The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1808-01-08 00:00:00

National Intelligencer.
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. VIII.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. 1129.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM,
FRIDAY, JANUARY 8, 1808.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
A LIST OF LETTERS Remaining in the Post Office at Washington City, the 1st day of January 1808.
[A] William Adams, Henry A. Lee, John Anes, John Apperson, L. Augustine, Henry B. Austin.
[B] Chelsey Bailey, James D. Barry, Anthony Brown, Thomas Brown, Wm. Brown 3, Charles Braddock, Thos. M. Bailey, Jas. Bateman, Thos. Bee, Jr., Daniel Brownhill, Mrs. Baker, Samuel Burgess, capt. William Bainbridge, John C. Bash, Thos. Bullett, Thos. Brister, Edward Bonsall, Sarah Burnett, Stephen Bright, Benj. P. Brain, Benjamin Bots, Michael Boone, William Brooks, Herman Blennerhassett, John Brown.
[C] Michael Carroll, Zee Cox, Wm. Carter 2, Wm. Cross, James Cartwright, Dan. Caffrey, Ralph Charlton 2, William Cooper, Joseph Chambers 6, Robert C. Cornell, Benj. Conner, Capt. Jan. W. Cox, Timothy Calbert, Benj. Collins, Henry Carbery, Jane Crumel, Dan. C. Macrae Casey.
[D] Fred. Diedrick 2, Henry Dunlop, John Dent, Glen Drayton 4, Luke Davis, Mildred Dixon, Miss Lefey Davis, Gibson Dove, P. Desprairie, John Darby, Jesse Dowe Jr.
[E] J. Esmeare, Robert Elvidge, Joseph H. Egan, Rufus Elliott, Gen. Wm. Eaton, Ebenezer Elmer.
[F] Robert Fulton, Elizabeth Finch, Elizabeth Foyles, James Fletcher, Edward Fergusson, Geo. Fowler, Mrs. Fitzhugh, Rebecca Fator.
[G] Richard Gains, James Gibson 2, Daniel Geyer, David Gould, Ann Glover, Ebenezer Granger, Harry Grant, George Gill, Rachael Grove, Joseph Gardiner.
[H] Mary Hersey, Joseph Hustler, Walter Harris, John Huston, Jeremiah Hunt, Doctor Wm. Hill.
[I] John H. Jarvis, Thomas Jenkins, George H. Jones, Charles Jones of Ab.
[K] Richard R. Keene, Peter Kirkwood, William King, Charles King.
[L] Mr. Lovering 3, Thos. Link 2, Tobias Lear, Mary Lane, John Love, Lewis Leroy, Major James Ladson, Owen Lyons, Charles Love, George Leake, Susannah Lynch, Lieut. W. Lewis.
[M] Mr. Mackelam, John Minchin, 2, Gen. Thos. Matthews, 4, Charles McGourick, Hon. John Marshall, Hon. H. Marshall, Mr. McCormick, Jas. McCormick, Jas. 3, Robert Mills, 2, Mary Madrick, Grace M'Daniel, Kidder Meade, John M'Carroll, Homannus Munhill, Mrs. Myers, Mr. M'Loud, Thomas M'Cahan, 2, William Morgan, George Martin, Matthias Maher.
[N] Charles Newman, Henry G. Neale, Edward Nibbett.
[O] Charles O. Neall.
[P] Jeremiah H. Pearson, 2, Levi Patter, A. Placide, George Prince, Wm. Patterson, Joseph Peck, 2, James Peck, Capt. W. Post.
[Q] Edward Quinn.
[R] John Revell, Wm. Riley, Com. John Rodgers 3, Gilbert C. Russell, Benjamin H. Rush, John Rimmington, Lieut. Ben. F. Read, David Rawb.
[S] Daniel Sickels, B. Smith, John Seburn, Thomas Shorthouse, William Sturges, Enoch Spalding, Wm. Stickney, James Spencer, George F. Strass, Gen. St. Clair, 2, Dr. P. Simm, John Sarazin, John Swann.
[T] Chris in Tuller, Patt. Toole, The Jail Keeper of Washington City, Jas. Tallmadge, jun.
[U] V. J. James Upjohn, John Varner, 3, John Venable, John Venable.
[W] Miss M. Wilson, Eliza Wilson, Mr. Withington, Henry Wooded, Elizabeth Williams, Robert Waite, George Woolger, John H. Wade, 2, James Walker, Abel Wilford, Thos. West, Wm. B. Wood, Simon Willard, jun., Daniel Wright, Wm. Williams, M. J. Witte, Samuel Wilson, Charles Walsh.
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Debate on the memorial of the Governor by direction of the Legislature of Massachusetts, in favor of the Yazoo Claimants.
MONDAY, JAN. 4, 1808.
Mr. Bacon having moved that the memorial be referred to the committee of Claims,
Mr. Binn moved that it be rejected. He said there were very few cases in which he should oppose the reference of a petition; but this was a case in which he should be in favor of rejection. He would never object to a petition for a lawful object; but when a petition was laid before the House evidently founded in fraud and corruption, he should reject it. So much had been said on this subject heretofore, the fraud and villainy of the transaction on which the claim was founded, had been so ably exposed, that he deemed it unnecessary to say any thing more on the subject.
Mr. Troup did not know whether the memorial should be thrown under the table, or whether, as had been moved by his colleague, it should be rejected. The memorial, on a subject on which the House had before decided, and that on the most mature deliberation, was treating the House with disrespect; it was an attempt (it could be considered in no other light) to teaze the House; to torture it into a compliance with the prayer of the petition. The House was to be provoked into a surrender of important rights to get rid of the memorialists. They were bound to listen to a memorial couched in decent, proper and respectful terms, but not to the language of insult—and this was an insult upon this body, calling upon it to sanction corruption so vile and infamous. With this impression he should second the motion of his colleague.
The Speaker declared a motion for a reference to take preference of a motion to reject.
Mr. Binn called for the Yeas and Nays on the motion for reference.
Mr. Smilie said, as he should vote for the commitment of the petition, he should mention one reason that induced him to vote thus. His sentiments on this subject were well known; he was no Yazoo man. He never had nor did he now mean to vote in favor of the claim; but when a petition came before the House through the medium of the Executive of a high & respectable state, he felt a delicacy in saying that such a petition should not be referred. The House had this session heard a great deal with respect to the rights of states; he hoped they would take no step which might infringe those rights. Though not in favor of this claim, yet in the form in which it now came before the House, he hoped it would be referred.
Mr. Livermore did not know whether he could well sit still and consent to give a silent vote on a question of this nature. If no objection had been made to this motion there would have been no occasion; but considering the question as it ought to be considered, it was astonishing to him that any objection should be made to a commitment. Here was a representation from the legislature through the executive of a state, to the legislature of the U. S. Now whether the claim was well founded or not, he did conceive that there was more deference to be shown to a state, than instantly to throw its memorial under the table, or to reject it without debate. He did not conceive that this was the regular mode of doing business; he apprehended, notwithstanding what had been said by the gentleman from Georgia, that this question might and ought to be brought before the legislature. Whatever views might have been taken by a former legislature on the subject, had nothing to do with the present. He conceived that the present legislature were not as well informed on the subject as might be supposed; for although there were present many members of a former Congress, there were also many new members. He by no means admitted the idea that the legislature ought to grant the claim; but at the same time he did not contend, nor did it follow, that every subsequent legislature should pursue the same course as the one preceding it, or never listen to a claim because it had been before rejected. He would not now undertake to enter into the merits of the claim, would not say he should vote for or against it; he was determined to hear every argument that should be adduced against granting relief to the memorialists; but it was at the same time his bounden duty to consider the petition of any portion of our citizens who considered themselves deprived of any rights. Without troubling the House with any further observations, he hoped they would refer the memorial from a respect to the legislature of the state by whom it was preferred.
Mr. W. Alston did not care what course was taken with this petition; whether it was rejected or not; but it seemed to him it would be as well to act somewhat consistently on this occasion. A great clamor had been raised a few days ago because the House neglected the petition of a parcel of merchants. Even their petition, such as it was, was not rejected; and the right of petitioning was revered, and it was laid on the table. What was now before the House? A petition from one of the most respectable states in the union, which after the most mature reflection had requested the House to do what? To grant the Yazoo country to speculators?—No. It asked for its citizens a hearing. And yet they were told that this petition should not be committed, that no respect should be paid to the respectable source from which the memorial had proceeded, because the original ground of the
claim was fraud. This might be true. That the Yazoo act was as corrupt a one as ever the statute book was disgraced with had no doubt; and he also believed that no man was more opposed to fraud and corruption than he had always been. It was from his great opposition and aversion to land jobbers and speculators, that he had been heretofore in favor of examining into this subject, and getting totally clear of it in the best manner they could.
The story of Yazoo had been so often resounded within these walls, that it had become, like the cry of wolf in the fable, repeated so often that it was no longer regarded. It should seem from the language in the House, that a part of it really designed to countenance fraud. This was not the case; there had been no question as yet proposed to the House to grant a single acre of land; such a proposition had never entered these walls. The only question was and had been, whether this claim should be settled on any principle, if narrowed down to the terms of the convention of the state of Georgia.
He might be permitted while up to make a few observations on this convention. The subject of this grant of land was introduced into the convention, with the express view that Congress should do something with the grant; that they should take it into their hands, and rid the state of Georgia of it forever. Under this view it was that he had been led to vote for the convention which he did not entirely like; but the subject had taken such a turn in Georgia, that the Representatives from that state wished to get clear of it, for it would always hang over them, until the U. S. should do something with it. Under these impressions had that convention been adopted. What is now our situation, said he? The government of the country had passed a law appropriating a small portion of country for settling claims, among which this was recognized. Whether it was good policy or not to give these petitioners any thing was not a question now before the House. He thought the government were not now bound in the same manner as they were immediately after the transaction took place.
Whatever mode were adopted to get rid of the claim, he should be satisfied. If a reference were refused, he would vote for a rejection. He had not about him those nice feelings which some gentlemen professed; for if a petition were not referred, he cared not what became of it. He should vote for a reference of this petition, as he did in other cases, to dispose of it finally in the shortest time. Gentlemen who were so liberal of professions of respect for the rights of petition at all times, might be able to account to their consciences for the rejection of this.
Mr. Nelson said as he had the honor of seconding the motion for rejection, it might be expected that he should assign his reasons for so doing. It appeared to him that this question was so perfectly well understood in this House and throughout the United States, that, if there were no impropriety in rejecting a petition at this stage of the business, there could be no reason for a reference of this. The subject was perfectly understood; every gentleman had made up his mind on it, and he therefore saw no reason why the petition should be referred and go through the whole routine of business, when they meant finally to reject it. If there was a determination to reject it could it not be done now as well as at any time? But gentlemen said a petition coming from so respectable a state as Massachusetts should be treated with attention. Mr. N. would listen to a petition coming from any state legislature, but not sooner than to a petition coming from a number of individuals. If the members composing that legislature had petitioned in their individual capacity, he should conceive himself bound to pay the same respect to them. A majority of the people composing the legislature of the state of Massachusetts had thought that this claim was correct and ought to be granted. These persons imbibed their opinions from their constituents who were perhaps very much interested in the claim. These men (the claimants) had tried the question here in various shapes. What further form could it assume? They thought if they could come forward under the sanction of a legislature, they should be treated with more attention than if they had come forward in their individual capacity. If the House were prepared to reject their memorial, it would be no indignity offered to Massachusetts to reject it. Every state in the union had a right to make such applications as she pleased; which might be referred or not. If Congress were not acquainted with the subject and facts stated in the memorial, it might be referred. But if they were already fully acquainted with it, where in the name of common sense, was the necessity of referring it? If he should engage in any business to which he was not competent, but in which some man perfectly acquainted with it should give him the necessary information, he need
not employ his time in receiving the same information from another source. In this case there could be no more disrespect in rejecting this memorial in this stage of the business, than at any time hereafter. It was said there were many new members in the House. In answer to this he might say that there was not a child of ten years old in the country who had not heard of this business—not a member in the House who had not understood this subject as well as ever he could; it had made a noise throughout the country and every one had heard it, and must be prepared to vote on it. Gentlemen who were in favor of the claim would of course vote against its rejection; but they wanted no time to reflect on the subject. Their minds were fully made up, and they were ready to give their yea or nay on the question.
The gentleman from North Carolina had endeavored to put this subject in a different point of view from that in which it had generally appeared. The law of the country was open to these claimants, and because they and other men might think the forms of law too tedious, they had petitioned Congress to erect a more summary tribunal, that they might obtain a more speedy decision; that Congress should pass a law to authorise A, B, and C to pass a law respecting land titles. We had better discharge all our judges, said Mr. N. and say we will have no courts, and whenever a question is to come on, application may be made to the national legislature for the erection of a tribunal for its decision. This memorial prayed that Congress would pass a law for the purpose of giving the Yazoo people an opportunity of trying this question against the U. States. If they wished the validity of their claim to be decided, let them bring an action of ejectment against any person settling on their land; if no person would settle on it, let them erect a house for the purpose. It was a new idea and an abominable principle that congress should pass a special law for the purpose of trying a particular case. If the laws of the United States were deficient, let the general system be amended, but not legislate on any particular case.
For these reasons he should vote against the reference of this petition: because, in the first place, the House were as well prepared now as they could be at any time; because, in the second place, voting against it would be no sort of disrespect to the state of Massachusetts; because, in the third place, he believed it would be improper to pass a particular act (as the memorial prayed) for a particular case; and fourthly, because he thought the particular transaction on which the claim was founded was abominable throughout. For these reasons he was prepared to vote against a reference.
Mr. Holland rose to express his opinion that the petition should be referred to the committee of Claims or to some other; it was certainly one of those cases entitled to consideration, and he did not believe that the ears of the House would be insulted by listening to it. Perhaps the legislature of Georgia in granting this land had acted as corruptly as the gentleman from that state had said it had. Had not this subsequently been a matter before the commissioners of the United States, and had they not in some degree recognized this claim? Let the gentleman from Georgia examine and see whether the settlement of this claim had not been recognised by these commissioners. Mr. H. did not recollect that this claim had ever been rejected at any time; and let it be recollected that a bill had once passed the Senate of the U. States authorizing a compromise of this claim.
After this had actually taken place, were the ears of gentlemen in the House so extremely delicate that they felt themselves insulted when such a memorial came before them?
The gentleman from Maryland had said that school boys knew the circumstances of the case and that all must be ready to decide. Mr. H. said this was not the case; this was a complex business and would require more time to decide; it than that gentleman had devoted to it. The gentleman might ask another question, why was a particular law passed declaring that a particular class of citizens should not settle? It was certainly proper that their claim should be taken notice of, and particularly when the legislature of a state had interfered on the subject. But the gentleman had said that the state had given an easy ear to the claim of its citizens. Perhaps this was just. Mr. H. was one of those who thought that the claim should have been long ago settled, and that no clamor should have been made about it; for he begged to say that nothing but clamor had been opposed to the claim; and gentlemen so much opposed to it had not examined into its justice. He believed policy as well as justice required its settlement; that its not being determined would prevent the Mississippi territory from being peopled, and its citizens from settling. For who would settle it in its present situation? He hoped therefore that it would be referred and undergo a serious examination; and he hoped gentlemen would not feel their ears menaced by
a memorial couched in such respectful terms as this.
Mr. Bacon said, he felt himself incompetent to decide on this claim, and feeling so, he had supposed that other gentlemen were in the same situation, especially as there was in this Congress so large a proportion of new members; but were he even competent, fully competent to enter into an examination of it, he should feel it by no means his duty to enter into an investigation of it in the present stage of the business. When he presented this memorial, he did not apprehend that he should be under the necessity of making any observations; but from the objections made to giving it the ordinary course, it might be expected that he should say something in favor of it. It was not necessary that he should at this time enter into a long dissertation on the right of petitioning. A few minutes ago, when, as a gentleman had said, the ink was scarcely cold with which the embargo law was written, they were called upon virtually to repeal it. What did they do with that petition? Though it contemplated a case which must have been within the view of the House when the law was passed, although it had an important bearing on foreign relations as well as domestic, the House had treated it with that respect which they were now required to deny to the state of Massachusetts. He should not enlarge upon this; perhaps his feelings might not permit him to do it. He hoped the House would consider the petition as coming from (he would not say a respectable—it was unnecessary to say it,) but from a decent source, and that they would treat it with ordinary respect. If this memorial was to be treated out of the ordinary course, the burden of proof in favor of its rejection rested with its opponents who had indeed given some reasons why it should be excepted from the usual course, which it might be proper to notice.
The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Binn) had said, that the claims of these citizen memorialists were founded in fraud. Mr. B. would only say, that whatever fraud had been committed, the legislature of Massachusetts had not been contaminated by it. Neither could it be laid at the door of the state of Massachusetts; she had no participation in it. It had been said that this memorial was an attempt to teaze the House into an improper act. He would ask whether every member of the House was at this moment convinced, whether they had sufficient evidence to convince them that it was founded in fraud. He himself had not this evidence, and thought the House had not, on which to say that this claim was so palpably unjust. They were told it was teazing the House. Mr. B. said they had lately been told that the frequency of former applications was no reason against referring the same petition now. It had been asked, he recollected, a few days ago by a gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Randolph) whether Oliver P. P. P.'s petition should be turned out of the House because it had been so repeatedly referred? And this question would be well applied to the present case.
It had been said by the gentleman from Maryland, that the legislature of Massachusetts had asked a new principle to be adopted; had asked them to give a different destination to the petition. Mr. B. would say this ought to be done: Was it not the introduction of new principles, which gave rise to the present claim? The whole course of proceeding in this case had been novel; and new and extraordinary cases required extraordinary consideration. This was a sufficient answer to that charge.
Mr. B. protested against being driven into a consideration of the merits of the claim at this time; he was not, nor was the House now competent to discuss it. If the unanimous voice of the three branches of the legislature of Massachusetts (concerning whose respectability he would say nothing) was to be rejected, if the door was to be slapped in their faces, it would be presumptuous in him to imagine that any thing which he could advance, should receive attention.
Mr. Elliot, Mr. Troup, and Mr. Smilie, rose at the same time. Mr. Smilie gave way, and the Speaker declared Mr. Elliot entitled to the floor, as he had not been up on the question.
Mr. Elliot. I knew that I was entitled to the floor, and that the Speaker would decide that I was so entitled, in preference to the gentleman from Georgia. The occurrences of every day, nay of almost every moment of the present session, have evinced that it is the indispensable duty of this House to adopt some practical construction of that provision of the constitution of the United States which respects the

of petition. In the first amendment article—and it ought to be deeply impressed upon the mind of every one that it was the expectation, the prospect of being able to obtain these amendments, that induced a majority of the people to adopt the original constitution—we read, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” And the tenth amendment article is in these words: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.” I know that men with whose information and talents I have no right to place my own in competition, are opposed to the Yazoo claim, as it is called; but in this number I am far, very far from including the gentleman from Georgia. [Mr. Troup called to order, and Mr. Elliot, on Mr. Troup's taking the floor, retorted the call. The Speaker desired them both to sit down, and remarked that no observations of a personal nature could be in order.] Mr. Elliot again rose and proceeded. I had no idea, sir, of transgressing the rules of the House. Although I did not designate the particular member from Georgia to whom I alluded, every member of the House must have understood the allusion and the reason of it. When we were in conclave, not many days since, the gentleman from Georgia assailed me with the same remark, and it was not then pronounced out of order. [The Speaker said he was not then in the chair.] I know it, sir. We were then in committee of the whole. The gentleman made an unprovoked attack upon me, and was not called to order by myself or any other member, still less did he call himself to order for the same remark which he now considers disorderly on my part, merely because I have retorted it upon himself. This statement of proceedings in conclave was necessary by way of explanation. The public eye was not then upon us, and the public could see no natural connexion between the debate of that day and this. But it is not my object in vulgum ambiguis aperire voces , on this or any other occasion. I do not speak ad captandum vulgus , not to the crowd, unusually numerous & respectable as it is, by which we are this day surrounded, but to the sober and solid sense of the wise and honorable representatives of this great nation. And in closing this digression I beg leave to assure the other members from Georgia that I have a high respect for them and for the state. To return to the subject. The constitution has secured to the people the right of petitioning the national government; but of what consequence is this right, if, according to the new fangled notions which have been broached the present session, in relation to this constitutional privilege, you are under no obligation to receive and hear their petition. No, sir, it is unquestionably the true construction of the constitution, that the people have a right to petition, and that it is our duty to hear and consider their petitions. And the powers not delegated to the United States, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. The state of Massachusetts, to all intents and purposes, so far as it respects powers not constitutionally delegated to the general government, remains a sovereign and independent state. Among the rights which it has not surrendered is that, indubitably, of memorializing the government of the United States; and this they have now exercised, for the application before us, if not in form, is in substance a memorial from the constituted authorities of Massachusetts to those of the United States. Yet gentlemen talk of throwing it under the table! Why, sir, in the famous case of the memorial from Philadelphia, they did not seem disposed to go so far; those who opposed the reference were willing the petition should lie upon the table for consideration. Let me call the attention of gentlemen for one moment to the celebrated claim of Amelia de Beaumarchais, which the government of this nation has so long declared to be unjust, but which the imperial power of the French empire declares to be just, and elevates its voice with a demand that we should pay it at all events. This remark is made, because I will venture to predict that in a very few days gentlemen will tell us that as France vouches for the justice of this claim, and has called upon us to pay it, pay it we must. Indeed, if the claim be in fact just, and we pertinaciously refuse to do justice, even to a solitary subject of France, that power may in time be warranted in considering our denial
cause of war. Upon the principles of the law of nations, Massachusetts, as a sovereign and independent state, within the sphere of those powers which are reserved to her by the constitution, has the same right to demand of us to do justice to her citizens. From the nature of our federal union, that state cannot make war upon us to enforce the claim: but let me warn this government against making war upon Massachusetts. To attempt to throw the constituted authorities of Massachusetts under your table, would be taking the bull by the horns with a vengeance. Grasp that state with a view to trample it under your feet, & you will find that Hercules has a club, and can use it too—that the modern as well as the ancient Hercules is a hero. On this subject I may be warm. I ought to be so. I am so. Whenever the idea is suggested of humbling my native state in dust and ashes, I will never restrain the ardent expression of the most ardent indignation.
But the old city of Yazoo is raised against this memorial and its supporters. All are Yazoo speculators of course. Will any one say that I am a Yazoo man? The farthest from it of any person in the world. Just as much interested in the land speculations that may be going on in the moon. Nor do I know one of my constituents who has the most remote interest in the question. But will any one venture to charge the legislative and executive departments of the government of Massachusetts—the vote in the legislature is stated by the governor to have been unanimous—with being the patrons, still less the efficient agents of fraud and corruption? No, not for the world, but these wicked speculators have imposed upon the easy sincerity and zeal for the rights of its citizens, of that respectable government. Gentlemen may rest assured that this subject is perfectly understood in the Eastern country. Those, in that quarter, who interested themselves in the Yazoo purchase, had no reason to presume there was fraud in the case at all. Had they any prima facie evidence of fraud and corruption? Exactly the reverse. Prima facie evidence of an equitable and just title. A title sanctioned by all the solemnities with which the government of an independent nation solemnizes all its grants. And in looking over the names of the memorialists of the government of Massachusetts, I notice the names of men, against whom, in their own country at least, no one would dare to make an insinuation questioning the respectability of their characters. Men, whose characters would not suffer by a comparison with the members of this House. But what has the great bugbear, Yazoo, to do with the question? Nothing at all. Will you reject this application from the government of Massachusetts? No, sir, you will not reject it. It is a subject upon which high ground ought to be taken. I will take that high ground, and say, that this House dare not reject it without consideration. It dare not throw it under the table. It dare not, and it will not.
(TO BE CONTINUED.)
DEBATE.
On the Resolution for requesting the President to cause an enquiry to be made into the conduct of General Wilkinson.
TUESDAY, JANUARY 5.
Mr. RANDOLPH said he was afraid that the motion which he made a few days ago, and which he wished yesterday to have considered, was not intended to be decided upon. When he had first made the motion, a very prevalent opinion seemed to exist, and it was expressed by one gentleman particularly, that he hoped it would be forthwith and unanimously agreed to; the same gentleman on the same day had moved to postpone its further consideration till yesterday; and yesterday its consideration was evaded. Mr. R. asked the Speaker and the House whether this could be considered as candid treatment? He knew that it had been said upon this floor, that the right of the House to make such enquiry and enter upon such matters at all was extremely questionable. But did not the constitution of the U. States enjoin upon its citizens that they should not accept of any title of nobility from any foreign prince or power? And did not the same constitution enjoin that the persons holding authority under this government should not accept of any present, even of a complimentary nature, from any foreign prince or power without the consent of Congress? And if persons holding high authority under this government were found to be, or if there were reasonable ground on which to believe they were in the habit of receiving money unconstitutionally from foreign states, he would ask the House where was this matter to be taken up?
[The Speaker here interrupted Mr. R. declaring that he was out of order as the subject was not yet before the House.]
The House now agreeing to take up the resolution for consideration, the Speaker stated that when the subject
was last considered, a motion had been made (by Mr. Gardenier) to refer it to a Select Committee with power to send for persons, papers, &c. That a motion had also been made (by Mr. Marion) and was now under consideration, to strike out the clause of the preceding motion which is in italics, on which the yeas and nays had been required.
Mr. LYON said that he was among the first who thought it proper to send the information presented to this House by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Randolph) on this subject to the President of the United States. He felt at that time neither delicacy nor repugnance in calling on the Executive to investigate the conduct of General Wilkinson, he then considered that a certain duty attached to him, which duty he was anxious to perform promptly and without delay. It had been said that the gentleman from Virginia ought to have sent the information he had given to the House to the President as soon as it came to his knowledge; but he had chosen to give this House the information, & to send it through that channel to the President, with the opinion of this House, of the necessity of an investigation. I felt, said Mr. L. that the same duty attached to me and to every member of this House, immediately on receiving this information which some gentlemen seemed to consider to be the duty of the gentleman from Virginia to send the information to the President; I was not at that time so anxious as to the manner of doing the thing as to act promptly. This business had been protracted by what he had considered unnecessary debate.
He had yesterday received authentic information that General Wilkinson applied to the Executive for an enquiry into his official conduct in general terms when he first arrived at the seat of government; that he had repeated that application within a few days, and a court of enquiry was appointed to sit in a few days, who were empowered to examine and enquire into the conduct of the commander in chief of the army on as general principles as could be wished for. He was confident that in the directing and appointing this court, the Executive of this country had done its duty. He had confidence in the officers appointed. The information and the papers which had been read by the gentleman from Virginia, if he condescended to lay them on the Clerk's table, could be sent to that court; no doubt the court would call for this and every information and testimony in the power of that House, as well as from every other quarter.
All that he wished at the outset of this business was like to be effected without the original resolution or any of the subsequent motions; he should therefore vote against the whole; he could not answer it to himself to call on the President of the United States to do a duty which he knew he had done. He wished therefore to get rid of this resolution altogether. The Executive were proceeding in the course of their duties. The House had business of the highest importance to the nation to attend to, legislative business. Let us, said he, proceed with our duties while the Executive are proceeding in theirs; in this way we will be best able to answer for our own conduct to our constituents.
Mr. THOMAS hoped the gentleman who made the motion now under consideration, would withdraw it, in order to save time. The House could then disagree to the original motion for reference, and to the resolution.
Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL said, for his part, he considered the question now before them, one of considerable delicacy. He did conceive, when the House took up the examination of a new question, that they ought to examine whether or not they were going out of their province. He did not know that this House could act in any other capacity than legislative, except in the single instance of prosecuting in cases of impeachment, which power the House possessed; and when such a subject came before them, they could take such measures as they chose to procure evidence to support the charge which they might make; but he was not satisfied that in any other case the House could erect itself into a tribunal to collect evidence. He believed it was admitted that the present case was not cognizable by the House, as civil officers were alone impeachable by this body. Should they then appoint a committee to collect testimony relative to the conduct of any military officer? He would ask what use could be made of the testimony when collected? He would ask what had the House to do with the commission of the crimes of murder or treason, or other crimes of which they had not cognizance? The House would go out of its province to collect evidence on any case in which it could not act. In collecting this evidence they would not act in a legislative capacity. If not acting in a legislative capacity, or on an impeachment, (the only other case in which they could act) in what character did they act in appointing a committee to collect testimony? He did hope that the House would not erect a new principle; at the same time he wished it to be distinctly understood, that he was in favor of an enquiry as much as any man in the House. Gentlemen had taken the liberty to express their impressions on this subject; he did not feel himself at liberty to express his opinion. It would not be said that he had any particular partiality to that officer; but at the same time would not do any thing to exclude a fair and impartial investigation of his character.
If evidence on this subject were laid before the House, they might in his view with propriety order that evidence to be transmitted to the Execu-
tive department. In doing this they would do their duty; and by doing it, would sufficiently express an opinion, not only that an enquiry was necessary, but that the proper department would make it. He could not conceive that it was proper for them to give in this manner a specific direction to the President; because it would be saying that they thought it was necessary to stimulate him to do his duty. It was understood that the evidence which had been adduced in this case had not been laid before the court or grand jury at Richmond, and that the Executive had not possessed it; there was no reason therefore to believe that the Executive had neglected its duty; and it would be going too far to tell the President that he should do his duty, when he had not neglected it. Had it appeared that he had neglected his duty, it might have become a question whether the House should express an opinion as to the propriety or necessity of an enquiry. If the House should even, after discovering that the proper department had been negligent of its duty, express an opinion as to the necessity of an enquiry, they would in his view go full as far as (if not farther than) they could be constitutionally warranted in going. He would not say whether such an opinion should or should not be expressed: but till some reason were shown to justify an opinion that the proper department had been deficient in its duty, he could not see the propriety of the House taking any step to stimulate it to an enquiry.
It had already been said that a court of enquiry had been appointed. Were this the case (and he did not doubt the fact) it would seem to him altogether improper for the House to act on this subject at present, if they had the power. He did think it important that the House should keep strictly within the pale of its jurisdiction, and act within its constitutional province; for the constitution had provided limits to this House as well as to other departments of government. He conceived they had no more right to infringe on the province of the Executive in its executive capacity, than the Executive had to interfere with the legislature; each should keep within its proper sphere; and from all the consideration he had given this motion, he could not perceive any authority in the possession of the House to give a direction to the Executive on the subject.
The only ground on which they could even send papers to the executive on this occasion was, that the constitution did prohibit any officer of the U. S. from receiving a sum of money from any foreign prince or power. Now as the evidence which had been read to them did appear calculated to prove that a sum of money had been received by the officer who was the subject of this resolution, he thought it would be perfectly proper to send the evidence. He would again state, and wished it to be distinctly understood that he was one of the last who would prevent a full investigation on this subject; he wished it was in his power to hasten it, but it was not. He had always conceived that an examination of this kind was essential to establish the character of the officer involved, and to say that he was or was not worthy his trust; and he had supposed and did still believe, that it had been hitherto withheld only from the effects which it might have upon other trials now pending. Being of this opinion, if the gentleman from Virginia would put the House in possession of the papers, he would move the following order: “ordered, that the documents laid before this House relative to the conduct of Gen. James Wilkinson be transmitted to the Executive of the U. S.”
With respect to the motion at present under consideration, he was certainly opposed to giving the power of collecting testimony to the committee, and to the reference to the committee proposed to be appointed; because such testimony could be of no more purpose than if three, five, or seven men out of doors had performed that duty; and because it would be going a step farther than propriety would warrant, to give authority to a committee to collect testimony of which the House could make no use whatever. Under these impressions he should vote for striking out these words, and trusted the modification which he had suggested would take place. The transmission of the papers would give to the public and to the executive the opinion of the House as fully as if expressed in any other way, and might furnish the executive with information which it did not now possess.
Mr. STANFORD said, this doctrine that mere resolutions of request to the executive were unconstitutional was new, and one indeed to which he could not subscribe. He well recollected, that in the 5th Congress, perhaps the last session of it, a resolution was introduced, which gave rise to a famous debate, requesting the President to institute a new mission to France, the first having failed of success—and that then it was not opposed on the ground of constitutional difficulty. A mere resolution of request was no exercise of authority. It had till now, he believed, been the practice of every session, and to his recollection had not before been scrupled as to its propriety. In the constitution it was expressly provided that no person holding an office of profit or trust under the U. S. States, should, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any emolument, or present from any king, prince, or foreign state; and notwithstanding this provision, they were told that the commander of our army being a military and not a civil officer, it belonged solely to the executive to take his own course with that class of officers. He thought otherwise, and that this clause
of the constitution fully warranted the enquiry contemplated on the part of this House, and that if it should be found that the officer in question had been in the receipt of large sums of money as alluded to, from a foreign state, and that without the consent of Congress, it was true the House felt some jealousy on the score of their own privileges, and that some step should be taken to check such encroachments. The alarm made that they might seem to encroach by this enquiry upon the executive functions, but once before, he recollected, been carried to a like extreme, and gave occasion to pass the noted law, called the Logan law , in order to guard those functions. He could see no reason why they should not be equally concerned for legislative prerogative, and take some step to guard them as well as executive prerogative.
Mr. S. concluded by asking, if it would be in order to move a preamble by way of amendment to the present motion?
The SPEAKER replied that it would not, as the motion now under consideration was for reference.
(DEBATE TO BE CONTINUED.)
WEDNESDAY, JAN. 6.
The Speaker laid before the House a letter enclosing a report unfavorable to the petition of Joseph Ward; which was ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. POINDEXTER presented the petition of a number of inhabitants of the Mississippi territory, stating that before the line of demarcation was run, they had considered themselves within the Spanish territory; but the surveyor-general having completed a part of the line, they were found to be within the jurisdiction of the United States. Under the impression that they were Spanish subjects, they had not filed their grants as required by law, and therefore their claims were barred by the treaty of 1795. They pray that they may be permitted to file their claims in the register's office notwithstanding. Referred to the committee on public lands.
Mr. POINDEXTER presented also the petition of Alex. Bailly, late collector of customs for the port of Natchez, confined as a debtor to the United States; and praying that he may be discharged from confinement, to give an opportunity of paying the debt, as he possessed no property. Referred to a select committee.
Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL moved that the unfinished business of yesterday (the resolution relative to General Wilkinson) be postponed, in order to take up the bill relative to the Mediterranean Fund—Agreed—Ayes 59—Nays 18.
Mr. J. Richards, from the committee to whom the subject had been referred, reported a bill granting to A. J. Villard a certain sum of money for his improvement in mounting cannon on batteries. Read twice and referred to a committee of the whole.
The House then went into a committee of the whole, Mr. J. Richards in the Chair, on the bill for continuing in force for a further time the first section of the act for the protection of our commerce and seamen against the Barbary powers.
Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL moved to insert the words “revived and” in the bill. The reason for this was, that the act which this bill went to continue, had expired since the present bill was reported; it was therefore necessary that it should read “is hereby revived and continued in force.”
Mr. Dana said the United States were not now in a state of hostility with any Barbary power, and the naval force employed by the United States in the Mediterranean had been recalled. The duties proposed by this bill were not intended to protect the commerce of the United States against the Barbary powers. He therefore submitted it to the sense of the committee, whether the law on the face of it should not speak the purpose it had in view; whether it was proper to revive a law which had expired by the same title, when a different purpose was contemplated by it. Instead of Mediterranean Fund, it might be called the defensive or protective fund; for it did not really meet his idea of consistency, that it should be called the Mediterranean Fund, when there was no occasion for such a fund. He wished the bill to be so amended as to express the purpose for which it was intended; it might read for the purpose of providing means of defence. It might seem, if the bill passed in this way, that there was a wish to conceal its real object; not that he believed himself that this was the case.
Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL was not particularly attached to the words in reviving and continuing these duties. The question now proposed to the House had twice at former sessions been before it. This section was continued in 1806, by a law in nearly the same words as that now before the House. At that time it had been objected that the objects of the original law being answered, it was unnecessary to continue it in the same form. The House then did and perhaps now would think proper to continue the same phraseology in the law. Having been twice

before continued in this manner, he saw no reason why it should not now be continued in the same form.
After some desultory debate on this motion, in which Messrs. Dana, Quincy, Upham, and Lyon supported the motion, and Messrs. W. Alston, Crowninshield and G. W. Campbell opposed it.
Mr. Smilie observed that this was a long debate on a very immaterial point; it reminded him of a passage in Tristram Shandy. When the child was born, a long debate was held whether it should be called Tristram or Trismegistus.
The amendment offered by Mr. Dana was negatived.
The amendment offered by Mr. Campbell was agreed to.
Mr. Clarke moved to amend the bill by inserting after the words, "continued in force" the words "from and after the first day of February next." The reason why he made this motion was, that the news of the passage of this bill could not arrive at New Orleans before that day. Cargoes might have been received and sold and bonds given for the amount of duties, and after having sold the cargoes, the importers would be called upon for two and a half per cent. duty. It would be unjust that the law should affect one portion of the people more than another; he therefore hoped a day would be fixed on which the law should go into operation in every part of the United States.
Mr. Quincy thought as the law at present stood it had an ex post facto operation in those ports at a distance from the seat of government. For from the expiration of the duty, a consequent reduction in price would be made by the importing merchant; and if he were afterwards called upon to pay the two and a half per cent. it would be a great loss to him.
Mr. G. W. Campbell said the gentlemen appeared to have misunderstood the law; for goods would not be liable to duty imported between the expiration of the law, and the time of reviving it.
After some observations from Mr. Dana in favor of the amendment and Mr. W. Alston against it, it was negatived 49 to 25.
Mr. Quincy moved to insert in place of the amendment just negatived "from the time of notice of this act being given at the respective custom houses throughout the United States."
Mr. Crowninshield advocated this amendment; and Messrs. Blackledge, Durell, Van Horne and Pitkin opposed it.
Mr. Quincy withdrew his amendment, and substituted "from the last day of January instant."
Messrs"> Messrs. Dana, Quincy and Crowninshield advocated this motion, and Messrs. Thomas, McCrery, and G. W. Campbell opposed it; and it was negatived 51 to 24.
The committee then rose and reported the bill with the amendment, which was concurred in by the House.
A motion, made that the bill be read a third time to morrow, was negatived—Ayes 30.
The same motion for to-day was agreed to without a division.
On motion of Mr. W. Alston, the House took up for consideration the report of the committee of the whole on the bill for continuing in force for a limited time the act fixing the salaries of certain officers of the United States.
Mr. Stanford moved that the bill should be re-committed to a committee, with instructions to report a general bill on the subject of salaries.
Mr. Randolph asked if a motion for postponement would now be in order.
The Speaker said it would when the motion now under consideration was disposed of.
Mr. Stanford withdrew his motion, and
Mr. Randolph moved to postpone the consideration of the bill indefinitely.
A debate arose on this motion, in which Messrs. Randolph, Livermore, and Lyon advocated the motion, and Messrs. G. W. Campbell, Fisk, W. Alston, Sloan, Love, and Masters opposed the motion.
Mr. Randolph varied his motion, so as to postpone it till the first Monday in March, instead of indefinitely.
Mr. Babb amended the motion (Mr. Randolph agreeing) to the first Monday in February.
This motion was supported by Messrs. Quincy and Gardner, and opposed by Messrs. W. Alston, Southard, Holland and Chandler, and negatived—Ayes 40—Nays 63.
Mr. Randolph moved that the bill be re-committed to the committee by whom it was reported.
This motion was supported by Messrs. Stanford and Van Horne, and opposed by Messrs. Holland, W. Alston, G. W. Campbell, and Rhea, (T.) and was negatived without a division.
The bill was then ordered to a third
reading to morrow, without a division. [Debate hereafter.]
A motion to adjourn was negatived, 46 to 43.
The bill for continuing the Mediterranean Fund was read the third time, and passed without a division.
On motion of Mr. Blount, the House took up for consideration the amendments made by the Senate to the bill for erecting fortifications; but before any decision, a motion to adjourn was put and carried.
THURSDAY, JANUARY 7, 1808. The Speaker laid before the House a letter from the Post Master General, inclosing the annual report on unproductive routes, &c. Referred to the committee on Post Office and Post Roads.
Mr. Southard laid before the House a resolution passed by the legislature of New Jersey, instructing its representatives to use their endeavors to accomplish the object included in the following resolution which Mr. S. moved, and which was agreed to:
Resolved, That a committee be appointed to enquire into the propriety of establishing by law a standard whereby all weights and measures in the United States may be fixed with uniformity and precision, with leave to report by bill or otherwise.
Mr. Dana proposed for consideration the following resolution:
Resolved, That the committee of Commerce and Manufactures be instructed to enquire into the propriety of allowing an extension of credit during the continuance of the existing embargo, for duties secured on imported goods or merchandise which might otherwise be exported for the benefit of drawback according to law, in case such goods or merchandise shall be deposited with the collectors of the customs respectively in pledge, for satisfying such duties with charges of safe keeping.
Mr. D. said it would be seen at once that this resolution proposed to leave the regular collection of the ordinary revenue completely untouched, and only affect goods not intended to remain in the country. If merchants deposited their goods with the collectors in pledge for the duties, it was certain that they could not be sold; if they meant to sell them, they must be taken out of possession of the collectors, and therefore their deposit would be full security that they were not to be sold. The duties liable to drawback in one year amounted to nine or ten millions of dollars; and if the merchants were compelled to pay these duties to the government without the privilege of exporting the goods on which these duties were paid, they were in fact compelled to advance so much money without receiving any interest.
Mr. VAN HORNE said, if he understood the tendency of the proposition stood before the House, it would have the effect to lock up in the warehouses of our collectors a quantity of produce that would otherwise be brought into market. He would ask whether at this time, when the produce of the planters and farmers of this country could not be sold, it was proper to do any act which could have the effect to raise the price of imported articles? Was it proper to suspend the payment of any sums of money which might become due to the United States from our merchants, when the planters and farmers would be compelled by process from our courts to discharge the debts due by them. He did not wish to overrate the pressure of the present crisis, but he could say and believed that it was generally admitted, that the measures adopted called upon the patriotism of our citizens for their support. He did hope that the merchants of this country would cheerfully bear their due proportion of the difficulty of the present crisis. He did not pretend to understand much of mercantile transactions, but if the measure now proposed would have a tendency to induce our merchants to hold up for exportation (when the embargo should be taken off) foreign produce which would otherwise be brought into market, and the price of such articles thereby be lessened, he was opposed to the measure.
Mr. MARION said, it would be recollected that when the bill supplementary to the act laying an embargo was before this House, a proposition somewhat similar to this had been submitted, but on a broader ground. It was then objected to because it might embarrass our financial affairs, and it was also said that it might be acted on hereafter. The proposition now submitted was on a subject worthy of enquiry and of being granted, and would operate no embarrassment on our finances. The merchant who imported goods into this country for re-exportation, depended upon the debentures for paying the duties upon the articles entitled to drawback. If gentlemen recollected that in most cases the duties amounted to one fifth or more of the whole cost and charges, they would perceive the great loss which would accrue to the merchant if the time allowed for paying duties as well as the time for exportation were not extended. The merchants would suffer themselves to be sued for their bonds given for those articles which they meant to export, in hopes the embargo would expire before the money could be recovered; in that case by paying their bonds and immediately exporting they would receive debentures payable in 15 days after date. If the indulgence in this case were not granted and the bonds were paid as they become due, the only advantage to the government that could possibly accrue would be that the Treasury would have the use of that money for a short time to be repaid soon after the embargo was taken off, and as that
money was not calculated in the estimate of our financial resources it was not probable that it would be used. When the embargo was laid in the year '94, a similar indulgence was granted in regard to the three great articles indigo, sugar and coffee which then constituted the principal articles of foreign growth exported for drawback. The U. S. had not then long enjoyed a free trade to the West Indies, and our warehouses were full of the rich productions of that part of the world. At that time, although the embargo was continued but two months, yet he believed the merchants were allowed an extension of four months on the time for the payment of their bonds given on the importation of the three articles above-mentioned, viz. indigo, sugar and coffee. He spoke from memory, not having an opportunity of recurring to the law.
After some observations in favor of the motion by Messrs. Quincy and Livermore, the resolution was adopted without a division.
Mr. Morrow (Ohio) presented the petition of certain purchasers of public land, stating that they would not be able to make payment in sufficient time, and asking indulgence—Referred to the committee on Public Lands.
Mr. Morrow (Ohio) also presented the petition of a number of inhabitants of Dearborn Co. Indiana Territory, stating that a law for regulating slaves in that territory had been unconstitutional passed, and praying a revision of that act, or that the said county may be annexed to the state of Ohio. Referred.
The amendments made by the Senate to the bill for erecting fortifications were agreed to. The bill only requires the signature of the President to be a law.
Mr. Randolph moved the consideration of the resolution which he had submitted on a former occasion, but withdrew the motion for consideration to make way for the following resolution offered by Mr. Burwell:
Ordered, that Mr. John Randolph a Representative in Congress, from the state of Virginia, and Mr. Daniel Clark, delegate from the the territory of Orleans, be requested to lay upon the Clerk's table all papers or other information in their possession "in relation to the conduct of Brigadier General James Wilkinson while in the service of the U. States in corruptly receiving money from the government or agents of Spain."
This motion, after a lengthy debate in which Messrs. Burwell, Randolph, Smilie, Macon, Fisk, Love, W. Alston, and Gardenier supported, and Messrs. Holland, Rhea, Rowan, Bacon, Marion, and Witherell opposed it, was agreed to, 89 to 19.
WASHINGTON CITY.
FRIDAY, JANUARY 8.
By the arrival at New York of the brig Jane, Cork papers are received to the 20th of November, and London news to the 14th. No information is received by them of the expected blocking proclamation, which was to have been published on the 14th.
Sir Sydney Smith's squadron had departed from Plymouth, consisting of five sail of the line. It is to touch at Cork, and the naval part of the expedition is to precede the military.
The British army at Alexandria had embarked, and are hourly expected at Messina to reinforce the army of Sicily.
The French have assumed the complete dominion of the Elbe, and capture all vessels from English ports, or with English property on board.
For a continuation of the Gun-Boat Debate see last page.
Dr. Mitchill has, we understand, received from Mr. Warden, Secretary of the American legation at Paris, and M. de Lasteyrie, of the same place, on account of a new discovery, denominated Lithography, or the art of multiplying copies of drawings and manuscripts, by means of a peculiar stone lately discovered. Mr. Andre has received a patent for his improvements in this art. The kind of stone used is found in Franconia, and also in the neighbourhood of Paris. The process adopted is as follows:
Ink is made of a peculiar composition, which is used by means of a pen, which traces the characters on the stone in the ordinary way. The stone, which ought to be very smooth and even, is then immersed in water, which renders its surface moist. In this state it is struck with a printer's ball, the ink attaching itself to the traces made with the pen, and not to the other parts of the stone. It is then covered with a sheet of moistened paper, which is passed under a roller, by which a counter proof of the original is obtained. Four or five thousand copies may be obtained from the same engraving. Great benefits are anticipated from this discovery.
Dr. Mitchill has in his possession one of these stones, together with a sample of the ink used; and we hope soon to be apprised of the result of the experiments which shall be tried.
Translation of a letter from the Secretary of Foreign Affairs at the Hague to Mr. Bourne, Consul of the U. States at Amsterdam.
The Hague. 8th October, 1807.
Sir—I have examined the papers
which you did me the honor to transmit in your letter of the 1st of this month, and they have fully convinced me that Anthony Morales has endeavored to abuse the good faith of the American government, in presenting to it documents, which could have only been fabricated by himself, or by persons, accomplices in his impudent and ill planned designs. I wish, sir, you would give information of this to his excellency, the President of the U. States, and please also to assure him that the revocation of the exequatur has excited here the greatest pleasure; the patent on which it was granted having not been expedited by the government of this country, which never employed Morales either at Charleston or any where else.
I avail myself of this occasion, sir, to present to you the assurances of my highest consideration.
(Signed)
M. VANDER GOES. To Mr. Silas Bourne, Consul General of the United States at Amsterdam.
The SENATE yesterday took up the report in the case of John Smith.
Mr. ADAMS then called the attention of the Senate to a letter, received on Monday, from Mr. Smith, in which he intimates the expectation of being allowed counsel, and compulsory process for witnesses.
When this letter was read, Mr. Smith made the following applications:
1. To be informed specifically of the charges against him. 2. To be allowed process to compel the attendance of witnesses. 3. And to be allowed the privilege of being heard by counsel.
Mr. ADAMS concisely assigned his reasons against a compliance with the two first requests, and intimated his acquiescence in the last.
He was followed by Mr. MITCHILL, who expressed similar sentiments with Mr. Adams.
Mr. HILLHOUSE considered the only point, at present proper to be decided, was that which respected the allowance of counsel. This privilege being granted, such other steps as might be necessary could be taken. With this impression he moved that John Smith of Ohio be heard by counsel not exceeding two.
Mr. ADAMS moved to amend this motion by adding "to shew cause why the report of the committee should not be adopted."
Mr. BAYARD followed, at considerable length, in defence of the right of an accused Senator, not merely to be heard by counsel, but likewise to have the benefit of testimony, by compulsory process. He likewise strenuously contended that the only testimony on which the Senate could act must be legal testimony, such testimony as would be received in a court of law.
He was followed by Mr. ADAMS, who contended that the Senate, on a question of expulsion, was not bound by the rigid rules of a court of law, but were vested by the Constitution with a sound discretion. Mr. A. refrained from any thing beyond an incidental notice of the argument of Mr. Bayard, considering it altogether irrelevant to the question before the Senate.
Messrs. Anderson and Giles took similar ground with Mr. Adams; and Mr. Hillhouse with Mr. Bayard.
Mr. SMITH (Grenadier Corp. Comdr.) called for the yeas and nays, to show that, notwithstanding the long speech of the gentleman from Delaware, there was no diversity of opinion in the Senate on the question before them.
Mr. BAYARD spoke again at some length in vindication of the remarks previously made by him.
When the Vice President called the attention of the Senate to the real question under consideration, and intimated his expectation that gentlemen would confine themselves to it.
Mr. POPE presumed that, after this admonition from the Chair, it would be out of order to reply to the remarks of Mr. Bayard, which he should otherwise have noticed.
The question was then taken on the resolution offered by Mr. Hillhouse, and amended, at the instance of Mr. Adams (in which amendment Mr. H. acquiesced) and carried, by a unanimous vote.
When Wednesday was assigned for hearing Mr. Smith by counsel.
The Georgia Legislature passed the following resolution on the 9th instant:
Resolved, That the thanks of the Legislature be given to General Wilkinson, for his patriotic exertions in bringing Aaron Burr to trial."
Extracts of a letter from Columbia, S. C. dated December 19.
"The Senate have just concurred in a resolution sent them from the House of Representatives, appropriating the conduct of the President of the U. States, and requesting him to stand as a candidate at the next presidential election."
Baltimore, January 3.
COTTON AND WOOLLEN MANUFACTURIES.
At a meeting of citizens, desirous of promoting the establishment of Cotton and Woollen Manufactories, held at the Merchants' Coffee House this evening, agreeably to a notice in the several newspapers, a committee was appointed to meet at the same place on Wednes-
day next, the 6th instant, at six o'clock in the evening, for the purpose of receiving such communications as may be made by the citizens, acquainted with the theory or practice of either of the above branches, may think proper to make report thereof to a general meeting of the citizens to be held at the Merchants' Coffee House, on Saturday the 10th inst. at 6 o'clock in the evening.
All persons having any knowledge of, or information concerning the above branches, are respectfully invited either to meet the committee at the time above mentioned, and to give them whatever information they possess and are of opinion will forward the proposed establishments, or commit the same to writing, directed to the chairman of the committee.
WM. PATTERSON, Chairman.
Baltimore, January 2.
"As the eye Bears witness to the light, or the charm'd ear To tuneful adulation; so their hearts Strike unison to the great law of love."
MARRIED.
On Saturday evening the 27th ult. by the Rev. Parson Compton, between Coyle, Esq. of this city, to the amiable Miss Eliza Chesholm, of Ann Arundel County (Md.)
DIED, at Annapolis, on Monday night the 28th ultimo, JOHN GALE, Esq. a member of the House of Delegates of Maryland, for Kent county, and on the Wednesday following his remains were interred in the burying ground at that place, attended by the Executive, the officers, and the members of both branches of the Legislature of the state, and citizens. Mr. Gale has left to deplore his death two most amiable daughters, with his relatives and a numerous acquaintance, by all of whom he was justly esteemed, and the republican cause has lost a uniform and decided supporter.
PHILADELPHIA GRAND LOTTERY.
HIGHEST PRIZE 10,000 DOLLARS. Authorised by an act of the Legislature of Pennsylvania. For the encouragement of USEFUL ARTS.
Table with 2 columns: Prize Amount, Number of Prizes. Includes highest prize of 10,000 dollars, and various cash prizes down to 10 dollars, plus machines and rights.
Subject to a deduction of 15 per cent. The most valuable cash prizes from 200 dollars and upwards, to be determined as follows: First drawn number on the first ten days' drawing, each 200. First drawn number on the succeeding ten days, each 500. First drawn number on the succeeding five days, each 1,000. First drawn number on the succeeding two days, each 5,000. First drawn number on the last days' drawing 10,000. This Lottery will positively commence drawing on the 231 day of February next, and will be completed in 28 days at intervals, under the superintendence of gentlemen appointed by the Governor to whom approved security has been given, for the faithful drawing of the Lottery agreeably to the scheme. The numbering for the wheels has so far progressed, under the directions of Mr. James Oellers, as to justify fixing the day of drawing. The cash prizes will be paid at the bank in thirty days after the conclusion of the drawing, and the machines and composition rights delivered to order, on payment of the deduction as above. All prizes must be demanded in one year after the drawing, or they will be considered as forfeited after that time.
Tickets at One Dollar and Fifty Cents each, to be had of James Oellers, No. 1, S. Third st. Leonard Keckmle, No. 79, N. Third street. Thomas Peters, No. 22, N. Second st. Thos. Bedwell, No. 178, N. Third st. Silas Wilson, N. 341, N. Front st. John Shaw, No. 232, N. Second st. Charles Ditters, N. 11, Third st. Isaac Carpenter, N. 243, S. Second street. Daniel Miller, No. 427, N. Second st. And at the OFFICES of the Aurora and Freeman's Journal.
The price of tickets will advance as the drawing progresses. Note—The purchaser of each holder of every ticket, will be entitled to a valuable patent right for manufacturing Sigs, Starch, and Hair Powder, from Potatoes, by a process entirely new, besides a share of the many valuable cash prizes. Tickets for Sale at J. March's Book store, George town, and at the Book store of R. C. Wareham, Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington city.

Tuesday, December 10.
Debate on Gun-Boats—Continued.
Mr. SCOTT was in hopes this bill would have met with very little opposition, especially when it was considered that it was but a part of a system of defence, of which the other parts would be decided in progression. Various objections had been made to the bill; some gentlemen supposed that gun-boats were altogether insufficient for the purposes of defence, and that the scheme was merely ideal and visionary; and some had attempted to prove that gun-boats had never been used. A gentleman from Massachusetts had yesterday disproved this by circumstantial accounts of two engagements, one on the river St. Lawrence and one in the river Delaware. In the last instance, about twelve gun-boats engaged two British ships of war. Mr. S. would state from good authority that the reason why these vessels were not made a prize, was, that the gun-boats were not supplied with a sufficient quantity of powder and ammunition. This statement and fact would go far to do away the impressions of those gentlemen who suppose that gun-boats were of no efficiency as a defence, or that their utility was ideal. In the progress towards the passage of this bill, every day new difficulties had been discovered, and new objections raised to its passage: some gentlemen told them if they passed this bill, and appropriated a sum of money sufficient for the object proposed by it, that they would not leave money in the treasury adequate to the expense of building land batteries, &c: another objection was, that if they appropriated money for building gun-boats, fortifications and batteries for the sea ports, there would be no money left wherewith to provide arms for the militia. If these remarks were even correct they possessed no weight; because gun-boats, fortifications and land batteries, and arming the militia were but three several parts of one great system.
After these remarks he would only state his own idea of what ought to be done: he thought they should first provide gun-boats; secondly, erect fortifications and land batteries; thirdly, pass a law providing for arming the militia—for unless men were armed, they could not prevent an enemy from landing, destroying, and laying waste the country. Mr. S. hoped every thing would be done which was requisite for protection. Gentlemen had said that our resources were not sufficient to meet these objects: Mr. S. would observe that there was in the treasury money sufficient to answer all these purposes; if not, the country had resources within itself, fully adequate to every measure of protection and defence. He would not go as some gentlemen had into calculations of dollars and cents; if the nation was embroiled in war, its expense would be incalculable; it was impossible to form even an idea of the enormous expense that would accrue from war: but Mr. S. would draw all the money out of the treasury; he would not leave a cent—he would even drain the blood from his own veins if it were necessary for the defence of the rights so dear to his country. If the nation was involved in war, life, liberty and property, every thing was at stake; and all their energies should be exerted to repel the invader.
A number of gentlemen appeared desirous of building ships of war for the protection of our commerce. Mr. S. was of opinion that whatever might have been proper heretofore, such a measure would be inexpedient hereafter, of what effect would be any naval force which the U. S. could erect? It would form an object of division for the enemy, and afford a pretext for war. It would increase the expense of the country, and add to the strength of our adversary. Would gentlemen take a view of Denmark and other European powers? See them all swept from the ocean, and their vessels where the navy of the United States would soon be, were any to be erected. As to the ships of war which the United States now had, he should have no objection that those which were fit for service should be distributed as an aid to batteries and other works wherever it might be deemed most proper to make such distribution. He was clearly of opinion, whether war or peace might be the result of our present uncertainty, that preparation for defence ought immediately to be commenced; if preparation would not prevent a war, it would tend to shorten the term of its duration.
Some gentlemen had gone into calculations on principal and interest of expenses for six or seven years. Away with such trifling; Let us, said he, act the part of Americans; let us go boldly into defensive operations, and let us not be swaddled with a long and tedious war. It war should be our lot, we shall experience a temporary deprivation—none of the necessaries, but of the luxuries of life. For every thousand we expend for opposition to the enemy, we shall save a million in our own resources: our citizens would turn their attention to domestic manufactures; and though no man more than himself deplored war, he thought advantages might result from
it to the nation. He hoped the House would pass the law, and take such further steps as might be necessary to prepare fully for defence; that they would discharge with care the responsibility attached to their situation, and support throughout the justice of their cause and the rights of the people.
Mr. CROWNSTHIELD said he regretted that the present had been represented as a local question, applicable to the South, and it had been stated that the defence of the North was not at all in question. Mr. C. viewed it in a very different light; he considered that the whole sea board of the U. S. that every inhabitant on the coast was deeply interested in the bill now about to pass. Gun-boats would as well assist to protect the passage leading into Boston harbor, as the mouth of the Chesapeake; they were certainly fit to aid in the protection of any of the Northern ports; he was astonished when he heard a doubt expressed upon the subject. He was glad to hear a gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Dana) say he should vote for the bill; he would rather have his vote than his speech on the subject, as well also the vote of one of his colleagues (Mr. Upham) who followed him in debate and took the same course. Both these gentlemen said they should vote for the bill on the table, and yet they observed they could not approve of this mode of defence; it would thus appear that their votes were vastly more reasonable than their arguments. He trusted that on this bill the House would give an unanimous vote. What was the proposition? To put our ports and harbors in some state of defence.—Was the measure embraced by this bill all the defence proposed? No; but it was all proposed to be decided on at present, because it could be almost immediately accomplished; and who knew when this force might be wanted? He did not say it would be wanted to-day, to-morrow, or the next day. But possibly the return of Spring might bring an occasion for its service to repel an invader, and where the risk was deemed even probable, procrastination in preparing for the worst would be the height of imprudence.
In regard to the utility of gun-boats, gentlemen differed, and well & honestly they might, because their use had not in this country been sufficiently confirmed by experience. Mr. C. would, however, quote an instance or two in which they had been eminently useful even in our own country. He had learnt from a very correct source, that in the war between G. Britain and France in 1760, when the American colonies took a part, there was an instance on record, which proved that these gun-boats were employed with success in the river St. Lawrence; that four gun-boats carrying one 18 pound cannon and 20 men each, did attack and capture a brig of 16 guns and 180 men, killing 60 or 70 men in the brig, while the gun-boats lost but a single man, and received little or no other injury. If any gentleman doubted, Mr. C. would give the respectable authority of the Vice President of the U. S. for the fact. Mr. C. had understood he was an officer actually employed by the colonial government in that service. Another instance had been given to him by a naval gentleman of eminence, who was not now in the service of the U. S. but who he believed if called upon would do himself great honor. Mr. C. then read the statement made by that gentleman to this effect: "In 1776, the Roebuck and Liverpool, two British frigates, one of them mounting 44 guns on two decks, lay in the river Delaware, below Philadelphia. A flotilla of American gun-boats attacked them with spirit. The engagement was severe, and victory terminated in favor of the gun-boats. One of the frigates, the Roebuck, was crippled and driven on shore, and would have been taken possession of, if the ammunition in the boats had held out. As it was, after the Roebuck floated off into deeper water, both frigates abandoned their station, and left the gun-boats masters of the river." It was probable that there might be some gentleman of the revolution near him who might have known of the fact; if so, would it have no impression on the House? He presumed it would have a favorable impression, as it deservedly ought. He could cite other instances; he could say that in the neighborhood of Gibraltar at Algeciras, the Spanish gun-boats had in many cases attacked British frigates and sometimes 74 gun ships, and very much annoyed them; he knew of no instance of their capture, because it often happened that a new wind springing up carried the vessels out of the reach of their fire. It was also believed to be a fact that the British naval commanders in the mouth of the Straits of Gibraltar had always been alarmed in moderate and calm weather, when they saw the gun-boats of Algeciras coming out to attack their ships of war; engagements with them were not uncommon, and the boats frequently had the advantage, and captured merchant vessels under their convoy, and carried them off in spite of all the efforts to save them, which could be made by the
men of war. Gentlemen also differed in regard to the expense of this measure; and had gone into various calculations to prove their positions. Mr. C. had made some too; and gentlemen were not correct when they stated their annual expense at four or five millions of dollars. How many men were necessary to man a gun-boat he could not say, but he thought fifteen were as many as could be usefully employed in a boat carrying but one gun. Estimate the pay of the men at 12 dollars per month, the expense of one man for a year would be 144, say 150 dollars; 100 dollars each for maintenance, would make it 250 dollars for one man; 15 men at 250 dollars each was 3,750 dollars for each boat; and the total annual expense of the whole 257 gun-boats would be somewhat short of a million dollars. He did not assert that the expense would not exceed this; but he did not believe it would much exceed it: and if these boats were employed but half the year it would be but half this expense: and would not this be a cheap defence? He thought it would.
A great deal had been said of the peculiar efficacy of batteries as a defence. Would batteries protect the port of New York? Would even a range of batteries from the Hook to the city of New York, completely protect a passage of a mile and a half wide? If it were but half a mile wide, line of battle ships could pass up to the city notwithstanding batteries on the shore. Did gentlemen know that ships of war could fight almost in contact with one another for a whole day. The battle of Trafalgar and the battle of Aboukir, off the coast of Egypt, had proved that. Give a ship of war a favorable wind and tide, at the same time, and fire from a battery as many shot as they pleased, if there was a passage left open for her hull, however narrow it might be, and they could not expect to stop that ship except by accident a mast should be carried away. We must, said he, build gun-boats, bomb ships, and floating batteries, and combine their force together, if we mean to prepare effectual protection for our ports in case of war. But as the question was now on gun-boats only; he should confine himself to that point, and not follow the example of some gentlemen who had occupied the time of the House in discussing subjects irrelevant to the present question.
From the report of the Secretary of the Treasury it appeared that there remained in our treasury, exclusive of the sums necessary for current expenditure and the periodical discharge of the public debt, a balance of eight millions of dollars upon which they could operate and which he trusted they would use in part. But this was a measure only preparatory to measures which might follow. If the United States were forced into a war, should they not raise an army, and call out the militia for the invasion of Canada and Nova Scotia? Undoubtedly they would. Would gentlemen say, if they employed an army, that they could limit the expense of its commander to a certain sum? He believed not. So with gun-boats or other measures: even if the estimates were to fall short of their actual expense, it should not prevent them from taking the proper means of defence. All the resources of the nation should be commanded; they were not to censure the administration for approving this or that measure—not to denounce that administration which possessed the full confidence of the people, and would do so as long as it was conducted in the same correct manner and on the principles as had been pursued by the present Executive. The side way strokes which gentlemen aimed at the administration had no effect on Mr. C. they might follow their own course; but he would support the administration in all proper measures which it should recommend to their consideration.
He would add a word in relation to the attack on Tripoli, where gun-boats had been successfully employed. Without gun-boats no impression could have been made on that power. He was told so by the gallant officer, (Commodore Preble) who commanded in the several attacks, and who was now sleeping in the dust. That officer had informed him that without the assistance of gun-boats he could not have completed an assault. It was well known that after Commodore Preble returned to the United States, ten gun-boats were sent from this country to Tripoli, to support the other naval force then before that place. Mr. C. expressed regret that an opportunity had not been afforded them to ascertain their utility in that quarter. Our negotiator made a premature peace, and thus prevented the gun-boats dispatched from America, from operating in the new bombardment of Tripoli, which certainly was contemplated by the commander who succeeded Commodore Preble. It was not a sound argument against these boats that one of them had miscarried in crossing the Atlantic on the outward passage, for merchant vessels were often lost at sea, but it was clear that all the remaining boats returned safe to the United States.
Mr. C. would finish his cursory remarks by observing, that he was de-
cidedly in favor of passing the bill. He wished gentlemen generally to agree to it. The boats were a valuable mode of defence, he felt sure they would be found so, and he hoped every member would give support to the measure—trusting to the patriotism of the House that the bill for the further protection of our ports and harbors by land batteries, would also be agreed to when it should be properly brought before them.
Mr. KEY said he conceived he possessed the right to give his sentiments on this subject; & he felt it a duty to assign those reasons which would induce him to vote for the bill under consideration.
He greatly regretted that the House had no general system of defence laid before them, for the protection of the country and more especially of its vulnerable points. Such a plan would have been attended with good consequences; it would have enabled them to progress gradually from one point to another, feeling as they went along, so, that whether the event were peace or war, the honor of the nation might have been preserved. He took up this subject as presented to him by the committee who were appointed, not to devise a defence for our shores, but for our ports and harbors; and in this point of view the bill did not strike him as comprising a general system of defence, but as a particular measure for aiding in the protection of the most prominent parts of our country. He did not like that different parts of a great national subject should come before the House from different committees, because they should properly form a connected series; but as the measure had come under consideration in this form, he would endeavor to shew that the principles of the bill as far as they did go, were correct and proper.
Mr. K. had no doubt but in forming a general system of defence some few frigates would be found necessary; but he strongly feared they could neither construct line of battle ships or frigates before it would be necessary to use them. Some gentlemen had asserted that the nation was at war; he would not combat this position, though it was not tenable. Some gentlemen said we were on the eve of war, with whom he thought. If they were engaged in war, it would not be upon any other part of the frontier than that accessible by water; of course the most vulnerable points of the country were upon the sea shore. He therefore thought that every species of defence competent to the protection of these points should be adopted, and of this description were fortifications and batteries, aided by gun-boats, not that they composed the best possible means of defence, but the best that could be constructed within a given time.
It had been said that gun-boats could not act efficiently alone; but he believed that, as auxiliary to fortifications, they could be applied in such manner and under such circumstances, as to prevent ships of war from acting to effect. It was known that a ship of war in making an attack on any particular point, always placed herself in such a manner as would enable her to act with the greatest effect; she anchored with her broadside to the battery; and under such circumstances gun-boats were competent to make her change her station.
There were, as far as Mr. K. knew, in modern times but two instances, and but one that was remarkable, of the efficacy of gun-boats as a part of a system. One case was the defence of Cadiz, when Nelson with his whole fleet anchored in the bay of Cadiz, and was repulsed principally he believed by the instrumentality, but certainly by the assistance of gun-boats. In case of attack made on our ports, gun-boats being loco-motive, would in such circumstances be advantageous. Another case of the success of gun-boats, occurs in the bay of Gibraltar; they are there secured from attack until, like spiders darting upon flies, they spring out in calm weather, and always capture their prey.
These gun-boats took their origin in an early part of this century, when Gibraltar was surprised by the enemy. Gun-boats were then introduced into the Gut of Gibraltar; and from the time that Britain captured Gibraltar, to the present day, such had been the effect of these boats, that the British were obliged always to send supplies and provisions to Gibraltar under convoy. He had mentioned this circumstance to shew that gun-boats had acted offensively as well as defensively.
If gentlemen, however, considered them as alone a sufficient defence for this country, they were most miserably mistaken; they were merely eligible as a mean of defence in aid of fortifications. Mr. K. agreed with the gentleman who had yesterday said that these boats would be no protection against ships of war, with wind and tide in their favor, in Chesapeake Bay; but as offensive weapons they might be placed at points where they might lie in readiness till a proper time should arrive, in which they could act with advantage. A number of fri-
gates had been for some time lying in the Chesapeake; Mr. K. did religiously believe, if the nation had been in a state of war (and a contrary situation alone had prevented the experiment from being made) that twelve gun-boats stationed at Norfolk, could have driven them away from their anchorage. And why did he believe so? Because they could have chosen their time when the weather was calm, and large ships could not be worked. It was in this way that gun-boats could greatly injure ships of war; and if not destroy them, could injure them so much as to render them unmanageable. He did not conceive that gun-boats should be considered as incapable of rendering essential services, because they had not hitherto driven the British squadron out of the Chesapeake; for the measures taken by the Executive had not warranted such a step. We are not at war, said he; when by the shameful impression of our seamen and other injuries, and when consummating her folly and wickedness by the attack on the Chesapeake, the English nation gave cause for war, we did not go to war. In his judgment, and he was reluctant to withhold praise where it was due, a much wiser course was taken; he meant the call upon that government for reparation before a resort was had to war. Had they gone to war on the spur of the occasion, they would have committed to the mercy of the British navy twenty millions of American property afloat on the ocean; it would have fallen a sacrifice to the superior naval force of our opponents. If honorable reparation be made, the course which had been pursued would have been wise: at all events, whether reparation were made or not, time had been given to our citizens to save a great portion of their property. A measure of immediate war would have brought bankruptcy on our cities, and ruin on our citizens: It was well for this reason to put the event off as long as possible; the longer it was put off, the better we should be prepared for it when it did arrive. There was no necessity for immediate precipitation; and measures had been wisely taken; and they now daily expected a minister from England for the purpose of offering the cup of peace: whether it would be such as the nation could drink of, he could not say. No measure had yet been taken by this government usually taken by nations in a state of war. He hoped the country would never again be caught in a state so perfectly defenceless, and at the mercy of the enemy, nor be caught napping at its post. Even contemplating a present peace, he considered every protective measure to be imperiously demanded by the situation of the country: the building of ships of war or frigates could not be accomplished in the necessary time in case of immediate war; but he thought they would be driven by necessity to this means of defence whenever the exigency of the times required a strenuous defence.
An honorable gentleman had yesterday observed as one reason against this measure, that it would, if carried into operation to the proposed extent, prevent the adoption of another measure, on which the gentleman placed much reliance—arming the militia. Mr. K. was greatly in favor of this principle, and voted for it; he also wished it to be carried into effect as early as possible; he thought it would be wise and prudent to arm the militia; but when the question now presented itself, should our funds be exhausted by a general arming of our militia, neglecting to afford that protection so necessary to our ports and harbors, he should be strongly opposed to it, because the whole body of the militia would not be called into service at one time, and because by arming them now at the public expense, they would draw those sums of money from the treasury, which could under present circumstances be much more advantageously employed.
When he reflected on our expectation of an immediate rupture with a foreign power, on the situation of our most vulnerable points, and the danger to which they were now exposed—all conspired to influence him in his belief that the measure under consideration ought to be adopted. One other reason: gentlemen ardent for the protection and safety of the country, who expressed the greatest dislike to this mode of defence, had not pointed out any other had offered no more eligible mode as a substitute. Because this did not meet entire approbation, were they to have no defence? If he could hear gentlemen of talents demonstrating how the same money could be expended with the same effect, in the same time and to the same object, he should listen with pleasure. He had, however, assigned his reasons for the vote he should give: during the discussion which had taken place on the bill, he had listened with great attention to arguments on both sides of the question; and looking with a single eye to the expediency of the measure, without considering from what quarter it emanated, he did think the bill ought to pass.
(DEBATE TO BE CONTINUED.)