The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1807-12-02 00:00:00

National Intelligencer.
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. VIII.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. 1113.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1807.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, NOV. 27.
Debate on the reference of a memorial from sundry merchants and traders of the city of Philadelphia, praying for a repeal of the non-importation law.
(CONTINUED.)
Mr. J. CLAY said that the petition was signed generally by ship holders, men of respectability; and with respect to the insinuation that it was the offspring of a British party, there was signed to that memorial the name of a man, who could no more be supposed a British partizan, than could her greatest enemy; but he would not now enter into an enquiry into the character of these men. The gentleman from Massachusetts first up, (Mr. Crowninshield) had made a long harangue on the state of the nation, and said that no difficulties arose under this law. The custom-house of Philadelphia, in answer to an enquiry by a deputation from a body of merchants, declined giving an opinion as to the operation of some of its provisions. Every person knew how the bill originated; when the gentleman from Maryland who was not now on the floor (Mr. Nicholson) brought forward the resolution, it was general as all resolutions were, and merely declared the principle; when it was agreed to and referred to a committee to bring in a bill, instead of going into the necessary details, they took the mere words of the resolution. As to some observations from the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rhea) one of which was that the law did not embarrass the merchants, he should only observe that it appeared to be the privilege of a member of Congress to speak on every subject that occurred, whether he knew any thing about it or not. He should say no more, but that his feelings had been excessively wounded by the observation of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smilie) when he knew that the memorialists whose all was now at stake, were honest men though of different politics from himself.
Mr. NICHOLAS said it was urged by the memorialists as one reason in favor of their prayer, that the law needed amendment; another was, their fear of irritating Great Britain. He wished to God the United States might remain at peace with every nation on earth; but hoped they would only accept of it upon honorable terms. He did believe, that while acts of hostility were committed, while the armed vessels of Great Britain still floated in the waters of the United States, in defiance of an interdictory proclamation, it would never be determined by the representatives of the great body of the American people, that it became them to take any measures to conciliate. The executive had sent no supplication; he hoped it had made a demand; that must be complied with, or they must appeal to arms, or make a total sacrifice of the national character. He felt no disposition to reject the memorial, but he would not vote for its reference to any committee; and would submit it to his friend from Virginia (Mr. Basset) whether it would not be acting more for the interest of their country, to spend their time in making preparations for events, than in discussing such a question as this memorial involved, and whether his purpose would not be equally answered by a discussion of what had for its object the defence of the country.
Mr. ELLIOT said, if it were true that there did exist in our country a British party, it was a subject which ought to excite no inconsiderable alarm; but he had seen no reasons for an apprehension of this kind. If there were in the country a British party possessing talents, property and influence, how unfortunate was our situation! If, said Mr. E. after the outrages which have been committed, by violations of our rights, and jurisdiction, there be a party ready to advocate that cause, we are unfortunate: If there be a British party, I hope it is the only foreign party in the country. But how was the question of a British or any other party now before them? A petition had been presented to the House, and a motion made for its reference to a committee, to give it the only course which a petition ever took. Was there any reason
why this petition should not be referred? It regarded an important subject, a national concern. Was it couched in insulting or disrespectful language? He was not in the House when it was read, but understood it was perfectly respectful. The Emperor Napoleon, when opposed by Alexander, heading a column of 500,000 men, if a petition were offered to him by the meanest of his subjects, would at least smile on the petitioner, and put the paper in his pocket. Whither were the House going? He was apprehensive that there were two cabalistic words, either of which were sufficient to silence a petitioner or a member. British party was one. Was a petition presented, and a motion made to refer it, some one rose and told them the petition ought not to be referred; it came from a British party. Was a motion, on the face of it unexceptionable, proposed, they were told the mover had no confidence in the executive, and must be voted down. No confidence in the executive! Vote him down! Were they to reject petitions because they expressed no confidence in the executive? He understood some allusion to be made in the petition to demands made by our government. In turning to the message of the President, he found no mention of such demands. After noticing the interdiction of our waters, the President says, "An armed vessel of the United States was dispatched with instructions to our ministers at London to call on that government for the satisfaction and security required by the outrage. A very short interval ought now to bring the answer, &c." No intimation was given of the demand which was here mentioned being connected with any other demand. But did the petitioners intimate any thing which did not arise from the general understanding that this demand had been connected with other demands, regarding perhaps questions of still greater importance. Such was the general understanding of the country; he did not undertake to question the policy of such demands. He did not want confidence in the executive himself, but would not reject a petition because it did not express the same sentiment.
Mr. NELSON could not tell how the gentleman from Vermont had got into the argument about a British party in the country, except it was because Mr. N. himself had called for the reading of the names subscribed to the memorial. He had no idea in doing this of enquiring whether there were a British party in the country or not. He merely wished to know whether the memorial was signed by the community at large or by merchants only; because he knew that the interest of the great body and the mercantile interest were very different, and if the latter were to have its way the country would be plunged into a war for its commerce, at the expence of the resources of the whole community. But the gentleman had said that if the greatest monarch on earth were presented with a petition from his meanest subject, he would at least smile on the petitioner. Mr. N. hoped this would never be the case here; that this House would not, courtier-like, smile, but boldly and like a republican frown in the face of a man whose petition they did not like and not put it in their pockets, when they did not mean to attend to it. If the petitioners asked for what ought not to be done, the respectability of their characters should have no weight with the House in favor of it. Circumstances had much changed since the adoption of the law. Did they not recollect that previous to its adoption it was proclaimed throughout the country, that it was more than the United States dared to do, to pass such a law? The law had been passed; they were now on the eve of a war, and the British nation had said to them, if you persist in this law, we will consider it a declaration of war. Ought they under these circumstances to refer applications made for the repeal of that law? Was it not time to mispend even to consider whether they would refer the memorial or not? He confessed he did not much like the law when it passed, but he voted for it, because he thought something ought to be done. But should they now retreat? He hoped not. He hoped the petition would neither be referred to any committee, or lie on the table; he wished it to receive no consideration whatever.
Mr. BASSETT withdrew his motion for referring the memorial to a committee of the whole on the state of the union, not that he was perfectly convinced his proposition was incorrect; as it was made with a view to the subject and not to the petition; but he was not one of those who wished a question taken on a motion merely because he made it himself. Another reason was, that he understood that it was contemplated to take up a report of the committee of aggressions to day, when the House could go into a general discussion.
Mr. W. ALSTON withdrew his motion for a reference to a committee of the whole, as he did not wish to shew any particular complaisance to the petition.
The Speaker said the question now recurred on the reference to the committee of Commerce and Manufactures.
Mr. RHEA (T.) should not have risen again but for the observations of the mover of the reference, (Mr. J. Clay) who understood him to say that the law would not embarrass the merchants. The gentleman had misunderstood him; he did not think it would embarrass any merchants who considered the honor and dignity of the U. States. Mr. R. admitted that he knew nothing of commerce, for he was no commercial man; but this he knew, that the act prohibited the importation of certain articles, and was passed to support the honor of the U. S. He also knew that the subject matter of the petition, so far as it went to the repeal of the act alluded to, went to lower the dignity of the U. S. and in order to induce an amicable termination, wished them to depart from the ground they had taken. Mr. R. said he should never be one of those who would refuse to consider a petition of a private nature, which did not include a national subject; but this required them to do an act which would derogate from the national honor. If he might refer to British publications, was it not now said that there ought to be a total prohibition of neutral commerce? The petitioners had every reason to suppose that our government was doing every thing which it could do to procure an amicable adjustment of existing differences. Why then bring these things forward to impede its operations. Mr. R. felt all possible confidence in the Executive. He believed the instructions which had been sent, though he did not precisely know what they were, were proper and dignified. But the policy of the British government would not admit any principle that would impair her absolute sovereignty of the ocean; and so long as that disposition existed so long our remonstrances would be unheard, as they were before the revolution. If he mistook not, our remonstrances at that time were thrown under the table. And would gentlemen insist that this petition should be referred, when it might commit the honor of the U. States? He knew nothing of the petitioners, not even their names; but the subject matter of their petition he abhorred. He had no objection when the proper time came round, to assist in the repeal of the law. When all our differences were settled, then these provisions might be set aside. He hoped the House, in the present situation, would not only hold on the law, but go still farther.
Mr. SLOAN rose to say that his sentiments as to this memorial were exactly similar in one respect with those expressed by the gentleman from Virginia. He thought with him that the purport of the petition was such as to arouse their feelings and enquiries too. He had no right to arraign the motives of the petitioners, but he had a right to express his opinion of the matter of that or any other petition presented to the House; and he would say he considered it as embracing the interests of G. Britain. Taking it in this point of view, he thought they should not notice it farther than to reject it.
Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS felt differently from most gentlemen on this subject. If he could consider its effects as the gentleman from Tennessee had done, he should vote with him—but he could not see how that effect could be produced. If he could conceive that it had originated from a British party in Philadelphia, he should feel differently, but not feeling thus, he hoped he should not be denounced as one of a British party, if he voted in favor of its reference to the com-
mittee of Commerce and Manufactures. Giving to this memorial all the importance with which every gentleman had clothed it, he would ask the House to recur to a correct principle guaranteed to the people by the constitution. The right peaceably to petition for a redress of grievances. If they suffered foreign relations to influence them in considering constitutional questions, any corrupt Executive might hereafter turn the very means to their destruction which were guaranteed to them to secure their safety. This was not the day when the right to petition was the most sacred under the constitution; but that day might arrive, and the tendency of such conduct as has been recommended is directly calculated to produce it. Suppose the object of the petitioners was to produce in G. Britain the same opinion which the circular letter of the American Commercial Society of Liverpool had in this country; is a contemptuous silence best calculated to defeat the object? I say no. The petition is now in the power of every man interested in its circulation; it ought not to be suffered to go abroad without the antidote accompanying it; refer it then to the committee of Commerce and Manufactures, and if there was not talents enough in that committee to send them a Rowland for their Oliver, he trusted there was in this House.
Mr. FISK considered the right of petitioning in all cases a constitutional right; but he did not consider it necessary at the same time to act on all petitions. This petition had been presented, and he thought the question of considering the petition of more importance than the subject itself involved in it. He was so unfortunate as to conceive that although the language was good, the sentiments it conveyed were improper and disrespectful. He considered them improper as exciting alarm; the petitioners had said they were extremely alarmed from rumor at the extent of the demands made by our Executive on the British government. Where did they get their information? What these demands were they had not stated; were rumors to authorize them to come forward in this manner? One object of their petition was the repeal of the non-importation act, because it was necessary for a further adjustment of our differences with G. Britain, and because it might irritate her? Whence this great respect for G. Britain? Was it due to her conduct? Was it due to the impressment of our seamen, whom she had retained for 7 years? Was it due to the principle she had interpolated into the law of nations, to the destruction of neutral commerce? Was it due to the blood of Americans which she had spilt, and the outrages committed on our public and other vessels? Is she, said he, entitled to respect from us for these? And yet gentlemen tell us this memorial contains respectful language! They no doubt felt the effects which might result from war, and he also wished for peace to his country; but would never purchase it by stooping to G. Britain or any other power. Had not Congress a right to regulate our commerce without consulting her? Had she been so complaisant to us? Was her justice so great as to call upon us to repeal this law? These questions needed no answer: he hoped the petition would be rejected.
Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL, said he rose with much reluctance to submit to the House a very few remarks, on this subject. The real question now to be decided was, whether the subject of the petition under consideration was such as ought, at this time, to claim the serious deliberation of the House in order to decide on its merits. Was the prayer of it such as they should deliberate about granting? If it was do it but what the decision on the merits of this petition ought to be, then it should be referred; but if on the first glance of its prominent features, its object was evidently inconsistent with the honor and dignity of the nation; if there could be no doubt with regard to the final decision that ought to be made upon it; this House ought not to refer it to any committee whatever. It was in this point of view he considered this petition. It appeared to him as a case less than an insult on the mastership of the House; and when all the facts relating to the subject were taken into consideration, he was convinced the House would be of opinion that it merited
no consideration. It was, if not a direct, at least an indirect insult on their dignity. It was said the people had a constitutional right to petition, and that this House ought to hear their petitions. This right, he said, was not denied; the petition had been received and read in this House; and the question now was, how it should be disposed of; which must be decided according to the subject matter of the petition, and will in no manner interfere with the right of the people to petition. In this petition, said Mr. C. the petitioners state they are alarmed, in consequence of the high demands made by this government on G. Britain, and that their alarms are increased by public rumor. Now, asked Mr. C. do these petitioners know the nature of the demands which have been made? and with what propriety do they state to this House their alarms on account of demands made by government for redress, at a time when the whole nation feel with indignation, the insult which had rendered those demands necessary; but suppose the House should refer this petition; it would be essentially necessary, before they could act on it, or remove those alarms complained of, that they should know what those demands were that occasioned them. They could not decide on the subject without knowing them; and how were they to obtain the information. Negotiations on the subject were now pending; the petitioners could not therefore expect that an enquiry into the nature of those demands would be made by this House, and it would not be consistent with the interest or policy of the nation to make such enquiry, until the result of those negotiations was known. What benefit could therefore result to the petitioners in regard to the pretended ground of their alarms from referring their petition? none. But the object of the petitioners is to obtain a repeal of the non-importation act; and they state as the reasons for wishing this repeal, that the act is calculated to embarrass the merchants of this country and irritate the people and government of G. Britain.
If gentlemen would reflect a moment on this subject, they would be convinced that if the petitioners had paid a proper respect to the interest of their country or the dignity of this House, they would not, at this time, have made this application. The passage of that act was the first step which had been taken by the American government, declaratory of their determination to resist aggressions which had been long continued on their commerce and citizens. It was passed by a very large majority of this House, after a full discussion of its merits. At a subsequent session its operation was suspended, and on what ground? On this express ground, which was officially made known to this House—that G. Britain had manifested a friendly disposition towards this country, and that our differences with that nation were in a fair train of amicable adjustment—and even with this information before them, Mr. C. said, they had only suspended the operation of the act, but had not repealed it. This was done with a view to meet in a proper manner, those friendly advances on the part of that nation. Had any thing since taken place, calculated to conciliate the affections of this country, or which ought to induce the government to abandon the ground of resistance which they had taken, or shrink from a perseverance in those measures first determined on, and still deemed necessary for the attainment of justice—on the contrary had not the conduct of G. Britain, since, been a tissue of aggravated insults? Had not one aggression been committed after another, in regular succession, and with increasing atrocity, until the climax of aggravated injury was complicated by the attack on the Chesapeake? Was it necessary to repeat the circumstances of this outrage, which for cowardly arrogance and deliberate insult, exceeded any thing of the kind ever known among civilized nations. The universal indignation which it excited throughout the union, still remains unabated and would continue to do so while the crime was unatoned for—and yet, under these circumstances, said Mr. C. we are called upon to retreat from the ground we had previously occupied—to retract the only measure of redress we had taken. After the murder of Fiske,

Contested election
and the still more barbarous murder of his fellow citizens in the Chesapeake , (since the passage of that law, and its suspension) you are called upon to retrace your steps, to decline all resistance—to shrink from the contest—and virtually say to Great Britain—We feel your chastisement—and we regret that we have taken any step which may irritate your people or government. The people of America, said Mr. C. would frown with indignant contempt on a conduct of this kind—and even the people of Great Britain, if they possessed the spirit of freemen, would feel a contempt for a conduct so pusillanimous, so inconsistent with the dignity of a nation. They could not do otherwise (however they might seem to approve the measure) than despise the meanness of a people, who would make a shew of resistance in defence of their injured rights, and after repeated insults, relinquish the contest, without reparation, and tamely submit to the most aggravated aggressions. If we were to deliberate on pursuing such a course—if we expressed a doubt on the propriety of rejecting with indignation such a proposition, we would justly merit and receive the universal execration of the people of America. Mr. C. concluded by declaring his determination to vote against the reference of the petition to any committee—and expressing his hope that such reference would not be agreed to by the House.
Mr. ELLIS said, that in voting against the reference of this petition, he should not consider himself as casting a censure on the presenting it, or as violating the right of petitioning which every man possessed. One reason only would influence him in his vote. He did not consider Congress possessed of that information which would enable them to act on any subject relative to our relations with Great Britain. He thought the House should not depart from a rule which they had laid down, though they had been four weeks in session, and every gentleman felt a sense of the injury received, they were determined not to take any step till they had full information on which to ground their determination. And now because a body of merchants came forward and petitioned for it, should they depart from that rule? It had been said that not referring it would be a disrespect to those who offered it; and the gentleman from S. C. had said it would be a violation of the constitution. With respect to the petitioners, a petition introduced by them would meet with the same respect from him as if it had been introduced by the most conspicuous member in the House: if a motion had been made by a member to enquire into the propriety of repealing this law, he would in the same manner have voted against referring it. As to the constitutional right of petitioning, when a petition was received and read, the constitution was fulfilled. Whether it should be referred or how otherwise disposed of, remained for members to determine, for which decision they were answerable to their consciences. This objection was fully answered by the precedent in the case of the Yazoo claim, the memorial on which was rejected without a reference. Under these views he should vote against the reference, and in doing so, did not wish to wound the feelings of any member, or consider himself as violating the constitution.
Mr. J. CLAY conceived that the constitution, in securing to every citizen of the U. S. the right of petitioning, meant that the nature of his petition should be enquired into; but he was neither advocating the petition, nor vindicating the intentions of every man whose name was subscribed to the petition; he only wished that a proper respect might be paid to it. There was no necessity for entering into Executive secrets, or to go into the office of the Secretary of State; he merely wished an enquiry into the petition.
Mr. COOK was sorry that so much time had been spent to so little purpose; he conceived the committee of Commerce and Manufactures had no other information on our political relations than any other part of the House.
Mr. RUT (T.) said he should always consider sacred the constitutional right of petitioning the legislature on any point; but it was in the power of the legislature to say whether they would give that petition a hearing or not after they had received it.
Mr. LYON said it was immaterial as to the respectability of the petitioners. He understood what the nature of the petition was, and thought it right that they might make an enquiry: he wished them to have a direct answer, and as quick as possible, by a refusal to refer their petition.
The question was agreed to be Kenby yeas and nays.
(Debate to be continued.)
(Mr. Rowan's remarks, concluded from the last page.)
to the elected. It might have been unfortunate if they had; the different interests of the different states would have assigned different qualifications. In such circumstances could any unanimity have been expected? No. It had therefore forcibly intruded itself upon the people, that they should affix permanent qualifications; which were only that a member should have arrived to the age of 25 years, have been 7 years a citizen of the U. States, and should be an inhabitant of the state for which he was chosen. No power had been given to the state sovereignities to superadd qualifications. If they had left this power with the states, this government would not have been an union, but a distraction.
But if the legislature may annex additional qualifications to the members of the House of Representatives, so they may also to the Senate. The members of the Senate were considered as particularly the Representatives of the states, the members of this House as Representatives of the people of the union; distinct interests. And if the House decided that the state of Maryland did possess power to annex qualifications, they decided against the liberties of the people; for the members who composed the U. S. convention were from the people; they performed the functions of representatives of the people and of representatives of the state sovereignities: to the state sovereignities they granted additional rights, & others they reserved; among which last was the power of choosing the representatives of the people, subject only to the qualifications of residence, &c. The state of Maryland had varied the qualifications thus fixed, and confined the residence of the member from that state to Baltimore, a particular part of his district.
Mr. R. said, he was the more anxious on this question, because it appeared that other encroachments had been made on the constitution. A gentleman from North Carolina had said, that in his state the residence was confined to the respective districts from which they were elected. It was therefore high time the people should rectify these errors; or, he agreed with the gentleman from Virginia, though from different causes, the constitution would become a dead letter. He thought it therefore important to determine whether states were in relation to the union, what counties were in relation to states. He believed that as to the purpose of electing members to the lower House of Congress, the states were to the union what counties were to a state, and that districts in a state were to that state what election precincts were to a county. All for the convenience of the electors, and not in abridgement of their rights. We would be shocked at a law requiring a county representative to reside in a particular one of its several precincts. Not less improper is it to require that the representative in Congress from a state should reside in a particular part of any one district of that state. The people cannot be confined in their choice of a representative within narrower limits than those of the state.
Mr. R. said, the House ought to go on constitutional grounds; and he held it and was willing to express it as his opinion on the question, that persons voting for a member to Congress had a right to vote for a candidate residing out of their district as well as in it; and that if a man out of a district had a majority of votes given in that district, he was duly elected a member of that House. Suppose the legislature of Maryland, instead of determining that one representative should be chosen from the city of Baltimore, had declared that all the representatives of the state should be chosen from Baltimore. If she had power to confine one to a particular district, why not all? If they permitted the legislature to contract the choice within a district, why not to a particular part of it? He was therefore impressed that in advocating the doctrine he had laid down, he was advocating the rights of the people: for it appeared that the rights of the electors and the elected, were invaded at the same time; on one side they had encroached on the liberties of the people to be chosen, and on the other side contracted their latitude of choice.
Mr. R. said, that he believed it was one of the most prominent attributes of sovereignty to extend its power; though not physically of equal power; that sovereignty, whether applied to states or to the union, had an equal bias to self-extension. While they guarded against encroachment on state sovereignities, they must not let them encroach on the sovereignty of the union. The rights of each consisted in a true observance on the part of each, of the rights of the others. The state of Maryland had encroached on the
rights of the people of the union; for it was a particular right of the sovereignty of the union, to fix qualifications for representatives to Congress, as they are fixed in the constitution, which right the legislature of Maryland had contravened.
He was struck yesterday by the force of an argument of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who had cited the naturalization law in illustration of the present case. Would it be permitted to any state to enact laws regulating this matter after Congress had legislated upon the subject? He presumed not; for if one state might, so might another, and they would not concur; hence a want of uniformity would result. Now, it seemed to Mr. R. that if a state could not legislate in the latter case they could not in the former; they were subjects on which uniformity was at least equally important. On an uniformity of qualification for members of that House depended every thing dear to the nation; it was a point on which the people of the union ought to be most jealous, & the last on which they should be assailed. He should vote for the resolution of the committee of elections, but he wished the subject to be so divided that separate questions might be taken on each point. He was unwilling that there should be any thing connected with the constitutional point, that not a doubt might remain on its decision. The evils which had been represented yesterday as likely to result from this decision, by the gentleman from Virginia, whose talents and motives he had been always in the habit of revering, Mr. R. thought bore no proportion to evils which might result from a contrary decision. He had said that transient persons might be elected members of that House; the confidence in this particular was reposed with the people; they were to take care that a man who did not possess constitutional qualifications should not be sent there; and if it were discovered by the House that one of its members was not constitutionally qualified, his seat would be vacated.
Mr. R. observed, that the doctrine laid down by some gentlemen, that the electors and elected should possess similar qualifications, did not seem to him to be the sense of the constitution; for it had annexed different qualifications. Perhaps it would be good policy in the states not to annex qualifications even to an elector which did not attach to the elected. It seemed that the state of Virginia had enacted that no person should be entitled to vote who was not a freeholder; and it was argued that therefore no person could be elected who did not possess that qualification; which was contrary to the sense of the constitution.
Mr. R. said, he would therefore conclude with expressing an opinion in favor of the resolution of the committee of elections; and that he was convinced of the right of the House to determine on the constitutionality of any state law, when it came legitimately before them, as in the present case. Whilst he relied on the state sovereignities, he also revered the national sovereignty, as one without which the state sovereignities could not be preserved; and by which, if the state sovereignities were assailed, they could alone be rescued.
(DEBATE TO BE CONTINUED.)
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30.
Mr. Findley moved that the petition of Arthur St. Clair presented at former session, be referred to the committee on Claims barred, &c. Agreed.
Mr. Porter presented the petition of sundry coppersmiths, and braziers of the city of Philadelphia, which was referred to the committee of Commerce and Manufactures.
Mr. Mumford moved that the petition of the inspectors of the city of Philadelphia, presented at a former session, be referred to the committee of the whole to whom several reports on like petitions had been referred—Agreed.
Mr. Findley presented the petition of the Associate Reformed Church in the city of Washington, praying for an act of incorporation; which was referred to a committee composed of three.
Mr. Cook said that the House had been long in session, and had yet done nothing towards the purpose for which they were called together. For the purpose of coming to the consideration of the subject, and for obtaining the proper information he offered the following resolutions:
1st. Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be directed to lay before this House a statement of the frigates, and other armed vessels composing the navy of the United States, distinguishing those in actual service from those in ordinary, and noting such as want repairs, with an estimate of the sums necessary to prepare them for immediate service, and the
probable time necessary to make such repairs.
2d. Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be directed to lay before this House, a statement of the number of officers and men respectively belonging to the navy of the United States and the corps of marines.
3d. Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be directed to lay before this House, an estimate of the number of officers and men which would be necessary to complete the manning the whole and entire navy of the United States including the gun-boats with an estimate of the expenditures respectively necessary for maintaining them, in actual service during one year.
4th. Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be directed to lay before this House a statement of the quantity, quality, and present state of the timber and other materials belonging to the United States now on hand suitable for building ships of war, describing the force and size for which such timber and other materials are suitable.
Mr. Blount objected to the passage of the first resolution as entirely unnecessary, as he had in his hand a letter from the Secretary of the Navy, giving part of the information asked for by that resolution, and as the committee of aggressions had actually requested of the Secretary of the Navy information which would embrace all that was contemplated by it.
Some conversation ensued on the particular information wished, and the propriety of calling for it, between Messrs. Cook, Blount, Smilie, Milnor, Mumford, Dana, Tallmadge and Gardner; during which a motion was made by Mr. Smilie to postpone the consideration of the resolutions till this day week, on which Mr. Mumford offered the following remarks:
He said, that more than a month had expired since they were assembled here on an extraordinary occasion, and the nation had been constantly looking up to them in full expectation that they were occupied in measures of defence. It was true that a select committee had made a report authorizing the Secretary at War to sell a few muskets and establish a cannon foundry in this place; it was also true that the committee of aggressions had made a report. He did not mean to arraign the measures of their Committees; it was far from his intention; he had the fullest confidence in them, he made no doubt they had discharged their duty with fidelity. But they had also duties to perform to themselves and to their country, and he did hope they would immediately proceed on measures of defence. Would they put it in the power of a foreign minister to write to his court that they might pursue their own measures, that they had nothing to apprehend from the American Congress, as they were occupied in their domestic concerns? Although they had no official information of late date before them relating to their affairs with Great Britain, he yet presumed every member of the House was convinced of the hostile disposition of that government. Look to Nova Scotia (said Mr. M.) you there find her militia in a state of requisition, fortifying the port and harbor of Halifax, numerous reinforcements daily arriving there, and at Quebec, under the command of a vigilant enterprising officer; the whole of their naval force on the lakes prepared for war; numerous tribes of savages assembled at their instigation in the neighborhood of Detroit, a secret expedition from Europe consisting of 20,000 men ostensibly given out for South America to re-conquer Buenos Ayres, when in fact they might attack some vulnerable part of our country; 14 sail of the line and 18 frigates they had heard were bound to the West Indies, when in reality they might together with what force they had at Halifax, blockade the whole of our ports and harbors in order to overawe our government, and enforce the demands very likely to be made by their Minister extraordinary daily expected to arrive in this country. When they were thus threatened, there could be but one sentiment and he hoped they would not delay a moment in taking such efficient measures as would at least defend the country.
The ideas suggested by other gentlemen, being nearly correspondent with those already given, are omitted for want of room, and to allow the admission of a greater part of the debate on fortifications.
Mr. Cook, consented to withdraw the first resolution till the information asked for by the committee of aggressions was received, which might altogether supersede it, or induce him to modify it so as to obtain his object.
The three last resolutions were
then agreed to without a division.
On motion of Mr. Blount, the House went into a committee of the whole Mr. Bassett in the chair, on the second report of the committee of aggressions, which recommends the following resolutions:
Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the President of the U. S. to cause such fortifications to be erected as, in addition to those heretofore built, will, with the assistance of gun-boats, afford effectual protection to our ports & harbors, & preserve therein the respect due to the constituted authorities of the nation, and that their be, and hereby is, appropriated for that purpose, out of any monies in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of _____ dollars.
Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the President of the U. S. to cause to be built an additional number of gun-boats not exceeding _____ and to arm, equip, man, fit, and employ the same for the protection of our ports and harbors; and that there be, and hereby is appropriated for that purpose out of any monies in the treasury, not otherwise appropriated, the sum of _____
The report being read, and the first resolution under consideration.
Mr. Blount said he would state, in as few words as he could, the views of the committee in presenting to their consideration the resolution now before them. It would be seen that the committee were of opinion that the fortifications contemplated were equally necessary in time of peace & in time of war. For the circumstance of our being at peace hitherto had not restrained the rapacity and insolence of British naval commanders, & similar conduct would be continued, unless there were created in our harbors a force sufficient to repel it. The contemplated sum to complete the fortifications already established and to erect others, was, in addition to what remained unexpended of former appropriations for that purpose, about 750,000 dollars, in case a war took place; in case of peace, or our former state not properly of peace or war, 300,000 dollars would be sufficient, that being as large a sum as could conveniently be expended in the course of the year. It was not necessary that the blank in the resolution should be filled at present, and it would accord better with his wishes, if it were left till a bill should be brought in conformably to the resolution.
The second resolution proposed an appropriation for building a certain number of gun boats. The reason of preference by the committee of this mode of defence, was, that it was the only defence that could be provided in a short time. However gentlemen might differ in opinion with respect to a naval force, all would agree that at this time they had not means or time to provide any other defence than that proposed by the committee. It was proposed to erect 188 additional gun boats which with the number already built, would amount to 267, the number proposed as sufficient for the purpose of defence. The secretary of war, who was not called upon in form to give information to the committee, was requested to call on the committee, and converse with them on the subject, and the substance of his answers was contained in a paper which Mr. B. held in his hand, but which the committee did not propose should be submitted to the House at present as it might contain matter not proper for disclosure. He would put it into the hands of the clerk who might read such parts of it as would shew what were the views of the secretary of war on the subject—such as gave entire satisfaction to the committee, and such as they hoped would be satisfactory to the House. With these observations, and one other, that these fortifications were not contemplated to be of a fixed or expensive kind, but principally heavy artillery mounted on travelling carriages, that might be moved from place to place, he would submit the subject to the consideration of the committee.
Mr. Dana enquired if there was any statement of the balance remaining unexpended of former appropriations.
Mr. Blount said there was not a distinct statement, nor was it in the power of the secretary to give it, but it was upwards of 100,000 dollars, which in addition to 750,000 dollars, would make about 874,000 dollars.
Mr. Quince wished to know of the chairman of the committee, whether this money was to be appropriated exclusively to erect new fortifications, or to repair old ones, or for both.
Mr. Blount said the sum of 750,000 dollars was considered sufficient to complete such fortifications as have been erected on proper sites, and to erect such others as might be necessary in aid of gun boats. The secretary of the navy could not state the particular sum that each place would require. Past experience had shown that such express appropria-

tions could not be made. It was the wish of the committee to afford to the President the power of applying these sums to such places as he should think best.
Mr. QUINCY wished to know whether the terms of the resolution expressed the intention. He conceived that this sum of money should be placed in the hands of the President of the United States, not only to erect new fortifications, but to repair old ones where necessary. As he understood the resolution the President was to apply the whole sum to new fortifications, and could not appropriate it without misapplication to repair old ones.
Mr. BLOUNT said the object of the committee was to put so much money at the disposal of the President, as to answer both the purposes of repair and erection. If the words did not express that sense, he should cheerfully acquiesce in any amendment which might be made.
An amendment was offered by Mr. DANA, but afterwards withdrawn, to make way for one offered by Mr. CROWNINSHIELD to the same effect; by which the resolution was amended to read as follows:
Resolved , That it is expedient to authorise the President of the United States to cause such fortifications to be repaired and erected as will, with the assistance of gun boats, &c.
Mr. THOMAS enquired as to filling the blank.
Mr. BLOUNT said he had stated while up before, that 300,000 dollars in time of peace was as much as could be expended in the course of a year. But if they could not enjoy peace, more would be necessary; and from the uncertainty of this, the committee wished to decline filling the blank at the present time. When the bill should be laid before them, they might be better qualified to judge.
Mr. GARDENIER was not so much opposed to the not filling up the blank in the resolution at this time as to the reason which had been given for not doing it, or in other words, the reasons why the House should not now debate on that part of the resolution on which it was most important to deliberate; the sum to be allowed. It was hardly necessary except in point of form, to have gone into committee of the whole for any other purpose than this. All agreed that the ports and harbors of the U. S. should be better fortified than they were at present; on that point he trusted there could be but one opinion: but unless a sum certain was named the people in the seaports would remain in the same state of doubt and uncertainty which they had experienced ever since the commencement of the session. He wished to come to that point which it was most important to consider; he wished to know how much gentlemen would give towards the protection of our ports and harbors. If they were not so fully prepared to decide as they might perhaps hereafter be, he thought they might do much by entering into the discussion of the subject. For himself, he could not readily assent to what had fallen from the Chairman of the committee; he could not comprehend the propriety of making a difference between the expense to be incurred in case the appearances of war should increase, and those estimated on a prospect of peace. He had heard nothing said that was calculated to change his uniform opinion on this subject, that a state of peace was the season for a nation which had so many vulnerable points to prepare for war, and place itself in a condition to repel attack. In a state of war, and it seemed to be seriously approaching, it would be impossible to lay out money to so much advantage as in a state of peace. It was in the time of peace peculiarly that they should, as much as they could, erect barriers against some of the most dreadful evils of war: he would here apply the maxim of Washington, quoted by a gentleman from Maryland some days since, "that to preserve peace, we should be prepared for war." Supposing it should happen, improbable as it was, that the country should remain at peace, were they on that account to relax in the fortification of their ports and harbors? How could they, acting in this way, expect ever to be prepared for war, when it should actually arrive? A country whose coasts were so much exposed, and whose cities were so rich, so valuable, and therefore so tempting, should never be unprepared; but if, said he, we should be persuaded to postpone the defence of the country, while we are waiting for news and hoping for peace, the enemy may be at our doors; our cities may be sacked, and nothing left in them worth defending; it would be too late then, because it will be to no purpose to fortify, and the money we now talk of appropriating may be saved, while our cities are destroyed and desolated.
Gentlemen seemed to take great
delight in flattering themselves that they might yet escape war; they wished, and from wishing, hoped for peace. Mr. G. had no hope that at a period when all the world was convulsed, kingdoms and thrones were overturned in such rapid succession, when all the free states of the world had perished as it were before our eyes, that we should be able to escape without enduring some part of the general calamity. He entertained now the same opinion which he had done ever since the attack on the Chesapeake was made, that the country would be compelled to go to war, or sacrifice its honor forever. They could not avoid it, unless they would accept of peace, on terms, to which no independent nation could listen. An attack like that on the Chesapeake had never occurred before. The making of it was not alone an outrage of the very worst character, but also an assertion of the most positive kind, that Great Britain was about to introduce a new principle into the law of nations. We have endeavored, said he, to soothe ourselves with a hope, that this attack was the mere unauthorised act of a British commander, which his government might afterwards disavow or not as they pleased. And while we went on hoping we might as well hope too, that they would disavow it. In this hope, said he, we have wrapped ourselves so securely up, that at the very moment I am speaking, the cannon of Britain may be carrying ruin and havoc into our defenceless seaports. Mr. G. could not persuade himself, that a British admiral would voluntarily assume so awful a responsibility. He could not believe that the admiral's own orders were less precise and positive than those which he gave to the captain of the Leopard. Yet, if he could even believe that, he could not believe that this outrage would have been followed up, and consummated by bringing to trial, condemning, and executing one of the unfortunate men, who owed his death to his confidence in the inviolability of the American flag; and that too, after it was known at Halifax, what poignant sensations the attack itself had excited here; after the President's proclamation itself was known there. He would have paused, said Mr. G. before he proceeded to this dreadful extremity. He would have waited for new, and more precise orders, if his instruction had not been already clear and explicit. Can we, said he, in events subsequent to this, find any cause to console each other with a hope of peace? No, sir. From the time the proclamation was issued, to this very moment, has a British squadron remained in our waters, persisting in the violation of our territory, with an air of scorn and defiance, which while it ought to awaken all that is American in us, excludes almost every ray of hope. Could gentlemen indulge in hope, when they heard that the British vessels in the lakes had been armed? That the British forces in Canada were encreased and concentrated? That the fortifications at Quebec were repairing? That at Halifax, 100 men were draughted from the militia, to assist in placing that post in a state of defence? That an additional number of ships and troops were expected? Did any thing from our ministers at St. James's encourage hope? Anything that could be collected from the political journals there? When we see the British ministry, said he, preparing for war, taking those steps which this government ought to have taken long ago, could they longer console each other with the hope of peace? There was nothing to induce them to delay for a moment, the most active preparation. It is true, they were in some degree excusable, for not having acted on this subject hitherto. The President's Message, tho' it had communicated to them information of the attack on the Chesapeake, did not state, whether it was in the opinion of the executive most probable that we should have war, or that we should not have war; it merely stated, that peace might not continue. They were left, therefore, to deliberate as they could, uninfluenced and undirected by an expression of what was the opinion of the executive. But, as from their own impulse, they had at last arrived at the subject, he hoped they would go fully into it. Our ports, he said, ought to be fortified, whether we are ultimately to have peace or war. But if only in case of war seeming inevitable, he entreated gentlemen to consider, whether the prospect was not as gloomy as it could be in any state of things short of actual war. But if, contrary to all sound calculation, our peace should continue, the determination to fortify ought in his opinion not to be given up; that, at another time, we may be better prepared than we are now. He hoped, therefore, some opinion would be expressed as to the sum to be appropriated for fortification: he must profess his conviction that neither of the sums
mentioned by the chairman of the committee were enough to satisfy that part of the people to whose safety effectual fortifications were so essential. The sum of 750,000 dollars had been mentioned as a sufficient sum; if they once attempted to fortify, they must do it effectually; if they appropriated a sum for defence it must be sufficient, or the money they did expend, would be completely thrown away. He hoped the House would resolve effectually to protect our ports and harbors: when they did that, they did what their country demanded and had a right to demand of them. When they only half fortified, they made a show to induce the people to believe they would do something for them. He should as soon expect a farmer to fence but half his ground, and thus leave his crop exposed, as that they would go but half way in fortifying against an enemy. He hoped they would not squander away money to no purpose; for his part he would not vote for less than a sufficient sum; for if he did, he should consider himself as violating those principles of economy which should always be attended to in government. Mr. G. wished the House not only to make a sound, but act as though they meant to do something. Upon this subject his constituents were feelingly alive to every thing which transpired from that House: they had petitioned formerly and had received petty appropriations which might all have been expended on 15 feet of ground. This would not do any longer; something must either be done for them, or they must be told that they must take care of themselves, and then they would know what to do.
At this time, when they saw approaching so nearly to them—when they saw almost realized that state of war which they had so often been told might happen, and for which the people had been so often warned to prepare, Mr. G. hoped they would give up some of that tenacious hard-fistedness which had hitherto clinched their fingers so closely in the purse strings of the national treasury. It was their cities which now called for protection—it was better to expend money in protecting these deposits of individual wealth, these sources of national revenue, than in buying unproductive wildernesses, or speculating in hot beds of sedition and treason; better protect what they had, than purchase that which might become a curse to them. They had better do something, for what a gentleman of that House once called "the good old thirteen United States," and not let all their care and all their tenderness travel westward. Do something for us, said Mr. G. but do not think of satisfying us by merely pretending to do it; let us know what you mean to do: I feel myself authorised to demand that what we have asked shall be granted to us, or that we shall be told in direct terms that you will do nothing for us. At least deal plainly with us. When you come with your 300,000 or 750,000 dollars, what does it amount to? Can any member in the House lay his hand upon his heart, and say, that either of these sums would answer the purpose of effectual defence for the whole sea coast of the United States. Mr. G. hoped the chairman of the committee of aggressions would not misconceive him; he meant no reflection on the committee or its chairman. He avowed his belief that the committee meant to discharge their duty—but they must forgive me said Mr. G. if I too feel the necessity of doing mine.
(DEBATE TO BE CONTINUED.) Both resolutions were adopted; the first without a division, and the second, Ayes 93. When the committee rose, and the House agreed to the resolutions, which were referred to the same committee that introduced them, to bring in a bill.
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1.
Mr. QUINCY offered the following resolution:
Resolved , That the Secretary for the Department of War be directed to lay before this House an account of the state of the fortifications of the respective ports and harbors of the United States, with a statement of the monies appropriated for fortifications remaining unexpended; and an estimate of the sums necessary for completing such fortifications as may be deemed requisite for their defence.
Which being under consideration, Mr. Quincy said, the House would perceive the object of this resolution was to obtain information: there was a document on their table which gave some information on the subject, but was not explicit. This resolution was exactly similar to one passed last session, by which the House obtained some important and interesting information; this being the case, he hoped no objection would be made to it.
The resolution was agreed to without a division.
Mr. BARD presented the petition of Duncan McVicker, which was referred to the committee of Claims.
Mr. BASSET moved that the petitions of Edward Brook and Presley Thornton, presented at a former session, be referred to the committee on Claims barred, &c. Agreed.
Mr. BARKER moved that the petition of a number of inhabitants of Plymouth, Duxbury, and Kingston (Mass.) praying for erection of buoys, &c. presented at a former session, be referred to the committee of Commerce and Manufactures. Agreed.
Mr. M. WILLIAMS offered the following resolution:
Resolved , That a committee be appointed to enquire whether any additional compensation ought to be made to the marshal for the district of North Carolina, and that they have leave to report by bill or otherwise.
On motion of Mr. Southard the resolution was amended, so as to include the state of New Jersey; and so amended, was agreed to, and a committee of five appointed.
On motion of Mr. Lewis, the House went into committee of the whole on the report of the committee to whom was re-committed the bill for erecting a bridge over the river Potomac, Mr. PITKIN in the chair. Having fixed 60 years as the term of the corporation previous to the right of the U. S. to purchase the bridge, the committee rose, and the bill was ordered to a third reading to-morrow.
Mr. RANDOLPH, after preliminary remarks of some length, which shall be given in our next, offered the following resolutions:
Resolved , That provision ought to be made by law for an adequate and comfortable support of such officers and soldiers of the revolutionary army as are still existing in a state of indigence, disgraceful to the country which owes its liberties to their valor.
Resolved , That provision ought to be made by law for arming and equipping the whole body of the militia of the United States.
Resolved , That provision ought to be made by law for procuring a formidable train of field artillery for the service of the United States.
These resolutions were referred to a committee of the whole House to-morrow.
Mr. BLOUNT from the committee to whom the resolutions on the subject yesterday agreed to were referred, reported a bill for fortifying the harbors of the United States, and for building gun boats, which was read twice and referred to a committee of the whole on Thursday next.
On motion of Mr. WILN, the House went into committee of the whole on the report of the committee appointed to prepare standing rules and orders for the House. The committee having made some progress, and the usual hour of adjournment being arrived, the committee rose and obtained leave to sit again.
SENATE UNITED STATES, November 30.
Mr. Adams from the committee appointed in the case of Mr. Smith, made a report, recommending the adoption of the following resolutions, which were agreed to:
Resolved , That the committee appointed on the 27th inst. to enquire & report the facts, respecting the conduct of John Smith, a Senator from the state of Ohio, as an alleged associate of Aaron Burr, be authorised to extend their enquiries to any other facts, which in their opinion would be incompatible with his duty as a Senator of the U. S. and that they be authorised to send for persons, papers and records.
Resolved , That the President of the U. S. be requested to cause to be laid before the Senate such information as may be in his possession, in relation to the conduct of John Smith, a Senator from the state of Ohio, as an alleged associate of Aaron Burr.
DECEMBER 1.
The bill reported by Mr. Adams "For the preservation of peace and maintenance of the authority of the United States, in the ports, harbors, and waters under their jurisdiction," after undergoing a slight amendment, was ordered to a third reading without a division. The question was taken on striking out the 5th section, which interdicts the entrance of all British armed vessels into the ports and waters of the U. S. and vests the President with power to take off the prohibition whenever, in his opinion, due reparation shall be made, and lost. Yeas 34—Nays 26. Messrs. Pickering, Middlesex and Goodrich voting in the affirmative; and Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Bradley, Coadit, Franklin, Gailiard, Gilman, Gregg, Howland, Kitchell, Maclay, Mathewson, Milledge, Mitchell, Moore, Parker, Pope, Robinson, Smith, of Maryland, Smith, of New York, Smith, of Tennessee, Sumpter, Thruston, Tiffin, Turner, and White, voting in the negative.
WASHINGTON CITY.
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2.
We have received the following as the purport of Mr. Canning's answer to Mr. Monroe. As this statement is altogether derived from public rumor, we should decline inserting it, but for the great importance of the subject, and from the right of our readers to be informed even of rumors so interesting, especially when credited by intelligent men.
The Note is said to state—That the British government has always claimed and exercised the right to take British seamen wherever found—That according to the modern usage of civilized nations, national vessels were not liable to search—That G. Britain will conform to this usage—That for the affair of the Chesapeake reparation will be made, and a minister sent to the U. S. for that purpose—No hint is given as to the nature or extent of the reparation—On the contrary it is expressly stated, that the claim of the American government to reparation is lessened by the refusal to deliver up their men, and by the President's proclamation, both of which are considered as acts of hostility on our part—That the minister sent to the U. S. would be expressly instructed not to blend with the affair of the Chesapeake either the impressment of seamen, or any other subject of difference between the two countries—The letter is in a style more haughty than conciliatory, and calculated rather to increase than lessen the sentiment of indignation so generally excited by the unprincipled conduct of G. B. towards neutrals generally, and particularly towards the U. S. States.
To keep pace with the great mass of interesting debate in Congress we have covered the last page of the paper with a continuation of that on the report of the Committee of Elections.
Benjamin Williams is elected Governor of North Carolina.
The Legislature of Georgia have elected William H. Crawford, a Senator of the United States, to supply the vacancy occasioned by the death of Abraham Baldwin.
New York, November 29. A gentleman of this city has favored us with a letter from a friend at Mayblehead, who came out in the sch't Spring-Bird, from Nantz, which place she left about the 12th of Oct. This letter states, that there was to be another levy of 200,000 men in France—that Bonaparte intended to march an army of 70,000 men through Persia to India, and that the king of Persia was to furnish all the necessary supplies for the French army—that Russia and Germany were to be the mediators for a General Peace—that the king of Denmark had furnished men to man 9 French ships of war that were at Flushing—and that legionary honors had been conferred on Gen. Linniers for his able defence of Buenos Ayres. [This is the latest news from France, and coming from a respectable source, is entitled to consideration.]
A GENTLEMAN, unencumbered with a wife or family, of unexceptionable moral character and uniform exemplary deportment, who is qualified to teach the English Language, and the Rudiments of Mathematics, may find employment, in the capacity of private Tutor, by applying to the Rev. David Wiley, Georgetown, Columbia; or to ARMITSTEAD T. MASON, Loudoun, Virginia, December 30—8w
A likely young NEGRO WOMAN and BOY, both bred up as servants in a genteel family. Enquire of the Printer, December 2—4w
TEN DOLLARS REWARD. LAST Thursday, was stolen or taken out of the British Minister's entry, a new Drab colored SUIT, with buttons of the same cloth, and silk lining in the sleeves. Any body that brings the said Suit to the British Minister's House, will receive the above mentioned reward. December 2—3t
TO BE SOLD A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SALE, ON Wednesday the 9th day of December, on a credit of nine months, by giving bond with approved security at the Dwelling plantation of Mrs. MASTERS, two miles on the east side of the Eastern Branch bridge, some Negroes, Horses, cattle, and Household Furniture—also Corn and Fodder, December 2—3t
MURRAY'S SHOES. THE Subscriber has received by the brig Betsy from Philadelphia an Assortment of Murray's shoes, of every description—a new supply of FALL & WINTER GOODS, 3 barrels of Cranberry's, which he offers for sale very low for cash, or to punctual customers. P. MAURO, December 2—5

Contested Election.
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 12.
Debate on the Report of the committee of Elections, on the contested election of Wm. M'Creery.
(CONTINUED.)
Mr. J. CLAY felt as high a respect for the rights of states and citizens as his friend from Virginia; but at the same time differed with him as to the construction of the constitution. It was true that the constitution was not affirmative; it was true that it decided the qualifications of representatives in vague terms. The constitution said "No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of 25 years, and been 7 years a citizen of the U. States; and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen." Would his friend from Virginia say that the states had a right to narrow this ground? He believed not. The case was precisely the same with respect to the election of the President. "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the U. States at the time of the adoption of the constitution," &c. He presumed that more transient persons passing through a state or residing in a state for a short time, could not be elected.
If the legislatures of the states had no constitutional right to narrow the qualifications, they had no right to superadd to them.
While up, he would notice an error which the gentlemen from N. Carolina had fallen into, as to Philadelphia having three representatives; there was one from the city, one from the county, and one from the county of Delaware; this it was true did not detract from the merit of his reasoning, but still it was an error. There was another argument of the gentleman which deserved consideration. It was that a person might be elected who was not a resident of the district, and who was not entitled to vote as an elector. He believed that an instance of this had occurred in the representation from Pennsylvania, and perhaps it would be admitted that although in Virginia none but freeholders vote at elections, a man might be a member of that House and not a freeholder. This had been said to be the first case in which the rights of the states had been tried on that floor. The committee would recollect that in the 1st session of the 9th Congress, Cowles Meade was returned as a member of that House; the election was disputed and Mr. Spalding was declared by this House to be duly elected. Mr. Meade was returned as elected under a positive statute of the state of Georgia, which directed that the returns should be made within a certain time, and that all the returns made after the expiration of that time should be void. What was the decision of the House? That no state had a power of making laws to decide upon the returns of members of Congress. If it were decided that the states had not a right to interfere with the returns, how much more clear was it that they could not interfere with the qualifications?
The constitution of the U. S. gave to the people the right of making an election of members of Congress from all the inhabitants who were within the state. He believed the question involved the liberties of the people. If they decided that the state had a right by law to add to the qualifications of representatives established by the constitution, they decided that the right of the people to choose out of the whole state might be taken away and the liberty of election thus abridged.
Mr. SMILIE said he would not detain the committee long. The gentleman from Virginia seemed to be exceedingly warm with respect to the rights of the different states as interested in the pending decision. With respect to the rights of the states, nobody who knew him, ever doubted his opinion. When the constitution which he held in his hand was adopted by the state of Pennsylvania, because it encroached too much on the state rights, he had voted against it; his country had decided otherwise, and it was now become the law of the land. He had taken an oath to support that constitution, and however favorable he was to the rights of the states, he must adhere to that oath. He would make one preliminary remark; that there was a principle in a republican government, of as much importance as any other, as respected the safety of the government, that the qualifications of the people elected should be firm, steady, and unalterable. If by rejecting this report they sanctioned a contrary principle, they could not tell how they might be represented at a future time. By the 1st clause of the 2d section of the 1st article of the constitution (to which Mr. S. referred)
it was fixed with a precision which could not be controverted what were the qualifications of voters; with respect to residence, could anything be more precise than the provision contained in the 2d clause of the same section. Now, if they rejected the report of the committee of Elections, they would say that the states might abridge those qualifications which the constitution provided. By the constitution of the U. States every citizen having the qualifications pointed out in that instrument, was qualified to serve as a member of this House. If they rejected the report, they would say that persons although possessing the qualifications laid down by the constitution could not be entitled to a seat. Had they a right to do it? Mr. S. said there had been a good deal said about negative or positive declarations in the constitution. Would the gentleman say that the states had a right to pass laws of naturalization contrary to those of the U. S. and to the provision of the constitution which directed that they should be uniform? Many articles in the constitution pointed out the same principle.
But dangers had been talked of with respect to the states, if this report were adopted; Mr. S. thought dangers of more magnitude might arise from its rejection: he believed that if they allowed to the state of Maryland the power of abridging these rights, it would be the most unlucky event that had taken place since the institution of the government: he hoped the contrary.
Mr. FISK said there was one part of the constitution applicable in the present discussion, which had not been noticed. He alluded to the 4th section of the 1st art. "The times, place, and manner, &c." Mr. F. would only ask the gentlemen from Virginia who had so ably defended the right of the states, if the power of Congress was not co-equal and co-extensive with that of the states? Congress might alter and prescribe the rule of elections so far as respected time, manner, and place. If the gentleman contended that the states had a right to fix qualifications, he must also admit that Congress had the same right.
Mr. RANDOLPH said that, lest he should be unable to attend the next day, he would, before the committee rose, suggest, more particularly to the members of the Southern states, one of the consequences which might flow from the construction of the constitution contended for by his friend from Pennsylvania. He knew the temper of that gentleman's mind so well, that if upon a more mature consideration of this subject he should see the fallacy of the position which he had advanced, he would have the candor to retract it—and he felt such confidence in the excellence of his friend's understanding and the purity of his intentions, that he did not despair of his conversion. On a former occasion, when a bill to prevent the introduction of Maroon negroes from St. Domingo into the United States was pending, its most important provisions were opposed and defeated upon the ground of its interfering with the established privileges of people of color in certain states, who might be, and in fact were, mariners. They were then told, and no doubt truly, that the laws of a certain state knew of no distinction amongst its citizens, and gentlemen opposed the bill as infringing the rights of their constituents. Let this fact be taken in connection with that clause of the constitution, which secures to the citizens of each state the privileges of citizens of the respective states—and then deny to the states the power of superadding any qualification, of color for example:—What was the undeniable inference, the monstrous and abominable conclusion?
Mr. R. reminded his friend from Pennsylvania that the decision in the case of Mr. Spalding turned not upon the invalidity of the act of Georgia. Her right to pass the law in question was never questioned—but it was in proof to the House that an act of God, the great hurricane, rendered it physically impossible to execute the law, and there it was dispensed with. It was an unforeseen interposition of Providence which nullified the law of Georgia, in that case. Suppose an officer should intentionally keep back his returns—or should be way laid on the road by the partisans of the unsuccessful candidate and robbed of them—would that deprive the person really elected of his right to his seat? certainly not.
The gentleman from Vermont had quoted a part of the constitution, which had nothing to do with this subject, which in fact was at that day little better than a dead letter. Would the gentleman from Vermont move for a bill to regulate the time, place, and manner of holding elections in the several states for members to that House? After all that could be said, practice, long established practice un-
der the constitution, was the best evidence what the constitution was. Powers indisputably exercised by the states ever since its adoption were as much departed from the general government and imparted to the states as if specially delegated by the constitution itself.
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13.
Mr. BIRD being about to offer an amendment (but which was afterwards withdrawn, to make way for that offered by Mr. Montgomery) said, he was too much indisposed at that time to enable him to enter fully into a discussion of the subject; but he thought it incumbent on him to state some of the reasons which induced him to move this amendment. Upon examination of the report of the committee might be found these words:
"The committee proceeded to examine the constitution with relation to the case submitted to them, and find that the qualifications of members are therein determined, without reserving any authority to the state legislature to change, add to, or diminish those qualifications," &c.
It was for the purpose of objecting to the report generally, that it might not become a precedent, that Mr. B. made any observations; but it appeared particularly strange to him that the committee should have inserted these words in the report, when it was known to the committee that there was in the constitution a general reservation of all power not expressly delegated. The only question was, whether there be delegated to Congress a right to fix the qualifications of its members, or, whether the states had not a right to alter or modify them. The words from which the inference in the report was drawn were these: "No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of 25 years," &c. These were certain qualifications which they had a right to require, and without which no person could be entitled to a seat in that House. The language was not such, according to legal construction, as to induce the House to say, that the state authorities might not require other qualifications. If it had been thought by the framers of the constitution, that the states had no right to diminish or alter qualifications, they would have said that Congress should have the sole power of fixing them. As this however was not material to the question as it now appeared before the House, he would make a few observations as to the grounds on which he thought it properly rested. From the report it appeared that the law of 1790 which required a candidate to be an inhabitant, required a residence of 12 months previous to the election; but that which required one to be an inhabitant of the town, and one of the country, did not say 12 months residence, but simply provided that at the time of his election he should be resident there. It did appear that five or six days previous to the election Mr. M'Creery did reside there; consequently Mr. M'Creery was an inhabitant according to the law of Maryland, and entitled to be elected. It was always with Mr. B. and would be as long as he had the honor to retain a seat in the House, a general principle from which he would never depart except from the strongest conviction of its impropriety, that a member who was returned by a majority of votes of his constituents should be entitled to a seat. Mr. B. could only vote otherwise in a case when some bribery or corruption should be shown to have been used.
Mr. MONTGOMERY wished the gentleman to withdraw the amendment, which he had proposed that it might be substituted by the one he held in his hand, to the same effect.
Mr. BIRD consenting to withdraw it,
Mr. MONTGOMERY offered the following as an amendment to the report:
Whereas William M'Creery was a resident of the city of Baltimore in the year 1803, that he resided partly in Baltimore city and partly in the county of Baltimore until the October election 1804, when he was then elected a representative to Congress, in which capacity he served till March last, during which time he had a legal residence, and whereas it does not appear that he has since abandoned or forfeited that residence,
Therefore Resolved, That William M'Creery is entitled to his seat in this House.
Mr. W. ALSTON said that although he might be perfectly satisfied with the reasoning of the amendment just offered, yet he was opposed to its adoption at present, because he thought the reasoning of the Committee of Elections much more proper. He would not question the correctness of the preamble just offered, but did not wish to vote for it in consequence of the reasons which had been given in its favor. He saw no objection to voting for the resolution as reported
by the committee, and every member must be satisfied that in voting for the resolution, they did not adopt the reasoning contained in the report; for that was the reasoning of the committee and not of the House. If the fact of Mr. M'Creery's residence in the county instead of the city of Baltimore had been stated in the report, and also that the law of Maryland was constitutional, he should yet have believed that he could have voted for the resolution in exclusion of every other part of the report, if he thought proper to do so, because the reasoning of a committee had no weight upon his mind, the result was what he looked at. The committee had stated all the facts, and in his opinion had wisely avoided giving an opinion on the residence of Mr. M'Creery. Every member was left at full liberty to draw his own conclusions from the facts stated, without being biased by the opinion of one of the standing committees of the House; they all knew what effect the opinion of a standing committee had upon the House.
Mr. A. said that he would, while up, offer a few reasons which had induced him to believe that no state had a right to add one single qualification to those laid down by the constitution of the U. S. Once permit the states to depart from the straight line, where would they stop them? If they were permitted to go one step, were any bounds prescribed in the constitution at which they could be stopped? That part of the constitution which had been read by many gentlemen, and which prescribed certain qualifications upon possession of which a person elected might be admitted to a seat on that floor, contained no such restriction. Several states in the union had passed laws on this subject, the state of which he had the honor to be in part a representative, had divided the country into districts, and provided that every person returned should have resided within the district for which he was elected, at least twelve months previous to the election; but Mr. A. said he had always believed that had the people of one district chosen to elect a man from another district, possessing other qualifications, as required by the constitution, he would be entitled to his seat. He had understood that the legislature of Virginia had prescribed among other qualifications, that no person should be elected a representative unless he was possessed of a free-hold estate. What might be the consequence of this? They might say that no man should be elected who did not possess 50, 1000, or 10,000 acres of land; they might even prescribe the particular quality of the land, or its situation.
The case from Georgia of Meade and Spalding had been so ably argued by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. J. Clay) that he would not dwell upon it; it was certainly a case in point. The legislature of Georgia, in prescribing rules for conducting her elections, had said that the returns should be made within 20 days. How did the House act on this occasion, although there was a manifest violation of that law? The House regardless of that law of Georgia, decided that the member elected should be entitled to his seat. This was a case stronger than the present, and in deciding on it the House had decided against the right of states even to regulate the manner of elections, which was more than he contended for.
The constitution of the U. S. when speaking of the qualifications of electors for President and Vice-President varied in its language from that part which spoke of Representatives; because it says "Each state shall appoint," &c. The constitution in speaking of Representatives, had neither said the states should assign qualifications, nor that they might; he therefore thought that any person possessed of qualifications as required by the constitution of the U. S. and who was duly elected, was entitled to his seat, notwithstanding state regulations.
Mr. ROWAN was opposed to the amendment because it threw behind the screen the main question, on which the House ought to come to a decision. It was the first case in which a decision could be had, whether the state authorities should be blended with those of the general government, or whether each should exercise its respective authority. He held it essential to the sovereignty of the Union, that the National Legislature should, whenever the question came legitimately before them, decide upon the constitutionality of any law: without such an exercise of its authority, the national sovereignty was prostrated, and must ultimately fall. It seemed to him essential to the well-being of the nation, that the energies with which the sovereignty of the Union was vested should be retained to itself, and should not be encroached on by the state
authorities: as the whole to a part, so was the national existence to that of the state authorities; but while they preserved the national existence, they should be particularly careful of the attributes of the state authorities, one of which was now under consideration. Had the legislature of Maryland exercised a power not permitted them by the constitution? If they had, should the sovereignty of the union acquiesce in it? Should they acknowledge a principle which might hereafter assail it more vitally? No; for in this early period of the government a case has occurred upon which the right of each state can and ought to be determined, as to the prerogative in question. The present is that case. A man had been elected and had taken his seat in Congress from the state of Maryland. His election had been contested, because said the applicant, the sitting member was not a resident in Baltimore, a part of the district from which he was elected. Had the legislature of the state of Maryland the power of thus contracting the choice of the people? If they had the power of restricting the choice of Representatives as to place, why not as to other qualifications; they might say, that no man should be qualified to serve as a Representative in the Congress of the United States, who was not a farmer, a mechanic, or of any other profession. Grant them the power of adding qualifications, where would they fix a limit? The constitution did not provide against the introduction of a political test; the state legislature might enact that no person should be a Representative who was not a federalist: How would the committee reconcile this with that part of the constitution which had undertaken to guarantee to the states a republican form of government? If the Legislature determined that members from the state of Maryland should possess a certain property, that they should be worth five hundred or one thousand pounds, would it not be verging towards aristocracy? If they were to say that all the members from the state should be chosen from the town of Baltimore, would it not appear absurd? And yet they had as much right to do this, as to say that each member should be resident in a particular district: the legislature was only authorized by the constitution to say that they should reside in the state from which they were elected.
But admitting that the right rested with the states, ought not qualifications always to be settled by convention? Where was the use of the constitution, if the legislature of a state could fix or vary qualifications? It seemed then, that it was proper for the convention of the United States to fix unalterably the proper qualifications; if they had not done this, it would have seemed to Mr. R. to be doubtful whether the power resided in Congress or the states. Was it proper that a part of the union should have the sole and paramount power of fixing qualifications for members of the union? In doing this, did they not legislate for other states? And if this were the case, should not Congress interfere? Mr. R. supposed those gentlemen who advocated the right of state legislatures to fix qualifications, would be shocked were Congress to assume that right; and yet Congress possessed every capacity from the people to legislate on this subject, that the state of Maryland possessed. It would be somewhat better that they should; because they would be supposed to know the wishes of the union better than so small a part of it as a state. He therefore contended, that the qualifications for a representative to Congress were unalterably fixed by the convention; the constitution was the place to look for them, and not the statute book; for if it were, they would float on popular caprice.
But to ascertain whether the convention did fix these qualifications or not, Mr. R. said he would request the attention of the committee to a few arguments. It was a principle in law, that every thing which the parties who wrote had said in a writing, was all they intended to say. If they had said nothing, it was presumed they had reserved it for further consideration; but if they said any thing on a subject, it was supposed they had said all they meant. Now, the framers of the constitution had prescribed certain qualifications; if they had intended that any other should be necessary, they would have said so. In the preceding clause they had given to the state sovereigns the right to fix the qualifications of electors: "The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for the most numerous branch of the state legislature." Here they have thrown upon the state legislatures the whole power to affix qualifications to the electors, as well of the members of Congress as of the President and Vice-President. Not so as
(Continued on the inside.)
27 Nov.
C. Meade