which he was assailed. At length getting behind the Speaker's chair, Mr. L. snatched up the tongs from the fire; the combatants then closed and came down together upon the floor, Mr. G. being uppermost. The members in the House, who till now seemed to look on with amazement at the scene, without an attempt to put an end to it, got round the parties, and separated them, but not before Mr. L. had aimed a blow at Mr. G.'s head with the tongs, but which he parried off. The Speaker was now called upon to desire the members to take their seats and form the House. Whilst this was doing, the two enraged members met again without the bar, and, but for the doorkeeper and some gentlemen present, would have renewed the combat. Order having been obtained (at least as much as it was possible to obtain from the agitated state of the House) the Clerk proceeded to read the journal, and the business of the day was entered upon. It continued till one o'clock, when from the perturbation which was naturally occasioned by such a scene, and it being evident that business was very little attended to by a great part of the House, a motion for an adjournment was made and carried. It will be seen that no notice was taken of this proceeding in the course of the sitting.]

Friday, February 16.

Case of Griswold and Lyon.

Immediately upon the journals having been read,

Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, rose and proposed the following resolution for the adoption of the House:

"Resolved, That Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon, members of this House, for violent and disorderly behavior committed in the House, be expelled therefrom."

Mr. Nicholas hoped the resolution would be permitted to lie on the table.

Mr. Davis saw no reason for delaying a decision upon this resolution. He thought the conduct of these gentlemen had been so grossly violent, and so notorious to most of the members of the House, that there need be no hesitation in deciding upon it. If gentlemen wished, however, to take the same course which had been adopted on a former occasion, he should not object to it, though he thought it unnecessary. It was needless, now to say any thing as to the necessity of preserving the dignity and honor of that House; enough had already been said, and he thought pertinently said, on a former occasion on this subject. And as he believed neither the dignity, the honor, or peace of that House could be preserved whilst these members remained in it, he hoped the House would be unanimous in voting their expulsion.

Mr. Thatcher did not see why the innocent should be punished with the guilty. The gentleman who brought forward this proposition, he supposed, did not wish this. From what he saw of the affray, he did not think Mr. Lyon deserved to be punished for the part he acted. He certainly received a severe beating, but he appeared to be passive from the beginning to the end; and he did not think Mr. Lyon ought to be expelled because he was beaten. As to any investigation of what happened yesterday, he did not think it necessary, as most of the members of that House were eye-witnesses to the fact. But the gentleman said there would be no peace until these members were expelled. He did not know from what he drew his conclusions. What was done yesterday was done before the House was in session; and it had already been determined that acts of violence committed without the bar, during a session of the House, are not causes of expulsion. He did not know, therefore, how gentlemen would support the doctrine that a member ought to be expelled for an act of violence done before the House was in session. It might be necessary, however, to investigate other facts connected with these.

Mr. J. Parker seconded the motion for the expulsion of these members, because he believed there would be no peace in the House until they were expelled. He was sorry the gentleman from Massachusetts should have said he saw nothing but what was passive on the part of Mr. Lyon. He himself saw more, and that gentleman must have seen it if he had his eyes about him. He said, that after the offending members had been separated Mr. Lyon met Mr. Griswold without the bar of the House and began to belabor him with his cane, when they were again separated. The attack of yesterday, Mr. P. said, at a time when the House ought to have been in session though it had not come to order, would fix an indelible stain upon it; and if these members were not expelled, no member could consider himself as safe in his seat. Such a transaction would certainly lower that House in the estimation of their constituents. He had even heard this morning, as he came to the Hall, persons in the street call out, "There is nothing to do in Congress to-day—there's no fighting going on!" In order to get rid of these reproaches, he hoped all parties would unite in expelling these members. If their constituents chose to send them back, he hoped no member would associate with or take notice of them. And if a vote of expulsion should be agreed upon, he would afterwards move to expunge from the journals all the entries relative to these disgraceful proceedings.

Mr. Nicholas wished the motion to lie upon the table for the present, because he was not himself prepared to decide upon the subject; he wished, also, that whenever the motion was taken up, gentlemen might come with their minds determined upon it, so that a long debate might not be necessary. He therefore moved to postpone the consideration of this resolution to Monday.

Mr. Gordon wished to know what part of the resolution the gentleman from Virginia was not ready to act upon?

Mr. Nicholas did not understand the drift of the gentleman's question. If he meant to ask whether he (Mr. N.) disapproved of the vote which he had already given, he would answer him he did not.

Mr. J. Williams said he should approve of the motion for postponement, if it were made for to-morrow, instead of Monday; and he hoped the business would not only be taken up to-morrow, but be concluded before they rose. He had sat with great patience during the late debate, but he should be opposed to going into any further lengthy proceedings on so disagreeable a subject, which would prevent them from doing the business of the nation, for which they were sent.

Mr. Nicholas had no objection to make the question the order for to-morrow, if the House met.

Mr. Thatcher observed, that he had before said that he had seen nothing on the part of Mr. Lyon, in the affray of yesterday, which ought to subject him to expulsion; but the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Parker) said, that if he (Mr. T.) had had his eyes about him, he might have seen something for which he ought to be expelled. If, indeed, he had eyes behind he might have seen what he alluded to; but this not being the case, he did not see it. As far as the business respects Mr. Lyon, some inquiry might be necessary, as all he saw was, that Mr. Lyon suffered much, without any offence on his part. He thought, therefore, the business should be gone into, as on a former occasion, and that they ought to examine the subject with candor, and then they should doubtless decide upon it with propriety.

Mr. Sitgreaves was against the postponement, in order that a different course might be taken. He knew nothing in this case which distinguished it from a late case, and therefore could not see why the same course ought not to be pursued as was then pursued. He should therefore vote against a postponement, in order that the resolution might be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Harper inquired whether such a motion would not supersede a motion for postponement.

The Speaker said, it would.

Mr. Harper then made the motion.

Mr. Gallatin asked whether he understood the Speaker rightly, that a motion for a reference to a committee superseded a motion for postponement?

The Speaker said, it did.

Mr. Nicholas asked whether it would not then be in order to postpone the consideration of the subject?

The Speaker answered, it would.

Mr. Nicholas renewed the motion for a postponement till to-morrow.

Mr. Harper, believing that it would be proper to refer this resolution to a committee, as before, especially as some of the facts did not pass within the view of the House, he should vote against the postponement—not because he wished to avoid a vote on the question; for, if it should be the opinion of the House that it ought not to go to a committee, he was perfectly ready to give a vote upon the question; but he thought it better that the business should have this course. With respect to any discussion being necessary upon this subject, he perhaps might think it necessary to make some observations upon it, when the question came before the House for decision; for, though some gentlemen might be endued with the happy faculty of doing every thing in an instant, he could not boast of possessing that faculty. But, even if he were not desirous of discussion for his own information, he wished it for the information of the public; and, notwithstanding all that the House had heard about a waste of public money and public time, he believed they should best serve the public by suffering the business to take the usual course.

The motion for a postponement was put and negatived.

Mr. Sitgreaves then moved that the resolution be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Harper moved that the committee have leave to sit during the session of the House.

Mr. Thatcher thought, as it was probable a number of members might be wanted to give evidence, the House had better adjourn, as on a former occasion, as it would not be proper to go on with business when so many members were absent.

Mr. T. Claiborne hoped leave would not be granted for the committee to sit immediately. He wished them coolly to deliberate upon the business, which they could scarcely be expected to do, when their passions were so strongly affected as they must be at present.

The question for leave to sit during the session was put and carried—46 to 36.

Mr. Harper moved that the committee be instructed to report to the House the evidence in writing, upon which they shall found their report.

Mr. Kittera thought the facts were so notorious that there was no necessity for this instruction.

Mr. Harper said if his friend from Pennsylvania could say that every body would be satisfied with the report of the committee without the evidence, he would not insist upon this motion. But if the evidence was not reported, how could he say that all the witnesses might not again be called before the House? It was his wish to prevent this.

Mr. J. Williams said there was a considerable difference between this transaction and the one lately under consideration. He thought in this case it would probably save much trouble to report the evidence.

Mr. Brooks said it must be recollected that the gentleman from Virginia was not satisfied with the former report. He wished to hear the witnesses themselves; and if the evidence was to be reported, he did not suppose it would be satisfactory.

Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion, because it would be likely to shorten the business; but if, when the testimony came to be reported, there was any obscurity in it, he should feel it necessary to ask the witnesses questions by way of elucidation, as every man who was called upon as a judge, should be in full possession of every fact relative to the subject.

Mr. Brooks said the gentleman who had just sat down, would have no difficulty in pointing out some obscurity, in order to furnish an apology for rehearing of the witnesses.