ELEVENTH CONGRESS.—FIRST SESSION. PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.[6]

ELEVENTH CONGRESS.—FIRST SESSION. PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.[6]

Monday, May 22, 1809.

This being the day appointed by law for the meeting of the present session, the following members of the House of Representatives appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats, to wit:

From New Hampshire—Daniel Blaisdell, John C. Chamberlain, William Hale, Nathaniel A. Haven, and James Wilson.

From Massachusetts—Ezekiel Bacon, William Baylies, Richard Cutts, William Ely, Gideon Gardner, Barzillai Gannett, Edward St. Loe Livermore, Benjamin Pickman, junior, Josiah Quincy, Ebenezer Seaver, William Stedman, Jabez Upham, Joseph B. Varnum, and Laban Wheaton.

From Rhode Island—Richard Jackson, junior, and Elisha R. Potter.

From Connecticut—Epaphroditus Champion, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Jonathan O. Mosely, Timothy Pitkin, junior, Lewis B. Sturges and Benjamin Tallmadge.

From Vermont—William Chamberlin, Martin Chittenden, Jonathan H. Hubbard, and Samuel Shaw.

From New York—James Emott, Jonathan Fisk, Barent Gardenier, Thomas R. Gold, Herman Knickerbacker, Robert Le Roy Livingston, John Nicholson, Peter B. Porter, Ebenezer Sage, Thomas Sammons, John Thompson, Uri Tracy, and Killian K. Van Rensselaer.

From New Jersey—Adam Boyd, James Cox, William Helms, Jacob Hufty, Thomas Newbold, and Henry Southard.

From Pennsylvania—William Anderson, David Bard, Robert Brown, William Crawford, William Findlay, Robert Jenkins, Aaron Lyle, William Milnor, John Porter, John Rea, Matthias Richards, John Ross, George Smith, Samuel Smith, and Robert Whitehill.

From Maryland—John Brown, John Campbell, Charles Goldsborough, Philip B. Key, Alexander McKim, John Montgomery, Nicholas R. Moore, Roger Nelson, and Archibald Van Horne.

From Virginia—Burwell Bassett, William A. Burwell, Matthew Clay, John Dawson, John W. Eppes, James Breckenridge, Thomas Gholson, junior, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, Joseph Lewis, junior, John Love, Thomas Newton, John Randolph, John Roane, Daniel Sheffey, John Smith, James Stephenson, and Jacob Swoope.

From North Carolina—Willis Alston, junior, James Cochran, Meshack Franklin, James Holland, Thomas Kenan, William Kennedy, Nathaniel Macon, Archibald McBride, Lemuel Sawyer, Richard Stanford, and John Stanley.

From South Carolina—Lemuel J. Alston, William Butler, Joseph Calhoun, Robert Marion, Thomas Moore, John Taylor, and Robert Witherspoon.

From Georgia—William W. Bibb, Howell Cobb, Dennis Smelt, and George M. Troup.

From Kentucky—Henry Crist, Joseph Desha, Benjamin Howard, Richard M. Johnson, Matthew Lyon, and Samuel McKee.

From Tennessee—Pleasant M. Miller, and John Rhea.

From Ohio—Jeremiah Morrow.

Election of Speaker, &c.

A quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole number, being present, the House proceeded, by ballot, to the choice of a Speaker.

Messrs. N. R. Moore, Cutts, and Porter, were appointed tellers of the votes.

Mr. N. R. Moore reported that the result of the ballot was, that there were—

For Joseph B. Varnum, 60; Nathaniel Macon, 36; Timothy Pitkin, junior, 20; Roger Nelson, 1; C. W. Goldsborough, 1; blank ballots, 2.

Mr. Varnum having 60 votes, it was submitted to the decision of the House by the tellers whether the blank ballots could be considered as votes; if not, there being but 118 votes, Mr. Varnum having 60, had a majority.

Mr. W. Alston conceived that there could be no doubt on the subject; that blank pieces of paper could not be considered as votes. He instanced the case which occurred in the famous balloting for President in the year 1801; at which time, after a number of ballotings, the State of Maryland, which was divided, gave in four blank votes, and thus decided the election.

Mr. Macon thought there could be no question on the subject; he also recollected the case of the Presidential election instanced by his colleague, and was of opinion that blank ballots could not be counted. He hoped that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Varnum) would be conducted to the Chair.

Mr. Randolph said this was no ordinary question which the House were about to determine, at the instance of his friend, (Mr. Macon,) in his opinion, in a very irregular manner; and Mr. R. said that he was certain, if his friend were not himself implicated in the question, he would have been one of the last men in the House to give such a decision against himself; but perhaps this was a peculiarity in his friend's character. Are we, gentlemen, (said Mr. R.,) to have a Speaker of the House of Representatives without any election? The committee have not reported that one of the persons voted for had a majority of the whole number of votes even; on the contrary, they have expressly reported that no one had a majority. And will the House consent in this manner to choose a Speaker to preside over this body, and perhaps eventually over the destinies of this nation?—for perchance the Speaker might become President of the United States. With respect to the precedent in the case of the election of the President of the United States, there was not, he said, the smallest analogy between the two cases. What was that case? It was on a question whether or not there should exist in this country a Government, that this device had been used, after some forty or fifty ballotings. In order to give a President to the United States, certain gentlemen had thought proper not to vote at all. But, said Mr. R., is time now so precious? Is the Secretary of the President of the United States knocking at the door for admittance? Is the enemy at the gate? Is there not time, I beseech you, gentlemen, to proceed in the regular mode to the election of our officers? Or, shall we, to avoid the trouble of writing a name twice, establish a precedent, which, if established, may put an end to this Government, which is founded on the principle that the majority shall govern? Mr. R. said he was more free in expressing his ideas, because he believed that a second ballot would not affect the result; and he put it to his friend (Mr. Macon) to say whether he himself would consent to take the Chair on the vote of a minority. He said he knew him too well; he would not consent to it. He conceived that there was no question before the House, that they had not elected their Speaker; and that it was their business to proceed to an election. They were certainly competent, he said, to elect the officers of their own body; and he hoped they would do it more majorum—after the fashion of their ancestors.

Mr. Stanford denied that the case which had been cited from the Presidential election in 1801 had any bearing on the present question. That was a case in which, a State being divided, one-half the representation voted blank, and left to the other half of the representation the right of voting for the State. As, at the same time, a gentleman now from Kentucky, (Mr. Lyon,) then the only representative present from Vermont, had, by his single vote, his colleague being absent, decided the vote of that State, he thought there was no analogy.

Mr. Randolph moved that the House proceed to ballot a second time for Speaker.

The Clerk having put the question, it was carried—67 to 43.

Mr. Macon said he certainly felt a sense of gratitude towards those who had voted for him; but he should be obliged to them to vote for some other person. He had rather remain on the floor of the House than be placed in the Chair. He had experienced the difficulties of the situation; besides, by an illness during last winter, his lungs had been so affected that he did not feel himself adequate to the task. As his declining the situation might be unexpected to some gentlemen, to accommodate them he would ask a postponement of the ballot for a time. He considered the office of Speaker of the House as one of the most honorable in the nation. Perhaps none was more so, after that of President and Vice President. Notwithstanding this, were there a probability of his being chosen, he must decline being placed in the Chair.

The House then proceeded to a further ballot; and Mr. N. R. Moore reported the result to be:

For Mr. Varnum, 65; Mr. Macon, 45; Mr. Pitkin, 6; Mr. Howard, 1; Mr. Nelson, 1, and Mr. Goldsborough, 1.

Mr. Varnum having a majority of votes was declared elected, and conducted to the Chair; whence he addressed the House as follows:

"Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:

"The continued manifestation of the national confidence in me, expressed by the Representatives of the people on this occasion, fills my heart with grateful sensibility. In obedience to the call of my country, I accept the office assigned me, and will endeavor to discharge the duties of it according to the best of my abilities, and agreeably to the wishes of the House."

The Speaker having been sworn, the oath to support the Constitution of the United States was by him administered to the members, by States.

The House then proceeded to the choice of a Clerk, by ballot. The votes having been counted, there were—

For Patrick Magruder, 63; Daniel Brent, 38; Nicholas B. Van Zandt, 14; William Lambert, 7, and Mr. Scott, 1.

Mr. Magruder having a majority of votes, was declared to be re-elected.

Mr. George Poindexter having appeared and produced his credentials, as the Delegate from the Mississippi Territory of the United States, the oath was administered to him by the Speaker.

Mr. Macon, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the President of the United States, reported that the committee had performed the service assigned to them, and that the President signified that he would make a communication to Congress, to-morrow at twelve o'clock.

A message was received from the Senate, informing the House that that body was formed, and ready to proceed to business; and that they had appointed a committee to wait on the President of the United States, in conjunction with such committee as the House should appoint, to inform him that they were ready to receive any communication he might have to make.

On motion of Mr. J. G. Jackson, a committee was appointed to act with the committee of the Senate. Messrs. Macon and Jackson were named as the committee.

The House, after hearing a memorial from Joseph Wheaton, stating his services, and praying a reinstatement in the office of Sergeant-at-Arms, from which he had been ejected, proceeded to the choice of a Sergeant-at-Arms. The whole number was 122, of which Thomas Dunn had 80. He was therefore declared to be re-elected.

On balloting for a Doorkeeper, the whole number of votes was 116, of which Thomas Claxton had 115. He was therefore declared re-elected.

On balloting for an Assistant Doorkeeper, there were—

For Benjamin Burch, 68; Jesse Edwards, 50.

Mr. Burch was therefore elected.

Mr. Dawson.—Before we adjourn, it will be necessary to fix on some hour at which we shall meet; that hour heretofore has been eleven; but, as the mornings are now long, as some of the reasons which caused the present sessions have probably ceased, as the select committees will have but little to do, and every gentleman must be anxious to end the session and return home, I would prefer an earlier hour, and therefore offer the following resolution:

Resolved, That unless otherwise directed, the hour of meeting during the present session shall be at ten o'clock in the forenoon.

Agreed to, 52 to 39; and the House adjourned.

Tuesday, May 23.

Several other members, to wit: From Massachusetts, Samuel Taggart; from New York, Vincent Matthews; from Pennsylvania, Daniel Heister; and from North Carolina, Joseph Pearson, appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats.

The Journal of yesterday's proceedings having been read—

Mr. Randolph moved to amend it, so as to record the precise state of the two ballots for a Speaker, with a view to a correct understanding of the case, if it should ever be drawn into precedent hereafter.

After a discussion of nearly two hours on the subject of the decision of yesterday, and the analogy betwixt it and the case of the Presidential election of 1801, Mr. Randolph's motion was agreed to—ayes 70.

President's Message.

The Message of the President of the United States was received, agreeably to the intimation given by the President yesterday to the committee appointed to wait on him. The Message having been read, was referred to a Committee of the whole House on the State of the Union, and 5,000 copies ordered to be printed of the Message, with the documents accompanying it. [See Senate proceedings of this date, ante page 117, for this Message.]

Thursday, May 25.

Swedish and Portuguese Vessels.

Mr. Newton offered a resolution to instruct the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures to inquire into and report on the expediency of permitting vessels of those nations with whom intercourse was permitted, to take cargoes, &c. He stated to the House that at present vessels of Sweden and Portugal, with whom intercourse is permitted, could not load and depart; and on this subject a letter was read from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures.

Mr. Burwell said there was another subject connected with the resolution, which ought to be taken into consideration. The proclamation of the President declares that on the 10th of June next, the operation of the non-intercourse law, as relates to Great Britain, shall cease. It went into operation on the 20th of this month. Of course there were many vessels on the coast which could not get in before the 20th of May. He submitted it to the Chairman of the Committee, whether it would not be proper at once to do away all restriction, because the policy of its existence had ceased in relation to Great Britain from the restoration of harmony with her; and if the goods on our coast were not permitted to be regularly landed, they might be smuggled in, and injure the revenue. He thought it would be proper to inquire into the expediency of doing away at once, by law, all interdiction of commerce.

Mr. Newton said he had no objection to act on the subject mentioned by his colleague, but he did not conceive it to be connected with the present motion.

Mr. Newton's motion having been agreed to, he immediately reported "a bill respecting the ships or vessels owned by citizens of foreign nations with whom commercial intercourse is permitted."—Twice read, and referred to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

Non-Intercourse Act.

Mr. Livermore said that he did not distinctly hear all that fell from the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Burwell,) but, from what he had heard, he apprehended that it was on a subject of great importance. There were many vessels on the coast, which, were they to enter our harbors, would fall within the description of the 4th, 5th, and 6th sections of the non-intercourse act. From the happy commencement of the settlement of our differences with Great Britain, he did not believe it was the design of any gentleman that the non-intercourse should be enforced in this particular. He therefore offered a resolution for suspending the act, as follows:

Resolved, That it is expedient that the operation of so much of the act, entitled "An act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies," as inhibits the importation of goods from Great Britain and its dependencies, be suspended until the tenth day of June next.

Friday, May 26.

Another member, to wit, Robert Weakley, from Tennessee, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

Vote of Approbation.

Mr. Randolph said that for the last eight years or thereabouts an alteration had taken place in the manner of doing business at the commencement of each session of Congress. He said he recollected when the first Congress under the administration of Mr. Jefferson had met at this place, instead of Congress being opened as heretofore by the President in person and by a speech, a note in these words had been received by the Speaker, enclosing a Message from the President:

"December 8, 1801.

"Sir: The circumstances under which we find ourselves at this place rendering inconvenient the mode heretofore practised, of making by personal address the first communications between the Legislative and Executive branches, I have adopted that by Message, as used on all subsequent occasions through the session. In doing this I have had a principal regard to the convenience of the Legislature, to the economy of their time, to their relief from the embarrassment of immediate answers on subjects not yet fully before them, and to the benefits thence resulting to the public affairs. Trusting that a procedure founded in these motives will meet their approbation, I beg leave through you, sir, to communicate the enclosed Message." &c.

It is unnecessary, I believe, (said Mr. R.,) to state that the hint contained in the Message that no answer was to be expected, was taken by the House; and from that day no answers have been given to the Message of the President at the opening of Congress. It would ill become me, sir, who so highly approved then, and who so highly approve now the change introduced by communicating to the two Houses by message instead of by speech, to say any thing that might imply a disapprobation of it. I like it, sir. To tell the truth, the style of communicating by speech was more in the style of the opening of the British Parliament by the king. I therefore like the mode of communication by message. But I am not so clear, though we were then half-right, that we were wholly right; though on this subject I do not mean to give a definite opinion. No man can turn over the journals of the first six Congresses of the United States without being sickened, fairly sickened, with the adulation often replied by the Houses of Congress to the President's communication. But nevertheless the answer to an address, although that answer might finally contain the most exceptionable passages, was in fact the greatest opportunity which the opposition to the measures of the administration had of canvassing and sifting its measures; and, in my mind, whatever goes to take away this opportunity, goes so far to narrow down the rights of the minority or opposition, commonly so called, and in fact to enlarge the rights of the majority and the administration party so called; and I beg leave not to be understood as speaking of the state of parties at this time, but of that which has always existed. This opportunity of discussion of the answer to an address, however exceptionable the address might be when it had received the last seasoning for the Presidential palate, did afford the best opportunity to take a review of the measures of the administration, to canvass them fully and fairly, without there being any question raised whether the gentlemen were in order or not; and I believe the time spent in canvassing the answer to a speech was at least as well spent as a great deal that we have expended since we discontinued the practice. I do not say that any answer is proper or ought to be given; but I do believe that when this House goes into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, it is for purposes a little more elevated than to dissect the Message of the President of the United States, or to strip it up and transfer it to select and standing committees. If that be the whole object of going into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, I can see no reason for having any such committee, nor why the Message should not be taken in the first instance, dissected by the knife of the operator most in the fashion of the day, and referred to different committees. And it has a tendency to cast a sort of ridicule on our proceedings, when this august assembly resolves itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and resolves that the Message shall be referred to such and such committees; and would induce shallow observers to believe that in fact there is little or no use for such a committee. But whatever may be my opinion on the subject of opening the two Houses by message, I do think that there are occasions, and that this is one, on which it behooves this assembly to express its opinion on the state of public affairs. I will not recall to your recollection, sir, because perhaps, and most probably it passed over your mind without making any impression, that some time during the last session of Congress, I stated that if the gentleman in whose hand the reins of Government were about to be placed did not even tolerably perform the task assigned to him, some allowance ought to be made for the state in which he found the nation. And, sir, when I see the situation of the country so materially changed for the better, am I and is this House to sit still and regard it but as newspaper talk of the day, and express no opinion on it? And what is our opinion? It is either in approbation or disapprobation of the conduct of the Executive. In my opinion it is due to the Executive that he have an expression of sentiment on this subject. In the part of the country in which I live, dinners have been given, feasts have been held, and the song and toast have passed round in commemoration of the event: and is this House to be insensible, and to leave the President of the United States in ignorance or doubt whether his conduct has or has not received the sanction of their approbation? Or is he to get that information from inofficial sources? I hope not. I hope he will get it from ourselves. I therefore move you—

"That the promptitude and frankness with which the President of the United States has met the overtures of the Government of Great Britain, towards the restoration of harmony and free commercial intercourse between the two nations, meets the approbation of this House."

Mr. Findlay said that this proposition contemplated a novelty in the legislative proceeding of this country. Where would it end if the House were now to make a solemn resolution approving of the conduct of the President? The answer returned to the speech of the King in monarchical Governments committed the House making it to all that was contained in it. The practice in this country had been long considered an evil; indeed, he thought he could show by the journals one instance in which the discussion of a single section in an answer occupied the House fourteen or fifteen days. It was a practice, too, which introduced at the very opening of the session all that irritation that commonly arose in the course of a session. Mr. F. said he supposed there was not a member in the House but did approve of the President's exercise of the authority vested in him. He presumed that they approved equally also of the same offer heretofore made to the Court of London. If the House were to approbate the conduct of one President, they must approbate that of others; and the conduct of the different administrations under the constitution might be brought into view. Mr. F. was totally against this motion, or any other of the kind.

Mr. Dana said that at the present time he should certainly not be for adopting the resolution. The adopting it at this time would certainly not comport with the object professed by the mover, which he had understood to be, to present a question on which there might be a general view of the conduct of the Executive in relation to the object in question. If the object was to bring up the question in a regular form, that gentlemen might express themselves fully in relation to our affairs, it was very proper that this subject should be discussed in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. For himself, Mr. D. said that he thought the mode of answering speeches might do very well in such a Government as this, and whatever might be said of economy of time, by an attention to the actual expense, it would be found that in fact very little time was lost by it. At the last session of Congress a committee had reported a resolution to which there was but two dissentients; the discussion occupied nearly three weeks. All agreed as to the result, but gentlemen combated each other's arguments. And undoubtedly, Mr. D. said, the rapidity with which the Message was shot through a Committee of the Whole, was rather a farcical piece of business—and, indeed, it was not without some little surprise that, when he had come to the House this morning, he found the whole subject disposed of.

Mr. W. Alston said, that when a resolution like the one proposed was presented to him, the substance of which met his approbation, if he was compelled to vote directly upon it, he would rather vote for it than against it. But if it were the object to bring before the House a discussion upon the Message of the President, and to return an answer to his Excellency's most gracious Message, he should certainly be opposed to it. If ever there had been one particular part of the conduct of the former administration which had met the approbation of the Republicans of this country generally, it was the discontinuance of this practice. The result of the alteration was, that although more was done during the sessions of the Republican Congresses, they terminated them three or four weeks sooner than ever had been done before. As to the opportunity which the answers afforded for debate, could any one say that sufficient latitude had not been taken in debate? Had not gentlemen even called others by name, and introduced every subject on any question? Mr. A. said he was pleased with what had been done, and he could not vote that he was not pleased; but he was certainly opposed to entering into a full discussion, at the opening of each session, of every thing which was to come under the consideration of the House. If they were to take up this resolution, they might as well take some abstract act of Mr. Adams's, he being still living, and discuss his political life. Washington, at least he hoped, having departed from us, would be permitted to rest in peace.

Mr. Bacon said that with other gentlemen, he could not but regret that this proposition had been brought forward. If he were brought to vote upon it, he need not tell the House that he should cordially vote for it; but it was really one of the last observations which he had expected to have heard from any gentleman that we wanted field for debate. He had thought that the grievance was the other way; that the cause of complaint was, that they consumed too much time in debate. He said he should certainly vote for the resolution, were it brought to a direct vote; but, for the purpose of placing before the House the view of the subject which he entertained, he should take the liberty to move an amendment to it, and then move to refer it to a Committee of the Whole. The amendment was in these words, proposed to be added to the motion:—"And furnishes an additional proof of the spirit of accommodation on the part of the Government of the United States, which has at no time been intermitted."

Mr. J. G. Jackson moved that the whole subject be postponed indefinitely.

Mr. Randolph said that as an indefinite postponement was considered as tantamount to a rejection—for it prevents a renewal of the subject during the session, and a rejection does nothing more, as the House had heretofore had a woful experience in the case of certain very pertinacious petitioners; and, as he was afraid, they would again have from a certain body of petitioners, who, he presumed, had not entirely given up their hopes of quartering themselves on the public property—an indefinite postponement, then, being equivalent to a rejection, he certainly was opposed to the rejection of his own motion. He could not have believed that this motion would have been rejected by the House, though he said he had certainly calculated on its being opposed by those who condemned the promptitude and frankness with which the President had proceeded to restore, as far as depended on him, the intercourse between the two nations. It is this part of the conduct of the President of the United States, said Mr. R., on which I mean to give an opinion—"By the President of the United States, a proclamation"—and in that proclamation, in my opinion, he has deserved well of his country. I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Findlay,) if he is near enough to hear me in this vast room, when have I proposed bringing in review the whole measures of former administration; when have I proposed an answer to an address to the two Houses? I have proposed no such thing, sir, although my motion is nearly tantamount to it; because it so happens that the only act of which we have any knowledge, except the laying up the gunboats in dry dock, which I also most cordially approbate, is this very thing. Now, I have not the slightest objection, if the gentleman chooses, that the honorable and worthy gentleman from Massachusetts should insist on a venire on the conduct of any former President of the United States, but I beg myself to be excused from serving on it. As an unqualified juror, I choose to except myself; for, really, as to one of those Presidents, his career does not yet seem to be finished. It would seem as if he meditated another batch of midnight judges, and another midnight retreat from the Capital. I do, therefore, except to myself as a juror as to him or any other President. De mortuis nil nisi bonum. Agreed, sir. Let the good that men do live after them, and the evil be interred in their graves. But, I would ask the gentleman from Connecticut, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, also, if this be one of their abstract propositions? How abstract, I pray you? Or, if it be one of those unmeaning propositions, the discussion of which could answer no good to this House? It would be idle in us now to be trying Mr. Adams on the merits of the sedition law, the eight per cent. loans, or any other such act. It would answer no purpose; and it would be equally idle and futile to pass any opinion on the merits or demerits of the first four or last four years of the late administration, for this plain reason, the question bolts upon you, cui bono? What earthly good can result from it? But is that the case in relation to the Executive, on whose future dispositions rest the best interests of this nation? Is that a mere idle discussion? And is it come to this? Is this House so sunk in the Executive opinion, (I trust not, sir; I abhor the idea,) that its approbation of a great course of national policy is to pass for nothing; is it to have no influence on the conduct of the Executive of the United States? This, sir, is taking higher doctrine than was ever advanced by those who wished to see the President open Parliament by a speech from the throne. It is taking higher ground than the Minister of that country from which the precedent was derived. The weight of the House of Commons is felt too sensibly there for their inclinations not to be sounded by motions from their Chancellor of the Exchequer, and their members of opposition, in relation to the great course of foreign affairs. And, sir, shall we now be told that it is a mere matter of moonshine, a thing of no moment, whether this House really does approve the conduct of the Administration of the Government of the United States, or disapproves it? Praise, in my opinion, properly and not prodigally bestowed, is one of the best resources of a nation. Why is this House called upon, and I am sorry to say it is, too often, and too lightly, to give its sanction to the conduct of individuals in the public service, if its approbation is estimated so trivially? No, sir; this is a great question which I have presented to you, and gentlemen may hamper it with as many amendments as they please; they cannot keep the question out of sight. Some may be against it because they are for it; some because it does harm, and some because it does no good. The question cannot be kept out of sight; it has been presented to the American people and they have decided it, decide you how you may.

With respect to the gentleman's amendment, I need not tell him, I presume, that I shall vote most pointedly against it, because, in my opinion, it does not contain the truth. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Bacon) will be among the last of the members of this House to attribute to me an improper sentiment in regard to him, when I say that it does not contain the truth. If the gentleman from Massachusetts chooses, in imitation of another Eastern nation—not those who tried their Kings after they were entombed, but those who consigned to one common grave the living and the dead; if he be willing to attach the sound, healthy body of the present Administration—healthy so far, and, I trust, fortifying itself against contagions—to the dead corpse of the last, let him. He shall not have my assistance in doing it; nor have I the least desire to draw a marked distinction between the two Administrations. The gentleman will hardly suspect that I am seeking favor at court. My object is plain. It is to say to the President that, in issuing that proclamation, he has acted wisely, and we approve of it. I know, sir, that there are men who condemn the conduct of the President in issuing the proclamation; and why? They say he was precipitate. Where was the necessity, they will tell you, of declaring that the Orders in Council will have been withdrawn? This is the language of objection. There is a difference of opinion subsisting in this country on these two points. There are men who condemn this proclamation, and men who condemn the construction given by the Executive to the non-intercourse law. I approve both. I wish the President of the United States to have the approving sentiment of this House, and to have that approbation as a guide to his future conduct; and I put it to the gentleman from Massachusetts whether it be fair to mingle it with the old, stale, refuse stuff of the embargo? No, sir; let him not put his new wine into old bottles. There is a difference of opinion in this country. The President of the United States stands condemned by men in this nation, and, as I believe, in this House, for having issued that proclamation, and put that construction on the non-intercourse law. I wish to see by how many he is thus condemned. I do not wish to see the question shirked—to see it blinked. If there be a majority of the House, as I believe there is, in favor of the conduct of the President, I wish him to have that approbation expressed as a guide to his future, and a support to his present conduct. It is due to him. Sir, have I moved you a nauseous, sickening resolution, stuffed with adulation? Nothing like it; but, a resolution that the promptitude and frankness with which the President of the United States has met the overtures of the British Government towards a restoration of the ancient state of things between the two countries—the state prior to the memorable non-importation act of 1806—meets the approbation of this House. Either it does, or it does not. If it does, let us say so. If it does not, let us say so. If gentlemen think this House never ought to express an opinion, but leave the President to grope in the dark as to our views, or get them through inofficial channels, I presume the previous question will be taken, or motion made that the resolution lie upon the table. The gentleman from Pennsylvania says, shall we go back, and approve of what he conceives to be similar conduct of the late President of the United States in relation to the embargo? I hope not, sir. But if a majority of this House choose to do so, let them. I shall say no. But, why mingle two subjects together, on which there does exist—and I am afraid it will leak out on this very vote of indefinite postponement—so very material a difference of opinion in different parts of the House? For example: I do not think of the offer about the embargo as the gentlemen from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania think; and I think it probable that those two gentlemen do not think of this proclamation and the construction given to the non-intercourse law, as I think. And why should we make a sort of hotch-potch of two subjects, on which we do not think alike, for the purpose of getting us all united against both? It is an old adage, and a very homely one, perhaps too much so for the delicate ears of this assembly, that if you put one addled egg into a pudding, you may add fresh ones, ad infinitum, but you can never sweeten it. And, sir, I defy the gentleman from Massachusetts, with all his political cookery, by pouring out of the jar of our present situation into the old mess, to sweeten it.

In the year 1806, we passed that miserable old non-importation act, which last session we repealed; and really, sir, we got rid of it with an adroitness which pleased me exceedingly. Never was an obnoxious measure more handsomely smothered by its avowed friends. Gentlemen said it was merged in the non-intercourse act, and therefore, as a matter of indifference, they would repeal it; and when the non-intercourse act shall expire by its own limitation, at the end of this session, or be suspended by the President's proclamation, as it is in relation to Great Britain, there is an end of both; and thus, the old measure, the old, original sin to which we owe our first difficulties, was as much gotten rid of as if a majority of this House had declared it an unwise measure, and therefore repealed it. I do recollect to have heard one gentleman (Mr. Eppes) say, that unless the section repealing this law were stricken out, he should be compelled to vote against the bill. He conjured the House to cling to the old non-importation act as the last vestige and symbol of resistance to British oppression; but the House was deaf to his call, and the non-importation act was plunged beneath the wave, never, I trust, to rise again. When, therefore, the late President of the United States made an offer to Great Britain to suspend the embargo as to her, provided she would withdraw her Orders in Council, I will suppose that she had accepted that offer. In what situation would she have stood in relation to the United States? Her fine cloths, her leather, her watches, her this and her that, would have been prohibited admittance into this country under the old non-importation act of 1806, which would have been in force. That act, in point of fact, had no operation on her adversary. Her ships would have been prohibited the use of our waters, while the ships of war of her enemy were admitted. Did that make no difference? That, sir, would have been the situation of the two countries, provided she had accepted the offer to suspend the embargo as to herself—the old non-importation act in operation, her ships of war excluded, and her rival's admitted. I pray you, was not that the condition of the country when Mr. Rose arrived? Was there not some difficulty, under the proclamation, in the admission of the Statira frigate, bearing that Minister into our waters? And were not French ships of war then, and have they not since been riding quietly at Annapolis, Norfolk, and elsewhere? Has not, in fact, the gallant Captain Decatur taken our own seamen out of one of them? And yet, sir, the offer at that time made by us has been identified with the negotiation between Mr. Secretary Smith and Mr. Erskine. What then was her situation? The non-importation act in force, her ships excluded and those of France admitted, and nothing in force in relation to France except the embargo. What is now the situation of affairs? Trade with her is restored to the same situation, in point of fact, in which it stood when Congress met here in 1805 and 1806—at the memorable first session of the ninth Congress, which generated the old non-importation act of 1806. Her ships of war are admitted into our waters, her trade is freed from embarrassment, while the ships of her adversary are excluded and the trade between us and her adversary forbidden by law. While, therefore, I am ready and willing to approve the conduct of the present Administration, it is not because I conceive that they have effected any thing so very difficult—that they have obtained any such mighty concession—but, because they have done their duty. Yes, sir; we all recollect that the objections made to the treaty negotiated by Mr. Monroe, and Mr. Pinkney, on two great leading accounts: 1st. That it contained no express provision against the impressment of seamen. Is there any provision now made? No, sir. The next objection to the treaty was the note attached to it by Lords Holland and Auckland. What, sir, did gentlemen on this floor say was the purport of this note? That its object was to put us in a state of amity in respect to Great Britain, at the expense of the risk of collision with France. On account of this note, the treaty and the treaty-makers have been politically damned. And yet, we are now, in point of fact, in that very situation, in relation to the two nations, in which it was said that the British Commissioners, by the note, aimed to place us, and which was a sufficient reason, according to the arguments of gentlemen, for rejecting the treaty. The note was a sort of lien, gentlemen said, that would put us in a state of hostility with regard to France, and amity with regard to England. We refused to give our bond, for such it was represented (however unjustly) to be, to be sure, sir; but we have paid the money. We have done the very thing which gentlemen say the note aimed to induce us to do. We have put ourselves in a situation endangering collision with France, and almost insuring amity with England. We have destroyed the old non-importation act. The non-intercourse act is suspended as to her. Trade is again free. There is nothing now to prohibit her ships, whether for commerce or war, from coming into our waters, whilst our trade with France is completely cut off, and her ships excluded from our waters. I cannot too often call the attention of the House to this fact, on which I am compelled to dwell and dilate to get rid of this merciless motion, which kills while it professes to cure. When Mr. Rose came into this country, French ships of war were freely admitted; English ships were excluded.

As "the physician, in spite of himself," says in one of Moliere's best comedies, on a changé tout cela—the thing is wholly reversed. We are likely to be on good terms with England, maugre the best exertions of some of our politicians. Trade with Great Britain is unshackled, her ships are admitted, trade with France is forbidden; and French ships excluded, as far as it can be done by paper. Now, in the name of common sense, what more could Mr. Canning himself want, than to produce this very striking and sudden change in the relations between the two countries? For a long time previous, it was the ships of England that were excluded, while those of her adversaries were admitted. And we know that we could not have touched her in a more jealous point than in her navy. Things are now reversed—we have dexterously shuffled the non-importation act out of the pack, renewed trade with her, admitted her ships, and excluded those of France. And what, I ask this House, has the British Minister given us in requital for this change of our position in relation to him and his rival belligerent? The revocation of the Orders in Council—this is the mighty boon. For, with respect to his offer in relation to satisfaction for the attack on the Chesapeake, he made that offer to Mr. Monroe spontaneously, on the spur of the occasion, and there is not a doubt in my mind but that we had nothing to do but to receive it at that time, provided the instructions of our Minister had permitted him to receive it; but, perchance, sir, if he had received it, we might have been at this day discussing his message, and not the message of another President. All that Mr. Canning has given this country is a reiteration of his offer to make reparation for the affair of the Chesapeake, and his withdrawal of the Orders in Council; and to what did they amount? So soon as you, by your own law, cut off your trade with France, he agrees to revoke the orders interfering with it. Mr. Canning might as well have withdrawn blank paper. They had nothing left to operate upon. The body upon which they were to operate was destroyed by our own act, to wit, the trade of France. And, sir, while I compliment the present state of things, and the conduct on the part of our Government which has led to it, I cannot say that we have greatly overreached Mr. Canning in this bargain, in making an exchange of the old non-importation act with the admission of English, and exclusion of French ships and trade, for the Orders in Council. Mr. Canning obtained as good a bargain out of us as he could have expected to obtain; and those gentlemen who speak of his having heretofore had it in his power to have done the same, did not take into calculation the material difference between the situation in which we now stand, and the situation in which we before stood—to say nothing at all of Great Britain's having taken a stand against the embargo, having declared that she had nothing to offer in exchange for it; that we might keep it as long as we pleased. If she had accepted our offer, as I before stated, the old non-importation law would have been in operation, her ships of war would have been excluded, whilst those of France were admitted. Now, the non-importation act is not in force, her ships are permitted to enter our waters, and those of France excluded. And what has this sarcastic Minister of Great Britain given us in exchange? The Orders in Council, which had completely ceased to operate by the cutting off of the trade between us and France. Let me state this argument in a shape most favorable to ourselves, and least so to the British Government. I speak as to argument; for, as to friendship between nations, there is no friendship in trade. We ought to get the best bargain out of them that we could, and it was the duty of their Minister to get the best out of us. Let us throw out of view the exclusion of French ships and French commerce. Is the removal of the non-importation act, and the admission of British vessels, nothing? What has Mr. Canning given you in return? The Orders in Council—and what were they worth to him? Not a straw.

Mr. Holland said he had no doubt that the President had done his duty in the case referred to in the proposition under consideration; and as he had entertained no doubt but the President would, on this and every other occasion, do his duty, he said he felt no excessive joy on the occasion. It was only an ordinary act of duty well performed, and therefore he was not willing to distinguish it from those numerous acts which he trusted would be, as they had heretofore been performed, by the Executive. Were he the author of the proposition, he should have many scruples as to the propriety of offering such a one. Were the precedent to be set by the passage of this resolution, the House might hereafter witness a struggle on the floor to determine who should be first to come forward with a proposition expressive of approbation. The human mind might be so operated upon that the Executive might feel himself under an obligation to promote the person bringing forward such a motion. I, said Mr. H., would be one of the last to introduce such a motion were I a friend to the President; and if I were not a friend to the President, I would not bring it forward, lest it should be thought that I was courting favor in his eyes. But why, sir, should this House give an expression of approbation of the President? Because, we are told, it may be a guide to him hereafter. Let this House be careful how it acts, and attend to its own duties. The President does not stand in need of this kind of support. I never will step forward as a member of this House, to excite him to his duty by a vote of this kind. I believe he possesses an attachment to his duty sufficient to induce him to perform it. I believe that the voice of the people of the United States is such, in relation to the present and late President, that they believe they were well disposed to do their duty, and that they have done their duty; but it does not follow that we ought to express our approbation as to any particular act. The gentleman himself says that the President has only done his duty. Is it not surprising, then, that we are called upon to give him the approbation of this House? What would be inferred from this procedure? Why, that it is so seldom our Presidents have done their duty, that, in the very first instance in which they have done it, the House of Representatives had discovered and applauded it. If the gentleman thinks so, I wholly disagree with him. If our officers do their duty properly, they will receive the thanks of the nation; and where is the propriety of singling out for approbation or disapprobation this particular act? I see none. It is asked, will you leave the President of the United States to grope in the dark, and not let him know whether he has received our approbation or not? And is the President to judge from the thanks of the House that he has done his duty? How is he to know that they have expressed their sense of his conduct from proper motives? Would he not be right to suspect those who vote for, and more especially those who bring forward such a proposition, of improper motives? He would be left still worse to grope in the dark. It has been said that former Presidents have been deceived in consequence of votes of approbation; and the same would again occur. On every ground I am opposed to the passing such resolutions on principle, and shall therefore vote for indefinite postponement. It was indefinitely postponed.

Saturday, May 27.

Sedition Law.

Mr. Stanford said he had risen to offer a resolution, which he wanted to have offered immediately after that which had been offered by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Randolph,) and adopted by the House, on the subject of prosecutions for libel at common law; but not being able to get the floor, he would now beg leave to move his by way of instruction to the same committee. That committee, Mr. S. said, had been charged with an inquiry into what prosecutions for libel at common law had been instituted in the courts of the United States, which he hoped the committee would duly make, and lay before the House. Thus the House would see what system of persecution, if any, had been resorted to, and cherished by the late Administration or its friends, in any part of the United States; and he equally hoped some remedy might be devised at this time, the beginning of a new Administration, to obviate any like occurrence in future. But, said Mr. S., let it not be that any thing be done partially. While we are about to bring to our view all the cases of prosecution for libel under the common law, we are not likely to know any thing about prosecutions for libel which had occurred under the sedition law, and that too under a different Administration. We have not authorized any such inquiry. That abuses have occurred under both, is but too probable, and I think it will be liberal, as it is just and fair, to make the inquiry more general on the subject. If any citizen has been oppressed or injured by such prosecutions, let it be known, and let justice be done him; even now, if with propriety any way can be devised to do so. Inquiry, however, is all that is asked for the present.

It may be perceived, said Mr. S., and if not, I wish it should be understood when I speak of justice being done, that I speak with rather peculiar reference to a gentleman of this House, who has been a principal sufferer under the well-known sedition law. I think it never too late to do justice, under whatever circumstances or motives of policy it may have been withheld for a time. I trust no gentleman will, upon this occasion, suspect me of a design to excite any party feelings. It certainly is not my wish, whatever may be the effect. The resolution I am about to offer is not so framed, nor would it necessarily involve the question of the constitutionality of the law. I feel persuaded, therefore, that the different gentlemen of the House may, from a spirit of liberality and fair concession, indulge the inquiry asked for.

But, sir, said he, since the other inquiry has been gone into, it cannot be unfair to say that the majority of the House owe it to themselves to extend the inquiry, as well to cases of prosecution under the sedition law, as to those under the common law; and I shall be permitted to say also, they owe it as well to the feelings and sufferings of the gentleman to whom I have alluded. Whatever may be the aspect of political opinions and parties now, it is known to you, sir, and a few others on this floor, that to him much is due for the present ascendency of the majority; perhaps to no one more, to the extent of his sphere of action and influence. In the famous contested election for President in this House, eight or nine years ago, he gave the vote of a State, which sufficed to decide the contest; and more especially so, if the blank votes of the State of Maryland could have rendered that vote doubtful. But, however such considerations may or may not avail, nothing is more clear to me than that the inquiry should be indulged on the most liberal principles.

Resolved, That the committee, appointed to inquire into what prosecutions for libels at common law have been instituted before the courts of the United States, be instructed to inquire what prosecutions for libels have been instituted before the courts of the United States under the second section of the act entitled "An act in addition to an act, entitled 'An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,'" passed the 14th day of July, 1798, and the expediency of remunerating the sufferers under such prosecutions.

Mr. Sawyer moved to amend the resolution by adding, at the end of it, the words "and that the committee also inquire whether any and what private compensation has been made to such suffering persons."

Mr. Macon said he did not know how the committee could go about to make such an inquiry as that contemplated by the amendment. The gentleman must be well satisfied that the Government could not rightfully inquire into transactions between individuals.

Mr. Dana said that he had no particular objection to meet this inquiry. As to the disclosure of facts as to the reimbursement by individual contribution, it might be amusing, if this House had authority to make it. He said he should like to know who contributed to the relief of James Thompson Callender, when he was prosecuted; but he had some doubt whether it was proper to enter into any inquiry or whether it was proper to pass the resolution pointing to the remuneration of sufferers under the sedition law. He should have supposed that it might be proper to leave it at large for the committee to report. He said he had certainly no objection to inquire, though he conceived that prosecutions at common law and under the sedition law were essentially different; because, supposing the Congress of the United States to pass such a law, the courts of the United States might take cognizance of it; but, without such a law, it did not belong to the judiciary to extend its care to the protection of the Government from slander. Such was the decision of Judge Chase, (said Mr. D.,) who decided that the court had no jurisdiction at common law in suits for libel; and the Supreme Court of the United States never did decide the question. The strong contrast is this: that while there was a description of men who said that no prosecution could be had at common law for libel, nor under the statute which modified the common law so as to allow the truth to be given in evidence—who, while they excited indignation against this statute, should afterwards undertake to institute prosecutions at common law where there was no limitation in favor of the defendant. There is this difference in the cases: that we find practice precisely different from professions. I do not say that the heads of departments were instrumental in instituting these prosecutions; but it marks some of the subordinate men who were active in making professions. I am very willing that the proposed inquiry should be made; but I cannot see the propriety of our undertaking to give any opinion as to remunerating those who suffered.

Mr. Stanford said:—Mr. Speaker, I would ask if my colleague's motion of amendment can be in order? It is no concern of this House, or of the Government, what private contributions may have been made to the gentleman from Kentucky; and, if it was, the inquiry is impossible. [The Speaker said, not being able to enter into the views of the mover of the amendment, he considered the motion in order.] Then, said Mr. S., if my colleague is anxious to know what he could not otherwise know, I will tell him I had contributed a small sum to the gentleman from Kentucky, as a sufferer in what was then considered a common cause; but, upon his return to his seat in the House, he could not brook the idea of such a contribution, and returned the amount to myself I know, and to others I believe. My colleague would do well to tell us how much he contributed. It was well known contributions were made in a quarter not far from him; and if he did not, I am well persuaded it was not for the want of sympathy on his part, or extreme zeal in the democratic cause; for I am confident I have seen as much or more seditious matter from under his pen, than I ever saw from under that of the gentleman from Kentucky. Be that, however, as it may, I am for one willing, if no constitutional difficulty can be shown, to remunerate the sufferers—at least to take such money out of the treasury, and restore it to its original, rightful owners; and if it cannot be consistently done, why the inquiry can do no harm. But, indeed, we have great examples in the case before us. Did not the late President, when he came into place, refuse to let such money come into the treasury in the case of the worthless Callender? As the proper authority, he thrust it from him as unworthy the coffers of his country; and did not his doing so meet general approbation? I confess it met mine most cordially, and I believe it did that of my colleague also. Have we not, moreover, the best recorded proof that the present President holds similar opinions on this subject? His splendid opposition to the sedition law is the proof to which I allude, and is, in my mind, conclusive on this subject. But if it were not, where is the impropriety of an inquiry? The House will be better able to decide when the whole matter shall come fairly before them.

Mr. Quincy said this appeared to be a proposition to aid a single individual; and, by the amendment, gentlemen who had aided that individual were anxious to prevent him from gaining more than he had paid. It was a kind of application to the House to repay to those persons who relieved the sufferers under the sedition act, the sums which they had paid. If this were the object, Mr. Q. suggested whether it would not be proper for them to come forward and lay their claim in the ordinary form before the House.

Mr. Sawyer said he was, as he always had been, willing to contribute his mite to the relief of the sufferers; but he did not wish to see them remunerated from the public treasury.

Mr. Lyon.—I have for some time been in suspense whether I ought, or ought not to make any observations on the subject before the House; delicacy on the one hand bids me be silent, while a duty I owe to myself, to my family, and to the nation, requires (that since my particular case has been alluded to) the members of this House and the public should be made acquainted with many of the circumstances of that case, which have either never come to their knowledge, or have long been buried up among the consumed heap of political occurrences, disputations and publications of these days. Besides, sir, I have it in my power to throw much light on the subject of the inquiry wished for, by the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. Sawyer,) who has proposed the amendment under consideration, and I will assure the gentleman that I shall not be backward in doing so. It is true, sir, that I was unjustly condemned to pay a fine of one thousand dollars and to suffer an ignominious imprisonment of four months in a loathsome dungeon—the common receptacle of felons, runaway negroes, or the vilest malefactors—and this when I was the Representative of the people of Vermont in this House of Congress. It cannot be said there was no other room in the prison, there were rooms enough; yes, sir, one of my judges during my imprisonment, found another room in the same jail to be imprisoned for debt in, until he gave bonds for the liberty of the yard. To heighten the picture exhibited by official tyranny, and to add to the cruel vexation of this transaction, I was carried out of the county in which I lived, fifty miles from my family, kept six weeks without fire in the months of October and November, nearly the whole of which time the northwest wind had free admittance into the dungeon, through the same aperture that admitted the light of heaven into that dreary cell. And let it be asked, in these days of the mild reign of republicanism, for what crime was all this extraordinary, this ignominious punishment inflicted?

I hold a copy of the indictment in my hand, which includes the charge against me. I will not trouble the House with a recital of the technical jargon and tedious repetition of words, of course, which constitute the bulk of such instruments. No, sir, but I will read the identical words of the charge, which says, that on the 20th of June, 1798, Matthew Lyon wrote a letter to Alden Spooner of Windsor, Vermont, in which he said, "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 whenever I shall, on the part of the Executive, see every consideration of the public welfare swallowed up in a continual grasp for power, in an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and 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 in their application for offices 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."

This is the whole of my crime, and what do those words amount to. Who is here that hears these words, but what approves the sentiment they contain? What do I say in these words, other, or more, or less, than that when the Executive is doing right, I will support him—when doing wrong I will not be his humble advocate? This ought to be the creed of every member who enters these walls. Was there to be an oath or abjuration added to the constitutional oath to be taken by the members of this House, can any person who hears me, devise a better, or one more proper? Could any person who really thought Mr. Adams quite clear from all those improprieties, as merely possible from the nature of man, mentioned in my letter, have thought of my libelling the President by this declaration? I presume not, sir. Yet this, my crime, received one of the condemnations which you are called upon by this motion to constitute an inquiry into—an inquiry I cannot persuade myself will be refused. The letter, sir, was an answer to a violent invective against me, published in the same paper a short time before, in which besides a number of other charges against me, it was imputed to me as a crime that I acted in opposition to the Executive.

I did not begin the altercation. A person who was a friend to the Adams Administration, in the act of libelling me, (one of the constituted authorities,) ushered the Executive into his performance. My character, ever dearer to me than life, was concerned. I deigned to answer him, after expostulating with him on my right as one of the constituted authorities of the nation to exercise my own judgment in my official conduct, and showing that my merely differing with the Executive proved no more than that the Executive differed with me. I incidentally proceeded in the words for which I was indicted, the very words I just now read. I was charged with neither more nor less as coming from my pen. As if to outrage every principle of law and every sentiment of decency and propriety, this indictment, founded on the sedition law passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, charges me with having in Philadelphia on the 20th of June prior, written a letter to Alden Spooner of Vermont, which contained those words I have been reciting. My letter was produced in court and carried the Philadelphia post-mark of some day in the same June, I do not recollect which day; Judge Patterson himself admitted this fact, and that it was out of my power and control in the June before the sedition law was passed. Thus the indictment, which was the foundation of the barbarous treatment I received, carried on its front its own condemnation; but this defect was remedied by the ingenuity of the party judge, who dexterously mingled his assertions that the crime was cognizable under the common law, with his admonitions to a pliant jury not to be deterred from finding a verdict where the man who wrote was a member of Congress, and knew the sedition law was about to be passed, and probably hurried his letter to evade the law.

It may be said, sir, that I was charged in the indictment with publishing a copy of a letter, from an American diplomatic character in France, to a member of Congress, commonly called the Barlow letter. I was so, and there was a third count in the indictment for aiding and abetting in the publication of said letter. The words selected as seditious were as follow: "The misunderstanding between the two governments has become extremely alarming: confidence is completely destroyed; mistrust, jealousy, and a wrong attribution of motives, are so apparent as to require the utmost caution in every word and action that are to come from 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 the second coming of Pinkney, had it guided the pens that wrote the bullying speech of your President, and the stupid answer of your Senate, in November last, I should probably have had no occasion to address you this letter; but when we found him borrowing the language of Edmund Burke, and telling the world that although he should succeed in treating with the French, there was no dependence to be placed on their engagements; that their religion or morality was at an end, and they had turned pirates and plunderers; and it would be necessary to be perpetually armed against them, though you were at peace, we wondered that the answer of both Houses had not been an order to send him to a madhouse! Instead of this, the Senate have echoed his speech with more servility than ever George the Third experienced from either house of Parliament." No proof appeared on the trial of my printing, or aiding or abetting in printing, or circulating a printed copy of this famous letter. I had read the copy of the letter in company, but the advocates of the sedition law would never admit that such reading was punishable by that law. The printer who printed the letter, swore that he had been anxious to get the letter from me, and that I had refused to suffer it to be printed, and repelled every attempt to persuade me to the printing; that he had obtained the copy of the letter in my absence. The fact was, that my wife was persuaded by a gentleman who is now a member of this House, that the Republican cause and my election (which was pending) would be injured if the letter was not published; and, as I understood, she gave it to him, the letter was printed, and that gentleman had some of the copies before I came home. I suppressed the remainder of the edition. The judge, finding no proof to support this part of the charge, directed the jury to find a verdict of guilty generally, as there could be no doubt of my being guilty on the first count. I had acknowledged my having written the letter to Alden Spooner. They did so. I will not detain the House by going into a detail of the manner in which that jury was packed. After all the care and management in the original selection, there was one man on it whose honesty my persecutors feared; and, to get him off, a wretch falsely swore that the summoned juryman had expressed to him something like an opinion that I could not be found guilty. I will not here dwell upon the judge's denial to me of a challenge upon the jury—as great a crime as any Judge Chase was charged with. I look for an investigation of this business when all the features of it shall come fairly to public view. Should that investigation be refused at this time, I shall not fail to look for it at some future time. I can never forgive the unjust stigma that has been placed on my character; and should justice be refused me during my whole life, I will leave it with my children and theirs to seek it. When my enemies wounded my feelings, robbed me of my property, and affected temporarily my reputation, I consoled myself that my friends would soon be in power, and they would make every thing right. My wounded honor would be consoled; the wound would be healed—a share at least of the property of which I had been deprived, would be reimbursed. How cruelly have I been thus far disappointed! Generous men, at the time I suffered, said it is enough for you to bear the mortification of the temporary insult—we will share with you the loss of property. Under this impression much money was collected, the greater part of which went to relieve oppressed Republican printers—it has all been charged to me. I never asked, nor would I have received a cent of this gratuity, could I have avoided it without insulting the benevolent views of the good man (Gen. Stevens Thompson Mason, deceased) who set the subscription on foot. That good man gave me a list of those to whom he considered me beholden, and the amount; while the thing was fresh in every one's mind I made a compliment, which he considered ample, and more than ample, to every one of those on that list that was within my reach; to those few that remain on that list uncompensated, I feel beholden and much indebted. As the thing has grown old, and as I have come in contact with those gentlemen, I have felt myself in an embarrassed, awkward situation, from which I wished to be relieved by being able to say to them, the public have restored your money—here it is—it is yours, not mine. Judging other men to have feelings like myself, I am at a loss how to get rid of the obligation I feel, in any other way than the restoration of their money when it comes in a way they cannot refuse it. From this source my anxiety for the restoration of the money unjustly taken from me, arises more than any other; and on every review of the subject, I am bound to say that I have been more cruelly treated by the neglect of a duty to which my friends had pledged themselves, when they declared me innocent and patriotic, than by enemies who thought me guilty, and found me goading them in their progress toward the destruction of the liberty and republicanism of this country. As if to make their cruelty more insupportable, insult is added to the injury, by daily insinuations that I am bound by gratitude to stand by those who call themselves Republicans, in all their projects, right or wrong. Before I was elected a member of Congress from the State of Kentucky, I sent to a member of this House, who had promised me to bring it forward, a petition to be laid before the House of Representatives for redress in this case. He returned the petition to my son in a letter, which I have in my hand—in which he says, "I am sorry and ashamed that I have not presented the petition. I have not wrote to your father, and confess I am ashamed; pray you, the first time you write to Colonel Lyon, do endeavor to make an excuse for me." Such I believe was the impression of most of those I had acted with in the reign of terror, as we called it; but that impression has been wearing off, it seems, while my feelings have been every day increasing in their poignancy at their neglect of a duty, to which they had solemnly pledged themselves, while they were struggling with their adversaries for pre-eminence and power. Happily the awful silence which surrounded this extraordinary business has been broken. I consider this a prelude to investigation and a correct issue; and, let the event of the vote now about to be taken be what it may, I shall not despair.

I shall at this time say no more on this subject than to declare I wish not to have my case singled out for reparation. I wish the investigation general; the provision for remuneration general, to all who suffered under the lash of that unconstitutional sedition law.

Mr. Sawyer's amendment was negatived without a division.

Mr. Ross rose to propose another amendment to the resolution. It was a fact, he said, well known in almost every part of the United States, that the people in the district from which he had just been returned, had suffered as much in the cause of democracy as that of any other; that they had presented as firm a barrier to Federal oppression, and perhaps had as just claims as any other people in the United States to remuneration for losses in the cause. It was well known that at the time that high-handed measures were taken in this country, an insurrection had taken place in Pennsylvania, commonly known by the name of the Hot-water Insurrection; that it occurred in consequence of the oppression of the law for the collection of a direct tax. Many persons who had opposed the law, under the idea of its being unconstitutional, were prosecuted, punished, and some of them, in consequence of those prosecutions and the sentence resulting from them, expired in prison. To some who remained after the aspect of the affairs of the country was changed, mercy was extended by the United States; but to those whose prosecutions and convictions were of an earlier date, lenity was not extended; they were compelled to pay their fines before they could be relieved from imprisonment. Mr. R. declared his object in rising to be, to move to amend the resolution in such a way as to instruct the committee to inquire whether any, and if any, what compensation and remuneration should be made to the persons who suffered and were punished in consequence of an act to lay and collect a direct tax in the United States.

Mr. Dana said the gentleman's amendment contemplated remunerating those who suffered by their opposition to a statute. He would propose an amendment to inquire into the propriety of remunerating those who had suffered by their submission (not by their opposition) to the several acts respecting the embargo, certainly so much more meritorious conduct than that of opposition. As respected the whole of this subject, he said he was very free to declare that as regarded those who had been prosecuted at common law in the State of Connecticut, who had certainly been at very considerable expense, their defence perhaps having cost them several thousand dollars, yet, on the principle of correct legislation, he had not the least idea of remunerating them. Where shall we stop, said Mr. D., if we tread back on the steps of each other? We shall have opportunity enough for censure in reviewing our conduct. Perhaps it might be as well to draw the veil of oblivion over past transactions, and learn from experience to err no more.

Mr. Johnson said, that however much the act laying a direct tax was disapproved, and arose from measures which were improper, yet he had never deemed it an unconstitutional law, as he had the sedition law. He should therefore vote against the amendment and for the resolution.

Mr. Gardenier suggested to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, since he had brought the subject before the House, the propriety of going the whole length of his principle. To my mind it is very clear, said he, that if those who oppose the law are to be remunerated, for what it cost them in consequence of prosecution, you must go only on the principle that the direct tax never ought to have been laid at all. If the law was right, it was improper to oppose it. If it was improper, perhaps according to modern democracy, it might be proper to oppose it by force. That, to my mind, is a very dangerous doctrine for legislators to broach; it is a doctrine to which I myself can never agree, for it is making Government a nullity. The suggestion which I wish to make is this: that if those men who suffered in the Hot-water Insurrection are to be remunerated, it is no more than fair that those should be remunerated who have quietly paid this tax. They were at least respectful to the laws. The committee therefore ought to be instructed to inquire into the propriety of repaying to the several contributors in the various States the direct tax, collected from them, unless there be something so admirable, so lovely, so worthy of encouragement in insurrection, that those concerned in it have peculiar claims to encouragement by Government. If that be the case, the gentleman stopped at the proper point. If there was nothing in insurrection, however, which the Legislature would feel it proper to cherish, the gentleman should either go the whole length of his principle or not touch it at all.

Mr. Ross said he had not undertaken to state any principle at all. His object was to refer the subject to a committee to decide upon. He had not said that he considered the original resolution to contain a correct principle; it was a point left for the committee to consider and for the House to determine on. But if it was a correct principle that those who suffered under the sedition law should be remunerated, he said he had no hesitation in saying that his constituents, who had suffered as materially and as much as any for the democratic interest in this country, should be placed on the same ground as those who were asking for the favor of the House for no better reason; and when the gentleman calls upon me, said Mr. R., to go the whole length of a principle which he states, it is calling upon me to do that which is consequent on a principle which I have not assumed. The gentleman from Kentucky conceives that there is a difference between the cases alluded to in my amendment and the cases arising under the sedition law. Where is the difference, sir? In both cases they were laws of the United States: in both cases the judges of the courts of the United States were authorized to proceed. In neither of the cases did they decide the law unconstitutional. If, then, persons were punished by the sedition law in its full operation, carried into effect by the constituted authorities, where, I ask, is the distinction between that and any other law? To all the purposes of legality, that law is as much legal as that under which the direct tax was instituted. Whether the law under which a direct tax was collected, was constitutional or not, has it not as equally received the disapprobation of the Republicans of the United States as the sedition law? If then it was the object of the democratic party to rid the country of such a law as much as of the sedition law, I ask whether those who suffered under each law have not equal claims? There can be no legal claim upon the House under either law; but we know that it was the hardy yeomanry who presented a firm phalanx to the irresistible torrent of injurious laws of the Federal Administration, and who gave the present party the ascendency, and many of them have not, as the gentleman from Kentucky has been, compensated for their suffering by a long continuance in an honorable and lucrative office which he enjoys by the confidence of his constituents.

Mr. Potter declared himself at a loss to know whether the House was sitting here as a branch of the Legislature to pass laws, or as a body to remunerate those concerned in the violation of them. The House sit here to make laws and not to encourage those who resisted them; but if they determined to give premiums for the violations of laws, they had better depart home at once.

Mr. Rhea wished the House to get rid of this motion and the amendment as speedily as possible. If the House were to go on as it had commenced the session, the whole time of the House would be spent about nothing, discussing propositions which could not possibly produce good to the nation. He therefore moved to postpone the whole subject indefinitely.

Mr. Macon said he had been in hopes when this motion had been made, that it would be one of the happy days of the House; that the question proposed would occupy the whole day in debate, and that all would agree in it at last. As to comparing this case with that of the direct tax, it was notorious that the discussion on the sedition law and the public opinion also took a very different turn from that which it took on any other law. The whole discussion (said Mr. M.) as well as I recollect, turned upon the constitutionality of the law. Then, if it is still believed that the law was unconstitutional, I leave it to gentlemen to say whether it can be viewed in the same light as a law, the constitutionality of which is not disputed. In the one case, trials took place for speaking and writing; in the other case for opposing the execution of a law. I wish this question to be settled for this reason: In all governments where liberty and freedom have existed, parties also have had existence. Thinking honestly produces parties. That those gentlemen who were in power when the sedition law was passed, should step a little too far, was not so much to be wondered at as that those who came after them should do so; because they were making the first experiment of the instrument. I then believed, and do still believe, that the law was unconstitutional. Taking up this question, the original resolution of my colleague is that remuneration should be made to those people who suffered under it; but seeing that the question with respect to the constitutionality of the law had always been matter of dispute, it proposes that a committee shall inquire into the subject. The House is no farther committed by passing this resolution, than to consent to the inquiry being made. I submit it to the candor and reflection of gentlemen of all parties, whether this thing, in a national point of view, can produce any evil—on the contrary, may it not produce good? All that has been said about the direct tax laws can have no other effect than to draw off the attention of the House from the true question before them. The question on this law, in my mind, is a different one from any other law which has been passed. I feel no hesitation in acknowledging that it is my opinion that all the sufferers ought to be remunerated, both those who suffered under the sedition law, and those who suffered under the common law. It is the business of all parties to settle amicably as they can any subject of contention between persons of different political persuasions. If this first resolution should be referred to a committee, and they report that the law was unconstitutional, I will venture to pronounce that no majority will ever again make a law of that kind. If, sir, the sufferers under the sedition law did suffer contrary to the constitution, ought not their expenses to be reimbursed? On the subject of contribution, I know that that party to which I was attached, did contribute, and did consider it an honorable cause. I was willing (and there are gentlemen in this House who know it) to open my purse when a man of a very different political creed from myself, Peter Porcupine, was oppressed. I care not of what party a man be, that is oppressed. I can prove that the party opposed to me in politics have also subscribed. It is all no more than the subscriptions for printing speeches which are occasionally made in the House, in which gentlemen of all parties unite. Suppose that the whole fine in any particular case had been paid by individual subscription, what has the Government to do with that? Will it be contended, because an old soldier who received a pension also received individual contributions, that the pension should be taken from him, or that the Government is thereby acquitted of what it owed him? Surely not; the Government has nothing to do with transactions between individuals. As to the particular gentleman brought into this discussion, I believe that every man that contributed any thing towards paying the fine levied on him, was remunerated to his satisfaction. I have thought proper to state these opinions of mine, and to avow myself in favor of reimbursing the sufferers. But before I sit down, I must say that my opinion of modern democracy is very different from that of the gentleman from New York. I consider it as neither leading to insurrection, rebellion, nor any such thing. I believe that the true principle of every modern democrat, is, that the law constitutionally made is supreme, and is to be obeyed; that it has nothing to do with riots, rebellion, and insurrection. I know very well, and shall not deny it, that there are times when insurrection is a holy thing, but it is not peculiarly attributable to democracy. With us, election puts every thing to rights; and on them every man of pure democratic principles depends. It is doubtful whether the question of the constitutionality of the sedition law can be settled in a more easy way, and in a mode less liable to irritation, than that proposed by my colleague. If the committee report as I wish, it is well; if not, it settles the question forever; and it is surely desirable that the question should be settled. However gentlemen may differ, as to the principle proposed to be investigated, they might with propriety vote for the inquiry, as it is the ordinary course of every day. I do not consider this as proposing to give a premium to violators of the laws. I know that much depends in this world on names; and that if you give any man or thing a bad name, whether merited or not, it is difficult to get rid of it. I hope the House will not be deterred from this inquiry by any name attempted to be given to it. It is proper that this question should be settled; and if considered now, it will be settled by a body which did not partake of the heats of those times, and when, to say the least of it, there is a little division in the great parties of the nation; and it seems to me that the gentleman who moved it has been fortunate in the selection of his time. Eight years have elapsed, a new President is just inducted, and the question is now brought up for our decision. I am sorry that any member of this House should make a motion with no other view but for procrastination. I do not believe that my colleague who made this motion is more in the habit of procrastinating the public business than other members of the House; and I was in hopes that there would have been no dissentient voice to his motion. He only asks of you to let the inquiry be made. He does not ask a single member of the House to commit himself upon the question, but merely asks that a committee may be permitted to inquire into it; and this, it seems to me, is no extraordinary request. I hope that the resolution, without being trammelled with any extraneous matter, will be passed.

Mr. Key said he should vote for indefinite postponement of the resolution. What good purpose could its adoption answer, unless the House had the power to take money from the Treasury of the United States for the purpose of remunerating any person who had suffered? Had Congress that power? He apprehended not. He could see no such power amongst those delegated to Congress. The gentleman from North Carolina admitted the House were under no obligation to remunerate the sufferers; and if the gentleman would turn to the rules laid down for the definition of the powers of Congress, he would see that there was no authority to draw money from the Treasury for this purpose. Under that view of the constitution, Mr. K. said he must vote for indefinite postponement.

Mr. Macon asked under what clause of the constitution Captain Murray and others had been remunerated? Under what clause money paid into the Treasury had been returned in various instances? The right to take, gave the right to return that which was taken. In many instances this principle had been practised on. There was no law to authorize the punishment of a man for robbing the mail; but it was derived from the power of establishing post roads. The power of refunding money was one which had been often exercised.

Mr. Gardenier was in favor of an inquiry. It was not only proper that an inquiry should be made, but it was the bounden duty of the House to make it. A member of the House in his place had stated facts which if true undoubtedly entitled him to their interference. Our duty (said Mr. G.) is imperative. The case of the gentleman does not rest upon the question whether the sedition law was constitutional or unconstitutional, but upon the fact that he was not a proper object for the exercise of that law. For, if the statement made be correct, he was punished for uttering a creed which would not be improper for every member of the House; and I will say that subsequent events have shown the sincerity with which the gentleman did make it; that he had kept his promise most religiously; that it was not applicable to those men, or that time, any more than to the present, but was a creed on which he practised before and ever since, so far as his political course is known to me. It is a case in which the privileges of the members of this House are materially concerned. If under the sedition law for a letter written by a member of this House to his constituents, giving his view of public measures, he has been punished, it concerns the safety of this House that complete and perfect remuneration should be made. It is as important that every member should be permitted to speak freely to his constituents, as that he should without restraint address the Chair of the House. It was a case, therefore, which never ought to have been the subject of a judicial investigation, much less considered as a crime. The gentleman at the time followed the dictates of his conscience. To his conscience and his God alone should he be responsible. Sir, should we refuse an inquiry into this case, when we know that the fine of James Thompson Callender, for one of the most atrocious libels ever written in the United States, was remitted? When we know that it was remitted by the President of the United States, after the money had been received by the proper receiving officer of the United States, when it had passed out of the hands of James Thompson Callender into the hands of the officer of Government, and was, to all intents and purposes, in the Treasury of the United States, because there is no such thing as a treasury in which money is actually deposited—for a libel, too, in which the great Father of his Country was treated with a shameless indignity, which could not but have gone to the heart of every man? When the President of the United States was in that libel called a hoary-headed incendiary, should that fine be returned, and shall a gentleman in this House be fined and imprisoned for that which was not even improper? Shall we not restore to him that which others have been suffered to retain, and for which we have not brought to question him who restored it after it was in possession of the receiving officer of the United States—in fact, after it was in the Treasury? Let us not be guilty of this inconsistency. If the sedition law has gone to the tomb of the Capulets, and I believe it has, I am not one who wishes to bear up against the people's voice; the Government is theirs, and when they speak we obey. If under that law the Government has received money for an act which really, if the statement of the gentleman be true, could scarcely be considered an offence within the purview of that law, will you not give it back to him? Either give back the money in the case, or take measures to recover that money which was given back in the other. I am not for making fish of one and flesh of another. Whilst on this subject I will declare that I never did consider the sedition law as unconstitutional. Congress were competent to pass it. But, that parties will sometimes in the ardor of their course exceed the limits of discretion, and do violence to the milder feeling of the community in which they live, has been proved in the Adams Administration, and in that which has lately disappeared; and when they have cooled down, it is but rendering justice to the sense of the country to acknowledge their errors. No, sir, I am satisfied that all prosecutions for libels on the Government should be at least very hesitatingly sustained. You cannot draw a precise line by which you shall limit the right of investigation. The two things are so blended together that you cannot separate them. You must either make the Government supreme or the people supreme. I am for the latter. As Dr. Johnson makes Lord Chesterfield say, liberty and licentiousness are blended like the colors in the rainbow; it is impossible to tell where one ends and the other begins. Licentiousness is a speck on the eye of the political body, which you can never touch without injuring the eye itself. I hope and trust that with this investigation will be connected an inquiry into the prosecutions at common law in Connecticut. I have seen in the State of New York, but not under the present Administration, a defendant coming into court, begging only to be permitted to prove that what he had said was true; I have seen also an Attorney-General rise to prevent it: I have seen the truth smothered on the trial by men who were as clamorous against the sedition law as any loud-mouthed patriot in the country. I have seen them bringing almost to the block the victim who may only wish to prove the truth of what he said—which was denied him. I mention this to show that where parties are contending against each other, where there is a majority on one hand and a minority on the other, that which appears on paper proper for the protection of the Government, turns out to be for the oppression of the minority. In the nature of parties it cannot be otherwise. Therefore, in my opinion, the Government of the United States cannot render a greater service than by declaring it will not be accessary to any diminution of the rights of the citizen; that free investigation shall in all cases be permitted. Mr. G. made some further observations on the particular case of Mr. Lyon, and concluded by expressing his hope that the resolution would pass.