ELEVENTH CONGRESS.—SECOND SESSION. PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. (continued 2)

I briefly recapitulate the leading points of my argument. When Mr. Jackson asserts "that the substance of the instructions was known to our Government," the expression cannot convey the obnoxious idea, because it is not pretended that, in those instructions, the existence of other powers was excluded. When he says, "you must have thought it unreasonable to complain of disavowal," the time of knowledge implied is confined by the structure of the sentence to the time of a disavowal known, and cannot be limited backwards to the time of arrangement made. It is also absurd to suppose that Mr. Jackson would intimate by implication the knowledge of our Government of Erskine's incompetency of powers at the time of arrangement, as an essential circumstance on which the King's right of disavowal was founded, and yet omit that circumstance in a formal enumeration; and lastly, it is still more absurd to suppose that he would undertake to insinuate a knowledge, which, from the nature of things, could not possibly exist.

I have thus, Mr. Speaker, submitted to a strict and minute scrutiny all the parts of this correspondence which have been adduced by any one in support of the fact asserted in this resolution. This course, however irksome, I thought it my duty to adopt, to the end that no exertion of mine might be wanting to prevent this House from passing a resolution, which, in my apprehension, is pregnant with national disgrace, and other innumerable evils.

Friday, December 29.

Another member, to wit, from North Carolina, James Holland, appeared and took his seat.

COL. ISAAC A. COLES.

Breach of Privilege.

Mr. Taylor, from the committee appointed to inquire into the circumstances alluded to in the letter of I. A. Coles to the Speaker of the House, made the following report:

That, according to that order, they have taken into consideration the subject referred to them; that in making the proposed inquiry they have taken the depositions of the honorable James Turner, a Senator of the United States, and of Mr. Samuel Sprigg, which depositions they beg leave to report to the House.

From these depositions it was established, to the satisfactory belief of your committee, that Mr. I. A. Coles, without any immediate previous altercation or provocation, did assault and strike a member of this House, within the walls of the north wing of the Capitol; that this act was done on Monday, the 27th ult., about one o'clock P. M., and after this House had adjourned over to the following day.

That, from the assertions of Mr. Coles, and from the actual admission of the member assaulted, your committee were satisfied that the provocation or supposed provocation which occasioned the attack did not arise from any thing said or any act done by the member of this House, in the fulfilment of his duties as a Representative in the Congress of the United States.

Your committee are of opinion that this latter circumstance may be received in extenuation, but cannot be admitted in justification of the act done by Mr. Coles; and, from all the circumstances of the case, they are of opinion that said assault and violence offered to the member was a breach of the privileges of this House.

Your committee further report, that they have considered the letter of Mr. Coles to the Speaker of this House, together with another letter from Mr. Coles addressed to the Chairman of your Committee, (which they also beg leave to report to the House,) that these two letters, in the opinion of your committee, do contain acknowledgments and apologies on the occasion, which ought to be admitted as satisfactory to the House. They therefore recommend the following resolution:

Resolved, That any further proceeding in the above case is unnecessary.

To the Hon. John Taylor, Chairman, &c.

Sir: Understanding that the declaration which I had the honor this morning to make before the committee, will be more acceptable if put in the written form, I hasten to comply with what I believe to be their wish, in tendering through them, to the House of Representatives, the renewed assurance "that if I could have supposed that the circumstance alluded to in my letter to the Speaker, would have been construed into a breach of the privilege of the House, it would not have occurred at the time and in the place where it unfortunately happened."

With sentiments of great respect, I am your obedient humble servant,

I. A. COLES.

December 28, 1808.

Ordered to lie on the table.

Conduct of the British Minister.

The House resumed the consideration of this subject. At four o'clock Mr. Livermore commenced a speech, but gave way for a motion to adjourn which was carried, 53 to 51.

Saturday, December 30.

A motion was made by Mr. Dawson, that the report made yesterday, on the occurrence between I. A. Coles and a member of this House, and the documents accompanying the same, be printed for the use of the members: and the question being taken thereon, it was resolved in the affirmative—yeas 76, nays 25. The report and documents were referred to a Committee of the Whole on Thursday next.

Conduct of the British Minister.

Mr. Rhea, of Tennessee—Mr. Speaker, it is not deemed necessary in the observations I will make on the resolution under consideration, to take into view any relations of the United States with Great Britain or France, because it does not clearly appear that any exist, except in this, that the United States are suffering loss and damage. If there be any relations with Great Britain, as they respect the United States, they are negative and suffering; as they respect Great Britain, positive and active. Be they what they may, they are not properly within the range of a discussion on this resolution, which merely respects the conduct of an Ambassador Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty near the United States. How the relations, if there be any, between the United States and France are connected with the subject of this resolution, will require the greatest civilian, the most wise master of public law, to discover; the consideration of these subjects, except so far as mentioning only circumstances which have existed, will be omitted. Neither does it appear very necessary to recur, in examining this question, in the view I intend to take of it, to writers or authorities, as they are called, on public law or laws of nations, because, if any time heretofore, there was a public law acknowledged and practised by all civilized nations, that law is, in these times, become obsolete and disused; and the great nations of the old world have severally adopted particular systems of law respecting other nations, adapted to their own several existing circumstances, and bottomed on principles different from those which heretofore were denominated principles of public law. When, therefore, in the course of these observations, said Mr. R., I may use the words "public law," my intention is to express thereby an idea of some system named public law, not the law of nature, which, gradually becoming obsolete, has been very little, if any, in use since the commencement of the American Revolution—a system which, notwithstanding it is often appealed to, if ever it did exist, is now only to be found in books, and not in practice. Neither is it intended in this case to draw into notice any diplomatic proceedings many years heretofore transacted, by way of argument, in support of what I may say on the subject of this resolution; inasmuch as the truth and merits of it do rest and depend on the Message of the President of the United States, and the documents accompanying the same, and the other documents relative thereto, which have been received from him since the commencement of this session of Congress, together with some other documents relative to the arrangement of April last, made between the American Government and the honorable David Montague Erskine, late Ambassador Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary from His Britannic Majesty, near the United States.

This resolution is not an answer to a Message from the President of the United States; there are not in it any words of relation between it and a message evidencing an expression or intended direction of that nature; neither are there in it any words manifesting an intention to transmit it to him as an address; for these and other reasons, which, if necessary, might be mentioned, it does not appear that this joint resolution can, with any propriety, be named an answer or response to a Message from the President, or an address to him. It may, therefore, be reasonably expected, that any objection raised against it, on the opinion of its being an answer to a Message from the President, or an address to him, will not prevail.

This resolution is not a declaration of war; it is predicated on a specified conduct of an Ambassador Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty, near the Government of the United States, and on the denial of the Executive Government of the United States to receive any further communications from him in consequence of that conduct. And it may be observed that, how ancient soever among nations the custom or usage of sending or receiving Ambassadors, Plenipotentiaries, and public Ministers of that kind may be, the custom or usage, it is reasonable to believe, is bottomed only on the great principle of humanity, and does not impose a perfect obligation either to send such minister, or to receive him, or to continue him after being received; therefore, not to send an Ambassador, Plenipotentiary, or public Minister—not to receive such Minister—to recall such Minister—or to refuse to receive any further communications from such Minister, is not a just cause of war; and it follows that the acting or not acting, in either of the cases, is not a declaration of war. True it is, that the resolution states, that "the Congress of the United States do solemnly pledge themselves to the American people, and to the world, to stand by and support the Executive Government in its refusal to receive any further communications from the said Francis James Jackson, and to call into action the whole force of the nation, if it should become necessary, in consequence of the conduct of the Executive Government in this respect, to repel such insult, and to assert and maintain the rights, the honor, and the interests of the United States;" but, it is to be observed, that that pledge goes only to the doing of certain things which may become necessary in consequence of the conduct of the Executive Government in respect to that thing which is alluded to. But if any gentleman is disposed to continue to this resolution the name of an answer to a Message from the President, or address to him, or to call it a declaration of war, he certainly may give it any name he pleases; and I hope, said Mr. R., that I may also have the liberty to give it a name that appears appropriate to it.

[Here Mr. Rhea entered into a close examination of the correspondence between the British Minister and the American Secretary of State, to show, first, the insult to the American Government by charging it with falsehood; secondly, the falsity of that charge by showing that it was founded on false assumptions and continued:]

The whole civilized world is a spectator in the discussion of this resolution; and all the civilized nations in the world are and will be anxiously desirous to know, whether the United States of America, after having hitherto, with impunity, suffered all the aggressions of Great Britain, and after having suffered Great Britain, with impunity, to impress thousands of their seamen, and retain them on board of their armed ships and vessels, and compelling them to fight against nations with whom the United States are at peace; after having suffered Great Britain, with impunity, to murder their citizens, and after having suffered Great Britain with impunity to attack their sovereignty, in case of the Chesapeake frigate, will, after all these outrages and hostile acts, tamely, meekly, and patiently, submit and bow down to the lowest degree of debased degradation, and suffer Francis J. Jackson, Ambassador Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty, with impunity, to abuse their Executive Government, and to impute to it with impunity the detestable charge of untruth.

Tuesday, January 2, 1810.

Another member, to wit, from Pennsylvania, Robert Jenkins, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Wednesday, January 3.

Trade to the Baltic.

Mr. Burwell said that he had given to the subject of our foreign relations as much consideration as he was capable of doing, and digested some plan which appeared to him best adapted to the present situation of the country. It would be recollected, however, that they had seen in the papers that France either had blockaded or did contemplate the blockade of all the ports not embraced in the British orders; and they had seen in the papers a paragraph intimating that a project existed to close the northern ports against all vessels but those of France. He conceived it necessary to call for any information which by possibility might be in possession of the Executive on this subject, as such information, if to be obtained, might have some influence upon his mind as to the course proper to be pursued; and therefore moved the following resolution:

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to lay before this House any information he may possess relative to the blockade of the ports of the Baltic by France, and the exclusion of neutral vessels by Russia, Sweden, and Denmark.

The motion was agreed to without opposition, and Mr. Burwell and Mr. Gardner appointed a committee to wait on the President accordingly.

Conduct of the British Minister.

The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business of yesterday, being the resolution from the Senate approving the conduct of the Executive in refusing to receive any further communication from Francis James Jackson, &c.

The resolution was ordered to be read a third time.

To-morrow was named as the day on which it should be read a third time, and negatived, ayes, 32.

The resolution was then ordered to be read a third time to-day.

Mr. Newton.—Mr. Speaker: It is with regret, sir, I feel myself constrained to offer some observations on the resolution from the Senate now on its passage.

I am not ignorant that I am trespassing on your patience, and that, at this late period of the discussion, I address you to no little disadvantage; but I derive, under such discouragement, great satisfaction in knowing that your politeness and indulgence are at all times the same.

I lament, sir, that the discussion has not been confined to the subject which the resolution presents for consideration, but as I had no control over the debate, I am compelled to pursue it through the meanders it has taken.

As silence on the observations which have been made, though on points foreign to the one in debate, may be ascribed to an acquiescence in their justness, I cannot refrain from apprising you that I hold myself bound to answer such as shall, in my judgment, demand an answer. This course will compel me to discuss points no ways related to the one before the House.

I shall endeavor to atone for taking this range by giving to each subject a separate consideration, and by observing a due regard to brevity. With this apology, I hasten in the first instance to the discussion of the competency of Mr. Erskine's powers to conclude the provisional agreement of the 19th of April last.

I put aside from this discussion the instructions of Mr. Erskine authorizing him to tender reparation for the attack on the Chesapeake, because his power so to act has not been distinctly questioned. The gentlemen who have preceded me on the same side of the question have sustained, I trust to your satisfaction, and that of the House, the competency of Mr. Erskine's powers to make and conclude the arrangement of the 19th of April last. Persuaded, as I am, that they have performed this task with great ability, I will not tire your patience by passing over the same ground, nor by citing the same authorities on which they relied to support their arguments.

I will permit myself only to take up the discussion of the points which terminated their remarks. I will content myself with furnishing some authorities not pressed into service, in support of the positions taken by them. That Mr. Erskine was a Minister Plenipotentiary, cannot be denied; in that character he was received, and in that he acted until he was recalled, is equally true. The propositions made by him in that character were received and acted upon as the propositions of his Government. The Executive of the United States had no control over his private instructions; no right to demand an exhibition of them; they were given for the government of the Minister's conduct. If he acted in contravention of his secret orders, over which his power was absolute, he became responsible to his sovereign for his non-observance of them; but his public acts must necessarily be binding and obligatory, originating, as they must be considered, in the general and avowed powers of the Minister, exercised in conformity to his private instructions. If his secret instructions limit his general commission, he is bound honestly to apprise the Government with which he is negotiating of the fact. He ought to say, to this boundary I can go; beyond it I cannot pass. To illustrate this doctrine, which I hold to be sound and correct, I will give as an instance the chaste conduct of Mr. Monroe and Mr. Pinkney, who, previous to affixing their signatures to the treaty concluded by them with the British Commissioners, publicly apprised the Commissioners that they had no authority to bind the Government of the United States, as their instructions did not permit them to conclude a treaty which should not contain stipulations against impressments. The fate of that treaty is known. It was rejected. The British Government could not complain, because it was previously informed that the Ministers of the United States had no power to form such a treaty.

Mr. Erskine never entertained a doubt but that his powers were competent to the formation of the arrangement of April last. He unhesitatingly declared, in submitting his propositions for suspending as to the United States the operation of the Orders in Council, that he was commanded by his Majesty to submit them to the consideration of the Executive of the United States. I will prove this statement by his letter of April 18, 1809, and others, addressed to the Secretary of State. He says:

"The favorable change in the relations of His Majesty with the United States, which has been produced by the act usually termed the non-intercourse act, passed at the last session of Congress, was also anticipated by His Majesty, and has encouraged a further hope that a reconsideration of existing differences might lead to their satisfactory adjustment. On these grounds and expectations, I am instructed to communicate to the American Government His Majesty's determination of sending to the United States an Envoy Extraordinary, invested with full powers to conclude a treaty on all points of the relations between the two countries. In the mean time, with a view to the attainment of so desirable an object, His Majesty would be willing to withdraw his Orders in Council of January and November, 1807, so far as respects the United States, in the persuasion that the President would issue a proclamation for the renewal of the intercourse with Great Britain, and that whatever difference of opinion should arise in the interpretation of the terms of such an agreement, will be removed in the proposed negotiation."

In another letter, of April 19, he says:

"In consequence of the acceptance by the President, as stated in your letter of the 18th instant, of the proposals made by me on the part of His Majesty, in my letter of the same day, for the renewal of the intercourse between the respective countries, I am authorized to declare that His Majesty's Orders in Council of January and November, 1807, will have been withdrawn, as respects the United States, on the 10th day of June next." (1809.)

The above extracts from Mr. Erskine's letters leave us in no suspense as to the opinion he had formed of his instructions. In this settled belief that he had conformed strictly to the instructions of his Court, we find him so late as June 15, 1809, when he notified to the Secretary of State the new Order in Council issued on the 26th of April last. In this letter he says:

"In consequence of official communications sent to me from His Majesty's Government, since the adoption of that measure, I am enabled to assure you that it has no connection whatever with the overtures (of the 19th of April, 1809) which I have been authorized to make to the Government of the United States, and that I am persuaded that the terms of the agreement so happily concluded by the recent negotiation, will be strictly fulfilled on the part of His Majesty. The internal evidence of the order itself would fully justify the foregoing construction, and, moreover, it will not have escaped your notice, that the repeal has not thereby been made of the orders of the 7th of January, 1807, which, according to the engagement I have entered into on the part of His Majesty, is to be abrogated with the other orders, in consequence of the adjustment of differences between the two countries, and the confidence entertained of a further conciliatory understanding."

Thus it appears that Mr. Erskine, from communications, subsequent to the 26th of April, from this Government, is decidedly of opinion that he acted within the pale of his instructions. His language is free from ambiguity. He says: "In consequence of official communications sent to me from His Majesty's Government, since the adoption of the order of the 26th of April, I am enabled to assure you it has no connection whatever with the terms of agreement concluded by the recent negotiation." Nothing can be clearer than that his opinion was made up on a full consideration of all the instructions received by him from his Government. This must be evident to the most superficial observer on reading the following extract from a letter of the 14th August, 1809, addressed by him to the Secretary of State. It is as follows:

"Under these circumstances, therefore, finding that I could not obtain the recognitions specified in Mr. Canning's despatch of the 23d of January, (which formed but one part of his instructions to me,) in the formal manner required, I considered that it would be in vain to lay before the Government of the United States the despatch in question, which I was at liberty to do in extenso, had I thought proper. But as I had such strong grounds for believing that the object of His Majesty's Government could be attained, though in a different manner, and the spirit, at least, of my several letters of instructions be fully complied with, I feel a thorough conviction on my mind that I should be acting in conformity with His Majesty's wishes, and, accordingly, conclude the late provisional agreement on His Majesty's behalf with the Government of the United States."

The British Government could not, from this view, disavow the act of its Minister without incurring, and that justly, the charge of bad faith. To give support and nerve to this inference, I will read a passage from an author of great celebrity, Burlamaqui. The author says: "If he who has a commission to treat has kept within the bounds of the power annexed to his office, though he acts contrary to his private instructions, the sovereign is to abide by what he has done; otherwise, we could never depend on engagements contracted by proxy." This authority is full, and in point; it covers the whole ground; it leaves no fissures through which crafty politicians can make an escape. On the reputation of the British Government it fixes a blot which nothing short of the power of time can efface.

Past transactions are worthy of remembrance, and sometimes of repetition. The chameleon may take the hue of surrounding objects, but his change of color does not new-model his figure, form, or character.

Let us, for a moment, bring to our recollection the occurrences which took place, and the orthodox opinions which were held, at the time when the honor and dignity of this nation were deeply wounded, (a wound not yet healed,) in the attack of the Chesapeake; when the blood of American citizens was wantonly shed, and when the British squadron, after the commission of an act so atrocious, in violation of the jurisdiction of the United States, anchored in Hampton Roads and interrupted the regular communication between Norfolk and other places. After having taken a review of facts, let us compare the opinions of that day with those subsequently delivered; and, by the standard of consistency, test them.

The President, soon after the commission of those outrages, issued his proclamation, interdicting the entrance of the waters of the United States to the public armed vessels of Great Britain. That act of the President was considered as just and proper, as flowing from moderation and wisdom. The propriety of it was defended on the declaration to the Executive by Mr. Erskine, that it was his firm belief that Admiral Berkeley had acted without orders. Keep in force the proclamation, was the language of that memorable day, until reparation, ample and satisfactory, should be made. Such was the state of the public mind. Mr. Rose arrived; his mission, instead of having the salutary tendency of removing the irritations excited, was eminently calculated to nurture and increase them. Insults were added to injuries. Before he would deign to make known to the President the nature and extent of the reparation he was authorized to offer, he demanded the revocation of the President's proclamation; in plain terms informing this nation that its Government should make concessions to His Majesty for using precautionary measures against the lawless acts of his officers, as a prerequisite to a tender of the reparation His Majesty had condescended through him to offer. This new mode of redress proving no ways satisfactory, Mr. Rose's mission terminated. No sooner was it known that the negotiation with Mr. Rose proved abortive, in consequence of the inadmissible demands made by him, as already stated by me, than the President was openly accused as being the cause of it, by adhering to a "mere punctilio."

Thus, sir, we see, that no Republican President can do right, when his actions are viewed through the medium of party spirit.

Mr. Stanley said he did not flatter himself he could add any thing to the information which the House already possessed on this subject. Yet, as a measure was about to be adopted, which, without the possibility of yielding any advantage, would, in his opinion, fix a stain on the national character, and put at hazard the peace and prosperity of the country, he felt impelled by the imperious call of duty, to raise his feeble voice against it. Permit me here, said Mr. S., to express the surprise and regret with which I have heard observations from those who support the resolution, which, having no connection with the resolution itself, are calculated, if not intended, to excite the passions of the House or of the people; to furorize the public mind; to mislead our judgments in deciding the question, and to obtain a result rather from passion than reason. I allude to the repeated recital of British outrages, the bombardment of Copenhagen, and the attack on Constantinople. A calm discussion of the question itself, would probably lead to as correct a decision, and be not less honorable to the American Congress. The danger of foreign influence has been mentioned to us, by way of caution, I presume. A solicitude on this point can be but commendable, though I hope unnecessary. It may be the fate of this country to be cursed with men whose ill-directed ambition, and predominant selfish views, lead them to support the interest and the designs of foreign nations, though adverse to the interests and honor of their own. If such there be, let them be marked as objects of suspicion, scorn, and contempt.

It has also been the fate of other countries, and may be the misfortune of this, to possess in its bosom, and to cherish in its confidence, men, who from an equally base and corrupt self-love and ill-directed ambition, become supple courtiers, political sunflowers, cringing demagogues; who, worshipping the idol power, whether in the hands of a military commander, a protector, or a consul, tender an implicit obedience and united support to every measure which emanates from the Executive, the source of office and profit. Such men bring upon a country the curses of undue domestic influence. Not to know and not to fear the dangers both of foreign and domestic influence, is to close our eyes on the light of history, and to disregard the testimony of ages. The States of Greece, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Eppes) reminds us, fell from foreign influence; the unhappy Kingdom of Spain at this moment groans and bleeds from the same cause. And, sir, from domestic influence, Rome had her Cæsar, England her Cromwell, and France now drags the chains of Bonaparte. Should it ever become the settled doctrine in this country, that the opinions and the measures of the Executive are entitled to our prompt acquiescence and blind support; that, like the devoted soldier, a mere military machine, we are not to pause over a vote; that free discussion of the merits of the Executive shall authorize suspicion of the purity of the citizen; the time will be fast hastening when a throne shall be erected upon the ruins of the Constitution of the United States, and the name of America be added to the list of those Republics which have "risen like the rocket, and fallen like the stick." Whether either of these parties exist in this country, I need not at this time inquire; no circumstance could render such an inquiry in this place other than unpleasant. I have suggested the possibility of their existence, and their evils, with a view equally pure, I hope, with that of those who have before alluded to them, and to excite a caution which well merits the attention of the American people.

Associated in this House with gentlemen, all of whom, I am to presume, are actuated by the same love of country; who alike feel the obligations of honor, conscience, regard to the constitution and responsibility to our constituents—I cannot but believe they act on this occasion with motives as pure as my own. Yet, sir, feeling myself bound by these high sanctions to pursue the course pointed out by my own judgment, and the dictates of my own conscience, I am compelled to declare, that I disapprove the conduct of the administration in the affair with Mr. Jackson, and that I am decidedly opposed to the resolution before us.

From the view I have taken of the correspondence between Mr. Smith and Mr. Jackson, my mind is satisfied—

That the letters of Mr. Jackson do not contain the insult to our administration which is imputed to them by the resolution. That, if they did, the Congress of the United States are not required either by duty or policy to interfere in the business—and that if they will interfere, the resolution under consideration is improper. On each of these points I will submit a few observations.

In regard to the insult said to be contained in Mr. Jackson's letters, my remarks shall be brief, with no other reference to the letters already so often repeated, as to have become "dull as a tale twice told," than I may conceive necessary to be intelligible. The offensive idea "that the Executive Government of the United States had a knowledge that the arrangement lately made by Mr. Erskine in behalf of his Government with the Government of the United States, was entered into without competent powers on the part of Mr. Erskine for that purpose," is said in the resolution to be conveyed in Mr. Jackson's letter of the 23d of October, and to be repeated in that of the 4th of November. Yet, as if it was on all hands admitted that no such idea could be found in these letters, all who have most anxiously desired to find it, have endeavored to establish it by recurring to Mr. Jackson's letter of the 11th of October, and there point us to that part of the letter, where Mr. Jackson, in reply to Mr. Smith's declaration, that an explanation was expected of the grounds of the disavowal by His Britannic Majesty of the arrangement made between Mr. Smith and Mr. Erskine, informs Mr. Smith, that he had seen with pleasure the forbearance of Mr. Smith, to complain of this disavowal, "inasmuch as you could not but have thought it unreasonable to complain of the disavowal of an act done under such circumstances as could only lead to the consequences that have actually followed." He adds, "It was not known when I left England whether Mr. Erskine had, according to the liberty allowed him, communicated to you in extenso his original instructions; it now appears that he did not. But in reverting to his official correspondence, and particularly to a despatch addressed on the 20th of April to His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I find that he there states, that he submitted to your consideration the three conditions specified in those instructions, as the groundwork of an arrangement which, according to information received from this country, it was thought in England might be made, with a prospect of great mutual advantage. Mr. Erskine then reports, verbatim et seriatim, your observations upon each of the three conditions, and the reasons which induced you to think that others might be substituted in lieu of them. It may have been concluded between you that these latter were an equivalent for the original conditions; but the very act of substitution evidently shows that those original conditions were in fact very explicitly communicated to you, and by you of course laid before the President for his consideration. I need hardly add, that the difference between these conditions and those contained in the arrangement of the 18th and 19th of April, is sufficiently obvious to require no elucidation; nor need I draw the conclusion, which I consider as admitted by all absence of complaint on the part of the American Government, viz: that under such circumstances His Majesty had an undoubted right to disavow the act of his Minister."

As the offensive idea is alleged to be an allusion to the circumstances under which the arrangement with Mr. Erskine was concluded, which justified the King in disavowing it; intimated to be known to our administration at the date of this letter; it is necessary to search, from the evidence before us, what those circumstances were upon which the King justified his disavowal; these found, we shall be at no loss to fix Mr. Jackson's allusion, and then to inquire whether these circumstances thus alluded to, were in fact known to our administration. It appears from the documents before us, that the King's Order in Council of the 24th of May, 1809, announcing the provisional agreement concluded by Mr. Erskine and the disavowal of it, assigns as the sole ground of the disavowal, that the said agreement "was not such as was authorized by His Majesty's instructions." And Mr. Pinkney, on the 28th of May, informs Mr. Smith that the British Minister, Mr. Canning, had in their interview on the 25th of May declared "that the British Minister (Mr. Erskine) had acted in his late negotiation and engagements with you, not only without authority, but in direct opposition to the most precise instructions;" that these facts were communicated by Mr. Pinkney, and known to our administration before the arrival of Mr. Jackson, appears from the correspondence between Mr. Smith and Mr. Erskine in July and August. Mr. Jackson also, in his letter of the 11th of October, says that his Government "with frankness, promptitude, and a most scrupulous regard to national honor, gave notice to the American Minister in London of the disavowal, of the motives of it, and of the precautions spontaneously taken by His Majesty to prevent any loss or injury accruing to the citizens of the United States from an agreement, however unauthorized, made in His Majesty's name." And in his letter to Mr. Smith, 23d of October, explicitly declares "His Majesty was pleased to disavow the agreement concluded between you and Mr. Erskine, because it was concluded in violation of that gentleman's instructions, and altogether without authority to subscribe to the terms of it." And to dispense with a recital of each particular in which the instructions were disregarded, Mr. Jackson adds, "These instructions I now understand by your letter, as well as from the obvious deduction which I took the liberty of making in mine of the 11th instant, were at the time in substance made known to you; no stronger illustration, therefore, can be given of the deviation from them which occurred, than by a reference to the terms of your agreement."

We thus find the British Government on every occasion, and through every agent, assigning the violation of instructions, and the want of authority in Mr. Erskine to conclude the agreement, as the sole ground of the disavowal, and relying on that ground, and no other, to shield them from the charge of perfidy. With this evidence before us; with the admission of Mr. Jackson "that the instructions were not made known in extenso;" with the correspondence of Mr. Smith and Mr. Erskine showing the knowledge of our administration of the instructions to Mr. Erskine and of the grounds of the disavowal of his arrangement prior to the arrival of Mr. Jackson in the United States, does it consist with candor and good sense; is it not a palpable violation of both, so to torture the language of Mr. Jackson in his letter of the 11th of October, in allusion to the circumstances which "could only lead to the disavowal," and to the knowledge of them by our administration, which prevented their complaints to him on his arrival, as to make them convey an idea that a distinct and different ground of disavowal existed than that which his Government and himself had before repeatedly assigned; to impute to him the insinuation that the restricted authority of Mr. Erskine was known at the time of the arrangement, when he had explicitly declared "that the instructions were not made known in extenso," and thus to fix upon him the absurdity of contradicting himself?

Such construction, and such an imputation, in my opinion, is at war with every sound rule of construction, and every honorable principle of just and fair dealing. It is worthy the observation of those gentlemen who so clearly see an insult in this letter of the 11th of October, that they have found what had escaped the jealous perspicacity of Mr. Smith, and the patient research of the draughter of the resolution; since Mr. Smith, in his reply of the 19th of October, gives no intimation of any thing offensive in this letter, and the resolution confines the insulting idea to the letter of the 23d of October. We come now to the letter of the 23d of October, in which, according to the resolution, is contained the "insolent and indecorous expressions, conveying the idea that the Executive Government of the United States had a knowledge that the arrangement lately made by Mr. Erskine with the Government of the United States was entered into without competent power on the part of Mr. Erskine." The offensive idea is said to be found in the following part of Mr. Jackson's letter: "I have no hesitation in informing you that his Majesty was pleased to disavow the agreement concluded between you and Mr. Erskine, because it was concluded in violation of that gentleman's instructions, and altogether without authority to subscribe to the terms of it. These instructions, I now understand by your letter, as well as from the obvious deduction which I took the liberty of making in mine of the 11th instant, were at the time in substance made known to you; no stronger illustration, therefore, can be given of the deviation from them which occurred than by a reference to the terms of your agreement." There is no equivocation in this language. He says the instructions were made known in substance—an expression which from its very terms excludes the idea of being made known in full extent; and that it is true, as Mr. J. here alleges, that the substance of Mr. Erskine's instructions were made known, appears from Mr. Smith's letter of the 19th of October. "Certain it is that your predecessor did present for my consideration the three conditions which now appear in the printed document; that he was disposed to urge them more than the nature of two of them (both palpably inadmissible, and one of them more than merely inadmissible) could permit, and that on finding his first proposals unsuccessful, the more reasonable terms comprised in the arrangement respecting the Order in Council were adopted." And Mr. Erskine himself declared to his Government, 20th of April, as stated by Mr. Jackson to Mr. Smith, 11th of October, and not questioned by him, "that he had submitted to the consideration of Mr. Smith the three conditions specified in his instructions, as the groundwork of an arrangement," and adds the reasons which induced Mr. Smith to think "that others might be substituted in lieu of them." These expressions of Mr. Jackson are unequivocal, free from obscurity, and cover no insinuation. They assert a single fact, the existence of which is established by the letters of Mr. Smith himself. To find in them a meaning "conveying the insolent and indecorous idea that our Government knew of Mr. Erskine's restricted authority," is to give to language a signification different from that heretofore received, and to exert a strength of imagination to which I have no pretensions. But in the letter of Mr. Jackson of November 4th, is said, by the resolution, to be found "the still more insolent and affronting "repetition of the same insinuation. In the conclusion of this letter Mr. J. complains, not intemperately, of the liberty Mr. Smith claimed of styling his remarks "irrelevant and improper," a freedom which I should regret to believe would be justified by our Secretary's ideas of decorum. Mr. Jackson concludes in the words which are said to contain this offensive repetition of the imaginary insult: "You will find in my correspondence with you, that I have carefully avoided drawing conclusions that did not necessarily follow from the premises advanced by me, and least of all should I think of uttering an insinuation where I was unable to substantiate a fact."

If Mr. Jackson had really uttered an unfounded insinuation, he here certainly repeats it, because he adheres to all he had before said, and retracts nothing. But if, as I believe, he had not made any insinuations, but had directly and obviously referred to facts which were either admitted or had been, substantially proved, and more especially as he has not anywhere made the insinuation charged, "that our Government were acquainted with Mr. Erskine's restricted authority," the conclusion seems to be irresistible, that he could not here repeat an insinuation which he had not previously made. This paragraph obviously means that he had abstained from such an insinuation because "he was unable to substantiate the fact." Nor can I conceive how this declaration could be offensive to Mr. Smith, unless received by him as presenting a contrast to his own deportment, in which case he owes his feelings to his own conscious sensibility.

Were it, however, otherwise, and if, instead of an insinuation so hidden that a Secretary of State only can discover it, Mr. Jackson had given a direct and unequivocal insult, the Congress of the United States are not required either by duty or policy to interfere. The constitution has wisely created different branches of the Government, committed to each its separate cares and duties, made each independent of the other, intending thereby to secure the separate deliberation and separate responsibility of each. To attain its blessings, these valuable objects of the constitution ought not to be defeated. To the President alone is given the power to receive Ministers and to treat with them, and as in the course of this duty he becomes personally interested in the deportment of foreign Ministers, if they demean themselves disrespectfully towards him, he is clothed with the power to break off intercourse with them at pleasure, and so far to suspend their ministerial functions. This power has been repeatedly exercised by our Presidents, as the constitution intended it should be, upon their own responsibility. And it is the highest policy of this Government, in order to obtain the advantages of the free judgment and decision of the President, so to conduct towards him that he should learn to act without fear of the censure of Congress on the one hand, and without any hope on the other, that their countenance shall shelter his measures from scrutiny. This policy, and the strict inviolability of the Executive power in all cases of treaty, were emphatically settled in the case of Jay's Treaty, in which the President, (whose independent example deserves more respect than it has met from his successors), standing upon his own responsibility refused to submit to the House of Representatives any papers relating to that negotiation, except the treaty itself. Yet if the plan proposed by these resolutions be adopted; if we by formal resolutions approve the conduct of the President in an affair so exclusively his own, as that of the rupture with Mr. Jackson, may we not on some future occasion, as observed by my honorable colleague, (Mr. Macon,) claim the right of censuring in matters equally within his sole and peculiar province? If, then, we are to interfere with Executive duties, not merely as sycophants, applauding his every act, but as freemen condemning what we do not approve, the inevitable consequence must be, a conflict between the Executive and Legislative Departments, in which the wounds of either can only be inflicted through the constitution; or (an issue equally fatal) the advantages intended to be derived from separate deliberation, distinct responsibility, and mutual jealousy and watchfulness of the separate departments disappear, in a miserable complaisance of acting by previous concert, and thus propping each other before the people.

The question was then taken on postponement as moved by Mr. Gardenier, and negatived without a division.

And at length, at half past five o'clock, the main question on the final passage of the resolution was taken, and carried—yeas 72, nays 41, as follows:

Yeas.—Lemuel J. Alston, Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson, Ezekiel Bacon, David Bard, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, Adam Boyd, John Brown, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William Butler, Joseph Calhoun, Matthew Clay, Howell Cobb, James Cochran, James Cox, William Crawford, Richard Cutts, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, John W. Eppes, William Findlay, Jonathan Fisk, Meshack Franklin, Barzillai Gannett, Gideon Gardner, Thomas Gholson, jr., Peterson Goodwyn, William Helms, James Holland, Benjamin Howard, Jacob Hufty, Robert Jenkins, Richard M. Johnson, Thomas Kenan, William Kennedy, John Love, Aaron Lyle, Robert Marion, Samuel McKee, Alexander McKim, William Milnor, John Montgomery, Nicholas R. Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, Thomas Newbold, Thomas Newton, John Nicholson, Peter B. Porter, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Matthias Richards, John Roane, Erastus Root, John Ross, Ebenezer Sage, Thomas Sammons, Ebenezer Seaver, Adam Seybert, Dennis Smelt, John Smilie, George Smith, Henry Southard, John Taylor, John Thompson, Uri Tracy, Charles Turner, jr., Robert Weakley, Robert Whitehill, and Robert Witherspoon.

Nays.—Daniel Blaisdell, James Breckenridge, John C. Chamberlain, William Chamberlin, Epaphroditus Champion, Martin Chittenden, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, jr., William Ely, James Emott, Barent Gardenier, Thomas R. Gold, William Hale, Nathaniel A. Haven, Jonathan H. Hubbard, Richard Jackson, jr., Herman Knickerbacker, Joseph Lewis, jr., Edward St. Loe Livermore, Robert Le Roy Livingston, Nathaniel Macon, Archibald McBryde, Jonathan O. Mosely, Jos. Pearson, Benjamin Pickman, jr., Timothy Pitkin, jr., Elisha R. Potter, Josiah Quincy, Richard Stanford, John Stanley, William Stedman, James Stephenson, Lewis B. Sturges, Jacob Swoope, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Jabez Upham, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Laban Wheaton, Ezekiel Whitman, and James Wilson.

[On this vote were absent 27 members, viz: Messrs, Campbell, Clopton, Cook,* Crist, Denning,* Goldsborough, Gray, Heister, J. G. Jackson, Jones, Key, Lyon,* Matthews, Miller, T. Moore, Mumford,* Nelson, Randolph,* Sawyer, Shaw, Sheffey, J. Smith, S. Smith, Troup, Van Dyke,* Van Horne, and Wynn*; of whom those marked (*) have not appeared in their seats during the present session, and those in italic are known to be absent from the city.]

The House then adjourned, at a quarter before six, after a session of nineteen hours, during the whole of which time the Speaker presided in the Chair with dignity and moderation, to Friday next.

Friday, January 5.

Another member to wit, from Delaware, Nicholas Van Dyke, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Claim of Elizabeth Hamilton.

Mr. Johnson, from the Committee of Claims, made a report on the petition of Elizabeth Hamilton, referred on the 5th ultimo; which was read, and referred to a Committee of the Whole on Wednesday next. The report is as follows:

That it is stated by the petitioner, that her late husband, Alexander Hamilton, served as Lieutenant Colonel in the Army of the United States during the Revolutionary war; that, in common with other officers he was entitled to five years' full pay as commutation for half-pay during life; that her husband, being in Congress at the time the resolution passed making this provision in favor of the officers of the Revolution, in a letter to the Secretary of War he relinquished his claim to commutation; and the petitioner prays for the amount of said commutation. It does not appear, from any evidence from the Secretary of War or of the Treasury, that the late Colonel Hamilton ever did relinquish his right to half-pay or commutation, nor can the committee believe that it would be proper or generous that such relinquishment should be relied on as a bar to a just claim upon the United States for meritorious services against the representatives of such claimant. It appears, from a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, that the late Colonel Hamilton received pay as an officer up to the end of February, 1782, and no later. And there is no evidence upon the Treasury books, or books of the War Office, whether at this or what period Colonel Hamilton resigned. The committee, however, have been furnished with a document, which induces the belief that Colonel Hamilton did not resign his commission until after the 28th day of October, 1783, which document is in these words: "In pursuance of an act of Congress of the 30th day of September, 1783, Lieutenant Colonel Hamilton is to take rank as Colonel by Brevet, in the Armies of the United States of America. Signed at Princeton, October 28, 1783, by Elias Boudinot, President," &c.

The committee are of opinion, that the resolution of Congress, upon a liberal construction, did not require actual service, and that the officer should be in the receipt of his pay to entitle him to commutation; but that he should have a commission, and be at all times liable to be called on to perform the duties of his station. The committee are confirmed in this opinion, when they recollect the situation of the United States and the Army in the year 1783, and in fact, from the capture of Cornwallis and his Army at Little York, in the State of Virginia, in the year 1781. But this claim is, like all other claims of this description, barred by the statute of limitation. The following resolution is offered:

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

Monday, January 15.

Two members, to wit: from New York, Gurdon S. Mumford, and from Kentucky, Matthew Lyon, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

Tuesday, January 16.

Another member, to wit, from South Carolina, Richard Wynn, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Wednesday, January 17.

A new member, to wit, David S. Garland, returned to serve as a member of this House for the State of Virginia, in the place of Wilson Carey Nicholas, resigned, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

Wednesday, January 31.

Officers of the Revolution.

Mr. Nelson, from the committee appointed on the twenty-fourth instant, made a report on the several petitions of the surviving officers of the late Revolutionary Army; which was read, and referred to a Committee of the Whole on Monday next. The report is as follows:

That, by a resolution of Congress of the 15th of May, 1778, all military officers who then were, or should thereafter be, in the service of the United States, and who should continue in service during the war, and not hold any office of profit under the United States, or any of them, should, after the conclusion of the war, be entitled to receive, annually, for the term of seven years, if they should live so long, one-half of the then pay of such officers: provided that no general officer of the cavalry, artillery or infantry, should be entitled to receive more than the one-half part of the pay of a colonel of such corps, respectively; and, provided that the said resolution should not extend to any officer in the service of the United States, unless he should have taken an oath of Allegiance, and should actually reside within some one of the United States.

That, by a resolution of Congress of the 11th of August, 1779, it was resolved that the half-pay provided by the aforesaid resolution of the 15th of May, 1778, should be extended to continue for life.

That, by a resolution of Congress of the 21st of October, 1780, it was provided that the officers who should continue in the service to the end of the war should be entitled to half-pay during life, to commence from the time of their reduction.

That, by a resolution of Congress of the 17th day of January, 1781, all officers in the hospital department, and medical staff, thereinafter mentioned, who should continue in service until the end of the war, or be reduced before that time as supernumeraries, should be entitled to receive during life, in lieu of half-pay, the following allowances, viz: The director of the hospital, equal to the half-pay of a lieutenant-colonel; chief physician and surgeons of the army and hospital, and hospital physicians and surgeons, purveyor, apothecary, and regimental surgeons, each equal to the half-pay of a captain.

That, by a resolution of Congress of the 22d day of March, 1783, it was provided that such officers as were then in service, and should continue therein until the end of the war, should be entitled to receive the amount of five years' full pay in money, or securities on interest at six per centum per annum, as Congress should find most convenient, instead of the half-pay promised for life by the resolution of the 21st day of October, 1780; the said securities being such as should be given to the other creditors of the United States: provided it should be at the option of the lines of the respective States and not of officers individually in those lines, to accept or refuse the same; and provided, also, that their election should be signified to Congress, through the Commander-in-Chief, from the lines under his immediate command, within two months, and through the commanding officer of the Southern Army, from those under his command, within six months from the date of the resolution.

That the same commutation should extend to the corps not belonging to the lines of any particular State, and who were entitled to half-pay as aforesaid: the acceptance or refusal to be determined by the corps, and to be signified in the same manner, and within the same time, as above mentioned; that all officers belonging to the hospital department, who are entitled to half-pay by the resolution of the 17th of January, 1781, might collectively agree to accept or refuse the aforesaid commutation, signifying the same through the Commander-in-Chief, within six months; that such officers as had retired at different periods entitled to half-pay for life, might, collectively, in each State of which they are inhabitants, accept or refuse the same; their acceptance or refusal to be signified by agents authorized for that purpose, within six months; that with respect to such retiring officers, the commutation, if accepted by them, should be in lieu of whatever might be then due to them since the time of their retiring from service, as well as what might thereafter become due; and that as soon as their acceptance should be signified, the Superintendent of Finance should be, and he was thereby, authorized to take measures for the settlement of their accounts accordingly, and to issue to them certificates bearing interest at six per cent.; that all officers entitled to half-pay for life, not included in the preceding resolution, might, also, collectively, agree to accept or refuse the aforesaid commutation, signifying the same within six months from the passage of said resolution. The petitioners state, and the fact is of too general notoriety to be disputed, that although they confidently expected, at the time they were compelled from imperious necessity to accept the sum in gross in lieu of half-pay for life, that it would be paid to them in reality, and not by a fresh promise without any sufficient guarantee for its due performance, yet they were compelled to receive certificates, which, for want of any specific provision for the payment of them, or the interest accruing on them, were immediately depreciated to five for one, and, by degrees, to ten for one, in exchange for money. They therefore pray that half-pay for life, to commence from the time of the reduction of the Army, may be granted to them, according to the solemn stipulations entered into with them by Congress, by the resolutions before referred to; deducting therefrom the five years' full pay received by them in depreciated paper, by way of commutation.

It is well known to your committee, and to the whole nation, that the far greater part of the officers were compelled by hard necessity to dispose of their commutation certificates at prices infinitely below their nominal amount; that this did not proceed from want of patriotism, of which they had beforehand given proofs most unequivocal, or of want of confidence in their Government; but that, after having spent the vigor of their manhood in the service of their country, they returned to the walks of civil life, (many of them maimed, and scarcely able to halt along,) ignorant of what was passing or likely to pass in the councils of their country; the griping hand of poverty bore hard upon them; and, unacquainted as they necessarily were with civil affairs, they fell an easy prey to the wiles of the artful and insidious speculator, who was lying in wait to fatten upon their hard earnings. Under circumstances like these, it would have been strange indeed, if they had kept their certificates in their pockets. No, the thing was impracticable; go they must, for whatever they would bring, and be the consequences whatever they might.

Upon the whole, the committee are of opinion that the contract entered into by Congress with the officers of the late Revolutionary Army, for giving them half-pay for life, has not been substantially complied with by the Government. They, therefore, recommend the following resolution:

Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioners is reasonable, and ought to be granted.

Friday, February 9.

Robert Fulton and Torpedoes.

The following letter was laid before the House:

"Kalorama, February 9, 1810.

"Sir: Having published a pamphlet explaining my experience on the practice and effects of torpedoes, I beg leave to present you, and each member of the House of Representatives, one copy. Should the House consider this subject of sufficient interest to merit further explanation, I shall be happy to give a lecture at such time and place as may be most convenient, in which I will exhibit the various modes of attack with torpedoes and harpoon guns, as prepared for action, with such models and demonstrations as will lead to a clear understanding of the subject.

"I have the honor to be, &c.,

"ROBERT FULTON.

"Hon. Speaker House of Reps."

Leave was given to present the pamphlets mentioned in the above letter, as requested.

Navigation of the Mobile.

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

To the House of Representatives of the United States:

I transmit to the House a report of the Secretary of State, complying with their resolution of the 22d of January.

JAMES MADISON.

February 9, 1810.

Department State, Feb. 8, 1810.

The Secretary of State, to whom the President has been pleased to refer the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 22d of last month, has the honor to state that it appears from the records in this department, that in the years 1801 and 1802, the Executive had endeavored to obtain, for the citizens of the United States residing on the waters of Tombigbee and Alabama rivers, the free navigation of the Mobile river to its confluence with the ocean—first, by claiming this navigation as a natural right, sanctioned by the general principles of the law of nations applicable to rivers similarly situated; and, secondly, by endeavoring to purchase the country held by Spain on the Mobile.

These efforts were made before it was known that Spain had ceded Louisiana to France, and consequently before the purchase of that province by the United States. Since that purchase, the country held by Spain on the Mobile has been claimed as being included therein.

The Spanish Government, having objected to this claim in a manner which justified a belief that the question would not be soon decided, our Minister at Madrid was instructed again to claim the free navigation of the Mobile under the general principles of the law of nations, and to represent to His Catholic Majesty the propriety and necessity of giving orders to his officers not to interrupt the free communication with our Territories through the waters of the Mobile.

In addition to what has been done through this department, it appears that the Governor of the Orleans Territory, and other officers of the United States, have endeavored to induce the Spanish authorities on the Mobile to abstain from exacting duties on the passage of our merchandise or produce up or down that river. Notwithstanding, however, every thing which has been done, it is understood that these authorities have continued to exact (with some occasional relaxations) a duty of twelve per cent. "on all articles of the growth or manufacture of the United States, which are conveyed through said river to and from the city of New Orleans."

All which is respectfully submitted.

R. SMITH.

Monday, February 12.

Torpedoes.

Mr. Dawson.—On hearing the Journal read, I find that on last Friday a letter was received by the Speaker from Mr. Fulton. What merit is due to his invention I will not pretend to say; but I know Mr. Fulton to be a man of science and successful experiment; of which he has given proofs, both in Europe and this country. It seems to me that some attention ought to be paid to his communication. I therefore move you that his letter be referred to a select committee.

Mr. Dawson's motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed, consisting of Messrs. Dawson, Taylor and Bacon.

Wednesday, February 14.

Torpedoes.

Mr. Dawson made the following report:

The committee to whom was referred a letter from Robert Fulton to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, dated on the 9th instant, beg leave to report, in part, that at their request Mr. Fulton attended the committee on this morning, and explained to them his views of the uses and effects of torpedoes, on which the committee forbear to give an opinion, and offer the following resolution:

Resolved, That, when the House shall adjourn on Friday next, it will adjourn to meet on Monday; and that Mr. Fulton have the use of this Hall on Saturday, for the purpose of exhibiting the torpedoes and delivering a lecture on their practice and utility.

Mr. Rhea moved to recommit the report to the committee who reported it, with a view to obtaining a report on the merits of it.—Motion negatived.

Mr. Livermore called for a division of the resolution reported by the committee, so as to take a question separately on the words, "Resolved, That, when the House shall adjourn, it adjourn to meet on Monday."

The question on this part of the resolution was decided by yeas and nays—yeas 90, nays 29.

Mr. Livermore moved to postpone the further consideration of the subject indefinitely.

A desultory debate took place on these various questions. It was said that the Hall of the House of Representatives was exclusively appropriated to Legislative purposes, and that, at this time, to appropriate it to the purpose of experimental lectures, would afford a precedent which would be injurious; that such a measure, if admissible at all, should not be taken unless the House were convinced of the practicability of the system proposed to be illustrated, because it would hold out the idea that the House of Representatives had sanctioned it. It was also said that this system could quite as conveniently be illustrated in one of the other apartments of the Capitol, without spreading on the Journals a formal record allowing Mr. Fulton the use of this House. In reply, it was said, that this was an invention which promised to be of great public utility, and it was but reasonable, as the inventor was known to be a scientific man, that he should have an opportunity of demonstrating its efficacy, when he has offered his services for that purpose. If it succeeded, it might be a saving of many millions to the United States; and if it failed, the House would, by paying attention to it, have shown their disposition to encourage science. The argument against the report of the committee, that this Hall was exclusively devoted to legislation, it was said, would operate with equal force against permitting Divine service to be performed there on Sundays.

Before any question was taken on the latter clause of the report of the committee, the House adjourned.

Thursday, February 15.

Torpedoes.

A motion was made by Mr. Burwell, that the unfinished business of yesterday do lie on the table; and the question being taken thereon, it was determined in the negative.

The House then resumed the consideration of the said unfinished business, and the question recurring on the motion to postpone indefinitely the further consideration of the second member of the resolution, Mr. Speaker decided that the said motion to postpone indefinitely was, at the time the same was under consideration, out of order.

A motion was then made by Mr. Ross, to amend the said resolution by striking out the words, delivering a lecture on, for the purpose of inserting the word explaining. And the question being taken thereon, it was resolved in the affirmative.

The question was then taken upon concurring in the second and last member of the said resolution, and determined in the negative—yeas 55, nays 61.

On motion of Mr. Troup, the question was then stated on concurring in the first and second members of the said resolution; when Mr. Speaker decided that, a question being divided, one part affirmed and the other rejected, a question cannot be put upon the whole of the resolution as originally proposed. From which decision of the chair, an appeal was made to the House by Mr. Troup, and being seconded, the question was taken, "Is the decision of the Chair correct?" and resolved in the affirmative—yeas 78, nays 21.

Friday, February 16.

Mrs. Hamilton's Claim.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report of the Committee of Claims on the petition of Elizabeth Hamilton, widow of Alexander Hamilton, praying for the compensation due to her deceased husband.

[This report is one of the class of those favorable to the prayers of the petitioners on grounds of equity, but declaring, because they are barred by the statute of limitations, that they, therefore, ought not to be granted.]

The resolution reported by the Committee of Claims is as follows:

"Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioner ought not to be granted."

The report was supported by Messrs. Montgomery, Varnum, Helms, and Bacon, on the ground that the late General Hamilton had no claim on the Government under the resolutions of the old Congress; because he was, on the 25th of November, 1782, a delegate in Congress, and, by the 6th article of the Confederation, incapable of holding, at the same time, a military commission. He was in that Congress, a member (if not the chairman) of the committee which reported the resolutions under which his heirs are now said to be entitled to compensation. Had no statute of limitations ever been passed, therefore, it was said that General Hamilton or his heirs had no claim on the Government; because in accepting a seat in Congress, he had virtually resigned his commission before the close of the war. The case might be a hard one; but there were hundreds of cases at least equally so, and cases too in which the sufferers had not, as General Hamilton had, subsequently enjoyed lucrative employments by the favor of his country. It was said that Congress ought to be just before they were generous. Before they granted a claim of this doubtful character, influenced by the character or standing of the individual, they should relieve the impoverished old soldiers who daily begged of them for a pittance of bread, whose claims were equally just and whose necessities were much more pressing.

Mr. Boyd spoke in favor of the report of the committee. Either the statute of limitations was just or it was unjust. If unjust, it ought to be repealed; if just, Congress ought to be careful how they made exceptions in favor of particular claims.

Messrs. Johnson, Gholson, Dawson, Sheffey Gold, Key, Pitkin and Gardenier, oppose the report of the committee. It was said that General Hamilton's having received a brevet commission at the close of the war was evidence of his having been considered in service until the end of the war; for unless he had, such a commission could not have been issued to him. But a short time before the peace, he was seen at the head of his regiment gallantly storming a redoubt at the siege of York, and contributed not a little to the capture of Cornwallis and his army. By accepting a seat in Congress he did not resign his commission, but held himself liable to be called into service at any time, if necessary. But if he had, from the best of motives, accepted a seat in Congress, and thereby resigned his commission, it was said that his heirs ought not, therefore, to be deprived of the compensation equitably due to him. Congress had extended the hand of relief to the daughters of Count de Grasse, who had no shadow of a legal claim; but their father had assisted by sea, as General Hamilton did on the land, at the capture of Cornwallis; they were in this country in distress, and Congress had relieved them. Should the same relief be denied to the representatives of a citizen who had served during the war, and whose legal claim, if barred at all, (except by the statute of limitations,) was only barred by his zeal in the service of his country, which prompted him to accept a seat in Congress? The statute of limitations, it was said, was never intended to bar Congress from discharging a just claim, but merely to prevent the accounting officers of the Treasury from allowing all the old, and perhaps fraudulent claims which might have been pressed upon them. Every gentleman who spoke, dwelt upon the obduracy of heart and injustice, as it was termed, which could refuse to the claim of the war-worn soldier, the compensation due to him for his assistance in achieving the liberties of his country.

Before the question was taken on the report, the committee rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.

And the House adjourned to Monday.

Monday, February 19.

Bank of the United States.

Mr. Montgomery, from the committee appointed, on the twenty-ninth ultimo, on the memorial of the Stockholders of the Bank of the United States, made a report thereon; which was read, and referred to a Committee of the Whole to-morrow. The report is as follows:

That in proceeding to the consideration of the said petition, your committee instructed their chairman to address a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury, requesting him to furnish such information or observations as he might think proper, in relation to the subject-matter thereof, as connected with the financial and commercial interests of the United States. In reply to which, the Secretary, by his letter to the chairman, referred your committee to his former report on the said subject, made to the Senate of the United States, in obedience to the order of that House.

Your committee have been attended by agents of the petitioners, who, in addition to the matters contained in the petition, have suggested to your committee that the object of the petitioners was to obtain the renewal of the charter in its present form; that, for this renewal, the bank is willing to make compensation, either by loans at a rate of interest, or by a sum of money to be agreed upon, or by an increase of the capital stock, by a number of shares to be taken and subscribed for by the United States, to an amount adequate to the compensation to be agreed upon for such renewal.

These agents also suggested that they were fully authorized and empowered to offer and conclude the terms specifically connected with these propositions.

Your committee, not feeling themselves authorized to enter into such terms, and judging that the extent of those propositions would better apply to the details of a bill, than to the adoption of a principle to be first settled by the House, have, therefore forborne to inquire into the extent of the propositions, and, without expressing an approbation or rejection of these offers, or giving an opinion as to the plan and reasoning of the Secretary of the Treasury, your committee in order that the opinion of the House on this great national question may be declared previous to entering into the details connected with the subject, recommend the following resolution:

Resolved, That it is proper to make provision for continuing the establishment of the Bank of the United States, with offices of discount and deposit, under the regulations necessary for the beneficial administration of the national finances, during such time, and on such conditions, as may be defined by law.

Wednesday, Feb. 28.

Amey Dardin.

Mr. Gholson, from the committee appointed on the seventh of December last, on the petition of Amey Dardin, made a report thereon; which was read, and referred to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.

The report is as follows:

That the petitioner claims compensation for a stud-horse, known by the name of Romulus, taken from her husband, David Dardin, in the year 1781, for the use of the army of the United States. It appears that the said horse was impressed from David Dardin for the public service by Lieutenant Rudder, a Continental officer, on the 26th of February, in the year aforesaid, and was then valued at the sum of £750 specie. The horse was taken to the army in North Carolina, then commanded by General Greene, who, upon hearing of the valuation, ordered the said horse to be valued again, which valuation was still higher than the first; whereupon General Greene ordered the horse to be returned to his former owner, who called upon three persons to ascertain the damages sustained by the use of his horse, and they estimated the damages at £100. The said Dardin then received the horse as his property, and continued to use him as such until the 18th July, 1781, when another Continental officer again took the horse and gave a receipt for him, wherein the sum of £750 is mentioned as having been before stated as the appraised value. This procedure attracted the attention of the Executive of Virginia, and in December, 1782, Benjamin Harrison, then Governor, made a representation to General Greene respecting this subject; but the horse being by this time in the State of Georgia, and applied to the public service, was continued therein, finally disposed of, and never thereafter returned to the said owner. It also appears that this claim of Dardin was referred to the Virginia Assembly in 1782 by the court of Mecklenburg county; and, in a former report it is stated, and believed to be true, that Dardin accordingly petitioned the Legislature of that State; but his claim being considered as coming more properly against the Union than against any particular State, he did not succeed. He, or the present petitioner, was then advised that redress might be obtained against the officers who took the horse, and a suit was instituted in the High Court of Chancery of Virginia for that purpose, which suit was depending therein until the month of June 1793, when it appears to have been abandoned and was dismissed. With the exception of the fact which the committee have extracted from a former report in this case, that this claim was once presented to and rejected by the Virginia Legislature, (which is deemed a circumstance of no particular importance,) all the foregoing statement is supported by written documents, which appear to be genuine and authentic.

On the merits of this claim, your committee consider it almost superfluous to comment. The facts are conclusive in its favor, and no obstacle to its discharge can be conceived, except the lapse of time on this subject. The committee beg leave to state, that on the 23d July, 1787, Congress passed a resolution providing that all persons having unliquidated claims against the United States shall exhibit a particular abstract thereof to the Comptroller of the Treasury of the United States within one year. This was the first limitation that was adopted in respect to any class of claims, except those for personal services, which had been barred by the resolution of 2d November, 1785. The committee are of opinion that this claim was not included in the resolution of 23d July, 1787, because that resolution mentions only unliquidated claims; and the present claim was always liquidated and certain. The certificate granted by the Continental officer states the appraisement of the horse, made pursuant to the usage of the army, at the specific sum of £750 specie.

The next limitation to claims against the United States, and which it is believed by the committee embraces the claim of the petitioner, is contained in the act of the 12th February, 1793, which took effect on the 1st of May, 1794. On the 28th of February, 1794, the petitioner, instead of presenting her claim to the Treasury, according to the requisition of the statute of the 12th of February, 1793, presented it to Congress, who took cognizance of it, and ordered it to lie on their table. Her petition, and the only documents on which she could have succeeded at the Treasury, were retained in the possession of the House of Representatives until, and for some time after, the statute of limitations began to operate. Your committee have no hesitation in hazarding the opinion that in a case like this, between A and B, before an intelligent and upright, and equitable judge, the claim would be most undoubtedly sanctioned, as not coming within the spirit, although it may fall within the strict letter of the act of limitation.

Placing, however, this question out of view, the committee are still of opinion that the claim of the petitioner ought to be allowed. They believe that when a claim, founded in a fair consideration, and supported by indisputable evidence, is presented for payment, a proper self-respect on the part of the Government, as well as justice to the claimant, requires its discharge. They therefore submit the following resolution:

Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioner ought to be granted.

Friday, March 2.

Mrs. Hamilton's Claim.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the following resolution reported by the Committee of Claims on the petition of Elizabeth Hamilton:

Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioner ought not to be granted.

Messrs. Nelson and Taylor opposed, and Messrs. Root, Boyd, and Montgomery, supported the report—each at considerable extent.

At length the question was taken in committee, and the report disagreed to, 60 to 52. The committee rose, and reported their disagreement.

The House concurred with the Committee of the Whole in their disagreement—yeas 62, nays 52.

After some conversation as to the proper course now to be pursued,

Mr. Gholson moved that the Committee of Claims be instructed to report a bill, pursuant to the prayer of Elizabeth Hamilton.

The motion was agreed to by yeas and nays—61 to 46.

Friday, March 9.

The bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act for the relief of Charles Minifie," was read twice, and committed to the Committee of Claims.

Torpedoes.

The bill from the Senate, entitled "An act making appropriation for the purpose of trying the practical use of the torpedo, or submarine explosion," was read the first time.

A motion was made by Mr. Livermore, that the bill be rejected; and the question being taken thereon, it was determined in the negative—yeas 27, nays 76.

The bill was then read the second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Monday next.

Monday, March 12.

Another member, to wit, from Virginia, John Randolph, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Wednesday, March 14.

Claim for Indian Depredations.

Mr. Witherspoon, from the committee appointed on the fourteenth ultimo, on the petition of Alexander Scott, made a report thereon, which was read, and referred to a Committee of the Whole on Friday next. The report is as follows:

That in the month of February, 1794, William Scott, James Pettigrew, and John Pettigrew, of South Carolina, left that State, with a view of establishing themselves in the present Mississippi Territory, and took with them twenty-one negro slaves, with goods and chattels to the value of more than one thousand dollars; that they proceeded in safety on their journey as far as the Muscle Shoals, on the river Tennessee, where they were attacked, about the 9th of June, 1794, by a party of Cherokee Indians, who put to death all the white people of the family, and took possession of and carried away the negroes and other property. It appears, also, to your committee, that repeated endeavors have been made, at very great expense, to recover the aforesaid property, without any other success than the recovery of a negro child; and that the persons legally entitled to the said property are forever foreclosed from any remedy by which to recover the same, in consequence of the stipulations of the ninth article of a treaty made with the Cherokee Indians on the 2d day of October, 1798, which article is in the following words: "It is mutually agreed between the parties that the horses stolen, and not returned within ninety days, shall be paid for at the rate of sixty dollars each. If stolen by a white man, citizen of the United States, the Indian proprietor shall be paid in cash; and if stolen by an Indian from a citizen, to be deducted, as expressed in the fourth article of the Treaty of Philadelphia. This article shall have retrospect to the commencement of the first conferences at this place in the present year, and no further. And all animosities, aggressions, thefts, and plunderings, prior to that day, shall cease, and be no longer remembered or demanded on either side." By the above-recited article, the petitioners are wholly deprived of redress in the premises. If there existed any tribunal of justice before whom the case could be brought, the right of the petitioners to the said negro slaves and their increase would doubtless be established. But there is no court within the United States having cognizance of an action for the recovery of property held within the Indian boundary. Neither is it in the power of the petitioners to avail themselves of force or stratagem, whereby to regain possession of the aforesaid slaves and their increase, because they would be liable to punishment for a violation of the statute of the United States regulating intercourse with the Indian tribes. From these premises, it appeared to your committee that the petitioners have an undoubted right to the above-mentioned slaves and their increase, and that they have been deprived of all remedy for their recovery by the acts of the Government of the United States; that the voluntary renunciation of their rights by the Government gives to the petitioners a fair claim on the Government for indemnification. Your committee, therefore, under an impression that the aforesaid slaves would be delivered to the agent of the United States for Indian Affairs among the Cherokee Indians upon conditions more favorable to the United States than a full remuneration of their value to the petitioners, respectfully submit the following resolution:

Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioner is reasonable, and that the President of the United States be authorized and requested to treat, by such commissioner as he shall appoint, for the delivery to the rightful owners of the slaves and their increase taken from William Scott, James Pettigrew, and John Pettigrew, on or about the 9th of June, 1794, by a party of the Cherokee nation of Indians, at or near the Muscle Shoals, on the river Tennessee, upon such equitable conditions as to him shall appear just and reasonable.

Friday, March 16.

Mrs. Hamilton's Claim.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill for the relief of Elizabeth Hamilton.

Messrs. Smilie, Root, W. Alston, Bacon, Macon, Clay, and Boyd, opposed the bill, and Messrs. Johnson, Sheffey, and Nelson, supported it.

The committee rose about four o'clock, and reported the bill.

Mr. Macon moved to amend the said bill by striking out the following words: "five years' full pay for the services of her said deceased husband as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Revolutionary war, which five years' full pay is the commutation of his half-pay for life;" for the purpose of inserting, "whatever may be due to her for his services as an officer during the Revolutionary war."

Mr. Gholson called for a division of the question.

And the motion to strike out was negatived, yeas 57, nays 54.

Mr. W. Alston moved to amend the bill by adding the following proviso:

"Provided, That it shall be made to appear, to the satisfaction of the accounting officers of the Treasury Department, that the said Alexander Hamilton ever was entitled to half pay or commutation."

The question on Mr. Alston's amendment was decided in the negative—yeas 55, nays 56.

And on motion, the House then adjourned, about five o'clock.

Saturday, March 17.

Amey Dardin's Claim.

The bill for the relief of Amey Dardin was read a third time.

Mr. Stanford moved to recommit the bill to obtain a more particular report on the claim than had been made. Motion negatived.

The passage of the bill was opposed by Messrs. Macon, Bacon, Pickman, and Stanford, and advocated by Messrs. Gholson, Smilie, W. Alston, and Sheffey.

[It was opposed on three grounds—the main objection being that it opened the statute of limitations; 2, that the claim ought not to be allowed, because the horse, for which compensation was asked, might have been reclaimed if the deceased Mr. Dardin had chosen to have received it; 3, that interest ought not to be allowed on the sum at which the horse was valued.]

The bill was passed—yeas 82, nays 24.

Mrs. Hamilton's Claim.

The consideration of the bill for the relief of Mrs. Hamilton was called for.

Mr. Wynn moved to adjourn. For it, 23.

Mr. Root moved to postpone the further consideration of it till Friday next. Negatived, 57 to 43.

Mr. Root opposed the bill at length, and Mr. Fisk replied.

The question "Shall the bill be engrossed for a third reading?" was then taken and carried, by yeas and nays.

On the question, when the bill should be read a third time, Mr. Root named Friday, and Mr. Nelson to-day.

For Friday 44—For Monday 50.

To-day was fixed as the day; and a motion was made by Mr. T. Moore to adjourn. Lost, 63 to 50.

The bill was read a third time and passed, 63 to 53, the votes being precisely the same as those last taken, except that Mr. R. Brown was absent on this vote.

Monday, March 26.

Torpedo Experiment.

The bill making an appropriation for the purpose of making an experiment on the practical use of the torpedo, or submarine explosion, was taken up.

Mr. Dana, said that the question now before the House did not relate to any degree of reputation which any individual might claim for any invention, nor to any interest he might have in any discovery he had made. The question was, whether this proposition now appeared before the House under such circumstances that they should step out of the ordinary course of encouragement, given by law to inventors, to provide the means of making an experiment at the public expense. This, Mr. D. said, was the simple inquiry to be made; and, however eminent or distinguished in the walks of science, or however irradiated by the splendor of genius, it belonged to no individual to demand of the Legislature that they should adopt any system previous to its utility being ascertained. No individual could arrogate it to himself; and, when any individual pressed himself upon the Legislature, it was a question whether this experiment was worthy to be made; whether the invention promised any possible good worthy of this experiment.

Mr. D. said he had no wish to detain the House, but he had really doubted, for himself, whether, with the views he entertained on this subject, it was compatible with the respect due to the House to withhold some of the sentiments which occurred to him in opposition to this bill. In every instance in which a sum of money had heretofore been appropriated to encourage inventions, it had been for some object admitted to be of value, for something intended to be of use, and which, prior to making the appropriation in relation to it, had been, in a degree, examined. This, however, was a thing which, on the face of it, appropriated a sum of money for the purpose of making experiments to ascertain the use of the invention. It was therefore, perhaps, the first appropriation of the kind ever proposed.

Mr. D. said he did not perceive that any experiment could be made, in time of peace, to ascertain this thing, so as to decide the question of the practical use of the torpedo; for, with respect to every question stated in the publication laid on the table, with respect to any principle which the inventor proposed to establish by any specific experiment, with respect to any question which related to natural agents or their physical effect, he thought it proper to admit the whole.

In the first place, Mr. D. said that he admitted that the explosive force of gunpowder, placed at the keel, might destroy any ship. Another thing he would admit, that a person might deposit powder in a metallic case, which should remain under water; that the case might be made water-tight, and that the clock-work contained in it might be put in motion. He would admit, also, that this machine might be balanced so that its gravity should be nearly equal to that of the water; that the action of the current or tide might bear such a magazine, so specifically apportioned, beneath the bottom of the vessel.

But, when all these things were admitted, Mr. Dana said that he did not perceive that any one point was gained as respected the object of the experiment, for it must be considered that all this experiment could only go to decide the action of natural physical powers, where the efforts of genius were not combined.

As respects the whole of the thing itself, as far as I understand it, I perceive nothing new in it. I do not conceive that, on this subject, there is any thing very novel in point of principle. There may be something in the modification of it; but, as respects the main principle, there is nothing new. The idea was started during the war of the American Revolution, and various experiments were made on it. The Commander-in-Chief of the Army of the United States, at that time, was not, as I have understood, impressed himself with much confidence in the experiment. But a gentleman of his family, and an officer of his army, who had more confidence in it, made the experiment; and, ultimately, the experiment was pretty much given up.

As he did not speak at random, Mr. D. asked leave to call the attention of the House to the principles of the invention of David Bushnell, of Connecticut. [Mr. D. here read, from the Philosophical Transactions, an account of a machine invented by Mr. Bushnell, in many respects similar to that invented by Mr. Fulton.]

The principal difference between these two inventions, Mr. D. said, appeared to be in the mode of conveying the machine to the keel of the ship. The plan of Mr. Fulton was, instead of conveying it by means of a diving-boat, to convey it by the action of the current to the place where it was to operate. To do this he proposed two modes. As respected the first, the action of the current on the torpedo placed obliquely, Mr. D. said he had no doubt. It was the principle on which the helmsman steers his ship, and the seaman manages his sails; the principle on which boats are made to pass ferries by the oblique action of the current. As respected the second mode, the use of the harpoon-gun, there was no novelty in that certainly. It had been used in Europe in the whale fishery, where they were not trained in this species of fishing so as to produce dexterity in throwing the harpoon. Premiums had been given, and attempts made to discharge a harpoon from a ring and rope attached to it, at the distance of ten fathoms, which was a greater distance than the most experienced and skilful could strike with effect.