FIFTH CONGRESS.—THIRD SESSION. (continued 3)

The question was put, when there appeared 43 votes for it, and 42 against it, and the Chairman said "it is carried," before he declared his vote to be in the negative.

A motion was made for the committee to rise, and negatived—43 to 42.

Wednesday, February 20.

Matthew Lyon, from Vermont, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Alien and Sedition laws.

Mr. Livingston said, he had received, under cover, a number of petitions from the State of Vermont, praying for a repeal of the alien and sedition laws, which he begged leave to present to the House. One of which having been read, in which, among their other objections to the laws, the petitioners complain of having been deprived, by the sedition law, of their Representative in Congress for the greater part of the present session; Mr. L. moved to have the whole referred to the select committee to whom was referred the other petitions relative to this subject; but on Mr. Gallatin's suggesting that he understood that committee is ready to report, and that it would therefore be better to suffer the petitions to lie on the table until that report is made, and then have the whole referred to the same Committee of the Whole; that course was taken.

Capture of French Vessels.

The House took up the report of the Committee of the Whole on the bill for encouraging the capture of French privateers, by allowing a bounty on guns, and the motion being to concur in the agreement of the committee to strike out the first section of the bill,

Mr. Macon said, there were some other observations made the other day, when this subject was under consideration, which he thought very foreign to the subject. The history of this bill during the last session was given. The House was told it was three times rejected—once by trick. He was surprised to hear two gentlemen make use of this expression. If there was any trick, it certainly was among those gentlemen who had so frequently brought the subject before the House. It had been said, also, that it was once rejected by accident. It was the first time he had ever heard it urged as a reason for reconsidering a subject, that certain members had before voted accidentally upon it. Another reason was given, that the vote in the Committee of the Whole had been improperly obtained, by taking advantage of a mistake of the Chairman. By the rules of the House, Mr. M. said, the Speaker, or Chairman of a Committee of the Whole, has a casting vote, or they may tie a vote; but, after the Chairman had declared the question carried, it might be supposed he did not mean to vote, or if he did that he meant to vote with the majority.

Mr. M. said, he had seen a letter printed in the papers from one of our naval commanders in the West Indies, wherein he says, that American vessels sail into the neighborhood of the French islands, in order to be carried in; that they afterwards get away, pretending to have made their escape, and soon return with another cargo. He also mentions having fallen in with one of these vessels evidently steering for a French island, but the vessel's papers were so well managed, and the captain and mate understood each other so well, that he could make nothing of them. If, said Mr. M., the laws for suspending our intercourse with France and her possessions can be so easily evaded, might it not be expected that this law would be evaded, and that privateers might be fitted out in the West Indies, and brought to a certain latitude, for the purpose of being taken? He had no doubt this would be the case.

Mr. McDowell said, that when this bill was before under discussion, he had stated that our situation with respect to France appeared to be more favorable than last year. This was denied by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Otis.) He considers our danger greater, and this bill more necessary than at that time; and has gone on to remark, that all that was said about our improved situation with respect to France, were songs only fit for children, and not for the people of America. He was of a different opinion; they were the songs of peace, and as such, he believed, suited to the people of this country, who wish to live in peace. And if that gentleman knew more of the evils attendant on war than he does, he certainly would not be so ready to embrace them as he appears to be.

But he thought the gentleman from Massachusetts mistaken as to our situation; he believed it to be much better than it was at the last session. He formed this opinion from the despatches of Mr. Gerry, who declares it to be his opinion, that France is sincerely disposed to make peace; and more particularly from the President having nominated a Minister to treat with France, though he had declared he never would send another Minister until he should receive assurances that he would be received as the Minister of a great, free, and powerful nation. He supposed, therefore, that the President has received these assurances, and that we have, on this account, some reason to hope, that a reconciliation between the two Governments will take place.

He was opposed to this bill, because it might be the means of bringing the country into difficulties and war; it was giving to one part of our citizens the power to embroil the whole. No necessity has been shown to exist for this law; it is, indeed, said to be necessary to keep down the privateers of France, but we find by letters which have just been published, from the commanders of our armed vessels, that there are very few to be seen. But supposing there are yet a number of them, what better use can our public armed vessels be put to than to go after them? They must either be employed in doing this, or sent where he did not wish them to go, to the European seas, or kept useless at home.

Mr. Gallatin would not have troubled the House on this subject, had it not been for the remark of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Otis) immediately before the adjournment took place on Monday. He told the House that the vote on this subject ought not to be influenced by the nomination of a minister to go to France; and he precluded any answer being then given to the remark, by moving an adjournment.

For my part, said Mr. G., I do not consider this bill as very important in itself, and I have always been at a loss to know why there appeared to be so great an anxiety to have it passed. It is said, we ought not to recede from the ground we have taken; and really, from the arguments of the gentleman from Massachusetts, it would appear that there was a motion before the House to prevent our merchants from arming their vessels, or our public vessels from taking French privateers. This measure brings us to the question, not whether we will recede, but whether we will progress. The object of this bill is not to authorize any new measure, but it is to give a bounty to merchants to do what they are already authorized to do. The only question is, whether it will promote the taking of French privateers? He believed it would produce no effect at all, except the blanks in the bill are to be filled with sums which would produce a very serious demand on our treasury. The object of merchants is to make a safe and quick voyage, and if privateers will keep out of their way, they will never go in search of them: and if they should fall in with a privateer, their aim would be self-defence, and not capture, since to attempt this might hazard the loss of their vessel and valuable cargo, and take from them means of defence against any other attack, since they must put their own men on board the captured privateer.

It is clear, therefore, said Mr. G., that one of two things must take place, either we must give such a bounty on the guns of privateers as will make the expense of taking them greater than the benefit, or else it will become a mere matter of speculation, or small vessels will be fitted out on purpose to obtain the bounty. When privateers are taken by other countries, they are always taken by their vessels of war, and seldom by letters of marque.

But it is said this measure ought to be taken, in order to strengthen the hands of our Minister, by showing our determination to resist, in case an accommodation does not take place. On the same grounds, Mr. G. said, a declaration of war might be urged.

As to the effect to be expected from the appointment of a Minister to treat with France, he considered it merely as opening a door to negotiation. He agreed with the gentleman from Massachusetts, that it ought by no means to be considered as putting an end to the dispute between the two countries. It may succeed, or not. But this step having been taken, he did not think proper to go into a measure of this kind, especially since it can be attended with so little good effect.

Mr. Josiah Parker said, when he gave notice to the House on Monday of the nomination of a Minister to go to France, and declared that, on that account, he should vote against this bill, he did not do so because he was willing to relax from any of our measures of defence or offence against the French; but because he thought the measure proposed by this bill puerile and ineffectual, and therefore unnecessary. When he made this declaration, he was sorry to differ in opinion from the gentleman from Massachusetts, with whom he had had the honor to vote very frequently. At the same time that he said this, he declared himself ready to abide by every measure of defence yet adopted, and even to take higher ground than has yet been taken: for he had no opinion either of the magnanimity or sincerity of the French Republic. He believed they had no desire for peace, except such as arose from their changed situation. He thought it better, however, not to go into any little, irritating measure, like this. The President had heretofore told the House that he would never send another Minister to France until he received assurances that he would be properly received; he believed the President had received these assurances from the French Minister at the Hague, through our Minister there.

Mr. P. thought the second section of this bill, allowing a salvage on the retaking of any of our vessels, ought to pass; the first he hoped would be struck out.

Mr. Pinckney was sorry to differ in opinion from the gentleman just sat down as to the expediency of passing this bill. He did not think it a measure of great importance; but, as an additional measure of defence, it may have some effect, and he was therefore for agreeing to it. He thought the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gallatin) had put the prospect of a negotiation with France upon a proper footing; and he agreed with that gentleman that we ought not to vary the ground we have already taken; but he did not think that any augmentation of force would be going off the ground originally taken.

What, asked Mr. P., was the ground taken at the last session, and acted upon at this? It was, that we should, by all means in our power, prepare for our defence, more especially that we should add to every measure of defence to which our revenue is adequate, on the ocean. We have shown this to be our determination both at the last session and this, and our preparations have only been limited by our ability to make them. This measure, therefore, is a continuance of the same ground.

This bill reverts, therefore, altogether upon the question of expediency, and this he thought the proper footing on which to place it. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has objected to its expediency, because he says it will be inefficacious. Mr. P. would give a short answer to this, which was, that its expense will be commensurate with its utility. There is no doubt, if it has any effect at all; if it induces any private armed vessels of the United States to bring into our ports privateers which are depredating on our commerce, no moderate reward could be too great to be given for this advantage. And if there is nothing done; if the law proves ineffectual, then the public is nothing out of pocket. It is one of those cheap expedients which may be beneficial, but which can have no bad consequences.

Mr. Harper believed that gentlemen, in their deliberations on this subject, have fallen into some mistakes as to the course which this bill took at the last session. Mr. H. gave the history of this bill, and also spoke of the decision which had taken place in Committee of the Whole as by no means conclusive. On the general policy of the measure, he was not inclined to make any observations. He believed it was well understood; but he would not omit this occasion of declaring, that, in his opinion, its policy had not been changed by the nomination which has taken place of a Minister to treat with the French Republic.

It is said that an intimation has been made, not through the Dutch Minister, but through the Secretary of Legation at the Hague, to our Minister there, that the French government is disposed to receive any Minister Plenipotentiary which we may choose to appoint, suitable to the dignity due to the representative of a great, free, and independent nation. This intimation having been given to the President, he has thought it proper to meet the advance so far as to nominate a Minister, which Minister is to go to France, provided he shall receive assurances of being properly received, and a Minister of equal rank appointed to treat with him.

This change, Mr. H. said, from haughty insolence; from the expulsion of our Minister; from a demand of tribute; from requiring apologies for speeches; from outrage and insult, to the mild language of supplication, must certainly have been owing to the measures of this Government, and therefore clearly evinced the policy and propriety of these measures. We have thus far, said Mr. H., seen the good effects of buckling on our armor, at the same time that we hold out the olive branch. And instead of relaxing, we ought now to brace up the system; not that he would wish to take any new ground but merely reinforce and invigorate the system already established. This he thought the true policy of this country. Whether this application for a negotiation on the part of the French Republic may arise from sincerity, or from a wish to wheedle this country to their own advantage, or because they perceive we are not to be bullied into submission, and therefore it is best to live on friendly terms with us, he held it wise policy in us to enlarge our means both of defence and offence, until our dispute with France is brought to a close. He, therefore, thought it of more importance to adopt this measure now than heretofore; because, if it is not carried, it may be supposed that we have forborne to adopt it, because we are disposed to relax the instant we have information that a negotiation is likely to be opened, and that they may at any time unnerve our arm by a proposition to negotiate. Therefore, if he had before been against this measure, he should now be in favor of it, because, if it had no other good effect, it would convince the government with which we are about to treat, that the same vigorous measures which have produced this negotiation will still be continued, and that though we are treating for peace, we are preparing for war, and that we are determined to do ourselves justice, if they refuse to do us justice. For these reasons he hoped the bill would pass.

Mr. Livingston said, that considering how great a favorite this measure had been of its partial parents, it was the most unlucky child that ever showed its face in the House. It had scarcely seen the light at the last session, when it was lost in the short passage from its nursery in the committee to the House, because those who were most interested in its preservation, by accident, did not happen to vote for it. Another accident of the same nature prevented its passage when it was again attempted in the same session. At the interval of a year, the same ill fortune seemed to pursue this unlucky bantling. It had scarcely taken its first step into existence when the same forgetfulness seemed to seize all those who had the care of it. Again, it was lost in the committee; again it accidentally expired; and all the efforts to revive it, he believed, would be in vain. Mr. L. then went into a history of the bill to show that it was lost, not by accident, but because a majority were opposed to it.

Mr. L. said, he understood that France proposes to receive a Minister from this country on the very terms upon which only the President of the United States has heretofore said he would ever send one. It was said to be improper to recede from the ground we have taken on this account, because the French may not be sincere. He had heard no such idea suggested, and gentlemen certainly do wrong in imputing motives to others without foundation. But when gentlemen come to the merits of the bill, they touch them very lightly. They tell you it is part of our general system of defence. Is this the case? How is it to operate? It is to operate as a measure of aggression, not of preservation, or self-defence; and though he was perfectly willing to preserve our present ground, he did not wish to progress in any measures of hostility, especially when so little advantage can be derived from it as is proposed by this bill.

Mr. Dana said that the President of the United States, in his Message to both Houses of the 21st of June last, declared, "that he would never send another Minister to France until he had assurances that he would be received as the Minister of a great, free, and powerful nation." The character of the President of the United States for integrity and political fortitude, is well known and established, and that character is pledged for an adherence to the declaration above recited. Nor had he any idea of his receding from it. With a knowledge of this fact, we are to inquire what is the purport of the information which has been given to this House of a Minister having been appointed to negotiate with the French Republic. For his own part he did not consider the French Government sincere; and he was authorized to think so by the declaration of this House in answer to the President's Speech. Nor did he think the President believed them to be sincere, and he was authorized in thinking so, from his communication to both Houses at the opening of the session. How, then, is the nomination of a Minister to be understood? It was to be understood in the same light in which we used to appoint Commissioners during our Revolutionary war, who were sent to Europe to treat with Great Britain long before we expected she would be willing to treat for peace; but they were possessed of eventual authority. So, in the present case, the authority proposed to be given to our Minister at the Hague, is only to be an eventual authority, that when he receives sufficient evidence of the sincerity of the French Government, he may proceed to treat with them. Nor did he believe that the Senate possessed any document informing them that the President has already received these assurances.

[Mr. D. here read extracts from the President's Address to both Houses, from the address of this House in answer to it, and from his reply; in which the President states he can have no confidence in the sincerity of the French Government, while the decree which condemns our vessels as prizes, on account of having articles of British growth or manufacture on board, is in force.]

We know, said Mr. D., that this decree is, however, yet in force; and yet gentlemen pretend to say that the nomination which has taken place is a proof that the President has now some reliance on the sincerity of the French Government; whereas it is nothing more than a conditional appointment, such as he had already stated. No gentleman will hazard his political sagacity by saying, a negotiation is likely to take place whilst that decree is in existence; nor can any gentleman be found who will apologize for it, if it is so atrocious that its repeal must be an indispensable preliminary to any negotiation which may take place. Believing this nomination, therefore, to be nothing more than the naming of a person to treat with the French Government when it shall condescend to do us justice, the arguments of gentlemen built upon it fall to the ground. And if they attend to the declaration of this House, in the address already alluded to, they will find that we ought to advance in our defensive measures instead of receding, or even remaining stationary.

Mr. Nicholas supposed during the first half of the speech, of the gentleman who had just sat down, that he meant to vote against this bill, for he could not have supposed that he had quoted the President's Message to Congress, in June last, for the purpose of making a declaration such as he has made with respect to it. He supposes that the President has received no assurances from the French Republic that our Minister will be received, though he has heretofore said he never would send a Minister until he had assurances he would be properly received; but that he has appointed a Minister to wait, as it were, at the door of France, for a declaration that he will be properly received. And he supposes that the declaration of the President will in this way be satisfied. Mr. N. believed, if the President has appointed a Minister, he will be received, because he did not believe he would have appointed him until he had good assurances that this would be the case; or, if he has, that he has certainly forgotten his declaration.

The gentleman last up had made use of a very extraordinary argument. He says the French nation is governed by different principles from any other. When we entreat them to be at peace, he says, they insult us; but when we give them cause to wage eternal war against us, they become humble and submissive. Mr. N. believed that this was not the first time that such measures have had this tendency; but it is the first time it has been acknowledged that the measure alluded to (the publication of the despatches containing the unauthorized negotiations of X, Y, and Z, he supposed was meant) was calculated to produce these direful effects. He did fear they were intended to have these mischievous consequences; but he hoped and believed that their being so notorious and palpable have been the means of defeating the intention, and of saving the nation from war, as it showed that the Government of this country had no desire to be at peace. The French saw that a war between the United States and them would have been a war of passion, in which they could have had no possible interest, and which would, above all other things, have proved agreeable to their enemy. They saw that there was a party in this country who wished for this state of things, and he believed the extremity to which things had been carried has defeated the object in view. I do believe, said Mr. N., that France is now disposed to make peace; that she is calling upon us to enter into negotiation, in order that the party in this country who are desirous of war may have no pretext for carrying their wishes into effect.

Mr. N. was astonished, that after a Minister of respectable character, a Minister chosen by the President, and who declared he accepted of the employment from a desire to support his administration, being well acquainted with the disposition of France, from his having resided there a considerable time—has asserted that, previous to their knowledge of the publication of the negotiations of X, Y, and Z, in this country, the French Government were desirous of negotiating a peace; that after having rejected two of our Ministers, and retained a third, the resentments appeared to be satisfied; and that, though, after they had received information of the publication of these despatches, their displeasure was for a while excited, yet before Mr. Gerry left France, the same disposition for peace had returned; though, from the disposition which appeared in this country, they were doubtful how their overtures would be received. And after we have now proofs that they have made overtures, in conformity to the sentiments exhibited in Mr. Gerry's despatches, it was astonishing, he said, that gentlemen should ascribe this offer to negotiate to the effect which the small force we raised has had upon them—a force which could not possibly have availed any thing against such a force as it might be expected would be sent against us, if it was the purpose of France to invade this country.

Mr. Rutledge observed, that the effect of the measures which were taken at the two last sessions of Congress have been so different from what was predicted by the gentleman from Virginia that he was no longer inclined to give credit to his predictions. He has constantly been prophesying, but time and experience have shown his prophesies to be wholly unfounded. It was doubtless in the recollection of the House, that that gentleman thought it would be weak to rely upon a navy; he thought and said that many of the measures formerly taken would plunge the country in war, by causing a declaration of war on the part of France. The gentleman apologized for the length of his speeches, because he thought the measures of the last importance; and that if they were adopted, the scabbard would be thrown away, and it would not be in our power to resume it. But, instead of war, it is now found these measures have obtained for us peace—at least gentlemen say so. The gentleman from Virginia now predicts we shall have peace; but as all the former predictions of that gentleman have fallen to the ground, he trusted a majority of this House will not be inclined to give credit to his present prediction.

Much had been said about the diplomatic skill of France; and he thought her present conduct more deserving of this epithet than any of her former measures with respect to this country. Let gentlemen review the conduct of that country. She first attempted to bully us; but finding that we were not to be frightened, her next object was to obtain delay, in order to afford time for the spirit which had been roused by her injuries, to spend its force. When our Minister, Mr. Pinckney, first arrived in France, he was assured he would be received; but the French had an agent in this country feeling the pulse of the people, and finding that there existed a great deal of French mania, and a party upon whom they could rely, the French Government refused to receive our Minister. This country, still desirous of preserving peace, sent three Commissioners. What was then the conduct of the French Government? Our Ministers remained for months at Paris an unique spectacle, waiting in vain to be received. France has endeavored to palsy our Government—to produce delay—to give time for that noble spirit which has done so much honor to our country to spend itself. When she finds that our efforts to negotiate having failed, we buckled on our armor, and were determined to resist her injustice, the French Secretary of Legation at the Hague is directed to have some conversation with our Minister there; and assure him, notwithstanding this country had done acts enough to justify the most offensive measures, that if he will send another Minister to France, he would be received as an agent of a great, independent, and powerful nation. Gentlemen catch at this; but what is it but an attempt to arrest the arm of the Government of this country, just when it was about to strike a blow? And yet gentlemen are the dupes of this diplomatic skill.

Mr. Livingston was not surprised that gentlemen who had always been the advocates of war, at this critical moment, when all the horrors of peace stare them in the face, should seize every opportunity of postponing that dreaded event by questioning the sincerity of the offer to negotiate. [Mr. Rutledge asked whether this had been done? The Speaker answered in the negative.] From those gentlemen this was naturally to have been expected, and he therefore excused their vexation and dismay. But Mr. L. said he was not a little astonished that others, who at least professed an attachment to peace, should betray such evident anxiety and uneasiness at its approach. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rutledge) has said that he wishes for peace; that no class of men are more exposed than his constituents, and that he himself would be a great sufferer by war. Such wishes and such motives he was however inclined to believe would have prompted language very different from that which had just been heard. A gentleman really desirous of peace would not, he should have supposed, travel out of the argument to pronounce philippics against those with whom we were treating, or to question the sincerity of overtures which were made in the mode we ourselves had prescribed.

He would not ask gentlemen who pronounce so decisively on the subject; who tell us that no reliance is to be placed in French professions; that they promise only to betray; that, unlike all other nations, they treat us with disdain when we ask for peace, but like spaniels, crouch and fawn upon us when we use them ill, whether they had calculated the consequences of their doctrine? That would be demanding more from them than their conduct had given him a right to expect; but he would ask whether they had attended to dates, when they arrogated to their measures the credit of producing the present disposition for peace in the Government of France? Let it be remembered, said Mr. L., that the most earnest and pressing solicitations for an accommodation were expressed to Mr. Gerry; that he was repeatedly urged to negotiate a treaty, which it was more than intimated he might have on his own terms; and that, after his repeated refusals to treat, a Minister was designated to carry these pacific intentions to America—and all this before any account of those measures on which gentlemen so much pride themselves had arrived in France. Let it not be forgotten, too, that when the account of these measures did arrive, so far from having a beneficial effect, they were very near producing the one for which gentlemen now tell us they were intended, and for which they were indeed admirably calculated—that of provoking on the part of France, a declaration which could not be obtained here. Mr. Gerry very expressively gives us these important facts. He states the evident desire to accommodate before the arrival of the despatches, and the turn which their contents gave to the negotiation. The discussion was turned to unimportant points; the design of sending a Minister was relinquished; and every thing showed a design to protract the business, until it could be ascertained whether the United States were desirous of peace, or would receive a Minister if he should be sent. In this state of things, Mr. Gerry received orders to return. All further intercourse with France then ceased, until the President, by his Message to this House, declared the terms on which alone he would send a Minister to France. No sooner were these terms known, than the assurance is sent in the very words prescribed by the President, accompanied by expressions of an earnest desire to treat. In all this history, subsequent to the departure of Messrs. Pinckney and Marshall, he thought an evident desire had been shown for an accommodation, the sincerity of which he believed it was our duty to test—not by reproachful speeches and hostile measures, but by meeting their overtures for negotiation in good faith; and while we showed our desire for peace, not to trust too much to our wishes, but retain every measure of defence.

The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rutledge) had mentioned delay. France, he said, always conquered by producing delays. This he thought not a very applicable expression to the rapidity with which gentlemen traced their conquests. But on this occasion it was particularly unfortunate. It appears that the overtures which have now been acted upon were communicated by the Minister for Foreign Relations at Paris, to Mr. Pichon at the Hague, and by him to Mr. Murray, on the 28th of September; and we hear nothing of them until the close of February. He did not know when the communication was received here; but there was at least a probability, from the date, that it was before the opening of the session; before the adoption of all the expensive measures we have undertaken; before the loan was opened at eight per cent.; before the intemperate commentary was written on Mr. Gerry's despatches, with which we have been favored by the Secretary of State. Let gentlemen compare the language of that singular State paper with these proposals made to Mr. Murray; let them examine the respective dates, and then let them talk to us of delay.

Mr. Shepard could not think, with the gentleman from New York, that France is serious in her proposals to negotiate; he believed she meant to deceive us; and sooner than be deceived by them, he would fight the ungodly nation. After some other observations, he sat down, with hoping the question would be taken.

The question was put on agreeing to the report of the Committee of the Whole, and carried—52 to 48, as follows:

Yeas.—George Baer, jr., Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, John Chapman, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, George Dent, Joseph Eggleston, Lucas Elmendorph, William Findlay, John Fowler, Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, William Barry Grove, John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Josiah Parker, Thompson J. Skinner, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Peleg Sprague, Richard Sprigg, Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.

Nays.—John Allen, Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard, Jonathan Brace, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher G. Champlin, James Cochran, Wm. Craik, Samuel W. Dana, John Dennis, William Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, Jas. H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, James Machir, William Matthews, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, Thomas Pinckney, John Read, John Rutledge, jr., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Nathaniel Smith, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, Robert Waln, and John Williams.

The second section was then amended by adding to it the usual enacting clause; but after some observations against passing it by Mr. Sewall, since the first section had been stricken out on the motion for its going to a third reading, it was negatived. And so the bill was rejected.

Expulsion of Matthew Lyon.

Mr. Bayard proposed the following resolution to the House:

"Resolved, That Matthew Lyon, a member of this House, having been convicted of being a notorious and seditious person, and of a depraved mind, and wicked and diabolical disposition; and of wickedly, deceitfully, and maliciously, contriving to defame the Government of the United States; and having, with intent and design to defame the Government of the United States, and John Adams, the President of the United States, and to bring the said Government and President into contempt and disrepute, and with intent and design to excite against the said Government and President the hatred of the good people of the United States, and to stir up sedition in the United States—wickedly, knowingly, and maliciously, written and published certain scandalous and seditious writings, or libels, be therefor expelled this House."

Mr. B. said he had only to remark that this resolution is copied from the record of the trial, which he had in his possession.

Mr. Nicholas said, if this had been a candid statement of the business, he should have been willing to have come to an immediate vote upon it; but words are introduced into this resolution (which are words of course in every indictment) which do not particularly belong to this offence, and the truth of which is never inquired into upon a trial. As he wished the nature of the offence to be clearly stated, he hoped the motion would lie for the present.

Mr. Bayard observed he had already said the terms used are copied from the record itself, and he did not think the gentleman from Virginia had been wiser than the law. He had himself no doubt that all the charges on the record are pertinent to the subject; if not, it would be extremely improper to introduce them. They are charges upon which a jury of the country have decided.

Mr. Nicholas appealed to the gentleman from Delaware, and to all other gentlemen of the law who heard him, whether the words here used are not the mere form of the indictment, and unconnected with the act here charged. He moved to adjourn, which motion was carried without a division.

Friday, February 22.

Alien and Sedition Laws.

Mr. Bard presented several petitions and remonstrances from 1,487 inhabitants of the county of Franklin, in Pennsylvania, praying for the repeal of the alien and sedition laws; which having been read,

Mr. Bard moved to have this petition referred as usual.

Mr. Harper inquired whether it would be in order to strike out a part of this petition. On being answered in the negative by the Speaker, Mr. H. said, he was always unwilling to object to the reference of petitions; but, on this occasion he could not help protesting against an atrocious libel contained in these petitions against the courts and juries of this country. Some time ago a great deal had been said on the subject of courts and juries in this House, and now we find the sentiments, as many others have been, reverberated in the form of petitions. It is here said, "that the sedition law had, in its execution, been used as a means of private vengeance, personal enmity, and party resentment." A charge so unjustifiable, and so untrue, upon the courts and juries of this country, he could not suffer to be referred without his protest.

Mr. Gallatin observed, that the reference of these petitions is objected to, on account of what the gentleman from South Carolina calls a libel, which makes a part of these petitions. This, said Mr. G., is going upon the ground, which the greatest enemies of these laws have barely suggested might be taken, but which they thought scarcely possible, viz: that the right of petitioning might next be restricted, since the liberty of writing and speaking on the measures of Government was by law restricted: and now, taking it for granted, that the allegation contained in these petitions is untrue, the gentleman from South Carolina wishes to refuse these petitions a reference, without examining whether it is true or not. The petitioners say that the sedition law has been carried into effect under the operation of party spirit and personal revenge. The gentleman says that this is not true; but he does not want to have the allegation examined, in order to discover whether it be true or not, but to dismiss the subject at once; to tell the people, "You shall not be permitted to lay your petitions before us, if you dare to say that laws are carried into operation to gratify party spirit or private revenge, (for nothing is said of courts and juries,) if they contain such allegations, we will reject your petitions." Mr. G. hoped, on examination of the fact, the House would be convinced that though the charge is not a libel, that it is at least a gross mistake; that no such personal enmity, party spirit, or private revenge, has taken place, either in the commencement of any prosecution under this law, or in any decision which has taken place. But thus to object to the reference of petitions, would be to say that we have the power of defining the nature of petitions; that they may apply to this and that object, but that there are certain points which the people may not touch. He wished to know whether the people have not a right to say, if they choose, that the administration of justice is corrupt? and whether, if they do say so, the fact ought not to be inquired into? It certainly ought, and he was surprised to hear such an objection made. It must have arisen, because these petitions are grating to the feelings of gentlemen who are favorable to these laws. He hoped, on recollection, that the reference of petitions does not imply an approbation of the sentiments contained in them, that the gentleman from South Carolina would permit these petitions to be referred.

Mr. Harper was not surprised that the gentleman from Pennsylvania should defend these petitions, for reasons which every man must know. What he has said upon the subject is no more than a repetition of some things which we have before heard. He agreed that, when grievances are complained of, they ought to be examined; and if the people were to complain of a maladministration of justice, the fact ought to be inquired into; but when the repeal of a law is prayed for, it certainly cannot be proper for petitioners to go into charges against the administration of courts and juries, by saying that prosecutions are carried on under party malice and party revenge. To do this is to strike at the vitals of our constitution. The gentleman from Pennsylvania likes this, perhaps, from party motives, but he ought to remember that it is an instrument which will cut both ways; and the use of which, if he has any respect for the laws and rights of his country, he may live to regret having countenanced. Mr. H. said, if in order, he would move to refer this part of the memorial to a select committee, with a view of inquiring into the subject-matter, and report their opinion thereon to the House.

The Speaker declared such a motion out of order; and, after some observations from Mr. Nicholas, in which he said the gentleman from South Carolina had answered himself, by allowing the propriety of a reference at all; and observed, if because these petitions complained of the administration of one part of our Government (which, however, he did not allow they do) they were to be rejected, it might be expected that, hereafter, no petition would be received that complained of the maladministration of any department of the Government.

The reference was carried, there being 55 votes for it.

Mr. Gallatin presented petitions from six hundred and seventy-eight inhabitants of Chester County, praying for the repeal of the alien and sedition laws, in the same words with those presented yesterday.

On expelling Matthew Lyon.

Mr. Bayard called up for consideration the following resolution, which he had laid upon the table a day or two ago:

The resolution having been read, Mr. B. presented to the House a copy of the record of Mr. Lyon's trial, which was read by the Clerk, after which,

Mr. B. observed, it would not be necessary to trouble the House with many observations in support of this resolution. The facts upon which the resolution is founded, are proved to be incontrovertibly true, by the record which had just been read. The only question, therefore, before the House was, as to the consequence of the fact, or whether the crime of which the member in question had been convicted, is a sufficient cause for expulsion. Mr. B. referred the House to that clause of the constitution which gives the House the power of expulsion. The power, said he, is unlimited. The House has the power to expel a member for any crime, or for any cause, which, in their discretion, they conceive has rendered him unfit to remain a member of the body. Perhaps some gentlemen may think that it is improper for the House to take notice of acts done by its members out of the House, but he believed the fallacy of such a doctrine would be easily seen. It was certainly possible, and might, therefore, be imagined, that a member of this House, might be guilty of murder, treason, perjury, or other infamous crime, and would it be asserted that a man, defiled by crimes of this kind, ought to be suffered to represent a portion of the people of the United States in the National Legislature? He trusted that no gentleman, who valued reputation, would contend for such a point. The question, then is, said Mr. B., whether the act in question is an act of that description, the commission of which ought to induce the House to expel the convicted member? In his opinion, the crime was of the first political magnitude. A crime not only affecting the members of this House, but the whole community, as its consequences go to the subversion of the Government. This Government, said Mr. B., depends for its existence upon the good will of the people. That good will is maintained by their good opinion. But, how is that good opinion to be preserved, if wicked and unprincipled men, men of inordinate and desperate ambition, are allowed to state facts to the people which are not true, which they know at the time to be false, and which are stated with the criminal intention of bringing the Government into disrepute among the people. This was falsely and deceitfully stealing the public opinion; it was a felony of the worst and most dangerous nature. The member from Vermont has been convicted of doing this, with a view of exciting the hatred of the people against the President and Senate, and of stirring up sedition in the country. This, in his opinion, was a crime of the greatest magnitude, since it is all-important that the channel by which information is conveyed to the people should be preserved as pure as possible; for, if men are allowed to state things as facts, which they know to be false, what will be the consequence? However upright the Government, or however correct the First Magistrate may be, the hatred of the people may be excited against them by means of false information; and when a foreign foe, or domestic traitors, join the standard of rebellion, the best constitution and government may be subverted. Therefore, that falsehood which deprives men of the means of forming a true judgment of public affairs, in this country, where the Government is elective, is a crime of the first magnitude. The member from Vermont has been convicted, under aggravated circumstances. He was on this floor when the law, against which he has offended, was passed. He, therefore, was well acquainted with the law; yet, with this knowledge, he has falsely, scandalously and maliciously, defamed the President of the United States, with a view of exciting hatred, and stirring up sedition. These facts are recorded and incontrovertible; and he conceived it would be out of order to call them in question.

Mr. B. concluded with appealing to the candor and honor which he expected to find in the House, whether a member, the malice of whose heart, and the falsehood of whose pen, stood recorded; who had, from the worst and basest motives, violated a law which he had himself assisted to make, was fit to hold a seat in that House. Will any one say that a man who does not keep the laws ought to be allowed to make them? Certainly, nothing was more repugnant to principle and propriety; and, as he conceived the member from Vermont was notoriously and exemplarily guilty in this respect, an obligation rested on the House to expel him. Mr. B. said he brought forward this resolution from a sense only of public duty, from a strong feeling for national character. He knew but little, and should be happy if it were less, of the member who was the object of it. He could not be suspected of having been induced to the step he had taken by the miserable gratification of offering violence to the feelings of the member. He believed that nothing he had said, nor any thing which could be said, would awaken a single feeling. His sensations were of another sort, and excited in another manner. Mr. B. conceived he had done his duty, and if the House refused to purify itself by the expulsion of the member, it was a satisfaction to him to reflect that it would appear to the world that he had no share in the disgrace.

Mr. Nicholas had hoped that the gentleman from Delaware would have shown to the House something in this transaction which made the character of the member alluded to so infamous as to have rendered him unfit to hold a seat in this House. He should have thought that, after a member of this House had suffered so severely as the member from Vermont has suffered by fine and imprisonment, it would have been thought necessary to go into a consideration of the nature of the offence of which he is said to have been guilty, and to have shown that the guilt attaching to him was such as to defile the characters of the rest of the members to sit with him, before a vote of expulsion was taken. Indeed, Mr. N. had supposed that there had been but one opinion on this subject, and that no attempt would have been made to have inflicted a second punishment. The gentleman from Delaware, Mr. N. said, had confined himself in his declaration about this offence, to its being an offence against one of the laws of the United States, without showing the House what the offence was, or wishing them to form a judgment upon it.

Mr. N. was surprised at this second prosecution, because, if gentlemen will speak candidly according to the opinions which they formerly delivered in justification of the law, they will acknowledge that the whole of the charges brought against the member from Vermont ought not to have been inquired into under the sedition law; since two of the counts contained in the indictment are mere matters of opinion, not containing the least suggestion of fact; and the third rests so much on matter of opinion, that it is impossible, according to a sound construction of the law, for any guilt to be incurred by the act.

Mr. N. wished the House to attend to the nature of the charges exhibited against the member from Vermont, and to say whether they were not of such a nature as to render it difficult to say whether they are well founded, and, if they are well founded, then they are innocent. In the record from which he had copied the charges, there are three counts; two of them are founded on extracts taken from a letter, called "Barlow's Letter;" the third is for sentiments contained in a letter of the member's own writing. The two first turn on mere matters of opinion. Mr. N. read the counts as follows:

"The misunderstanding between the two Governments has become extremely alarming, confidence is completely destroyed, mistrusts, jealousy, and a disposition to a wrong attribution of motives, are so apparent as to require the utmost caution in every word and action that are to come before your Executive—I mean if your object is to avoid hostilities. Had this truth been understood with you before the recall of Monroe, before the coming and second coming of Pinckney; had it guided the pens that wrote the bullying Speech of your President, and stupid answer of your Senate, at the opening of Congress in November last, I should probably have had no occasion to address you this letter. But we found him borrowing the language of Great Britain, and telling the world that, although he should succeed in treating with the French, there was no dependence to be placed on any of their engagements; that their religion and morality were at an end; that they had turned pirates and plunderers; and it would be necessary to be perpetually armed against them, though they are at peace. We wondered that the answer of both Houses had not been an order to send him to a mad-house. Instead of this, the Senate had echoed the Speech with more servility than ever George III. experienced from either House of Parliament.

"As to the Executive, when I shall see the efforts of that power bent on the promotion of the comfort, the happiness, and accommodation of the people, that Executive shall have my zealous and uniform support. But, when I see every consideration of the public welfare swallowed up in a continual grasp for power, in an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, or selfish avarice; when I shall behold men of real merit daily turned out of office for no other cause but independence of sentiment; when I shall see men of firmness, merit, years, abilities, and experience, discarded on their application for office, for fear they possess that independence; and men of meanness preferred for the ease with which they take up and advocate opinions, the consequence of which they know but little of; when I shall see the sacred name of religion employed as a State engine to make mankind hate and persecute one another, I shall not be their humble advocate."

The two first counts contain the opinions of the writer on public and notorious acts. No act is charged upon the President and Senate which is not notorious. It is not an attempt to impose upon the world a belief of facts which do not exist. He called upon gentlemen of the law and others to say whether this law was ever intended to extend to matters of opinion. He was astonished that a record of this kind should ever come from a court of the United States. The law declares that the publications which it proposes to punish, shall be false and scandalous. Do gentlemen say opinions can be false which do not contain matter of fact? Another part of the law gives to the party accused the privilege of giving the truth of the fact charged in evidence; but it is impossible that this can be done, where the matter charged consists of mere opinion; and juries could not possibly say whether an opinion be true or false. They can only determine whether or not it is their own opinion.

If a man is to be subject to a prosecution for his opinions, what will be the consequence? We are, said Mr. N., sent here to form an opinion, and, when we return home, we are expected to deliver that opinion to our constituents: but, if the propriety of our opinions are not to be judged of by ourselves, but by others, what will become of us? No man will be safe; for, though he may have formed his opinion as correctly as possible, if twelve men are to sit upon it, and, if it should not happen to be their opinion, or if they should not believe it to be his upon whom it is charged, he will be liable to a severe fine and imprisonment. Is it proper, Mr. N. asked, for legislators to be placed on this ground? Or, will gentlemen say it was their intention to place themselves in this situation? They certainly will not; for who would consent to sit here, or of what use would it be, under such conditions?

The third count is somewhat of a different nature. Mr. N. said, in speaking on this subject, he was not giving his own opinion. If he were to give it, he should say he had no foundation for the fact here stated. There is no mode, however, of ascertaining whether or not it was the opinion of the member from Vermont, and if it were his opinion, there being no mode of determining whether the opinion is correct or otherwise, it was impossible to act upon it.

With respect to the first part of the third count, which speaks of "every consideration of the public welfare being swallowed up in a continual grasp of power, &c.," he supposed it would be agreed that it was an expression of the affection of the mind—an opinion upon the disposition discovered by actions. That part of it which relates to "men of real merit being turned out of office for no other cause but independence of sentiment, &c.," suggests a fact, but if this was his opinion, it is a matter so much connected with opinion, as to be scarcely distinguishable from it. And shall we be told, said Mr. N., that a member ought to be banished from his seat for uttering a sentiment of this kind, after having been told by the gentleman from Delaware, and others, that it was a complete disqualification for office for a man to hold a different political opinion from that of the Executive? He trusted gentlemen could not seriously think so. For, since if the fact were true, and the member from Vermont had adduced (as he believed he might have done) two or three instances of men being turned out of office merely on account of their political opinions, still the jury might have asked, "how do you know that the men displaced possessed superior talents to those who succeeded them?" This, though true, could not be proved, therefore the member from Vermont could not have availed himself of the advantage held out by the law. Gentlemen may say this is not necessary, as this law goes to many offences not capable of this proof; they may say that the British law on this subject goes to many others. But our law is not the same with the British law; there, though the libel be true, it is not less a libel, which is not the case under our law, which is an important distinction.

It was clear, Mr. N. said, that such parts of the counts as went to insinuate fact, were so connected with opinion, that it was impossible to separate them. It could not be said that the jury were competent to decide upon the truth of the case. The decision of twelve honest men on a point of fact, is, perhaps, the best security that can be devised for the security of justice; but if a man is to be convicted because his opinions and those of a jury are at variance, there is an end to all security. Men's opinions are as various as their faces, and the truth or falsehood of those opinions are not fit subjects for the decision of a jury.

Upon what ground does the member from Vermont stand? He is a representative of the people; and gentlemen could not shut their eyes against a notorious fact, viz: that the constituents of this member, with a full knowledge of this prosecution, have re-elected him; and if the people of Vermont choose to have a person possessing these opinions to represent them, who have a right to say they shall not? Indeed, if they are to be represented at all, they must be represented by the man whom they choose to elect.

The gentleman from Delaware had said, that all the offences of Mr. Lyon were greatly aggravated from his being a member of this House. Mr. N. was of a different opinion. He thought it incumbent on a Representative to disclose his opinions on public affairs to his constituents; and this disclosure will become more necessary, in proportion as such opinions may be offensive to the administrators of the Government; as, when all goes on smoothly and well, there will be no necessity for calling the attention of the people to public concerns.

The gentleman has also said, that it would be out of order to contest the truth of any thing contained in this record. He thought differently, and that if it was proper to act upon the subject at all, it would be proper to assign a day to have a fair hearing of the business, to enable the House to judge of the facts. For gentlemen will not say, that courts and juries are so infallible, that there is no case in which the decision of a court ought to be revised. If the member from Vermont should think it necessary to demand this investigation, the House ought to submit to it.

There was something in that record, Mr. N. said, which was very singular indeed; something which requires investigation; for unless the fact is different from what his information made it, a most extraordinary circumstance was connected with the third count. It will be seen, from the showing of the record, that the letter upon which the charge is founded, was written before the passage of the law on which the offence was tried. If he was not misinformed, no evidence was adduced in court to show that Mr. Lyon did any act subsequent to the writing of his letter in the publication, and that though the thing appeared in print after the law took its effect, all that was done by the writer was done before the law was passed. He thought, therefore, before the House acted upon this subject, an inquiry ought to be had upon it. He did not know what were the wishes of the member from Vermont himself on this subject; he had not put the question to him, because he thought there was no offence contained in the record of which the House ought to take notice. He would say farther, that believing most religiously that the law against which the member from Vermont is said to have offended, is a violation of the constitution of this country, he could not without a breach of his oath, do any act to punish a breach of that law.

Mr. Lyon said, he did expect that if he was to have had a second trial, he should have been at liberty to have adduced the evidence upon which a jury had already decided. Gentlemen who have been able to obtain a copy of the record, which he, notwithstanding all his earnest desires to obtain it, had not been able to procure, might also have obtained a copy of the testimony on which this judgment was founded.

Mr. L. thought he had received an unjust trial and a hard sentence. He said unjust, because he was frowned upon by the Judge in a very abrupt manner when he challenged two of the jury, which he had a right to do by a law of the State. The Judge answered me, said Mr. L., "You are unacquainted with the laws of the State." Mr. L. observed that there is a law in the State of Vermont for punishing persons who speak against the public authorities, which gives to the accused the privilege of challenging six of his jury. This privilege, said Mr. L., I was denied, exclusive of the political packing of the jury who tried me. This is the kind of treatment I have received: but I shall submit to the decision of the House without occupying their time on my account, further than my enemies are desirous of so occupying it.

Mr. Allen said, nothing but the respect which he entertained for the character who presided at the trial of the member from Vermont would have drawn him from his seat on that occasion. But if he understood the member from Vermont, he said he was frowned upon by the court when he challenged two of his jury, and having been present at the trial, he was able to speak to that fact. He understood the member to make a challenge, and the Judge told him he did not know the laws of Vermont; but so far from any harshness being used towards the member, he must say he never saw a trial more fairly conducted. He thought it did honor to Judge Paterson, who presided. When the member persisted in his opinion, that a law of the State gave him a right to challenge his jury, the Judge replied, "if that was the law, it would require consideration;" and he inquired of the district judge if that was the law, who said it was not. As to the member's being precipitately tried, [Mr. Lyon observed, he did say so,] if ever there was a case deliberately tried, or in which unexampled indulgence was shown to the accused, it was this.

The member from Vermont had spoken of the jury being packed. He had seen this asserted in the papers, and the public ought to be informed that the charge is wholly untrue. The member from Vermont must know it is untrue. The jury was drawn from the boxes as is usual, in consequence of an order made by the court in May, which pointed out the particular towns from whence the jury were to be drawn. Mr. A. concluded by saying, he was sorry to find any man base enough to attack the gentleman who presided on this trial, as he believed his conduct to be unimpeachable.

Mr. Bayard said, considering the lateness of the hour, he should limit his reply to a few observations. He did not know what would bind the gentleman from Virginia; he denies the obligation of the law, and the credibility of the record. He could not expect, therefore, that he would be bound by the obligation of reason.

The gentleman from Virginia, in his defence of the member from Vermont, has gone upon the ground that mere matter of opinion cannot be construed into a libel. He begged leave to differ from that opinion, for which there was not the least ground. Four things, Mr. B. said, are necessary to constitute a crime under the law in question: it is necessary that a publication should be seditious, false, scandalous, and malicious. When these four things appear, whether the publication consists in the assertion of matter of opinion, or matter of fact, it will be within the law, which makes no discrimination on the subject.

Mr. B. did not think it altogether in order to question in this place the regularity of the proceedings of a court of justice. According to the organization of this Government, the powers of it are distributed, and the Judiciary in its department is as sovereign as the Legislature; and it is as improper for the Legislature to question the proceedings of a court as it would be for a court in common cases, to question the obligation of a law. What has the fact been? The judgment of a court has decided, on the verdict of a jury given upon oath, that this case was within the law; and, after a judicial determination, is it for a member of this House to say that the case was not within the law?

But Mr. B. could conceive no idea more groundless than that of the gentleman from Virginia, that mere matters of opinion are not grounds of charges under this law. This the gentleman had made his alpha and omega. He wished to know how a distinction was to be made on this subject? If an opinion upon a fact be expressed, and that opinion is false, scandalous, and malicious, ought it not to be subject to prosecution? Does the gentleman say opinions cannot be false? Mr. B. said, he would put a case to the gentleman from Virginia, without any intention of personal reflection, but merely for the sake of the argument. Suppose any person were to say, that in his opinion, that gentleman was a rogue, or any other opinion casting a gross imputation, would the offence be less, because he had, instead of saying expressly he was a rogue, merely given it as his opinion? But if the gentleman insisted opinions could not be false, how would he get rid of the conclusion? This, Mr. B. conceived, might be sufficient to show that opinions may be false. Or, suppose a man were to say that, in his opinion, another was a traitor, ought he not to be punished as severely as if he had asserted the thing as a fact? The intention and wisdom of this law was, Mr. B. said, to caution men to be guarded in the publication of their opinions; since, by the expression of false opinions the minds of the people may be alienated from their Government. Suppose, for instance, that the gentleman from Virginia, or the member from Vermont, were to harangue the people, and say, in their opinion, this law is unconstitutional, and, therefore, not binding; that it ought not to be obeyed, but opposed by force; that it was made by men grasping after power, in defiance of the best interests of their country, in order to answer their own private views. Although this all might be mere matter of opinion, would it not come within the meaning of the law in question? No man on earth, Mr. B. said, would be more opposed to any measure for restraining the expression of honest and well-intentioned opinions, than himself. All that this law does, is to restrain false, malicious, and scandalous opinions. And will the gentleman from Virginia say, that the good of the country, or its liberty, will be promoted by indulging in an expression of what is false, scandalous, and malicious? Could this be liberty? He thought not. Every man, under this law, has the liberty of publishing what he pleases, taking the responsibility upon himself for the truth of what he writes. If he writes only what is true, he is not liable to punishment; if what is false, and that maliciously, it is only reasonable he should be punished for his falsehood and malice.

Suppose a common case, that a man were to say that, in his opinion, another was insolvent, a bankrupt, or a thief, would he not be answerable for this opinion? He certainly would. And ought a man to be permitted to slander the Government and not an individual? If the licentiousness of the press be allowed to go thus far, there will be nothing safe in character; it will always be in the power of a malicious person to rob the best men of their reputation with impunity. He presumed, therefore, that there was no ground for the distinction which the gentleman had attempted to draw.

The gentleman from Virginia had called upon the advocates of this resolution to show, that the member from Vermont could be punished a second time. Mr. B. did not know that the expulsion of a member from his seat could be considered in the light of a punishment. It was merely lopping off from the Legislative body a rotten member who contaminates the whole system. This was done without regard to the member himself, but with a view solely to the health and purity of the body of which he is a member. The constitution, however, left no doubt on the subject.

It is said that the member from Vermont has been re-elected, since his offences were known. He wished the gentleman from Virginia to say, how this fact was ascertained. At one moment he disputes the truth of the record, and says it cannot be considered as conclusive or creditable; yet, at another, he asserts a fact, upon the grounds of an extract of a letter, or a paragraph in a newspaper, of which this House could take no notice. The member was not re-elected to the present Congress, nor was any return made of his re-election to the next. Suppose he had a majority of votes at the late election, may it not hereafter appear that the election was carried by corruption or fraud, and that the member is not entitled to his seat?

It is suggested as a fact that the letter of the member from Vermont was written before the law passed; but the crime is not in the writing of the letter, but in the publication of it. There would have been no crime in scandalously writing, if he had not published the letter. The crime consisted not in the wickedness of his own heart, but the intention to corrupt others; the design to scatter firebrands through the community, with a view of exciting insurrections. If, therefore, he could have proved before the court and jury that he was not accessory to the publication after the passing of the law, he would doubtless have been acquitted; and though he did not think highly of the talents of that member, he supposed, if this had been the case, he would have had wit enough to have availed himself of it.

He would say a word with respect to the consequences of the crime upon a member. In England, a member of the House of Commons may be expelled for libellous matter. Such was the case with Mr. Wilkes; though in this case, the transaction was afterwards expunged from the journals, it was not done upon the principle that the original expulsion was not justifiable, but because he had been expelled for the same offence, after he had been re-elected to the same Parliament.

Believing, as he did, that the member in question disgraced the body to which at present he belonged, he hoped the resolution would be allowed to wash away the blot which marked and disfigured this branch of the Government.

Mr. Gallatin confessed that, though there were some reasons which diminished his surprise at seeing this resolution on the table, he did not expect to have heard it defended on the ground which the gentleman from Delaware had taken in his last speech. He did not expect that when a judgment, awarded under the sedition law, was under consideration, a gentleman should rise and tell the House that this law applies to the publication of opinions as well as to that of facts; and it was less to be expected from the very gentleman who introduced an amendment into that law, providing that the truth of a charge may be given in evidence. His present declaration amounted to this: that those words were introduced in order to deceive the public, since they could be of no real use.

The gentleman from Delaware had constantly confounded matter of fact expressed, not positively, but only as the belief of the writer, and opinions or deduction from facts. If a man, with a view of defaming the government, publishes that, in his opinion, according to his belief, a certain fact does exist, which is susceptible of proof, and is found to be false, the publication, by the law, is undoubtedly a libel. Thus, if a man says that, in his opinion, a man is a thief, a bankrupt, or insolvent, it is not less a libel, than if he said such a person was positively so, because these things are susceptible of proof. But, when we speak of opinion, as distinct from fact, we speak of opinions not susceptible of proof, because they depend upon reasoning, and different opinions may be deduced from the same facts; therefore, we say that such opinions are not matter for prosecution even under this law. But, the gentleman from Delaware says that all opinions are liable to be prosecuted, provided that they can be proved to be false, scandalous, and malicious. Proved false! And who are the judges? To be sure, twelve jurymen, who are sworn to give a verdict according to evidence. And how can the truth of things which cannot be proved by evidence, be determined by evidence? An opinion may be incorrect; and, if judged incorrect by the gentleman from Delaware, it is, according to his reasoning, to be deemed false, and liable to prosecution.

The House had been told by the gentleman from Delaware, that it has nothing to do with this trial, any further than the record; that it ought to be taken as complete evidence of the facts which it contains, which ought not to be disputed. He also tells the House that courts of justice are as independent of the Legislature, as the Legislature of them; that this House has nothing to do with the crime; that it is the conviction only which they ought to take cognizance of. If, said Mr. G., the gentleman from Delaware had not brought forward the resolution now under discussion, we would have had nothing to do with the business. We did not bring forward the subject; we have nothing to do with it. Mr. G. added, I believe I go too far when I say we have nothing to do with it; for I believe it was the duty of the House to have sent the Sergeant-at-Arms for the member from Vermont, and demanded him from confinement, that he might have attended to his duty in this House.

[The Speaker said this was not now the question.]

Mr. G. knew this was not the question; he mentioned this to show that the House might have had something to do with the business. But we did not, said he, bring the subject before the House; and, if we have nothing to do with the decision of a court, that decision has nothing to do with us. If the member from Vermont is to be expelled, he ought to be expelled, not because he has been convicted, but because he has committed a crime which renders him unfit to retain his seat. What is that crime? It is stated in the record: and, stated as it is, he did not believe it was sufficient to ground a motion of this kind upon. Whatever is contained in these charges, which is capable of proof, ought to be taken into consideration, but not what is mere matter of opinion. It was generally allowed, he believed, that the paragraphs from what is called Barlow's letter, are of this last description. With respect to the other part of the charge, viz: the extract from a letter said to be written by the member from Vermont himself, to which he meant to confine his observations, he would beg leave to state it. [Mr. G. read it.]

Mr. G. said, the whole of the paragraph was hypothetical; but, supposing that the member from Vermont had declared it as his opinion "that the efforts of the Executive power were not bent on the promotion of the comfort, the happiness, and the accommodation of the people," he wished to know whether this could be considered as a declaration of fact or opinion? There is, perhaps, no measure passed by Congress, which one or other may not think will be contrary to the happiness, comfort, and accommodation of the people of the United States. We had, said he, the other day, the question of a navy before us, the establishment of which many believe is necessary for the promotion of the comfort, happiness, and accommodation of the people; whereas, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, it will produce the very reverse. How is this question to be decided? And yet it is known that the President, in his writings and speaking, has recommended the establishment of a navy; and persons writing and speaking against this system, which they ought to do, if they believe the system inimical to the United States, might be charged with bringing the Congress and President into contempt. But, doubtless, this is a mere matter of opinion, and not susceptible of proof by evidence. In order to prove the truth of either assertion, you must bring forward a dissertation pro and con.

The next part of the paragraph, viz: "when I shall see every consideration of the public welfare swallowed up," &c. So far as relates to the first member of this sentence, he did not see how it could be proved. He was not of opinion that every consideration of the public welfare was swallowed up in a continual grasp for power; but he did believe that there was a constant disposition, not only in the Executive, but in many gentlemen on this floor, to increase the power of the Executive.

[The Speaker said, neither this remark, nor the observations on the Navy, were in order.]

Mr. G. said, that he always wished strictly to adhere to order, and in order to avoid committing any further mistake, he desired to be informed why it was out of order? Was the argument not in point; or was it the declaration of his own opinion, as he went along, that was out of order? He wished to know, as he meant to be guided by the rule adopted by the Chair.

[The Speaker repeated that the gentleman from Pennsylvania had been out of order.]

Mr. G. proceeded. With respect to that part of the paragraph which says, "when I shall see men of firmness, &c., discarded on their application for office," &c. This, said Mr. G., is, in some degree, matter of fact, and in some degree, matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact, so far as that men of firmness, experience, &c., have been turned out of office; and matter of opinion as to what is said of men of meanness being preferred in their place. I do believe, said Mr. G., that the first assertion is true; and what is here written is no more than an illustration of what has been declared upon this floor, that men of certain political opinions, however capable, experienced, firm, and virtuous they might be, were unfit to hold offices. This, Mr. G. said, was the only fact which could be brought under the law, and he thought it a fact capable of being proved to be true. Mr. G. adduced, as evidence of the fact, the cases of the late Commissioner of Revenue for the United States, and of the Commissioner of Loans for the State of New Hampshire, who, he said, it was evident, were turned out of office on account of their political opinions. And he read, in support of his assertion, the publication of the late Commissioner of Loans of New Hampshire.

Another part of this paragraph speaks of "an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp." This, said Mr. G., is mere matter of opinion. Take the member from Vermont to the house of the President, and he may call its furniture and appendages, ridiculous pomp; take a member from a different part of the country, and he may declare every thing decent and plain; but take an overgrown nobleman from Great Britain into the house of the President, and he would set down every thing he saw as mean and selfish.

But, I insist upon it, said Mr. G., that matter of opinion ought not to be subject to cognizance by this law. What, said he, is the nature of the crime now proposed to be punished by the expulsion of the member from Vermont? We are told that he has published and uttered false, seditious, and malicious writings; that though these writings may be only matter of opinion, yet if those opinions are false, they come under this law; and, also, that such writings have a tendency to stir up sedition and insurrection.

Mr. G. would not repeat what had been said as to the unconstitutionality of the law under which the member from Vermont had been convicted; but this alone would be a sufficient reason for him to vote against the present motion. But, supposing the law constitutional, is the crime an infamous one? Certainly not. It is a political crime, and will always be determined according to the situation of the parties at the time. For, said he, we may say as much as we please about the purity of our courts and juries, and of our own purity; decisions upon political questions will always be influenced by party spirit. It is we, said Mr. G., that have introduced this spirit into the courts; and having given them political questions to decide, it need not be expected that courts will be free from party prejudice any more than others. Therefore, the falsehood or maliciousness of a publication will be determined by the political opinion of the jury.

As to the manner in which the trial of the member from Vermont had been conducted, he knew nothing of it. He wished the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. Allen,) who, it seems, was present at the trial, would inform the House what proof was adduced to the court to show that the letter of Mr. Lyon was published by him after the sedition law passed. The letter is dated the 20th of June, the law was passed on the 6th of July, and the letter was published in Vermont on the 30th of July. He should be glad to know whether any evidence was adduced to show that Mr. Lyon did any thing relative to that publication, after writing the letter from Philadelphia on the 20th of June? If not, it will appear strange, indeed, that he should have been punished for an act done prior to the passage of the law under which he was convicted.

As to the manner in which the jury had been summoned, he supposed it had been done in the usual way. Without saying, however, that the jury was packed, which he did not believe, yet, if the towns out of which the jury was selected, were the towns which had never given Mr. Lyon but one or two votes at his election, it necessarily results that the jury were his political enemies; and being called upon to try him for a political offence, they would, of course, convict him.

Mr. G. said, the lateness of the hour would prevent him from detaining the House longer. He would only observe that, considering that the member from Vermont had been tried for a political offence, by a jury opposed to him in opinion, and upon a law passed on political ground at the last session; that he had been punished by an imprisonment of four months, and by a fine of one thousand dollars; that he had been deprived of his seat in the Legislature for three months: he thought it would have been better not to have proposed this resolution.

If this resolution should be adopted, it would follow, Mr. G. said, that every member who shall write any thing which is contrary to the opinion of a majority of this House, whether what he writes be founded in truth or not, will be liable to be expelled, in order to purify the House. Mr. G. thought persecution had followed the member from Vermont long enough. Every candid man must acknowledge that, if he has committed an offence, he has already been sufficiently punished by fine and imprisonment; to expel him from his seat, would carry with it an idea of persecution to the public, and to his constituents, that they would not be permitted to have a representative on this floor. He knew the circumstance of the member from Vermont's having been re-elected could not be introduced as an argument in his favor, but it might serve to show that what he had suffered for was no offence in the eyes of his constituents.

The question was put; when there appeared 49 yeas and 45 nays, as follows:

Yeas.—John Allen, Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard, Jonathan Brace, David Brooks, Christopher G. Champlin, John Chapman, James Cochran, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, John Dennis, William Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold, William B. 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, Josiah Parker, Thomas Pinckney, John Rutledge, jr., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Nathaniel Smith, Peleg Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, Robert Waln, and John Williams.

Nays.—George Baer, jr., Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Robert Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, George Dent, Joseph Eggleston, Lucas Elmendorph, William Findlay, John Fowler, Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Albert Gallatin, 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, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Thompson J. Skinner, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Sprigg, Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.

The Speaker, declaring the state of the vote, said, the constitution requiring two-thirds of the members present to expel a member, the resolution is not carried.

Saturday, February 23.

Mr. J. Parker, from the Navy Committee, reported a bill authorizing the augmentation of the Marine Corps; which was committed.

Monday, February 25.

Mr. Gregg presented two petitions praying for a repeal of the alien and sedition laws; the one from Cumberland County, signed by 270 persons; the other from Mifflin County, in Pennsylvania, signed by 314 persons.

Mr. Gallatin presented another petition of the same kind from Chester County, signed by 692 persons.

Mr. Livingston, one of a similar nature, signed by 2,500 citizens of New York.

Mr. Heister, one of the same kind, from 1,400 inhabitants of Berks County.

Mr. Bayard, one from the inhabitants of Newcastle County, State of Delaware, signed by between 700 and 800 persons.

Mr. Bayard and Mr. Brown each of them presented petitions to the same effect, signed by a small number of persons.

The whole were referred as usual.

On motion of Mr. Livingston, the petition presented some days ago from a number of alien Irishmen against the alien bill, was also referred—44 to 35.

Alien and Sedition Laws.

On motion of Mr. Goodrich, the House went into a Committee of the Whole on the report of a select committee, on the petitions praying for a repeal of the alien and sedition laws; which was read by the Chairman, as follows:

The committee to whom was referred the memorials of sundry inhabitants of the counties of Suffolk and Queen, in the State of New York; of Essex County, in New Jersey; of the counties of Philadelphia, York, Northampton, Mifflin, Dauphin, Washington, and Cumberland, in Pennsylvania; and of the county of Amelia, in Virginia; complaining of the act, entitled "An act concerning aliens," and other late acts of Congress, submit the following report:

[The report was a condensation of the arguments used in support of the two bills by the members who supported them, and was accompanied by three resolutions, offered for the adoption of the House.]

Impressed with these sentiments, the committee beg leave to report the following resolutions:

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to repeal the act passed the last session, entitled "An act concerning aliens"

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to repeal the act passed the last session, entitled "An act in addition to the act, entitled 'An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States.'"

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to repeal any of the laws respecting the Navy, Military Establishment, or revenue of the United States.

The question being upon agreeing to the first resolution declaring it to be inexpedient to repeal the alien law,

Mr. Gallatin rose and spoke as follows:

Mr. Chairman: This subject was so fully discussed during the last session, that I would not have addressed the committee on this occasion, did I not entertain some hope that the change of circumstances which has taken place since the laws were enacted, and above all, the sense which so many of our fellow-citizens have expressed on their propriety and constitutionality, may induce the House to reconsider their decision of last year.

Petitions, signed by near 18,000 freemen of this State alone, collected in a few counties and within a few weeks, have been laid on your table, earnestly requesting Congress to repeal laws, at best of a doubtful nature, and passed under an impression of danger which does not now seem to exist, of general alarm, which has nearly subsided.

Sixteen hundred of my immediate constituents have joined in these petitions, and their opinion on this subject being the same which I have uniformly entertained, I feel it forcibly to be my duty to examine the reasoning used by the select committee who have reported against the repeal of the obnoxious laws.

The act concerning aliens comes first under consideration. Two laws were passed during the last session of Congress on that subject, the one concerning aliens generally, and the other respecting alien enemies. No petition has been presented against the last, and it would remain in force even if the first should, agreeably to the request of the petitioners, be repealed. The petitions apply solely to those provisions of the first act which are not included in the last. The provision, therefore, complained of, and which is the subject-matter of the reference to the committee, is that which authorizes the President to remove out of the territory of the United States, "all such aliens, (being natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of a nation which is not at war with the United States, and which has not perpetrated, attempted, or threatened any invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States,) as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or shall have reasonable grounds to suspect are concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations against the Government thereof."