FIFTH CONGRESS.—SECOND SESSION. (continued 3)

Mr. Kittera said if to report the evidence would prevent the necessity of hearing the witnesses in the House, he should not object to it; but he believed this would not be the case.

Mr. Venable was before of opinion that it would have been best for witnesses to have delivered their evidence in writing. He hoped that course would now be taken, and then there would be no difficulty in reporting it to the House; and if it should be found necessary, in order to elucidate any part of it, to put any questions to the witnesses in the House, the business would be greatly facilitated and shortened by the evidence being reported.

The question was put and carried.

Mr. Otis believed that something further was necessary to be done in respect to the unfortunate business, which had already engaged the attention of the House. From what had happened in the view of the House, it appears that the parties are in the habit of conflicting with each other; and except they are restrained by some authority which shall be sufficiently imposing upon them, further violence may be expected. In order, therefore, to secure this House from future violations of its dignity and order, he proposed the following resolution for adoption:

"Resolved, That Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon, members of this House, be respectively required by the Speaker to pledge their words to this House, that they will not commit any act of violence upon each other during this session; and that if either refuse to make such engagements, the party refusing shall be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-arms, until he shall comply with this obligation."

Mr. Sewall understood a motion had been agreed to in relation to the affair of yesterday, which might produce an expulsion of the members in question. He thought it would be better, therefore, to alter the wording of the resolution, and instead of "during this session," say "during the continuance of the examination of the business before the House."

Mr. Sitgreaves did not think any alterations were necessary. An expulsion of the members was a possible, but not a necessary result. If an expulsion does not take place, the resolution will remain in operation for the remainder of the session, which would be proper; and, if an expulsion took place, its operation would fall of course.

Mr. J. Williams thought it best to pass the resolution as it stood. If a similar resolution had been entered into on a former occasion, it would probably have prevented what had now taken place.

Mr. R. Williams called for the reading of the resolution which was passed on a former occasion. [It was read. It stated "that any personal contest between the members, before the House had come to a decision upon the business, would be considered as a high breach of privileges."] Mr. W. thought this resolution went as far as the House had a right to go. The resolution proposed by the gentleman from Massachusetts, went farther, he thought, than they had power to go. It went to imprison one or both of the parties, if he or they refused to comply with the request of the House. He had his doubts whether that House had the constitutional power to imprison a man for a crime, as the law only would do this. He thought a resolution, similar to that adopted on a former occasion, would be sufficient at present; and if the mover did not think proper so to alter it, he would himself move an amendment for this purpose.

Mr. Otis flattered himself that his object would have met with the concurrence of all sides of the House, believing that all wished to prevent future violations of order and peace. With respect to the doubts of the gentleman from North Carolina, his politics seemed to be altogether a system of doubts. If this system was common, it would be extremely difficult to progress with business at all. He believed, on the present occasion, these doubts were groundless. When an act of violence was done in the view of the members of the House, they had certainly the power to obtain some security against a repetition of such violence. If this was not done, the presumption was, the business of the session might be continually interrupted; and had they not the right of securing the peaceful exercise of their legislative functions for the remainder of the session? He thought this could not be seriously doubted. With respect to the former resolution, if he had been in his place, he should have suggested its impropriety; for, by it, it seemed to be implied that, after the question was decided, though they could not do it before, the members in question would be at liberty to commit any act of violence they pleased upon each other. They had seen the consequence. He hoped, therefore, the House would restrain these gentlemen in such a manner as that it may not be in their power again to interrupt their proceedings.

The question was then taken on the resolution, and carried by a large majority, there being 73 votes in favor of it.

The Speaker asked, whether it was the pleasure of the House that the Sergeant-at-arms should be sent for Mr. Lyon?

Mr. Sitgreaves said it might not be convenient for Mr. Lyon to attend the House; he asked whether the resolution might not be sent to him, and his answer be received in writing?

Mr. Nicholas supposed, that if both gentlemen prepared a declaration in writing, and presented it to-morrow, it would answer the purpose.

Mr. Harper replied, the mischief intended to be guarded against might in the mean time be done.

Mr. Gallatin said, he had just been called out by a member of the House, who had asked him whether he thought it would be proper for Mr. Lyon to attend the House. He supposed, therefore, if the Sergeant-at-arms was sent for him, he would immediately attend.

Mr. Harper hoped the Sergeant-at-arms would be sent.

The Speaker said, as soon as the Clerk had made a copy of the resolution, the Sergeant-at-arms would wait upon Mr. Lyon with it.

Mr. Lyon having entered,

The Speaker said, the members from Vermont and Connecticut being now in their places, he should proceed to read the resolution which had been entered into by the House. [He then read the resolution.]

As soon as it was finished reading,

Mr. Griswold rose and said, he should not hesitate to enter into the proposed engagement.

Mr. Lyon also rose and said, he was ready, as it was the wish of the House, to agree to the proposition.

The Speaker said, then you do accordingly agree to this proposition?

Both answered, "I do agree."

Monday, February 19.

Amy Dardin.

Upon motion of Mr. T. Claiborne, the following resolution was agreed to—45 to 40:

"Resolved, That a committee be appointed to bring in a bill for the relief of Amy Dardin."

[This claim has been long before Congress, and been several times the subject of discussion. It is for the value of the famous horse Romulus, the property of the husband of the petitioner, pressed into the service of the United States during the war. The case of the widow is evidently a hard one, and this is the second time a vote has been obtained in her favor, which has afterwards been reversed.]

The committee rose, reported their agreement to the three resolutions, and had leave to sit again. The House took up the two first, agreed to them, and directed the Committee of Claims to bring in a bill or bills accordingly. When the third resolution came to be considered, the yeas and nays were called for, and its adoption was strongly opposed by Messrs. Harper, Nicholas, and Bayard, on the ground of its throwing open a door to every claim which had heretofore been determined as barred, as cutting up by the root all the acts of limitation; that it was also setting aside these laws in the most objectionable way, by inviting every person, who had an unsatisfied claim, to petition Congress for relief, which would of course engage much of their time. If the acts were to be set aside, it would be much better and less expensive therefore to authorize the proper department to settle these claims, than that the time of the House should be engaged in investigating and settling them.

On the other hand, its adoption was advocated by Messrs. Gallatin and T. Claiborne. This was stated as a hard case; that this determination would not open the acts of limitation to any but such as Congress might deem extremely hard cases; that it would give the Treasury no power whatever to settle any claim: the power, therefore, could not be abused, except they themselves abused it; that whatever policy there might be in acts of limitation, they were certainly liable to strong objections; they knew they were honorably indebted a sum of money, but they determine not to pay it, merely because the paying it might render the accounts at the Treasury less simple, or because they would be liable to pay more than is convenient. This policy might be justifiable, but it bore very hard upon individual sufferers. It was argued, therefore, that without opening the acts generally, when a strong, unequivocal claim was presented, which was in the hands of the original holder, and where, of course, there could be no possibility of fraud, relief might and ought to be granted.

Mr. J. Williams was an enemy to acts of limitation, as he thought a debt once due must always be due until paid; but he would either have them opened generally, or not at all.

The yeas and nays upon agreeing to this proposition for setting aside the act of limitation in this case were taken, and decided, yeas 35, nays 55, as follows:

Yeas.—David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, George Dent, Lucas Elmendorph, John Fowler, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, William Barry Grove, Carter B. Harrison, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, James Machir, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, Anthony New, John Rutledge, jr., William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., Thomas Sumter, Abraham Trigg, John Trigg, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.

Nays.—John Allen, George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard, Thomas Blount, David Brooks, Nathan Bryan, Stephen Bullock, Dempsey Burges, Christopher G. Champlin, John Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, Thomas Evans, William Findlay, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Andrew Gregg, Roger Griswold, John A. Hanna, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, Jonathan N. Havens, Wm. Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, Nathaniel Macon, Wm. Matthews, Daniel Morgan, Lewis R. Morris, John Nicholas, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, John Read, James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Samuel Smith, Peleg Sprague, Richard Stanford, George Thatcher, Mark Thompson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams.

Mr. Harper then proposed the following resolution, which was agreed to:

Resolved, That the prayer of the petition of Amy Dardin ought not to be granted.

Tuesday, February 20.

Case of Griswold and Lyon.

Mr. Venable, from the Committee of Privileges, laid the following report upon the table, together with the evidence relative thereto:

The Committee of Privileges, to whom was referred a resolution in the following words: "Resolved, That Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon, members of this House, for violent and disorderly behavior committed in the House, be expelled therefrom," with instructions to report the evidence in writing, have, according to the orders of the House, proceeded to take the evidence, which they herewith report; and they report further, that it is their opinion that the said resolution ought to be disagreed to.

Thursday, February 22.

The usual time of calling the House to order being arrived, the Clerk desired members to take their seats; which being done,

Mr. Kittera said, the Speaker had desired him to inform the House that he was so much indisposed as to be unable to attend the House to-day. Mr. K. suggested the propriety, therefore, of adjourning the orders of to-day till to-morrow.

Mr. J. Williams did not see a necessity for this. He thought the House might informally go into a Committee of the Whole on the report of the Committee of Privileges. He had seen this course taken in other Legislative bodies, and as it would be the means of saving a day, he hoped this mode would now be adopted.

Mr. Thatcher hoped gentlemen would not consent to go on with business in an informal manner, since it was evident they were sufficiently informal with all their forms.

Mr. Harrison inquired if there was any probability that the Speaker would be able to attend the House to-morrow. If not, he should be for choosing a temporary Speaker.

Mr. Kittera said, the indisposition of the Speaker was occasioned by a severe headache, to which he was subject; that it generally continued for six or eight hours, and afterwards he was perfectly well.

The question for postponement of the orders of the day till to-morrow was then put by the Clerk, and carried; and then the House adjourned till to-morrow.

Friday, February 23.

The bill providing for the widows and orphans of certain deceased officers, was read the third time, and passed.

Revenue Statements.

A communication was laid before the House by the Speaker, from the Secretary of the Treasury, enclosing sundry documents prepared by the late Commissioner of the Revenue, in consequence of a resolution of the House of the 6th of January, 1798, requiring to be laid before the House every session, within ten days after its meeting, a statement of the net produce of the internal revenues, the salaries of the Collectors, &c., for the year preceding. The Secretary apologizes for not having made the communication sooner. It was ordered to be printed.

Case of Griswold and Lyon.

The House proceeded to consider the report of the Committee of Privileges, of the twentieth instant; and the same being again read in the words following, to wit:

The Committee of Privileges, to whom was referred a resolution in the following words, to wit: "Resolved, That Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon, members of this House, for riotous and disorderly behavior, committed in the House, be expelled therefrom," with instructions to report the evidence in writing, have, according to the order of the House, proceeded to take the evidence, which they herewith report; and they report further, that it is their opinion that the said resolution be disagreed to.

Mr. Davis said he hoped the House would disagree to the report of their Committee of Privileges; after this was done, the resolution could be altered in such a manner as gentlemen might think proper.

Mr. Dent called for the yeas and nays. Agreed to be taken.

Mr. Sitgreaves said there were many considerations which should incline the House to come to a decision upon the present business without entering into any unnecessary discussion; and there were others which should lead them to avoid coming to an immediate decision. He should, therefore, move that the further consideration of this subject be postponed until the 4th of March, 1799.

Mr. Nicholas called for the yeas and nays upon this question; which being agreed to, were taken, and stood—yeas 38, nays 53.

The motion for postponement being lost, the question on agreeing to the report of the committee recurred.

Mr. Bayard believed it would not be in order to call for a division of the question. The resolution implicated two persons, which he thought improper. If the report of the committee was, however, disagreed to, he supposed it would then be in order to move for a division of the question. He should, therefore, vote against the report, as he wished the cases to be separately considered, as they stood on distinct ground, and were not attended with the same circumstances; and, reasoning from analogy, he knew of no instance in a court of justice, where two persons had ever been included in the same charge when their crimes were different. If the situation of both these gentlemen had been the same, there might have been propriety in coupling them together; but as this was not the case, he was opposed to taking an opinion upon both together.

Mr. McDowell thought it would be proper to take the same course in this business as was taken in a former case. He moved, therefore, that the report be read a second time, for the purpose of committing it to a committee of the whole House.

Mr. Gordon was opposed to this mode of proceeding. Every one knew the question, and were as well prepared to decide upon it now, as they would be after going into a committee upon it.

Mr. Giles thought it would comport more with the dignity of the House to decide this business without going into a Committee of the Whole, as he believed every one had made up his mind upon it. If gentlemen intended by the course heretofore taken to raise the dignity of the House, he thought they had deceived themselves; for he believed the House was never in a less dignified attitude than during that discussion.

Mr. McDowell thought the mode he had pointed out necessary, for the sake of uniformity; but, as other gentlemen seemed to think it unnecessary, he would withdraw his motion.

Mr. R. Williams wished to know whether it would be in order to amend the report of the Committee of Privileges, or to suggest the propriety of disagreeing to it, for the purpose of substituting a different punishment from that proposed, viz: that the offending members should be reprimanded by the Speaker in the presence of the House? He believed that a punishment of this kind would satisfy many gentlemen who did not wish to expel the members, but who, at the same time, did not wish they should go unpunished.

The Speaker said that motion would be in order after the report of the committee was decided upon.

Mr. Gallatin remarked, that if the report was agreed to, the resolution for an expulsion would of course be negatived, and then any other proposition would be in order; and, on the other hand, if the report was disagreed to, the resolution would be before them, and open to amendment. Mr. G. said he rose to make an observation upon what fell from the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Bayard.) That gentleman had said he would vote against the report, because he wished to distinguish between the two members. The reason which he gave, though he might have good reasons for his vote, did not appear to him to be correct. That gentleman seemed to suppose that the facts for which the two members were to be expelled, were facts committed at different times, and of a different nature; whereas the facts for which both were proposed to be expelled, were offences of the same nature, and committed on the same day. What related to the previous conduct of the member from Vermont, was not now under consideration. In order to have that conduct before them, it would be necessary that a reconsideration of it should be moved by a member who voted against that member's expulsion, and seconded by another member who voted on the same side of the question. The argument of the gentleman from Delaware, therefore, did not apply. He said he should himself vote in favor of the report of the Committee of Privileges. He was against expelling either of the gentlemen.

Mr. Dana agreed with the gentleman last up, in his conclusions; but he did not seem rightly to have understood the argument of the gentleman from Delaware. If the gentleman from Pennsylvania was acquainted with legal principles, with established principles relative to punishment, he must know that no persons can be charged jointly with an offence, except jointly guilty, and except they had mutually agreed to commit the offence. The resolution, in its present form, therefore, offended against established maxims of propriety.

Mr. Bayard said, the statement of the gentleman from Pennsylvania was not correct. He had stated that the offences of the two members were the same in circumstances, and committed at the same time. He apprehended the two cases were very distinct; as, by the depositions before the House, it appeared that the offence of the member from Connecticut was committed before the House was called to order, and that the offence of the member from Vermont was committed after the House was called to order. The argument most depended upon in a former case, against the expulsion of the member from Vermont, was that which insisted that the act of violence complained of being committed when the House was not in session, was not a cause of expulsion. If this argument had weight at that time, it ought also to have weight in the present case. It would, therefore, be the height of injustice to blend the two cases together; since there might be cause for expelling one member and not the other.

The Speaker observed that every thing which had been said with respect to a division of the question was out of order, as it could not be divided. He would also remark, in order to shorten the debate, that the House was not called to order when the stroke was made by the member from Vermont upon the member from Connecticut without the bar of the House.

Mr. Harper asked, if the report of the committee should not be agreed to, whether the resolution might not then be agreed to?

The Speaker replied, it could not be divided; but a separate resolution might be brought forward.

The question on agreeing to the report of the committee, which recommended a disagreement to the resolution for an expulsion of the two members was then taken, and stood—yeas 73, nays 21.

The resolution for an expulsion having been disagreed to,

Mr. R. Williams proposed a resolution in the following words:

"Resolved, That Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon, for riotous and disorderly behavior in this House, are highly censurable, and that they be reprimanded by the Speaker in the presence of this House."

Mr. Harper moved the previous question upon this resolution. He did it, he said, upon this ground. The House had just decided, and they had lately decided in another instance, that disorderly conduct shall not be punished by expulsion; and it was his opinion that no less punishment than expulsion ought to be inflicted, as he was unwilling to diminish the reprehensive power of the House, by inflicting what he thought inadequate punishment for offences of this nature. If there were any gentlemen who thought this conduct excusable, and that it ought not to be punished, they would, of course, vote in favor of the previous question; and those who thought with him, that both ought to be expelled, would also vote in favor of it.

Mr. Nicholas called for the yeas and nays upon this question. Agreed to be taken.

Mr. Gallatin said, by the gentleman from South Carolina having moved the previous question, he had excluded any discussion upon the merits of the main question. Mr. G. wished some reasons might be given why the main question ought not to be put. Those given by the gentleman from South Carolina were applicable to the resolution itself: they were reasons why he should vote against the resolution, but they did not strike him as reasons why the question should not at all be taken.

The previous question was then put in this form: "Shall the main question (viz: the resolution for reprimanding the offending members) now be put?" And the yeas and nays were taken, and stood—yeas 47, nays 48, as follows:

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

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

Monday, March 5.

Diplomatic Intercourse.

[After a protracted discussion the question was taken on Mr. Nicholson's amendment, to wit, to limit the ministers of the highest grade to the two Courts of London and Paris, and it was negatived—52 to 48.]

A motion was then made for the committee to rise and ask leave to sit again, which was negatived.

The bill was proceeded with.

Mr. S. Smith moved, to strike out certain words, and to insert others to this effect:

"That the President of the United States shall not allow to any Minister Plenipotentiary to France, Great Britain, or Spain, more than $9,000 per annum, nor to any other Minister Plenipotentiary more than $6,000."

This amendment was negatived, there being only 48 votes in its favor.

The blanks in the bill were next to be filled; the first, which was the permanent allowance, was filled with $40,000; the next, which was an extraordinary appropriation for this year, with $28,650. Before the latter sum was agreed upon,

Mr. Livingston inquired whether the sum of between two and three thousand dollars, which he thought had been lavished away, said to be expended on persons taking leave from this country, was included in the incidental expenses which were contained under this head? He thought such an expenditure of money forbidden by the constitution.

Mr. Harper believed the incidental expenses mentioned in the estimate were expenses of our Ministers abroad.

Mr. Nicholas understood that three Secretaries were allowed the mission at present in France. He thought this was as novel as it was unnecessary; as he believed one Secretary was sufficient for the whole. The United States had employed a number of missions at different times, but never allowed more than one Secretary to each. He had thought the law would not have warranted the practice; but on examining it, he supposed it did.

Mr. Harper said every Minister employed was entitled to a Secretary; the President had accordingly appointed one to each, and he could not see upon what ground the House could object to appropriating for their salaries.

Mr. Nicholas answered, that as the law admitted of it, he should not object to the appropriation but he should move an amendment to prevent more than one secretary to a mission in future.

The committee then rose and reported the bill with the amendments; which being taken up in the House and agreed to, Mr. Nicholas renewed his amendment to limit the salaries of Ministers Plenipotentiary to London, Paris, and Madrid, to nine thousand dollars a year, and all others to four thousand five hundred dollars, and called the yeas and nays upon it, which were taken and resulted, yeas 48, nays 52.

Mr. S. Smith then renewed his motion for limiting the salaries of Ministers to London, Paris, and Madrid, to nine thousand dollars, and others to six thousand dollars, and called the yeas and nays upon it, which were taken, and were exactly the same as upon the former question.

Mr. Nicholas then made his motion to confine future missions to one Secretary, which was negatived—50 to 45.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading to-morrow.

Monday, March 19.

Relations with France.

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

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

The despatches from the Envoys Extraordinary of the United States to the French Republic, which were mentioned in my Message to both Houses of Congress, of the fifth instant, have been examined and maturely considered.

While I feel a satisfaction in informing you that their exertions for the adjustment of the differences between the two nations have been sincere and unremitted, it is incumbent on me to declare that I perceive no ground of expectation that the objects of their mission can be accomplished on terms compatible with the safety, honor, or the essential interests of the nation.

This result cannot, with justice, be attributed to any want of moderation on the part of this Government, or to any indisposition to forego secondary interests for the preservation of peace. Knowing it to be my duty, and believing it to be your wish, as well as that of the great body of the people, to avoid, by all reasonable concessions, any participation in the contentions of Europe, the powers vested in our Envoys were commensurate with a liberal and pacific policy, and that high confidence which might justly be reposed in the patriotism, abilities, and integrity, of the characters to whom the negotiation was committed. After a careful review of the whole subject, with the aid of all the information I have received, I can discern nothing which could have ensured or contributed to success that has been omitted on my part; and nothing further which can be attempted, consistently with maxims for which our country has contended, at every hazard, and which constitute the basis of our national sovereignty.

Under these circumstances, I cannot forbear to reiterate the recommendations which have been formerly made, and to exhort you to adopt with promptitude, decision, and unanimity, such measures as the ample resources of the country afford, for the protection of our commercial and seafaring citizens; for the defence of any exposed portions of our territory; for replenishing our arsenals, establishing foundries and military manufactures; and to provide such efficient revenue as will be necessary to defray extraordinary expenses, and supply the deficiencies which may be occasioned by depredations on our commerce.

The present state of things is so essentially different from that in which instructions were given to collectors to restrain vessels of the United States from sailing in an armed condition, that the principle on which those orders were issued has ceased to exist. I therefore deem it proper to inform Congress that I no longer conceive myself justifiable in continuing them, unless in particular cases, where there may be reasonable ground of suspicion that such vessels are intended to be employed contrary to law.

In all your proceedings it will be important to manifest a zeal, vigor, and concert, in defence of the national rights, proportioned to the danger with which they are threatened.

JOHN ADAMS.

United States, March 19, 1798.

This Message was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Friday, March 23.

Georgia Limits.

MISSISSIPPI TERRITORY—SLAVERY.

Mr. J. Williams called for the order of the day on the bill for organizing and disciplining the militia of the United States.

Mr. Gallatin thought it better that the House should again go into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for an amicable settlement of limits with Georgia, and for the erection of a government in the Mississippi Territory, as that subject had already undergone some discussion, and the bill had been reported with the information to obtain which it had been committed.

The latter business was preferred, and the House accordingly went into a Committee of the Whole on the subject; when Mr. Milledge's amendment being under consideration, for adding to the section for appointing a provisional Government in the Natchez country, "after the consent of the Legislature of Georgia shall have been obtained,"

Mr. Milledge observed, that the select committee had now reported all the documents on which the United States claimed a right to this territory. As to the title of Georgia, he should not enter into an inquiry as to that. He would only remark, that the State of Georgia was as tenacious of her rights as any State in the Union. But he thought it would not be improper to examine the pretended claim of the United States to this country. Looking into the journals of the Senate, he found that on the 3d of March, 1795, a resolution was passed directing the Attorney General to inquire into and make a report on the subject of the title of the United States to land in Georgia. No doubt the Attorney General not only examined the records of the State of Georgia, but those of the United States, and obtained all the information which he was able to do in the United States; but not finding sufficient ground upon which to found a title, he applied to Mr. Bayard, our Commissioner in London, who obtained a certificate on the subject from a Mr. Chalmers, Secretary to the Board of Trade and Plantations. Twelve months after he was directed to do so, the Attorney General made a report on the subject; but none of the documents which he reported went to establish the claim of the United States; nor any thing which tends to show that a cession of West Florida was ever made. But he now found among the papers got from the Senate, a letter addressed to Mr. Read of the Senate, from Mr. Livingston of New York, informing him that he encloses an extract from the instructions given by the King of Great Britain to Governor Chester. But Mr. Livingston was not known as an official character; and this document was neither official nor certified. Yet this is the ground upon which the United States claim this tract of country. Before the General Government proceeded to erect a temporary government, it ought to have better information with respect to the nature of its claim; for, to attempt to establish a government without the consent of Georgia, he thought would be stepping beyond the constitution, two clauses of which he quoted. He hoped the general powers placed in Congress for the defence of the country would not be resorted to in order to sanction the proceeding. It was said that the inhabitants of the district of country alluded to were in a situation which called for immediate attention. He allowed that it would be proper to pay early attention to them; but he thought, inconvenient as it might be, the erecting of a government might be deferred until the consent of the Legislature of Georgia could be obtained. It ought to be remembered that the State of Georgia is a member of the Union, and that it is her interest to make the cession, and he had no doubt she would do so. The convention of that State meet in May, and if application was made to them, he had no doubt the Legislature would be called together, and consent might be obtained by the month of July. He was confident the State of Georgia is desirous of promoting the interests of the United States, and that she is firmly attached to the Government; all its regulations had been constantly carried into effect there; and her consent to the establishment of a provisional government being obtained, every difficulty would be obviated.

Mr. Harper did not feel any anxiety to question the desire of the State of Georgia to promote the interests of the United States, and he was glad to be informed by her Representative, that she was so well disposed to the General Government, to which assertion he gave the fullest credit. He, therefore, should not oppose the motion of the gentleman on the ground that the State of Georgia would be likely to throw any obstacles in the way of the proposed temporary government; and he should be far from supposing, that, by the erection of such a government, the United States would assume an extra-judicial right to the territory. He was of opinion that the United States possessed the right to it, and that the most undeniable evidence of the right existed; but that evidence was not now before the House, and if it were, they were not the proper body to decide the question. He believed the amendment ought to be rejected on the ground of policy. The bill went to provide a temporary government, but contained an express clause that the establishment of this government shall not affect the rights of Georgia with respect to her right of the jurisdiction or soil of this territory—consequently, the fears of the gentleman are groundless in this respect. What, then, is the nature of the amendment? It is to prevent the erection of a temporary government in a district of country containing upwards of 5,000 souls, lying far beyond the ordinary jurisdiction of any State, with an immense wilderness intervening, in which are two nations of Indians, and in the neighborhood of the territory of a foreign nation, with whom, though we are at present at peace, when we recollect the connection subsisting between that nation and another with whom we have differences of a serious nature, we cannot reckon upon as lasting. Yet this remote and vulnerable corner of the Union is to be left defenceless for an indefinite period of time, lest we should possibly give umbrage to the State of Georgia, by providing a temporary government there before the dispute on the subject of limits is settled. And whatever may be the good disposition of Georgia towards the United States, it would require considerable time to obtain the consent proposed. Their Legislature do not meet till next winter. It was true, as had been stated, that their convention met in May, and they might, if they thought proper, call an extraordinary meeting of the Legislature; but this could not be relied upon. Besides, he saw no necessity for so much punctilio in this case, for if any State were to suffer a part of its territory, within its ordinary jurisdiction, to lie in a defenceless state, the General Government would be warranted in stepping in to defend it, and certainly they might do it in a case like the present, where no jurisdiction is exercised. And if this was not done, the petition of these people set forth, that however unwilling they should be to do so, they should be obliged to pass over to the Spanish dominions.

Mr. H. said, he did not wish to have touched upon the question of right; but as the gentleman from Georgia had said we had none, he felt himself obliged to say a few words upon that point. He allowed the committee had not before them evidence of the right which would be admissible in a court of law; but though it were not such as would be admitted in a court of law, had it therefore no weight? It was at least equal to what was every day received by the committees of the House. The question was, whether the papers before them afforded reason to believe that legal evidence of the title did exist? It was a copy of a commission and instructions given by the King of Great Britain to Governor Chester, of West Florida, in the year 1770, furnished by the gentleman who was Secretary to the Governor at that time, and whose duty it was to keep the records of that Government. But the gentleman from Georgia said, search had been made in the offices of the British Government for the original, of which this paper was a copy, and it could not be found. But this was no proof it did not exist. If it does exist, legal evidence may be obtained from it, and this paper shows that the Natchez country was included within the territory of West Florida, and that it ceased in the year 1770 to be a part of Georgia. He believed, however, this question ought not now to be acted upon; but that from necessity, and the exigencies of the case, a temporary government ought immediately to be provided for this district of country, and afterwards settle the point of right with Georgia by negotiation; and if it was found in the end that the United States had no title to it, the Government which had been established could be withdrawn.

But it was stated that the Legislature of Georgia would readily consent that the United States should become possessed of this country. But what were the terms upon which they proposed to cede it? They required, as one of the conditions, a million and a half of dollars in six per cent. stock, and as another (which was infinitely harder, since it might not be in our power to comply with it, as it depended upon the will of the Indians) that the United States will guarantee the relinquishment of the Indian claim to the land on the east side of the Chatahoochee, within a certain number of years. There is little hope, therefore, that the State of Georgia will propose any terms to which the United States can agree, as it had been seen that the Legislature of that State had rejected a bill by a great majority, which proposed the price to be one million of dollars with the other condition. Of course it would be very imprudent to rest the establishment of a government in this quarter upon an agreement to terms like these.

Besides, the amendment would affect the right claimed by the United States. To wait for this consent would be tantamount to confessing we had no right, and arm Georgia with a strong weapon against us in the final settlement.

Mr. H. contended that there was nothing in the constitution which could prevent the proposed measure, since it was absolutely necessary to preserve the people from falling into anarchy, and to prevent a foreign Government from putting arms into their hands. It was also a quarter of the Union which it was necessary to preserve, if we wished to secure the free navigation of the Mississippi, which we had lately obtained by the Spanish treaty; for if this country were invaded by the Indians, or involved in civil war, we could not have the benefit of the navigation of that river. He hoped, therefore, when so many considerations were opposed to it, the amendment would be disagreed to.

Mr. Nicholas understood from the gentleman from South Carolina, that it was not intended to insist upon the title of the United States to the territory in question; and if they were not ripe to decide that the land is the property of the United States, he thought they ought not to establish a Government there without paying some respect to the rights of Georgia, by obtaining her consent, as it might prevent that amicable settlement of which we had at present the prospect. If that State set the value upon the land which had been mentioned, would it not excite the utmost jealousy in that country to take forcible possession of it? To do this would certainly be to establish an influence in favor of the United States, which would be fatal to the claim of Georgia. No argument had been adduced to show the right of the United States to this territory, but merely to show the convenience of the measure. The gentleman from South Carolina might as well say that a certain district in Virginia is not so well governed as it might be, and, as the people would be happier under the Government of the United States, propose to take possession of it. But it was said Georgia had not begun to govern this territory. Neither have the United States. She may, for aught we know, be preparing to do it now. He thought there was not a shadow of pretence for taking the course proposed, without first consulting the Legislature of Georgia. He hoped the amendment would be agreed to.

Mr. J. Williams said it appeared to him, that if this amendment were to prevail, the bill might as well be voted out altogether. The bill had two objects, viz: a settlement of limits, and the fixing of a temporary government. It was clear to him, from the papers before the committee, that the United States had a clear title to the country in question, and, if this was not the case, there was a saving clause in favor of the Georgia claim. He thought that State ought to be happy at the idea of the United States fixing a government there, as it would assist them in their defence against the Indians. If gentlemen turned to the acts of Congress, it would be found what a vast expense the United States had heretofore been put to in defending the frontier of that country. He thought that State had been dealt with in a very favorable manner. It was not long since $100,000 were paid to their militia for defending their frontier. He complimented the gentleman from Georgia for having advocated so ably the cause of his State. But he thought that State ought to come forward and show what title she had to the country. It had been ceded to the United States by the Spanish Treaty, and the inhabitants there had a claim upon the General Government for protection, and surely if the State of Georgia for ever refused to give its consent to a government being established there, they were not for ever to be without government. The people there had petitioned Congress for a government, of which doubtless the State of Georgia was acquainted; and they ought to come forward in the business. Their silence proved to him that they had no title to that country. Mr. W. referred to the manner in which other cessions had been made to the Union, and said he thought Georgia ought to rejoice at the proposed establishment, as it would not only be benefiting that State, but the Union at large.

Mr. Macon said if the bill was intended to be conformable to the title, the amendment ought certainly to be agreed to; as, if the United States undertook to establish a government at the Natchez, without the consent of Georgia, it could not be said to be amicably done. This, he said, was neither the proper time nor place of deciding to whom this territory belongs. The great object ought to be to get a government there, and not to talk about what had been done for Georgia. And if the consent of Georgia could be obtained previous to the establishment of this government, it was certainly desirable that it should be obtained. This would not injure the claim of either. When this was done, some mode might be agreed upon by which the dispute at present subsisting, might be settled. This course would prevent any difficulties, and the consent might be obtained by the time the government could take effect.

Mr. Otis said if the object of the present bill, could be obtained in a mode which would preserve the rights of all parties as they at present stand, such a course would be preferable to that which should appear to relinquish the right of one of the parties. It struck him that this might be effected by the bill as it now stands. The United States assumed their right to the land, yet they do not say they mean to turn a deaf ear to the claim of Georgia. But, if the amendment were adopted, it would go to relinquish the title of the United States, and this, he thought, would be an excess of complaisance to the State of Georgia. The only plausible reason given in favor of the amendment was, that if the bill passed without it, it would give offence to, and excite jealousy in, the State of Georgia. But how? Because Congress passes an act to settle the interfering claims, and directs the appointment of commissioners to give them a compensation for what we might take without it? Or, because we say we will enter upon the territory, to which we always laid claims, in order to preserve peace and order among the inhabitants, and to secure it against the attack of the Indians or of a foreign power? Gentlemen seem to take it for granted that Georgia has possession of this territory; whereas those who oppose the amendment, contend it is a vacant possession, and that we have a right to take possession of it, to hold it, not until an army is raised to take it from us, but until the legal question of right shall be decided. And it could not be said that there was any thing offensive in this. If a man, for instance, were to enter upon a piece of land, and say he would never give it up until he was driven from it, it would certainly be an act of violence; but if he enter upon it only to take care of it, until a legal decision can be had as to his right, such an act was perfectly justifiable; and this was intended in the present case.

Mr. Kittera hoped, if the bill passed at all, it would be without the amendment. This territory was never yet governed either by the United States or Georgia, but had been ceded to the United States by Spain, in our late treaty with that power, and we ought to retain possession of it until the title to it was clear. In this view of the subject, he could not see how the State of Georgia could take offence at our holding the territory until the existing dispute was settled.

Mr. Baldwin said it was to be regretted, as this was the last instance in which this question of cession could be presented to Congress, that the situation of the persons settled upon this territory was such as should seem to constrain gentlemen to depart from the course of their former proceedings on this subject. He was fully impressed with the situation of that people; but he thought little delay would be occasioned by the proposed application to the State of Georgia; nor would that consent weaken, as had been suggested, the title of the United States. Or, if there was any force in the objection, it might be guarded against by adding a few words in the section which speaks of preserving the claim of Georgia as it now stands.

Mr. B. said, gentlemen who had turned their attention to the map, would find that the territory in question is situate at the south-west corner of the United States; the southern boundary is latitude 31, and the western boundary the Mississippi, which is also the boundary of the United States. Its extent is about 280 miles north and south, and coming this way, about 400 miles. That part upon which this bill is bottomed, is little more than one-third part of the whole of that territory. The United States now reckon latitude 32-1/2 as the boundary of Georgia; but in the treaty, and till very lately, it was always reckoned to be 31, which is also the boundary of the United States. This was, at any rate, a new discovery—the official documents in support of which he had not seen. It was now supposed that West Florida extends to latitude 32-1/2, and not to 31, which is one degree and a half more than formerly supposed. If this were so, he wondered it had never before been discovered by England or Spain. Why was the boundary of the United States always fixed at 31? He feared, that since it became our interest to extend the boundary, we had suffered that interest to color our judgment. The instructions drawn out for our Minister by a former Secretary of State were, "you are to contend for latitude 31." The ground upon which he had stated this, Mr. B. thought irresistible, and it was thought we might risk a war upon it. Besides, this bill would not cure the evil for which it was intended. There might be inhabitants still further north; this bill provides only for such as are settled within what had been called the Province of West Florida. Mr. B. said, he had never seen the documents which authorized this extension. He had, indeed, seen the remarks of Mr. Chalmers, who, he believed, was Secretary to the Board of Trade and Plantations in London; but he believed he had drawn what he had said from the same document which was now reported, viz: the extract from the copy of the instructions said to have been given to Governor Chester; but the order of King and Council for extending it, the Attorney General says, in page 11th of his report, is not to be found.

Gentlemen had said, why does not the State of Georgia manifest a disposition to make some arrangements respecting the territory in question. They had done so. After the Revolutionary war in 1783 or 1784, when there was an expectation that the forts would have been evacuated, they laid out a county there, and all the titles were declared good, and where there was no other title occupancy was declared to be sufficient, and warrants were to be issued accordingly. When he first came to attend his duty in Congress, the Minister from Spain arrived about the same time, when he put in the claim of Spain to this territory, which prevented any thing further from being done; and as soon as it was found that the arrangements made by Georgia gave umbrage to the Spanish Government, they were given up.

In the year 1788, the State of Georgia passed an act for making the cession of this territory to the United States. This act Congress referred to a committee, which reported that Government ought not to accept of the cession on the terms proposed. He believed the same disposition to make the cession which always had existed, now existed. He believed the disposition of the government of Georgia was as favorable to the interests of the United States as that of any other State. He did not rise to speak their praises; but he could not sit to hear them blamed without notice.

If the proposed government was proceeded with without the consent of Georgia, it would be a dereliction of principle. He thought some sort of regulation might be made among the people for their own government, until Georgia was applied to. This was not a new case. There had been great settlements in several parts of the country long before any government was provided for them. Mr. B. said, he did not mean to undervalue the claim of the United States; they had always a claim in every case of cession, but he hoped, except there was an absolute necessity for it, the usual course of proceeding would not be departed from.

Mr. Gordon said, the gentleman from Georgia complained that a different course was proposed now to be taken than had been adopted heretofore. In answer to this, it was sufficient to say, that where the circumstances of cases differed, different courses were necessary. With respect to the merits of the bill, he thought it stood right at present. The situation of the people in the district alluded to, was such as required immediate attention. If gentlemen were not convinced of this, he saw no necessity for going into the business before the subsisting dispute between Georgia and the United States was settled. He believed, however, there was no doubt of the fact; and surely the gentleman from Georgia would not wish that these people should live under a military government for any length of time. Being satisfied of this point, he wished the bill to pass without the amendment, as that might defeat altogether the purpose of the bill. The claim of Georgia he looked upon at least as doubtful; and as he considered the United States as bound to protect all its citizens, he thought they would not be justified in returning these people for answer, "we cannot attend to your wants until we have settled our dispute with Georgia." Georgia might refuse to negotiate the subject, and by that means protract the business in a manner which would be very inconvenient, and perhaps drive the people under another government. Besides, if Georgia should refuse its consent to the establishment of a government in that quarter, it would, nevertheless, be proper to establish one. The United States, Mr. G. said, came into possession of this territory by treaty. But suppose it was now in possession of a foreign power, would Georgia attempt to drive them from it? Certainly not. It would amount to the making of war on a foreign power. Suppose Georgia had a title to this territory, had not the United States the power of depriving Georgia of it? Suppose, in their treaty with Spain, the United States had surrendered to Spain one-half of this land, or the whole of it, Georgia would have been bound by such an act; and having got this territory by treaty, they had certainly a right to establish a provisional government over it, until the dispute, as to the title, was settled.

The question of this amendment was put and negatived by 46 to 24.

Mr. Thatcher rose and said, he should make a motion, touching the rights of man, by moving to strike out the excepting clause in the 3d section of the bill. [It appears that in the ordinance establishing a government in the North-western Territory, slavery is expressly forbidden, and this section of the bill directs that a government similar in all respects to that established in the North-western Territory shall be established in the Mississippi Territory, except that slavery shall not be forbidden.]

Mr. Harper did not believe his friend's motion would be a proper mode of supporting the rights of man. In the North-western Territory the regulation forbidding slavery was a very proper one, as the people inhabiting that part of the country were from parts where slavery did not prevail, and they had of course no slaves amongst them; but in the Mississippi Territory it would be very improper to make such a regulation, as that species of property already exists, and persons emigrating there from the Southern States would carry with them property of this kind. To agree to such a proposition would, therefore, be a decree of banishment to all the persons settled there, and of exclusion to all those intending to go there. He believed it could not, therefore, be carried into effect, as it struck at the habits and customs of the people.

Mr. Varnum did not know that the gentleman from South Carolina wished to promote the rights of man. His observations showed, at least, that he did not wish to support the rights of all men; for where there was a disposition to retain a part of our species in slavery, there could not be a proper respect for the rights of mankind. It was true that this kind of property is held in the Southern States, because they cannot, consistent with the safety of the people of those States, liberate them on account of their very great numbers. But they considered it as a great burden to be obliged to hold them. He hoped, therefore, Congress would have so much respect for the rights of humanity as not to legalize the existence of slavery any farther than it at present exists. He believed the gentleman from South Carolina was mistaken in saying that such a regulation would oblige all the inhabitants settled in this territory to remove. The provision need only extend to the forbidding of slaves being taken there. What, said he, is the situation of the North-western Territory at this time? Land there is worth more than in some of the old settled States; and he believed this high price of land, and prosperous condition of the country, was entirely owing to the absence of slavery. And if the Southern States could get clear of their slaves, the price of their land would immediately double. At any rate, he hoped the United States would prevent an increase of this calamity; for he looked upon the practice of holding blacks in slavery in this country to be equally criminal with that of the Algerines carrying our citizens into slavery.

Mr. Rutledge wished the gentleman from Massachusetts would withdraw his motion, not from any apprehension he had that it would obtain; but he hoped that he would not indulge himself and others in uttering philippics against a practice with which his and their philosophy is at war. He submitted to the gentleman's candor whether it was proper, on every occasion, to do this—to bring forward the Southern States in an odious light, or to give his neighbor and colleague an opportunity of bringing them forward, and comparing them with Algerines! He thought propriety and decency towards other members required that such language should be checked. He believed, if his friend from Massachusetts had recollected that the most angry debate which had taken place during this session was occasioned by a motion on this subject, he would not have brought forward the present question. One gentleman says, you call these men property; another, you hold these men in chains; a third, you violate the rights of man! And are not these men property? Do not the people in this territory hold them as such? Did they not hold them under the Spanish Government? And must we thus address these people: "We have made a treaty which puts you under the mild government of the United States, but we must take from you your property; or rather, we must set your blacks at liberty to cut your throats. The rights of man was the watch-word of the day, and Congress have determined that you shall not possess this property. They cannot as yet do slavery away altogether—the day is not yet arrived; but they have determined it shall not exist in the Mississippi Territory."

These, said Mr. R., are not mere speculative opinions. They lead to more mischief than gentlemen are aware of; and he trusted if the gentleman from Massachusetts could be convinced that the discussion of such questions as the present did much mischief in certain parts of the Union, he would not bring them forward. He hoped he would withdraw the present motion.

Mr. Gordon thought that when the gentleman from Massachusetts recollected that, by the establishment of this government, the United States do not establish their exclusive right to this territory, he would consent to withdraw his amendment, as that went to say that we had the absolute right of jurisdiction, and were determined to exercise it; and in making a difference between the ground on which property was held there from that on which it was held in Georgia, they would militate against the 5th section of the bill.

Mr. Otis hoped his colleague would not withdraw his motion; and the reason why he wished this was, that an opportunity might be given to gentlemen who came from the same part of the Union with him to manifest that it is not their disposition to interfere with the Southern States as to the species of property in question. With respect to the existence of slavery, the House had often heard gentlemen, who are owners of slaves, declare that it is not their fortune, but their misfortune that they possess them, but who still keep them, and claim the right of managing them as they think proper. He thought it was not the business of those who had nothing to do with that kind of property to interfere with that right; and he really wished that the gentlemen who held slaves might not be deprived of the means of keeping them in order.

If the amendment prevailed, it would declare that no slavery should exist in the Natchez country. This would not only be a sentence of banishment, but of war. An immediate insurrection would probably take place, and the inhabitants would not be suffered to retire in peace, but be massacred on the spot. By permitting slavery in this district of country, the number of slaves would not be increased—as if emigrants from South Carolina or Georgia were to remove into this country they would take their slaves with them; and he could see nothing in this which could affect the philanthropy of his friend. The North-western Territory is inhabited by a description of persons who have not been accustomed to hold slaves, and therefore the restriction is agreeable to them; but the territory in question will be settled by people from the Southern States, who cannot cultivate the ground without slaves. He hoped, however, the motion would be persisted in, and negatived by a large majority.

Mr. D. Foster hoped, if the motion was not withdrawn, that a long debate might not be had upon it.

Mr. Thatcher said he should not withdraw his motion, and the more it was opposed, believing his cause to be good, the more obstinate he should be in its support.

Mr. Giles wished to suggest a single idea. The present motion was brought forward from the avowed motive of furthering the rights of man. He did not know whether the tendency of it was calculated to ameliorate the condition of the class of men alluded to; he believed not. On the contrary, it was his opinion, that if the slaves of the Southern States were permitted to go into this Western country, by lessening the number in those States, and spreading them over a large surface of country, there would be a greater probability of ameliorating their condition, which could never be done whilst they were crowded together as they now are in the Southern States.

Mr. Hartley said, he had himself intended to have brought forward an amendment similar to the present, but, on inquiry, he found so many difficulties in the way, that he was obliged to abandon it. He found it would interfere with, and be a serious attack upon, the property of that country. He was sorry it was not in the power of Congress to gratify the wishes of philanthropists in this respect, by doing away slavery altogether; but this could not be done at present, and as he believed the present amendment, if carried, would be attended with bad effects, he should vote against it.

Mr. Gallatin said, if he saw any of the great inconveniences which were foretold as likely to arise from this amendment, he should certainly vote against it. He should be extremely averse to the adoption of any principle which should either directly or indirectly lead to the production of any commotion or insurgency in any State where there is a great number of slaves. He did not see how any such effect could be produced by the present motion; for, notwithstanding what had fallen from the gentleman from South Carolina, it did not appear to him how a regulation with respect to another Territory can affect the peace, tranquillity, or property of any other State. How the forbidding of slavery in the Mississippi Territory could produce a worse effect than the same regulation in the North-western Territory, or in Pennsylvania, or in several other States. The amendment, therefore, could not be opposed on that ground; it must be on some other. Ought it to be rejected on the ground of jurisdiction? Certainly not. The United States intend to exercise jurisdiction over that Territory, and was there any more reason for excepting this jurisdiction than any other? If we establish this Government we expect it to be permanent; and if we believe it is not conducive to the happiness of any people, but the contrary, to legalize slavery, when we are about to form a constitution for a Territory, its establishment ought to be prevented. But, if this amendment is rejected, we establish slavery for the country, not only during its temporary government, but for all the time it is a State; for, by the constant admission of slaves, the number will increase to a certain degree, and when the Territory shall become a State, the interest of the holders will be such as to procure a constitution which shall admit of slavery, and it will be thereby made permanent. Having determined slavery was bad policy for the North-western Territory, he saw no reason for a contrary determination with respect to this Territory.

There was, then, only one solitary objection to the amendment, and that might easily be obviated. It was with respect to the situation of the people already settled there who are possessed of slaves. It would be extremely impolitic and unjust to declare by ordinance that the people settled there, either under the British, Spanish, or Georgia governments, should be deprived of this kind of property; and if this was the effect of the amendment, he would vote against it. Such a regulation would be attended with the worst of consequences; but other words may be easily introduced to guarantee the property of the persons already settled there.

By the laws of the different States, Mr. G. said, the importation of slaves is forbidden; but if this amendment does not obtain, he knew not how slaves could be prevented from being introduced by the way of New Orleans, by persons who are not citizens of the United States. He hoped, therefore, the amendment would be agreed to.

Mr. Nicholas believed it not only to be the interest of the Southern States, but of the United States, that this motion should be rejected. They were to legislate for the whole of the Union, and ought to consult the happiness of the whole. It was not for them to attempt to make a particular spot of country more happy than all the rest. If it was a misfortune to the Southern States to be overwhelmed with this kind of property, he asked if it would not be doing service not only to them but to the whole Union, to open this Western country, and by that means spread the blacks over a large space, so that in time it might be safe to carry into effect the plan which certain philanthropists have so much at heart, and to which he had no objection, if it could be effected, viz: the emancipation of this class of men? And when this country shall have become sufficiently populous to become a State, and the Legislature wishes to discountenance slavery, the increase of slaves may be prevented, and such means taken to get rid of slavery altogether, perhaps in conjunction with other parts of the United States, who by that time may be in such a situation as to admit of it, as shall appear prudent and proper.

Mr. Thatcher was of an opinion directly opposite to the gentleman who had just sat down. Indeed, they seldom did agree in sentiment; to-day they differed very widely. He believed the true interest and happiness of the United States would be promoted by agreeing to this amendment; because its tendency was to prevent the increase of an evil which was acknowledged by the very gentlemen themselves who are owners of slaves. Indeed the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Nicholas) had frequently declared in that House, that slavery was an evil of great magnitude. In this respect they agreed in opinion; for he considered the existence of slavery in the United States as the greatest of evils, an evil in direct hostility to the principles of our Government; and he believed the Government had the right to take all due measures to diminish and destroy the evil, although in doing it they might injure the property of some individuals; for he never could be brought to believe that an individual can have a right in any thing which goes to the destruction of our Government, viz: that he can have a right in a wrong. A property in slaves is founded in wrong, and never can be right. He believed Government must of necessity put a stop to this evil, and the sooner they entered upon the business the better.

Mr. T. said, he honestly confessed he did not like to hear much said in that House about the rights of man; because of late there had been much quackery as to these rights. But, because these rights had been abused, it did not follow that man has no rights. Where legislators are freely chosen by the people, and frequently renewed; where a law cannot be passed without affecting the interests of the persons who pass it, these rights cannot greatly be abused; but, when we take upon us to legislate for men against their will, it is proper enough to say something about the rights of man, and to remind others, who are frequently heard speaking of these rights, that by nature these enslaved men are entitled to rights; and on that account it was, when he made this motion, that he said he would make a motion touching the rights of man.

The reasons offered against the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, were a little singular. He contended that certain States were overflowing with slaves, and if not colonized by opening this wide tract of country to them, they would not be able to keep or manage them. He always thought that colonizing these people tended to increase the race far beyond what it would be when penned closely together.

Mr. Giles explained, by saying, that he had said nothing about decreasing the number of blacks, but of spreading them over a larger surface of country.

Mr. Thatcher said, he understood the gentleman's argument perfectly; though he did not seem to understand it himself. The gentleman wished to take the blacks away from places where they are huddled up together, and spread them over this territory; they wished to get rid of them, and to plague others with them. But they had them, and if they determined to keep them, he wished only they should be plagued with them.

We are, said Mr. T. about to establish a Government for a new country. Ours originated from, and was founded on the rights of man, upon which ground we mean to protect it, and could there be any propriety in emanating a government from ours, in which slavery is not only tolerated, but sanctioned by law? Certainly not.

It was used as an argument against this amendment that this Territory would be peopled by emigrants from the Southern States, who cannot work for themselves; and on that account they must have slaves to work for them. If this be true, it makes the people of the Southern States only fit to superintend slaves. The language of this is, that these people cannot subsist, except they have slaves to work for them.

For the reason he had stated, he hoped the amendment would be agreed to; but if gentlemen thought those who at present hold slaves in the Territory should be protected in them, he should not be opposed to their holding them for a limited period.

The question was put and negatived, there being only 12 votes in its favor.

Adjourned till Monday.[29]

Monday, March 26.

Georgia Limits.

Mississippi Territory—Slavery.

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for an amicable settlement of limits with the State of Georgia; when, after striking out the words "claiming under it," in the fifth section, and adding two new sections, the committee rose, the House concurred in the amendments, and the bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.

One of the sections was moved by Mr. Milledge, and was in the following words:

"That, from and after the establishment of the said government, the people of the aforesaid territory shall be entitled to and enjoy all and singular the rights, privileges, and advantages, granted to the people of the territory of the United States north-west of the river Ohio, in and by the aforesaid ordinance of the 13th day of July, in the year 1787, in as full and ample manner as the same are possessed and enjoyed by the people of the said last-mentioned territory."

The other, moved by Mr. Harper, was to the following effect:

"That, from and after the establishment of the aforesaid government, it shall not be lawful for any person to import or bring into the said territory, from any part or place without the limits of the United States, any slave or slaves, on pain of forfeiting three hundred dollars for every slave so brought, one-half to the United States, and the other half to the person who shall sue for the same; and every person so imported shall be entitled to and receive his or her freedom."

When this section was proposed, Mr. Thatcher moved to strike out the words "without the limits of the United States," so as to have made it unlawful to have brought any slave there; but the motion was not seconded.

Tuesday, March 27.

The bill from the Senate for an amicable settlement of limits with the State of Georgia, was passed with amendments.

Relations with France.

Mr. Baldwin hoped the House would now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

After a few observations from Mr. Sewall against, and from Mr. Nicholas in favor of going into the business of the Union, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on that subject, Mr. Dent in the chair; when the President's Message of the 19th instant having been read,

Mr. Sprigg rose and observed, that every subject which came before the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union must necessarily be important; but he believed there never was any more so than that which was presented to them by the Message of the President which had been read. Separated as we are from Europe by an immense ocean, it were to be wished that we were equally separated from its political concerns, and that we should have to do with them no farther than what relates to commerce. This, unhappily, had not been the case, and there now existed painful differences between this country and the French Republic. The Message which had just been read was an evidence of this. In this situation of things, it appeared necessary that the House should declare whether this country was to have peace or war. This was a subject in which the best interests of the Union were deeply concerned, and he hoped the business would be met fully and fairly. The President had informed the House that the present state of things is changed from what it was when he prohibited the arming of merchant vessels, and that therefore he had withdrawn that prohibition. Whether the order formerly issued by the President for this purpose was in conformity to the spirit or letter of the law, was not of importance now to inquire; the effect had been beneficial, and in the same proportion as the prohibition had been beneficial would be the evils of withdrawing it. In order to ascertain the sense of the committee upon what measures may be proper to be taken in the present crisis, he should offer the following resolutions to their consideration:

Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee, that under existing circumstances, it is not expedient for the United States to resort to war against the French Republic.

Resolved, &c., That provision ought to be made by law for restricting the arming of merchant vessels, except in cases in which the practice was heretofore permitted.

Resolved, &c., That adequate provision shall be made by law for the protection of our sea-coast, and for the internal defence of the country.

The first resolution being taken up,

Mr. Sitgreaves said that, for himself, he could not agree to the proposed resolution. He did not mean, by this disagreement, to express an opinion, that, at this moment, it was expedient to go to war with the French Republic; but he thought the formal declaration of the contrary sentiment was highly improper. The present is a period of menace and of danger, of injury and outrage, and whatever might be the expediency of the actual crisis, yet he had no hesitation to avow his belief that the time is not far distant when war must be resorted to, or the national honor and interest be abandoned. The conduct of France was calculated to excite or justify no other expectation; and under such circumstances, with such prospects, he could by no means consent to a formal declaration of non-resistance. Besides, it is contrary to the usual and ordinary course of Legislative proceeding, to pass mere negative resolutions. The power of declaring war being vested in the Congress, so long as the Congress shall forbear to declare war, it is a sufficient expression of their sentiment that such a declaration would be inexpedient: it is the only proper expression of such a sentiment; and it can be no more right to resolve that we will not resort to war, than it would be to pass an act to declare it would be inexpedient to make a law for the regulation of bankruptcy or any other municipal concern. However desirable, therefore, he admitted unanimity to be, at a time like the present, he found it impossible to agree to the resolution.

Mr. Baldwin did not agree with the gentleman last up; he thought the resolution proper and free from exception. We were, he said, twenty-three years ago, when we were about beginning the war with Great Britain, in a situation similar to the present; but we were then without many advantages which we now have. We were then without any common tie, except what arose from common interest. No means existed of holding conference together, but nature pointed out the course to be taken, and representatives from different parts of the country were travelling at the same moment to hold counsel together, and to speak their sentiments. The gentleman who has just taken his seat apprehends war must be the consequence of our present situation.

Mr. B. said this was the first time that the question of declaring war had ever presented itself, and upon which, he believed, there might be a difference of opinion as to the exercise of that power. He did not mean to say wantonly that our constitution is imperfect; but every society which has a written constitution must have recourse to it for direction. It would be improper therefore to inquire what agency the Legislature ought to have in the declaring of war; whether it is not proper that all the circumstances relative to such a state should be before them. He did not believe it was intended that this House should merely be the instrument to give the sound of war; the subject seemed to be placed wholly in the hands of the Legislature. This was the understanding of the country when there was no Government in existence, and he believed this was the meaning of the constitution. The country is now every where agitating this question of peace or war, and he trusted they would not be left to grope their way in the dark on this important question. The President had informed the House that all hopes of a negotiation were at an end. He was willing to take the information as it was given, without going into the Cabinet of the Executive, and to take measures accordingly. But when some persons declare that the present state of things is already a state of war; that the country is going on in it; that the die is cast, and that we have nothing to do but to go on with it as well as we can, if the House does not believe this to be a true position, this resolution ought to be agreed to, which went to say that the House does not consider the present a state of war, but a state of peace.

Mr. Otis said, if the gentleman who made the motion would consent to use the constitutional words on this occasion, he apprehended there would be no difference of opinion. He meant that instead of saying "to resort to war," to say "to declare war."

Mr. Sprigg said, the resolution which he had proposed had not been the work of a moment, and he did not feel disposed to make the alterations proposed.

Mr. Otis added, then he should propose to strike out the words "resort to," and insert "declare," as he was of opinion with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Sitgreaves,) that the only subjects fit for discussion were active measures, and that it was not regular to declare when they would not do a thing.

Mr. Pinckney was desirous of settling this motion by the previous question; but he was informed by the Chair that such a motion would not be in order in a Committee of the Whole.

Mr. Dayton (the Speaker) said, that he hoped his friend from Massachusetts would withdraw the motion he had just offered, in order to make room for one he had to offer, which would render the first resolution more general, more innocent, and yet equally or more efficacious, and would test the sincerity of the advocates of that resolution as to their professed anxiety for the maintenance of peace. Upon Mr. Otis withdrawing his motion, Mr. D. moved to strike out the words "against the French Republic" and declared that although he deemed the whole resolution unnecessary, and considered it as not naturally growing out of the President's Message, which did not call upon us to declare or make war, yet as it must be the intention of the mover, or of some other member to follow it up with like declarations in relation to all other nations with whom the United States had any intercourse, provided they acted consistently, he thought it better to make the resolution a general one, even if it should be afterwards negatived. He, for himself, was as ready to say that, under existing circumstances, it was as expedient for the United States to go to war with any other nation as with the French Republic. He saw no reason why that particular power should be singled out in the manner proposed; and as he was for cultivating peace, not with one only, but with all the nations of the world, he was willing so to declare his disposition, if any declaration was proper on the occasion. It was also to be observed, that it could not with propriety be objected against the amendment that there was no other nation with whom we were in danger of entering into hostility, for the tables of the House had been loaded with communications relative to the encroachments and unreasonable demands of another country, which had occasioned an apprehension that the United States would be driven to the necessity of a war in order to obtain possession of its own territory. If, therefore, gentlemen were anxious to cultivate harmony with the French only, then the resolution as first moved, was proper for their adoption; but if the preservation of peace with all was their real object, then he trusted that the amendment could not with propriety be rejected by those gentlemen who had introduced and advocated a proposition the utility of which, under any modification, he owned for himself, he could not discern, although he was willing to render it as unexceptionable as possible before it was decided upon.

Mr. Sprigg informed the gentleman from New Jersey that the reason why the French Republic was inserted in the resolution was because it was founded on the Message of the President, which related solely to the French Republic. For his part, he was not desirous of war with any power on earth.

Mr. Harper seconded the motion of the gentleman from New Jersey, because he thought it would be better in that shape. He had no particular objection to the resolution as proposed, only that he thought it a resolution about nothing; but as it might gratify the mover and some others, he should not object to it. He was not himself disposed for war, but for peace, while peace could be preserved. But he never said, and would not say, that war was the worst thing which could happen to this country; he thought submission to the aggressions of a foreign power infinitely worse. If gentlemen meant by agreeing to this resolution, to prevent the country from being put into a state of defence; if they meant by it to effect an entering wedge to submission, he trusted they would find themselves mistaken; for though he believed the true interest of the country lay in peace, yet he was not disposed to recede from any measures which he thought proper through fear of war. Or did gentlemen intend, by this question of peace or war, to enlist the popular prejudices in favor of peace, in order to prevent proper measures being taken for the defence of the country? If this was their view he should be the first to strip off the disguise. He trusted that this was not the case, as he saw it connected with another resolution which proposed the taking of measures for the defence of the country. The question at present, said Mr. H., is not a question of war, but of defence; and no two questions are more distinct. If gentlemen confound these two questions, and are determined to take no measures of defence lest they should lead to war, let them say so. He believed, however, the distinction was well understood by the American people.

Mr. Giles believed this the proper time to declare whether the country should remain in peace or go to war. He thought the resolution proper as it stood, because founded on the Message of the President, in which the French Republic is only named. There was a part of that Message, he said, which, in his opinion, amounted to a declaration of war. The President tells the House, "that the situation of things is materially changed since he issued his order to prevent the arming of merchant vessels." As far as he understood the situation of the United States at that time, it was a state of neutrality. If that state is changed, and the present is not a state of neutrality, he wished to know what is. He knew only of two states, a state of neutrality and a state of war; he knew of no mongrel state between them. Therefore, if the President of the United States, could declare war, we are now in war. Believing, however, that Congress had alone the power to declare war, he thought it time to declare what the state of the nation is. He did not know whether the object might not be answered by the resolution being general, as he was and always had been (notwithstanding insinuations to the contrary) against war with any nation upon the earth. He looked upon it as the greatest calamity which could befal any nation; and whatever may be the phantoms raised in perspective of national honor and glory in such a state, they will, in the end, all prove fallacious. He believed no nation ought to go to war except when attacked; and this kind of war he should be as ready to meet as any one. Mr. G. said, gentlemen were continually speaking of the degraded state of the nation, when their own measures had led to it. (Mr. Harper denied that he had ever said the nation was in a degraded state.) Mr. G. was not sure that he had said it, but he believed he had frequently heard it. He believed we were in a state which required the utmost vigor; but he thought every measure should be avoided which might involve the country in war. For if we were to go to war with the French at present, he knew not what ever could take place which could produce peace; it must be a war of extermination. Mr. G. did not know that the present question was very important; but believing it strictly conformable to the Message of the President, he should be in favor of it as it stood, and against the amendment.

Mr. Nicholas considered this amendment as defeating the resolution. Was there nothing, he asked, which called for a declaration of the kind proposed? Was it not clear to every one that the country was going fast into a state of war, and (in the words of Mr. Sitgreaves) was it not to be expected? Ought not the Legislature then, (who alone have the power of declaring war,) to determine the state of the country, and say whether they mean to go immediately to war or not? He thought the necessity of the resolution was sufficiently evident, by the motion which had been made to change the words from "resort to war," to declare war; in the one case the mischief was met, whilst the other meant nothing. And if gentlemen were ready to say we were not prepared to declare war, and at the same were not ready to say it is not expedient to resort to war, it proved that they thought war might be made without being declared. He asked whether gentlemen did not believe the Executive had taken measures which would lead to war? And that if he were at liberty to act upon a change of circumstances between this country and others, Congress were not brought into a situation in which they had no choice? Many discussions had heretofore taken place on the constitution, but he had never heard it doubted that Congress had the power over the progress of what led to war, as well as the power of declaring war; but if the President could take the measures which he had taken, with respect to arming merchant vessels, he, and not Congress, had the power of making war. He asked whether, when report went so far as to speak of an alliance, offensive and defensive, with a foreign country, it was not time to come to a declaration on the subject? Suppose such an alliance was formed, would it not be said that Congress are bound to carry it into effect? He knew it would, though he should resist the doctrine. Mr. N. said, he should be as unwilling to submit to any foreign country as the gentleman from South Carolina; but he could not, like that gentleman, say he was not afraid of war. I am, said he, afraid of it. This country affords me all the happiness I can wish or hope for, and I know war will be destructive to it. What was the difference between himself and that gentleman in this respect, he could not tell; it was to him surprising that any gentleman should be without fear as to the mischiefs of war. He was of opinion that the step taken by the President, with respect to merchant vessels, went to declare that we rested our cause on arms, which was not calculated to produce any good effect in our favor. He hoped the amendment would not be agreed to; if it was, he should vote against the resolution itself; and he did not think the gentleman from New Jersey, when he read the Message of the President, could think there was as much danger of a war with any other country as with the French Republic.